Loading...
09-18-2018 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 INDEX Site Plan No. 27-2017 Seaton Property Holdings 1. Special Use Permit 7-2017 Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & -61 TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 58-2018 John R. Buchanan 16. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.11-1-38 Subdivision No. 16-2018 Daniel Hajeck 20. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.15-1-2 Subdivision No. 17-2018 FINAL STAGE ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No. 18-2018 John Kokoletsos 25. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.13-1-26 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision Mod. No. 20-2018 Gregory Garafalo 27. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 308.11-1-49.21, 49.22 Site Plan No. 46-2018 Rasheed Bhatti 29. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.8-1-11.2 Site Plan No. 62-2018 Bay Road Self Storage, LLC 40. Freshwater Wetlands Permit 7-2018 Tax Map No. 302.8-2-23, -24 Site Plan No. 59-2018 Tracey Holdings, LLC 51. Tax Map No. 308.16-1-82.1 & -82.2 DISCUSSION ITEM Columbia Development 57. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-5 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN TRAVER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID DEEB, SECRETARY BRAD MAGOWAN MICHAEL VALENTINE MICHAEL DIXON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN SHAFER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TRAVER-All right. Well ladies and gentlemen welcome to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, September 18th, 2018. This is the first meeting for the month of September and the 19th meeting for 2018. Please make note of the exit signs. In case of an emergency leave in an orderly and safe manner. If you have an electronic device, cellphone or otherwise, please turn it off or at least turn the ringer off so that it won't interrupt our meeting, and with that we will begin our agenda. The first item of business being approval of minutes for July 17th, and July 24th, 2018. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 17th, 2018 July 24th, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 17T" AND JULY 24T", 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018, by the following: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-And next we move to our regular agenda. The first section being tabled items, and the first application being Seaton Property Holdings, application type Site Plan 27-2017 and Special Use Permit 7-2017. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS. AGENT(S): ETHAN P. HALL, JON LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 308 & 310 CORINTH ROAD. (1) ZONING REFERRAL: PLANNING BOARD IS TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SPECIFIC CRITERIA TO ALLOW INTERIOR WOOD PROCESSING ON LOTS OF 5 ACRES OR LESS. (2) SITE PLAN & SPECIAL USE PERMIT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES OPERATION OF A WOOD PROCESSING FACILITY WITH A NEW 15,000 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED POLE BARN FOR WOOD PRODUCTS AND TO INSTALL TWO 1,200 SQ. FT. KILN UNITS ON THE SITE. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGER OF LOTS 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. PROJECT INCLUDES CONTINUED AUTO FACILITY FOR C & J AUTOMOTIVE AND CURRENT USE OF EXPANDED MATERIAL 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) STORAGE AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES MAINTAINING 4 EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE MERGED PROPERTIES, ADDITIONAL CLEARING, INSTALLATION OF A GRAVEL PARKING AREA AND MATERIAL STORAGE AREA (LOGS, WOODCHIPS, ETC.). PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 AND 179-10-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING — WOOD PRODUCTS, LOGGING COMPANY, AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR WOOD PRODUCT FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 27-2006 SELF STORAGE BLDGS., SP 65-2013 A-1 TREEWORKS, DISC 1-2017; AV 28-2017. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: APRIL 2017 — NCI. LOT SIZE 9.54 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-55, - 56, -58, & -61 SECTION 179-3-040. JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura, can you introduce this, please. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So this application is before this Board at this time as a Planning Board recommendation to the Town Board for a proposed change in the Zoning Code language for wood processing, and I'll read that specifically. So Article 10 Special Use Permits. Section is 179-10-070, Specific Standards, under W, it says, "Sawmills, chipping mills, and pallet mills. Sawmill, chipping or pallet mills are allowed on lots of at least 100 acres in size." I'll read the change that would be added to that section. It would be, However a business which is engaged in tree removal and which converts logs into dried firewood, pellets, and/or mulch shall only require a lot of at least five acres in size, provided that, One, the conversion operation occurs completely within an enclosed building and Three, the lot is not located within the Adirondack Park. There's some other details that the Board will go through this evening. One of them is that since the Town Board recognized that this is also subject to Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit, the Town Board consented already to you seeking Lead Agency status for SEAR. So there's four items you could pursue tonight. Number One would be Planning Board Seeks Lead Agency. Two you accept Lead Agency. Three you may conduct and complete SEAR, and Four provide a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and would it be your recommendation that we proceed with Items One and Two first, that we seek and then accept Lead Agency before we interview the applicant? MRS. MOORE-Yes. You can do it that way. MR. TRAVER-Well, why don't we do it that way? That way we'll be Lead Agency. MRS. MOORE-You may have to separate it out because I think it was combined into the resolutions. So you may pull that out separately. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we don't have a draft motion for that. So we'll just make to seek Lead Agency, and then a motion to accept Lead Agency. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP 27-2017 & SUP 7-2017 SEATON MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 27- 2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Is it to seek or accept? MR. TRAVER-It's to seek and then we accept it because it's not being contested. So it's actually two, to make it clean we're doing it in two motions. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-And next, as we've been informed, the Town Board has anticipated our request and has already accepted our status as Lead Agency. So our next motion would be to accept that status. So if you want to make that motion. MR. DEEB-Okay. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP 27-2017 & SUP 7-2017 SEATON MOTION TO ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: MR. MAGOWAN-Just on accepting Lead Agency? MR. TRAVER-This is accepting Lead Agency status. It makes us then the Lead Agency for SEAR. MR. MAGOWAN-But not on the SEAR. MR. TRAVER-Correct. Yes, we haven't discussed that yet. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. Good evening and welcome. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with the applicant Martin Seaton and Ethan Hall the project architect. So Martin has a successful and well respected business in the Town of Queensbury where he does a lot of tree removal, and this gets him to where he is now where he has a lot of trees that he'd like to turn into wood products. A typical operation in a light industrial zone in Town where you turn different raw materials into finished products, but the definition that Laura read, which is unique, it's really antiquated and it goes back to the APA, the sawmills were big outdoor operations, you need 100 acres to do what he's proposing to do on this site. So we've been working with the Town Board and Craig Brown and Laura for a while to craft a definition that was carefully and narrowly done so that it wouldn't be applicable everywhere, it wouldn't be small lots, but this is an over five acre lot. It's almost a 10 acre lot, and the operation is indoors. So we want to discuss the details of the operation so that you're comfortable that this isn't a noise producer because it's not when it's indoors. We'd just ask Martin to explain how the operation's going to work and we sent Laura a video which just shows the machine which is used to saw cut the logs into firewood. So he's going to be compressing it into pellets and also cutting it and then kiln drying it into firewood like the bags you'd see in the stores at Stewarts or Cumberland Farms, that kind of kiln dried firewood. So if you could just give them a little bit of background. MR. TRAVER-Before you begin, if I could just, I just wanted to comment on your remark about the 100 acre requirement being antiquated. I would just point out that we still have outdoor wood processing facilities, and I'm just speaking for myself, but I don't agree that the law in general is antiquated. I can understand why it exists for this application, but it's this purpose and in this context you're seeking an exception for that rule, but you're not suggesting that every outdoor mill be reduced to a five acre. MR. LAPPER-And this only applies, that's a really good point. This only applies to the indoor operation. MR. TRAVER-That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. MR. LAPPER-And we weren't trying to open the door any wider than it needed to be, but this isn't a sawmill. MR. TRAVER-Understood. Sorry to interrupt. MARTIN SEATON (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. SEATON-Yes. Everything's going to be inside to reduce the noise, the machines. We're going to be working starting from say seven o'clock to five o'clock. We won't be going all night. It's not going to be a long process. It's just going to be during the daytime. The machines, the wood processor is gas powered, but even outdoors it's very difficult to hear it from any of the neighbors. We tried it out. We even set it going, we processed for maybe half an hour and I walked around and I spoke to John my neighbor from C & J. He said he couldn't even hear it from his yard inside his building or anything like that, even with the doors open. He wasn't even aware that I was processing back there, and I went over to Minnesota. I couldn't hear the machine over there. MR. TRAVER-Did you, when you conducted that test did you do any sound testing recording? MR. SEATON-1 didn't. MR. TRAVER-To give us some dB numbers that? MR. SEATON-1 didn't. I literally drove over there because I knew my guys were running. I even contacted them on the phone just to check that they were running. I got out of my truck and I couldn't hear anything. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I mention that because obviously one of the things we need to consider is the environmental impact and sound has already been raised as a concern. It's been raised in another facility in the area for sound reasons. One of the other questions that I had, and I'll open it up to other members of the Planning Board, is the emissions. I know as part of, particularly the preparation of firewood. I mean I love the outdoors. I spend a lot of time outdoors, and I know that firewood needs to be heat treated to make sure that it doesn't have any parasitic invasive species and all of that kind of thing, which we all appreciate and understand. Part of that process, you're taking essentially green or in some cases at least freshly cut wood and heating it in a kiln, I think you referred to it in the materials, correct? MR. SEATON-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-So as part of that process there are emissions, right? I mean there's water. We certainly know there's water, there's sap. MR. SEATON-Yes, there is. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what exactly is going to be the emission coming from this? MR. SEATON-It's only burning up to 175 degrees. So it's not supercharged, otherwise it would actually catch the wood on fire. MR. TRAVER-No, understood, but you're extracting things or in some cases chemically, you're altering the nature of the wood to make it dry and safe for sale. MR. SEATON-Yes, there's basically just water coming out of it, just making it dry. So that the nutrients are still going to be in the wood, but it's just going to be a dry. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I'm not sure that you're understanding my question. If I take a, and again, I know this from my experience sitting around campfire. If I have a green piece of firewood and I put it on the fire, I can tell, the emissions coming from it are very different from that of a dry firewood. MR. LAPPER-1 think the difference is that you're talking about burning wood and 175 is really just a minimum number to get it up to where it's dry enough to be firewood. So it doesn't have the water content. So it's not burning it. It's really just taking the water out. MR. TRAVER-So you're saying that the only emissions are going to be pure water? MR. LAPPER-Primarily. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. HALL-It becomes mainly vapor at that point. You're heating it up to 175 degrees and the water that's contained in the wood becomes vapor. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-Okay. So what you're representing to us is the only emission, then, from this procedure is essentially steam or pure water. Okay. I guess that answers that. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-So this is just for firewood? Not pelletizing. MR. LAPPER-And pellets. MR. HALL-There will be a pelletizer as well inside the building. When Martin's on the site, everything's chipped on the site. When he's out doing his work out in the field, so he brings back bulk trucks full of chipped material, that would then be put into the pelletizer, compressed and made into pellets. It's not going to be. MR. MAGOWAN-What I've seen on the videos is two processes. MR. HALL-All the shipping takes place off site. MR. MAGOWAN-It's two processes, though. Because it's actually fiberized to go into the pellet machine. The videos that I have watched on making this. MR. SEATON-You can go, you can put the wood chips, it grinds it inside the machine and then goes along a conveyor belt into a different type of machine which compresses it. They're two different types of machines. It all depends on if you go for pellets or if you go for blocks. If you go for blocks it's a different type. You can compress chips with a compressor. So it all depends on if you do block. I would have to do both. MR. MAGOWAN-So the process that I have seen, all right, you're going to bring in a chip. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-But obviously you're going to have, now they're hardwood pellets. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-There's soft hardwood pellets and then there's soft pellets. MR. SEATON-That's correct. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Now you're going to be bringing in wet wood and kiln drying it. One to take out the moisture. Two also since you're going to be selling it in say Stewarts and other stores and that, you have to do it especially any wood that's what within 50 miles or so and that you have to have it certified. So you have to bring it up to temperature to kill any of the bug spores or whatever that might be in the wood. You've got to debark it. MR. SEATON-Not for firewood. MR. MAGOWAN-Not for firewood, but for pelletizing you do. MR. SEATON-To get a better project they recommend debarking it, but you don't have to. You can put it in as well. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So from what I understand it comes in, like say you brought it into your site. You're going to bring in chips. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-The chips have to be dried. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Then it goes into another grinder that's fiberized out to a smaller fiber, before it goes into the pelletize machine which gets pressed through all the little tiny holes and the pellet goes around and it drops around and it goes into a bag, boom, the next one comes in. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Is this the process you're talking about? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. DEEB-Are you going to debark it? MR. SEATON-What I might do, what we could always do is let it sit for say a couple of months, a lot of times it's a lot easier to actually take the bark off once it starts to dry. It all depends on the demand at the moment. It's going to be a slow process. I can't afford the months in the machines which does tons and tons per hour. We're going to start off probably with a one to two ton machine which produces one to two tons per hour. If it's producing any more than that, I wouldn't be able to handle it I don't believe. MR. DEEB-So, are you going to debark it? MR. SEATON-I think so. To probably get the best quality I would like to debark it. MR. DEEB-You've said what you'd like. MR. SEATON-Well it all depends on the cost of the machine to debark it at this present moment. MR. TRAVER-Both you and Mr. Magowan have been asking about debarking. Can you explain what's significant about that if you debark it or not? MR. MAGOWAN-Bark doesn't burn as good as the core of the wood. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And it's just like in the pulp and paper industry. They take the bark off before they send it into the pulper to get the premium product. MR. TRAVER-So he's going to have a pile of bark that he's going to have to. MR. MAGOWAN-He's going to have a pile of bark which he'll have piles of mulch. All right. What concerns me about the whole process is, One, what you want to do. I hear a lot of probably, you're not really sure, and everything else. We're right into a neighborhood area. MR. LAPPER-It's a Light Industrial zone. MR. MAGOWAN-You're asking us to spot zone here, in my opinion. MR. LAPPER-No, no. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, you are. You're asking us to change a zone into a particular area, a Light Industrial into a heavier. MR. LAPPER-No, Brad. Light Industrial is taking raw materials and making them into something. This is Light Industrial. You could have a metal shop right now, Light Industrial. This is a wood shop, Light Industrial. This will apply to light industrial lot that's not in the Adirondack Park in the Town of Queensbury. It's not spot zoning. Spot zoning is when you're just trying to change one lot. This is applicable to the Light Industrial zone. It's certainly not spot zoning. This is just, we have, Light Industrial is jobs, it's products. It's, you know, we have a thriving Town. There's commercial, retail, industrial. This is just a Light Industrial use and we're just trying to say you don't need 100 acres to have this small machine. MR. MAGOWAN-No, how about over in one of our industrial parks where it's more out of the neighborhood? MR. LAPPER-This is right by the Carey Industrial Park across the street. This is the industrial. MR. MAGOWAN-You're talking debarking, grinding. MR. LAPPER-I don't understand your concern. MR. MAGOWAN-Kiln drying. You're talking dust. MR. LAPPER-Brad, this is an industrial zone. This is what you're supposed to be doing. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. MAGOWAN-No, not this particular. This is more logging, in my opinion, than Light Industrial. You can bring a steel inside the building and you can fabricate it inside the building and you have minimal noise. You're talking grinding. You're talking debarking. You're talking gas engines. You're talking outside. You're talking logging trucks in and out, backing up. MR. LAPPER-He already has his operation there. The logging trucks are there. He brings the logs in after he cuts them down on somebody's property. MR. MAGOWAN-I understand. Now they're going to stack there and then he's going to wait a year or two so the bark falls off a little easier, and then he's going to cut it up there. He's going to cut it up there and then he's going to start chipping and grinding it at that because the pellet business takes off. MR. LAPPER-So it happens indoors. That's what this whole thing is about. MR. MAGOWAN-Fifteen thousand feet. Come on, Jon. MR. LAPPER-1 don't understand the come on Jon. It's inside the building. MR. MAGOWAN-Jon, that's a shed for this type of operation. MR. LAPPER-Fifteen thousand feet is a good sized building in an industrial park. This is an indoor operation. He's going to produce it and he's going to sell it and move it off site. I mean I just don't understand your concern. It's like any other. MR. MAGOWAN-My concern, the Town of Queensbury Town Board's asked us to change the zoning. MR. TRAVER-No they haven't. They've asked for a recommendation for the Town Board to change. MR. MAGOWAN-To consider changing, and to me that sounds like spot zoning where you're asking to change the zone for this particular application where I think it should be further out into the countryside. I look at Kingsbury and the problems that they've had out there with the noise and with the dust and the fires and the explosion. MR. LAPPER-So that's a very different operation. MR. MAGOWAN-They chip. MR. LAPPER-No, they're burning the chips to make, chips are very easily set on fire because they're so small, like a fire in the fireplace. MR. MAGOWAN-They're bed shavings, Jon. They're bed shavings for animals, and it goes in the centrifugal thing and it's dried. MR. LAPPER-I'll let you talk until you're done and then I'll explain. MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry. MR. LAPPER-But they're heating the chips and that's why they can have fires. That's a completely different process than this. He's chopping the logs and then kiln drying them to sell them and firewood and they become pellets and it's only 175 degrees. It's not what they've got over there. MR. MAGOWAN-They can't go much higher than that. They'll burn the wood. These are bed shavings that they put down for animals and it goes up into the tower through the centrifugal force. Have you been in there? Have you seen the layer of dust? It's a fire hazard waiting to happen. MR. LAPPER-1 have. That's not what this is. MR. TRAVER-Yes, this is a different project. Let's hear from some of the other Board members, and then we also have a public hearing tonight. So do other members have questions? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. VALENTINE-Jon, I just have one question with regard to, you had said before as far as, I think Brad alluded to it, that you may wind up having to use a lot of outdoor storage space to garnish time for the bark to fall from the logs. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-How long a time period is that, and how much would you wind up storing and will it go beyond the capacity of the outdoor storage area? MR. SEATON-We've got storage areas which are specific for that on the plans. MR. VALENTINE-I'm just saying how long, if you get something there and you don't have the capacity inside to go through the process to remove that bark and you've got to keep it outside. MR. SEATON-Three to six months. MR. VALENTINE-And the space you have is sufficient? MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-That was my only question. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Anyone else? MR. DIXON-I'll ask a quick question. So during the evaporation process I have visions of like Finch Pruyn and the odor that comes from it. Can you describe a little bit as far as the evaporation? You're talking about water vapor coming up. Is there any odor with it? Again I'm used to Finch Pruyn, the wind when it comes just right. MR. SEATON-No. There isn't. MR. TRAVER-Laura, did I understand that there was a video or something? We might want to watch that and then go to the public hearing because maybe we'll get some more information on the process. If that's all right with you. MR. LAPPER-Yes, of course. This will be indoors. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-And that will be indoors? MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-1 notice how OSHA conscious the guy is with his safety ear muffs and helmet on, protective eye wear. MR. MAGOWAN-That's soundproof glass that's around him. MR. TRAVER-Yes, right. MR. HUNSINGER-So how often do you change the teeth on those? MR. SEATON-Probably about every three, four weeks. They're individual teeth. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now what are we watching here, or what may we be watching here? MRS. MOORE-Sorry. It's extra YouTube videos. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. MR. MAGOWAN-Can we watch that again and turn up the volume? MRS. MOORE-Do you want to see it again? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it was kind of short. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. MAGOWAN-Turn up the volume so it's more life-like. MR. TRAVER-Thank you, Laura. MR. DEEB-Are you going to have any soundproofing in the building? MR. SEATON-Yes, we are. MR. HALL-It'll be all completely insulated in the building, insulated doors, insulated overhead doors to get in and out of it. MR. SEATON-To muffle the sound. MR. TRAVER-Do you have any way that you can give us, I mean that was obviously quite loud, and as you know one of the concerns is noise, and even watching that video it's pretty subjective to try to figure out how loud that is. I mean I tried to poke around a little bit on the Internet, but one consistent thing I found was 85 decibels is the level at which OSHA says you have to wear hearing protection. So I'm kind of wondering, I'd like to know how many Db's does that thing put out say 15 or 20 feet away. How many Db's do your other machines put out and when you add them all up how many Db are we talking about inside the building, and then you mentioned soundproofing. There's usually specs associated with that. So once you have that initiated Db inside the building, it passes through this attenuating soundproofing, how many Db are left? MR. HALL-There's an STC rating for all of that. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HALL-I mean we can figure out what the STC rating is and the insulated wall. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I mean because one of the environmental concerns we have to have is noise. I mean we know there's a history of noise associated with this industry, understanding this is not the same as the other nearby wood processing facility, but the concerns are essentially the same. MR. LAPPER-We want you to be comfortable and we can certainly produce that information. I'm sure the manufacturer has noise specs. MR. TRAVER-1 would think so. MR. LAPPER-And Ethan can talk about the sound insulation inside the building that he's designed. MR. TRAVER-And the pelletizer and, you know, all these things are, none of them are brand new designs. Right? They're all existing. So they've been engineered. They've been operating for some period of time successfully. So there must be data on these types of things. I think one time when we discussed this project before you mentioned the energy consumption for one of them. I think that the kiln for example. So we know there's data there, but we don't seem to have some of the data and we talked about the processing of the wood. It was represented that the only by-product of the heating of the wood is pure water. I would like to know from the manufacturer if in fact, and I'm not doubting your word, but we have anecdotal information that because there's odors associated with other processes that use similar kinds of things there may be some that maybe are not intended by the design of the machine but by happenstance or by variations in the type and nature of the wood that's being processed there may be other emissions that are included with that water vapor. I mean one of the concerns, nearby this property we have a health center. So clearly if you have noise, if you have, you know, emissions that are altering the nature of the air in the immediate vicinity of this we need to know that so if nothing else we can take remedial steps to take care of it. MR. LAPPER-Those are totally valid questions and we'll come back with answers. MR. DIXON-Your hours of operation you had stated seven a.m. to five p.m. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. DIXON-Is that Saturday and Sunday as well? MR. SEATON-No. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. DIXON-Would you be open to eight a.m. instead of seven a.m.? I'm always up well before that, but I don't know, as far as the neighbors, what time that they're up if you're starting the operations. Again, the unknown to us right now is really the noise. MR. SEATON-Right. MR. TRAVER-What I would, and I'm not representing the applicant, but one of the suggestions that I would make is that when they open at seven, it doesn't necessarily mean that the machines are operating at seven. So you might open the doors and have employees come in and be prepared to start their day but maybe not have the machines start operating before say eight. MR. SEATON-We can do that. MR. TRAVER-1 think your concern I suspect is related again to the noise. MR. DIXON-Just the noise. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So they might have people clock in at seven and begin preparing the equipment. I'm sure there's a lot of safety equipment they put on I hope and all that stuff. MR. VALENTINE-Well, if the issue or the presentation is the fact that there is no noise that's a concern, what's the difference between seven and eight o'clock? MR. TRAVER-Well, we can discuss that when the time comes. We don't know the answer to that yet, and of course this is just the beginning of the process. I mean the Board has to consider this proposal to alter this property to allow this development with essentially a 95% variance, going from 100 acres to 5, but we also have public hearing. Do Board members have other questions first? MR. DEEB-Yes. These are your trucks to bring in trees that you cut down into the property? MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. DEEB-And what size trucks do you have? MR. SEATON-Standard log truck size, and then the chips, between 30 yard and 40 yard chip trucks. MR. DEEB-Do you anticipate the number of trips per day? MR. SEATON-At the moment we're doing three a day. MR. DEEB-Do you anticipate getting more in? MR. SEATON-We could get obviously, I'm not wanting to get my tree business any bigger than it is already. I have enough employees as it is. MR. DEEB-So you won't buy outside logs to do this? You're just going to use what you have? MR. SEATON-No, I will have to be buying outside logs because the logs I produce are making pine. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DEEB-Kind of tough to deal with that. So you'll have big logging trucks coming in. MR. SEATON-I'll be having logging trucks. Essentially the same size logging truck as right now. MR. DEEB-Okay, but you anticipate three to four trips per day? MR. SEATON-1 would say about three to four trips per day, yes. MR. TRAVER-That's an interesting point you mention about the pine. So is the pine usable for any of these other processes or? MR. SEATON-For outdoor fireplaces, for camping and that sort of thing. You can use pine. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-So you'd perhaps use the saw machine that we saw demonstrated in the video? MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that would be sold as firewood? MR. SEATON-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. My experience with pine it makes lousy firewood. MR. SEATON-It goes very quickly. MR. TRAVER-It does indeed. I mean I would never buy, we talk about. MR. HUNSINGER-It smells good, though. MR. TRAVER-It does, yes, but, you know, the bundles of firewood that you would buy at a convenience store or whatever, if it's pine it's a waste. MR. LAPPER-Camping is different than fireplaces. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well, I agree. MR. DEEB-If I may go back just quickly. So you're already bringing in three trucks a day you said now. MR. SEATON-Of wood chips, yes. MR. DEEB-Of wood chips, and once you start doing the processing, do you anticipate a bigger increase in the number of trucks? MR. SEATON-No, not for wood chips. MR. DEEB-Okay. I was just worried about the number of trucks traveling that road. MR. MAGOWAN-How about if you need more wood chips because things take off? Will you start allowing other companies to come in with the wood chips? Because they're always looking for places to get rid of them. MR. SEATON-Yes, I would allow that. At this present moment I do have a couple of companies which do come and dump there, but some days I might be actually doing only one load, or if the customer is actually wanting the chips, so we dump them on site. MR. DEEB-You only have so much capacity to work with anyway. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. DEEB-So you're limited in what you can bring in. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DEEB-So it makes a difference. The increase, even if you get more, you're still going to be regulated. MR. SEATON-That's correct. MR. LAPPER-Limited by the size of the site. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board before we open the public hearing? Okay. Are there members of the audience that want to address the Planning Board on this project that are here tonight? I see one hand. Okay. Yes, sir. The table is yours. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEPHEN DECKER 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. DECKER-My name is Stephen Decker. I've lived on Division Road for the past 35 years. Prior to that I lived in Half Moon, New York, and I was on the Half Moon Planning Board. So what I have to say today is taken from the eye of the person who has been where you are. It'll take me about three minutes to read this. Division Road is about dead center along Corinth Road in what is known as Queensbury's west end which spans the distance between the Northway and West Mountain Road. It is bordered on the south by the Corinth Road and on the north by Luzerne Road. During my 35 years I have witnessed one generation of children reach maturity and go on to bigger and better things. One of them even reached professional football. I have seen the next generation born, grow up and go to adulthood as well, and now a third generation is beginning the process. In my humble opinion this area is an excellent place to raise a family and is an up and coming portion of the Town of Queensbury. I say up and coming because 35 years ago the west end did not have the excellent reputation that it enjoys today. A rising tide lifts all boats, and in the west end that is certainly true. We have a variety of enterprises ranging from specialty food stores, great places to eat, two excellent motels, a Stewart's, auto repair facilities, a truck dealership, a medical center, manufacturing facilities, even a recycling center and lots of excellent places to live, plus a great school system, and as I said before, it's a great place to raise a family. In my humble opinion placing a wood pallet manufacturing facility almost square in the middle of the west end would not be a great or even a good idea. It's given that wood pallets are a very popular method of heating a home these days. However their manufacturing process is one that is better left out of an up and coming community such as the west end. Pellets are made from tree trunks, lots of them, which involves lots of noisy log trucks that make your average tractor trailer look small by comparison. The relatively green logs have to be dried completely in kilns which involves loading and unloading and the intendent noise plus the noxious fumes given off by the kilns. While the actual process of converting the logs to pellets may be inside the building, there is also the noise of heavy machinery that cannot be completely contained by the building itself. Then there is the matter of packaging the pellets and sending them to market and the flow of trucks necessary to accomplish this segment of the process. In my opinion a facility such as a pellet manufacturing plant is better placed in an industrial park devoted to heavy manufacturing or in a remote area rather than in the up and coming west end of the Town of Queensbury, New York. I believe it would detract from rather than add to the west end. That's all I have to say. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else want to address the Planning Board on this project? Yes, sir. TRAVIS WHITEHEAD MR. WHITEHEAD-Hello. My name is Travis Whitehead. I'd just like to kind of amplify some of the comments that were made by the last gentleman there, and in particular the up and coming nature of the west end where I live as well. When you talk about spot zoning, you really have to talk about it in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, and if you look at what's been happening in that area, you will see, and this is squarely across the street from Hudson Headwaters. You have hotels, one existing, several planned, restaurants. These are the kinds of things that are going in in that area, which is largely residential, and when you're talking about commercial light industry, I think you're talking about the low end of that and not going into heavy industry. Certainly over there by the airport you have the same kinds of wood processing going on. There is an industrial park there in Queensbury. There's also one in Kingsbury, right there by the airport, and they're actually expanding those activities there. I would like to challenge a few things that were said earlier. I know that A-1 is in my neighborhood nearly every week removing mainly pine trees. Probably 95% of what's in Bedford Close is pine. I can tell you that pine trees used to be used commercially to prepare turpentine and when you heat that wood to 175 degrees you are going to be causing that vapor which, you know, was condensed in the process later, you know, condensed to make the liquid turpentine, but what you are going to get the vapor out there. You are going to smell it just like when you throw a pine log in a fire. So I would challenge anyone who would make the statement that only water is going to come off of that. I feel that's a false statement. They mentioned that they were processing and nothing could be heard, yet they didn't really say what it was they were processing. They didn't mention a hammer mill for instance. A hammer mill is what's required to reduce the chips to the powder that is then compressed to make the pellet. A hammer mill is a very noisy device. It also makes dust. When you have dust, that's when you're worried about the explosions. That's why you have the grain mills blowing up in the mid-west. You have air, fuel and spark and you get an explosion and when you're running these things through chippers and such the trees that are coming out of neighborhoods like myself, a lot of people don't like to take trees out of neighborhoods like that because they find nails in them. Nails get in there, they mess up the machines but they also create sparks. They've had problems with fires and such at the other processing, at RWS over by the airport, and I hope that they would have some concern about the same thing here. There was also a question about whether a building is truly going to cut down on the sound. I haven't heard whether this building is air-conditioned or not, but I would 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) think that if you had human beings in there running the machines in any kind of weather like we've had recently that you'd either want to leave those doors open or you'd have fans there which have openings obviously to get the air in and out or you're going to be spending a great deal of money for air-conditioning and keeping the dust down, etc. So all of that needs to be looked into. Thank you for taking time to listen to me. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. SKIP STRANAHAN MR. STRANAHAN-Good evening, sirs, how are you tonight? MR. TRAVER-Very good, thank you. MR. STRANAHAN-French Mountain Environmental on Bay Road. We maintain all the standards from the New York State EnCon. We have over 100 acres, and I'd like to know first off, are you going to grant variances like this to everybody or just one person? MR. DEEB-Would you identify yourself. MR. STRANAHAN-Skip Stranahan. MR. TRAVER-It's actually not a variance. I would suggest that if you want clarification on exactly what the process entails, in this case it's relatively complicated, but it's all available on the Town website at queensbury.net. What we're doing tonight is engaging in a discussion with the applicant concerning the environmental impacts and also whether we're going to make a recommendation to the Town Board that they consider reducing, for purposes of this project, the minimum acreage required for this type of operation from 100 acres to 5 acres. So that they can utilize this particular site for their project. MR. STRANAHAN-Okay. So you're not considering reducing it from 100 to 5 to be a variance? Then you have a different terminology, but my terminology would be here that you haven't even heard a grinder run tonight. I have grinders in Vermont and New York, okay, and some of my grinders can be heard from three miles away. So I just wanted to make you aware of that, that this is a wood processor that you're listening to that makes firewood, not a processor that makes pellets. I also made pellets in Gloversville. So I have a little experience in what I'm talking about, and I understand from Mr. Whitehead's comments that this might include a hammer mill. We haven't heard a hammer mill tonight. We haven't heard any of this pelletized equipment. MR. TRAVER-And you may not have heard our earlier discussion, but we've already requested additional information from the applicant specifically regarding the noise of various machinery, both inside and outside the building, and the mitigation efforts they're proposing. MR. STRANAHAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. TRAVER-But we do not have that information, you're correct, but we intend to. MR. STRANAHAN-Nice. Well I think we should, and I think that we should consider these variances, whether or not we're going to allow more of them or not. It would be very important when somebody like me maintains their site and pays $110,000 in land taxes to know if the other people are going to go down the street and do something that we're doing and maintain none of the environmental standards. MR. TRAVER-There was discussion briefly earlier about the current regulations on a 100 acre requirement, and we did, I think, clarify it, and you might have missed, maybe you hadn't arrived at the meeting yet, but it was agreed generally that we're not talking about, or the Town isn't considering, reducing this current regulation of a minimum 100 acres town-wide. It is possibly only going to be considered for this, what we have in front of us, not for current existing or future projects. MR. STRANAHAN-I've noticed in the past that our facility ground for the Town and several other people here, and I've noticed that in the present that we have facilities popping up all over Town, okay, Big Boom Road, Big Bay Road, we have these things going on right now all the time without permits. I know there was an issue when Bill Threw was down there about not having permits, and I also see that there's three businesses already operating on this property, a repair shop, a rental house in the front and the lot looks pretty full to me. So I think the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) process of making wood pellets, we tried it in Gloversville. It does produce a lot of dust, a tremendous amount of dust, and they don't stay together under certain circumstances without adhesives of some type. So this is a pretty big concern to the Town as a whole what's going to move forward here and whether we're going to hear the rest of the mills run and I would like to see that, how it's all going to operate. We're using up right now approximately seven to ten acres in our site, and that's just to put wood on. MR. TRAVER-Well, let me assure you, this project, and I can't speak for the other projects that you mentioned, but this project that we're discussing will have any and all permits that are required before they will be operating. MR. STRANAHAN-Okay. Well I'm fine. I just wanted you to understand that that's not a grinder that you're listening to. MR. TRAVER-Well, thank you for that clarification MR. STRANAHAN-And that's nothing to do with what this process will actually be, because I actually made wood pellets out in Gloversville, okay, and I've done what I'm talking about, and I understand what the drawbacks were. We used to do a lot of grinding at French Mountain. We moved most of the grinding out of the State because of the noise that the grinders made, and we come in and now we grind on a periodic schedule and then leave again, and I'm not too concerned about Martin. I think he's a fine upstanding young man. I'm more concerned about what the facility really is, and if you're going to grant that type of permit to everybody in Town because it looks to me like there's a few people that need them. MR. TRAVER-Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Your grinders are outdoors, though, right? MR. STRANAHAN-We have a grinder inside the building. MR. DEEB-You have it inside the building. MR. STRANAHAN-Yes, we do, and it's a pole barn and you can hear it outside the building, and we're considering changing the whole facility to electric with no motors and no pollution. We've already done it at our other location, and we're talking to bandit about it right now. So it is a little problem and the health concerns of mine that we dealt with this dust for years. Martin will tell you right now I use a remote control stump grinder because I won't stand over it and suck the dust up into my lungs. I'm hoping to make 75 next year. So the dust is a big problem and the noise is a big problem. What we've heard tonight has nothing to do with a grinder. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that information. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Okay I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well we'll close the public hearing then for this evening. If the applicants would return to the table. Thank you. So according to the protocol under the Staff Notes, Laura, our next step is to consider the SEQR resolution. Correct? MRS. MOORE-You can, yes. So I'm understanding that, in reference to the language for the noise and information, is that something that? MR. TRAVER-No, I understand that. I'm saying that would be our next discussion is to consider that. MRS. MOORE-Your next discussion is to conduct SEAR, yes. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. So we've heard from the applicant. We will again. I guess before we proceed to look at SEAR, I would just ask do you have any response or comment to the public comment we received. MR. LAPPER-1 guess we understand, RWS was in the newspaper for a long time. They had a lot of problems, a very different operation. They had fires all the time. Very different operation. So we can understand that people don't understand the difference and that's why there's a 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) concern. You asked us to supply some detailed information, mainly about noise. That's totally legitimate and we'll go research it and come back and continue the discussion. MR. TRAVER-And emissions. MR. LAPPER-And emissions. Yes. MR. DEEB-And noise levels and grinders and all the equipment. Right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DIXON-There was a comment on the air-conditioning. Is it going to be an air-conditioned building? MR. LAPPER-What are you going to do for ventilation? MR. TRAVER-Air handling equipment in the building, both when it's operating and when it's not. MR. SEATON-It'll be fans. MR. TRAVER-Fans? MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Even in very hot weather, no air-conditioning? MR. SEATON-If it gets to a certain point we will be shutting it down. We won't work if it's to a certain temperature. It's just not safe. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can you provide us with information when you come back specifically regarding the air handling? Because that would address openings in the building which would be vacancies in the soundproofing I'm sure, right, because you have to have the air handling have access to the outside obviously. So if you can help us out by giving us information on that, that would be extremely helpful as well. MR. MAGOWAN-Dust removal, saw dust, I noticed the processing machine when it's cutting the logs, the amount of dust that does come off the, that's going to have to be contained that's in the building. MR. TRAVER-All the equipment is in the building. Right? MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Except for the kilns. They're going to be in a separate facility. MR. SEATON-That's correct. Yes. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-No. If you'd like to table it and we'll come back and continue the discussion. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well I wanted to get a sense from the Board. I mean my own feeling is I would find it difficult to really discuss environmental impacts because we don't know what all of them are to the detail that at least I'm comfortable with. The applicant has readily agreed to provide us with some additional information. So my thought was that we wouldn't consider SEQR tonight but wait until we have some additional data from the applicant to kind of flesh that out. How does the Board feel about that? MR. MAGOWAN-I think you're spot on. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right, well then we will. MRS. MOORE-So I'll ask the applicant at this time I do have an opportunity for an October agenda, but I would prefer November, but I don't know what your timeframe is. MR. LAPPER-I guess we'll look into what it's going to take to get the information and we'll get back to you, if that's okay. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MRS. MOORE-So, but unfortunately the Board has to table it to a specific date. MR. TRAVER-Well we can always table it again if they're not prepared. Right? MR. LAPPER-November's fine. MR. TRAVER-November? Okay. So let's take a look at November. Okay. November is a little different because of the holidays. So we have the 13th and the 27th, probably try for the 13th. Okay, so November 13th MRS. MOORE-And, Mr. Chairman, one of the items was you closed the public hearing for this evening, but you're leaving it open for, are you leaving the public hearing open? MR. TRAVER-Okay, yes, thank you for that clarification. So for members of the audience, understand on this application what we're going to be doing this evening is we're going to table the application and it will be heard again, we believe, on Tuesday, November 13th of this year, and at that time we will also have a public hearing. So although we took some public comment tonight, we closed the public hearing for this evening, the public hearing will remain open. It is not closed for the duration of the consideration of this application. So if you avail yourselves of the resources of the Town at queensbury.net you'll be able to find all the application paperwork that we, as Planning Board members, have before us, and all of the new information that the applicant may be submitting prior to that November 13th meeting. If you're following this project I urge that you take advantage of that. You can also call the Planning Department and speak to Town Staff. If you have any questions they'd be happy to help you with that, and with that we'll entertain a motion to table. RESOLUTION TO TABLE SP #27-2017 & SUP 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2017 & SPECIAL USE PERMIT 7-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to the November 13, 2018 Queensbury Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. Good luck. We'll see you in November. Next we move to the next section of our agenda which is recommendations of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board, and the first item on the agenda for that is John R. Buchanan, Site Plan 58-2018. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 58-2018 SEAR TYPE: TYPE II. JOHN R. BUCHANAN. AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC. ZONING: WR. LOCATION: 66 REARDON ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 92.5 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH TO A SCREENED PORCH. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A WHEELCHAIR RAMP FROM THE HOME TO THE BOAT HOUSE OF 34 FT. 2 IN. IN LENGTH. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, HARD SURFACING AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: 91167-1983 ALTERATIONS; AV 61-2018. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. SITE INFORMATION: CEA. LOT SIZE: .75 ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-38. SECTION: 179-3-040. 179-6-050. TOM JARRETT & BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a 92.5 square foot open porch to become a screened porch. In addition the project includes some alterations to the area where the porch is to raise the entry area and remove a portion of the deck. In addition to the housing project, there's a 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) proposal to re-vamp or re-construct the wheelchair ramp from the home to the boathouse. Currently there's a ramp structure system working there that is not working well for the person that needs to use it so they want to create the wood path that would go from the house area down to the shoreline. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. To my right is Bill Dean, Creative Construction, and to my left is young John Buchanan. His parents live at the property right now. They own the property. We're representing them tonight. Our project is relatively simple I believe, I hope. It has two components. One is to convert an existing deck, I'll have the drawing up in a second, an existing deck to an enclosed screened porch. The other is to remove sort of a. JOHN BUCHANAN, JR. MR. BUCHANAN-Rube Goldberg. MR. JARRETT-That term came from John, please note, a wheelchair ramp that's really not sufficing at the moment and put in a more formal ramp, a little flatter slope so that John, Sr. can get to the waterfront to enjoy it. We need five variances to make this happen. It sounds like a lot. One is to modify a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. Two of the variances involve the existing deck which is going to be converted to the screened porch, one to the sideline and one to the shoreline. Neither is being aggravated. They're the same distance as it is now. The third is a variance for permeability. We're a little above the standard 75% right now. However, when you take the road out which we don't really own. Technically the Town says we do, but it's a road owned and maintained by the Town of Queensbury, the Buchanan's are compliant, and you'll see the two numbers in our application, to gather some sympathy if nothing else, and the last variance is the real variance for this project, this is one we're aggravating, where we're building the ramp closer to the Iakeshore. It's about four feet from the lake, connects to the existing boathouse which is a zero setback structure. We are going to enhance the existing buffer along the Iakeshore and Laura's got some pictures there we can show you. They're in your application materials. While she's bringing those up, I think the support we have for this is we are expanding the shoreline buffer which traps stormwater from the property right now. If you visited the site you'll see that it's a woodland setting, and the owners really take pride in maintaining woodland setting. We're also putting in a new water supply well and a new wastewater system for the property. We think they support the project. I'll just quickly explain this. There's the existing buffer and there's the label of where we're going to expand the buffer. They have a gardener that works for them and she will expand that buffer over time to get at least 10 feet there, and all the stormwater from the property is trapped behind that, which is the intent of those buffers. There's another picture, Laura, that shows the extended ramp. That's the ramp in the rear of the property. That's a walkway in the rear of the property. MR. MAGOWAN-Does that come from the road? MR. JARRETT-It leads from the parking area next to the road, yes. There's where the ramp will be. There's the ramp and there's the walkway to the boathouse, and the screened porch will be here where that deck is. MR. TRAVER-One of the questions I had, in looking at the ramp, I mean it's still, I mean we generally don't approve land bridges, but this doesn't appear to be what we normally think of as a land bridge. It's not elevated and going to the roof of the boathouse, but I did wonder about how is a wheelchair going to go uphill? I mean it's still fairly steep. MR. JARRETT-With assistance. MR. TRAVER-With assistance. Okay. All right, and of course I know there's motorized. MR. JARRETT-The existing ramp caused an injury to young John. So that's one of the reasons for the new ramp. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-But it requires assistance to get up that ramp. Now John, Sr. has a power scooter. MR. TRAVER-Okay. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. JARRETT-He can negotiate some of these areas, some of these paths, but I think that'll still be guided by you, right? MR. BUCHANAN-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions, comments from members? MR. JARRETT-And just to clarify the walkway along here is at grade, just barely above grade, roughly six inches above grade. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-Just out of curiosity, how old is your father? MR. BUCHANAN-He was 89 last Sunday, a few days ago. We should all be so lucky to have his bloodwork and his chemistry. MR. JARRETT-So we'll open it up to questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Well I went out to the site, and the main question I had was you're doing all the construction to get access to the waterfront, how does he get from the parking lot and the driveway into the house? MR. JARRETT-That ramp that we showed you in the pictures, the earlier ramp. MR. HUNSINGER-It must be I didn't notice that because of the construction, things were torn up. Because I parked in your parking lot and there's steps going down to the house. MR. JARRETT-That's for ambulatory. MR. BUCHANAN-It's off, if you parked in the parking lot, the house is off, it's off to the right. MR. HUNSINGER-So this other picture that has the steps isn't the same path? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-No, this is to the right. What you saw was over here to the left of these cars. MR. HUNSINGER-And right there is where it's all torn up right now. MR. JARRETT-Right down here to the right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That's the new wastewater system. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-On the buffer area that you talked about and you said that that was trapping the stormwater. Is that trapping it by grade, by raised grade? MR. JARRETT-The existing buffer is raised somewhat and the middle will be raised as well, the extension of it. There's a little belly, so the raised buffer combined with that belly traps quite a bit of water. MR. TRAVER-1 didn't see, unless I'm thinking of a different project, I didn't see the landscaping detail for the additional buffering you talked about. MR. JARRETT-We didn't give you a detail. If you wish one we'll give it to you, but it's really just extending that existing buffer in the same manner that's there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, what we're considering, we're not at Site Plan tonight. We're looking at the variance. So what we're looking at the expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure and the setback. It's basically a continuation of the existing setback, and also the permeability. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. JARRETT-The only one that's being aggravated is the new walkway as it joins the boathouse. That's the one that's being aggravated. That's four feet. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VALENTINE-Tom, I'm going to throw a question in before you go on, Steve. MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. VALENTINE-Tom, on that slide that's up there now, the question I had, you were talking about the amount of the steepness of the ramps and stuff like that. I don't get that one there. What are those planks on? MR. JARRETT-These? That's the existing ramp. MR. BUCHANAN-So there's two sets of stairs like that, and when I moved, when dad had the stroke, when I moved back here from Minnesota when I was only 59, so I threw some five quarter down with two by two on either side and could maneuver him. He's gained some weight. He's about 240 now. I'm now 63, and even with his power assisted chair, it's dangerous. MR. VALENTINE-Coming down that thing would be. MR. BUCHANAN-And we used to do it without a motor, and I can't do that anymore. MR. VALENTINE-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEEB-And the ramp's going to be wooden? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. JARRETT-The ramp and walkway would be wooden. MR. DEAN-When the ramp goes in, and on one of your pictures here you've got one of your ramps already that's pretty much covered with a bunch of water hog mat. MR. JARRETT-That's the main walkway that Chris was talking about that leads to the house. MR. DEAN-If we were to cover that on the new ramp that's going down, it would kind of defeat the permeability. MR. DEEB-Covered with what? MR. DEAN-You've got like indoor/outdoor mats. They're covering this, in this one picture, that's covering one of the ramps. MR. BUCHANAN-So I have 24-hour care for the folks. In the winter, the intent of those mats was for slipperiness in the winter. It was safely and candidly with all the activity this summer, I just didn't take the mats off. Solid rubber, but, yes, there wouldn't be any mats. MR. DEEB-It's not going to be on the new one. Those are seasonal. MR. JARRETT-Those are needed in the wintertime, but the one to the shoreline is really not needed. We'll stipulate to that. MR. DEAN-That'll stay under the snow, assuming there's snow. MR. TRAVER-All right. So we're asked to make a recommendation on this variance request to the ZBA. Do members feel there's anything we need to note and add to the draft resolution provided by Staff that we want to address a concern to the ZBA? MR. DEEB-I'm okay. MR. TRAVER-1 guess we're ready for a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-61-2018 JOHN R. BUCHANAN 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to convert an existing 92.5 sq. ft. open porch to a screened porch. Project includes construction of a wheelchair ramp from the home to the boat house of 34 ft. 2 in. in length. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-6-050 of the Zoning Ordinance, hard surfacing and construction within 50 ft. of shoreline shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for setbacks and permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2018 JOHN R. BUCHANAN. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-Good luck at the ZBA. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. Hopefully we'll see you next week. MR. TRAVER-The next application before us is also a request for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This for Daniel Hajeck, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 16-2018 and Subdivision Final Stage 17-2018, and this is for road frontage and parcel size. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 16-2018 & SUBDIVISION FINAL STAGE 17-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. DANIEL HAJECK. AGENT(S): DONALD PIDGEON. OWNER(S): DANIEL & BETH HAJECK. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 520 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WHERE LOT 1 (0.61 ACRE) WILL HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH LOT 2 (0.73 ACRE). LOT 1 IS TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING HOME AND LOT 2 IS TO BE DEVELOPED FOR ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE AND PARCEL SIZE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-2018; 96427-5123 POOL; WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A SITE INFORMATION TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. LOT SIZE: 1.48 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-2. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. DONALD PIDGEON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DANIEL HAJECK, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a two lot subdivision where Lot One is 0.61 acres and will have a shared drive with Lot Two at 0.73 acres. Lot One is to maintain an existing home and Lot Two is to be developed for one new single family home. The relief is sought for road frontage and parcel size where lot size is required two acres for each parcel in the MDR district because it requires both sewer and water municipal connections. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. PIDGEON-Good evening. Don Pidgeon, surveyor. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. HAJECK-Dan Hajeck. MR. PIDGEON-What we're looking to do, since the topography and the existing conditions of the soils and what not out here is very, very convenient place to be able to do an additional residential home. The soils are all sand. It's fairly cleared. There's a few pine trees, not many, and we're not asking for an entrance onto a major highway, Corinth Road, which I know is very busy. We'd kind of like to keep one entrance in for both residences. The existing residence has been there for years. We don't feel that we're conforming differently in the whole neighborhood due to the fact that a lot of these lots are relatively, like these couple over here, just less than an acre. There was an issue with the actual property out there to start with. Mr. Hajeck had lost a little bit of land with the survey. That comes along from things that have already been done. So it took a little bit of bite in the amount of land that he supposedly had by deed and distances that he had by deed, but it probably seemed very suitable for a residence without asking for, here's another entrance onto a major highway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So the zoning is two acres for a house. Correct? MR. PIDGEON-One acre. MRS. MOORE-You're required to have two acres. MR. PIDGEON-Per residence, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. So you have one residence on, which is compliant at just over an acre, and you would like to put two residences. MR. PIDGEON-And the people behind, to the north, are way over on Pitcher Road, too. They're not here. They're way up on Pitcher Road, at least two, three hundred feet. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-The proposed house would be fairly close to the existing house to your east, though. MR. HAJECK-Not necessarily. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean compared to your existing. MR. PIDGEON-We have a lot of room in there. We're well within the 25 foot side yard setback and then we have his garage. What's that number say? So he's 10 feet more. That's his garage. The house is further to the east. We're not crowding him out or anything. And we do have room to move the house further, to the west. There is a bank there that's shown. It drops down, but there's no stream or anything. It's just ground. So we could adjust if that would be more feasible. MR. DIXON-Have you thought of pursuing a variance for two separate driveways instead of a shared driveway and keeping relatively close? MR. PIDGEON-Well the reason for that is we don't want to enter Corinth Road in that location, another entrance because this is a curve over here, and we just thought it would be more feasible to just use the one entrance since it's only a residence. We've got a couple of cars coming out of there, rather than create a whole other entrance. MR. DIXON-It's a busy road. I always get concerned with shared driveway's because who's going to become the responsible party for it, and if it ends up being a family feud. MR. PIDGEON-Well, actually I believe that we've got a note here, the owner of Lot One would be responsible for the right of way. The existing house would maintain the right of way. It's a crushed stone driveway. MR. DIXON-I'm thinking in terms of our wintertime, when it comes time to plow that, shovel it, it's going to be a chore for somebody. MR. PIDGEON-He'll have to plow up to his house, and the other guy takes off, right off of that, and he will have to maintain what portion of it is on his land obviously, but other than that the man that's going to live in the existing house has to plow it anyway. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. DIXON-1 didn't look. Is it being deeded that way? MR. PIDGEON-That's the way we will do it because we have the note here saying that the owner of Lot One will be responsible for whatever portion of the driveway, for the shared driveway. MR. TRAVER-1 think that's important that be clarified. You're not proposing to clear the driveway as the new house, just the shared portion. Okay. So you'll want to make sure you state it that way. MR. PIDGEON-Absolutely. MR. TRAVER-Other questions, comments? How do we feel about a recommendation? MR. MAGOWAN-Well what I usually look at when I'm looking at subdividing lots and that is the lots around it, and does it fit in, and that is a little bend on Corinth Road, a little dip in that. I believe that that brings up concern. MR. TRAVER-Sight distance. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes for sight distance, and also, you know, you're putting another home in there, which is more traffic, but I actually, I'm looking at the other lots around it and how it fits, and you know, behind you you have a huge, so basically you're cutting a lot in half that's the conforming lots around you. MR. PIDGEON-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And the shared driveway always is not that appealing to me because you always get into conflicts and that, and I'm not sure how you have it all set up, but those are my concerns. MR. HAJECK-Okay. My only concern was line of sight. That's why we came up with the shared driveway. MR. PIDGEON-We have plenty of sight as it exists, but. MR. VALENTINE-What you're saying with the shared driveway, and Mike said before, too, is the shared driveway is going in the same location as the entry point is right now. The sight distance is working for that one. Whether you have another house in here in itself for the vehicles for access, that's not aggravating the situation with the sight distance. MR. MAGOWAN-The one that's there now is a little hairy. It's a little scary. MR. VALENTINE-And it could be, but it had to be issued a curb cut permit. I think the concern I have, Brad, what you're saying is that you do, you look around in the area and say does this fit, you know, with two lots one on top, and houses one on top of the other, in an area where the other lots in there, they have their frontage, they have their lot size, and they're long lots. So the way it would look in the future, somebody coming along here, a string of more houses, here, they may say gee I think I'll lop off the back half of my lot and run a driveway in here and put another lot in here. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Although we have to be careful not to speculate on what might happen. We have to look at what's before us. MR. VALENTINE-Well, I'll go back to we had a number of months ago we had a subdivision of a lot that was, you know, less than, whatever, divided. I was surprised that it made it through the ZBA, but it came back all right. Then we see another one of the same thing again. So sort of speculation has gone by the wayside because if somebody has that opportunity they're going to sit there and say, yes, I've got, and it's been done before. I'm looking at this and I was thinking, the first thing I looked at when I was going through the materials, why don't you flip the house over to the far left side, but you're showing in here you're saying that there's a drop off in grade over there. MR. PIDGEON-Yes. There's a bank over there that wouldn't be suitable for, I mean we could move the house some. MR. VALENTINE-I'm thinking a lot. So you're saying you can't do it because of the grade. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. PIDGEON-Right. MR. VALENTINE-If anything, for myself it doesn't look right to be going in here with a, when all of a sudden you've got two lots here substandard. You're saying hey it's okay, we agree with this, and if you're making a recommendation, you've got a zoning that says so much and you're saying that's okay, we'll give a positive recommendation. I don't like it. MR. TRAVER-Well we're not saying that. MR. VALENTINE-1 know we aren't, but if that's what comes about, and we have done it in the past. MR. PIDGEON-But it's an existing residential neighborhood, and the property's very suitable for a house. IT's sandy. It's very suitable for a residence out there. MR. TRAVER-So we can certainly note in our referral that we recognize that we're taking one compliant lot and making, what's being proposed there is taking one compliant lot and making two non-compliant lots in a neighborhood where. MRS. MOORE-Well it's currently non-compliant. The existing lot is currently non-compliant. MR. DEEB-It's two acres. MR. TRAVER-1 thought it was one acre for a house? MR. DEEB-No, it's two acres. MRS. MOORE-It's two acres. MR. TRAVER-Okay. That's what I thought I said before and somebody told me, no, it's one acre. Right? MR. VALENTINE-Yes, you did. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. All right. So we have one non-compliant lot and we're concerned that we would be creating two more non-compliant lots. Right? MR. PIDGEON-Correct. If that's the case then none of these lots comply up there. MR. TRAVER-Well we're not considering the other lots. We have to look at what we have before us. MR. PIDGEON-If it's two acres, nobody's got two acres here. MR. DEEB-Well, that's not the point. The point is, even if they're non-compliant, if they came before us for the same thing, we would probably consider it the same way, but even if they're all non-compliant lots. MR. PIDGEON-That's the same thing that they have on the monopoly board there that's all zoned out. MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, can you pull up that other map that you showed? MRS. MOORE-The aerial? MR. HUNSINGER-Can you look quickly at the size of those three lots next to the? MRS. MOORE-.93 is this one. .88, .85. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-What's behind it? MRS. MOORE-This one? It says 2.21. MR. MAGOWAN-What's to the west of it? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MRS. MOORE-1.8. MR. TRAVER-So are there, is the Board in agreement to include that comment in our referral? MR. VALENTINE-What was that, the comment? MR. TRAVER-The comment was we're concerned that we're, we note that we're taking one non-compliant lot and the proposal is to create two, out of that one non-compliant, two non- compliant lots. MR. MAGOWAN-Well if that's the feel of the Board. MR. TRAVER-That's what I'm asking. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I mean if you're putting that in there, and this is what I've said in the past. If it's not meeting the Code and you don't feel comfortable with it, why are we even sending it to variance? MR. TRAVER-Because that's our job. That's what we're asked to do tonight. MR. MAGOWAN-So you can say yes or no, correct? MR. TRAVER-We're not saying yes or no. The ZBA makes the yes or no. They want our. MR. MAGOWAN-We make our recommendation to send to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-We're expressing any comments or concerns that we want them to consider when they consider yes or no, and what I'm hearing is that one of them is that we're taking a lot that already is non-compliant and we're talking about creating two even more non-compliant lots. MR. MAGOWAN-Well that would be spelling it out correctly, yes. So I agree with you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you have any other comments that you think we should forward? MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I guess we're ready to read that motion then. MR. DEEB-All right. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-58-2018 DANIEL HAJECK The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision where Lot 1 (0.61 acre) will have a shared driveway with Lot 2 (0.73 acre). Lot 1 is to maintain an existing home and Lot 2 is to be developed for one new single family home. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for road frontage and parcel size. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2018 DANIEL HAJECK. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following area of concern: 1) One non-compliant lot being made into two lots which are more non-compliant lots. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: Mr. Magowan ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. You're off to the ZBA. MR. PIDGEON-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-The next application is another request for recommendation to the ZBA. This is for John Kokoletsos, Subdivision Preliminary Stage 18-2018. SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE 18-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. JOHN KOKOLETSOS. AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C.; VANDUSEN & STEVES. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: 132 MONTRAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 6.28 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT TO BE 4.28 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN EXISTING HOME AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO MONTRAY ROAD. THE SECOND LOT IS TO BE 2.0 ACRES FOR A PROPOSED NEW HOME TO HAVE ACCESS FROM PINECREST. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-2018 WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A LOT SIZE: 6.28 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-26. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. TOM HUTCHINS & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 6.28 acre parcel. One lot is to be 4.28 acres and to maintain the existing home and driveway access to Montray Road. The second lot is to be 2.0 acres for a proposed new home to have access from Pinecrest. The variance relief sought is for road frontage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Hutchins. So it's a 4.2 acre lot and we're proposing to make it a two acre lot and a 2.2 acre lot. So compared to the last application, these are both conforming lots. The only reason we need a variance request is we're at the end of Pinecrest. So the place to put a separate lot would be at the end of Pinecrest. That's 50 feet because again the end of the street buts up against the property which is perfectly suitable for a driveway. MR. TRAVER-Okay. And just to clarify, Jon, you're starting at 6.28 acres. MR. LAPPER-No, that's incorrect. It's 4.28 minus 2 for the new lot, 2.28. So the lot starts at 4.28 right now. MRS. MOORE-That's correct. MR. TRAVER-All right. MRS. MOORE-We have a typo. You're correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, but what's before us is a minor typo. Thank you for correcting me for correcting you. MR. LAPPER-Well we got to the lot still complies at 2.2 acres. MR. TRAVER-Right. I understand. MR. MAGOWAN-1 feel better with this now because I'm looking at the property and I'm looking at six and I'm thinking well why didn't you just give a little bit more. That makes more sense. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And I don't think you could have placed it better on Pinecrest. MR. VALENTINE-Is minimum lot size two acres? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-Do you feel comfortable going with two acres right on the button? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I mean that's a Queensbury thing. If you don't have water and sewer you have to be two acres. MR. VALENTINE-No, I understand. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? Any concerns in our referral that we want to draw the attention of the ZBA to? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know there's always a concern when you place a new house behind existing homes that the neighbors will not be happy with that. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-And looking at this it's obviously a very unique parcel, and here's Pinecrest coming in, and it's that uniqueness that in order to utilize it any other way it would have to be in this area behind this set of residences here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. TRAVER-And it looks as though, I mean there's plenty of buffering in that area. MR. LAPPER-It's a great lot. All the setbacks are compliant with no issues there. MR. VALENTINE-Do the abutting neighbors on either side of Pinecrest know that there's going to be? MR. LAPPER-Yes, the applicant's spoken to the neighbors. So John is the dad and Mike is who's going to build the house behind it and John lives in the house on the property. So they've been there a long time. MR. MAGOWAN-Mike's also a landscaper, too, and he's really done a nice job on a lot of the properties I've seen around Town. MR. HUNSINGER-So has there been any concerns expressed by the neighbors? MR. LAPPER-So some of the neighbors like dumping their yard waste in there. Somebody did express concern about that. MR. VALENTINE-That they won't be able to do it anymore? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 still remember from years ago when we had a really big lot that was proposed for a subdivision, one of the neighbors showed up and said well where are we going to drive our ATV's and our snowmobiles. MR. LAPPER-I've heard I walk my dog on that property. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well is there anything specific that we want to pass along to the ZBA? I mean obviously they're going to be considering this variance as it was presented to us. Is there anything we want to draw their attention to? MR. HUNSINGER-Well I mean the lot that's being retained is a pretty unusual layout. MR. TRAVER-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. LAPPER-So the reason for that is we didn't want to have to push the new house all the way to the back and a really long driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-It just would have been a really odd-shaped lot. MR. HUTCHINS-If we cut them off, then the remaining parcel wouldn't be minimum lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. What you're really doing is that the back portion is being retained forever wild. MR. HUTCHINS-It's essentially useless. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Whoever the neighbors are that are dumping the yard waste. MR. MAGOWAN-But, no, the way you placed the house, really the front of the house is actually facing the back of the father's house. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well I'm not hearing any specific concerns we want to pass along. So we're ready for the motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: Z-AV-60-2018 JOHN KOKOLETSOS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 4.28 acre parcel. One lot to be 2.28 acres and to maintain existing home and driveway access to Montray Road. The second lot is to be 2.0 acres for a proposed new home to have access from Pinecrest. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for road frontage. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2018 JOHN KOKOLETSOS. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-The next application we have is for Gregory Garafalo, Subdivision Modification 20-2018. The variance is reducing lots to less than two acres. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION 20-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. GREGORY GARAFALO. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: MDR. LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. REDUCING LOT SIZE ON PARCEL -49.21 FROM 1.74 ACRES TO 1.23 ACRES AND TO INCREASE PARCEL -49.22 FROM 1.74 ACRES TO 2.25 ACRES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR REDUCING LOTS TO LESS THAN 2 ACRES. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 9-2010, ADMIN. 3-2006; AV 62-2018; WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 3.48 ACRES TOTAL. TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-49.21, - 49.22. SECTION: CHAPTER 183. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GREG GARAFALO, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes to modify an approved subdivision, reducing lot size on parcel, I'm going to identify the parcels, 49.21 from 1.74 acres to 1.23 acres and to increase parcel 49.22 from 1.74 acres to 2.25. Obviously two acres is required for the MDR zone. They're requesting relief from the lot size. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with the applicant Greg Garafalo. So on this one it was already approved as two lot, two building lots, and one gets bigger. One gets smaller. It doesn't change the density obviously, but it just makes for a nicer piece of property in the back and the best way we could show it is this aerial photo that I'll hand out that shows what it is now with the front lot has basically their backyard opens the side of the new house, which is not great for the new house. It doesn't do much for the front house. Greg owns both of them, and what we're proposing to just have a more square lot in the back. So the same amount of property, same amount of homes. Just a little bit nicer yard. MR. TRAVER-So it's almost just a lot line adjustment. MR. LAPPER-But it's an approved subdivision. This is what it's like now, and this is what we're proposing. So that little tail is this guy's backyard and would become part of the back property. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that's what it looks like now. This guy owns this piece, and that's a small lot. This is what it would look like if the variance is granted. So they'll have plenty of yard, and now they have plenty of yard. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-So I was looking here at a proposed house, but this one's already been approved in 2010? MR. LAPPER-Yes, both are built. Yes, that's probably about right. Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So all you're doing is coming in and adjusting the line. MR. GARAFALO-Yes, because I started construction on the new home, the new home is already framed up, and it was like on a piece of paper that Matt Steves made up, we just drew a line that showed two houses with each line, it was okay, but once I put the house there, I realized how undesirable that was. I kind of want that security of that type. MR. MAGOWAN-Sometimes things do look good on paper until you actually get into it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well it looks really straightforward to me. Does anyone have any concerns they want to pass along? I'm not hearing any. So we're ready for the motion. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION RE: Z-AV-62-2018 GREGORY GARAFALO The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to modify an approved subdivision. Reducing lot size on parcel -49.21 from 1.74 acres to 1.23 acres and to increase parcel -49.22 from 1.74 acres to 2.25 acres. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for reducing lots to less than 2 acres. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2018 GREGORY GARAFALO. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. TRAVER-All right. Continuing with recommendations to the ZBA, we next have Rasheed Bhatti, application Site Plan 46-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. RASHEED BHATTI. OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT. ZONING: CI. LOCATION: 1602 STATE ROUTE 9. (1) APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO CABIN 1 AT 270 SQ. FT. WITH A 132 SQ. FT. DECK, AND CABIN 2 AT 294 SQ. FT. WITH A 144 SQ. FT. DECK. PROJECT WORK FOR CABINS 1-7 INCLUDE EXTENDING ROOF AREA OVER PORCH AREA OF THE CABINS. (2) PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A 75 SQ. FT. STORAGE AREA AT THE REAR OF THE MAIN MOTEL UNIT BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A 420 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING ADDITION. PROJECT ALSO MAINTAINS PREVIOUS SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 4 ADDITIONAL CABINS SP PZ 153- 2016 AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. APPLICANT HAS ACTIVE PERMITS FOR CABINS 3, 4, & 5RENOVATIONS IN SAM FOOTPRINT. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: CABIN 2 REQUIRES SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP PZ 153-2016, AV 33-2017, ASSORTED BLDG. PERMITS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: JULY 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 3.95 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-11.2. SECTION: 179-3-040. RASHEED BHATTI, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant requests to maintain existing improvements to Cabin One, currently 270 square feet with 132 square foot deck; Cabin Two at 294 square feet with a 144 square foot deck. To note for the record the project work for Cabins One through Seven included extending the roof area over the porch area of the cabins. Part of this project also includes removal of a 75 square foot storage area at the rear of the main motel unit building to construct a 420 square foot storage building addition. The project also maintains previous Site Plan to construct four additional cabins that you saw in 2016. The applicant currently has active building permits with Cabins 3, 4 and 5 for renovations on the same footprint. The relief requested is specifically for Cabin Two and the side setback relief. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. BHATTI-Good evening. MR. TRAVER-Tell us about your project. MR. BHATTI-Well I've been working on this project since 2016. There's a cabin setback at the end of the property, so I renovated almost the whole up front of the property. So what I did, the cabins are very small. So two cabins I would like to make bathrooms on, and I upgraded all the 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) other cabins with new roofs, siding, and interior fixing up, and I'm requesting two cabins, which Laura just mentioned. One is a little smaller than the other one, so I'm making it a little larger with the bathrooms, and also requesting a shed. Right next to it I have some space where I can put some storage. It does not have any storage. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Now you had an approved Site Plan from 2016 and a variance in 2017. Correct? MR. BHATTI-Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-And I remember when you were here and we were talking about, your Site Plan at that time was to address these cabins, and you had applied to add some cabins. MR. BHATTI-The new cabins were approved since 2016, but I was going to fix the old one first. MR. TRAVER-And that's what I wanted to ask you about. You did not have a Site Plan approved to do that, correct? MR. BHATTI-For the cabins? MR. TRAVER-You made changes to, in other words you had come to us with a Site Plan which was reviewed and approved. MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And then you made changes to that project and you did unapproved development or without getting approval. Correct? MR. BHATTI-No, I was only doing the existing cabins. MR. TRAVER-Were you visited by someone from the Town who was observing what you were doing and explained to you that what you were doing was not approved and you should stop and seek approval before continuing? MR. BHATTI-Yes, then I did. MR. TRAVER-Did you then tell that person that because you had workers already there you were going to continue anyway? MR. BHATTI-No. Then I talked to John and Craig and those two cabins we just make sure finish the roofs of because it was in the middle of the season and everyone was there, so we just took care of the roofs. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, I would just note that we have had, as the Board knows, we have had a number of, some number of applicants come in that have done unapproved development, but as far as I know this is the first applicant that started unapproved development, was told it was unapproved and to stop and went ahead and did it anyway. MR. BHATTI-No. I got the permits and I continued to other cabins, did not change anything. I got the permits so I was working on those, and the two first cabins John stopped and said you need a permit. So we stopped and I applied for the permits and I followed all the paperwork. MR. TRAVER-Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. MAGOWAN-If you got all the permits then why are you here? MR. BHATTI-For the first and second cabins. Because I added extra square feet to the bathrooms. MR. MAGOWAN-For Number One and Number Two. MR. BHATTI-Yes, sir. MR. TRAVER-And the work on Cabin Two now requires additional setback relief. Correct? MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And the work that was done on Cabin Two had not been approved yet. Correct? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. BHATTI-Yes. We made the deck and then the roof. MR. TRAVER-So it's not only unapproved development that you were warned about, but it's unapproved development that requires additional variance relief. MR. MAGOWAN-We're talking this cabin here and that cabin there. Right? I see two here, One and Two. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the second ones I don't think are there anymore. MR. MAGOWAN-These two. MR. TRAVER-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-One and Two is moved to One and Two over here. I mean I remember the Site Plan before. You were actually here then for doing things without the proper approval. Correct? MR. BHATTI-No, those were for the new, we applied for the new cabins to begin with. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Weren't you put on a stop work order to come and see us? MR. BHATTI-No, there was no work going on. It was just I cleared up a few things. MR. MAGOWAN-You cleared. MR. BHATTI-And then I got approval, all the requirements for what I'm planning to do, but I was, because my future plan was to see what I can clear and what I can do because the land was useless. I had some fill to do, but then I started with Craig and the Town and then we came up with the plan. Four cabins were approved. MR. TRAVER-Any other questions, comments? MR. DIXON-What was the approved setback for Cabin Number Two? MRS. MOORE-So there was no work on Cabin Two until now. You mean until he proceeded? MR. DIXON-Right. So Two never had Site Plan? MRS. MOORE-Two never had a variance previously. It wasn't subject to review at the previous Site Plan. This is the first time it came to this Board as a variance, and if you look on the screen, sorry, so I have Cabin One and Two highlighted. So I apologize, I don't know what drawing you were looking at, but if you look at it this way maybe that'll help. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, it was right around seven, six, the one, two, three there. MRS. MOORE-No, those are parking spaces. MR. MAGOWAN-1 see it now. I just got it confused with the numbers. I believe I got kind of confused last time. It's pretty busy. MR. VALENTINE-It is a busy plan. That's for sure. MR. BHATTI-Well the future plans are already there, but right now they're physically not there. At the moment you can only see seven cabins, which is these cabins in the yellow. The new cabins are now not physically there yet. So there's still seven little cabins back there. MR. MAGOWAN-So which ones aren't there yet? MR. BHATTI-The big square boxes, these cabins are future cabins which is approved, but I started fixing the old ones before I started putting the new ones in. MR. DEEB-Why don't you go up to the map and show us what you're talking about. MR. BHATTI-Okay. These cabins are existing right now, One, Two, Three, Four Five, and that's a double cabin there. These cabins are future cabins. They've been approved, but physically they're not built. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. DEEB-You haven't built them yet. MR. BHATTI-No, sir. We're only working on the old cabin and Cabin One I made a little large. That's why I'm here, and then Cabin Two I made bigger with a bathroom so I went closer to the other property line. So that's when I got stopped, but all these cabins on the same footprint I did finish with the permits, and those two cabins I'm here for. Just adding a few square feet to each cabin with the bathrooms. The bathrooms are very small. MR. DEEB-To Cabin One and Two. MR. BHATTI-Cabin One and Two. MR. MAGOWAN-So what do you call a few square feet? MR. BHATTI-One cabin I added only four feet to the east side. MR. MAGOWAN-Four square feet? MR. BHATTI-Four feet by twenty, no the cabin is twelve feet wide, twelve by six. MRS. MOORE-So I have six feet by ten, six feet by twelve to Cabin One. MR. VALENTINE-Cabin One that is? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the floor plan's. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So I'm looking at Cabin One as 22 feet long and 18 foot 3 wide. Correct, with the porch? MR. BHATTI-Yes, so I added four feet to the east side. There was a small bathroom so I made the bathroom larger. MR. MAGOWAN-So you went from 22 feet to 4 feet longer. MR. BHATTI-No. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. VALENTINE-Sixteen to twenty-two. MR. BHATTI-Yes, 16, 1 added four feet to the east side. MR. MAGOWAN-1 see six foot here. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, it says six on the plans. MR. BHATTI-Cabin Number Seven is six foot. MR. MAGOWAN-Well this says Cabin One. MR. VALENTINE-Cabin One. MR. VALENTINE-Sixteen and six. MR. TRAVER-And was it this expansion that you're referring to that was going on when the Code Enforcement told you to stop and you had indicated that you were going to finish? MR. BHATTI-No. I stopped. That's why I'm here. MR. TRAVER-So this hasn't been completed yet. MR. BHATTI-Those are not completed but the other six are. When I got stopped, I had quite a bit of, the first cabin was almost done, the exterior, the porch, roof, the metal roof. The second one we also stopped. Those two cabins I could not finish properly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Laura, my recollection, I thought that I had understood that there was a visit by the Town and instructed my Bhatti that what he was doing was not approved and he should stop and get approval and his response was I'm going to continue. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MRS. MOORE-So we did a site visit with Mr. Bhatti. We met on site, myself, Bruce and Craig, and instructed Mr. Bhatti not to continue anymore work. MR. TRAVER-Okay, and what was the response? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, he indicated that he had additional things to accomplish. MR. TRAVER-What I had heard, or what I understood was that he had workers there and because they were there he was going to have them go ahead and not stop until it was completed. MRS. MOORE-He was instructed not to do that. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Well, my own feeling, in terms of communication to the ZBA, is that it's not only unapproved development, but it's unapproved development that continued after a visit by Code Compliance. That would be one thing, and the other concern that I would have, in view of the history, I would wonder if they would consider requiring a performance bond to ensure compliance going forward, assuming that this continues. I don't know how other members feel. MR. DIXON-Would we make a recommendation at this point also for any of the fines that are associated with this? MRS. MOORE-So there are no fines. Mr. Bhatti was given instruction to not continue or he's taken to court. Going to a judge at this time, and we've been through this process, is the judge will indicate have you exhausted all your administrative remedies. Going through this Planning Board and the Zoning Board review process is processing the requirements that he's required to complete the Site Plan Review and Zoning Board process. So he's in the middle of that. MR. TRAVER-So even though there's unapproved development going on, he's now engaging in the process. MRS. MOORE-To become compliant. MR. TRAVER-To become compliant. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Provided he gets the additional variance. MRS. MOORE-Provided he gets the variance. MR. TRAVER-That wasn't approved before. Correct? And was created by the unapproved development. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So the Zoning Board can evaluate that for their criteria. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-They have five criteria that they go through and they are not required to be affirmative on all five. MR. TRAVER-Gotcha. Okay. So again that's my feeling in terms of a recommendation. It's unapproved development requiring an additional variance that was observed. MRS. MOORE-So I guess I'll also interject that typically when the Planning Board reviews information that they're going to give a recommendation on and whether that's a positive or negative, they identify the criteria that they're using during the Site Plan Review. Because it was unapproved development typically isn't the criteria that you've used. It's typically is it substantial. Is it too much for the site? That's typically the recommendation that I've seen this Board do. MR. TRAVER-So if we say that the unapproved development creates a substantial, too large a variance request? MRS. MOORE-If the entire Board feels that 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-Okay, then that would be what my recommendation would be, and also a recommendation that they consider a performance bond. MRS. MOORE-1 think that would come back. They would give direction back to you as the Planning Board, because that's in the Planning Board section. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And for a performance bond, typically it's for someone to complete the task. I don't think that's this applicant's issue is not completion. Obviously it was doing something prior to getting the appropriate approvals. MR. TRAVER-But it wouldn't be appropriate for, a completion is according to approval, right? So performance could be to assure completion according to what's approved. Correct? MRS. MOORE-According to what's planned. The Board could also consider identifying a certain timeframe that everything has to be completed by, versus a performance bond, but that's something you could evaluate. You could give him a shorter timeframe. Typically it's a year, and if Mr. Bhatti feels that he can complete it in six months, the weather's probably an issue at this point, but you could give him a shorter timeframe. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. DIXON-The two larger cabins that have not been built yet. MRS. MOORE-There's four larger cabins. Those are all subject to Site Plan Review. That has already been approved and they would have to be built according to the plans that were provided. MR. TRAVER-That's not an issue, though, really so far. MR. DIXON-1 was just wondering if they should be held up in the process at this point until this issue is resolved? MR. TRAVER-1 don't think so. MR. DEEB-We can't do that. If he wants to go ahead and build, he's got Site Plan approval. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-All right, so I have an understanding of this, on Cabin One, with the bathroom addition six by twelve foot three, and of course you brought the deck all the way over which is thirty-six square feet onto this, so we're talking one hundred and nine point eight square feet you added on to Cabin One, and then Cabin Two, that was ninety-eight point four plus thirty-six. So that's 134.4 square feet. These are the few square feet you mentioned were added. MRS. MOORE-1 guess, so the individual that helped draw the elevation plans, he's identified the specific addition. So I apologize for not checking your math, but he's identified the square foot addition to the buildings for Cabin One and the new porch area. So, I mean that's identified specifically in his drawings. MR. MAGOWAN-It was 16 foot existing. MRS. MOORE-So, I apologize, but he's identified the square footage calculations numerically versus doing them by dimensions. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I mean he added eight foot on for a bathroom. Correct? MRS. MOORE-1 think it's six. MR. MAGOWAN-On Cabin Two. MRS. MOORE-On Cabin Two. MR. MAGOWAN-The existing cabin was 16 foot wide and it says 8 foot add, and then it's 12.3 feet wide. MR. VALENTIN E-1 2.4, 12.5. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. MAGOWAN-12.3. MR. VALENTIN E-1 2.25. It's twelve feet three inches. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. So I mean basically what I'm saying is you add up the additions, you're talking give or take a couple inches there 134.4 and 109.8. Just so you all know the square footage, because you've got to include the deck because the deck went all the way across with that. MR. TRAVER-That was not part of the original Site Plan. MR. DEEB-You're feeling that's a little bit too much. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, no, all I heard was just a couple of feet. Do you know what I'm saying? I'm a little uncomfortable that it was done without the proper approvals and it didn't go in accordance with what the Site Plan approved. You changed it. MR. TRAVER-And he was alerted to the fact. MR. MAGOWAN-And he was alerted to the fact. I mean I will compliment you. It does look nice down there, but unfortunately we have these codes and regulations that we have to follow and sometimes I'm like the last person. I don't want to have to tell you what you can and can't do to your property but we have to keep everything within compliance. It upsets me sometimes when things come in after the fact. So what do we do? MRS. MOORE-So just to follow up on Mr. Magowan's issue that it appears to be a better layout, or however you wish to say that, so if this applicant came before this Board with this proposal as new, you would go through it as Site Plan Review. So is it considered substantial even if he had the addition proposed? MR. MAGOWAN-Well we would have looked at it at that time as being closer to the lines. MRS. MOORE-But would you have said it's too substantial? MR. MAGOWAN-Well I can't go back and think of it at that time. MRS. MOORE-Well if he came in with clean hands. MR. MAGOWAN-If he came in and proposed it at the time and it was all, I can't rightfully say. MRS. MOORE-It's just something to think about. MR. DEEB-Before they granted the variance. MRS. MOORE-What type of recommendation would you have made? MR. DEEB-Would we say it's okay? MR. TRAVER-1 would say no because small cabins, it would be easy to bump it back and make it more compliant. So to me the variance is too much and it's self-created by not following the approved plan. So that's my. MR. MAGOWAN-What do we do? MR. TRAVER-Well do you approve of that suggestion that we communicate to the ZBA that we feel that this variance is too much because we did not review it, we consider it too severe, and it was done without review? It's self-created to the extreme. It's unapproved development. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think that's really the best way to handle it. MR. TRAVER-How do other Board members feel? MR. DEEB-That's a tricky one. Is there an alternative to him building this? MR. TRAVER-Well if he doesn't get the variance he has to come into compliance. MR. DEEB-I'm just saying. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-He could have done like the other applicant and said I want to modify my Site Plan. I've thought about it and I've decided I want to do something different. I mean he had a plan that was approved. MRS. MOORE-Yes, but that plan that was approved didn't have any information, Cabin Two wasn't part of, Cabin One and Cabin Two, those cabins weren't part of that plan. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. DEEB-This is a separate item. MR. TRAVER-Right, but it would have been, presumably had it been done in a compliant way, these two cabins would have been part of this plan. MRS. MOORE-He could have come in with a separate plan. That's what I'm saying. If he came in with clean hands with this project for renovating Cabins One and Two, Cabin Two requests a variance, my guess is he may have explained that the bathroom's on that side. That's where I need to. MR. TRAVER-But it could have been done in such a way that they didn't have to be on that side. That's totally. MRS. MOORE-So it's an existing structure. I think that any applicant would have come in and said the existing structure has the bathroom on the side. Therefore there's, my utilities and its connections are there. MR. TRAVER-1 think that's hypothetical. That's what might have happened. MRS. MOORE-I'm just trying to give you examples as to what you've seen in the past and creating. MR. DEEB-The bathroom had to go to the back because that's where. So you're saying that? Where's the bathroom now? MR. BHATTI-There is a bathroom, but the bathrooms are very, very small. MR. DEEB-Where is it now? MR. BHATTI-The bathroom is on the north side of Cabin Two. MR. DEEB-The north side. MR. BHATTI-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It's right here, on that side. That's where he had it. MR. BHATTI-And that's where I went close to the line for the rear property line. MR. DEEB-I understand what Laura's saying, and I agree that non-compliance is something we have to deal with. MR. TRAVER-In this case not only that but it adds to the variance. MR. DEEB-So if you feel the variance is excessive, you feel it should be. MR. TRAVER-That's my feeling, but it's up to everybody. MR. VALENTINE-If you're saying it's excessive, which is the standard of review for the Zoning Board, and self-created is a standard for the Zoning Board not us. MR. TRAVER-Well we're not saying yes or no. They're just asking do we have any concerns or recommendations. MR. VALENTINE-Something to point out to them, you mean? MR. TRAVER-That's right. And so my feeling is, again, it's exacerbated because it's not only unapproved. We didn't have a chance to review alternatives to not require the additional 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) variance, I mean we could speculate that maybe we would have approved it at that point, but that's totally subjective and hypothetical. The fact is that we didn't have an opportunity to review it and consider the variance, and I think that under the circumstances, particularly being alerted by the Town that this work was not approved, that the variance should not be granted. MR. DEEB-Well, I want to clarify it, that this addition was never applied for. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Currently his building permits are on hold. MR. DEEB-On hold, but this variance for Cabins One and Two. MRS. MOORE-Cabin Two. MR. DEEB-For Cabin Two itself, he started work and then, so it's non-compliant and he came in, but that's what you were saying. MRS. MOORE-Right. So the applicant was informed that the additions were non-compliant as well as needing a building permit. The applicant came in, filled out the building permit information and started the process for the review. MR. TRAVER-And stopped work. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. That's my understanding. MR. TRAVER-So these are not finished. MRS. MOORE-Cabin One and Cabin Two are not finished. MR. VALENTINE-So work did stop. MRS. MOORE-Work did stop. MR. DIXON-1 guess I'm struggling, too, as far as is it excessive, probably not, in my opinion, but I don't like that he's not following the rules. MRS. MOORE-But you as the Board, that's not your charge. Your charge is the outline of the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-It's supposed to be a 20 foot setback and he's made this non-compliant thing six and a half feet. So it's more than a 50%. It's like a 75% relief. MR. VALENTINE-Well it wouldn't have been compliant before, though. MR. DEEB-It wasn't compliant before this. What was the setback before? MRS. MOORE-1 think it was. MR. MAGOWAN-It was six more. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, well take off the eight foot addition and add that to your six foot. That's only 14 and a half feet. So it wouldn't make the 20 foot to begin with. MR. TRAVER-No, but the nature of this work that was not subject to review has created this extreme need for a variance. There's no question about that. You can talk about hypotheticals about what if he had done it, would we have considered it or whatever. That's purely hypothetical. Maybe that will happen at some point in the future, but as we sit here tonight, we're not in this situation. The applicant is, and I think it's important to look at the reasons why this variance, this extreme variance is being sought. I don't think it should be approved. MR. DEEB-So what if it was less of a variance. Would that change your opinion? MR. TRAVER-That's not what I have in front of me. That's purely hypothetical. MR. DIXON-Steve, so if we don't approve it, what are the next steps? MR. HUNSINGER-Well it's up to the Zoning Board. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-It would be, yes, I mean it's not up to us to approve it. They're going to take another whole separate look at it. MR. DIXON-And then it will come back to us at some point again? MR. DEEB-If they approve it. MR. TRAVER-Presumably in the future, yes. MR. VALENTINE-If they approve it, it's going to come back as it is there for us to do, and then at that point you're looking at just say a Site Plan type thing and then you can't squawk about the setback anymore. That's out of the picture. MR. TRAVER-If he got the variance, yes. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, if he did. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and we wouldn't be considering normally that anyway if it's already got a variance, but again we're talking hypotheticals, at some point in the future, not what we have before us tonight. MR. MAGOWAN-Well I have to say, this is a first. MR. TRAVER-It is. It is a first, I mean like I say, we've had unapproved development before, but never that I'm aware of where it created a variance because it was never reviewed and where the applicant had to be actively intervened with by the Town, but that's my feeling, but we should be in agreement. So if there are members that don't feel that my recommendation is appropriate then we won't make it. MR. HUNSINGER-So what's the language that we're looking at? MR. DEEB-The requested variance is excessive in nature. I mean I know it's non-committal. MR. VALENTINE-Well the other thing is is it self-created, but you're recognizing that as a comment back to them, right? MR. TRAVER-Because of the complex nature of the situation that's created we might also want to make a recommendation that they review the minutes of our discussion with the applicant tonight. I mean they'll probably do that anyway under the circumstances, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Well for tomorrow night? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-They can't potentially listen to it. They won't get minutes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. DEEB-Do you want to use self-created? MR. TRAVER-Yes. Does anybody dispute self-created? MR. HUNSINGER-That's one of the tests that the Zoning Board has. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I don't think anybody disputes that. I mean you can dispute whether the variance is severe or not, but you can't dispute that it's self-created. MR. HUNSINGER-So I mean if you're going down that path, you know, the criteria for an Area Variance also includes whether benefit can be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant, and I think you could argue that as well. MR. TRAVER-Yes, but he's not proposing something. MR. HUNSINGER-But that's part of their review criteria, you know assuming that it's not a re- build. MR. TRAVER-Right. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean when you're reviewing the variance request that's one of the criteria. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And clearly, well I don't know if it's clear or not, but, you know, the addition on Cabin Two could be put on the other side. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know if it could have been as big. MR. TRAVER-Right. It also could have been moved. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-1 mean it's not like they're on a foundation or anything, and I apparently misunderstood the information that I had because I understood that the work completed, not that the work had stopped and hadn't been done yet, but that really doesn't matter I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-1 kind of wondered why when I was driving by it it had stopped. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So is everybody comfortable with that motion? Okay. All right. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RESOLUTION RE: Z-AV-45-2018 RASHEED BHATTI The applicant has submitted an application for the following: (1) Applicant requests to maintain existing improvements to Cabin 1 at 270 sq. ft. with a 132 sq. ft. deck, and Cabin 2 at 294 sq. ft. with a 144 sq. ft. deck. Project work for Cabins 1-7 include extending roof area over porch area of the cabins. (2) Project also includes removal of a 75 sq. ft. storage area at the rear of the main motel unit building to construct a 420 sq. ft. storage building addition. Project also maintains previous site plan to construct 4 additional cabins SP PZ 153-2016 and associated site work. Applicant has active permits for cabins 3, 4 & 5 renovations in same footprint. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Cabin 2 requires setback relief. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2018 RASHEED BHATTI. Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1) Requested variance is excessive in nature and self-created. Motion seconded by Michael Dixon. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-You're off to the ZBA. MR. MAGOWAN-Good luck. MR. BHATTI-Thank you. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we move on the agenda into New Business, and the first item under that section is Bay Road Self Storage, LLC, Site Plan 62-2018, Freshwater Wetlands Permit 7-2018. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 62-2018 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 7-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE, LLC. AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY. OWNER(S): JOHN KUBRICKY & SONS, INC. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SITE DEVELOPMENT WITH NINE NEW SELF- STORAGE BUILDINGS INCLUDING SITE WORK, GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND WILL NEED WETLAND PERMIT. BUILDING 1 — 3,000 SQ. FT., 2 — 4,500 SQ. FT., 3—6, 600 SQ. FT., 4—6,600 SQ. FT., 5—6,600 SQ. FT., 7—5,100 SQ. FT., 8—3,900 SQ. FT. AND D9 — 2,400 SQ. FT. TOTALING 45,300 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES POROUS PAVEMENT BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND ASPHALT ON DRIVE AISLE. BUILDING 1 WILL INCLUDE A 10' X 30' OFFICE AREA WITH WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 & CHAPTER 94 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 21-1992. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2018. SITE INFORMATION: WETLANDS. LOT SIZE: 5.4 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-23, 24. SECTION: 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94. MICHAEL O'CONNOR & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant proposes site development with nine new self-storage buildings, including site work, grading, stormwater management, lighting and landscaping. The project occurs within 100 feet of the wetland. It will need, it is applying for a wetlands permit. I'm not going to go through each building size. That information is available to you. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Michael O'Connor. I'm the attorney for the project. With me is Dennis MacElroy who's the engineer for the project, and back in the audience is Al Cerrone who's one of the principals of the applicant, and John Davidson representing the other principle of the applicant, and this is mainly, I think, engineering. So I'm not going to go too far. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Mike. Laura, could you bring up Sheet Three of Eight, just to give you a little explanation of the property. This is about a property that's owned by Kubricky Construction. It borders the road that serves Duke Concrete products off of Bay Road, and as you can see there's three tax parcels that come into play. The furthest northern one is also owned by Kubricky, but that really doesn't, isn't involved. This boundary line adjustment, that will stay as it is. The three tax parcels would be re-configured, with the boundary line adjustment, to create a parcel that would serve the self storage project located in the southern portion. Now if you go to Sheet Two, Laura, which would be the layout of that southern portion, somewhat a little triangular shaped, that is the parcel that's being proposed for the self storage facility. 5.5 acres. It includes the area of the service road, Duke Drive or Duke Industrial Park Road, or whatever name you want to place on it, and that will be the access. It's 100 feet of frontage, which is the minimum required for that lot. So that exists, or will exist as a legal lot, and the storage units within nine buildings would be placed as shown. There's about 365 units of storage, depending on the configuration, but there will be an office, an on-site office, gated with a key card controlled or pad controlled access into the site, 24 hour access, and those units, very common, typical. You've seen these certainly. This is another location for that. In the CLI zone. Totally compliant with the use within those zones, and we've provided a pretty extensive set of plans that provides all the engineering associated with that, the stormwater management, the layout, the parking, the erosion control, grading, lighting, landscaping and whatnot that are required through the Town's regulations. So that's the basic summary of that. We've had input from Chazen. We've gotten input back from them, a letter back from them as of Friday and there were a handful of comments. We've responded back as of this afternoon. So obviously we don't have any feedback. The comments are not show-stoppers by any means. There's some housekeeping things, some stormwater management design and what not that they've commented on and we've already prepared the comment letter response to them. So I think that things are pretty much in order, can be satisfied fairly readily. So if you've got any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-Well, in Staff Notes there was a suggestion that we get some additional information about landscaping. There is the bike path there and some buffering with the bike path would be appropriate. The color scheme. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. As far as the buffering, that section along the bike path, there is buffering within the easement or the right of way that the bike path has. We would show, as shown on the plan, there's fencing around that pretty much near the property line. So if that needed to be supplemented, planting could take place. We do need some areas for snow removal and snow storage as well. So that's part of that. That could be supplemented. The planting that we've shown is on Sheet Eight. I believe it shows some planting in the front area that would complement where the sign would be. There's not a lot of frontage in that area. Again, that section of the property is bordered by the bike path. So if it's felt that there should be some more buffering in there, I'm sure that the applicants would comply as needed. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-1 have some, you mentioned the color. I do have some photographs of an existing project that this would be very similar to, the building and it also shows the light fixture that's on the building. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Yes, that would be helpful. So kind of an earth tone. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. TRAVER-And downcast lighting. Twenty-four hour video surveillance on this project. Are you planning on that as well? I saw in here security somewhere. I see you have fencing. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-And you're going to have video surveillance? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? We also have a public hearing on this. MR. DEEB-Where are the lights going to be situated? MR. MAC ELROY-There is a section, right where Laura's showing. There's a few parking spaces right there near the office. There's three 15 foot high pole mounted lights there. Downcast, shoebox. MR. MAGOWAN-The height of the building, it's the standard 10 feet that you proposed before, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. We've had review by the fire code person in Town. His only comment is first of all we've got proper fire lanes and what not surrounding the buildings. He made a comment about having a Knox Box set up on the control panel. MR. TRAVER-For the gate, yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. So that there could be access by the emergency services. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just amazed how many of these storage units go up, and I have to say, I have to say I decided to downsize and got rid of one of mine, and I feel pretty good about it. Now I've got to get rid of some other buildings and get rid of some of my stuff, but that site has kind of been an eyesore for a long time, and I think it would be a nice improvement, especially with the earth tone. The only thing I would ask for is more buffering along the, or seeing more of a planting and buffering along the bike trail, and, you know, probably 30, 40 feet back on that corner, so when you're coming up the bike trail, because it does come into like a pie-shape. That's where all the growth is there, but once you go in and put the fence right down where the growth is now, you know, that's going to kind of destroy it. So what can we do to? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I guess it's Sheet Five is the one where we show a little bit of planting in the front area. There's a berm that's raised somewhat and then some planting in that area, that 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) would be within the setback area of the, before the buildings. So, yes, that certainly could be supplemented. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, I like the idea of the front on Bay Road, but I'm more worried about the bike trail because that is traveled with walkers. MR. MAC ELROY-So there is an opportunity I that corner, there is a culvert that goes across there that we would have to leave opened up obviously, but, you know, there could be some planting both outside of the fence and perhaps along the fence, sporadically. Still be able to achieve the snow storage. MR. MAGOWAN-If you're allowed to plant on one side of the fence, plant on the other, you know, go back and forth to give it a staggered look. It will all fill in. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. TRAVER-You'd want to be specific on the number. MR. VALENTINE-1 think that would just show up on the planting plan. I've got to agree with Brad's comments on here. I think the biggest deficiency is, looking through the plan, is the planting, and I think that self storage has a connotation to everybody I don't have to do anything, and I think that this shows a lack of that thought in that you've got areas that are disturbed all the way through here with the grading. You've got stormwater management area, and you've got grading off of all these areas, and there's the opportunity provide landscaping more so than that little, very little bit that's in the front facing the road frontage. And a comment with that one also, I think the first building should have something more enhanced for an elevation facing the road frontage than that. MR. O'CONNOR-The first building's going to be buffered by the berm. MR. VALENTINE-The first building, Building Number One, is going to be facing the road. MR. O'CONNOR-One side of it is. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, and I'm just thinking that one should show something more creative than that for visibility from that very busy road. MR. O'CONNOR-Between that building and the road is where Dennis has talked about the berm with the landscaping on the berm. MR. VALENTINE-Mike, that doesn't block the view of that building. MR. TRAVER-Between the berm and the landscaping, how tall would it be? The building is ten feet. So we have the berm, and on top of the berm you have the landscaping. How tall would the two of those be? MR. VALENTINE-Well there's a 320 elevation going in front of the building and a 320 elevation at the back of that berm as far as existing, but it doesn't show a finished elevation. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that would be two foot high contours. So that's about a four foot high berm and then the planting on that, and again, there is some existing vegetation that can remain in that area, particularly near where the culvert crosses through there, and you have also, within the County right of way before you get to the asphalt surface of the bike path as well. So I'm not sure you'll have much visibility of that first building. MR. VALENTINE-I'll go out on the site and look myself for the next time you come back. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I think that certainly we can supplement some planting in that corner area that will help improve that if it's felt to be deficient. I mean we could swing that berm back around the corner to about where the culvert pipe is. MR. VALENTINE-In my mind coming back to supplement what everybody's been talking about is the bike trail and to come along that corner, that would be, then that would block off some of that view point down there. Have you seen the vegetation on the bike trail? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's vegetation but it's not really. MR. VALENTINE-Yes, it's not vegetation. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. MAGOWAN-It's not gorgeous looking. MR. O'CONNOR-That's on the County property and we can't necessarily go on the County property. MR. VALENTINE-And I'm not, again, I'm not thinking about doing anything on the County. I'm saying on the property on the side. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think Dennis indicated we can bring that berm back to the point, if you look at the map, where it would reach the culvert, runs through that area. That would give it like a wing, and I think that accomplishes what you're trying to accomplish, trying to understand what you're looking for. MR. VALENTINE-Yes. That's one point, and the other thing I was looking at was even the driveway entrance into that office, you know, both sides of radii there for the driveway entrance. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, right, in this stretch. We've got some in that area on the south side of the road, south side of Duke Drive. Are you saying on the north side as well? MR. VALENTINE-I'm looking at the planting plan and I didn't see anything there. I'm looking at Sheet Five of Eight. MR. MAC ELROY-You don't see anything where? MR. VALENTINE-Right here, on the entrance drive in here on the other side. MR. MAC ELROY-The driveway that comes into the site itself, okay, so that's a suggested area on that curve. Let's see, coming in turning there, would there be any reason, I'm just thinking out loud here. So those, that approach could be some planting added to that area as well. MR. TRAVER-Other questions for the applicant from members of the Planning Board before we go to the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I'd like to go back to the overall Site Plan, Page One of Eight. If I'm looking at this correctly, I see a new curb cut for Lot Two. So are you going to abandon Duke Drive as a right of way? MR. MAC ELROY-It's in progress. For this application we indicated that there could be a new curb cut for the property to the north because Queensbury ordinance requires that there has to be adequate frontage, but the legal access is also from that frontage. So we've shown that on this plan to provide for Lot Two in the future. I submitted an application yesterday for an Area Variance that would allow access to the northern properties from Duke Drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. That would be my preference. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It only makes sense. I mean we've had meetings with Craig and Laura about this. It was just the progression of when you did it. It's not necessary until this project is approved. MR. HUNSINGER-When you talk about Lot One, what is the proposed new lot to the north? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, again, that's owned by Kubricky. There is frontage along Bay Road there. It's not currently used for access I don't believe in any way. It's just another tax parcel that can be accessed from the Lot Two access, but it also has the legal frontage and could be access if that lot ended up standing on its own for some other use. MR. O'CONNOR-If there was some plan developed to use that we'd have to come back for Site Plan for that lot as a standalone application. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-And before I just gloss over this, there is a Freshwater Wetlands permit also associated with this because the disturbance which is on the south side of Duke Drive, the grading and what not, is still within 75 feet of the designated wetland which has been identified on the other side. So it's sort of a technicality, but it's also part of the process. We're seeking that approval as well. (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. DIXON-On your grading plan, I'm looking at Page Four of Eight, so you've got a spillway on the southern part there. Do you know how that compares to the bike trail? Because I know people will be traveling the bike trail in the springtime. Is it really the catch basin and will it hold enough? MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. It's, that's a requirement to have this positive relief from the stormwater basin. MR. DIXON-Do you know what the elevation of the bike trail is compared to that? MR. MAC ELROY-1 don't know that offhand. I guess the answer is I don't know the relative difference in that elevation. MR. DIXON-Where were you saying on putting snow? I didn't see a spot where you were pushing snow in there. MR. MAC ELROY-There would be, in that basin area as well as along the edges of the, the outside edges of the property, along the front edges of the property, there's opportunity to store in those areas as well. MR. DIXON-Knowing that it is kind of flat and low in there, I don't know if that catch basin, if it should be a little lower or I'm sure you've got your experts that have been looking at it and figuring it out, as well as a catch basin at the right of way at the front of the building there. It looks like it does drop a little bit. MR. MAC ELROY-The catch basin at the front of the building. MR. DIXON-Yes, it kind of looks like a buffer between the right of way and the north road that you've got in front of your buildings. MR. MAC ELROY-Within, between Duke Drive and the road for the self storage? MR. DIXON-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. That's an area also of management. MR. DIXON-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-So if we go plantings down along the fence line, because you really are on the line of the County with that fence, and then you're going to put snow removal. So from the planning aspects, if I get it right, you're going to kind of wrap it around the front towards Duke Drive a little, too? Mike, is that what you were asking? Your berm. MR. MAC ELROY-The berm with some planting. MR. MAGOWAN-You're going to wrap it around more toward Duke Drive, to kind of cut off the view coming up Bay, and then you're going to wrap it around the back more toward the fence line there, to people going north on Bay, you know, kind of like, almost like a horseshoe. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that could be done, or, I think what you were talking about was the corner of the, the radius corner of. MR. VALENTINE-That's what I was thinking of, yes, just the radii at the entrance drive as a visual block from that, and I wasn't really thinking of wrapping a berm there. I was just saying for the radii. MR. MAGOWAN-Now are you thinking of bringing it to the south side, too? Along the bike trail? MR. MAC ELROY-Further along the property line? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. Horseshoe it right around. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think what he's talking about is doing an extension of the berm that's shown parallel to Bay Road like at a 45 degree angle, and bringing it back to probably the middle of the 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) area that's shown for the parking. That's the berm extension, that's the landscaping he's talking about there. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And then if you want to go down the service road where it enters into the site, Mr. Valentine has talked about putting plantings on each side of the entrance way. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and then, oh and just there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is Light Industrial. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. Now what do you think about along the fence there, along the bike path? MR. HUNSINGER-You missed that conversation. MR. MAGOWAN-Right along that whole area there. MR. MAC ELROY-That could be supplemented with some trees here or there along there. Yes. I mean, I don't know how extensive that needs to be, but. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, it's a huge focal point there. MR. MAC ELROY-I still think that there is a certain amount of vegetation that exists. I mean I looked at it again tonight. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I understand that, but once you put that fence right down there, what are they going to do, just come in with a post hole digger and just plop a fence and then just kind of weave it through the? MR. MAC ELROY-There would be disturbance up to that point, yes, but there's some existing vegetation on the County right of way that exists. That's not going to go away. MR. VALENTINE-How much are you going to keep and what kind of vegetation it is, that's just something that you have to see in the field. I don't know if it's going to be sufficient. You ride that or you walk it, whatever, you start to see what's there and then on the other side it's pretty scrubby, too. So I don't know if picking up that existing vegetation is going to be helpful for what Brad's talking about there or extending down the fence line. MR. MAC ELROY-There's discussion about using a vegetation like bittersweet that helps to screen the fence and then grows higher. It's something that's been used elsewhere, some of John's project. It would help screen. MR. MAGOWAN-It's not invasive is it? It's not one of those invasive vines that we have in Glens Falls? It just takes over everything. JOHN DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-It fills the fence very well. Whatever you take out is going to grow back on that fence. MR. TRAVER-All right. Anything else before we take public comment? MR. DIXON-Can I just throw out one other concern? MR. TRAVER-Sure. MR. DIXON-1 know we did one other project similar to this and we were talking about the chain link fence, would we want to require, it looks like it's just the regular chain link fence. Would we want to require it to be a black fence? MR. DEEB-That's because they had neighbors. MR. TRAVER-That was also because it was in a forest setting. MR. DIXON-On the side facing the bike trail, is there anything, or is that just? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. DEEB-I think that's a different situation. MR. TRAVER-1 think that the vine that you suggested probably would be more appropriate in that case, myself. MR. DEEB-Yes, I think that would be fine what John proposed. That would be better than a fence I think. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let's open the public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-We were just talking about the lighting. You gave us the pole descriptions but you kept saying the average lumens on the site. MR. MAC ELROY-No, there's not a photometric plan provided to date. If necessary it certainly can be provided to the Town. We've described the fixtures and indicated that all lighting will comply with the Town Code with the maximum of one horizontal foot candle. MR. DEEB-Okay. That was a concern. MR. HUNSINGER-Well we were just talking about it and my comment was I don't think there's anything around there that would be bothered by it. You have a law office across the street and then you have a bar. MR. MAC ELROY-The old Niagara Mohawk easement or right of way. MR. DEEB-But that would be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-All right. Well let's open the public hearing then and I will ask are there members of the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? If so, raise your hand. Yes, sir. We've got at least one individual that would like to speak. Come up to the table and introduce yourself and make your comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON BARRISFORD MR. BARRISFORD-Hi. I'm Don Barrisford, Queensbury, I live on Michigan Avenue in Queensbury. I know the bike trail, I know that area pretty well. The storage sheds would be an improvement, I believe, for eyesight anyway for that particular area. As far as the bike trail goes, you mentioned about the vegetation and the growth. There is a big culvert there. It's pretty much swamp land. I mean you were asking how high the bike trail was. I mean you could probably step off of it and be almost to your head, you know, right up to your neck at least. That's probably how deep. I wouldn't want to jump in and find out, but just by being on the bike trail and being familiar with it, I notice that. If you put a fence up, whatever they knock down, that swamp is going to go right back up where the fence is, and a bonus is with the lighting that you have that you're improving the bike trail with security for people that use that bike trail. You've got Hannaford over there. You've got the houses that, people use that bike trail to go to the store and come back from the store. So you're lighting the bike trail. So if you put too much vegetation, trees or such, you're just blocking out, you're blocking out the bike trail and muggers, whatever, they love the dark, but if you brighten up the bike trail, especially at night, people are using that, I think that would be an improvement, too, for people that use the bike trail. They would like to see that, but I just thought that that would help you out, just from knowing the area and I think it would be an improvement, and I'm all for it. Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Yes, sir. DEREK LLOYD MR. LLOYD-Derek Lloyd. I'm the General Manager of Duke Concrete. We're all for having neighbors to the front half of the industrial park. Really kind of spruce up the entrance there and maybe draw some more people in. I would hope that they would consider using some of our retaining wall product in their work, but, yes, the swamp is going to reclaim your fence. We cut it down every spring and it's re-grown by the fall, but, yes, we're all for it. So thank you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? Laura, are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is a SEQR Unlisted. So we do have to do a SEQR review. There was a Short Form provided. Does anyone have any environmental concerns that are not addressed in the plan? I'm not hearing any. I guess we're ready to entertain a SEQR motion, then. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 62-2018 & FWW 7-2018 The applicant proposes site development with nine new self-storage buildings including site work, grading, stormwater management, lighting and landscaping. Project occurs within 100 ft. of wetland will need wetland permit. Building 1 —3,000 sq. ft., 2- 4,500 sq. ft., 3- 6,600 sq. ft., 4 — 6,600 sq. ft., 5— 6,600 sq. ft., 6— 6,600 sq. ft., 7— 5,100 sq. ft., 8 —3,900 sq. ft. and 9—2,400 sq. ft. totaling 45,300 sq. ft. Project includes porous pavement between buildings and asphalt on drive aisle. Building 1 will include a 10' x 30' office area with water and sewer connections. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction and construction within 100 ft. of a wetland shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 62-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 7-2018 BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. So next we move on to the Site Plan itself. We know that we have some outstanding information. Do we feel that we can condition the lighting and the additional landscaping? Or do we need to have the applicant return with additional information? Do members feel they can move forward? MR. DEEB-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. MAGOWAN-1 feel confident with the gentlemen that are proposing this. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we just need to make sure we have all the conditions. On the lighting, Laura, if we indicate that a lighting plan would be submitted that would be Code compliant? MRS. MOORE-Lighting plan or a summary of information that indicates what the lighting foot candles for the average set is. MR. TRAVER-Photometric plan. MRS. MOORE-It would be helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Well they do have it right on the Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-Right, but the idea is to find out what the entire site is as a whole. MR. MAC ELROY-Typically what's produced is a plan that shows the foot candle ratings in every, in a grid. MR. HUNSINGER-And that's what we're used to seeing. MR. TRAVER-And the average would be approximately one foot candle? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Well that's the requirement for an industrial project. It's 2.5 foot candles for a commercial project. We're in a Commercial Light Industrial zone. So whatever we fall under, maybe it's half the difference or something. MRS. MOORE-Right. So as I noted it's 2.5. So I guess my understanding is it wouldn't be any higher than 2.5. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-2.5 or lower. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we've got that. The next was the modification to the landscaping. We need to be, do we want to be real specific or do we want to, I know we had some quite extensive discussions with the applicant. Do we want to indicate landscaping improvements as discussed or do we want to have numbers and types and species and? MR. VALENTINE-1 don't think we need the detail. I think Dennis will be back here again with another project. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VALENTINE-So we'll see him again. MR. TRAVER-That's a sort of Irish way of putting it I guess. All right. So additional landscaping and plantings as discussed. MRS. MOORE-1 guess I would be somewhat specific that you've identified it, the front berm is being extended to the southern area of the parking lot or along that line, and that the entrance. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think we said probably at about a 45 degree angle to the end of it would be approximately the middle of the spaces shown for parking next to the office. MR. VALENTINE-So extending to the culvert. MR. O'CONNOR-To the culvert. MR. VALENTINE-And then the radii at the entrance. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Is it both sides or just the one side facing? MR. VALENTINE-1 was only looking at the one side, how it's going to be a visual. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. MAC ELROY-The western end of it, that's all. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no development north of the service road. MRS. MOORE-Right, and just as a note, the area along the bike path is approximately 500 feet. We mentioned the terminology bittersweet. Instead of bittersweet I would just confirm that it's a compliant. I just want to make sure that it's a compliant vegetation, whether it's a, bittersweet I think is a shrub, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a vine. MRS. MOORE-It's a vine, so a shrub or vine type item along, approximately 500 feet or sporadically, I don't, I apologize, I'm not a landscaper so this isn't my deal, but I think that there should be some description. MR. VALENTINE-We could shoot for Morning Glory and Clematis. MRS. MOORE-It doesn't matter to me. It just has to be compliant. MR. MAC ELROY-Just to correct that I think it's more like 400 feet, Laura. MRS. MOORE-That's fine, but I don't want to be stuck with, I mean we could talk about numbers, but I don't want to be stuck with numbers. MR. TRAVER-Okay. He's working on it. And then the only other thing that I'm aware of was the color to be earth tones as generally represented in the information provided. And, Laura, do you have a copy of this? MRS. MOORE-1 will. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I think it's sufficient to say earth tones. Okay. MR. DEEB-And what have we got planned for the bike path? MRS. MOORE-A compliant vegetation. MR. MAC ELROY-Non-invasive vine vegetation. MR. DEEB-Compliant vegetation. All right. I think I've got it. MR. TRAVER-All right. Let's have it. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 62-2018 & FWW 7-2018 BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board: Applicant proposes site development with nine new self-storage buildings including site work, grading, stormwater management, lighting and landscaping. Project occurs within 100 ft. of wetland will need wetland permit. Building 1 — 3,000 sq. ft., 2- 4,500 sq. ft., 3- 6,600 sq. ft., 4 — 6,600 sq. ft., 5 — 6,600 sq. ft., 6 — 6,600 sq. ft., 7 — 5,100 sq. ft., 8 — 3,900 sq. ft. and 9 — 2,400 sq. ft. totaling 45,300 sq. ft. Project includes porous pavement between buildings and asphalt on drive aisle. Building 1 will include a 10' x 30' office area with water and sewer connections. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & Chapter 94 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial construction and construction within 100 ft. of a wetland 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 09/18/2018 and continued the public hearing to 09/18/2018, when it was closed, 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) 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 09/18/2018; 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 62-2018 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 7-2018 BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE, 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; b) If applicable, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; d) If application was referred to engineering then Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; e) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements;- f) If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; c. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: i. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; ii. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required. g) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; h) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; i) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; j) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. k) This resolution is to be placed in its entirety on the final plans I) Photometric lighting plan to be submitted as part of the final Site Plan. m) Landscaping additions to be added to the Site Plan including front berm extended to a 45 degree angle to the culvert and entrance radius from the service road and compliant vegetation to be planted approximately 400 feet along the bike path. n) Colors to be earth tone. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right, and just to add to how long the process takes, I want to read you something, and you'll get a copy of this on letterhead, but in attempt to address unapproved development we're providing some extra reminders to approved applicants, and so I will read 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) this to you, and you'll get a copy of it. "With the approval of your project, you will receive a compliance letter from the Planning Department. It is vital that you read this letter carefully and call staff with any questions at once. They can be reached at (518) 761-8220. It is important to note the following: - The letter explains that the approval is only valid for one year and must be completed within that time. An extension may be requested by the applicant if request is made prior to one year. - The letter explains if an engineering sign-off is required, and if so, how many copies are required to be submitted for engineering review. - The letter informs the applicant how many final plans are to be submitted to planning staff. - The applicant is required to contact the Code Compliance Officer prior to the start of any project activity. - The letter informs the applicant that NO CHANGES to the project are to be made without consultin_g with the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator will review the proposed changes and determine if additional board review is required. Performance bonds may be requested." And you'll get a copy of that. Thank you very much. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right. Next on the agenda, also under New Business, Tracey Holdings, LLC, Site Plan 59-2018. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. TRACEY HOLDINGS, LLC. AGENT(S): PETER BLASIOLI. OWNER(S): GERALD W. TRACEY. ZONING: CLI. LOCATION: 280 CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES PAVING AN EXISTING 15,725 SQ. FT. AREA OF GRAVEL, WHERE IN PREVIOUS APPROVAL IT WAS TO REMAIN GRASS. EXISTING BUSINESS IS HEAVY DUTY TRUCK & EQUIPMENT SALES, SERVICE & RENTAL. THE APPLICANT INDICATES UPON PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN 2013 THE AREA EXISTED AS GRAVEL AND THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF AREA TO REMAIN GRASS. PURPOSE OF AREA IS TO ALLOW FOR DISPLAY OF VEHICLES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL SITE WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 11-89, SP 10-94, AV 32-04, SP 18-89, SUB 8-94, SP 10-94, AV 97-89, SUB 18-89. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: SEPTEMBER 2018. SITE INFORMATION: TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY. LOT SIZE: 3.93 ACRES/2.96 ACRES (TOTAL 6.89 ACRES). TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-82.1 & 82.2. SECTION: 179-3-040. AMY REYNOLDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. This applicant proposes to pave an existing 15,725 square foot area that's currently gravel where in a previous approval it was to remain grass. The existing business is heavy duty truck and equipment sales, service and rental. The applicant has indicated upon purchase of the property, I think the date is wrong. MS. REYNOLDS-It's 2017. MRS. MOORE-2017 the area was listed as gravel and they were not aware of it to remain as grass. The purpose is to allow the area for display of vehicles. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. REYNOLDS-Good evening. We are looking to, where our tractor trailers and equipment are parked on Corinth Road that we want to black out that section. MR. MAGOWAN-You've done a good job so far. MR. TRAVER-Fairly straightforward. So as I understand it there was a site plan, before you purchased the property there was a site plan I guess made and the direction was that this area that we're discussing this evening be lawn and the applicant decided that it needed to be, instead of being lawn they did some unapproved development and they decided to make it gravel. Right? MS. REYNOLDS-Correct. It is currently gravel. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-And when you purchased the property you were not aware that this unapproved development had taken place and that that was not an approved change to the site plan. MS. REYNOLDS-So we're just trying to make everything right. MR. TRAVER-So now that, and it was done essentially for the same purpose that you're here before us tonight because it was to display vehicles and so on. So now you're wanting to basically take it a step further and say it's already gravel, we want to just black top it and be done with it. Right? MS. REYNOLDS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I mean clarify if I've gotten it wrong. MS. REYNOLDS-Well it is correct. The only thing that I wanted to say, we did all these plans to blacktop. I'm not 1,000% sure we're going to blacktop. We may leave it as gravel for right now, but we just want to make sure that we have permission to do anything. MR. TRAVER-In case you want to blacktop it. Correct? MS. REYNOLDS-Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Well you would have, as you just heard a couple of minutes ago, your application is to blacktop it. So if you get an approval, you would have a year to blacktop it. If you decided to do it in that year, you blacktop it, you're all set. If you didn't make up your mind and a year is coming up and you want to extend permission to blacktop it because you might decide to still blacktop it, just not within a year, you just need to contact the Planning Department and request an extension to your approval, because if you let that year go by, now you're whatever approval hypothetically you might get tonight is gone. You'd have to start the process over again. You understand that? MS. REYNOLDS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Questions, comments from members of the Planning Board? MR. DEEB-Why wouldn't you want to come back later and ask for permission to do it instead of, why were you postponing it, or doing it now instead of postponing the request? MS. REYNOLDS-The plan was to blacktop it a while ago, and then we were told that we couldn't because it was green space, and so the owner now has decided he's not sure what he wants to do. MR. TRAVER-And it's already gravel. MS. REYNOLDS-And it's already gravel, and so the controller and I figured we should still see if we can get blacktop, we are allowed to do the blacktop. I can go back to Jerry and say we've been approved, you can have this many days to figure it out or else. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MS. GAG LIARDI-Excuse me, ma'am, could I get your name for the record? MS. REYNOLDS-Amy Reynolds. MR. TRAVER-I'm sorry, did I miss that? MS. REYNOLDS-Well it says Peter who is our controller. MR. DIXON-As far as, if it does get blacktopped, it's a very level piece of land. I'm not sure as far as drainage. MS. REYNOLDS-We do have a drain right there, toward the middle of the lot. I actually took pictures this morning if you want to see them. MR. TRAVER-Yes, there is an existing drywell, but we don't know if it works. MR. MAGOWAN-There wasn't a puddle when you came in this morning? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MS. REYNOLDS-There were no puddles. MR. DIXON-That's a good sign. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it is. MR. MAGOWAN-With that kind of equipment on it, I'd hate to see you blacktop. All it's going to do is, Dave's just going to tear it up. It's going to sink. MS. REYNOLDS-The one machine we're probably going to send back to Syracuse because it will heat up the blacktop. MR. MAGOWAN-Just to move that back to Syracuse would probably cost almost as much as the blacktop. MS. REYNOLDS-Well luckily we have our own equipment and our own tractor trailers. MR. MAGOWAN-But I mean to me I could see where, I mean that's some heavy equipment, sitting there back and forth. I can just see it settling down after a time and then you'll say why did we do that. MR. TRAVER-Even driving it around. I guess that's why there's some consideration to just leaving it. MR. MAGOWAN-1 thank you for coming in and asking for permission. MR. DIXON-1 see on the plan it had a note here, possible grass area if Board wants? MS. REYNOLDS-So we weren't sure, if you look at the picture at the bottom left, there's rocks. So we weren't sure if you guys would rather us have like a big square grass area I can put shrubbery. We didn't know. MR. TRAVER-Well certainly anything that you can landscape or add green space or whatever we would like. Even gravel is considered impervious. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. DEEB-I'm worried about the stormwater myself. MR. TRAVER-Yes, well there is a drywell that was put in with the intent to take care of drainage but we don't have confirmation that it works. MR. DEEB-Then you should have confirmation that it's functional. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we should maybe ask that they have somebody take a look at it, an engineer take a look at it and submit information. MRS. MOORE-its verification. Correct. MR. TRAVER-Verification that the drywell is functional. MS. REYNOLDS-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Regardless of whether you pave it or not. Simply, and that's for your own protection as well, because if you don't have good stormwater management that's going to lead to all kinds of problems that eventually they're going to pop up in an unwanted space. MR. DEEB-It's only going to affect it if she's going to blacktop it. It's up to her if she wants. MR. TRAVER-Well they're looking for approval so we can require. MR. DEEB-If she goes ahead with the blacktop. Never mind. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I really, I've been up and down the road and like you said the rocks look mean and tough like the machines. MR. HUNSINGER-I like the rocks, too. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. MAGOWAN-A little color up there and some mulch and a little bit of grass here and there in between would, I think, set you apart from those other places. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, put your shrubs between the rocks. MS. REYNOLDS-We can absolutely. MR. DIXON-Look across the street, Hudson Headwaters did that, too. If you can mimic something of that, I think that would be very pleasing to look at. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So, and we do have a public comment on this, too, but does anybody have any additional comments for the applicant before we open the public hearing? We also have SEQR on this. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Planning Board on this application? I'm not seeing any hands. Are there any written comments, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. TRAVER-There are not. Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TRAVER-This is SEQR Unlisted so we have a SEQR process that we need to go through. It is impervious now. So paving it would not change stormwater. In addition to that, we would be asking for an engineering review of the existing. MRS. MOORE-So what we've had other applicants do versus, you can have an engineering review, is to have an engineer verify that the stormwater system works. It doesn't necessarily need to go to Chazen's review. It means the applicant has hired an engineer and an engineer has verified that the system is working. MR. TRAVER-That the drywell is functional. Because it might need to be maintained after all this time or whatever. Okay. Yes. All right. So if we do that, that also would have an impact on the environmental process. So with that in mind, does anyone have any environmental concerns? No? Then why don't we entertain the SEQR resolution. RESOLUTION GRANTING A NEGATIVE SEQR DEC. SP # 59-2018 TRACEY HOLDINGS, LLC The applicant proposes paving an existing 15,725 sq. ft. area of gravel, where in previous approval it was to remain grass. Existing business is heavy duty truck & equipment sales, service & rental. The applicant indicates upon purchase of property in 2013 the area existed as gravel and they were not aware of area to remain grass. Purpose of area is to allow for display of vehicles. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial site work shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 59-2018 TRACEY HOLDINGS, LLC. Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption. As per the resolution prepared by staff. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) 1. Part II of the Short EAF has been reviewed and completed by the Planning Board. 2. Part III of the Short EAF is not necessary because the Planning Board did not identify potentially moderate to large impacts. Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 18th of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have, next is the Site Plan resolution and we talked about requiring an engineer to examine the drywell and stormwater system to confirm that it functions and provide that documentation to the Planning Department. I don't know that we need to condition the green space. It sounds like the applicant is going to do that anyway. MRS. MOORE-So right now it says if the Planning Board wants. So if the Planning Board wants that green space green, then you should confirm that, yes, we would like this green space as green, or should be green. You also mentioned some shrubs in the middle. I'm not certain if you want to put that as part of your motion. There should be shrubs within the display area. MR. TRAVER-WE could just say that the front space is to be green. All right. So we'll add the front area to be green space and let the applicant manage the gardening. MS. REYNOLDS-We'll make it pretty. MR. TRAVER-And then I guess we're ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 59-2018 TRACEY HOLDINGS, LLC The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes paving an existing 15,725 sq. ft. area of gravel, where in previous approval it was to remain grass. Existing business is heavy duty truck & equipment sales, service & rental. The applicant indicates upon purchase of property in 2013 the area existed as gravel and they were not aware of area to remain grass. Purpose of area is to allow for display of vehicles. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3- 040 of the Zoning Ordinance, new commercial site work 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 09/18/2018 and continued the public hearing to 09/18/2018, 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 09/18/2018; 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 59-2018 TRACEY HOLDINGS, LLC; Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption; Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following conditions: 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) 1) Waivers request granted: 2) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. a) If application was referred to engineering, then engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; b) Final approved plans should have dimensions and setbacks noted on the site plan/survey, floor plans and elevation for the existing rooms and proposed rooms in the building and site improvements, c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; d) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; e) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; f) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; g) Resolution to be placed on final plans in its entirety and legible. h) Engineer to examine the drywell and certify functionality, and submit it to Town Planning Staff. i) Front area to be green space with additional landscaping. Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: MR. DEEB-In addition, H., engineer to examine the drywell and certify functionality, and submit it to the Town Engineer. MR. TRAVER-Not the Town Engineer. The Town Planning Staff. MR. DEEB-The Town Planning Staff. MR. TRAVER-Right. They don't have to go to the Town Engineer. MRS. MOORE-Right. Once we receive it, if we determine that it needs to go on to the Town Engineer we'll determine it at that point. MR. TRAVER-Right, but the applicant doesn't submit it to the Town Engineer. She's going to give it to you. MR. DEEB-Semantics. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. That's all it is. AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE MR. TRAVER-All right. You're approved. MS. REYNOLDS-Thank you so much. MR. TRAVER-With that, I'm going to read you something, and you'll receive this on Town letterhead as well, but "With the approval of your project, you will receive a compliance letter from the Planning Department. It is vital that you read this letter carefully and call staff with any questions at once. They can be reached at (518) 761-8220. It is important to note the following: - The letter explains that the approval is only valid for one year and must be completed within that time. An extension may be requested by the applicant if request is made prior to one year. - The letter explains if an engineering sign-off is required, and if so, how many copies are required to be submitted for engineering review. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) - The letter informs the applicant how many final plans are to be submitted to planning staff. - The applicant is required to contact the Code Compliance Officer prior to the start of any project activity. - The letter informs the applicant that NO CHANGES to the project are to be made without consultin_g with the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator will review the proposed changes and determine if additional board review is required. Performance bonds may be requested." So good luck. MS. REYNOLDS-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-All right, and next we have a Discussion Item. This concludes our regular agenda. We do have a Discussion Item, Columbia Development this evening, Discussion Item 4-2018. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION ITEM 4-2018 SEAR TYPE: UNLISTED. COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT. AGENT(S): GAVIN VUILLAUME, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN. OWNER(S): SARATOGA HOSPITAL. ZONING: CI-18. LOCATION: 124 MAIN STREET. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,000 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. SITE WORK INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING, ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND OTHER ASSORTED ITEMS. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD MAYBE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 11-1990, SP 18-1990; SEVERAL BPS. WARREN CO. REFERRAL: N/A. LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-5. SECTION: 179-9-040. GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TRAVER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a new 17,000 sq. ft. medical office. Site work includes demolition of the existing building, environmental remediation, stormwater management and other additional items. Part of the project involves working with the Town and County in regards to the right of way land. This also involves working with our Water and Wastewater Department because there's a water line easement in the area that is to be purchased. In addition what I've noted, I've referenced the design standards and then I also noted there may be some variance and site plan issues. Under variances may be needed for the setback to the center line of the road if less than 50 feet, and one variance for less than 100 feet to the Northway and Site Plan details for the right of way property to be provided and then an additional Site Plan item would be bus access for public transportation. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. VUILLAUME-Good evening, everyone. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design, representing the applicant, Columbia Development. I'd just like to start off by thanking the Board for giving us this opportunity to present this project before we bring it formally in front of the Town and make a formal application. A lot of times these meetings are very beneficial for us to understand some of the things that you folks would be looking for before we get into the more nitty gritty details of the Site Plans. So really for tonight I'll just give you a quick brief summary of the project, and then after that I'd be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. VUILLAUME-So, again, the project's fairly straightforward. It's the old Carl R's property. It's approximately one acre in size. I can see Laura's got it on the board. We've got about 150 feet of frontage along Main Street and about 460 along Big Boom Road. I saw you had an area on there before, just quickly so they can kind of see what it looks like today. So this is what it looks like today, obviously I think most of you know what it looks like. You've got the existing structure that sits at the front of the property. The whole thing's pretty much paved. There's some gravel area in the back. This is all asphalt. There's some storm drainage that's centered in the property. There is some parking along Main Street. I don't think there's any access way there now. MR. TRAVER-No, there is now. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. VUILLAUME-As of this date, I think we did all that recently. So the only access, there are several access points, obviously, on Big Boom Road. So that's pretty much it for the existing conditions. So what we're proposing is the new 17,000 square foot, two-story office building that would be located at the front of the property. If you could go to the site plan first real quick, and, you know, essentially we're looking to locate that structure at the beginning of the, or at the front end of the property. We would have its frontage facing the majority of Main Street. We would also have a nice presentation of the front of the building along Big Boom Road. However, the main access in and out of the building would be towards the rear, and the main reason for that is obviously that the parking and all the drop off areas for patients and visitors would be at the rear of the parcel, and we'll get into that a little bit later because that comes into play with some of the variances that Laura had mentioned, but just continuing with the overall layout, we would maintain an attractive streetscape along Main Street, and in addition what we'd like to do is potentially purchase, it's about .15 acres here, which is an additional right of way which is currently owned by the Town, and the applicant's looking to hopefully purchase that from the Town in order to create more of a green area along that corner area. We are a little short on the overall green space for the zoning in the district and this would definitely get us a lot closer to that minimum 30% required. Again along there we would now extend the existing sidewalk to wrap around Big Boom and bring it in to the main entrance of the structure. Some of the other features that we would be showing in further renditions of the site plan would be a service area along this edge of the building. Again, the main entrance would be here. The secondary entrance would be to the rear. This would all be green space in this vicinity here. We would have some handicap parking spaces shown as close as we could get to the back of the building, and some trash enclosures towards the rear. The total number of parking spaces I believe that we're proposing at this point is 75. With regards to existing sewer and water, there are existing sewer and water services at the front of the parcel. We would be connecting to those utilities. I spoke a little bit about the stormwater. There is stormwater, I believe there's a catch basin here. There's also one in this vicinity and one towards the front. Most everything looks like it goes out to the Main Street right of way and then runs along Main Street and ultimately discharges at those existing storm basins. That's where we would like to ultimately discharge the stormwater, but we are anticipating on doing some on-site stormwater management, either through possibly some porous pavement or some type of underground infiltration. That would be under the parking. MR. TRAVER-The soils are good there, but I think you're going to find that the stormwater system that is there now is not functioning as it should. MR. VUILLAUME-Probably not. MR. TRAVER-It's very old and it may just need some maintenance. There may be some of those structures that can be salvaged or something, but that's going to be one of your challenges. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. One of our challenges is going to be to work with the DPW and try to get that all worked out. We understand that, and so I guess that concludes us getting to the point with the variances that would be required, and again, due to the CI-18 requirements we're here trying to take the building as far forward as possible, and that, therefore, is going to create some variances. I think I had noted on our plan that we had like 19 feet from our building to the right of way, but I think Laura in here Staff Notes mentioned that the frontage is measured at the center line. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-I'll have to re-evaluate that because it's CI-18 versus Main Street. MR. VUILLAUME-Main Street. I know. We're kind of right in between the two zoning districts there. We're in the Cl. We're all by ourselves in almost like a little oasis there. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VUILLAUME-And everything around us is Main Street zoning. When the architect first looked at the site they looked at all the Main Street zoning and thought that's what we were supposed to be adhering to. Unfortunately that's not the case. We are under the CI-18, and again, we do realize we're going to need a variance probably along this frontage. Also along this frontage, and obviously along the Northway. So that's pretty much all I have for tonight's presentation. If you want to just quickly look at the building I guess, Laura, we could talk about that. MR. TRAVER-Well I think one of the things we can certainly, as we start this process one of the things we can certainly agree upon is that this is, what you're proposing is a vast improvement 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) to what's there now. What are the services that you're going to be providing, you're proposing at this site? MR. VUILLAUME-Well that'll all depend on the tenants that would be there. They're working with several different tenants at this point. It would be medical for sure. It would be medical offices. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Do you anticipate that they would be administrative or service related offices? MR. VUILLAUME-It could be probably both. MR. TRAVER-Both. Okay. That's something, as you develop your plan going forward, that would be something important for us to begin thinking about because obviously in terms of. MR. VUILLAUME-Access into the site and things like that. MR. TRAVER-Well not only access but, you know, is there going to be medications, radiation, microwaves, you know, oxygen, all of that kind of thing. Even, you know, the parking issues. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, making sure we have enough parking. We definitely give you some more information. MR. TRAVER-I appreciate you'll be providing that. MR. VALENTINE-Does their acquisition impact the Town right of way on that road, Gavin? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, it does in a way. I mean we're really hoping to get this additional land. We can make the building work if we don't. The original sketch that the architect prepared did not include that parcel. It came to our attention actually when we first met with the Town that that property, I think somebody was looking at purchasing that at another time. So we decided that we would try to take advantage of it, but it's not totally dependent on the purchase of that land. MR. DIXON-Since it's discussion purposes only, what do you see as an impact of your use to some of the established businesses around here, Hudson Headwaters, Glens Falls Irongate? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, obviously they probably are not going to want us to come in. I don't know, again, how many different types of businesses or medical practices you have in Queensbury. I'm sure there's very many. This will be, again, something that would be needed at some point. MR. DIXON-Is the first floor being planned at this point do you know for MRI, CAT Scan, x-ray? MR. VUILLAUME-I really don't know if they've done a lot of interior work, design at this point, but certainly we would to provide you more. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have an idea at this point what the frontage on Main Street will look like? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. As far as the frontage along Main Street, we can make it look like a front. This doesn't show it. That's the rear, but the frontage obviously we can make it look like a front to give is a streetscape. You could put some sitting areas out front, something like that, but the main entrance would be towards the rear of the property, but we could come up with another rendering of the front when we make a formal submission. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's a beautiful old building. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, the character is there. We just really kind of have to fine tune it based on who's moving in. MR. TRAVER-How do you envision the timeline moving forward? I mean obviously you're waiting to identify new tenants, but do you have a vision, perhaps a goal, in terms of how soon you'd be back before us? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Columbia Development would like to build this building in 2019. Sol would assume that they would continue to look for tenants. Once they have it fully occupied obviously that's probably when they would pull the trigger and construct the building. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. VUILLAUME-They would be owning the building and leasing it out to whoever decides to go there. MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we can look to the construct, perhaps, in the Spring of 2019. MR. VUILLAUME-At the earliest. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Very good. Do you have any questions for us? MR. VUILLAUME-Really just procedure wise. Now I understand we'll be making a formal application for site plan. At what point do we go in front of the Zoning Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, what you're going to need to do is keep Laura busy. You're going to have to spend some time with her making sure that your application is complete and at that phase and Laura and her staff and the Zoning Administrator will review your application once they have the specifics and they can put it into context, and they will make a formal determination of what, if any, variances you need, and then the variances are a Zoning Board of Appeals issue. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. No I understand that. Do we go back in front of you folks first or right to the Zoning Board? MRS. MOORE-You'll come back for a Planning Board recommendation. MR. VUILLAUME-Planning Board for a recommendation. MR. TRAVER-Yes, typically, you know, for your variances. We will take a look, then, at your more refined project and we would be thinking of the, not in terms of Site Plan at that stage, but rather for the variances that you're requesting, how do we see those impacts and what kinds of, if any, recommendations do we want to make to the Zoning Board. Then you would go before the, formally go before the Zoning Board and they would grant or deny or modify the variances that you have, and then once you have all of that in place, then sort of the, hopefully the last stage would be the actual Site Plan Review, and that's where we look at things like your parking spaces. MR. VUILLAUME-Good. Great. MR. TRAVER-It hopefully will be a fairly smooth, it seems like a fairly smooth straightforward project, despite the variances. MR. DEEB-You're probably looking at three more meetings. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. VUILLAUME-No problem. Hopefully not as late as tonight, but you never know. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Mr. VUILLAUME-Okay. Well I appreciate all your time and thank you very much for giving us some valuable input. MR. TRAVER-Well we appreciate the heads up and the information you provided is going to be giving us food for thought as we look forward to seeing a more formal presentation. MR. VUILLAUME-Great. Thank you very much. MR. DEEB-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-That concludes our agenda. Do we have any other business before the Planning Board for tonight? I guess we can entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEEB-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18 , 2018, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 09/18/2018) Duly adopted this 18th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Valentine, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shafer MR. TRAVER-We stand adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Traver, Chairman 62