Loading...
04-16-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 15-2013 Tribals, LLC 1. TOWN BOARD LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 296.9-1-2 Subdivision No. 5-2012 LARIC Development, LLC 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 &7.1 Site Plan No. 12-2013 William&Carol Merritt S. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.17-1-38 Site Plan No. 8-2013 CRM Housing Dev., Inc. (Cont'd Pg. 18) 7. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.9-1-28.1 Site Plan No. 10-2004 Luzerne Holding, Inc. 8. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.2 Site Plan No. 13-2013 Jason Kenyon, Partner; 14. Kenyon Pipeline Inspection Tax Map No. 303.15-1-32 Site Plan No. 14-2013 John Carr 33. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-58.1 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. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday April 16, 2013. I will call the meeting to order, and before we get into the regular agenda, I would like to pause for a moment of silence in honor of our colleague who passed away this past month, Don Sipp. Thank you everyone. The first order on the agenda is approval of minutes for February 19th and February 26th, 2013. Would anyone like to move those? APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 19, 2013 February 26, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19TH AND FEBRUARY 26TH, 2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-We have one item listed, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention. For members of the audience, there are copies of the agenda on the back table. We have one item scheduled under Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 15-2013 TRIBALS: PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER TOWN BOARD REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF SEQR REVIEW MR. HUNSINGER-Laura and I had a question on that. It wasn't clear to me if they were taking the Lead Agency for the zoning change or for the site plan as well? It wasn't clear in the notes. MRS.MOORE-I believe it's cumulative. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Because there's a project pending,it's for everything. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I wanted to make sure. Okay. There is a motion in our package, if anyone would like to move that. RESOLUTION RE: TOWN BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT TRIBALS, LLC 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE REQUEST OF THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION 163-2013 DATED APRIL 1. 2013 TRIBALS. LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Now what will be the sequence? Is it coming back here in May for Site Plan Review? MRS.MOORE-It's on the agenda for May. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I thought. MRS. MOORE-Whether there's still, if there's Town Board items to resolve during that month, you know,you may be tabling it again,but right now it's on our agenda for May. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thanks. We also have a new item under Administrative Items, which is LARIC Development, Subdivision 5-2012. I don't know if the applicant wants to come forward. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE I LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 58.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 36 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 TO 2.52. PROPOSAL INCLUDES INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN SHERMAN AVENUE AND LUZERNE ROAD AS WELL AS BOULEVARD ENTRANCE OFF OF LUZERNE ROAD. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR REVIEW, AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 52-12, SB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 58.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-3 &7.1 SECTION CHAPTERA-183 179-3-040(A)(3)(b) STEFANIE BITTER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-It was brought to; I guess you realized that today, that there was a parcel that wasn't advertised for the public hearing? MRS.MOORE-It was under discussion. MS. BITTER-Right. What had happened was there's a parcel that was intended, or always supposed to have been merged with the grand parcel,but has remained out in its open. So we will be merging that so that the notice will be corrected. When I was speaking to Laura, and this is a request that we're making tonight, is that if this could possibly get tabled to next Tuesday's meeting, because that will, with the merger it'll correct the notice in the paper, and then we can proceed to issue the notice to the individuals within 500 feet because that only has to be done within five days pursuant to your Code. So it would still be timely, and because this matter has been pending for almost a year,it would be very much appreciated if we could try to stay on track this month,if at all possible. MR. KREBS-How does next month look, I mean next week look? MRS.MOORE-We have a large agenda next week. MS. BITTER-I understand we'd be at the end,and we'll speak quickly. MRS. MOORE-And Staff still needs to confirm that that is the appropriate procedure to follow or a procedure that could be followed in regards to merging the parcels, and that five day notification. It's not entirely clear. So I need to confirm that that's a process,and so even if you do table it to next week, it's possible that it may be tabled again, just because that notice has to be completed. So, if the Board,it's up to the Board. You do have a large agenda next week. MR. HUNSINGER-And there are some issues on this development, most notably the Phase I archeological survey. I don't know if you want to comment on that. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. CENTER-I believe we're still working with SHPO in regards to that. I think that the, we've got the answer in regards to buildings, and the Phase, the Phase I portion, we've had quite a few discussions in regard to this,is it's been developed all around the parcel, and the real,the next bite of the apple, if you will, in regard to Phase I and SHPO, really comes in when we file, when we get approval and we file for the Notice of Intent, then DEC and SHPO discuss how much further, if anything needs to be done further, if there is any known or familiar historical or archeological significances on the lot, in any areas, and from everything we've reviewed, there are none in any of those developed areas all the way around us. There's no streams that go through it. There's no historic trails. It's not like we're building next to the canal or Fort William Henry type of area. So the, to go through the SEQR portion, I think it can be fairly well stated that there is no historical significant archeological or building issues with that lot. I know SEQR, SHPO, you know, as we've forwarded the e-mail for SEQR purposes, SHPO don't get into the review of individual projects just for SEQR. So they don't go until the project's further along, and unless there is a historical significance, archeological or, you know, structural, and I think,you know, to get through the SEQR process, I think everybody here is fairly knowledgeable of that area, and everything that's been developed around it. There hasn't been any, you know, anything of historical significance on all four sides of that parcel, and it's not like there's. You know, I was out there today doing test pits, and,you know,it's fairly thick woods except for one dirt bike trail that kind of meanders around the edges of the parcel. That's about it. Other than that,there's no streams that go through it. It kind of goes in on itself in certain areas, and it's, there's nothing out there that would deem to be, you know, the potential of having historical significance, you know, buried underground, and I think that's the intent of SEQR is to look for those things, and talking about it with Mr. Steves and going through the SEQR process and looking at that is,you kind of have to have a reason to get into Phase I,if there's something that was known in that area of historical significance. MR. FORD-What do you anticipate would be the reason for the delay? MR.CENTER-The reason for what delay? MR. FORD-With the clarification about historical significance and that? MR. CENTER-I think we've tried to get an answer from SHPO and they really didn't give a straight answer. MRS. MOORE-Right now what I have on file is information by the applicant to share with SHPO, and so that conversation I'll start back up again tomorrow with SHPO in regards to the Phase I information and I've requested clarification. The relationship is that I guess in the early months of January the Board passed resolutions indicating that any SHPO requests would come from the Town to SHPO directly. Therefore there's this ongoing communication between the applicant, SHPO and the Town, so that we can coordinate and get an answer back to the Board in regards to whether,what requirements SHPO needs. Does that answer your question? It's ongoing. MR. FORD-Good luck to getting that resolved in a week. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board? MR. KREBS-I'd like to move it to next month, I mean next week. We have way too many organizations in this country that hold up progress constantly. I mean,this should be a very simple process for us. It's the same as the rest of the surrounding developments, except that it's going to add a cross which I think provides for traffic to move across and if you have a fire or an emergency, you have better access to it. We've looked at this before. If a State agency can't get back to us within a certain amount of time,we just ought to ignore them. So, I'm going to make a motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 5-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE LARIC DEVELOPMENT MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Tabled to April 23, 2013. Duly adopted this 16th day of April,2013,by the following vote: MRS.MOORE-I'll add that pending notification procedures are met. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it possible to have the notice published in time? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MRS.MOORE-I don't know. I'll know tomorrow. MR. CENTER-If we can move forward,that's just our request is if we can get everything done in that amount of time,we'd like that opportunity. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The only issue that I see is, I don't know how many people came this evening intending to speak during the public hearing? This is for LARIC Development. A couple of people. Will you be able to attend the meeting next week? My question is should we get these people on the record now,since they're here. MR. MAGOWAN-Since they're here, I think it's only fair. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-The purpose of the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comments to the Board. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website. So I would ask anyone wishing to address the Board if they would speak their name for the record, and speak into the microphone so that the tape can be deciphered. Sir, do you want to be first? And I would just ask that you address your comments or questions to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN RILEY MR. RILEY-I'm John Riley at 56 Burnt Hills Drive. The first thing I wonder is what proposal we're looking at. There are two maps on file, one is for, I believe, 32 parcels, and another is for 49. So if it's for 49, I think you're ahead of the process. We haven't had time to review that and the meeting, the notice says 32. So are we looking at 49 parcels in there or 32? MRS.MOORE-Thirty-six. MR. RILEY-Thirty-six. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. RILEY-We're looking at 36. So the last map filed is? MRS.MOORE-Could I clarify that? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE- Okay. There's three maps that show different lot sizes. One's one that can meet the zoning requirements. One that shows half acres and then there's one that shows the 36 that is proposed. So the applicant provided options available to the Board to review, but they are only proposing the 36,but they did provide options for the Board to review during the review period. MR. RILEY-Okay. Just a couple of other points, and I've been here before. I did get around to as many neighbors as I could. I knocked on every door, with the exception of one house that didn't want to sign a petition; everybody's universally opposed to this connector road. I think it's fair to look at the history over the last 10 years that I've been here at least. There's no other example in Town where this type of cut through has been put through and to do something without looking at the traffic impact I think is somewhat negligent on the Town's part. At no point am I saying that we're opposed to the development of that property,but the connector road, as I mentioned the last time I was here, you know, if we had 10% of the traffic that is on either end, that would be 1250 cars a day. I think any other development that was going through, that was going to divide a neighborhood and put that kind of traffic would raise your eyebrows significantly. So I think it's something that really should be looked at. The cost of connecting Luzerne and Sherman, it's never, well, let me back up. There've been several other developments over the past 15 or 20 years that 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) have come close to connecting, and it has never been a priority with the Town at any of those points, most recently Richmond Hill came within 150 yards of being a full connection through, and that was allowed to terminate with a cul de sac not even leaving an opportunity for that pass through. So,without any of those things being pushed forward,to subject our neighborhood to this kind of severe traffic I think is really, it's a significant problem. There are alternatives, and I don't think it's ever been asked whether there were alternatives. I have heard that, you know, this is a free road, that a developer's willing to pay for the road, and that's exciting to the Town. However, that should not be a driving factor in whether or not you approve this development. I've heard that, and I've heard that repeatedly over the last 10 years. So if it's a cross factor, that should be stated, but I don't see that as outweighing the safety factor. I will get you a copy of the petition that I had circulated. It's original signature,so I can get that to you tomorrow,if you don't mind. I'd like to get a copy for myself. I guess that's it. I've been here a couple of times. I think you all know my viewpoint on this,and I'll let the other folks in the audience speak. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, did you want to be next? Okay. Is there anyone else that wanted to address the Board? Okay. We will hold the public hearing, and it will be open until next week when we reconsider this project. So I will close the public hearing,and we already tabled the project. Getting back to the regular agenda, we have three items, two items, I'm sorry, to make recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 12-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM & CAROL MERRITT AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 103 BIRDSALL ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING SEASONAL RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND NEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM. FURTHER, A NEW SEAWALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE EXISTING SEAWALL. HARD SURFACING AND FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE, FAR, SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 8-13, BOH 3,2013 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-38 SECTION 179-6-050, 179-4- 010, 179-5-050, 179-6-060 TOM JARRETT&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura,whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-In this project, the Planning Board is considering the relief requested and the mitigation measures to be implemented as part of the review to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board for this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, and with me at the table are Bill Merritt and Curt Dybas,the architect. Carol Merritt is also here tonight. Bill and Carol are the owners of property on Birdsall Road in the Town. It's located on the south end of Glen Lake, and they have a summer camp that they wish to replace with an upgraded structure and in order to do so,we need a number of variances, a number of Area Variances. Not to scare you,but there are a total of nine variances. They're numbered one through five,just to confuse you a little bit. The four stormwater variances will all be lumped together under Item Number Four. Only one of the variances is really self-created in our opinion. One variance is the shoreline setback, and we're actually improving that slightly by a few inches. One is a side line variance which we're also improving. We have four stormwater variances which are caused by our provision to provide stormwater management where none is existing right now, and permeability, lot coverage is non- compliant because of Birdsall Road which passes through the property. If it did not pass through the property,we would be compliant, and lastly the only one that we feel is self-created is the Floor Area Ratio,which is caused by a storage room underneath the garage that we could make compliant by leaving it at a less than five foot ceiling. We think it's impractical to use that storage at four foot eleven. We'd like to increase it to a full ceiling height, and we're asking for the Floor Area Ratio, what variance to give us a full height storage room. So,to go on with the project,we are providing a new wastewater system that has been designed and permitted, excuse me, a variance granted by the Town Board that will be permitted through the Building Department, and a new well which 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) would be drilled to the Department of Health standards for deep wells, and we think that the new house proposed by Curt and the Merritts is very attractive and Bill will hand out a rendering right now of what we're proposing for the structure, and as far as the site layout, Laura can pull up a rendering of the site. You will see that we're providing stormwater management along the lakeshore, basically a buffer along the lakeshore, which will provide plantings as well as capture runoff before it gets to Glen Lake, and we're preserving four mature trees along the lakeshore in front of the house, and planting additional trees towards the rear of the house next to Birdsall Road. So,to keep it short and sweet,I'll open it up to questions or comments from the Board. MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR.TRAVER-I think it's an improvement,obviously,to what's there. We're introducing stormwater management;we're moving the house further away from the lake. MR. KREBS-Putting in a new septic. MR.TRAVER-What's that? MR.KREBS-Putting in a new septic. MR. TRAVER-Yes., and I agree with the applicant. I think that the variances are reasonable in view of the parcel and site. Seems rather straightforward to me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think this is typical of what, you know, you see on some of the areas around the lake, and every time somebody does this, that's a plus as far as I'm concerned, because they have to do all the other things that don't exist, and are important. That floor area ratio, you can get around that, can't you,by just blocking off part of the cellar so that they can't get through it? I've seen that done. MR. DYBAS-We have to excavate, basically, right to the almost bare side road and put the foundation in. Because of the elevation change, the garage is at Birdsall Road elevation. So we end up with a void underneath it, and we figured this house is short on storage because we're in the floodplain and we can't use the crawl space for anything. So we figured the space below the garage is ideal for non-perishable, you know, steal and hard things that you want, it's not a place you put clothing or antiques. We could raise the floor two and a half feet over a portion of it and hit the 22%,but we'd be putting fill in the concrete slab in some place that is never going to be a habitable space. It's a hole in the ground. So we said since we've done all the work, for storage,we also have to use it for mechanical and electrical systems because we cannot put any of that in the crawl space, again,because we're in the floodplain. MR. FORD-How will this area be accessed? MR. DYBAS-There's a door in the plans where you come down the stairs on the outside,the covered stairway,there's a door on the bottom that goes into it,just like you would,like a walk-in basement. There's no connection to the house. MR. FORD-Only from the exterior. MR. DYBAS-That's correct. There's no connection to the house. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. DYBAS-And it will not be conditioned, per se. I mean, we'll have the, we have to have (lost words) and stuff in there, but will it be heated? No. It's not going to be a conditioned space. It would be like a basement. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments? MR. MAGOWAN-Are you going to close those stairwells and put a door at the top,too? MR. DYBAS-That would be covered but be open to the outside. I'm looking at the orientation. No walls,to the northwest it will be open. There will be a roof over it,though. We're not enclosing it. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I'm just thinking snow drifts and leaves. MR. DYBAS-Bill needs something to do while he's there. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-You are retired. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? Would anyone like to make a recommendation? RE: RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 12-2013 MERRITT The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes removal of existing seasonal residence and construction of a new single family dwelling with an attached garage and new wastewater system. Further, a new seawall will be constructed along the existing seawall. Hard surfacing and filling within 50 feet of the shoreline and construction on slopes greater than 15% in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from shoreline, FAR, setback and permeability requirements of the WR district. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to 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. 8-2013 FOR WILLIAM & CAROL MERRITT, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, which will improve the site from its existing condition. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR.JARRETT-Thank you. We'll see you next month. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I would bring to your attention the engineering comments and Staff comments for Site Plan Review. MR.JARRETT-Yes,we've looked at them and there's nothing substantial in our opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck. The next item on the agenda for Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals is CRM Housing Development, Inc. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2013 SEQR TYPE I CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION ABBEY LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX WITH 7-8 UNIT TWO STORY BUILDINGS ON A PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE. EACH UNIT WILL HAVE A 1 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE. MULTI-FAMILY IN AN MDR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEQR AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5- 2013 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 17.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-28.1 SECTION 179-9; 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, we've got a member of our team who's not here yet. So I would pass,if it's all right,until he gets here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have some items under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) SITE PLAN NO. 10-2004 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE II LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI- COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 240 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF AS-BUILT CONDITIONS INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE DETAILS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 18-05, BP'S LOT SIZE 3.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.2 SECTION 179-9-020 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-Under Summary I have, Applicant requests approval of an as built that differs from the original plan. These changes include Parking areas to remain gravel, Area previously noted as asphalt is binder pavement, Lawn areas previously noted were not installed and are covered with binder pavement, Vegetation/trees to remain are now noted on the plan where there is not a continuous vegetation/trees as previously noted. The Plans will need to be revised with a new title block indicating the revision and reference to the changes; the plans should also correct other notes such .....' proposed construction entrance", "asphalt", and all drawings should indicated it is a modification to the original site plan of 10-2004. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. CLUTE-How are you tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-Good,how are you? MR. CLUTE-Good. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. CLUTE-Larry Clute,representing Luzerne Holdings. MR. HUNSINGER-And could you just summarize why you're here this evening? MR. CLUTE-As Laura had stated, on the original submittal there were some places designated hard surface and then other places designated pervious stone, gravel. It didn't get it done exactly to that specification. The gravel was between, if you've got a row of five,you've got a total of ten buildings. Between each right down the center, that was supposed to be gravel. That was turned into pavement for maintenance reason. This discussion actually happened with Staff way back when but we never modified, for whatever reason, it kind of fell through the cracks, but what we did is put the hard surface between the buildings for maintenance reasons, plowing, and there is actual storage doors in between those buildings. We subtracted the pavement on the edging of the pavement for the parking that was originally labeled to be paving. We turned that into the pervious material. There's like a 14% between, percentage I guess, between pervious and impervious, and then there was also,by mistake the landscaping engineer that we had at the time had put eyebrows at the end of the buildings, but the buildings have storage units at the ends of them. So that you couldn't have the plantings I guess. So that was all hard surfaces. Wherever there are garage doors there's hard surface in front of those doors. Hopefully I've made some sense. I'm sorry, they had mentioned the trees. Toward the front, this is going onto the Luzerne Road side. Somehow there's a mistaken impression that we've cleared there. We have not. What we've done, and that was actually at the request of Queensbury as well was clean up the underbrush. We've never cut down any trees out in front, which is the fence to the road, so to speak. All we've done is kind of clean it up, got all the undergrowth out of there and whatever happened to be in that undergrowth cleaned up. That's all we've really done out in front. So no trees have been cut down out in front. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. CLUTE-I think that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I can understand the paving in between. I mean, I remember, I think the ones out on Dix Avenue,there's stone in between that really, and then there was a big lip to get in. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. CLUTE-It's been very difficult, and when we did these, like I said, we had brought Staff on out there and somehow this just fell through the cracks. We never got the paperwork up to date, but everybody understood, as you're describing, you know, the lips to get into these units, especially being four seasons as we are, the maintenance of the stone versus the hard surface, very complicated. So it makes all the sense in the world what actually happened, at least I hope so anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any reason why you didn't put down a top course of asphalt,though? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you a thicker binder actually holds up better than a double coating. Like you have a binder coat and then you surface it with a hard coat, over time, especially with the type of application we have here. We actually create little aprons that go up into these units to get rid of that lip, so it's better to say create a three inch binder than it is say a two inch binder with a one inch finish coat. A finish coat in the wintertime easily cut right off. I hope that makes sense. You end up with a better product with a binder. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, we can tell that by the curbs in Queensbury. Now that you square them up you see them, the plow comes down through, I'm assuming you're going to see the plows hit that little lip. MR. CLUTE-Exactly,yes. MR.TRAVER-Did you have an application before us for the San Souci restaurant? MR. CLUTE-Not tonight. MR.TRAVER-No, I know not tonight. On another occasion? MR. CLUTE-Yes,definitely,previous,yes. MR. TRAVER-And weren't there issues with that other property that you own for a similar type of thing that there were approved? I'm trying to remember if they were, it was an issue where there were other site plan issues that were not completed as per, I seem to remember something like that. MR. CLUTE-And the Sans, we just, it's not completed yet. So I can't really say that it's not done according to plans. The project itself is just really not completed, but will, once completed, will be done according to the plan. MR.TRAVER-I see. Okay. MR.SCHONEWOLF-The septic is the issue at the Sans,right? MR. CLUTE-It's perceived to be a problem. That's the perception. It's not really. That's honestly, that's the difficulty,the wrestling match,yes. MR. TRAVER-I guess what I was getting at is I was hoping we're not seeing a pattern developing here that. MR. CLUTE-No, I hope not, too, to be honest with you. I mean, I'm very open no matter what I'm doing or what I'm representing,and this particular application,again,Staff has walked this property with us years ago. Somehow this paperwork just fell through. It never got updated,and then Bruce Frank, just by chance, happened to drive through and made a few notes and it conflicted with said site plan,but if you were to get Craig Brown's input,he's aware that this was all talked about. We're just trying to get it corrected now to paper but we thought it was already done. MR. TRAVER-So the site plan that you completed the construction on is as shown for the modification you have now? So you constructed it according to the plan,but the plan that the Town had disagreed with that? Is that problem? MR. CLUTE-No,no. We changed the plan at the time. When we got there,the two dimension looked great until we started to put it in, and then we realized some maintenance issue. We were starting to put the binder in, and we're going we'd rather go thick binder, and then there was landscaping eyebrows. MR.TRAVER-So you got approval for a plan, and then changed the plan without approval? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. CLUTE-Correct. We made, we had Craig Brown out there as well as Dave Hatin, and walked this,and again, I thought. MR. FORD-Before making the changes or after? MR. CLUTE-Yes,before making the changes. No,we discussed it prior to actually doing the job,yes. MR. DEEB-So Staff was aware of what you were doing? MR. CLUTE-Staff was. Board was not. We never came back in front of the Board. MR. DEEB-Did they give you tacit approval? MR. CLUTE-I'm sorry? MR. DEEB-Did they give you approval? MR. CLUTE-Yes,face to face. It was Dave Hatin and Craig Brown. MR. DEEB-Gave you oral approval? MR. CLUTE-Yes,and then for whatever reason,like I said,somehow it just fell through the cracks. It honestly just fell through the cracks. Because we would have, I mean, I would have easily had updated the site plan, re-submitted, if requested, come back in front of the Board, which we're doing now. We would have done so. MR. DEEB-Does Craig have any written documentation? MR. CLUTE-I can't speak for Craig. I kind of wish Matt Steves was here because Matt was, Matt's my partner. It's me and Matt Steves that own the storage units, and Matt was more involved in the dialogue than I was. I was more the construction side of it. I'm the one that brought up the difficulties that we've been,I'm the one that,when I actually (lost words)wasn't part of the process to get this approved, but once I got to the site, I'm going, well, we might ought to think about this, and this doesn't make any sense. We brought in the powers to be, discussed it and hence that's where it was left. MR.DEEB-And you didn't document it? MR. CLUTE-I didn't. I'm hoping Matt Steves did. I didn't. Like I said, all I did was take the construction part of it. I wish I could tell you more. MR. FORD-You've been before us a sufficient number of times. You've gone through similar projects. MR. CLUTE-Yes,sir. MR. FORD-So you know when there's a modification from your original plan you know there's a process to go through. MR. CLUTE-I do. I do,but again. MR. FORD-And it really is an after the fact occurrence. MR. CLUTE-No, no, I agree. I took the meeting as light, I honestly did. We were all face to face, and, yes, I carry a certain amount of responsibility, but I'm going to say so did all four people that were standing there,two of them being Staff, and we just dropped the ball, not just me, Staff as well, and I take that responsibility, I do, Tom. I'm very aware of the procedure, but I just took that conversation, you know what I mean, it was all handshake and it was, it just seemed to be understood, and again, I mean, if the maps were to be updated, Matt would have done all that and re-submitted. I'm kind of caught behind the eight ball in this one. MR. FORD-And who from Staff was there? MR. CLUTE-There was Dave Hatin and Craig Brown. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. FORD-And how long ago was that? MR. CLUTE-Gosh,whenever,it's been a long time. MR. KREBS-Probably back in 2008 when Bruce Frank wrote that original. MR. CLUTE-Yes,this has been a long time. MR. MAGOWAN-No,this was when you were finishing up. MR. CLUTE-Yes, it was when we were finishing. This has been a long time. Even,like I said,just the idea of this coming back is kind of a shocker,kind of got to think about it a little bit,just going,what do you mean,because it's just been sitting here for so long. So kind of caught off guard. MR. MAGOWAN-What,since'OS? MR. CLUTE-It could have been,yes,they've been there a long time. This project's been done a long time. MR. DEEB-So this is just coming to light now after all these years? MR. CLUTE-I know. That's where I'm kind of, I'm with you, okay. Again, I'm not trying to shy away from any kind of responsibility here, but I'm just a little shocked that we're back here over this length of time. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, Larry, I just want to remind you that those handshake days are over. MR. CLUTE-That's right,no more of that. Yes. MR. KREBS-The site plan is 2004. So it would be a minimum of early 2005. MR. CLUTE-I think that's honestly closer than the 2008. I want to say 2005. MR. KREBS-Yes, well, I was just looking at the initial letter from Bruce was 2008, spelling out the differences. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. KREBS-Which you then probably had a meeting about these. MR. CLUTE-I didn't. My partner would have, who couldn't make it tonight. He was actually supposed to be here. So,I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don't know about other members of the Board, I mean, the only thing that really caused me any concern at all was the vegetation issue, you know, because the original design was a continuous vegetation across the front,you know,whether it was underbrush or scrub brush or whatever. MR. CLUTE-We got a call, and again, this is from Staff, too, one of the neighbors were complaining. The west end,just a lot of stuff, a lot of debris, and it was all being thrown into this underbrush and incorporated into the underbrush, and incorporated up against the fence. I brought in people and we cleaned it all up. Did not cut down any trees,just cleaned up all the underbrush and then got a few truckloads of stuff, so to speak. Just essentially cleaned it up, but tried to leave it all natural, which I believe is what we agreed to do,except at the main entranceway,we tried to leave it all the natural,which really is not a lot of trees than what you see, and we didn't take down any trees. All we did was really cleaned up,if that makes sense. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you got rid of the underbrush and the stuff that it looked like you clear cut. Right? MR. CLUTE-Well, to be honest with you in certain areas it sure did. There was quite a bit of mess there,to put it bluntly, there was quite a mess there, and you weren't getting the mess out of there without getting some of this intertwined,it's like a vine,if that makes sense. It's just a,it's not really vegetation. I don't consider it vegetation. It's just that obnoxious vine stuff that was all incorporated around a bunch of stuff,garbage. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. KREBS-Well, maybe we could ask him to put in a few more pine trees along that area, so that it would shelter it a little more. MR. CLUTE-We could do that. MR. KREBS-And if he did that, then people would be happy, but it wouldn't collect the garbage the same way. MR. CLUTE-We haven't had any issues since we did that, but I don't think we would either if we were to add a few more matching pines or a couple of spruces,call it what you will. MR. KREBS-Exactly. MR. CLUTE-To more infill,so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and if there are no comments,I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only issue is looking to identify how many additional trees we would want and size. MR. CLUTE-I'd be more than happy to meet Staff out there and we could determine that right on site,whatever somebody felt necessary. MR. DEEB-Just makes sure you document. MR. KREBS-Six pine trees? MR. CLUTE-That's fine. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Six pine trees along the front between the fence. MR. CLUTE-In this particular case,do we get a hold of Staff, do we call Bruce, do we call Craig? MR. HUNSINGER-Well,we're going to specify the number. MR. CLUTE-And you're not concerned about the location of sorts,just infill. MR. HUNSINGER-Between the fence and the road. MR. DEEB-Well, I think it would be a good idea if you tell somebody,too,but you know the number. MRS.MOORE-Could I clarify,six along the Luzerne Road side? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,between the fence and Luzerne Road. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. KREBS-So what I've added to the Staffs draft is, applicant will add additional six pine trees along roadside. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want a spruce,what have you got out there? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. CLUTE-It's all scrub pine and scrub oak,to be honest with you,and poplar. A mixture of poplar, scrub pine,and scrub oak. MR. MAGOWAN-So if we put white pines in there, it might be able to choke out some of those scrub pine. MR. CLUTE-It might. They turn into the fatties,yes. They're nice trees. MR. KREBS-Then make it white pines. MR. HUNS INGER-Whenever you're ready. MR. KREBS-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING MOD TO SP# 10-2004 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification of as-built conditions including landscaping and other site details to an approved site plan. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/16/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-2004 LUZERNE HOLDING. INC., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: We are adding to the draft from Staff that applicant will add six additional white pine trees along the roadside. The road frontage is Luzerne Road and the pine trees would be at least five foot tall. 1) 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; 2) Reaffirm previous SEQR- 3/30/2004; 3) 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. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) 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; Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2013,by the following vote: MRS.MOORE-I would specify the name of the road. MR. HUNS INGER-Laura's asking that we identify which road because it is technically on a corner lot. MR. MAGOWAN-Luzerne Road and do we want to identify the size of the white pine? So he doesn't show up with those little saplings you get down in Saratoga. MR. CLUTE-They'll be at least like five footers. MR. KREBS-Yes. Five footers. Because he knows we want to screen the area,that space. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a clarification that the road frontage is Luzerne Road and that the pine trees would be five foot tall. A_ (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. KREBS-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Or taller,at least five foot tall. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. CLUTE-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Mr. O'Connor,are you ready, or no? MR. O'CONNOR-I'll wait one more. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JASON KENYON, PARTNER KENYON PIPELINE INSPECTION AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT OWNER(S) NY JOB DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 276 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES USE OF MAINTENANCE BUILDING FOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND OFFICE. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SP 17-00, BP'S WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2013 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 9.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-32 SECTION 179-9-020 JASON KENYON, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Under Summary I have the Planning Board is reviewing a reuse of an existing building no alterations to the building or site is proposed. Applicant requests waivers for topography,landscaping,lighting,stormwater management. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. KENYON-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. KENYON-I'm Jason Kenyon. I'm representing Kenyon Pipeline Inspection and the owners of the building, and,yes, I'm suggesting, I'm requesting a site plan review for the reuse of the maintenance building behind 276 Dix Ave for my company for storage and a small office, and no alterations at all. I'm not changing a thing. I'm just moving it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to add? MR. KENYON-No. I don't think so. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions,comments from the Board. MR. DEEB-Are you changing the number of vehicles that are going to be there? MR. KENYON-From? No, just what I put in the letter. We're going to have a couple of employee vehicles and then a maximum of six work trucks parked on the weekends. MR. DEEB-What's there now? MR. KENYON-Nothing,it's vacant. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. KREBS-The drawing shows many,many parking spaces. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I don't have any. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and since there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. Did you submit a Short Form? MR. KREBS-This is the Environmental Assessment. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-I declare a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JASON KENYON PARTNER,KENYON PIPELINE INSPECTION,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. 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. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) Duly adopted this 16th day of, April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. KREBS-Yes, I will. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 13-2013 JASON KENYON, KENYON PIPELINE INSPECTION A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes use of maintenance building for construction company equipment storage and office. Construction Company in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/16/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2013 JASON KENYON PARTNER, KENYON PIPELINE INSPECTION, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) 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; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt.,grading,landscaping&lighting plans 4) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 5) 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. 6) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 7) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 16th day of April,2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. KENYON-Thank you,gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready? MR. O'CONNOR-We'll get started. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2013 SEQR TYPE I CRM HOUSING DEV.,INC.CONT'D. (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MICHAEL O'CONNOR&TOM ANDRESS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to come back to Site Plan 8-2013 for CRM Housing Development, Inc. Whenever you're ready,Laura. MRS. MOORE-The only thing under my Summary is that the Planning Board may conduct SEQR and may make a recommendation to the Zoning Board for the development of a 56 senior unit project. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the purpose of your record I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little&O'Connor,and with me is John Varecka,who is the president of the applicant, and as I understand it, we're here tonight to try to address SEQR and to also have you make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think when the Zoning Board deferred to you for Lead Agency; they asked you to specifically look at some items. So my presentation here might be a little bit longer than normal, trying to get you to get a good understanding of the entire application,so that you are able to make a decent decision with this. Before I begin,though, I sit on this side of the table often and I notice the absence of one of your members, and I'm not trying to compliment anybody unnecessarily, but I think the community really should recognize and appreciate the dedication of Don Sipp on this Board. I will say that I often didn't agree with him,but always had a lively debate, and I know that he always had good intentions in making comments and asking questions,and he spent a lot of time here. So I do appreciate it,and I think the people on this side of the Board,or on this side of the table do appreciate,you know,your comments and what not and your dedication. What we're talking about is Wedgewood Apartments, and we're asking for approval, ultimately, of 56 senior apartments. There'll be seven eight unit buildings. It's located on 17 acres of land,and we're asking for a variance for density. We're asking for a variance that would allow us to have 3.3 units per acre. The applicant has owned the property for over 26 years, and at the time that the property was purchased, it was eight units per acre. The development in the immediate area of this project or this property really dictates it's use now. The Ramada Inn has 100 rooms with a restaurant on 19.5, 19.6 acres, and if you're going to say each room was a unit, that's 5.1. I'm sorry, actually it's on 5.1 acres, and if you're going to say each room was a unit, that would be a density of 19.6. Even if you said each room counted for, or there were two rooms that would count for one unit, you're talking approximately 10 units per acre. Immediately across the street from this property on Burke Drive is the Montcalm Apartments. That has 228 units on 27.9 acres, and it's 8.2 units. Dixon Heights, which is the closest residential development to this property, has 148 units, and that's one of the handouts that I gave to you tonight. The Assessor gave me that figure and indicated that they have 33.29 units, which gives them a density of 4.446 units per acre. So, we think that we can support the application. There is a narrative that was attached to the variance application as well as a narrative that was attached to the site plan application. They are pretty detailed, and I think spell out the case for meeting the test for area variances. If you take a look at those,from a SEQR point of view,we have gone to SHPO, or the Town went to SHPO, I'm not exactly sure who made the request, but we do have a signoff letter from SHPO that there's no impact upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the State and national registry of historic places. We also have a signoff from DEC that there are no endangered or threatened species on the project property. We have a recommendation from the County Planning Board that there's No County Impact, and actually there's a finding in there that says the project is appropriately situated on the lot and fits the character of the neighborhood. That's an important element of the decision that we're going to ask the Zoning Board to make as we go through the process. When we go to the Zoning Board,there are five tests for an area variance. The first test is will the project create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. Your Staff as well as the County planning staff has said no. The County staff said it fits the character of the neighborhood. Your Staff, when you look at the comments for either the ZBA or for your meeting here, state that there are only going to be, or only potentially be minor impacts to the neighborhood. It says minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. To me I take that as being it fits within the character of the neighborhood. The main factor is the setting of the property when you determine the character. You really have to determine what is the character of this area or this parcel, as it has been developed and as the lands around it have been developed, and as I've said, there's the Montcalm Apartments right across the street. There are 228 units at a density of 8.2 units per acre. The character of this neighborhood, based upon that close proximity,is really a dense apartment complex character,if you will,trying to characterize it as that. To the south,and I think we've got a map up there,to the south,the area,the project area is the area that looks undeveloped. On the right side of the screen you'll see the Northway. You'll see the Ramada Inn, and we do back on to the Ramada Inn property. Part of the plan, when we get back to you, is that we will provide a secondary access to our property for emergency vehicles only, which will serve our property and serve the Ramada. They, right now, don't have a secondary access. They come in only at Abbey Lane. I believe that you have a letter in 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) your packet or in your file, or the Zoning Board does, saying that the Ramada approves what we're doing and supports the application because of the driveway, and the driveway will also serve as a walking area for seniors to go to and from our project to the restaurant that operates on the Ramada property. So if they want to they've got a restaurant that they can walk to. To the south end of the property, you will see that there's the Richard Sears Tree Service. They might, in fact, encroach a little bit upon us and encroach upon the high tension lines that run across there. That is a very commercial operation, and you may hear from some of the neighbors about that later tonight. The area with the cul de sac is Dixon Heights, and that is the area that has a density of 4.446 units per acre,and as you look to the left of that undeveloped area,again,is John Burke. I call it John Burke. It's now Montcalm Apartments. It was John Burke, and to the south of that is their treatment plant, which we do not impact in any manner because we are going to have traditional septic systems,two septic systems per building. There will be underground absorption beds for the septic. We do not join with or will not impact the existing septic system or sewage plant that is on the Montcalm property. To the north of the property is Abbey Lane, as I said. That's a Town road, and then you've got the interchange for 87, it's the entrance and exit ramp at 19. So the property is not located in a single family neighborhood, and I make that point because the master plan talks about the zone,moderate intensity,as being in place to protect strictly single family neighborhoods, regardless of whether they are small or large residential subdivisions. It's kind of a,you know, it's out of place here because this is not a single family neighborhood. The closest single family are the townhouses at Dixon Heights, and I included in the package, maybe I didn't mention it, the statement from Ted Bigelow as to their actual density, because when I was looking at the various tax records for parcels all I was coming up with was individual parcels. We've had two different realtors look at the site, and I've submitted in the packet that I've given you today their opinions that we would not change the character of the neighborhood, that the character of the neighborhood is a high density. It's not a low density. It doesn't fit within the density that's provided for by the Ordinance. The Ordinance calls for two acres for each residential unit. You would be talking about eight single family homes or you'd be talking about four duplexes. If you did that on that parcel, they tell us first and principally, they don't think they'd be saleable because of what's in the neighborhood, what's going to be around them on all sides. People are going to go into neighborhoods that have better settings,if you will,than the settings that are there. I think one of the opinions was from Linda Boden who is now with Levitt Realty, and the other was from Dan Davies, who is with Davies and Davies. The second test that you look at, the Board, the Zoning Board will look at is can benefit be sought by the applicant by some other method, and again, the principal other uses are single family or duplexes, and we've been told that they are not feasible on this site because they wouldn't be saleable. You wouldn't have enough of a mass to create a neighborhood, and you've got the conflicting uses of being against the Northway or against the Ramada Inn and against the John Burke Apartments on one side,and next to an interchange for the Northway. The other possibility is can the project be downsized and be economically feasible. I didn't receive a letter until late today, but they have done an analysis of that, and typically when you're seeing apartment complex, they're looking for a number of units much larger than 56 to make it feasible, make it a standalone project. With 56 units,they would get a return of about eight percent on their money that includes reasonably looking at the property and the cost of the property that was bought some 25 years or so ago, the cost of the infrastructure, the cost of the improvements. The cost of the infrastructure and the cost of the, the cost of the land doesn't go down at all if you create less units. The cost of the infrastructure and the cost of the construction doesn't go down significantly as related to the return on having the 56 units. There's a balancing thing, act in there. Christopher Rousch who's a certified public accountant has concluded that a smaller scale project, given the current costs of site improvements, along with construction costs incurred, the reduced rate of return on investment causes a project to be impractical, and I'll give you a copy of that letter. I haven't got enough copies right now because I just received it,but I think it's a strong letter that says the alternative of downsizing is not really practical. We're going to hopefully be back to you and maybe have a more serious discussion about that. The developer actually seriously considered alternatives. If you went back to eight units per acre, you would be talking approximately 136 units, and they played with a lot of different numbers and came to the realization that they could live with 56. They didn't come in and ask for 90. They didn't come in and ask for 70 or something like that. They actually did the pencil work,looked at it, and said what would be a reasonable rate of return, and eight percent, they're at 56 units. I've done other variance applications and I've had other CPA's come in they typically will testify that a developer should be looking at 15%. So I think they're being very conservative in what they've asked for as far as the density. We also point out the fact that this is senior housing. This would be housing where at least one of the people within the apartment will be 55 or older, and we've included in the packet a copy of a deed restriction that we will supply to Staff. We supplied on version of it to them, and they came back and asked us how about enforcement. So we added a provision for enforcement. Basically the restriction says that it runs with the land, which means it's on the land. It says that we will have to certify to the Town each year that there is at least one resident in each apartment that is 55 or older. We will have to maintain records on the site which will show that 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) and the Town will have the right of inspection. I've done this in another community and it seems to work. We initially had talked about just putting a notation on the plat plan, if you will, but I don't know if it was this Board or Staff said they would prefer to have it in the deed so it runs with the land, which is much more readily available and much more noticeable than if you just put it on a plat plan and people don't necessarily see the plat plan. The big test will probably be, and I say the big test because even Staff has signed off on whether this will be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or detrimental to the neighborhood, and signed off pretty much on whether there will be any detrimental environmental impact to the project,and said in both of those instances it at most would be minor, is going to be whether or not this request for variance is viewed as being substantial. I think because of the character and the neighborhood and the actual impacts of the project, it's not substantial. I know that a lot of people take not the easy way out, but an obvious thing and say, okay,you're permitted to have eight units. You're asking for 86. That's a substantial increase, but if you look at the memo that I submitted to you and to Staff, New York State law says it's not a mathematical exercise. It's actually an exercise in determining what are the actual impacts given the circumstances of the application,and here,given the neighborhood,I don't think there are any significant impacts to the neighborhood or the community by allowing this number of units on the project, on the parcel as opposed to a lesser number of units. You can look at that memo and you can see it. I think it's fairly clear. There's a whole line of cases that follow that memo. There's just a few that are cited in there, and I purposely don't mean to lecture you on what the law is. You've got your own counsel,but I'm sure that this is black letter law, that you've got to look at the actual impacts and not just the mathematical determination. It's substantial as to the language of the Ordinance, but it is not substantial as to the requirements for the granting of a variance, and that's New York State law. The County Planning staff has agreed with us. I take it that the Town has agreed with us. I take it that the realtors have agreed with us. I think it's just commonsense. What else would you put on that parcel? And you've got to look at the siting, or look at the actual proposed development. The first unit I think is some 90 feet away from Burke Drive. You're not even going to see this development unless you go off of Burke Drive and go into the property itself. I think nine out of the seventeen acres is what is going to be disturbed during construction. The remaining eight acres is going to remain as is, a heavily forested or treed area. So I don't know who would believe that they're impacted or how the community would be impacted by the granting of the variance. The other test that I spoke about,the project will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. This will be self- contained. It really has no off site impact, even visually it has no off site impact given the no cut area or green area that surrounds the apartment buildings as they're going to be constructed. We've submitted a full stormwater plan which has been reviewed by the Town's engineer. They were comments under date of February 13th. We did a second submittal on March 1Sth in response to the initial comments. There has been a second round of comments by the Town Engineer. They were issued on March 10th, and under our procedure you really can't respond to them in writing and submit something to you tonight saying here's our answers to them,but we've walked our way through that comment letter by phone, and Tom Andress who is the project engineer has spoken directly with the Town Engineer and there's nothing on there that we can't comply with. A lot of those comments are show us this, show us that. There's nothing substantial. They deal, I think exclusively, with the stormwater issues, and as I said we've got 17 acres and right now we're only disturbing nine of it. If something had to be expanded or something of that nature, it's plenty of land to do it. There's no comments on the septic. So I take it that the septic has met the review and been approved. We do know that at prior meetings there was some public comment and questions and concerns, and I would address those as there seemed to be a great concern about the effectiveness of the septic plant of the Montcalm Apartments. We know that they are ongoing and that they have been working on them on an ongoing basis, but they're separate and distinct from the application that's before you, but we do not impact that septic plant in any manner. We will have our own septic on site, which I think has been signed off by your engineer at least implied, if not directly, because there are no comments in the comment letter as to the septic. There was a concern about traffic, and we have had a traffic study prepared. It was a detailed traffic study. We've submitted it to Staff. I asked Laura, I think on Friday, does she want me to bring 1S copies of it to the meeting. She said no, and if I'm misquoting you, I apologize, but the traffic study was done as though this were a, how do you say it, market driven regular apartment complex. There are different standards for seniors, for senior apartment complexes, that represent significant discounts for traffic, but we told them not to, we told them to be conservative. Look at it as to if it were a full apartment complex and not a senior apartment complex, and their conclusions, and I think it's on Page 14 of the study I don't think it's been submitted to you, but, or you don't have it, but it shows during the peak morning hour there are 34 trips expected or should be generated according to all the studies that tell you how many trips are generated from a project or occupancy. There'll be seven trips entering and twenty-seven trips exiting. During the peak p.m.hour there are 41 trips. There are 27 trips entering and 14 exiting. If the senior guidelines were used,the morning trips would be reduced to 11, as opposed to 34, and 1S in the afternoon as opposed to 41. They have estimated that 9S% of the trips will go north on Burke Drive to Aviation Road. Twenty 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) percent will turn to the west. Seventy-five percent will turn to the east, and five percent of those trips will exit from our project and go south to Dixon Road. So there'll be some break up of even what we talked about the seven trips in the morning, or the twenty-seven trips in the morning exiting from our site. Some will go north to Aviation Road. Some will go south to Dixon Road. We had them actually review and study or analyze the intersection of Aviation Road and Burke Drive. In the morning during the peak hour there is a slight delay or a slight increase in the delay. It's a 3.6 second delay per vehicle turning from Burke road out onto Aviation Road. The impact on traffic is minimal. Three point six seconds. I don't even know how you count that. The traffic engineers study this and come up with a figure. MR. FORD-Mike,what hour is that,hours? MR. O'CONNOR-The hour, I'd have to look at it and tell you. Peak hour in the morning. They did an actual count of traffic at that intersection, and this was the hour where the greatest amount of traffic was generated. MR. DEEB-Was that a left hand or right hand turn? MRS.MOORE-That's a right hand turn. MR. O'CONNOR-That's a combination of both. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-I guess school buses get that short route from the light. MRS. MOORE-I believe the peak time was between seven and eight forty-five, seven to seven forty- five, eight to eight forty-five. MR. FORD-That's peak. MR. O'CONNOR-We have copies of that and we will provide copies of that, particularly in your site plan. They do not indicate that there is any need for any mitigation or highway improvement, which sometimes traffic studies do recommend. Their conclusion is that it doesn't warrant any change in the intersection or signaling or whatever. There's a lot of gaps that apparently appear in that traffic line because of the lights that are to the west and to the east of it. So you have your opportunity to get out. They call those courtesy gaps, and that's not necessarily where somebody sees you sitting there and waves you out. It's where there's a gap in the traffic flow so you do get out. It's probably better than my driveway on Glen Street,but it's not significant. I talked about the restrictive covenant. There was concern about that. How would the Town that if we come in and say we're going to do a senior apartment complex, how would it be controlled, and would it be permanent, and we've provided a restrictive covenant I think that will go on record, run with the land, which shows that. We've also provided the mechanics for how it would be supervised or controlled by the Town. As I said I've done this in another community and it actually works. The last test that the Zoning Board would look at is whether or not this alleged difficulty was self- created. Craig Brown has written a memo which I think answers that question,and that's a test that doesn't necessarily say you aren't qualified. It's something that the Zoning Board considers,but it's not controlling. We've owned this property since 1986, I believe. We have not done anything to change our property. What has changed this and what has created the need for the variance is zoning changes that have occurred since then,and that is typically not created, or not considered to be a self-created issue. That is something that we live with. I think if you were on the Zoning Board before you were here you heard that often. So basically that's our pitch. We understand that the second engineering letter hasn't been answered formally, but we think that we can answer it. We think that you should be in a position where you can address SEQR, and if you do address SEQR, we're hopeful that you will recommend that the Zoning board go forward with the variance. If you'd address SEQR, they could actually make a determination. We are on their agenda tomorrow night,and that's basically our pitch. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-The biggest concern that I've had, quite honestly, with this apartment, and I know you've made an effort to address it, is the issue of the occupancy of the complex being senior. I mean, there've been comments, and, you know, we talked about this the last time you were here, the fact that it's two floors and with stairs and so on, and I think you've addressed that, and I see tonight you have draft language for this deed restrictive covenant, which I guess restricts your client to maintaining it as senior only with some kind of annual reporting. I guess my question, and 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) forgive me I'm not an attorney, but I'm looking at language here that to me seems to read that if your client were to sell the property or, well, I'll just read it. Notwithstanding the provision of this section to the contrary,a mortgagee who takes possession of or title to the Wedgewood Apartments Senior Apartment Complex as a result of a foreclosure action or by deed, in lieu of foreclosure, shall not be subject to the above restrictions. So does that mean that if your client decides to sell this property at some point in the future that a future owner could then not have it be a senior apartment? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. O'CONNOR-It does mean that if the property is foreclosed against, the bank is not obligated to sell the property as a senior project, and that's typical terms that a bank will require. I've seen that in any place where I've also used this restriction. MR.TRAVER-So that's basically in there so that you can get your financing? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well then let me, am I correct in assuming, and I hate assuming things, but should that terrible event happen and the bank now owns the property and someone now,the bank or someone decides to continue its operation, would that be subject to further review by this Board? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. TRAVER-No. Okay. So there is, there does exist the risk that the fundamental character of this apartment could change at some point,and it could go from being a senior apartment. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a 13 million dollar investment that's going to be made for this property and the people that are investing it don't hope to ever see it go down the drain. MR.TRAVER-I understand absolutely, nor do we,obviously. MR. O'CONNOR-But I mean that is a possibility. That is one of the reasons why I told the people that were doing the traffic study to look at it not as a senior apartment. Look at it as a regular apartment. MR.TRAVER-I understand. MR. O'CONNOR-The septic system, the layout, everything else was set up basically as a, you know, as a regular apartment thing. There are no elements of the environmental impact that would be different than this. MR. TRAVER-Right, I understand, and I think with traffic that's exactly what we would want for SEQR purposes. We'd want maximum impact,even though it's intended to be senior. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's what you have. MR. TRAVER-Can you offer, you know, what can you suggest to us that would address that one outstanding issue of preserving this as senior? MR. O'CONNOR-We can negotiate with our lenders and see if they will require it, but we're pretty much sure that they would. We can offer that if they would not require it and if they told us that they would not approve our financing without it,we can provide you a letter to that effect and say it is not something that we necessarily desire. If we can get it waived,we'll get it waived. MR. TRAVER-Right, right. Well, I mean, that's my main concern. I mean, I think on the density, in terms of the traffic, I mean,you've addressed, as you point out, I think that I haven't seen anything in engineering that's huge, but there's such a fundamental difference in character for an apartment complex, particularly of this size and in this location, between I guess I would say between senior and quote unquote conventional apartments,that that's something I think we need to preserve. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-John can address that in part because they have a project like this built in the same configuration, the same layout, that's a very successful senior apartment in another area. In Utica? In Rome. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think you offered, when we discussed the project before, the whole procedure where you keep records on the tenants and you, there's actual documentation of the status and eligibility that's subject to review at any time and you provide this annual report. I accept that. I'm not concerned with that. My concern is a worst case scenario at some point down in the future and perhaps your offer to seek a letter from your lender might, you know, perhaps resolve that issue, and in that case that language could come out of this deed covenant I assume. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR.TRAVER-And then we would be covered. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Okay. I like it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments? Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-I've never seen a traffic study yet that didn't support the project, and we are talking about traffic in one of the, in terms of traffic density, one of the most challenging areas in our Town of Queensbury,in and around Aviation Road,particularly because of the schools that are there, and we're merely going to add to that, and that is right now my major concern. I've got a great concern for safety of pedestrians and others on Aviation Road in that immediate vicinity as it is right now, and now we're just going to add to that density. I've got a real concern. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got to offer to you that this traffic study is done using the standards that are applicable. MR. FORD-I'm not challenging that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and it shows I think a total of what, 34 in the morning, 95 of which will go towards, 95, well, wait a minute, let me step that back. It shows a total, Tom Andress, pull up a chair, and join us. This is our project engineer who probably knows the traffic study better than I do,but I think the number was. MR.ANDRESS-Well, the site generated traffic is 34 in the morning. The generation numbers, again, as Mike had said, based upon a regular apartment was 34 in the morning and 41 in the afternoon. So that's, 34 is the total vehicles, so that's, every time it goes in it's one, it goes out it's another one. So it's not 34 vehicles. It could be a certain amount coming in,and actually they have seven going in and 27 going out which is logical. Luckily from the position that this is between the two lights, first of all most people are turning right. So that's an advantage in the morning, and that's one of the larger concern certainly for schools, even where I live down in the Town of Ballston. You'll have a 20 minute window because there's two schools right there that everything gets congested. After that 20 minutes there's no problem at all,and I think that's what this report is pretty much showing you is that certainly during those windows there's traffic. I just came from the Town of Bethlehem and we're doing 102 units there. Again, I mean, there's a traffic study that was done that actually did show that there was some need for some improvements. There was another presentation right after that. Actually there was a traffic study that there was a significant need for improvements. They were talking about seven percent of a major intersection in the 9W corridor, if you know Bethlehem at all,Wal-Mart, and everything down there. So, I mean,that's actually, so traffic studies do actually find there's needs at time. This is really; the percentage is so small in what's generated there. Certainly I think if you have the full senior, and again, I think we made the statement the last time we were here is that these seniors are going to be more active. They're going to be more a part of the community, one of the reasons why we also did this study this way, but you may have some of them still being active,driving around,but not necessarily going out during the peak hour. That's going to reduce this number down significantly. I think we presented to this Board at the last meeting I believe the generation for utilizing the full senior was six cars in the p.m., or six vehicle trips. So it's fairly minimal. So certainly it's something. Everything is something, and no matter what you do in this, we just had this discussion before. No matter what you do, unless you're looking to put together a moratorium, which is what they spoke about, that that's about the only way. If you have an intersection that has a lot of volume, and certainly, especially with a school, no matter what you're going to do,you're always going to have that volume. Unless you're going to put 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) a moratorium for all the properties around it, every time you develop something you add a little bit more to it,but I mean it is signal controlled. MR. FORD-There is no control? MR.ANDRESS-No, there is signal control on both of the signals. I mean, this intersection is not, but it has two signals right next to it. It has, luckily the position is that most of the people are making the right out in the morning. People give a courtesy gap to get into that. MR. FORD-If we can accept for the time being the premise that this is one of the most densely concentrated, during certainly periods of the day, the densest concentration of traffic in our Town of Queensbury,do you, as an engineer,see some way,something that you could promote that would assist in that? Because you're now going to add to that,so let's look at the totality of it,not just your project,but the totality of the challenges of driving in that area and pedestrian and vehicular safety. MR. O'CONNOR-Didn't the Town just authorize last night at the Town Board meeting a complete study of that in connection with the roundabout? That was in the paper this morning. MR. FORD-I guess that's what I'm supporting. MR. O'CONNOR-And they did a traffic count that showed whether people turned left going west or turned right going east, the majority of those people that come out use Burke Drive, go to the east. They don't go across and go west, and if they're going west, and the traffic that's generated in there is either generated from Montcalm Apartments or our proposed project, that's the on site traffic, if you will. I don't think the Methodists, or the church building that's there, or the building in the corner generate a lot of traffic. If the traffic is coming from Dixon Road, which a lot of that traffic is cut through traffic, if they're going to the west, they go further out and get into Aviation Road beyond the school, as opposed to getting on Aviation Road by the exit, right by the bridge. So, and we're not, I think if you go by the traffic counts, our traffic will go out and go to the east. A high percentage,and you talk. MR. FORD-I don't think care where they're going or where they're coming from. The fact that there are more cars there causes a greater concentration of traffic. MR. KREBS-But, Tom, let's look at the reality. The reality is that that the traffic in that area was significantly better prior to the abortion they did in front of the middle school,where you now have to go to the only right hand turn to go into the school system. You used to be able to pull off and drive into the Middle School. You used to be able to pull off farther down and drive into the Middle School, and then you still had that access that went back to the elementary school and the fourth and fifth grade school,okay. MR. FORD-Not all solutions are optimal. MR. KREBS-Ninety percent of the problems we face there today, I can tell you, I travel that area quite frequently, and five years ago I had half the problem I have today. I now go across the Northway and take a left on Dixon if I want to go to West Mountain Road, because I can go down, get on Dixon,go up Dixon quicker than I can sitting there waiting for all those school buses and kids and parents to make that right hand turn into the school. MR. FORD-Rest assured that these seniors will find that avenue much, much easier than accessing (lost word) road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-A lot of seniors, well, not a lot, I don't know what your study shows, but you've got X number of people in a senior development, there's a certain number that don't have cars and they can't drive. That's a fact. MR.VARECKA-Less than five percent. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Five to ten percent, but anyway, I agree with my associate down here is I go through there every Sunday to church,traffic is not a problem because it goes both ways and school isn't involved, but that school was never a problem until they reconfigured in and out. They did it, and the parking is bad there. It's not anywhere near as bad as it is you go further up Aviation Road and you get into that Mall traffic up there. That's impossible, but,you know,traffic here is nothing compared to (lost word). It's nothing compared to Bethlehem, I can tell you that. MR.VARECKA-I know it's nothing compared to New York traffic,so it's all relevant. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-You don't have the traffic study either in front of you to see what you were talking about as far as percentage of travel, trips on that road. It's miniscule when you add 27 trips to it, whether they go east or go west,if you take a look at the total traffic that's on that intersection. MR. FORD-I'm just glad that that whole thing,the traffic in that area is going to be studied. MR. DEEB-A thought's crossing my mind is that if any other project that went in there, how would that have impacted traffic? My thoughts are anything else maybe would have generated more traffic than would be a senior development, because I think that's going to create less traffic than any other project that I can think of that might go in there. So, I mean, that's just what I was thinking,you know,as far as the impact on traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments,questions from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I don't think 27, 30 cars are a great impact, that it would, you know, slow anything down out there. Like I say,when you have the school times,that really doesn't matter. It's just a,you know, that 20 minute window per time schedule that most people adapt their schedules to those times to get around,or they find an alternate route. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's why a lot of towns want senior developments is because they don't have an impact on the school system, and school taxes are always our biggest contribution, that's important. MR. O'CONNOR-That's one thing I didn't do and I was going to do is I, there aren't many senior projects within the Town, and I was going to try to see if there were waiting lists for the different projects that I'm aware of. This will not be a subsidized project. It will be a little different than I guess Solomon Heights I think is to some degree subsidized. I'm not sure exactly how. I know the Cedars,which is a 55 and over group,has a rent stabilization thing. Well,they had tax credits when they were built, an income limit. Tax credits when they were built for the developer's benefit, so there's an income limitation. There won't be an income limitation here. So it's a little bit different. I don't know, and you probably know more than I do as to how many other apartment complexes have been built where people are willing to dedicate them to seniors,but I don't think a great deal. MR. KREBS-There is a significant one; Schermerhorn's up on, both on Bay Road and up on Exit 20 are dedicated to seniors. What kind of rent,what kind of size are these apartments going to be? MR. VARECKA-All two bedroom units. The rents will range anywhere from $950 to $1300 per month. MR. KREBS-And how large are they? MR.VARECKA-What's the size of that,Tom? MR.ANDRESS-They're 895 square feet. MR. KREBS-One,two bathrooms? MR.VARECKA-One and a half. MR. FORD-All single level units? MR. ANDRESS-There's actually, each building is set up so you have, on the ends you have a single level apartment on each end, and then you'd walk up stairs and then there's another single level, but they have to walk to the second floor, and then the middle are four units that actually have the lower level is the living area and the upper level is the bedroom area. So it's a combination, and that was one of the things that we spoke about,but it's the same combination,it's the same unit that they've already constructed. MR. FORD-I'm sure you've got experience there,but certainly I would think you'd want to be taking into consideration a greater number of single level units as opposed to multi-level,for seniors. MR.VARECKA-Right. I think that was one of the discussions that we actually had the last meeting. That's why we brought up that these are the same units that were rented in approximately the same number (lost words) it's not a set up floor, significantly older seniors that all want to be on one level. There's certainly units available. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-The stairs are also set up, I don't know if you were here or not here, set up to accommodate people so that it's not a straight run from the first floor to the second floor. MR. FORD-I was not. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. They're set up so that there's a landing and then a continuation of the stairwell,and that seems to have worked where they have the same facility in Rome,NY. MR.SCHONEWOLF-And some seniors like the stairs because it's good exercise. MR.VARECKA-It also allows you to potentially get to two different areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I know we had comments at the last meeting. No? Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The action before us this evening is to Acknowledge Lead Agency status, and there's a draft resolution prepared by Staff,and then if we are so inclined to consider SEQR and make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. So I guess we'll take those in order. MRS.MOORE-Actually,you've already proceeded with. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,we did. We did that the last meeting,we accepted Lead Agency status. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're going to be in front of the Zoning Board tomorrow night? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes,we are. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we need to do SEQR first, and this is a Long Form. Are members of the Board comfortable proceeding with SEQR? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. FORD-I'm probably the least comfortable,but proceed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR.TRAVE R-Mitigated by site plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,small to moderate. MRS.MOORE-I'm sorry,what was that? MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate impact which is mitigated by site plan review. MR. KREBS-It says on the document by project change. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR. FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.44? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. FORD-Yes. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. We had one yes. Do you want to clarify that? MR. FORD-I think I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Will it alter, there's two examples given. Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods, or proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Then you can always say other impacts. MR. FORD-I believe I've stated the case and my position is that it's going to increase the traffic flow in an already congested area. It's also been pointed out that it's going to be studied and so perhaps the study will come up with a solution that will not require this to have that great an impact. I simply don't know what the study's going to show. That's why I raised the question. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman,the finding of the Board by majority is no. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just about to poll the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. MAGOWAN-No. MR. KREBS-No. MR. DEEB-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the answer,then,is no. MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors,noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-Excuse me, Don,could we go back to that question about the safety? MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. FORD-If everybody else says no,that's fine. I'm still going to say yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the examples predominantly relate to hazardous waste or hazardous materials,and storage of one million or more,or exposure of hazardous waste,etc.. MR. FORD-I would agree. Thank you. MR. KREBS-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-I make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CRM HOUSING DEV.,INC.,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. 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. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of, April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? Back on February 20th, and Steve mentioned it, a couple of others have mentioned it. The Zoning Board asked us to address three specific things. Quite frankly I don't know what kind of affirmation they were looking for from this Board. I think we talked about density, at least the applicant talked about density very specifically. The issue with the septic systems,you know,we essentially have a signoff from the Town Engineer. I don't know what other,you know, reassurance the Zoning Board is looking for. MR.TRAVER-And no issues raised regarding septic from an engineering standpoint. MR. HUNSINGER-And then we had a very lengthy discussion about the whole issue of the project being a senior housing project. MR.TRAVER-That's not completely resolved. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.TRAVER-But we do have a path that the applicant has offered to explore. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.TRAVER-To clarify that,perhaps that can be part of site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-But again,you know,sitting here not knowing what the Zoning Board was looking for, I don't know if we can say with any great assurance that we've addressed those specific questions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,that was a different Zoning Board,too. That was last year,right? MR. HUNSINGER-No,it was in February. MRS.MOORE-This was in February. MR. HUNSINGER-But I also don't feel as though the burden is on this Board to satisfy that Board, and that's where I was really going with this. MR.TRAVER-Yes,I think their intent. MR. HUNSINGER-They need to be satisfied with the documentation that's presented. I think this Board has addressed those three concerns. We've certainly had lengthy discussion and conversation about them, but I think, you know, we can't satisfy that on their behalf, is where I'm going. MR. TRAVER-And I think, you know, they're not, for example, they're not asking for a variance to have it be a senior complex. MR. HUNS INGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-So, you know, in terms of scope of what we're looking at, the variances that they're asking for I think have been addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-I think my sort of reading between the lines was that they wanted to make sure that we were aware that it was something that they were concerned, and I think we've certainly discussed it and I believe we've made clear to the applicant that that's an issue that's open until it's resolved and it needs to be resolved, and it sounds like we have,you know, potential resolution to that. So I think at this point,that's. MR.HUNSINGER-Mostly I just wanted to get onto the record that I felt as though we had considered those three criteria. MR.TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll never fully satisfy their concerns. They need to do that on their own for themselves. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR.TRAVER-Right,that's right. MR. HUNS INGER-Unless there's any other comments or discussion, I'll entertain a recommendation. RE: RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 5-2013 CRM HOUSING DEV., INC. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes senior housing complex with 7-8 unit two story buildings on a private access drive. Each unit will have a 1 car attached garage. Multi-family in an MDR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from density requirements for the MDR zoning district. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency Status; conduct SEQR and provide a recommendation to the ZBA 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; On 2/20/2013 the ZBA granted the PB request for Lead Agency status noting three items to be addressed by the PB as Lead Agency- see excerpt from ZBA resolution . . . One, density be addressed specifically. Two, that the septic system be able to handle the amount of waste that will be originated by that property, and then, three, that it remains senior housing as presented right now. Those are the three specific issues that we would like to see addressed by the Planning Board as the Lead Agency. On 2/26/2013 the Planning Board tabled the application to 4/16/2013 so the applicant can address engineering and Staff comments; On 3/15/2013 revised information was submitted; The Planning Board has 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. 5-2013 FOR CRM HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, INC., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. There was a concern by one Board member about traffic and potential impacts to safety. Duly adopted this 16th day of April,2013,by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-I would just like to, if we could just add in there that there was a concern by one Board member about traffic and impacts to,potential impacts to safety. We did find that,you know, a Negative SEQR Declaration, but I think,with regard to the density and the variance, that might be an issue that they might be aware of. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR.TRAVER-That there wasn't completely unanimity on that. MR. KREBS-So moved. MR. HUNSINGER-And just while we're on discussion I just would add that it's in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff,because that includes some of the background information we just referred to. AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNS INGER-You're all set. (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you, and we thank you for your patience with us for being a little bit tardy. Can I ask a question for general discussion, not for binding you or whatever. Are there any particular things that we haven't discussed that you haven't asked questions about that you think we should address before we come back here? So that we can try and, if we get through the Zoning Board,we can get a filing in that,you know,can go through maybe in one month process. We'll take care of the engineering comments; get them all off the table. Is there anything else? I mean,they've provided in the packet I think you have landscaping. We've taken care of all the other issues that we'd typically take care of. We talked about lighting, I think, that it'll all be downcast lighting. I don't know what else you might want to. MR. TRAVER-Again, I would just say my concern is that fourth paragraph in that draft language you have. If you can get rid of that,then I'm on board with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we talk about color schemes? I don't think we talked about color schemes. MR.ANDRESS-We did provide, I believe,one color rendering. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry,there is it,thank you. MR.ANDRESS-They're neutral colors. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Laura. MR. KREBS-My personal opinion is as I look at the market over the last four,five years,certainly the senior housing and the non-completely maintained homes are what people seem to want. We're just not seeing the development of single family homes in the last four,five years. MR. O'CONNOR-Maintenance free. MR. KREBS-Yes,maintenance free. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I had a question. The connector road is to be (lost words). MR.TRAVER-I don't believe it's a connector road. MR. MAGOWAN-It's not really a connector road,an access road. MR.TRAVE R-Emergency access. MR. O'CONNOR-It's going to be emergency access with a lock box on it that the emergency services have a, when I used to be in the fire department we used to use an ax, but apparently they use something different now. MR.TRAVER-Pretty much due east of the Ramada,right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes,it goes into the Ramada parking lot. MRS.MOORE-It comes from here to here,where my hand is. MR.TRAVER-And there will not be traffic on that because it's emergency only. MR. O'CONNOR-We've got a map we can show you. MRS.MOORE-There will actually be two gates on that. MR. ANDRESS-If a tree should fall and block Abbey Lane, you need emergency vehicles in the Ramada or whatever the case may be,there's access to the Ramada. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN CARR OWNER(S) LANDCRAFTER, LLC ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 704 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITION OF 600 SQ. FT. FAQADE CHANGES INCLUDING WALL SIGNAGE AND COLOR SCHEME. ALONG WITH INTERIOR BUILDING ALTERATIONS FOR PROPOSED USES INCLUDING RETAIL, OFFICE, PERSONAL 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/201.3) SERVICE, FOOD SERVICE AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING CARPET SALES BUSINESS THERE WILL ALSO BE EXTERIOR SITE CHANGES TO THE PARKING AREA, SIDEWALK, AND BUILDING ACCESS. NEW USES IN A Cl ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 79-10; SB 20-02; SB 7-02; SB 4-02; BP 12-550 WARREN CO. REFERRAL APRIL 2013 LOT SIZE 1.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-58.1 SECTION 179-9-020 JOHN CARR, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-I'll identify that under Staff comments and the Summary, The information submitted indicates these proposed uses are capable of operating in the building space. The applicant has identified the potential uses with the intent to improve the exterior and make the site marketable, and the Summary, The applicant is proposing to renovate an existing building as a multi-use building -involving extensive exterior renovations. The applicant requests a waiver from landscaping where existing landscaping will remain the same. Planning board should request clarification of the exterior building color scheme and type i.e.siding. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thankyou. MR. CARR-My name's John Carr. I'm the owner of the property. I also operate the flooring store that's in the back half of the building. Some Board members may remember we were here a year and a half, almost two years ago for,just to improve the front of it. That was kind of step one, you know, now we want to, basically our goal is to take a big yellow box that's half empty on a prime corner in Queensbury and try to improve the look of it. Over the last two years we have had different tenants approach us. Nothing against their businesses,but because I operate a business in the rear of it I'm very sensitive to the types of tenants, you know, we're not looking for used gun stores. We're not looking for used furniture stores,you know,pawn shops,things like that. So what I want to do is basically move forward with fixing up the facade of the building, then pursue different types of tenants. The hard part in doing that is not knowing exactly the type of tenant I'm going to get and leaves some question as to what exactly is going to go there. So what I've basically done is looked up and down that street,you know, and around Queensbury in general at the types of tenants that typically, you know, tend to rent spaces in those areas, and there are certain limitations,you know, a drive thru restaurant is not doable there so we haven't proposed anything like that. The types of uses that we're proposing are pretty standard stuff, the exact number of seats, for example, in the restaurant I don't know. A restaurant may come in and say I want the whole front of the building. It's not probable, but it could happen. So we know that it won't be industrial, you know, types of uses, but things like personal services, insurance office, real estate office,law office. These are all things that are probable uses in there. It could be a small restaurant, deli, you know, type thing. The second floor is currently office space, was office space, and, you know, it's a call center; small office type operation could certainly be there. The exact use we don't know. My goal would be to fix up the building, present to the Board that these are some of the uses that may go there, you know, if there's any deviations from that of course we would need to come back to the Board at that time,but I think in fixing it up we would attract a better tenant,and I think my own personal business in the rear of the building would benefit. For the Board's knowledge,the front of this building has basically been empty since 2001, which is kind of surprising for a commercial building on a prime corner to be empty. Very little has been done to the facade of the building, especially to the front of the facade of the building in probably another 3S years. We're looking to address all those issues,you know,with the Board on this project, and that includes,you know, the siding, the lighting, the roof, and also try to meet more current guidelines that the Comprehensive Plan has for buildings in Queensbury. Those guidelines include,you know,multiple roof angles, and buildings that have a little more intrigue to them. When this building was built, it was built as primarily as a lumber type building, prior to the Home Depots and Lowe's coming,was a,you know, Moore's for a long time and Woodbury Lumber before that. So it as built,you know, basically to serve a function that is not probably realistic to have there again today. So we're looking to, you know, create a type of complex. I've heard some people refer to it as a plaza. I'm hoping to create something that's a little more contemporary looking from that and not just a strip mall,glass front type look to it. So that's why we're looking at separate entrances, stonework, some porticos, some different roof angles to try to create a more interesting looking buildings than maybe some of the older styles of plazas or strip malls that are often seen. As far as colors, overall schemes, basically the building is currently yellow. We would keep that. I think that siding manufacturers call it like an Ivory,but it tends to look a little yellow to me. Basically that color will primarily stay that. The upper eaves parts of the building will be a clay color which would be in a vinyl siding or vinyl shake type siding,just to give it a little more contrast. The Essex Green, which is kind of a darker green color that's present in certain parts of the building currently, will stay there. We are hoping to add parking to the lot and rearrange the parking so that the spots are not perpendicular to the building but are actually angled. One of the things we notice now is when you drive; people that are familiar with the property will often come in off of Quaker and sort of turn in 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) the first entrance and then drive down where they really want them to go all the way down and then come in. We're hoping that by rearranging the parking,we make it quite difficult for them to make that 180 degree into this spot and it would encourage that traffic to move further down towards the tire store. The uses will dictate,you know, the number of signs and the placement of signs. You'll notice on the plans we did place a sign for the whole building out by the sidewalk. That sign we acknowledge would need a variance, if that sign is needed. There's potential that somebody comes along and says, listen, I'm going to be the only tenant in this front half, there would then be two tenants in the building, myself and them. I don't really see a need for a lot of signage at that point. It would be quite obvious. Down the road if there were six tenants in the building, it may be advantageous to have a commonly shared sign, you know, out on the road, at which point we would of course need a variance for it, but I'm trying to just put it all out there so the Board can see everything that we're considering. The Queensbury Codes do allow for quite large signs on buildings. So what we're showing there is just proposed signs so that the Board has a concept of the actual size that would fit there. Most likely the signs we'd be looking for a uniform size signs for all of the tenants on that building. So,you know, so that there's some uniformity and some consistency to the signage that's done on the building and not having different sizes and different types of materials for those signs. So we're looking at replacing even the signs I currently have with something that would kind of fit uniformly across the building. Currently in the rear of the building we have kind of a loading door that, you know, trucks come and go from. One of the problems we have now is the winter months we open up the garage door and the whole building cools off. We're hoping to put basically just a simple air lock there to prevent that from happening. You'll see that off the side of the building, and then also to create some more interest in the architecture of the building putting these porticos in to the existing entrances that are there and also another entrance that would be added kind of in the center of the building. So anyone that's been in the building, it's kind of a warehouse type of building. There are forklifts and a lot of the space is devoted to alleyways, four forklifts. Unfortunately with carpet it's 12 feet, plus the length of the forklift, so you kind of have to have this big open warehouse type building to really house large rolls of carpet and things like that. So stormwater was something that we addressed when we did our landscaping plan. The new plan that we're proposing, Dennis MacElroy had gone over it, after hours of doing calculations as to how many square feet we're taking from here and adding there, which there was a lot of little bits taken from here and added there as we rearranged it. It appears that the net is going to be about 150 additional square feet of impervious. The current stormwater that's there is oversized for what we have and seems to be working fine,and,you know, I think with some gutters and some things like that it may even work better than what's there now, so directing that stormwater into a more controlled environments that are just coming off the roof. I think that's about all I have. I'm sure that you guys have a lot of questions and what not. We are looking at lighting. The current lighting that's there is a low pressure sodium, which is not very energy efficient. To me it looks very dated and that bright orange kind of light coming out of it. We're hoping to kind of calm that down a little bit and make it a little more even across the property using LED lighting that would be a whiter light, matching more of what contemporary lighting looks like for example the bank across the street is very well lit, which, you know, I think that would help, and there's kind of a mix of lighting on the property, different lighting colors that I think is kind of a detriment to the look of the building overall. So that's the,you know, what we're doing with the lighting. I'm sure you have questions. So I'll let you fire away and it's been two hours here,so. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-I have a comment. I always try and get out and look at the facilities before I sit down and go through the paperwork, and I drove down Glen Street and looked and found out where it was, and I said,yes,that's the old Woodbury's, and I looked at that wall coming from the north side. It was so ugly. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. KREBS-Then I came home and I sat down and I looked at this north elevation and I thought, wow,what an improvement that would be. MR. CARR-We are hoping to kind of open up that side of the property to,you know,there's only so much you can do but I think it will help a little bit with it, and some of it's just putting new siding on after 40 years. MR. KREBS-Well,and even just having windows in those walls so it's not just one blank wall. MR. CARR-Yes. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. FORD-It's going to make it much more interesting in appearance and attractive. MR. HUNSINGER-You made a comment about the signs. When you look at your A-4 elevation view, you really appreciate the scale of the signs that are allowed when you put them on a building. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Those are pretty significant signs,four feet high and fourteen foot six feet long. MR. CARR-Yes, I believe in the sizes that we've shown, they're a little, they're distasteful. They're too big. Now it if was a Wal-Mart that was 500 feet off the road, they probably would look a lot more appropriate, and I think given,you know, not knowing the types of tenants and the number of tenants, you know, there's some variable that's there, but, you know, I know that we don't like handshake deals, but I'm not a big fan of the size of some of these, but I just want the Board to sort of have an idea what the size, what's allowed in the zoning and what these sizes look like. I think we'll probably end up with the lowest common denominator if there were to be multiple tenants in the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, if you go to your other elevations,the more drawn ones,the colored copies,and it shows a tasteful color of the sign,it certainly doesn't look out of scale then. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You know,and (lost words) overview from the north. It looks okay. MR. CARR-Yes. So I think it would be somewhat dictative, for example, if there was a law office, it would be unlikely that a law office would probably want a sign that's that large and it may just say, you know, whatever the attorney's name is in a pretty subdued sign there and that may be it,you know,a hair salon maybe slightly larger. If one tenant were to take all of the space in the front,with say a furniture store, you know, but again, that would be, you know, we're just proposing some ideas here. I think it would be up to the Staff and, you know, what not if it was something that deviated from this,we'd probably be back here to talk about that,which would be reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-But, you know, just to echo the comments, I think your building design and your color schemes (lost words). MR. CARR-Yes, personally I'm eager to get it going. I think it'll help my business, and it's taken a while just getting funding for any commercial rental is not an easy thing right now, so it's taken me a year and a half to get funding secured so now that I know I can actually fit,you know, fund doing this is kind of a major step. MR. FORD-Thanks for persevering. MR. DEEB-I have a couple of questions. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. DEEB-When you do your remodel, are you going to do that front part with a restaurant in mind? Are you going to put kitchens in there? MR. CARR-No. MR. DEEB-You're just going to be generic when you do that? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. DEEB-So you're not intending to have a restaurant. If it happens,it happens? MR. CARR-It's difficult to forecast what types of tenants. So for the Board's purposes of review and things like parking, and, I kind of picked the most probable types of tenants that would go into this complex to present to that Board, that this building could support some of these types of uses. Whether it's going to be a hair salon or it's going to be a loft, I don't really know. I would think,you know,that if it were. MR. KREBS-It might even be a realty office. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. CARR-It may be,you know. MR. DEEB-This leaves another question. I was looking at the designs,your access to the front is go through a parking,to the parking lot and walkway to the front? MR. CARR-Right. MR. DEEB-If a restaurant does go in there, most of your patrons are going to want to park as close to that restaurant as possible, okay,which leads me to my next part is the entrance, the egress and ingress into the parking lot, and Mr. Ford mentioned this earlier about the traffic pattern, and I'm looking. That first entrance toward Glen Street is very close with the light. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. DEEB-And I could see, I remember going down there and seeing traffic congested from the bank,going out. So I'm just wondering if, in your considerations, if you would just have an ingress and egress at the northern end of this and to alleviate some of that traffic. MR. CARR-There's several reasons, you know, for it. It does provide access. What we're, when it does back up,you know, like Friday night, say,when people are at the drive thru at the bank,when traffic actually does back up there, it becomes almost really inconvenient for somebody to try to quickly turn in to it from Glen Street. MR. DEEB-I think it's going to add to it,though. MR. CARR-You know, currently the way the slots are you pull straight into them. They're perpendicular to the building so you can come in from either way and pull in. As soon as it becomes angled parking, it would be almost impossible. I'm assuming you'd have to do a three point turn to get into those spots. So if they were to, you know, I mean, other than a speed bump with spikes in it,you know, I can't always do it. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,you could put up an exit only sign at the first entrance, and then an entrance sign at the other end to bring your people down and to come in that flow. MR. CARR-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-And just, and if they're going to exit, they're going to go out up there and have to wait for the light or the bank or whatever. MR. CARR-Yes. Luckily,you know, it's, I think the spots to the rear would have the option of exiting out at either side,you know, it would be those front spots. They could pull out,you know, it may be kind of counterintuitive to pull out that way and go back into it,not to say that they couldn't do that. We could stripe it to go either direction. MR. MAGOWAN-I don't think you've got enough room in between, do you know what I'm saying? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Your car's backing out, you really want your cars to come in one way and go out the other. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I would recommend putting an exit and entrance only and keep that, and then an arrow down the middle to flow them out. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. FORD-I think that's a good suggestion. MR. MAGOWAN-Except for the flat spots down here near the tire store,that one could be both ways because you have the room there. MR. CARR-Right, and there is a fair amount of egress from that tire store through there, which, you know, is good municipal planning. Certainly to have arrows,you know, to put those on the plan so 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) the Board can see,you know,there'd be arrows firmly pointing somebody that this is the,you know, do not enter kind of thing. You don't want to over sign it,but to have arrows to encourage that flow. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say,a painted arrow on the pavement. MR. CARR-Yes,and several of them that allow the user. MR. MAGOWAN-What kind of roof are you going with? MR. CARR-Basically the roof on the rear of the building is fairly new. The roof on the front, part of the building is slate. We've kind of repaired that. I'd like to leave that, if it's okay with the Board, and then there's another part which is an older three cat roof that's probably 30 years old, that's in rough shape. We'd be replacing that, and it would be with a close of a slate color as I can get to match the other part, and then that would also go up, you know, above where the dormers are on the third floor of that section of the building. So that would be replaced also. MR. MAGOWAN-That composite you have up on top, the green roof now that's there, so you're going to be matching that on the lower with everything else? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-How's the snow come off of that? Because right now you've got the cars going up on the building. In the wintertime if you get a snow slide coming down, it would be like say the Racquet Club used to be, and pile up there, and you end up losing,you know, four or five feet, and that's going to back the cars out into the. MR. CARR-Historically, granted in the last two winters we haven't had a lot of snow, but three winters ago we had a lot of snow. That roof was actually, it's actually recycled rubber, and it has a fair amount of grip to it. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. CARR-And the stuff tends to stay on it. Not, I can't say every snowstorm everything's going to stay. When we do do our plowing, you know, we do plow that area so all of that parking is available, and that tends to not be an issue or we haven't had an issue with that. I mean,in a record snowfall year, you know, there may be issues, but unlike a steeply pitched steel roof, that they do tend to slide with quite a bit of velocity, and the racquet ball place is a good example of that. This roof tends to hold it on I think because of the way it's tiered. If the upper part were to slide, that lower part is there, and it's fairly flat,you know,it tends to slow it down quite a bit,and not move at all actually. So I don't foresee problems with that, but, you know, if it were to come up, I think it would be an isolated situation. MR. MAGOWAN-Now what is your distance from the building to the green space on Lafayette? Do you know? MR. CARR-It is, it's 20 foot between the parking spaces and then the spaces themselves, I believe by Code,need to be,is it 18 feet? MRS.MOORE-Eighteen. MR. CARR-And forgive me for not knowing that immediate number. So it would be twenty and thirty-six,fifty-six approximately. MR. MAGOWAN-Fifty-six feet? MR. CARR-Yes. We would be, you know, as far as when we did the stormwater calculation stuff, we're adding,taking away,we're adding larger islands,or larger green space areas at the beginning of those two spaces that currently do not exist, and also towards the rear of the building on the north line between us and the tire store. So we're adding green space there and a small,you know, we're adding a small strip of paving,you know, along the Lafayette Street. So as far as landscaping goes,you know,we're not really looking to take anything out or really do too much. Obviously if the Board felt, you know, I'm not opposed to trees, flowers, bushes, you know, any recommendations from the Board there. We're hoping to create a little bit,you know,as we take space away,to create some larger zones of green space,not just little tidbits that are here and there, and if you look at the original plan compared to what we have now, there's more green space, larger chunks of green space in the parking area than what's currently there now, and then we're taking away some green 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/20131 space in small strip, basically between where the lighting is now, the lighting pole s and the actual current paving. MR. MAGOWAN-That's between Lafayette and the parking lot. How wide do you think that's going to be? MR. CARR-It's the paving would be about 56,and that space is,it's probably eight feet. I could make a note to actually physically measure it and put it on the plan. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm looking at, it looks like a plot plan here,Van Dusen and Steves. It's saying that,it looks like 60.8 from the property line to the building,and. MR. CARR-Sixty point eight. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,that would be on S-1. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-I think that's 60.8 there. I'd have to get my magnifying glass out. MR.CARR-So it would be around,a little over four and a half feet. MR. MAGOWAN-You're talking,you know, eight feet,that brings you down to 52, and 36,you know, if you have 18 feet, you've got to be away from the building a little. So say there 20 feet. You're really; your aisle's getting smaller and smaller. So, I mean, those would really have to be at a good angle, you know, to achieve a nice, what do you need in the parking lot there for fire trucks and that? MR.SCHONEWOLF-Twenty feet. MR. MAGOWAN-So 20 feet would be a minimum. MR. CARR-What we're trying to do with the parking is,you know, not ask for any variances with it. We're also not using any of the shared parking provisions of the Queensbury Code,because not only the use, it's kind of difficult to predict what those shared uses would be. So we basically have gone with, you know, no requirements, you know, for variances for the 20 feet or the angles of the parking. I believe these are standard parking lot dimensions, as far as the width of the car, the depth of the car and the angles,that we've used here, are standard, basically standard parking type provisions. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I'm just saying the numbers I'm grabbing off the top of my head aren't jiving. I'm just thinking it might be too tight,you know,or if you have to angle them more to get that. Like I said,I'm not really seeing parking lot layout except,you know,just pictures. MR. CARR-Yes, I mean, it was pretty, the angles are pretty detailed as far as the exact angle for,you know, for parking provisions in Queensbury the angles, the distance and the width of the parking spaces are, you know, are, I don't want to use the term a code, but I believe that it is a code in Queensbury that there's an angle and a size. It's also the fire code requirement of that 20 feet. So those are fairly standard types of situations as far as the angles go. MR. HUNSINGER-The question I had, there's comments in Staff Notes, and you verbally indicated that you want to upgrade the lighting. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-But there's really no lighting plan in your submittal. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don't know where we are with that. I mean, I understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to upgrade the lighting, make it more uniform. It looks like you're trying to be Code compliant. MR. CARR-Yes. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-But there wasn't a detail in the submission to show that that's, it will become compliant. MR. CARR-Yes. What,and I guess my question to the Board would be,you know,are you looking for a grid layout of all, of every square foot of the parking lot with the actual lighting levels for that square foot or, just to make sure, because we can get pretty extensive with, and I just want to, it's not a big deal. The manufacturer will do it for me, and they. MR.TRAVER-Well,isn't some of your lighting pending who your tenants are going to be? MR.CARR-Not, I'm trying to not do that. MR.TRAVER-Okay. MR. CARR-What I don't want to have, I want a very uniform look to it that we are both comfortable with, you know, not have a certain tenant come in and say, I want blue lights and red lights and green lights. So that's part of why we're doing this pre-tenant not post-tenant, and basically your Code requires that,you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,you know, again,the language in the narrative appears that it would be Code compliant. I just want to bring it to your attention,you know, personally I don't have a problem in making that a condition of approval that it be Code compliant. MR. CARR-We could present that. The lighting manufacturers have provided me with that information, and it's, you know, it's fairly, it's not exciting to look at, but they're fairly, you know, detailed drawings that are,you know,unless you really know what you're looking at,you wouldn't, you know,but it's basically showing that 2.5 foot candles. MR. FORD-We're used to looking at. MR. CARR-Okay. Yes, one of the things right now is over the years these lights have kind of, you know, they've been put up by different people and different owners and there's sort of this hodgepodge, and there's some lights, you know, that don't need to be there that are really bright and other ones that are sort of just stuck there and are white, and other ones are orange and, you know, over the years it's kind of become a little bit of a hodgepodge of lighting, and that's kind of why the, you know, instead of trying to take what's there and have a light study done of what's existing, you know, let's spend the money, take that out, put in new lighting that will be there for the next 25 years, is kind of the plan, and I do have that documentation to confirm that the number of poles that I currently have and the height of those poles and the types of fixtures do correlate with the Town Code. I can submit that to, I'm going to have it here, I just wasn't, it's not,you know, it doesn't exactly say John Carr on the bottom, but we can improve that or whatever request the Board would have with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CARR-But it's an expensive lighting project. So you want to kind of get it right the first time. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. CARR-And not, you know, have it be too much or too little, and also have dark spots on the property like we currently have,so we want it fairly,you know,evenly lit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. One of the things that we've been told by the lighting experts is the use of LED lights makes life a whole lot easier. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it can be a lot more specific. MR. CARR-As somebody that's been up there changing those things on a ladder, yes, and the hard part with this location is that right across Lafayette is the bank. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,and the bank's,they're bright. MR. CARR-It's extremely bright. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-And you have bright street lights there as well. MR. CARR-Yes, and so it creates kind of a funny mix of lighting on that property, because that light is very extreme and. MR. MAGOWAN-It spills over. MR. CARR-It may actually be,the lighting that I'm putting in may not be as bright as what is shining out from the Bank on parts of the building,but at least we know we're meeting the Code. MR. FORD-Use their lighting. MR. CARR-Yes, it would be cheaper, you know. So, you know, it is kind of a dilemma there, you know how that works, and the front of the building itself is kind of a,you know, at night it's sort of, or looks,it looks a little abandoned in the front,which isn't what we want. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, there's a certain amount of candlelight that, around for bank ATM machines and stuff like that,where we're limited in our control because it's a State law. So,you know, I'd take advantage of that. MR. CARR-Well,and that was what made the study a little bit more difficult,because that lighting is so strong, it kind of skews the metered lighting effects of this. If someone were to go out and say, well, you've added 2.S foot candles but there's already ambient light coming in that's one foot candle in some areas and two and three in others. It makes the,you know, if the Code Enforcement Officer were to go out with a light meter, a lot of that light would be coming from across the street, as you're on that Lafayette side of the property. So it makes it a little tougher, and then the front of the building becomes quite dark because most of that light does not around to the front of the building. So it kind of creates a dark area there. We're hoping to remove the light wall packs from the of the building. I don't think the tire store minds at night, but,you know, I'm preferring down lighting towards the rear of the building. So replace those light fixtures also. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions,comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Laura? MRS.MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open the public hearing and close the public hearing. Let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. It's not a Type II? Yes, Short Form. MR. KREBS-Okay. "Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"CS. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term,short term,cumulative or other effects not identified above?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?" MR.TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-No. Based on that, I propose a Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOHN CARR,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. 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. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16th day of, April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 14-2013 JOHN CARR A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes an addition of 600 sq. ft., facade changes including wall signage and color scheme. Along with interior building alterations for proposed uses including retail, office, personal service, food service and maintain the existing carpet sales business there will also be exterior site changes to the parking area,sidewalk,and building access. New Uses in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/16/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2013 JOHN CARR, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: 1) 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; 2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; 3) Waiver requests granted: landscaping; 4) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,approval,permitting and inspection; 5) 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; 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 7) 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. 8) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 9) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 10)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 11)Lighting to be in compliance with Town Code. The colors will be Essex Green which is the trim, Ivory from Georgia Pacific,and Clay,which is the color of the gable. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2013,by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I have one item for discussion. In regards to the exterior of the building, the color scheme, as it's presented, is that something that you want to approve as submitted, and understanding that if something, your color scheme changes or something like that, that's something that needs to be discussed with Staff, and potentially could come back to this Board, about how your color,that color scheme that you have, and I hate to pinpoint it,but you have stone, you have different colors,you have siding and things like that. So I just want to make sure you're clear on how that,what may or may not happen. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I'm not sure the color renderings that were submitted really are consistent with what was expressed verbally. MRS.MOORE-Okay. I want to make sure that's clear. MR. CARR-The building color,it's basically that what you see there is what's going to stay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. CARR-That color green that's, there's trim that has green on it. That's the color that the trim will be. So in other words that green and yellow combination, with that sandstone type stone,you know, will be what's there if the, maybe the, in the motion, you know, to include that if for some reason it's other than,you know, all of a sudden the building is blue, I would expect to be back here asking your permission before I did that. In other words, most of the building won't, the color will kind of be what you see. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the rendering, my understanding is that the color rendering submitted is a good depiction,except for what is white is really going to be yellow. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) MR. CARR-Yes, it's kind of, yes, the colors on my printer, and I apologize, aren't like a, you know, basically the building color will stay. The yellow that's there,that ivory color I think is what Georgia Pacific calls it, will be what stays there. The siding colors, the trim, which is an Essex Green trim, that will, which is already on the building that will stay. There are areas of the building that do not have that color trim, but that will be what is used, you know, more uniformly throughout. The green roof will stay. The green facade would be matching the trim, you know, this Essex Green color, which, I mean, if that's an issue for the Board, it's not only the color of the metal, but it's a, that's actually a Sherwin Williams color. So it could, you know, be referenced easily to a specific color,you know,for a Sherwin Williams paint,you know,specific that Essex Green. MR. HUNSINGER-And what was the siding color? MR. CARR-It's Georgia Pacific, they call it an Ivory. I think of it as a little bit on the yellow side, but they call it Ivory,and that's actually the siding that's on part of the building now. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we could just specify that,well. MR. CARR-No,we could be very specific,because the siding is already purchased, or not purchased, but bid and ready to go. So it would be a Georgia Pacific Ivory, and then the gable ends,the higher up gable ends will be a clay, and that clay is a fairly standard color from Georgia Pacific or a few other vinyl manufacturers. So that would give the Staff some very specific colors to reference for continuity with the Board's decision. MR. FORD-And the green trim? MR. CARR-The Essex Green,yes. MRS.MOORE-And then you have awnings and things like that on there. MR. CARR-It would be that those same Essex Greens. MRS.MOORE-I just want to make sure that. MR. CARR-No,no,no,it makes your job easier. MRS.MOORE-All right. MR. CARR-So better to be specific than. MR. HUNSINGER-So Essex Green trim, Georgia Pacific Ivory siding and Clay on the gable ends. MR. KREBS-Okay. Well add to the proposed motion that the colors will be Essex Green which is the trim, Ivory from Georgia Pacific,and Clay,which is the color of the gable. MR.FORD-And the Essex Green is trim. AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan,Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CARR-Thank you. No, I'm eager to get going on it. It's a nice building. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a nice project. MR. CARR-Yes. It'll be nice in that empty building,you know, after 12 years of being empty. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to come before the Board? We have a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 16, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: (Queensbury Planning Board 04/16/2013) Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks,everybody. See you next Tuesday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 45