Loading...
02-18-2014 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18,2014 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-1984 Christopher Gaunt 1. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.18-1-32, 33 ZBA MODIFICATION Site Plan No. 11-2014 M &W Foods 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 302.6-1-43 Site Plan No. 13-2014 James Mackey 8. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.13-1-16, 17, 19 Site Plan No. 15-2014 Marc Fuchs; Betty Fuchs 9. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.14-1-2 Site Plan No. 10-2014 HHHN 13. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-34 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 02/18/2014) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF DAVID DEEB JAMIE WHITE,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'd like to welcome everybody to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, February 18, 2014. For members of the audience, welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Some of the items later in the agenda do have public hearings scheduled. First order of business is approval of minutes from December 17th and December 19th, 2013. Would anyone like to move those? APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 17, 2013 December 19, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17TH AND DECEMBER 19TH, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Ms.White, Mr.Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Several of the items this evening are for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1984 MODIFICATION CHRISTOPHER GAUNT AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) CHRISTOPHER GAUNT&ANDREW FEDELE ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 24&26 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 140 & 141 OF BEDFORD CLOSE, SECT. 5. LOT 308.18-1-32 WILL BE REDUCED FROM 0.94 ACRES TO 0.85 ACRES AND LOT 308.18-1-33 WILL INCREASE FROM 0.77 ACRES TO 0.86 ACRES TO ADDRESS EXISTING POOL LOCATION. SUBDIVISION: MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 11-14, BP 09-239 (POOL) LOT SIZE 0.94 ACRES, 0.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-32, 33 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. Under Summary I have, The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the proposed lot line adjustment where relief is 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) requested for the minimum lot size requirement where 2 acres is required and 0.94 acres is proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, representing Christopher Gaunt, and this actually came about by the client to the north was actually my original client, Andrew Fedele, he did a survey for the house he purchased in Bedford Close, and the pool that was in existence at the time when he bought the house,is,as you can see in the photo, is completely,you know, about half of the pool is over the property line, and what had happened there,you can see on the map or on the overhead that Laura has up, that angle point in the back line there is a nice iron rod there that was found. Everybody utilized that as the property corner, not realizing that it was a jog in the lot line, and both parties had put a fence up and put the pools on either side of the line as we've shown, and so there's a variance that needs to be done for the owner,which was Gaunt on Lot 141 to convey that triangular portion of property to the Fedele's to accommodate the pools. So therefore we're reducing the size of that lot, and also the actual pool setback from the property line that we're proposing, which is right down the fence line which has been utilized for quite a few years, both pools, if you look, I believe the side line setback requirement's 10, is it, Laura? We end up with 10.81 and 17. They put it pretty close to where they thought the line was. So that's the basis for it. MR. MAGOWAN-They could have turned the pool and just put one in and shared both halves, you know what I mean. MR. STEVES-It does not meet the requirements of the two acre zone,but at the same time when the subdivision was originally developed these two lots basically become equal in size now, .85 and .86. They range from about a half-acre to just under an acre in this subdivision. MR. FORD-Matt,are all affected parties on board with this? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to know who put the pools in. Did he have an explanation for his shed being over onto? MR. STEVES-No, well, he, like I said, didn't know where that lot line was. They were using the rod that's up at that angle point, and he put the shed right on the corner but didn't realize what the angle was. So he's going to have to re-locate that. He's going to try to. It's just a storage shed for the pool. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-It's not a fixed shed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You bring such difficult cases to us. MR. STEVES-That's right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I can see why it was confusing,you know,you see a rod that's over there and it looks like they, you know, they went for both rods, you know, not seeing the one that was over that far. I can see how that could happen. You find the rod, it's usually, one, you know, one per corner,and once in a while you get that odd pin there,but they're hidden. MR. STEVES-34 jog and a lot of people when they have a corner lot anticipate that everything comes back to that one corner, and that's just the way the subdivision was designed back in the 80's. Honest mistake, but it was discovered here recently and now they're all on board and we'll get that fixed. MR. MAGOWAN-So, Matt,what you're saying is they found it before the snow? MR. STEVES-Yes. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Are there two rods in the front,too? MR. STEVES-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Because if you draw a line from the existing rod in the front to the back corner. MR. STEVES-It was buried. They didn't see it. Like I say, the owner, Fedele, bought the house in that condition. He didn't put the (lost word) the previous owner did. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Understood. Any other comments or questions? Would anyone like to make a recommendation? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Whatever the motion says. MR. HUNSINGER-Whatever the motion says? Well,we have a draft resolution prepared by Staff. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 11-2014 CHRISTOPHER GAUNT The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between lots 140 & 141 of Bedford Close, Sect. 5. Lot 308.18-1-32 will be reduced from 0.94 acres to 0.85 acres and lot 308.18-1-33 will increase from 0.77 acres to 0.86 acres to address existing pool location. Subdivision: Modification to an approved subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from minimum lot size requirement of the MDR zone. 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. 11-2014 CHRISTOPHER GAUNT, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr.Traver, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sure this is one of those things that never would have even come up if there wasn't a change of ownership. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The next item on the agenda is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN NO. 11-2014 SEQR TYPE II M & W FOODS AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 797 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 3,730 SQ. FT. KFC BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW KFC BUILDING ON THE SAME FOOTPRINT. SITE WORK INCLUDES DRIVE-THRU AND PARKING UPDATES WITH NEW BUILDING LANDSCAPING. SITE PLAN: NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 13-14, SV 14-14, SP 20- 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) 10,AV 13-10, SV 14-02 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2014 LOT SIZE 2.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-43 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-4-090 STEFANIE BITTER&TOM HUTCHINS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board, again, is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the application constructing a new restaurant building that does not meet the required setback to the front property line. MS. BITTER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter here with Tom Hutchins for the applicant. We come here this evening with a plan to upgrade the existing store, hopefully as soon as possible. We received approvals three years ago, with the renovation of this site, but unfortunately the owner and the applicant wouldn't, the owner wouldn't agree to the proposed new site of the store, wouldn't allow that building to be relocated. So we return this evening with a new plan. The proposal is to demolish the existing structure,which is an older structure, if any of you have visited the site recently,which not only needs upgrades but also could use a facelift. The new building will be placed in the same footprint that exists today, better looking building, as you can see from our demonstration in the front here. The proposal includes improvements,obviously,to landscaping and curbing around the building as well. Because the structure is in a pre-existing, nonconforming location, to pursue this modernization plan it requires certain relief from the Zoning Board. The first is for front setback relief. The building is situated so that it fronts on Old Aviation Road as well as Route 9. Although the Route 9 site front setback can be maintained and we can meet that 75 foot setback, Old Aviation, there's not enough room from there. Currently it maintains 32.4 feet. Our proposal is to have 33.7 feet. So we're actually making it a little less nonconforming with that front setback. Permeability is also an issue with the site. Thirty percent is required. Right now is maintains 2.7%. We're going to improve that a little bit with the landscaping proposed to go up to 2.73%. So it is an improvement. Parking is also something we need to talk about. I know that that can be more of a waiver than a variance, but we'll be re-visiting that next week. The entire plaza requires 111 spaces. 106 are existing now, 105 are proposed. Again, that's to allow us to incorporate that landscaping and modifications to the curbing along the building. Overall, the improvements will definitely result in an improvement, for lack of a better word. Signage is also at issue with this presentation. What we are proposing is two wall signs, again,to face both of those frontage on Old Aviation and on Route 9. In reviewing the variance, we don't feel it should be deemed substantial because this proposal could have two monument signs, and only one is being proposed. The two wall signs,we feel,will incorporate better with the aesthetics of the building as it's proposed as well as to provide the optimal visibility for the traffic as it's going up and down Route 9. Overall, the variances should be deemed to, when you're looking at the balancing test, to benefit the applicant and provide little to no detriment to the community. Like mentioned,we're reconstructing an old restaurant and overall it will result in a major improvement. Tom,did you have anything? MR. HUTCHINS-I don't know that I have anything to add to it. We'll take any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions,comments from members of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're there a couple of pole signs in front of that at one time,or not? MR. HUTCHINS-There's a sign for the property, for the center, out, right out near Route 9. There's not a pole sign for KFC. I don't believe there was. There may have been at one time. I don't believe so. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I just remember there was something by the road. MR. HUTCHINS-There is a sign for Northgate Plaza. MR. DEEB-Tom, can you address the, the only concern I have is I, that's tight, when you go out that exit and entrance to Old Aviation Road,it's so close to that drive in window,and there's not going to be,are you going to make any improvements to that? When they go into the drive through. MR. HUTCHINS-They're stacked up,yes. MR. DEEB-And then there's not a lot of room to get in and out and cars are always going in and out. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. HUTCHINS-Cars are frequently going through there. We have, we've re-designed the drive through a little bit to make a minor improvement, but the building is going to be essentially the same location. MR. DEEB-The same spot. MR. HUTCHINS-So we're probably going to have some of the same issue. They have re-laid out the drive through to attempt to make it work better and make it quicker, but we're still going to have a stacking issue there. MR. DEEB-Yes, I mean,that's a tight fit. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. DEEB-In there, and I've seen cars trying to get by when they're at the drive through. The other question I have is the signage. Do you really think that that sign on the old Aviation Road side is visible from Route 9? MR. HUTCHINS-It would be visible from Route 9,yes,to the southbound traffic. MR. DEEB-I know this one,well. MR. HUTCH INS-Southbound traffic. The problem is the sign on the front of the building isn't visible to southbound traffic. MR. MAGOWAN-Right,because it kind of sits angular. It's angular on the lot,so,yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. So anyone southbound on Route 9 has to be essentially past the entrance before they see. MR. DEEB-You want both signs to be the same? MR. HUTCHINS-Both signs are the same,yes. MR. DEEB-I mean, they're attractive, and the other one, is the lighting going to be pretty close to what you have? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,those are representative. Those aren't exact. MR. DEEB-I realize that,but I was wondering how close you had designed. MR. HUTCHINS-We've kept the way they are, they're all LED lights. They're all building mounted. We aren't adding any site parking area lighting. MR. DEEB-This is attractive. I like that. MR. HUTCHINS-That's the look that we have to follow. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It's interesting when you talk about the design, because it seems like all of the other fast food restaurants are going to those, you know, sort of parapet, you know, wall that it comes the sign, and, you know, and I know that that's kind of the trend right now, but I wonder if, you know, 15-20 years down the road, then that will be outdated,you know, I mean, that's just the nature of the beast, but, you know, you've got to keep up with the competition, of course, and, you know, I just find it interesting, you know, that we just approved very similar designs on Wendy's and Burger King. MR. MAGOWAN-I'll tell you,Wendy's turned out, I mean,what a different look that is. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. DEEB-It definitely looks better than what's there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. Yes. I wasn't being critical. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-You know, using the same footprint, I mean,you know, it's either get a better look or stick with the old one. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that still, are you still able,years ago you used to be able to come down and cut through McDonald's. I know they kind of eliminated that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-One way. MR. MAGOWAN-It's one way now? Are people able still to cut through the,do they still use that? AUDIENCE MEMBER-One way going in from Aviation, but coming out, you can't go out of McDonald's. MR. DEEB-That wouldn't be a bad idea for this one, either. AUDIENCE MEMBER-But people do it. MR. MAGOWAN-But do they use the KFC parking lot to kind of sneak through? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If we're going to be getting comments from the public, we need to get people on the record. MR. MAGOWAN-Sorry. I was just curious. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-So it's still being used as a cut through. So, I mean,that's going to,unless the Town corrects that you're going to get a stack of cars anyway. MR. FORD-I like the new design, but it's bothered me for three years on the previous approval that we didn't address the Old Aviation Road to any extent,and once again,we're not calling for any kind of a modification there. How much study went into that, as far as any creative looking at that parcel,that bit of land? MR. HUTCHINS-I think on this round not a whole lot,and I mean, and we can look into that between now and next week and see if there's anything we can do or suggest to improve it. With, when we came back with this existing footprint,we kind of let that. MR. FORD-Yes,you were concentrating more on the footprint and the new design and all that,but I certainly,personally would appreciate it if you could look at that in a creative way. MR. HUTCHINS-We can do that. MR. FORD-See if there can't be some improvements made there. Thank you,Tom. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? In terms of the, I mean, this really isn't relative to the,well, it is, I guess,to the variance request. You're going to build it on the existing footprint,you're probably going to put a new foundation in,right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Completely new. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I figured. MR. HUTCHINS-That building's in real rough shape. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it? MR. HUTCHINS-So it is old. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you know when it was constructed? MR. HUTCHINS-No, I don't. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR.TRAVER-I think back in the 60's,wasn't that a Carrol's? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-I remember when Carrol's was there. MR. DEEB-That was in 1963 I think. MR.TRAVE R-Something like that,yes,a long,long time ago. Many moons ago,that's for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Any other questions or comments? I mean, we haven't really talked specifically about the variance requests. I guess my feeling is,we just did this last month on a house on Lake George, where we had approved, I mean, very similar situation where we had approved, we had already approved a site plan for them to re-build the house, and then they came back and said,you know, it would be easier to just tear it down and re-build on the same footprint, which is basically what you're suggesting. So, you know, my feeling is we had approved it before, you know, now it's just a little more extensive than what was approved, but it's really the same concept,same issues,if you will,in terms of the variance requests. MS.WHITE-But this is agreeable to the current landlord as is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is the right way to go. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-You're just going to look at the traffic thing again,that's all. MR. HUTCHINS-And we will look at that and I'll address that next week at site plan one way or the other. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 13-2014 M &W FOODS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 3,730 sq. ft. KFC building to construct a new KFC building on the same footprint. Site work includes drive-thru and parking updates with new building landscaping. Site Plan: New commercial construction in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from minimum front setback requirements of the Cl zone. 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. 13-2014 M &W FOODS, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Jamie White: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Ms.White, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MS. BITTER-Thank you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Now we can talk about the Mackey project. Next item is Site Plan 13-2014, also for a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2014 SEQR TYPE II JAMES MACKEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 5 & 7 GARRETT LANE, 27 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH TWO EXISTING CAMPS AND DETACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,807 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) 4 BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, DRIVEWAY, AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM UPON THREE EXISTING LOTS OFF GARRETT ROAD. SITE PLAN: CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT ACTIVITIES WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 16-14 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.17, 0.16, 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-16, 17, 19 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS&JACE BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the application constructing a new home on a parcel that does not meet the required road frontage requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'm with Jace Brown from Finney Design Group who is the project architect. We're here to request support for our variance request to re-build, actually,the house on this property and the property has no public road frontage. That's,what the project entails is there are three 50 foot wide lakefront parcels. Two of them have houses on them. One of them is vacant, and the owner has plans to remove both houses, merge the three parcels into one, and building one residence. Again, the parcel has no public road frontage and we need a variance to essentially do anything on that property because of that. We can go through the site plan architecture a little bit if you'd like or if you want to save that for next week,let me know, and,Jace, did you want to add anything? MR. BROWN-No, just simply to point out that the lots, obviously, are very narrow in that part of Glen Lake, and this project will bring the residence as well as the setbacks closer to conformance with the current zoning for that area. So this project, hopefully you'll see it as we do, as an improvement in bringing it more towards the standard the Town is looking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MS.WHITE-Are they year round residents or will they be year round,or will this be seasonal? MR. BROWN-They're intending to, they do reside currently in New Jersey. They are intending to utilize the house throughout the year but not as their full time residence, but it isn't strictly a summer type residence. In fact, they, his parents live right down the street. So they're looking to locate a second home close to where they already have family. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the existing houses is a year round house. One of the ones that's being torn down. I think,you know, going back to your introduction, I think this was the kind of project that was anticipated when the Zoning Code was re-done. In making the lake lots bigger, this was the kind of project that was anticipated then. To take,you know, three, well, they were camp lots, though. MR. HUTCHINS-They were ultimately camp lots and most of that lake was set up for camp lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I can add, for the Board's reference, I talked to the Fire Marshal as well as Tom Hutchins in reference to the road access, and what needed to be completed for having fire access to that site, because it is a private drive, and what happens when you want to build a nice home and you can't get the fire truck down there,and it's actually less than 300 feet to Chestnut Road. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,it's 158 I think. MRS.MOORE-Something like that. So the Fire Marshal doesn't get involved if it's less than 300 feet. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-You still need to be able to get the truck down there, but that is up to the client to confirm that the truck can get there to save the house if it's needed. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? You're not proposing, at this time, any changes to the lakefront? MR. BROWN-No, other than, you know, some associated landscaping associated with the building itself. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments, if someone would like to put forward a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION AV# 16-2014 JAMES MACKEY The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish two existing camps and detached garage and construct a new 4,807 sq. ft. (floor area) 4 bedroom single family dwelling, driveway, and wastewater system upon three existing lots off Garrett Road. Site Plan: Construction and project activities within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from road frontage requirement of the WR zone. 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. 16-2014 JAMES MACKEY, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2014 SEQR TYPE II MARC FUCHS; BETTY FUCHS AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR- WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 19 WOOD POINT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES 136 +/- SQ. FT. WOODEN PATIO AND 23 SQ. FT. OF STAIRS OVER AN EXISTING CONCRETE AREA ALONG SHORELINE. SITE PLAN: HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE AV 17-14, AV 36-10, AV 40-02, SP 49-9, BP 11-009, 98-524, 09-025 WARREN CO. REFERRAL FEBRUARY 2014 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.14-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Site Plan 15-2014 for Marc Fuchs and Betty Fuchs. Laura? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals in reference to the application for reconstruction of the shoreline deck and stairs with wooden decking and stairs over the existing structure that does not meet the shoreline setback requirement where 75 ft.is required and 0 ft.is proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter here on behalf of the applicants. The applicants are seeking to restore an area of the shoreline that maintains a broken concrete patio as well as an associated concrete stairs that supported that patio at one time. It's a pre-existing,non-conforming accessory structure that maintains a zero setback along the shoreline, and any modification, due to its size and location, would require relief from the Zoning Board. The applicants are seeking to rehabilitate this area by placing a 136 square foot patio on top of the concrete patio and associated stairs which are about 23 square feet in size. The applicant,in assessing this situation,felt that that proposal had the least impact on the environment, because tearing it up would obviously have a negative impact on the lake. In doing so, they're going to place, to stabilize the broken concrete, they're going to place a galvanized metal frame, which will be fabricated so that it maintains the size of that area,so that the deck can then be constructed upon it,and the concrete stairs,there'll be wooden stairs that will be built upon it, again, to just utilize the structure as it existed at one time when it was constructed. Again,when you're evaluating the Area Variance, any modification to this area would require relief because of its size and location, and they felt that the construction of this patio would result in the least undesirable change to the area,while improving it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions,comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Stefanie, I got a little confused on that presentation as far as the type of stairs? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So did I. MS. BITTER-They'll be wooden stairs. Did I say concrete? MR. FORD-You started with concrete and changed it to wooden. MS. BITTER-I meant that we were building upon the concrete, so there would be wooden stairs that would be bolted to the concrete stairs as they exist. MR. FORD-Okay. MS. BITTER-Too many concrete wooden patios back and forth. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS.WHITE-So will the flat section that's right down here by water. MS. BITTER-Right,it's a hard, I have the black and white. MS.WHITE-No,this is what convinced me,just looking at this picture I could see the issues. MS. BITTER-It's hard to see the engineer's feet on here,but there's like a stairway up at the top, and obviously there's some land that's taken over that, but that's the area exactly that they're going to bolt the stairs on over the concrete stairs that are there now. MS.WHITE-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-They're going to fabricate a galvanized. MS. BITTER-Metal frame. MR. MAGOWAN-Metal frame, and they're going to bolt and hold that. It's almost like a seawall,too, isn't it? MS. BITTER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a combination seawall/patio. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MS. BITTER-Right,and Devon,actually,and DLT Drafting,he demonstrates how he's going to design that. MR. HUNSINGER-I know at one time, and we haven't really talked about this in a long time, here, at the Planning Board,that there were concerns about using pressure treated lumber on properties on docks,and,you know,adjacent to the lake. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That went away. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's all they use. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. That's why I kind of asked the question. MR. MAGOWAN-Well,wasn't it you couldn't use it below the water line, I think is what it was. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what it was? Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Now that they've taken the formaldehyde out of the pressure treated lumber. MR. HUNSINGER-So that's why the issue went away? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I guess so because,you know,just being in the building trade I think they,you know,it laxed it a little. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don't know why that dawned on me. They haven't brought it up in the last 50 docks that we've talked about here. MR. MAGOWAN-Just that, the steel fabrication on that, and how they're going to hold that together, and what happens when it does shift? I mean, when you get your freeze and your re-freeze, you know, which way is it going to pitch it? He's not going to lay it flat, and if you're going to pitch it toward the lake, you know, your steel plate, and then all the water is just going to run directly into the lake, and you're taking out any form of buffer zone that might be coming down the stairwell, and if you pitch it back then you're going to get water that's going to wedge underneath the concrete which you're going to get a freeze and re-freeze, which is going to throw your deck off in the future. So I'd be more prone to figure out his steel layout. I mean, I understand the concept, because, like I said, to remove that would be, so, you know, it's six of one, half dozen of the other. How do you control the water? You're putting a big flat slab there now underneath the deck so you've got all that water that's going to come down the hill. Just curious. MS. BITTER-All right, and I can ask Devon that for the next time, because obviously we'll be returning here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you don't control the water coming out of the lake because it's going to wash up on top of it anyhow. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm not worried about what comes up from the lake. I'm worried about what goes into the lake. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The water that's in front of it. MR. MAGOWAN-The runoff coming down from the bank,you know,from the step area. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There is going to be water on top of this. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, as it is now, it can go through all the cracks and that of the concrete and kind of disperse itself. I mean, I'm just curious. I'm more worried about, really I'm more worried about the freeze and the re-freeze and five years from now when it's not holding together because you've gotten it up and down in the ice,it's moving. MS. BITTER-It's weakened the structure. MR. MAGOWAN-And how he's going to pin it to the concrete and the seawall, what happens if the seawall goes out. Then everything falls in. Maybe I'm more worried about the client than I am the water going off the hill. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MS. BITTER-I can look into those,though, and obviously I'll be returning here for a site plan review and be able to address that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, I mean, I think those are all legitimate concerns,you know. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've got a lot of docks that went in already this winter. So you've got to re- build them. It's all pressure treated wood. Anything that had a southern exposure. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm not really worried about the treated wood. Like I said, I'm more worried about that flat steel,galvanized,you know,plating and beams. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That'll outlast the wood. MR. MAGOWAN-Is it a plate or is it beams? MS. BITTER-Frame. It's a proposed metal frame. MR. MAGOWAN-Give us a little bit more of a design on the frame. MS. BITTER-Absolutely. MR. MAGOWAN-So I can visually see. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that could be like two by sixes, you know, the steel two by sixes they use in commercial construction,you know. MR. FORD-Let's get some dimensions of that,please,thickness. MR. MAGOWAN-I mean, I can understand, I'd just like to see a little bit more of the fabrication of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments? So it really is kind of an engineering question that we're asking,yes, the actual design. I don't think I'm hearing any concerns about the proposal itself, you know, with respect to the variance requests. Okay. Well, if there's no further discussion,if anyone would like to make a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 17-2014 MARC FUCHS; BETTY FUCHS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes 136 +/- sq. ft. wooden patio and 23 sq.ft.of stairs over an existing concrete area along shoreline. Site Plan: Hard- surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements. 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. 17-2014 MARC FUCHS: BETTY FUCHS, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-2014 SEQR TYPE II HHHN AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY CHURCH OF CHRIST ZONING NC-NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LOCATION 357 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT (HHHN) PROPOSES TO UTILIZE PARKING ON A NEIGHBORING PARCEL (CHURCH) AND CREATE 64 FEET OF SIDEWALK WITH SOLAR LIGHTING. USE OF THE CHURCH PARKING SITE WOULD BE FOR HHHN'S STAFF TO PARK AND UTILIZE NEW SIDEWALK TO WALK TO HHHN FACILITY. NO NEW PARKING SPACES ARE PROPOSED. SITE ALTERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED PARKING AREA AS A NEW USE ON THE SITE IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 29-10, 30-09 LOT SIZE 1.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8- 1-34 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-4-090 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes to utilize a parking utilize parking on a neighboring parcel (Church) and create 64 feet of sidewalk with solar lighting. Use of the church parking site would be for Hudson Headwaters Health Network staff to park and utilize new sidewalk to walk to Hudson Headwaters Health facility towards the back of the property. The Board may consider the waiver requests for lighting, drainage, landscaping and soil logs, and the Board may request clarification on alternative paths for the staff to access the facility. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones. I'm the architect working with Hudson Headwaters and with me is James McCormick. He's the Facilities Manager for Hudson Headwaters. Basically what we're proposing is to utilize 15 existing spaces at the Church located on Aviation Road for parking for staff for Hudson Headwaters,which is located kitty corner diagonally into their backyard. When we originally designed the Health Center back in 2004, or I think when it was actually 2001, 2002,we had provided 32 parking spaces on that site which was adequate for Health Center staff and patient load at that time. Projections have been done by Hudson Headwaters looking at roughly 15,000 patient encounters within five years. What actually happened, the encounters happened in two years. Subsequent to that the zoning actually changed and the parking requirements now for a health facility in Queensbury require less parking than what we have. What we're, what has resulted now is that Hudson Headwaters is adding additional medical staff, physicians and support staff. So the staffing requirements now are greatly exceeding the site. We have looked at options. We've looked at trying to park along Manor Drive. We've actually had a meeting with the Town Supervisor and the head of the Highway Department. The head of the Highway Department is not very receptive to us parking on Manor Drive because of sight line issues, clearing of snow in the winter,which is really when we need the additional parking. What's occurring, especially this year, because of the amount of snow that we've had, we're continually losing parking spaces within the two parking lots, either the bank parking lot where my office is or the Hudson Headwater lot behind us, and we're continually cleaning those out, and we've got to clean them out again. I think we've lost another five or six here in the last two weeks because of the snow. But basically we're looking to utilize that for overflow parking for staff. They would be basically coming along a new sidewalk that is constructed along Aviation Road. It ties into the sidewalk in front of Stewarts. They would then traverse across the bank parking lot to the rear parking lot where the Health Center is. I don't think there's any other viable options for us at this point, and they really desperately need the parking. I'd be happy to answer any questions that anyone may have. MR. FORD-You mentioned the word overflow staff parking. MR.JONES-Yes. MR. FORD-So it's anticipated that there still will be a staff parking lot nearer the facility that that will use for primary? MR. JONES-Yes, they do utilize part of their parking lot that they currently have at the Health Center. What we're finding is the agreement that they have with the Church is actually for 15 spaces, as a maximum, and typically I think we're looking at anywhere from three on certain days upwards to six or eight on other days. So there's, it's a varying thing. They actually added a new 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) physician January 1St, and I don't think there's any current idea of adding additional staff,but it's the type of thing where the staff just continues to grow. What we're finding, originally when we designed the Health Centers in Queensbury in other localities for Hudson Headwaters, we're providing roughly two and a half parking spaces per exam room, and now those counts are up over four, almost four and a half per exam room. They've grown, and a prime example is Carey Road Health Center. I mean,that thing is,we've added parking twice now in the last year. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-We remember. MR. MAGOWAN-I was going to say, it sounds just a replica of what you were just here the other month for. MR. JONES-Yes, and it's not only happening in Queensbury. It's happening in all of their facilities, every one that we're working on. So it's a growth theme. It's just the amount of staff that's being provided for patient care is growing in leaps and bounds,and so are the practices. MR. HUNSINGER-So how do you know, though, when you need to utilize this overflow parking? Are certain staff assigned to park there? MR. JONES-Yes, there are certain, what they're trying to do is assign certain staff, and what we're finding is like days like today where we have snow, they tend to creep back into the other parking lot which now is undersized because we're losing parking spaces because of the snow. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JONES-And we've got patients that are coming in, can't find parking places, that type of thing. So we felt it was in the best interest if we could find a safe site adjacent to what they're currently using,and basically provide a safe passage from that site to the Health Center site. MR. FORD-I'm interested in what kind of signage you might be recommending to us, do the best we can to assure safe crossing of the road. MR. JONES-Well, we don't cross Aviation Road. We had thought, at one point, of trying to utilize space in Sokol's parking lot, but at some point they're going to lease out that store again for some use, and on certain days between the dance studio,the restaurant, and other facilities, that parking lot is overflowing. MR. FORD-Sure. MR. JONES-So we didn't feel that was appropriate, and there is a crosswalk across Aviation Road, but if you were to go out there, I would not recommend trying to use it. You'll get run over. They will not stop for people in the crosswalk. So we felt that it was the safest if we could keep it on the Aviation Road side with the Health Center. That was the closest approximate area that had a parking area that we could utilize without trying to create something new. We had talked to the Manor Apartments, the Maple Manor Apartments, or Maplewood Apartments, whatever they are, next door because there's actually an open lot that backs up to the back side of the Health Center. MR. FORD-Yes, I know. MR.JONES-And what we found is the septic system is there, so we couldn't put a parking lot over it. That would have been ideal because it was right adjacent to the building. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. JONES-And we could have connected a sidewalk to the sidewalk, which actually goes on to Manor Drive from the end of the Health Center. There are no other lots. The lot on the other side of the parking lot is totally utilized by the accountants next door. The front lot is totally utilized by the dentist on the Aviation Road side. That thing is bursting at the seams as well, and our lot is full most of the time with employees, bank employees and people visiting either our office or the bank. So there's not a lot of additional parking,and the Stewarts parking lot is full all the time as well. MR. FORD-Right. MR. DEEB-Is that building an urgent care or primary care? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR.JONES-It's primary care. MR. DEEB-So it's all appointments? MR.JONES-It's all by appointments,that's correct. MR. DEEB-Okay. So nobody's driving in,then. MR.JONES-Right. Primary care and pediatrics in that building. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the new facility on Route 9 won't affect that because that's urgent care, right? MR.JONES-No,that is urgent care,that is correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I want to say, I think it helps out the Church, and like I say, that parking lot sits empty,you know, a good five days out of the week,you know, maybe sometimes you get a little something going on in there Saturday, but it's something you worked out with the Church. I think Michelle Obama will really like it because it gets people walking. MR. HUNSINGER-And Stewarts will like it because they have to walk right past Stewarts, back and forth. MR. MAGOWAN-And that's right they'll get a coffee on the way in. So just tell these people you've got to come in 15 minutes earlier. I mean, simple. No, but I can understand, like I said, what are you going to do without encroaching on more land, and this is something that you,you know,being able to utilize, and it helps out the Church in the same time that it's helping out you. I was very pleased to read it. I said, you know what, what a great idea, instead of trying to squeak in more spots or start going two stories,you know. MR. JONES-Yes, I mean we even looked at trying to come up with additional space on the Health Center site. The front lawn area, if we started to pave that, Number One, it's a septic system, and, Number Two, it puts us below the 30% on green space. Right now, with the Zoning Ordinance that's in place, we actually have twice the required parking for a Health Center in Queensbury, which doesn't work. MR. DEEB-So your sidewalk's going to go up Aviation Road? MR.JONES-Yes. MR. DEEB-In front of Stewarts? MR.JONES-It would actually connect to the sidewalk that's in front of Stewarts now. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,you're only adding 48 feet of,well, 48 plus 10 and 4 or 16. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you're closed on Sundays when the Church is open. MR.JONES-Yes,actually the Health Center is closed on weekends. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So that works pretty good. MR.JONES-Yes,it does. It's the best of both worlds for both the Church and the Health Center. MR. DEEB-That vegetable stand in the summer. MR.JONES-Yes,that's correct. MR. DEEB-All right,which is opened during the day. MR.JONES-That's correct. MR. DEEB-So you're going to have people parking there. I mean, there'll still be enough for that and your overflow parking. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. JONES-Yes. There's currently 18 spots right now on the Church site, of which they have requested using 15. I think the maximum that we would actually use is somewhere less than 10. MR. DEEB-Well, I don't see too many people parking in the spots anyway. They're always on the side of the road. MR.JONES-Yes, and in the summer when the vegetable stand is open,we have use of all the spots in the parking lot for the Health Center. MR. MAGOWAN-And we've actually had an overabundance of snow this year that we're not used to seeing. I was looking out the backdoor looking at the backyard saying, gee, it's been a long time since I remember seeing the snow that deep. MR.JONES-It's been at least two years,yes. MS. WHITE-The only question I had was looking at the pathway. It's against human nature to go around if they can go straight. Is there anything,you know. MR. JONES-Well, we looked at trying to think about connecting a sidewalk from the drive loop around the Church to the rear of the property and then over to the Health Center property, and the corners of the property are offset just enough that the Health Center corner never hits the Church corner. MS.WHITE-I see that,yes. MR. JONES-And in between that is a stormwater detention area for Stewarts that's full of huge shot rock. So we can't go across there. We thought of going through the back, but then we would need permission from the Apartments, and then we would be paving sidewalk down the side of the Health Center which would put us under the 30% green space. So it just complicated everything and we felt that the best way was putting the sidewalk along Aviation. There's good lighting out there. We're adding some small light poles that are solar and they're seven foot tall and they're like 45 watts on low I think 65 watts on high. MR. DEEB-Aviation can use a sidewalk. MR.JONES-Yes. MR. DEEB-It really can. MR.JONES-Well, part of the roundabout they're talking about sidewalks on the side of Aviation that we're putting the sidewalk connection, but I don't think they're coming down as far as the bank. I think they're only going to connect in to the sidewalk in front of the accountant's. At some point they're supposedly going to run sidewalks all the way down to the School. I don't know when that's going to occur. MR. FORD-It certainly is getting congested in that area. MR.JONES-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's why they're putting a roundabout in. MR.JONES-Yes,the roundabout should be in front of School,though. MR. FORD-Yes. MR.JONES-That's where the traffic problem is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,exactly. MR.JONES-It's a disaster at eight o'clock in the morning. MR. HUNSINGER-And the irony is that, of course, it never came before the Planning Board for discussion. They just went and made all those,and they made it so much worse. MR.JONES-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-I had questions for you on the solar lampposts. Just,you know, the experience in using those,you know,the effectiveness of them,you know,those kinds of questions. MR.JONES-Yes,there are some street lights right now along Aviation Road. They're actually on the south side of Aviation on the opposite side, and they do provide some general lighting in there. We were looking to provide something that would give us lighting directly on the walk area. We didn't want to have something where we had to run power to it. We realize that the duration for the lamps is only as good as the solar. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.JONES-So at some point they're going to be out at night. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR.JONES-So they're automatically going to go off. The only issue that we can see is potentially in the Fall or winter time where employees come in at 6:30 or 7 o'clock in the morning,the solar lights may not be on. So, it's the type of thing where it's kind of a Catch-22. We didn't want to provide anything that had a continuous light level. We're not looking to basically blind the drivers on Aviation Road and we feel that we have the ability to either set them on low level, and I think we get close to seven hours of daylight, or lighting out of those at low level. So we felt it was enough to provide the illumination levels that we needed for the sidewalk without doing too much of anything else. MR. MAGOWAN-Really for exiting. I mean, in the morning time, I mean, 6:30 is, it's still, there's only a short period of time where it's dark until daylight savings takes place. You've got a lot of, I don't want to say spill offs from Stewarts, but,you know,you've got the light across Aviation Road. I know Stewarts are well lit,and then the bank has a certain amount of lighting,too. MR.JONES-Yes,bank lighting is on all night. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, so,you know, really you're looking at that, and you're saying it's the overflow, you know, could it be, you know, you might want to say the parking over there is for, you know, people that come in after seven or something. You have to make some rules. Don't make me come over there and make rules. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What do you get about six hours out of those lights? MR.JONES-I think it's six or seven hours at the low. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We use a lot of them on properties up there, smaller ones than that, and that's what you get is six hours. MR. HUNSINGER-How about on cloudy or snowy days,though? MR.JONES-Yes,we're going to get less. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.JONES-Like today,probably,we need a charge. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,they don't work in the wintertime. MR.JONES-No,not well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. And then is there any kind of maintenance that's required for them? JAMES MC CORMICK MR. MC CORMICK-No,not the solar lights. MR.JONES-No,they're LED. So they're going to last quite a while. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just thinking of the actual solar panel itself. MR.JONES-You're probably going to have to replace the solar panel before you replace the. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, they're little lithium batteries that are in there. If they're anything like the ones on top of my posts on the deck there, and they've got to replace them. They only charge and re-charge so many times. That's about the only maintenance you'll see, and the bulbs, well, I don't know if they last forever. I've got to replace my batteries first. I'll let you know in the spring, all right. MR.JONES-Yes,the LED's last pretty good. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions? Are there any concerns that the Board has that haven't been addressed? This is a Type II action. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MRS.MOORE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will open the public hearing and if there are no commenters, let the record show no comments were received. It's a Type II SEQR, and we'll close the public hearing, and if anyone wants to make a motion. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,let me find it here. MR. HUNSINGER-Even though it's Type II,they did provide. MRS.MOORE-I know,it's my mistake on my Staff Notes. The agenda is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Where it says Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP# 10-2014 HHHN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant (HHHN) proposes to utilize parking on a neighboring parcel (Church) and create 64 feet of sidewalk with solar lighting. Use of the church parking site would be for HHHN's staff to park and utilize new sidewalk to walk to HHHN facility. No new parking spaces are proposed. Site alterations and development of a shared parking area as a new use on the site in the NC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II; A public hearing was advertised and held on 2-18-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2014 HHHN, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: 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) Waiver requests granted: lighting,drainage,landscaping,and soil logs. 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. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) 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) Applicant to provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.Traver, Mr. Deeb, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR.JONES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,you're welcome. MRS.MOORE-I do have one more item. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it's not on the agenda, but we are going to have a discussion about the Bear Pond Ranch. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and it's only briefly because I'll start with the fact that the Adirondack Park Agency provided you with a letter asking for comments from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-However the Board's not going to see any new information until March. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-And they have submitted information that you requested last time, in reference to only the area of the site that is in Queensbury, and for those of you that don't know, it's the zip line that would run from the ranch that's in Lake George to a portion of the property that happens to be in Queensbury. MR.TRAVER-Yes, I was up there Sunday snowmobiling. MR. HUNSINGER-I was wondering if you were up there. MRS.MOORE-You have to start in Lake George to go to the Queensbury portion. Sorry,technical. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes,we're just responsible for the top of the mountain. MRS. MOORE-Correct, and so the APA has asked for your comments, and you can't provide comments because you don't have any new information, and I just wanted to make sure that that's the response that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, there are concerns that the, I mean, I don't mean to speak for the Board, but there were concerns that were either in the letter that was submitted, and I can't remember if it went to Lake George or to the APA,but there was a letter that we. MRS.MOORE-It was your letter that was drafted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-And I actually thought it was in here because. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. There were also comments in the Staff Notes, there was a memo, I was able to find my package. There was a memo that Keith Oborne drafted that talked about the potential for blasting, road up grades on steep slopes, disturbance with the Queensbury portion of the project and visual impacts. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. TRAVER-And I know, I think we had public comment. I can recall someone being concerned about the noise that the carriages on the cable would make and the potential impact to the aviary up there,bird life. MRS. MOORE-I can, when I did talk with the applicant, there is information that you're going to be provided about the noise summary. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-They did have a noise study completed. So you'll be provided with that information as part of your packet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The other thing that was kind of interesting to myself was in reading the Staff Notes for the meeting,it was in the APA determination, I think it was,well,they talk about,yes, this is the Adirondack Park Major Project Public Notice. They talk about operations are proposed to be year round, and I thought in the prior discussion here at our Board meetings they only talked about a seasonal use. So I was a little surprised to see that. MR.TRAVER-I remember asking them that question. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean,that's kind of a game changer in terms of,you know,access on that road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,you couldn't get up there at this time of the year. MR.TRAVER-I did. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well,yes, I know,with a snowmobile. MR. HUNSINGER-My father-in-law and brother-in-law were up there in their gator or whatever it is that they call it,you know,the fire department. MR.TRAVER-I can't imagine the public,though,going down that zip line with 20 below zero. MR. HUNSINGER-They talked about using a gator to go up. MS.WHITE-And if you stop,you have to pull yourself to the other end. Yes, no, I don't think you're going to do that in the middle of winter. MR.TRAVER-Well, and it could be in their opening proposal they're just, maybe they want potential permission to run it year round. MR. HUNSINGER-That's why I asked the question. MRS. MOORE-That information is provided in that packet. We talked about that with the applicant and it is truly a mechanical. It's not driven by hand at all. It's all electric motors that are driving that, and in reference to what, they did talk about extending their shoulder season, and again, you're correct,they're not going to shoot people down there in the dead of winter. MR. HUNSINGER-Well,yes, I mean, extending the shoulder season is a lot different than the middle of January,when it's 20 below zero. MR.TRAVER-Yes,and four feet of snow. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Was there anything in that letter so in the clearing where they could make up like metal trees and that and paint them,you know,like I said,so they don't grow in front? MRS. MOORE-What happened is there is a cutting plan that the APA and the applicant have been working on, and you'll see that in the applicant's plans where it's actually a staggered, it's more of a latter staggered, so that there's no true, there's no straight line of sight. You will always see a staggered tree line,sort of a zigzag,if you were to look at it overhead. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We could put some Frankenpines up there for them. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. MAGOWAN-No,seriously,like little metal ones there. MR. HUNSINGER-Paint them green. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Put Christmas lights on them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, change them with the season,that's it. So all kidding aside, I mean,what's the expectation of what we can this evening,since we really don't know what the full proposal is. MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the APA going to extend the comment period for us? MRS.MOORE-I don't know. I will ask them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That's sort of, I want to make sure that I can respond to them in the sense that we have no new information from the Board,has not had the opportunity to review that information. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS.MOORE-And they will provide comment when they've completed their review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They said in that letter it's complete. They are done with it,aren't they? MRS. MOORE-They are not done with it. No, it's a Notice of Complete Application that they're reviewing right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So they sent you a notice saying, yes, we have a complete application for them to review. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MRS. MOORE-They do have a complete application, other than they were asking for our comments, and,you,the Board,have not seen that application. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So is it my understanding the applicant will be herein March to review the project? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and, I mean, there is a record of our comments and our concerns. I mean that's,you know,a pretty clear record. I'm sure the APA has had, I mean. MRS. MOORE-As part of my correspondence with them I can indicate that there is a record that you've completed in the past that I can forward to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS.MOORE-So that they have those comments on record. MR. FORD-What's the extent of the comment period,please. MR. HUNSINGER-They asked for our comments by February 24th. MRS.MOORE-By February 20th. So,no,that's impossible. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR. HUNSINGER-It's kind of interesting that they only give us two weeks. The APA only gave us two weeks to review the letter and give comments back. Yes, the letter's dated February 11th and they said they wanted the comments back by February 24th. MR. TRAVER-Well, why don't we make the comment that we would like to comment when we've seen the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,that would make sense. MR. FORD-Yes. That's our comment for tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Other than that,our concerns are on the record already. MR.TRAVER-Although we don't know what changes in the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,right. MR. TRAVER-And I've heard some. Probably most significantly the point that you made, Chris, about it operating year round. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.TRAVER-That was off the table when we discussed it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That wasn't even an issue. We never even talked about it. MR. TRAVER-No, that was one of the first questions that was asked, and the applicant said, oh, no, it's going to be only in the summer. MRS.MOORE-Okay. I'll forward that thought on to the APA. MR. FORD-Thank you, appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of the other,just one of the other comments that I would make is I do believe the last time the project was in front of this Board was November 17th of 2011, and I'm not sure. MR. DEEB-I wasn't here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Was it 11 or 12? MR. HUNSINGER-Eleven. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Was it really? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Yes,it was a 2011 application. MR. HUNSINGER-So a good portion of the Board wasn't even here to review the old project, and then no one has seen the new project. So it's kind of hard to comment. MR. FORD-We'd prefer to see a project before we comment on it. MS.WHITE-And it would be nice if we had a little bit more time, too. It seems like to have that be due on February 20th is a little. MRS.MOORE-Again,their review process is different than ours,how they review. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I appreciate the fact that they're trying to review it quickly, but there's also realities of information and. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/18/2014) MR.TRAVER-Well,you remember the extensive discussion we had regarding Lead Agency,as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Right,exactly. MR.TRAVER-I remember working on a draft of a letter together. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR.TRAVER-Which was all for naught. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. I don't know what else we can tell you at this point. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. I will respond with the comments,the thoughts that you shared with me tonight, and provide that we need additional time because you haven't seen the new packet of information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Would you like a motion for adjournment? MR. HUNSINGER-If you're making one. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2014, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Ms.White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I'll see everybody next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 23