Loading...
2005-12-27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 27, 2005 INDEX Subdivision No. 22-2005 Schermerhorn Properties 1. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 289.20-1-7 Subdivision No. 13-2003 James Newbury 3. Tax Map No. 307-1-47, 46.2 Subdivision No. 1-2005 J. Michael Blackburn 8. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 253-1-8 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 23-2005 David & Gertrude Sperry 17. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.7-1-58, 59, 60, 61 FINAL STAGE Freshwater Wetlands Permit Michaels Group & Bay Meadows Corp. 21. No. 6-2005 Tax Map No. 296.16-1-2 Subdivision No. 26-2005 Michaels Group & Bay Meadows Corp. 21. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-2 Site Plan No. 68-2005 RPS Property Holdings, LLC 22. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-11 RESOLUTION Recommendation for Planning Board Chair 30. 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 12/27/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 27, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD GEORGE GOETZ ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS SEGULJIC LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Before we get into the agenda, I just want to say, tonight is the last meeting for Richard Sanford. Thank you. It’s been a pleasure, Richard. Good luck on the Town Board. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to make an announcement about Bay Meadows and King and Monsour? MR. HUNSINGER-If there is anyone here to comment to the Board about David Monsour/Peter King, Subdivision 24-2005, that application has been withdrawn. So we don’t know when that will be coming before the Board again, and anyone here for The Michaels Group and Bay Meadows Corporation, Planned Unit Development, 26-2005, the applicant has asked that that be tabled. We will be tabling that to a January meeting. I guess it would be my inclination to set it to the second meeting, which is January 24. We will have a th formal resolution later in the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 SEQR TYPE PUD CONSISTENCY SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES AGENT(S): NACE ENG., J. LAPPER OWNER(S): GLENS FALLS HOME ZONING PUD LOCATION HAVILAND/MEADOWBROOK APPLICANT PROPOSES A 42 LOT SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS [TOWNHOUSE UNITS] AND 4 COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 2.07, 1.39, 1.28 AND 1.30 ACRES, RESPECTIVELY WITH 1,300 SQ. FT. OF ROAD. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REF. PUD 8-2000, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 10/25/05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 40.00 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.20-1-7 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, do you want to summarize Staff Notes on Schermerhorn. MRS. BARDEN-I do have the tabling motion from December 20, asking the applicant for th revised drawings, specifically for relocation of the walkways and elimination of the street lights, and a C.T. Male signoff. You do have an e-mail message from Jim Houston of C.T. Male, dated December 23. You should have that in your packets. rd MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MRS. BARDEN-Basically that this re-submittal addresses all of our previous comments, but I notice that the plans are missing information about the (lost word) plantings and the stormwater basin. That’s from Jim Houston, and that’s it. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Hi. For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. Thank you for handling this the way you did. What happened was there were three things that we had to do. Two for the Board, and then there was a third item for C.T. Male last time, and Tom got everything down to him, and what he said was, thank you, everything you sent down is fine, but there’s something that I missed last time that I hadn’t raised. So this issue that Susan just mentioned about the aquatic bench was something that wasn’t something that had come up in his review. So since he sent that back, Tom sent him back a letter today, including that. So it wasn’t that we were remiss in any way. It was just something that was raised today for the first time. So we certainly want to do what he wants on that, and it’s no issue, and we would ask you to approve it, subject to final C.T. Male signoff on that last minute issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll open it up to the Board, questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-I can just say that the new plans eliminated the lighting and did change the walkways. I checked that out, and they seem to be in conformance with what we asked for last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant proposes a 42 lot subdivision resulting in 38 residential lots [townhouse units] and 4 commercial lots of 2.07, 1.39, 1.28 and 1.30 acres, respectively with 1,300 sq. ft. of road. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board approval WHEREAS, the application was received, and is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/20/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Final [ A183-13 E (2) (3) (4) ] WHEREAS, upon granting conditional approval of the final plat, the Planning Board shall empower a duly designated officer to sign the plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. Within five days of such resolution, the plat shall be certified by the Chairman of the Planning Board as conditionally approved and a copy filed in the Planning Office and a certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy mailed to the subdivider shall include two findings sheets, one of which shall be signed by the applicant and returned to the Planning Board. Such requirements which, when completed, will authorize the signing of the conditionally approved final plat. Upon completion of such requirements to the satisfaction of the duly designated office of the Planning Board, the plat shall be deemed to have received final approval, and such officer shall sign the plat accordingly. Conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval unless the 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two additional periods of 90 days each. [Amended 6-3-1991] [ A-183-13 E (2) ] WHEREAS, the final plat shows exact location and depth of sewer and water service. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. [ A183-13 E (3) ] WHEREAS, final approval of the subdivision plat plan shall be limited to that phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board. [ A183-13 E (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off to be received on the aquatic bench plan. 2. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 3. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan]. 4. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 5. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 6. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 7. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 8. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 9. Development of one (1) commercial lot per 10 residential units. 10. NOI filed prior to submission of building permit. Duly adopted this 27th day of December, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING LC-10 LOCATION 62 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 52.24 +/- ACRES OF LAND [24.34 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, 27.9 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) LAKE LUZERNE] INTO 4 LOTS OF 5.11 ACRES, 4.31 ACRES, 8.44 ACRES AND 6.48 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY [WITH THE TOTAL SIZSE OF EACH LOT BEING 10.64 ACRES, 14.24 ACRES, 14.1 ACRES AND 13.26 ACRES]. CROSS REF. AV 22- 2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 24 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307-1-47, 46.2 SECTION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JIM NEWBURY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you want to summarize Staff Notes. MRS. BARDEN-The only thing I have is an e-mail from Jim Houston at C.T. Male, “In response to our December 21, 2005 comment letter, we received a response letter dated December 23, 2005 and excerpts from revised plans from Matthew Steves (the applicant’s consultant). Provided that the revisions shown in the excerpts are incorporated into the final plans, our comments are addressed. Jim Houston” MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Newbury and Tom Nace as needed. I’ve not been involved in this application to date. I have an agency form for submission. Apparently I got called in at the last week to sit for a denial, just so my record would be affected with a loss, but that said, if I could have about two minutes before you pass the resolution that apparently you’ve crafted, this was something that Matt Steves, the surveyor, handled, and as you know they’ve gone through SEQRA joint review by Lake Luzerne and Queensbury, the variances for the lot size in the Town of Queensbury, and then came to you for subdivision, and I guess, in looking at this issue, I understand that the neighbors are pretty bent out of shape, or a couple of neighbors are. What I find most remarkable about this application is that because the property is in the two Towns, what you may not be aware of is there’s this logging road that already goes to the West Mountain property, and with or without the approval from the Planning Board tonight, there can still be four houses and four lots. It’s just that the configuration will change and you’d have to access the two of them in Lake Luzerne through the logging road, and it just doesn’t, in terms of the neighbors and the impact, I think that what was proposed and reviewed for SEQRA and for all these other reviews is the best way to subdivide it, but there are still, the four homes can still be built because there’s more than 20 acres in Queensbury. There’s more than enough land to have two houses in Queensbury. You just change the lot configuration, and the two houses that are proposed for the Town of Lake Luzerne would be right where they are. It’s just that they would be accessed by the logging road. So the only thing that we’re really talking about is the driveway from Cormus Road to Lot Three, and that’s really the only distinction, and I think, you know, with that in mind, you have to just ask yourself what’s the best way to do this, and all we’re really talking about is whether that third lot has its own driveway or has a shared driveway off of that existing logging road, and I don’t know that it’s been explained to you that way in the past, but when I looked at this with the applicant and the surveyor, it kind of jumped out at me that there’s just another way to accomplish this that maybe not as good for the people who are going to live there, but it’s still going to allow the four houses because there’s 50 some odd acres that’s more than enough for four homes. So it’s your pleasure, but I hope you’ll approve what’s been proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for your comments. Since we already completed the SEQRA, and closed the public hearing, I guess I would just open it up for any questions that might be new or new information from the Board, and then I’ll turn the floor over to Bob to go over the two resolutions that he prepared. So are there any final questions or comments from the Board? MR. SANFORD-Well, just in terms of what Mr. Lapper just said, which is news to me, but I guess in terms of process, I’m just curious, I don’t have the answer. If the Board decided not to go in the direction of an approval and you were going to do your alternative approach, it raises a question whether or not that would be a new application or a modification to an application, and I’m not sure how that determination is reached or who reaches it. So I guess my question is probably directed a little bit towards legal on that. MR. SCHACHNER-Typically Staff can make that initial determination subject to confirmation by the Board. There’s no magic touchstone for when something must be considered a new application versus a modification. The general standard that Planning 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) Board’s typically apply is that if there’s something in common with the application that’s been reviewed thus far, and it’s not completely totally different, then it’s typically considered a modification. If there’s something completely totally different, then that’s often considered a new application. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now in the event of a new application, that would trigger a new SEQRA review. Is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-A new application would trigger an entirely new process including SEQRA review, public hearing, the works. MR. SANFORD-How about the modification? MR. SCHACHNER-Modification would only trigger, could only trigger new public hearing if you deem it to be a substantial and material modification, and same answer for SEQRA review. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-I should probably just very briefly reply. I think it can be done without seeking an approval, so it wouldn’t need a modified application because there are already two lots in Queensbury. It would just be a boundary adjustment so that the first lot, the most northern lot on the right side would have to be 10 acres. Both lots in Queensbury would have to be 10 acres, and then there would just be the existing right of way to get to the Lake Luzerne property, which wouldn’t be, to my mind, a Queensbury approval because that’s just an existing drive that’s there now, you’d be accessing it in the Town of Lake Luzerne. MR. SANFORD-Would there still be a subdivision in Queensbury? Well, no, it would be a boundary line adjustment because there’s two lots now in Queensbury. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, boundary adjustments, my understanding, do come in front of this Board. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Only of an approved, only boundary adjustment of an approved subdivision. You can do a boundary adjustment that is not, if you’re not creating any new lots, if you have two lots and you change the line so that they’re both conforming, that generally doesn’t require Planning Board approval in Queensbury. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Everyone should have in front of them the memorandum, as well as the title on the second sheet is conditions for approval on James Newbury subdivision that Mr. Vollaro prepared. Did you have any comments, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. I just wanted to know whether all members of the Board had understood what I had written and if there’s any question on what’s in there, I’d be happy to answer those. MR. SANFORD-I would like you to walk us through that, because it’s not a simplistic analysis that you ended up doing, and I think if you could verbally just sort of express the substance of it, I think it would be helpful. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Okay. At our last meeting, I had agreed to write this and one we were advised by Counsel to make sure that we didn’t go over anything that had to do with SEQRA. In other words, we had passed the SEQRA so we couldn’t rely on something in SEQRA that would cause us to go through a denial. There are two references. One is the Open Space Plan, which it was adopted by the Town Board on July 7, 2003, and the other reference is Chapter A183, Article Nine, called Cluster Development. Now those two, when I talked to the Executive Director, she, Marilyn Ryba, said to me that the Open Space Plan should be considered an addendum to the CLUP, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, consider as an addendum. We never looked at that addendum. We never considered that addendum at 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) our last meeting. It was never mentioned, and it should be treated as part of the document, and in that Open Space Plan, on Page 25, of Reference A, which is the Open Space Plan, it addresses the mountain ridges, specifically the Luzerne Mountains. When you go to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Neighborhood Eleven, you’ll find that it remains relatively silent in that area. It doesn’t say anything, but the Open Space Plan says a lot, and what it does say, at the very end, it says care should always be given to changes in character of the mountain ridge. That’s one. Now, Reference B in my memorandum talks to A183-35 called Procedures. Now, it says a cluster design alternative shall be required if the characteristics of the site include any of the following, and it does include number nine. There were nine issues there, and the last one states sites located in the scenic vista or view shed identified on the Scenic Views and Vistas map. Now, I had a meeting on December 5 with Staff and we th looked at that Scenic Views and Vistas map with Mrs. Barden and our Zoning Administrator and we agreed that this particular property was in the view shed. So therefore 183-35 would require an alternate submission for a cluster design. Now, the applicant and the Planning Board could I understand again with, I think that Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, had spoken to Counsel concerning the fact that if this Board and the applicant were to agree to extend the 62 day limit then it could be done, providing it was mutually agreed to. Is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-True of this application and any other application ever before this or any other Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. So that this Board could agree to an extension of the 62 day requirement for the Planning Board to make a motion, or for the Planning Board to make a denial or an approval, and the applicant would agree to provide a cluster alternative design for the Planning Board and if it was agreed to, a Sketch Plan should be submitted, I think, for review and comment. Now that means that if you go to the alternative cluster design, it’s going to have to agree to Article Nine in the Cluster Development section of 183. If the applicant does not agree with an extension, one of two motions, a denial based on the discovery of this new information, or a conditional approval. Now that’s up to the Board. I’m not going to make that motion. I’ve done the work and I want the Board to try to understand where we are. They’ve got two alternatives. The applicant can agree to the 62 day extension, and could submit a cluster development, or a cluster development and an alternate development for a non cluster. So it would be a modified submission. If conditional approval is selected by a majority of the Board, it should be with the understanding that they are ignoring the recommendation in the CLUP and the Open Space Plan and the direction given to 183-35 Number Nine. Now, I’ll go along with the conditions of approval. I understand there’s a very recent letter that came in from C.T. Male that is not on here, but I’ll go over these in any event. Unless everybody’s read them and they understand what the conditions of approval would be. If you want me to go through them, I will. The more complicated section of this was in the memorandum that I’ve already finished on. So I think, if the applicant has listened to what I had to say, he can agree to an extension of the 62 days. MR. LAPPER-Certainly if that’s what the Board would like. It hasn’t been requested up until today. So the application could certainly be supplemented with comparing it to a cluster, sure. MR. VOLLARO-It would have to be a cluster design that we would approve. MR. LAPPER-But it would only be the two homes in Queensbury, not the two in Lake Luzerne, just clustering the two homes in the Town of Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this has been looked at as a complete application in the past, and I don’t know whether we’d want to segment it, but I would leave that up to the Chairman. I would not certainly want to see it, I’d like to see it proposed as it’s been proposed, as a full application with the houses in Lake Luzerne, and the houses in Queensbury. I don’t think segmenting it, but I think that’s the Chairman’s call. It’s not mine. MR. LAPPER-Well, whatever the Board’s prerogative. It can be changed in any way to still have the four houses, whatever you want to see. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve got to take the original submission and give it to us that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, it’s not entirely up to me. It’s up to the Board. My personal opinion is I think it’s kind of silly to look at a four lot cluster development, but 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) that’s just one of seven. I understand where you’re coming from, Bob, I really do, but I think it’s a silly exercise, but again, that’s just my opinion. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I’m just going by what 183-35 says to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I totally understand. MR. VOLLARO-And one of them said that a cluster design shall be required if the characteristics of the site include any of the following. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, I realize that. MR. VOLLARO-So I think they’re obligated to do that in any event, even if they come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels on that particular issue. Richard? MR. SANFORD-I don’t think, I understand what Bob’s saying about the cluster, but I don’t think whether it should be a cluster of two versus four should be at the pleasure, if you will, of any one person or really of this Board. It should really be a fact, not a debated issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-In other words, if we go in the direction that Mr. Vollaro was suggesting, we’re going to require a cluster, would it be for the full application which involves the four houses or would, as Mr. Lapper was suggesting, it be split in half and we would somehow not address the Luzerne land in the same way as we would the Queensbury land? It’s a complicated issue. I’m not sure if there’s a legal opinion on it at this point in time, but I clearly don’t, you know, I disagree with Mr. Vollaro when he says it’s sort of the Chairman’s pleasure or whatever the word he used. If I was Chris, I’d say, wait a second, I’m not touching that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and the other comment I would just make, I’m sorry to interrupt, is we can ask the applicant for whatever we want, but he has no legal obligation to give it to us. I mean, if we ask them for a four lot, four house cluster with all the houses in Queensbury, he can come back with two and say, here’s my new plan. MR. SANFORD-Sure. Just to answer your direction question, though, Chris, is because of the sensitivity on developing up on the mountain, it’s going to be a visual situation, and there are a number of issues that the neighbors have expressed that I also happen to share. I am inclined to want to see the cluster alternative. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my main concern is the visual impacts. I guess what I’d really like to see is how any development up there is really going to have, what its visual impact is going to be, and I’m struggling with the cluster. I guess I’d want to hear more discussion about that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he certainly could cluster everything on one of those lots. I mean, there is, I think Lot Three might be one of the better lots to cluster on, since it’s got a lot of flat space on it. You’d have to look at what you want to do to the thing. Not necessary that you put four houses up there either. So I think that’s up to the applicant, though, to redesign and not for the Board to try to redesign for him. MRS. STEFFAN-In my opinion, we’re talking about a cluster now which we haven’t talked about before. The visual impacts are pretty key. The last two meetings that we’ve had, those were when the visual impacts came to light. I asked for a notation of the height of the land. Two of the lots actually have house sites that are at the height of land, and it just doesn’t fit with our Town plan. So I understand what Bob’s put together, but my feeling is not to ask the applicant to come back with a cluster design. It’s my suggestion that there be a motion to deny for two issues cited in our Subdivision Regulations and our Open Space Plan. That’s my position. MR. HUNSINGER-George, we skipped over you. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. GOETZ-I think we’re really sort of beating around the bush by sending them back to do a cluster. Actually, I believe in pretty much what was just said. I think we should take a vote. MR. HUNSINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just don’t know where a cluster would get us. I think it would just prolong the agony, if you will, of this. I mean, if you really look at it, you still are allowed to build four houses up there, whether or not you cluster them. I think to keep in the harmony of the neighborhood you should keep it at the zoning that we’ve been looking at all along, and to cluster it just would almost add insult to injury to all of the neighbors in the area that have come out in disagreement with this application. I just think that that’s not the way we should move on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob, I know you read to us the Code, but what’s your feeling? MR. VOLLARO-My feeling goes along with what Gretchen had to say. I would make a motion to deny this and let the applicant come back with a new application, if he so chooses. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if those are the feelings from the Board members, maybe instead of going through the conditions for approval, we’d just look for a motion, if anyone wants to put forward a motion. MOTION TO DENY SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 JAMES NEWBURY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Citing Subdivision Regulations A-183-34 Letter H, building lot shall be set back away from ridges or military crests in order to protect the natural silhouette of Queensbury’s mountain ranges. I’d also like to cite on Page 25 from the Open Space Vision Plan from the Town of Queensbury which is an addendum to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, that states mountain ridges and West Mountain, a large part of Queensbury’s diverse beauty comes from the dramatic scenic back drop provided by the mountain ranges that frame vistas throughout the Town. West Mountain and part of Luzerne Mountains, with the entire ridge commonly referred to as West Mountain frames the western horizon of the Town. As scenic resources, it is only fitting to recognize these mountain ridge lines as important elements of the Town’s landscape. Care should always be given to changes to the character of that mountain range. This application does not meet the criteria set forth in those two provisions. Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. HUNSINGER-Comment from Counsel. MR. SCHACHNER-There is a comment from Counsel. As I understood the motion, which has been seconded, I heard a motion to deny and I heard citing this section and then citing this section. I didn’t hear anything in the motion stating whether the motion, or anyone who seconded the motion, how the citing of those sections relates to the application. In other words, I didn’t hear any language to the effect of, citing this section and noting that the application does not comply with, or that the application fails to meet the standard, or something other than citing this section. So I’m going to suggest that the motion, if that’s way the motion’s going, be that somebody consider a motion that not only cites those sections but indicates whether this application does or does not meet the criteria of those sections. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to clarify? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. If I could just use the last sentence that Mark suggested. After finishing with the Open Space Vision Plan, under the mountain ranges, this application does not meet the criteria set forth in those two provisions. MR. VOLLARO-Do you still second it, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Let me just clarify this. I don’t want to make a bad vote. If I vote yes, I’m voting in favor of a denial, correct? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the correct. MR. SANFORD-Then the vote is yes. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger MR. LAPPER-Tom and I wanted to give you a present on the last meeting of the year to withdraw The Michaels Group application, or to table it for tonight, so it would be a short meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate that. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-5 & LC-10 LOCATION EAST SIDE RIDGE RD. NORTH OF DUNHAMS BAY GUN CLUB APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN LOTS OF 5.17 AC., 5.18 AC., 22.10 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 80-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 32.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.-1-18 SECTION A-183 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-The application was tabled on November 22, for a couple of items in the nd tabling motion, specifically looking for follow up by C.T. Male to review the data on test pits, in accordance with their Item Number Four in their letter of 16 November 2005 where they talked about that. Secondly we would like to make sure that the deed concerning the existence of the Dunham’s Bay Fish and Game Club to the south, those deeds shall recognize the existence of that, and that condition should be stated on the preliminary and final plat. There should also be a cross easement agreement between the three lot owners, that we have a cross easement between all three, concerning the driveway, and ultimately what we’d like to is a C.T. Male signoff. We do have a C.T. Male signoff dated December 22, 2005 from Jim Houston of C.T. Male. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins of Hutchins Engineering, here on behalf of Mr. Blackburn. I was not involved in the earlier meetings before this Board, and I guess I would focus on the tabling resolution of November 22, and the three items that nd Staff just mentioned, the first of which was the soils information. We have revisited the site and I have reviewed the soils criteria with C.T. Male, and we have revised the plans accordingly, and they have reviewed revised plans, and I believe you have their signoff letter of December 22. The other two items I recall from the tabling resolution were the cross nd easement for the driveway, and a note has been added to the plans to indicate that will be part of deeds for the parcels, and the other item is a note’s been added to the plan with reference to the existence of the Dunham’s Bay Rod and Gun Club to the south, which will also be incorporated into the deeds, and with that, I’d turn it back to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d just open it up for questions or comments. I just have one comment. In the letter from C.T. Male, December 22, he talks about a revised set of plans. He says that the applicant’s engineer (lost word) consisted of a transmittal letter dated December 20 and th the revised set of plans. Do we have, because I’ve got the old plans. Do we have a revised set of those plans from Blackburn? MR. HUTCHINS-They were submitted. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure you submitted them. I just have the old set, which is dated, the last update on the set that I have is 10/3. MR. HUNSINGER-12/2 is the latest. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-12/2 is the one I have, yes, 12/2 is the latest plan. MR. SEGULJIC-The sheet of plans is a package of three plans. We only received one in our package, is that correct? It refers to one of three. MR. HUTCHINS-There were three plans in the set that were submitted. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at S-1, and I think the Chairman is correct. The last one on that is 12/2/05. Now, in the C.T. Male letter, they talk about a revised set of plans, but that’s dated December 22. nd MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you look at the tabling resolution, Bob, it was tabled on November 22. So the plans were revised in accordance with the tabling resolution, and then nd resubmitted on 12/2. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but my plan doesn’t show, I think we asked for a buffer, didn’t we ask for a buffer on the southern side of that? We have a 50 foot buffer between the Dunhams Bay Fish and Game Club the residential community to the north. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and that’s indicated. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t have that buffer on the plan that’s dated 12/2/05. MR. HUTCHINS-The plans that were submitted most recently, Sheet S-1 is Revision Seven dated 12/9, Sheet S-2 is Revision One dated 12/21. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the ones that are dated 12/2 are not up to date, essentially, is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re not looking at the right set of plans here. MR. SEGULJIC-You also indicated Sheet Two is dated? MR. HUTCHINS-Sheet Two is dated 12/21. Sheet D-1 is dated 12/21. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t have Sheet 2. MR. HUTCHINS-They were submitted. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, well, we just don’t have them. MR. VOLLARO-I think the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is we don’t have the most updated drawings to look at. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Also with regard to the test pit information, is that on one of the plans there? MR. HUTCHINS-That is on Sheet S-2. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Once again, I only received Sheet S-1. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only one that I have is S-1 on the latest submission, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-They were submitted December 20 with response to C.T. Male. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to see the plans. I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-Did you show the 50 foot buffer on the latest update? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I did. I’ll gladly put them up and show you, if that would help. MR. VOLLARO-It would help me. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be helpful. MR. HUTCHINS-Sheet S-1 is Revision 7, last revised 12/9. It shows topography around the area of proposed houses, which is something C.T. Male had requested. It shows a 50 foot wide no cut buffer zone, all the way across the south line. It shows clearing limits around the driveway, and it shows, deeded 25 foot cross easements for all lots for access to the driveway, and a reference in the deeds for future owners of these lots shall inform them of the active rifle range that exists on the property to the south. That summarizes the changes on Sheet 1. Sheet 2, we carried over the clearing limits from Sheet 1 to show on the sheet. It shows three additional test pits that were conducted. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you show us where those are located on your plan? MR. HUTCHINS-Test Pit Three is located up here. Test Pit Four is located here, in the general area of Test Pit Two, and Test Pit Five is located here in the general area of Test Pit One. As a result of Three, we did shift the system back further east. MR. VOLLARO-They were done on December 5? th MR. HUTCHINS-They were done on December 5, yes, with the letter of December 14. thth MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now was C.T. Male present at that? MR. HUTCHINS-They were not. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I know on the minutes of 1/18/05 we had requested, our understanding that C.T. Male would be present when the pits were done, but were they in touch with you on that? MR. HUTCHINS-I discussed it with them, yes, and I believe it says in the minutes of November 22, and I believe it was you, Mr. Vollaro, if I’m not mistaken, that indicated that you did not expect them to be present. You just wanted them to review the information and concur. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And I did read that today. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure that that’s what I said. MR. GOETZ-Yes, Bob, it’s on Page 30 of the meeting minutes. MR. VOLLARO-As long as C.T. Male concurred with that information and you discussed it with them. MR. HUTCHINS-I did, I reviewed it with them, yes. MR. SANFORD-How do you do test pits in December? MR. HUTCHINS-Those were done as borings, actually. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I mean, but isn’t it very difficult, that time of year, isn’t it preferred to do them in the Spring? MR. HUTCHINS-I guess ideally. That’s why we hired soil scientist. He can do them pretty much year round. These were done as borings. MR. SANFORD-I have the minutes of 11/22 with me. Where does Mr. Vollaro? MR. HUNSINGER-On Page 30, right in the middle of the page. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. GOETZ-First of all, Mr. Steves: Okay. You do want C.T. Male to witness those? MR. VOLLARO: No, just to review the data that they have, in accordance with their Item Number Four in their letter of 16 November 2005 where they talk about that. MR. SANFORD-See, my Page 30 is actually the resolution. I’m talking in terms of these minutes. So we’re on a slightly different thing. MR. GOETZ-This was on 11/22. MR. HUNSINGER-You have the actual, it was in our Board package. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. MR. HUNSINGER-The page, it’s on letter size instead of legal size. So the page numbers are different. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. VOLLARO-I think even the motion that I introduced said looking for follow up by C.T. Male to review the data on the test pits. I just wanted to make sure that C.T. Male was involved in this, because we had asked them to be right in front. MR. HUTCHINS-And they were. I discussed it with them up front, and I told them what I was going to do, and we went and did it. We got the report from Charlie, I discussed it with him, subsequently, and they’ve reviewed the design. MR. VOLLARO-Your answer to Mr. Sanford’s question was you did borings as opposed to a dig, is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Charlie Maine did borings, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Were you there when he did it? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I was. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Now, in the future, I think we’ve been through this so many times, as sort of a parting shot, I think the key word is we’re looking for verification of test pit data, typically, which means witnessing them. I mean, not in this case, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that was why Mr. Steves asked for the clarification, because on a prior application we had asked for it to be witnessed. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, that’s always been my preference. MR. VOLLARO-A key way to put this to bed without finding out who did what is to get the logs. The logs would show, in other words, if you did them or Charlie Maine did them, or C.T. Male, they take logs and they write down what they find. A copy of the logs coming to the Planning Board would satisfy me. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s on Sheet S-2. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you know, and those logs are usually signed off. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s there, a copy of Charlie’s report is on Sheet S-2. It’s unfortunate you don’t have it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Could I get a clarification? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-You refer to clearing limits on the site, correct? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-But then we also have the 50 foot buffer. I mean, if we have the clearing limits, what do we need a 50 foot buffer if I’m interpreting this, everything along the southern and western borders are already wooded. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s part of the Code that says if you have a different function between sites you have to have a 50 foot buffer. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but we’re already putting clearing limits on the site plan. I apologize because I wasn’t here on the 22. Okay. The other thing was stormwater. Once again, I nd apologize, I wasn’t here on the 22. How is that going to, if I recall correctly, this had a, nd when it first came before us, there was a stormwater retention pond up in the northwestern section of the site, and now that appears to be gone. Maybe I’m confusing that with another application. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe that’s the case, Tom, because there was not a retention pond on here. The intent here is to, at this time, to manage the stormwater created by construction of the driveways and because we don’t have the details of the house construction, how big the houses are going to be, how they’re going to orient the driveways, and the like, they would be individual stormwater plans prepared with the building package, because they’re in the Lake George basin, as would typically be the case. So we have shown stormwater and erosion controls for the road construction to the house site. MR. SEGULJIC-And how is that, I guess just for clarification on Lot Three, because Lot Two is an existing driveway. So, for Lot Three, once that site plan approval. MR. SANFORD-That won’t need a site plan review. MR. HUTCHINS-No, that would be part of the building submission package, as with any individual home construction within the Lake George basin has to do a stormwater plan. MR. SANFORD-We don’t see it again. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So at that time. MR. HUTCHINS-At that time the site specific stormwater plan for the house, where we know the size of the house and the walkways. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So all of the driveway from Lot Two to the new home, that’s what would be reviewed at that time? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to make comments or ask questions about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m referring to Section A183- 23 of the Town Subdivision Ordinance. It’s entitled Layout of Streets and Roads. It says, “The Town Streets and Roads shall include both public and private streets.” This specification is laid out as though all subdivision streets will some day become Town roads. This says that they shall, both public and private streets and roads in all sections of these regulations. The way I read this, that common easement, private driveway, whatever you call it, has got to conform to these Subdivision Regulations, and these do specify the criteria for maintaining that road. Also, I believe there’s got to be some maintenance agreement, at least on file with the Town, that’s enforceable by the Town, to ensure that these lot owners do maintain this road and keep it up to standard for purposes of emergency access, etc. Not that 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) any one of them can abandon their obligation to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the road, let alone the initial construction. You talked about stormwater management, and each lot owner is going to do their own stormwater management. Who’s going to do the stormwater management on the road? It’s probably the most important aspect of the project. I think that has to be provided for in some kind of an agreement that at least is put on file with the Town, is enforceable by the Town, and that this doesn’t just get abandon some day, to the detriment of the property owners. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Is the Board comfortable in moving forward with SEQRA? MR. SANFORD-I would like some kind of a response to what Mr. Salvador just said, either by Counsel or the applicant, if you have any comment on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Personally I think he made a very good point. We have required similar agreements to be on file with previous subdivisions. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve asked in the last motion that there should be a cross easement between the three owners, and I think in that cross easement, the words have to be in that cross easement concerning maintenance of the road. I’d have to ask Counsel if cross easements use those kinds of words when the easements are put together. MR. SCHACHNER-They certainly can. MR. HUTCHINS-I’ll address that if I can. Part of the logic for the shared driveway is because it just makes sense, in this case, to not have three separate cuts into the highway. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think we all agree, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-The drive is, it exists, and it’s less clearing. We don’t have a cut, or we don’t have two more cut lines at the highway, and it was just done because it makes sense. It’s not intended to be a Town road, and the cross easement is the device we’ve chosen to allow the three owners to use the common road. MR. SANFORD-Right, and we understand the logic and agree with you on that. Nevertheless, everything that Mr. Salvador just said makes a lot of sense as well. What is the assurance that the road will be properly maintained so that the safety issues are appropriately addressed to not only to all owners of this land, the one that will probably be moving in in the future. So I think what we’re asking is are you agreeable to provide something that would go on file that would, in fact, prescribe or obligate the owners of the property to maintain the driveways, because these are lengthy driveways. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I think we could do that. I mean, realistically, they’re going to have to do that anyway. Yes. That could be written into the easement. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Because my concern is the one closest to Ridge Road, if they’re negligent, then that could impact the ones further back, depending upon how it’s all set up and agreed upon. Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? Any written comments from the public, Susan? Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We have a Long Form on this, or Short? MR. HUNSINGER-Are members comfortable moving forward with the SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I guess just a general comment. Are we comfortable with doing SEQRA if we haven’t seen the test pit information, or the boring information? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. SANFORD-Based on what we sent them away with, they did what we asked. I think that’s the bottom line. They did what we asked, reflected in the minutes. I think if you’re saying, did we ask the right thing, I think that might be water under the bridge at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve got C.T. Male’s assurance that he collaborated with the other engineer on this, and that was my concern. I didn’t want C.T. Male left out of this, because we had asked for them to participate, and in fact back in 1/18 when we did, the minutes of 1/18 said that he would be there. It was our understanding that C.T. Male would be present when the pits were dug. That was the understanding that we had on 1/18. It’s okay it’s moved from that to yourself, and then you’ve sat down with C.T. Male and confirmed what you did and he took a look at what you did, and he agreed with it. I just didn’t want him all of a sudden we didn’t see C.T. Male anymore, what we saw was you. I think there’s some words in there that says our engineer. When I read that, it was, I think they were referring to yourself and not to C.T. Male, in other words. I remember reading that myself. MR. HUTCHINS-If I could make a little point, and it may not be completely applicable to this, but it is, it’s somewhat confusing within the Town of Queensbury if the Town Engineer needs to witness soils testing or not. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. We thought, in this case, that Mr. Steves directly asks the question, do we want C.T. Male to witness, and from where I sit it’s sometimes confusing as to whether or not, I mean, they probably don’t have time to witness every test hole in the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s not required, but sometimes we do request it, if there’s something unusual involved. MR. VOLLARO-I think the reason on this that that came up is that we do have a considerable amount of wetlands on this property. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess there’s, I think in the end I see us tabling this, primarily because we don’t have the final drawings. I guess the question is, how far do we want to go this evening without having the final drawings in front of us. At least one member is a little uncomfortable without having the test pit data, even though C.T. Male signed off. MR. METIVIER-I have to disagree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. METIVIER-If those drawings were presented to the Staff and they weren’t forwarded to us, the applicant should not be held responsible for that. I think if the information is on there and he verified it in front of, it’s on the minutes, C.T. Male’s fine with it. I think we should move forward with this application. We’re going into a year on this, and I think, give everybody five minutes to review it if necessary, but don’t send him away again. I mean, this application is too near the end, and what more are they going to give us? Everything’s right there. If we need five minutes, let’s take five minutes to review it. I don’t think it’s going to make or break the application tonight. I realize that we take a pretty hard stand on not taking things the night of the meeting, but if that stuff was supposed to have been forwarded on to us, it should have been. It’s not the applicant’s fault. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I think that it’s a question of how we set precedents on the Board for things, how we like to operate. We like to operate with the most updated set of drawings, and it’s not that, and this is a question of protocol, as far as I’m concerned. We should really have all the information with us when we review, particularly when we review at home. It’s okay to come to the Board and see the drawing, and I understand it, I looked at it, but each one of us do these evaluations of these applications at home by ourselves, and we assume all the time that we’re looking at the most recent data. So when we come to a meeting in the evening we’re not confronted with new information, which can be very confusing when you’ve got stacks and stacks of stuff to do, and, you know, you’ve got four or five applications that you’re trying to keep in your head, and all of a sudden one of them gets kind of turned around on you, and I know we’re supposed to think on our feet with stuff like this, but I would prefer to have, agree with the Chairman, would prefer to have the drawings, you know, presented to us the way we do it now. I know what Tony’s saying, and Tony’s right. It’s not really your fault. You submitted the drawings and they didn’t get to us, but that doesn’t help us any here, in 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) terms of what this Board really wants and what it needs to do their job. So I tend to agree with you on this, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I think we should probably table it and get the information that we need. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-I agree with Tony. This applicant’s been here many times. We’ve asked a lot of things from the applicant. They’ve always complied. This is not their fault that we didn’t have those. We did see them. We do know they’re there, and I don’t see why we should table it. I think when we’re doing this we have to definitely consider the comments by Mr. Salvador because they were very good comments, and they should, if we get to giving a resolution to approve at some time, that they should certainly be included. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I hate to be the grinch, but I think we’ve got to see the full package. We have one shot at this, and if everything’s there, it should be, just take a couple of minutes the next meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard? MR. SANFORD-Just a question. I’m not clear on it. When we’re dealing with individual septic systems, isn’t the criteria that you need 24 inches without water to support systems? MR. VOLLARO-If you don’t have that, you have to go to a raised bed. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-But here, I mean, based on what I’m reading on the February 17, 2005, they’re talking 17 inches and 22 inches. MR. HUTCHINS-These are all raised systems. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, these are mound systems. MR. SANFORD-Okay. They’re not going to be traditional systems. MR. HUTCHINS-They’re all raised systems. MR. VOLLARO-They’re all raised beds. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And it’s kind of borderline. The last pits we did, I think we had 24 in two of them, but I’m uncomfortable with even conventional shallow systems in the this site. The 24 inches at the site, I really think it’s appropriate. The raised systems are the right thing here. MR. SANFORD-I’m going to really confuse you, Chris. I guess I’m inclined to go along with Tony on this one. So that makes it probably a split, right? MR. HUNSINGER-There’s seven. With that, I will close the public hearing and let’s move forward with the SEQRA. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. BARDEN-Tom, do you know when you submitted those plans? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. December 20. th MRS. BARDEN-Because they’re not in our file. So I don’t have them either. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what you had said earlier. MR. METIVIER-Well, let me ask you this. Are they in a hurry to break ground on this? I mean, desperately in a hurry to break ground? Are they planning to do anything before Spring? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t believe so. MR. METIVIER-All right. Then let me change my thought. Give us a set of plans, the final set, seven copies of them. Get us some kind of easement put together or deed restriction put together for the three lots for the driveway. Let’s table this tonight. Let’s get everything that we need, make sure that we request everything from him right now, he writes it down, let’s get this on the first meeting in January and be done with it, and we can officially make this a year long application, but, you know, if you guys don’t feel comfortable moving forward and he’s not in that much of a hurry, let’s just get everything done and get it to bed once and for all. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s the right thing to do, I really do. MR. HUNSINGER-That wasn’t my preference, Tony. I was kind, I thought I was summarizing the Board’s feeling, which is why when I saw three people ready to move forward, I was ready to move forward. MR. METIVIER-But the fact remains, who knows if we can get through SEQRA not knowing everything, and furthermore Mr. Salvador’s comments are well taken. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. METIVIER-If he can put together some type of easement or deed restriction for an easement for the three lots, it’ll certainly alleviate a lot of pain when we go to resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-The other thing that I would ask for, if we’re going to ask for a revised drawing, is ask that the clearing, the clearing limits are shown on the plan, but if you could label the acreage, you know, for example, Lot One you have a clearing limit delineated on the plan, and you say Lot One is, you know, 5.17 acres, but if you could say clearing limit on Lot One, you know, whatever that number is, shown on the plans. MR. HUTCHINS-I believe I do, but you don’t have the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-You think that’s on the updated drawings? MR. HUTCHINS-I believe it is, but it’s up there somewhere. I think what I did is put the total disturbed area. MR. HUNSINGER-And this is S-2, so it’s probably on S-1 I would imagine. Is there anything else that we would need to see? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. I think having the drawings and having that cross easement with the correct language in it that refers to maintenance of the driveways is all we really want. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to put that in the form of a motion, Tony? MR. METIVIER-Sure. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2005 J. MICHAEL BLACKBURN, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the first meeting of January, January 17, with the following: The most revised set of th drawings with the clearing limits and acreage cleared, per Chris’ request, and label the extent of the clearing, and also draft wording for easements for the main driveway to show a cross easement showing maintain requirements for the main driveway. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. HUTCHINS-You’re looking for a draft of the language that would be included within the deeds? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, because the easements wouldn’t be developed until the deeds were developed. MR. METIVIER-Right. It would be in the deeds. MR. VOLLARO-We’re looking for the draft language. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Just as an example, if we’re looking at a Homeowners Association, we would want to look at the sample language. So it’s the same kind of thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 23-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY AGENT(S): W.J. ROURKE ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION DINEEN RD. ON LEFT APPLICANTS HAVE 4 CONTIGUOUS LOTS [SIZED 1.02, 0.73, 0.61 & 0.47 ACRES] AND PROPOSE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS WHICH WILL RESULT IN 3 LOTS SIZED 1.20, 0.908 & 0.704 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. AV 89-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.812 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-58, 59, 60, 61 SECTION A-183 DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you’d summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is a proposed three lot residential subdivision. The subject parcel is located at Dineen and Moon Hill Roads. The property is zoned Waterfront Residential One Acre. This project is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. You do have a resolution from the Zoning Board meeting December 21, 2005. Variances were approved on this application for minimum lot size and minimum lot water frontage, and under Project Description: The applicant has four contiguous lots, totaling 2.8-acres, and proposes reconfiguring the lots, resulting in 3 lots sized; 1.2, .7, and .9 acres respectively. Staff Comments: The existing 4-lots are sized, 1 acre, .47, .61, and .73, acres. This proposal will reconfigure the lots resulting in 3-lots. No new house sites will be created with this proposal. I do have Staff Notes from the variance, again approved December 21, and that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MRS. SPERRY-Good evening. MR. SPERRY-Good evening. My name is David Sperry. This is my wife Trudy. I guess she’s explained just about everything. What we wanted to do is cut down on the density of the property. One small lot would be actually to the right of our house and in front of it. So if that lot was ever sold, I’d be looking at a house. We wanted to make the lots a little bit 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) bigger by splitting them up, and I wanted lake frontage for my property. My house sits on parcel three. MRS. SPERRY-One and three are the ones by the lake. MR. SPERRY-That has the lake frontage. Parcel Two has no lake frontage. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any plans to provide lake frontage or lake access to Parcel Two? MRS. SPERRY-No. MR. SPERRY-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, that was one of the questions that Staff had. MRS. SPERRY-I’ve lived there for 65 years. I don’t want to change it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions or comments from the Board. MR. SANFORD-I see this just as a lot line adjustment. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Actually reducing density. I don’t have anything. Maybe some people from the public have comments, but I don’t see anything. MR. SEGULJIC-I just have one question here. The access to Lot Two, if I’m understanding this correctly, access to Lot Two is from Parcel Three because of a macadam onto the dirt drive. Does it have its own access? MRS. SPERRY-Excuse me? MR. SEGULJIC-Does Lot Two have its own access? MRS. SPERRY-Two and One share a driveway. Is that what you’re talking? MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that’s a shared driveway. You don’t have any other access. Okay. MRS. SPERRY-It could if it needed to be. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that an issue at all? MR. SANFORD-It’s been shared. It’s going to continue to be shared. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s an existing condition. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s existing? Okay. MRS. SPERRY-I believe that would be grandfathered in. I mean, it’s been there probably for 40 years now. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think this is just really a lot line adjustment, like Mr. Sanford said, I don’t see any complications to this one at all, myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted Action. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MRS. BARDEN-Short Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form. MRS. BARDEN-Actually, it’s a Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, they submitted a Long Form. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Just for clarification, if they did not submit the Short or Long Form, because it’s a Type II, do we even have to do a SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s an Unlisted Action. MRS. BARDEN-It’s an Unlisted Action. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Sorry. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY, 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. 5. 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 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comments or questions? Would anyone like to make a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 23-2005 DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicants have 4 contiguous lots [sized 1.02, 0.73, 0.61 & 0.47 acres] and propose lot line adjustments which will result in 3 lots sized 1.20, 0.908 & 0.704 acres respectively. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board review WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/27/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Preliminary [ A183-10 F(2) ( 3) ( 4) ]] WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are or are not acceptable; and [A - 183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and [ A183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. [ A183-10 F (3) ] WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. [ A183-10 F (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to offer a resolution for Final? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 23-2005 DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicants have 4 contiguous lots [sized 1.02, 0.73, 0.61 & 0.47 acres] and propose lot line adjustments which will result in 3 lots sized 1.20, 0.908 & 0.704 acres respectively. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board review WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/27/05; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and Preliminary [ A183-10 F(2) ( 3) ( 4) ]] WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are or are not acceptable; and [A - 183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and [ A183-10 F (2) ] WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. [ A183-10 F (3) ] WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. [ A183-10 F (4) ] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thanks very much. MRS. SPERRY-Thank you. MR. SPERRY-Thank you. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) FRESHWATER WETLANDS FWW 6-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP & BAY MEADOWS CORP. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S): BAY MEADOWS CORP. ZONING PUD LOCATION NORTH SIDE CRONIN ROAD THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 40 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A 23-ACRE PARCEL. SPECIFICALLY 39 TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT. ASSOCIATED SITE WORK IS ALSO PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 18-93, SP 38-93, SUB 21-93, SUB 12-93, PZ 6-91, PZ10-89, FW 5-03, PUD SP 8-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.88, 19.79, 4.00 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-2 SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will leave the public hearing open, and I will entertain a motion from the Board to table this to the January 24 meeting, as requested by the applicant. th MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 6-2005 MICHAELS GROUP & BAY MEADOWS CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: To table this to the January 24, 2006 meeting. Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 26-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP & BAY MEADOWS CORP. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S): BAY MEADOWS CORP. ZONING PUD LOCATION NORTH SIDE CRONIN ROAD THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 40 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A 23-ACRE PARCEL. SPECIFICALLY 39 TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT. ASSOCIATED SITE WORK IS ALSO PROPOSED. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 18-93, SP 38-93, SUB 21-93, SUB 12-93, PZ 6-91, PZ10-89, FW 5-03, PUD SP 8-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.88, 19.79, 4.00 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-2 SECTION A-183 MR. HUNSINGER-Again, the applicant has asked that that be tabled. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And leave the public hearing open, and I will entertain a motion to table the application to January 24, 2006. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 26-2005 MICHAELS GROUP & BAY MEADOWS CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: To table this to the January 24, 2006 meeting. Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And finally, I was a little remiss. For anyone following along in the audience, Subdivision 24-2005 for David Monsour & Peter King was withdrawn. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) SITE PLAN NO. 68-2005 SEQR TYPE II RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING MU LOCATION 17 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,075 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK TO AN EXISTING 2,755 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 91-2005, BP 2005-109, BP 99-216 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/14/05 LOT SIZE 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-11 SECTION 179-4-020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicant requests site plan review for expansion of an existing use. Subject property is located at 17 Main Street and it’s zoned Mixed Use. This project is a SEQRA Type II Action. The variance was granted on December 21 for additional parking st spaces over the required parking spaces, and for deficient drive aisle width and parking space dimensional requirements. The applicant proposes a 1,075 square foot addition to the existing medical office building, resulting in an increase in the total building area to 3,330 square feet. Associated site improvements are also proposed. Staff Comments: The applicant requests a waiver from full compliance with the Town’s lighting standards. The proposed addition will displace 6 parking spaces, which will be relocated to the rear of the site. An additional 5 parking spaces in the front of the site will be eliminated permanently, “remove pavement; seed, mulch, and fertilize to grass”. The latter change, will be in keeping with the Main St. design guidelines. The front right parking space should be eliminated because of its potential to conflict with incoming vehicles. Is it possible to realize one of the future interconnections with this plan? This is a very tight site; therefore, an additional outlet at the rear of the site would help alleviate backed-up traffic as well as help with emergency vehicle accessibility. As well as the potential for much needed additional parking, perhaps a shared parking arrangement. The applicant should approach their neighbors on this. The addition will displace the handicapped ramp, will this be relocated? Street trees are a requirement under streetscape elements specific to the Main Street design guidelines. “Minimum three- inch caliper trees should be planted every twenty feet in a five-foot-wide strip located between the sidewalk and the asphalt.” The submitted site plan shows “1 street tree required”, the entire width of the property should be considered when applying this standard, the site is approximately 100-feet wide, thus, 5 street trees are required between the sidewalk and the asphalt. These site changes, in accordance with the design guidelines for Main St., will not be undertaken until the widening of the road, but should be shown on the plan for future compliance. What is the plan for signage for the site? Is the existing wall sign to remain? “The signs of individual establishments should be centered above each respective shop front, two feet above the awning.” The existing sign, if to remain, should be centered. A snow removal plan should be discussed, and we have C.T. Male comments dated December 21 st from Jim Houston, which you have in your packet. There is a memo from the Fire Marshal dated November 23 in your packet as well. The roadway satisfies the access requirements rd for fire apparatus, and I think that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Martin Engineers. On my left is Todd Jorgenson, and on my right is Sean Jorgenson, owners of the property and the practice. I believe our proposal is relatively straightforward. We’re planning addition of roughly 1,000 square feet, along the existing building frontage, and in conformance with the design guidelines for Main Street. The proposal calls for relocating parking, as Staff Notes noted, to the rear of the property. Parking would actually be reduced in number, which hurts the practice to some degree, but we think we can live with that number, at least at this stage, and with that parking expansion in the rear, we would put in a stormwater management system that would be to the northern end of the property. Staff has brought up the interconnection concept to the two adjoining properties, and the property to the east, which looks to be the most amenable at this point, is not practical because of the amount of land that the applicant’s own or have control of right now, because of the configuration of the commercial property next door. The parking lot does not extend all the way to the rear, and would not be an easy interconnection right now. The property to the west, which I think has the most potential for interconnection in the future, we can’t propose an interconnection right now because there is a septic system in the way. We can explore that when the Main Street improvements are completed and the sewer line is completed. With regard to lighting, we planned on maintaining as much of the existing lighting as practical, and that mostly 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) involves fixtures on the building to the rear and the light pole on the eastern edge of the property, and if any of you were at the property after hours, you’ll note that that existing fixture is relatively compliant. There’s no lens on that right now, but the lens does not extend down below the housing of the light fixture. So it’s really a cut off fixture, and I think the spillage on the adjoining property is minimal, but actually helps the adjoining property. There’s no lighting on that side of the site and it provides some security, especially in the winter when it gets dark early and there’s no leaves on the trees. In the summer, that lighting is largely hidden, we believe, and so it’s not seen from the road, and of course there’s more daylight in the summertime. So I think it works in tandem to the benefit of both properties. New lighting on the addition would be compliant, as you’ve seen from our lighting plan and one of the questions that was raised by C.T. Male was regarding intensities underneath the two fixtures, and that’s just an anomaly based on the grid pattern that we show on this drawing, but the actual illumination under each light would be consistent at roughly 12 foot candles, and it drops off quickly because they are compliant cut off fixtures. So as soon as you get a few feet away from the fixture it drops to 2.7. That was the question raised in those comments. Now with regard to the remainder of the Staff comments, there was a comment regarding eliminating the space on the front right of the property, the southeast corner of the property. We will defer to your judgment on this. We’d rather not eliminate that. We feel that right now there’s parking right out to the sidewalk and it functions fine. We’ve eliminated those spaces next to the sidewalk that are off the applicant’s property, and we feel it will function adequately, but we understand the comment, and we can discuss that if need be. The handicap ramp, we’ve probably confused the issue by showing the addition over the top of that ramp. In reality it’s just a roof over the ramp. The ramp will not be changed. It’s an exterior ramp with a roof now. MR. VOLLARO-A dotted line would have been better. MR. JARRETT-A dotted line would have been a little better, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So the actual addition wouldn’t extend all the way up? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-The building itself would not extend that far north, but the ramp will be covered. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Next comment in Staff comments were street trees, and we did not go for additional trees because of the windows along the building front, but we’ve talked it over, and if the Board wishes us to be compliant with street trees, we will add trees. I’d rather negotiation to some extra shrubbery or low trees so the signage that we’re proposing on the building front won’t be hidden, but we can certainly discuss that with the Board. I’d want to see what your thoughts are and your comments are on that, and the existing sign, the signage would remain on the front of the building, and it would be centered. It would be centered on the building. Snow removal is the last comment by Staff, and it’s a good comment. Toward the rear of the new parking area we’ve shown a hedge or fence, and it does make snow removal somewhat more difficult and would dictate that snow be removed from the site. The reason we planned a hedge there was to improve the back drop visually from Main Street, but also to provide some protection liability, because there’s an embankment there. What we think we can do instead is push that embankment a little bit to the north, meaning soften the slope. We can move the landscaping a little bit farther to the north to provide a buffer for snow. That would remove the liability issue and provide snow stacking and soften the berm. Our stormwater system would be moved slightly to the north. It would not alter the ultimate proposal. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you also be moving it towards the west as well, where you show the hedge row? MR. JARRETT-No, I did not plan on, that’s because the septic system is located there, to the west of that parking area. Do I understand your question? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you show a continuous hedge it sort of is “L” Shaped, and you said you’d move it, the northern boundaries, you’d move it back, but I was asking if you would also move the western. MR. JARRETT-Yes, I’d not planned on doing that, because if we move it westerly, we’re going to encroach on the septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We certainly have opportunities, especially if that interconnection is realized later on, we have opportunities to remove that hedge and interconnect the site and extend that embankment. With regard to the C.T. Male comments, and I assume you’ve all seen them? Okay. Number One is just acknowledging the parking issue that the Zoning Board took up last week, and I can address any specific questions you have regarding that. Number Two is the question regarding the retaining wall, and that is in the rear of the property. It is really not an aesthetic issue at all, in my opinion, and we put a note on there that it needs to be designed by a professional engineer. So I’d rather not get into further details right now, unless you specifically request. We’ve discussed the interconnection, which is Item Number Three. Number Four, municipal sewer connection, we don’t know exactly what’s proposed right now. We don’t know exactly what that sewer plan is going to be, and we have to get approval from the Wastewater Department from the Town anyway. Number Five, we have discussed this proposal with Warren County. Orally they have told me they are amenable to our plan and we certainly need to get a Highway Work Permit from them when the work is to be done. Number Six, we’ve discussed the lighting spillage onto the property to the east, and the inconsistency in the way that the plan shows the foot candle illumination fixtures. Number Seven, C.T. Male is saying we don’t have a grading plan for that new parking area in the embankment. I think we’ve done one better. We’ve shown in our details a section through that area. If you look at the bottom left of Drawing D-1 you’ll see a section through that area. It shows very specifically what we’re intending to do, and I feel it’s adequate, but I’ll defer to your judgment or your questions on that issue. Item Number Eight is the hedge row may inhibit sheet flow stormwater into the stormwater management area. Frankly, I didn’t understand this comment, and I was talking to another engineer at C.T. Male, and apparently they’re worried that if we mound up around the root ball that we would impede runoff from our parking area, which is a legitimate comment, and we can clarify that and make sure we don’t do that. I’ll open it up to any questions the Board may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we go through the site plan review criteria, starting with design standards. Any questions, comments from the Board? Site development design? Stormwater sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to go from my notes to his questions, because I didn’t follow that when I did this. You’re going to use the existing system, until you get to go to a sewer when Main Street dictates that? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because the perc looks pretty good on this property. MR. JARRETT-The perc is excellent. MR. VOLLARO-So it should work pretty good until you get to that. MR. JARRETT-We’ve had no problems to date and the percolation is excellent. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the load on that system is probably pretty light, I would guess anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Lighting design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think it looks good. The lighting seems pretty good as far as the site is concerned. The Uniformity Ratios are close. I think they’re relatively close to our requirements. MR. JARRETT-They are, actually. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-One thing I did notice, when Bruce Frank goes out to do the inspections, when you get the lights up, one of the your cut sheets should be Hubbel lighting, as opposed to, you’ve got both of these as Spaulding, and one is Hubbel. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Inconsistency between the plan and the cut sheets? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and if he goes out to survey your lights before they go up and he sees that you’ve got the wrong light, he’ll call you on it, and the fact that you’re only using 100 watt bulbs, I think you’ve got a really good light situation on that whole site. What’s the lighting along Main Street look like at this location? MR. JARRETT-There’s one street light on the opposite side of the road. So it’s reasonable. I wouldn’t call it ideal. MR. METIVIER-That’s all going to change though, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s all going to change. MR. JARRETT-Yes, that’s going to change with the new. MR. METIVIER-Yes. This is a tough situation because. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got two lights out in front. I’m trying to address some of Staff’s questions here. You’ve got a building mounted light where you’ve got the 2.7. MR. JARRETT-We have two wall mounted fixtures proposed, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and then you’ve got an existing pole that’s going to remain on site. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And to me the spread on that doesn’t look too bad. I mean, you’ve got about .1 and .2 at the, that’s why I asked about how much light is there out on Main Street, and whether or not that .1 and .2 foot candles are in any way aided by what’s already out there. MR. JARRETT-Slightly. I would say there’s another say maybe .2 or so at least added to that. MR. VOLLARO-So that whole section is not going to be really dark. It’ll be visible. MR. JARRETT-No, no. I don’t think it’s unsafe at this point. It’ll be improved with the corridor improvements. MR. VOLLARO-Right. So I would say not to change any of the lighting, in my own opinion. I think the lighting is good on this site. Your poles are 12 foot, the new poles are, to our spec. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? Landscape design? MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment would be the five trees along the perimeter of the property. I’d like to see those. MR. JARRETT-You’d like to see the five. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-You could go with a Norway Maple or a Pin Oak or something like that, instead of the arborvitae that you’re proposing. Because that would allow you to see the building from the road then, but the question is, when do you install it? With new construction going through. MR. JARRETT-We’d have to defer some or all of that until the new construction is through. Yes. Certainly the one on the southeast corner would have to be deferred. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I’d hate to see you put them in and then take them out. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-Instead of using five trees, which is the Code, I said drawing note some place on your drawing additional street trees will be added when Main Street is completed, and then we’ll decide, from a practical point of view, I see five trees up there being, you’re trying to stuff five trees and it just doesn’t make sense. MR. SANFORD-I don’t believe they’ll have to come back, though, Bob. If they get an approval here, they’re not obligated, my understanding is, to come back and talk about the plantings later. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. SANFORD-Yes. We had a previous application like that. So I think we want to give them pretty good guidance now what we’re kind of looking for, and I’m sure they’ll do what we say. MR. VOLLARO-I think five trees up there are two pounds in a one pound bag. That’s why I used the word additional. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I know. What I’m trying to say is you were suggesting that down the road we’re going to be reviewing this, and the answer is we will not be. MR. VOLLARO-No, we will not. I understand that. I mean, there should be a note on the drawing. I think I said here, drawing note, additional street trees will be added when Main Street is completed. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think Richard’s right. I think that you have to specifically say how many street trees you’d like to see. MR. METIVIER-However, we’d hate to have them come back, because after everything goes through and the work is done on Main Street, we find out that this plan won’t work there, because we had an application across the street because their landscaping plan didn’t work. So we have to be careful of that, too. So Bob’s point is well taken, but how do we address it? MR. SANFORD-A little less is probably fine. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I have no problem with less. I just think we have to say within six months of completion of roadwork, but we have no idea about when that’s going to be. MRS. STEFFAN-I think Tom Jarrett came up with a reasonable compromise, doing something with shrubbery and things like that, instead of the street trees, which may be a better application. MR. JARRETT-I’d rather put in one or two additional street trees and then some shrubbery, additional shrubbery that would probably, I think, add to the landscaping. MR. SEGULJIC-But if I understand, we’re trying to have a tree lined street here. Now’s our chance to get the trees in because I doubt if they’re going to be coming back. MR. METIVIER-However, isn’t the Town going to be responsible for the tree lined streets as well? I mean, if they come in and decimate everything that’s there for a few months, it makes no sense. MR. VOLLARO-None. MRS. STEFFAN-I think one of the other issues is the building, I mean, the building frontage on Main Street is quite small, and we’re looking at the lot, you know, we’re taking into account the parking lot. I think five trees is too much, but I certainly think a combination of street trees and shrubbery would be a better application and fit the site. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. SEGULJIC-What if we say something like three Norway Maples equally spaced across, along the northern border of the site. MR. JARRETT-We’re thinking similarly. I think we’d like to put three street trees in total. MR. HUNSINGER-That was a number I had, too, in my mind. MR. JARRETT-And one would be on the western edge, and one next to the driveway on the western edge of the driveway, and then where we show it on the southeast corner. That would allow visibility to the sign and improve, we could add some more shrubs to this. MR. SEGULJIC-And then could we also get some plantings along the foundation? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that’s always bothered me about, when we get into this Main Street thing, it’s kind of foggy. I mean, I wouldn’t want to have to take the test on Main Street right now, to understand what’s going on, you know, so when we start to talk about it, I don’t really have a good solid feeling of what Main Street is really going to look like. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t think anyone does because I don’t think the final engineering’s been completed. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but yet we’re sort of folding in some things to fit that unknown. That’s always difficult for me. MR. SEGULJIC-But at least they’re following to the current concept. If it doesn’t work for them, they can come back instead of us leaving it for them just to come back, which is doubtful. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. JARRETT-I think we understand what your intent is, and I think we agree with that. We’ll come back if there’s a problem with trying to comply. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we all set on landscape design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Can I just check one thing about the species on here before you make it official Norway Maple? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-But go ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-Next item is environmental, wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors, wildlife, including rare or endangered species. Any questions or comments about that? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn’t think so, either. Neighborhood character, including neighborhood impacts, health, safety and welfare of community? MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s an improvement. MR. METIVIER-An improvement. MR. HUNSINGER-Involved agencies or any other criteria not reviewed? MR. SEGULJIC-Parking? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. SEGULJIC-My only comment would be that spot right along the northwest corner, that very spot, the first spot when you enter. MR. JARRETT-Southeast. MR. SEGULJIC-Southeast, sorry. I mean, is that going to cause a conflict there? MR. SANFORD-Turning radius is sharp. MR. JARRETT-Staff brought it up. I understand the comment. It functions right now with spaces right out to the sidewalk, and so we feel that removing two spaces there and starting our first space on the property is an improvement. We think it’ll work fine. We don’t feel it’s a conflict, but I understand the comment. MR. SEGULJIC-So far it is working now? MR. JARRETT-Yes, they park right out to the sidewalk and there’s been no conflict. MR. HUNSINGER-My question on parking is how often is your parking lot full? MR. JORGENSEN-Almost constantly, unfortunately, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it? Unfortunately? That’s a good thing for you. What do you mean unfortunately? MR. JARRETT-Cutting the parking down is somewhat of a tough situation for them. We’re doing it. We think we can make it work, but it’s not easy to cut this parking down on this property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I can attest to the fact that their parking lot is always full because my wife has been waiting to get in to see you folks now for a month and a half. Just so you know. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for tonight. Is there anyone here from the public that had comments about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think Mr. Jarrett has given us enough information of what he intends to do. It looks to me like we may not have enough information tonight to go through this. MR. METIVIER-Well, I think that a lot of it hinges on what’s going to happen in the future, too. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that we can’t control. MR. METIVIER-No, you’re right. MR. VOLLARO-We can’t control anything in the future. MR. METIVIER-And I made some notes as he was going through C.T. Male’s comments, and everything is waiting for, you know, the project. So I don’t know what we do here. I mean, you possibly couldn’t get C.T. Male signoff until after the project’s done, I mean, if you really think about it, but we can’t wait on that either. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. VOLLARO-There’s some questions in here that C.T. Male has raised that I think you could get closure on. MR. METIVIER-Absolutely, a lot of them you could. MR. VOLLARO-And those that seem to, as Tony says, those that seem to hinge on future development we can just, have to put those aside I think. Number Five, it appears a permit from Warren County Highway Department is needed for a modification cut to the property along Main Street. Well, do you or don’t you? MR. JARRETT-That’s a work permit at the time of construction. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s a work permit. MR. JARRETT-We have discussed this with them and they’re okay with what we’re proposing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. JARRETT-But we need a work permit when we do the work. That’s a routine permit. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. So if you could get, did he intimate to you that he would give you a signoff on this? Where are you with C.T. Male, get a signoff on this letter? MR. JARRETT-No, actually Jim Edwards is out on vacation. I only got the comments today, and he’s out on vacation. So I’ve had no chance to talk with him on this. MR. METIVIER-Really that’s the only thing we’re waiting for is C.T. Male signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there’s a few landscaping changes. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess really, you know, what’s the comfort level here? MR. VOLLARO-You probably want to table this to get a really complete picture, particularly landscaping, the C.T. Male signoff. Because I don’t know, I wouldn’t feel comfortable approving this tonight I don’t believe. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think what’s happening is a positive change is taking place. We’re looking now, lately, to have everything relatively complete before we go forward for approval, rather than setting out a bunch of conditions, and it seems to be working well because what happens is they come back at a future meeting and it’s a five minute deal, and I think that’s just doing a better job, to be honest with you. I think it’s a good, clean way of doing it. It’s not time-consuming. It’s not overbearing, in terms of work for the applicant, and it dots all the I’s and crosses the T’s. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I have one question. The property owner, I think it’s the cat hospital is your neighbor, and you talked about an interconnect in the back is not possible because of the septic. Have you talked about perhaps using their parking lot or leasing? I’m just thinking because the way your property is configured MR. JORGENSON-The one to the west of our? MRS. STEFFAN-No, no, the cat hospital. Because there’s a little grade, and I could envision just some steps. MR. JARRETT-You mean as is, without a drive through interconnection, but shared parking? MRS. STEFFAN-Shared parking. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. JARRETT-They have approached them, and I don’t think you’ve gotten any answer, right? MR. JORGENSON-No. Their concern is that, you know, if there’s one of our workers that slips on their property, who’s workers comp does it fall under and, yes, the liability issues is one of the concerns. The easier interconnect would be with the bar next door, and that’s more at the same grade. Wouldn’t be as concerned about slipping. The problem is we went over to talk about possibly renting out property and they have a lot of parking in the back, and as we go over at five o’clock in the afternoon, there’s a couple of guys throwing empty beer cans into our, bottles into our back lot, and so there’s kind of some, it’s a rough crowd next door and our staff has always been nervous about, you know, making sure we lock the doors if we’re not in there and so I would be concerned about sharing anything with them, unfortunately. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I was thinking of the cat hospital. MR. JORGENSON-Yes, they don’t own far. They can’t expand their parking behind, they don’t own further back, and so, yes, one of the thoughts would be that eventually we could expand down there, but I guess there’s another property owner that owns the back portion of their lot. MR. GOETZ-You were saying earlier that an interconnect would be best going into the west. Is that the neighbor who you were just talking about? MR. JORGENSON-Yes, the Filling Station property, yes. MR. JARRETT-The clientele is not the best, but physically it’s the most amenable. They apparently carted off a Christmas Tree at one point. MR. JORGENSON-That’s what we’re concerned about what we plant there, because we had planted nice hedges there, and one year they took and just cut down one of the trees and we saw the drag where they dragged it up into their house upstairs. So I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess they’re not exactly compatible. MR. JARRETT-Unfortunately that used to be a very nice restaurant right there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll give it a try. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 68-2005 RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: To January 24, 2006, for a C.T. Male signoff on their letter of 21 December 2005, and a revised plan to show the plantings, and how we’re going to deal with the snow removal problem, whether the plan would show the removal of the rear hedge or not. The light fixture inconsistency on the lighting plan, and the change in the cut sheet, so the cut sheets agree with their drawings, and street trees, three trees all together, addition of one more street tree, and add some shrubs to the base, Norway Maples, from approved Town list. Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, did you finish checking on the species requirements? MRS. BARDEN-Norway Maple’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-You would prefer to see that? MR. HUNSINGER-There’s actually a list of approved. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. JARRETT-Yes, are you suggesting that, or should I pull from the approved list for the Town? MR. VOLLARO-I like the Norway Maples. MRS. BARDEN-They’re on the approval list. MR. JARRETT-We’ll start there and move on if we have to. AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. See you in January. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The last item for discussion is the discussion on recommendation to the Town Board for a Chairman appointment and nominations for Vice Chair and Secretary, and the reason why that was put on the agenda, from our short discussion last week, is that in our By-laws and Procedures, it does say that the Planning Board shall annually make a recommendation to the Town Board and the Town Board shall annually designate a member of the Planning Board to act as Chairperson. This was brought to my attention by Craig Brown who included the two draft resolutions in our packages. MR. SANFORD-There’s some history here that when you’re done I’d like to add to, okay, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-And I just have one final comment to add. I don’t think that it was intentional that my name was added to the resolution. I just wanted to make that clear that certainly wasn’t my intent or his, other than to provide a draft resolution for the Board to consider. Having said that, I will take your comments, Mr. Sanford. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I was a little confused when I received it in the packet, because I thought we resolved this on the 20 when we polled the Board, and I thought that Mr. Goetz th sort of summed it up and had the last word. I think it was later clarified by Town Counsel that a formal resolution wasn’t legally required. Today I spoke with a number of people, including Marilyn, on this, and she acknowledged that it wasn’t required, but that she would feel more comfortable if it was a resolution, rather than just a referral. Now I do note, and where we left it was that she prepared for my review this, I believe you all have a copy of it, this record of resolution dated December 27, which, in my opinion, accurately reflects what th took place on the 20. The one that was prepared, I guess by Craig Brown, I now find out, is th flawed in some respect in that it didn’t reflect really the discussion that took place on the 20, th and in addition, we do not make references or recommendations to the Town Board for Vice Chair and/or Secretary, only for Chair. So my understanding, after talking with Marilyn, was that, or I guess could make the motion, that, if you all have this copy in front of you, I’ll read it. It’s a motion regarding recommendation to the Town Board to appoint Planning Board Chairman. It is the recommendation of the Planning Board to have the Town Board decide which of two candidates should be appointed Planning Board Chairman: Chris Hunsinger, current Planning Board Chairman, or Robert Vollaro, current Planning Board Vice Chairman. When polled by the Planning Board membership, each agreed that he would serve if asked. Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: So that was th basically the resolution that Marilyn prepared for my review, and I think it was sent to you all by e-mail, and then also distributed today. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other discussion from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-That accurately sums up what we had discussed last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would just add to that that I felt that, as the current Chairman, I would have been remiss if I didn’t bring back to the Board the requirements as spelled out in the Policies and Procedures that we, as a Board, adopted, and I think that was really the only intent of the draft resolution provided by Staff. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. My only concern, Chris, when I was discussing this with Marilyn, I was quite frank with her. I think it’s a sensitive issue and it always has been a sensitive issue. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s become a political issue, is what it’s become. MR. SANFORD-It’s a political issue as well. There’s no denying the fact that it’s political, but it’s a sensitive issue as well, and I thought we addressed it, even though it can, at times, be uncomfortable, we addressed it on the 20, and I thought it was, perhaps, unnecessary to th address it again, because of both the comfort level associated with people, because in my opinion you’re both very qualified, competent people to serve, but there are political issues involved here. I’m the first to admit it, and so anyway, when we did discuss it on the 20, th this is really what we concluded was a comfortable way of doing it, or at least when the Board was polled, this was the conclusion, and so I was a little bit concerned that we were revisiting this when it wasn’t necessary really to do so and so nevertheless, Staff does feel more comfortable with it being in the form of a resolution, and so, Marilyn drafted it, I reviewed it, I just made it. I guess I’m looking for a second at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? MR. SEGULJIC-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Any further discussion? MOTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO APPOINT PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: It is the recommendation of the Planning Board to have the Town Board decide which of two candidates should be appointed Planning Board Chairman: Chris Hunsinger, current Planning Board Chairman, or Robert Vollaro, current Planning Board Vice Chairman. When polled by the Planning Board membership, each agreed that he would serve if asked. Duly adopted this 27 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford NOES: Mr. Hunsinger MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move any nominations for Vice Chairman or Secretary? That is something that is within the control of this Board, or would we like to wait until after the first of the year? MR. SEGULJIC-I would think we should wait until after the first of the year. See when the dust settles. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-If you want to let folks know that I will not be here for the meeting on the 17. So I don’t think we have any alternates. th MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to make a statement here. I’ve been trying to do a little recruiting for this Board, and I’ve come up with a couple of people who might be good alternates, and I’ll describe them to you. Maybe you know them. MR. HUNSINGER-They go to the Town Board, not to this Board. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but at least I don’t think the Town Board hasn’t done a very good job of getting us the alternates. So I went out and talked to. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, my understanding is the positions have been advertised several times, and no one has stepped forward. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think you’ve got to go out and recruit on this. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/27/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think you do as well. MR. VOLLARO-So, I don’t know if you know Rich Jones, he comes before us as an architect, very, very seldom, his son, and he might be a candidate. The gentleman who came before us, who is the President of the Waverly Place Homeowners Association, he came before us the other night. He also may be a willing alternate, and I’ll pass that up to the Town Board, his name and how to contact him and so on, and I think this is going to be a recruiting job. Otherwise we’re going to be without, we’re going to be sitting without alternates here. If we don’t have an alternate and Gretchen is out, for example, even if Tom fills Rich’s spot, we’re down to six. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Okay. If there’s no other business, I will look for a motion to adjourn. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll move it. MR. SANFORD-Second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 35