Loading...
2006-12-19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETIING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 4-2006 David & Sally Kelly 1. Tax Map No. Site Plan No. 18-2006 Michael Stevens 1. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-29 Site Plan No. 1-2006 1093 Group, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 Freshwater Wetlands Jeffrey Kilburn 2. Permit No. 5-2005 Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 64-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 2. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Subdivision No. 18-2006 Larry Clute 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.14-1-21 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 4-2005 Baba-Jani & Mama, Inc. 4. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17 Subdivision No. 17-2006 Theodore Rawson 6. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 300.-1-20.1 Site Plan No. 50-2006 Craig Burrows 10. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-5 Site Plan No. 51-2006 Andrew & Susan Liucci 16. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-30 Site Plan No. 52-2006 Robert Stoya 27. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-2 DISCUSSION Planning Board Chair Nominations 33. 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 12/19/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-Welcome to the Planning Board meeting of December 19, 2006, and we have some housekeeping activity to go through, and when we’re done with that, we’ll start our first application. We’re going to be doing some tabling resolutions tonight, and I’ll start to read them off. SITE PLAN NO. 4-2006 DAVID & SALLY KELLY 30 OAKWOOD DRIVE, QUEENSBURY, NY MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2006 DAVID KELLY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: This was tabled to December 19, 2006, which is this evening, on October 17, 2006. Since that date, no new information was submitted on behalf of the applicant by the th November 15 deadline date. Therefore, Be, It Resolved, motion to table Site Plan No. 4-2006, for David and Sally Kelly to 1/16/07. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Discussion? And I’ll have the same question for all three of these. Are we tabling them to a specific date? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-1/16/07 is this one. There’s two specific dates. I finished the completion review meetings today. The January turned out to be five and five, and we’ll be working it out so that January comes out to be six and six. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t see that on the resolution. MR. VOLLARO-It just happened today at 11 o’clock. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mean the date. That’s why I asked that question. MR. VOLLARO-The dates were decided but these were blank on the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And they were decided today at the completion review meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL STEVENS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 1112 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REQUIRING FILL OF APPROXIMATELY 0.25 ACRES OF FILL WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50’ OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 34-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 4.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-29 SECTION 179-6-060 MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2006 MICHAEL STEVENS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: This was tabled to December 26, 2006, on October 17, 2006. No new information was th submitted on behalf of the applicant by the November 15 deadline date. Therefore, Be, It Resolved, motion to table Site Plan No. 18-2006, Michael Stevens to January 16, 2007. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC AGENT(S): WILLIAM PALADINO OWNER(S): MARY JANE CANALE ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 724 UPPER GLEN ST. DEMOLISH EXISTING TELEPHONE STORE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 11,153 SQ. FT. RITE AID PHARMACY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW RETAIL USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 48-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/8/06 LOT SIZE 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION 179-4-020 MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 1093 GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: This was tabled to December 19, 2006, on October 17, 2006, and it was determined by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Board Chairman that the information submitted on behalf of the applicant was not responsive to the tabling resolution. Now, Therefore, Be, It Resolved, motion to table Site Plan No. 1-2006, 1093 Group to January 23, 2007. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE FRESHWATER WETLANDS FWW 5-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, RLA OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE LOCATION NORTH SIDE FOX HOLLOW LANE, BETWEEN #22 & #24 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. FILLING OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. FRESHWATER WETLAND PERMIT: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED INFORMATION CONSISTENT WITH THE TABLING MOTION OF 4/18/06. CROSS REF. SUB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, RLA OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION NORTH SIDE FOX HOLLOW LANE, BETWEEN #22 & #24 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) REF. FWW/ SUB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION 179-6-60 MR. VOLLARO-And there’s a fourth one that only came in today at approximately 12:30 this afternoon, and it’s from Jeffrey and Candice Kilburn of Fox Hollow Lane, and Mr. Kilburn states, Gentlemen: Jeffrey Kilburn has schedule conflict and will not be able to attend tonight’s meeting, and it’s signed by Jonathan Lapper who is the attorney for Mr. Kilburn. So Mr. Kilburn will now be tabled to January 23, 2007. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you need to open the public hearing, too, Mr. Chairman? MR. VOLLARO-I think the public hearing remained open for Jeffrey Kilburn. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’re going to open it and. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’ll just open it and leave it open, until they meet again on 1/23/07. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 5-2005 AND SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 JEFFREY KILBURN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Tabled to January 23, 2006. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, you have one more, Subdivision 18-2006. The subdivision sign wasn’t posted. MR. VOLLARO-That’s Clute. SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2006 PRELIMINARY & FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION ELDRIDGE & BENNETT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 1.03 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.72 ACRES AND .031 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE AV 66-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.03 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-1-21 SECTION A-183 MR. VOLLARO-When we did our drive arounds an site plan reviews for Larry Clute this past Saturday, there was no subdivision sign posted, and therefore we are going to be tabling Mr. Clute to the January 2007 meeting, and it hasn’t been determined which one that is yet. We didn’t talk about that today. th MRS. BARDEN-I did talk to Matt Steves today and he requested the January 17 meeting. MR. VOLLARO-It should be 16, I think. MRS. BARDEN-Sixteen, excuse me. MR. VOLLARO-All right. We’ll table it. January 16 will now have seven on it, if we put th Clute on that, I think, because we did five and then six, there’ll be seven on the 16 and six on the next meeting that you folks have. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2006 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) Since no subdivision sign was posted, tabled to January 16, 2006. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE SITE PLAN 4-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MODIFICATION BABA-JANI & MAMA, INC. AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION: 931 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A CHANGE OF THE EXTERIOR COLOR OF THE RED ROOF INN. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 6-05, SP 58-04, AV 67-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 3.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 SECTION 179-9-020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Jarrett, you have the floor, sir. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers representing the applicant. Some of you will recall back in April of 2005, when we were here for Outback and then Budget Inn, there was considerable discussion regarding color of the two structures that were proposed on this site, and it was resolved that the motel would be the olive green color that you see in the package that we provided for you, along with the brown roof, and the trim was a brushed aluminum, as listed in your packet. When the owner went to purchase that factor colored siding, it was not available. In an effort to try and get the siding on the building in a timely fashion, it was negotiated with the Planning Department that they would pick a color that they felt was conducive to that area of Route 9 and to the Town, put it on, and then come back to this Board for approval of that color post construction. So we are here tonight seeking that approval. We are here hat in hand. We hope you like it. If not, we have to paint it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll let the Board talk about it and think about it, see what they want to do. I’ll start with you, Mr. Hunsinger. What do you think? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, I wish you had come to us before you had it finished, but be that as it may. MR. JARRETT-I was not privy to those discussions, and maybe Susan can enlighten us as to what happened, but it was discussed with, I think, Bruce and Craig, and they decided to throw it out to the Board after the fact and we’ll do whatever we have to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I really don’t have a problem with it. I just wish the process had been done a little better. I mean, I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t have taken a look at it when you had half the side on or something like that, you know, when there was still time to make a change. MR. JARRETT-I would tend to agree, but I wasn’t involved in that, so I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MRS. BRUNO-And is it safe to assume that the change in the name came around the same time and thus the red? MR. JARRETT-The Red Roof Inn happened subsequent to that, actually. I don’t know the timing on that versus, it was still Budget Inn when they selected the siding color. MRS. BRUNO-Because we have a berry red colored roof and gable, which actually works fine with it. Could I just ask you, is that indeed the brushed aluminum trim color chosen do you know? MR. JARRETT-No, the trim is different and the columns are different. MRS. BRUNO-So that also has changed. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. JARRETT-The columns in the photo from the original approval seem to match the siding, and they’ve now colored the columns the trim color, a lighter. MRS. BRUNO-Which is the brushed aluminum? It looks more to me to be the seashell. MR. JARRETT-Well, it’s a light, yes, it’s seashell. MR. FORD-I have a concern I’d like to voice, and it is not about the color. It’s about the procedure, and that has nothing to do with the applicant or the applicant’s agent, but it does have something to do about communication between Staff and this Board. We spend a great deal of time reviewing and analyzing colors, and we make recommendations, and for this many months after the fact, to be now reviewing this, I think, is untimely and inappropriate. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Mr. Ford. Mr. Seguljic, do you have a comment on this? MR. SEGULJIC-Colors is not my thing. It looks okay to me. It’s a procedural thing, the colors are fine with me. MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with Mr. Ford and also Mr. Hunsinger that there was a vast lack of communication between this Board and the Staff concerning this particular application, and so as a result, so that everybody knows, what I wrote across mine was, leave it like it is. That’s what I wrote on mine when I reviewed this, because I could see that this was not a good idea, and I don’t think painting is an option, particularly in this part of the country. MR. JARRETT-Not a good option. MR. VOLLARO-Not a good option. I don’t know of a paint that will stick, in this part of the world, where you get a large degree of movement on that vinyl, it doesn’t work. Okay. Mr. Sipp, how about you? MR. SIPP-Color is, I don’t care, really. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the consensus of the Board is to leave it as it is, and for some unknown reason, unknown to me, there’s a resolution here that requires us to do, apparently, to do an Unlisted. I don’t see why in the world this is an, we have to go through an Unlisted. I think that, leaving it like it is, the original SEQRA still stands. I don’t believe that we have to go through a SEQRA to leave the color like it is. It seems to me not a requirement. Anybody on the Board have any comments about that? Do you want to go through SEQRA on this? I don’t think we need to. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s kind of silly. MR. VOLLARO-Then will somebody make a motion for approval? There’s a record of resolution attached to your packet, and you can just go through those paragraphs, and if you want I’ll go through them since, or if somebody wants to make the motion, go right ahead. MR. FORD-Go ahead, go through them, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2005 BABA-JANI & MAMA, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a modification to an existing approved site plan to allow a change of the exterior color of the Red Roof Inn. Modifications to approved site plans require review by the Planning Board; and 2. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 3. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) 4. WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 5. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit. 6. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 7. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2005 BABA-JANI & MAMA, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff: 1. Paragraph One is okay, 2. Paragraph Two is not required because this is a modification, 3. Paragraph Three, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record. This proposal does comply. 4. Paragraph Five, they have been considered and proposed modifications do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary. 5. Six, the final plans don’t apply, and Whereas the applicant will provide as builts, that, I think, is part of the original resolution and the sanitary sewer thing is part of the resolution. So, therefore be it resolved that we find the modification request is hereby approved. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Easy. Merry Christmas to you, if I don’t see you. MR. JARRETT-Same to you. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2006 SKETCH PLAN THEODORE RAWSON AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SR-1 ACRE LOCATION: 725 WEST MOUNTAIN RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.62 ACRE LOT, ONE WITH AN EXISTING HOUSE, INTO SIX LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.01 TO 2.02 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 16-03, SUB 1-03, SP 46-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 8.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.-1-20.1 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves from Van Dusen and Steves representing Ted Rawson on this application. This is a Sketch Plan for 8.62 acres of property located on the west side of West Mountain Road, just south of the intersection with Potter Road. If anybody knows the area, there’s an existing home, basically right across from the intersection of Potter Road. I’ve gone through the Staff comments. The density calculation, we understand we’ll be doing that for Preliminary. We know that there is the easement, the water line easement that we had dealt with on previous subdivisions, and some areas that may have steeper slopes in the northwest corner. That’s why those two lots in the back are 1.71 and 2.02 acres respectively. So the one acre zone we know that we have plenty of room in there to accommodate the one acre, but we will show that with the two foot contours, and the applicant owns the 30 acres to the north. What is the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) future plans in this? Mr. Rawson’s only plans on that is to build a single family home for himself and his family. He has no other plans for that property at this time, just for construction of a single family up in the back. There was a couple of questions as far as the Staff about access, possibly wanting lining up a road with Potter Road. I kind of looked at that. The existing lot there, house, and the lot that he’s proposing to build on share a driveway now. With the new road where it’s positioned, we have a good sight distance there, and we would propose that the existing house on Lot, that first lot, would be required to enter off of the new road, and not off of the West Mountain Road, as it currently does. That definitely would stipulate that we would do that. MR. HUNSINGER-So would the shared driveway, the driveway to the house in the back, then line up with Potter? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. We can look at the fact of even possibly bringing an area of that lot down onto the cul de sac, too, so they can all enter off there, but that driveway’s been there for a long time. We thought leaving it on its own because it’s a 30 acre lot with a single family home in the back, just realigning that with Potter Road, and eliminating the driveway that’s offset, and that house would have to enter from the new road. MRS. BRUNO-What is that road frontage for the 30 acre lot? MR. STEVES-It’s approximately 150 feet. It meets the Code as long as it had a shared driveway, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-The distance from Potter to the main cul de sac opening is about 175 feet, is that about right? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When Preliminary comes in, we’re going to be just doing Preliminary and then Final on this? We’re not going to combine them. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. No. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to need test pits and all the stuff that you’re going to need to do a Preliminary. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. Yes. We’ll be doing test pits and percolation tests on each lot. We will calculate the area of the easement and subtract that from the density as well as the steep slopes. We are aware of that. We have a rough idea. We’re just going to move forward with the two foot contours. We do have a lot of contouring in this area based upon the Western Reserve subdivision just to the south, and we know that on that 1.71 lot for example about two tenths of an acre come out of that, but we still have more than enough for the required density requirement. MR. VOLLARO-That comes out of the water line easement. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you do share that property line with the Hayes and Hayes corporation? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. To the west, that would be against what would be the Homeowners Association, and then to the south it would share it with four of the residential lots. MRS. BRUNO-Speaking of the area to the west, Board members, since I wasn’t on the Board at the time, that portion of the Hayes project, what was that stipulated for in the future? Were they planning out there or is that held on to for green space? MR. VOLLARO-I believe the Homeowners Association has a requirement to maintain that property. MRS. BRUNO-As open space? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-As open space. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes, the Lot 13, if I could expand on that a little bit, the portions that aren’t the single family homes, but the town homes, that is Lot 13, which wraps all the way around to the west of this property, and that is all part of the Homeowners Association and no more development was proposed on that at all, because that is now part of the Homeowners Association. MRS. BRUNO-Were you on that project as well? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-It sounds like you’ve gone into this a little bit before with the water line easement. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Again, just because of my lack of familiarity with this area. I don’t want to actually put it quite that way, because I’m familiar with the area, but the specifics, in terms of the water easement. What types of issues did you run into? MR. STEVES-We just do not want to place, and in talking with the City, place any homes and/or septic systems on top of that easement. As far as keep the homes either in front, and the septic systems either in front or behind it, if you put a driveway over it, that’s fine, but the problem is they have the right to go in at any time to maintain that, saw cut the driveway, fix the water line, and then repair it afterwards. MRS. BRUNO-That was my question, actually, with the driveways. Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes. So therefore it is a deeded easement across a property, by Code it has to come out of your density calcs. We have those lots sufficient size and depth and width to accommodate homes on those lots without interfering with the easement. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-When you get the two foot contour lines into this, particularly on the 171 acres, and then taking out, I’m looking at your density calculation now. It looks to me like it might be pretty tight. MR. STEVES-Agreed, Bob, and the one to the south, that’s why with the 2.02 acres we have room to adjust that line if we have to. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ll adjust that line to the west. MR. STEVES-If we have to. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-There’s sufficient room, even with the area, I took the water line easement out of the calculation already, and I know I have more than enough. So even if I lose even a half an acre or three quarters of an acre to steep slopes, which I don’t believe it’s anywhere near that amount, I still meet the requirements of the density. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and when you come in with Preliminary you’re going to put the approximate location of the buildings on each lot, approximate along with the location of their septic? MR. STEVES-Yes. Hutchins Engineering will be doing all the engineering on this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-And he’s ready to go with test pits, perc tests, and he’ll have the engineered systems for the septic, the well, well, it would be Town water, and locations of those houses and septic, correct. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-If I remember correctly, some of the test pits that we did on Hayes and Hayes, this goes back a ways, but they were pretty marginal. The seasonally high groundwater is pretty high there. MR. STEVES-Yes. Down to, actually where it tapers off to the south, the area on these lots here is just the opposite. We had plenty of soils, but they had to be modified because they were too fast. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, this is all sand. MR. STEVES-The test pits that we have, I didn’t show them here because it’s irrelevant to this project, but the test pits just to the south on these single family homes on Western Reserve were fine, I think down to about five feet in that area. It’s just that they were too fast. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-When I first looked at this, my inclination was to ask you to consider some sort of a cluster and/or have a discussion about the additional 30 acres, but provided the applicant, the owner only intends to build a single family home and has no immediate plans to develop that, by proposing this the way it is, it’s, in and of itself, limiting what he’ll be able to do with the 30 acres, knowing that the property to the west is part of a homeowners association and there’s going to be significant open space there already. It just seems too small to me to consider for a cluster. MR. STEVES-We looked at that, and the cluster, all it does is provide you with, you know, we can create a buffer zone on the back of this that buffers a homeowners association with no development. Again, point well taken. MR. VOLLARO-One thing the cluster would do, would mitigate against, it would move into slopes of 15%, as opposed to 25. He’s going to have to deal with, he would have to deal with that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But when you do this in the Preliminary in 2007, you’ll probably want to, you may want to, it’s up to the Board, but you may want to limit no further development on that 30 acre lot except his particular single family home, if he’ll agree with it. I don’t know what his plans are, but. MR. FORD-Why are we not, right now, considering it a seven lot subdivision, instead of a six, and then they’ve got this nebulous 30 acres out here dangling by itself? MR. STEVES-It’s a separate tax parcel. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I don’t think we could combine that yet, Tom. I think he’d have to come in on, well, if he comes in on that single, a single family home, you may never even get to this Board. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-But somehow or other, when you do this subdivision, you might want to talk, make that a sidebar on this subdivision that the 30 acres, when it comes in, will not come before this Board probably, but we’d like to see the stipulation of no further development on there. See, he won’t be in front of this Board when he does that single family lot. So it’s something the Board’s got to think about when they do this. MR. STEVES-We’ve looked at that, and we can show you what the total 30 acres looks like when we come in with Preliminary with another map so you can see how it lays out. Really I don’t think there’s any other road access. So you’re kind of limited anyway. Basically the lot limits itself unless you come in from another property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, that would be the only other option. MR. SIPP-On this site map, in the bottom corner, the site where it’s listed as site, you have an opening there back to another piece of property. Is that a continuation of the same piece of property? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s his property. What happens, this eight acres is out of that site. The tax map hasn’t been updated to depict the line between the eight acres and the 30 acres. It shows on that tax map as 39.12. It’s actually just over 30 and 8. MR. SIPP-How much vegetation is there on the west side, uphill side? MR. STEVES-Not real, real heavy, but fairly wooded. If you’ve ever been down in this area, the lower area you have some pines along the road, but it’s kind of like an open field, and there is some woods in the back behind the water lines fairly heavy, and we would keep that buffer along there. MR. SIPP-That buffer would stay? MR. STEVES-Yes, and we’ll depict some buffer lines at Preliminary. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Steves, to clarify, so really, this was one large piece of property. When was it split off into two tax sections, if you’re saying that the tax maps haven’t yet been updated? MR. STEVES-October 14, 2005. MRS. BRUNO-That was strictly because the owner had planned on going this route? MR. STEVES-I don’t believe so. He was trying to sell the house and build his dream home in the back here and sell the house with the eight acres. Nobody really wanted to buy it that way. So he’s looking to develop it, and that way he has more of an ability to be able to build his house in the back. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think I have any further questions. Are there any further questions from the Board on this Sketch Plan? MR. SEGULJIC-No, we’re all set. MR. VOLLARO-I guess that’s it. There’s no public hearing. There’s no SEQRA. So you’ve gotten our opinions on this. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’d be good to bring back a large plan that looks at the 30 acres, 38 I guess it is. MR. STEVES-Understood. It’s 30. It was 38 total. MR. VOLLARO-It was 38 total. MR. FORD-It wasn’t 39.12? MR. STEVES-Close. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. SITE PLAN 50-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CRAIG BURROWS AGENT(S) BERNARD DUVAL OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION 287 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENCLOSE 126 SQ. FT. PORCH FOR INTERIOR SHOWROOM, 50 SQ. FT. WILL REMAIN AS OPEN PORCH AREA. EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 49-03 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/13/06 LOT SIZE 1.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-5 SECTION 179-9-020 CRAIG BURROWS, PRESENT; BERNIE DUVAL, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. BURROWS-Good evening. This is Bernie Duval on my left. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to make a statement here. I think there’s a couple of people that might want to make, I’ve had some prior dealings with Mr. Burrows, but there’s no reason, based on that, that I should recuse myself from this application. MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, I have had dealings with Mr. Burrows. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I don’t think there’s any necessity for us to recuse ourselves because of that, at least for myself. Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-I’m satisfied. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The floor is yours, gentlemen. Tell us what you want to do. MR. BURROWS-Our intent is to remove the existing shed roof off the front of the building and put a gabled roof in its place. The footprint won’t change. Enclose two thirds of that for retail space. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I looked at the, we were up there Saturday to look at it. So the Board members here have all had a chance to look at it. So if they have any comments. We’ve looked at this. I think it’s relatively simple in terms of what the applicant wants to do, but I’ll throw it open to the Board for discussion. We’ll start with you, Mr. Sipp. MR. SIPP-The only question I have is the handicap space is the one closest to the porch. Will this interfere with that, or are you going to move that? MR. BURROWS-The handicap space is designated on the opposite side of the building closest to the door for handicap. It’s actually on the other side of the building. When you pull into the parking lot, the handicap space is on your right, not your left. MR. SEGULJIC-In our package was the Drawing SP-1, and just for clarification, it looks like this was the proposed plan back when? Because you have proposed 50 by 80 building finish. I just want to clarify that. MR. BURROWS-Perhaps. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So this is an old one. MR. BURROWS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-When I first looked at it I didn’t know what you were doing there until I went to the site. MR. BURROWS-Yes, that was done, what, two years ago. MR. SEGULJIC-So this has all been done already. MR. BURROWS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Do you have a full foundation or frost walls underneath the porch? MR. BURROWS-Yes, there is. MRS. BRUNO-I had a feeling, since it was a new structure. MR. SEGULJIC-And how about the lighting, is that downcast? MR. BURROWS-Yes, it is. MR. SEGULJIC-It is downcast. MR. BURROWS-We’ve addressed some comments, and we have copies of some of the information, if you’d care to see it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think Staff had had some comments on the lighting. Is that what you’re talking about addressing? Yes. You probably want to address those. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. BURROWS-Would you care to see the information that we’ve got prepared for you? MR. VOLLARO-Is that prepared for, that’s not part of our packet now. MR. BURROWS-No, it’s not. MR. VOLLARO-We usually don’t accept new information on the night of the meeting. MR. BURROWS-Fine. MR. FORD-Perhaps you could describe it and give us detail on it, as part of your presentation. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to talk to us about the lights that are under the façade here? Are these the lights you’re talking about? MR. DUVAL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. DUVAL-There was a Staff question, there’s four fixtures on the face of the building, and initially we were going to have up and down lighting, and we’ve since changed our mind, and it will be strictly down lighting. It’ll be eight feet from grade to the center of the fixture, and it will be a 50 watt par 30 bulb, with a foot candle of 108 each. That addressed the front façade, and there was a question regarding, we have recessed fixtures in the covered entryway. There’ll be six total. MR. VOLLARO-That’s these. MR. DUVAL-Yes. Each of these fixtures will be of a 50 watt par 20 with a foot candle of 50 each, and those will be at a 10 foot height. On the side of the building, on the warehouse side of the structure, there are presently seven soffit flood lights. That soffit’s at 10 feet in height. Each is 100 watt halogen with a foot candle of 10 each. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, are you proposing to change, though? MR. DUVAL-Those we want to leave, remain. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DUVAL-And we will also, because of the change of use of that front porch and the new roofline, we will be adding another additional two of those fixtures in that additional five and a half foot soffit that will be created with this new roofline, which will be identical to existing, which is another two 100 watt halogen bulbs. There was a question noted that a previously approved lighting plan, SP-48-203 had one 150 watt mercury vapor light that was relocated to the right corner of the warehouse building, and it says that this appears to be the only light currently on site, which is not correct, and there is also, that same fixture is on the front left corner of the showroom, and that fixture will remain. MR. TRAVER-Is that 150 or 175? MR. DUVAL-I’m sorry, 175. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this drawing that I’m looking at, which is entitled First Floor Existing Front Porch, the existing showroom area is back in here, but this is depicting the new façade, right? MR. DUVAL-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So I see 10 new lights talked about here. MR. DUVAL-Ten plus two, which are on the right side of that drawing. Actually they’re not in the drawing. I apologize for that. MR. VOLLARO-They’re not in the drawing. MR. DUVAL-In the soffit, which will be identical to the ones that are existing on that side of the building. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-Now, it’s very tough to integrate all of that wattage right now. You’ve got 50 watts and we’re trying to take a look at foot candles on the ground here, see how many foot candles is being illuminated on the building itself, and it’s hard to do that without taking a look at the photometrics of the light itself. See, when a lighting company does this for you, they give you the photometrics for that. The wattage doesn’t tell you much. MR. DUVAL-It’s all down to foot candles, correct? MR. VOLLARO-It’s down to foot candles. MR. DUVAL-Right, and the fixture that was chosen that was actually recommended via the Staff comments was the 9234 AZ, which is down lighting only. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. DUVAL-And that bulb would be a 50 watt par 30 with a foot candle of 108. MR. VOLLARO-Now, you see, one of the things we have here talks about the, and she’s right when she wrote this, what is the total level of foot candles, the building entrance should be maintained at five. Our spec for the front of the building is only five foot candles. If you go to, have you looked at 179, which is our specifications? MR. DUVAL-I’m not aware of that. MR. VOLLARO-Did they have a pre-application conference? MRS. BARDEN-They did. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and did we talk to them about what the specs were in our 179, Chapter 179? I didn’t see that. MR. DUVAL-I don’t recall it. MRS. BARDEN-It does say, on Page Eight, second page of the pre-submission checklist, lighting plan with building specifics. So, yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s on Page Eight. MR. DUVAL-Yes, I see. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to go and try to get, one of the things we don’t want to do is light the place up. First of all, you’re pretty much isolated there, and we really don’t want it to look like a candle at night. So we’ve got specifications that give you requirements for foot candles being displayed at the front of the building and also the parking area. I think that’s the thing we’re going to need in order to bring this to a close. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it fair to say, other than that, there’s really no other issues? MR. VOLLARO-Lighting, to me, was the big issue here, the rest of it I didn’t have a problem, but I wanted to make sure that we weren’t over lighting the building. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I would agree with that. All we’re looking for is to see what the foot candles would look like and make sure we’re not over lighting it. MR. DUVAL-The existing lighting that we have on the building now, I think everybody will agree, is very minimal. MR. VOLLARO-Is light. You probably don’t get to your five foot candles the way you are lit now. MR. DUVAL-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And five foot candles, you know, we allow a little discretion in the lighting thing. Five is what we say in our spec, but if you were to come in with a little more than that, then the Board would have to determine whether that little more is acceptable or not. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Are you under any type of time crunch? MR. BURROWS-Not necessarily. I mean, we’ll do whatever is required of us. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. As a party of one here, I don’t see any main issue. I like the way the building looks, the way it will look when you’re done, according to your elevation drawing, and we visited the site and I don’t see that there would be any objections to where you’re trying to, but the lighting is the key issue here. We want to make sure it’s right. MR. FORD-For my own edification, could you look at your Drawing Number 01, please. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the front façade, the elevation drawing. MR. FORD-There is a protrusion under three of the four eaves. What are they? MR. BURROWS-That’s to represent those floodlights, the soffit flood lighting that’s there. They’re miniature, small halogen floodlights. MR. FORD-And the reason there is none on the left side upper one? MR. BURROWS-That is to the side of our building that faces Warren Electric. There’s no parking. It’s green space over there. MR. FORD-So you’re just having one there under the bottom eave. MR. BURROWS-Just so that the few cars that can see us from the Warren Electric side. MR. DUVAL-And there’s also that 175 watt hanging light on that side as well. MR. BURROWS-Which can stay or go. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I would agree with the Chairman. I really like the front façade. I think it’s very attractive, very well designed, but the lighting concern is something. I was glad to see that you actually put the street number on the building where it’s visible. So many times when we’re out on site visits we can’t find addresses. It’s amazing how few businesses actually put the street number signs up. I guess the only other comment I would make would be on color schemes. Do you have colors selected for the façade? MR. BURROWS-For the upper half, natural cedar. MR. FORD-Smooth, right? MR. BURROWS-Smooth finish, and this is what we call rainforest marble. Done in 12 by 12’s, as we show it on the plan. That’s basically the colors. MR. VOLLARO-Do the 12 by 12’s go around the door? MR. BURROWS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And the columns and trim color? MR. BURROWS-The columns and the trim color I believe are going to match the existing trim color on the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BURROWS-We talked about the trim being a different. MR. DUVAL-No, it’ll be the cream color. MR. BURROWS-It will be the cream color. The arched ceiling area will get a mosaic that is exactly the same thing, for obvious reasons. MR. VOLLARO-Since you guys put tile in, this is the name of the game. Okay. There is a public hearing on this tonight. So I’m just going to see if there’s anybody in the public 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) who would like to talk to this application. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this application for Mr. Craig Burrows? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-Seeing none, we’ll leave the public hearing open, because you’re probably going to have to come back with a lighting plan that satisfies the requirement. I would suggest that you visit Staff real quickly and get a copy of what’s in 179 under the lighting requirements so you know what we’re talking about. That way you’ll be able to get a look at what’s required in different areas. There’s lighting for the building, lighting for the parking lot and so on. MRS. BARDEN-It’s on line as well. May I have the lighting that you brought tonight, though, and I can take a look at that in the meantime. Thank you. MR. FORD-For the record, I want to express my appreciation for your bringing in samples of the materials. MR. BURROWS-We planned on putting one of these in all the packets, but we never got around to it. That would have made them a little heavier. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a date that we want to table this to? MR. VOLLARO-I’m just thinking of it now. We did January today, and so we’re up to five and six. rd MR. HUNSINGER-Can we table it to the 23? MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you when it’s going to be. We’ve got 16 and 23 in January, and I think there’s five now on 16 and six on 23. So if you table this to 16, you’ll have six and six. th MRS. BRUNO-I thought we were up to seven already on the 16? MR. VOLLARO-With Clute, yes. The limits are six and six. So whoever is Chairing this in January of 2007 has by the fact that you just got your new Bylaws this evening, it gives the Chair the opportunity to add one more to the limit. You can go up to seven and seven, if you need to, and I think when you’re bringing something like this back, with just th lighting, if he’s got the right lighting, you can just put it in, I would put it in for the 16. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Table it to that date, 16 January 2007. rdth MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, not the 23? I thought we were up to seven on the 16. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-three is good, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BURROWS-Twenty Third? MR. FORD-Twenty Third. MR. VOLLARO-Does somebody want to make a motion to table this site plan? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2006 CRAIG BURROWS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: Tabled to January 23, 2006 meeting, pending the submission of a complete lighting plan. Information should be submitted by January 5, 2007. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. MR. BURROWS-Thank you. MR. DUVAL-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 51-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ANDREW & SUSAN LIUCCI AGENT(S) PARADOX DESIGN ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 7 LUZERNE RD. & 3 HOLDEN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES 4200 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY RETAIL BUILDING WITH TWO TENANT SPACES. RETAIL USES IN A MIXED USE ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 46-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/13/06 LOT SIZE 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-31, 309.11-2-30 SECTION 179-4-030 CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JOHNSON-Good evening. My name is Charlie Johnson. I’m an architect with Paradox Design Architects, representing Susan and Andrew Liucci. Andrew is here with us this evening. You know the project. It’s on the corner of Holden Avenue and Luzerne Road. MR. VOLLARO-Been down to visit it Saturday, yes. MR. JOHNSON-The Liucci’s have owned it about two years, looking to make an improvement to the neighborhood. As you know the project involves a single story 4200 square foot building, tentatively scheduled for retail. We’re focusing on retail tenants, one to two tenants there. The existing neighborhood consists of a wide mixture of residential, large scale retail, small retail. It’s a real mixed use neighborhood. Our goal is to make this building blend in to that neighborhood, and toward that aim we’re designing this building with some residential features and materials to help it blend with the residential part of this neighborhood. We’ve placed this building towards the rear of the property, which is closer to the residential so that we have this residential looking and scaled building sort of terminating the residential area of Holden, and then we’ve put the parking on what would now be the commercial half of this property, facing the Luzerne Road. So that’s why we’ve set this design up that way is to help differentiate and help transition between the residential and this commercial. This property sort of transitions between those two zones. MR. VOLLARO-So this is a Mixed Use zone we’re working in here, right? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. We’ve laid out the parking with two ingress and egress points. So we’ve tried to minimize impact to the existing traffic patterns on the two streets. Our plantings and landscape soften and screen this parking area in the front of the property. We feel that this arrangement also provides a clear visibility of traffic flow across the entire front of the site. I’ve got a color rendering of the building. I could use this to help describe some of the colors and materials if I could pass it out, use for reference tonight. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about that? I think it’s okay. MR. JOHNSON-You can give it back to me, so it’s not an official submission. Just to help our discussion tonight. I know there’s some comments from the Town Engineer and Town Staff. So I’m not anticipating getting everything taken care of tonight. MR. VOLLARO-While we’re talking about that and you’re on that subject, today, late in the day, I got an e-mail. I don’t know whether everybody else did, but I got an e-mail concerning our engineer’s comments on your stormwater management plan. MR. JOHNSON-Right. I got that as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t see that plan as part of our submission. MR. JOHNSON-We submitted a series of them. I FedEx’d, one to the Town Engineer. He never got one. So he had this and reviewed it late and that’s why the e-mail comments came so late. For some reason he didn’t get his copy. MR. VOLLARO-When did you submit that document that you’re holding there? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. JOHNSON-When we submitted the application. MR. VOLLARO-Am I remiss in not having it? Does everybody have a copy of that? MR. SIPP-I don’t have that. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have it. MR. VOLLARO-See, I never looked at that stormwater management plan. I never got it. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Susan, did we get that as part of the application submission? MR. JOHNSON-I know Craig did forward his copy to the Town Engineer. So at least Craig did have a copy. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It didn’t get into our packets, and the Town Engineer just, I saw his initial comments, of which there are several. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And he didn’t mention the stormwater plan in there. MR. JOHNSON-Actually I think his last comment was he never got the stormwater. So, yes, no, I’ve been in contact with him. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re talking to Mr. Houston? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-I have a stormwater management plan dated September 2006. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see it. You’ve got it right in front of you there, Susan. We didn’t get that in our packets. So we never had a chance to see that, and C.T. Male never got it either, I don’t believe. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-It says under Miscellaneous, Number Fifteen, I’m reading from C.T. Male’s letter of December 13, 2006, and they say the documents that we received did not contain any supporting calculations for the design of the stormwater management system. So they didn’t get it either. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. FORD-When was that written, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-It was December 13, 2006 was the C.T. Male letter, and then subsequent to that apparently they did get a stormwater report, because the e-mail came through today at 8:30 this morning. MR. JOHNSON-I FedEx’d it to him. He actually reviewed it over the weekend so he could get you comments for today, this evening. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Did you submit full copies of this for all of the packets that the Board? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. Mr. Liucci went to great pains to copy them all. It happens. MR. VOLLARO-There would be two things that you’d have to do, probably, and we can get on with looking at this, but you’ve got to answer the C.T. Male comments and now respond to, and his comments on your stormwater plan are not too difficult. MR. JOHNSON-No. I don’t think any of these are really, most of his comments sort of crossing the T’s and dotting the I’s kind of comments. Nothing really substantial, the 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) same with his stormwater. I spoke to him about that as well. He didn’t feel that the plan, the design the site was going to be any hindrance to managing stormwater. I’ve got the stormwater engineering re-doing, massaging his numbers so they’re in compliance with what Jim’s looking for. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Good enough. So we can go forward with it now. MR. JOHNSON-Do you want, so let’s look at our rendering. We’re looking at a brownish gray roof, regular shingle, architectural style shingle roof, going along with our residential theme. We’ve got a fairly dark green vertical siding for the main body of the building, some stone veneer as a base course. MR. FORD-What is that green, what material is it? MR. JOHNSON-It’s a board and batten siding and vinyl, vinyl siding. It looks like board and batten, a vertical board. MR. FORD-It looks like board and batten. MR. JOHNSON-Yes, right, and then up in the gables we have a shingle, the look of a shingle, again in vinyl, and when I come back, I can bring some actual samples or color boards if that’s going to be helpful, more helpful than this rendering. MR. VOLLARO-Because sometimes the rendering colors don’t match. MR. JOHNSON-Don’t depict exact. MR. HUNSINGER-I think this is a really nice design, very attractive building, yes. I really like that a lot. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s pretty. I think it’s nice as well. I noticed in Staff notes, I guess everybody else probably picked it up. I think in Staff notes they mention 179-7-040, I think it’s 179-7-030 for the, it’s really the vision for Main Street, and those things have had, I’m having a very difficult time in my own mind in trying to get a site like this to reflect what I see in our current Code anyway. I don’t know what the new Code is going to look like, but the current Code talks about parking in the rear, a green space, then a sidewalk, then green space, up next to the road. If you look at Figures Five and Six in 179, it’s very hard to take that vision, in 179, and apply it to this lot. I had a lot of trouble with that, because that vision showed buildings that were high, and it showed green space next to the building, then a sidewalk, then green space, then road, and that’s not what that looks like down there, in that part of Town. MR. JOHNSON-Right. We actually started with that in trying to comply with that, and did a layout and design and it didn’t fit the neighborhood at all. In fact, it dwarfed the little house next door to a worse extent than what we’re trying to do. So we really, to sort of comply with zoning would make the neighborhood not blend. So we tried to make the neighborhood blend by breaking the rules, basically. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand, and I tried, you know, when I looked at this, I spent a lot of time with 179-7-030 trying to visualize in my mind how this would fit, and then that particular section of our Code drives us down to Figures Five and Six, and Five and Six, if you tried to depict this that way, it just doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for me, and I put this in my notes so that I could speak to that tonight, and we have the Chairman of the PORC Committee here with us. I don’t know, is anything being done with Main Street? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re not proposing to change the Main Street design guidelines at all, but one of the things, one of the concepts that’s being introduced is a build to line, rather than a setback. So, if anything, the new Code may say, you have to build the building up to 20 feet from the right of way, rather than say a 20 foot setback. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I get that. If they were to comply with that in this design, they would have to move their parking to the rear, which is another section in 030. MR. HUNSINGER-But one of the advantages of moving the parking to the rear to where the building footprint is right now is you could have a connector in to the Cool Beans site, and you might be able to make a little, you know, cluster, if you will, for shopping. MR. JOHNSON-Right. Well, I think in most locations it’s great to interconnect the parking areas to kind of minimize traffic coming and going and all the different entrances. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) In this particular location, it’s actually going to make a sort of short cut, and that cars are actually doing it now, just driving over the empty lot. I sat there tonight, looking at the site again, and a car cut right in front of me, drove over the lawn, through the parking lot you’re talking about by Cool Beans, and out onto Western Avenue. So we’re afraid that if we were to do that it would be a little street back there and sort of detract from the actual building and the site itself. So that’s sort of our objection to that, even though it’s a great idea. This particular site it may not work to its best advantage. MRS. BRUNO-Cool Beans parking is a little difficult, too. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s out front. It doesn’t connect. It wouldn’t lend itself that well. MRS. BRUNO-There’s already such activity, most of the cars are backing up almost into the road. I’ve almost experienced a few accidents in front of me because of that. So I think any additional traffic to that may be a hindrance. I think to every rule there is an exception, and I think they’ve handled it well, in terms of making the site blend. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I thought as well when I looked at it. I said, you know, I looked at a lot of, I even sketched out, believe it or not, trying to move the building around a little bit in the back, and it doesn’t seem to work, on that particular site, it does not seem to work. I don’t know. There will be some residential buffers required, however, I think, and I think Staff points that out, that you’ve got some buffering to do there. MR. JOHNSON-And we do have letters from both of the adjoining property owners in support of the project. I can’t give them to you, I guess, tonight, but I can tell you that both adjoining neighbors, the single family houses on both sides, are in favor of everything that we’ve depicted to date. We don’t have that 20 foot buffer next to the residential on Luzerne, due to the parking. We could possibly pull parking away from there a little bit to give a little more planting strips, some more landscaping area, but it wouldn’t be the full 20 foot buffer that’s required. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you’ve got your parking almost right up against your curb cut. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. It’s about eight feet off the property line. There’s an existing fence there. Her privacy fence is there, and so we could do some additional plantings, some taller arborvitaes, maybe, to help screen some additional lights, things like that, but it wouldn’t be the full 20 foot. MR. VOLLARO-I think we have, we have the ability to have some discretion in that buffering, I believe, in our Code. MR. JOHNSON-You can see the more we pull parking away from that property line, the closer the access point gets to the corner. So we’re kind of betwixt and between here on this site. MR. VOLLARO-Have you talked to Cool Beans about this at all, as far as the neighbor is concerned? MR. JOHNSON-We’ve talked to the lady right adjacent to this, but we haven’t talked to Cool Beans at all. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They should not have an objection to this, I don’t believe. MR. SIPP-That’s the house on the north side? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. SIPP-There’s a house there on the east side. Have you talked to them? MR. JOHNSON-Right. Yes. Both of them. MR. SIPP-Now, this buffer should be conifers. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. SIPP-Definitely, because you’re right tight to that one on the east. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. HUNSINGER-What if you were to only have one access point from Holden, and wouldn’t you then be able to move the parking back away from the neighbor and have parking across the front? MR. JOHNSON-We’d actually looked at one access from Luzerne, one access from Holden. The reason we went back to the two is that those dead end parking lots are sometimes awkward, once you’re in them, to back out. People are coming and going. That’s part of it. The other is we didn’t want to load one street over the other, and sort of impact the existing traffic patterns around that corner. So that’s why we stayed with the two, even though it sometimes causes a hindrance for landscaping and other things, but that is an option. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what kind of use is going to go in there? I know you said retail, but can you be more specific? MR. JOHNSON-We’ve looked at, the Cigar Shop has talked to us, chiropractor. I think we had a private Dollar General type store use, sort of little general merchandise store, but nobody’s firmed up yet until they get a better feel for where the Town wants us to go. So I think there’s plenty of interest, probably more so in a retail than an office, but chiropractor could be considered office. ANDREW LIUCCI MR. LIUCCI-I certainly would like to see professional also, if I could. I would jump on that. MR. VOLLARO-As opposed to retail. MR. LIUCCI-Well, no, either one, but I’m saying I wouldn’t say, I’m going to wait for retail when I have a nice professional person, even if it’s for a few bucks less, a few dollars less. I would definitely entertain it. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, part of the reason why I asked the question, of course, is because of traffic and access and traffic circulation within the site because if you have a high turnover, a lot of volume, that would lend to different problems that you might not have with a professional office use. MR. SIPP-Where would signs be placed, if there were to be signs? MR. JOHNSON-I’ve shown it on the site plan in this, it would be the southwest corner. MR. VOLLARO-On S-1? MR. JOHNSON-It’s on S-1. MR. SIPP-What type of signage would be proposed? MR. JOHNSON-We’re not sure yet. We were going to let the, we’d come back for a sign permit once the tenants were firmed up. Whether it’s a monument or a smaller, we were just kind of locating the sign location for now with that to be determined in the future. MR. SIPP-I’d like to see a monument type, if possible. I don’t think we need a pylon, 24 footer. MR. JOHNSON-No. It would be low. That’s what we’re looking for, yes, just an identifying thing. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to parking, how many spaces are you proposing? MR. JOHNSON-We’ve got 21. MR. VOLLARO-It says 23. MR. JOHNSON-I know. It’s a typo. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-It is 21. That’s what the drawing says and that’s what the calculation shows it to be. MR. SEGULJIC-Now I was apparently asleep during the discussion about the entrance off of Luzerne.. Are you eliminating that? MR. JOHNSON-No. We were just, we had talked about picking one over the other, why couldn’t we do one entrance, why do we need the two, and we had actually looked at both, and we kind of don’t like having that dead end parking lot. It makes for, you know, backing up, people coming in, it makes for a harder use parking lot when there’s just one entrance, and we also didn’t want to just load up one street with all of the traffic. So we tried to balance it out so that we wouldn’t really impact this corner in any big way. MR. VOLLARO-I happen to like this because it looks like it lends itself quite well to circulation, to parking circulation, the way they’ve got it laid out. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the one thing that I would like to see is if we lose the entrance off of Luzerne, it gives us more chance for some streetscape. I like trees. MR. SIPP-Yes. I think that four trees on the Luzerne side would make this look better. MR. JOHNSON-Now when you say you like street trees, or are you looking for screening type things, or both? MR. VOLLARO-He’s really looking for street trees, I believe. MR. SEGULJIC-Some trees, you know, when I look at an area that’s unappealing, it usually doesn’t have any trees. Trees hide a lot of stuff, and it looks like you’ve pushed the buildings back as far as you could to the 20 foot setback. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and I think our Code says 20 parking. MR. VOLLARO-The Code comes out to 21. MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty-one. One per two hundred square feet. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-Two hundred square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-I would just like to see more landscaping. I think you could accomplish that by losing the entrance from Luzerne, also eliminating a curb cut. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re going to trade that off. That’s a tradeoff to good circulation on the site, though. That’s a concern that I might have. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but I think that, if you’re looking at someone having to back out to get out, I think, to gain streetscape, I’d go that way. MR. FORD-I agree. If we could lose that entrance on Luzerne, I would rather have people coping with those backing and entering problems than I would that curb cut that close to Holden, and also to Western Ave. MR. SEGULJIC-Plus the other thing is, I think there’s always a discussion about a sidewalk. MR. JOHNSON-Well, it would be sidewalk, this would be the only side of the sidewalk. I mean, at some point in the future, others would have it, but by that point ours would be in disrepair. MR. VOLLARO-That’s been my position, as one member of this Board, that when we do sidewalks we should do them all at one time, and maybe I might be wrong, but you put your sidewalk, it deteriorates over time, they all do, with salt going over it, and you’ve got sidewalks that are not continuously looking good. Put them all in at one time. MR. JOHNSON-I presented at another town, and when they have a neighborhood where they wanted to put sidewalks but there weren’t enough properties developing yet to do 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) that, they had the applicants put money into an account, so that when the sidewalks came, they had the money for this particular site. MR. FORD-Thank you for that recommendation. Somebody’s got to be the leader. MR. JOHNSON-Well, if I could solve both of your needs, or both of my needs, your need being to screen what is kind of a beautiful building. MR. SEGULJIC-Not so much to screen, but to put some trees there to enhance. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. So if I could get some trees that enhance the property, the appearance, and maintain the two driveways, would it be something you’d be willing to look at? MRS. BRUNO-I would like to point something out. I know you had the discussion about the retail versus office space, and I had to double check, but your calculations are based on retail space. If they’re based on office space, it’s one per three hundred square foot. So you actually could go with fewer parking spaces if you did decide to limit. I know it turns into a money thing, you know, in terms of economics. That was my concern as well. I just heard Mr. Sipp say that none of the trees were very big. We don’t have, some of the evergreen type trees are just the smaller, actually, do we even have any arborvitaes listed at this point? MR. VOLLARO-They’re up at the top of the drawing on S-1. MR. SIPP-S-1, plant list. MR. VOLLARO-Where it says plant list. MRS. BRUNO-But there isn’t an arborvitae. I don’t see, we have, a compact holly would be an evergreen. MR. JOHNSON-There is no arborvitae there. MRS. BRUNO-Right. So we have nothing, really, for our winter months. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. SIPP-There’s a need for conifers on what would be the north side. MR. VOLLARO-It would be the east side, I think. MR. SIPP-East side. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. MR. SIPP-Because that screens the house next door and also screens you from the rest of. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s room on the drawing to put them right in the front of those, the parking lots, parking spaces eight through fifteen. MR. SIPP-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. One thing I think is missing in some of this, and I’ve got to take a look at something. Do you have a building plan? MR. JOHNSON-Yes, building plans are S-3, the last sheet. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not looking for that. I’m looking for a landscaping plan. MR. JOHNSON-It’s on S-1, top left corner. It’s admittedly minimal, looking for input, so that your needs get met as well. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, see I don’t see anything here. This is what Mr. Sipp is talking about. MR. JOHNSON-Right. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-To have some buffering right there, particularly for that house that’s there, that’s sitting right here. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORD-I have to go back to this double curb cut, because I fail to see the advantage over the disadvantages that I can envision with that curb cut with several of them in such close proximity on Luzerne Road. I’m just not convinced that we need that in such close proximity with cars coming in and out. MR. JOHNSON-Well, the only thing I can sort of say in defense is the more convenient a place is, the more likely it is to be used. So the harder it is to maneuver around maybe the less likely I would be to go to this particular store. MR. FORD-How many feet do you have to go if I’m going to lose my access to this building off Luzerne Road? MR. JOHNSON-It’s not the travel part. It’s just once you’re inside that parking area, you know, that’s where I’m talking about. It’s not the number of entrances so much that I’m stuck on as I’m trying to make the flow as free as possible, is the best word. MR. FORD-Okay, and part of that flow that I’m concerned with is that flow of traffic on Luzerne Road. MR. JOHNSON-Right. What about entrance only from Luzerne, and exit entry on Holden? Then that sort of gives us more street frontage for some plantings and trees as well. MR. FORD-It sure beats the alternative, as far as I’m concerned. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be a good compromise. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe what you ought to do is come in with either/or, so we can take a look at that. MR. FORD-Yes. Let’s look at some of those. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. Let me do my best showing the two driveways with improved planting, and then I’ll show a one way only in off Luzerne and see what that does for improved planting and green area. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. JOHNSON-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Did you present a lighting plan with this at all? MR. JOHNSON-That’s one of the comments as well. It’s still in progress. So I’ll have that for the next meeting as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you, like the prior applicant didn’t really. MR. JOHNSON-No, it just didn’t get done at the time it needed to. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You have our lighting schedule. You know what they are. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Try to keep your average over your min down somewhere around four to one for the Uniformity Ratio. See if you can work that in. Okay. There is a public hearing on this tonight. I don’t know if anybody’s here that wants to speak to this application? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-There’s nobody in the audience that wants to speak to this. I’m going to leave the public hearing open because you’re going to be coming back, and we won’t do a SEQRA tonight until you get back. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So if somebody wants to get to preparing a motion, I think the motion’s got to be pretty clear on here. So if you want to take a, we’re pretty early tonight. If somebody wants to take a couple of minutes to put a motion together, there’ll be a lighting plan required, C.T. Male’s letter of September 13 and their comments on the stormwater plan has to be addressed. Mike Shaw’s letter, now that’s another thing that we should bring up. Did you read Mr. Shaw’s letter? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. So you are currently a contract user on that property, as it stands now. MR. LIUCCI-He had sent me information about signing, I think I already signed up, but, until I hook up. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, he’s talking about, I’m reading his letter now, and it says the one parcel has an out of district contract for sanitary sewer service. That’s the one parcel, I believe that’s the parcel on Holden. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Not on Holden, but on Luzerne, facing Luzerne. Is that correct, or am I wrong? MR. LIUCCI-If it’s out of contract, it might be the one on Holden, the one on Holden. MR. JOHNSON-I thought it was Holden, but I don’t have the tax parcel numbers. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have them. I don’t know what they are. MR. JOHNSON-I think it’s the Holden facing property myself, but I’m not sure, but either way, we’ll get this taken care of, and we’ll get the parcel that’s not a part of it, we’ll get it signed up and a part of this sewer district, and then Mike will have a chance to look at these as well, I guess, prior to issuing a connection permit. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to stay as a contract user, is that your plan? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that something we have to address in the motion? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. I think he has to comply with Mr. Shaw’s, I guess this looks like a letter. MR. JOHNSON-This would almost have to be dealt with before a building permit is issued. So that can be the catch all for you if you wanted. So we’ll comply with it, and then the building permit makes us. MR. VOLLARO-And I would make it part of the motion, that the motion is dependent upon discussions with Mr. Shaw, based on his letter of December. I think this looks like an e-mail. Is this an e-mail? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-It’s really just, when they do the parcel consolidation, and you have to do the parcel consolidation, that the result is whatever number, whatever parcel number has a contract with the Wastewater Department, in order to keep that connection. MR. VOLLARO-It says if the two parcels are combined, the current out of district contract will need to be changed. That’s basically what. So there’s a contract change that would 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) have to go with that. You’ve got to address the C.T. Male letter and also the stormwater management. MR. SEGULJIC-So Staff has a copy of the stormwater plan, then? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, and we will get that to you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And we haven’t discussed anything on residential buffers yet. How are we looking at that? I think Staff notes talked about residential buffers as well. MR. JOHNSON-How would the Board feel about a row of tall coniferous trees, shrubs, arborvitae comes to mind. They’re quick growing, between the parking and that privacy fence that exists there now on the eastern boundary? MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the Code’s actually fairly clear on how to, I had it open a few minutes ago. It’s in 179-8-040. The page I’m looking at is 18006, and it actually shows a very similar situation, and how to handle it. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And basically it talks about three foot high evergreen hedge is required, or an 18 to 40 inch high berm at no greater than a three to one slope. That’s where you have more than 50 feet from a street right of way, but if you look at the Code, I think it’ll give you some direction. MR. JOHNSON-So we’ll review that and comply with that. Okay. MRS. BRUNO-It sounds like what you suggested already would comply. MR. SIPP-I think arborvitae would be good in that area. MR. JOHNSON-And they’re pretty resistant, too, to that kind of location planting. MR. SIPP-They tend to brown up a little. Because they’ll be raised away from the parking lot. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. SIPP-So the salt won’t affect them. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things you’re going to be coming back with is a look at whether or not you’re going to have one entrance or two, or an in only on Luzerne Road. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s part of the motion as well. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what was your comment, Bob, to address what? MR. VOLLARO-He talked about, I think Mr. Ford brought up the fact that instead of getting rid of the Luzerne curb cut you make it an in only, and so he could bring back and either/or. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I had sort of a general comment on that, and I guess if there’s no other, I’ll forward a motion. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. Sure. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2006 ANDREW & SUSAN LIUCCI, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: To the February 20, 2007 Board meeting with the following conditions: 1. Pending submission of a lighting plan, 2. The applicant shall address C.T. Male comments, 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) 3. The applicant shall provide an improved landscaping plan, 4. The applicant shall address residential buffers to the north and east, and 5. The applicant shall provide an alternative access and/or parking plan. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-The C.T. Male comments have to be, there are two parts of it. One is to his letter, which is pretty definitive, and then he adds the stormwater thing. So when you say C.T. Male, you understand that’s both. MR. JOHNSON-Two parts. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-And you’ve already agreed to bring in samples at that meeting. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. FORD-I don’t know that we have to. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s always helpful. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. JOHNSON-Thank you very much. I have one other question. I know we’re all done with this. The privacy fence on the borders of the property. Anybody have concerns, issues? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s already there. MR. JOHNSON-Well, on the eastern boundary, it’s already there. On this northern boundary, we’re going to be adding new. Mostly it’s to screen that house that’s back there that’s in kind of ill repair, and also that section that borders the parking lot to the east. So this is the fence right here that we’re going to be adding new. MR. VOLLARO-I see. MR. JOHNSON-I just wanted to make sure everybody was comfy with that. If you’re not, we can make adjustments. MR. VOLLARO-What does the fence look like, I mean, what are you planning? MR. JOHNSON-Just a privacy stockade. It’ll be a vinyl type product. Or wood, so it’ll match the wood stockade fence that’s on the eastern property boundary now. MR. FORD-Coloration? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, if you could give us the design. MR. FORD-Yes, design and color. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Do we want to amend the motion to bring in some design and color to the fence being proposed? MR. JOHNSON-That was one of C.T. Male’s comments, that I’m missing that detail, so that it’s covered. You don’t want to do that. MRS. BRUNO-You can also submit the two letters that you spoke of before the next meeting as well. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-You do have it, the six foot high privacy fence, and you labeled it on both sides. It’s on the drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but they didn’t provide detail. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no detail on it. There’s nothing in the details on that. So that should be supplied in the Detail drawing. MR. JOHNSON-Yes, and I’ll bring a color that we’re going to stain it. MR. FORD-A nice sample would be great. MR. JOHNSON-All right. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. th MR. HUNSINGER-Just on a side, the due date for the February meeting is the 15 of January. Right, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, thank you. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So that should give you plenty of time to get everything in. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT STOYA AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION LOT 6 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK AND PARKING FOR SIGNWORKS. LIGHT INDUSTRY USES IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/13/06 LOT SIZE 1.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-2 SECTION 179-4-020 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Miller, good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, a landscape architect. I’m here this evening with Bob Stoya who is the applicant and the owner of Signworks. It’s a business that’s currently in operation. It’s located down at Exit 16 in Wilton. He has purchased the property in Carey Road Industrial Park and he’s looking to construct a new facility and move his business up here to Queensbury. The site is a 1.7 acre undeveloped parcel, and the proposal is to develop a new 5,000 square foot building. The intent is to put it on the northerly side of the property, leaving some potential area in the future for expansion to the south. There would be a single driveway coming in. The majority of the parking for the company vehicles and employees will be along the side of the building. The building is laid out so there’s four spaces plus a handicapped spot in the front. The front portion of the building will be where the office area is located, and the rear portion of the building will be all of the fabrication portion of the facility. So the intent was to provide an entrance there. They don’t have a lot of customers that come here, but the intent was to create an office area along the front facing Carey Road, and then landscape that area as the front of the building. The lighting will be all building mounted. It’s a series of cut off lights. There’ll be three along the front, four along the southerly side, and one off the back at the overhead door, there’s two overhead doors to the rear of the building. Since this is just a daytime operation, it’s not open at night and it’s not open to the public, it’s only, you know, coming in by appointments. The intent was to have minimal amount of lighting, and at nighttime there might be a couple of lights left on for security, but the intent was just to light the walkway and the parking areas for people that are leaving at the end of the day in this time of the year. So it’s a real low level lighting use. MR. VOLLARO-That lighting will be just wall packs then. MR. MILLER-That’s correct, cut off wall packs. There’ll be a freestanding site sign out in the front that’s in this plant bed that will be planted that meets the 15 foot setback. MR. FORD-Will that be illuminated? MR. MILLER-Yes. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. FORD-But it’s not a neon? MR. MILLER-Well, we don’t have a design for it yet. I mean, it’ll comply with the Town’s Code. We just wanted to show something, the size and the lighting and everything will comply with the Code. We just wanted to show location at this point in the site plan. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. MILLER-There’d be an on site septic system located to the north side. There will be municipal water that will be brought in, a fairly low water usage facility. The dumpster will be located to the rear of the building next to one of the overhead doors. The would be about 74% of the site will remain pervious. The clearing limits will just be in the area that’s required for the storm drainage and for the construction of the facility. The intent was to save the existing trees and woods as much as possible. One of the Staff’s comments talked about some tree planting along the street here. There’s a lot of oaks and things in there, and our intent was that we would actually only clear here what’s shown on the plan, where the area of the sign and the driveway would be. We’ve got a water line comes in, but that’s only a small one inch water line that could be fit in between the trees. Our intent was to try to save some of those existing trees that were there rather than to plant something new. So we just limited the planting to just to accent the front of the building. All of the stormwater, we have very well drained sands here. All of the stormwater will be retained on site. The building is going to be a pre-engineered metal building. There’s some elevations in the packet. We have a sample. It’s going to be a metal panel building. It’s going to be sort of a grayish tan color with some darker trim. So in the industrial park it’s going to be the metal building. There’ll be awnings that will be a darker brown, over the entryway. The hard awnings not the canvas. So they’ll be a darker color. They’ll be over the entryways in the front to dress up that entry. At this point, we got a couple of comments back. There was one comment we received from the Water Department telling us to change our detail on the water line to six feet deep instead of five. We made that change to the drawing, and we received the comments from C.T. Male, and I was in contact with Jim Houston on Friday, and I sent in, he had some fairly minor comments. We sent him responses to those comments on Friday. I haven’t seen anything back. He was working at home, so I don’t know if he got back to you or not. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see anything yet from, response letter. I’ve got his letter, but I don’t his response in here. MR. MILLER-You didn’t get his response. I talked to him Friday and he told me he was going to try to get back to you on Friday, but I don’t know what happened. I haven’t heard anything back. He was working at home. His wife was ill. MRS. BARDEN-I do have an e-mail from Jim Houston from today. Would you like me to read it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, would you, please. Read it into the record, yes. MRS. BARDEN-In response to our November 14, 2006 comment letter, we received a response to our comments dated December 14, 2006. I’m sure he means December and not November. The response contained a response letter dated December 14, 2006, excerpts from the revised plan and a revised stormwater management report th revised December 14. The applicant’s consultant, Jim Miller, indicated that he had faxed a copy of the revisions directly to you, this is to Craig. Provided that the revisions shown on the excerpts are incorporated into the final set of plans, the revisions address our comments. Let me know if any additional information or clarification is needed, and that’s signed Jim Houston. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s dated when, December 19? th MRS. BARDEN-Today. Tuesday, December 19. MR. VOLLARO-We can make that as part of the conditions that that was answered, the letter of December 14, 2006 was answered by C.T. Male’s letter or e-mail of December 19, 2006. Okay. This is kind of like a butler building, basically? MR. MILLER-Yes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to have any mechanicals on this building, on the roof? Air conditioning, anything like that? MR. MILLER-No, the roof is, it’s a shed roof that’s going to pitch in one direction to the north. For a couple of reasons. One of them allows some overhead doors and things, without the problems with the snow. It works well for our stormwater. Everything goes off to the one side where we have a stone infiltration swale and then the other side, if he ever wants to expand to the south, he could basically do a shed in the opposite direction. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t have any mechanicals on site. MR. MILLER-No. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see them anyplace here. MR. VOLLARO-So there are none. What I mean by mechanicals is the air conditioning condenser. ROBERT STOYA MR. STOYA-Gas heat, that’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just gas heat and that’s it. MR. STOYA-I doubt if we’ll have air conditioning. MR. SEGULJIC-I just have two questions. I think they’re fairly simple. Signworks, I assume you make signs? MR. STOYA-Yes. A lot of neon. MR. SEGULJIC-And then with stormwater, you have the drywells with the stormwater basins. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. MR. MILLER-Well, these are really an infiltration basin, because if you look at, this is the course sand, so the perc rate was like 35 seconds. So it was very rapid, but what we like to do is add some drywells in the basins because when you have time periods where there’s frost in the ground and you get the heavy rains, that’s when there’s a lot of flooding. If you have a drywell, that basically allows the water to get into the ground, rather than just create a pond there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So they’re shallow basins. MR. MILLER-Yes, they’re a shallow basin, and the drywell is set up, I think it’s like a foot above the bottom, so that any stormwater runs in, we get our pre-treatment because basically that acts as a settling basin, and then if the pond fills, particularly in the case where there’s frost, and it gets to the higher elevation of the drywell, it’s got a place to go. MR. SEGULJIC-That makes sense then. All right. I’m all set with it. It looks good to me. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody refresh my memory. I’m trying to pull out of 136 in my head. What does it say about percolation rates less than three minutes? Is that, does that have to do primarily with? MR. MILLER-Well, I think what you’re thinking about is the septic systems, and actually it’s percolation rates under a minute, in this particular case, because the three minutes applies to within a certain distance of shoreline. MR. VOLLARO-Of shoreline. I believe that’s correct. MR. MILLER-In this particular case, we’re under a minute. So what we have to do, and if you look at the detail on the septic system, we have to modify the soils. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to modify the soils. My second question is interesting. On the bottom of Site Plan SP-1, test pits and percolation test were done by Mr. Nace. MR. MILLER-Yes. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-And test pits and percolation tests were done by Rist-Frost submitted for Northern Distributing. So who did what there? MR. MILLER-Well, the two test pits you see on the right side were done, the reason we had those on, we contacted Dave Hatin and when we were going out to do the test pits and asked them, since we’re doing them late in the year, we asked him for his advice on it, and he advised us this was an approved subdivision where the perc tests and the soils works was done originally. So he asked us to include some of that original information if we could get it, and then in addition we went out and we did, we basically did a perc test and a test pit in the area of the septic system, and we did the second test pit in the area of the second drywell, and those other two test pits, when we went back to the original subdivision, we located the two test pits that were closest to our site. One was just across the road. The other one was a few hundred feet away, but they were done by Rist-Frost back in 1989, and as it shows their results were very similar to what we got. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That whole area probably percs at about the same rate. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else have any questions on the Board on this? I didn’t have, in my notes I had very little, except the C.T. Male thing, and that’s been kind of cleared up th with the December 19 e-mail from Mr. Houston. So I don’t have any questions. Nothing further anyway. MR. FORD-All set. MR. VOLLARO-How about this end of the Board. Tanya, how are you feeling on this? MRS. BRUNO-Perhaps we discussed this right at the beginning, but the uniformity of the lighting, the exterior lighting, are we going to have that submitted? MR. VOLLARO-He’s got, he submitted cut sheets on the lights. MR. MILLER-There’s cut sheets on the lights and then the photo metrics are shown on the landscape plan, and since the light level is so low on here, we didn’t do the full photo metrics, and again, they’re probably not going to be on, except for maybe at a couple of doorways after about eight o’clock at night. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MILLER-They’re just 100 watt wall packs. MR. VOLLARO-You’re probably not even going to get to five foot candles with what you’ve got. MR. MILLER-We can get five foot candles along the walkway there because it’s pretty much directly right underneath, but, you know, if you look at the photo metrics of those, it dissipates pretty quickly. MR. VOLLARO-But you’re not going to be operating in the evening anyway. You don’t have employees that are going to be coming out of your building on the second shift or something like that. MR. STOYA-No, it’s 8:00 to 4:30. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STOYA-The guy next door said there was some vandalism problems or something, Schwartz I think his name is, that was the extent of the lighting there. MR. MILLER-Yes, it’s pretty quite down in there at night. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MILLER-When everybody goes home, it’s pretty quiet. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions. I think that we can go for an approval on this this evening, with the C.T. Male thing. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Does anybody want to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-There is a SEQRA on this. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 52-2006, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT STOYA, 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. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If somebody wants to make a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, I’ll make it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2006 ROBERT STOYA, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a 5,000 sq. ft. building with associated site work and parking for Signworks. Light Industry Uses in a Light Industrial zone require review by the Planning Board; and 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/19/06; and 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit. 8. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2006 ROBERT STOYA, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the Draft resolution prepared by Staff, with the following corrections: 1. Item Four, the Board has determined that the proposal complies. 2. Item Five, Whereas, the action is Unlisted and the Planning Board has adopted a negative SEQRA Declaration, and 3. Item Nine, the application is hereby approved and is subject to the following conditions: a. That the applicant receive a final signoff from C.T. Male. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. MILLER-Thank you very much, and Merry Christmas. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think you have a couple of sets of minutes to approve. th MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. Approval of Minutes of October 17 and October 24, 2006. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 17, 2006 October 24, 2006 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17 & OCTOBER 24, 2006, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to move into the last item on our agenda under Further Business, discussion concerning the 2007 Planning Board position for Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary. We’re going to continue that discussion from what we had, I th believe it was on the 26 of November. I said something at that meeting and I’ll say it at this meeting again, that it is my recommendation that this Board allow the Town Board to make the decision for the Chairman for 2007. They have that obligation in any event, and so, but if the Board wants to deliberate on that tonight, that’s fine. They may. If they do choose to deliberate on that this evening, I will recuse myself from the discussion since I won’t be here. MR. TRAVER-Mr. Chairman, I’d also like to recuse myself, in as much as I am new to the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-I have correspondence from Gretchen Steffan in her absence today that she would like me to read. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. MRS. BARDEN- Dear Colleagues: Last month we discussed the slate of Officers for 2007 and there was considerable indecision. I wanted to weigh in on nominations this evening, even though I could not attend the meeting. I appreciate being identified as a candidate for Chairman. However, I believe the right person for that role is Chris Hunsinger. The role of the Chairman is to preside at all meetings, sign all approved final plats and site plans, sign all contracts, agreements and other instruments made and approved by the Planning Board, serve as official spokesperson for the Planning Board and perform all other incidental duties of the office, which include appointing committees and being an ex-officio member of those committees, arranging for the site visits, drive arounds, alternate coverage in the absence of a member, completeness review decisions, meeting agenda approval, etc. Chris has been on the Board for several years and has done a good job. He is a degreed planner with years of planning experience to help us as we move forward. With all of the changes we will be facing in 2007 we need his experience as Chairman to help us do our work well. Some of those changes are huge to us as a Board. We will have a new Director of Community Development, hopefully, a new Town Engineer, a new Engineering Consulting firm and new Town Counsel. In addition to all of these changes, we have a fairly new Planning Board that needs direction and support, plus we are in the process of updating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and Chris has been the recent Chairman of this Committee and knows more about the proposed updates than any other Board member. This knowledge will be invaluable. That is why I believe Chris is the best candidate for Chairman of the Queensbury Planning Board and if I were there this evening, I would nominate him. I would also nominate Tom Seguljic for Vice Chairman. Tom also has done a good job in his several years on the Board. He is a friend of the lake and is very knowledgeable about the issues and opportunities that exist for the Board as we move forward in 2007. If nominated, I would agree to continue as Board Secretary. I think that 2007 will be a challenging year for the Queensbury Town Government. The group dynamics of the Town has changed dramatically and will continue to change, whether you are an elected official, in an appointed position, or a full time regular employee. I believe it is imperative that the Planning Board fulfill its responsibility to our fellow citizens. Our work is not easy but it is important work that we do and each one of us knows why. I will be happy to help in planning workshops in 2007 to help our Board be as prepared as we can be for the work ahead. In closing, I would like to extend my warm regards and appreciation to Chairman Bob Vollaro. Bob has served the Town Planning Board for many years and has provided his expertise selflessly. Most people have no idea how important Bob’s work has been to our Board, and we will be diminished by Bob’s loss. I would like to recommend that Bob consider becoming an alternate as we will always be able to use his help. No one knows Uniformity Ratio like Bob. When I joined the Planning Board Bob was my role model. I was in awe of his engineering skills and his attention to detail. He will always be legendary to me and I wish him all good things in his second retirement. Respectfully Submitted, Gretchen Steffan, Planning Board Secretary. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. We have, apparently there’s a nomination there that’s been read for Mr. Hunsinger. So I think you’re going to have to, I believe that’s what that says, she’s nominating Mr. Hunsinger, I believe, in that correspondence. MRS. BARDEN-She is. MR. FORD-Just a point of clarification. She also is mentioning two other positions. I don’t know if we need to recommend those to the Town Board, or if it’s just the Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-No, they’re strictly internal. MR. FORD-That’s an internal organizational. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The only recommendation you have to forward to the Town Board is the recommendation for Chairman. The next question is, Mr. Hunsinger, do you accept that nomination? MR. HUNSINGER-I would. I tried to talk Gretchen in to doing it. I made a comment at the last Board meeting that I didn’t feel that the current Town Board would accept any recommendation from this Board to appoint me as Chairman, and that may or may not be the case. I really don’t know. I know that there has been some concerns about that, certainly on my part, but we can’t allow what might happen regulate what’s the right thing for this Committee. I did make a comment, at the last meeting, you know, I have one year left on my term. At this point in time I have no desire to seek reappointment. I’ve been doing it for over six and a half years. By the time you get up to almost eight, it’s time to move on. MR. VOLLARO-Time to move on, yes, I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-So I would just add that I do think that specifically one of the roles of any Chairman is to try to bring along new leadership on this Board, and I think that will be one of the additional challenges for the coming year. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the fact that the potential to make Mr. Seguljic your Vice Chairman, I think bringing him along is an ideal situation. MR. HUNSINGER-And I just wanted to reiterate some of Gretchen’s comments, regarding our current Chairman. No one, in the six and a half years that I’ve been on the Board, paid more attention to detail than Bob. Nobody worked harder on this Board than Bob did, and no one put in more time and effort than Bob did. I clearly don’t have that capacity. I tend to see the role of Chairman as being a little different, and, you know, it’s a difference in philosophy. It doesn’t mean one’s better than the other. They’re just different. They reflect personalities more than anything, but I just want to be up front about that, that I don’t think anyone can commit the time to it that you did, Bob, and we all appreciate that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I had the time. That was the other thing. Some of you don’t, and I can appreciate that fact as well. MR. FORD-I expressed that today to the reporter from the Post Star who called me, reiterating that. So, Robert, you will certainly be missed and your commitment goes beyond words. MR. VOLLARO-I think that there needs to be a resolution to the Town Board. If somebody wants to make that resolution, they can go right ahead. MR. FORD-I will second Gretchen’s letter, if that will suffice. MR. VOLLARO-It probably would, yes. MR. FORD-Or the essence of. MR. VOLLARO-The Town Board’s going to be looking for that recommendation. It’s got to come up as a vote from this Board. MRS. BARDEN-Right. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR CHAIRMAN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FOR THE YEAR 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: See correspondence from Gretchen Steffan attached. th Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Traver, Mr. Vollaro Mr. Sipp voted “Present” MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate the vote of confidence, thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s all yours, Chris. MR. VOLLARO-Congratulations and I hope everything goes well. MR. FORD-I hope the Town Board sees it the way we do. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Tom. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s a strong capability up front that they will. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-That’s my sense. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to finish the Vice Chairman and the Secretary while you’re on it? MR. VOLLARO-We can, or we can do that at a later date. MR. HUNSINGER-What we did last year, if I could just chime in for a second, is we did that at the first meeting in January. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. FORD-And organizational meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing they changed in the Bylaws, this new one, was the number of agenda items from seven to six. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I have met with Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker and Firth. He’s practiced before us before, young fellow, younger, and Dan Ryan, who I spoke with today, who’s going to be our Engineering Consultant. I had a long discussion with him today, really nice guy. I told him that even after December if he needed to speak with me for any reason at all, I’d be glad to speak with him, but if I do, I would speak through the Chairman, and let you know if I’m going to have any kind of discussions with this guy at all. He’s got a concern, and a valid one. One of the things that the engineering, we had a meeting with Matt, the attorney. Apparently when they did their bid, they asked how many outstanding Article 78’s or anything to do with the Supreme Court actions were on the docket, that they would have to fill in for, and they got a number from Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hafner that was like number of eight. When they finally resolved it, it looks like more than 40. So I don’t know where that’s going to go, but the engineer asked me the same question, how many things has C.T. Male still got on their record that they have st to do, that we won’t have to do, or that are going to be passed off to us as of January 1 for completion, that’s something they need to know. He needs to know that. So I gave him Jim Houston’s phone number and the phone number for Jim Edwards because he 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/19/06) only works a few blocks away from Edwards in Glens Falls. So he can walk over there and find that out, but you’re going to have two really good folks I think to work with there. MRS. BRUNO-I’ve worked with Dan extensively in the past, and actually he is a great person, great family man, and excellent engineer, the kind of guy that you can sit down and work with with no problem at all. MR. VOLLARO-That’s great. He appeared that way to me in today’s conversation. So that’s really all I have to offer as to what’s happened. One other thing, there is an In Box upstairs on the second floor in this building, and your name will be on it as Chairman, and a lot of information comes in there that you have to look at. A lot of times they don’t cc it to Staff. So you initial it and somebody gets it down to Staff, so that it gets into the record. You notice the things I’ve been putting lately that on there, past to the Planning Board members? Those are things that, a lot of those Staff will see it for the first time, and then they have to be transmitted to members of the Board. For some reason they send it directly to the Chairman with no cc to Staff at all. Some do, some don’t. So that’s something up there for you to look at, another chore. Okay. That’s all I have. So I’ll wish everybody here a Merry Christmas. MR. HUNSINGER-Merry Christmas. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 36