Loading...
2000-10-17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOAR D MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MAC EWAN LARRY RINGER SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 24, 2000: NONE August 29, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2000 AND AUGUST 29, 2000, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ringer OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 66-2000 TYPE II MR. & MRS. JAMIE GREGG OWNER: SAME AGENT: JOHN CREEDE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: TAKUNDEWIDE, HILLMAN RD., CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 10’ X 40’ OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE WITH A SUNDECK. PRIVATE BOATHOUSES AND COVERED DOCKS IN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.10 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16 JOHN CREEDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMIE GREGG, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And at a meeting back on September 28, it was tabled. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 66-2000, Mr. & Mrs. Jamie Gregg, Meeting Date: October 17, 2000 “Project Description The application was tabled at the September 28, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board requested a sign be posted at the project location. The applicant proposes a 640 square foot open-sided boathouse with a sundeck. The project is located on Lake George in the Takundewide development. Project Analysis 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed sundeck and boathouse is an allowed use within the waterfront zone. Site Overview The proposed construction will be over a 600 square foot dock. The sundeck railing will not exceed the 14 foot height requirement to the mean water mark. The applicant proposes a stairway from the dock to the sundeck. The project meets the setback requirements from the side property lines. The proposal is consistent with the neighboring sundeck/boathouses along the waterfront of Takundewide.” MR. GREGG-Good evening. My name is Jamie Gregg. I’m here on behalf of the application for my wife and I. We would like permission to build a covered boathouse on our property in that Takundewide compound up in Cleverdale. The plans should have been submitted along with the application, and I think that, essentially, the plans speak for themselves, but very specific questions, I’d be more than happy to answer. What we’re trying to do is construct a dock very similar to the boathouses that already exist along the shoreline in that area, specifically, to the south of us, is the Robert and Ann Mason property, and they’ve constructed a similar structure to the one we intend to build, and prior to that, to the south, would be the Jerry and Lucille Lucas property, where they’ve also constructed a similar dock. I can represent to the Board that I’ve spoken both to Robert and Ann Mason, who are adjacent owners to the south of us, and to Mr. Paul Hillman, who’s my immediate north neighbor, and they have both given me permission to express to you that they have no objections to the plans as we have submitted them to you. Did you have any specific questions about the project itself that I could answer for you, or John Creede, our builder? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll ask the Board to make any comments. Are you all finished with your comments? Do you feel that you’re? MR. GREGG-My specific comments, yes. I’d prefer to have an opportunity to respond to any questions you may have. MR. VOLLARO-All right. John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-I see it listed as being a 10 by 40? Did you see that? MR. CREEDE-Yes, that’s incorrect, sir. It should read 16 by 40. MR. STROUGH-Or by 24 by 40? MR. CREEDE-No, that’s the dock I mentioned, the 24 by 40 foot dock, but the actual footprint of the boathouse would be 16 by 40. MR. STROUGH-The boathouse, but the dock isn’t built yet either, right? MR. GREGG-No, sir. MR. CREEDE-No. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and this application is just for the addition to the dock? MR. CREEDE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Or the sundeck addition. Tether was a question that came up to me, about ownership of the property adjacent to the dock. It’s a homeowners association that you’re with. Correct? MR. GREGG-Correct, but we actually own, it’s one of the unusual parcels in Takundewide. We actually own that particular parcel. That one is a separate and distinct deed. MR. STROUGH-Even the shoreline property? MR. GREGG-That is correct. MR. STROUGH-Now, are you aware of the controversy or potential question that I’m referring to? MR. GREGG-No, sir, I’m not. MR. STROUGH-No. It seems to be, I mean, style wise, it seems to be right in line with the docks to your north and south. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. GREGG-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-And I understand that the Warren County condition, on their approval, was to not use a land bridge, but, looking at your situation, I think that it’s the most reasonable application, and it is also the least destructive of the shore. MR. GREGG-That’s one of the issues we confronted, because at that point, it’s a high rise, it’s probably the high point of that particular Takundewide area shoreline, and the topography is such that it’s a very steep embankment. I know that personally because I had to inspect the site and make sure that we didn’t have any erosion as it was. So the idea would be to construct the land bridge to avoid any traversing of that very fragile land base. Because it is extremely steep. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I understand, but that was an issue that would be brought up. Since I was first, I figured I might as well. Now, are you going to clear just what you need, I mean, just that one little area for the walkway, like the other docks, or similar to the other docks? MR. GREGG-That is correct. There’s no intention to do any clearing beyond what is necessary to construct the walkway to the dock or to that structure of the deck itself. Clearly, it’s a very fragile environment and we wouldn’t want to damage that in any way. In fact, more ground covered the better. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The other question that I have is, it seems to be all right, but on your plans, the mean water mark was not identified, at least not on mine. MR. GREGG-On the ones that I have in front of me, and I can’t speak for the ones you have in front of you, Mr. Strough, it looks as though the top of the deck, the pinnacle line of the railing, is 13 feet above the actual dock decking below, and the way the dock decking is situated against the shoreline, Mr. Creede has indicated to me that it would be no more than a foot, foot and a half. So it falls within that 14 foot high water, you know, mean water level restriction. MR. STROUGH-All right, but usually, John, when you draw up the plans, you should indicate where the mean water level is on that, but it looks like it’s fine, but I just thought I’d mention that. MR. GREGG-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-And, okay. That’s all the questions that I have for now. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, we’ll go over to you on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Really the only questions I had were raised by John. So I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m just concerned about the area. I know Takundewide quite well, and I guess my first comment would be, if there were any, I’d like to hear from the people in the area if there were any controversy over this, obviously, which I think we’ll have a public hearing. So we would hear that, but I just guess I worry about the deed, and obviously there is a deed, and you said there is a deed for this area, for your particular area. MR. GREGG-That’s correct. It’s one of the unusual parcels, Mr. Metivier. What it is is that most of Takundewide is an Association where the cabins themselves own merely the plot of land on which they stand. There is approximately, I think, four, three besides ourselves, and I think it’s Cabin One, which is at the far south, and I think it’s six and seven actually own their own parcel. I’m not sure about four and five, but the rest of, it is an unusual situation. Because, again, the bulk of the properties on the Takundewide, at that Homeowners Association, the cabins normally own merely the parcel on which they sit. Everything else is a common area, but that is not the case. It may go entirely across that front area. I do know for a fact that Cabin One owns it’s own, you know, from personal knowledge of the owner, and I do know that we do, and it’s my recollection that it may go at least to six and seven. I’m not familiar with the owners of four and five. So I can’t speak for them. MR. METIVIER-And I would imagine, then, that the land owners would have been contacted. MR. GREGG-They are contacted. Also, there’s an approval process internally, right to the Takundewide Association, which we still have to go through. They have copies of the plans. I think their meeting is later on this month or at least in the beginning of November. It tends to be pretty informal in the winter. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. GREGG-But the plans, of course, will be submitted to them for their review and comment. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. That’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have a couple of comments. I noticed in the zoning book under Supplementary Regulations that have to do with, and this would be 179-60, for those of you that want to look at it, it says “no dock shall extend more than 40 feet off shore from the mean low water mark”, which is 317.4. As that water moves up and down, it changes the dimension on the dock’s 40 feet. MR. CREEDE-No, it doesn’t, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. MR. CREEDE-The mean low water mark remains the same on the footprint on the bottom of the lake. MR. VOLLARO-The mean low water mark moves up and down as the lake moves up and down. MR. CREEDE-Well, yes, the actually measurement of the depth, but if you were to take it in the winter, you know, say it’s like two feet, 24 inches of water, just to give an example of where the mean low water mark, wherever that two feet of water touches the bottom of the lake, and then say in the spring time it’s even higher, say 28 inches of water, would be the mean low water mark. It’ll still remain at the same point in the bottom of the lake, as the water fluctuates. MR. VOLLARO-If it moves along the shore, as it raises, it moves the shoreline, the water at the shore either gets closer to the shore or further away from it. That’s what happens as the water goes up and down. MR. CREEDE-Yes, but the point where it touches the bottom of the lake, no matter how high or how low the water retreats out of the lake, will remain the same. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see that at all. MR. CREEDE-I’d have to get my calculations out to show you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the 179-60 says from the mean low water mark, and I understand that that’s taken from Roger’s Rock, and the mean low water mark in Lake George is 317.4, and I would think that that would be marked on the drawing, on the plan, to show that this dock is 40 foot out from the mean low water mark. That’s what I was looking for on the drawing, and I don’t see that here. Even a statement to that effect. I mean, if the drawing stated to that effect, then that would be fine, but I don’t see, and that, incidentally, the height of 13 feet is also related to the mean low water mark of 317.4. MR. GREGG-Correct. It would appear, from your observations, that the quarrel is not necessarily with the plans as they’re proposed, but the fact that they fail to reference the mean low water mark. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s the reference to the low water mark, because that definitely determines the height of 13 feet. MR. GREGG-Absolutely. It’s got to be referenced in some way. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I notice your 13 feet is from the top of the dock itself, but there’s, you know, and somebody said, well, there’s another foot to go, so it should be about all right, but the plans should reference that 13 feet from the mean low water mark, and that goes to the same from the dock being from the shore at 317.4. MR. CREEDE-Okay. I believe that it’s 14 feet from the mean high water mark on the shoreline. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the mean high water mark wouldn’t mean anything. MR. CREEDE-That’s a different thing all together. That’s the height restriction that you require of the boathouse. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. VOLLARO-That’s 14 feet. I understand 14 feet on the flat top. I mean, I know what the Code says. It’s a question of interpreting how it’s read, because you want to be, your distance wants to be calculated from the mean low water mark, not the high, because the high will close the distance. You want it at the worst case analysis, is low water at 14 feet. That’s what should be on the plan. MR. GREGG-I’m sure we could supply the proper references to the mean low water mark and the mean high water mark, to the extent that it’s relevant to the decision of the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I think the mean low water mark plays in both instances. It plays in terms of the dock’s distance from the shoreline, and it also plays with respect to the 13 foot of height that’s indicated on the drawing. So, in those two instances, it plays against the mean low water mark. I don’t think I, personally, have anything other than that. I’d like to ask Staff, the last time we did this, did we keep the public hearing open on this? MRS. RYBA-Yes, you did. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. If anybody in the audience has anything to say, they can come on up and speak to this. Do we have anybody that’s either for or against this application, that would like to speak to it? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Just a correct. Mean low water mark is 317.74. MR. VOLLARO-.74, okay. I had it at 317.74, sorry. Okay. If nobody has any comments? There isn’t anybody that wants to come up and speak? Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Do we have to do a SEQRA on this? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no SEQRA on this? MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a Type II. MR. VOLLARO-Type II. The one thing I’m wondering, the County Planning Board made this recommendation, and they approved it with the condition, and the condition that there be no land bridge, as part of the proposed plan. However, it looks like the way this dock is designed there will be a land bridge. MR. GREGG-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-So, in the voting, do we have to do a super majority against that vote? MR. SCHACHNER-If you wish to override that condition, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. We have no SEQR.A. It’s a Type II program. So I’d like to entertain a motion for this application. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2000 MR. & MRS. JAMIE GREGG, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 66-2000, M/M Jamie Gregg for construction of new 10’ x 40’ open sided boathouse with a sundeck. Private Boathouse and Covered Docks in WR zones require Planning Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application received 8/30/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File. WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 10/17/00 Staff Notes 10/5/00 Meeting Notice w/Project ID marker attached 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) 9/28/00 Planning Board resolution - tabled 9/28/00 Staff Notes 9/13/00 Warren Co. PB recommendation – approved w/condition 8/30/00 LGPC permit WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/28/00, 10/17/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, The application is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following condition that the mean low water mark of 317.74 be shown on the plans to both indicate that the length of the dock and the height of the dock meet Town Code. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ringer MR. GREGG-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.8 ACRES AND 4.2 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: TAX MAP NO. 10-1- 17.3 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. The next application, which was for Subdivision No. 7-2000, I read in our letters that it was incomplete and has been removed from the agenda for this evening. MR. VOLLARO-I see Mr. Salvador is here, and I don’t know, does Mr. Salvador wish to speak to this a minute? You recognize that this has been withdrawn? MR. SALVADOR-I would just ask that the public hearing be left open, and we have an opportunity to correct the deficiencies that the Staff finds in our application. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. We’ll do so. We will hold the public hearing open on Subdivision No. 7- 2000. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SCHACHNER-And, Bob, just for clarity of the record, you stated something to Mr. Salvador about the application being withdrawn. That’s not the case. It’s not withdrawn. MR. VOLLARO-It’s been removed from the agenda. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should we go on? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) SITE PLAN NO. 71-2000 TYPE II EDWARD ZIBRO OWNER: ANGELA JOYCE ZIBRO ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: SEELYE RD., NORTH #8 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 83-1998, SP 63-98, AV 77-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 EDWARD ZIBRO, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on September 26 was tabled. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 71-2000, Edward Zibro, Meeting Date: September 26, 2000 “Project Description The application was tabled at the September 26, 2000 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board requested the applicant attend the planning board meeting for application review. The applicant proposes to construct a 187 square foot addition to a 513 square foot existing garage. The applicant’s previous approval for the addition (SP 63-98) expired. The applicant also received approval from the Zoning Board for setback relief and relief from expansion of non-conforming structure (AV 77-2000, 9/20/00). Project Analysis The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed expansion of the existing garage is an allowed use in the Waterfront zone. Site Overview The addition will be to the east of the existing garage and is compatible with the surrounding buildings in the area. The residential project does not warrant additional lighting. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The garage is accessed from a Seeley Road right-of-way. The project will not interfere with existing traffic patterns or parking arrangements for the site or neighboring properties. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The project will not interfere with existing stormwater management, landscaping or emergency services. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant had applied for the same proposal in November of 1998 (SP 63-98) and received approval. The applicant’s site plan approval expired because the applicant did not act upon it.” MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Zibro, you want to tell us a little bit about your project? MR. ZIBRO-Yes, sir. I did get a variance and an approval to do this a year and a half ago, and then I couldn’t do it because I had to have surgery and I didn’t know that the variance expired until I went in to Queensbury to get a building permit, and I also apologize for not being here for last month’s meeting, but with the confusion of the letter’s, I thought it was the same letter addressing the same two meetings, and went to two meetings. There was actually three meetings. So I said to Chris Round’s secretary, I think it would be smart if you’d say there were three meetings to it. Now, you have to come to three meetings, not just two, because that’s why I wasn’t here last month. MR. VOLLARO-Fully understandable, sir. Okay. Do you have anything else you want to say about the project at all? MR. ZIBRO-No. It’s just that I’m bringing the front of the garage out eight feet, so it’s better used, the way they designed it, they made it wider than they did deep. So you can’t pull like a suburban into it, and I did get the approval to do this, and just couldn’t do it, because I had to have surgery, and now I can walk again. So I want to go forward with it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll start off with you, John. Do you have any comments on this application? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. STROUGH-No. I have no comments. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. VOLLARO-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. VOLLARO-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We have to do a SEQRA? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it’s Type II. MR. VOLLARO-Type II. There’s a SEQRA included in here. So we can just get rid of it. Okay. With that, can we have a motion for this Site Plan No. 71-2000? MRS. RYBA-You still have the public hearing open. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is still open? Okay. So, does anybody have any comments on this application at all, from the audience? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And we’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2000 EDWARD ZIBRO, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 71-2000, Edward Zibro for construction of an addition to an existing garage. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 16-1-7. Cross Reference: AV 83- 1998, SP 63-98, AV 77-2000, and; WHEREAS, the application received 7/28/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File. WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 10/17/00 Staff Notes 10/5/00 Meeting Notice w/Project ID marker attached 9/26/00 Planning Board resolution - tabled 9/26/00 Staff Notes 9/20/00 ZBA resolution - approve 9/19/00 Notice of Public Hearing 9/18/00 GIS map 9/13/00 Warren Co. PB recommendation - NCI 9/7/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/26/00, 10/17/00 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT, The application is approved according to the draft resolution that’s in our Board package. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ringer MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. MR. ZIBRO-Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED SKETCH PLAN S. KEITH & KATHLEEN PFEIFFER OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS INTO FOUR LOTS OF 1.866 AC., 2.101 AC., 2.438 AC. AND 2.0 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 2-1991, SB 12-1994 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-48, 48-3-48.2 LOT SIZE: 8+/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-2000, Sketch Plan, S. Keith & Kathleen Pfeiffer, Meeting Date: October 17, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a four-lot subdivision within the single-family residential zone. The existing lot configuration contains two parcels each having a dwelling unit. The proposed lot configuration would create two additional building lots. The applicant had received a subdivision approval for the existing lot configuration (Subdivision 2-1991). Study plat ?? Lot arrangement: The applicant proposes a shared driveway for lots 3 and 4 and lots 1 and 2. The location of the subdivision on Bay Road is subject to the Travel Corridor overlay zone requirements. The subdivision is to have shared driveways or double the average lot-width. The two additional building lots are lot #2 and lot #3. The proposal includes providing land near Bay Road to the neighbor to the south (60-1-12.1). Currently the neighbor’s existing building is located close to the property line. The additional land will allow for appropriate maintenance of the building. ?? Location and design of streets: The applicant proposes no new roads. ?? Topography: The plan identifies contour intervals and driveway slope for lot #3 due to topography. ?? Water supply: The applicant has provided well locations for the existing dwelling units. The layout of the lots would appear to accommodate new well locations and maintain the necessary separation distance. ?? Sewage disposal: The existing dwelling units utilize on-site septic systems. The drawing identifies the proposed septic area locations. There are no percolation tests location or results. ?? Drainage: The plans do not identify stormwater or erosion control methods. ?? Lot sizes: The SFR-1A zone requires one acre per dwelling unit. The proposed lots exceed the minimum lot requirement. Lot#1 is 1.866 acres, Lot #2 is 2.10 acres, Lot #3 is 2.631 acres, and Lot #4 is 1.808 acres. ?? Placement of utilities: The drawings identify a series of power poles extending from Bay Road southeast along the boundary of lots 3 and 4 to a pump house located on lots 3 and 4. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) ?? Future development: The lot arrangement does not allow for future development without obtaining variances due to the topography of the area. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood #9 of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Recommendations for this area were not specified. The area is zoned as single family residential one acre. There is a pre-existing non-conforming use adjacent to the project area. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act. The applicant has completed a short environmental assessment form. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has requested waivers from some of the subdivision requirements. The Planning Board should determine if the waivers are acceptable. The Planning Board may wish to ask the applicant to consider an alternate driveway design to avoid slopes, the length of drives, and or the number of drives. Suggestions Planning Staff would suggest the plans be revised to show the following: ?? Existing septic area location ?? Septic percolation tests for the proposed dwellings ?? Engineering confirmation that the drainage will be accommodated on site and will be directed away from the house, the driveway, and Bay Road ?? The existing tax map numbers ?? Average lot width value for each lot ?? A reduction in lots from four to three due to topography and the building location for parcel 60-1-12.1.” MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, we’re ready if you’re ready. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can we have your names for the record, please? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants, and with me is one of the applicants, Keith Pfeiffer, and basically what we are proposing to do is create an additional two lots. There presently are two lots on the premises that Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer own, and they wish to have four lots. Probably the simplest thing to look at is the schematic that the Town prepared, to give you an orientation. I think in 1991, or some time thereabouts, when Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer built their new house, they created the two lot subdivision, which basically was one lot, which had most of the frontage on Bay Road, and then the back lot, which contained most of the acreage. Since that time, they have changed maybe their method of operation or their lifestyle, and now would like to have the opportunity to create four lots. We’ve had a couple of meetings with Staff, and we’ve tried to make this as agreeable as possible. We’ve changed what were going to be single driveways to double driveways. We’ve changed the layout of the driveways so that we would not have a slope problem on the driveways, and basically each of the lots were in a one acre zone. I think the smallest lot is 1.8. Now there should not be any impact. I’ve looked at Staff notes, and as to their suggestions, we would probably have no problem with every one except the last. We will show the existing septic area location at the time of preliminary application. We can do septic percolation tests for the proposed dwellings. We can have an engineer confirm that drainage can be accommodated on site and will be directed away from the house, the driveway and Bay Road. We will show the existing tax map numbers, and we can show the average lot width for each lot, but we would not agree to reduce this from four to three. We’re almost double the size of the area requirements for that particular neighborhood, with the smallest lot being 1.8. The fact that we have two driveways on Bay Road right now, we propose only to have two driveways on Bay Road. There really is no public impact. MR. VOLLARO-Could I ask what Staff’s reasoning was behind the last bullet, a reduction in lots from four to three? What was the thought process behind that? MRS. RYBA-The reasoning behind that was the topography, and also the fact that it may not be able to be further subdivided, due to that topography and placement of location of septic, etc. I do have to say that Laura put these together. So I can’t totally speak for all of her reasons, but that’s what I know. MR. VOLLARO-Was there any particular lot that you would propose not to include, lot three or lot two? MRS. RYBA-No. I don’t know that there was a particular lot, other than perhaps, I don’t know if you could reconfigure it because the steeper slopes are closer to the lot lines, which are closer to Bay Road. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. O'CONNOR-We’re not proposing any new construction out in that area. So I’m not sure what the concern was. With our first Staff meeting, and this is the existing, the actual subdivision. What we propose here, when we first proposed this, we had this driveway coming all the way down this line here, and if you notice the topographical features in there, they were the features that I think Laura was concerned with, whether or not we would make a 10% grade from the driveway. When we changed it and came down this way here, we eliminated that problem. I don’t know what topographical features she would still be concerned about. MR. VOLLARO-I see. So you’ve maintained the 10% slope now, with the alternate approach? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is there anything that Staff wants to add to this, from Staff notes, that Staff thinks is pertinent to this application? MRS. RYBA-Well, since they’ve agreed to the suggestions, I don’t really see anything to add. The average lot width value’s important, in terms of the Code, per Section 179-30, along Bay Road. Even though the lot sizes are larger than the one acre requirement, doubling the lot width, having that frontage, so that there aren’t too many driveways, access points off of Bay Road is the purpose of it. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we’re not creating any new driveways. We’re utilizing two existing driveways. MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-One existing driveway we may move it a little bit, and that’s it. MRS. RYBA-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So, I mean, we’re not talking about new curb cuts. Those curb cuts will be subject to County Highway Department approval. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. When we visited the site, we passed one and went on to the other one, but we know there are two. We took a look at that on site review. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my one concern on this is just looking at Lot Number Three, and taking a look at the typical house location on Lot Three, and then taking a look at the drop from the property line of 245.18 there, going down to the other portion of it, the portion to the south. There’s a 26 foot drop there, and I just had put thoughts on my sketch plan, thoughts on stormwater runoff. MR. O’CONNOR-We’ll have to manage it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’ll come at a later date, but being that this is sketch plan, it’s nice to talk about things like that. MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that. That’s why I said we would have an engineer’s report that we are able to do that. MR. VOLLARO-And I guess the other, well, I’ll let some of the other members, Planning Board members, discuss that. Tony, we’ll start with you. Do you have anything that you wanted to say on it? MR. METIVIER-I guess, at this time, you have no plans for development? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. METIVIER-You’re just subdividing? MR. O'CONNOR-We’re subdividing. I think probably Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer, if everything goes the way they want, will probably build their own house, a smaller house than what they presently have, on Lot Number Three, and the lot that would be sold to a stranger would be Lot Number Two. MR. METIVIER-I’m really fine with it, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-John, do you have anything you want to say? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. STROUGH-I was just wondering, you know, this is just a sketch plan, if you might be able to show us how the utility, and do they have natural gas in this area? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t believe they do. No, they don’t. KEITH PFEIFFER MR. PFEIFFER-No. It stops here. We’re just up the road from here, that development. They don’t plan it well. They don’t plan to bring it any further. MR. STROUGH-And you don’t have any Town water either, right? MR. PFEIFFER-No. MR. STROUGH-So you use wells? MR. PFEIFFER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So the electricity would be coming in how? I mean, I’m looking at Lot Number Three. That’s a little bit of a concern to me, because it’s got that extraordinarily long driveway, at a 10% slope. MR. PFEIFFER-The electric, right now, runs into the driveway in between the two homes. It just goes all the way back there, and then it runs under ground to our new house, and poles continue to run back to where there was an old dwelling, down slope. So there’s existing poles there. There is no electric wire strung anymore, but it’s there. So, I would imagine feeding our house in that back lot continuing those poles through, or underground, and feeding that lot back there if we build that house. MR. STROUGH-Since it’s on private property, it would be your responsibility? MR. PFEIFFER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Where you could actually bring it underground all the way. MR. PFEIFFER-Correct. When we built the new house, we talked to them about that, but the driveway portion was their responsibility and they didn’t want to bring it back 300 feet. So, they left the poles up, but they said at some point they might. MR. O'CONNOR-We will have to actually apply to Niagara Mohawk, and maybe the four development units there, the credits will allow us to be able to do something different than what (lost words) I’m not sure. They have to actually come in and plant it. They show us where they will want easements. We will reserve those easements, and any conveyance. MR. STROUGH-Have you had emergency services, you know, I’m a little bit concerned about emergency vehicle access to that Lot Number Three. Have you had any of the emergency services look over the proposed plan? MR. PFEIFFER-No, I don’t think so. MR. STROUGH-And make comments or suggestions? I’m thinking down the road, and I’m also thinking about your insurance company, and possibly their concerns, although it may not be my business. It’s just a concern. MR. O'CONNOR-We presume that Staff has given this to your Fire Marshal, as part of the input. We gave them 15 copies, and I think typically at their pre meetings they do distribute it, and I haven’t had any comments back. MR. STROUGH-I haven’t, either. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have any comments in packets from the Fire Marshal. I would have expected one, actually, because I had a note on my drawing from reviewing that that says emergency vehicles, question mark, on the 10% slope, not so much getting down, perhaps, but getting back out, even, you know. MR. O'CONNOR-They’ve greatly improved the protection from the first house, because, and then you’re going to be able to go in both sides, and I don’t know how far a reach it is from there to the second, Lot Number Three. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. VOLLARO-It’s a big snow plow, I can tell you that. That’s a lot of work. MR. PFEIFFER-I’ve got a big one. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Is it usual, too, that when we get to final, that the deeded right of ways, or at least that portion of the deed where it talks about the right of ways, has been allocated to certain lots? MR. O'CONNOR-If that’s a requirement, we can do that, yes, we can show that. We can show how we’re going to set up the common driveway and maintenance agreement for it, and I’ll make a note of that, and I’ll bring that with me when I come back. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Those are my concerns, then. MR. VOLLARO-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I really don’t have anything other than what’s already been talked about. I mean, to me, you know, there’s some sort of obvious concerns about Lot Number Three. Everything’s really already been discussed, so I really can’t add anything, really. MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, do you have anything? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Keith, which house is yours? Do you live on One or Four? I didn’t go out. MR. PFEIFFER-We live on the, we live in the house that’s on the back lot there on the south side, not the one closest to the road. MR. STROUGH-The one with the cul de sac? MR. PFEIFFER-Yes, the one with the cul de sac is the one we live in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, the one between Four and Three? MR. PFEIFFER-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I can remember when you came a long time ago, and I remember there was a, vaguely remember, it seemed like there was a controversy about the driveways in there. I might be wrong, but I mean, from what I see right now, it looks so much better laid out than what I recollect. MR. PFEIFFER-Correct. Yes, we changed it, and back then, when we came in, at that time they were building the house over there on Tee Hill, where we had all the water runoff and drainage problems. So everybody was kind of like nervous and so were we. The way the driveway was coming in, it was on a slope, and we hadn’t built our house yet, and so there was a whole bunch of engineering drawings and things that would have needed to be done when we had the driveway coming in to that back lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you had no, this was like in ’94, ’95, MR. PFEIFFER-Right, that’s when we built the new house, in ’94. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. PFEIFFER-Yes. We bought the property in ’91, and moved into the farm house, the older house, and then we built the new house in ’94. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Because I, unfortunately, didn’t get out there to see this again, and when I started looking at it I thought, well, it looks like it’s, the roads are configured a lot better or the lots are more accessible than they were before. MR. PFEIFFER-Right. We changed it. MR. O'CONNOR-The driveways have even changed during the course of this past summer. Because we came in for a pre-application meeting with Staff, with a different configuration than what’s there, and they had that concern about whether or not you would maintain a 10% drive, and so we went back and looked at the lots and determined to do it. They’ve tried to make this a very friendly type subdivision. I had a question about the right hand turn, or the right angle turn in the 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) front corner of the driveway that goes down to Number Three, but basically that maintains the privacy for that Lot Number One that’s in the front, by keeping it over to that corner, and it’s certainly wide enough a radius for any type vehicle. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think it’s fine. MR. PFEIFFER-Probably the other thing we’d be doing in all of this is deeding some of the property to the Grays, where they have the barn up there, because our property line was right up against their barn. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. PFEIFFER-So their oil tanks and their emergency exits and all that were sitting on our property, and he really didn’t have enough acreage there. So we kind of traded and squared off so he’d have one acre with that building, and he gave me a piece on the side. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. That’s what I thought. MR. PFEIFFER-Even though there was frontage, I can’t really do much with it, and Larry and I have been pretty friendly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-Tony’s all set, he says. Okay. I see we have, this is Unlisted. We’re not doing the SEQRA on the Sketch, or are we? MRS. RYBA-No. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that a SEQRA was with the application, but I didn’t think we were going to do one at that. MR. O'CONNOR-We did have an application for waiver for Sketch Plan approval, or, I think you don’t really call it approval. You send it on. I was asked to put in a written request for waiver, at this stage even, of showing identification of all lot owners, on the location map, located within 500 feet of the boundary line of each subdivision lot. MR. VOLLARO-Is that on your letter of September 21? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is, and also a waiver for showing the location of existing septic systems on the two residences that are already constructed. We will show them when we go forward with this. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think both of those are fair requests. I had no problem with them on your letters. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t think, we don’t vote on Sketch Plan, do we? MR. SCHACHNER-You can vote to make a recommendation. I’m saying you can. You don’t always. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have to. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t see the need for it, to tell you the truth. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think in fairness what we’re looking for is a consensus here that we go ahead and do the rest of the engineering for the four lot subdivision, and take into consideration the comments that you’ve made and the comments that Staff’s made, except for decreasing it from four lots to three lots. I mean, that’s the idea of concept. Are we on the right track, and that we don’t want to waste your time or our money. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think you’re right. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MRS. RYBA-Excuse me. I just wanted to add that if you could come back to Staff with changes before you make all of your copies, so that we can take a look at it, and if there’s anything else that we see, for example, when you come up with that average lot width value, we’ll see if you need a variance or not, for example. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think you do, with a common driveway. I think it’s 150 feet. MRS. RYBA-Well, the Ordinance also refers to common driveway, and, let’s see, I’ll refer to the Code number so you can look it up yourself, but it’s 179-30. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have it. Okay. We thank you. MRS. RYBA-You’re welcome. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE ELSA & RAYMOND KRAFT OWNER: ELSA KRAFT ZONE: WR-1A, LC-42A LOCATION: CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 53 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.64 ACRES AND 51.98 ACRES. THE 1.64 ACRE PARCEL IS IN THE WR-1A ZONE AND THE REMAINING ACREAGE IS SPLIT ZONED IN THE WR-1A AND LC-42A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 10-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 53+/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ELSA & RAYMOND KRAFT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Elsa & Raymond Kraft, Meeting Date: October 17, 2000 “The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 53 +/- acre parcel. The subdivision would create one additional building lot of 1.64 acres. The remaining acreage currently contains one dwelling unit. The Planning Board has reviewed a similar subdivision plat, Subdivision 2- 2000, in June of 1999 for sketch plan. The applicant was requested to revise the plan and move forward to preliminary review. The subdivision plan has been revised and the application has been resubmitted under a new applicant and new subdivision number Subdivision 8-2000. The owner of the property had requested the previous subdivision (Subdivision 2-2000) be withdrawn for personal reasons. The owner has signed the new preliminary and final applications and the applications have been notarized. Study of plat (1) Lot arrangement: The proposed building lot is located on the parcel in a manner consistent with neighboring building lots. (2) Location and design of streets: The subdivision does not require any new streets. The proposed driveway is to be graveled and have an “s-shape”. The lot will have access to Cleverdale Road. (3) Topography: The plan identifies one foot contour lines for the entire parcel. (4) Water supply: The plan identifies a well towards the rear of the dwelling. (5) Sewage disposal: The plan identifies a septic system in front of the dwelling. (6) Drainage: The plan identifies a grass swale to the rear of the dwelling. The grass swale will run the length of the clearing limits. (7) Lot sizes: The existing dwelling will be located on approximately 51 +/- acres and the proposed dwelling unit will be located on 1.64 acres. The 1.64 acre parcel is located in the waterfront residential one acre zone. The proposed parcel exceeds the one acre zone requirement. The remaining parcel is split zoned between Land Conservation 42 Acre zone and Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. (8) Placement of utilities: Utilities will be installed as needed. (9) Future development: The property zoned waterfront residential may be developed further for residential parcels. The property zoned land conservation contains wetlands so future development may be limited. (10) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies this area as Neighborhood 1. The plan suggests maintaining the density requirements within the waterfront zone. The purpose of maintaining the density is 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) to provide for adequate room for a septic system, dwelling, driveway, and well as needed. The proposed building lot exceeds the density requirements. (11) State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has completed a long environmental assessment form. Final Plat The final plat should be revised to add the following two items: ?? A statement that the plan is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. ?? A statement reading as follows: "Approved under authority of a resolution adopted _____________________ by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York. ________________________________, Chairman." Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant has requested a waiver from sketch plan review. The subdivision plan meets the intent of the waterfront residential zone.” MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. MRS. KRAFT-Good evening. MR. VOLLARO-Would you state you name for the record, please. MRS. KRAFT-Elsa Kraft, owner. MR. KRAFT-Raymond Kraft. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Do you want to tell us a little bit about your proposed subdivision? MR. KRAFT-Okay. We were here one other time, and proposed a lot, subdivision on this land. It was a flag shaped type lot. So the Board recommended that we change that. So what we did, we changed it, resubmitted everything, and that’s where we’re at right now, and hopefully we’ve submitted everything that you need to know to go on with this. It’s pretty cut and dried. It’s just taking a small parcel off the end of the property and we’re going to put a home up on it for a family member. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does Staff have anything that they’d want to state out of Staff notes? MRS. RYBA-We’ve worked quite a bit with Mrs. Kraft and Raymond Kraft and everything is in order. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tony, we’ll start off with you this trip. MR. METIVIER-I really don’t have anything. I remember it from before. MR. VOLLARO-As a flag lot, you mean? MR. METIVIER-Yes. It looks fine to me. MR. VOLLARO-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I feel the same way. I remember the discussion that we had a few months ago. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Cathy, how about yourself, what have you got? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just wait a second here. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll skip over you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Skip over me. MR. VOLLARO-Skip over to John and let John take a look at. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I didn’t have any problems with it. I was just curious. We got the layout, and do you still call it Ridge Road at that point, where it goes in front of the Cleverdale Store, or do they just refer to it as 9L? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MRS. KRAFT-9L. MR. KRAFT-9L, I think. MR. STROUGH-So they don’t call it Ridge Road, at that point. MRS. KRAFT-I don’t think so. MR. STROUGH-But all of this, you see how some parcels to the south of 9L and some parcels to the north of 9L, and some one the west of Cleverdale Road and some to the east of Cleverdale Road, and that’s all one tax parcel. MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So that explains, see, I was kind of confused. That’s kind of an unusual situation, to make it a total of 53 +/- acres. No, I don’t see any problems with your proposal. MR. KRAFT-It was originally my grandfather’s. Now it’s my mother’s, and he bought it back in 1928, and it went to the Supreme Court to get cleared. That’s what they came up with MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I just have a couple of comments. One of them is, looking at the house that’s just to the north of you, just to the north of your line, he or she or they are awfully close to that line. You’re aware of that I’m sure. MR. KRAFT-Yes. It’s owned by Joe Roulier. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s no pending dispute there about that kind of thing. The other thing is, going along Cleverdale Road and looking at, we tried to get approximately where your drive would come out, and I was wondering if you’re going to open up that drive a little bit, so getting into and getting out of that driveway would be easier than just coming right into it, as the drawing depicts now. MR. KRAFT-Well, as you know from my home, my home would be the first one before that, the brown house on the hill. MR. VOLLARO-To the south? MR. KRAFT-On the south, and the driveway comes down and flares out, and it would be the same configuration. MR. VOLLARO-It would be the same flair. MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because the way the drawing depicts it, it’s coming out, bango, and it’s going to be tough to make a left or right out of that. Okay. Since we don’t have any other comments from the Board, I would ask for a motion for the preliminary portion of the application. There is a public hearing tonight on this, isn’t there? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing for anybody that wants to speak to this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHEL JULIEN MR. JULIEN-My name is Michel Julien, and I own a lot close to those, and I know that there was some concern about the wetland in that area, and I just wanted to know, where are the lots in relation to the wetland, and what impact this subdivision will have. MR. VOLLARO-The drawings that we have in front of us don’t show any wetland indications on them at all. MR. JULIEN-There is one now. That’s what I wanted to know, where they are in relation to. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. KRAFT-The wetlands are adjacent to this gentleman’s property, which would be on the. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know where he is, actually. MR. KRAFT-He is on the lake. MRS. KRAFT-The east side. MR. KRAFT-The opposite side of the street from this property, it’s on the water. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. He’s on the other side of Cleverdale Road. MR. KRAFT-Yes. MRS. KRAFT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Down next to the water. Is that waterfront property? Okay. Do you want to speak to that wetland issue then? I don’t have anything like that on our drawing. Okay. We have a map that indicates it’s on the other side of the road. MR. JULIEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Staff just gave us a picture of what the wetland are on the other side of the road. MRS. RYBA-That had been submitted at Sketch Plan stage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MRS. RYBA-And I do believe that went in the packets at Sketch Plan, but it was a while ago. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I forget. Thanks, Marilyn. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s see. This is Unlisted. We have a Long Form on this. I’ve opened the public hearing. So I’m going to close the public hearing. There are no other comments on this application out there? Okay. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And we have a Long Form SEQRA. MRS. RYBA-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to make sure. Mr. Julien, did you see one of these delineated maps? Would you like to see one? MR. JULIEN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because, I mean, I would just like to just let you know exactly where all this property is and where you are in relationship to it. Okay. There’s the, are you here? I thought you were. That’s what I wanted to know. I thought you were sandwiched in between, because here’s the Cleverdale Store. That’s where I thought you were. That’s why I wanted to make sure. I kind of, at first we thought maybe you were up here, but then, see, and here’s the. MR. JULIEN-The wetland is right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, here’s the wetlands delineated on this map here, and they really, they’re not, well, are they? MR. JULIEN-This area here has been declared wetlands. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It has? MR. JULIEN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, this piece of property’s right over here. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and this property is way up here. So, right up here across from Brayton Road. Okay. Because I was thinking that all of this wasn’t on the other side, here’s Harris Bay right here. Here’s the marina, and I know all this is pretty wet. Okay. MR. JULIEN-Can I have a copy of this? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can you have a copy of that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s from the original file, but if you’d like to leave your name and address, we can make sure you get a copy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure, they’ll be glad to. Would you like mine? MRS. RYBA-Is that from the original file? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, this is the one that was mine. MR. VOLLARO-Out of the original packet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, out of my packet. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We have a Long Form with this application, a Long SEQRA Form. What’s the reason behind the Long Form for this application, or is that just what the applicant submitted? MRS. RYBA-I’m trying to remember if there was a particular reason. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Land Conservation? MRS. RYBA-That could be. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is Waterfront Residential One Acre. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but it’s in the 42 acre park, 42 acre stipulation there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s use the Long Form, since that’s what was submitted. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ve got it. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ELSA & RAYMOND KRAFT, 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 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ringer MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll entertain a motion for the Preliminary application. MR. STROUGH-For Preliminary and Final? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-That should be two separate motions. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. We know. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2000 ELSA & RAYMOND KRAFT, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 8-2000, Elsa & Raymond Kraft for subdivision of a 53 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.64 acres and 51.98 acres. The 1.64 acre parcel is in the WR-1A zone and the remaining acreage is split zoned in the WR-1A and LC-42A zone. Tax Map No. 10-1-4.1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 9/27/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/17/00 Staff Notes 10/10/00 Legal Notice published 10/10/00 Fax to W. Kraft from L. Moore 10/5/00 Meeting notice w/Project ID marker attached WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/17/00 (certified mail receipts received) concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved as per the resolution that Staff has prepared and is subject to the following conditions: 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) 1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2000 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ringer MR. VOLLARO-And now we’ll entertain a motion for the Final. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, just before I do that, is this resolution that you have here, Marilyn, is this kind of for both? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2000 ELSA & RAYMOND KRAFT, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 8-2000, Elsa & Raymond Kraft for subdivision of a 53 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 1.64 acres and 51.98 acres. The 1.64 acre parcel is in the WR-1A zone and the remaining acreage is split zoned in the WR-1A and LC-42A zone. Tax Map No. 10-1-4.1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 9/27/00 consists of the following: 1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 10/17/00 Staff Notes 10/10/00 Legal Notice published 10/10/00 Fax to W. Kraft from L. Moore 10/5/00 Meeting notice w/Project ID marker attached WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/17/00 (certified mail receipts received) concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved as per the resolution that Staff has prepared and is subject to the following conditions: 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) 1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 17 day of October, 2000 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ringer MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set, sir. MR. KRAFT-Thank you very much. MRS. KRAFT-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it? MRS. RYBA-I have a few updates, if you want to discuss those. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MRS. RYBA-I just wanted to remind the Board that you have scheduled a workshop for Thursday evening, the 19. th MR. VOLLARO-Just a second. Marilyn is giving us some information here, when these people clear. Okay, Marilyn, go ahead. MRS. RYBA-Okay. I just wanted to remind the Board that you have scheduled a workshop for Thursday evening, and I just wanted to reiterate or confirm what is going to be discussed, and some of this has been derived from speaking with Craig MacEwan, Chairman. You wanted to discuss how design guidelines would be implemented, for the proposed Zoning Ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-That’s one. MRS. RYBA-And you wanted to discuss how the Zoning Steering Committee, what they looked at in terms of covering the Comprehensive Land Use Plan items, and their review for the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Okay. The other thing is that there had been some discussion, last meeting, about an agenda limit policy. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s working. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. RYBA-So I don’t know if you want to discuss that during the meeting or if you want to discuss it and then bring it forward during your 24 meeting, which is scheduled for this month, and since th we have a couple of minutes, just to let you know that the Town Board is going to be hopefully approving the Final EIS for the Veterans Field on November 6. DKC Holdings, Inc., Petition for th Zone Change, the Town Board has a public hearing scheduled for that on November 6, and I think th that’s about it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Marilyn, are we going to put a limit to the time for the workshop, about an hour and a half? MRS. RYBA-Our understanding was that you wanted it to go an hour to an hour and a half, yes. MR. METIVIER-What time does that start? MRS. RYBA-Seven p.m., and I believe it’s downstairs in the Planning Conference Room. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Good. MR. METIVIER-I will not be able to attend that. MRS. RYBA-Okay. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. STROUGH-Are we going to be working with the Town Board on the findings? MRS. RYBA-I asked Chris to put together a time line. Let’s see. He was going to put together a draft of Findings. That’s a question, because you can comment on those Findings, or I don’t know if you’re going to be, you know, doing something hand in hand or in conjunction with, but it’s still the Town Board, I believe, that has to approve those Findings. Is that correct, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re talking about Veterans Field? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s correct that the Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, is ultimately responsible for its set of Findings. You all have site plan review function, although you don’t have it yet. Right now you have what I guess I’m going to call advisory site plan review function. You don’t need to do your own set of Findings, now or ever, but eventually, when there’s an actual site plan approval, you will need to do, you will need to issue a SEQRA Findings Statement. Typically, it would be the same one that the Town Board issues, but it doesn’t need to be the same one. I think, though, that John may be concerned about or asking about your opportunity for input into the Findings Statement that the Town Board will adopt, and I think, for lack of a better way to put it, the time is now. I don’t mean this minute, but there is a Draft Findings Statement that I believe Staff has. Okay, Chris Round certainly has it. So, some portions of Staff have it. I didn’t mean right this minute here, but you all have it. MRS. RYBA-Well, I haven’t seen it yet, but. MR. SCHACHNER-I know for sure it exists because I have seen it. So there is a Draft SEQRA Findings Statement that does exist, and, trust me, Staff does have it. MRS. RYBA-Okay. Chris has it. MR. SCHACHNER-And I would suggest that it’s very appropriate for any of you individually as Planning Board members, or for the Board as a group, however you wish to do this, to review that Draft Findings Statement, and if you feel you have comments germane to the SEQRA Findings, personally or, as your Counsel, I would suggest that it’s very appropriate to make suggestions to the Town Board for things you want in the SEQRA Findings. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I must have had a bit of a misunderstanding. Remember when that Veterans Field project came before us, and there was a shared concern up here over traffic and traffic issues. That was the primary one. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a fair statement. MR. STROUGH-And I was looking for a mechanism to kind of resolve that, and sharing that concern with the Town Board, you referred to a mechanism where the Planning Board could work with the Town Board in determination of its Findings. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. The mechanism, and I remember thinking then that I was having trouble effectively communicating it, and I feel I’m doing that again to you, not to any of the other members. The mechanism is exactly what I’ve just tried to reiterate. The mechanism is, you have an opportunity to share your views on the SEQRA Findings Statement with the Town Board, either individually, as Planning Board members, or collectively as a Planning Board. I think it’s totally appropriate, and these, I think, are the exact words I used when we spoke then, and maybe I should come up with some different way of saying this, but I can’t think of any. MR. VOLLARO-You’re getting there, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s totally appropriate, it’s not required that you exercise that input, but it’s completely appropriate, if you wish to do so either as individual Planning Board members or as a Board, it’s totally appropriate you do that, and I remember you asking that night, John, well, is there going to be a meeting? Is there going to be anything formal, and the answer was, no, unless you seek to have something. MR. VOLLARO-That was my understanding as well, that we would get together. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, that was the image that I had, Mark, in my mind was that we were going to sit down, with the Town Board, and take a look at the project. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and what I said then was, and I’m repeating it now, is that’s a great image in your mind, and if you want to make that into reality, I’m saying that’s a perfectly fine thing to do, but if you want to do that, then the Planning Board has to make that request of the Town Board, and I image the Town Board will honor that request and you’ll sit down at a meeting and do that. MR. VOLLARO-I was also, in my mind, exploring the mechanism, much like John has just described, as to how we get together. You’ve made it quite clear how we do that now. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think it’s perfectly appropriate. MR. STROUGH-Well, who does that, the Chairman? I mean, I certainly can’t, as an individual Planning Board member. MR. VOLLARO-I can certainly poll the Board and see if the Board would like to meet collectively with the Town Board to discuss Findings. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess before we do that, maybe, I have a related question, and that is, the discussion that we had about the project, our copies of the minutes, and/or our, a summary of our comments, are they generally made available to the Town Board on a project like this? MR. SCHACHNER-My understanding, for what it’s worth, is that the answer is yes, but underline the word “generally”, Chris. I think the Town Board, in fact, gets copies, Maria, do you know? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. They get copies. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The Town Board gets copies of all of your minutes, and the reason I’m underlining the word “generally” is, getting copies of all of your minutes is not the same thing as necessarily. MR. HUNSINGER-As reading them. Right. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s right, or as knowing that this particular portion of the minutes is your comments about something that they’re about to make a decision on. So again, I think I said I was part of this that other night also, again I wouldn’t just assume that because the Town Board gets copies of your minutes, that they therefore know that you have certain concerns about the Veterans Field SEQRA Findings. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I had envisioned, in my mind, much like John had, that this would be a combined Town Board/Planning Board meeting to discuss Findings. I would like to, you know, for my position, read our own minutes, so that I’m back up on what we had to say at that meeting. So when we get there and listen to what the Town Board’s Findings are, we can integrate those and see if there’s anything that we want to add to what is said or do we agree with their Findings or whatever, have a mutual understanding between Planning Board and Town Board, and what they might be. So I think what we should do is probably, as a body, decide whether we want to do this individually or collectively, and, John, I’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’d like to sit down with them and discuss some of those concerns. I think that’s the best method, because there’s no assurance that if you write something that they’re all going to read it. At least if you’re discussing it, it’s out there. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d like to meet them head on. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-We have a unanimous position on the Board to do that, that this Board would participate as a body, as opposed to individual participation. Now, what night is that? MRS. RYBA-They’re going to be meeting to accept the Final EIS on November 6. I can get the th copies of their Findings to you for Thursday night. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that would be good, and then we can review those, review our own comments from our last meeting, and then come prepared on that basis. Does that sound right, Mark? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, in terms of the process, but to my way of thinking, and Marilyn and I obviously have not discussed this before now, but to my way of thinking, from the standpoint of timing, no, that doesn’t sound like an appropriate way to go about it, and the reason I say that is because November 6, just so everybody understands what we’re talking about, November 6 is not thth a meeting that’s been set aside to talk about Veterans Field and accept the EIS and/or adopt a SEQRA Findings Statement. November 6 is the next regular meeting of the Town Board. So that, th as you know, Bob, and some others know, that’s a multiple hour affair, at which the Town Board is unlikely to spend a significant amount of time on this issue. The other thing I’m not clear on, Marilyn, and again, we haven’t rehearsed any of this, the Board can’t accept the FEIS and adopt its SEQRA Findings on the same night. MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-So they haven’t accepted the FEIS, correct? MRS. RYBA-No. That’s, all I know is they were going to be scheduled to accept the FEIS on November 6. th MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Not adopt the SEQRA Findings, okay. MRS. RYBA-But not adopt the SEQRA Findings. So there’s time. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Just so everybody’s clear on that, those are two separate and distinct steps, and in fact under applicable SEQRA law, the Town Board is not allowed to take those two steps on the same night. It’s not permissible. They must wait at least 10 days after acceptance of the Final EIS, prior to adoption of SEQRA Findings. So I think, correct me if I’m wrong, Marilyn, that we don’t know, right now, when it is proposed that the Town Board will be adopting SEQRA Findings. MRS. RYBA-No. The earliest they could do it is November 20. th MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That would be their next meeting. They could do it earlier, but that would be their next regular meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-So probably some time between those two dates would be, is that what I’m hearing? MR. SCHACHNER-Between those two dates, or even any time between now and November 20, th but I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t think it’s likely that November 6, at the regular Town Board th meeting, is the time for the two Boards to get together and go through this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t picture it that way. Does this have to be an open meeting, of course? MR. VOLLARO-I would guess so, yes, sure. MR. STROUGH-A public meeting. So it would have to be announced, and so there needs to be time for that. Maybe Marilyn would know a little bit more Thursday. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’d leave it up to Staff to coordinate a meeting date that would include both Boards, and at the right period of time to do that. MRS. RYBA-Probably the way I could see it working is if you get the Findings on the 19, this th Thursday, and then you have a meeting on the 24, so you may want to just see if you have th something in writing, or outline your concerns a little bit, so that Staff can give the Town Board a sense of how long you might want, or what the issues are, if any, and they have workshops. So it sounds like an appropriate workshop. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re looking for some written statements from this Board talking to that? MRS. RYBA-If you have something to put in writing ahead of time, just to let us know what your concerns are. MR. VOLLARO-What the scope of things look like. Okay. I’ve got you. Does everybody on the Board understand what Marilyn is looking at? Marilyn, for Thursday night, this Thursday night’s workshop, I’ve submitted a list of questions to Chris. I have them loaded in my computer. I can bring them out, and these are a bunch of questions that talk to the proposed new zoning law, and I would like to discuss some of those Thursday night, as well, if we get the time. Because I have some 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/00) real concerns, in some spots, on this new law. I want to clear some things up, in my mind, and in everybody else’s mind, particularly with respect to the 136 Code that we have here for wastewater. MRS. RYBA-I wasn’t here at the last meeting. So I did just get to review the minutes. It sounded to me like the Board was really looking for an opportunity for more of a roundtable. I was stressing, as I said, there had been some discussion with your Chairman, Craig MacEwan, and I was just trying to get more prepared, in terms of what you were looking for, but if that’s the way, we’re thinking about a one page memo that we would discuss about how you would work with the design guidelines, because they are guidelines, and then if you have any questions, we have the zoning files, and we have everything highlighted, in terms of how the Steering Committee and the meetings they went through, looking at all the items in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. So if you’re concerned about, was everything covered, I think we have the information that says, yes, it was. So it seems to me that, as you were saying, you have some particular concerns. So it’s up to you folks how you want to generate the discussion. I just was asking more so Staff can be prepared to have whatever you want to see. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the mechanics of it was that I went through the proposed zoning law and I flagged those areas I had some concerns with, and I wrote them down, as positions and questions, and I’ve given it to Chris. So Chris has a copy of that. If you want, call me tomorrow morning, if you can’t get that, and I’ll bring you a second copy, so that you know, at least, what I’ve had to say. MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Because I think this Board’s got to deal with that zoning, the new proposed zoning law, almost more than anybody else, and we should pay a lot of attention to what it has to say. MR. STROUGH-Is Stu Mesinger going to be there tomorrow, Thursday night? MRS. RYBA-No. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else have any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-And we just have one more Tuesday night meeting? There’s no meeting next Thursday? MRS. RYBA-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I said, our agenda control is working. MR. VOLLARO-Agenda control is working, at least for now. MR. HUNSINGER-All we had to do is talk about it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, with that, I would propose that we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 26