Loading...
2010.01.19 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 3-2010 Irene Marshall 1. RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28 FOR Area Variance No. 4-2010 Site Plan No. 6-2010 J & D Marina 6. RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA Tax Map No. 279.-1-63 FOR Area Variance No. 5-2010 Site Plan No. 2-2010 George Sicard 9. Tax Map No. 297.20-1-2 Site Plan No. 4-2010 Friends Realty Assoc., Inc. 16. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-47, 48 Subdivision No. 1-2010 Paul Poirier 24. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 309.14-1-46 Subdivision No. 2-2010 Frank & Joanna DeNardo 29. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 240.-1-47 RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA FOR Area Variance No. 1-2010 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 1/19/10) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER PAUL SCHONEWOLF MEMBERS ABSENT DONALD KREBS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll call to order the Tuesday, January 19 meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. Welcome everybody. Our first item on the agenda is thth approval of minutes from November 17 and November 24, 2009. Would anyone like to move those? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 17, 2009 November 24, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF THTH NOVEMBER 17 AND NOVEMBER 24, 2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Our next item on the agenda, we have two items under Recommendations to Zoning Board of Appeals. RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN 3-2010/AREA VARIANCE 4-2010: IRENE MARSHALL STEVE ALHEIM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-The first is Area Variance No. 4-2010 for Irene Marshall. Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Sure. Site Plan 3-2010, Area Variance 4-2010, Irene Marshall is the applicant. Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and the surrounding community. Location is 101 Fitzgerald Road. Existing Zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes removal and replacement of existing stairs / deck. Further, applicant proposes a new 216 sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. The project includes the removal of vegetation within 35 feet of the shoreline and hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline. The nature of the Area Variances are as follows. There are five. They need 45 feet of shoreline relief requested for proposed deck adjacent to shoreline; 13 feet of 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) west sideline relief requested for proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline; 38 feet of shoreline relief requested for dwelling access deck; 7 feet of east sideline relief requested for northern portion of dwelling access deck stair landing; 14 feet of west sideline relief requested for southern portion of proposed replacement stairs. The Code specifically directs the Planning Board to briefly review and discuss this application and recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals any potential impacts the relief requested would have on the overall project, neighborhood and/or surrounding community. What follows is Site Plan Review, which you’ll be delving into in more detail next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you, Keith. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. ALHEIM-I’m Steve Alheim. I work for Eric and Eric Drawing Services. We did the drawings for Irene Marshall. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add or any other information to present? MR. ALHEIM-No. I’d like to, if I could, I’ve printed some pictures of the area and also some other decks that are also on Glen Lake, and if you’d like to see these, I can submit them. MR. HUNSINGER-How many copies do you have? MR. ALHEIM-I have two copies. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ALHEIM-Would you like? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you can start them down at that end. MR. ALHEIM-Also included in this, I’m not sure if it’s pertinent to this discussion, the last set of drawings, one of the items that’s come up is how to put the posts into the ground so close to the shoreline and we’re recommending to Irene that she use a techno metal post, which is just a post with an auger. It drives into the ground and it has the same rating as a regular framed post dug into the ground. So it has less soil disturbance than a standard construction. MR. HUNSINGER-And then how far down do you put those? MR. ALHEIM-It would depend on what they, they have their own engineer, and they, once we contact them with the project description, they do the engineering on it and they’ll let us know and we spec that onto the drawings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. TRAVER-When I looked at the application, you know, keeping in mind our concern about Glen Lake, my first thinking was, you know, we should be retreating, making the replacement project smaller, not larger. I understand that it was an existing facility that’s in disrepair and they want to replace it. I have a hard time supporting the idea of this expansion of the encroachment into the shoreline area. I think, in my mind, sort of a compromise might be to replace what’s there, but, you know, really it’s a difficult situation, with the proximity to the lake. MR. FORD-I concur. The first question that I came to when I read all of the material was why. It is one more example, in my opinion, of further encroachment on a beautiful, one of our beautiful lakes. We already have some issues with the current structure, including wastewater and so forth, and this is not being addressed to my satisfaction, and then there’s the whole idea of getting ever closer and closer to the lake is a real concern of mine. MR. SIPP-I also feel that your closeness to the lake and the no plan for the buffer between you and the lake and the septic system condition and these three things are, I think, are very important and have to be addressed before I would consider this. MR. ALHEIM-Just to clarify, we’re not doing any construction or changing the septic in any way. This is only the deck. We are not touching the septic at all. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MRS. STEFFAN-But there is some question in the Staff Notes about, I guess, the. MR. ALHEIM-The current condition of the septic. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the functionality is a concern, again, with the proximity to the lake. MRS. STEFFAN-And often that issue comes up with the Planning Board, whenever we have Site Plan Review for any kind of expansion or alteration. We usually talk about that. Because it’s certainly the opportunity to address the issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you speak at all to that concern about the functionality of the wastewater system? MR. ALHEIM-I can’t actually. When we did find out the exact location of it, it was snow covered by then, and getting to that area was quite difficult and we couldn’t uncover the location of it. Irene would be better able to speak on that, but unfortunately she’s not here right now. IRENE MARSHALL MS. MARSHALL-I’m here. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. MARSHALL-I’m Irene Marshall. I own the property that we’re talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Can you answer the questions that have been raised about the functionality of the wastewater system? MS. MARSHALL-Yes. We have never had any problems with the septic tank. We had it, we asked some people to come and pump it out several years ago. They opened it and there was nothing in it. We’re only there for three months out of the year, and we’ve never had any problems with it. We test our water ever so often, and the water is acceptable. MR. FORD-Your drinking water or the water at the lake? MS. MARSHALL-Both. It hasn’t been an issue. MR. FORD-What’s the approximate frequency of the testing? MS. MARSHALL-Testing the water? We’ve probably done it maybe three times in the last ten years. MR. FORD-And there was nothing in the septic tank the last time you asked it to be pumped? MS. MARSHALL-No, but that was awhile ago. For many years we only used the camp occasionally. It’s only been the last three summers that we’ve lived there for three months. MR. FORD-And was it during that three year period that you had it pumped, or you tried to pump it? MS. MARSHALL-No, it was pumped, we asked to have them come and pump it quite a few years ago, I’m not quite sure how long ago it was. MR. FORD-Prior to your staying there with greater frequency? MS. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. FORD-For longer periods of time? MS. MARSHALL-We, in the past, we have had people stay there year round. They rented the place from us, and it was after one of those periods that we had the septic looked at and it was fine, there were no problems with it. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. FORD-Did that come as any concern to the people you had pump it, that after year round use there was nothing in the septic tank? MS. MARSHALL-Not that I remember, and when we’re there, we treat it, you know, we do what you’re supposed to do with septic tanks to take care of them. We do that when we’re there, during those three months. MR. TRAVER-When you had the septic system examined, did they provide you, in addition to the bill, obviously, did they provide you with a report of any kind? MS. MARSHALL-I don’t even remember, it was so long ago. MR. TRAVER-And again, I mean, when they said there was nothing in the septic, did you wonder where the effluent was going, if it wasn’t going into the septic tank? MS. MARSHALL-Well, they didn’t seem to have a concern about that, so I guess we didn’t either. When people were living there it was just one person. So it wasn’t like a big family or anything like that. We rented it to one person. MR. TRAVER-I see. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-Can we talk to the point of proposed decking and why there’s a desire to get ever closer to the lake here? If we’re looking for 45 feet of shoreline relief requested for the proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline, 13 feet on the west side line relief requested for proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline, 38 feet of shoreline relief requested for the dwelling access deck. MR. ALHEIM-Currently the way the boundary lines are on that property, the variance would be needed because there’s really no place that you can build without a variance off to the side. Part of her structure actually is over the property line of their neighbor. So that, you know, we took that into consideration and we couldn’t build there. On the entrance side, we took, we angled the deck in a way that would try to keep it, you know, within the minimum setback from the side, as much as possible, and still give her a deck that she could enjoy. MAGGIE STEIN MS. STEIN-Can I say something? My name is Maggie Stein. I work with Steve at Eric and Eric. You’re referring to the additional decking on the side of the house also, not just the deck towards the water, right? MR. FORD-Right. There already is an encroachment, and we seem to be enlarging that. Correct? MS. STEIN-Yes. Part of the reason that there is an increased square footage of deck on the side of the house where the stairs are is because Irene has a number of relatives who won’t even go down those stairs as they are now. So we wanted to add some landings. That would enable people to take a break, stand on the landing before they go up or down stairs. So that’s a lot of the accounting for the decking on the side of the house. As for the width of it and everything, we’re trying to keep as close to what’s there as possible, but, you know, we just want to make it safer, and, right now it’s just not. It’s an old set of stairs and it’s not safe for people. MR. FORD-So simply replacing those would not be sufficient? MR. ALHEIM-It’s a straight run down. MS. STEIN-It’s straight. It’s like two sets of straight runs, and it’s very steep. MS. MARSHALL-You park up above, and there’s 26 steps to the front door of the camp, and then 16 more steps down to the lake, and then it goes straight down, and there’s one railing, with no, what do you call those, banisters, and it’s very unsafe. It’s quite old. My mother’s 81 years old, and my husband and I are getting older. I’m hoping to have grandchildren some day. So I asked for them to give me two banisters, some landings, so that the stairs aren’t quite so steep and so they go down and over a little bit, and down again, and ballisters on the side so that it’s safe, so basically it was a safety thing, and the stairs have been there a long time. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? MR. SIPP-Is there any more, besides two trees that you have to remove in that area? MR. ALHEIM-No. MR. SIPP-Just two trees? MR. ALHEIM-Correct. MR. SIPP-What are those trees? MR. ALHEIM-Birch, I believe they’re birch. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s one birch, and the rest were hemlocks. MR. SIPP-And no other low shrubbery or anything in that area? MR. ALHEIM-No, actually, and on the pictures that I sent around, you can actually see, right about where that tree is right here, would be as close as we are with the posts, probably actually set closer to the structure, and if we use a techno metal post, and we cantilever the deck, we’re really not into the trees at all, and we’re still set back pretty far from the shoreline with the posts because we are cantilevering. MR. SIPP-Is that a walkway you’ve got in front of the camp? MR. ALHEIM-Currently it’s a concrete slab that’s underneath the, a portion of the structure, and then this is just harden compacted soil. MR. SIPP-Is that slab going to remain? MR. ALHEIM-Yes. We’re actually going to utilize that as a stair landing. So we don’t have to pour anymore concrete into this area at all. MR. SIPP-So you’ll have to get a variance for that, the hardsurfacing within? MR. ALHEIM-We’re not pouring any concrete. MR. OBORNE-Well, they’re already hard surfacing within five feet of the shoreline, with the building of the deck, and that’s why they’re here. MR. ALHEIM-With the deck. MR. FORD-According to your drawing, you’ve got a seven inch diameter birch, three hemlocks, two six-incher’s and a ten inch. Will there be other trees removed? Those are to remain. Are there others being removed? MR. ALHEIM-No. No other trees will be removed. MR. FORD-Will anything be added in the way of foliage? MR. ALHEIM-We actually haven’t discussed that with Irene yet. I would like to see, you know, some vegetation, you know, on the shoreline, because the current conditions right now with the roof slope and rain water and the snow hitting this area right here, would actually be on the deck, so I thought it would probably help the shoreline right here by this tree if we were to do some vegetation there, also for privacy, and issues like that. MR. SIPP-Is there any plan for taking care of stormwater? MR. ALHEIM-Other than what’s in place right now, we haven’t looked that far ahead, no. MR. FORD-Are there permanent or temporary during construction? MR. ALHEIM-We haven’t gone into that phase of the drawing set yet. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? As members know, we’re asked to give a recommendation to the Zoning Board, and that’s why it’s on the agenda this evening. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 FOR IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 FOR IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option Two. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: A.Quantity and scope of the vegetative removal adjacent to Glen Lake. B.Shoreline protection proposed for installing a deck within five feet of the shoreline. C.The need to describe the deck post installation details. D.The functionality of the wastewater system which is currently unknown. E.The adverse environmental impacts regarding runoff from the new deck and wastewater system and removal of vegetation. F.Encroachment on the lake. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MRS. STEFFAN-So you’ll go before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and then you would come back to us for Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-For Site Plan. Okay. Thank you. MS. MARSHALL-Thank you. SITE PLAN 6-2010/AREA VARIANCE 5-2010: J. & D MARINA JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Our next item on the agenda is also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Site Plan 6-2010 and Area Variance 5-2010 for J & D Marina, LLC. Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Applicant is J & D Marina, LLC. Requested action recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 1212 Bay Road. Existing zoning is Neighborhood Commercial or NC. This is a Type II SEQRA, no further review is needed. Project Description: Applicant proposes conversion of a 1,050 sq. ft. single family dwelling into a +/- 1,600 sq. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) ft. commercial office to include associated site work. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes to expand and convert an existing single family dwelling into a professional office. The structure is currently a pre-existing none conforming structure built in 1959. Professional office is an allowable use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. The expansion portion of the project involves the raising of the roof over what is now the garage. Please see pages A1 and A2 of application packet for further clarification. Removal of existing gravel drive and parking proposed. The plan includes the addition of stormwater controls and a new wastewater system. Again, the Planning Board is to briefly review and discuss this application and recommend to the ZBA any potential impacts the relief request would have on the overall project, neighborhood and/or surrounding community. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, partner of J & D Marina. LONNY CHASE MR. CHASE-Lonny Chase, Chase Engineering. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add, or any other information to present? MR. CHASE-I don’t think so. It’s pretty basic, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. TRAVER-Can you comment on the evidence of the need for stabilization of the slope in the area that you’re talking about? MR. CHASE-On the current project or the previous Site Plan? MR. TRAVER-On the comments in Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-That would be the fill activity going on. MR. CHASE-The previous Site Plan. John, do you want to address that? MRS. STEFFAN-Right, the previous. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, there are steep slopes around the back. My plan is to grade both sides and the rear with a slope and seed it with a pile of reclaimed soil that we’ve got stockpiled on the property there. We’ll put a layer of that on and seed it with some crown vetch, with some wild grass and what not, to prevent any erosion, but the slopes will be graded down to a moderate slope, something you can walk up and down, with a bulldozer. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you pretty much through filling that in in the back? That road between the house and the boat building. MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. That’s been a lot of activity for the last period of time. Are they dumping fill back there, is that what they’re doing? MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And they’re about done with that? MR. MATTHEWS-Just about finished, yes. There’s one section to the north in the back corner that we’re finishing out the curve, then I’m in the process of sloping down what’s there, grading, cutting the bank back at the top and making a more gradual slope all the way around the whole thing. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the concern that was raised by Staff in their Staff comments is that, you know, the slope be stabilized before Spring runoff. I think that’s the main concern that’s been raised. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. MATTHEWS-Well, we haven’t had any issues with any runoff. It’s basically rock and concrete block and concrete chunks and what not that we’ve been filling with and the way I’ve attempted to grade or fill, I was able to kind of leave a depression in the middle of the area where we filled. So if we get any major rainwater it acts as its own retention basin at the top, and I’ve kind of monitored, I do all the bulldozing and pushing off myself. So I’ve kind of monitored the slope, and I haven’t seen any erosion or any washing of the down the bank in the back during the procedure. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. MR. MATTHEWS-But my goal is to, this summer, Spring, finish it up. We’re close enough now that we can, I mean, I’ve been doing it, anticipating fill coming periodically. So sometimes we get quite a bit, sometimes we don’t. I know the Town brought in considerable amount of fill over the last couple of years which helped a lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But the comment specifically, under Site Plan Review, the limits of fill appear to have been exceeded by approximately 30 feet when reviewed against the approval for the commercial boat storage in 2001. MR. MATTHEWS-There may be a spot where it protrudes more. I don’t know how they figured this or what they were looking at to do it, but in the process of grading down the bank, some of that stuff on the top will get cut off and spread along the edges and what not to make it more even. There is one little area that sticks out more because they seem to concentrate their piles all in one spot, but I haven’t seen the actual survey as to how they figured the 30 feet. We’ll have to have something done in the Spring to figure that out. MR. OBORNE-Well, I’ll tell you how I measured it was I scaled it off based on your approval back in ’01, was it, and again, it was done by a scale, to what you had previously given to us for this application, and you’re right, there certainly is a concentrating at that one point. I totally agree with you on that. However, I think your limits are there. That’s, again, my interpretation. MR. MATTHEWS-I don’t plan on going back any further. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-I mean, what I’m going to do is cut back what’s there and move it around the corner and do what we have to do to make it conform. MR. OBORNE-Right. Yes, I know, we had our pre-application meeting. They knew that that was one of my major concerns. So this should really not come as a surprise whatsoever. MRS. STEFFAN-But from a Planning Board member’s point of view, I’m going to speak for myself, you know, I’m sitting in my office and I’m going through all the material and I’m looking at, okay, they were approved in 2001. They had some outstanding things. The limits of fill exceeded, you know, what was approved. It’s been, it’s 2010, and this was approved in 2001, and so, you know, I don’t know whether you’ve owned the property the whole time, but it’s like, okay, the approval was made and it’s not compliant, and it’s been a long time. So now you’re in front of us for a recommendation to the Zoning Board, and then you’re going to come back for Site Plan Review, and if you have not satisfied the conditions of the prior approval, then what’s my confidence level that you’re going to satisfy the conditions of the next approval? So, you know, I have to put that on the table. MR. MATTHEWS-I understand, but there, times have changed. MR. OBORNE-The applicant has, and again, I’m not trying to sway either way, the applicant has stated that he will stabilize those slopes, and I would think, I threw out in my notes that you may want to use as a condition of approval that those slopes get stabilized before a final CO is issued. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure, I have highlighted that so that when we see them next week we’ll make sure that’s in there. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from members of the Board, questions, comments? Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a nonconforming structure. MRS. STEFFAN-So I don’t have anything prepared on this. What would we like to recommend? Certainly the expansion of the use, the change in use, to me, seems reasonable, and the expansion certainly seems reasonable. It’s not changing the footprint of it. It’s just raising the garage. That makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would anyone like to put forward a motion? We do have a sample resolution prepared by Staff with your package. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2010 J & D MARINA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2010 J & D MARINA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ll see you next week. SITE PLAN NO. 2-2010 SEQR TYPE II GEORGE SICARD AGENT(S) LISA SEYMOUR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CLI LOCATION 340 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,500 SQ. FT. OFFICE AND +/- 10,000 SQ. FT. FENCED AREA FOR AMERICAN LENDERS SERVICE CO. OF GF. REPOSSESSION BUSINESS AND EXPANSION AND CHANGE TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 52-02, UV 7-90, SP 56-90, UV 1336; BP 03-956, 03-888, 03-006, 88-415 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/13/2010 LOT SIZE 11.36 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.20-1-2 SECTION 179-4, 179-9 GEORGE SICARD, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 2-2010. Applicant is George Sicard. Requested action is Site Plan Review for an existing vehicle repossession business. Location 340 Queensbury Avenue. Existing zoning is Commercial Light Industrial or CLI. SEQRA Status is a Type II. No further review needed. Project Description: Applicant has created and leased a 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) 150 square foot office and a 9,500 square foot fenced vehicle storage area for American Lenders Services Corporation, a vehicle repossession company. Repossession business and expansion and change to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. Staff Comments: The site currently has an approval for a 9,600 square foot boat and trailer storage structure and a 12,000 square foot pole barn also used for storage. The two structures comprise the Adirondack Super Storage business owned by Mr. George Sicard. The smaller and newer structure still requires stormwater controls to be installed. The owner has stated in correspondence with staff that the stormwater infrastructure (eave trenches) will be installed by the end of June 2010. On- site is a single family residence that has been determined to be a pre-existing non- conforming structure and as such will remain. In March of 2005, American Lenders Service began operation without site plan approval or a Certificate of Occupancy. The business utilizes 150 square feet of office space attached to the front of the larger of the two structures and also has a gated storage area fenced off to secure any repossessed vehicles. The fenced area is composed of a 6 foot chain link fence with three (3) stands of barbed wire along the top of the fence and comprises approximately 9,500 square feet of outside storage area situated on grass and gravel. According to the applicant’s narrative, vehicular transport is used anywhere from 1 to 4 times a week to remove the vehicles from the site. There is also an on-line auto auction component to the business, which has been brought to my attention is pretty much non-existent, and what follows is Plan Review. I do want to state that the agenda did state a 1500 square foot office. An extra zero was attached. It’s less. So it’s less of an issue than it would be if it was bigger, in the agenda. So with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. SICARD-I’m George Sicard. I’m the owner of the property. LISA SEYMOUR MS. SEYMOUR-Lisa Seymour, owner of American Lenders. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add, any other information to present to the Board? MR. SICARD-Not really. It’s basically about a piece of fence, I think. Keith has been very helpful. I didn’t realize that there was any issue, as it was, it’s been a storage facility and registered as a storage facility, and operating a storage facility with staff in and out all these years with no issue with the fence, and all of a sudden after, I think, five or six years, there was an issue. So we’re here to resolve it and do whatever we need to do to comply with the rules. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. FORD-Mr. Brown, as Zoning Administrator, has a couple of letters where he makes reference to formal enforcement work and further formal enforcement procedures, or actions. Keith, are you aware of what those actions have been to date? MR. OBORNE-There’s been correspondence between the Zoning Administrator and the applicant’s counsel at this point. MR. FORD-We have copies of those, thank you. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’re in the packet. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’re still able to do business in the location. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have an opportunity to review the Staff comments? MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to add or any additional information based on some of the comments that were offered by Keith? MR. SICARD-Just briefly. This landscape thing, I don’t know what anybody’s looking for. We’ve dressed up the property. It’s in an industrial park, as you obviously know. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SICARD-I’m retired and I’m gradually working on the infrastructure of the house to make it more energy efficient. It’s had new windows, a new heating plan, new doors, and a new electrical service put in. I’m kind of trying to pay as I go here. We’ve done a lot of cleaning up and landscaping to the property, but nothing was ever specified, when I put the second building in, as to, you know, it was mainly this drainage thing. As for the parking, I don’t know, what are you looking for? It’s pretty much of a big parking. MS. SEYMOUR-Yes, what did the parking say again? Off street parking is prohibited in front of building? Are you speaking of our office in general or, not the house situation, the office where we pull up in front of the office right there? So that is prohibited? MR. HUNSINGER-The office, yes. MS. SEYMOUR-Because we absolutely can park on the side. It was just convenient for us to pull up and walk in there. We didn’t realize it was an issue, and we do have parking on the side which we can obviously park on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SICARD-The lighting fixtures, there’s, what, two or three? MS. SEYMOUR-There’s one on the front of the office. You can see it right up on top there. MR. SICARD-Right, under the eaves. MS. SEYMOUR-Yes, and then we have two inside the fenced in cage. MR. SICARD-That are under the eaves and facing down. It’s a motion type light. MS. SEYMOUR-They only come on when somebody comes in. They’re motion. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s more of a security lighting? MS. SEYMOUR-Yes, they’re just, yes, and they’re not on all the time. They only come on when we pull in, or when we go out into the cage. MR. SICARD-And we were made aware of the lighting issue because of the airport, and when the new building was erected a couple of years ago, they asked us to keep everything under the eaves of the old building. There is no electrical in the new building. So, at the time, it was under review, and everybody’s been back since, three or four times, with no comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The lighting ordinance for the Town is newer than when you were here for the building. MR. SICARD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So it wouldn’t have been raised when you were here then. MR. SICARD-This curb cut, there’s no curbs, and I tried to figure out what this was about, and there’s a, I don’t know if you want to call it a dirt path or an old road that was there when I bought the place. We don’t use it. It was there before we got there and we, I have no use for it, haven’t approved it, haven’t changed it, haven’t driven on it, so, and there’s no curb cut. There’s no curbs. It’s dirt up to the. MR. OBORNE-I will say the reason that I pointed that out was based on the 2008 Ortho, and again, juxtaposed against the Site Plan that was approved back in ’05. That wasn’t there on the Site Plan. It may have been there. So, you know, just doing due diligence and just mentioning that. MR. SICARD-It doesn’t serve any purpose. That’s not being used for anything. The vehicle storage area. MS. SEYMOUR-Should be totally screened with linked, the slats. We do have the rest of the slats that can be put back, can be put into there. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. SICARD-I think there’s a few missing. MS. SEYMOUR-Some of them slid out, or got broken on occasion if somebody bumped the fence. So we, and on the front of that, we’ve never had the slats on that, but we do have them, and we can put them on with no problem. MR. SICARD-And the unbalanced gate. MS. SEYMOUR-The unbalanced gate. Yes, well, you know, the problem with the unbalanced gate is it’s opened so often and people go in, the guys will go in, just wing it, and it hits. Honestly, it’s been there for five years and never come off. We can certainly straighten that up and tighten it up on the sides to make it look more balanced. MR. SICARD-Do you want it to look straight or is that the issue? MS. SEYMOUR-It’s not loose. MR. OBORNE-It’s a security gate and it seems like somebody can squeeze right through there. That’s all. MS. SEYMOUR-You want it tighter to get? MR. OBORNE-It’s not my call. I’m just, again, pointing it out, that it’s a security gate. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Keith kind of helps point things out for us to discuss when you come before us. MS. SEYMOUR-From it opening and shutting throughout the years, you know, that’s what’s happened. It goes back, it hits the barn sometimes and then, you know, it kind of has shook a little bit, and we can obviously tighten that up. I don’t know about getting it closer together, but at that point, where that picture was taken, quite often when it shuts, the chain’s double chained on it. So I have a hard, I’m not that big, and I have a hard time slipping through when I forget my keys. I have a really hard time slipping through it, but we can address that and see if we can get it so it looks a little tighter. MR. FORD-We’re talking about the vehicles there in that location. Could you address something from Staff Notes that points out that, according to the applicant’s narrative, vehicular transport is used anywhere from one to four times a week to remove the vehicles from the site, and can we assume that there’s a similar amount of vehicular transport getting vehicles onto the site? MS. SEYMOUR-No. The transport getting vehicles onto the site is us with our tow trucks bringing the vehicles in, and I would say probably five times, five days out of the week, we’re probably off two days, so five times out of the week we’re bringing vehicles in and just drop them off, and that’s just us coming through. MR. FORD-And that could be any time during the day? MS. SEYMOUR-Yes, any time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-On the average, how many vehicles are stored there? MS. SEYMOUR-On the average, I think the most we’ve ever had there is between 20 and 25 at a time. They’re picked up at least three times a week. So, if we bring in 10 vehicles, within five days those vehicles gone. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And these are just cars and trucks. There’s no propane trucks or anything like that? MS. SEYMOUR-No. An occasional campers. Most cars and trucks pretty much. Boats. MR. SIPP-What’s the status of this auction? MS. SEYMOUR-The American Lenders on line auto auction, I’m part of a franchise. I’m one out of 400 offices in the United States, and the auto auction was made by our president to try and bring more money to us, all of us franchisees, by trying to sell some of the cars we repossess on line through an on line auto auction. It hasn’t worked very well because most people don’t want to buy things site unseen. They do see pictures. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) In five years I’ve sold two vehicles on the on line auto auction, and that’s in five years that’s all I’ve ever done. It’s very rare that we get a bank that wants to put something on the auto auction, because all the banks that we work for prefer to have them go to voice auctions, which is you, they go to Syracuse or. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Clifton Park or something like that? MS. SEYMOUR-No, we don’t, they don’t go to Clifton Park anymore. Most of ours go to adessa auto auction in Syracuse, which transporters pick up and take there, and then we have another auto auction in Pennsylvania that they go to. So the auto on line auction, the last time I used it was probably three years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board, questions, comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Let me check. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the feeling of the Board, are they comfortable moving forward? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I think with the conditions that we discussed. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Given the lack of commenters, and the feeling of the Board, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQRA. So, if there’s anyone who’d like to put forward a motion. We do have several outstanding items to discuss. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The four things that I wrote down is that they have to discontinue parking in front of the building to comply with Code regulations, that the lighting fixtures should be Code compliant, specifically the front light should be downcast and cut off, because the other ones are underneath the eaves. Then they’re not. MR. OBORNE-If the Board is willing to waive that requirement, that’s fine. It’s two spots under an eaves. MR. HUNSINGER-How often is the front light on? MS. SEYMOUR-I think the only time that light comes on is if our guys pull in at night and have to go into the office, it comes on and goes back off. What’s the timer on it, do you know? MR. SICARD-Ten seconds. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s a motion? MS. SEYMOUR-It’s motion, yes. We have some outside lights right beside the doors, which, we don’t even use those. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, those aren’t of any concern, really. MS. SEYMOUR-It’s motion, yes, everything’s on a timer, everything goes off within, you know, 15 seconds, because when I’ve been over there at night, and went to go in, and before I could even get my key in the door, the light’s back off again. So they don’t stay on. They’re all motion. MRS. STEFFAN-So what does the Board think? MR. TRAVER-If they’re motion activated, I guess I don’t have a problem with leaving that. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t, either. These are just security lights. MR. FORD-I’m all right with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The vehicle storage area should be totally screened with linked slats. MR. HUNSINGER-They said they will do that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and then fortify the vehicle gate so it provides the intended purpose of security. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other thing is the landscaping comments. Do you have any plans to do any landscaping? Because right now it’s stark. MRS. STEFFAN-Barren. MR. SICARD-What do you have in mind? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, the Code does speak to some of the landscaping requirements, you know, it would be nice to see something. MR. SICARD-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Let’s say, I do want to preface, when George was given this approval for both his buildings, the Planning Board at that time did waive the landscaping requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So now we’re back again. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, as you drive down that street, there’s not an awful lot of landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-No, there isn’t. MR. OBORNE-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-In fact, a lot of your neighbors could do with a little clean up of their properties. MR. SICARD-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that whole strip is pretty unsightly. MR. OBORNE-If you want to have it to be Code compliant, along the front of the road, Queensbury Ave., I mean, that’s what’s required, a (lost word) wide landscaping strip. MR. HUNSINGER-The Code calls for a few street trees, probably, right? MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SICARD-Actually, we did have a few street trees, and the County asked for a variance to take some of them down for the sewer line, and then Niagara Mohawk came through this past fall when the industrial park went brown and they wanted relief, to be able to go through the front property, and they required taking a couple of more trees down. The trees were there. I was trying to be compliant with. Between National Grid and the County of Warren. MR. TRAVER-Isn’t that the Washington County side of the road? MR. SICARD-No. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-Not yet. MR. OBORNE-Not there. MR. SICARD-Queensbury. MR. OBORNE-This picture does not show that that current square structure, which is in this area where the magnifying glass is. Now, I don’t know how much landscaping is really going to hide that, unless, you know, maybe in 40 years it will. Again, just pointing it out, because it is a requirement. MR. FORD-I recommend we waive it, based upon the history of the parcel, and the County and the National Grid. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments on the landscaping? Do you have any plans to put any trees or shrubs in? MR. SICARD-Well, we’ve done all the re-seeding of the lawn when National Grid went through and actually my tenants take pretty good care of the bushes. We trim the trees. I think it looks pretty presentable, to be honest with you. It’s a lot better than it was when I got there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s for sure. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-If it wasn’t in the industrial zone, it would probably be more of an issue, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2010 GEORGE SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,500 sq. ft office and +/- 10,000 sq. ft. fenced area for American Lenders Service Co. of GF. Repossession Business and expansion and change to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. 2)A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/19/2010; and 3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2010 GEORGE SICARD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Type II, no further review is necessary; and c)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and g)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff. h)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office. i)This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the applicant will discontinue parking in front of the building to comply with Code regulations. 2.That the applicant will make sure that the vehicle storage area should be totally screened with link slats and that the applicant will fortify the vehicle gate so that it provides the intended purpose of security. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck MS. SEYMOUR-Thank you. MR. SICARD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN 4-2010 SEQR TYPE II FRIENDS REALTY ASSOC., LLC AGENT(S) K A MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) SAME ZONING CI LOCATION 216 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF BUILDING FAÇADE. RENOVATIONS REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 76-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/13/2010 LOT SIZE 2.35 +/- ACRES, 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-47, 48 SECTION 179-9 TRENT MARTIN & ED BELAZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 4-2010, Friends Realty Association, LLC. Requested Action: Site Plan review for renovations requiring a building permit in the CI zone. Location is 216 Quaker Road, Commercial Intensive is the zoning. As stated before, this is a Type II SEQRA, once again. Project Description: Applicant proposes modification of building façade, sign changes/installations and potential vehicular inter-connect with properties to the west. Staff Comments: The applicant is proposing approximately 100 linear feet of facade changes. The location of the façade changes are highlighted on the submitted plans (see page C1). The purpose for the change appears to be for aesthetic reasons. Further, the applicant is proposing installation of a compliant 64 square foot monument sign with changeable message panel facing Bay Road. Additionally, the applicant wishes to change the existing 59.5 square foot, 16’5” tall freestanding sign with LED display that faces Quaker Road with what appears to be a 50 square foot 18’8” tall freestanding sign with changeable message panel in its stead; the new sign to be placed on the existing metal pylons. Finally, the applicant proposes a 24 foot wide paved inter- connect with the Hannaford property located to the west. Just real quick. There is a storage container that is within the setback which needs to be addressed at this point. Also, trash containers need to be enclosed, and I will say that the Board is probably 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) happy that those LED signs are going to be going away, and with that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. MARTIN-Good evening. I’m Trent Martin. I’m with K.A. Martin Engineers. With me is Ed Belaz with Friends Realty. As Keith just mentioned, we’re looking to update the façade on the CVS and Hollywood Video plaza, on the corner of Quaker and Bay. I would like to make a quick change, if I may, with the A-1 drawing. We show that the new roofline, we would like to extend up to be the same height as the CVS and the Hollywood Video height. Mr. Belaz mentioned to me tonight that he thinks that it would look a little bit better if we kept the center height of that façade as it stands right now. So the new façade would look like what we’re proposing only it would be a little shorter, so that it stays at the same height as what that center section above Angelina’s Pizza, the current vacant store and the Aspen Dental. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’d keep the existing height but add the new architectural details? MR. MARTIN-That’s correct. MR. FORD-I was fearful you were going to re-install those LED lights. MR. MARTIN-No. At this time we’re not proposing that. Now, the other thing that we did want to mention is that we have been in touch with Hannaford. They do not want the interconnect. They believe that CVS is in direct competition with their pharmacy. So they have told us they do not want that interconnect. MR. FORD-There’s already one there anyway. It gets muddy most of the year. MR. MARTIN-And during the winter you can’t quite use it. MR. HUNSINGER-I find that interesting, because, you know, patrons and customers will find a way to make it work, irrespective of the corporate decisions that are made. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So, at this time, although we do show it on our Site Plan, we’re not intending to have that put in with Hannaford telling us that they don’t want it. MR. OBORNE-I will say, just as an addendum, that the Department of Community Development wishes to have that interconnect for safety reasons, obviously. MR. MARTIN-Sure. Absolutely. MR. OBORNE-And when, and it is a when, when Hannaford comes back in, we know that CVS is amenable to that, we will hopefully be able to come to some sort of an agreement. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re still showing it on your plan, but you won’t actually do the paving because. MR. MARTIN-Right. At the time that we submitted the plans, Hannaford hadn’t gotten back to us. We had contacted them a number of times. It was just after these plans were submitted that they. MR. HUNSINGER-Because there is an asphalt curb on the Hannaford side that would have to be taken out in order to make that connect work. MR. MARTIN-Yes. So, if and when Hannaford comes back in, we don’t have a problem with that. MRS. STEFFAN-The changeable message panels, now are they like the gas station signs where you go out with plastic letters and change the message? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. HUNSINGER-If the interconnect were to be constructed, would you abandon the entrance on Quaker Road? MR. MARTIN-At this point, we were not planning on abandoning the entrance to Quaker Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I think that’s the next logical question is, that’s really where the traffic conflicts come in is between the red light entrance into Hannaford plaza and then, you know, your entrance on Quaker Road into your plaza. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Unfortunately that’s something that I would have to discuss with my client some more. I can’t answer that at this time, but we were not planning on abandoning that. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I knew you weren’t tonight, but I’m just putting it out there. MR. BELAZ-In the future we can think of that. We absolutely can think of that in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BELAZ-That would be a good thing to discuss, I mean, if Hannaford came to the table. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. FORD-Good point, Chris. MR. MARTIN-Now, to Staff’s Notes, the dumpsters, with the enclosures, there is a plan right now for the dumpsters to be enclosed. I believe the property manager has been talking with Staff on that, or, I don’t want to say Staff, maybe it was Dave Hatin, talking to somebody. The plan at this point right now is that the dumpsters are all out in the back. What the plan is, is to take up some of the macadam out there, pour a concrete slab and then put a chain link fence with the privacy slats in that to enclose those. MR. BELAZ-And to put all four dumpsters together, one next to each other within that contained area. MR. MARTIN-The storage container that was mentioned, CVS brought that in. We are planning on telling them that that is not a compliant storage facility and it has to be removed. MR. BELAZ-They did it without our permission also, and I spoke to the store manager today and will be calling corporate tomorrow to let them know and sending them a letter that they’ve got to do something about that storage container. Anything I can get from the Town that would show that, I can show to them and say, hey, not only are you in violation of your lease, but you’re in violation of the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Which actually I think that you could use the notes, because that mentions the sections and everything. MR. OBORNE-Yes, because the store manager fully aware. MR. BELAZ-Mary was. I told her about it today again. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Bruce Frank can be pretty in your face, not in a negative way, but certainly has talked to her a few times about it. MR. MARTIN-And then, one of the other notes that Staff had mentioned is on the application where I inadvertently have transposed some numbers incorrectly on the Page Three. The total non-permeable area is 90,275 square feet. The 71% impervious area is the correct number. That was calculated out correctly. I just transposed the numbers coming down the application incorrectly. So, it is currently 71% impermeable and it’ll stay 71% impermeable, and, with that, we would answer any questions that you might have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. FORD-My concerns have been addressed. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’m delighted that the LED sign is gone. I can’t tell you how happy I am about that. I’m not sure about raising the sign height two feet three inches. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that, with that reader board, or that LED board gone, they’ll put the changeable message panels in there, but does it really need to go up another couple of feet? I mean, I happen to like that sign. We use that as an example for other signage in the Town that’s being installed because we like the height. It doesn’t interfere with the intersection. It looks aesthetically pleasing. MR. MARTIN-Unfortunately it only has the CVS on it, though. We would like to promote the other businesses in the plaza and that’s why we would like to propose the bigger sign, and it would be taller, and this way we could fit all the businesses onto the sign. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know, how does the rest of the Board feel? MR. SIPP-Well, I agree. It eliminates one problem, and presents another, and I’d rather see the LED lights go and maybe you can shorten it up by a foot or so. You’d be down to 17 feet 6 inches. MR. MARTIN-Without going through and cutting the steel pylon stanchions that’s, I don’t know how I would lower that at all. Without looking into that, at this point. MR. SIPP-These are all internally lit, back lighted? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Are there any color renderings? Like you provided a nice photograph of this particular sign. Are there any photographs that you have of what the proposed sign would look like? Certainly from the plan there’s a lot going on, kind of like visual spaghetti, there’s a lot going on in that little sign. So I’m just, I’m not really sure what it’s going to look like. MR. MARTIN-It’s going to look like the building, all the colors and the top portion of that will, we’re going to tie this into the building façade also, so that it all looks like it belongs to that building. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you changing the color of the building? MR. MARTIN-No, we are not. It will be as it is. MR. BELAZ-Of course the shingled roof is going to change. It’s no longer a pitched roof. It’s going to match the same stucco colors to this. MR. SIPP-The monument sign, does it have a base in it where you’re going to going to do any landscaping? MR. MARTIN-The landscaping at the base of the monument sign will just be some low shrubs and annuals. We don’t want to put anything too tall in there so that eventually it would be blocking the sign. So just low shrubs and annuals would be all. MR. BELAZ-We did hire a new landscaper this year. I don’t know if anybody noticed in the Fall it actually looked, we paved the lot and did some nice landscaping, and I met with the guy today, and he said, wait until you see it in the Spring. MRS. STEFFAN-Good. MR. OBORNE-If I could ask a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Explain what you’re doing with the façade again? You were going to raise it a little taller? MR. BELAZ-Actually we’re not planning on raising it at all right now. Right now it’s a mansard, it’s pitched, and I just want to bring it out flush, and at the top put a crown molding to match the crown that’s at the, on the other stores. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. OBORNE-Okay. So what difference is there from what you submitted? MR. MARTIN-What we submitted is we were raising it up to meet the Hollywood Video height. MR. BELAZ-You see it’s at the same level as the Hollywood Video. We’re going to actually keep it lower in the, in the middle section is now going to be lower. MR. OBORNE-I see. Okay. MR. BELAZ-Say existing height of the one above. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So you’re not going any higher than what you’re, you’re going lower? MR. BELAZ-Well, keeping it the same height, but just bringing it. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think visually that’ll work. I guess my own opinion on the sign is I was just so happy to see you removing the LED sign I didn’t really notice that the proposed sign was going to be taller. MRS. STEFFAN-You can tell we really disliked that sign. Although it wasn’t red. So that’s the only thing that was its redeeming feature, but the sign, just as it’s presented, the reason I asked for the waiver is that, you know, it kind of looks like visual spaghetti when you’ve got the monument sign that’s on Bay Road, you know, it’s broken out so that you’ve got two businesses on one side, three businesses on the other, so there’s a little more symmetry. Here, everything’s jammed into that one sign, and I’m just, I’m afraid that the cheese factor is going to go up. MR. BELAZ-I agree with you on that, and I wouldn’t like it to look like this going up either. I agree with you 100%. It’s going to have to be worked on. We can’t go up like that. The monument sign is a lot nicer looking, but I think it’s the size that I think we were looking for approval on. MR. MARTIN-Well, this is the basic design of the sign. This is what it would look like. We’re trying not to disturb any other area over there, because in order to do anything else with this sign, we would have to start pulling out some of the landscaping there. There’s some decent trees there that we don’t want to touch. So we were just trying to kind of bring it back into compliance with the regulations and allow it to stay where it was. So that’s how we ended up with this design. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand the existing poles. MR. MARTIN-The existing poles that are there. MR. BELAZ-And base, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And the LED sign hangs on those poles, whereas the new one, yes, okay, you’d have to go higher. MR. MARTIN-Correct, and right now the sign on the top bolts in, so if we start cutting that, then that base plate is disturbed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know what to say, and it’s hard for me to approve it without knowing what it’s going to look like. MR. OBORNE-Would that be the sign or the façade? MRS. STEFFAN-The sign. MR. OBORNE-They have a drawing of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And I don’t like it. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. OBORNE-That would be the pylon sign or the monument sign? MRS. STEFFAN-It’s the pylon sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s one of the nicest intersections in the Town. It’s very busy, but we’ve got the Queensbury landscaping on one side, which is very nice, and we’ve got the old Doyle’s landscaping, because they maintain it because of the historical value of the Shaker Cemetery and everything. So it looks very nice. The sign that’s there now is pleasing, and so I’m just afraid that if we cheese it up and make it look like downtown Albany that it’s going to ruin some of the aesthetics. I know that there are things that are not aesthetically appealing about the rest of the intersection, but on those two opposing corners, you know, on the Queensbury landscaped side, and then the CVS opposing side, it’s very nice looking, and I just don’t want it messed up. I used the word cheesy, but the rest of the Board may not share my feelings on that. MR. FORD-Would there be a possibility of putting the signage so that you could put stores beside each other in the advertising rather than one on top of the other? Elongating it, the way it is? MR. MARTIN-With the size restriction, no. I’m sorry. I’ve played with a number of different designs. In order to put them side by side, I would need to go more along the lines of this monument sign, which is 64 square feet, and that would not be compliant at this setback. MR. OBORNE-It is a compliant sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s ugly. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. FORD-Can we go back to that sign? The word ugly came out. Is there anything you can do, that you could verify for us tonight, that would make it less so? Can you think of anything? You’ve heard the concerns voiced. MR. MARTIN-Like I said, I’ve tried a number of different designs to try to keep it in the compliant. I suppose if you want to waive the 50 square feet, I can do something different, then, but I spent a number of hours trying different ways of putting this together. MR. SIPP-What would be your estimate of the lowest you could go, twelve feet? MR. MARTIN-The lowest we could go? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Without taking out the existing pylon stands there or cutting them in some way, this, I believe, is about as low as I can go. Because this way the crown molding at the top ties it in to the crown molding of the building. MR. SIPP-Now, as many times as I’ve driven in there, I’ve never noticed that they match. MR. MARTIN-Well, currently the top of the sign as you see in the picture and in the drawing there, it doesn’t match. MR. SIPP-I understand. These are just tubes, right, they’re not solid. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. MARTIN-I cannot say what is inside of them. I don’t believe that they would have been filled with anything, so they should be. MR. SIPP-That’s where your electric wires are coming up through. Right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SIPP-Well, if you increase the horizontal sign and lowered the vertical height, it would be more in tune. MR. MARTIN-Quick discussion here, and we would be willing to bring that down by one foot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The discussion we were having is we would trade height for width, but we can’t, we don’t have the authority to grant you that. That’s the Zoning Board. That would be easy if it were up to me. MR. MARTIN-That’s a variance, I know. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, just looking at what’s there now, even if you were to make it as wide as the reader board, you know, but we don’t have that authority. Bringing it down, I think, would be very helpful. MR. OBORNE-Seventeen feet, eight inches. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Quick math. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t close the public hearing yet. Seeing as how there are no public commenters, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II SEQRA. So no further SEQRA review is necessary unless there’s an item that stands out for the Board. Any final questions, comments from members? Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MR. OBORNE-Is the Board comfortable with the explanation on the refuse containers, as far as? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was just bringing that up. What you described verbally to us was that the dumpsters will be consolidated into one location and screened, but that’s obviously not on your Site Plan. I was about to mention to the secretary to make that a condition to show the dumpster enclosure as you described on the Site Plan. MR. OBORNE-One issue that may arise is the location. If they’re going to take out any permeable area for that pad, that’ll bust your permeability requirement. You were saying you were going to remove macadam and replace it with a concrete pad. MR. BELAZ-Correct. We’re not taking over any area that’s not already paved. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-And as long as it’s behind the buildings, I don’t even know if it really matters exactly where it is, as long as it’s not viewable from Quaker Road. MR. OBORNE-From a public right of way. Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, it’s not near an exit. MR. OBORNE-And it doesn’t infringe on emergency vehicles, you know, 20 feet, minimum. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Some of them you have to have block walls between each dumpster. I don’t think they enforce that here. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I can say, we do, my family frequents CVS, and we use the drive-thru all the time. So I’m always driving back behind there, and it does need to be cleaned up a little bit. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, do we all feel okay about the landscaping around the monument sign? They don’t have a plan for it, but are we confident that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they do show some low bushes. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they’ve done an improved job, I think, recently. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. So I’ve got waivers, the modification on Drawing A-1 on the façade changes, submitting Page Three calculation changes regarding the 71% impermeability. Remove the storage container from the site, the trash receptacle issue, and then the Aviation Road signage will be 17 feet 8 inches. Those are the things I have. Does that incorporate everything? MR. OBORNE-Would you like them to leave the proposed interconnect, at least up to their property line? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It’s on the plans already. So that’s why I didn’t mention it. MR. OBORNE-Okay, so if you leave it on there, just leave your portion of the interconnect on there, that would be fine. MR. FORD-Good. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So then we know where to put it. MRS. STEFFAN-So do I have to state that? MR. OBORNE-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Yes. I looked at the Site Plan, it was there, so I figured. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m following your logic. At some point Hannaford will have to come back in. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. It’s a paper interconnect at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly, and then 10 years after that they’ll come back in, and then we’ll talk about eliminating the Quaker Road entrance because the interconnect is there. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2010 FRIENDS REALTY ASSOC., LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 5)A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification of building façade. Renovations requiring a building permit in the CI zone require Planning Board review and approval. 6)A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/19/2010; and 7)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 8)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2010 FRIENDS REALTY ASSOC., LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 9)According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four A complies 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Type II, no further review is necessary; and c)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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)If applicable, Item d to be combined with a letter of credit; and f)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff. g)This is approved with the following conditions: 1.The Planning Board will grant waivers for lighting, stormwater, and landscaping plans. 2.That the applicant will submit a modified Drawing A-1 on the façade changes discussed. 3.That the applicant will submit Page Three calculation changes regarding 71% impermeability. 4.That the applicant will remove storage containers from the site. 5.That the trash receptacles must be screened from the public right of way, specifically dumpsters will be consolidated into one location as discussed, and then screened post changes. See minutes for clarification if necessary. 6.That the Quaker Road signage will be changed to a height of 17 feet 8 inches. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. BELAZ-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2010 SKETCH PLAN PAUL POIRIER AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) ANTHONY POIRIER ZONING WR LOCATION RIVERSIDE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 18.56 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.40 +/- ACRES TO 9.96 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 6-06 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 18.91 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-46 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 1-2010. This is a Sketch Plan subdivision. Paul Poirier is the applicant. Location is Riverside Drive. Existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. There is no SEQRA status at this point. It’s not applicable. Project Description: Subdivision of 18.56 +/- acres into 5 lots ranging in size from 2.0 +/- acres to 6.96 +/- acres. Staff Comments: The parcel is undeveloped and totally wooded. There is National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands located on the property as well as 100 year floodplains (see attached map). Both wetlands and floodplains must be surveyed and denoted at preliminary stage. What follows is a soil description, which the Board is pretty savvy on at this point. The parcel has no access to the Hudson River. Access to the River must be accomplished through easements with Brookfield Renewable Power Incorporated. These easements should be formalized prior to subdivision approval. Currently, Riverside Drive ends in a paper Cul-d-sac. The south eastern portion of the proposed Cul-d-sac is utilized as a driveway for access to the lands of Rozelle. The applicant proposes to extend Riverside Drive at its current terminus as denoted on page S-1. The total length of the new road is approximately 1,350 linear feet, and that is an approximation. Per §A183-23I(4), dead end streets shall not be longer than 1,000 feet, or cul-d-sacs for this matter. The Planning Board must waive this requirement as presented. This is a Town owned road. Access to Lot 5 is accomplished by the use of an easement through Island View Drive, a private road. The applicant will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for road frontage if this access is to be realized. Please be aware that this access drive is located partially in the 100 year flood plain for the Hudson River. The Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to design alternatives to a Cul-d-sac. Linkages to the lands to the west should be explored. These lands are in the Main Street Zoning district and would benefit potential development and traffic flow. Potential inter-connects with the lands to the west should be formalized prior to sub-division approval in lieu of a linkage. There are buffers associated with this project, and that is dependent upon the adjacent use. The type of buffer listed is based on the most intensive use as per the Use Tables. Waivers are as follows: From 50 scale and existing watercourses requirements, and again, the Planning Board may wish to direct the applicant to denote all watercourses prior to preliminary in order to be comfortable with the proposed lot layout. However, that is not something that is a requirement at this point, if you grant that waiver, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Paul Poirier on this subdivision application. As Staff has stated, this is a proposal for property just to the north side of the Hudson River, off of Riverside Drive. Going to the west, it would be over near Twin Channels Road, coming off of Big Boom Road. There is a little private drive there now called Island View Drive to the far west of the property. The map I have in front of me, we have gone out, subsequent to meeting with Keith, and we’ve located all of the drainage ditches that are in there. We’ve actually completed two foot contours on the entire property. We have been in contact with the State. There is no State wetlands, but as you say, there may be some Army Corps wetlands. DEC has no regulated wetlands. They also have no regulated streams. We’ve checked with that as well. The one coming off of the end of Riverside Drive, they call that a T-335 or a tributary to 335 which is the Hudson River, and it is not regulated, and they have no problem in putting a culvert in there. There is, as Keith has stated, obviously along the River there is a 100 year floodplain. That drainage ditch that comes up right about where Keith is showing, the floodplain does come up that ditch, obviously, for the elevation along the Hudson River, and we will denote that. We have that from FEMA, where that location is. It’s generally shown on the GIS maps as well, and it’s not an issue. We’re not proposing any construction in or near that flood area. The one lot, Lot Five, that is depicted, the one to the farthest west, like I say, that is an existing private road in there, and we have, the owners, if you look on the map, McGuire and Cook, actually have an easement to get to their property, and Cook has an easement over our property where his current driveway is. Obviously the idea situation to be able to utilize that, because it’s an existing private drive and my client’s property abuts to the private drive, would be to utilize the private drive. We understand that that would require a variance for creating a lot without Town road frontage. So that’s, you know, something we have to look at and have discussions with the Board. Obviously this is only Sketch Plan. So that’s where we come up and address or at least bring these issues forward. That would be the ideal situation. We could try, and my client, through his counsel, are trying to contact the landowners to the west there, being Seeley, and see if maybe he can acquire a 50 foot strip, so then he could therefore have actual road frontage for that Lot Five. If anybody has been down in this area, the drainage ditch, there’s actually two that “Y” right up near the end of Riverside Drive, then heading to the south merge into the one larger drainage ditch in there. The rest of the property, especially about midway through all the way over to the 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) west, is a beautifully flat, wooded site. I don’t think on the 20 foot contour maps, you have one contour going across the entire site. When we have done the actual two foot, we only have about an eight foot gradual change all the way down from the north to the south on those. It’s just an actual beautiful piece of property. You do have that one ravine, as I stated briefly before. We have been in contact with the Soil and Water Conservation, with DEC. They have no issues with us putting a culvert across that. The next step, now, is Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, will be working with us, now that the topography is complete, and he’ll be showing the grading and drainage plan for that proposed road. The only thing we may end up doing is maybe swinging the cul de sac a little farther to the west, depending on how much grade he needs for his stormwater. Obviously the best scenario is going to be to bring stormwater and grade it back to that existing drainage ditch, you know, in some kind, pre-treat it before it discharges into that, and that’s about all I have at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-There’s a note in Staff comments regarding soils, that Lots Three and Four should not be developed because of the. MR. STEVES-Unusual fast perc rate, I think they’re saying. We’re doing perc tests now, and he’s right as far as the Warren County/Washington County soil maps, but as Keith knows, they’re not always exact in that. They’re fairly close, but we have found, predominantly, for example, Rozelle’s house, there’s two or three lots that we have worked on in helping the owners develop, along Richardson Street, in the same area. We did a subdivision, two lots out there. I’m trying to remember the lady’s name. They own the dental lab that’s out there, and she built her own house right near her office, and we did perc tests on that and we consistently had four and five minute soils. MR. OBORNE-I think that, what Mr. Traver’s talking about, Lots Three and Four, were the Elnora loamy fine sands. That is where the wetlands are showing up on the EIS, not EIS, sorry, the GIS. MR. STEVES-Yes, and again, that, I believe, is on the lower section near that drainage ditch, and they’re pretty broad brush approach, but obviously we have to prove with soil tests and your Town Engineer may have to be present with us when we do that, that we would definitely have them proved. We’d have the two test pits and the two perc tests done on each lot. MR. TRAVER-So you think you’ll end up with buildable lots on those two? MR. STEVES-No question. No question. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. It’s just a matter of where they site the houses or the drain fields specifically, and my main concern on Three and Four are are those hydric soils or high water tables. They’re not hydric soils, I shouldn’t say that, but there is a high water table in that area. MR. STEVES-When you look, and I don’t disagree that’s what it shows. When you get out there and if you could look at the ravines and the broad brush approach that they have to the maps and they’re to make you aware that you have the potential for those type of soils, obviously. When you get down into the lower end of the ravines, you no question have it, but up in the back where we’re proposing the house, and like I stated at the beginning, we may even move the cul de sac back a little bit. We’re about 18 to 20 feet in elevation above those soils down at the lower part of the ravine, and when we do the test pits it’s proof we’ve walked it and we’ve done some hand auguring, and it’s very suitable. Like I said before, we might just have to slid them back to the west slightly, but they’re all, you know, Lot Four’s the smallest lot, two acres. It’s a two acre zone. We’re predominantly at about a three acre density here, three and a half actually, but no question we’ll be doing test pits and perc tests on every lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s the timetable that you’re looking at? MR. STEVES-Like I say, the topography has been completed. We’ve been in contact with the State. I’m actually, hopefully one of my guys in the office will be placing on Mr. Nace’s desk tomorrow so he can start working on it, so that we can get it submitted next month. MR. OBORNE-For a March meeting for Preliminary. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you want to do summer construction, is that what you’re looking to do? MR. STEVES-Yes. Actually the owner, he used to live in this area. He now lives in Montreal. He actually would like to move back in here, like to keep Lot Five for himself, and potentially sell the subdivision to whoever would want a lot. That’s what his ultimate goal is, is to move back to this area, but I’m not going to say that that’s a fact. That’s what he would like to do, but we want to get a subdivision approved that he can either market or build himself. I’m not sure which one he’s going to do. MRS. STEFFAN-Now this was here several years ago, and denied without prejudice. That was a 10 lot subdivision. MR. STEVES-I believe it was 10 lots. I don’t think I was involved in that one. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That was, I believe he was looking to put townhomes on there, and there was a, not a dispute, but a discrepancy in ownership, and it just dropped off the radar screen. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. STEVES-And Mr. Poirier owns this property. There’s no question in ownership. MR. HUNSINGER-The only real comment I have is, you know, kind of a big picture, and you talked about it a little bit, Staff Notes addressed, just access, you know, and is there a way to provide some sort of a thru access from Riverside Drive into one of the other streets down in there? Because, you know, you’ve got some huge chunks of land, and limited access, and, you know, just good planning, and too often we say, well, there’s no opportunity, you know, I talked to the neighbors that have said no, but, you know, even if you just show a potential, you know, or a paper street kind of thing. MR. STEVES-Understood. Looking to the north, just so the Board understands, I know it’s a little weird on the map, to the right hand side, you have a small sliver of land owned by Elmore, which really doesn’t get you too far, because then you run into that large Niagara Mohawk corridor. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-So it would be predominantly, you’re looking going to the west, which would be to the O’Connor piece, which is, if these were the old driving range was and that hill dropped way, way off in the back, but I don’t disagree with you, but you would definitely want to continue the road in the east/west direction, not try to turn it north, and then “T” into that property, and then see what would happen with that property in the future, but from that elevation back up to Corinth Road, you’d probably have 75 to 80 feet of elevation change. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and it’s also a drainage ditch or, I don’t know if it’s a blue line stream or not, but, right through here. MR. STEVES-On the other side, all the way up through there, because with the new access road that was proposed for the access, I don’t disagree. Like I say, we could push that cul de sac through and then leave a 50 foot strip, and if it ever did connect, then you could connect right up through. MR. OBORNE-And I will say from, just for the Board’s own information, this strip right here, that is the extension of Media Drive, coming across, on the south of Main Street. So that’s going to happen here imminently, you know, soon. This big property of O’Connor’s, which also they own this, I think the son does. I’m not sure exactly what the deal is there. That’s Main Street. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So you can anticipate that that’s going to get going here soon, too, especially something this big. MR. STEVES-I have no problem, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, and cul de sacs are nice in the theory that people are going to have their own little community, okay, but 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) they’re terrible in the effect of the big scheme of things as far as interconnect and community development, they’re the worst things that could happen. I understand. So they’re the best for the people that live there and the worst for the community as a whole. The only downside to that is I would gladly show an interconnect. We would just, when you get into a cul de sac situation like this, if the interconnect ever happened, the cul de sac would go away and you’d have beaucue, I want to call it, road frontage, and just so you know, when I put that right of way through there, if you look at Lot Three at 3.87 acres, it’s not going to affect that at all as far as size. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. STEVES-But you’re really going to start narrowing down your frontage on the cul de sac until such time as that interconnect ever happens, and as long as the Board’s aware of that, it won’t affect the usage of those lots or the access or emergency vehicle access, any of the kind, but you really start crimping your requirements of the Code of how much frontage you need on a cul de sac, but once that interconnect ever did happen, and I think it’s a smart move, then it goes away. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. There was an article I read recently, and I can’t remember which State it is, but there’s a State that’s actually contemplating outlawing future cul de sacs. MR. STEVES-They did. MR. HUNSINGER-Did they? Was it Virginia or Maryland? MR. STEVES-Virginia. MR. HUNSINGER-Virginia, yes. MR. STEVES-I was just at a conference last week, and I won’t go off subject too much, but there was a planner/designer from the mid west, actually I think Minnesota was his office, and he’s designed, calls himself prefurbia. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the books. There’s some books out there. Instead of having tangents, a lot of curbs that make the flow nice, and you fit just as many homes as the cookie cutter as you can with this, you know, but you just have to come up with the scenario that you’re going to allow some curbs and such, but he takes cul de sacs out of the picture because of the fact that he was telling me, he just finished one in Virginia and they outlawed him. It was pretty interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-If you ever get a chance, look it up under prefurbia. He’s a pretty knowledgeable guy. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s got a lot of good points. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. The other comment I just wanted to make is I just, Paul and I went down there on site visits Saturday. I couldn’t get over how beautiful it is. MR. STEVES-It’s an unbelievable piece of property. You wouldn’t believe what’s hidden down there, would you? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-This client came to me and I said, well, let’s walk it and see if, and I walked it and I said, yes, this is a piece of property you want to look at. That’s why it’s being developed in a conscientious manner of five lots, two to three acres, four acres. I mean, that’s what this area’s meant for. MR. OBORNE-And I think that leads to the potential for interconnects or, you know, availability to push a road through, because the lots are larger. MRS. STEFFAN-How does the International Paper easement play into this? I know it’s noted here. What does that mean to the subdivision? MR. STEVES-That’s an old power generation for the old dam, an old easement that was through there for International Paper for a transmission line that is not there. It hasn’t been there in 100 years. So it probably has been extinguished, but it’s still in writing. I will research that a little bit, but it’s like, you know, National Grid had, at one time, 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) retained all these properties along the River for power generation. National Grid’s not in the power generation business anymore, but yet they still have the property, and that’s another to this. You have the beauty of the view of the River but you don’t have the ownership of the River. There’s a 50 foot reservation from mean high water for Nat Grid or their successors. Whereabouts did you go in, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just to the end of the, you know, to the end of the road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right at Lot Five. It’s beautiful. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the property that we actually went on was, we turned around in Rozelle’s property, in that driveway. That’s where you get the view of the River. It was just, I couldn’t believe it. MR. STEVES-Yes. It’s just unreal. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else from the Board? MR. STEVES-I think we have some issues, but we’ll work through them. That’s why we went, like I say, with a modest subdivision, instead of trying to get 10 townhomes with the LED light entering them. MR. OBORNE-Is there anything specific you want to see at Preliminary? Do you want to see a total zone build out as to what the potential is? Do you want to see scenarios? Just something to give the applicant some direction. No? Yes? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, what would happen if there was no cul de sac. MR. STEVES-Well, I think I’ll leave the cul de sac but show an interconnect that would be reserved, and I’ll come up with a couple of scenarios and pass them by the Board and so I don’t, you know, prolong it tonight. MR. FORD-I knew you would. MR. STEVES-But you can dedicate it to the Town now and they can have it or you can keep it as a reserve in one of the lots that the owner keeps. There’s things you have to work out in that respect, too, because if the owner keeps it and he sells all the lots, you know that you’re going to end up with it anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-Bring us a couple of possibilities and we’ll react. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2010 PRELIMINARY FRANK & JOANNA DE NARDO AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-5A/LC- 10A LOCATION RIDGE ROAD/BARTHEL LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 6.25 AND 7.8 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT A SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PER SECTION 277 OF TOWN LAW. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1-2010, SUB 10-05, AV 7-05 APA, CEA OTHER NWI WETLANDS, APA WETLANDS, L G CEA LOT SIZE 14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.-1-47 SECTION A-183 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 2-2010, Joanna & Frank DeNardo. The requested action is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of the subdivision on the 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) neighborhood and surrounding community. Location Ridge Road and Barthel Lane. Existing Zoning is Waterfront Residential. I don’t think that’s correct, though. Actually the existing zoning is Land Conservation 10 acres and Rural Residential Acres. So I apologize for that. SEQRA Status is Unlisted. Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.05 acre parcel located in the Town of Queensbury into two lots of 6.25 and 7.80 acres respectively. The project lies within two zoning districts; Land Conservation 10 acres (LC-10A) and the Rural Residential 5 acres (RR-5A). Further, the parcel is bifercated between the Towns of Queensbury and Fort Ann. Staff Comments: As denoted in the above Parcel History, this parcel had been given lot size and road frontage relief in 2005. The subdivision was also approved in 2005. According to the applicant’s agent, the subdivision was not recorded with the county and as such the applicant must undertake the Area Variance and Subdivision process again. I’m going to jump down to additional comments. At this point, the applicant has requested a waiver from Sketch Plan requirements. The applicant has requested waivers for grading, E & S, topography, and location map requirements. The Planning Board, as a condition of approval, may require site plan review for Lot A due to the proximity of wetlands and the multiple waiver requests. You will not be doing that tonight, obviously. You’ll be doing that at Final. In lieu of the above condition, the Planning Board may wish to clarify to the applicant the conditions of approval as set forth in APA permit 2003-257. See page 3 of attached permit, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, together with Frank DeNardo. As you’re aware, we’re here this evening proposing a two lot subdivision that was before this Board in 2005, and due to some unfortunate circumstances, we’re here again trying to seek the approval of the same subdivision that you did approve in ’05. The property is unique, as Keith has explained, because it’s both in the Town of Queensbury, the Town of Fort Ann, the County of Warren, the County of Washington, and the RR-5A zone and the LC-10 zone. So it puts us in a situation in which we have to address multiple regulations. The 14.05 acres that are actually in Queensbury, we’re seeking a two lot subdivision. Lot A is 6.25 acres, and would actually have frontage on Ridge Road, and get access from Ridge Road. That’s the lot in which would actually be developed. Lot B is 7.80 acres and would actually merge with the lands of DeNardo, that would be in Fort Ann in the County of Washington. Lot B is actually the property that is the subject of the variances, due to the fact that it’s on the private road, Barthel Road, in addition because it’s in the LC -10 zone, and only 7.8 acres are actually in the Town of Queensbury, even though it’s going to be merged with the adjoining property that Mr. DeNardo owns, which I believe is a total of 25.48 acres. So it’s actually going to be the size that Queensbury’s hoping it to be, when it’s all merged together. The APA permit was actually obtained in 2006 and is on record at the Warren County Clerk’s Office, and that’s the permit that we’ve attached to the submission materials. As you can see from those materials, there’s a number of conditions that are incorporated that have to be addressed when the construction of the home on Lot A actually does occur. The main condition that we’re concerned with at this point is in order for that permit to remain valid, Lot A has to be conveyed by March 22, 2010, which is the drop dead date that we’re hoping to be able to achieve, but we are willing to concede to Site Plan Review for the development of Lot A, in lieu of waiving what we’ve requested, grading, erosion, drainage, which I realize we’ll deal with at the next meeting, but this evening we’re hoping that you’ll waive Sketch Plan due to the fact this is a subdivision that this Board has already seen and approved in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is there a reason that it was approved and then not taken to the County? FRANK DE NARDO MR. DE NARDO-There was just an oversight on my surveyor at the time, and I was going through some health issues with a family member. I just took it for granted it was taken care of, and then this came to light two months ago. MS. BITTER-A couple of months ago. MR. DE NARDO-I was like, oh, another surprise. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MRS. STEFFAN-In the Zoning Board minutes, actually the Zoning Board resolution, it said that that second lot that would not be developed. MS. BITTER-That’s correct. MRS. STEFFAN-So that continues to be true, the second parcel will not be developed? MR. DE NARDO-Correct. No, I just want to clarify, I also own Barthel Lane. I own that whole Lane. So that’s my road, and that’s my access to 9L. So we’re really not, (lost words) on that piece of property, but I’m attaching that to the rest of my property for a buffer zone. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a couple of questions with respect to the SEQRA, and one of the things, the first thing that confused me was you submitted a Long Form. So was that the Long Form that was submitted previously? MS. BITTER-Yes, for the most part. MR. HUNSINGER-And then you also submitted a Short Form. MS. BITTER-That was due to the fact that I wasn’t sure if there was going to be an affirmative negative declaration, due to the fact that you had already done SEQRA back in 2005, so it wasn’t clear to me if we would be starting all over or if it had to be distinguished, but because this is a subdivision, I had to do a Long Form in order to meet the qualifications. So I tried to address all bases so that it wouldn’t be delayed, to be perfectly honest. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had two questions on the Long Form, and the first question I picked up from the meeting minutes from 2005. On Page Three of Twenty-One, where it asks the depth of the water table. MS. BITTER-Is it the same answer? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 76 feet. MS. BITTER-Okay. I can ask Dennis Dickinson, because I know that that was a question that was presented, and he was the one that actually came up with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and what was said on the record in the meeting minutes was it should have read 60 inches. MS. BITTER-Okay. Will you tell me that number again? I’m sorry, I don’t have the Long Form with me. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on Page Three of Twenty-One, the Depth of the Water Table, item eight, and then on Page Four of Twenty-One, where the Long Form asks for lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to the project areas, you listed Lake George, and I really think that you should only be listing the wetlands that are there on the site. So that would effect Item Sixteen A and B. MS. BITTER-Okay. I’ll make those modifications, because that’ll be back before you for next week, if that’s okay. MR. OBORNE-Board willing. MR. HUNSINGER-And then of course the follow up question to all of the questions I would ask of Staff, and that is if this Board already provided a Neg Dec that’s on the record, do we even need to consider SEQRA? MR. OBORNE-Well, you certainly should, to protect yourself, is to mention that and re- affirm the previous SEQRA findings, certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Which then, the comments I just made kind of go away because they were already answered and addressed in 2005. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Of course obviously this is not a coordinated review. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. OBORNE-Because it’s not a Type I. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except that it already was approved by the APA. MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, they were an involved agency. They weren’t part of the coordinated review. It wasn’t a Type I SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-They’re certainly an involved agency, just like the ZBA’s an involved agency. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And that is denoted in the Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in looking at, and I knew that we reviewed it way back, and it’s just kind of, there was an expiration date that ended up being the issue, not anything wrong with the subdivision itself that we had already approved, and so the level of scrutiny certainly is not as high as if this was a brand new application, and certainly the minutes indicate that there was a great deal of scrutiny over the application at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that there is no one in the audience except for the applicant. Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve been confused on this in the past, so I will ask again. Do we leave the public hearing open? Okay, since it’s coming back. MR. OBORNE-That’s assuming you’re waiving Sketch. There is no public hearing component to Sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s correct. MR. OBORNE-Let’s assume you’re waiving Sketch. Open the public hearing, conduct your SEQRA, or re-affirmation, and then do your recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So I should do the motion on Sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do we need a, we should take a formal motion to waive Sketch Plan. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have any problems with that? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DENARDO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for 1. the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14 +/- acre parcel into 2 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) residential lots of 6.25 & 7.8 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1/19 & 1/26/2010; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FROM SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DENARDO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-So we need to conduct SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-Yes, or re-affirmation of the previous SEQRA. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Why not just re-affirm the previous SEQRA. MR. OBORNE-If you’re comfortable with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, I just have to make a motion to re-affirm? MR. OBORNE-That should be sufficient. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s based on no new, I mean, there’s no new information, nothing that’s changed. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s had a previous approval. There’s been no change whatsoever. Even if there was a change, if the Board feels comfortable with that change, you could still re-affirm SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Are you comfortable with that, Counsel? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DE NARDO REGARDING SEQRA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for 1. the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14 +/- acre parcel into 2 residential lots of 6.25 and 7.8 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1/19 & 1/26/2010; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. MOTION REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DE NARDO REGARDING SEQRA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) The Planning Board has re-visited the State Environmental Quality Review Act on this application and since no new information has been presented, and the plan has not changed, the Planning Board re-affirms the previous SEQRA declaration. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Now we need a recommendation for the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-Recommendation. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess we’ll just go with Option One, but I think we might want to be more specific. MR. HUNSINGER-Instead of saying either option, just state that the Planning Board has previously approved the subdivision. The Zoning Board had previously approved this as well. MS. BITTER-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you can just state that it was a previously approved subdivision. MS. BITTER-On January 26, 2005. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it’s going to come back here January 26, 2010. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s funny. MR. OBORNE-To do both, Preliminary and Final. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MRS. STEFFAN-That is weird. MR. OBORNE-We aim to please. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DE NARDO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DE NARDO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) According to the resolution prepared by Staff, first three paragraphs. The Planning Board has re-visited this application and re-affirmed SEQRA, and we recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals re-affirm their variances granted in January of 2005. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you next week. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have one item of new business to consider this evening, and before I introduce that, I would like to welcome Mr. Schonewolf to his first official meeting as a full member. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-The item of new business is to elect a new Vice Chairman. The Vice Chairman that we had elected in December was not re-appointed. So, it does necessitate us to appoint a new Vice Chairman for 2010. Staff has prepared a draft resolution. I’ll open it up for discussion and/or a motion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you willing to take the job? MR. TRAVER-I mean, it’s up to the Board, whatever. Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ll make the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to nominate Mr. Traver for Vice Chairman. Is there a second? MR. FORD-I will second it. MOTION TO NOMINATE STEPHEN TRAVER FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-Congratulations. MR. TRAVER-Thanks. MR. OBORNE-Maria did bring up a good question. Because we opened the public hearing for Preliminary for the DeNardo application, or was it for SEQRA that we opened the public hearing for? Because I’m wondering if we have to table the Preliminary application. MR. HUNSINGER-To next week? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s already been scheduled. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It already rolls over, doesn’t it? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) MR. OBORNE-I’m just wondering. I’m just trying to be a stickler here. It’s probably not the end of the world if we leave it as is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because it’s on the agenda for next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s already on the agenda. MR. TRAVER-Well, but on a printed agenda doesn’t necessarily mean that all the T’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know. MR. TRAVER-I mean, I don’t think anyone is going to raise it as an issue. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Did we open up the public hearing for Preliminary, because that is the component that must be done. MR. HUNSINGER-I opened the public hearing. I didn’t specify if it was for SEQRA or for Preliminary. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and I think, and did you open it after I made the motion for granting them the waiver for Sketch? I don’t remember that. I don’t remember what the order was. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it was before. MR. OBORNE-You did that first. MR. FORD-Do they have to be opened separately? MR. OBORNE-Yes, see this is the whole protocol. Yes, I think you’re right. The public hearing is open for this project, for SEQRA, SEQRA’s a neg dec now. It stays open. It will just come back for Preliminary and Final next Tuesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Good. MR. OBORNE-As long as you guys are comfortable with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because Chris asked, and there was no one in the audience. MR. HUNSINGER-There was no comments, but I didn’t close the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-Right, it’s open. No, it doesn’t need to be tabled. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business this evening? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2010, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Krebs On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 1/19/10) Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 37