Loading...
10-23-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 70-2012 John Mason & Stephanie Mason 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-3.7 Site Plan No. 71-2012 John Mason & Stephanie Mason 3.. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 227.17-1-3.7 Subdivision No. 4-2012 DKC Holdings (Cont'd Pg. 26) 5. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.1 Site Plan No. 66-2012 Nemer Chrysler Jeep Dodge 5. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-10 Site Plan No. 67-2012 K Twin Four LLC 8. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-12 Site Plan No. 45-2012 Stewarts Shops Corp. 11. Tax Map No. 309.3-2-25; 309.13-2-22 Site Plan No. 68-2012 Frank Arcuri 21. Tax Map No. 288.-1-79 Site Plan No. 69-2012 Nat Hill Properties 23. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-19, 20 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. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD BRAD MAGOWAN DONALD SIPP STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, October 23, 2012. The first item on the agenda is Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 70-2012 SEAR TYPE II JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 11 & 12 HERON HOLLOW ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 523 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NOW CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE; REQUEST FOR SIDE SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 56-12, BP 09-518, BP 09-371 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRES, 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-3, 7 SECTION 179-9, 179-13-010 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes. This a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. 11 & 12 Heron Hollow Road is the location. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. SEAR status is Type II for this. October 20, 2012 we've got a No County Impact from Warren County. Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 523 square foot first story addition to existing 4,596 square foot residence. Further roof to be raised to 28 feet in order to accommodate second story renovation. The reason that they're here is due to an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA, and as such that requires review and approval. The variances is as follows: Request for side setback relief as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the ZBA. Staff has very little issue with this. It is an exemplary shoreline buffer on this property. Should be held up as a model. Same would apply to the boathouse that will be next after this, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is one of the applicants, John Mason. We really don't have anything to add. We agree with the comments of Staff on both of the two applications. The one area which I always reserve and caution what we give away, the Masons have been very conservative as far as maintaining a lakefront buffer. I think it's probably about 35 feet deep, but we are not stipulating that it would remain 35 feet. I think they would be required to have 15 feet. We have no plans of changing it, but I don't want it to be taken that we have agreed, as part of a condition to an approval to keep it that way forever. We have no plans, and until Mrs. Mason says that John can cut it, it's not going to get cut. That's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. TRAVER-There's a comment regarding the lots needing to be combined. Do you have any comment? MR. O'CONNOR-We will do that. MR. TRAVER-That's no problem? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. TRAVER-That's all I have. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It would be nice if you could get that buffer to go north on your neighbor's property, too. JOHN MASON MR. MASON-I'll speak to my wife about it. MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is when we went out to do a site visit, when you're coming up from the dock, when you're coming up the stairs, down on the left, there was like an outlet pipe there. You probably don't have a picture of it up there, but, I don't know if that was off the roofs or? MR. MASON-Is that our property or the next door neighbor? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it was your property. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a water pipe from some, is that the water pipe from behind you? MR. MASON-No, I don't have any idea what it might be. There's no, both septics, our septic and the next door neighbor's, go across the road. Both of them had brand new septic systems put in place, probably in the last three years. MR. HUNSINGER-This looked like it would have been maybe stormwater, roof drains or something. MR. MASON-It's not from our house, that I'm aware of. If it is, it pre-dates me, if there's a pipe in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's kind of brown in color, so it's hard to see. MR. MASON-Is it old? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's real old. MR. MASON-Yes. It pre-dates. We haven't done anything, as you can see from the, on the lakefront. It's much the same way as it was when we purchased it eight years ago. I don't think we've taken a branch out of that area. MR. HUNSINGER-It's like maybe, you know, this far off the walkway. It's right there, right at the top of the hill. MR. MASON-No idea what it might be. There was extensive landscaping done next door, and I didn't pay a great deal of attention to that. I'm wondering if it had something to do with that. You don't think it does. MR. HUNSINGER-I can't imagine it would have. Yes, it looks like it's real old and it looks like it's been there for a while. MR. MASON-Don't know. I don't know. Was it carrying any water or any effluent? MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn't raining, so I have no way to tell. MR. MASON-I've never seen anything flow in that area at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and there was no evidence of any runoff out of it, because it's right at the crest of the hill, right at the top of the stairs. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-We can check it out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's a site plan issue anyway. That has nothing to do with the variance request. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the old Brad Peters house. MR. MASON-Yes, it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, if there are no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a recommendation. This would be on the house. MR. KREBS-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 56-2012 MASON The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 523 sq. ft. addition to existing residence. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Request for side setback relief as well as for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to ZBA. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2012 & SITE PLAN NO. 70-2012 JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 23`d day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 11 & 12 HERON HOLLOW ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES EXTERIOR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING 544 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE TO INCLUDE REDUCTION IN SIZE DOWN TO 450 SQ. FT. RELOCATION OF ACCESS STAIRS AND FAQADE UPGRADE. BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUEST FROM EXTENDED SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 57-12, BP 09-518, BP 09-371 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.46, 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-3, 7 SECTION 179-9 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything else to add, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Just, again, it's a recommendation to the ZBA, or Zoning Board of Appeals. The same location, same zoning, same SEAR status, same Warren County Referral status, No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes exterior modification to existing 544 square foot boathouse to include reduction in size down to 450 square feet, re-location of access stairs and fagade upgrade. Obviously boathouses in the WR require Planning Board review and approval regardless of what other members may say, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. Again, appearing for the applicant, I'm Michael O'Connor. We have no comments beyond what Staff has made, and I just received the Staff comments on this particular variance. Are they both numbered the same? MR. OBORNE-No. I've got Site Plan 71. MR. O'CONNOR-All right, but both variances are, 57. MR. OBORNE-56, no, they're fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have no other comments. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? I think I always ask applicants now when we do boathouses, just to make sure it's on the record that you will make sure that it's under the height requirement. JOHN MASON MR. MASON-We will. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. MR. O'CONNOR-Actually it's shorter than the existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there are no other questions or comments from the Board, we'll entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 57-2012 MASON The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes exterior modification to existing 544 sq. ft. boathouse to include reduction is size down to 450 sq. ft. relocation of access stairs and fagade upgrade. Boathouses in the WR zone require Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief request from extended side setback requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to ZBA; The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2012 & SITE PLAN NO. 71-2012 JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. MASON-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-You're going to see this very shortly under your Site Plan Review. Is there anything that you have questions on that we should do some homework on? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Do you have a Lake George Park Commission? MR. O'CONNOR-Not yet, for the dock. MR. MASON-Not yet. We're waiting for Queensbury before we apply. MR. O'CONNOR-We tried to go to the most important Board. I was there this morning, and I said it differently when I was there this morning. I have to admit. Thank you. MR. MASON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're all set. Thanks. We have an item under Old Business tonight, Subdivision 4-2012 Final Stage for DKC Holdings. Keith? SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2012 FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DKC HOLDINGS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 15.21 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 3.52, 3.95 & 7.74 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 32-12, SP 5-12, SIB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 15.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MR. OBORNE-Yes. DKC Holdings. This is Final subdivision, location Luzerne Road, existing zoning is CLI or Commercial Light Industrial. This is an Unlisted SEAR. You had already accomplished SEAR on 8/28/12. 1 believe the Board is aware of what is going on with this subdivision. We've gone through the process. We've gone through Preliminary. We are at Final. I do not see any applicants here, though, unfortunately. I'm going to go out and check, and with that I shall turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No applicant? MR. OBORNE-I'd recommend that we go ahead and hold off on this until later in the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll postpone discussion on Subdivision 4-2012. We'll move on to New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 66-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 NEMER CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI- COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 728 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,040 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING FOR EXPANSION OF SERVICE AND SHOW ROOM AREAS. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN A Cl ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 49-2011 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 LOT SIZE 3.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-10 SECTION 179-9 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This really isn't New Business either. MR. OBORNE-It's not. No, unfortunately they're not making any changes to their previous site plan, but for the record, I shall read this in. This is Site Plan 66-2012, which is really Site Plan 49-2011, for Nemer, Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge. This is at 728 Quaker Road. Commercial Intensive is the zoning. Again, this is a Type 11 SEAR. No County Impact according to Warren County. Engineering review was previous on 7/13/2011. Project Description: Applicant proposes 1,040 sq. ft. addition to existing building for expansion of service and showroom area. Additionally, the existing 225 square foot vestibule/entrance canopy will be enclosed increasing the total addition square footage to approximately 1,265 square feet. There are two concerns with this from Staff, and these are carryovers from last time. One is that display vehicles are parked within the entranceways and along the front portion of the building, and that reduces the required 20 foot width requirement for emergency vehicles. That's an issue, and display vehicles are parked in the green space along the perimeter. This should be discouraged as soil compaction over time may reduce the permeability. Fire Marshal comments are attached, and they are specific to the sprinkler system that is currently installed on the property, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project. As indicated, it's basically the same project that we had proposed previously. With regard to the comments from the Staff, the three shrubs that were being removed are shown as actually being re-located and we're actually supplying new shrubs in the center area, and the green space on the site. With regard to parking of the vehicles, we, as their design firm, have tried to discourage them. I'm not sure what we do. I don't know how to control them. They took them off last time, and they've slowly crept their way back into those areas. So I don't know if a letter from the Town. MR. OBORNE-Well, the Planning Board can, as a condition of approval, you know, insure that that 20 space emergency access is open and Code compliance will take it from there. MR. JONES-With regard to the sprinkler main, there's a, on the side of the tower, on the left side of the tower, there's an existing fire station connection point for the internal fire sprinkler system. It's the intent, as part of the project, to basically re-locate that to the side of the left tower column, during construction. We have noted on our documents that the existing fire department connection would have to remain in service throughout the construction, and the contractor that's going to be doing the work, the McCormack Group, is aware of that, and the plans that are to be presented to the Town Building Department for the building permit also indicate that as an item of contention on those drawings. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may have. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just be sure that wherever you put it you mark it. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's a standard marking for those. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you want to find it at night. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I agree that we ought to have that stipulation in there, relative to making sure there's access for emergency vehicles. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled tonight. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-We'll open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that no comments were received. This is a Type 11 SEAR. No SEAR review is necessary. Unless there's any additional questions or comments from the Board, we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #66-2012 NEMER, CHRYSLER, JEEP, DODGE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,040 sq. ft. addition to existing building for expansion of service and show room areas. Commercial expansion in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/2012; (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2012 NEMER CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II; 3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 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; 4) 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; 5) And we are adding Item Number Six to the draft proposal from Staff, and that is that a 20 foot right of way will be maintained for emergency vehicles specifically at the entrances. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to reference the previous resolution at all, Keith, is there any value in that? MR. OBORNE-I don't think so, because what Dick had submitted had cleaned all that up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Including the fire and the bushes, and those were really the only issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Without making it a condition of approval, is it appropriate to make a request relative to keeping the vehicles away from the, as Keith mentioned, the (lost words) if we can recommend it, request it, without stipulating it as a requirement. Can we do that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, my understanding is that the public right of way, you know, you shouldn't have vehicles parked in the public right of way. So, I mean, it's a defacto requirement. Whether or not we want to say something in the resolution or further stipulate that. MR. MAGOWAN-How is the best way to enforce it, do you know? Because we asked for it before, they were cleaned out, you know, now they're back here again, and I understand you're trying to catch the eye. What's the best way for the Town to enforce? MR. OBORNE-The only way is to have it as a condition of approval, that Code Compliance can come around and make sure that it's clear. They're not going to do it on a daily basis, but as a condition of approval, at least there's some teeth in that resolution. MR. FORD-I understand that, but I know the enforcement of it is going to be a real challenge. MR. OBORNE-And that's with all car dealerships. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-It's Quaker Road. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I'm the first to say, when you see the bright orange Jeep kind of angled in the gully like that, it looks pretty cool, you know, but do like the Jeep commercial and build the little mountain on the parking lot that's off the public right of way. MR. OBORNE-I'd like to see that. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. JONES-Don't give them any ideas. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that's the commercial on t.v. MR. KREBS-We don't enforce. I mean, we've had other car dealerships. In fact, I went by the other day on Bay Road, and the one that's connected to the florist shop, they have cars out front now, again, and they were supposed to all be on the line. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, they held it to the number, but they moved it right out as far as they could. MR. KREBS-Well, this one was actually out in front of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I noticed that. MR. OBORNE-And there's also other stipulations on previous site plans, but there's one field Code Enforcement Officer in the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've got to do something. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion. Go ahead and call the vote. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-And if you think you're not going to start the project for a year, it's easier to do an extension than to do a new Site Plan. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 K-TWIN FOUR LLC AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CLI-COMMERCIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 343 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING 1,431 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE TO AN OFFICE. CHANGE OF USE IN A CLI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 27-10, BP 08-201, UV 7-91, SP 41-92, UV 126-92, AV 118-92, SP 55-92, SP 13-94, SP 19-94, AV 36-98, AV 54-98, SP 37-98 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-12 SECTION 179-9 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a blast from the past also. This is on Merritt Road, and, let's see, Site Plan 67-2012, K Twin Four LLC is the applicant. This is a change in use in the CLI zone. 343 Corinth Road is the location. CLI is the zoning. Type 11. No further environmental review is needed. No County Impact was issued on 10/23/2012 by Warren County. Project Description: Applicant proposes conversion of a single family residence to Professional Office use associated with the operation of a property maintenance company. The parcel is located on the south side of Corinth Road and is accessed off of Merritt Road. The parcel appears to be vacant. I know that there was a vehicle there on my site visit. I'm not sure what they're using there. It was pretty dilapidated, but waivers have been requested from lighting, grading, stormwater and landscaping. As in the previous application for K Twin Four, the wastewater field appears to be utilized as parking and access to the rear of the property. That is not a favorable practice. Landscaping as per 179-8-050 should be provided. Photometrics, lighting is now downcast cutoff. They're spotlights. There are residential areas, there are residential uses in the immediate area so you may want to pay a little focus on that, and a Type A buffer is required on the south property line, and it appears that the applicant is adhering to that aspect of it. They haven't cleared anything, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones. I'm the architect for the project. Basically it's a single family residence. It was renovated approximately three or four years ago for use for a single resident in, I believe it was about that time the landscape company, Adirondack Resource Management, decided to attempt to make it into a commercial use for their office and store their vehicles on site. We had gone through a site plan review approximately a year and a half ago. They decided at that point, because of the size of the site, that it would not meet their requirements and decided not to go forward with that. So we never submitted the final site plans to the Town. Subsequent to that, K Twin Four has decided to convert it to professional office use and they would like to rent the properties for that type of use. We have since re-submitted the site plan application, indicating that basically everything has remained the same. As Keith had indicated, the lighting on the house has not changed from the residential application that was there. There are two spotlights, one located at the garage on the east face into the parking lot. It does have a motion sensor on it. They had put a sensor on it when they were parking trucks there, and there's another spotlight on the back side of the house, again, toward the parking lot, again with a motion sensor. The lighting around the doorways is comparable to residential type wall sconces. It is not downcast lighting. If need be, we could have them change those out to downcast lighting and actually have them get rid of the spots. They no longer intend to use the site. So it would be traffic that would be basically for the professional office only, and I would imagine it would be hours of eight to five, eight to six, with limited night use. MR. HUNSINGER-Do they have a tenant? MR. JONES-No, they do not. They're going to be trying to lease the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. JONES-No. With regard to the wastewater field, the marks that are on that field right now, they had actually been storing equipment on site. They have moved all that offsite. They had landscape debris in a pile, which I think part of a pile is still on the back side, but they did remove that, most of that from the site, and that's from that wastewater area. The system itself is in good shape. We've had it checked out. We had a company in there pumping the tank and checking it. So it is in operable condition and it isn't that old, the system. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are there a few bricks missing in that chimney? MR. JONES-1 don't know. We haven't looked at the building yet as far as what would be required for conversion to commercial use or professional office use. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You might want to take a look at that. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. It definitely looks like it needs to be repointed. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-That must be a fireplace in there, but you also have a chimney on the center part. MR. JONES-Yes, I believe at one point they had a wood stove in that converted garage area which has since been removed. There's a gas fired furnace which is being used right now for heating of the building, and that's located in the basement of the main house. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that in the center? MR. JONES-Yes. They had like a wood stove in there. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I would say, since you're asking for a, you know, a change in the, you know, to rent it out from a residential into more of a commercial, I think I would ask for the outside lighting to become more Code compliant with the down lighting, just due to the fact if somebody does come in in the evening, or if they, you know, need to get in at night or something you have a light that's always on, more safe for everybody, and not spotty. MR. JONES-Yes. Actually when we had submitted last time, we had proposed changing out the fixtures, and the owner, K Twin, decided, they opted not to do that, but we have fixtures selected. We have a light level plan indicated and everything else. So we basically have done that part of the project. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? I'm always amazed when I go into one of the hardware stores to see the number of light fixtures that are even available, you know, just to the general public. Okay. If there's no questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't see any hands. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing, and if there are no takers, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that no comments were received. This is a Type 11 SEAR so no SEAR review is necessary unless there's an issue that we identify, and with that I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVE SP #67-2012 K TWIN FOUR LLC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes conversion of an existing 1,431 sq. ft. residence to an office. Change of use in a CLI zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2012 K-TWIN FOUR LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type 11; 3) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans 4) 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; 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6) 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; 7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 8) Spotlights to be replaced with downcast lighting. 9) 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. 10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) 11) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 12)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; Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Still no one from DKC Holdings? MR. OBORNE-They are here, but he has requested to go last, because he's last on the agenda with another item. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's fine. SITE PLAN NO. 45-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. OWNER(S) STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., LEEANN MC CANN & GREGG LAPANN ZONING Cl & CLI LOCATION 221 CORINTH ROAD & 481 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) DRIVE-THRU LANES ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED 1,450 SQ. FT. BANK TO BE LOCATED IN EXISTING VACANT SPACE. FURTHER, SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE CONNECTION TO SEWER, PARKING AND DRIVE AISLE RECONFIGURATION AND LANDSCAPING. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION IN A Cl AND CLI ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 5-2001, PZ 2-2001 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 LOT SIZE 2.70, 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25; 309.13-2-22 SECTION 179- CHUCK MARSHALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a commercial expansion in the CI zone and as such requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is 221 Corinth Road and 481 Big Bay Road. Existing zoning is CI and CLI. SEAR status is Unlisted. That's the previous SEAR. Warren County Referral did have a No County Impact, with a stipulation that should be attached. That stipulation is to close down the left turn out onto Corinth Road from the interior of the parcel. They want to try to funnel that left turn traffic to the light, which is a good planning tool. The applicant proposes construction of three drive thru lanes associated with the proposed 1450 square foot bank to be located in existing vacant space. Further, site improvements proposed include connection to sewer, parking and drive aisle reconfiguration, landscaping and building sidewalk work. There are a couple of issues, not anything that is insurmountable, but I would ask the Board to pay particular attention to the lighting. It is a bit hot, to be honest with you, and there's some other general comments on there, one being E&S should be a little bit more robust, and I believe that the engineer has chimed in on that. Septic decommissioning practices should be discussed also. Fire Marshal comments are attached as well as sewer department comments. Again, I would ask the Board to look at the lighting, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MARSHALL-Good evening. I'm Chuck Marshall with Stewarts and with apologies from Tom Lewis who had a conflict with another Board tonight. I know Tom's been before the Board a number of times. We have a bunch of stores in the Town. Our proposal here is we already closed on the property on Big Bay Road. Our proposal is to take over the land, remove the existing structure that's on site, and then reconfigure our parking and do the three bay drive around for the bank. The bank, if you look at the store, we already have the existing vacant space. This will just be the addition of the three bays and then drive around the back of the building, which you're already able to do. These are just some pictures to familiarize yourselves with the property. This is the location of the bank (lost words) and the drive around to come off this side of the building. This fence will be removed and pushed to the property line with our closest neighbor on Big Bay Road. Two important items to note is that these are the two trees that are proposed to remain. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. FORD-Excuse me. So that these Board members can see that, could you hold it up on the main table, please. MR. MARSHALL-Sure. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Tom. Thank you. MR. MARSHALL-Do you want me to go over that again? MR. MAGOWAN-Please. MR. MARSHALL-These are the two trees that are on the site plan that are proposed to remain, with our purchase of this house. This is the existing vacant site on the Stewarts property now. The three bays will come off this side of the building. There already is an existing drive around. We won't be changing that. The fence that you can see along here will be pushed to our nearest neighbor on Big Bay Road, and because we are in a commercial zone, we need permission to remove the trees, and that'll be both for the ability to take the house out, but also where we put the pavement and reconfigure the parking. What you should know is that obviously the numbers get screwy when you're buying more land, but the two percent green space reduction is actually an increase in the square footage, because we are buying more land, and the three percent increase in pavement is just an addition of the green space and building reductions. So there will be a six foot fence to prevent headlights from entering, and along that six foot fence we're proposing a row of arborvitaes. That'll shield our neighbors, and with that we're going to LED lighting. So, it should be a down lit lighting and hopefully prevent light escape. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Questions, comments from members of the Board? I'll jump in first, then. I got real confused with the lighting. Especially when we were given the cut sheet for the approved lighting and it didn't match up with the existing, and the existing and the proposed didn't line up at all. So I got real confused as to where we're at with that. MR. MARSHALL-I think that has to do with the fact that our tenant's going to be a bank, and banks, under New York State law, have specific lighting requirements that they have to meet. We'll be using their lighting cut sheet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I took a look at, even away from the addition, but if you look at the lighting plan, I mean, you might have just explained it by saying you're going to put in LED lights. Are you replacing all of the existing lighting? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. We're replacing all the soffit lighting and the lighting on the canopy. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes sense, then, because I took a look at the existing lighting and compared it to the proposed, and, I mean, just under the gas canopy, the proposed is, well, it's different. Some numbers are higher. Some numbers are lower. It was kind of hard to tell if the overall was hotter or dimmer. I couldn't really tell. So I think that was part of what really confused me when I was looking at it was to see the changes. MR. TRAVER-I think the State regulations regarding banking facilities only applies to the vicinity of the ATM. MR. MARSHALL-The ATM. MR. OBORNE-And also the night depositories, also. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, you've got some spots under the drive thru at 47 and 30 and 48. That seems fairly excessive to me. I also don't remember what other banks that we've approved, how bright those areas were. MR. MARSHALL-Unfortunately this is my first bank. I do a lot of Stewarts, but banks. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you guys did a great job on the Stewarts on Route 9, upper Route 9, Upper Glen Street. I mean, I go into that drive in all the time, not so much at night, but I drive by there all the time at night and it doesn't seem to be excessive. Do you know how that would compare to what's proposed here, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, I don't have the plans in front of me. I would say,just based on the numbers, that it is quite a bit hotter. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Because that was one of the first sites where, at least for Stewarts in Queensbury, where you used LED lighting. MR. TRAVER-Right. Yes, I remember that. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think we all liked it. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We were always worried about the angle, that you wouldn't be able to get in and get your gas and get out without mowing somebody down, but, no, that's not the case. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It works out pretty good. MR. MARSHALL-Unfortunately my expertise isn't in, I mean, I don't know any remedy or I don't, besides from dealing with the bank, I know there was a back and forth between our office and theirs about the lighting, but I don't know of any, this is kind of the lighting we propose for all of our new stores. So whenever we do a soffit replacement, we do the upgrade to LED. When we upgrade the soffit to LED, we do the canopies and the pole lights, just so it matches. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. MR. MARSHALL-And I don't get complaints from neighbors and, you know, municipalities and things like that since we've gone to the LED. It's a cleaner light. I think it's a nicer light. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I do, too. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. MARSHALL-I don't know, unfortunately, though, how to measure or, you know, remedy a hot spot or something like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the highest spots are underneath the canopy and I'm thinking that big square box there underneath the canopy for the bank says the ATM. MR. MARSHALL-That is the ATM. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We had the same question with the structure across the street. Remember? MR. OBORNE-That's correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because that has to conform to the bank, they have very specific rules about lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-They weren't using LED lights, though, were they? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, they weren't. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It would have been better if they were, but they weren't. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Did you have any comments on the engineering, on the engineer's letter? MR. MARSHALL-To be honest, I don't even have a copy of the engineer's letter. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Probably didn't come out until Friday. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. OBORNE-That is correct. Did you get Staff Notes? They certainly were e-mailed. I know that, to Jennifer, and if you don't have them there. MR. MARSHALL-I probably have the Staff Notes in my e-mail, but I do not, I do not have a copy with my packet. MR. OBORNE-Yes, the engineering is attached to the Staff Notes, typically, and we e-mail them out. MR. MARSHALL-I did receive a phone call from the sewer department and as I noted in the description of the project, we are handling that as a separate application to the Department because it's not contingent on our Site Plan approval. When we do remove the existing septic, it'll be after we tie into the Town sewer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Seeing that you didn't get a copy of that, we could just say you're going to conform to that. MR. FORD-But go ahead and read it anyway. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. I don't think I need to tell the Board that we try and be as good a neighbor and as good an applicant as anyone in the business. So, anything that's addressed in this letter, I will make sure to address as we move forward, and I also, on a complete unrelated note, I know Mr. Doty personally. So I can work with him. MR. KREBS-Well, and also the resolution that we have prepared by Staff says engineering signoff required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator for the approved plans. So it will be a requirement. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Well, yes, I mean, that goes without saying. It's all about the comfort level that the Board has so, you know, moving forward. I do not have, and I don't want to slow this project down, but it is deficient in some areas, specifically in bold type. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And it really, my focus is on lighting. You have a lot of spillage going over property lines. So, and not a lot, but some, and that's pretty rare. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-What about the issue with the access to the, or exit to where the traffic light is? I think you mentioned that, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Corinth Road, the specific stipulation was the County wanted a right in/right out on Corinth Road, and that would force anybody who needs to make a left to obviously go to the light, and that's a safer movement, obviously. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They could just closed down the left side of it, so you can't make a left. MR. OBORNE-Well, you could put signage up. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Some people can't read that sign. MR. FORD-Or don't follow it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's like the diner. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. We'll gladly put a sign up that'll tell people no left turn, and then I'll bet you on any Saturday you can go there and watch people make left turns. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's exactly what'll happen. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, but we'll do it if you tell us to. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. OBORNE-If you stop 10 people a day from doing it, I think it's a positive. MR. KREBS-Right. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. OBORNE-Of the 150 that are going to do it. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. No, no, no, I agree. It's one of those things that it's obviously beyond your control and it's definitely beyond ours, and we do this all the time. We put up no left signs, you know, and just watch people make left turns, but as long as they're buying coffee. MR. MAGOWAN-And then you've got everybody coming straight across. I've seen a lot of people come straight across from Rhode Island or whatever road that is across the street. MR. FORD-Curbing helps. MR. OBORNE-Yes, obviously you could put in a traffic control device. You could put in a pork chop, so to speak. I mean, there are ways to remedy it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Those create plowing problems, though. MR. OBORNE-Not if they're mountable. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MARSHALL-That's not a particularly wide entrance to begin with, though. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. I mean, the big issue that I have the most concerns with is, as Keith had mentioned, is lighting, and I'm just not sure how we address that this evening. MR. FORD-I wouldn't be uncomfortable to have them come back with a lighting design that is compliant. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, like was said, you know, the codes for the laws in the banking for lighting, any bank you drive by is, Bank of America on Quaker Road, I mean, that thing is just, looks like Fort Knox in the middle of the night with the ATM. I think one of the reasons it's so high underneath the canopy is the canopy is so low, but, you know, it does spill off kind of quickly, but I guess you guys feel it doesn't spill off quick enough. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you wondering why the canopy's that high? That's for an armored truck in there, like they did to the bank on Quaker and took it down with the truck. MR. MAGOWAN-Is that what it was? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems to me like it's brighter than other projects that we approved. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, could we. MR. MARSHALL-Well, here's my, I mean, obviously I'm the applicant. I'll comply with whatever you guys tell me. My concern is that we didn't, it wasn't our intention to go to LED lighting except to comply with the tenant. So we don't have LED lighting there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. MARSHALL-The issue would be with making sure that it's compliant with the bank. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if it's LED or sodium or, you know, metal halide, what we need to do is put the, see if we can't get it lowered, but also keep the bank in compliance with their codes. MR. FORD-Right. MR. OBORNE-And I think that's the first step is to figure out what the banking law is, and I know, a year and a half ago, it was 15 foot candles. That's, and I don't know if it's changed or not. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We just did one across the street. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, and it was 15 foot candles. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that what it was? Well, then that's what it is. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that's a minimum. That's a minimum. MR. HUNSINGER-And we did the Stewarts on Upper Glen, and that's all LED lighting. MR. OBORNE-You may want to direct them to dust that off and if that works for the Board, you know, because you know that's a site that's existing. It's similar. MR. HUNSINGER-Although it might be different if the canopy isn't as tall. MR. OBORNE-That's true. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, it could be the same light fixture and just be a little lower and maybe that's why it appears brighter. I don't know. MR. FORD-As more and more discussion goes on, I still would feel more comfortable with them coming back in with a proposed lighting plan. MR. MARSHALL-And to make it easier for you guys, and obviously for us in the future, what I'll do is I'll do a comparison to the canopy height at other locations, and to see if we have the photometric layout, you know, photometric plans from those proposed projects, and then I'll come back. It's not a big deal. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. MARSHALL-This is considerably closer than Watertown. MR. KREBS-You could look at the Route 9 lighting, because that seems to be acceptable to everybody. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, and if we could all take a close look at that, too, you know, between now and the next meeting. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It's easy now when it's dark early. MR. OBORNE-Yes, exactly, and, I mean, the main issue, well, not the main issue, but one of the issues is, and I would suggest to the Board to direct the applicant to do this, is to figure out exactly what the lighting code states for banks. MR. FORD-That's why we're sending him back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's really what you have to do. MR. FORD-It's got to be Code Compliant, both with Queensbury and also with the State banking regs. MR. OBORNE-And keep in mind, these photometric plans, they're a basis, a jumping off point. It's not strict, you know, interpretation of it. It's a standard. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let's pick a date here. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-What are the two meetings in November? MR. OBORNE-It's either the 18th or the 20th of December. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you have a preference, 18th or 20th of December? MR. OBORNE-That's a Tuesday/Thursday. MR. HUNSINGER-Tuesday or a Thursday. MR. MARSHALL-Are you guys in better moods on? MR. HUNSINGER-We don't usually meet on Thursdays. MR. FORD-Than we are tonight, you mean, by comparison? MR. HUNSINGER-Is it likely that we'll need two meetings in December? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, because I know in years past we've tried to steer everything to the first meeting and, being optimistic that we might not need a second. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I was pushing for a Tuesday the 25th meeting, too, but that's probably not going to go over well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Probably not. MR. MARSHALL-No, I'll come on the 18tH MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, the main reason is to. MR. MARSHALL-Just address the photometric. MR. HUNSINGER-Present a new lighting plan, but you can certainly address the engineering comments as well. MR. MARSHALL-So, while I'm here, I guess I have to ask, there are two questions I'd like to ask, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. MARSHALL-The first question being, we, it's our intention to donate the house. Would we be able to, because you only seem to have a problem with the photometric part, would we be able to move, we need Site Plan approval to remove the trees to move the house. Would you guys be able to grant that as part of this? MR. OBORNE-That's a good question. Certainly can move the house. That's a demo permit. That you can do. MR. MARSHALL-Okay, but we need to move the trees to get the crane in to move the house. MR. OBORNE-Wow. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You mean the ones at the corner there, which you're going to take out anyhow? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, we'll be taking those out anyhow. MR. OBORNE-1 wouldn't have a problem with it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I don't have a problem with that, because he's got to do it anyhow. MR. FORD-It's got to be done sooner or later. MR. MARSHALL-And honestly the construction of the drive around and stuff like that isn't going to take place until we tie into the sewer and things like that. So that's, you know. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. OBORNE-Just to let the Board know, and for your edification, I mean, you really can't do any grading or removal on commercial properties without Planning Board approval. Now you could say, and I would suggest that you do this, in your tabling motion, that you are going to allow them to do that. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That would cover me. MR. HUNSINGER-Remove the trees? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. MARSHALL-So, while we're on the removal of trees subject, these two trees, this one and this one, which easier seen, are this one and this one, can you guys see that over there? The contractor who is going to be moving the house said he does not believe that they'll be an obstruction. If those trees are an obstruction, could they be removed and re-planted or removed and replaced with trees of equivalent kind? MR. OBORNE-That's the ones that you planned on keeping with the plan? MR. MARSHALL-We originally, with site plan, originally, he had said that he does not intend on needing to move them, because if he does the fence along the side of the house with the trees, he should be able to get the crane in, and that would be fine. My concern is I've never seen a house move easily, and if for some reason they knock them over or if they need to take them down, I don't want to be in conflict with the Code. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Can you replace them? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, that's what I just said. If we, if, in the event of construction, we took them down, we would replace them and make an equivalent tree. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, you do it as part of Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-It seems reasonable. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I have no problem. MR. OBORNE-I don't think that's an issue, but again, I would ask that you add that to any tabling resolution. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What are the dates for November? MR. OBORNE-November? We have a meeting on the 15th and the 27th of November. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Thursday before and the Tuesday after. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. KREBS-Okay. This is what I have here. I said we are allowing tree removal to allow demo of house. Trees removed will be replaced at a new location. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If the trees are removed. MR. OBORNE-Well, you have two separate issues. You have two trees that have to be removed, and then you have two trees that are currently existing that they want to keep with the Site Plan, but if for some reason they need to be removed, they're offering to replace them regardless. MR. MARSHALL-I mean, I'm not telling you what to do, but the two trees along Big Bay Road are the two trees that we would replace in kind, if damaged, but the trees along the property line with our existing store are proposed to be removed and will not be replaced. MR. KREBS-Okay. Trees along Big Bay Road, if removed, will replaced at a new location. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. FORD-And we're granting permission, in advance, for them to take out the other trees. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. KREBS-Right. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, that's my thinking is, is that the house is going to go more this way than just straight across. MR. OBORNE-These two are the ones in question that may get damaged? MR. MARSHALL-No, no. They're an existing tree. MR. OBORNE-Okay. So which are the ones that may get damaged? MR. MARSHALL-These two. MR. OBORNE-And which are the ones that need to be removed? MR. MARSHALL-These. MR. FORD-I would feel more comfortable if we could specify the number of trees that we're definitely approving to be removed. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it easier to show it on the site plan than the photo. MR. MARSHALL-Well, I mean, unfortunately on the site plan it's just in the, on the site plan it just shows the tree bed. It doesn't, the number of trees isn't correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MARSHALL-It shows two here and there's four, and then it shows these four. MR. OBORNE-These guys here, well, I believe are the ones that may get damaged. MR. MARSHALL-The two trees that are the ones that might get damaged are this one and this one, and then I believe there's four of these evergreens, and then I don't know if that's a Box Maple or a, I don't know. My experience with trees is far less than my experience with other stuff. MR. FORD-Photometrics? MR. OBORNE-Do you anticipate, is it anticipated, if I could ask, is it anticipated that you're going to want to move this house ASAP? We can't wait? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. We did make application, I think the water is disconnected currently. It's a septic system. So that's been capped, or will be capped when we move the house, but the biggest issue is that we have applied to National Grid for a disconnect, and unfortunately they are slow. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the question Keith's asking is are you going to want to move the house before you're going to come back to the Board for Site Plan? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I'm sorry. MR. OBORNE-It's a priority, I mean? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, moving the house is a priority. The foundation has already been poured, it's going to another property. MR. OBORNE-The foundation for the, I see. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're moving it to a foundation that's already in place. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Nearby? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's good, because it'll take a while to get it there. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-So, let me think. How would we, would we just pass a motion saying that it's okay to remove some trees? MR. OBORNE-1 think a blanket one would be okay, a blanket motion, instead of specifying the trees. Any trees to be removed associated with the house removal. MR. HUNSINGER-We're going to table the site plan so we can deal with the photometric, the lighting plan. Can we approve a tree piece? I mean, we don't usually do that. MR. OBORNE-1 think we can. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If it's part of the tabling motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There you go. We'll make it part of the tabling motion. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right, and we're tabling it to the 18th RESOLUTION TABLING SP#45-2012 STEWARTS SHOPS CORP. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of three (3) drive-thru lanes associated with a proposed 1,450 sq. ft. bank to be located in existing vacant space. Further, site improvements to include connection to sewer, parking, and drive aisle reconfiguration and landscaping. Commercial expansion in a CI and CLI zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/2012; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2012 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Tabled to December 18th, so that they can provide us with lighting plans and restrictions that are required by the State for under the canopies. We are also adding to this the fact that we are allowing tree removal to allow demo of the house. Trees along Big Bay, if removed, will be replaced in the same location. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2012, by the following vote: MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're not demoing the house, you're moving it, right? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, but that's demo by Code. MR. KREBS-It's considered demo. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I think the trees if damaged are going to be replaced in the same location, not a new location. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Those two, yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the lighting is to meet the banking laws. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MARSHALL-The family that's receiving the house appreciates you guys and the flexibility on that, and Stewarts does not have any problem, you know, coming back for the photometrics. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I would like to see curbing added to that right only location. MR. OBORNE-1 was going to ask you that. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can do that at site plan. MR. KREBS-Yes, we can do that at site plan. MR. FORD-Well, if they can come in with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You're telling him, though, not making it part of the motion. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months. MR. MARSHALL-Thank you, gentlemen. SITE PLAN NO. 68-2012 SEAR TYPE II FRANK ARCURI OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-5 LOCATION OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,119 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50' OF 15% SLOPES REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 12-331 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 LOT SIZE 10.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-79 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-060 FRANK ARCURI, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is Frank Arcuri, construction within 50 foot of 15% slopes requires Planning Board review and approval. The location is Old West Mountain Road, RR-5, SEAR status is Type 11. Applicant proposes construction of a 3119 square foot single family dwelling. The applicant has requested waivers from lighting and landscaping requirements of site plan review, which makes sense for a residential structure. You had a very similar application before you last month. That was tabled because it had a lot of issues with it. This one not so much, but again, you have to have a level of comfort. Staff has no issues. I feel that this is between engineers, and there's really not a site plan aspect to it. So, with that, you may want to consider that during your deliberations, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. ARCURI-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. ARCURI-My name is Frank Arcuri and I'm here this evening to get my site plan review approved for a building permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else that you wanted to make sure that we understood or knew before we ask questions? MR. ARCURI-No, thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Some of it was just clarification, you know, specifying seed mix and application rates, silt fencing. Construction specs. MR. KREBS-Well, the resolution has Item Six, engineering signoff required. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-So it'll be up to you to go to the engineer and work out those details, so that when you give them the final set of drawings those are on the drawings. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this one wasn't anywhere near as bad as the one we had last month, in terms of slope and. (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. OBORNE-Yes, and it is a stable site. I did visit the site and I walked it. It is stable. You has a nice road bed in already, I mean he's in pretty good shape. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing, and if there are no comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. It was identified that we have outstanding engineering issues, but if there are any other site plan related issues that anyone on the Board has? Okay. Then it's a Type II SEAR. So if there are no questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #68-2012 FRANK ARCURI A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,119 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Construction within 50' of 15% slopes requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-2012 FRANK ARCURI, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type II SEAR; 3) Waiver requests granted: landscaping & lighting plans 4) 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; 5) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 6) 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; 7) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 8) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 9) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 10) 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; 11)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; Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. You just have to satisfy the Town Engineer. If you guys can't agree, although I'm sure you'll be able to, you can always come back and get further clarification from the Planning Board, but. MR. ARCURI-Okay. Thank you very much for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Good luck. MR. ARCURI-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 69-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NAT HILL PROPERTIES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 38 EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION IS TO RESIZE A 100' BY 60' COLD STORAGE BUILDING TO AN 80' X 80' COLD STORAGE BUILDING. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 65-10, SP 17-08, FW 6-08, SP 3-04, AV 2-04 WARREN CO. TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Another blast from the past here. Now, I will say that, and (lost words) the applicant has requested that the Planning Board consider a revision to the submitted site plan. Applicant intends to place the building along the rear building setback; building would still be considered compliant with this change. The Fire Marshal has reviewed this request as well as the Zoning Administrator and no issues have arisen as a result. Final submitted plans, if approved by this board will reflect the revised placement of the building; please see attached rendering. Site Plan 69-2012, Nat Hill Properties is the applicant. This is a modification to an approved site plan. 38 East Quaker Service Road is the location. CI is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEAR. I would ask the Board to re-affirm SEAR, unless you feel that there's a need to re-open. Warren County Referral is a No County Impact in October. Project Description: Applicant proposes a modification to a previously approved site plan. Modification is to resize a 100' x 60' cold storage building to an 80' x 80' (6,400 sq. ft.) cold storage building. Associated stormwater and E&S has been revised. I am looking for some clarification on the location of the wall packs to be installed if at all possible. I think that's a huge issue. Additional comments: Landscaping approved in 2008 has not been installed as per the Zoning Administrator's direction. Specifically, shrubs along front property line are not there. The trees associated with the landscaping plan back in '08 have been installed along west side property line as per Zoning Administrator. So I think all Craig's looking for is some of the shrubbery that was associated with the original site plan. Site visit has revealed display vehicles also located within the town R.O.W. Approval will be required from both the Town Highway Department and Planning Board for this change to approved plan. Plans to be updated accordingly. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and Glenn Kelsey of Sportline Honda, or Sportline Power Products. I don't have a whole lot to add. I think Keith 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) covered the items fairly well. I believe the landscaping was signed off on back in 2008 with the modification of the shrubbery in the front and the location of the trees. GLENN KELSEY MR. KELSEY-Well, 2010 on the as built. MR. NACE-There are a couple of engineering comments that I think are merely a lack of their having the previous Site Plan Review to look at at the same time. We can certainly clarify those and answer those if you have any problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. OBORNE-I would add, according to my sources, which would be the Code Compliance Officer Bruce Frank, he has not signed off on it. So I'm not sure where that comes from. MR. KELSEY-Keith, the only thing I can tell you is we had an as built that was done before our occupancy was issued for this, the CO, and Bruce came out and he looked at several things specifically, okay, he looked at the plantings, okay, and he also looked at the location and size of the ponds because that had to be changed slightly because of the granite, and everything was approved, and then we got our CO. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Fine. If he signed off on the Site Plan Inspection Report, it's not an issue. MR. KELSEY-Okay. I mean, I've got the plans right here and these are the as builts, and that's what the CO was issued on. MR. OBORNE-The CO and Code Compliance are different. They're two different issues. MR. KELSEY-Well, again, Staff was out there. That's all I can say. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-We're talking shrubs. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Questions, comments from the Board? I thought it looked pretty straightforward myself. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any comments on the engineering comments? They seemed pretty minor. MR. NACE-I think they're minor. We can, you know, the drainage patterns have not changed. The hard surface areas remained the same as it was in your original approval. It's just the shape and the size of the building has changed slightly and the location. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open the public hearing. Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show that no comments were received. Any concerns with the previous Neg Dec SEAR review? Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KREBS-Is this a Type II? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was an Unlisted action. We did a Neg Dec in 2010. So we can just re-affirm the SEAR finding, the previous SEAR finding. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #69-2012 NAT HILL PROPERTIES A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to a previously approved site plan. Modification is to resize a 100' x 60' cold storage building to an 80' x 80' cold storage building. Modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/23/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-2012 NAT HILL PROPERTIES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions: 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) There was a previous Negative SEAR Declaration and we are re-affirming that 3) 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; 4) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 5) 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; 6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; 7) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 8) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 9) 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; 10)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; Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. NACE-Thank you. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-All right. We'll go back to Old Business SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2012 FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DKC HOLDINGS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Subdivision 4-2012. This is Final subdivision for the Commercial Light Industrial project. You have already completed the. MR. HUNSINGER-SEAR. MR. OBORNE-And quite frankly, I think I already introduced this into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-You did. Okay. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace representing DKC Holdings. MR. HUNSINGER-We didn't have any conditions or anything. It was just you had to file the final subdivision and come back. MR. NACE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So we can skip the easy stuff and just jump right to questions if there are any. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. NACE-You guys could have done this without me here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, I was going to offer. There's no public hearing even, and we already did SEAR. So all we need is a motion, unless there's, again, any questions or comments. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STAGE SUB #4-2012 DKC HOLDINGS A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 15.21 acre parcel into 3 lots of 3.52, 3.95, & 7.74 acres respectively. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/28/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2012 DKC HOLDINGS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions: a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration on 8/28/2012; c) Waiver requests granted on 8/28/2012; d) 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; e) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, 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; 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) h) As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I did have one issue I wanted to bring up, and that is, we don't really need to do it on the record, but it's as it relates to member's access to their Town e-mail accounts. I guess there's some confusion about who has it, who doesn't have it. I know at least one member said he's having problems with it still, but most others don't. MR. OBORNE-My first question would be, who has problems with it? MR. TRAVER-I don't. Yes, let's poll the Board. I have no problem. I had a problem the first time I logged on. I gave Keith a call and he held his palm over the phone and all of a sudden it worked, and since then it's been perfect. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I went over to see Keith, and mine doesn't work. MR. SIPP-1 can get it, but I can't download it. MR. OBORNE-You can't open any files? MR. HUNSINGER-That's the problem Paul has. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think we should thank the students for staying here. They're the first group of students that ever stayed to the end of the meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they always cut out early. MR. FORD-Normally we're here until 11 o'clock. MR. MAGOWAN-That's right. You guys lucked out tonight. MR. OBORNE-Chris, I'll circle around to them and make sure that they get access to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Personally I wouldn't mind receiving it on my personal account. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I wouldn't, either. That's the way I'd rather have it. MR. OBORNE-Chris, I guess the long and short of it is I'll pay some attention to the two members that are having problems. MR. HUNSINGER-Paul and Don, if you could just contact Keith and maybe follow up with Ryan if you need to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I've got an issue with the phone on my e-mail, too, but I think it's my computer. When I start playing with the e-mail here, I lose it at home on the computer. MS. GAGLIARDI-Are we adjourned? MR. HUNSINGER-No, sorry. Okay. Since the meeting has kind of deteriorated to open discussion, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2012, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: (Queensbury Planning Board 10/23/2012) Duly adopted this 23 d day of October, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, everybody. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 28