Loading...
01-15-2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 2013 INDEX Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 1. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8 Site Plan No. 42-2012 Daniel & Ellen Nichols 2. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19 Site Plan No. 77-2012 Marcia Parker 2. Tax Map No. 316.5-1-8 Site Plan No. 1-2013 Lori Florian 3. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 289.7-2-7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 24 Subdivision No. 1-2013 Hayes & Hayes 5. PRELIM & SKETCH STAGE Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No. 5-2012 LARIC Development, LLC (Cont'd Pg. 18) 8. PRELIM. STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 & 7.1 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 55-2012 Thomas & Mary Beth Babcock 10. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-12 Site Plan No. 75-2012 Cheryl Daniels 13. Tax Map No. 316.9-1-3 Special Use Permit No. 3-2012 Robert L. Perkins 16. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-4.1, 4.4 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 01/15/2013) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER GEORGE FERONE, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening, everyone. I will call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, January 15th, 2013. For members of the audience, do you have copies of the agenda on the back table, Craig? MR. BROWN-There are. MR. HUNSINGER-There's copies of the agenda on the back table. We have several public hearings scheduled this evening. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. If you're here to speak at a public hearing we can talk about how those procedures go when we get to the items with public hearings scheduled. We have several administrative items. The first one is approval of minutes from November 15th and 27th. Would anyone like to move those? APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 15, 2013 November 27, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15TH AND NOVEMBER 27TH, 2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Under discussion, I guess I should ask if there are any corrections first. I never do that. I just assume we'll pass them. I guess we'll do the roll call, Craig. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-We actually have an addition to Administrative Items. There was Site Plan 62-2012 that was tabled to this evening for Kirk Roberts. Is there anyone in the audience here for that project? We had tabled it from November to tonight, pending submission of additional information. None was submitted. Have you heard anything from the applicant at all, Craig? MR. BROWN-No, we've had some conversations about some alternatives on the site, or alternate proposals, but no submittal, no anything in a while. So we did prepare a draft resolution for you that you basically tabled it to a date and you're asking us to send them a letter asking them the status and let him know you might deny this if you don't come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did everyone get a copy of the draft resolution? MR. BROWN-No, we just did it this afternoon. MR. KREBS-Are you ready? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, whenever you are. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,612 sq. ft. single family residence with a 576 sq. ft. detached garage. Construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes requires Planning Board review and approval. SEQR Type II-no further review is necessary; Warren County recommendation on 9/6/2012-No County Impact; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/2012, tabled to 11/15/2012, and further tabled to 1/15/2013-public hearing left open. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Tabled to March 19th with a February 15th submittal date. Planning staff shall send the applicant a letter requesting status of the project. If this letter is not received by February 15, 2013 the Planning Board may deny the project without prejudice. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-The only thing we need is to table it to when. MR. BROWN-Yes. I would table it to the March 19th date, with a February 15th submittal. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's a good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Works for me. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Similar with Site Plan 42-2012 Daniel & Ellen Nichols. It was tabled to this evening. We're still waiting for a signoff from Office of Parks Recreation. I'm sorry, we got that. MR. BROWN-We got that. I guess the only outstanding items on that are engineering comments. We haven't received any engineering responses yet. So I would suggest maybe a similar tabling with a similar deadline to allow them to get something in before, March 19th with a February 15th deadline. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to move that? MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. RESOLUTION TABLING SP#42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Tabled to March 19th with a February 15th submittal date. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SP 77-2012 MARCIA PARKER: FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-The next one is Site Plan 77-2012 for Marcia Parker. That also we were suggesting we table that. Have we received any new information there? MR. BROWN-No. I would do the same treatment with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. March 19tH MR. KREBS-So moved for March 19tH RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 77-2012 MARCIA PARKER MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2012 MARCIA PARKER, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to March 19th with a February 15th submittal date. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-With all these the public hearings will be held open as well. MR. KREBS-Yes. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have three items under Item Three which are recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-2013 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LORI FLORIAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3A RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3-ACRE MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION EAST SIDE OF TEE HILL RD., OFF MOON HILL RD. & OFF YORKSHIRE DR. SITE PLAN; APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REVISE BOUNDARY LINES OF SIX(6) EXISTING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS TO CREATE (5) BUILDING LOTS IN A CLUSTER LAYOUT WHICH WILL BE ACCESSED BY NEW PRIVATE ROAD. EXISTING HOUSE AND ACCESSORY GARAGE LOCATED AT 92 TEE HILL ROAD WILL BE RETAINED AS ONE LOT. DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE AND SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 1-12, SP 51-10, SIB 1-71 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2013 LOT SIZE 17.44 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-2-7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 24 SECTION 179-3-040(A)(2)(b) 179-6-060(A)(1)(a) MATT STEVES & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig, if you want to introduce the, summarize the Staff Notes. MR. BROWN-Yes. There's not really anything new other than the Staff Notes, but this is, I guess, a unique situation where there are existing lots, and the plan is to reconfigure the lots into, I guess, a more developable, if that's a word, layout, with a private drive and some substandard lots with regard to the lot size and road frontage. There's a couple of small setback relief requests, and those are the variances that are in play tonight, setback relief, lot size and road frontage. So it's, there's really nothing new here, other than the SHPO thing might come up. Actually, I think these guys have got that taken care of. They had it taken care of before. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Before I turn it over to the applicant, I just want to state for the record, for those members of the Planning Board, members of the audience who reviewed the project, my wife owns property next door to the applicant. I'm not on the title at all. We no longer live in that house, and I just want to state that for the record. I don't feel that there's any conflict there, but just for the record I just wanted to disclose that. So, with that, I'll turn it over to the applicant. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with VanDusen & Steves, and Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering representing Lori Florian on this application. As Staff has stated, this is property, existing parcels on the east side of Tee Hill Road, being six existing parcels, and the proposal is to basically reconfigure those six parcels, one of them being the existing house lot to enlarge it going to the north to include the barn that's on that piece there, as you can see, and leave that one with the garage barn and the house, and then reconfigure the other five into more suitable building sites with one access points, instead of having, I think there's three tax parcels now, or two, yes, three tax parcels that front on the road. Instead of having separate driveways coming in off of the road, this will be able to utilize a central private drive, reconfiguring the lots, as you can see on the drawing on the right is the existing configuration, and again on the left would be the proposed. All the lots would then front on a private road, as Staff has stated because of the way the road frontage of 400 feet, requirements for lot width and road frontage would be required for variance, the full topography has been completed on this. The grading plan has been completed. The proposed house sites, four of the new proposed houses would meet all the required setbacks of the RR-3 Acre zone. The two lots being the two closest to Tee Hill Road would require variances for the setbacks just because of the 100 foot and the 75 foot that are imposed in the RR-3 Acre zone, and we do understand, when it comes to that point, if it comes to that point, that those two structures that are proposed might not be exactly what's built, and therefore we would have to come back in every year for a re-approval or an extension of those variances until such time as the house was constructed on those lots, but if you're looking through your packet you can see we tried to set the most suitable location up with the rough grading plan for a typical house on each one of those five new sites, and that would leave it open to any questions the Board may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-How long would that road turn out to be? MR. DOBIE-For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. It's right at 575 feet in total length, 18 foot of width. We're trying to design to a low impact development, in accordance with the new DEC design manual, and we're utilizing that little turnaround onto Lot Four to meet our Fire Code turnaround and it will serve as a driveway. So it helps to reduce the impervious surface at the site. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but you've got a 500, the Fire Code is 500 feet, and you don't want to get a variance for 75 feet, but if you put a turnaround in there. MR. STEVES-And that turnaround is just before the 500 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That will do it. MR. TRAVER-You say the turnaround is going to be used as a driveway? MR. STEVES-Off of the end of that turnaround. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I was going to say, because if it's being used as a driveway, it wouldn't be much of a turnaround, would it? MR. STEVES-No, it's the, the driveway would extend, if you look on the plan, off the end of the turnaround, the turnaround is shaded in darker, then the driveway comes off of there with its own turnaround on the proposed driveway, so that it would not be impeded or interfered with any emergency vehicles. MR. KREBS-Is that sufficient to allow for a snowplow to turn around in the wintertime? MR. STEVES-This would be a private road and the size of a plow to be used on an 18 foot road, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you going to be bringing any fill in? Or is it all just cut and fill? MR. DOBIE-No, the plan is to bring this central portion of the site down a couple of feet and grade out the sandpit areas and bring everything in. Fill is somewhat prohibitively expensive to bring on to the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DOBIE-I think we have enough to work with on the site to blend it all in. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any concerns with the variance request specifically? I'm really surprised on the Sherwood Acres subdivision that they left that small lot like that. Or was that not part of Sherwood Acres subdivision? Do you know? MR. STEVES-The small triangular piece? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-1 don't believe that was part of that. I don't think so. MR. DOBIE-As I recall, Mr. Chairman, digging through, we dug through this Sherwood Acres original subdivision plat and that was like some of the leftovers off the back of the lots that the applicant acquired back in the early 80's. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess my feeling is you're taking six lots and making it five. So even though they are substandard, you know, it's still larger than what it was, and most of those lots, even though it's three acre zoning, most of those lots on Tee Hill aren't that big. I mean, ours was less than, the old house I lived in was less than three-quarters of an acre. MR. STEVES-1 believe the smallest lot is just over two acres, 2.01 or 2.02. MR. HUNSINGER-And you're able to maintain large lots in the back. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is, you know, in keeping with the neighborhood. Any specific concerns with the variance requests that we need to consider? If there's no further comments, we'll entertain a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 1-13 LORI FLORIAN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to revise boundary lines of six (6) existing contiguous parcels to create five (5) building lots in a cluster layout which will be accessed by new private road. Existing house and accessory garage located at 92 Tee Hill Road will be retained as one lot. Development and grading within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from lot size, width, road frontage and setback relief from the RR-3A zoning district. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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. 1-2013 LORI FLORIAN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2013 SKETCH & PRELIMINARY STAGE REVIEW SEAR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) APPLICANT ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL IHOD-INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATION DIXON ROAD SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 8.47 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE (3) RESIDENTIAL LOTS CONSISTING OF A 7.44 ACRE LOTS WITH EXISTING DUPLEX APARTMENTS; TWO (2) NEW 0.51 ACRE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN A NR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE 500 FT. SETBACK OF THE IHOD (INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT). PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT SEAR REVIEW AND MAY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 2-12, SP 80-10 APA, CEA, OTHER NYS DEC LOT SIZE 8.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. This is, if you remember a couple of years ago you guys did a site plan review for seven duplexes or essentially fourteen units on this parcel. This is the remaining roughly one acre or some of the remaining land, approximately one acre of it, that fronts on Dixon Avenue or Dixon Road. They're looking to create two half acre parcels, which is the minimum lot size in the NR zone when you don't have water and sewer. These parcels have water but no sewer. So the half acre lot size is something that there's density for. This kind of maxes out the density so there's really no more development that would fit per Code on the property. So the variances, or the variance is for, in 2011 the Town Board adopted the Interstate Highway Overlay Zone which basically says you can't do any residential subdivisions within 500 feet of the Northway, and this property, basically the entire property, falls within that setback. So that's the variance they're asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Nace and Mickie Hayes and Jaime Hayes is here as well. Craig really summed it up, but when we were here two years ago, seeking approval of the 14 duplexes that were constructed, it was discussed and disclosed at that point that the density still allowed for two more units, and in the public hearings the neighbors talked about the single family nature of Dixon Road. So Mickie felt that it would probably be more palatable to the neighbors if we proposed two single family homes on separate subdivided lots rather than constructing a duplex. Although obviously they could construct a duplex and avoid the need for a variance, but it seems that this is more in character with Dixon Road and we expect we'll make the neighbors happier, but, I mean, they could go either way, but it would be nicer to have two single family homes. So that's really the extent of it. In terms of that highway overlay about no subdivisions within 500 feet, it's just an unusual provision because it doesn't say you can't have residences. You just can't subdivide. So there's no prohibition on duplex, but there is on creating the separate lots. So that's really it. Tom, would you like to talk about any of the engineering details? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board. MR. KREBS-Well, I was just going to reiterate the comment from Staff, that the Type B buffer would be required between the housing and the duplexes as well, and that Type B is a 20 foot landscaped yard, three trees per 100 square feet, of at least six feet in height. MR. LAPPER-Tom, is there room for that? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SIPP-1 am still concerned about the closeness to all that diesel fuel and gasoline fumes invading your neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-Since the applicant owns both lots, the multi-family lots and the proposed single family lots, does it matter where the buffer goes? MR. BROWN-Well, yes, it does. The way the Code reads, the buffer requirement's between uses. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-So the single family residential lots, regardless of ownership, is a different use than the multi-family use. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-So it would go along the property line between the single family and multi-family use. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, which side of the property line, though? It doesn't specify. MR. BROWN-Well, I think it would be the application in front of you, which is the subdivision side. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-I mean, it does specify. It says both sides. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BROWN-But at the time that they did the duplex, this line wasn't there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-So I think what you want to look for is on the subdivision side. It's a three lot subdivision. This third lot, the remaining lot, is part that's in play. So you can ask for both sides if you want to as part of this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-There's some natural, as you've probably driven by the site, there's natural pine there now. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HAYES-So whatever your pleasure on both sides, however you want to configure it. We control both parties there, so whatever you think is the best is fine with us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and I see you have a shared driveway between the two. MR. HAYES-Yes, because I think it's one of the, what's that, a collector road, Craig. So it's a requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Are these for sale or for rent? MR. HAYES-These are for sale. We feel that maybe there's a slight uptick in the housing market than there was a couple of years ago, not a tremendous amount, but there is, as you know, there's 14 units there, and we've been 100% full right from the start, probably, to be honest with you, because of the Kensington school district. There's not a lot of, if you want to get to that school district and you don't want an older house, there isn't that many options. So we feel probably even in a market that is a little bit suspect, we have a lot of people call us with interest on this. So we think that it's probably going to be pretty attractive to the people, and obviously the people coming are aware that the Northway is there, as people in Hidden Hills are, but the fact is it's a pretty convenient place to live, to be honest with you, and it reflects in the fact that we're able to get I would consider premium rents for the facilities we have there. We're not able to get those rents in other spots with the same exact buildings, being Kensington school district, the proximity to the City and to the Northway on the backside. So really it's a very convenient place to live. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Would anyone like to make a recommendation? RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 2-12 HAYES & HAYES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 8.47 acre parcel into three (3) residential lots consisting of a 7.44 acre lots with existing duplex apartments; two (2) new 0.51 acre single family lots. Subdivision of land in a NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from the 500 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) ft. setback of the IHOD (Interstate Highway Overlay District). Planning Board may conduct SEAR review and may make a recommendation to the 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. 2-2013 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: The Planning Board based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're scheduled to be back here next week. MR. HAYES-Yes. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE I LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, B P S R OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS ZONING MDR- MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 58.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 36 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 TO 2.52. PROPOSAL INCLUDES INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN SHERMAN AVENUE AND LUZERNE ROAD AS WELL AS BOULEVARD ENTRANCE OFF OF LUZERNE ROAD. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, MAY CONDUCT SEAR REVIEW, AND MAY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE A V 52-12, SIB 18-05, SP 10-04 LOT SIZE 58.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12- 1-3 & 7.1 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 179-3-040(A)(3)(b) JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-This is an application you guys have seen before. It's a 36 lot subdivision on roughly 58 acres that lie between Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road. I guess the first time around with the Board they came in with a Sketch application and a partially complete Preliminary application, asked for some waivers. The Board asked them to submit a complete application or a more complete application, to be determined by Staff as far as what that level of completeness was. We met with the applicant and basically told them our level of completeness is a complete application. So they submitted an application that's a little bit more complete. It's still not 100%, in my opinion. So what you've got is an application before you that's not quite there as far as is it complete with all the requirements, and in light of the new information that, I passed a memo out tonight, it's an addendum to the Staff Notes, in the way that the SHPO, the local SHPO office deals with, I guess correspondence and registry and historical significance items. I guess they no longer take request from applicants. They want the requests for determinations to come from the reviewing body, which is our Planning Board. So I think what we'll do, and what we're working on now, is basically a draft letter, and we'll give it to the Chairman to review before we send it out, to send off to SHPO and let them know that we have this applicant in front of us. They're seeking an approval. We're requesting a response from them as far as any significance. So I think that addresses this. Just to stretch that a little bit more, going forward, I think we may want to do this as kind of a boilerplate letter. There isn't really anything special to requesting a determination, but rather than have an applicant come before the Board, and the Board say, we'll see you next month, we've got to request this SHPO (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) letter, we'll kind of do it as a matter of course when an application comes in. If we know that it's going to be subject to this type of review or this type of recommendation, we'll just, and I would suggest you guys probably do it by resolution, it doesn't have to be tonight, but, you know, basically directing us to have a standing order, you know, when these applications come in, we just send out that referral request. I'd suggest maybe we'll look at the draft first. We'll get that ironed out, and then if we want to do a resolution, maybe even as early as next week's meeting, we'll have that standing order, so to speak. So for this one I'm not sure if you guys have enough to go forward, and I think the applicant may have something to add to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Tom Nace. I guess first of all a procedural issue with SHPO. I think what Craig is suggesting makes sense, as a matter of course. If the SHPO request has to come from the Town rather than the applicant, now, rather than wait to get here and then have you authorize it and spend another month, if you get the letter set and it goes out when he gets an application that's subject to SHPO, that certainly is efficient and that makes a lot of sense. In terms of this application, we were never trying to avoid the detail, but because it's subject to a variance, and perhaps we won't get 100% of the relief requested, although we're hoping that we will, it seemed a shame to do all of the detailed engineering for this stormwater and grading, even though we have to get through SEAR with this Board first, it seemed that there was probably some level of information that didn't quite get to the level of a full engineering, that will still let you make a SEAR determination that the site was suitable for grading and stormwater, but that said, at this point we're so close to the full engineering, in a few weeks that can get done. So, you know, I know that Craig would be more comfortable on this application if we get it done. So at this point we'll commit to get it done. So we'll ask for this to be tabled, and we'll make a submission with all of the engineering. At that point we should have the SHPO letter back. We know that there've been SHPO determinations of adjacent lots that were no problem. So we don't expect an archeological issue, and that way we'll be ready to go through SEAR the next time we're here. Larry Clute has owned this for a while, and he's hoping that this is a good place to do the connection between Luzerne and Sherman. We have support from the Highway Superintendent, you know, that's a two acre zone which may make sense in a lot of places on the west side, but we're next to a big trailer park and not too far from the East Side junkyard. So it just seems that for estate lots, what Larry's trying to do, which was the price point, some compromise. We're not asking for one acre lots. It's more like one and a half acre, you know, so in terms of a variance, he wasn't coming and asking for what I would call too much, but we'll have that discussion once we get the engineering and you can do a full SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-When would you suggest we table this until? MR. LAPPER-I guess what I'm thinking, Tom feels that probably we won't need the full time, but to get to the February 15th submission and be on in March is probably safe and we can get in the regular queue where the Town Engineer can review the full engineering for SEAR. So, I mean, as much as Larry would like us to get this done in two weeks, it probably would make sense to just be back here in March. MR. HUNSINGER-Would it make sense, Craig, for us to accept the Lead Agency Status resolution or, because that was on the agenda for this evening as well. I think we requested it, but I don't think we've received it until now, because typically we do that when we do SEAR. MR. BROWN-You're right. You can do that for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-So why don't we consider the resolution acknowledging lead agency status, and then a tabling resolution. MR. KREBS-So moved. RESOLUTION RE: ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 58.8 acre parcel into 36 lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.52. Proposal includes interconnection between Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road as well as boulevard entrance off of Luzerne Road. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency status, may conduct SEAR review, and may make a recommendation to the ZBA. WHEREAS, in connection with the LARIC Development project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review; WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE 52-2012 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where do they come up with these names, like you've got a Burnt Hills subdivision. A Burnt Hills Road. A Burnt Hills Extension, and then there's a community just south of that in Saratoga called Burnt Hills. You're just asking for trouble. MR. LAPPER-I'll bet if Matt Steves was here, Matt would have that, probably a historical answer. MR. NACE-I think some of the pine plantation out there had been burned, at some time in the past. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, back in the 70's, yes, the fire jumped over the Northway and scorched all that. There was a fire in the Glens Falls dump. I remember that. It jumped the Northway and it scorched, so when we were doing the original subdivision, Burnt Hills, we were cutting the trees to get back in the thickets and stuff, you'd see the charred bark on the larger trees now, but I remember the fire jumping over that when we used to come up. MR. LAPPER-I knew somebody would know. MR. BROWN-So I guess the 19th with a February 15th submittal date for the tabling. I guess the only exception there would be the SHPO. We can't really hold them to that submittal on the 15tH So we'll get that when we get that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB # 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled to our March 19th meeting with a submission date of February 15tH Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in a couple of months. We have one item that was tabled to this evening. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-2012 SEAR TYPE II THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK AGENT(S) ROBERT NAPOLI OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) CHESTNUT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 168 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE A V 45- 12, AV 73-90, SP 35-88A, AV 1415; BP 91-379, 88-832 WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12 SECTION 179-9 THOMAS BABCOCK, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Craig. MR. BROWN-Yes. This is an application that you guys have talked about a couple of times before. Minor addition to a residence on Glen Lake., Tabled the last time, I think, at the applicant's request due to some, you know, availability scheduling issues. So there's really nothing that's changed since the last time you guys have seen it. It's just now we have the pleasure of having the applicant here to talk to us about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I hope your daughter's okay. MR. BABCOCK-Well, thank you. Yes. We got called to Boston. She had a surgery that had to be performed in Boston. So thank you for your understanding in allowing us to table it. I want to thank Mr. Brown and the Board tonight to allow us to present our project and hopefully we can get a favorable response. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. BABCOCK-Yes. I'm Thomas Babcock, and my wife Mary Beth Babcock is here as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Is there anything about your project that you wanted to summarize or make sure we were aware of? MR. BABCOCK-Yes, well, as stated in the application, we've had the property, had the privilege of being on Glen Lake for several years now and enjoyed everything that allows anybody to, you know, who has a home on the lake. We're not full time residents up here. We come up from time to time on the weekend and try to spend time in the summers up here as well. Over the years with our project, we've had when we originally purchased the property, I'm sorry, we built on the existing footprint that was there at the time when we had purchased the camp. Well, along with that footprint there was a patio on the side of the home that we've utilized over the years and never really done anything with. Well, over the 20 years that we've had the property, enjoyed the property, we're starting to experience, because of the way that the snow and the rain comes down off the roof of our house, and it's settling down and the patio tips in to the foundation, and we're having a lot of problems. The pictures aren't posed up there, but if the pictures were up there, maybe you've seen them, there's a lot of erosion and rot that's taking place on the side of the house, and what we had proposed in prior meetings with prior Boards is to get an approval in essence so we could close in that patio area with a full time structure. In so doing raising the foundation in that section and replacing that and improving it, bringing it back up so it's more stable and also just putting in the sufficient foundation for a crawl space and then to add the addition for 160 some odd square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? No? 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 OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is this about this issue? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-No. Previous issues, yes, but not this one. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. Okay. We didn't have public hearings for the other items. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I thought they were. I received a letter in the mail that was specific, that the attendance could be probable and that there would be public opinion aired. MR. HUNSINGER-For which project, sir? (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) AUDIENCE MEMBER-One in particular was the Clute project that's between Luzerne and Sherman. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we didn't have a public hearing scheduled for that. You're welcome to stay until the end of the meeting and make any comments. Okay. Sorry about that. MR. BABCOCK-That's okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Craig? MR. BABCOCK-1 don't know the Clute project. That's not me. For the record, I'm glad I'm not the Clute project. MR. BROWN-Nothing new. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion, questions from member of the Board? This is a Type 11 SEAR so no SEAR review is necessary unless we identify an environmental issue, I was looking to see if there were waiver requests. One of the questions that I had is there's a letter from 2012 from Craig Brown to yourself that says something about a dock expansion. MR. BABCOCK-Yes. That was already, it wasn't an expansion. It was a replacement, and it was already voted upon and approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BABCOCK-It was an existing dock, and we had that made 15 years ago through the permit process, and we're just replacing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from anyone? Any other questions from the Board? I didn't see that there were waiver requests. MR. KREBS-No, I didn't, either. MR. BROWN-No, I don't think there are any waiver requests. There's certainly stormwater information in the application. It doesn't look like they're proposing any landscaping. So there's no landscaping plan. There's no site grading. This is a construction on an existing patio or foundation area. So I don't think there's any waiver requests. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-Are you read? MR. HUNSINGER-We're ready. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #55-2012 THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 168 sq. ft. addition to existing single family home. Expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 9/18/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 11/28/2012; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/25/2012, tabled to 10/16/2012, 12/18/2012 and further tabled to 1/15/2013; Type I I SEQRA-no further review necessary; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2012 THOMAS & MARY BETH BABCOCK, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: As per resolution prepared by Staff. There are no waivers granted because none were requested. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) 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) 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. 3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 4) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 5) 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 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. BABCOCK-Thank you very much, and I appreciate the effort you put in. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. KREBS-And continue to enjoy. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a couple of items under Old Business. SITE PLAN NO 75-2012 SEAR TYPE II CHERYL DANIELS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 5 BOSS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 1,584 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 64-12, BP 12- 407, 96-733 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-3 SECTION 179-9, 179-3-040, 179-6-060 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-This is a demolition, construction of a new single family dwelling. This was I think before the Planning Board on December 19th, I'm sorry, it's the Zoning Board. I think the 18th it was on the Planning Board's agenda. You guys did a positive recommendation. The next night they received their variances from the Zoning Board. So now they're back to finish their site plan, and the reason for site plan is the property's relatively flat until you get closer to the river, and then it drops pretty much straight down to the river. So this is development within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15%. So that's the reason they're here for review. It's, again, it's a positive recommendation and variances are in place. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, representing Cheryl Daniels on this application. As Staff has stated, it was in front of this Board in mid December. We talked to you about the project, the removal of the existing home and construction of a newer home. Subsequent to that, the next night we went to the Zoning Board and got the unanimous approval for the variance. Nothing has changed at all, except for the fact that the house actually was reduced slightly, after all of the renderings and go arounds with the design and the builder and the owner. So it is 2098 square feet, and I believe in the application it was like 21 or 2200. Quite simply, without going into too much, again, on it, the existing home sits near the north line, approximately four feet off the northwest corner, 7.1 feet with the northerly easterly corner, and 23 feet to the road. The proposed house would meet the required road setback and required river setback, the required southerly bound setback, and we're asking for a variance of eight feet to place the building twelve feet from the northerly line, in lieu of the (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) four feet that is currently there, and if you look at the configuration of the house, with the garage in the front, off to the right, has an L shape with the porch to the left, and you see the existing septic system that's in that southeasterly corner. That was a system that was installed approximately eight years ago. It's a new system, and we did not want to interfere with the current up to date system that would accommodate the new home. If we did that, that's really the only compliant location and suitable location on the site for that system. That's why it was installed where it was. Again, it was designed to work around that, but yet comply with as many of the setbacks as possible. As far as the slopes, yes, as you can see on the map, we did the topography. It does drop right off at the rear of the site, and we're building on the flat area. There's only about eight inches of grade variation on the upper portion of the site where the construction is. We're just going to install the silt fence in a U shape around, before demolition and throughout construction, and be left up until such time as it is graded, seeded and stabilized. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. STEVES-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. TRAVER-You said the septic was about eight years old? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. TRAVER-It looks like on the Department notes there's a septic alteration from 1996. Is that the eight years ago you're referring to? MR. STEVES-That must be when it was. I was just going by the comments from my client, which isn't here, and the builder, Larry Clute, who isn't here as well. MR. TRAVER-Right. So it is quite a bit older than that. MR. STEVES-Yes. Whatever the, I would assume that the Town has the most accurate dates, compared to what my records would be, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. STEVES-The house, as far as number of bedrooms and the occupants, isn't changing. She's just making a little larger garage so she has a little bit more storage and more open floor plan. So a one story home with the same number of bedrooms. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board. Okay. There's a Staff comment about erosion and sediment control plan, on Staff Notes. MR. STEVES-Yes. I asked for a waiver from the grading and erosion and sediment control and just place the silt fence. We did send an e-mail out to Keith at the time and asked for that. I don't know if it got forwarded to you. MR. BROWN-It may not have. I mean, if there's something out there you want to re-forward it. guess, for the record, you're stating you're going to put up some silt fence along the top of the berm. Is that what your plan shows basically? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And brief discussions I had, and I apologize that it was with somebody that isn't currently here, either. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there is an e-mail here from Keith dated November, or to Keith dated November 26th requesting the waivers for stormwater, lighting and grading, if that's what you were referring to. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That is in here. MR. STEVES-You do have it. Okay. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. HUNSINGER-This comment's about sediment control. MR. STEVES-Sediment control, the stormwater, which really is incorporated into the same plan, because it's such a flat site and it's good sandy, suitable soils, we have no problem with not percolating stormwater and the construction, and the minimal, really, earth disturbance for this, we would just place that silt fence and then control any runoff that would potentially head toward the river with that silt fence. Again, I know for a fact with the topography, there's about eight inches of total grade change on the upper portion of that property. MR. HUNSINGER-That's what I thought. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Craig? MR. BROWN-No comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show, no comments were received. It's a Type 11 SEAR so no SEAR review is necessary unless there's something that's been identified by the Board. With that, I will entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 75-2012 CHERYL DANIELS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,584 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Construction within 50 feet of slopes greater than 15% requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 12/18/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 12/19/2012; Type I I SEAR- no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/15/2013; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2012 CHERYL DANIELS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Waivers requested and granted are for stormwater management, grading, and lighting, and the rest of the motion is as per the resolution prepared by Staff. 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) 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; 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. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) 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; (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. You're welcome. SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3-2012 SEAR TYPE II ROBERT L. PERKINS AGENT(S) MARK REHM, ESQ. OWNER(S) NDC REALTY, LLC ZONING CLI-COMM. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 315 CORINTH ROAD & 26 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PAVING ALONG THE WAREHOUSE APPROACHES TO REAR OF SITE AS WELL AS NEW PAVEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH FRONT OVERHEAD DOORS. FURTHER, ACCOMMODATION TO INCLUDE TREE CLEARING AND HARD-SURFACING FOR THE STORAGE OF UP TO 51 TRAILERS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ON THE PARCEL. FINALLY, THE PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL TRANSFORMER AND BOLLARDS PROPOSED TO THE EAST. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION. CROSS REFERENCE SP 64-11, SP 57-11, SP 7-11, SB 10-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/11/2012 LOT SIZE 6.39 & 2.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16- 2-4.1, 4.4 SECTION 179-9 MARK REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. Perkins Recycling, down off Corinth Road, was issued a temporary Special Use Permit by this Board, I think that is due to expire next week. So the applicant's here to seek an extension to allow some time to complete the site work. A number of items, and I guess a couple of items were identified by the applicant. I had some conversations with Mr. Perkins about how we can make some changes and modifications to the plan that were within reason and gave him some time to get that work done. Subsequently we did a field investigation. There's a memo in here from Bruce Frank, found a few more items than were brought to my attention. So, you know, there are outstanding items that need to be done in the field. My understanding the applicant's going to be looking for some time to, additional six months, to have that work done, and then probably re-appear before the Board to seek a permanent Special Use Permit once the site's up and running, and, you know, we can actually see how it's functioning, see if there's any problems with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. REHM-Good evening. Mark Rehm. I'm representing the applicant in this matter. In short, we're looking for an additional six months. During the construction of the site, there was a hiccup with the Fire Code and they had to put in a new sprinkler system inside that was unanticipated, which slowed both the site work and financially slowed the applicant. We were given a memo in October 30 of 2012 with items that needed to be done, and we had to comply with certain requirements from the State for the financing, and we were granted a temporary CO with these items to be done, and as Craig said there was a site visit thereafter by Bruce Frank that indicated there were additional items. A couple of modifications to the plan which were outlined in the letter that I had sent in response to those memorandum items. The extension we seek is until June, which all of the items will be completed, and we will also include in that, by that time, the changes, if any, that are necessary for the completion of this project, and I'll just outline the three items that were considered changes from the application. There was an area that's presently grass along the westerly side of the small warehouse building that was set for a new pavement and an infiltration ditch. During operations it appeared that this was unnecessary. It was discussed. It will be incorporated into the plans as such, it'll remain grass as opposed to adding more pavement and the infiltration ditch there. It appears that Number Nine of my letter, I don't know if you have a copy of my letter in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do. MR. REHM-The portable fuel pod that was placed on the, across the drive aisle from the northeast corner. They simply didn't know they needed approval for that. I will certainly incorporate that into the plan. I don't know if any of you had a chance to get out there to the site and look at where it is. I don't think it really poses too much of a difficulty, and we'll be happy to (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) put that on the final plan. Number Eleven, there was, I think most of these items were discussed with Craig, but as Craig and I spoke today, the only one that I wasn't that was discussed were the Jersey barriers that were installed along the east side of the main warehouse building, as opposed to the approved guardrails. I think they serve the same purpose, and we'll certainly notate those on the new plan, and I really don't think they've strayed too far or done anything egregious here or done anything purposeful anyway, but they anticipate to be done by June. They need to do it for their financing. They want to do it here because eventually they want the Special Use Permit to become a permanent Special Use Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. REHM-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? So I was a little confused until your explanation. We granted a one year Special Use Permit. So they were going to be coming back anyway. MR. BROWN-To seek, perhaps, a permanent. MR. HUNSINGER-And they're asking forjust an extension. MR. BROWN-Yes, and if I could, not to be presumptuous, but if you're going to approve this, maybe with a condition that the applicant actually submit the revised or updated plans, sometime prior to that six month date, for you guys to look at and review, so when they come back and seek final, or for a permanent, you'll have those plans in front of you and you just don't come and ask. I would like you guys to see the plans before you decide. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. Other questions, comments from members of the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-1 know when you were, well, you weren't here personally, but a year ago there were some comments from the neighbors. MR. REHM-Sure, yes, I was actually representing, and, yes, I think that they probably are happy with the site as used. MR. HUNSINGER-So should we request that the revised plan be submitted by May 15th so that we can hear this at a June meeting? MR. BROWN-Yes. I mean, six months from today is July 15tH MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry. So June 15tH MR. BROWN-Yes, whatever date you want to pick, yes. If you want to pick, I just don't know if we're going to have a meeting before July 15th. I don't have the calendar in front of me. MR. HUNSINGER-The July meetings are on the 16th and the 23rd MR. BROWN-So we're probably looking at a June meeting date, then, so it doesn't expire on them. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BROWN-So we'd probably want to have something submitted to us by May 15tH MR. HUNSINGER-Right. May 15tH MR. REHM-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So unless there's any additional comments or concerns from the Planning Board, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type 11 SEAR, so no SEAR review is necessary, and well, I think we can, we're not really tabling, well. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. BROWN-No, I think what you do is, I think the request is for a six month extension. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, which would expire July 15tH MR. BROWN-Right. So you could approve a six month extension with the condition that they submit by May 15tH MR. HUNSINGER-And we'll hear them in June. MR. BROWN-And you'll hear them in June for a permanent. MR. TRAVER-And the draft shows it's already been introduced and seconded. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't catch that. RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION RE: SUP # 3-2012 ROBERT L. PERKINS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant has requested a six month extension of their approved special use permit granted on 1/24/2012. Project description: Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan to include additional paving along the warehouse approaches to rear of site as well as new pavement associated with front overhead doors. Further, accommodation to include tree clearing and hard-surfacing for the storage of up to 51 trailers located to the south and east on the parcel. Finally, the placement of an additional transformer and bollards proposed to the east. Changes to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/24/2012 and 1/15/2013; MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX EXTENSION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3- 2012 ROBERT L. PERKINS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Revised plan to be submitted by May 15tH Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We'll see you in five months. MR. REHM-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Good luck. Okay. We didn't have any other business scheduled for this evening, but I understand you were here for Clute's project, thinking there was going to be a public hearing, so you'd like to address the Board? Is that? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do see on the agenda that there was a public hearing scheduled or advertised. So I think it's probably best that you open it up and leave it open. Without the applicant here, it's kind of unique. I would just consider maybe taking comment and really no discussion,just take the comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sit down. I need you to speak into the mic because we do tape the meeting and we use the tape to transcribe the minutes. KEITH HENDRY MR. HENDRY-You guys do a good job. It's been tough. I watched Queensbury, grow, grow, grow, and you've all kept some place forever green and watched over this and had a little dealings, once, with a wetland, and that worked well. So he does a good job. So I want to 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) commend you, to begin with, but the issue now is this LARIC development that's between Luzerne and Sherman. Now at this time I don't believe there's a cross street that runs between Sherman and Luzerne from Veterans all the way to West Mountain. Correct? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. MR. HENDRY-So now we're going to open a can of worms? MR. HUNSINGER-Depending on your perspective. MR. HENDRY-Bingo. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Now, I'm a west ender now, I live down that way, where I always lived on the east side or by the airport or Peggy Ann. Now I bought a home down there. I am a little concerned, because we have a new plumber/steam fitters building down there in the industrial park, pretty good sized building, going to be a training center. Little things are going to start to come up down there. You have Veterans. I think we have a traffic issue. Those are Town roads there, Luzerne, Sherman, what not. How do I know that? I'm a Town employee now. I plow those roads. This development's going to, the cross street's going to start on Luzerne and end up in Sherman on Smoke Ridge. The Smoke Ridge dead end section is where I think the plan comes out to there. Those roads weren't built to Code. Those roads were built driveway width. Now we're going to pen a cross street that's going to give people access to bounce up on back roads, as we see, let's see, what are some of them? Ashley down there, Broad Acres. I cut across that all the time. Wintergreen. These are residential neighborhoods now the traffic volume has shot up and maintained at a pretty high level. Now we're going to open another one, and I guess I kind of like Clute's idea, acre, acre and a half on 58 acres. That gives us 50 lots, maybe 48, maybe 52. You all get together and do a little forever green and give us a little, break up the noise, make it a residential neighborhood. If we have to grow, let's grow, but let's grow conservatively, but my concern is that cross street. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Won't that save you a lot of time plowing? MR. HENDRY-No, actually it's another street. More mailboxes to knock over, more complaints. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You can get to the other side faster, though. MR. HENDRY-So, to keep in mind, when you need to make your decision on this, you need to format something, we represent the taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury. We look out for their residential areas, their commercial, light commercial, We look out for their safety as well, and that's one issue. Now of course we know when we get an intersection where we have a lot of MVA's and a lot of traffic flow, the first thing they're going to do is put in a traffic control system. Either a light or a four way or what not, there have been times now on Luzerne where traffic's been backed up to the overpass, all the way down to Western. Because they're turning and waiting, and that's at the peak hours, people getting out of work, etc., etc. Right? So we've got to think about these cross streets. I remember that one time up there in Queensbury Forest they wanted to put Hampton all the way right out, and the people there said no, because we don't want, we want to try to, if you want to go up to your home on West Mountain Road, take a road up. Don't be, residential neighborhoods are residential neighborhoods. They're not for traffic flow. They're for places for people to live, all right. You start opening up access areas, well that's going to relieve the amount on Luzerne and even out with Sherman, but is it, and then that Smoke Ridge, the roads are very narrow in there. People park on the street. So we're looking at opening up a can of worms for later on type. That's my concern with the area. Okay. All right. Someday here, you'll never see me again. I'll be gone, five, six years I'll be living way up north, where taxes are better, but you all do a good job. You do. You've done all right. I've told him that, too. It could look like Latham and it doesn't, right, or Colonie and it doesn't. You left forever greens. You left places for people, we've got little parks where you can walk and even Stec before he left kept the dogs from pooping all over the cemetery over there, but you are being proactive. You are looking out for people's best interest. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. MR. HENDRY-Just consider this on that cross street. Maybe you want to just load from one side, do our cut de sacs and lollipops, and, because people go into a neighborhood, they go in for what reason? They have business in there, they go home, they're delivering the paper, the garbage truck goes in. They're not screaming across a 30 mile an hour thing at 45, 50. Do we get that on Stephanie, yes we do. Sometimes you want to throw things at them, yes. Because just the minute somebody misses by just that much and ends up in your front yard or kills (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) somebody walking their dog, then who's fault is it? I mean, this is just to take into consideration, and the time, it's not hindsight, it's foresight. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Thank you. MR. KREBS-Well, one of the things that we just recently did in another subdivision is put in additional stop signs. MR. HENDRY-To slow them down. MR. KREBS-To slow them down, and also some humps in the road. MR. HENDRY-Yes, you know, speed bumps are speed bumps. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's not a speed bump. MR. HENDRY-It's a traffic contour. MR. HUNSINGER-It's a hump. MR. KREBS-A road hump, so that it does slow them down, but I think stop signs work as well as anything. MR. HENDRY-They're fine, but now we've got traffic flow, and you've seen now West, Main Street in West Glens Falls, and they're dumping onto Glens Falls going toward 87, and you're sitting, you just got gas at Hess and you're trying to get and you're going, don't turn back to go to Glens Falls, turn around and go back to Luzerne, right, and look for a different way. Even now when you go out you think, well, I can't go on that side of the street because I can't get back in. Let's not make that in the residential part of Town. Let's not have people, well I know a short cut, all right, because I'm sure those people in Broad Acres, they're used to it now, but I do it. As I got older I found myself doing that, which was great, I slowed down, but let's make these (lost words) you want people to come and live in Queensbury, a lot of people live here that really like it and they were from down there, because of the job you people did. So, all right. MS. GAGLIARDI-Can I get your name for the record? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, we didn't get your name for the record. MR. HENDRY-I'm Keith Hendry. I'm a native. You're a native, too, aren't you? MR. SIPP-Not quite, 40 years. MR. HENDRY-He is. I think it was '71 was the fire. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it was in the early 70's. I remember that. I was a Clifton Parker then, but I remember coming up and seeing it jumping. MR. HENDRY-It burned the pine bush all the way through. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, that wasn't my point when I made that comment. There's a Town, Burnt Hills, it's just down in, and of course the two 911 centers work together. So you can easily get a, they shouldn't, but they can easily get a call mixed up. MR. HENDRY-Yes, they could. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because when you call, like if I call 911 from Assembly Point, it goes to Washington County. So you're relying on, and I'm not, but that's what the tower does. So you have to be careful if you have similar names that are close, and then when you make the street with that name, you're really asking for it, and then you say there's an extension, we'll never get there. MR. HENDRY-You're right. Let's go with girls names again, Peggy Ann. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Did anyone else want to address the Board tonight? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is this a public meeting? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. BROWN-It is, and it'll be continued on March 19th, when the Board's actually going to discuss the application. The applicant's going to be here. So, I mean, you can make the comments now, but you might want to make them again because they'll be gone for two months. JOHN RILEY MR. RILEY-I'm John Riley. I live at 56 Burnt Hills Road. There are a couple of things that, Burnt Hills Drive, yes, that I don't think the Board has considered fairly. The main thing is as you've said the traffic. The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council has some statistics out. They've got statistics for West Mountain Road and Sherman, 4800 average vehicle trips per day on West Mountain Road. The next road over, if you look at Western Ave., it's almost 8,000 average daily trips, okay. So the first set of numbers was from 2007. The second is from 2006. So they're significantly out of date, but if you put those together, and even if you take 10% of that number and run it through this cut through road, you're looking at 1500 vehicle trips a day, through a neighborhood that now sees less than 100. It's a phenomenal impact. If you look at Wintergreen, there are two sides of that road. That's not a neighborhood. There's a neighborhood on the left side and on the right side, but there are developments behind that road. There is no development on either side of this road. It is the development. So running an additional thousand cars a day going north to get to the high school, going south to get to the Exit 18, it decimates this quiet neighborhood where kids play in the street. The road is not sufficient to handle that kind of traffic. I have three cars in my family. If I put a vehicle on the street, it becomes traffic one way. It's simply not wide enough to handle any overflow of traffic. There are no sidewalks. If you add that kind of traffic, it becomes dangerous for pedestrians, for bicyclists. It's just not designed to handle what you're looking at doing. I don't know if anybody on the Board lives in that neighborhood and understands what is going on there, and if you look forward at the amount of additional development that is approved, you know, there's close to 1,000 additional residences that can be built in West Glens Falls. So the impact is just going to continue to compound. It is the only cut through, and there's no relief anywhere. There've been several opportunities over the past 20 years to put an additional cut through, and in each one of those situations, they said, well, we don't own all the land, all the way through, so we can't do that, and the Board has said, okay, but because this one developer has controlled the whole parcel, it's all of a sudden just an incredibly convenient opportunity to funnel traffic away from those two significant corridors. This was short notice, and the notice that we got in the mail said public hearing, you know, I got that about five days ago. With a little more time, not in the middle of January when it's short days and cold out, there would have been more people here. just haven't had time to talk to my neighbors. Last spring, when I did get around, I visited probably 80% of the doors on Kylians Way and Burnt Hills Drive, and unanimously people are opposed to this concept. They're not opposed to the development of additional housing. That's not it. It's not, you know, leave it woods, but putting a cross, through road in, it's universally opposed with everybody I've talked to. So what bothers me is you, as a Board, have encouraged the developer to spend additional money, and you did it again earlier tonight. You said, go ahead, we think this is a great idea. You've said that publicly, but what you're doing is just absolutely devastating to the folks who live on this road. It's not a short road right now. There are a lot of houses currently there. It's just heartbreaking to see that you're this dismissive of the community that's developed here. I could tie up a couple of hours of your time going point by point through what is being done here. I'm not going to do that. I don't think you need to listen to me go on for hours, but I do want to point out that the parcel in question was zoned commercial. It was re-zoned to benefit the developer, and then a portion of that was re- zoned again to allow him to retain some commercial use on it, and now tonight their argument was two acres is probably not the right size, considering the surrounding neighborhoods and the trailer park here. Well, two acres was what was presented to me and some of my neighbors by members of the Town Board, as a way of protecting our current neighborhood. So, time after time, the Town, at different levels, has done everything they can to accommodate the developer. At no point has the Town, at any level, seemed to accommodate the residents that are currently there. So you can tell my frustration. You're pushing this guy forward without taking the comments that I left with you last spring. So, you know, as it goes forward. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, we remember your comments. They haven't been dismissed. MR. RILEY-But at the same time you're encouraging this guy to go forward, without a discussion of an alternative. So, from my perspective, you are dismissing it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Understood. Yes. MR. RILEY-As it goes forward the opposition to this through road, it will grow. If we need to do petitions and all of that, we will. I think that's, you know, not necessarily the way to go. There should be a way of mitigating this without it growing to that point. All right. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Did anyone else want to speak? Okay. If there are no other comments, we will conclude the public hearing for this evening, and again, the public hearing will be re-opened in March when we hear the project again. MR. BROWN-Or you could just leave it open. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it will be left open, yes, on March 19th. Is there any other business before the Board this evening? Craig? MR. BROWN-Part of the Town's MS-4 requirement is that we provide some level of public outreach and education, both out of house and in-house, and the in-house portion is potentially providing some, I guess, training information time for the Boards, both Planning Board and Zoning Board. Jim Liebrum, some of you guys may be familiar with Jim Liebrum, he's the director, now, and he took Dave Wick's place at the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District. He's offered to come in and spend 30 minutes, 45, an hour, however long of a presentation you guys might be interested in. I suggested maybe a 30 minute presentation before one of the meetings next month, and what that does is that public education or in-house education helps us meet one of our requirements that we have to do every year in our annual reporting. So I was just curious if you guys had some time when you might want to, either the first meeting or the second meeting in February, do you want to do it before the meeting, do you want to have a separate meeting where you come in for a couple of hours and get a presentation. What I talked about with Jim was roughly a 30 minute presentation to talk about some basic erosion and sediment things like silt fence and hay bales and things that you guys see on plans all the time, and what the benefits are, and the proper way to install them. I mean, I know we have the engineer review those things, but it's information that helps you understand what the project's about when you see it on the plan, and then a little talk about what the MS-4 is and what the theory of, you know, regulating stormwater and the benefits of that are, and I think he could probably condense that into 30 minutes. It could be more if you want, but I just started with that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Wouldn't be better if he did it in April or May when all of us are here? MR. BROWN-We, the reporting year ends, I believe it's March 10th MR. SCHONEWOLF-I guess that takes care of that. MR. BROWN-So we have to have it in in the year. MR. HUNSINGER-So it sounds like February. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think that's the date, and it's okay. We can do it again. We're just trying to meet this requirement for this term. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, certainly my preference would be if we could set up a half an hour before a meeting, either have us come in at 6:30, if the Board's willing, and it's easy for me. I can't speak for everybody. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the last meeting in February is tough for me because I'm leaving that night. MR. BROWN-We could shoot for the first meeting in February. That would be a 6:30 start, and have him come in and do his thing, and I'll confirm that with him this week and have an answer for you for sure next week. Okay. MR. SIPP-How many questions is this going to raise? When you say a 30 minute presentation, will there be a question period afterwards? MR. BROWN-Yes, I suppose. I don't know if there's a whole lot of new information you guys haven't been exposed to before. It's just maybe some refresher stuff and explaining MS-4 that really doesn't affect what the Board does, it's the Town is within this MS-4 and we have certain things that we have to do to meet the State requirements. So there'll be definitely time for questions, but shooting for 30 minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. (Queensbury Planning Board 01/15/2013) MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, I'll try and firm that up and have some response for you for next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else that we need to talk about this evening? MR. SIPP-When is the Saratoga Conference? MR. FERONE-The 30tH MR. SIPP-The 30tH MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KREBS-How many people are going on the 30tH. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we're all set, right, Craig, do you know? MR. BROWN-I saw a whole handful of applicants. Yes. I think Pam's got everybody registered. Everybody who's submitted a form she's registered. MR. HUNSINGER-We can talk about it next week, but last year we carpooled down. It worked out pretty well. MR. KREBS-Yes, it's a good idea to carpool, too, because there's not a lot of parking down there. MR. TRAVER-Will you be sending out an e-mail, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, or we can talk about it next week. Anything else that we need to talk about tonight? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-See everyone next Tuesday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 23