Loading...
Four 04-23-2013 (1) neg dec (Qpieensl:,wiVPlartninI,Board 040 13) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23,2013 INDEX Site Plan No.48-2012 Steven&Jennifer Kitchen 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Site Plan No.17-2013 Kathryn Tabner Rev.Trust 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.226.12-1-23 Site Plan No.62-2011 Queensbury Partners S. FWW 6-2011 Tax Map No.289.19-1-23 through 35 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Subdivision No.3-2013 Jennifer Ball 21. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No.266.1-1-9 Site Plan No.76-2012 Paul&Margaret Sheehan 23. Tax Map No.289.13-1-20 Site Plan No.8-2013 CRM Housing Dev.,Inc. 27. Tax Map No.302.9-1-28.1 Site Plan No.16-2013 Robin Inwald 40. Tax Map No.227.17-1-16 Subdivision No.5-2012 LARIC Development,LLC 46. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.308.12-1-3 ZBA RECOMMENDATION 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. Cl Q� piu:�rrr,kreirVPlartnirq;Board 040 13) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER,CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS,SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMASFORD BRAD MAGOWAN STEPHEN TRAVER DAVID DEEB LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday,April 23, 2013. For those members of the audience,welcome. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the projects have a public hearing scheduled tonight and we'll go into details when we get to the first public hearing. The first item on the agenda is an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN 48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR.HUNSINGER-I understand this needs to be tabled because the Zoning Board has not yet acted on the application? MRS.MOORE-Right. Their application for the appeal is being heard potentially on the first meeting in May,which is May 22nd at the Zoning Board. So if you would table it to the 23rd again for the Planning Board meeting. MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to move that? RESOLUTION TABLING SP 48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO.48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN,Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the May 23rd Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items this evening for recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA SITE PLAN NO. 17-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KATHRYN TABNER REV.TRUST AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART&RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 89 MASON ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE. FILLING AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE,SHORELINE, 1 Q� piu::rrr,kreiaVI"I:nnirq;Board 040 13) Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from side, shoreline, FAR & height requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to 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. 11-2013 KATHRYN TABNER REVOCABLE TRUST, 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 by the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if you decided to take the Larry Clute LARIC recommendation at the end of the recommendations rather than at the end of the meeting,you wouldn't get any argument from me. I just wanted to let you know that. MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. MR.ZAPPER-Thank you. MR.HUTCH I NS-What did you folks think of the small drawings? Do they work better? MR.HUNSINGER-I like them. MR.HUTCH I NS-They're hard to read. MR.HUNSINGER-They can be. They can be,yes. That was a good one. SITE PLAN NO.62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY& BLIND ROCK ROADS SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL,AND MULTI-FAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREA AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, OFFICE AND BUSINESS RETAIL. VARIANCES: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR BUILDING SETBACKS ON BLIND ROCK ROAD,RESIDENTIAL SETBACK FROM BLIND ROCK ROAD;BUILDING HEIGHT AND BUILDING CANOPIES AND SUCH SETBACK FROM BAY ROAD. PB MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CONDUCT SEQRA REVIEW, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013 WARREN CO. DPW REFERRAL MARCH 2013 APA,CEA,OTHER NWI WETLANDS,STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9,CHAPTER 94 MATT FULLER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR.HUNSINGER-Laura? Q� piu:�rrr,kreia V Plannirq;BnarcG 04,0 13) actually did a map plan and report which was accepted by the Town. We were going to do an out of district user thing, and that's what made sewering possible on Bay Road, because the original estimate for a sewer district to do was like about six plus million dollars,and that would have been, if it was put out as a project under prevailing wage and so forth. We did it for a mere fraction of that,okay,well less than the$900,000 that Galusha claims he spent on it. I know what they spent, within reasonable,plus or minus$20,000,maybe$50,000,but in any case,that's not the point. My point is this. The pump station that is presently down there is a T-4 Gorman Rub pump station, which we specked,based on what the build out at the time was,the existing Code, okay. So we specked that pump station, and also we had a consideration for what the downstream gravity portion of the sewer was,which is all of Cronin Road. I've since spoke to the Town Engineer,and t they've run all the numbers on this. I'm very confident that he is correct that it could handle the capacity,even though the slope of that thing is.3%which is getting very close to what the minimum slope is for a gravity sewer. So I'm happy with that,but the problem is,and he's looking at these numbers. I would suggest to you, before you do anything,you talk to him about, A, when the trigger point is that that pump station would have to be changed to a T-5 or T-6 pump station,and, B,when Henry Hess was the Town business manager,whatever you want to call him,treasurer,or whatever,he did a very careful analysis of the benefit tax that would have to be put in place for the residents. Now I don't know what kind of a, if there was any compensation to Galusha or not. I know Schermerhorn was paid some amount of money, I believe it was like$190,000,because we built into that capacity for the existing Code at the time, and not just for what we would have considered for a needs for an out of district user,which would have been a single purpose user. So basically we specked it out for the entire Bay Road corridor. Now,you really need to look at this, because here's the deal. You can't have Resident A being charged more than Resident B. That'll create a lawsuit for you in a heartbeat. So you really need to look at any additional expenses which will be incurred which would be a new pump station. Everything else,from what I could see,would probably be okay,but you really need to think about that,because somebody's going to come along and say,hey,wait a minute,these folks were paying that,you're asking me to pay this,whoa,that's a no go,and the State will look very not well on that. I think,Chris,you know that,you were involved. So be forewarned on that. That's one thing. This is a little bit aside from this. This is my own jollies,if you will. If Rich Schermerhorn thought,and we all know Rich is an extremely successful builder/developer of apartment complexes. If Rich Schermerhorn thought for one second that he could build and successfully rent buildings that had retail or office space below it and apartments above it, I can tell you with absolute certainty,he would have done it. Brad,do you know if he's ever built one like that? He hasn't? Okay. End of discussion. I would really like to see the marketing plan that these guys have,because I'm going to be willing to bet you that five years from now you're going to see commercial space underneath apartments vacant. It's just not going to happen. Everybody else on Bay Road has done what was asked of them,Valente,Schermerhorn, everyone else has followed the Code up to this point. What you folks are going to do now tonight and tomorrow is going to set in place something that our kids will have to live with,and,sure,it'll work,but is it right? I don't think so. MR.HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. No other takers? We will conclude the public hearing for this evening. We will leave the public hearing open,however. There's a couple,well, one administrative item that we need to do before we move forward on any further discussion,and that is to accept the Lead Agency status,and I believe there was a sample resolution in our package. I'm sorry,Acknowledging Lead Agency status. So if someone would like to move that. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#62-2011 FWW 6-2011;AV 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft.on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for the site include office,business retail,and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for multi-family,office and business retail. Variances: Relief is requested for building setbacks on Blind Rock Road, residential setback from Blind Rock Road; building height and building canopies and such setback from Bay Road. PB may acknowledge Lead Agency status, conduct SEQRA review,and make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. WHEREAS,in connection with the project,the Town of Queensbury Planning Board,by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review; 15 Q� piu:�kr�,k�eia V L"I:2nning,Board 04,0 13) 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 NO. 61-2011, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 & SITE PLAN 62-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR.HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add as a result of the comments? MR.FULLER-Just two quick comments. One,and Mary Lee brought up a question about the sewer, and I think that might have,I might not have been clear enough when I was talking about the sewer line. We're not doing anything north of the project. So it won't, we're not going to impact the north,when I say north,north of Bay and Blind Rock as far as the sewer line goes. We won't be touching the line. We don't have to. It's not part of the project. It's not needed. MR.FORD-You're not going to be tied into that? MR.FULLER-Not that line to the north,no. The bigger line to the south we will be. The one that Dan put in,it'll be tied into that,that sewer line south,going south. MR.MAGOWAN-Are there two lines that go down? MR. FULLER-No,there's one, but coming from the deal that was struck on Surrey Fields to get to that line is the one she was talking about,but the line from the intersection south has already taken the Town. MR.FORD-But that will be tied in together? MR.FULLER-It is right now,yes. We'll be tying in to the line we put in,yes,not the smaller line to the north. MR.GALUSHA-Yes,there's a three inch line that runs from the corner north that ties in,and I think you folks have come across the street and tie in. From there it's a gravity line all the way down to where it ties in. I think that's a 10 inch. We oversized that line when we did with C.T. Male. I mean,originally I believe we had a,don't quote me,like an eight inch line. I think we sized it up to take on,and they calculated a lot of the flows from not only our project,but all the other projects above us,I think even cedarcrest,even though they're not using it,they're in a calculation. Mike's got the whole chart. MR.FULLER-So the line gets bigger right here at the intersection. MR.GALUSHA-Right. MR.FULLER-That small line dumps into it. The one going south is 12. MR.MAGOWAN-Now does that tie into Schermerhorn's pump? MR.FULLER-It goes down to the pump. MR.GALUSHA-It all ends up down there,yes. 6 Qi piu��rrr,kreia7I"Iannirg;I narcG 04,0 13) MR.FULLER-And that's all,we gave the sewer department everything,all the calcs and everything, even from the prior report,the updated numbers,all of that,you know,and with the comments we had heard before,we kind of expected there's going to be some comment on the pump station and there wasn't. They took all that into account and got back to us with the same e-mail you guys got. Here's the comments we have,deal with us. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, am I correct to say that really one of the main reasons the line went from here and then further up,because Surrey Field's system was failing? MR.FULLER-Yes. MR.GALUSHA-Well,we brought the line up here. They hooked onto it,like the Town did after,after we put the line in,they hooked up to it. I wasn't part of that,I don't know. MR.MAGOWAN-But that was one of the reasons why you kept going? MR.FULLER-No,they didn't. They ran it right to here,the corner. MR.GALUSHA-To the corner. We ran it to the intersection on the north end,would be the north end of our property. We put a manhole right there, then the Town, I don't know if the Town hooked into it first or Surrey Fields hooked into it first, I'm not sure which one hooked in, but they're both hooked into it now. MR.MAGOWAN-All right,so you didn't bring the line down from Surrey Fields? MR.GALUSHA-No,that was done by,I believe,Trinity Construction did that,I believe,or somebody contracted to do it. MR.MAGOWAN-Because Surrey Fields systems were failing? MR.FULLER-There were some angry homeowners. MR.GALUSHA-They were failing at the time. MR.FULLER-I was there. MR.GALUSHA-And I think they were looking to go another way,until we put the line up there,if I'm not mistaken. MR. FULLER-And the last commented I wanted, Mrs. Sonnabend had commented about the southern piece of the property and more residential. That, Craig Brown's zoning determination, you guys had that, it's been part of the record forever. He calculated the allowed density. The allowed density is 142,and we have used that allowed density in residential. So,I mean,I know the comment about variances are bad. Anybody could apply for one,but I think how this project has gone,a variance coming back for more residential probably wouldn't be very well received. So,no, that is a flexible space to the south. We've shown building. We're taking into account for stormwater, parking, utilities the whole nine yards, but if it was ever used, that would need site plan approval. The idea is,hey,if a big commercial office user needs a space,obviously we would come back and build it. That would be great,and we don't have a problem with that,but,no,it's noL residential to the south. We've used the density in the project LhaL's planned I'll call it on Lhe northern part,and that was it. I just wanted to hit those two pertinent comments. MR.FORD-Thank you. MR.HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Is the Board comfortable in reviewing the SEQR? MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR.HUNSINGER-Itis a Long Form. Okay. Whenever you're ready. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? 117 Q� piu��rrr,kreia V tllaivr jrq;Ian ird 04,0 13) MR.HUNSINGER-Yes. MR.FORD-Yes. MR.TRAVER-Small to moderate,mitigated by Site Plan Review. MR.KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR.TRAVER-No. MR.FORD-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR.TRAVER-No. MR.FORD-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water runoff? MR.TRAVER-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR.FORD-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.FORD-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.FORD-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR.HUNSINGER-No. �k Q� piu��rrr,kreiaVI"Iannirg;Board 040 13) MR.TRAVER-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.FORD-No. MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR617.14? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR.FORD-No. MR.KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR.TRAVER-No. MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.FORD-No. MR.KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors,noise,or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR.TRAVER-No. MR.FORD-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR.TRAVER-No. MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR.TRAVER-No. MR.HUNSINGER-No. MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR.TRAVER-No. MR.HUNSINGER-No. f Qi piu:�rrr,kreiaVI"I:nnirq;Board 040 13) MR.KREBS-I declare a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York,this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of, April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board? MR.SCHONEWOLF-Based on the four variances? MR.HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft. on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for the site include office,business retail,and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for multi-family,office and business retail. Variances:Relief is requested for building setbacks on Blind Rock Road, residential setback from Blind Rock Road; building height and building canopies and such setback from Bay Road. PB may acknowledge Lead Agency status,conduct SEQRA review,and 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; )0 Q� piu:�rrr,kreia V I"I:nnirq;I narcG 04,0 13) 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.61-2011,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6- 2011, AND SITE PLAN 62-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS. Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Per the resolution prepared by Staff. 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 April,2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR.HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR.FULLER-Thank you. MR.GALUSHA-Thank you. MR.HUNSINGER-You're welcome. AUDIENCE MEMBER-You did not approve it? MR. HUNSINGER-We did not approve it, no. We made a recommendation to the Zoning Board. They have to go before the Zoning Board next. They have to go to the Zoning Board tomorrow night. MR.KREBS-Yes,and once they go to the Zoning Board,if they get approval,they have to come back before us again for site plan review. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SUBDIVISION NO.3-2013 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW JENNIFER BALL OWNER(S) PAMELA HARRIS ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRES LOCATION PICKLE HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 20.88 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 16 & 4.89 ACRES. A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE 4.89 ACRE PARCEL. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 1-96,A V 51-90,SP 56-91, SP 43-91, BP 92-289 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 20.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9 SECTION CHAPTER A-183,CHAPTER 147 JENNIFER BALL, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 20.88 acre parcel into two lots of 16&4.89 acres. A single family dwelling is to be constructed on the 4.89 acre parcel. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. MR.HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS.BALL-How are you? MR.HUNSINGER-Good. How are you? MS.BALL-I'm good. Jen Ball. MR.HUNSINGER-Would you like to describe your project,what you'd like to do? r.7