Loading...
2007-05-31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 31, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 26-2007 Family Footwear Group Laura Feathers 1. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15 Site Plan No. 28-2007 Kathy Hill/Swank 10. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22 Subdivision No. 16-2006 Robert McDonald 15. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.18-2-29, 58 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 29-2007 Charles Webster 22. Tax Map No. 290.-1-15 Subdivision No. 14-2006 William & Deborah O’Reilly 26. FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 7-2007 Jeff Threw 28. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 137-2-9.8 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 33-2007 Angio Dynamics 35. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 31, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS SEGULJIC GIS ADMINISTRATOR-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-We’re going to deviate from the published agenda. The first item on the agenda, if the Board is so inclined, is to go into Executive Session to discuss the Judge’s decision on Northeast Dining and Lodging, Inc. I will make the motion, if someone would like to second that. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE JUDGE’S DECISION ON NORTHEAST DINING AND LODGING, INC., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate the patience of the audience. We will be requesting of the applicant on the Northeast Dining and Lodging decision to come back before the th Board at our next regular meeting on June 19, so that we can understand better the Judge’s decision. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 26-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED FAMILY FOOTWEAR GROUP LAURA FEATHERS OWNER(S) GORDON DEVELOPMENT ZONING HC- INTENSIVE LOCATION 1500 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE. TENT SALE EVENTS PLANNED FOR LARGER THAN 12 DAYS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SSE 2-05, SSE 3-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION 179-9-020 LAURA FEATHERS, PRESENT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. HUNSINGER-George, could you summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Just very quickly. This is, I guess, a returning application, if you will. The Planning Board has previously granted similar approvals for what the applicant is seeking tonight, a tent sale at this location. As far as I’m aware and as far as Staff is aware, there have been no issues with access or any safety concerns of any kind, and I guess as noted in the Staff Notes, the only exception being the duration of the new plan, the new site plan and the new application is requesting 31 days for this tent sale, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MS. FEATHER-Good evening. I’m Laura Feathers. I own Family Footwear, and this is Laurie Burnett, the store manager of the store. MR. HUNSINGER-Hi. If you could just tell us what you’d like to do. MS. FEATHERS-What we’re trying to do is in August we would like to do a one month stst long tent sale. So we’d put it up August 1, take the tent down August 31. The reason being the influx of traffic in August, one of the highest volume months of the year, and we’re trying to level off our sales through the winter months. Because obviously the winter months are much leaner here, as far as for paying your bills and maintaining rent and expenses. So we’re trying to maximize the August sales. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. FORD-How does a tent sale address that? MS. FEATHERS-It’s kind of interesting. It’s only a 20 by 20 tent, but what it does is we put, we do special purchases and things and put clearance footwear outside, and it brings in tons of people because they want to get a sales shoe, or whatever, for their family, but it also brings them in to the main store. So the purchases are including all kinds of stuff, it’s not just clearance of inventory. We have four store locations, and Lake George is one of our locations that we get to clear out a lot of inventory that are, you know, odds and ends of weird things that just have been sitting in the company, and what have you, and also a lot of specials for New Balance and things like that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-I have one further question. What is the actual size of the tent? MS. FEATHERS-It’s a 20 by 20. I have a picture of it. MR. FORD-Okay, because on this that was presented, it is rectangular, but it certainly is not square. MS. FEATHERS-I did it by freehand, me and my ruler. I do apologize, but you’re right. It is 20 by 20, which should be a square. It uses two parking spaces, a little red and white tent. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you take the merchandise in and out every evening? MS. FEATHERS-Yes. We open at nine o’clock in the morning. We close at nine o’clock at night. We do it during our regular store hours, unless it gets dark early, then we have to bring it in a little earlier. Probably the earliest would probably be about eight o’clock at night, if it really darkened up, or if it rains really hard, because you get wet. So then we end up bringing the merchandise in early, but, yes. MR. SIPP-There’s no electricity in the tent? MS. FEATHERS-There’s no electricity in the tent at all. MR. SIPP-No cash registers? MS. FEATHERS-No, you have to go into the store. We set it up, it’s attached basically right beside the building. It’s usually two parking spaces. So, you walk in to the tent 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) area. There’s an employee out there who directs them through the shoe store to pay for the purchase. We don’t have anything out there, other than shoes. MR. FORD-Prior approvals have been for what length of time? MS. FEATHERS-A week at a shot. They’re usually allowed two weeks out of the summer, normally, or two weeks out of the year, is what your Town, in the past, allowed. MR. FORD-Is bigger that much better, or longer that much greater? MS. FEATHERS-Longer is better for us. We have the books from the old company who was there prior to us. They used to have a tent sale. I don’t know if they did a year round tent sale, but that’s what it seemed like. When I would look in their books, I looked at their numbers. I mean, tent sales just bring in so much more traffic for a store that it really increases your total volume, which makes a difference at the end of the year for you. I mean, we really, winter months here are harder, because we’re trying to maximize August because out of all the months that’s our biggest influx of traffic. MRS. STEFFAN-I think in the past, I’m trying to remember, I think I’ve been on the Board three years, and we’ve had this conversation, I think there was a conversation at the Town Board. There’s been a conversation at the Planning Board, about these tent sales, and the difficulty of having them for the duration of the summer. The difficulty being it may increase sales for you, but everybody’s taxed on their properties and what it does is providing folks who are having these tents with extra square footage is they don’t pay taxes on, and so they’re competing with other businesses who maintain their footprint and then don’t have the opportunity to compete. MS. FEATHERS-But you also are paying sales tax. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, there is a sales tax issue, but there’s the property tax. MS. FEATHERS-So, I mean, the revenue is still coming back, and when you’re talking a structure as small as a 20 by 20, it’s not a very big space. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the tent’s been bigger than that. That goes back a ways. MS. FEATHERS-Yes, I was going to say, that is a different company. LAURIE BURNETT MS. BURNETT-In the past it was much larger and much more permanent. This is a very temporary tent with a fraction of the merchandise. It’s just meant to be a draw to get people into the main store. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a visual. MS. BURNETT-It’s not anything that’s trying to increase the footprint as in the past. MRS. STEFFAN-How many parking spaces will it take up? MS. FEATHER-Two. MRS. STEFFAN-Two, where before it was almost six. MS. BURNETT-Much less of an impact. There’s no sides. MS. FEATHERS-And that was a different corporation. That was a totally different company. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the concerns, I think it was either last year or two years ago, when the former company wanted, did the tent sale, was vehicular access around the tent, that it blocked off the corner, so that you couldn’t get around the corner. Whereas the tent as proposed wouldn’t do that? Okay. MS. FEATHERS-Right, where our tent doesn’t block anything. It’s a clear pathway through the whole parking lot, which is wonderful. MS. BURNETT-This is a tent we can take down if there’s a severe storm. It pops right down. There’s nothing permanent about it whatsoever. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So do you actually put the tent up and down every day? MS. FEATHERS-No. We don’t. I put it up and we leave it up, unless it starts to get loose and then we have to tighten up the sides or whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. FEATHERS-But we don’t have intention of taking it down every day, no. MR. FORD-At least one of those sites, one of those parking spaces is for handicap, that you’re taking over, correct? MS. FEATHERS-Yes, neither of those are handicap spaces, because you don’t want to take away your handicap parking spaces. The handicap parking spaces are closest to the front door. The front door of the building is where our handicap is. It’s at the end of the building. We’re putting the tent up. See the handicaps. MRS. STEFFAN-Now one of the things I’ve been opposed to in the past is the danger tape, the cinder blocks, and, I’m trying to think, I think it was the cinder blocks and the danger tape that were wrapped around the tent in the past, and will that be part of this? MS. FEATHERS-No. Well, we do have orange tape, but the reason you do it is so you don’t have somebody falling over wires, you know. So there’s not big danger things, and we don’t have any cinder blocks involved at all. MRS. STEFFAN-I understand that, from my point of view, having been on the corner, it’s a busy intersection of 149, or going north to Lake George, that the same thing that attracts people in there to sell merchandise is also the things that distracts them from the traffic that’s in front of them. So that’s a perspective, not the perspective, it’s a perspective. I’m not sold on the tent, that’s why there’s many of us on the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the will of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-We have a Short SEQRA on this. It’s an Unlisted Action and it’s a Short Form. MR. FORD-I just have an opinion, and I haven’t served as long on the Board as some others, but it seems to me that one has to draw the line somewhere, and length of time is one place to do it. I’m concerned that it goes from nine days or ten days or a week to 30 days, and before you know it it will be 60 days, and it becomes increasingly difficult to justify saying no, but eventually I think we’ve got to draw a line in the sand and say, that’s it, we’re not going to go there with that length of time or that size structure. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a problem with either of the specific things that this applicant has requested? MR. FORD-Not the size, but the length of time, but that’s only one voice. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think I share the same concern, in that if we agree to the 30 days, based upon the logic that the applicant is using for the reasons behind erecting the tent, I think we could probably expect that if their sales are successful, as they hope, that they will come back next year wanting 45 days or 90 days. So I think the point’s well taken that there needs to be some limit established for such a temporary structure. MS. FEATHERS-Am I allowed to respond to any of that? MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MS. FEATHERS-I wasn’t sure. No, the 30 days is obvious the maximum we would request any year. Basically we’re just trying to take advantage of one month’s sales, and because of the winter and because of the rest of the year you need to really have at least a really strong month, because I don’t know if you know what per square foot rents are, and that building, it’s very outrageous, but obviously a reason to be there. We would not, we could even have an agreement of some sort that on this that we would never ask for more than 30 days. I mean, that’s more than a reasonable request. I just think that when you do it at a two week stretch it’s a different animal, because that’s what currently your Board, by your Bylaws, says two weeks out of the year, and I can pick those two weeks, or request the two weeks and pay the premiums to do that, but, I mean, is there something with, in stating a 30 day maximum on tents? MR. TRAVER-I understand. I’m sensitive to what you’re saying from a sales and from a management perspective, but we have to look at it in the context of all of the other businesses up there who are going to be, if their management is competent, and I’m sure it is, they’re going to be very interested in how you make out in your tent sale, and one of the things that we need to be concerned about, I believe, is that we’re going to end up having a tent city up there with the precedent we’re allowing tents for the month of June, July, August, for very sound business reasons, but perhaps not sound Town reasons. MS. FEATHERS-Right. You do have other businesses that have month long tent sales currently, each year. That’s the reason I’m applying, as a business person. MR. TRAVER-Exactly. MS. FEATHERS-So that’s why I was applying, because of the fact that there are other businesses in that area that have one month long tent sales. MRS. STEFFAN-One application is right after yours, as a matter of fact. MS. FEATHERS-But I mean, the other thing is I would think you would want to be pro- business. You want to keep the businesses in the area. Obviously, the businesses are good. It helps the tax dollars. We aren’t putting a huge building. It’s not a giant tent. It’s not a sloppy structure. I think it’s very tastefully done. It’s not an eyesore in any manner. I know that in the past in Lake George they used to allow these bizarre structures with tarps and canopies. This happens to be a nice tent. It’s not ugly. So it’s not going to bother people visually. It just grabs your eye because it’s red and white. MR. FORD-Again, heretofore you had it for how many days? MS. FEATHERS-And before we had it for two weeks, the Special Events clause. MRS. STEFFAN-George, can I ask you a question? What about the signage on these? We’ve had some situations on the outlet strip recently. There’s a new outlet that opened. They’ve got signs that are on the road, they’re not permitted. There’s actually one who had a tent sale recently that was not permitted. How do we handle that, the signage that goes along with these tents? MR. HILTON-Right. Well, the Special Events section states no more than one sign may be displayed. Anything above and beyond what’s allowed under that section would be, I guess investigated and enforced by our Staff. Any current concerns or any existing violations I’m certainly not aware of, but I can only assume that they’re being reviewed and looked into by our Staff. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually they didn’t know about it. It’s one of those things that happened on a weekend. We were on a Planning Board drive around. We saw them. Knew they weren’t permitted, and they were gone by the time the weekend was over. MR. HILTON-Right, and unfortunately that’s, I don’t want to say typical, but that happens. MRS. STEFFAN-The nature of it, sure. MS. FEATHERS-But then there are responsible businesses who do apply for all their permits, like me. We’ve always permitted our signs and everything, because obviously we want to go by the Town rules, whatever it may be. MR. FORD-But how would you feel about a 50% increase in the allowable time over what you have had prior to this? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MS. FEATHERS-I’m very flexible. That would be nice. I’d prefer the month, but I can’t always get what I want, you know what I mean, obviously. I’m just trying to do something that will help my business, so that when it’s the tough months, I can still survive. MR. FORD-I appreciate that. MS. FEATHERS-That’s really the bottom line. MR. FORD-How does anyone else feel on the Board about that? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my own feeling about this particular application is it really isn’t a very big tent, in terms of size and visual impact. It only takes up two parking spaces. You can still maneuver cars around that corner, and it certainly doesn’t add to any stormwater runoff or anything like that. I guess the issue of time is certainly of concern, but knowing, you know, not that looking at the past is the right way to look at it, but I know in the past that there has been other businesses that have had tents up for much longer periods of time, I mean, even since I’ve been on the Planning Board. I guess my own feeling is I think the request of this applicant is fairly reasonable, just for one month and for the size tent that’s being requested. I think the other thing that makes it a low impact is the fact that there’s no electricity out in the tent, and that it’s really not much more than a canopy. MS. FEATHERS-It really isn’t, because if it gets bad, we have to bring stuff in. MR. HUNSINGER-And as the applicant stated, it’s really a sign that brings customers in and gets their attention. So I guess that’s how I feel about this particular application. MR. SIPP-I agree with you. I think it’s smaller than the one that was there in the past, and in a much better location than what you had in the past. The time I don’t think is a limiting factor, in my way of thinking. I think one month should be established as a maximum in this kind of thing. MS. FEATHERS-And we’d be more than happy to write an agreement about that, even, if that’s what the Town would like. MR. SIPP-This would cover the whole, we’ve got one coming up right after you that’s the same thing for a tent, which is a shorter period of time, but approximately the same size, and probably in a much better location. MS. FEATHERS-It’s a little bigger tent. MS. BURNETT-It’s bigger. This is less obtrusive. MS. FEATHERS-Theirs has sides to it. MRS. STEFFAN-It is the same duration. It’s a month. MS. FEATHERS-Yes, it’s the same time, too, but it’s not an ugly structure either. I mean, theirs is a very nice tent. They have it every year, and it really helps their business. MR. HUNSINGER-Are we comfortable moving forward with SEQRA? MR. FORD-Anybody else weigh in on the three week versus four week, versus two week? That’s not an issue? MR. TRAVER-Well, I agree with some of the other sentiments regarding the size of the tents, I think, and the points that Chris made about the lack of utilities and so on. I mean, that certainly mitigates it in my mind. I have no issue with that. I certainly understand the applicant’s desire to increase their business. I certainly would if I were in that situation. I’m concerned about the precedent of the time. So, that’s my main issue. If that were addressed somehow, that would sway me to be more supportive, I think. MS. FEATHERS-What if we drew up an agreement that we wouldn’t request more than 30 days each year? We could do that. MR. FORD-Steve, what do you think about three weeks? How do you feel about the three? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. TRAVER-I think it’s a good compromise. MR. FORD-That’s what I was trying to strike. MR. SIPP-What would Mr. Ford suggest? MR. FORD-Three week maximum. MR. SIPP-I could live with that. MRS. STEFFAN-We have another application coming up right after this. MS. FEATHERS-Why three weeks? I’m curious. MR. FORD-It’s a compromise between what you’ve had in the past and what you’re now going to go for, which was double what you had, had in the past. There wasn’t anything particularly sacred about it. MS. FEATHERS-I was just curious where your number was coming from. Because I know the three biggest months of our year are the summer months, obviously. That’s when you have your influx of tourism. MRS. STEFFAN-George, is there a preamble on this tent issue in the Zoning Code, about the intent? MR. HILTON-Well, really this is, as I understand it, what we have is a Special Sales Event section of the Town Code, which is separate from the Zoning Code, and that allows for tent sales up to 12 days, and when someone wishes to exceed that 12 day period, I believe it’s being looked at as either an expansion of the use, however minor or major, but an expansion of the use nonetheless, that would kick it to the Planning Board for review as a site plan, but to answer your question, I guess, as I said, there’s a Special Sales Event section which is different from this. Anything under 12 days probably wouldn’t be looked at by this Board, and again, the only reason it’s being looked at is because they wish to exceed the 12 days. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How big’s your store? What’s the square footage of your store? Do you know? MS. FEATHERS-Yes, I have it down on here. Sorry. I’ve got to find out where I put it down. It’s somewhere around 7,000 square feet. That I remember. MR. TRAVER-So it’s just under six percent increase. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. How about we go to SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 26-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: FAMILY FOOTWEAR GROUP LAURA FEATHERS, 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 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the 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. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Does the Code talk about the size of the sign? It just says they’re allowed one sign? It doesn’t say anything about the size. MR. HILTON-There is an item that says that it must be in conformance with the Town Ordinance for temporary signage. I guess I don’t have those dimensions at this point. That’s in our sign section, but it does say that it has to conform with the Town Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if they have a sign that is the whole length of the tent, presumably that’s in compliance and conformance with the size that’s allowed? MRS. STEFFAN-It except for if they already have one on the building, then that’s two signs. MS. FEATHERS-We have applied, before, for having that sign up, and every year it’s been approved. So I’m assuming it follows the dimensions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HILTON-Okay. Temporary signs, wall signs, wall signs shall be limited to 32 square feet. Temporary freestanding signs, 16 square feet. So there’s an application process as well, so, you know, assuming that someone comes in and fills out the application and the sign’s up, and, you know, it’s in compliance. Do you get people that do something on the weekend? Quite possibly. I don’t know. I’m not saying that this is the case here, but, and as they stated, they’ve applied for sign permits in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, folks. What’s the duration of the sale? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’d be inclined to give them the month as they requested, but I’m not sure the rest of the Board supports that. MR. FORD-You’ve got at least three supporting three weeks, I believe. MR. FULLER-Mr. Traver had asked for an idea about a suggestion for worrying about that 30 day precedent value, and I think that’s a good point. If that is a concern, what I would encourage you to do is relate it to the specifics of this project, the size, location, you know, impact on the flow through the property, the property itself. So that way, if a project does come forward in the future that you don’t feel the same way about for the 30 days, you know, the tent is 40 by 40 or 50 by 50. It is in the middle of the parking lot. It is not as isolated as this, then you can distinguish the timeframe that you may want to limit that to. MR. TRAVER-Or, excuse me, if it were on another piece of property, another location? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. FULLER-So just direct your decision right at the site at hand, and justify whatever duration based on that. MR. TRAVER-However, it would remain a precedent for this site. MR. FULLER-That’s a good point, until conditions change. Certainly if some other use entered that plaza that was much higher traffic or something like that, used more spaces, or parking became at a premium, then that obviously, you know, could be taken into account in the future. That’s a good point. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, that was part of the reason why I asked for the client’s square footage inside the building, you know, 400 square feet on a 7,000 square foot retail space is, it’s pretty insignificant, and the entire plaza is 52,000 square feet. It only loses two parking spaces. We seem stuck MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2007 FAMILY FOOTWEAR GROUP LAURA FEATHERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a Tent Sale. Tent Sale events planned for longer than 12 days requires Planning Board approval 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 5/31/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and NOT APPLICABLE 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection NOT APPLICABLE 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2007 FAMILY FOOTWEAR GROUP LAURA FEATHERS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, negative. Paragraph Seven, Eight and Nine do not apply. It is approved with the following conditions. That the applicant adhere to the Town Zoning Code regarding signage and that the duration of the sale will be 30 days for the 20 by 20 tent, based on current site conditions. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Three two. So the motion does not pass. Would anyone else like to put forward a motion? MR. FORD-Could I put forth the same motion and substitute 21 days, instead of the 30 days? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion, is there a second? MR. SIPP-Second. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2007 FAMILY FOOTWEAR GROUP LAURA FEATHERS, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, negative. Paragraph Seven, Eight and Nine do not apply. It is approved with the following conditions. That the applicant adhere to the Town Zoning Code regarding signage and that the duration of the sale will be 21 days for the 20 by 20 tent, based on current site conditions. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-So you got three weeks. MS. FEATHERS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MS. FEATHERS-I appreciate your taking the time to go over this. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, you’re welcome. MS. FEATHERS-And you should come to our tent sale. You’d really think they weren’t that bad. MRS. STEFFAN-I do buy shoes at your store. SITE PLAN NO. 28-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KATHY HILL/SWANK OWNER(S) DAVID KENNY ZONING HC-INT LOCATION 1444 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT TH PROPOSES A TENT SALE FROM JUNE 30 THRU JULY 28, 2007. TENT SALE EVENTS PLANNED FOR LARGER THAN 12 DAYS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 10-06, 19-06, 22-05; AV 7-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22 SECTION 179- 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) KATHY HILL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. Very quickly. This is a very similar application to what we just heard. I guess the main difference, Number One, 30 by 45 square foot outdoor tent. The requested duration is very similar. It appears to be one month, and as mentioned in the Staff Notes, an identical application to this one was approved on April 25, 2006. The resolution has been attached, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. HILL-Good evening. My name is Kathy Hill. I’m the manager of the Swank Factory Store. Swank has been in the Adirondack Outlet Mall for 20 years. We’ve had a total of 23 tent sales at this location, 16 in July and 7 with the Mall during September for Balloon Fest. The July tent sale is very important to my store and my company. The tent sale is about 20% of my annual sales. Not having a tent sale would be a hardship. We are a true factory store. When we have a tent sale, we sell greatly reduced prices from retail. Ninety-five percent of the items I sell are priced below $10. I use a 30 by 45 white tent. Caution tape is used, per the Fire Marshal, to keep cars 20 feet from the tents. Our location for the tent is perfect, down in the corner, away from the traffic. We are 67 feet back from the sidewalk, 113 feet from the Mall entrance. On the other side of the tent is an embankment, then a 29 foot driveway, then the other Mall. In this location, we can be seen from cars coming off the road. So there’s no sudden stopping. The tent would go th up on Friday, June 29, merchandise would be set up then, so that Fire Marshal can th come and inspect it. The sale would start the next day, on June 30, and run until July th 28, at five o’clock. Everything is out that night. This sale is an established event in the area. We have customers that come from all over. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-Why do you need a tent that size, please? MS. HILL-I have a lot of belts, wallets, actually that’s the size tent that I’ve been using for the last 16 years out there. We cram a lot of merchandise in there for the customers. I’ve had people this past weekend ask me, well, where’s your tents? Because the weather was just like July out for Memorial Day weekend. They all expected I would have a tent up. No, that’s in July. I have a security company that, it takes me a full day to set up the tent, and I have a security company the whole time, Command Secure down in Ballston Spa. They’ve been doing it for the last 16 years. MR. HUNSINGER-So you have watchmen there during the evening? MS. HILL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I had was on the actual site plan itself, in terms of the, is the drawing of the tent, is that to scale? MS. HILL-Probably not. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because I think it actually would take up more space than that. MS. HILL-Well, it’s down in the corner, and the way they did the parking, the parking lines, it’s not, you know, they have part of the area, there is no parking there, down in that corner, because of the way it would be. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you know how many parking spaces you lose? And the other question I had was do you lose that drive thru aisle in the corner? MS. HILL-No. Well, they still go around and stuff. Because of the Fire Code, that we were supposed to rope off 20 feet to keep the combustible engines away. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. HILL-But ours is one of the bigger parking lots in the area there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MS. HILL-That’s where Dave Kenny said I had to place my tent many years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Away from the building? MS. HILL-Yes, away from the building, because it’s out of the traffic flow. It doesn’t obstruct anybody coming in and out of the Mall. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, and unless the Mall is absolutely packed, no one parks in that corner. MR. SIPP-This will have electricity and lights? MS. HILL-It has electricity inside the tent. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the application said a generator. Do you have a generator? MS. HILL-We’ve done the generator. The place I always got it, they had a fire, and so they’re not available, but the Mall does have, there is an electric outlet, and the Fire Marshal said they can run the cord. They actually dug a trench to run the cord under the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no generator. Okay. I feel better about that. Because that was one of my questions was where the generator was located. MS. HILL-Yes. Before they didn’t have any power because they had dug everything up, and then they put power back in there. So now there’s power. MR. FORD-How would you feel about three weeks? MS. HILL-I’d take it. I work it every day, so, from morning to night. MR. TRAVER-How would you feel about two weeks? MS. HILL-I know I’d hear it from my boss when I called them. Three weeks would be good. MR. TRAVER-There’s an aerial photograph attached to the site plan, and it actually appears to have the tent in it. I’m not sure if that’s. MS. HILL-That was something that Staff had, the picture. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it certainly appears. Have you ever had the, you probably never had the sale in April, I assume? MS. HILL-No. MR. TRAVER-Because I think that’s when most of these pictures were taken. It might be something else. MS. HILL-No, it’s been out there for the last 16 years in July. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 28-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KATHY HILL/SWANK, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the 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. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I had, you’ve said that you’re required to rope off 20 feet around the tent because of Fire Code. Is that because there’s sides on the tent? Because the previous applicant didn’t identify that. MS. HILL-That’s Fire Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is it because there’s sides on the tent and it’s an enclosed space? MS. HILL-It doesn’t even state that, on the Fire Code with the sides. It just states that, from a tent, from the tent out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. HILL-Because, you know, the Fire Marshal and I are on good terms. We have been for, you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you’ve been doing it for 23 years, yes. Okay. Any final comments or questions? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is there any other feedback? MR. SIPP-I would say we would look at the limit of this operation for, again, 21 days. MRS. STEFFAN-On both of the applications we’re saying 21 days, so the applicant can determine what days out of the month they want to be. So, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2007 KATHY HILL/SWANK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning th Board for the following; Applicant proposes a Tent Sale from June 30 thru July 28 2007. Tent Sale events planned for longer than 12 days requires Planning Board approval. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 5/31/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and NOT APPLICABLE 8. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection NOT APPLICABLE 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2007 KATHY HILL/SWANK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Six is fine. Paragraph Seven, Eight and Nine do not apply. This is approved with the following conditions. That the applicant adhere to the Town Zoning Code regarding signage, and that the duration of this sale will be 21 days, based on current site conditions. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-You’ve got 21 days. MS. HILL-Thank you very much. MR. FORD-Thank you. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MRS. STEFFAN-See you next year. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2006 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT MC DONALD AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.11 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR 1.03 ACRE LOTS. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 73-06, 12/26/06 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-29, 58 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. Really quickly, this is a follow up to a Sketch Plan that this Board reviewed in December of 2006. As indicated in the Staff Notes, a previous Area Variance requests to have two driveways on Corinth Road have been denied previously. So this subdivision has been re-designed to show a common driveway on the border of Lots One and Two, and there should be a note on the plat added, at this date, that the existing driveway on Lot One will be abandoned and re-vegetated. As we’ve also mentioned, I guess the question would be has consideration been given to a cluster subdivision design with some common area, green space, and with all the lots possibly accessing one drive either off of Kimberly Lane or Corinth Road, and basically, the limits of clearing should be delineated by orange construction fencing in the field and inspected prior to any site work, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing the McDonalds. Bob McDonald is sitting here with me at the table. Briefly, if you remember this subdivision proposed on Corinth Road, just north of the Hudson Pointe Boulevard entrance. We had some discussions about the entrance to Hudson Pointe, whether we could front off of that or enter off of that, and we let the Board know that there was an ownership in there by the Homeowners Association, outside of the limits of the right of way of the road. So that that was not a possibility. Quick history, again, two lots, a nonconforming lot in the current zoning, Lot 31 on Kimberly Lane of the original Southern Exposure subdivision, and then the house lot that Mr. McDonald also owns that fronts on Corinth Road. We’ve had the test pits looked at with the Town Engineer, and the septic, it’s all designed on there. The clearing limits are shown. We have no problem with your Staff comments. The only question I have on the Staff comments is I thought in the cluster provision that it was five acre minimum, and we only have four acres. So we don’t fall under the cluster provision. Did we think about it? No, because of the fact that we don’t comply with the cluster provision. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we had talked about it during Sketch Plan. MR. STEVES-So that’s the reason we didn’t. Plus the fact that the one acre zoning, one acre conforming lots. The only, not stipulation, the only comment we want to make about the proposed shared driveway, we have no problem with that. We understand that. As I explained to the Board at Sketch Plan, we were denied the variance application, but that doesn’t stop us from ever going back in front of that Board. Did any member of this Board, during their review of this project, did they go over and look at that garage, or look at the site? It’s a substantial concrete block building with three overhead doors. I mean, to, you know, not utilize it in its current location is kind of crazy in our opinion. So we always reserve the right to go back in front of the Zoning Board. All we’re asking with this Board is that if we do go back in front of the Zoning Board and obtain that variance, that it’s not a stipulation that we have to come back in front of this Board, like it has been in other applicants, and I know that it’s been stated that a shared driveway must be shared, and if you’ve got a variance, you must come back to this Board for modifications to the approved subdivision. The stipulation was made in the motion that it must be a shared driveway. We understand it must be a shared driveway until such time as a variance is granted, but it’s up to this Board whether they want to stipulate it that way or not. What we’re saying is if we get the variance, do you want us to come back in front of you for a modification? If you’ve ever driven over there and looked at it, we think it makes sense to try to keep the house with the substantial garage where it is and not tear down that garage or locate a driveway, loop all the way back around and move the doors to the back of that garage. I mean, it’s the Fort Knox of garages. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Is the applicant using the garage currently? BOB MC DONALD MR. MC DONALD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s stored in there? MR. MC DONALD-Right now lumber. Lumber, cement. MR. STEVES-We’re not saying, you know, we’re coming to you with a proposed shared driveway, put it that way. We’re just saying we still reserve the right, we may go back in front of the Zoning Board and ask for that variance again. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the concern I have with your request was there was a subdivision in another location in Town where we stipulated a shared driveway. We asked that they abandon an existing driveway. They never did. They continued to use the existing driveway. The shared driveway was installed, but the old house lot never used it. The new house lot did use it, and then they went back, and then they tried to come back and get defacto approval because they said, well, we’re using it and it’s not posing a problem, and I wouldn’t want to be put back into that position. MR. STEVES-And that’s why I’m stating, I want, I’m letting you know right up front, we will most likely be going back for a variance application. I’m just letting you know that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-So you have the opportunity, whether or not you want us to be able to come back in front of this Board, if, in fact, we get the variance, do you want us to come back for a modification to that subdivision, knowing that we’re going to hopefully be able to do that. What I’m saying is I don’t want you to, right now you’re saying the only way it’s going to get approved is with a shared driveway, and I go back through the hoops of a variance and come back and you say, well, I’m glad you got the variance, but we’re not giving up the shared driveway on this Board’s level, then it defeats the purpose. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do other members want to weigh in on that? MR. FORD-While we’re on driveways, could you address the reason why the shared access to all four lots is not off Kimberly? MR. STEVES-You have a responsibility in your Code to utilize the frontage that you have on the road. If you do not utilize the road frontage that your lot has, in other words if we share all off Kimberly, at least two of the lots would need a variance not to be utilizing the road frontage, and just because of the fact the existing house on Corinth Road, it fronts right on Corinth Road. It doesn’t make any sense, in our opinion, to have a driveway. That’s a pretty substantial length driveway to bring it off Kimberly Lane. You’re talking about two, three, almost four hundred foot of driveway to get to the back of the garage on Lot One. That’s an awful lot of disturbance in asphalt for a four lot subdivision. I mean, if we were going to create 10 or 12 lots, we would create some kind of an access road, but for four lots, it just didn’t make sense. MR. FORD-Or for three and leaving the one on Corinth Road alone? MR. STEVES-Meaning only creating one lot on Corinth Road? MR. HUNSINGER-No, bring the driveway in. MR. FORD-You have the driveway there now, correct? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. What about bringing the access to the remaining lots in off Kimberly? MR. STEVES-It’s a possibility. MR. FORD-It eliminates the problem with the dual access or whatever access off Corinth. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. STEVES-We’d still need a variance. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments? MR. FORD-Does anyone else see what I’m talking about? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I do. It makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-Through Lot Four, you mean? MR. FORD-A split between Three/Four that would extend down to two. MR. STEVES-Don’t disagree. You’d still be required, it’s kind of a double edged sword. It helps out as far as the subdivision, but it puts us back in front of the Zoning Board for a few different variances. You’re also required, on Corinth Road, to have double the lot width to have double the lot width or shared driveway. We wouldn’t be sharing a driveway with the road frontage that we have on Corinth Road. So we’d need a double variance for that lot. So it puts us kind of behind the eight ball with the Zoning Board. We’re asking for two variances that, by Code, we really don’t need to obtain. So you’re supposed to be getting the least amount of relief necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-And I’m not disagreeing, but it puts us in kind of an awkward spot with the Zoning Board. We discussed that with the Zoning Board, by the way, if you go through the plans. MR. FORD-Bringing access in off Kimberly? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. FORD-And their reaction was? MR. STEVES-Share the driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? MR. FORD-Sometimes it’s always good to weigh Codes with commonsense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the public that wants to address the Board on this application? I will open the public hearing, and since there are no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my own feeling is, with the shared driveway, I don’t have a problem with this at all, but if there’s a possibility that the Zoning Board would reverse their ruling, so that there are two access points on Corinth Road, then, you know. MR. STEVES-Well, maybe we could go in with what Mr. Ford has suggested as well. We can discuss that with the client. Because if they go in for a reversing on their ruling of the shared driveway on Corinth Road, you still have the right whether or not you want to allow that by subdivision code, I believe. If you say it must be a shared driveway, then I must come back for a modification to an approved subdivision, and you’d get a chance to look at it again. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be how I would tend to, I mean, that’s just my personal feeling. I don’t know how the rest of the members would rule on that, but, you know, and I certainly agreed with, I even highlighted Staff’s comments about abandoning the driveway on Lot One and re-vegetating it. MR. STEVES-We would put that note on the subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? They did a Long Form, right? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MRS. STEFFAN-It was a Long Form, yes. MR. SIPP-I had a question about the structure that goes across Lots Three and Four. Is this supposed to be a fence? MR. STEVES-It’s currently a fence there, yes. MR. SIPP-That’s a fence. MR. STEVES-That’s the actual property line of the second tax parcel, Lot 31 of the Southern Exposure subdivision. There’s a fence along that line. That would be obviously removed during this. MR. SIPP-Now, the shed that encroaches on the boundary on Lot Four, at the base, on the bottom. MR. STEVES-Yes, the neighboring shed? Yes, it’s just a small portable storage shed. We’ll just ask them to slide it over a few feet. MR. SIPP-That belongs to Livingston? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SIPP-Now, Lot Four, it shows no tree line except along the boundaries. Has that all been cleared? MR. STEVES-Actually the clearing limits, no, we’ll depict those clearing limits. It’s not all cleared, no. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s all forested. MR. STEVES-It’s all forested, yes. Just the opposite. Yes, the engineer showed them on the front lots, but I will take care of that, and as the Staff said, we will flag them out before construction. Basically conforming to what the clearing limits show on Lot Two, around the back of the house and substantial room around the, 15, 20 feet around the septic system and the driveway. MR. FORD-Could you address, please, Lot Two, the proposed well? MR. STEVES-Mr. Hutchins found that out after he submitted. This is all within the water district. There’s no proposed well. He showed that as their standard detail for the separation between wells and septics, but no wells are necessary in an area where Town water is available, and he’s not here to help me out. That’s been addressed already. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we ready for SEQRA? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let’s do SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT MC DONALD, 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 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the 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. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ve got three things on the conditions. The clearing limits delineated by orange construction fence. To amend the drawing to include tree lines and clearing limits, and then the comment on the existing driveway to Lot One will be abandoned and re-vegetated. Are there any other things that needed to be on? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think so. Those would be conditioned on Final, not Preliminary. Yes. Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary approval? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2006 ROBERT MC DONALD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.11 acre parcel into four 1.03 acre lots. Subdivision of land requires review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/31/07; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) 7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2006 ROBERT MC DONALD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Nine does not apply, and Paragraph Ten does not apply. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Now I’ll make a motion for Final approval. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2006 ROBERT MC DONALD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.11 acre parcel into four 1.03 acre lots. Subdivision of land requires review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/31/07; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2006 ROBERT MC DONALD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Nine does not apply, and Paragraph Ten does not apply. It is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the limits of clearing will be delineated by orange construction fencing in the field and inspected prior to any site work. 2. The applicant will amend the drawing to include tree lines and clearing limits, 3. That the applicant will put a notation on the plat that the existing driveway on Lot One will be abandoned and re-vegetated. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Did we want to be more specific about the clearing limits on Lots Two and Three, or do we want to just say as I think the applicant had said, within 15 feet of the septic and the house locations? MR. STEVES-I’m just letting you know that the lots, actually Three and Four and portions of Two, would not be clear cut. We’re not looking to clear cut those. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, I think you showed it on Lot Two, you just didn’t. MR. STEVES-We showed it on Lot Two. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Three and Four. I’m sorry. MR. STEVES-Three and Four. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you showed it on Lot Two, but not Three and Four. MR. STEVES-It’s similar to Lot Two. We have no problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to just say similar to the clearing limits as shown on Lot Two? Or is that implied in the motion. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that it was implied in the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. STEVES-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CHARLES WEBSTER AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 280 CHESTNUT RIDGE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 1092 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK WHICH REQUIRES FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE WETLAND ON THE PROPERTY. FILLING OR HARDSURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A WETLAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-15 SECTION 179-6-050D4 CHARLES WEBSTER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-If you could summarize Staff Notes, please, George. MR. HILTON-Yes. This is an application for a single family residence. What it’s proposing is, part of this, the reason it’s before this Board, is that site work, hard surfacing is proposed within 50 feet of a wetland, within 50 feet of a shoreline, if you will. As the plans indicate, there’s an area for a conforming septic system, and again, this is before you because of the proposed hard surfacing within 50 feet of that wetland boundary, and that’s really all I have to say at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. WEBSTER-Good evening. This would be a different matter before the Board. This project is in deep trouble, no question about it. This has been a year, full year since I started this application. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry to interrupt you, could you identify yourself for the record, sir. MR. WEBSTER-Right, and I’m Charles Webster, I’m the owner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. WEBSTER-I’m somewhat responsible for the problem. The only reason that I go ahead with this meeting and application is that I didn’t realize the other problems that would develop from the previous, in other words, each step of trying to improve this situation has brought another problem which is even worse, but I want to review with this Board what the situation is right now, and you might want to keep it in file or on your mind for a while in case it comes up, back around again, but you can’t take any action this evening because there’s too many other changes that have to be made. I have some pass outs here that I can show you. This was my original plan for putting a house on the lot. This is a wooded lot, with forest, trees about 60 years old. It has one reasonably level area, and that’s where I was going to have my driveway, and this was my original plan for placing it. All right. The Town Board, acting as the Board of Health, decided that, well, first, there’s a stream running through the property. It had been, until about two years ago, it had been an intermittent stream with very little water in it, but a developer in Washington County has dammed up a pond and is pushing additional water, spring water, over the top of a rift in the, there’s a glacial rift to Sanford’s Ridge. There’s two of them, but this is one of them, and is putting more water on this property than normally it had in the past. The stream runs about where that dotted line is, but the land only drops about three feet from one end of my property to the other. So the water doesn’t go very fast, but it’s a running stream. It’s running probably eight or ten cubic 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) feet a minute now. It shouldn’t have that much, but it is right now. So the first problem was they decided that I had a wetland, which never was wet before. This is the last lot that doesn’t have a building on it on what was my family farm. They marked blue tabs here for a wetland, and from there on, of course I’ve had my problems. My original proposal would probably be the best one, but it wasn’t accepted by the Board of Health because it put the septic field within what they figured was 45 feet from the edge of the wetland, but really more likely close to 90 feet from the actual stream, if the stream wasn’t so full of trash. This has been unoccupied for some time, and it’s quite a mess, but it doesn’t really fit the designation of a wetland in the truest sense of the word. There’s no rare plants. There’s no influx into the ground. As a matter of fact there’s a hardpan underneath so that nothing soaks in, in this area, and it is a running stream. When the Zoning Board approved what you had for your application here, they pretty much recognized that this really wasn’t a wetland situation but a stream situation. I have a couple of pictures. I didn’t make enough of them. I only have two that I want to pass on. I’ll explain what they are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WEBSTER-To get you a picture of what it is. The first picture shows the problem of tree removal on the property. It has about somewhere between three and five feet of good soil, and then this hardpan, and so trees removed take an enormous take an enormous gob of soil with them. This second picture going around shows the clearing on which I originally wanted to put the house, which takes very few trees out. The third picture is an ice pond, which is like Hovey Pond was made for ice, which is immediately downstream from the property, and this, all the land on this side, on the west side of this stream, is still, I’m sorry, yes, the west side, of this stream is still in my family ownership, but the people on the east side also share this stream and the pond. I don’t, there’s a picture of the pond included there, and it has never been muddy, in the 150 years that we’ve owned the property, at least I’ve never seen it. That’s 100 years that I’ve been looking at it, roughly. So I don’t want to, I didn’t want to remove hardly any trees because I would, I don’t think we could handle the situation. It’s about a six percent slope when you get off of the part where I had my parking place. Anyway, the next thing you have is the submittal, which is what the Town Engineer and my engineer got together and devised a system where I could theoretically build on this property. They moved the house down toward the stream, and had the pumping station pumping the sewage up to the area above the house. My first impression to that was that I might as well quit. Because I’m living in a place where they pump the sewage right now, and there’s a truck there almost every week. These things are supposed to work, but I don’t really like them. So, we went on with that, and I went ahead and made application with this Board to see if that would be accepted, but in the meantime other things have arisen. The well, I can’t get a well contractor to bring a rig in to dig a well where the wellhead is designated on this, and this is a limited, you see this is a one acre lot, and triangular in shape. So there’s maybe a half acre for building on when you get through with the wetland, and there’s no way that the well driller can get his rig in here. This is the immediate problem. The other problem is that the driveway is too steep. I don’t think emergency vehicles can get in, and the, there’s an antique stone wall along Chestnut Ridge Road which I did not want to tear out because again I can’t even count the number of great-grandfathers who did it. I have another, now, Mr. Steves had nothing to do with this sketch I have here except I’ve written it on top of some one of his drawings. This is what I would have to do. MR. FORD-If you just want to hand one, we can pass them on down. MR. WEBSTER-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. WEBSTER-I had an approved entrance, of course, up where the driveway originally shows, but I would have to provide another entrance through where the wall is pretty well gone anyway, but on a level, down at a lower level of the road, and then make a pad, level pad for the contractor to drill the well, and then this would have to stay open to service the well, but then I realized that I also have to get the contractors and material, fire truck, emergency vehicle, whatever, in, and I would probably have to have a driveway all the way in to the back of the house. So this would impinge a lot more, take out more trees, and I’ve indicated I would lay logs all along the wetland to protect it from erosion, because I don’t think this kind of fencing would ever handle the situation of all this grading. This has all been added, all this grading and ponding and everything that you have on the original was added after I agreed with what we were going to do when I was before the Zoning Board. All we had before the Zoning Board was the new location 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) of the house. I won’t do all this grading and stuff because it will just destroy the pond and ruin the whole project. So this is a different kind of a meeting, I’m sure, but it’s partly my fault. I thought that once a subdivision was developed, that people had pretty much free use of the property, and about 15 years ago a prospective buyer had virtual approval to build on it, but we rejected their offer. It was about $25,000 I believe. So anyway, this is where the situation stands, and I’m at an impasse. I think I’d be, if you’ll pardon the expression, a damn fool to build this house under these circumstances, but it is a shame that it can’t be built on. I do not think that this Board would object to the septic system being 45 feet from the wetland, but the Town Board, as the Town Board of Health, would not accept that, and I don’t expect that I can go back and get them to change their mind. I’d planned a small house, and it would be better for the neighborhood to have a house on this thing, because this house gathers trash, you know, all kinds of liquor and beer bottles and everything gets thrown on here because they know it’s vacant. So it’s a handy place. There are several alcoholics who use Chestnut Ridge Road. They have these little bottles of vodka. So the police can’t find them with alcohol and they flip them over the stone wall as they go by. I counted 50 when I cleaned up the lot the last time. So it would be better for the neighborhood if there was a house on it, and I just don’t know what to do, and I’m at an impasse, but I suppose some, I’m really about at the point of giving up, because I’ve run out of time. If I go through this cycle again, I’m not likely to get any better result, but I do want to, and in the meantime I have, of course, I have a complaint with the Corps of Engineers about the disturbance of the waterway, but it’s a small amount of water, and they have it on their computer, but that’s as far as it’s gotten. They haven’t taken any action. MRS. STEFFAN-So it is an Army Corps issue? MR. WEBSTER-The Corps of Engineers, this water, this is a rift through Sanford’s Ridge, and the high point is almost on the County line. It’s on, the high point is on Sanford’s Ridge Road which is an extension of the County Line Road, sort of. MR. FORD-I thought that Charlie Maine flagged that, but the U.S. Corps has also been in there verifying? MR. WEBSTER-The Corps of Engineers came in and dug a whole and said, yes, it’s on aerobic ground, but he was too embarrassed to write a letter. I’ve never seen him give a report. I showed him the whole stream and the whole problem. I showed him where the water should go and where it is going now and he did not report back, but the Town has not backed off on this business of this being a wetland. The water, the high point is between the, where Chestnut Ridge Road ends and the Sanford’s Ridge church, the high point of the rift. It mirrors the road, and the developer of a new project in Washington County has dammed up to get his pond bigger, and he’s running water over the top of the rift instead of into the Halfway Brook. When it goes the other way, it ends up going into Dunham’s basin. It still goes into the canal, but it goes in at Dunham’s basin at the other side of the elevation. It’s really, Sanford’s Ridge is a divide between the Hudson and the, all the way from Hudson and Champlain all the way from Glens Falls. I mean, in other words, Ridge Street in Glens Falls was once called Sanford’s Ridge. It was all Sanford’s Ridge, all the way to Vaughn Road at one time. Now name’s have been changed, but the topography is the same. So this is where I am. It’s going to be a good lot, but I just won’t do this because I think it would be too destructive. MR. HUNSINGER-You made a comment earlier about, you know, you weren’t really sure why you had to come back before the Planning Board. You understand the only reason is because you’re within 50 feet of the wetland. MR. WEBSTER-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WEBSTER-That’s right, but you see, I would be 45 feet from the wetland with my, or maybe even more if I stretched it a little bit more, I gave myself a pretty good grade, I could easily be 50 feet away from my septic system, with my leach field, I should say, and I would be at least 60 feet away with any part of the house, and that would have been reasonably acceptable by this Board, but unfortunately, acting as the Board of Health, they would not accept this one. So this is where the problems have generated. MR. HUNSINGER-So this plan that you just passed out to the Board, where you changed the driveway location, is that what you would like to do now? MR. WEBSTER-No. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WEBSTER-No, I’m just saying that’s what I’d have to do, but I won’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I misunderstood. MR. WEBSTER-In other words, as I say, this is my own sketch. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, no, I understand that. MR. WEBSTER-And Mr. Steves has nothing to do with it, but this is the sort of thing I would have to do, but when I look at it and realize the disruption to the lot, and the fact that I probably would not be allowed to use some sort of blocks or things, in other words, I’m not supposed to disturb anything near this so called wetland, that I just can’t handle it. I don’t think I can handle it. So I’m going to abandon the project, is what it amounts to, but I can’t be absolutely sure of that. So that’s why I’m here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So you’re going to go back to the drawing board and see if there’s a way to redesign it so that it works? MR. WEBSTER-The time is running out, as I say, and I don’t think I will, but you just keep it in mind, and if it does come around again, or if some other, if the political scene changes and somebody else ends up wanting to build on the lot, why I think you can visualize from the standpoint of this Board, an acceptable use of the lot can be made, but I can’t do it this way. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Would the DEC have any jurisdiction over that, if there is a developer on Sanford’s Ridge who backed up water, who changed the course, who changed a watercourse by putting in a pond. MR. WEBSTER-I’d have a lawsuit against the developer except he’s got more money than I have, and probably more expertise, and so all I have is a complaint with the Corps of Engineers. I’m sure they will act on it eventually. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m wondering if the Department of Environmental Conservation, you know, they’re certainly another operation that regulates. MR. WEBSTER-No. In fact, he has a State Aquatic Biologist who thinks he’s doing the right thing, and that’s another factor in, feather in his cap, because she thinks that maintaining his pond is the most important part of his project, and she doesn’t agree that although there’s a solid dam across the stream, so that no water can go into the Halfway Brook, it goes behind the church, the Methodist Church on Sanford’s Ridge Road, and directly into the Halfway Brook, and most of the spring water develops on the Halfway Brook side, on the north side. There was always managed to bring enough spring water to keep these ponds for ice, and that’s what they were for. There were two ponds. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you want us to table this, or are do you want to withdraw your application? You’d like us to table it. MR. WEBSTER-Table it for the time being, maybe six months throw it a way. That sort of thing. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-In six months, what? MR. WEBSTER-Throw it away, because if you don’t hear from me in six months, I’ll surely have given up. I’m pretty sure that I’m not going to do this, and I don’t think I have, I’m pretty old, and I’m not about to last much longer. MR. FORD-Mr. Webster, I want to personally compliment you on the intelligent way you have approached this and the way you’ve articulated it, and I also compliment you on the conclusion you have reached that the better course of valor here is to abandon the project. MR. WEBSTER-Well, the Town is going to suffer, because I was going to build a super efficient house, with a very low imprint, and going to have a geothermal heating arrangement, and a high level of insulation. I like efficiency. I have a car out in the 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) parking lot with, it has 380 miles on it since I filled it up with gas, and it has 62 miles to the gallon. That’s the best I’ve ever done. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have a comment, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. I just want to raise a couple of points I guess. You certainly can table this application. That’s not a problem, but if we’re talking about an extended period, like six months, I think that gets into a territory where we may have some difficulties track this application, and certainly we’d have to re-advertise it. There’s a public hearing. Whether you open the public hearing or not, I think the common courtesy would be to re- advertise the application. I’m not sure if it would be more appropriate to withdraw and then re-apply. I think the end result would be the same is it would be re-advertising and getting all the materials, because at this point, this Board would likely not be as familiar with the application. I’m just bringing these issues to your attention. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. HILTON-I don’t know what the answer is. MR. WEBSTER-It would only be a matter of the paper, I mean, having to crank out so much more paper, that’s all. It would not be a problem to, it could be dropped completely, at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what the applicant is saying is that if six months go by, then we can just throw it out and assume the project’s not going forward, but I see what you’re saying. If it’s that indecisive, maybe it would be better to. MR. HILTON-That’s one point I guess I’m trying to make. I guess playing that scenario out, six months down the line, let’s say that we haven’t heard anything, this Board, I believe, would still have to bring the application before you again to either, I don’t know, take some action, whether it’s the applicant withdrawing or this Board saying denying without prejudice. I don’t know, but I just see some kind of potential for some. MR. FORD-May I offer a suggestion? Wouldn’t it be most appropriate, and Mr. Webster has already come to the conclusion, to terminate this project, and why don’t we give him the opportunity to withdraw it at this point, and if six months hence you choose to reapply, based on new information or new occurrences, then you have that opportunity. MR. WEBSTER-That’s right. Yes, that would be better. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WEBSTER-Yes, I have alienated some of the people in the Town over this whole thing, and so it’s a little bit touchy even to go back through the same cycle of things. I would probably get the same result. MR. FORD-So it’s your desire to withdraw the application? MR. WEBSTER-I think so, yes, go ahead and withdraw. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that makes it a lot cleaner. MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you, Mr. Webster. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2006 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY AGENT(S) MULLER, MULLER & MANNIX OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION BAY ROAD EAST SIDE NORTH OF 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 60 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 6.001 AND 54.824 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-73 SECTION A-183 WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY, PRESENT 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I think on this one we could probably skip the summary of Staff Notes. It was pretty straightforward. If you could identify yourselves for the record, and tell us why you’re back. MR. O’REILLY-I’m Bill O’Reilly and this is my wife Deb, and we’re here for the third and final, I’m assuming, stage of the subdivision. MR. FORD-Never assume. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything to add? MR. O’REILLY-Just happy to be here. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or comments from the Board? It looked pretty straightforward to me. MR. O’REILLY-We’ve made the changes you asked for. We’ve put them on the drawings and brought them in. MR. FORD-You’ve complied with the request. MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t do SEQRA on this the last time, did we? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was just looking to see about SEQRA and the public hearing. th MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it says it a public hearing was on the 16. I think you might have closed it. MR. HUNSINGER-We closed it. We had to have done SEQRA if we did Preliminary review. The minutes are right here. Yes. We did do SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, Preliminary approved. MR. HUNSINGER-So the only thing we have is just Final approval. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MR. SIPP-Would this motion include the wording that we had previously that this land could not be subdivided, these lots could not be subdivided without further site plan review? I think that was Tom’s. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that was added to the plan. So it’s already on the plot. MR. FORD-Yes, it’s on there that site plan review will be required before any development on this parcel. So whether it’s subdivision or any development whatsoever. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s in bold. It’s big and bold. There’s no denying it’s there. MR. FORD-And it’s on both one and two. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2006 WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 60+/- acre parcel into two lots of 6.001 and 54.824 acres. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1/16/07; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. NOT APPLICABLE 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2006 WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Nine does not apply, and Paragraph Ten does not apply. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you for indulging us one more time. MR. O’REILLY-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2007 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFF THREW AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR- 1A; SR-1A LOCATION 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISON OF A 6.11 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 1.06, 1.13 AND 3.92 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SB 20-2004, SP 66-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 137-2-9.8 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF THREW, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-George, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. HILTON-There’s just a few points, I guess. Number One, concerning the areas of this site and the use of this site, as a, the past, a landfill, the areas have been delineated on the subdivision plat that have or had been used as landfill areas in the past. Previously, it has been requested the delineation of the former landfill area and the location of the four test borings be put on the plat, and a notation stating no further subdivision of this property unless all this information has been provided on this plat, and lastly there’s a comment here in Staff Notes about, from the Town Water Department concerning a district extension for this property, and the note saying that the plan must be approved by the Town Board, so that this Board should refer this project to the Town Board for review of the district extension. I’m anticipating that the applicant’s going to speak to this and it’s his belief that this is already within the water district. I don’t know that for sure. I guess I would suggest more than anything, that potentially some kind of acknowledgement or, I don’t know, consultation with the Water Department to have that question answered, but beyond that, I don’t have anything else at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Matt Steves, again, representing Jeffrey Threw who’s sitting at the table with me. This property is located on the south side of Eagan Road, which is off of Big Bay Road, on the west side of the Northway, and the Staff comment from the Town Water Department’s letter that the water district needs to be extended. I know that not all the maps are updated in the Town, and it takes a while with the numerous amount of changes that have happened over the years. The water district line used to go right through the middle of the property on an east/west, almost a due north/south line, and it was either ’99 or 2000 Mr. Threw’s father, Bill Threw, William Threw, extended it all the way to the end of Eagan Road to allow for the sales of lots that he has on the north side, and one that Clute Enterprises just built on, and the water tap is there, and in his report, the Water Department, it says that you must use ductile iron pipe and inspected. The pipe’s all the way down Eagan Road with the fire hydrant at the end, 200 feet beyond our property. The six inch water main is in the road, and has been there since 2000. So we have no problem with that comment. I’ll get a hold of the Water Superintendent. I’m sure once he drives over there and realizes that just across the street, approximately 90 days ago, he issued the water tap permit for new construction, which is west of our lot. So if our lot is, west of our lot is on the water district, our lot has to be on the water district. So we understand it’s just a clerical clean up, but we’ll take care of it. Okay. I think the only other comment, I think there was an actual letter from the Town Engineer, that I just got yesterday, and he had two comments I do believe. I don’t know if you have that or not. Do you have the Town Engineer’s letter, Vision Engineering? MR. HUNSINGER-We do, yes. MR. STEVES-I know the Staff didn’t bring it up. I will. He talked about the grades exceed the 25% slope, and DEC landfill closure. That southeasterly corner he’s talking about isn’t part of the original landfill. That was part of the grade that was there prior to the landfill, prior to the stump dump. We made that aware way back two years ago when we started this process that we took away the steep slopes. That wasn’t part of it, and DEC has already signed off on the closing. So it didn’t comply with the 25% rule, as far as the area that was filled. The other question he had, or comment, the geotechnical report provides the data. Specifically, when we were in front of this Board before and they asked for that to be done, I contacted Fred Dente, Dente Engineering, and told him it was for the specific reason of the houses, and if you read through his report, he says for residential houses, proposed housing, I called Fred. He said that it’s suitable soils for them. He was looking at it to do the report on the borings on the two houses and was only going to report if there was a problem. There isn’t a problem. So he didn’t see any reason, as far as the engineer, Town Engineer saying design a foundation for the soils. The soils are suitable for a standard foundation. I don’t understand. I mean, it’s not like we have to drive impact piers or something like that to support it because of unstable soils. Then you would have a very elaborate engineered foundation. It’s not necessary in this case. If the Board would like a letter from him, I can obtain that to put it in the file, but the report speaks for itself, but he would gladly write a letter saying that he didn’t design a foundation specific to this, because it’s not necessary. The intent of the borings were to verify that a standard residential home could be constructed on here without a modified foundation, and that’s exactly what the results were. That’s the only answers that I have for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn’t there some comment, I’m sorry to interrupt. Wasn’t there a comment in the Sketch Plan review probably, of the intent that the new houses would not be built where the landfill was anyway? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and we had asked for the report just so that everybody was covered. I think you just said it very well yourself. MR. STEVES-I agree wholeheartedly. If we were going to go out onto the fill area 30, 40 feet out onto then, you know, no. The intent was to show the houses where showed them. We staked them out exactly where they’re going to be built. We went to the extreme of the limits of the back of the house, and that’s where we did the borings, and there’s suitable soils there for a foundation. Bottom line. MRS. BRUNO-Will you be building the houses, or are you selling the lots? MR. THREW-I won’t be building them. MRS. BRUNO-You won’t be building them. MR. THREW-No. MR. STEVES-The location on of the houses on the plan will have to be adhered to. We would stipulate that the surveyor would stake out the locations of those houses. It gives me something else to do. That was it, unless there’s any other questions from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-The DEC signoff on that excessive slope, is that part of the record? Can it be? It is part of the record. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-These test borings were done last December and went to a depth of 10 feet. MR. STEVES-(Lost word) I believe went to 11 to 15 feet, depending on the borings. MR. SIPP-All we have is sand. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. Trace amounts on a couple of some topsoil and trace, again, to prove that it was not in the area where the stumps were placed. MRS. STEFFAN-What exactly is a C & D dump? MR. STEVES-Construction and Demolition. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction and demolition. Because, you know, there’s several places where it says clearing debris, and I wanted to make sure that it was. MR. THREW-But it wasn’t a C & D landfill. MR. STEVES-It was a stump dump. It was exactly clearing debris, is what was placed there. MR. THREW-Originally it was applied to be a C & D, but it got denied, but the State allows a stump dump. MR. STEVES-Under that C & D. MRS. STEFFAN-See, that’s where some of my confusion is, because on the plan, you have the area of a former stump dump. The Environmental Conservation letter talks about it being a C & D landfill site, and then I have the package when you were here originally, and Dave Hatin had a letter which was one of the reasons why we wanted to have soil borings and those kinds of things, and he talked about the kind of fill that was there, and the asphalt, concrete. We saw some of those things when we were there on our original site visits two years ago, and so that’s why the Construction and Debris, if it falls into that category, I would rather see the notation on the plat, instead of a former stump dump, that it was a former C & D dump, but that’s, now I’m not sure, based on what you’re telling me. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. STEVES-The stump dump falls underneath the DEC’s classification of C & D, because it’s land clearing. MRS. STEFFAN-Because just as an example, if I was looking at buying a lot, and it just, stump dump doesn’t have the same connotation to me as a Construction Debris dump, because you never know what’s in there. MR. STEVES-Right. It is just stumps and land clearing. MRS. STEFFAN-So that, I guess I’m uncomfortable with that. MR. STEVES-We can put any notation you want on that. MR. SIPP-There’s been a certification, no hazardous materials in there. MR. STEVES-Correct. That was also by DEC. MR. SIPP-DEC. MR. STEVES-If you wanted to say, Gretchen, we understand. We have no problem saying C & D/Stump Dump, because that’s exactly the way it’s worded under the DEC permit. MRS. STEFFAN-The letter, okay. MR. STEVES-So if you want us to say both on there, I would gladly put both on there. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s more representative of what it is, based on the materials that we know are in there. MR. STEVES-And that’s fine. We’ll stipulate to that, and that this will comply with the letter from DEC as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Staff’s comment relative to the Water Department and the district extension talk about a possibly SEQRA coordinated review. MR. STEVES-If it went to the Town Board for the extension, but it’s already there. MR. HILTON-I guess if I could, I certainly can’t speak for the Water Department. I don’t know where their initial comment came from as far as having a district extension, being required for this property, if, in fact, it’s already in a district. I think that probably if this Board is so inclined to approve this application, that a stipulation that all Water Department comments be satisfied prior to the signature by the Chairman, I think that would cover it, because if, in fact, the district extension is required and it does need to go to the Town Board, the Water Department’s not going to sign off until that step is taken. So I think that may be a safe way to deal with it. MR. STEVES-I was basically going to suggest similar. The fact is if it isn’t truly already an extension, then we have to come back because it’s not, then we could do coordinated review, but it’s already there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess I was thinking more along those lines myself is that our, you know, any SEQRA approval is on the assumption that it is within the water district. MR. STEVES-Correct, and if it’s not. MR. HUNSINGER-And therefore if it’s not, then we might have to re-open SEQRA. MR. STEVES-Correct, and we have no problem with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So all water comments satisfied before final signature on a plat. MR. HILTON-That makes sense to me, and what you’re saying as well, as far as the SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-So it also has to have Town Board review? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. TRAVER-Not if it’s already. MR. STEVES-Okay. Mr. Nace just helped out here a little bit. He said that because, even if it wasn’t a district extension, because all the facilities are already in place, that there’s no need for a SEQRA review, coordinated review, because of the fact that the water line’s already in. So even if the district wasn’t extended, it still doesn’t require coordinated review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I feel better about that. Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-So it doesn’t have to be reviewed by the Town Board, or it does? MR. STEVES-It wouldn’t need coordinated review on SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-It wouldn’t need coordinated SEQRA review. MRS. STEFFAN-So we take that out, on the sewer extension. MR. STEVES-Water. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s why it was needed in the first place. So it’s not needed now. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board on this application? George has a written letter. MR. HILTON-I have a written letter. MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-Okay. This is a letter received today in our office from Chris Hadsell, and it says, “To Whom It May Concern My name is Christopher Hadsell. I live at 26 Eagan Road in the Town of Queensbury. This is an additional attempt by the Threws to subdivide this piece of property. We have to come up here every couple of years and address this same item. In the past it was for the future homes of the boys. Now new this year the lots are not even created and they are for sale by a local realtor. Hmm! Last time because of no action by the Threws it was denied without prejudice. Well here we go again and I for one do not have the time to spend hours with the Board to discuss what has already been talked about a number of times. Next I have a question. Is the Town at all liable if they knowingly approve a building lot on a previously recognized (by the State Dept. of Enviro. Conser.) less than 3 acre land clearing debris landfill. Thank you for your time. Chris Hadsell” That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. If there’s no one in the audience that wants to address the Board, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is this a Long Form? I believe it was. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it is a Long Form. MR. STEVES-All subdivisions require a Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEFF THREW, 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, 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the 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. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for Preliminary approval? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2007 JEFF THREW, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 6.11 acre parcel into three lots of 1.06, 1.13 and 3.92 acres. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/31/07; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2007 JEFF THREW, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Nine does not apply. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2007 JEFF THREW, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes subdivision of a 6.11 acre parcel into three lots of 1.06, 1.13 and 3.92 acres. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held on 5/31/07; 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. If the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2007 JEFF THREW, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Nine does not apply. It is approved with the following conditions: That all Water Department comments are satisfied before final signature on the plat, and also that the applicant will change the notation on the plat, which should read that the area of the former stump dump/construction and debris dump. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mrs. Steffan MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. THREW-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Have a good night. MR. HUNSINGER-You, too. MR. HILTON-I’m sorry. Was the comment also included about the Water Department? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ANGIO DYNAMICS AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) IDA OF WARREN-WASH. CO. ZONING LI LOCATION 603 QUEENSBURY AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OFFICES TOTALING 44,000 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWABLE USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE SP 20-06, AV 52-06, SP 19-02, BP 06-788 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE 12.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-10 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-9-020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. HILTON-Sure. Really quickly, I believe, the applicant proposes demolition of a portion of an existing building and the construction of a 44,000 square foot building addition at the Angio Dynamics facility on Queensbury Avenue. This application has been referred to Vision Engineering. There has been some comments from them, one of which we received today, and I handed out to you prior to this meeting. As far as Planning Staff comments, as I’ve mentioned in the notes, the landscaping appears to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. For the most part the lighting appears to be consistent as well, with the exception of the bollard lights, in terms of foot candles, but as I’ve mentioned, I don’t anticipate any light spill or adverse impacts. As far as building elevations in the packets, in the application materials we had black and white drawings, and I guess my comment was just curiosity more than anything to see some color renderings, and kind of get a feel of what it’s going to look like, in comparison to the existing facilities. Other than that, I don’t have anything at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, of Nace Engineering, and Randy Bodkin, of Angio Dynamics. I’ll just walk you through, real quick, what the project entails, and we’ll address Staff comments. You say there were comments from Vision? Because I met with him on site this morning, but I haven’t seen them. MR. HILTON-We just received them today. I’ll give them to you. MR. NACE-Okay. Great. Basically what we’re doing, as I’m sure you’re aware, recently you approved Building Five, which is a new warehouse building, which is here. As part of that project, we anticipated the construction, the future construction of Building Six. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) So as far as parking and stormwater and utilities, all of the work that went into Building Five was also preparatory to accommodate Building Six when it happens. So our new electric service, new gas service coming in were all configured to serve the new building. Our stormwater was configured to accommodate the new parking lot and a portion of the new building, and our employee parking was situated so that we would move the displaced parking down to here, so employee parking for that building would be in this new lot. The existing lot up here would be converted into a visitor parking for the main future entrance of the new building. This will be corporate headquarters, and want to spruce up the entrance to accommodate that. The building, I think, is 22,000 square foot footprint. The drainage for the building, as I said, we designed Building Five to accommodate it. Right now the existing area runs off into this pond for about two-thirds of the building area, which is largely pavement now. That will continue to happen. A portion of this building and the yard area around it will continue to this pond. The remainder of the building and the new parking all drain into our new stormwater pond, down by the airport property, which was designed to accommodate those areas. I guess I’ll leave it at that. We’ve got a little courtyard area for the executive entrance and the visitor entrance. We’ve got a picnic courtyard area for employees to use out by the pond, a walkway into that. There’s a grass paver drive here. They may have had questions about. That’s for fire truck access, required to the front side of the building, and beyond that, let’s see Staff questions, comments. I guess the only real comment was, or one that we would need to respond to, was the building drawings, and I’ll let Ethan Hall respond to that. ETHAN HALL MR. HALL-The drawings that you were given were the reduced scale plans, and we’ve got full scale plans. I think probably the one you want’s the last drawing. Yes. It’s the perspective. The intent is that the exterior will be this dry lock metal panel. The color of these panels, they’re the same style metal panels that we used on a couple of different buildings in the area. The Garvey Hyundai on Dix Avenue was the last one that we did using this style panel. They will be colored to match the other, the remaining buildings that are there. The same colors that are there on the building now, we’re going to continue that same color scheme around. The metal panels run all the way around on the sides. These will be strip ribbon windows, and we’re going to have a band on the top that matches the trim that’s on the remainder of the building over here. So this building, the color scheme, will blend all the way through. Also around the entryway and along the bottom of the building all the way around we’re going to use cultured stone. So it gives it a grounded feel. RANDY BODKIN MR. BODKIN-These renditions were done when I was here the last time. We wanted to be able to protect this look for the park and such, but not loud, even as big as the building. The latest expansion, as you come down Hicks Road, it kind of blends in. It doesn’t jump out at you, and we want to maintain that, that type of feel. I did bring, to reduce maintenance around the perimeter of the building, you know, up about three and a half foot and then a little ledger on that, it would be the lower section of the building, again, earthiness to it and low profile kind of thing, but nothing’s changed, as far as the last time we were here. This is Phase II of the two phase type project. There was a question in reference to the signage, Tom? Okay. All right. I brought some color versions of that, that was included in there. MRS. STEFFAN-So the bases in grays, kind of? MR. BODKIN-Yes. The base will be not this, but it’s a cobblestone type of thing, as opposed to the square look. MRS. BRUNO-Signworks typically has back lit signs. Is that what the upper portion? MR. BODKIN-This would be a back lit sign, yes. We’re dealing with Fred there, and he’s putting together a whole packet that has to go through a separate sign permitting process, but I wanted to be up front with you all that, you know, we’re planning on a corporate sign at that intersection, keeping in their 18 feet from the boundary. MRS. STEFFAN-You really need it, to upgrade it. The one you have now is a little on the cheesy side. MR. BODKIN-Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MRS. STEFFAN-But I wanted to compliment you on the site development so far. I go by there many times a week, and it’s really, you know, the phases that you’ve been through with construction, there’s obviously been a lot going on, but it was well planned and well executed and it’s very nice right now, very nice. MRS. STEFFAN-The rock line stormwater. MR. BODKIN-I deviated from the original plan on the rocks. So if you’ve got some blame, blame me. MRS. STEFFAN-I have to admit. I love it, and I thought when I went by it, I don’t remember that on the plan, but I really liked it. So, nice job. MR. BODKIN-The problem was that the culvert coming across County Line from the Washington County side, it just spewed out on the ground, was all over. Nothing was confined. So, went ahead, ditched it, fabric, and cobble down through, and that’ll look so nice I said, well, let’s do the rest of it, so we did the rest of it. MRS. STEFFAN-It does, it gives it a nice quaint look and it’s very (lost words). MR. BODKIN-You probably noticed the discharge on that pond, which was part of the Building Five deal. I don’t like it and we’re going to rip part of that back out, and it’s going to get changed around, again, with the cobblestone and grass on top. So it looks hideous right now. It won’t stay that way. MR. NACE-I’m just looking at Dan Ryan’s comments. He was concerned because he didn’t have a set of the Building Five documents. I dropped those off to him. So he can now take a look at that and I’m sure we can respond adequately to any comments he may have once he looks at it, but today, this morning, I walked the entire site with him and explained what we were doing, and he didn’t have any problems. MRS. STEFFAN-We could likely condition an approval on signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-That was what I felt, too. MR. FORD-I have a question on the Warren County Planning Board review. The applicant has indicated that there’s an existing gravel parking area that is to be used during construction and abandoned upon construction completion. MR. NACE-Yes, that’s around the outside. When we were phasing the work back here, we were losing parking and tearing up other spaces that had been used for parking. Temporarily during construction we constructed that for overflow parking from the employee lot. As we get the rest of this completed, which right now they’ve paved, this is just gravel that can be used temporarily for parking until this area gets reconstructed. They’ve paved over to here. They’re going to be starting to bring the grade up, you know, rip this area up and re-pave it. Once that’s done, then there will no longer be a need for this. So we’ll abandon the use of that. MR. FORD-So it’ll be abandoned, but what, beyond abandoning it, will happen to it? MR. SIPP-Landscaped, will it be? MR. NACE-At this point, we don’t know what the future plans might be out on this side. It is just gravel. Our intention was to leave it there as gravel. If it were needed for overflow parking, it’s there, but it would not regularly be used for overflow parking. MR. BODKIN-Just a place for staging tractor trailers if they pull in and stuff like that. MRS. STEFFAN-And you’d never see that from the road either. MR. BODKIN-No, I mean, and part of me would like to blacktop it, just so that it was there, a place for snow storage. MR. SIPP-Are you going to abandon that gravel parking lot? There’s a curved structure here, and there’s a straight structure here. What is that? MR. BODKIN-Don’t put any stripes on it for parking spaces, just so that it’s a place to push the snow to. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. NACE-If you don’t want to use it for parking, yes, you could pave it for snow storage, or just to put gravel for snow storage. Our intention was to just leave it the way it is, but not use it for parking. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I still, what is this? MR. NACE-That’s a short piece of segmental retaining wall. MR. SIPP-Retaining wall, and this is another portion of it right here. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. BODKIN-Two hundred feet along that wall. MR. SIPP-And what is this black line with the dots numbered A-28, 27, 23? MR. NACE-Those are the original wetland flaggings. MR. SIPP-That’s the original ones. MR. NACE-Well, that’s what, what’s there, what we’ve been (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? One of the questions I had, and of course now I can’t find the page quickly. It’s really not related to the current site plan. On your floor area ratio, you’re coming down to only a little bit of expansion room left. MR. BODKIN-I’ve fixed that already. I’ve taken steps to fix that, and rather than muddy the water, I didn’t bring it into this, but I purchased an additional five acres to the south, adjoining us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BODKIN-It’s already taken care of. It’s in there. I didn’t want to muddy the water by putting those extra numbers in there. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not. Yes, I understand. I looked at that and I said, wow, they’ve only got about 15,000 square feet lot, and the way you’ve been growing it, it’s not much. MR. BODKIN-We’re growing so fast, so quickly. Since we were here last, we purchased another facility south of Atlanta, and we have about 160 employees there on the five acre site. We also have an engineering research group in California, about 18 to 25 people out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. BODKIN-And a distribution facility in Belgium. So it changes quickly. So I purchased the additional acreage that adjoins this same parcel. So it can be joined together as one. It’s mostly wetlands, but it’s acreage and green space and so on. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, it really had nothing to do with the site plan before us. MR. BODKIN-I’ve been watching those numbers creep up, too. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll bet. You’re probably watching them way closer than we are. Any other questions or comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled. There’s no one in the audience, so I can’t imagine there’s going to be any comments, but I will formally open the public hearing. Was there any written comments, George? MR. HILTON-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Are we ready to move forward? This is a Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 33-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ANGIO DYNAMICS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the 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. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only condition would be final signoff from the Engineer. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2007 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes partial demolition and construction of new offices totaling 44,000 sq. ft. Expansion of an allowable use requires Planning Board review 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 5/31/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOT APPLICABLE 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2007 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five Negative. Paragraph Eight does not apply, and it is approved with the following condition: That the applicant obtain final Vision Engineering signoff. st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. BODKIN-Thank you much. MR. HUNSINGER-My apologies it took us so long to get to you. I know you’ve been in the hopper for a couple of months while we took care of our backlog. MR. BODKIN-Yes, that’s fine. It takes more time with this expansion and get things lined up to hopefully break ground come Spring, and so on and so forth. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. MR. BODKIN-The invite is still there, if anybody wants a tour of the facility. We’re getting closer to completing Phase I of this two phase thing. The carpet’s going down and so on and so forth. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. I appreciate the offer. MR. FORD-Thank you for being in Queensbury. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MRS. BRUNO-I might take you up on that. Thank you. MR. BODKIN-Stop in and just ask for myself, and we’ll get you a tour. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks, Randy. MRS. BRUNO-Sounds great. MR. HUNSINGER-Just before we adjourn, I did want to share with the Board, in case not everybody heard the comments at the beginning of the meeting. We only have seven items for the month of June. So we will be having just one meeting. MR. HILTON-Well, again, and we had this discussion. When you do finally get your agenda, there will be more than seven listings. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. There will be more than seven listings, yes, because there are a couple of items that have, for example, Prospect Child and Family Center has a subdivision and a site plan, and then there’s also an item that has a Freshwater Wetland Permit as well as a site plan. MR. HILTON-Right. So very, very closely related items, on that list that you’re seeing share the same line, so to speak. I guess that’s the question. I mean, we think it’s a possibility. Staff thinks it’s a possibility to get this done in one meeting. It’s what we’re putting before you. MR. TRAVER-I’d almost rather have, I mean, if it can be done at a reasonable hour. I mean, I’d rather have two meetings in this time than have one that goes until midnight or one in the morning. That’s my personal opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-I would tend to agree with that. Let me just give you a flavor, though, for, one of the seven items is the Prospect Child and Family Center. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Which to be quite honest, I think is, we’re just going to make a motion to deny and then. MR. TRAVER-There may be, would the public comment still be open? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-We closed the public hearing, yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay, because if that were open, I’m sure we’d get some more comments before they realized. MR. HUNSINGER-Our normal load is six items in a meeting. So, if you, you know, take out the five or ten minutes for the Prospect Center, it’s standard six items, really, even though one of them is. MR. FORD-How come I come up with five on this hand and two on this one? MR. HUNSINGER-I thought it was six. I do have the Bylaws here. I can pull them out and review it. The last few months we’ve just been playing catch up. MR. FORD-We’ve been doing seven pretty regularly for several months. MR. TRAVER-Well, I’d defer to your judgment, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think there’s anything that should be of significant controversy or require, I mean, the thing is we never know if a neighborhood is going to pack a public hearing, but just in looking through the list, you know, I can read it off very quickly. MRS. BRUNO-Are there any others that we’ve already visited, kind of know something about or are they all brand new? I think it’s all new business, if I’m not mistaken. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. HILTON-For the most part I believe it is. MR. HUNSINGER-A second floor addition to an existing office building on Bay Road. A boundary line adjustment, which is really just an administrative action, almost. Construction of a single family home within 100 feet of a regulated wetland on Country Club Road. MR. FORD-Is that Mr. Webster coming back? MR. HUNSINGER-No. An addition to a single family residence on Country Club Road which is within 50 feet of a wetland. Conversion of a single family dwelling into a duplex on Chestnut Ridge Road. Preliminary Stage subdivision for Legacy Land Holdings. I don’t remember doing Sketch on that. I don’t think they came before us for Sketch Plan. Did they, Legacy? MR. HILTON-I believe they did. MRS. BRUNO-I rings a bell. MR. TRAVER-A couple of months ago. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the final one is a construction of an indoor skating rink on Sherman Avenue. MRS. BRUNO-Is that at the dome? MR. HILTON-That’s right near there. That’s the Henry Langevin plan which this Board has seen and approved before. It’s basically that that application ran out of time, so to speak, and so they have to come back. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s an extension. MR. HILTON-Well, it’s more than an extension. They didn’t come in for an extension. So the year had past since their approval, so it was voided. So it’s a new application, but it’s basically the same. I mean, it really is the same application that was approved by this Board previously. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think, just based on that, we probably just need one meeting. However, we’ve just added the Golden Corral back on, to talk about. So we probably should do two. MR. HUNSINGER-How do we split it up? MRS. STEFFAN-Golden Corral on one night and the other thing that we could do is a little workshop on SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-That was another thought, is if we want to do a workshop for the second meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-It might actually, if we did the Golden Corral on the second meeting, you know, if we do this agenda on one meeting, and then we do the Golden Corral on the second meeting, and then piggyback a SEQRA workshop on top of it. MR. TRAVER-Well, except we have a time limit on The Golden Corral. So that probably should be first, right, 30 days? MR. SIPP-If it’s 30 days, we would still be under. MR. HILTON-And just one thing to consider. I think because at least one of the applications in June also requires an Area Variance. That has to be heard, I believe, on th the second meeting, which would be the 26. So I think that if you’re anticipating or th thinking about having one meeting, that would be on the 26 anyway. So you may be in th a position that you have to have your workshop, or whatever, on the 19. MRS. BRUNO-Sounds like that’s the plan, then. MRS. STEFFAN-I think all of us could use a workshop on SEQRA, to be honest with you. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MRS. BRUNO-Absolutely. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things on the list, and what a better time to do it than after that Golden Corral thing. thth MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it would be the 19 and the 26. Who would do the SEQRA workshop for us? MRS. STEFFAN-My first inclination was Matt, but we are no longer affiliated with Mark Schachner, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MRS. BRUNO-There were, I think I had mentioned before down at the Saratoga conference, that there were a couple of people, one was from DEC. I can’t remember who the other one is. I could look up the information that I had gotten at the conference. Perhaps, I would assume Planning Staff might know of some people at that level that might be willing to go around and do a workshop, too. MR. HILTON-We can certainly research it. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the 19 we would do the Golden Corral, and then a workshop. th MR. HILTON-On the 19. th MR. HUNSINGER-And then on the 26 do the seven. MRS. STEFFAN-George, could we see if there’s any way that Mark Schachner, we could pay him to come in and do a session with us? MR. HILTON-I can certainly take your request and follow up on it at least. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I don’t know who to talk to about that, if that’s, you know, the Town Board. Because I know we have no Executive Director. MR. TRAVER-I know the training that I went to during the winter they had, at the Municipal Center, he was great. He was really. MRS. STEFFAN-Was that Mark? MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I mean it was wall to wall people. He was just. MR. HILTON-I can certainly, I can follow up and see if, ask about it. MR. SIPP-Is Tanya up to date on what we discussed earlier about the Golden Corral? MRS. STEFFAN-I know that when I first joined the Board, Mark did a session, and I was very instructive for me. It was better than the Federation Planning seminar that I went to up in Lake Placid. MR. TRAVER-That was the experience that I had. It was extremely helpful. th MR. SIPP-There is a workshop on June 24, I believe, about Lake George. MR. TRAVER-The watershed. th MRS. STEFFAN-I actually think that’s on the 12. It’s on LARAC Saturday. MR. TRAVER-No, it’s on a Monday. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s one on LARAC Saturday on Lake George, and I’ve got a houseful of company. So I can’t go. MR. SIPP-The morning session deals with buffers, use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. Three items in the morning session. Then the afternoon session is you can join in on one on subdivisions, by the Department of State. MR. FORD-Where is this going to be? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/31/07) MR. SIPP-Up in the Fort William Henry. I’m pretty sure there’s still openings available. Because there wasn’t very many signed up, and they postponed it last week. MRS. BRUNO-That was one that, you just said that was last week? MR. SIPP-It was supposed to be. MRS. BRUNO-I wanted to go to that one, and I ran into a conflict. So th MR. SIPP-They postponed it until June 24. It’s a Monday. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I wanted everybody to know, I voted against the Threw application and the reason I did that was because my feeling on that is that construction and debris dumps, the person who gets a permit for those makes money on people dumping construction debris on those properties, and I think that that should be the end of it. To subdivide it for people to build houses on it, philosophically I was opposed to that, and it’s just, that’s why I voted no. I just don’t think it’s right, and you don’t often get to do that without some kind of substantiation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have any other business? Motion to adjourn? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 31, 2007, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: st Duly adopted this 31 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 44