Loading...
2010.12.16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16, 2010 INDEX Site Plan No. 47-2009 M. Stan Dobert 1. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 309.10-2-26, 27, 28 Site Plan No. 67-2010 Thomas & Maureen Valenti 2. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-41 Subdivision No. 15-2010 A2000/Adirondack Tire 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24 Site Plan No. 81-2010 Andrew Spath 10. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-9 Subdivision No. 7-2010 Meredith Kerr 16. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 309.6-1-69.1 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 60-2010 Stewarts Shops 20. MODIFICATION TO SP 8-2007 Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 Site Plan No. 72-2010 Stewarts Shops 21. MODIFICATION TO SP 5-2006 Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Site Plan No. 77-2010 Executive Park West LLC 21. MODIFICATION TO SP 65-2004 Tax Map No. 301.8-1-31, 29 Site Plan No. 78-2010 Dr. Dean Bartlett 27. MODIFICATION TO SP 65-2004 Tax Map No. 301.8-1-31 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 12/16/2010) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER STEVEN JACKOSKI, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, December 16, 2010. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from thth October 19 and October 26. Would anyone like to move that? APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 19, 2010 October 26, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19 AND OCTOBER 26, 2010 , Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have two administrative items this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SP 47-2009: M. STAN DOBERT, REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN MR. HUNSINGER-The first one is Site Plan 47-2010 for M. Stan Dobert requesting a one year extension. I think there was an e-mail or letter in your package. Any concerns or discussion? MRS. STEFFAN-No. That part of Town is so ripped up right now that it’s probably a good thing for them. MR. FORD-It makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 47-2010 M. STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes renovation and a 2,180 sq. ft. expansion of existing buildings and associated sitework. Further, the applicant proposes 900 sq. ft. construction of a new building in order to connect 50 and 52 Main Street. Commercial Expansion in the MS zone requires Site Plan review and approval. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) Approval was granted on December 17, 2009; the approval is good for one year to December 17, 2010; The applicant is requesting a one year extension of the approved site plan; and MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 47-2010 M. STAN DOBERT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SP 67-2010: THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI, TABLED TO 12/16/2010 NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED MR. HUNSINGER-The next item is Site Plan No. 67-2010, Thomas and Maureen Valenti, tabled to 12/16. No information submitted. We do have a letter. Have they submitted information since then? MR. OBORNE-They are now bonafide. They submitted by the deadline date, and Staff is requesting a January 25, 2011 tabling date. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sounds good. Would anyone like to move that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What was the Dobert tabling date? MR. OBORNE-There is no extension date. It’s just an extension to an approved Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-One year. MR. FORD-One year extension. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just an extension. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2010 THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes removal of roof to add a 1,000 +/- sq. ft. second story containing 3 bedrooms, 1 bath and laundry room. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval; and The PB provided the ZBA with a recommendation on 10/19/2010; and The ZBA approved the variance on 10/20/2010; and On 10/26/2010 the Planning Board tabled the application to 12/16/2010; and The applicant is requesting to be tabled to a January meeting date – see letter dated 11/24/10 from Michael J. O’Connor; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2010 THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the January 25, 2011 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have two items for Recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2010 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) CRIST REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 2.82 +/- ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.0 & 1.82 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE, ACCESS AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD MAY CONDUCT A SEQR REVIEW AND PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 66-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.82 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEITH CRIST, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Preliminary Subdivision 15-2010 and Area Variance 66-2010. This is for A-2000 and/or Adirondack Tire. This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application, as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community. Location is 1025 State Route 9. CI [Commercial Intensive] is the zoning. This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Due to the subdivision, a Long Form has been submitted. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.82 +/- acres into two lots of 1.0 & 1.82 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Specifically the Area Variances are as follows, for Lot 2 only, road frontage relief, request for 50 feet, or 100% relief from the 50 foot road frontage requirement for the CI zone. Also access drive aisle relief, request for eight feet or 67% relief from the 12 foot access drive requirement for one way traffic as per 179-4. Note: The proposed east boundary line for Lot 2 is the impetus and focus for this request. Next one is side setback relief. Request for eight feet or 40% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement in the CI zone per 179-3. Additional comments, I just want to make sure that the applicant notes that Site Plan Review for changes to an approved Site Plan will be before this Board after Final Subdivision approval. So, this is just at a recommendation stage. We will be conducting SEQRA tonight and providing the written recommendation to the ZBA, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter here, on behalf of A-2000, together with Keith Crist on behalf of the owner. As many of you may recall, the Crist family owned and operated this entire lot, up until 2009. In the front of the parcel was an auto repair shop that was owned by the Crist family. 2009 that was taken over by Adirondack Trust, which is now leased with an option to purchase, which brings us here tonight. Part of that option to purchase is for that parcel that he subdivided off, which would create that as Lot One, the one acre parcel, and subdivide it off from the storage buildings that are already there, the self-storage buildings, and do Lot Two, which is a 1.82 acre parcel to be proposed. In order to make that subdivision possible, three variances are necessary. The first is the fact that Lot Two would not actually have frontage on Route 9, but we would provide an access easement. Due to the fact that the storage buildings don’t get a lot of access, people put their stuff there and periodically come back, there won’t be a lot of traffic. So we don’t see that frontage variance as being very excessive. The second would be the fact that there is an access that would circulate that lot and would actually go in between those two parcels. Due to the fact that it’s not the footage that’s required under the Zoning Code, a variance is required for that. However, we are proposing to have a reciprocal easement on that, so the area necessary for access would be available for both parcels. The last variance is due to the setback. The setback of Lot Two, I refer to it as front setback relief in my letter. However the Zoning Administrator, in reviewing it, said that since I don’t have frontage, it’s actually side setback, but it’s really from the eastern side of that Lot Two building. So instead of requiring 75 feet, 20 feet is only necessary. So we’re seeking eight feet of relief. Overall we feel that these variances are minor. What the applicant is really trying to do is make these parcels more compliant in the sense that each business will operate under their own parcel, and due to the fact that the storage building business doesn’t receive a lot of traffic, we don’t feel that the frontage should be really deemed a very high or substantial variances. Overall we feel that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment that can be deemed to exist to the community since really this is just a paper line that we’re requesting overall. We’re seeking your recommendation, and we’ve provided you the Long Form to review SEQRA this evening if you find that necessary. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-So the building in the front will not be a tire store forever? MR. CRIST-Yes, it will be for a long, long time. Adirondack Tire purchased my business almost two years ago now, as a long term investment, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-You know, I heard you say Adirondack Trust. MS. BITTER-I apologize. Adirondack Tire. MRS. STEFFAN-I was confused. I don’t see that anywhere. MS. BITTER-My apologies. MR. HUNSINGER-So is there an expectation that if this subdivision’s approved that Adirondack Tire would be coming back for Site Plan Review? MS. BITTER-That’s an application that we had submitted, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The driveway on the far side, which is the north side, right? As you get off the land of the Tire company and you go back to the storage company, it’s wider as it passes the first two buildings and then it narrows down? MR. CRIST-In the rear, the way it’s landscaped down because the Ferraro family, when they re- did their go kart track and all that stuff, we kind of tapered that bank a little bit so it wasn’t so aggressive. There’s a lot of kids that play back, not so much in the storage area, but in the summertime if you go over the go kart track and stuff, a lot of times there’s kids up in the lawn area and they have picnic tables and stuff like that. So we really kind of didn’t want to make it to put a retaining wall and a fence and, you know, make things any more of a hazard than we needed to, so we kind of just tapered that hill a little more gradual. There’s still plenty of drive corridor down through there for trucks. I mean, people bring 24 foot Ryder trucks down through there all the time and stuff. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So there’s at least 20 feet of pavement. MR. CRIST-Yes. It hasn’t been a problem to this date. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. I was thinking of, you need 20 feet for fire protection. MR. CRIST-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And you’ve got it on the other side I think. MR. CRIST-Yes. Well, there’s 25 feet down between each building. So we did those. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The more important is to get back there. MR. CRIST-Sure. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I don’t know. We can let the Fire Marshal take a look at that and he can decide what he thinks. MR. CRIST-Absolutely. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s his call. MR. CRIST-And actually to the north of that, of the building, that will be reconfigured. We just kind of, that’s not a proper drive corridor by any shape. We always kind of brought everything around to the south side when I had both facilities myself, that north facility will be fixed and a lot better graveling and drainage issues and stuff will be handled at that time when we finally, we just kind of want to get everything, our ducks in a row first, and then we’ll do those improvements upon your approval and your request as well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So the only utility that’s back in the storage part is just electricity, right, there’s no water back there? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. CRIST-No, correct. Just water, and just electricity for security lighting only. There’s no power to each of the storage units at all or any of that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So the Fire Marshal should take a look at it because I don’t know what his hydrant distances are back to here, but, you know, these things sometimes have fires, and you want to get at it quick. MR. OBORNE-He shall be looped in that Site Plan. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m trying, forgive me if you already explained or it was in your letter, what’s the primary reason for the subdivision? Is there going to be a transfer of ownership? MS. BITTER-Transfer of ownership for the front lot to Adirondack Tire. MR. CRIST-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CRIST-Our goal basically is to, it’s my parents, their retirement parcel, basically, income. So we wanted to divide, I wanted to keep the rear storage in the family because we worked hard to achieve that, and Larry O’Shea is, you know, who owns Adirondack Tire is a very nice guy and we get along very well, and he says, you know, I really don’t want to be in the storage facility business. I’m in the tire business, and I said, well, I was in the auto repair business and I don’t want to be in that, so he bought my repair business. So we have kind of a mutual agreement that, you know, he could use the front and I could keep the back, and we’d work this out in the long run. So that’s our goal is to kind of work together and come up with a compromise that we can work with, and we’ve been working together for two, almost two years already, and it’s been seamless. I’ve really got to say, we work together very well. Actually we have time already two years of time working together. So it’s, and like I say, I have my office actually in the facility still in the north side over by the Fun Spot side of the building is where I have the storage facility, and I also have the equipment to, we manufacture printer toner cartridges, and I do a business to business program doing that. So I have about 600 square foot of my old building still that I work out of. So I’m still on the premises, but like I say, it’s been almost two years we’ve been working together, and that way my storage facility customers have a place to drop keys and do the rental agreements and stuff. So I have a site on the location, and it faces Route 9, too, so it’s a benefit to me, and we’ll work with that as a long term agreement between the two of us. We’ve worked that out for years to come as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CRIST-So it’s, if you have any other questions in that nature. MR. FORD-My compliments to you and your neighbor. It’s nice to have people who are compassionate about other people’s needs and willing to work together. It sure beats placing boulders and all sorts of things like that. MR. CRIST-No, the Ferraro family’s been, they’re great neighbors. You don’t get better people than them and, you know, it’s been a joy to have them. I mean, we’ve been together for many a year, and actually if you look at the little carving of our lot, it was actually to accommodate their go kart track. When they started that project, it got deemed as a new project, so they had to come to all the new setback requirements at the time, and they didn’t have enough land to do it, and I told Keith, I said, what do you need to make this work, and he only carved out what little he needed, and that was all he asked for to make the proper setbacks, and that’s why that triangular carving is out of that little, because originally the property line used to run further to the right, to the north, and so that was, you know, and that’s why we kind of changed the pitch of the hill and stuff to make it a lot less aggressive and they did a great job of all that. So I’m just ask lucky to have them as we are for each other. So it’s been good. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’m glad that you guys get along and everything, but I’m looking at this from a planning point of view, and I’m just concerned that, you know, we’ll have two businesses and one doesn’t have any frontage on the highway, and if ownership transferred at some point, if you, somewhere down the road, decided to sell it or your neighbor decided to sell the front parcel, obviously you would have the easements worked out, but this will require having a sign out front, so it’ll be additional signing. It does require some substantial relief, which is contrary to what the Zoning Code provides for. So I’m just, you know, even though it sounds perfectly logical, I’ve got some concerns from a planning point of view. It is tight in the back, too. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MS. BITTER-I understand where you’re coming from, Gretchen, and I see where the numbers, but from our perspective, too, the development’s there, and we know it works, because it’s not as if, you know, we’re asking for it to be developed now. So the two uses have been compatible and haven’t resulted in any issues. The signage is really the only element that would be additional, however, it is on that corridor, which we all know is known for being commercial, and that’s where we want to draw the commercial attention to it. So we feel, in that sense, it would work and be compatible with the surrounding areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-So we need to do a SEQRA review, before we can make any recommendation? MR. OBORNE-You need to open up the public hearing, because of the SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? Any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Now, in this case we would leave the public hearing open. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Because at some point they’ll be back here. MR. OBORNE-They’ll be back for Preliminary and then Final eventually. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. SEQRA, Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. HUNSINGER-In this case, no. MR. TRAVER-Except for the sign. MR. OBORNE-They are installing a road, also, a 24 foot wide macadam, or they don’t know if it’s macadam, it’s probably going to be gravel. MR. CRIST-Probably the gravel to start. MR. TRAVER-So I would say, yes, small to moderate, mitigated by Site Plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Agreed. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. TRAVER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the items under 19 is will the proposed action conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. That’s the Zoning Code, isn’t it? MR. TRAVER-It sounds like it to me. I would say, yes, mitigated by application before the Zoning Board for a variance. MR. OBORNE-I think the question is will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community. Will this action affect the character of the existing community. MRS. STEFFAN-If it’s commercial and. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s already existing. MR. OBORNE-If it’s a no, then you’re not going to go down and go small to moderate or anything like that. If it’s yes, then you’re going to need to pick that. I think you’re on the right track with that, to be honest with you. MR. TRAVER-Well, I would say no since it’s an existing business. MR. OBORNE-Then you move on. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on the input I’ll make a motion for a Negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-2010, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE, 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. th Duly adopted this 16 day of, December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we have to make a recommendation. The motion that’s prepared for us, we can select the Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, or the Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern. Anybody have any concerns? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m hearing none. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2010 AND SUBDIVISION 15-2010 FOR A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Project Description: Subdivision: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.82 +/- acres into two lots of 1.0 &1.82 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from road frontage, access and side setback requirements. Planning Board may conduct a SEQR review and provide written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2010 AND SUBDIVISION 15-2010 FOR A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We select Option One. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. You’re all set. Our next item, also for a Zoning Board recommendation, is Site Plan 81-2010. SITE PLAN NO 81-2010 SEQR TYPE II ANDREW SPATH OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR [WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL] LOCATION 56 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING DWELLING BY RAISING THE FOUNDATION BY 18 INCHES. EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACKS FOR PROPOSED DECK AS WELL AS THAT PORTION OF PROPOSED EXPANSION WITHIN SETBACKS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 67-10 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/8/10 APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.22 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-9 SECTION 179-9 ANDREW SPATH, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 81-2010 and Area Variance 67-2010. Applicant is Andrew Spath. Again, this is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested. The location is 56 Russell Harris Road. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. It’s a Type II SEQRA. No further review is required. Project Description: Site Plan: Applicant proposes the expansion of existing dwelling by raising the foundation by 18 inches. Expansion of non- conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Area Variance: Relief requested from shoreline and sideline setbacks for proposed 167 square foot deck as well as that portion of proposed expansion within setbacks. Further, relief required for expansion of non-conforming structure in a CEA. Staff comments: According to the applicant’s narrative, approximately 17 feet of roof structure will be raised 18 inches in order to increase interior ceiling height to 8 feet. This appears to encompass a total of 340 square feet of roof or a 20 foot by 17 foot area located to the South West. Nature of the Area Variance are as follows: Shoreline setback request for 28 feet or 56% relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback for the deck. Again, shoreline setback request for 20 feet or 40% of shoreline setback relief for that portion of the single family dwelling within the shoreline setback to be raised. Sideline setback request for 9.6 feet or 80% relief from the 12 foot minimum south sideline setback requirement for the proposed deck. Again, sideline setback request for 11 feet or 92% relief from the 12 foot minimum south sideline setback for that portion of the single family dwelling to be raised within the side setback as per 179-3. Permeability request for 164 square feet or 1.6% relief from the 75% permeability requirement for the WR zone for a total of 73.4% permeability. Relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure will have to be forthcoming. Additional comments: What, if any, changes to the existing floor and/or basement floor plans are anticipated? Please clarify. Additional shoreline buffering should be explored as required. Please note that the applicant has provided a planting plan on page 12 of site plan. The Planning Board may also wish to ascertain if both trees are to be removed for the proposed deck on the shoreline side of the house. It is understood that the existing tree located at the southwest corner of the house will be removed or may be removed. I’m not sure. The Planning Board also may wish to ascertain the functionality and compliance of the wastewater system. The applicant has stated that the current system is adequate as no change in use is proposed, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. SPATH-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. SPATH-Well, right off the bat I’ll tell you the trees, nothing’s changing on the trees. MR. OBORNE-Excellent. MR. SPATH-No. The deck, that’s why the deck has a 45 degree angle on it. There’s a 100 year old hemlock right there on the corner. So I’m just building around it. MR. HUNSINGER-I forgot to ask you to identify yourself for the record. MR. SPATH-Andrew Spath, property owner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MR. SPATH-Well, basically, the project, the house was built in 1947 by Kurt Harris. He was 5 foot 2 inches tall, and every ceiling in the building is under seven foot. So basically I wanted to do some work on the foundation, and I was talking to the building inspector, and I said if I wanted to lift the house up and fix the foundation, and he was like you just need a permit, and I was like well if I’m going to lift the house, I might as well add some ceiling height to the basement because I’ve already broken four or five light bulbs just walking into them because the basement’s so low, and he said, well, if you’ve got to do that, you’ve got to go through the variance process, and I said, well, if I’m going to go through a variance process, I might as well put the deck on the front of the house that we’ve been trying to do for quite a few years, and I figured while I was doing the basement I might as well do the portion of the house that’s the oldest and in the worst shape. So that’s that 360 some odd square feet he was discussing. Basically, it would be restructuring the walls and just lifting the ceiling height up and re-doing the roof structure as it is, and so, as far as the floor plan goes, nothing’s changed on the floor plan. It’s an unfinished basement. It’s going to probably stay that way, and then all the structure on the first floor is going to stay the same. So basically it’s all just structural work. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the septic? MR. SPATH-I’ve never had a problem with the septic. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any idea how old it is? MR. SPATH-Fifties era. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know where it’s located? MR. SPATH-Yes. Generally, yes. It’s on the, I’ve got it on one of these drawings here. Basically my father’s been, my parents gave us the property back two, three years ago, and then my parents owned it for approximately twenty some odd years, and then Kurt Harris owned it since 1946, ’47. They did a lot of the work on the camp in the mid 50’s, as far as putting a foundation under it and making it a four season home. MR. FORD-When was the last time the septic was pumped, any idea? MR. SPATH-Never have had it pumped. It’s always worked. Knock on wood. Basically the back corner of the house sits on a gravel bank. So I think that’s one of the reasons why we’re in such good shape there. My brother lives right next door. He has a similar system, and he never has any problems with his either. That and we’re responsible. We don’t have a Jacuzzi tub. We don’t have a washer and dryer. We don’t excessively use the system. We pretty much, well, we’ve been up there for 30, 40 years so we just know better than to abuse the system. MR. HUNSINGER-Where’s your water supply? Do you get it out of the lake? MR. SPATH-Out of the lake, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-Are you familiar with the buffering that will have to be done? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. SPATH-Yes. Well, actually I’ve got a couple of pictures for you guys if you want to just look at them really quick. I know he doesn’t have any shoreline pictures, but this, right in the middle, is my house, if you can see it. The whole front of the house is all trees, and even in the wintertime it’s hard to actually see the property from the lake. There’s only maybe 10 or 12 feet of actual unplanted shoreline. There’s enough access on the side that I can get to my dock, and then there’s a cluster of trees, and then my brother’s property is directly off to the side of that. So I’ve actually had to put a few more trees into the planting plan basically to screen off the neighbor’s deck. You can see on both sides, the one neighbor has a deck. It’s her whole front yard goes out over onto her boathouse, and then the other neighbor has a deck on top of his boathouse. So I’m basically trying to green myself in. MR. SIPP-You don’t have much room if you take out 15 feet for buffering out of the 22. MR. SPATH-Yes. Exactly. So it would basically be rendering the front property useless if I did a full buffering. MR. SIPP-Now, are some of those trees that are there going to come out? MR. SPATH-No. MR. SIPP-They’re all going to stay? MR. SPATH-No. I basically designed the deck so that it would clear all the trees and if you look at that, if you follow the trees, that’s the original shoreline. Back in the 30’s and 40’s they filled all that in, but actually I want to put a couple of more where you see that void in those trees there, on the other side of the rock. MR. SIPP-Put in a new dock? MR. SPATH-No, the dock’s original. MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got room to do a little planting there, but when I last saw it, are you familiar with what they call a rain garden? MR. SPATH-Rain garden? No. I could guess. MR. SIPP-It’s a long trench, maybe six, eight inches deep, and if the soil follows down from the shoreline, you shouldn’t have any trouble with drainage. Where’s your roof drainage going now? MR. SPATH-Basically it comes off the eaves and goes into, well, it’s all crushed stone around the house, so it basically just filters down and in, and that’s one of the problems I’m having now is the whole, the back side, the old cinder blocks were never backfilled. So what happens is 40, 50 years old, so that water goes down, gets into that pea stone and then it fills up and then fills the cinder block and then the next thing you know you’ve got a column of water inside of there. MR. SIPP-Well, you can get, from the Lake George Association and so forth, you can get plans to use some rain gardens to soak up some of that water. Your slope isn’t too bad there. So you don’t have too much trouble with the. MRS. STEFFAN-Don, I think, remember we did that one site plan, and you can’t have a rain garden within 150 feet of the shoreline because it’s an infiltration device. MR. OBORNE-Within 100 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-One hundred feet. So it’s only, you know, he doesn’t have that much room. MR. SPATH-Yes. We had the Warren County Soil and Water. MR. SIPP-Well, you’ve got enough big trees there to soak up quite a bit. It wouldn’t take much, a couple of shrubs and some ground cover, and it’s not maybe going to be a full 15 feet wide, but it’s going to, you need something there. MR. SPATH-Yes. We don’t typically get any runoff. Most of it filters in through the back I believe on one of these drawings we have an eight inch drain system that goes through the property. MR. SIPP-Yes, I saw that. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. SPATH-And if my father was here, he’d be going off on Highway Department and stuff like that was supposed to fix the drainage years ago, but they never did. So we ended up having to put drainage in. Most of the sweep of the property, what happens is most of our water comes from down the street, and it’s collected through all the catch basins and then comes into our eight inch line and then goes down through that system that sweeps down into the front yard, and Warren County Soil and Water, they came up and inspected it and said that it was fine and it was working quite well. As far as the front of the house, we have more problems with not getting enough water to the front of the house. It stays dry, with all the trees and the fact that any water basically gets filtered around the house. So I have trouble keeping grass in the front. I basically have to keep it irrigated with sprinklers and such. That’s my brother’s house. MR. OBORNE-That’s your brother’s house. Yes. I finally got the right house. MR. SIPP-Well, I think with a little thought here you could put something together that we would approve. You’ve got some good looking trees there you don’t want to cut down. MR. SPATH-Yes. No, no trees are coming out. Like I say, and the deck’s basically to give us access. There used to be a grand stone staircase in the front of the building, and then it had a stone planter, which was just to the other side of that doorway there in the basement, and back in the late 90’s I believe, I can’t remember what year we had a really cold winter with no snow, and that whole corner of the building just picked up and heaved, and it basically just destroyed the whole staircase. So it had to come down, and it’s been without a front entrance since then, and since I’m going to be doing all the work, I figured I’d just put the deck on it and it’ll give us some access to the front yard there, and then, what else. Yes, that’s that 100 year old hemlock that the deck 45’s around. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, in my mind, your plan certainly sounds reasonable. It’s a modest home. You’re not, you know, proposing anything remarkable or huge. You’re keeping the trees. MR. SPATH-Nothing drastic, no. I can’t afford anything drastic. MRS. STEFFAN-The only thing I’m concerned about is the environmentally, you know, is that your septic system is environmentally sound, and that’s, you know, an issue that we always have on the Planning Board. MR. SIPP-We don’t need to call him, drainage devices. We just say that he’s planting some flowers there. There’s a lot of ways around the ballpark. MR. SPATH-I could understand if I was adding a bedroom or a bathroom or something. MRS. STEFFAN-So as far as on recommendations to the Zoning Board, do we have any recommendations or have we not identified any significant adverse impacts? MR. SIPP-Just the no cut on the trees. MR. SPATH-Yes. Absolutely no cut. I’m a very firm believer in green. MR. TRAVER-Existing vegetation to remain. MRS. STEFFAN-So the septic system, and that we want existing vegetation to remain? Anything else that we’re concerned with? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. We want the septic system inspected, right? Is that what you said? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, yes, that it’s environmentally sound. We’ll do that, I guess, when we get into. MR. HUNSINGER-Site Plan, yes. MR. SPATH-What’s my argument against that? Can I argue against that? It seems undue. MRS. STEFFAN-We, based on the Code, and the issues with the lake, for any older system, the Planning Board has wanted assurances that the septic systems work, and so if you can get somebody to certify, a plumber, or a septic. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, one of the most recent lakefront projects, we had them pump the septic system, and when the company was there to pump it, they inspected it for them, and having them pumped, $300, does that sound right, or it might have been less than that. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. FORD-Less than that. I just had one done last weekend. It all depends on the size, too, whether it’s a 1,000 gallon or 1500 gallon. MR. SPATH-Yes, because like I say, I’m just asking, because my brother actually did work on his house last year, and they never requested his system to be tested or checked out, and that seems odd. I could understand if I was adding a bedroom or a bathroom, or if I was going to expand the use of it, but, I mean, the system just, I’ll, if that’s what you need, I’ll do it, but I’m just arguing the case is all. It just seems undue. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and especially since it’s going to be, you know, a dwelling that’s going to be lived in year round, and so it’s a little different situation than if it had been a seasonal use. So, I think, it’s fairly consistent on this Board’s part. MR. SPATH-I’ve been living there for 10 years. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But the system’s older than you. MR. FORD-It also is, you know, it’s hard to get people to agree on much of anything, but I think most that have any knowledge about septic systems would agree that to wait 34 years to pump a system, or inspect it, is a bit excessive. MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I was just going to state that if you’re going to expand the floor area, then I think that you’re on pretty firm footing in requiring that this be a compliant septic system, especially if you’re going to be adding another bedroom. We’ve done that up on the lake. He is expanding, but he’s not adding anymore usage to it, so to speak, but, yes, I totally hear your concerns. At least have it inspected, you know, and be comfortable with that. I would suggest, it’s probably just a sump, I would imagine. It probably doesn’t have a holding tank to take the solids out. It’s a sump. So, with that, I don’t know if you can force them to upgrade to a compliant system, because they’re not adding another bedroom. That’s just the way I look at it. MR. TRAVER-Although the basement theoretically becomes habitable space, does it not? MR. SPATH-It already is. It already qualifies. Anything over five foot five, I believe, and it’s six foot out. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and it’s part of your floor area ratio. MR. SPATH-And it’s part of, yes, like I say, it’s already counted as the floor area. MR. TRAVER-I mean, now it’s unfinished. You said you didn’t have any plans to finish it. MR. SPATH-They still account for it, though. MR. TRAVER-Right, yes, in the floor area. I was thinking, again, about the septic. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So those are the only two issues that I’m hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Excuse my ignorance here for a minute. I thought, in one of the plans, you showed the size of the tanks. MR. SPATH-Yes, that’s, I got that from my father’s recollection from Curt Harris of what he put in. BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE MR. MAGOWAN-Page Nine. MR. HUNSINGER-Page Nine. So there is a tank to clean out, right? MR. SPATH-Yes. Yes, it should be a leach tank. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Page Nine. MR. SPATH-But I’ve always been told that, well, I mean, I will have it, I mean, if that’s something that you require, I’ll have it checked, but usually pumping a leach tank is kind of a bad thing, because you get rid of all the microorganisms and stuff, the cultures and stuff that are in there. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. TRAVER-They should be able to give you a letter or something that you can submit for the Site Plan to take care of that. MR. SPATH-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How is that different than any other, I’m confused? MR. OBORNE-That being what? MR. SPATH-It’s just, usually you’ll have like a septic tank and then a leach field and your solids gradually go down and you pump out the solids. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SPATH-But usually the leach tanks they basically just break down and leach in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SPATH-It’s basically like pumping out your leach field. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s not a holding tank per se, for settling. I mean, the whole idea to pump it out is to take the solids out. MR. SPATH-And the other thing is that I’ve got a lot of like rock scaping and stuff that I’d have to dig up and move. That’s the only reason I’m reluctant. It’s just a lot of work. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you get the cover off it and inspect it? MR. SPATH-Well, that’s the thing, I’d have to do a lot of excavating to get to it, and I don’t know what’s grown over it since then. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I mean that’s really the issue. I mean, it’s not so much having it pumped as it is making sure that it’s operating properly. MR. SPATH-Yes. I understand your concern. It’s just, I’m just a little reluctant because it just, I’m really not changing anything to require it to be checked. It just seems like an undue expense. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, just know that when you come back you have to make your case, and so if you can educate us on if it’s a leach tank and what it does, and, you know, you need to keep the anaerobic bacteria in there and that’ll do its work, the just educate us and maybe. MR. SPATH-Okay. See if my brother was here, he could probably do a better job. He’s a science teacher, but I understand how they function. It’s just, I’m just being reluctant because it is a lot of work, and another expense. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. It’s a lot of work, and it is money. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll put forth the motion. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2010 AND SITE PLAN 81-2010 FOR ANDREW SPATH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Tax Map ID 240.5-1-9, 56 Russell Harris Road Whereas, the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes expansion of existing dwelling by raising the foundation by 18 inches. Expansion of non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval Area Variance: Relief requested from shoreline and sideline setbacks for proposed deck as well as that portion of proposed expansion within setbacks. Further, relief required for expansion of non-conforming structure in a CEA. Planning Board to provide written recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals; and 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2010 AND SITE PLAN 81-2010 FOR ANDREW SPATH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1.Whether the current septic system is environmentally sound. 2.We’re concerned that existing vegetation should remain on site. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. SPATH-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE MEREDITH KERR AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING NR LOCATION 212 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 0.49 +/- ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.23 & 0.26 +/- ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 32-10, SUB 15-99 LOT SIZE 0.49 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-69.1 SECTION CHAPTER A183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT, MEREDITH KERR, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Subdivision 7-2010, Meredith Kerr. This is Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision, 212 Sherman Avenue. This is in a Neighborhood Residential zone. This is an Unlisted SEQRA, Long Form submitted. You have already accomplished SEQRA on this parcel, and you have issued a Negative Declaration for this. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.49 +/- acre parcel into two lots of .23 and .26 acres. Staff comments: The Area Variance th associated with this application was approved by the ZBA on November 17 with the condition that only a single family home is erected on Lot B. Please see attached. Please note that the parcel is served by public water only. Additional Comments: The applicant is seeking waivers from topo and sketch grading/drainage plan. Location map denoting properties within 500 feet of subdivision boundary line shall be submitted with Preliminary Stage application, and that has been accomplished. What follows is soils, and pretty much all we’re doing right now is doing Preliminary and Final Stage review. Again, to reiterate that a SEQRA Negative Declaration has already been issued for this property. With that, I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Meredith Kerr who is also at the table with me. I apologize for the length of time since it’s been here in front of you before. There was a little hiccup going through with the Zoning Board, but it’s gone back through and has gotten the approval from the Zoning Board. If you remember this, it was two lots we’re proposing along Sherman Avenue and Harris Street, the existing two story wood frame house that is there, and then creating one new lot on 10,000 square feet. They went to the County and then back to the 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) Town Zoning Board and, again, were granted the approval. We, there was a couple of lots that were built on. One of the questions was about the soils in this area. We discussed that when we went through for the recommendation back to the Zoning Board. Just to the south here there’s two new lots that were built on a few years ago by Pace Builders, I believe it was, and they had no problems with the septic at that time and nobody around here has had any problems with their septic. They’re all compliant systems when they were in place. So we have no problem with the soils that are there being able to accommodate one more septic system. One of the requirements of the Zoning Board was that the, it could only be a single family home, and we have no problems with that. It’s already in the resolution from the Zoning Board. So, again, as Staff has stated, we’re just looking for the approval for the two lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? What was the concern the first time from the Zoning Board, the soils? MR. STEVES-No. It was just a Staff concern. The Zoning Board thought they were going to be two duplexes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-If you remember when we came here the first time for the Planning Board, we got the conceptual and then we got the recommendation to the Zoning Board from the Planning Board and we went forward with them. The hiccup in that whole thing was that there was just a communication and nobody attended the County Board meeting, and the County Board meeting thought that they were proposing two duplexes on two new lots. So they denied it. So they came back to the Town Zoning Board and they denied it based upon the same misconceptions. So we submitted new data, went back to the County. The County approved it unanimously, and they went back to the Queensbury Zoning Board, and then I believe it was a unanimous approval at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because we just got a copy of the approval resolution. We didn’t see all of. MR. FORD-So you got rid of the duplexes. MR. STEVES-Yes, we weren’t putting in duplexes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Four units on those two lots would have been a bit much. Yes. MR. STEVES-So there was a confusion, and like I say, we apologize for the length of time. It got bounced around, but myself, Mike O’Connor and Meredith were at the County Planning Board and got that approved and then back to the Zoning Board and got that approved, and now we’re back here. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it’s actually worked out better, because it’s only five minutes to eight, and if you’d been here like in October or in November, you would have been much later. MR. STEVES-Like I say, we have no problems with the comments from the Zoning Board to restrict that to a single family home. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any new SEQRA concerns for us to reconsider SEQRA? MR. FORD-Not for me. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no other questions or comments, then would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t have to condition it because the Zoning Board has identified in their approval that it can only be a single family. So we don’t have to condition ours. MR. OBORNE-I would prefer that you did condition it that it’s single family, because then it’ll be placed on the mylar. Usually the Area Variance doesn’t get placed on the mylar. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Unless Matt would like to do that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. STEVES-I put it on the zoning ones that we dropped off to Craig today for signature, but I’ll do it again on the subdivision. Because it’s going to be the same map that I bring in for signature for your Chairman, it’s going to have that requirement on there anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess we’re okay with the waivers. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a public hearing still this evening, Keith? I get confused on these when bounce back and forth. MR. OBORNE-I think it was left open. I’m sure it was left open. You may want to close that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, let me say that it’s re-opened, and if anyone wants to comment, we’ll entertain any comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Seeing as how there are no comments received, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I’ll put forth a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tax Map ID 309.6-1-69.1, 212 Sherman Avenue A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.49 +/- acre lot into two lots of 0.23 & 0.26 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 8/17/2010; and The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 11/17/2010; and A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/17/10, 8/24/10, 12/16/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-And so for Final the only special condition is the recommendation from the Zoning Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We want to grant the waivers? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tax Map ID 240.5-1-69.1, 212 Sherman Avenue A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 0.49 +/- acre lot into two lots of 0.23 & 0.26 +/- acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on 8/17/2010; and The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance request on 11/17/2010; and A public hearing was scheduled and held on 8/17/10, 8/24/10, 12/16/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph B, Negative. Paragraph D, we grant waivers for topography, Sketch, grading and drainage. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)Waiver requests granted: topography, sketch grading/drainage plan; and e)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and f)As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and g)This is approved with the following condition: That only a single family home will be erected on Lot B. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Congratulations. SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010 MODIFICATION TO SP 8-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI [COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE] LOCATION 777 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL LIGHT FIXTURES ON EACH LIGHT POLE AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF THE SITE, INCLUDING ENTRANCES. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE OPS 27-07, SP 59-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING 9/8/10 LOT SIZE 1.51 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-020 MR. HUNSINGER-And we have received a correspondence, I guess it’s dated Tuesday, that they would like to postpone both of the proposals. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we know how far out? MR. HUNSINGER-That was my question, yes. MR. OBORNE-We’re going to have to go to February at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-February? MR. OBORNE-Yes, because he hasn’t submitted anything, per protocol. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Both of them on the same date. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That’s one of his issues. He wants to do this all wrapped up in one. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, that makes sense. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010, MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007, STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tax Map ID 303.19-1-61, 777 Quaker Road A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes additional light fixtures on each light pole around the exterior of the site, including entrances. Modifications to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/21 & 12/16/2010; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-2010, MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 8-2007, STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: nd Tabled to the February 22 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show the public hearing will be held open. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) SITE PLAN 72-2010 MODIFICATION TO SP 5-2006 STEWARTS SHOPS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING NC [NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL] LOCATION 347 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 500 +/- SQ. FT. BUILDING EXPANSION, 105 +/- SQ FT. EXTERIOR FREEZER ADDITION, AND A 144 +/- SQ. FT. ASPHALT PICNIC AREA. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 5-06, SP 24-99, SP 20-94, AV 92-93, SP 17-93 LOT SIZE 1.04 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33 SECTION 179-9 MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 72-2010, MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2006, STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tax Map ID 301.8-1-33, 347 Aviation Road A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 500 +/- sq. ft. building expansion, 105 +/- sq. ft. exterior freezer addition, and a 144 +/- sq. ft. asphalt picnic area. Modification to an approved site plan in the NC zone requires Planning Board review and approval; and A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/16/2010 [LEFT OPEN]; and MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 72-2010, MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2006, STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: nd Tabled to the February 22 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO 77-2010 SEQR TYPE II MODIFICATION TO SP 65-2004 EXECUTIVE PARK WEST LLC AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) SAME ZONING NC [NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL] LOCATION 333 AVIATION ROAD PHASE I – EXISTING OFFICE COMPLEX AND LAUNDROMAT – BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO LOTS AND DEMOLITION OF LAUNDROMAT TO PROVIDE NEW PARKING FOR EXISTING OFFICES. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 78-10, SP 65-04, SP 37-00, BP 05-376, BP 05-375 LOT SIZE 0.29, 1.68 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-31, 29 SECTION 179-9 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DR. DEAN BARTLETT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Just some information at this. Basically there’s a piggyback on this. There’s two, they’re in conjunction site plans that are before you right now. So right now we’ll deal with the first one which is Executive Park West, and that’s probably the most complicated one out of all of them, even though it’s really not all that complicated, but I shall begin with Site Plan 77-2010, which is a modification to Site Plan 65-2004. Executive Park West, LLC is the applicant, and the requested action is changed to an approved Site Plan in the NC zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 333 Aviation Road is the current location. I have a feeling in the future that will change to Manor Road. It’s a Type II SEQR. Project Description: Phase I existing office complex and Laundromat, boundary line adjustment between two lots, and demolition of Laundromat to provide new parking for existing offices. Changes, again, to an approved site plan require Site Plan Review and approval. Staff comments: This proposal is also associated with Dean Bartlett’s application before the Board tonight and should be considered a companion application. What follows is review. I think you’ll see the biggest concern I have, and I don’t think it’s all that big of a concern, are that there are two, 2,000 gallon septic tanks located on the parcel and there really hasn’t been much language in the Site Plan application concerning those, and I’m just not sure what type of chemicals from the Laundromat went in there and so on and so forth, as you see in my Site Plan Review, and with that I’ll turn it over to the Board. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Sitting with me tonight is Dr. Dean Bartlett from Bartlett Orthodontic, which the piggyback, the companion to this. Brief rundown of what we’ve got going on. The parcel lot that we’re looking at is 333 Aviation Road, which is Executive Park West. It’s Phil Whittemore’s offices, Whittemore, Dowen, and Kilburn and Ricciardelli, that was here back in 2004/2005 I believe is when we were in here originally. It’s the two brick buildings immediately across from Sokol’s Market. The other parcel that we’re looking at is the old Laundromat facility which has one room apartment above the Laundromat. Executive Park West is in negotiation. They’re a contract vendee for purchasing this. It’s been on the market for about a year. It’s been vacant for about a year, and the intent is that they will purchase this piece of property, tear down the Laundromat, and create parking for, additional parking for this building. We will do a boundary line adjustment, as you can see on the second drawing that I have here. The boundary line adjustment then brings this piece onto one parcel, and it creates a, we take the boundary line from here, move it to this side, it creates a separate lot, that can then be sold to Dr. Bartlett so that his practice can move from Glen Street in Glens Falls up to Aviation Road. The need for that is that Dr. Bartlett, with his practice, needs more parking spaces than what are available for both the accounting office and his office. They will share this parking lot and then this parking lot over here will be for the staff of the accountants. That’s pretty much the extent of where we’re at with the project. There were a couple of Staff comments that I can address. There is a Phase I and Phase II environmental that’s been undertaken as part of the purchase agreement. They’ve been through this. When Building Number One was being constructed, and I remember this because I was part of the construction. Maille’s originally owned pretty much everything up this way. When this building was built and it was the original Laundromat, this was Tink’s old shop back here, and at one point I think this was all one lot, and when they built the Laundromat, the drywells that were being used for the disposal of the gray water from the Laundromat, when they were digging this foundation, they must have been running the laundry because it started filling this up, and as they dug back, the drywells were right here. So they had two big drywells. So as part of that, during the construction of this, they had to re-build the sewage disposal system. That’s when they put the two 2,000 gallon tanks that are just behind the existing Laundromat, and they’ve got the drywells and the tile field is back here. That will, as part of this project, that’s all coming out. The Laundromat itself comes down and we add in all of the drainage. The drainage that we’ve got is catch basins and drywells, similar to what was done up here. We are asking for a waiver from stormwater calc’s because this parking lot is less than half of what this is, but we’re providing more than half of the same, and they have no drainage problems in there now. As far as we could dig, when we were doing the test pits for this lot, it was 16, 18 feet. We didn’t hit any groundwater, and it’s all sand. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s all sand. MR. HALL-Yes. So based on what we did here during the construction of this, it’s going to be exactly the same for the parking lot up here, two catch basins, two drywells. MR. HUNSINGER-So what did you find during Phase I that necessitated a Phase II environmental? MR. HALL-They asked for it. Because this was a Laundromat before. MR. HUNSINGER-Because of the history. MR. HALL-Because of the history of it and what they found when they were digging over here, they just asked for the next phase of it to be done, and actually it’s been mostly completed, and they haven’t found anything, they didn’t find anything there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-So they were, they’re moving forward with the purchase. That was a contingency of the original purchase. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-So they are moving forward with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-The septic tank decommission was a great comment from Staff, because obviously it was a Laundromat and none of us know what’s under there, but as far as the re- 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) development, I think this is great. I mean, that front building has not been occupied, not been, you know, very well utilized. So this is going to be perfect. MR. HALL-Yes, it was broken up, it’s broken up into four different tenants right now. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HALL-They’ve got, and it’s been utilized by several different people, and it just didn’t work out really for any of them, but for Dean’s purposes it works perfect. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HALL-And we’ve got an interior layout that we’ve got pretty much pulled together already, that’s all ready to go. There will be no exterior changes to the building based on that. MRS. STEFFAN-And that Laundromat coming down is the best possible thing for that area. It just will clean things up remarkably, and, you know, both of those brick buildings are beautiful in that location. They even have sidewalks in the front, everyone. MR. HALL-The sidewalks to nowhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The interesting thing is my mother lives in the Solomon Heights development, which is behind. So I’m over there all the time, but the kids are walking out of Indian Ridge, and so the kids walk out of there and they go to Stewarts or they go to Sokols and they walk on that little piece of sidewalk, and I just, it’s, I find it extremely annoying that I couldn’t get folks (lost words) sidewalks, but oh well. MR. HALL-But there they are. MRS. STEFFAN-But this is a great, I think this is a great plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, concerns from the Board? MR. SIPP-Well, there’s signage that’s going to the Town Board next Monday, and in that it says something about Professional Office parking will have signs that are not over six feet tall. MR. HALL-Okay. MR. SIPP-Monument type signs. Now whether that’ll pass or. MR. HALL-There’s already an existing sign for this property that’s out on Aviation Road. It’s the intent that that, there is space on the bottom of that. It was designed originally that’s got Whittemore, Dowen & Ricciardelli on the face of that sign, and then there’s open space on the bottom that was intentionally done for the tenants of the front building. So that sign won’t change other than just some lettering on the bottom of it will change so that Dr. Bartlett gets his portion on the bottom of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-And there is no signage off of Manor Drive. There’s nothing out back. MRS. STEFFAN-Why would you need it? MR. HALL-Well, they do, all the traffic does go out that way. All the traffic from this lot has to exit out the back. That’s the way this lot is set up. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a great cut through. I cut through there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. When I was looking at this originally the other day, the only thought I had was on connecting the two parking areas for the new property. MR. HALL-From the back portion here? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. HALL-Yes. Really it doesn’t, we lose parking spaces no matter what we do if we do that, and then intent is that this portion over here is just for the Staff for the folks here. Obviously it’s 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) not going to be marked that way because it will be able to be used by anybody, and these parking spaces that are immediately in front of that are for the clients, and for Dr. Bartlett’s use. There’s going to be an easement, parking easement granted between the two tenants. So that all 60 spaces here will be available for both, for clients. MRS. STEFFAN-Right next to that, right next to the Laundromat there’s a Hudson Headwaters Health Network, and there is an interconnect between that and Glens Falls Bank parcel. MR. HALL-Yes, there is. MRS. STEFFAN-So there’s one right next to it. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There actually is an approved interconnect for the two properties that’s not shown on the Site Plan. I did mention that in my notes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It’s part of the reason why I brought it up. MR. OBORNE-Bruce and I spoke quite extensively about this. There’s a grade change, and we were concerned that that would possibly effect stormwater. It really did not push it that hard, to be honest with you. MR. HALL-Yes. It does a couple of things, and I know that Phil had spoken with people as well. The interconnect is between the 60 lot parking area and the area next door, Glens Falls Bank, and that’s a one way. That’s the drive thru from the Bank, and it’s a one way, and the concern was is the interconnect, there is a grade change there, and there are some drainage concerns that we have there, but the concern was is that people are going to be going out into oncoming one way traffic. MRS. STEFFAN-And the other thing is that it’s really an impossible driveway. That is the tightest site in Town, I believe, when, you know. MR. HALL-Coming through this way. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, coming around that Bank, and so that wouldn’t be a good idea from a transportation standpoint. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, interconnects are great and promoted if they’re designed and planned properly. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but this one, you know, I just don’t think that one would work. MR. HALL-Yes, and there is still one in place from this lot to the adjoining lot to the west. If something gets developed on that side, there is an interconnect there. MR. OBORNE-Well, that was discussed at World Class Kids, and that was eliminated. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, I think we had decided that because of what they were proposing that it would not be a good thing. MR. OBORNE-They’re worried about the children. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and we still don’t know if there’ll be a roundabout at that dysfunctional intersection there. MR. HALL-Farther up at Farr Lane. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m just looking back at the notes. MR. HALL-Chris, you’re looking at the Staff Notes? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, to see exactly what we’re doing here. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HALL-Well, the one thing that I think I would, we certainly would put on our drawings, based on Staff Notes, is that we’ll add some verbiage to our site condition notes that the decommissioning of the underground wastewater system from the Laundromat would be decommissioned and removed from the site, as part of this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-So we’ll certainly add a note to that effect on our drawings based on Staff comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I got confused. I thought we were doing a subdivision here as well. MR. HALL-It’s really, it’s a boundary line adjustment. It’s not really a subdivision, because we’re taking, we start with two lots, and we wind up with two lots. We’re just taking this boundary line from here and taking this one small lot and this one large lot and we’re making two conforming lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-So we’re taking this property line here and moving it to here. So, it’s really, it’s not a subdivision. We start with two lots, we end up with two lots. It’s more just a boundary line adjustment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, yes. MR. OBORNE-This potentially could have been done administratively, but because there was a Site Plan associated with it, we felt it prudent to bring it to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and it’s a Type II action, so no SEQR review is required, unless there’s an issue that we feel needs to be addressed. MR. FORD-I don’t believe so. MR. HUNSINGER-So the first project is the lot line adjustment. MR. OBORNE-The lot line adjustment and the parking lot, and the removal of the laundry facility. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I had a question, Keith. We’re doing 77-2010 first, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, ma’am. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Keith, there is a note here, the proposed location of catch basins and associated manholes are to be located on or near existing leach field and septic tank. Does that have to be noted as well? MR. OBORNE-Where? MRS. STEFFAN-On the bottom of the Staff Notes, Page One, Page C-3. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think what I’m stating there is the applicant has asked for stormwater waiver, but controls are planned, and that’s really why I put that in there, is to make sure that the Board realizes that the applicant has asked for stormwater waivers, yet is offering stormwater controls. Sands the calc’s, at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So based on what I’ve heard, the Planning Board seems to be okay with what is presented. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I see lots of nodding heads. MRS. STEFFAN-So, Keith, I just want to be sure. We’ve got a notation here that the drawings have to have a decommissioning plan under additional comments, you’ve got all existing underground infrastructure should be quantified and qualified on the laundry facility parcel. So, that’s really the same as a decommissioning plan? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. OBORNE-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So if we have one, we have both. MR. HALL-There were drawings that were filed with the Building Department when that gray water issue came up, when they had to re-do this over here. So we know what’s there. So our intent is to use those plans from the Building Department. That why we know what’s there. We know what we’re taking out. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We like it when there are plans to refer to. MR. HALL-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I did not. MR. HALL-Did you open it? MR. HUNSINGER-I did not. We will open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing, seeing that there were no comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And we will entertain a motion for approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2010 EXECUTIVE PARK WEST, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tax Map ID 301.8-1-31, 29; 333 Aviation Road A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Phase I - Existing office complex and Laundromat – boundary line adjustment between two lots and demolition of Laundromat to provide new parking for existing offices. Changes to an approved site plan in the NC zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/16/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 77-2010 EXECUTIVE PARK WEST, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. Paragraph E, the applicant’s requested a waiver for stormwater. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Type II, no further review required; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)Waiver granted: stormwater; and f)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and g)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and h)This is approved with the following condition: 1.That the applicant will put a notation on the drawings for a decommissioning plan for removal of the two 2,000 gallon septic tanks on site, including the associated leach field with the septic tank. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You’re all set. Now let’s move on to the next one. SITE PLAN NO. 78-2010 MODIFICATION TO SP 65-2004 SEQR TYPE II DR. DEAN BARTLETT AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) EXECUTIVE PARK WEST LLC ZONING NC [NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL] LOCATION 333 AVIATION ROAD PHASE 2: APPLICANT PROPOSES CHANGE TO EXISTING SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND PARKING EASEMENTS. CHANGES TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 77-10, SP 65-04, SP 37-00, BP 05-376, BP 05- 375 LOT SIZE 1.68 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-31 SECTION 179-9 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DR. DEAN BARTLETT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, before you jump into it, Keith, what is really left to be done? MR. HALL-Exactly. MR. OBORNE-For the record, basically. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Just for the record, I think. It should be a pretty quick review, I would imagine, but Site Plan 78-2010, Dr. Dean Bartlett is the applicant. It’s changes to an approved Site Plan require Planning Board review and approval. 333 Aviation Road is the location. Neighborhood Commercial is the zoning. It’s a Type II SEQR. Phase II. Applicant proposes change to existing Site Plan to include a lot line adjustment and parking easements. Again, you may want to discuss the interconnects for the record. There is an outstanding Site Plan Inspection Report that has not been closed out yet due to that interconnect. If we could have the interconnect language removed from this plan, it would go a long ways towards closing out that Site Plan Inspection Report, if the Planning Board deems it not necessary, at this point, and my comments basically deal specifically with the interconnect, and it’s pretty much boilerplate language if they’re going to do it or if they have a letter from the adjoining property owner, etc., etc., and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Again, Ethan Hall, partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture, and Dr. Dean Bartlett. As Keith stated, this really was piggybacked on that previous approval and all of our things stay the 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) same, and if we can get that interconnect language taken away from that, it would be preferable for us. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question on that, if I may. I guess, first of all, which interconnect are we talking about? Because when we originally approved the Site Plan way back when, I think we had interconnects going to both lots on either side, east and west. MR. OBORNE-You did, and you’ve already removed the language for the other one towards World Class Kids. You’ve removed the language for the World Class Kids interconnect. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but did we amend this Site Plan? MR. OBORNE-No, because that Site Plan wasn’t under review at the time. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. Right. MR. OBORNE-Right. So you certainly can amend the language for that also, if you care to, on both east and west sides. MR. HUNSINGER-So, when you wrote the Staff Note, you were mostly concerned about the interconnect to the east that connects to the Bank? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And wasn’t that a similar discussion, though? Didn’t we, at that point in time, I mean, we didn’t require the Bank to build it. So, I mean, I remember the discussion. You summarized it very well a few minutes ago, saying, you know, there were concerns about traffic going in the one way traffic through the drive thru. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-So we didn’t require the Bank to build it. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, but it is still on the approved Site Plan. Now this Site Plan’s being modified. When Ethan submits his final plans, we’ll have something on there that says the interconnect no longer required. MR. HALL-Requirement for proposed interconnect removed by this Board at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any advantage to leaving them on the Site Plan for a future development, because they haven’t started construction on the World Class Kids site yet, if something else ends up being put there. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that site’s complete. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MR. HALL-That’s the back portion of that lot next door. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. Yes, okay. I’m sorry. MR. HALL-The front portion is still for sale, and there may be some future consideration there. MR. OBORNE-I see what you’re saying, and again, this is planning, absolutely. You can leave that language on there and state in your approval that completion of the interconnect is not required at this point in time, or something along those lines, and keep that language on there. MR. HUNSINGER-Isn’t it labeled as, you know, future interconnect? MR. OBORNE-It says future interconnect, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I guess, personally, I don’t see any reason to not let it ride, that’s just my opinion. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, it makes sense. It’s a paper. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s like a paper street. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. TRAVER-Right. It’s a paper interconnect. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-So the language is completion of the interconnect’s not required at this time. MR. OBORNE-I think that would be advantageous for the applicant and be clarified, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other comment I had was on the parking easements, you know, or how will that be, because I think it really needs to be clear on the plans that, you know, that’s the understanding. MR. HALL-Right. The understanding Dr. Bartlett has with Phil, and you can speak to this as well, is that of the 60 spaces that are in this lot, 50 of those are dedicated to Dr. Bartlett’s practice, which leaves 10 spaces in that lot that can be used by both Dr. Bartlett’s people and the accounting, the clients for the accounting business, and the easement’s written, because we now have an in only here and an out only here, it’s an ingress/egress easement across the lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HALL-Which that’s basically what the language is going to wind up being. MR. HUNSINGER-So that’s actually labeled on the Site Plan? MR. HALL-It’s not at this point because the attorneys don’t have all of it completely drawn out yet, because the sales agreement was contingent upon approval of this. So they didn’t want to get all that written out and have some, so it is there. It is in place, and once the approvals are done, it’ll be finalized, and we can certainly add that to the drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just know in the past, I mean, not necessarily on every project, but it’s not unusual for us to ask for that as a condition of approval. So, would it be unreasonable to make the condition of approval that the easement language be acceptable to Town Counsel, or something to that effect? MR. OBORNE-Town Counsel. I think so. I think that’s fine. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And added to the drawings. MR. HUNSINGER-And added to the drawings, yes. MR. HALL-Yes, we can certainly do that. MR. HUNSINGER-The parking and ingress/egress easements be reviewed and approved by Town Counsel, and the language added to the Site Plan. I mean, is it a paragraph, a couple of sentences? MR. HALL-Yes. It’s going to be a couple of sentences that says that 50 of these parking spaces belong with the building at 333 Aviation, and the remainder of those are shared access with both 333 and 18 Manor Drive, and that both parties have access across the lot. MR. OBORNE-Now is that a deeded easement? MR. HALL-I don’t believe it’s part of the deed. I think it’s just going to be an ingress and an egress easement. I don’t know how the attorneys are going to wind up writing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, then the question becomes issues of maintenance. MR. HALL-Have you had any discussions with Phil at all about that, as to how that gets deeded? DR. DEAN BARTLETT DR. BARTLETT-How the maintenance gets taken care of? He said I could do whatever I wanted. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m thinking forward, 20 years from now, maybe you have, you know, two different tenants, I mean, you know, you guys are going to be great neighbors right now, you know, but 20 years from now maybe someone else owns the accounting company, maybe somebody else is in your building, you know. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HALL-Right. We can certainly have that written out and added as the, you know, deed easements. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what would be recommended? MR. OBORNE-I think you’re on the right path with the maintenance easement, or the maintenance agreement, potentially, but certainly the easement should definitely be reviewed by Town Counsel, like you’re saying. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, it’s more than just maintenance. I mean, right now, you know, you have an understanding that, you know, Dr. Bartlett’s going to use 50 spaces, but 20 years from now, maybe the back building needs more spaces, the front building needs fewer. MR. HALL-Right, and that gets transferred back at that point. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Then they have to come up with a new agreement at that point. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, all we really care about is that there’s an understanding that those lots would be shared, and the traffic flow be as originally designed. The actual parking lot count, I don’t think we really. MR. HALL-Yes, I don’t think the parking lot count, I think it’s more this is an in only. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HALL-And for anybody to get access back to this portion of it, they have to come in here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HALL-And then this is an in and an out, but once you’re in here, you have to cross this lot to get back out. MRS. STEFFAN-A parking area maintenance agreement needs to be provided on final plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Any other comments, concerns from the Board? I feel like I’m dominating the discussion. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. FORD-Good to go. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-And seeing that Brad is the only one left in the audience, unless you want to comment on the record. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show there are no comments. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And entertain a motion for approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Now, in this particular parcel, Keith, they didn’t request waivers on this one? Because the motion has waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a modification. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure they did. MRS. STEFFAN-I think in the original application we, maybe I did. MR. HALL-In the original application. I believe it’s the last portion of it. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. OBORNE-Yes, I don’t have them on my notes. MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t see on the application. MR. HALL-Yes. It’s right here. I’ve got a copy of it if you’d like it. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s in the letter. MR. HALL-It’s in part of the original application. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Waiver requests are attached to the application for relief from stormwater, grading, lighting and landscaping. So I neglected to put it on my notes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and I didn’t see it on the application. That’s why I didn’t underline it. So is everybody okay on the Planning Board with stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting waivers? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2010 DR. DEAN BARTLETT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tax Map ID 301.8-1-31; 333 Aviation Road A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Phase 2: Applicant proposes change to existing site plan to include a lot line adjustment and parking easements. Changes to an approved site plan in the NC zone require Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/16/2010; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 78-2010 DR. DEAN BARTLETT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph A complies. This is a Type II action. Paragraph E, the applicant has requested waivers for stormwater, grading, landscaping and lighting, and the Planning Board grants those waivers. a)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-080]], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and b)Type II, no further review required; and c)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and d)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and e)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; and f)The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; and 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) g)If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; and h)This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That completion of the interconnects will not be required at this time. 2.Regarding parking easements, easement language regarding ingress and egress must be provided and then reviewed by Town Counsel, and then added to the plan. 3.A parking area maintenance agreement needs to be provided in the final plans. th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Jackoski, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to come before the Board? Next meeting. I was negligent, I didn’t bring it up in November. Next meeting we need to have consideration for officers for 2011. Usually we do that in November. Yes. That was my fault. I forgot to add it to the agenda. We’ll do that Tuesday. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Also, I don’t know how you do this legally, but just a sense of the Board as to how we’re going to handle what could get messy, and if we’re not going to have a public hearing, it seems to me, any time I’ve ever been involved with the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, when somebody challenges the Zoning Administrator’s ruling, that that complaint goes to the Zoning Board, not to the Planning Board. So I don’t think we should entertain a mini riot in here with 200 people listening to all that when it doesn’t apply at the moment. That plan will come back here for approval, stormwater for one, and whatever else, but I think, if you people agree with me, I’ll just simply make a motion that we refer that at this time back to the Zoning Board, which is where it belongs. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I want to be careful how much discussion we have, because it is scheduled to be on the agenda for Tuesday evening, but I think there’s some value in a little bit of discussion, because the question has come up by more than one person regarding a public hearing, and there is no public hearing scheduled, and unless there’s an overwhelming urge by the Board to hold a public hearing, and to take public comment, you know, my inclination is to not have any public comment, because there’s no public hearing scheduled. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree with you. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think there might be some value in that word getting out to people that are asking that question. If they know we’re not going to take any public comment, they may be less likely to attend. I don’t know. They might come and be more angry because we’re not going to take public comment, but there is no requirement, and again, it was my inclination that we would not. MR. MAGOWAN-Keith and I were there, and it’s going to be busy. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think if we impart the information to the audience, if there is an audience, let’s assume that there is, that they be apprised that this will be seen and reviewed under Site Plan review auspices, of which there is a public hearing aspect to it. So they’ll have their day with the Planning Board, just not at this recommendation. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, because this is a complaint, and complaints go to Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. OBORNE-But it should be short and sweet, but that’s up to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess I just, I want to just make sure that the Planning Board is prepared, I mean, whatever decision we make, we’re going to make it next Tuesday. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We’re not making any decision this evening. MRS. STEFFAN-But we don’t have a public hearing, so that everybody knows that. It hasn’t been advertised as such, but we did receive minutes from that meeting, and so everybody on the Planning Board should have read all those minutes, which means we will have read the public comment from the Zoning Board meeting, so we will really be prepared to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, whatever it is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I read the minutes. That’s why I’m bringing it up. Because I thought they were so rude and so, not the people, but, you know, I didn’t like the way they treated our employee, our Town Attorney. I don’t think she deserved to be snapped at like that, and I think they’re wrong. All you have a situation where the Town Board made a change, and you have a Zoning Administrator made a ruling, which people are entitled to challenge that, but we shouldn’t be challenging it. That’s not our job. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we’ll all just read the minutes, and we’ll be ready to deal with it on Tuesday. MR. MAGOWAN-A lot of what the people were basically saying was just the way it was handled, all right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I read it. MR. MAGOWAN-And they were just concerned, and how the Hayes’ dragged their feet to start the project, where everything was. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But that’s none of our concern. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. Right. MR. SIPP-How far back can we go, Keith? Can we use those minutes from 2004 and ’05? MR. OBORNE-I think it has no standing whatsoever on this project, and the Pos Dec, it means absolutely nothing. It’s a totally different project. MR. SIPP-Can we allude to them in the sense of stormwater? MR. OBORNE-At your own risk. I would strongly recommend not to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I think one other problem that you’re going to have, and we might as well bring it up now, is that one individual is going to try to force himself to the microphone, who I feel strongly should not be involved in this at either group. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, if there’s no public comment, then they have no voice. MR. HUNSINGER-Then there’s no public comment. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You’re going to have to be ready to enforce that. MR. OBORNE-Counsel will be present. MR. HUNSINGER-My intention, you know, Keith and I had this conversation a couple of weeks ago, you know, my intention is to make an announcement at the beginning of the meeting, so that people are very clear. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So they don’t have to sit here for the whole. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That’s a good. I think if you do that, I think then we’ve got, we have to deal with four or five other things, and by the time we deal with that, most of them will be home in bed. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, probably, and, I mean, if they really are that interested, they can sit and wait to see how we discuss it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But I think it’s important that we recognize the difference between the two Boards. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/16/2010) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. MR. FORD-I think we’re set. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, good. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ll make a motion we adjourn. Is that in order? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. It’s always in order. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2010, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: th Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 34