The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.10.25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 65-2011 Anthony M. Mangino 1. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-31 Site Plan No. 66-2011 Andrew West 4. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-9 Site Plan No. 47-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne 4. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Site Plan No. 39-2010 Inwald Enterprises 5. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Site Plan No. 67-2011 Florence Connor 7. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-63 Site Plan No. 68-2011 Gordon & Cynthia Hoyt 10. Tax Map No. 290.-1-94 DISCUSSION ITEM Queensbury Partners, LLC 15. 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 10/25/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD KREBS THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I’d like to welcome everyone to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 2011. For members of the audience, on the back table there is a copy of the agenda, and there is also a copy of a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the items this evening do have public hearings, and we will follow those procedures during the public hearing review. Our last item of the evening is only a Sketch Plan review and we do not have a public hearing scheduled and we’ll talk about that more when we introduce the item. We have several items under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 65-2011 SEQR TYPE II ANTHONY M. MANGINO OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 67 ROCKHURST ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 72 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY PORCH/DECK TO SEASONAL RESIDENCE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF FROM FRONT SETBACK, SIDE SETBACK, PERMEABILITY, AND FR REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 63- 11; BP 95-030 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-31 SECTION § 179-9 ANTHONY MANGINO, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-The project is located up on 67 Rockhurst Road, Site Plan 65-2011. Site Plan Review is the requested action. The existing zoning is Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Previously the Board has seen this at the recommendation stage. I think it’s pretty simple. What he’s asking for is a 72 square foot covered entry porch/deck to his seasonal residence. This is for him not to get, or for his family and friends not to get their head wet basically. At this point it is an open porch. They did receive their Area Variance last week from the Zoning Board of Appeals. I believe the applicant is going to present to the Board, if that’s okay, a planting plan, at least in sketch plan view, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MANGINO-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. MANGINO-Yes. It’s Anthony Mangino, 67 Rockhurst Road, Town of Queensbury. We’re proposing a 72 square foot covered porch, open on the sides, for easier access in and out of the one and only entry to the cottage, and the rest I think you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are you ready for questions? MR. MANGINO-I did confer with the Town and read up on the required plantings that may mitigate my increase in impermeable surface and have marked up one of my surveys that shows 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) colored coated to existing and proposed new trees, shrubs and ground cover. Would the Board like to see that? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you can probably just hold it up and point it out. MR. MANGINO-It shows red existing ground cover, which is pretty ample as it is, but I looked in every spot that I can, familiarize myself with the allowable shrubs and trees that’ll work on a shoreline buffer, and maximizing my space. MR. HUNSINGER-So are you proposing any new plantings? MR. MANGINO-Yes, definitely. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you just kind of walk us through that? MR. MANGINO-Yes. There’s one existing buffer that’s been there for, I think, a number of years, and it’s like a honeysuckle and it’s actually growing up right on the shoreline through the rocks. It’s really, really hardy, there’s a big root structure, and I have that trimmed down, but that could certainly grow up, and I illustrated where it is now and how I could grow it up, and that would be, I think, a major increase in shoreline buffer right there. Also an existing tree that’s small I can replace with an allowable tree that would make a larger canopy, and then the only other areas I have, there’s actually three different beds where there’s existing plantings in them now, but they could be increased probably to about 50%. One of the other things I showed on here is there’s considerable canopy from two large trees, I think they’re oak trees, on my neighboring properties, and one of the canopies, you can kind of see a piece of it there, but they overhang my property. You can see the tree, that’s just one of them, and then even on the right side, there’s a birch on the other neighboring property. They’re pretty close to the property line. So they canopy over it. It doesn’t give me a lot of room to put a big, large tree there without being right in the middle of the pathways to the dock, patios. MR. FORD-Are you doing any plantings near or around the patio? MR. MANGINO-Yes. There’s a very large shrub that’s right next to where the patio is, and it extends down close to the shoreline. So right in front of the new patio is, or the new porch, is an existing patio, so I can’t plant on the right side of it looking at it, but I can plant a little bit out where I’m increasing, in the green you can see, right in front of where the stairway is. So it’ll still allow access to, on and off, but I can definitely increase that. MR. HUNSINGER-So the green is the proposed plantings? MR. MANGINO-The green is proposed. Red is existing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you review the species with the species that are listed in the Code? MR. MANGINO-Yes, absolutely. Some were Greek to me, but I understand, can educate myself as to which ones are allowable. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-You understand the fertilizer requirements or restrictions? MR. MANGINO-Restrictions, yes. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a nice lawn there. MR. MANGINO-I do, there’s no fertilizer on there whatsoever. MR. SIPP-Who previously put it in there? MR. MANGINO-As far as fertilizer? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MANGINO-There’s none been put in, there’s nothing that’s been put in this year. I’ve owned the cottage since this past winter. So this is my first season with it. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. SIPP-Somebody had a good lawn in there. MR. MANGINO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and note that no comments were received, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II action. So no SEQRA review is necessary unless there’s an issue that someone had identified. With that, would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-And so we’re not giving a waiver for landscaping. MR. HUNSINGER-Because he’s given us a plan. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 65-2011 ANTHONY M. MANGINO A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 72 sq. ft. covered entry porch/deck to seasonal residence. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval; Planning Board provided a recommendation to the ZBA on 10/18/2011; the ZBA approved the variances requested on 10/19/2011; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/25/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2011 ANTHONY M. MANGINO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQRA; 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, lighting plans & topographic requirements; 6)This is approved with the following condition: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) 1.That the applicant will provide Staff with a revised plan to include landscaping as described this evening with Code compliant species. th Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MANGINO-Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2011 SEQR TYPE II ANDREW WEST AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) SHARON DAVIES & OTHERS; JOSHUA’S ROCK CORP. ATTN. KATHERINE SEELYE ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 12 JOSHUA’S ROCK ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AND EXPAND EXISTING 533 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 425 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE RESULTING IN A 575 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 589 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCE: SIDE LINE SETBACK RELIEF. PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 62-11, SP 31-11, SP 32-11, AV 22-11, AV 23-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-9 SECTION § 179-9 MR. HUNSINGER-And I understand there’s an update from the Zoning Board? MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s an update from the Zoning Board. There’s been an NOA issued on this, which puts a stay on that application, which basically means that we have to table this application to a meeting in December, at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. th MR. OBORNE-Just for the Planning Board’s edification, the NOA is scheduled for the 30 of November, with not any anticipation, but the Area Variance associated with that will be heard after that NOA, depending upon that outcome. So, it will be scheduled to either the first or second meeting in December. It doesn’t really matter. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a preference? MR. OBORNE-No preference. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to table. RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN 66-2011 ANDREW WEST MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2011 ANDREW WEST, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th This is tabled to the December 20 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record reflect that the public hearing will be held open until that date. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2011 SEQR TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 665 +/- SQ. FT. DECK AND PARTIALLY BUILT A NEW 647 +/- SQ. FT. DECK IN ITS PLACE. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 329 SQ. FT. PATIO 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 45- 11, AV 46-11, AV 45-11; BP 2011-140, 2011-141, 99-469, 98-785 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/13/2011 9/14/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-9 MR. OBORNE-This also will need to be tabled because the Zoning Board of Appeals accepted a tabling request from the applicant at the meeting last week. As such, if we could table this out to the, I believe, with the way the schedule is running in December, your meetings are on. thth MRS. STEFFAN-The 17 and the 26. MR. OBORNE-In December. MRS. STEFFAN-No, no. According to the notes, you wanted to table it until January. MR. HUNSINGER-To January. thth MR. TRAVER-Our December meetings are the 15 and the 20. MR. OBORNE-Right. I anticipate this application to be on the December meeting. You said the thth 15 and the 20, Steve? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-The Zoning Board meetings would be after that. So we’ll have to be tabled until January. MR. HUNSINGER-It would have to be January. MR. OBORNE-Thank you for helping me work that out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, we haven’t really set the agenda for 2012, but our normal meeting thth dates would be the 17 and the 24. MR. OBORNE-Okay. If we could go for the previous, or the earlier one. th MR. HUNSINGER-The 17? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess that would commit us, then, to a meeting on that date. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to table. RESOLUTION TABLING SITE PLAN 47-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled to the January 17, 2012 Planning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 SEQR TYPE II INWALD ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R; CLA SITE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR- WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 38 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 693 +/- SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK ABOVE 2 EXISTING DOCKS. BOATHOUSES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 6-11, AV 7-11, AV 26-10, AV 45-10, AV 68-08, SP 38-08, BP 09-384 WARREN CO. PLANNING 6/9/2010 3/9/2011 –NO COUNTY IMPACT APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 0.66 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION § 179-9, 179-5-020A 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) PETER LOYOLA & BILL SPRINGNETHER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. We have finally come full circle with this Site Plan. This has to do with a boathouse in the WR zone. The location is 38 Gunn Lane. This is in a Waterfront Residential and this is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with 693 square foot sundeck accessed by a conforming 96 square foot stairs with landing. Just for the Board, this application is not eligible for expedited review as it did have Area Variances associated with setbacks, and with that, Staff has no issue with the plan as proposed, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LOYOLA-Hi. Yes, we’ve simplified it in an effort to get this boathouse built. We’ve been around and around with this Board as well as the Zoning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I’m sorry, if you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. LOYOLA-I’m sorry. Peter Loyola, CLA Site, here with Bill Springnether from CLA Site representing Robin Inwald. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LOYOLA-So, again, you know, we’ve come full circle on this. We do want to get the boathouse built and approved. We meet the 96, we’re below the 100 square foot, and the height on the structure itself, 14 feet, or 16 feet by two feet. So we’re here to just get this approved for Site Plan approval. It’s pretty simple. We’ve gone through the planting, shoreline planting, and meet all the requirements for an approval, in our opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? It is a much simpler application. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, without the bridge. MR. HUNSINGER-Than it was previous. MR. OBORNE-I guess I would have the Planning Board focus on the planting plan that they have presented. It appears robust, in my estimation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So everything else is compliant. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any takers. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. This is a Type II SEQRA. I will open and close the public hearing, and note that there were no comments received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Do you have a motion in your package? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I didn’t notice that there was one. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think one was provided. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. OBORNE-But it’s a Type II SEQRA. I would say that waivers that would be requested would be grading, lighting, E & S, and also stormwater, madam Secretary. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any special conditions anyone wants to discuss? Did you find a sample to work on? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to construct a 693 +/- sq. ft. boathouse with sundeck above 2 existing docks. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 6/24, 8/17, 9/28, 11/16/10; 1/20, 3/15, 4/19, 4/26, 8/16, 10/25/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 38 Gunn Lane, Queensbury. There are five items: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirement as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQRA; 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 5)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, E & S, lighting plans & topographic requirements; th Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. LOYOLA-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 67-2011 SEQR TYPE II FLORENCE CONNOR AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) FLORENCE E. CONNOR LIVING TRUST ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 6 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 20’ X 20’ SINGLE STORY ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 49-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G CEA, LGPC LOT SIZE 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-63 SECTION 179-9 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 67-2011. Florence Connor. This is an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA, and as such requires Site Plan Review and approval. 6 Holly Lane is the location. Waterfront Residential once again, and again this is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 20’ x 20’ single story addition located on the front of the single family dwelling approximately 70 feet from the shoreline of Lake George. Stormwater controls in the form of eave trenches proposed for the new addition as well as silt fencing down slope of project. The applicant has requested waivers from grading and landscaping requirements. What follows is Site Plan Review. I do believe that in my notes I gave you a schematic of a pea gravel filter layer. You may want to require that. It’s not overly a huge issue. Also, I’m not quite sure what’s going on with the infiltration trenches around the majority of the house, but I’m sure the engineer can explain what’s going on with that, and, let’s see, you may remember that this was here for a recommendation. It has gotten its Area Variances. Previous to this, across the way, with a hooked parcel, there’s a garage that’s associated with this parcel also. Maybe you didn’t see that. That was a Zoning Board issue for relief. I’d turn it over to the Board. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we saw it on the plan. It’s on either side of the road. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, here representing the applicant and owner, Florence Connor, for this addition to an existing, pre- existing nonconforming structure, and that is based on lakeside setback. The addition that is proposed, 20 by 20 foot addition, is on the roadside of the structure and is compliant with all setbacks required for this property. That history that was referred to, the Connors own what were two parcels, one on either side of Holly Lane, which were merged. That really doesn’t have anything to do with this project, because that was the basis of an approval for the garage that’s under construction right now. If you went to the site, you saw the construction, or the garage being constructed currently. There’s also been a new wastewater system installed within the last few months. It was approved by the Board of Health last September, constructed this season. So that’s all in good shape, in compliance with the requirement of the Ordinance for a certified system for any expansion. There’s, the bedroom count will remain the same on this house, but there is an up to date, modern, fully compliant wastewater system, now located probably 200 feet from the lake, as opposed to the system that previously served that, which was on the lakeside parcel itself. This is a relatively small addition, but provides the Connors with some additional space. They’ve recently retired and will be spending more time at this seasonal property. So that’s basically it in a nutshell. We did provide, stormwater management is not required, based on the size of the project, but it is being provided within the design, and is detailed and computed on the plans as requested by Staff. So the question Keith asked or mentioned in the notes, there’s a reference on one of the architectural drawings, and those were prepared by the owner, actually, to provide some additional information. I do have better elevations, now, if there are any questions about the appearance of the, from an elevation view. The ones that were provided in the application were provided by the owner and it’s a computer generated program that homeowners often use. So that was the approach there. There’s an indication of stone surround, I think, on that one site plan that is in the packet, and that really was more aesthetic. It wasn’t necessarily part of the stormwater system that was encircling the house. What is provided on the Environmental Design site plan is that it’s proposed for stormwater purposes. The others obviously provide some value and some function, but they aren’t necessarily part of what we propose as far as stormwater management for the addition. So if I’ve confused you enough, then I’ll stop. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions from the Board? So the eaves trench that’s on the plan is not being proposed? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, on that plan, correct. MR. HUNSINGER-It is. Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-In the application packet, there’s a little site plan view that shows a perimeter around the entire house which the owners just indicated and no doubt will be providing within the construction, but that’s not, it wasn’t detailed for stormwater management necessarily. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So it’s basically a landscaping item? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to go through the Staff Notes, just to make sure, because I have to put the motion together. So I just want to clarify. The Item One on Sheet S-1, force main associated with the wastewater system should be located. Is that on the plan or not? MR. MAC ELROY-It’s shown on the plan. I don’t know if he means in the field, perhaps. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I do. I mean in the field. MR. MAC ELROY-In the field, so that when they do construction, they won’t be disturbing it, but that’s been installed just this Fall, and the same excavator who installed it will be excavating for the foundation. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and so the eaves trench surface, will that be filled with pea gravel or not? MR. MAC ELROY-We can add that. We have an eaves trench detail. For the final plan, we’ll simply add that layer of pea gravel that Keith is referring to. MR. OBORNE-It’s more for, it’s a maintenance addition to it, more than anything. MR. HUNSINGER-The electric line to the dock, there’s a Staff comment. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, we’ll add that to our site plan and make that same reference about stabilization. We’ll add that note to the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and then the retaining wall height? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, approximately two feet. It would just be a structure that helps retain that soil. That site slopes from road to lake, obviously, and there would be a little transition here, now that we’re working, the addition works its way back into the slope. So there’d be a little retaining wall that this is what the owner anticipates in his plan. So it would be approximately two feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and what are you going to use for that, do you know what materials? MR. MAC ELROY-We don’t know if it’ll be a concrete wall and face, or a natural stone. It’s not a high retaining issue. I guess it would be more fitting that it would be natural stone. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see any hands. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Any final questions or comments? Are you all set with the resolution? MRS. STEFFAN-I think so. Okay. I’ll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 67-2011 FLORENCE CONNOR A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 20’ x 20’ single story addition. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/25/2011; 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2011 FLORENCE CONNOR, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 2)Type II SEQRA; and 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 4)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 5)Waiver requests granted: grading and landscaping; 6)This is approved with the following conditions: a)That the force main associated with wastewater system should be located and delineated in the field. b)A pea gravel filter layer should be added for eaves trench surface. Please denote that on the plan. c)The height of the proposed retaining wall should be clarified. As discussed it’s two feet and please denote that on the plans. d)Regarding the new electric line to the dock which is proposed, any disturbance associated with installation of the line should be immediately stabilized with mulch as a result of the shoreline proximity. Please denote that on the plan. th Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 68-2011 SEQR TYPE II GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE AN INTERIOR ROCK WALL TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCEL. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS PER CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 4-2008 FOR PROPOSED ROCK WALL ALTERATION. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 4-2008 LOT SIZE 4.7 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-94 SECTION 179-9 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GORDON HOYT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you’re ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 68-2011. Gordon & Cynthia Hoyt is the applicant. This is Site Plan Review. Location is Chestnut Ridge. Existing zone is MDR or Moderate Density Residential. This is a Type II action. Project Description: Applicant proposes to relocate an existing deteriorated stone wall located on the southern portion of the parcel to an alternate location along the northern boundary to facilitate potential development. A condition of approval 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) for Subdivision 4-2008 states that there will be a limit of disturbance on the rock walls on Lot 1A for aesthetic purposes, please see attached resolution dated 12/16/08. Further, as a condition of approval site plan review is required and as such Planning Board review and approval is triggered. Staff comments: The applicant wishes to remove the stone wall in the center of the parcel and either place it on the southern or northern boundary. I think they have located it on the southern boundary, it is my understanding. Further, the applicant has created an additional access through the stone wall adjacent to Chestnut Ridge Road and is now before the board for after the fact approval for that change. If the Board remembers, this was initially before you as a subdivision modification, but the applicant withdrew the application in favor of the site plan. As far as my review goes, I have absolutely no issues with this whatsoever, 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 the applicant. The applicant will actually be here shortly. We didn’t realize we were going to move along so quickly this evening. As Keith identified, we’re here this evening re-visiting the relocation of the stone wall on Lot 1A of the Jane Lowell subdivision. The wall in question is the wall that’s located perpendicular to Chestnut Ridge and not exactly center, but off center on Lot 1A. Our proposal is to actually relocate that wall to the northern property line so that it actually denotes the property line as it exists for the subdivision. MR. FORD-Not the southern one. MS. BITTER-The northern, right. The northern one. With this, as was identified, we were before nd you on August 2 seeking subdivision modification. I think there was some sensitivity as to modifying the condition, and when we further discussed it with Staff, we deemed that we really were within the parameters as the subdivision existed. We were just relocating that wall and in pursuant to the condition of any removal of rock walls should be considered a site plan we come before you this evening as a site plan application. We’ve submitted a site plan application as well as a relocation plan. That was done by Jarrett Engineering. That plan takes pictures of the nd existing wall. As Mr. Hoyt had described at the August 2 meeting, the wall varies in heights and is crumbling in certain locations. With the relocation of this wall to the northern line, we’ll actually be revitalizing that wall, and making it more consistent and more aesthetically pleasing in our opinion. There’s pictures of walls that are actually located on the Hoyts property, which is on 139 Chestnut Ridge, just to give you an example of what we hope this wall will look like along the northern property line with its relocation. Again, we’re just doing what we feel is customary to denote the property line with this request. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MS. BITTER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. TRAVER-When we talked last about this project, we ended up getting into a lot of discussion about the history of the wall and trying to link its history to the, I think his name was Brown. MS. BITTER-Reverend Brown. MR. TRAVER-Reverend Brown, thank you, did a great deal of construction. MS. BITTER-And we did make a submission. I believe you may have gotten that after, before we withdrew the application that Mr. Hoyt did do some research and met with John Webster, who confirmed that it wasn’t one of Reverend Brown’s walls. MR. TRAVER-Right. MS. BITTER-And he also met with Dr. Marilyn VanDyke who confirmed it wasn’t on a historical registry of any sorts. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and thank you for that information. I was actually going through all of that history. It really is quite a fascinating history, aside from the issue of the application that you have before us. It occurred to me, as I was going through all of this information, that perhaps I was not getting to the heart of the issue which was, you know, what’s the restriction on this piece of property for anyway? So I went back and looked way back in 2008 at the time that this restriction was placed by the Planning Board on the property, and was reading the minutes and the discussions that took place at that time, because when they talk about, you know, the 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) restriction being for aesthetic purposes, it struck me as a bit unusual, and I wanted to try to find out where that language came from, and it turns out that in interviewing Mrs. Lowell who made the application for the subdivision, of course part of that subdivision process is the environmental review, and so there were questions raised, and she answered some questions about the wall, that was a concern, because a couple of the questions in, actually in SEQRA deal with aesthetic, this is apparently where that language came from was the environmental review, and she was asked about leaving the stone walls, and she said, no, if we were ever to sell the lot at some point or do something like that, I think the only time anybody would touch those would be to put a driveway in. And then later she says, I don’t think anyone along the road feels any differently and basically would not want to disturb the walls or whatever. There was also notes from the Planning Department that said that the, I’m reading again, from the th minutes of December 18 here. The Planning Board may consider, as a condition of approval, eliminating the disturbance of rock walls on Lot 1A for aesthetic purposes. Any major removal or total removal of rock walls would have impacts on character of the neighborhood and should be discouraged, and that was the other link to what later was the environmental review when it talks about neighborhood character, and when we actually did, after that interview, and that information was discussed, we actually did the SEQRA and the question was asked, will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources, and we agreed it would not based on the information that was presented, and also will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community, and as a result of all of that, that’s the origin of that restriction, as best as I can interpret it from these minutes, that the concern was about the aesthetics and the neighborhood character, and that’s why the property that the Hoyts purchased had that restriction to not disturb the walls. So it seemed to me, in all of the information regarding the history, it’s certainly important. We’re fortunate that we live in an area that has a lot of local history, but that’s really, to me, secondary to the issue before us which is, and certainly you’ve prepared, I think, a well thought out plan for how these walls could be dismantled, if you will, and relocated and reconstructed or whatever, but I think for us, or at least for me, the fundamental issue is there’s a restriction against doing that, and I think that, for me to overturn this, to feel comfortable in overturning these conditions regarding the environment and the neighborhood character, the burden really is on the applicant, not to show me that it can be done. I mean, I can see, and clearly you’ve delineated how it could be done, but should it be done. Should we overturn the original decision that said we need to leave those walls alone. They’re important to the character of the community, it does affect the appearance of the area, and I think that’s more important than, I mean, certainly the history is very important, but fundamentally, the burden’s really on you to argue that we should overturn this restriction. MS. BITTER-Well, I think that we’re not asking you to overturn any restriction at this point. I think that, because we’re before you for Site Plan Review, we’re here demonstrating that we’re within the parameters of the condition. Any removal or relocation is relative to site plan review and that’s what we’re seeking, site plan review at this point, and I think when you’re talking about aesthetics and character of neighborhood, the wall at its current location is very limited visibility from Chestnut Ridge Road, and I think that relocating it to this new location would actually provide more of an aesthetic value to the character of the neighborhood. It would also be in conformity of what the stone wall’s purposes were on Chestnut Ridge, and in that neighborhood. So I think those goals or those items actually demonstrate the reason for relocating the wall. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would agree with that. I think if you just look at the two pictures, I mean, how long does a stone wall last, I mean, forever? No, it obviously doesn’t, and what he’s doing within his property, within the site, is he is just taking that one that’s falling down and is a mess and he’s putting it back together in a slightly different spot, and it’ll be more attractive to the neighborhood. So I don’t see anything wrong with that. MS. BITTER-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Yes. I’ve walked the wall. I know the condition of it. I also know the man and I’ve talked to the person who would be hired to move the wall. I really appreciate everyone’s patience, because at the previous meeting I really wanted to do the research of reading all of the information that was presented that evening, as well as minutes of meetings and so forth and like Mr. Traver, I also have gone back through those minutes. It would be my position, at this point, that the placement or the rebuilding of that wall, in the new location on the northern, just inside the northern boundary, will substantially improve the aesthetics, and that’s what I want to emphasize, the aesthetics of that part of our community, and I think that it will be an improvement for the neighborhood as well as that lot. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m okay with the relocation. You’ve provided documentation that the wall has no historical significance. It is going to be moved to another location, which is going to be neater, and it’ll make the lot more marketable, which I’m sure is the next phase, and so it seems reasonable to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Nobody? Okay. I will open the public hearing and let the record show that there were no comments received. I guess my comment, to chime in on the discussion, is I really appreciate where Mr. Traver, his line of thinking, because I think that’s the type of thinking that we really need to focus in on when we consider changing a subdivision, but I also agree with the counselor’s position that we’re really not changing the subdivision. We’re dealing with this as a site plan issue, because my fear is any time we remove or modify a subdivision condition that this Board imposed on an applicant, that we put ourselves on shaky ground legally in the future, and I think, you know, with those comments from Mr. Traver, and with the comments from the rest of the Board, I feel that we’re really not doing that, because I think we are respecting the wishes of the Board from 2008, in addressing this as a site plan issue rather than a subdivision issue. So that’s my two cents. If anyone else wants to chime in or make any other comments. MR. OBORNE-I do want to just clarify that if they are to come back in the future with another change to a wall, they will have to go through Site Plan Review again. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BITTER-I understand. MR. OBORNE-This doesn’t absolve them. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So just to make sure that you know that. MR. FORD-We’re talking about one specific wall. MR. OBORNE-Yes, this specific action that’s going on triggers that Site Plan Review, based on subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only other kind of follow up question is the existing stone wall is somewhat in a wooded area. Are any of those woods going to be cleared out in order to facilitate development on the site? What’s the thinking there? GORDON HOYT MR. HOYT-I don’t have any current plans to clear the woods out, although it might be done. I understand that I can clear up to an acre without prior permission. I was told that by one of the Staff members. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Just for the record, you are Gordon Hoyt? MR. HOYT-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, I was going to say the same thing. MR. FORD-Some clearing would certainly facilitate the movement of the stone. MR. HOYT-Yes. Well, we’d be moving them mostly to the north. So, you know, our plans are really kind of hazy now. The property’s for sale, and we feel that with this stone cutting down the middle of the property, it decreases the attractiveness of the property and the value of it, is the main reason for wanting to move the wall. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. FORD-Well, moving it to the northern line, or just inside the northern line, will actually enhance the property because it will make it visible. MR. HOYT-Yes. MR. FORD-And the visibility of those wonderful walls on Chestnut Ridge Road really enhances the community. MR. HOYT-Definitely, yes. Yes, certainly moving it would, well, I would say anything would be an improvement on the current situation and the wall which is very, as you know, run down. So, yes, we would be looking to improve it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments from the Board? This is a Type II SEQRA. No action is necessary. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So, according to the Staff Notes, I just want to make sure that the Board, there’s an additional access that will be approved, it’s an after the fact approval, and so everybody’s okay with that? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I just want to be sure. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re all set. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. Did you close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-I believe I did, but I’ll do it again. I’ll close the public hearing, just to be safe. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN 68-2011 GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to relocate an interior rock wall to the north boundary line of parcel. Site Plan Review is required as per condition of approval for Subdivision 4-2008 for proposed rock wall alteration; A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/25/2011; and This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-2011 GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 1)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9- 080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2)Type II SEQRA; 3)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 4)Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) 5)This is approved with the following condition: a)That the stone wall relocation plan should denote both accesses fronting Chestnut Ridge Road. th Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. HOYT-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. The last item on the agenda this evening is a discussion item for Queensbury Partners. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, FMBF OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION PARCELS ALONG BAY ROAD, GROUP ROAD & BLIND ROCK ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 43,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 188 RESIDENTIAL UNITS THROUGHOUT A MIXTURE OF TWO AND THREE STORY BUILDINGS. COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN AN OFFICE ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.07, 2.16, 1.92, 11.27, 6.71, 1.44, 1.21, 1.69, 1.28, 1.27, 1.27, 1.29, 1.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-9, CHAPTER 94 MATT FULLER & DAVE BOGARDIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Sketch Plan Review. I had mentioned at the start of the meeting that there is no public hearing scheduled. For the edification of members of the audience, I just want to read a portion of the Town Code that addresses Sketch Plan so you understand the flavor and the intent of what Sketch Plan Review is designed for. The purpose of Sketch Plan Review, and I’m reading from Code A183-9, the purpose of Sketch Plan Review is to provide a cursory review of the proposed subdivision and to provide feedback from the Planning Board prior to incurring the cost of a Preliminary plat as well as to make preliminary determinations of the following: the requirements that may apply, if any, pursuant to SEQRA, the requirements of the State Department of Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, the Adirondack Park Agency, and any other State agencies whose approvals may be required. The application of clustering is required under Article 10. The requirements of local County and Town agencies whose reviews and/or approvals may be required, and finally the appropriateness of the proposed subdivision layout with regard to the goals and objectives of the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan and other articles of these regulations. With that, Keith, if you could introduce the item, please. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. This is Planning Board discussion item for Queensbury Partners. Requested action, again, is a discussion item. This is located on the corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay. This is in the O zone or Office zone. This could potentially be a Type I SEQRA. We are not at that point yet. Engineering review is pending. Project Description: Applicant proposes a total of 42,980 square feet of commercial development distributed between four (4) buildings and 188 residential units distributed between 11 buildings to include residential units within three (3) of the proposed commercial structures. The fourth commercial structure proposed is a 1,800 square foot bank and an additional structure to be an 800 square foot maintenance building. Staff comments: Changes to the plan for this sketch review include the re-orienteering of Building 5 to totally be within the 300 foot setback for residential structures and corresponding change to parking configuration. It is understood that this project is contingent upon Zoning Board of Appeals approvals of variances of which little indication was offered from the ZBA concerning these issues and the joint meeting in August. The variances have not been quantified at this point as the project sketch plans continue to change, and what variances, as proposed in this Sketch Plan, are being requested, which they’re not, because there’s not an application before us, would be density for residential units, residential units within 300 feet of the Bay Road office park; office setbacks; Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) setbacks; front setbacks; wetland setbacks and height setbacks, and again, just to reiterate, this plan is a moving target at this point, and with that I’d turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. FULLER-Sure. Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth for the applicant, and I’ve got Dave Bogardis here with me on the plans, and Dan and Bob, two of the developers on the project. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I think I’d like to approach the plans and I know this Board has been through it quite a bit, but I see a lot of new faces here. If I could go through the history, just one more time, show where we were, how we’ve gotten to where we are, address some of the concerns. I have gotten copies of some e-mails and things. So I’d like to go through some of the concerns that have been raised with us and then kind of open it up to questions of where we are, and just before I do, I know the plans are on this side of the room. There’s not really a great place for me to put them where everybody can see them. I’m going to have to stand kind of to the side of them. So if anybody can’t see, probably the best side of the room is over here, but wherever I stand, I’m going to block somebody’s view. So I don’t want to get yelled at again for blocking their view. All right. I’m going to kind of start from the back. Again, I apologize. I’m going to stand in somebody’s view wherever I am. Originally back in ’04 now it is, the plan that was before the Board at that time was 18 buildings, right around 180 units total, and covered the whole property. That project was controversial and resulted in some zoning changes that pushed the residential setback from Bay Road to 1,000 feet, which brought the project to a halt. By then, my clients had put in the sewer line, up to this intersection, as part of the project. They paid out of their pockets to put that in. That sewer line’s in today, and I know Town hall, I believe, is connected to it as well as the development further up Bay, to alleviate some sewer issues that were going on up there. So that sewer is in operation and in the ground today that my clients did, and designed for that site, but I’ll get to that when we get to the units, but there is capacity, and then some, in that line, for this and other users that may need to connect to it. So the project sat for a while with that 1,000 foot setback. The Town was going through new Comprehensive Planning, new zoning. We came back now over a year ago. We had gone back, taken all of the comments from the many Planning Board meetings that happened around ’04, ’05, upwards in those years, and basically created a checklist and identified every one of the Planning Board comments, as well as the neighborhood comments at that time, and drafted a 100% zoning compliant plan. This plan right here, there are lots along Bay Road, and the residential units to the back, yes, we had 98 units allowed on the plan, nine residential buildings, five office buildings. So it was a total of 14 buildings that would have been allowed on the land, again, in compliance with the zoning. The subdivision is what’s on file today. The lots along Bay are created. Obviously it’s all one lot, all one area out there now, but as for tax maps and deeds, there are separate lots, as part of whatever plan, you know, we ultimately go forward with we would revise that subdivision to eliminate those lots, to make it all one parcel again. So we came in with this. I remember the Planning Board, and we went through about a half an hour, forty minutes, kind of like this, of me laying out all 20 or 30 of the comments that were on the table back before this and what the issues were, and I remember getting to the end and the Planning Board said, well, thank you very much, you’re right, it is zoning compliant, but it’s not exactly what we wanted to see. After getting up off the floor, we started talking about comments back and forth, you know, ideas of, again, going back to the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning that had been adopted, and really looking at the plan as far as a village center, a town village center, an identity that the Planning Board has voiced on other projects, and that, you know, and I think rightfully so, the Planning Board said we’ve got an opportunity to do something interesting here, and not just a project that complies with the zoning, but something that, at the end of the day, you know, the Board can put a lot of work into and be proud of, and so we were tasked with a challenge of coming up with maybe an overall site plan, kind of like a PUD if you will, but a planned development for this corner. So we took a lot of time, we had a bunch of meetings. We went back and forth, and I got to break out my colored pencils, and, you know, and Dave and Danny and Bob, and we did a bunch of sketches back and forth. I apologize. This one is written on. Those were from one of the meetings, but over the winter we came back in with this proposal, and we’re still cognizant of the setbacks along Bay that we hadn’t really talked about when we were before the Planning Board on the compliant project, but that we still had in mind, you know, all the setbacks that we had to meet. You don’t generally make a plan asking for variances. So we, you know, came up with a plan. We knew we needed a couple of them, based on the comments that we had gotten from the Planning Board and the direction that we thought you wanted to go, but we came in with the boulevard, some commercial use right along the front again sticking with that corridor idea, a bank building. We did have retail, outdoor café, covered patios, again the boulevard coming off of Blind Rock and Bay, similar to what’s on the current plan, but still, again, further back off of Bay Road, and we had a long conversation about that. Some of my drawings are actually on here from that meeting that day. We talked about 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) traffic in the intersection, which has certainly been identified to be an issue, and we talked about possibly, for those that can’t see, right off Blind Rock, there’s an Army Corps wetlands that cuts down in here, and the possibility of, again, trying to keep with this boulevard idea, and that comes in with the pictures that I’ll get to in a second, but the possibility of placing a building right here, that would require a fill of Army Corps jurisdictional wetlands which, you know, you can apply for it, but it’s no small task nowadays, and that’s a comment that even came up at the August meeting of whether or not this is still viable. It’s certainly viable, but, again, I think in the grand scheme of the project we don’t have to do it. It would be nice to keep that boulevard look, and I think I tend to agree with the Chairman that that would be a good spot there, but again, trying to stay out of the wetlands, which is something we’ve committed to do from the beginning on the project, we just haven’t wanted to go that far. We talked about moving the buildings down along the eastern side of the comments was down towards Bay, on the corner, pulling the buildings down. That was really the first over the, when we came in with this plan, the first real discussion of getting closer to Bay, and certainly that creates more of the village feel that the Planning Board was looking for, but it comes at a cost, and the cost is variances, and we, you know, took a step back and looked at it, and again I sketched them out. We talked about moving the bank. We’ve got a drive thru area, moving the bank down closer to Bay and flipping some of the buildings, again, down closer to Bay, maybe breaking up this wetland, not the wetland, the stormwater management area. On the southern part of the property, the part that we’ve been referring to as the second phase or the flexible space, you know, possibly consolidating that, again, moving the stormwater and then pulling it down closer to Bay and also keeping it closer to the boulevard, again, trying to, and I actually drew it in here, trying to keep that downtown, that village feel. So, again, we took all those comments, went back, got the minutes, took the Planning Board’s direction, went through a couple of different drawings and came back over the summer, July and August, with this iteration of the plan. Again, to the west, the project hasn’t changed some, but we did move some of the buildings down further to the west away from the intersection with Hunterbrook Lane, the building that’s identified here as 13. We moved that down to create more look from not only Hunterbrook but the intersection in general, with Blind Rock. We broke up the stormwater management area. We flipped the bank closer to Bay Road. That’s about 30 feet off of that property line now, and the setback is 75. So that’s, you know, well within that setback. The building right at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, we moved that down. That brought the building closer to Bay, again, within that setback, and also within the setback on Blind Rock. At the corner right there is the closest spot that any of the buildings is on Blind Rock, and we also on, again, what we’ve all been referring to as kind of the second phase, down to the south, the flexible buildings, consolidated them. There were three, consolidated them to two, and really this remains flexible. We had them perpendicular to Bay Road, somewhat parallel to Blind Rock, and actually, at that point, the Planning Board said, okay, you know, it would probably be a good recommendation for us to have a joint zoning and planning meeting which certainly is unusual. It doesn’t happen a lot, but I think it was good in that, Number One, it got some notice out and, Two, it got the ZBA to see where we are, because we had done a lot of work at the Planning Board. I think it was only fair to get the ZBA’s take on it as well. So we did that at the end of August, and before that, the Planning Board recommended that we superimpose the aerial photo with the plans, to give primarily perspective at the corner, you know, where the buildings and things and the uses that are over off of Hunterbrook, where do they stand in relation to, the real reason was the corner, but in addition, it kind of gave us a good layout, too, of where the other buildings are, the apartments, the physical therapy, the church, along Blind Rock in relation to the buildings that are on the project site. So st we did that, submitted that before the August 31 joint planning and zoning meeting, and then st had that meeting on the 31, and had some more comments. I think it was pretty well attended, got some more feedback, actually had a long conversation after the meeting. People, a lot of neighbors came up to us, different ideas. I know one of the Town Board members had some ideas about moving buildings around, and even, you know, one of the comments was, you know, bring it even closer to Bay Road. If you can flip all those buildings, it certainly could be done, but we think if we do that we kind of lose the boulevard. So, I mean, we can do a lot of things. Pros and cons, they all come at a cost, in one way or another, not in dollars, but in terms of what the project might look like. So we had this, had some comments after. Again, the big change between that meeting and where we are today, the comment came in about, again, the flexible space there, both buildings still being perpendicular to Bay, and one of the comments was, well, again, if we’re trying to create this village feel, you know, maybe we can do better down there, and that was the comment that kind of stuck in my mind was you’ve got a good project on the way, maybe you can do better. So the comment was, take a look at those buildings down there, and it was necessarily the Planning Board. It was a comment we got afterwards when people approached us, which gets us to where we are today. We took that into account. Maintaining the boulevard feel with that Building Four, we left Building Four close to the boulevard. Again, it’s going to have the architectural accents that the rest of buildings are going to have here, and to keep that approach of, you know, buildings close to the boulevard, close to the sidewalks, you know, more access friendly, and then we rotated the building to the south, Building Number Five, from being perpendicular to Bay to being parallel to Bay, and I think that was the last big change that we’ve had since then. That is just a history of how we’ve 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) gotten where we are. We do have some, a couple of photos here, and I’ll pop out to the forefront. The first photo, not all these buildings are, these buildings depicted in the photos are all three story. Not all the buildings are three story. The real purpose of this photograph was, Number One, to show the boulevard with the nice lighting accents and things that we’re going to do, but, Number Two, to show the different textures of the buildings, and one of the things that’s been a theme and we’ve talked about a lot since we’ve been up here is, you know, Bay Road heading south has its idea, and the Planning Board and the Town have done a good job sticking to that idea, but some of the buildings have, you know, may be a little bit homogenous. They look similar, and I think the Planning Board challenged us to come up with a better idea of breaking up the buildings a bit. The different textures that we can put on the buildings, both commercial and residential, this will be more of the residential look right here. That’s something, you know, we can do, and it creates that look, I think, that the Planning Board sent us away with, and as for the commercial, out on the front, again, these are all threes, and they’re going to be staggered in here, but this is the kind of look with the better window accents, the better molding accents, better angles. These are the buildings that will be at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, and along the boulevard where the mixed retail office commercial and residential on the upper floor certainly, but that’s even flexible, you know, depending on what the needs end up being, but that’s the plan for the idea behind the buildings. So, with that, I think we can go back to the table. We’ve got some other comments I think we need to deal with, but that’s the history, if you will. MR. HUNSINGER-In between some of the Sketch Plan with the Planning Board, there was also a meeting with the neighborhood. MR. FULLER-There was. I’m going to get to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-Right in a second. If I could, could I approach? I’ve got a couple, I just want to hand out. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. MR. FULLER-Just some comments that I received that I wanted to go through. All right. Going back just a bit on what we’ve done, we did rent out the community center back in May, and generally when notices go out for zoning and planning, I think it’s a 500 foot radius. You can correct me if I’m wrong. MR. OBORNE-Excuse me. What was that? MR. FULLER-The radius on the notices? I think it’s 500 feet? MR. OBORNE-500 feet. MR. FULLER-500 feet. At the Planning Board’s suggestion, you know, because there has been controversy in the past, and to get the feedback before we got to this point, we did send out notices. I actually personally mailed them, pulled the tax maps and the residences and buildings within 1500 feet of the site and mailed out notices, rented out the Town Hall right here, the st community center, on Saturday, I think it was May 21, if I remember correctly, and did the same kind of a forum, you know, invited the public in. We got some good comments. We got negative comment, not a lot of them, but we did take those comments in, and that’s where a lot of the building location got adjusted, the outdoor kind of patio seating area. That was one comment that we got that wouldn’t it be nice to be able to sit outside and, you know, have a café or a restaurant, and we said, yes, we can do that. That would be great. I live on this side of Town. I think it would be great to be able to stop. So we incorporated those comments in there, and we’ve done, you know, a lot of work to address those comments. Getting on the project specifics, and I did get some e-mail comments and calls this week to my office from people with comments. The big one is, one of the big, there’s basically five big comments. Traffic, the need for this type of housing, and the need for a community center in this area, need for student housing with dormitories already being proposed by SUNY Adirondack, negative impacts on the businesses and surrounding residences, too numerous to mention. So I wanted to address those because they’re comments, and everybody’s entitled to their comment. I think one of the things I get concerned about, because it’s still early. We’re in Sketch. We haven’t submitted a full blown site plan or variances or anything like that yet, but we have started already on things that this Board identified very early on that were going to be issues, primarily traffic, and we have progressed to the point where we’re sure, we’re very comfortable that we have a plan that’s going to address it, and on the plan you can see it just barely at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock. We have bumped in the property line to basically deed property to the County for a turning lane. So the turning lane will be put in, and the other is, we did have a traffic study done 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) on numbers, and again, I live on this side of Town, and trying to get back and forth, and I agree with everybody, the lights are crazy. You end up sitting there. Especially if somebody’s, if you’re coming east on Blind Rock, trying to turn up Bay, or even get through Blind Rock to Haviland, if somebody’s turning left, you’re there two or three light cycles, and that thing backs up, you know, down beyond the dog house. So, I mean, it can get back. We’ve identified right out of the gate that that light out there is actually on a timer, it’s on a clock. It’s not on a sensor. That change alone, going from a clock to a sensor, is going to almost triple the capacity and improvement to that light. I was surprised when I saw the numbers. Again, it’s preliminary. We haven’t submitted it with a site plan, because we’re still working on it with the engineer, but I’ve already seen the numbers, and you’re going to get them and the public’s going to get them and you’re going to be able to see them, but I’m telling you, when we get to that point in the site plan, you’re going to see that the numbers are dramatically better, just based on those two changes. As a matter of fact, we don’t need the turning lane. The sensors alone are enough, but the turning lane adds to the improvement. So if you’ve got an already known difficult situation and you can make it that much better, you can’t make an A an A+ or beyond. Once you get to a certain level, you’re there, and extra improvements are superfluous, but if it works and it makes it easier for people to get through that intersection, you know, we’ve worked with our traffic engineer, and we’ll be coming back with that. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Was there any consideration given to a traffic circle? MR. FULLER-We’ve looked at it. We have looked at it, and they don’t recommend it. It’s certainly an option, but based on the sensoring alone, just sensoring that light eliminates that need for that spot. It’s different than the City. The City’s works. It’s a unique spot. Because I’ve thought about that, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we talked about it, I think, at the meeting. MR. TRAVER-Well, the data will tell the tale. MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. KREBS-Well, and I live on this side of Town, too, just down Haviland Road, and every time I come to that intersection, sometimes there’s no traffic on Bay, but I still have a stoplight. It’s kind of ludicrous. MR. SIPP-If you look at Route 9 and Glen Lake Road, what a difference that has made in traffic control right there. MR. FULLER-Yes. I live up past 149, and the same thing. That Ridge/149 intersection, they signaled that. They put the sensors on it when they did the 149 a year and a half ago. Night and day. You pull up to that thing and within 40 seconds you’ve got a light. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But 149 and Bay, they didn’t put it there. You get one car through now. MR. FULLER-Yes. DAN GALUSHA MR. GALUSHA-After tonight, we’ll see how we stand and we’re going to meet with the County Highway Department, our engineer. MR. FULLER-Yes, that’s next on our agenda. MR. FORD-Good. MR. FULLER-In the next couple of weeks. MR. SIPP-You should still keep the turning lane, though. MR. FULLER-Yes. The engineer is telling us we don’t need it, but we kind of, we have anecdotal evidence of sitting at that light ourselves that tells us otherwise. That’s still there, and that is shown on the plans, and that property bump out, the setbacks and things that we are showing on there includes that. So it’s based on that property line being closer, if you will, to the building than it would be without out it. We’d be 38 feet, 40 feet. MR. FORD-For someone who uses that intersection six to eight times a day, it’s probably the most frustrating experience that I have at any light or any section anywhere. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. FULLER-It’s my municipal center cut through. I know exactly what you’re saying. That was the traffic. Again, it’s early and I understand the concern and, you know, information that gets out there that traffic’s a problem and it’s going to get worse. No question. If you leave that intersection out there the way it is, it’s going to get worse, but that’s not what we’re proposing and it’s not what we’re going to do. MR. KREBS-It’s going to get worse whether you build this project or not. MR. FULLER-As it is out there. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. FULLER-Yes. The next one, the need for the housing. That comes up on any project. Any project dealing with housing, be it residential subdivision, apartments, you know, higher density living like this, the fact remains, the market continues to boom. There’s still demand, you know, occupancy rates are still not very high, and my clients still see the need for that in the market. They continue to monitor it. They wouldn’t be here, not going to just build it to build it. There’s no economic benefit to building a project that doesn’t work. MR. FORD-Perhaps it would be helpful if you referred to the type of housing that is currently envisioned at this point. MR. FULLER-That is a good point. With the amenities that we’ve got, the pool facilities, the health facilities out back, they are going to be on the higher end of that market. It’s not going to be competing with a lot of the other units that are in Town. That is the intent, and I’ll skip over the community center and go to the student housing comment, because I’ve actually, before I got this e-mail I had gotten that from some other people, too. That came up at a meeting. We didn’t raise the student housing thing. Somebody from the neighborhood or the public brought up, well, ACC’s building their dorms, wouldn’t it be nice if students could rent over here, too? You’ve got the café downstairs, and we said, yes, it would be great. So if that got turned into this is going to be student housing, that’s completely wrong. I saw the Dean for the College last week, and relayed the same to him. Certainly we’re not going to discriminate, if somebody wants to rent an apartment and they want that type of living, they’re going to have that opportunity, but it is not student marketed, student priced housing. That’s not the intent. So, I see, I can see, looking back, where that came from. It was at a meeting. It did get talked about. I’m not going to deny that, but it didn’t come from us. MR. TRAVER-Although some of the upper floors in the boulevard area might be amenable to you. MR. FULLER-They could be, absolutely, yes. I mean, when I was in law school, I had friends that had better apartments than me. They just had the means to have a better apartment. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. GALUSHA-We’re envision studios of maybe 700 square feet, affordable. MR. FULLER-So that’s where that comment came from, and I just wanted, I know that that had, before I had gotten this, that had gotten back to me, too, and I said that wasn’t ever the intent. The community center in this area. It’s really a big one, and it’s somewhat unfortunate that it has created an issue being where we are in this process, because this really was the product of working with the Planning Board on planning, and most often people come in with a project and you tweak lights and look and layouts and things like that, but you don’t ever get the opportunity, I don’t think, in a grand sense, to do the planning that we’ve done. It’s been a long process. We spent a lot of money, we’ve gone through a lot of plans, and we haven’t even really hit the engineering side of it yet. This is the Sketch, but this community plan came from the Comprehensive Plan, came from the zoning, and came from the direction that the Planning Board and the Town wanted to see. Do we need variances? Absolutely. What we have created here and the process that we’ve gone through, every meeting we were at we knew it, we were triggering another one, every time we moved a building closer to Bay, closer to Blind Rock. MR. TRAVER-That’s one of the things that triggered our joint meeting was to give them a heads up on what we were up to. MR. FULLER-Yes, and that has been a comment that I’ve gotten back, too, about the setbacks, you know, you’re way within the setbacks, along Bay Road, absolutely. I mean, that was the intent. When we were asked to pull the buildings forward, there was no question. One of them’s 30 feet, that’s the closest where we are. Along Blind Rock going back, that closest building is just over 69 feet from that, from the 75 foot setback. I should clarify, that backmost building 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) closest to the apartments is 58, but the comments that I’ve been getting on the middle building is 59 feet, and then moves up. The furthest one down is 80 feet, right around 80 feet. So we are within the setbacks there. No question, but again, going back to that zoning compliant application, we didn’t have any setback issues there. We have created setback issues by trying to get the buildings a little closer where they need to be, making more green space in between, and creating the village feel closer to Bay and Blind Rock. Ultimately, there’s no question, you need people to live in the area if you’re going to drive a project like this. There’s no question about it. You’ve got to have people that live there. Neighborhood and things like that are going to support the project, but it’s going to be sustained based on people that live there. There’s just no question about that. That’s how these projects work and that’s how we’ve gotten to where we are. So, you know, again, I feel bad that it’s gotten this far and people think that there’s side discussions going on that nobody knew about and, I mean, it was in the Post Star. Morey Thompson is calling me all the time. He’s been to my office twice. Gordon from the Chronicle calls me a lot. They want to know where the update is. So it’s been, certainly hasn’t been behind the scenes or things going on like that, and I feel bad that those comments are out there and getting directed at us for that, because that’s not the intent, and that’s certainly not what we’ve done. Everything, you know, that we’ve done has been here. I mean, at the public meeting we had, the ZBA. So we’ve tried to stay ahead of that on purpose, and that was actually a comment that the Planning Board had right out of the gate, do everything out front, have the public meeting, get everybody in, and we tried to do that. Negative impacts on the businesses and surrounding residences too numerous to mention. I don’t really have anything on that. It’s broad. If there are specific comments we’ll be happy to address them. We got comments outside tonight dealing with the berm, believe it or not. That was a comment that came out of one of the first Planning Board meetings we had is let’s try to lessen the impact along Blind Rock. Maybe you could put in a berm. So we did, and some of the comments we’ve gotten back is we don’t like the berm. We don’t want to see it lowered. We don’t want to see eight foot trees out there. We don’t want to see big shrubs that are going to start out two feet and end up in ten years at ten feet. We don’t want a wall of trees. So we said, and we said it tonight and I’ll say it here, we’re fine with that. Nice shrubs and things like that a little lower lying to the ground, that’s fine. We can work with that. The other question we got was about the other access, the second access down Blind Rock. It’s going to be gated. That was, we had gotten comments back early on from the Fire Marshal. It’s going to be a Knox Box type of deal where the fire department, EMS, everybody’s got a key to it, but it’s not open. It’s going to be a farm style white gate, if you will, across that property, with a lock, and it’s just emergency access. Do we need it? Probably not. Does it make sense? Yes, it does. It’s a secondary means of access, similar to Hunterbrook. That project over there could have been built with one means of access, but from a safety standpoint, it doesn’t make sense. You have two points of access so that if there’s an accident or something at one, or otherwise blocked for whatever reason, you’ve got a secondary means to get in, that’s quicker, and ultimately public safety is at risk. So that was the reason for that second access, and that was, again, very early on in the process that that comment came out. So I’ve taken up a bunch of time. I think I’ve hit all the things, based on past comments we’ve had, and some of the e-mails and calls that I’ve gotten. Any questions from the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. KREBS-Yes, well, one comment I’d like to make is that in the Comprehensive Plan, we were looking for walkability. If you look at this community, you can walk anyplace in this community as it stands today. There are sidewalks everywhere. I think that’s a real positive. MR. FULLER-And you remind me of the comment that I did miss, and thanks for bringing it up, is the sidewalks along Bay and Blind Rock. Early on in the process, we didn’t have them out there, and that came, that’s no small task and no small expense, and we did put them on. I think it’s a good idea, again, creating that, what you’re looking for is the walkability, not only from the school, but from whatever’s going to happen across the street. We know that the College is working with that property right now. So we are committed to putting in the sidewalks. Another comment I forgot that’s been coming up a lot, and the Planning Board has been insistent on, too, is the phase, how’s this going to be built? I got this comment again last week, too. You’re going to build the apartments and never build the part along Bay and Blind Rock out to the corner. That’s not true. That project’s going to kick off together. I know Bob and Dan have repeatedly represented that and we’ll say it again here tonight that the phase, if you will, is to kick off the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, and the apartments together. So that’s the phase. Not, again, build the apartments and then leave the front, never to look like that, because there’s benefit to be derived, and the Planning Board wants to see that benefit, and the benefit is the project out front for the Town, and the benefit to the applicant is the whole project in its entirety. So we’re committed to that phasing. The phasing part comes in with the flex space on the south. That’s really, it’s in the plan. We have to show the parking. We’ve got to show the stormwater, the density impacts and all that for SEQRA, but that’s really open, that if somebody comes in and needs the facility. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. FORD-The first phase would involve how many buildings? MR. FULLER-All but two. MR. TRAVER-All but Four and Five? MR. FULLER-Yes, Four and Five. I’m sorry, not Number Two. The two to the south, yes, and as far as the, I think that right out of the gate is the building at the corner, and then probably the bank would be the one that would depend on the demand, and that one might go up quicker than we might otherwise think. There’s already interest. It’s a good spot, that corner spot. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things we’ve talked about pretty much at each of the meetings are, you know, what kind of commercial activity you see and I guess I kind of have two questions about that. Number One, I certainly think you’ve given it a lot more thought since we had a meeting the last time, and, Number Two, the church across the street, so that building is now available, too, and I don’t know how that may impact your project, you know, because I mean certainly the market is only, you know, what it is, and, you know, how that may either impact what you’re trying to do or maybe compliment or supplement what you’re trying to do. MR. FULLER-It’s an interesting point that I didn’t know that that building was coming up. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we should have known. I was just kind of surprised that it was that soon. MR. FULLER-Yes. As far as the uses, we’ve got convenience coffee shop, food service, deli, ice cream take out, small offices, small retail, personal services, but that’s an interesting point across the street, because depending on what comes in there is going to need Site Plan approval. The Planning Board’s going to have another opportunity to kind of draw in with this. I mean, if somebody came in with some sort of commercial retail use that they wanted to put in there that complimented this across the street and kind of furthered that village mentality, we’re certainly not going to be opposed to it. Is it competition, sure. I don’t necessarily know that that’s a bad thing, kind of draw that corner in. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I think you need a critical mass, and, you know, to the extent that that building maybe can tie in with what you’re doing, you know, is a compliment. I think it would help drive your project as well. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. FORD-You might consider incorporating it. MR. FULLER-I think you just wrote their check. I’ll let them defend that. Wait, who’s that listed with? MR. FORD-Subtlety is not my long suit. MR. FULLER-That definitely could, depending on what an applicant comes back with. Outdoor seating, you can do a lot of things with that. MR. BOGARDIS-Building One, we’re really looking for things that serve the community, like have generic name, you know, coffee shop, takeout food, ice cream store, hair cut, newspaper stand, things like that. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I was going to say, I think we talked about a barbershop at one time. I think you brought up the barbershop. MR. KREBS-And I think that in order for you to sell the high end apartment living, you’re going to have to have a community. I look at the success that they’ve had at the Mill, when they went to rental. That building is almost completely filled and I know several people who live there and they just love the opportunity of not having to get in their car all the time to go anyplace. They can walk from there to a store to get coffee, to have lunch, and I see this in Queensbury being the same kind of a community. MR. GALUSHA-We’re building three of these projects, not just like this, but similar in Albany, one in Saratoga, and it’s different but it’s the same theme, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Could we get you to identify yourself for the record. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. GALUSHA-Dan Galusha. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got a couple of comments. Speaking about the Mill downtown, I’ve mentioned, the last couple of times you’ve been here, that I would like to see an underground parking garage, and I know it keeps coming up, but when I look at this particular site, we have so much, or the greater we, have so much space dedicated to parking that I would really like to see some underground parking so that there can be more green space, and I know that that’s a design issue, and I know that it is very costly. MR. TRAVER-Well, it’s an engineering issue primarily. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. FULLER-And we did look at it. MR. BOGARDIS-I’d like to say something about that. Number One is you were at the last meeting and we had a discussion and you were one of the proponents of moving that building parallel to Bay Road, and I liked that very much. It was a good idea, and you can see, since we did that, we got rid of those two big parking areas, and now we’ve got a much smaller parking lot divided by a lot of green space, and I think that’s a lot nicer, and the other thing to say is it’s a little bit difficult to come up with an exact parking requirement. I’ve done these numbers several times, and we’re probably over parked here, because depending on the use in your mixed use, you have ratios that you can use between residential, commercial and restaurants, and the minimum would be, I did this again tonight before the meeting. The minimum would be 480 parking places, and that’s actually based on the 2.25 per dwelling unit, which I think probably for apartments that’s a pretty excessive parking number, 2.25. MRS. STEFFAN-It is. Two is sufficient. MR. BOGARDIS-The worst case scenario was 563 parking places, if we did a lot more restaurants that, and taverns and things like that that would have a high parking ratio. We show 578 parking places on the plan right now. So we’re really, along with another 41 that could be built that we banked, we may be able to bank considerably more parking, particularly in the areas of Buildings Four and Five. MR. FULLER-There’s over 100 spots. MR. BOGARDIS-Yes. I mean, we wouldn’t want to reduce the parking in the boulevard section in Buildings One, Two and Three, but I certainly think that we can make an agreement that we could bank a considerable amount of parking for Building’s Four and Five and have it available should the need arise. MR. FULLER-Well, just as a matter of, we’re calling it the phase, but just the, when the opportunity for those buildings arises, it is going to dictate what the parking’s going to be. Under SEQRA, we’re just showing worst case scenario, and giving some layouts of what it could look like, but I think the hope would be that it would come in under that, that we’re not going to need it, depending on what the uses are. We can get some benefit of shared use numbers and things like that, but that’s something we can look at, trying to bank some more of it. The big thing with the garage, to put it underneath, is just the engineering and the width of the buildings. That was the topic that we came up, that came up last time. Those buildings, for lack of a better term, they’d get fatter. Because the engineering spans to get within the pylons and things for parking would spread those buildings out to a bigger footprint, and that’s the big struggle that we’ve had looking at it. MR. GALUSHA-You’ve got to go massive in order to get underground parking. Two bays of parking, 22 or 24 foot aisle, gets you out to over 70 feet, and that’s not too bad a deal if you’re doing flat roof buildings, but we’re trying to do the colonial, at least an eight/twelve or ten/twelve pitch roof, which puts the roof system, you know, way in the (lost word) when you’re trying to do a pitched roof. MR. FULLER-And you could do it under a green space, but then you’ve got to account for all that stormwater. You’d have wide open, because you can’t treat, the underground area for that garage just gets eaten up with the cement. So you hypothetically could put green space over it, but not enough to control all that stormwater. So you start to lose that benefit, and then the basins start growing. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-But you’d have less permeable space because you’d have less parking spaces. I’m not an engineer, and obviously we have an engineer on staff that does those kind of things. When I look at the apartment buildings in the back, you’ve got garages. I’m assuming that the garages are on the first level, and the apartments are above, and so I was thinking of some kind of scenario, and obviously I don’t have the answer, otherwise I would tell you what the answer was, but, for example, and as I started to do calculations on this, you know, there is a lot of apartment buildings, and according to my calculations are different, you’ve got 188 apartment units, but when I look at square footage, I started to just do some rough calculations, and for me, there’s a two to one ratio between residential apartments and commercial, and so my numbers, I’ve got like almost 97,000 square feet for apartments, dedicated to apartment living, and then you’ve got about 43,000 square feet for commercial development. So the percentages, the way it worked out, according to my calculations, 69% is devoted to apartments or residential, and 31% is devoted to commercial. In that particular situation, you know, I’m looking at all the parking spaces, and then I broke out, you know, I wrote on each one of the buildings you’ve got here, like in Building One, you know, the first floor you’ve got commercial development, convenience, coffee shop, food service, but then the second floor, and that’s a two floor unit, 15,000 square feet, the second floor is all apartments. So I looked at, okay, 15 apartments. Say you’d need 30 parking spaces. So that lot that’s closest to Bay Road, all of those parking spaces would likely be taken up by tenants, and so, you know, when I look at access from people who are frequenting the commercial locations, they’re going to have to be walking quite a distance in order to have access, and I understand that, you know, people who live there aren’t parked there 24 hours a day, and there’s movement and rotation. I understand that, but still you have people living there, and if those buildings are open in the evening, which I assume they will be, then you’re going to have, you know, people occupying those spaces. That’s why, you know, I looked at the underground alternative as more reasonable, just from a traffic flow point of view. If you go over to Building Two, that’s three stories. So on the first floor you’ve got personal service, retail, large office, and then on the second and third floor, the second floor you’ve got 15 apartments, third floor you’ve got 15 apartments. There’s 30 apartments in that unit, and so that’s an 11,000 square foot building, and so if you look at 30 units, say 60 parking spaces, you know, all those spaces behind there could potentially be for people who live there. Where do the folks, you know, retail folks can park on the boulevard, but is that enough? So, you know, I’m looking at this from a couple of points of view. I would love to see maybe not all of the parking underground, but a parking garage or underground parking option. The Mill downtown has a parking garage because there’s no space to put all the cars, and so in order to make that development feasible, they went with a parking garage. I think somewhere we have to, at least I think we should consider it, somewhere on the property, because you just have a lot of parking space, and, you know, as the lot exists right now, obviously it’s all green space, but it just seems a shame to utilize this much impermeable space for parking. I would rather see some other option and we just haven’t put it on the table yet, but the buildings have been moved. I love the way Building Five is because it faces the road. If you’re driving down Bay Road and you’ve got a beautiful visual of a nice building, a three story building. That’s wonderful, but, you know, once you get inside, there’s just a lot of parking, there’s just a lot of blacktop. MR. GALUSHA-Let me just run a couple of numbers for you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. BOGARDIS-Building Number One, mixed use requires 74 bays. Building Number Two, mixed use requires 52 bays, and Building Number Three, which is the bank, requires 10 bays. The total of that would be 150 something. We show 180 on the plan for that quadrant. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don’t think there’s any question you’ve got enough spots at the moment, but I feel differently than the Secretary, as far as parking garages. I think they’re ugly. The one you mentioned in the City is a perfect example, and I wouldn’t want to see it, unless, when you get down to make a decision on Building Four and Five, that’s the time to consider it, but certainly the rest of it. If you want to go look at buildings where they park underneath, look at that group that just opened on the Colonie/Niskayuna line. MR. BOGARDIS-I just built a building like that in (lost word). MR. SCHONEWOLF-It’s not as attractive as what we would expect for what they’re going to pay here. MRS. STEFFAN-But in this situation, you’ve got a 15% grade difference between Bay Road, for example, over where Building Four and Five are, you’ve got a 15% grade difference between where we are on Bay Road and, for example, where that bank parking is. Two meetings ago we 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) talked about a parking garage back there, and, you know, I’ve talked about underground parking because obviously that’s not above ground, and in my mind it’s a viable option because you’ve got, it’s like having a walkout basement, you know, if you can utilize the topography of the land, then it could potentially work. It doesn’t have to be an above ground parking garage, or, if it’s at the back of the property, no one’s going to see it because of all the green space in the back. No one’s going to see a parking garage. MR. BOGARDIS-Building Number Four requires 71 bays, and Building Number Five requires 88 bays. That’s about 160. The plan right now shows 199. I think what we need to do is, if you show some banked, would show you how the parking actually works within these quadrants. I MR. FULLER-That’s a good point. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’d like to see that, just because there’s so much residential, in comparison to the commercial piece, and, you know, the original proposal that came before us many years ago, you know, the Planning Board, back then, didn’t like that particular proposal because of the amount of residential that was there, and so now when I looked at it from another point of view, it just seemed heavily weighted toward residential. MR. GALUSHA-That’s because of the 2.25 per dwelling unit in your Zoning Code, the parking area requirement. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that certainly is worth applying for a variance. MR. FULLER-We can show it and bank it. MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board has the option to increase or decrease parking. So you don’t need any more variances for that. MR. FULLER-And we can show it and bank it. Dave’s point’s a good one. Let’s show you how they work in those quadrants when we come back with the site plan. MR. OBORNE-Yes, you’ll have to supply that in table form, and all that. MR. FULLER-We can do that. MR. TRAVER-And we also don’t absolutely know that all of that second floor is going to be apartments. MR. FULLER-Exactly. We showed it for worst case scenario. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s just it. The way it’s proposed right now are apartments, you know, in a true mixed use environment, professional office, you know, if you have a three story building, professional office might be on the second floor, and then apartments on the third floor, but, you know, I think that that would be better for the Planning Board to see in those terms, and then the percentages as I’ve presented, and of course I’m not an engineer and those are rough calculations, but it would be much better for us to see, you know, the opportunity for professional office, because all of us know that, you know, the residential development never pays for itself in taxation, and so the commercial development is good for economic development, community development, and then professional office is the same scenarios, but the apartments, you know, and the other thing that I was thinking about a little earlier that I don’t think we’ve ever talked about with the residential development in back, bus stops and things like that. MR. KREBS-Yes, but just to correct you a little bit, this type of housing does tend to pay for itself. Because if you look at Amedore or if you look at the Michaels Group facilities and the old Michaels Group facility, there are very, very few children. So all those people are paying school taxes, okay. None of them are sending anybody to school. MRS. STEFFAN-Those are a little bit different than these apartment dwellings. MR. FULLER-It is a little different, but just to add to your comment a little bit, they’re not going to be public roads. So that is, you’re right, generally when you have a residential subdivision or something like that where infrastructure and things are going to be turned over to the municipality, yes, it’s brand new. It’s brand new for 20, 30 years, maybe. You’ve got road maintenance in the meantime. This is all private. We’re not going to have, you know, that public infrastructure. You’re going to have utilities, but you’re not going to have roads or things like that. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. KREBS-Yes, but I just, what I was saying is I don’t think you’re going to see a young couple with two children moving into this complex. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, you know, I don’t know if I agree with that, because there are a lot of folks moving up from, for example, the New York Metropolitan area where they’re used to living in a city block like this where everything is accessible to them and they don’t have to drive, as we’ve said. So, you know, our world’s a little bit different than it once was. MR. FULLER-Yes, it’s hard to pin it one way or the other. There’s trends and things, but. MR. TRAVER-In fact, daycare may end up being one of the businesses. MR. HUNSINGER-Just along these lines of conversation, Building Five, which we’ve said is phase two, and we don’t know what’s going to go in there, on your summary sheet, you do have it as listed all three floors for apartments, and, I mean, I would much rather see some sort of commercial on the first floor, at least, like the other buildings that are on Bay Road. BOB MANZ MR. MANZ-Bob Manz with the developer. If you remember, the reason why we did all that was to lay out a worst case scenario, as opposed to any, you know, anything from there would be a better case scenario. So we could certainly show commercial on the first floor. MR. FULLER-Our numbers get better. MR. MANZ-All the numbers get better. So that’s the reason, that’s how (lost word), you know, as Matt went through the many, many iterations, that’s how we ended up coming to where we got to was, okay, we agreed, let’s show the worst, the highest case scenario, you know, as being the worst case scenario, and do the calculations from there. So, you know, we could certainly show commercial on the first floor of Building Five. MR. FULLER-And I think that builds back into the quadrant discussion we just had. We can show, like you said, if the second floor is office and the commercial area up front, how does that change the numbers? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FULLER-That’s something, we can run those numbers. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess my feeling is, you know, once you have something on paper, you know, I mean, here you are, you’re presenting this piece of paper, and it says Building Five, first floor, 13 apartments. It’s like once it’s on paper, it’s hard to move off. I think if it says first floor commercial mixed use, and I think if that’s the understanding that that’s the intent and the goal, I think that’s different than how it’s, I understand what you say, I appreciate that, and that is what we asked you to do is to give us worst case scenario, but I think as one member of the Planning Board, you know, I mean, this goes back into multiple conversations about the goal here of it being a true mixed use, and it kind of goes back to Gretchen’s comment about the percentage of commercial versus residential, you know, and we’re trying to find a balance there, and we are very sensitive to, you know, the existing zoning on Bay Road being commercial, and I think it’s real important that we strive and make every effort possible to have at least the first floor of all the buildings on Bay Road as commercial, if not the second floor as well, with, you know, perhaps offices or, you know, personal services. MR. SCHONEWOLF-SUNY might help us out with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-Yes, the school’s very interested in the project. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and they’re going to want that building, which is closest to theirs, and they’re going to want the first floor. MR. FULLER-Could very well be, who knows. MR. KREBS-Well, and as a businessman, not necessarily a developer, I would certainly like to rent the entire second floor of the building to one person, than have to have 14 apartments. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. KREBS-So if there’s a commercial customer available, you could be assured they’ll be back to change the site plan. MR. FULLER-The Chairman’s comment’s a good one about the first floor. You want to see it on paper, because a Planning Board or two from now, you know, who knows. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Someone will pick up the piece of paper and say, yes, it says right here. MR. FULLER-But you’re right. The reality is if somebody pops in and says, hey, we’d like to do this with it. Supply and demand. MR. KREBS-And I think if you do have the food services available in the building, you’ll find that there’ll be more attraction by commercial businesses. I’m thinking about the medical arts organization that works in the old shopping center down in the basement, for instance. That kind of a company would be perfect for a second and third floor here. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? Is there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. FULLER-No, I think we’ve gone through how we’ve gotten where we are. I think when we left at the end of August, we were going to submit for the variances. We were going to head right to the ZBA, but when we got thinking about it, and particularly the change along Bay, because it did come after the meeting, people came up to us after with that southernmost building, we wanted to come back one last time, and certainly it cost us a couple of months, but, you know, at the end of the day, we need to go to the ZBA with a project we know we’ve got support. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FULLER-So that’s why we came back, and, you know, we’ve gotten comments. If you’re going to open it, we’re going to get comments, and it’s good to know. These things we needed to know. A lot of them we knew. We knew traffic was an issue. We haven’t shied from it, and we’re going to remedy it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What’s your target schedule? th MR. FULLER-To try to shoot for the 15 deadline for next month to the ZBA, which would put us back here for a referral. MR. BOGARDIS-I think you mean to break ground in the Spring, that’s our project schedule, if it goes that way for us. MR. FULLER-Yes. We’re accumulating info on water. We already know the water’s fine. We actually, we got that from the Town back in April. Sewer’s fine. We built it, so we know what the capacity of that is. Traffic, natural resources. Cultural resources we’ve dealt with. So we’ve got the data compiled. We just, we don’t want to go, that last step, the engineering, before we came back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because that’s expensive for them. MR. FULLER-Not free. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Just, I want to say that I think you guys have done a great job at, you know, keeping the community involved and being open to comments and suggestions and so, you know, I think that, you know, even though my comments about the parking, there is still a lot of green space. There’s sidewalks, a lot of things that I really love about, you know, a plan for this Town. So I think you’ve done a great job. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else you had to add, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I think the Spring is aggressive. I think that you need to get your application in ASAP. You don’t know what’s going to happen at the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. FULLER-We don’t. MR. OBORNE-That is the wild card. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Just for members of the public, we certainly appreciate your attendance this evening. Again, this is a discussion item. There is no formal action taken by this Board. It’s designed so that the applicant can present ideas and get comments back from the Board prior to submitting an application. I would encourage you, when we do see this in Site Plan Review, we will have a public hearing. There will be opportunity to make comment. I think you’ve already heard from the applicant that they’re certainly willing, and quite frankly interested in hearing what comments and concerns members of the public have. I think the goal from the beginning, for everyone involved with this, is to make this something that works for the community. So, again, I appreciate the members of the audience being here. When the project is before us for Site Plan Review, it will be properly warned and noticed, and if you ever have questions, you can go to the Town’s website to find the agendas, and you can always call Keith at the Planning Department. Is there anything else from anyone on the Board? MR. TRAVER-Probably in thinking about process, a project of this magnitude might warrant a special meeting, and it’s also, I think, a good candidate for trying to get as much of the engineering taken care of in advance, since we have a concept now. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess just one last final comment on comments from the public, you can always provide written comments as well, and they would be accepted. AUDIENCE MEMBER-You’re not going to take public comments tonight? MR. HUNSINGER-We are not taking public comments this evening, no ma’am. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is that legal? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s entirely legal. I don’t know if you were here at the beginning of the meeting when I read the purpose of the Sketch Plan Review. There is no action taken by the Board this evening. There is no application before the Board. So there’s literally nothing for you to comment on right now. All you have is a concept and a Sketch Plan. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We’re adjoining property owners, and would like to provide some feedback on, as to what we believe are potential conflicts. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and when the opportunity arises, you will have ample opportunity to do that. MR. KREBS-Yes, they’ll have to come formally before us for a Site Plan Review, and at that time we’ll have a public meeting and you can give us your input. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m really not trying to discourage public comment. I’m just trying to follow the procedure, and I hope you can appreciate that. MR. TRAVER-And there’ll be plenty of opportunity for public comment. This is a big project. AUDIENCE MEMBER-If the solution to the traffic problem is so easy, and everyone knows what the problem is, why doesn’t the Town of Queensbury do something about it now? MR. FULLER-I can address that. MR. FORD-It’s a County road. MR. KREBS-It’s not a Town of Queensbury road. MR. FULLER-That’s the primary problem. MR. KREBS-It’s a Warren County road. MR. FULLER-Both of them. MR. KREBS-Haviland and Blind Rock are Warren County roads. MR. FULLER-That’s right. The Town can’t. AUDIENCE MEMBER-And I realized that their budgets are stretched at this time (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-I would just like to add to that. You heard from a couple of other members of the Board. I drive through the intersection myself four times every day. I take a left hand turn 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/25/2011) from Blind Rock onto Bay Road, and I know what it’s like to sit through the light three times waiting to make that turn, so, yes, you have very sympathetic ears when it comes to the traffic issue. MR. FORD-And I’m right behind you trying to go straight. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. FORD-Waiting for you to turn left. MR. FULLER-And honestly we couldn’t agree more. It could be fixed tomorrow, but we also understand budgets, and I got that comment last week, too, well, why don’t your clients go pay to do it and we’ll see how it works and then they can get their project going. Well, they’ve already spent a million dollars on sewer that they’re not using, that the Town is using, other people are using. So to write the size of a check that, actually it’s easy to say. It’s not a cheap project to fix that intersection. Those signals, if you look into them, are six figures, for just the signals. So it’s easy to say, and I get it, and they think there’s a deep pocket, but it’s a time, and your comment is a good one. Those numbers are going to come out. I’ve seen them. Our traffic engineer is very confident. When I first went out there I was surprised. I was surprised when they came back and said we don’t need the turning lane, but we said we’re going to do it anyway. So those numbers are going to come out. The public’s going to see them, and I agree, too, because I run through that intersection myself, and nobody has hedged away from, that that’s an issue. We have not dodged that at all. It’s going to be part of the project. MR. FORD-Good. Because we won’t dodge it. MR. FULLER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I thank you again. I thank the members of the audience for being here, and we look forward to the public comment when you submit your application. MR. FULLER-Thank you again for having us. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’ll make a motion we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2011, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 29