Loading...
2011.12.15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2011 INDEX Site Plan No. 62-2011 Queensbury Partners 1. Freshwater Wetlands 5-2011 Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35 Site Plan No. 81-2011 Laurie Shope 7. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35 Site Plan No. 66-2011 Andrew West 11. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-9 Site Plan No. 79-2011 James Keller, Countryside Veterinary Clinic 15. Tax Map No. 303.8-1-6 Site Plan No. 80-2011 Hannaford Brothers Company 28. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-41 NOMINATIONS FOR 2012 CHAIR -V. CHAIR -SECRETARY 35. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD KREBS STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'd like to welcome everyone to the Queensbury Planning Board meeting on Thursday, December 15, 2011. There are copies of the agenda on the back table. We have several public hearings scheduled this evening. There's also a handout for public hearing procedure. If you plan to speak during one of the public hearings, I would ask that you review that and be prepared accordingly. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from October 18th and 25th, 2011. Would anyone like to move them? APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 18, 2011 October 25, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18TH AND OCTOBER 25TH, 2011, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there's an objection from the Board, I'd like to move the administrative items to the end of the meeting. MR. KREBS-Good idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The first item on our agenda is a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 5-2011 SEAR 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 A TOTAL OF 56,180 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN FIVE (5) BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF 175 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNITS DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN 11 BUILDINGS TO INCLUDE 93 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN FOUR (4) OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: LAND DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND. AREA VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY, FRONT SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK, RESIDENTIAL SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM WETLAND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11, SUB 13-1994 LOT SIZE 34.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1- 23-35 SECTION 179-9 MATT FULLER & BOB MANZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, Staff Notes, please. MR. OBORNE-1 can't do anything about the feedback on this, unfortunately. Queensbury Partners. This is not necessarily a recommendation, but it is on the agenda as a recommendation, and the location is the corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road. This is in the Office zone. This would be eventually a Type I application when a complete application gets submitted. The Project Description: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a total of 56,180 sq. ft. of commercial development distributed between five (5) buildings and development of 175 residential apartment units distributed between 11 buildings to include 93 residential units within four (4) of the proposed commercial structures. Freshwater Wetlands: Land disturbance with 100 feet of a regulated wetland. Area Variance: Relief requested from density, front setback, travel corridor setback, residential setback and height requirements of the Office zone. Further, relief requested from wetland setback requirements. I think the Planning Board is aware of the nature of this application. What Staff would appreciate from the Planning Board would be concise and cogent minutes that I can give to the Zoning Board of Appeals in order for them to understand how we reached this point in time, and what we're here for, if at all possible. We're not here to do a recommendation at this point because there is not a complete application. We cannot go forward with SEQRA as a result of that, and as a result of not being able to go forward with SEQRA, the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot make any approvals either, but we did provide room on the agenda for the applicants as we do know the nature of this project. What follows in my notes is a pretty extensive review of the variances that the Planning Board, or the Zoning Board will have to review next Wednesday, and if there are any questions, obviously, I'm here and Matt is here also to address the Board, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I do have a quick question before I turn it over to the applicant. Is the zoning application complete? MR. OBORNE-The zoning application could be considered complete, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. FULLER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Matt Fuller with Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth for the applicant, and just to clarify with Keith, and I appreciate Staff kind of allowing us to go through this process here. Through the project, we've been to the Planning Board a lot, and we've worked through this project. There's still work to be done. We understand that. Staff understands that, but before we undertake the full engineering that's going to be required, you know, the rest of the tests to confirm where we're going to locate the stormwater, utilities, you know, all those things, we need to have an idea from the ZBA of, you know, what's acceptable in concept to them. If there's parts of this that we've worked with this Board, if there's parts of this project that are flat out not acceptable right now, we kind of need to know that, and as Keith points out, you know, I think he did a good job explaining to you, it's kind of cart before the horse. We're caught in a bit of a pickle here. You don't go, it would be unreasonable to spend all the funds and take the effort to fully engineer the project and then get denied on the variances. It still could happen. There's no guarantee, but, you know, I think we've at least come to some, I won't say comfort level, but an idea of where this needs to be engineered with the Planning Board. We kind of need that idea from the Zoning Board as well, and that's really what we're looking for. I know Keith said you can't make a recommendation. He's right. You can't make a vote, yes, we recommend approval of the variances, because there's engineering left to be done. The application could be complete if they were going to take a negative action on it. Hopefully that's not going to happen, and it is a Type I action. We understand that the Full EAF needs to be submitted. Those are all things that are in progress, but I guess what I'm getting to here is from our standpoint, what we're looking for is like Keith said, comments. I have given the ZBA copies of all the minutes. The submission, you didn't get the full submission that I sent to the ZBA. It was a couple inches thick. All the maps that are clipped up there, through all the meetings that we've had, how we got from, when we walked in with that first application that was zoning compliant to where we got today. I've laid all that history out. I attached all the minutes. So they do have the past minutes to go by, but I think Keith's point is a good one and kind of one I want to have an idea of going there, too, is that, in concept, based on where we are now, we understand there's more information to be gathered, but this project is what has been kind of planned through planning with this Board, and that, yes, it's going to require variances. We know that, just based on setbacks and things like that, and that, in concept, you know, again, engineering and things to be consider, but that there's support from the Planning Board for this project. That's what we need to, because otherwise the ZBA's not going to do anything, you know, they may not feel comfortable, rightfully so, having a conversation with us, and that's really what we want to have is, you know, we still know there's things that, from comments that 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) you have, I've got a running list that we're going to address in engineering when we get there. We're going to check all those things off and go through them. That's what we're looking for from the ZBA is an idea that, you know, this isn't going to work, this can be considered, so that we can move forward, supplement the Site Plan, supplement the variances, nail down the numbers. That's been a thing we've been working on, the final numbers. We know that we have a survey there that marks off the distances on a survey map. Now I know we've talked about them, but that is a survey that shows the setbacks and things as they exist on a surveyed map. So those things are subject to change. When we get out there and start engineering, things might move slightly, but, again, that's really what we're trying to do is get to the ZBA, have a conversation with them about pros, cons, things we should think about, and then eventually come back here with a full site plan for a recommendation to the ZBA. MR. HUNSINGER-Just a quick comment. When we had the joint meeting with the Zoning Board, you know, I thought you did a really good job of summarizing the process to date, and, you know, the zoning members were there for that discussion. So, you know, I think that was a real good introduction for them for the project. MR. FULLER-Yes, and there weren't a lot of comments generated from the ZBA at that meeting, but, you know, to their defense, they had gotten the plans a couple of weeks, if that, maybe a week or ten days before the meeting. So, you know, I didn't fully expect a lot of comments with them having just seen it, not knowing the fully history. That's kind of why we walked through it, you know, to get that idea of really, you know, how we got from the beginning to where we are now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MANZ-(Lost words) summarizing the changes from the last meeting. MR. FULLER-Yes. We don't have a lot. The big change was the flip of the building to the south along Bay, adjusting the parking, and the reduction of the number of units. MR. MANZ-Bob Manz, one of the members of Queensbury Partners. I just wanted to make sure we summarized what the changes were, and they were based on the last meeting we had, the recommendations that were made, which really the big change was to modify all the first floor to commercial on what we are considering Phase 11, which is the southern buildings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-I'm sorry, I thought we had done that at the meeting, but you're right, we didn't finally submit that in the plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-That's right. I thought we had done that here, but we didn't. Yes. MR. FORD-That won't interfere with your underground parking? MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks, Tom. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-1 have a question, having to do with parking, not underground, but above ground. You are asking for four more parking spaces? MR. FULLER-Asking for? MR. SIPP-You're allowed 177. You're asking for 180? MR. FULLER-Units, not parking spaces. MR. SIPP-Units. MR. FULLER-Actually, I followed that up subsequently and, with Keith, we've had an exchange with Craig Brown as well. When we reduce the units from the first floor, it went from 188 to 175. So 175 is the number that we are going with. MR. OBORNE-Currently seeking. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. FULLER-Exactly. Understanding that, we went back and forth on what that number actually was, but I think I'm comfortable with Staff now that we're, the allowed number is 142. The planned number is 175. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. As currently submitted. MR. FULLER-Configured. MR. OBORNE-And a point of clarification on density. We could take and max out as many units as they want and then reduce the amount of commercial, too, in order for it to fit, and they'd have to come in for commercial density relief. In this case it's residential (lost word). MR. SIPP-This is what I'm concerned about. If you have an apartment that has one space allotted to it, if you've got a building that has 14 apartments, you have 14 spaces allotted, one for each unit, each apartment? MR. FULLER-That parking that we've got planned meets the zoning, but we have banked a good part of it. So we have enough parking. I think what we have proposed is not building all that's required under the zoning and banking. MR. SIPP-So those numbers do not appear on the. MR. FULLER-As variances. Because we don't need variances for the parking. MR. OBORNE-You would need variances for parking if you were under the requirement. If you are over the requirement, the Planning Board can waive that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, the way the Code reads is minimum of. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SIPP-No, my concern is in the future. Say two years from now you're ready to open up. Somebody comes in with two cars or three cars. Is this going to cause a problem? MR. FULLER-For apartments? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FULLER-Well, I think that that would ebb and flow like any project. Apartments over here, or, eventually they've got to regulate it, internally. Yes, that would be, and I know I've reviewed a lot of those contracts for one of the larger apartment holders in the region that have limits on number of cars you can have. MR. HUNSINGER-So they write it into the lease? Yes. MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SIPP-All right. Now, your exit onto Bay Road, there's a right turn, a left turn, and? MR. FULLER-Has a right in, a right out, and a left out. MR. SIPP-Left out. MR. FULLER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I just, I have a question. On the October 25th Staff Notes, under variances required as presented, Number One, Density, 174 residential units allowed, 188 proposed. In Staff Notes presented today, on December 15th, Page Two, it says density, under variances required, Number One, Density, 142 residential units allowed, 175 proposed. Then if I go to the Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth letter, November 15th, to Steve Jackoski, on the, for the Zoning Board, the requested variances, -5, 174 units is allowed, 188 proposed. I think that might be an old number? MR. OBORNE-That may be. I'm not sure what you have. I will say that it is 142 units is what's allowed under the Code, as currently presented, and the reason for the change is that we did not back out the density for the commercial aspect of, the commercial office aspect of it. We've got those quantified those numbers, this application, and then we ran the numbers and it was reduced down to 142. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the Zoning Board may come up with, they may see that there's a difference between them. So you might want to. MR. FULLER-Yes, and Keith and I have talked about that. MR. OBORNE-And they'll be aware of that on Wednesday. They have the same notes for the most part. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So that should be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-1 was going to say, the letter that Gretchen is quoting, the November 15th letter to Steve Jackoski, I found very helpful because you laid out each of the variance requests, you know, fairly specifically by building numbers. MR. FULLER-Yes, and like I said, when we get it final and engineered, then I'll have that letter bulleted out. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that chronology because certainly if they've got a volume of, you know, comments from our public hearings, that's a lot to go through. MR. FULLER-It is, and I hemmed and hawed about putting that altogether, and then erred on the side of giving them the information and trying to put it in a logical and chronological order, and there's coversheets that go with it, that say in July of this year, here's where we were, in August, here's where we were, in October, here's where we were. So I've separated them out, almost in separate little packets. So it's not just. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, it's an important, I think, an important oral history, because we've been through a lot in the last year. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And a couple of months, so it's important to be able to summarize them. MR. FULLER-Yes. If you saw it, there's literally a blank page with the dates on it in between every step when we came back. So all you've got to do is flip through from the back and you can see the chronology of exactly how we got here, and the minutes. So if anybody did want to see what the discussion was, and I kind of laid it out in my letter, as you saw, too, here's what the discussion was, and here's where we went. MR. FORD-Well organized. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's one of the better planned projects I think I've ever seen. MR. FULLER-Thanks. Well, you guys have had a hand in it. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, you know, you're really kind of asking us this evening for, you know, quote unquote a conceptual approval, if you will. I think the biggest concern that I had remaining was the concern that too much of the buildings and too much of the floor space was going to end up residential, and I think your comment that you're going to make all of the first floor on Bay Road commercial alleviates that concern. That was something I was really looking for, and I'm glad you were able to step up to make that commitment. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know what other sort of conceptual comments other members of the Board have at this point. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think as far as the variances that we're looking at, it's certainly a unique application in my experience, in the sense that for the most part these variances aren't really the result of the applicant. They're the result of the planning process that we developed. I mean, they were prepared to develop the property without any variances, and in working with us, in 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) many respects, that process drove the project as it exists today, and therefore the variances that we're considering. I think the record speaks for itself with regards to the effort that the applicant has put forward in meeting with the public and meeting with both Planning and Zoning Boards. We haven't seen engineering yet, and we have an, obviously, Site Plan process to go forward, but I think it's certainly a unique situation. I'm looking at these variances and thinking, you know, I feel like I'm applying for these variances in many respects, because I'm participating in the requirement for the variances. So I think that's certainly unique in my experience, and I hope the Zoning Board takes that planning process into context when they consider these. MR. SCHONEWOLF-When's this come before them, tomorrow night, or next Wednesday? MR. FULLER-Next Wednesday. MR. FORD-1 think that's an excellent point that Steve makes. The chronology that is leading to the variances is important for the ZBA to consider, that the PB was part of that process. MR. TRAVER-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-And it's also hard for us to say no when they're giving us everything we've asked for. MR. TRAVER-When the applicant keeps saying, yes, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Except the underground parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Except the underground parking, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-It's my last night. I had to say that. MR. TRAVER-The only thing they haven't given us so far is Gretchen's underground parking. MR. OBORNE-There's still time. MR. TRAVER-There's still time, yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from Board members? MR. KREBS-Well, I just think, just to repeat what's already been said, you know, as we've worked through this process, every time we've come up with a reasonable suggestion, they've incorporated that reasonable suggestion in the process. MR. TRAVER-Even if it needed a variance. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So therefore it must have been reasonable. MR. HUNSINGER-So how do we convey that to the Zoning Board? MR. TRAVER-1 think we just did. MR. OBORNE-You have. MR. FORD-Perhaps we just did. MR. OBORNE-To a certain extent, you just did, because the minutes will be provided to them. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. OBORNE-And Maria will work on that diligently tomorrow. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So we don't need a formal motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, we really can't do a formal recommendation. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-Because we don't have a plan. MR. HUNSINGER-They don't have a complete application. MR. FULLER-You guys did what I was hoping to get. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We just wish you well next Wednesday. MR. FULLER-Thanks. MR. FORD-That's why we're here, Matt. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you know, not to mislead anybody, though, I mean, once we start to get into the engineering, there may be issues that we have to deal with, mitigation measures, you know, maybe some design issues, when we get into stormwater management and topography issues and stuff like that, but, I mean, at least conceptually I think we're all kind on the same page at this point in the project. MR. TRAVER-And again, I think that the applicant has demonstrated that, you know, should we run into Site Plan or engineering issues, they're able and prepared to respond to them. We have a process, not only a concept, which is important. MR. KREBS-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And the minutes from the last meeting are quite clear, you know, we've identified we would like commercial development, but we also would like commercial development in advance of all of the residential development. So there has to be a balance in the phasing, but you'll cover that when you start to put your plans in place. MR. FULLER-We will, and we have committed to moving on the corner along with the start of the back of the construction, too. So that's still part of the application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Good. MR. FULLER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. FULLER-Gretchen, it's been great working with you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you very much. EXPEDITED REVIEW: SITE PLAN NO. 81-2011 SEAR TYPE II LAURIE SHOPE AGENT(S) FRANK DENARDO OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 10 POLK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD CRIBBING, RESURFACE DOCK, AND REPLACE 392 SQUARE FOOT BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK IN KIND. BOATHOUSES IN A WR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 5-1993; LGPC PERMITS: 5234-29-11, 5234-30-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/14/2011 APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G CEA LOT SIZE 2.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35 SECTION 179-9 FRANK DENARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-This is Site Plan 81-2011. This is an eligible Expedited Review for a boathouse on Lake George. This is located at 10 Polk Drive. Waterfront Residential is the existing zoning, obviously. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County issued a No County Impact on 12/14/2011. Project Description: Applicant proposes to rebuild cribbing, resurface dock, and replace 392 square foot boathouse/sundeck in kind, and what follows is the protocols to have an application be eligible for Expedited Review, and I have to put my ubiquitous comment that, as with any shoreline proposal, additional shoreline plantings should be considered, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. DENARDO-Good evening. Frank Denardo for the Shopes. Basically we're doing what was just said. We're going to be re-building. The dock was destroyed during Storm Irene. We've already removed the north pier because of wood floating down into the Bay. So we took that stuff out of the water, just for the navigation hazard to do with that, and Paul knows about all of that, too, and basically we're going to re-build this unit just as it is. It was built in 1911. It's its 100th anniversary this year. It's probably one of the oldest structures on the point, and they're keeping it in kind, and you can see how close the house is to the water. They already have plantings out in front, if you see out in front there. So I don't think we have to go any further with plantings unless it's required. We'll have to rip out bushes and stuff, but, I mean, they've been pretty good about taking care of their property and they're just looking to re-build a structure that's hurting and go from there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Frank, they own all three, they own the cabins, too? MR. DENARDO-They own everything. They own that whole point right there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the whole, it's changed owners, but it's still one owner. MR. DENARDO-It's still the same family. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It is the same family? MR. DENARDO-Still the same family. Yes. The father has turned it over to the children, and the children want to keep it in the family. So you have one sister in Colorado, another one in Maine, and I'm their voice, but they're keeping it as it is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The father is still in Niskayuna, I think. MR. DENARDO-He built that camp in 1911, the father, and he's got some gorgeous pictures of Assembly Point when it was an island. So there's a lot of history in that place. MR. SCHONEWOLF-He got hammered over there, just like those docks did on this side, right? MR. DENARDO-Yes. Well, he got hammered right down there, and then the next one, two, three boathouses in a row there, there were three boats that sank right there, we pulled out, during that storm, and of course the dock got. MR. HUNSINGER-So was the previous boathouse within the required elevation? I mean, I know your plans are. MR. DENARDO-Yes, it's all, the only thing that we're going to do is change the railing. It didn't have Code railing, I mean, it had the old style X railings. So want to re-new it. They want to make it a family camp again. They've been struggling to keep the property and we gave them some ideas on how to do things, and we've been working in their budget to make this thing work, and the storm came along and pushed it ahead. I mean, I've been working with these people for two years trying to get this project underway, just to repair things, and this kind of pushed it ahead of schedule. MR. OBORNE-If I could. Frank, do you plan on executing on that this year or early next year? MR. DENARDO-As soon as I get through here, and if I get through here, building permits, and as soon as we have that, we're back in the water. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Wet suits and all? MR. DENARDO-No, we don't need wet suits. The water's still warm. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-1 think you should take a look at plantings. You have a reasonable number of trees, but there's not a lot of understory there, and you have to have a 15 foot wide strip between your 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) land, between your lawn and the water. Now while there are trees there, there is very little other material. MR. DENARDO-You've been to the property? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. DENARDO-I mean, you saw how close it was there, and then the walkway right there, so we're going to have to remove the walkway? Would you like that? MR. SIPP-No. MR. DENARDO-How would you do plantings in that area? MR. OBORNE-I think what Don's looking for is understory plantings, not, you don't have to remove anything. MR. SIPP-Something that's two, three feet high, in order to get root systems in the soil, or hold the soil, soak up the water before it gets into the lake. MR. DENARDO-Yes, but they have a, I'm trying to think of the name of that bush that's there now. It's a low-growing evergreen that just crawls on the ground. It's all along the whole shoreline there where the rocks are there now. MR. OBORNE-It's a running cedar? MR. DENARDO-I believe so, yes. I believe it's right along the whole shoreline there, but whatever the recommendations are, they are. MR. SIPP-There's a list of suggested plantings that you can get from the Planning Department. MR. OBORNE-Certainly. If the Planning Board is willing to go through with putting that as a condition of approval. I will say that there are obviously, it's well vegetated as far as the large trees go. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I don't think there's any issue with that, whatsoever. MR. SIPP-No. MR. OBORNE-But, I mean, obviously that's up to the Planning Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're just talking about groundcover basically. MR. OBORNE-I think the groundcover is actually pretty decent. MR. SIPP-It's spotty. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it is spotty, but. MRS. STEFFAN-The dock was destroyed. They want to repair it. They don't want to make it any bigger. I think low impact is better. They own the whole point. Why do we want to have landscaping? I just don't think it's a great idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? MR. KREBS-Well, I certainly wouldn't want them to take the existing trees down, because that's really what's absorbing a lot of the water right now. MR. SIPP-I'm not saying the trees. The trees can stay. MR. KREBS-Yes, so, but when you start to do additional plantings, you may end up killing off some of the trees. I'd just as soon leave it the way it is. MR. DENARDO-I mean, they are trying to keep it as is. I mean, they were upset when the trees came down from the storm. I mean, they wanted me to actually pull one of the old trees that was laying over in the lake up and try to anchor it, and I'm like, no. You've got a 35, 40 foot oak tree that doesn't come up out of the water that easy. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-This wouldn't be the first time, fairly recently, that we, as a Planning Board, have looked at a property on the lake from a historical point of view. It seems to me that the current conditions have existed for a long period of time, and I see no reason to modify them. MR. DENARDO-And the only real modification I am making with the dock system is I'm making conforming cribs on the north side, and the other slip that are pre-existing right now. They got destroyed. (Lost words) so we're making a new style crib systems, open cribs, with water flow along the shoreline, as I do with the Park Commission, at all times, and that's going to help quite a bit over there, and they're excited about that, because they know how much silt gets caught up in there. These people are really into keeping this the way it is, and, you know, and the lake. I mean, they've been on the lake 100 years, and they've seen changes that we've never seen. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DENARDO-So, and they're not happy with it. MR. HUNSINGER-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 OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MRS. STEFFAN-The applicant has asked for waivers on stormwater management, grading, landscaping, topography and lighting. Are we okay with that? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. If there are no commenters, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show that no comments were received. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll put forth a motion to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #81-2011 LAURIE SHOPE A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to rebuild cribbing, resurface dock, and replace boathouse/ sundeck in kind. Boathouses in a WR zone require Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/15/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 81-2011 LAURIE SHOPE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Approved without conditions. 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 11-no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) 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, topography, and lighting plans. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 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. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. MR. DENARDO-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2011 SEAR 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 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. CROSS REFERENCE AV 63-11, 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 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready to summarize Staff Notes. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 66-2011, Andrew West is the applicant. Requested action is Site Plan Review. Location is 12 Joshua's Rock Road. It's a Waterfront Residential. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Planning Board, on 10/12/2011, has issued a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes a modification to previously approved site plan to include the reconfiguration of dock and expansion of boathouse. Specifically, 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. Staff comments: A similar yet smaller project was before the Planning Board earlier this year and approved on June 28, 2011, please see previously attached resolution. The project is located along the shoreline of two separate parcels of land and as such requires property line setback relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals, see attached resolution. The applicant has requested waivers from grading and landscaping requirements. Review: I have no immediate issues with this. Additional Comments: The previous application proposes little change to the existing piers. According to the applicant's agent, upon consultation with the contractor, the piers will require modification and as a result the project has increased in size. Two, the Planning Board may wish to ascertain if additional changes or modifications are anticipated for the boathouse and dock and if so please provide details, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with applicant Andrew West, for the Site Plan Review of this dock modification. You should be somewhat familiar, remembering we've been here for a prior approval, and then there was a suggested change to the configuration of the dock. When Andrew was discussing improvements with contractors, in fact, your past applicant, he made a suggestion that the pier configuration, the southerly pier was in good shape, so that it was recommended to keep that intact, and then to be able to provide the slip dimension, the width of the slip, it would then necessitate removing and replacing the northern pier, which was in need of replacement, so that that would extend the overall width of the dock two feet. As a result, there was some other adjustments to the boathouse that was proposed, and I think if you, in your attachments, there is a pretty good depiction in the architectural plans of what was proposed, what is existing and what is proposed in terms of the dimensional changes. There are, there is an increase in the dock coverage and an increase in the boathouse coverage as a result of the proposal, but still all well within the compliance standards 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) of the Town as far as dock area and boathouse coverage. So we're here to make that slight modification to what, again, you had previously heard before and approved back in June. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, we looked at this before it went to the ZBA. I know that originally I had one question about a minor change to the pier configuration, but it turned out it was not possible due to the design. So I don't have any problems with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MRS. STEFFAN-I didn't have any issues when you were here for the recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, one of the things that I still like about this project is, you know, you're basically keeping the same style and not putting a deck on top. So I appreciate that. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? Mr. Salvador. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, Mrs. Steffan and gentlemen of the Board. For your record, my name is John Salvador. My wife and I are the owners of several land tax parcels in the immediate vicinity of this boathouse project, which is only partially located on tax parcel 239.19- 1-9. For over a century, this tax parcel has been the site of Edward Eggleston's historic library referred to in your record as Mellowstone. As you know Edward Eggleston's library site and two adjacent building sites were nominated and accepted into the National Register of Historic Landmarks in 1971. At that time, the owl's nest complex was said by its president to be owned by the Joshua's Rock Corporation. Since this application process began nearly nine months ago, the public record is replete with contradictions as to who or what represented the current ownership of Mellowstone and consequently the boathouse structure including its foundation piers on the public lands of the navigable waters of Dunham's Bay. This Board should be aware that the Chairman of the ZBA requested that an up to date certified survey be prepared to substantiate the current ownership of Mellowstone. That survey calls the said ownership to be vested in simply the Seelye estate, with no further specificity as to which Seelye estate. The ZBA asked the Zoning Administrator for clarification, at its November 30th meeting. Quote, Mr. Jackoski: I do believe that Town Counsel has reviewed the title on this parcel. Mr. Brown, quote, originally the Town Counsel was asked to review the ownership issue which they did and they found the information before them acceptable. You will recall that Town Counsel issued a letter opinion in the form of attorney client privilege, and accordingly has not been made available to me. Further Mr. West, quote, that's Mr. Thomas West, relative to the property ownership issue, as Mr. Brown has noted, we supplied a chain of title to the Town Attorney to demonstrate ownership of the property in the Seelye estate. Again, with no specificity as to which Seelye estate. Tonight's agenda lists the owners of Mellowstone, the historic library, as both Sharon Davies and others, as well as the Joshua's Rock Corporation. Not the Seelye estate. There is no excuse for this confusion to have prevailed for so long. Early on in the process of converting a national landmark library to that of a residential dwelling, and on the 17th of May, 2011, the applicant submitted an undated, anonymous and uncertified document of what appears to be an abstract of title for the real property located at 12 Joshua's Rock Road, aka the library, aka Mellowstone, more particularly described as Tax Parcel Number 239.19-1-9. The abstract has its genesis in an 1877 deeded property transfer and concludes with an undated conclusion that, quote, currently 239.19-1-9 is owned by either the estate of Dr. Edward E. Seelye or by the trust set up by the residuary close of the last will and testament of Elwyn E. Seelye, if the issues of Edward Seelye are in default, providing Eleanor is deceased. Prior to this conclusion, the abstractor found that Dr. Edward E. Seelye died on or about July 3, 1999, a resident of Westchester County, and that Eleanor, his mother, had predeceased him. There is no evidence that Dr. Seelye's will was probated in the office of the, excuse me, there is evidence that Dr. Seelye's will was probated in the office of the Westchester County surrogate court and under normal circumstances should be available for public examination. However, such a request to examine the file has been blocked, due to its sudden unavailability for reasons that the file has been sent for microfilming. As best I can determine, the probated file was sent for microfilming sometime in early October. I am told the microfilming usually takes about two months, and as of today, has not been returned to the court as completed. This boathouse, which is the subject of this Site Plan approval, was said by the Zoning Administrator to require an unusual Area Variance because the existing boathouse structure encroaches 7.1 feet onto 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) the neighboring lot to the south. The Zoning Administrator interpreted this arrangement to require an approval of only 100% variance, which was approved by the ZBA on December 15tH On Tuesday, December 13t", I filed a Notice of Appeal, Appealing the Zoning Administrator's wrongful interpretation relative to the degree of relief requiring approval. The filing of that Appeal should have stayed this Planning Board's hearing tonight. My contention is that a 135% variance is in reality what is required. It is a matter of record that the ZBA approved what was interpreted and considered to be a 100% variance or 20 feet variance from the required 20 foot setback, by a vote of four to three. Had the four affirmative ZBA votes been aware of the severity of the relief required, which was actually 135% instead of 100%, as telegraphed by the Zoning Administrator on November 23rd, the outcome of the approval may have had a different result. This Board is requested to table your approval of Site Plan 66-2011, pending delivery of Dr. Edward E. Seelye's probated estate. The file can't remain out for microfilming forever. It is conclusive that Eleanor has died and there does not appear to be a trust set up by the residuary clause of the last will and testament of Elwyn E. Seelye. This leaves the estate of Dr. Edward E. Seelye, as the owner, provided his issue were not in default. Were they? If so, is this the estate to which the Van Dusen and Steves map was referring to? We don't know. Again, I strongly suggest that the Board resolve to table the application pending the issuance of the missing file or file that's out for modification, and to please consider the fact that the degree of relief required is 135%. If it was only 100%, the boathouse would have been on the property line. Right? Right? If it was 100%, the boathouse would have been on the property line, but it's seven feet more. It's 135% relief is what's required, and that wasn't considered by the Board that had very, very serious reservations about the degree of relief required. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is the Board comfortable closing the public hearing? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Absolutely. Yes, on the advice of counsel, I think we should move ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a comment from counsel relative to the comments that Mr. Salvador made about the need for a stay. Now this was approved by the Zoning Board on November 30th. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any final questions or comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have any additional comments that you wish to make? MR. MAC ELROY-Are you going to advise us as to what was the attorney's? MR. OBORNE-No. That's attorney client privilege. MR. MAC ELROY-1 see. Okay. I guess in terms of the variance application and what was approved, what was approved was as it was represented on the plans. Whether it's 100% or, I never used the phrase 100% in any of the application documentation. So I don't know exactly what the distinction is there. The plan that was approved, that was submitted and reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, showed it as it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC ELROY-With the lack of the ability of having the 20 foot navigational setback to the south. So I'm not sure where the percentages come in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any other comments from the Board? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. TRAVER-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the applicant is looking for waivers for grading and landscaping. Are we okay with that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had previously granted them. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Yes, we discussed, the one issue that did come up last time was landscaping. We discussed that, I think to get to Mr. Ford's point, that we decided this was a historic property and we did not want it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Based on the feedback, I'll put forth a resolution to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #66-2011 ANDREW WEST A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 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; The PB provided a written recommendation to the ZBA on 10/18/2011; the ZBA approved the variance request on 11/30/2011; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/15/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2011 ANDREW WEST, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. It is approved without conditions. 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, no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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 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: grading and landscaping. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. ANDREW WEST MR. WEST-Thank you. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 79-2011 SEAR TYPE II JAMES KELLER COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL OWNER(S) JAMES KELLER ZONING NR- NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 270 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,867 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING VETERINARY CLINIC. EXPANSION OF A BUSINESS AND LACK OF SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE VAR. 316; NOA 3-2009 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/14/11 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 10.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.8-1-6 SECTION 179-9 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES KELLER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Site Plan 79-2011, Countryside Veterinary Clinic. This is for expansion of a business and lack of Site Plan Review in the past seven years. 270 Queensbury Avenue is the location. This is in the Neighborhood Residential zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Planning Board, on 12/14/2011, issued a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 1,867 sq. ft. one story addition, interior renovations and parking reconfiguration to existing Veterinary Clinic. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes to operate during the expansion project and as such pedestrian and vehicular safety should be looked at closely. Dedicated walking areas and parking should be denoted and coordinated on the site plan for this expansion. Waivers from landscaping, stormwater, grading, and lighting requirements have been requested. What follows is Site Plan Review, and basically I'm looking for dumpster enclosure details. I'm looking for the consideration for the installation of construction fencing in the area of expansion for safety purposes. Snow storage locations should be denoted on the plan. Location of Handicap parking space should be denoted on the plan. Existing lighting is not downcast and cutoff. Installation of compliant lighting as per 179-6- 020 should be considered. Existing signage lighting not compliant; lighting for signage required to be down cast or internal. I'm also looking for erosion and sedimentation stabilization practices, and landscaping essentially is non-existent. This application does require a Type C buffer associated with this. There is a residence next door to this business, and as such it is considered a Type C buffer. Fire Marshal comments are attached. The existing sign, after discussion with Ethan, was to be moved, is to be moved to a compliant location, and finally colors for the expansion, if that could be expanded upon or clarified it would be greatly appreciated. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. DR. KELLER-Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a project architect with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Dr. James Keller, owner of the property. We received the comments from Keith and we can kind of go through those if you'd like. You've got the project in front of you. The intent is to add an addition to the back of the building that Dr. Keller uses for his offices. This will be an expansion of his procedure area to enlarge that so that he has better room to operate, a new x-ray room for a new x-ray machine that'll be installed and some upgrade to the mechanical system within the building, a space for a private office for the doctor, a space for the animal control officer to use when they bring animals up that are stray animals, and an access way to the second floor which currently really doesn't exist a whole lot other than the elevator that's in there. As far as the things that were outlined in Keith's notes. The dumpster enclosure details. The dumpster is in the back of the building and we will put a fence around that. We'll note those on the plans. The construction fencing. That, the intent is that this building is going to be modified only in the back. The front of the operation will be kept operational during the construction. So there won't be anything other than the construction personnel going to the back to the building. All the clients and everybody that normally comes normally comes to the front of the building and they would continue to come right to the front of the building. So we will put up a construction fence and a construction access way for the contractors to use, but not for the public's use. The snow storage locations, that's, I mean, we've got acres for snow storage. We will denote that on the plans, that it is to the north of the paved drive and the access way that's there now. The handicap parking. We will put the signage on the front of the building, right next to the front door where that will be located. The existing lighting is the lighting, I believe what you're referring to is on the driveway itself? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. HALL-Yes. That was part of the 2009 review of this project and at that time it was deemed it was acceptable. MR. OBORNE-What review was that? I thought there was an NOA involved with this? MR. HALL-There was a 2009 review that was done when it was determined that this was still an acceptable use. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don't think it was a Site Plan Review, though, to be honest with you. That's my understanding. MR. HALL-All right. They are existing, and that was part of the original package. I think that must have been reviewed by just ZBA? DR. KELLER-Correct. MR. HALL-Okay. So, I mean, at that point that was part of that review and nothing had been done since then. What they consist of, and I do have a picture. I'm sure you've been up to look at them, but they're upright carriage style lights. Each light has a 40 watt CFL inside it. They really don't project a lot of light, but there is some light that. DR. KELLER-They're residential lights. They were bought at Lowe's. They don't emit much light at all. They just basically mark the driveway in the evening. It's very dark up where Countryside sits at night, and they're very small bulbs to illuminate the driveway as clients drive up. MR. HALL-The erosion and sedimentation. Most of the work is being done in the back of the building where the site is generally flat. So there won't be a lot. We will, obviously on the down slope side of anything that's open, be placing silt fence and erosion control, and obviously as soon as the project has been final graded, we'll get landscaping, seeding material back down on top of that to make sure that it's stabilized. As far as landscaping around the area, it is the country setting. It is the middle of a field, and we freely admit that there's not a lot of landscaping there. There is an arborvitae hedge that exists between the building and the neighboring property next door that is existing and there's no intent of us taking that down. None of this construction will affect that existing landscape or that existing hedgerow that's there now. DR. KELLER-On the pictures, as far as maybe being confused where this addition is going to occur on the back side, there's a picture of the back of the building. We're kind of in an area that is not painted red. It's hard to see from this angle, but the area that is not painted red, that's the area which the addition would take place. There you go, on that side. The neighbor's house is off to the opposite side of the painted sort of barn looking like building. I'm off to that side. So the actual addition would be off the back side of that unpainted area. MR. TRAVER-And the addition is going to be painted to match the red? DR. KELLER-Yes, to match the whole rest of the building completely. MR. HALL-The back side of the building wasn't painted in anticipation of doing this, so that once it's all done, it can all be painted in the back and everything would be matching. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. HALL-I believe that that, Keith, what were the Fire Marshal's, I didn't see any Fire Marshal comments? There were none? MR. OBORNE-No issues. MRS. STEFFAN-No site concerns. MR. HALL-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And I apologize. When we send out the Staff Notes, we send them out electronically to you folks. We don't typically send out the attachments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to ask the question. How does the Board feel about the lights along the driveway? Are they okay the way they are or do you want compliant lights? MR. TRAVER-1 think since they're residential as opposed to commercial in nature, I'm okay with them. MRS. STEFFAN-They're quite attractive. MR. TRAVER-Yes, CFL's, you know. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we'll leave. MR. KREBS-And there's no other environmental lights out there. So you need those. DR. KELLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What wattage did you say those lights were? DR. KELLER-They're probably 40 watt CFL's. MR. TRAVER-Forty watt equivalent. MR. HALL-Forty watt equivalent. Right, which is probably a 13 watt CFL. MRS. STEFFAN-That's on the sign that you're talking about? DR. KELLER-No, along the sign are like 25 watt halogens. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I drove up there in the daytime. I didn't pay any attention to the lights. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But at night it's pretty dark up there. MRS. STEFFAN-It's very dark. Suffice to say no one will confuse it with the airport. DR. KELLER-No, certainly not. MRS. STEFFAN-As far as the landscaping, my opinion on that is just, if you look at, this is set up, it looks like a country barn. I mean, I know it's a veterinary clinic, but, you know, I'm not, I guess I'm not in favor of making the applicant put in an Type C buffer. On a lot of farms, they don't have landscaping. It's just, it's the grass. It's the barn. MR. OBORNE-Well, the Type C buffer is obviously there for the different uses that are associated with the land. I just wanted to clarify that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and I understand. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think the client has an issue. MR. OBORNE-It's not the client that has an issue. MRS. STEFFAN-I don't know how anybody else feels about that, the Type C buffer. MR. TRAVER-1 have no problem with it as it is. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Me either. MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-You're on a roll. What else? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Existing sign to be placed in a compliant location as part of the project, and so we just talked about the lighting part. Will there be new lighting that goes along with the sign? DR. KELLER-I can change that if need be. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. HALL-We can bring that, right now, they're currently mounted on sonotubes with the conduits running up through them and they shine up onto the board. It can be, I'm sure we can re-mount that. MR. HUNSINGER-Shine it down. MR. FORD-Shine it down. MRS. STEFFAN-Other questions, comments from members of the Board? MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? It looks like we have a couple. The purpose of the public hearing is to allow members of the audience, neighbors, interested parties to address the Board. I would ask that you state your name for the record. We do tape the meeting, and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. Any questions or comments I would ask that you direct towards the Board. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDREW ALLISON MR. ALLISON-Good evening. I'm Andrew Allison. I own the lands immediately south. I'm the one who bought Ed French's old house, before the vet changed hands, and I issued a letter to the Town, too, that I'm hoping you'll read into this meeting as well. So I'm not going to repeat everything in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ALLISON-Just a summary. Your statements about the lights. The lights were never installed when we bought our house there, which was when the previous vet was in. So those lights were never there. They were not part of the ZBA review. That was a different dispute over the use of the kennel space inside. So I think the Board is setting an unfair precedent to any other commercial property in saying, well, you guys can get away without being dark sky compliant but everybody else has to. If Wal-Mart down the road went in and put in five more lights out front that weren't dark sky compliant, and their neighbor complained, you'd make them change it. There's a reason for that. I live next door. I now have to pull my shades at night because of the new lights. It drastically changed the character of what I bought in my property out there, which was a country home. It's not like that anymore. The lights are on a timer. They're on well past midnight. I don't know when exactly they go off so I really don't understand why that is because the veterinary hours are not that. So I'd ask you to re-consider your stance on that. MRS. STEFFAN-And you submitted a letter? MR. ALLISON-1 did. It's outlined in there. The landscape buffer. Again, I think, you know, I agree with you. It's the rural character out there. There's some issues. There's some errors on the site plan that's been submitted and been reviewed. The hedgerow is my hedgerow. It's on my property. It's not my responsibility to manage a Type C buffer from my neighbor who's the non, he's the variance, not me. So I would ask you to re-consider your position on that. That Type C buffer would do a world of good, in mitigating the noise and visual impact that's being presented right now, for me. It would allow me to feel a lot better about what's being proposed. Lastly, I'd ask you to look at the plans, because I'm an architect as well. I deal with Boards all the time. I deal with problems like this, and if you look at the way the plan is laid out, they have a ten acre parcel. They have an 18.3 foot buffer on my property line, but yet they're forcing all the development close to that parking line. They're adding new parking between the building and my property line. That's a little outside of the 18.3 foot buffer, but I don't understand why you wouldn't just take a different approach and say we have 350 feet to the north. Why are we forcing the issue where it's tight and compact with the neighbor? For me it's not, the planning of the idea is not bad. I don't mind an addition. I'm in full support of what Dr. Keller needs to do back there. I agree with that. I think what's being proposed is going to force a significant impact to our property. We've been dealing with that. The four parking spaces that are being shown on the south side of that, we're now creating a loop around there. He does take some deliveries through some pretty large trucks, dumpsters, all that sort of stuff. It looks like the way it's being laid out now, those delivery trucks are going to have to circle around. Currently they don't circle around the property. So now they're going to be, I'm assuming that they're going to be driving on that little driveway between my property and his property, which is all of about 35 feet from my house, 40 feet at tops. So I put some requests in there. I request that the Planning Board 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) go visit this site at night, before you make a ruling. I request that we should probably look at the actual location. You can see my residence right there, which is the house just to the south. The extents of the gravel, and this GIS mapping is off, as you all may be well aware of that. His gravel parking lot right now as shown in this aerial is shown over my lot line. It's not correct. It's all within there, but the way that the site plan shows the hedgerow, it shows the hedgerow being on the lot line and it's not, and I don't really think that you can get a navigable driveway that would suit delivery trucks or any other kind of truck other than a small personal craft, get a safe, navigable pedestrian way between the building and that driveway and not encroach on my building. So I think there's some things there that I really, from what I heard your initial comments, I'd really ask you to re-consider. I think that they're egregious if you let it go. I think, yes, the lights look nice. They're an impact. Everybody who lives out there lives out there because it's a rural area. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. ALLISON-So it's a definite change. The sign, I think it's fine where it is. I think if you force him to move the sign, he's going to be forced to cut down some really nice work he did along the front of the road. I'd say leave the sign where it is. The sight lines out there are fine for the road. I don't know why you'd force him to move the sign. It seems to be throwing bad money after good. I think you should just deal with the lighting on the sign. MR. OBORNE-He elected to move it. He needs an Area Variance for it. MR. ALLISON-1 would support an Area Variance before I'd force him to spend money moving it. It seems kind of ridiculous to me, but that's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? Good evening. BARB FRENYEA MRS. FRENYEA-Good evening. I'm Barb Frenyea. My husband and I live south of Allison's property is empty land, and then we're the house after the empty parcel, and we just want to know, is, you know, we're very happy going to Dr. Keller's. It hasn't dramatically affected us. Of course once in a while we'll hear a dog bark, but, you know, it's not unlivable right now, but we just didn't know if, you know, in all good terms with the neighbors and the property values, ours being one of them, if it couldn't maybe flip where there is more of land available that he already owns, too, because a parcel between Allison's and us is for sale, too. So, I mean, it's just the market value of the houses in the area, and is any of that, I listed procedures and offices, a couple of other things, but are any of those going to be kennels where more dogs are going to be kept for overnight stay, or is it strictly for office management and procedures and such? Is it for boarding and like when they bring in the office, the animal control officers? Is it for that purpose as well, or just? MRS. STEFFAN-As it was presented, it was an expansion of like office space. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. FRENYEA-Okay. So it isn't a noise element kind of thing. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. FRENYEA-All right. I just wanted to know. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Yes. Anyone else? And we do have a written comment, Keith? MR. OBORNE-I do have written comments from Mr. Allison also, and I'll read these in. There'll be some redundancy to what he's saying, but I did promise him I would do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-General comments. Comments of Queensbury Site Plan application number 79- 2011 for 278 Queensbury Avenue, applicant James Keller, prepared by Andrew J. Allison, AIA, adjoining landowner at 262 Queensbury Avenue. General Comments: It is unclear to us why the planned addition and gravel parking focus more development along the south boundary line when there is over 300' of open space to the north. Proper and affective planning would identify 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) ways to utilize the north portion of the land rather than concentrating more traffic, and entrances on the south side of the structure, focusing more development toward a single family residence without any buffer. I request that the applicant be requested to develop a design that seeks to alleviate negative impacts rather than increase them. I do not see the 'burden' that would indicate this is the only solution to the applicant's desire for more space inside the building. One simple solution would be to flip the organization of the proposed interior layout to put the new entrance doors on the north side versus the south side of the property and eliminate any new parking and the existing access drive from the south side of the building. This would GREATLY reduce the impact, and would allow the applicant to meet the requirements of the zoning code by installing a proper landscape buffer along the south side. It is noted here that portions of the information submitted as part of the application are incorrect. 1.) Drawings C-1 and C-2 (dated 11/23/2011): a. Lands referenced as Edward and Patricia French are incorrect, these lands are my property and should show such reference. b. The location of the hedgerow along the south border in the 18-3" buffer is shown incorrectly. This hedgerow sites several feet inside our property line not on the property line as shown. c. There is no overhead wire coming across our land to the clinic. This utility line was buried on our property in cooperation with the applicant in 2008. d. The survey referenced is over 20 years old and the pin locations from survey of our land which is part of this survey have been proven inaccurate. Reference letter provided by Darrah Land Surveying dated 2/25/2009. e. The location of the driveway is not accurate with relationship to the property corner. A pin was placed in 2009 by Darrah Land Surveying at the southwest corner of our property and it is much closer to the driveway than shown in the application. 2.) The extent of gravel paving as shown on C-1 in the area south of the barn is shown incorrectly. The current paving is approximately 10' wide and abuts the edge of the building; there is no buffer as indicated on the drawing between the paving and the building. 3.) The proposed extent of gravel paving shown on C-2 will be on our property in order to maintain the buffer shown and the minimum clear width for parking lanes. 4.) Drawing A-1: the floor plan does not show the existing doors or windows that were part of the recent kennel expansion. The door is located on the south wall and windows are located on west, east and south walls. 5.) Staff Notes dated 12/15/2011 - The current zoning is indicated as Cl - commercial intensive. This is incorrect, the zoning is residential and the facility is currently operating under a variance granted in 1973. 1 request the following considerations on the part of the Planning Board 1 .) Any Town or County Planning Board members that are currently clients of or do business with the applicant recuse themselves as part of the review process. 2.) The Planning Board have the applicant show the locations of the structures on our property in order to properly and adequately assess the impact of the applicant's proposed addition. This information is available at Darrah Land Surveying. 3.) The Planning Board members individually visit the site and perform a visual inspection of the operations prior to rendering any decisions. This visit should also include a nighttime inspection of the driveway lighting. 4.) That the Planning Board requests the applicant to explain the intended use for the second floor. The plans currently indicate a new access stair to the second floor. This area is currently and has always been used for storage. The current plan seems to indicate there are intentions for further expansion on the second floor. Our main concern is that this space would be converted to additional kennels. The identification of the use of this space should be a condition of the approval and further condition should be enforced negating the use of this space as kennel space. a. The layout of the proposed addition seems to indicate that the applicant is creating a separate and dedicated entrance for the kennel operation, and the animal control ofAcer. This is a drastic change to the use of the space and seems to indicate a separate and independent kenneling operation which should be subject to a//the requirements of any other kennel in the Town of Queensbury and would be in violation of the existing variance. In order to assist the planning board in understanding my specific concerns I offer the following. The general approach to the proposed addition exacerbates conditions on the site that already negatively impact our single family residence. The conditions that affect my residence are as follows: 1 .) Light pollution from the recently installed driveway and parking lots are on throughout the night and shine into our windows on the North and West sides of our house. The lite cast from the lights has significantly and negatively changed the rural character of the residence. I request that all new and existing driveway and sign lighting be required to meet Article 6 of the Zoning code. 2.) Noise from daily operations due to increased traffic and staff traffic in and out of buildings, specifically from the new door added to the south side of the recently added kennel. Relocating this door to the east and eliminating the windows on the south side of the kennel would drastically reduce the noise impact. The proposed addition adds two more doors facing south (toward our property) that appear to be staff and service entries with new parking spaces on the south side of the addition, this will only add to the unacceptable condition caused by the recent addition of the kennel door. 3.) Increased use of the 18' wide buffer area between our two properties. This area is currently used predominately by staff coming in and out of the kennel and occasionally the owners or service vehicles. The gravel access way is plowed in the winter and the snow and gravel are thrown on to our property. We have attempted to grow more planting in this area to help buffer the noise pollution created by the recent kennel improvements, but the planting won't grow due to the plowing. The proposed addition indicates that the gravel path will now become a main drive for access to the new parking spaces mentioned above. This will significantly increase the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) vehicular traffic along this path from 1 car once or twice a day to multiple cars throughout the day. This will increase noise, vehicular impact, and further reduce the ability to grow plants. I understand the applicant is requesting a waiver from several items that are required by site plan review. Many of these would assist to alleviate some of the impact from the proposed addition. They are as follows (letters correspond to Article 179-9-080 of the Town Code): L. Landscaping requirements. The waiver should not be granted and the requirements should be enforced to address the concerns above. I see no reason why the applicant has proven hardship that would give the board reason to grant a waiver. Per 179-8-010-C, the landscape requirements "..shall apply to all vacant unde veloped property and all property to be rede veloped,-including additions and alterations. Per 179-8-020, the landscape requirements "...are not retroactive. They shall be applied by the Planning Board as part of any site plan review. A site plan review affecting only a portion of a site triggers the landscaping requirements of this article. The Planning Board may waive some or all of the requirements of this article, at its discretion. Per 179-8-060 and 179-8-070, the applicant is required to provide a 50' wide type 'C' buffer. o Currently no buffer on the applicants property exists o The drawings provided as part of the application do not accurately reflect the location of the existing hedgerow, which exist within our property boundary. This boundary line was surveyed and staked at 50' intervals in 2009 by Darrah Land Surveying (see attached). o The drawings provided as part of the application do not accurately reflect the location and extents of the existing gravel pavement. o Although the 18' clearance to lot line does not allow for a 50' wide buffer at the barn the 50' wide buffer should be enforced where it can to the greatest extent practical. The proposed parking along the south side of the proposed addition is in violation of Article 179-8-070-B which states 'Parking or storage of vehicles of any kind or objects associated with the use of the property is not permitted within the buffer yards. When not inhabited with natural woody plants (i.e., trees and shrubs) sufficient to visually screen adjoining uses or zones, such buffer area shall be planted, regraded and/or fenced"o The parking is within the required buffer. The proposed parking layout does not allow for the safe passage of pedestrian flow. I appreciate the applicants desire to improve the facility and support the continued development of small businesses in Queensbury. However the applicant's proposal does not seek to do so in a harmonious manner with the adjacent land owners. The recent and now proposed modifications have and continue to impact the value of our property. There are multiple solutions that could be developed utilizing the expanse of land to the north that would alleviated all of the above issues and be in full compliance with the code without any undue burden to the applicant or waivers granted by the Town. The current proposal puts undue burden on the adjacent land owner. This is in violation of Article 179-1-020-A Purpose and Objectives of the Zoning code which states.. . "The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safely and general welfare of the residents and property owners of the Town and to provide for a variety of housing opportunities and densities and protect the property values and aesthetics of the Town by channeling and directing growth by regulating and restricting the height, appearance, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of a lot that may be occupied, the size of the yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of population and the location and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence and other purposes, to the maximum extent permissible within the proper exercise of the police power as delegated by the Town Law and the authority which may be exercised by towns pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law. " Sincerely Andrew J. Allison and Laura Carusone 262 Queensbury Avenue" And what are attached are Darrah Land Surveying findings from 2009, along with some other schedules with this application, and that is my only public comment at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. I apologize that I just arrived. After 25 years, I still went to the Middle School band concert and thought I could make it before this project was up, and I still can't estimate. What's most important here is that we had this big knock down drag out with the neighbor at the ZBA in 2009 and established that what's there is grandfathered. That doesn't mean that this application shouldn't be made the best that it could, and Ethan has some compromise offers, but I always tell the story, in terms of land use and zoning, about the neighbor who bought the house from the veterinarian and this was his residence and then he was shocked to find out that there were dogs next door at the veterinary clinic because this was just a crazy knock down drag out, and if you read the ZBA minutes, it got pretty insane, but it all worked out fine at the end, and the building and the improvements that are there certainly have been deemed grandfathered. Now, when Dr. Keller wanted to do an addition and met with Ethan, he certainly took into account that the best place to put this would be at the farthest location from the neighbor. Obviously it had to be attached to the building, but to put it in the back, that was to try and be courteous, but that doesn't mean that this justifies treating this as if it was a brand new site plan and looking at this in that manner, but with that said, you know, the discussion that you had about landscaping, and it looks like a barn makes a lot of sense. Obviously if it's important to the Board to add landscaping, Dr. Keller will add landscaping, but 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) the intent here was to not make this a burden on the neighbor, and that's why it was designed the way it is. Jim, do you want to talk about the lighting issue? DR. KELLER-I did want to make mention of the lighting. I honestly would encourage all of you to drive up there tonight, even just drive by. It's not that far from here, and you'd see that the lighting is really not an impact. There's a couple of reasons that I installed the lighting is, well, not only for my clients that drive up during the evening hours, but also because in the middle of the night I meet clients as well who call on emergency and I have to meet them. Without those lights there, it's very difficult to find the building. It is very dark out there. Not only that, we have contracts with two Towns. We have contracts with Glens Falls. We have contracts with Hudson Falls and Kingsbury with their Animal Control division. We act as their municipal shelter. These officers drive up to Countryside in the middle of the night with stray dogs as well. Another safety for them, and then third the lighting as well, for me, is also a little bit of a security. Countryside is a hospital. There are drugs. There are things that could easily be taken without proper lighting, without proper security. I feel that when I added those lights, I added security as well to my building and my practice. So with those things being said, like I said, I would encourage all of you to drive by and take a look at the lighting at night, and for me it's certainly not a burden at all. It's a safety for everybody. MR. HALL-That having been said, the layout that we got from the surveyor, and I will, at some point, request a copy of Darrah's survey. I can actually get a hold of Don and get a copy of that as well, but we can coordinate those two things. I have no doubt that the hedgerow is, in fact, on that property. It shows on our plan that part of it's on and part of it's, I think it's right on the line or it's just over the line. In talking with Dr. Keller, we can certainly eliminate this drive to the south, and the parking spaces associated with it. Those can be eliminated. It was simply done because it was there and we added the parts in the back. We can certainly take that away, make that a grassed area. We can add some additional landscaping on that side of the building. Those things are pretty straightforward to do. The placement of the addition was done so that the services that are involved are immediately adjacent. So the location that we put it in is really the best location for the operation. MR. FORD-Can you be more specific? MR. HALL-Yes. The operation, the operatory area that the doctor has right now is in the very back of the building, and the procedure room that you have is relatively long and narrow, and the intent there is to open that up so that he has three stations to work with within that space. DR. KELLER-Just based on the existing hospital itself, the way that the addition was put together was to allow normal flow from that existing area to what would be the new area. So the request by Andy Allison to kind of flip this just wouldn't work. It just wouldn't work with what the existing flow of the hospital is. The addition would have to flow with what's existing in order for it to work, and that just wouldn't work, and that's why, when these drawings were put together, that was taken into account. So just to kind of flip this backwards so that the doors wouldn't necessarily open, which were also, you know, as you can see, aren't occurring, this is not occurring on that classical style looking barn. It's occurring much further away from the Allison's house. So, yes, there'll be two doors that will open on that side facing his house, but with plenty of a buffer zone and both those doors that will open in that direction. One is to a hallway. The other is to a very small room that I would consider an isolation ward where there would be three cages, tops, for pets with infectious disease that I wouldn't want them to be mixed in with other families pets that could potentially pass off that disease. MR. HALL-For instance if a dog gets brought in by an Animal Control Officer that needs to be a quarantined dog, suspected of being rabid, whatever, I mean, it's a place where that animal can be quarantined and kept and not. DR. KELLER-Mixed in with the general population. So, that would be where those two doors that he's addressing are. Like I say, once again, those doors would be on where this addition is, which is plenty far away from his house, based on where we're adding the space. If I could address the sign, again. You mentioned that I elected to move it. I didn't really elect to move it. I feel like I'm forced to move it based on setback. I personally would love to leave it where it is. Mr. Allison mentioned that, and he's correct in that if I have to move the sign, I'm going to have to remove trees from Queensbury Avenue which 1, that hedgerow, I don't know if you've ever passed by Countryside before I owned it, but that hedgerow, you basically couldn't even seen the road. It was a mess. It was weeds and trees and overgrown, and over the last five years I've cleaned up the road. I've put large rock rings around the trees that existed, and unfortunately if I have to move the sign back, then I have to take out that row of trees that exists, which probably has one of the oldest trees on Queensbury Avenue as well. Like I said, I don't really want to. If I have to, I will, but that's kind of the position 1. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-When I stated elected, I mean, I did bring this up to Ethan's attention, and he came back with that. So my assumption is that you elected to do it. If you want to keep it, that is a fabulous argument for the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Sign Variance. I mean, regardless, if you want to keep the sign where it is, you need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Sign Variance. DR. KELLER-Okay. Fair enough. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. TRAVER-1 had a question about the lighting again. I had interpreted, and this is my interpretation and not necessarily your presentation, but my interpretation was that this was pre- existing, non-conforming lighting. Did I hear you say that you installed this lighting? It sounds like it was recently done? DR. KELLER-No. It was done in 2008. MR. TRAVER-2008. DR. KELLER-It was after I purchased the property. MR. FORD-So three years ago. DR. KELLER-Three years ago, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have a heavy agenda in January? MR. OBORNE-Excuse me? Do we have a heavy agenda for January? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I know we haven't tabled many projects to January. MR. OBORNE-The second week we're starting to get, we do have two meetings, definitely. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-And so, no, it's not overly heavy. We're certainly not bumping anybody. There is room. MRS. STEFFAN-I was just, I was thinking that in light of some of the issues that came up tonight, and there were a couple of Staff Note issues, and re-thinking the plan, it is the 15th of December. Today would be the normal deadline for January meetings, but we could extend that out maybe 10 days. It's around the holidays, so that maybe the applicant could re-work some plans and we could get them in to the January meeting, you know, if we extended that. Would you guys be able to do that? I think that. MR. OBORNE-That or you're going to be tabled out to February it sounds like, or you're going to approve with a myriad of conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but I just, I don't know about anybody else, but I wouldn't feel comfortable with all the conditions, because there's just, there's a lot going on. MR. TRAVER-Yes. I mean, it sounds like if the plan that's submitted is not accurate with regards to property lines and existing conditions, you know, how can we. DR. KELLER-I don't know that any of those actual setbacks have any bearing on where the actual addition is going to be. They follow every setback, regardless of if that property line's off by five feet right now, based on two separate surveys. So it's not as if I'm requesting any relief from a setback. MR. HALL-It's mostly in the front of the building and to the immediate south, right by the corner of that old gambrel style, and that's all. DR. KELLER-If I were building on to the what is the more classic looking barn, then I would understand that, you know, a difference of five feet on a property line would make a difference. I'm not within any setback, you know, even five feet or maybe the property line doesn't go exactly through the hedgerow on the drawings that we provided from this survey, but it does on the Darrah. So it doesn't really have any bearing on this actual addition. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. TRAVER-Nevertheless, I think as we examine a project, it's appropriate to have an accurate document, as we look at the plan. MR. FORD-1 certainly concur with your analysis about safety and security and so forth, but I see no reason, I haven't heard any reason, to not have Code compliant lighting. DR. KELLER-I mean, I would be fine with installing Code compliant lighting. I am under the assumption that those lights will be far brighter than what exists out there right now, and, I mean, if that's what it takes, I'll put up Code compliant lighting, which is, I've seen plenty of Code compliant lights, and they're plenty bright. MRS. STEFFAN-It just might be that you put shields in the existing lights that you have, so that they are downcast instead of the light spreading. I'm not a lighting expert. DR. KELLER-I mean, I'll put up big downdraft lights that, you know, I see down at Angio Dynamics and, you know, we can get to that point. MRS. STEFFAN-No. DR. KELLER-Right, and I'd rather not, because I've created an image up there that's residential style. These are residential style lights, you know, and I try to keep that with the setting. I feel like they're ornamental. They go with the Hospital. I don't really want to put these big, giant Angio Dynamic lights that are downcast, because 1. MR. FORD-Well, somewhere between that and the present condition is reasonable. Isn't it? DR. KELLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And I don't want to mislead you. Angio Dynamics, I'm not familiar with their lighting, but they have not been before this Board since the lighting code was changed. So those are probably not Code compliant lights. DR. KELLER-I'm just using them as an example. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I realize that. I just wanted to make sure you understood that the lighting code recently changed about four, five years ago. So unless a project has been before the Board in the past few years, a lot of the existing commercial lights around Town are not currently Code compliant. DR. KELLER-Sure, and like I said, I feel that if I have to change them, I change. I would change them. I don't think that that's really a big deal, but I would say that there's a really good chance that they would emit more light than what's coming out of 40 watt CFL's at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and I think that, obviously we didn't have the opportunity to see that letter before it arrived, because otherwise in our preparation we would have been ready to, we would have evaluated that letter when we evaluated your project. DR. KELLER-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-And so based on us not having that information in advance, you know, here we are, and we've got Staff Notes. We've got the public comment, and so now we're trying to come to a happy medium. As far as the lighting goes, you know, if you're familiar with the lights on Main Street, you know, they're very large globes, but then they have, you know, a shield on the top of it that just makes the light go downward instead of up, and so there can be some remediation that's actually quite easy, you know, to make the lights Code compliant. I'm not a lighting expert, but that's what, you know, Ethan can do, and one of the reasons why I asked whether we could maybe extend the deadline, there are a lot of changes and we've heard a lot of information tonight, and you probably, you're re-thinking a little bit about how you're going to lay things out and, you know, I think you've heard from the Planning Board that the expansion in the back seems absolutely reasonable. It seems like the right thing to do. DR. KELLER-Sure. MR. HALL-Yes, it sounds like, for the most part, it sounds like it's going to be, the roadway around the back is the big issue, and you already said that we can take that away. We can upgrade, you know, we can put in, we can make that grass area so there is no hint of being able to drive back there. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) DR. KELLER-I can fence across it. MR. HALL-Right, so that there's no, you know, no chance that anybody's going to drive back that way. MRS. STEFFAN-So what I'm believing can happen, if we extend the submission deadline for January, we could make some compromises, you know, some changes in the plan. DR. KELLER-What date is that? MRS. STEFFAN-That is January 26th, I believe. MR. OBORNE-January 24tH MR. HALL-The 24tH MRS. STEFFAN-The 24tH MR. HALL-And when do you need the submission, Keith? MRS. STEFFAN-When is reasonable for you? We've got two holiday weeks coming up. MR. HALL-I can probably get you something by the 30th. Is that soon enough? MR. OBORNE-That's fine. I was looking at the 2nd, but I think the 30th works. Whatever the applicant wants to offer up. MR. SCHONEWOLF-See if you can hang on to those lights. I think they're attractive the way you've got them there. DR. KELLER-I'd love to keep them. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that whole area out there is exposed, and there's a lot of commercial development that's coming in the next 10 years, and you're going to see a lot of light. Whether anybody likes it or not, it's going to come. DR. KELLER-I think a lot of folks forget that there's an airport across the street as well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Exactly. So I think what you've got there is nice. DR. KELLER-I love it. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess what I would suggest, and this is why I was asking earlier about the watts and the lamps. Maybe you can just reduce the wattage. I don't know, you know, and keep the fixture. That's always an option. MR. FORD-But if it is non-compliant, and it is impacting a neighbor, then I don't see how we can express all of this love for that type of light. MR. LAPPER-But if he puts up 18 foot high down lights, you know, 200 watt bulbs, then that'll be compliant, and it'll be ten times as bright as these. I think the answer is, Ethan, to see if they can put shields on them, like on the Sternberg lights. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and, you know, one of the things that I've learned in my time on the Planning Board is everybody doesn't always get what they want, but compromise is the key here, and so we've heard from the neighbor. We have a business person who's got needs, and you're both property owners. You have rights, and so see if we can come up with a compromise between the two places, so that it can be reasonable. MR. OBORNE-1 do think, also, that you should verify what the wattage of the light is currently. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. OBORNE-1 don't believe it is 13 watt, 40 watt equivalents. I think they're a lot higher than that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What are they? MR. OBORNE-That's what you need to know. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. FORD-What is the wattage of the current lights? DR. KELLER-I would say 40 watt, which are CFL's. So they're probably 13. MR. OBORNE-They're 13 watt, but verify that. DR. KELLER-Okay. That's fine. Like I said, I would encourage everyone to drive by at some point at night. MR. HUNSINGER-And we will. Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to table this to our January 24th meeting? MRS. STEFFAN-Now you'll likely apply for a Sign Variance so that you can keep the sign where it is? DR. KELLER-I will. I guess at this point it makes sense. I'd rather not cut trees down and move the sign. MR. FORD-Yes, right. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess what I'd say, procedurally that's going to take an extra month to get it in. We'll probably keep it in here as it'll be moved so that this is a compliant application, but with the understanding that he will apply, and if the variance is granted, which it likely will be, then it'll be moved, as a condition. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You don't need a recommendation, obviously, for a Sign Variance. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So all variances must be taken care of before Site Plan Review is approved. That's typically the protocol. In this case, if you can, and I can't make this determination. Only the Zoning Administrator can, but if you can get a Sign Variance application in ASAP, get that on the first ZBA meeting, get that approval, and then you're back to the Planning Board for the second meeting. You'd have that all wrapped up in a bow. MR. LAPPER-But if it gets denied, we would then re-locate it. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So my suggestion would be to get that application in ASAP. MRS. STEFFAN-And also leave it in the plan, leave the current proposed signage in the plan, s that they have a second scenario, a second situation. MR. SIPP-What about the buffer area and the landscaping? I think we need to pay some attention to that. MR. HALL-Well, we're taking out the drive, and adding a grassed area. DR. KELLER-We're taking out those parking spaces, too. MR. HALL-Eliminating any travel through that area. MR. SIPP-What about landscaping? DR. KELLER-There's already a hedgerow there. MR. OBORNE-You mean in the front? MR. SIPP-In the front. DR. KELLER-On the front of the building? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-Yes, he's talking about business landscaping, right there. Is that what you mean? MR. SIPP-Right. DR. KELLER-I'm not sure that that really fits with the barn. MR. SIPP-Well, what is required? MR. HALL-Yes, we've asked for a waiver from. MR. OBORNE-Right. You've asked for a waiver. MR. HALL-We've asked for a waiver from the landscaping requirements. MR. OBORNE-Obviously there's a member of the Board who has concerns. MR. HALL-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought you were asking, Don, about the buffer area between the building and the property line? MR. SIPP-Yes. I mean, if it's required, either he gets a variance or he. MRS. STEFFAN-No, the Planning Board can grant a waiver. MR. SIPP-Well, I don't want to grant a waiver. MR. LAPPER-What would the Board like to see? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think Ethan had mentioned you could add some landscaping between the building and the property line. I mean, I don't have any preconceived idea what would be appropriate. MR. HALL-We're talking taking out the gravel parts that are there and replacing it with grass area. There's already an arborvitae hedge. The area that's behind has, the sewage disposal system is out there and we really don't want to plant over the top of the sewage disposal system. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HALL-And the pump and the septic tank are out there, too. The disposal field is 106 feet from the building. Outside of that, that's a pretty thick evergreen hedge that's there. I don't know that anything that we can add to that existing hedge is going to, you know, the arborvitae that's there is going to provide as much hedge as we can provide. I mean, those are already, how tall are they? DR. KELLER-Forty, sixty feet high. MR. HALL-Thirty or forty, fifty feet high. DR. KELLER-I don't know if you have pictures of those. MR. OBORNE-I don't have a money shot, unfortunately. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, everything but. Well, I mean, I'll leave it up to you. MR. HALL-I think I would, at this point, you know, we're taking out the driveway and we're going to put grass in that area. I think the existing hedge would suffice for that, for the remainder of that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward the motion? MR. KREBS-Is it also possible that we could have the adjoining residents on the drawing so we could see the real? MR. HALL-If I can get a copy from Darrah Surveying I will add that to this. I mean, the one that we got is from Van Dusen and Steves, and it didn't have that information, but I can show that on there. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MRS. STEFFAN-So where are we on the Type C? Okay. I'll make a motion to table. RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 79-2011 JAMES KELLER, COUNTRYSIDE VET CLINIC A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 1,867 sq. ft. addition to existing Veterinary Clinic. Expansion of a business and lack of site plan review in the past seven years in a NR zone requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/15/2011; MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 79-2011 JAMES KELLER, COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: This is tabled to the January 24, 2012 Planning Board meeting. Submission for new materials would be January 2, 2011. This is tabled so that the applicant can make some revisions to the plan; specifically: 1. To provide dumpster enclosure details. 2. Also provide details for installation of construction access during the construction phase. 3. Also to denote snow storage locations on the plan. 4. To locate handicap parking on the plan. 5. To reduce wattage of driveway fixtures, consider downcast lighting applications for those fixtures. 6. Any new signage lighting will be downcast or internal. 7. The applicant will identify erosion and sediment stabilization on the site during construction. 8. The applicant will also identify the color scheme for the new addition. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And just let the record show, for members of the audience, the public hearing was left open. There still is opportunity to provide comment. We will take comment as well at the January 24th meeting, and you're certainly welcome to provide additional written comment between now and then. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 80-2011 SEAR TYPE II HANNAFORD BROTHERS COMPANY AGENT(S) CREIGHTON MANNING ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI- COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 190 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THRU PHARMACY WINDOW AT EXISTING GROCERY STORE LOCATION. EXPANSION OF A BUSINESS AND LACK OF SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE PAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 61-99, SP 1-99, UV 1073 WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/14/2011 LOT SIZE 9.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-41 SECTION 179-9 PAT MITCHELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 80-2011 Hannaford Brothers Company is the applicant. Requested action is the expansion of business and lack of site plan review in the past seven years requires Planning Board review and approval. Location: 190 Quaker Road The zoning is in Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA. Warren County Planning Board issued a No County Impact on 12/14/2011. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a drive- thru pharmacy window at existing grocery store location to include the elimination of 10 parking spaces, reconfiguration of landscaping, signage and new vehicular movement pattern in the general area of the window. Further, split rail fencing and landscaping proposed for the eastern property line with CVS. Staff Comments: Vehicular interconnections should be explored between the CVS Plaza and Hannaford Plaza. The applicant proposes fencing and landscaping along the eastern border with CVS, resulting in limiting the use of an unauthorized and unimproved access point. The geometry appears to not be conducive for a properly sighted interconnect at this location due to vehicular stacking issues associated with the traffic signal for Quaker Road as well as existing parking lot configuration on both sites. A location to the rear 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) near the entrance off of Bay Road may be more feasible and should be considered. At the very least, an inter-connect location should be indicated on the plans. Waivers from lighting, utility systems, and stormwater management requirements have been requested. What follows is Site Plan Review. One issue that I did during my site visit I had was there's a propane cage that is located right there, as you would be coming out of the drive-thru, that may have some visual impacts for proper sight line, and striping and wording should be considered on the approach to the actual drive-thru, because the geometry of the drive-thru is you're basically doing a, it's not a hairpin turn by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a 180, a solid 180 going around, and to keep drivers in that lane would be prudent, in my estimation. Also rail fence should be extended to the existing shrubs to the north of the CVS plaza. That would eliminate anybody driving through there again, for the most part, and it's pretty ubiquitous. It's also in our boilerplate code resolutions that orange construction fences should be utilized to cordon off the construction area for the drive-thru, and what follows is obviously Fire Marshal comments. The Fire Marshal didn't have any issues. The landscaping is Code compliant. I will say the applicant did come in, during our pre-submission meeting, and did offer an interconnect for the CVS plaza. They did the best that they can do, and through discussion, you know, during our sit down, we decided that, you know, the geometry's really not working for that location unfortunately, and it is unfortunate. So the best case scenario is to cordon that off, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MITCHELL-Good evening. I am Pat Mitchell from Creighton Manning Engineering. I have Jay Lord from Hannaford Brothers here as well. Obviously you guys have had a chance to look at the plans. There were a couple of comments in the feedback to extend the split rail fence at the intersection off Quaker Road, up to the landscaping so no one could sneak through there, which is what happens today. The applicant has no problem. We'll extend that fence. The other comments were add some construction fence to the construction area. Certainly we'll add to the plans. As a matter of fact, I have added it to the plans already. The sight distance issue, I have talked over with Hannaford. They would not be opposed to either rotating that propane storage tank. I actually did, based on ASHTO standards, take a look at sight distance issues out there. Based on our design, there would be 87 feet if we didn't move the Rhino Propane storage there, but again, you know that, based on ASHTO standards, is only good for about seven miles an hour. We certainly would hope that people aren't driving at that speed, right in front of the building, but still, the applicant is willing to rotate that. So we would have a sight distance that would be well beyond the 15 mile an hour zone, and again, we're right directly in front of the building. So people should not be driving that speed anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-So you're going to re-locate the propane storage? MR. MITCHELL-Yes, we just have to rotate it, basically. It's a long, skinny storage, maybe two by eight or so, that is perpendicular to the building. We could rotate it parallel to the building, and basically leave it in the same spot, just rotate it. MR. OBORNE-Rotate it 90 degrees. MR. MITCHELL-That's exactly correct. Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-People are going faster than (lost word) miles an hour there. How about 30? MR. MITCHELL-I would hope they're not doing 30 miles an hour in front of the entrance of the building. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Believe me, they go through there pretty quick, and if they hit that propane tank, there won't be much left. MR. MITCHELL-The issue is not hitting the propane tank. It's the sight distance issue, but certainly it would help in that respect as well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If they hit it it will be the issue. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. The other comment was striping. Again, the applicant would be willing to add a strip basically to route people towards the back of the building. MR. OBORNE-Just to do the movement safely. MR. MITCHELL-We will likely, yes, it's pretty simple add to do that, and I think it's a good suggestion on Keith's part. There's a possibility, and I'm not sure at this point what we do for 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) signage, but we would expect that we would put some directional signage on the site as well so that when you come in off Quaker Road there'll be an arrow pointing you to where the drive-thru pharmacy is, so you're not bringing those people that are going to the drive-thru pharmacy through the front of the building. They would be rooted to the south and then between the furniture store and the building where that best path of access would be. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Most of the people that go to the pharmacy come in through Bay Road. MR. MITCHELL-And there'll be signage there as well. There's a little island where you come in from Bay Road where that splits right there, and we would be happy to put a, it's just directional signage really. We're looking at two by two and a half foot drive-thru sign, and then the last comment was the connectivity. Again, we looked at that issue with Keith when we met with him, and, you know, it's an unfortunate circumstance that, you know, there's a drive-thru on the CVS that opposes the traffic where we would like to see that connectivity. Again, if you get up closer to Quaker Road, you run into the issue of backing traffic up, certainly something that we don't want to do as well. So we did take a look at maybe some connectivity on the entry road off Bay. There are really two places that you could do that connection because of where the drive-thru paths are, and again, Hannaford would be willing to do that. The issue that would arise there is we would have to get the other property owner to agree to that. There is basically, from the edge of pavement to the property line on the Hannaford site is less than three feet. So the bulk of that work, you know, ends up being on the CVS site. They would have to show some willingness to make those improvements as well. So I'd be happy to answer any further questions that the Board may have. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don't think it's worth, if you come in from Bay Road or you come out of the parking lot and you're going north toward Quaker, you could make a right turn into CVS and you're not stacking any property, any traffic. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, but where you're going in there, you have a one-way road that goes to the CVS's drive-thru. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. They'd have to make an adjustment for that, that's right. Otherwise you have an add on. MR. MITCHELL-That's correct, and, you know, at that point you're looking at some level of re- configuration for the CVS. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What we've got to do is get rid of the (lost word), because you can see that it's all worn down there. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, people drive over the curb. MR. HUNSINGER-All the time. MR. SCHONEWOLF-People are parking in your parking lot and then running across there, and guys come in this driveway pretty fast, and you're going to have an accident. MR. MITCHELL-And again, that's, you know, what we have done to prohibit that is we're proposing to put a split rail fence up there so people don't make that illegal movement. MR. SIPP-Yes, with a car, but on foot you could, there are a lot of cars, usually five or six parked right at the end of the Hannaford parking area where people walk over to the CVS. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, we wouldn't be assumed to leave an opening in the fence for a pedestrian. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're encouraging something we don't want. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that's foot travel. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, the irony here is when CVS came in, it was Hannaford that, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, please don't misunderstand me, but it was Hannaford that wouldn't offer an interconnect to CVS. The irony that I find, though, is, I'm just one person. Any time I've seen anyone illegally crossing between, as you called it illegally, crossing between the two properties, it's from people going from the CVS plaza into Hannaford. I mean, people are taking the path of least resistance. They're making that a right of way, even though it was never intended to be a right of way. So I find it kind of interesting to sit here and say, well, it's not a safe crossing when people are using it anyway, even though it's really not intended. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. MITCHELL-That's correct, and that was the reasoning behind putting the fence up there to prohibit that safety issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I can tell you that I've personally, when I'm getting a prescription filled at Hannaford, walked across and gone into CVS to get something that I couldn't buy in Hannaford, or gone into another store in that plaza and then walked back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I do, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MITCHELL-And, you know, the applicant would certainly not be opposed to leave a four foot wide or a five foot wide opening in the split rail fence for a pedestrian movement. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but that's what you don't want. MR. MITCHELL-Well, you're telling me that that's what you do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I know they do because it's so wide open, but if it wasn't so wide open, and I think when it originally started, Hannaford didn't want their customers going to CVS. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That's why Hannaford wouldn't give CVS the right of way. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They wouldn't give CVS, yes, permission of the right of way. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So it's, you know, the shoe's on the other foot now, but. MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know. I was kind of hoping that we could, I mean, this has been an issue ever since the CVS plaza went in, and, you know, I mean, what's really unsafe to me is the entrance into the CVS plaza from Quaker Road, because it's so close to the red light for Hannaford, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen cars, you know, slowing down to make the right hand turn, and you see someone else try to speed by them to, you know, avoid getting a red light or a yellow light, and to me, that's what is the unsafe issue, and the only way to really get rid of that is to have some interconnect and to re-design that entrance from Quaker Road into the two plazas. Short of that, I think, you know, at the very minimum we need to see, this evening, some sort of, at least intended right of way between the two, whether or not it's actually built or not, and that is in our Code, but again, I'm just one person, you know, I'm not sure how the rest of the Board feels, but. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was really hoping we could really resolve a major issue this evening and take care of this. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. Like I said, you know, we did go through this issue specifically with Keith at the planning phase, and just logistically it does not work well to have that cross access, you know, where we would all like to see it, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you show us on the? MR. MITCHELL-Yes, certainly can. So the existing area that people are driving through is right here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MITCHELL-You know for proper design, you would want to see that lined up with a drive aisle. So your choices are here and here. As you go here, the issue that you're running into is you have drive-thru traffic for CVS that goes in this direction. The farther you go, once you start to get down to where this island is, you start to run the risk of backing vehicles up. Again, if people are coming in to make this turn, and you have to sit here and wait for people coming in, then you're starting it, you have the potential of an issue of backing people out onto the main road here. So we did look at connectivity over here. Likely the best connectivity would be here, again, get it as far away from this intersection, so not at this point. There's a two to three foot grade change that would have to be overcome. There's landscaping in here that would likely present some sight distance issues, but again, the applicant is not opposed to providing that cross access easement at this point. Again, the issue becomes the bulk of that work is, this edge of this pavement is only three feet off the property line. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think most of that traffic on that road is going out. People go out that way because they can't make the turn on Quaker Road. So they go out that way and then take a left on Bay and then you can go anyplace. Then you can take a quick right, and so if they're going to go to CVS and they go out and they go through there, that's fine, as far as I'm concerned, it's a lot safer than what they're doing now. MR. OBORNE-If I could offer, just to move this forward, to have Hannaford place an interconnect, a location for the interconnect, in the location that they're talking about right now. When CVS comes in for their next site plan, or the plaza comes in for the next site plan, that's when you go ahead and you execute on that actual interconnect, or, the converse of that would be to say, okay, we want an interconnect there. We're going to have to table this application and wait for CVS's response. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we put any kind of conditions on anyone of the site plan reviews for the CVS plaza for an interconnect? MR. OBORNE-We did not. MR. HUNSINGER-No? MR. OBORNE-That site plan is now null and void. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Because it's been a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-They have not pulled a building permit, and as you stated, it's changed ownership. MR. MITCHELL-I was not aware of that. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I remember this conversation with, I don't know which applicant it was for the CVS plaza, saying, well, you know, if we make you put it on the map, then when Hannaford comes back. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. Now Hannaford's here, and I think that's the genesis of the thought. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Is that let's do it right this time because we missed the opportunity last time when CVS was here. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And that's exactly what we did with Monty Liu where we had the right of way from Wal-Mart and forced them to put it in, and it's very nice. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it works great. I think everyone's happy with that. MR. MITCHELL-Based on the comments that we received, we did add a cross access that would line up with this existing driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the question I have, and hypothetical really, is , okay, so Hannaford puts it on their site plan. We get a site plan review from someone in the CVS plaza and we say, okay, there's this interconnect now that you guys have got to address and deal with. What if it doesn't line up based on the new plan that they want to do in the CVS plaza? Then we're kind of back to square one. So how do we put a requirement on Hannaford this evening that's a little flexible? MR. OBORNE-I would put a 50 foot potential on there. Great minds think alike. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Again, you know, we're a Hannaford family. I asked my wife the other night, in anticipation of the meeting. I said how much money do we spend at Hannaford a year 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) on groceries? And I'm thinking $5,000 a year is probably a lot of money, and she's like, no, we spend like $150 a week at Hannaford, and that doesn't even count prescriptions. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let me ask you a question about this. I'm not sure that I understand this. If you were going to the drive-in window, you've got to come in here and then do a hook to the right, and so that the driver's side comes up to the window. MR. MITCHELL-That's correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now if you pull forward fast, you're going to get a granite wedge in the front of your car. Right? MR. MITCHELL-I don't believe so. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that's pretty wide there, but I can't tell. See, most people will pull forward and bear to the right and go out the driveway, and that looks like that granite wedge sticks out there. MR. MITCHELL-No, there's a radius turn there that, there's an existing granite wedge there, because right now. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I'm talking about. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, so that would get removed, and this drive would get tie into the radius. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I would think it would take the granite wedge out of there, at least just that half of it that goes from the asphalt curb out, it comes south. MR. MITCHELL-Are you talking about this section here? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. So if you pull up to the window and you go straight, you should be able to go straight without hitting that granite wedge. MR. MITCHELL-Okay, but that granite, that curb is off the building all the way. I see, you're talking this out here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right there. MR. MITCHELL-I'm sorry, I was misunderstanding you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's usually cars parked there. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, that won't stop them. MR. HUNSINGER-So you are going to have to bear to the right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're going to have to bear to the right, rather than leave it to chance. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, there are stop signs here. This is a stop condition. So, you know, you get to here and you decide whether you're going to go out this drive lane or in front of the store, but it is properly signed. MR. HUNSINGER-The big question I have on the drive-thru itself is the turning radius and the ability for some of the larger sport utilities and pickup trucks to make that easily. MR. MITCHELL-I believe when we went with Keith we did provide auto turn plan as well which is basically we go through and we look at which size vehicles can get through here. Certainly the largest SUV vehicles can easily make this turn, and if you need further backup for that, I can certainly provide that figure as well. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's the only two questions I've got. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, me, too. 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? Do we have any written comments, Keith? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing, and let the record show that no comments were received. Is the Board comfortable moving forward? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I am. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I'll put forth a resolution to approve. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #80-2011 HANNAFORD BROTHERS COMPANY A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a drive-thru pharmacy. Expansion of a business and lack of site plan review in the past seven years in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval; A public hearing was advertised and held on 12/15/2011; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 80-2011 HANNAFORD BROTHERS COMPANY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following: 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 11-no further SEQRA review is necessary; 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: utility systems, lighting, and stormwater mgmt..; 6) This is approved with the following conditions: a) That the applicant will extend the rail fence to existing shrubs to the north to ensure elimination of unauthorized access to the CVS Plaza. b) Add an orange construction fence to cordon off construction area for drive thru construction. c) To rotate the propane storage 90 degrees so it is parallel to the building. d) That the applicant will add directional pavement striping to the pharmacy drive thru. e) That the final plans will need to be sealed by a licensed professional engineer. f) That the applicant will add a 50 foot future interconnect to the CVS plaza site off of the Bay Road entrance access drive, within that 50 foot interconnect we will require a 24 foot drive aisle that must be placed within that 50 feet. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. OBORNE-Maybe if we could modify that 50 foot interconnect to state that within that 50 foot interconnect, a 24 foot drive aisle must be placed. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Twenty or twenty-four? MR. OBORNE-Twenty-four. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It gives you some wiggle room. It gives you 26 feet of wiggle room. MR. SIPP-How about some landscaping, placement and species. MR. OBORNE-For the interconnect? MR. SIPP-Yes, no, not the interconnect, for what they've got there now. They're going to move that fence up. Are they going to landscape? MRS. STEFFAN-No, that'll be on the CVS site. The people who have the CVS site, if they come in for a site plan. MR. MITCHELL-We show landscaping on our plan that's Code compliant. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They show it on their plan. MR. MITCHELL-It's been reviewed by Keith, and the record already states that it's Code compliant. MR. OBORNE-Are you talking long the CVS property line? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. OBORNE-They're offering a fence. You added trees there. MR. MITCHELL-Yes, there's a whole row of trees going on our plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, you're taking one out, but you're adding others. Right? MR. MITCHELL-Yes, we're adding many. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It is Code compliant with, in the Commercial district. MR. SIPP-All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to make an amendment to the motion? MRS. STEFFAN-I will amend. 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. MITCHELL-I would like to thank the Board for their time, and wish you all a happy holiday. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Thank you. Same to you. Okay. We do have our administrative items this evening. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS PB NOMINATIONS-CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN, SECRETARY RESOLUTION NOMINATING CHRIS HUNSINGER -CHAIRMAN - PLANNING BOARD 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FOR 2012, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE RESOLUTION NOMINATING STEPHEN TRAVER -VICE CHAIRMAN - PLANNING BOARD MOTION TO NOMINATE STEPHEN TRAVER FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FOR 2012, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-And would anyone like to nominate someone for Secretary? MRS. STEFFAN-You guys are on your own. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The Vice Chairman could do that, too. He hasn't got anything else to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any volunteers to be Secretary? MR. TRAVER-I'd like to nominate Paul. I think he'd do a great job. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think you've done it before. Weren't you Secretary before in Niskayuna? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I was the Chairman of the ZBA. That's almost as bad. Don's got seniority. MR. KREBS-I think that since Bill will be sitting on the. MR. OBORNE-1 think it needs to be a sitting member, though. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it has to be a sitting member. MR. KREBS-Then I think we should have Paul. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I can't do that, because I'm gone for six weeks, seven weeks. MR. FORD-Don, how about you take it? MR. KREBS-Okay. If I need help. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll give you help. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to nominate Mr. Krebs as Secretary by Mr. Ford. Is there a second? MR. TRAVER-Second. RESOLUTION NOMINATING DONALD KREBS -SECRETARY- PLANNING BOARD MOTION TO NOMINATE DONALD KREBS FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FOR 2012, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Krebs 2012 MEETING DATE SCHEDULE MR. HUNSINGER-We also have a motion for our 2012 Meeting Date schedule that was presented in your package. Would anyone like to move that? RESOLUTION APPROVING 2012 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE SCHEDULE MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2012 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE SCHEDULE AS PRESENTED, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We had a request to address the Board. I'll grant you no more than five minutes. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-You recall a few weeks ago I gave you copies of a communication I had written to the Lake George Park Commission concerning municipal boundaries. Do you recall that? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-The point being that the waters of Lake George are foreign to the Town of Queensbury, and for that matter the Town of Fort Ann and the Town of Dresden in Washington County, and the waters of Lake George are in the Town of Bolton by statute, and I pointed out in that letter, this goes to the fact that 14 mile island and Elizabeth Islands are zoned and taxed in the Town of Bolton. Not only that, whenever the Park Commission takes someone under tow for a violation, they take them to the Bolton Town Court. They don't take them to Queensbury. They take them to Bolton, for that reason. Some five mile an hour buoys are located in the proximity of 14 mile island, and they were put in there by resolution of the Town Board of Bolton. So everything points to what I'm saying here. In addition to that, if you look closely at the tax maps you'll see that they have mapped all the waters of Lake George along the east side in the Town of Bolton, and our zoning map, if you look at it closely, codes the waters of Lake George in one code and the land in another code, and it's clear that the water is not in the jurisdiction of the Zoning Ordinance, just the land is. So, anyway, I pointed that out, and this is being brought to the Park Commission because they're relying on your approval, for instance, for this West project. That's in the Town of Bolton. That boathouse, a major part of it, is in the Town of Bolton. It's not in the Town of Queensbury, all right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-But it's attached to the land. So that's why it's. MR. SALVADOR-Attached, I understand that. It has nothing to do with attached. It's a boundary line, and we have instances in the Town of Queensbury and Lake George where property straddles the Town line, they get permits from both municipalities along the east side. In any case, I brought this to this PORC Committee's attention, if you recall, many times. MR. HUNSINGER-1 remember, yes. MR. SALVADOR-But anyway, we'll have to do something about it someday. Recently there was a. MR. KREBS-Well, John, a lot of people like that because the taxes in the Town of Fort Ann are significantly higher than they are in the Town of Bolton. So if you own a piece of property that has an island attached to it, the island stays in Bolton and it's taxed at the Bolton tax rate, not at the Fort Ann or Queensbury tax rate. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) MR. SALVADOR-Well, we've got to get the right, in the right box. That's all. Then we can start talking about assessments and tax rates. Recently, there was a court decision in Essex County. The headline reads, Municipalities Can't Regulate Boathouses. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, okay. Now it's been understood many, many years, okay, that the State has pre-empted these municipalities from regulating on the navigable waterways. This goes back many years. Okay, and we don't want to pay any attention to it. We don't want to pay any attention to it, but regardless of what Town we talk about, neither one has the authority to regulate on the navigable waterway. Okay. The DEC has promulgated regulations under Part 608 of Article 15, okay, Protection of Waters, and they talk about all the things that you have to do to get permits to do things on the navigable waterway. They don't mention municipalities at all. It's the State. So anyway, that's coming, and you should know that the centerpiece of the Hoffman defense, which is wallowing in the courts. It hasn't been settled yet. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know. MR. SALVADOR-The defense, their defense is the Town does not have jurisdiction. Don't want to pay any attention to it, and the judge doesn't want to hear it either. MR. HUNSINGER-Then why did they pretend that we did? MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. HUNSINGER-Then why did they pretend that we did? MR. SALVADOR-Why did they pretend? Who? MR. HUNSINGER-The Hoffmans. Never mind. MR. SALVADOR-Well, they've got the best of both worlds. They're continuing to use their structure. MR. HUNSINGER-1 know. Yes. Don't get me started. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Yes. That's all I had tonight. I just wanted to remind you. MR. HUNSINGER-Interesting. Yes. Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-But we're going to have to address it someday. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, John. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we consider a motion to adjourn, as Chairman of the Planning Board, I'd just like to thank Gretchen for her seven years plus of service on the Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, I would, as well. Gretchen was one of the sitting members when I came on board, I think in 2006, and I learned a great deal from listening to you draft motions and observe your demeanor in dealing with applicants. I appreciate it very much, and your friendship as well. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. KREBS-And we not only had the pleasure of serving with her on the Planning Board, but Chris and I also had the opportunity to serve on the PORC Committee with you. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford? MOTION TO MAKE A PROCLAMATION OF THANKS FOR THE SERVICE OF GRETCHEN STEFFAN ON THIS HER LAST NIGHT ON THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD. SHE SERVED FOR YEARS ON THE COMMITTEE WHICH REVISED OUR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. SHE HAS SERVED AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS ON THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, MOST RECENTLY AS SECRETARY. SHE HAS, BY HER EXAMPLE, LEAD US ALL IN SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAVE A BETTER QUEENSBURY BECAUSE OF GRETCHEN. TONIGHT WE OFFER OUR GRATITUDE, OUR ADMIRATION, OUR THANKS, AND OUR BEST WISHES FOR YOUR FUTURE., Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Steffan MR. SCHONEWOLF-Gretchen, I don't know how to tell you this, but people that serve on these boards are special kinds of people to put up with the public, and I think you take it a step further, because this is a complex business. Of all the boards I've bee and do, planning is the toughest one, and you know an awful lot about it, a lot more than we do, and for you to be able to put your views forward and keep this Board on the straight and narrow, and then put up with these six guys takes a lot. So thank you very much on behalf of all the residents. MR. SIPP-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. SIPP-1 second what Mr. Ford wrote. I know you spend a lot of time, probably a lot more time on revising the plans for the coming years. I don't know how you did it, but you took a lot of guff from the audience, and I think you took a lot of guff from some of the Board members. So being thick skinned is not all bad. We thank you for your direction that you steered us in, particularly when a color was needed for a building, or a stone face or something like that, you're the one who championed it and it came out very well. So thanks again for all that you've done. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you very much. I appreciate being appreciated, and I appreciated the opportunity to serve. I tried to do the best I could and I just appreciate you all very much. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome, yes. MR. OBORNE-You'll be sorely missed. MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. OBORNE-As a representative of the Planning Department, I mean, that's, believe me, your resolutions will be sorely missed, but, honestly, thank you. I've learned a lot from you also, especially at the Planning Federation conferences and all that, and our conversations over the last four years, be it by telephone or private conversations, has been very rewarding. So thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, and you know one of the most meaningful things that I've done is when I served on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and when I worked with the group to draft the vision for the Town of Queensbury, and so there are times when it's been really hard to keep focused on what was right, but I kept going back to that vision for the Town, and it's made all the difference. It's still a place I love to live. So thank you all for your feedback. I appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We'll try to finish the project in your name, across the street. Because that's the way things are supposed to work. MR. OBORNE-We'll name the garage after you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, and take out some blacktop. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. Thank you all. MR. SCHONEWOLF-No meeting next week, right? MR. HUNSINGER-No meeting. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not until January. MR. OBORNE-We're done until January. I will say, though, as an update for Board business is the zip line in Lake George/Queensbury, the environmental aspect of it is going to be reviewed 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/15/2011) by the APA because it's a Class A Regional project. You have that before you. So that alleviates some of the pressure off of us for that. They usually do a pretty thorough job up there. MRS. STEFFAN-Interesting twist. Very interesting twist. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Question. If we had approved Lake George's request to be Lead Agency, would that still have happened? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-They would have overridden that? MR. OBORNE-Because you have to submit a jurisdictional letter. MR. TRAVER-Okay. I see. Okay. MR. OBORNE-And the APA stated it's not an NJ letter, it's a J letter. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. OBORNE-They have jurisdiction. MR. TRAVER-Interesting. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we adjourn, Maria, thank you for the fudge. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And Happy Holidays to everybody. Any other business? MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 2011, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 40