Loading...
11-15-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 40-2012 Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner 2. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Site Plan No. 48-2012 Steve Kitchen 3. Freshwater Wetlands No. 3-2012 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 ZBA RECOMMENDATION Site Plan No. 80-2012 Douglas McCall for Paul Kasselman 5. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 239.15-1-8 Site Plan No. 62-2012 Kirk Roberts 8. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8 Site Plan No. 70-2012 John Mason & Stephanie Mason 9. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-3, 7 Site Plan No. 71-2012 John Mason & Stephanie Mason 11. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-3, 7 Site Plan No. 73-2012 Eric Josten 13. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-15 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY PAUL SCHONEWOLF STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, November 15th, 2012. For members of the audience there is copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for the public hearing procedures. Several of the items do have public hearings scheduled this evening. We will be following those procedures and I'll provide more detail when we get there. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from September 18th and September 25th, 2012. If anyone would like to move that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 18, 2012 September 25, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18TH AND SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have three administrative items this evening. The election of officers we usually do at the end of the meeting. So we'll put that off, unless there's an objection. The first is to set meeting dates for 2013. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: DRAFT 2013 MEETING DATE CALENDAR MR. HUNSINGER-And there was a revised calendar that was provided to us this evening. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Board? It's the third and fourth Tuesday of every month, with the exception of May, because of tax grievance day, and then the holidays in November and December. If anybody would like to move that. MR. SCHONEWOLF-So moved. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion, is there a second? MR. MAGOWAN-I'll second. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a second. Any discussion? Call the vote, please. MR. HUNSINGER-As I mentioned, we'll delay the election of officers until the end of the meeting. Next on the Administrative Item list is Site Plan 40-2012. RESOLUTION SETTING MEETING DATES FOR 2013 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MOTION TO SET MEETING DATES FOR 2013, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: There was a revised calendar that was provided to us this evening. It's the third and fourth Tuesday of every month, with the exception of May, because of tax grievance day, and then the holidays in November and December. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE PLANNING BOARD Tuesday January 15 22 Tuesday February 19 26 Tuesday March 19 26 Tuesday April 16 23 Tuesday May 21 -- Thursday May 23 Tuesday June 18 25 Tuesday July 16 23 Tuesday August 20 27 Tuesday September 17 24 Tuesday October 15 22 Tuesday November 19 -- Thursday November 21 Tuesday December 17 -- Thursday December 19 SITE PLAN 40-2012: GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER-FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, and the main reason is they're not out of the Zoning Board yet, and they won't come back until they have that accomplished and in their back pocket. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we know when they're going to be before the Zoning Board? MR. OBORNE-They're before the Zoning Board this coming series in December. I believe that was specifically tabled to the 19th. That's, again, off the top of my head. With that said, I would table this out to a January date in 2013. MR. HUNSINGER-It makes sense to me. January 15th. Does it matter if it's first or second meeting? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we hedge our bets and make it the second, just in case? MR. OBORNE-Yes, just in case they have to come back on the 16th on the ZBA for some reason. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Would anyone like to move that? RESOLUTION TABLING SP #40-2012 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER On 9/25/2012 the PB tabled SP 40-2012 to 11/15/2012 in anticipation of a variance decision; On 10/17/2012 the ZBA tabled the application to 12/19/2012; (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2012 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to January 22, 2013. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items to provide recommendations to the ZBA. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 3-2012 SEAR TYPE II STEVE KITCHEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA S. DE LAURA ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION END OF FOREST ROAD SITE PLAN/FRESHWATER WETLANDS: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3,171 SQ. FT.; ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS PLANNED. DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 28-10, BP 10-556 (TEST PIT) WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 179-9; CHAPTER 94 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is for Site Plan 48-2012 and Freshwater Wetlands 3-2012. Applicant is Steve and Jennifer Kitchen. The requested action is recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the relief requested in the variance application. Location, end of Forest Road. Waterfront Residential is the zoning. This is a Type II SEAR. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached garage totaling 3,171 square feet; associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland requires Planning Board review and approval. Hence why they are before you. The nature of the variance is stormwater infiltration - request for driveway stormwater infiltration within 100 feet of a shoreline as per Chapter 147-11. That is a dimensional relief request that needs to be provided by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and tonight we are looking for a recommendation, and that is all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with the project engineer Tom Center, and Steve Kitchen is right here behind us. I'll give the highlights and then Tom will follow up with the details. This is a, what's proposed now is a modest size house, 1500 square feet on a pre-existing, undersized lot, about a third of an acre, and the house is compliant. There's nothing other than the area variance for the setback for the infiltration device, which we'll talk about. Everything else is conforming on this lot, the side setbacks, the size of the house, the height of the house, most importantly the septic system is conforming. So this lot was designed so that the septic system is in the far corner away from the wetland so that that complies. The house location complies. The Town and APA for distance, and the only reason that we're here for a variance is so that the stormwater device can be installed to filter the water coming off of the driveway. Tom, when he did the calculations for this, he was as conservative as possible, and he treated the driveway as if it were impermeable, but as you saw from the submitted, it's a grass driveway. I mean, in the winter it'll be frozen, but in the winter nothing infiltrates anyway, but this is a new, a unique grass, drivable grass to try and do everything right, knowing that there's this wetland, but in terms of the variance itself, Tom has designed an infiltration device that will serve the purpose, it's 15 feet from the wetland, but it will filter the water that, any water that does come off of the driveway, so it'll still filter it before it gets to the wetland. This is obviously an interior lot, as it relates to the lake, at the end of Forest Road, and the road has to be extended and Tom did go and get everything documented with the Highway Department that they're all on board for that. So, you know, other people might be asking for a bigger house and more variances, but this is, I think, modest, to just get some use out of this lot. With that as the general concept, let me ask Tom to get through the details. MR. CENTER-As we discussed at last meeting, after meeting with the Highway Department, we had a change to the location of the lower rain garden. The Highway Department was going to (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) continue the grade of the road as it exists. So in that fashion we had to move the rain garden over to the edge of the property line, work with Highway about locating it in the right of way, knowing that the road can't be extended any further. That would be, you know, green area anyway. The Highway Department did not have any issues with locating the rain garden in that area. There's no structures involved with it. It's a grassed, it's a rain garden with plantings in it. It's not a structure, per se, as if it was a catch basin, a drywell, something that would require the Town to maintain clean out and things like that. The driveway, we did change the driveway from pavement to drivable grass units, which has some storage capacity underneath it, but due to the slope and the nature of the installation, we've considered it a permeable, or impervious area, treated it as asphalt, but knowing that, conservatively, we're going to get some sort of treatment of small storms on that grass, and you're not going to have the pollutant load that you would if it was asphalt. We've also provided some overflow channel protection as per some of the engineering comments. I believe the outstanding engineering comments right now are of minor technical nature that we met out in the field to discuss, and that had to do with more of the mottling aspect of things, which really didn't change the size or how the ponds work, and after that is the same project that we had presented last month, minus those changes. If there's any in particular questions that you have, we'd be glad to take them. Another thing, with the stormwater practices that we're presenting here, we're using three different green infrastructure type practices. Number One, we've disconnected the roof from the stormwater system from the driveway. So we've kind of, that's one of the things that they're pushing in stormwater management in residential type settings is to disconnect the roof and try to treat the stormwater in smaller applications, closer to where it's produced, which we've done by taking the rear portion of the roof to the rear rain garden, the front portion of the roof to the stone storage trench, and then the other rain garden is primarily only for the driveway area. So we've used that disconnection. We've also used the drivable grass pavement, and we're using rain gardens, which are within the green infrastructure section, which aren't a pure infiltration device. They have some kind of a bio retention component to it, that prior to getting to that infiltration layer or they go through a filter before they get there, so it's almost an, infiltration is secondary. It's not the primary treatment of any of the runoff. So really it's kind of a dual system that's a hybrid and not really quantified in a lot of the Town regulations, as far as a pure infiltration device. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I was just saying that this is one of about five lots up there the same size, but this is a better design than I've seen on any of them. MR. FORD-My compliments to you on the effort that you put into this. It looks good. MR. HUNSINGER-The question that I have, I don't think we've ever had an applicant propose stormwater in a Town right of way. So what kind of permission is required, what kind of approvals are required? MR. OBORNE-In this case it's very basic. The base condition would be that the Highway Superintendent signs off on it, at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Which he has. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-And then now we get through the engineering aspect of it, which we're not through at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CENTER-You know, I would like to mention similar to, when we do a subdivision, let's say Geneva Drive, which we did, we had stormwater that comes off those driveways that goes into the Town right of way that goes into those drywells. Those are structures, those are maintained by the Town. This, in aspect, is nothing more than a depression, nothing more than if you had a stretch of lawn in between your property line and the sidewalk and the road, that's maintained by the owner. This is very much the same type of application. So as far as it's not, you know, we've eliminated the structure that was in the other one, the other design. So there really is nothing more than lawn maintenance and some planting. So really it's similar to that piece of land that's in between, you know, properties that's maintained by the owner for his own benefit of his property and the stormwater, you know, we've talked to Highway, the amount of stormwater that's not a large volume, especially now that we've gone with drivable grass, too, which kind of changes things, as far as sediment loading, things like that. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Plus it's the end of the road. MR. CENTER-It's the end of the road. MR. SCHONEWOLF-With a 50 foot gulley. So you'll never see any stormwater there. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? A public hearing is not required for a recommendation, but the public hearing was left open, so when we get to Site Plan Review. I just want to make sure we follow procedure. If there are no other questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion for a recommendation. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 61-2012 STEVE KITCHEN The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan / Freshwater Wetlands: Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached garage totaling 3,171 sq. ft.; associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for infiltration within 100 feet of a wetland. Planning Board to provide a recommendation to the ZBA. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2012 & SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 STEVE KITCHEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The next project for recommendation to the Zoning Board is Site Plan No. 80-2012 for Douglas McCall. SITE PLAN NO. 80-2012 SEAR TYPE II DOUGLAS MC CALL AGENT(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT LOCATION 25 WILD TURKEY LANE SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 5,546 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BY 1,422 SQUARE FEET WITH A TWO STORY ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 53-12, SP 57-10, AV 29-03, AV 133-89, BP 12-396, 10-339, 02-695, 90-420 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2012 LOT SIZE 0.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-8 SECTION 179-9, 179- 3-040 DOUG MC CALL, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 80-2012 and Area Variance 53-2012, Doug McCall for Paul Kasselman. This, again, is recommendation to the ZBA. 25 Wild Turkey Lane is the location. Waterfront Residential is, again, the zoning. Type 11 SEAR, Warren County Referral on (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) November 2012 was a No County Impact. Project Description: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to expand an existing 5,546 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling by 1,422 square feet with a two story addition. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. The particular relief requested is for maximum height restrictions, and the specific amount of relief is request for eight feet two inches of height relief from the twenty-eight foot requirement of the WR zone, and the expansion of a non-conforming structure requires ZBA approval right off the bat. Again, we're here for a recommendation, and you shall see this gentleman later this month also, I believe, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. MC CALL-I'm Doug McCall. I'm here representing Vickie and Paul Kasselman. I'll give you a little oversight on the project. The Kasselman's bought this property in the late 80's. There was an existing house on it. They came to the Town. There was a non-conforming house at the time. They wanted to expand it. The Town denied them so they tore that house down and put this house up, and at the time when they built this house, everything on this house was conforming to the Town zoning laws. So now we want to go back, they want to put a, Paul is retiring. They're going to sell their house in Albany and they're going to come up here and this is going to be their residence for the six months of the year, and Paul is going to work out of an office and he wants to put an office on the second floor out of his bedroom, off his bedroom. That's the main reason for this. So, and then we're going to go over top of the existing garage which is, in which everything else is conforming on that to all the zoning laws with a closet and an exercise room off the master bedroom. So we're essentially creating a very big master bedroom suite, and we're going to take the area below it for a den and then below that, just, we're going to add a bathroom, two bathrooms in the basement. So that's where it stands. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-This addition will cause another bathroom to be made, right? MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. SIPP-Now, is the septic system large enough to handle that? MR. MC CALL-The septic system is a holding tank which is at the time in the late 80's was what the Town wanted. So they are on holding tanks. So there essentially is no septic system. We're not adding any bedrooms. We are adding bathrooms, but not adding any bedrooms. They just want, their kids are older, and they want the bedrooms in the basement to have bathrooms because their kids have families now. MR. FORD-What's the capacity of the holding tank? MR. MC CALL-I can get that. I don't have it. I have that information, but I didn't bring it with me. MR. SIPP-There's three of them on the plan. MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. SIPP-Three different. MR. MC CALL-I mean, you know, the Kasselmans have been dealing with us for 25 years. They're pretty good at taking care of it. It's really not a hard thing to do. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the only thing you'll have to have it pumped more. MR. MC CALL-Right, and they understand that. I mean, they essentially live up here six months of the year anyway. MR. SIPP-Has any thought been given to a shoreline buffer there? MR. MC CALL-We did that, a year and a half ago I came here and we did a boathouse over top of the existing dock, and as part of that requirement I had to have a shoreline buffer and that has been done. MR. SIPP-What happened? Why isn't it there? MR. MC CALL-It is. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MR. SIPP-What is? MR. MC CALL-The shoreline buffer. MR. SIPP-Of what, grass? MR. MC CALL-No, it's plants. I don't have a picture of it. It's been approved. MR. SIPP-1 don't see a great number of plants. MR. OBORNE-That's the shoreline buffer right there. MR. SIPP-That's a pretty steep slope right there. MR. MC CALL-Yes, I mean, a lot of the lake lots are. I mean, there's not much we can do about that. MR. SIPP-Should have taken a picture. MR. OBORNE-1 did. It's right there. You should have, you're saying? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MC CALL-That was done and all the plants are there, and it's been approved. I mean, I had to actually get the plan done twice, when I was going for the permits for the boathouse. It's been done and approved. MR. SIPP-You have a walkway on the left, going down and going north. MR. MC CALL-Right. MR. SIPP-You've got a walkway on the left. The rest of it is all grass. Right? MR. MC CALL-Right, up to the shoreline buffer, yes. It is grass to the shoreline buffer, and on the other side it was determined that there was enough natural, I don't know if you have a picture of that one, Keith, but the other side had natural trees and they didn't want to disturb last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess you can anticipate more questions on the shoreline buffer at the Site Plan. MR. MC CALL-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions or comments related to the variance request? MR. MC CALL-The height is just matching existing height of the house. I mean, it's really the only way to get a room off that side. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion, a recommendation to the Zoning Board. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV# 53-2012 DOUGLAS MC CALL The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to expand an existing 5,546 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling by 1,422 square feet with a two story addition. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested from maximum height restrictions and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Planning Board to provide a recommendation to the ZBA. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2012 & SITE PLAN NO. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) 80-2012 DOUG MC CALL, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MC CALL-Thank you. TABLED ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 SEAR TYPE II KIRK ROBERTS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 11 OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,612 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FEET OF 15% SLOPES REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE WARREN CO. REFERRAL SEPTEMBER 2012-NCI LOT SIZE 6.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.6-1-8 SECTION 179-9, 179-6-060 MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone representing the applicant here? MR. OBORNE-Dave Klein was here. I'll go search him out. This is going to be a tabling motion here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-So engineering's not complete on this. I'll read it into the record real quick. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 62-2012, this is for Kirk Roberts and this is for construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes, and as such it requires Site Plan Review. 11 Old West Mountain Road, Rural Residential Five acre zone is the zoning. This is Type 11. No further action, No County Impact issued back in September. Basically what's going on is the applicant's proposing construction of a 1612 square foot single family residence with a detached garage. The slopes are pretty steep, to say the least, hence why the engineering is taking a little bit of time. If you remember back when you first saw this the Board had concerns with E & S, erosion and sedimentation and stormwater on this, and promptly tabled it. Most, not most, but a good part of the outstanding questions have been addressed, but they're still going back and forth. So at this point in time, I also have a tabling request from the applicant's agent, and this says, Pam, unfortunately we are unable to meet the TDE, or Town Designated Engineer, until after the 11/15/12 Planning Board meeting. We do not want to waste anyone's time, so please table Roberts to the next available meeting. At this point in time, the next available meeting is really in January at this point. The December schedule is pretty much maxed out. So my suggestion would be, or recommendation would be to table it to the first meeting in January, which would be the 15tH MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion on that? MR. FORD-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to move that? RESOLUTION TABLING SP# 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,612 sq. ft. single family residence with a 576 sq. ft. detached garage. Construction within 50 feet of 15% slopes requires Planning Board review and approval. SEAR Type 11-no further review is necessary; (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) Warren County recommendation on 9/6/2012-No County Impact; A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/2012 and tabled to 11/15/2012-public hearing left open. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2012 KIRK ROBERTS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to the January 15, 2013 meeting. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have two items under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN NO. 70-2012 SEAR TYPE II JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 11 & 12 HERON HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 523 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 56-12, BP 09-518, BP 09-371 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012- NCI APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRES, 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-3, 7 SECTION 179-9, 179-13-010 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN MASON, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-John and Stephanie Mason, Site Plan 70-2012, Site Plan Review is the requested action, 11 & 12 Heron Hollow Road. Waterfront Residential, again, is the zoning. Type II SEAR, and in October we did get a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 523 sq. ft. first story addition to existing 4,596 sq. ft. residence; further, roof to be raised to 28 feet in order to accommodate second story renovation. The applicant has received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals last month. They are now here to complete this application. They also have, joined at the hip with this application, a boathouse, which we shall read into the record next, and with that I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant. John Mason, one of the applicants, is here with me, and I think the only comment we have is under Staff comments there was a compliment to the applicant as to the shoreline buffer that they've maintained, and there was a question whether or not we intend to disturb the buffer. There's no reason and there's no intent to disturb the buffer by this project. It's really a modification of the house itself that stays within the footprint except for the additional room which is away from the lake. It's not on the lake side. We do not give up the right, though, in the future, to modify the area between the house and the front of the lake. We won't encroach upon the 15 feet that's required, but that's quite an extensive area. I just didn't want somebody to have a problem reading this record to indicate or think that we have stipulated that that will stay forever wild for that whole frontage, and other than that I have no comments, unless you have questions. I think it's a very simple application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SIPP-If they get to cutting those hickory trees, on the south side, I'll gladly room your lumber for you. MR. MASON-There's a heck of a black walnut directly south, too. MR. SIPP-Yes, well. MR. MASON-1 don't think there's going to be a tree that's touched. If there is, I'm not going to cut it. MR. O'CONNOR-It'll be the next husband. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MR. MASON-We've been there seven or eight years, and we haven't touched a branch or a leaf yet, and I just don't anticipate it happening as long as we're there. MR. OBORNE-1 would caution that, you know, any disturbance within 35 feet of the shoreline you probably should call the zoning office. That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this item this evening. The purpose of a public hearing is to solicit comments from interested parties to the project before us. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Chris, one other comment that John just made, and I forgot about. You, at the time of the recommendation of the variance, had a question about a pipe that was in the ground. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a piece of Orangeburg pipe that seems to come from nowhere to go nowhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MASON-We ripped it out today. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You didn't know it was there. MR. MASON-Well, an Orangeburg, I won't say it pre-dates me, but you're talking back in the 60's, maybe the 50's. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I figured it was even older than that. MR. MASON-1 almost hung on to it, because I haven't seen Orangeburg in that long, but I just pulled it out today. I don't know what it is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, thank you. Any written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Type 11 SEAR. So no SEAR review is necessary, and we'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #70-2012 JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 523 sq. ft. addition to existing residence. Expansion of a non- conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. . The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 10/23/2012; the ZBA approved the variance requests on 10/24/2012; SEAR Type I I-no further action necessary; Warren County recommendation 10/3/2012-No County Impact; A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/15/2012; (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-2012 JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. Waivers requested are granted for stormwater, grading, landscaping, and lighting plans. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Did we want to stipulate any of the comments that Staff had about combining the lots? MR. OBORNE-Well, that's a requirement regardless. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. You're all set. MR. O'CONNOR-We have the next application. SITE PLAN NO. 71-2012 SEAR TYPE II JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 11 & 12 HERON HOLLOW ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES EXTERIOR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING 544 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE TO INCLUDE REDUCTION IN SIZE TO 450 SQ. FT. RELOCATION OF ACCESS STAIRS AND FAQADE UPGRADE. BOATHOUSE IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 57-12, BP 09-518, BP 09-371 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012-NCI APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA, APA WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.46, 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-3, 7 SECTION 179-9 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT, JOHN MASON, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Mighty convenient, Site Plan 71-2012, Area Variance 57-2012 for John and Stephanie Mason. Site Plan Review, 11 & 12 Heron Hollow Road, Waterfront Residential, Type II SEAR, No County Impact issued in October. Project Description: Applicant proposes exterior modification to existing 544 sq. ft. boathouse to include reduction in size down to 450 sq. ft. relocation of access stairs and fagade upgrade. Boathouses in the WR zone require Planning Board review and approval. They did receive their variances from the Zoning Board, the same night that they received the variances for the house, and I do not believe that there were any stipulations on it. With that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I will again repeat that I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicant. One of the applicants, John Mason, is here with me, and he tells me that he's going to pay me by the word, and that I can't speak. I don't think there's any questions. If you have questions, we will answer them, but I don't think there should be any questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? That is a nice spot. Questions, comments from the Board? We have a public hearing for this application as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Type II SEAR as well, and unless there's questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #71-2012 JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes exterior modification to existing 544 sq. ft. boathouse to include reduction is size down to 450 sq. ft. relocation of access stairs and fagade upgrade. Boathouses in the WR zone require Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief request from extended side setback requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall make a recommendation to ZBA; The Planning Board made a recommendation to the ZBA on 10/25/2012; the ZBA approved the variance request; SEAR Type 11, no further SEQRA review is necessary; Warren County recommendation 10/3/2012-No County Impact; A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/15/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2012 JOHN MASON & STEPHANIE MASON, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans 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. 4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 6) 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; Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. MASON-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm told I can't even give the lecture about waste of paper. MR. KREBS-Do you want any of these pictures? MR. OBORNE-You'll need four of them. So grab at least four. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but they're no good, Keith. That's a good example of waste of paper because now they want us to give you prints with the resolutions on them. MR. OBORNE-So, that's one page. MR. O'CONNOR-Have a good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-We have one item under New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 73-2012 SEAR TYPE II ERIC JOSTEN OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CM - COMMERCIAL MODERATE LOCATION 1036 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES ESTABLISHMENT OF A RETAIL USE IN A VACANT 3,000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT. CHANGE IN USE (RESTAURANT TO RETAIL) AND NOT HAVING SITE PLAN REVIEW WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE 12-454, SP 14-00, A V 10-00, SV 24-01 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2012 LOT SIZE 0.96 TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-15 SECTION 179-9 ERIC JOSTEN, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. Site Plan 73-2012, Eric Josten, doing business as Cup O Joes. This is a change in use, and not having site plan review within the last seven years requires Planning Board review and approval. Location, 1036 State Route 9. Commercial Moderate is the zoning. Type 11, no further action is required. Warren County Referral received today issued a No County Impact. Project Description: Applicant proposes establishment of a retail use in a vacant +/- 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant. Specific use is retail sales of tobacco products and accessories to include coffee products. What follows is a review. The only real issue that I have is the parking depicted up front. If it's side parking, that's fine, but if it's perpendicular to the building, there may be an issue for emergency vehicles. So, please take that into consideration, and I believe, I don't even know if that container is still there at this point. MR. JOSTEN-Yes, it is still there. MR. OBORNE-It's still there, but if that's going to be part of the plan, you may want to ask about that, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JOSTEN-Good evening. I'm Eric Josten, the owner of Cup O Joes. This is my General Manager, Adam Hatin. Basically we'd need a site plan review because it hasn't been done in seven years. The building is going to become retail. There are no changes to the exterior of the building, the parking areas or any of the grass around the surrounding area. Not going to be any changes in regards to the container. That is just there temporarily to house building materials and will be removed as soon as we get in the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Eric, I have to say you've come a long way since Murray's. MR. JOSTEN-Yes, certainly have. MR. MAGOWAN-1 remember that tiny little spot. MR. JOSTEN-Three hundred square foot store. MR. KREBS-Relative to the parking in the front, are you willing to diagonally? MR. JOSTEN-No, we're not even going to use parking in the front. There's more than sufficient spaces on the sides that we won't be using the parking in the front. MR. OBORNE-And the reason that I brought that up is because of the curb stops, or the tire stops that are existing there. In the past that was used as front parking, not by you, obviously, but, you know, when the restaurant was there. MR. KREBS-Yes, maybe you would want to just remove those, just to make sure that people don't think that that's a place to park. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MR. JOSTEN-Okay. MR. KREBS-Because that'll give much better access to any emergency equipment that has to go in and out. MR. JOSTEN-Sure. MR. OBORNE-And I would ask if you could add that as a condition of approval, remove the tire stops. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Written comments, Keith? MR. OBORNE-No written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll open the public hearing and we will close the public hearing, and let the record show no comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I certainly didn't have any issues with this project. I mean, it's really a lesser use than what was proposed. MR. OBORNE-It's a great re-purposing, that's for sure. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It'll be nice to see the building re-used. MR. MAGOWAN-Are you going to be able to handle the chainsaw next door? MR. JOSTEN-Yes, I've already met him. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm happy for you. I think it's a great project and I'll be happy to see it being used. MR. JOSTEN-Thank you. MR. FORD-Great location and good use. MR. KREBS-Okay. Are we ready for a motion? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, whenever you're ready. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #73-2012 ERIC JOSTEN A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes establishment of a retail use in a vacant 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant. Change in use (restaurant to retail) and not having site plan review within the last seven years require Planning Board review and approval SEAR Type I I-no further action required; Warren Co. recommendation-11/14/2012 - No County Impact A public hearing was advertised and held on 11/15/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 73-2012 ERIC JOSTEN, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 3) There is an additional condition and that condition is that the stop curbs on the front will be removed 4) 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. 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. MR. JOSTEN-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. Are we supposed to act on the joint meeting? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, you were supposed to fill out that thing that's being passed around. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know. It got backlogged here. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because then they're going to go to the Zoning Board and see what they think will fit with most people. MR. HUNSINGER-So we need a resolution? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I don't think so. Well, I think you need a resolution to have the meeting,just not pick the date. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. What do we need for a resolution for the joint meeting? Do we need a resolution? MR. OBORNE-Well, yes, we do need a resolution. We should discuss, obviously. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You need a resolution to have the meeting, but you can't pick the dates until the ZBA weighs in, can you? MR. OBORNE-Well, right, so we'll want to do a couple of dates which works for the Board, obviously. I will say, for the Board's edification, the, let me get this right, the, one second, Mark can't make two of the meetings. It's the Tuesday, Thursday one, and I don't have. MR. HUNSINGER-Tuesday's the 11th. MR. OBORNE-Right. The 6th or the 12th work for Mark. Put it to you that way, and we want Mark there, obviously. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it's likely to be the 6th or the 12th. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Now for the 6th that doesn't work for one of the alternate members on the Board, but the 12th does. So, my recommendation is to shoot for the 12th, so we can have everybody there, and I'm not sure how. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's the 12th, a Wednesday? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Anyway, it's working its way down, the list. So was the intention that we would pick a date certain this evening? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Then I can report. It's not paramount that we do it now because we have another meeting before a ZBA meeting even happens. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-As far as I'm concerned, if you pick it, I can get that out to the ZBA and they can chew on it. MR. MAGOWAN-Right. The 12th is good for me. The 11th is not good, either. MR. TRAVER-The 12th works for me. MR. KREBS-It works for me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. MR. KREBS-I'm good for any of them. MR. HUNSINGER-That's a Wednesday. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a Wednesday. MR. TRAVER-It is the second Wednesday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 will say there is not an application in, but there is, you know, a plan showing the changes, and they've incorporated quite a bit. They're totally out of the setback for the wetlands, which is good. They do have one building that is high. It's three stories tall, but they're going to come in and give you a presentation on that on the 12th if that is in fact the date, but they certainly have heard the Committee and they heard the two Boards, and I think that we're moving in the right direction. MR. FORD-And they've responded. That's important. MR. SIPP-Are Town Board members going to be there? MR. OBORNE-Well, part of the PZIRC Committee will have two Town Board members. MR. HUNSINGER-So should we pass a resolution stipulating the 12th and then, depending upon what the ZBA would do, we could change that? MR. FORD-We could recommend that, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Something along the language of the preferred date is the 12th, with a possible date of the 6th to be considered. MR. FORD-Our preference would be the 12th MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready to move that, Mr. Krebs? RESOLUTION TO HOLD JOINT MEETING FOR QUEENSBURY PARTNERS MOTION TO HOLD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES RESOLUTION COMMITTEE, THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE QUEENSBURY PARTNERS PROJECT, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: We are choosing the 12th of December, but the 6th of December is also a possibility. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The other item we had for business this evening is the discussion and/or election of officers for the Planning Board for 2013. We haven't really had any discussion about this previous to this evening. Do members want to act on this, or do they want to maybe think about it and do it the next meeting? MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I'm happy to continue on as Chairman, and I'm flattered that the Board has nominated me again. MR. FORD-It's appreciated, and certainly your Chairmanship is well deserved. You're doing a great job. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a pleasure to work under you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We also have a nomination for Vice Chairman if anyone would like to nominate someone. MR. KREBS-I thought we could nominate me for that, and then we could have him be the secretary for a change. MR. TRAVER-I don't think I'd be very good as secretary. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think you'd be outstanding. MR. TRAVER-I don't mind filling in, but I'm not sure I'd want to do it. I serve as one as my day job. MR. OBORNE-Well, I will say secretary is an extremely powerful position on this Board. You get your name in the paper, as we discussed today, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, every month. MR. OBORNE-And on all the correspondence. However, I would say to the Board, and to whoever is the secretary, the secretary doesn't have to do all the resolutions, as you know, it's however you want to approach that. It is a figurehead position, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would add, I think doing it the way we did it this year expedited the process greatly, and I think it was easy to follow, by using your recommendations and then adding or subtracting from them, rather than trying to write it out longhand. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, obviously it comes down to the conditions, and we just need to be a little bit more, have a little bit more due diligence on that, on my end also and on Board member's ends because there have been some things that have fallen through the cracks. Not anything monumental, but, you know, the way I'm wired, I like to have it pretty much A, B, C. That's all I have to say. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you've corrected pretty quickly. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MR. OBORNE-1 don't have a problem correcting you, not at all. MR. FORD-Duly noted. MR. MAGOWAN-So we're at Vice Chairman. MOTION TO NOMINATE STEPHEN TRAVER FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FOR 2013, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, are you willing to continue on? MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you very much. It's a privilege. MR. HUNSINGER-I promise I will take some meetings off in 2013. MR. TRAVER-That's not necessary. MR. HUNSINGER-No, Steve's been a great Vice Chairman. I appreciate it. MR. MAGOWAN-He does handle the meetings quite well when you're not here. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Traver MR. HUNSINGER-And finally discussion and/or nomination for Secretary. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I think Mr. Krebs is doing an outstanding job. MR. TRAVER-Here, here. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you willing to continue? MR. KREBS-Sure. MOTION TO NOMINATE DONALD KREBS FOR SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: MR. TRAVER-We've just got to learn how to pronounce that, what's that word? MR. OBORN E-Archeological? MR. TRAVER-Thank you. MR. FORD-Paleontological. MR. OBORN E-Paleontological. MR. MAGOWAN-Maybe we could come up with an easier word, so if I have to help him out. MR. OBORNE-Old stuff. MR. KREBS-Old stuff. Okay. That's right. Old stuff from now on. MR. MAGOWAN-That's a tongue-twister, I'm sorry, if I had to cover for you, I'd have a problem with that one, too. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? MR. MAGOWAN-Second. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and a second. Call the vote, please. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 19