Loading...
1999-08-24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER ROBERT PALING MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MARK RYAN OWNER: HAROLD KIRKPATRICK ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APA LOCATION: ROCKHURST APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RELOCATE A SINGLE STORY SEASONAL COTTAGE AND ADD SECOND STORY TO COTTAGE WITH MORE BEDROOMS (TWO) TO SECOND FLOOR. ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PER SECTION 179-79. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BD. OF HEALTH VARIANCE: 7/19/99, AV 51-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-4, 16-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES, 0.17 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MARK RYAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-99, Mark Ryan, Meeting Date: August 24, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to move an existing structure and add two addition bedrooms. Site Plan review is required for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Staff Notes The applicant’s proposed location of the structure would be less non-conforming compared to its current location. The addition to the structure would also create a more conforming structure in square footage. The current home is less than the 800 square feet required. The existing home is 518 +/- square feet, with the addition 518 +/- square feet the total becomes 1036 +/- square feet. The applicant supplied drawings, a new drawing that includes both the septic and the house on it. The applicant has received a septic variance for the use of a holding tank on a seasonal dwelling. Recommendations Staff is concerned with the relocation of a structure that was built in 1950. Staff would recommend approving the application with the condition if the structure is not movable or is destroyed during relocation then the applicant shall notify the Zoning Administrator before continuation of project and abide by the conditions set forth by the Zoning Administrator in regards to the proposed project.” MR. MAC EWAN-What are the conditions set forth by the Zoning Administrator? MRS. MOORE-That it’s only in the case that it becomes destroyed during it. MR. MAC EWAN-What are those conditions, do you know? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-He has not established them yet? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone here from the applicant? MR. RYAN-Yes. My name is Mark Ryan. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us something about your project, Mr. Ryan? MR. RYAN-Currently, there’s a 518 square foot two bedroom cottage, approximately 10 feet from the shorefront, and we asked for an Area Variance to increase the size of that, and it was denied, and then we asked for an Area Variance to move it and increase the size of it, and that was okayed. We asked to upgrade the holding tanks to Code, and that was also okayed. We're not adding additional bedrooms. We're moving the downstairs bedrooms to upstairs. So it’ll stay as a two bedroom. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. RYAN-I can answer any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. PALING-I've just got an educational question, I guess, to start with. You have in your holding tank, you have an alarm that comes on at 50% of capacity, and shuts off when it gets up to full capacity. Why is that? MR. RYAN-If I understand it correctly, it’s 50% of capacity of the first tank. Is that correct? MR. RINGER-The second tank. MR. PALING-The alarm comes on when it reaches 50% of capacity, but goes off when it gets full. MR. RYAN-That’s not the whole, all three tanks. MR. PALING-I guess I don’t understand the system. Does anyone else understand that? MR. RINGER-Bob, it says that the alarm will sound when the second tank is half full, and then there’ll be a water shut off when the tank is full. So I took that to mean that the water shut off, so there can’t be anymore water put into the system. MR. RYAN-Right. MR. PALING-Why would the alarm shut off also? MR. MAC EWAN-I think the alarm is just a signal it’s time to pump it. MR. RINGER-Right, and then when it’s filled, then the water’s shut off so they can’t do anything anyway. MR. PALING-Well, the alarm comes on when it’s half full, stays on until it’s full, then shuts down. MR. RINGER-Right. So the water shuts down. The water’s shut off when it’s full, the way I read it. MR. MAC EWAN-During that period, when the alarm goes off at half full, until the time the tank does fill, it’s just kind of like an early warning system for you to let you know it’s time to pump the tank, but if you don’t pump it during that period, then the water shuts off, you can’t use the system anymore, until you do pump it. MR. RINGER-That’s the way I read it. MR. RYAN-Right and then we still have a third tank that’s empty at that point. MR. PALING-Yes, because you’ve got three tanks. All right. MR. VOLLARO-I've got some questions. Mr. Ryan, on the first drawing, you supplied us two drawings, one with the holding tank, and also that drawing has the new buildings positioned on it, but the first drawing that I see was dated March 8, 1999, by Van Dusen and Steves, and then I see some annotations on that drawing that talk about the APA on site visit, and then on 7/27 you have building re-location by Mark Ryan, and on 7/27/99, again, property line re-location by Mark Ryan, and then on the second drawing, there’s a note that Jarrett and Company put down. It says, new building location, and new property line locations are provided by Mark W. Ryan. Are you a licensed surveyor? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. RYAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-Then I don’t know, you know, just taking the VanDusen and Steves drawing and putting some lines on it, whether they’re right or wrong, it’s hard for me to determine, but that’s highly unorthodox, when you start taking somebody else’s drawing and submit it for documentation like this, and the lines haven’t been put on by a licensed surveyor. MR. RYAN-Well, at the last site plan review, when I submitted my drawings, you asked me to notate what positions and lines that I had marked on there in the block, and that’s what I did. MR. VOLLARO-Well, having contacted a licensed surveyor today, and asked him the question, because I was concerned about that myself, it’s not even legal for you, technically, it’s not legal, I understand, for you to make marks on a licensed surveyors drawing. MR. RYAN-He didn’t stamp these drawings. MR. VOLLARO-No, he did not. MR. RYAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And the second engineer that drew it makes the statement that he disqualifies himself from that line and from the setbacks, by saying the new building location and the new property line location provided was provided by Mark W. Ryan, and I think he puts that on it in order to protect himself, so that nobody thinks that he actually surveyed that line. MR. RYAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And that line shows where you’ve got building setbacks off that line and so on. So that line sort of establishes and positions the building. MR. RYAN-Well, it’s actually the other way around. The building establishes where that line will be. MR. VOLLARO-The building establishes where the line, so the line has, you haven’t bought the property yet, is that what you’re implying? MR. RYAN-No, that’s correct, and if we don’t get approval for it, we will not purchase the additional land. It won’t be necessary. MR. VOLLARO-So we don’t really know where the building is going to go, so when we approve or disapprove this plan tonight, we’re not sure that, and incidentally, the two plans don’t agree, in terms of how the building is positioned, with reference to that concrete retaining wall. The first plan shows it pivoted slightly to the east, and the other one shows it pivoted more to the west. So I have a little bit of a problem with that, and the fact that the annotations on this drawing are not being vouched for by a licensed surveyor, but you’re saying that that line is just a rough approximation? MR. RYAN-Well, the way the lines were determined on the first drawing, where my annotations are, were a 50 foot setback from the lake, the size of the building, and then 20 feet setback from the side lines, and that line will fall where that falls. MR. MAC EWAN-So basically your intention here is to purchase a custom size piece of parcel that meets the size of the building and setbacks? MR. RYAN-That’s correct, and that way we’re not asking for anything we’re not entitled to. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if that’s the case, then these drawings don’t represent exactly what’s going to happen. They are, again, a rough approximation of what you plan to do, but the drawings themselves don’t, in a sense, reflect exactly what you want to do. So, from my small spot on the Board, I would have a difficult time approving a set of drawings that do not reflect your final intent. MR. RYAN-Well, my final intent is to be 50 feet from the lake. The drawing shows it 50 feet from the lake. The intent of the building is the size of the building. The intent of the property line is to be 20 feet from the property line. I think that’s very clear on my drawing with my annotation of what I am representing here. I’m not misrepresenting anything. MR. VOLLARO-No. I didn’t say you were misrepresenting your own ideas. It’s just for you to take a drawing from a licensed land surveyor and to put your own lines on that drawing, I have a problem with that. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. RYAN-Well, I didn’t do it on a stamped drawing, and that’s very clear, and your Department has never asked for anything other than working from drawings like this. If I worked from a tax map and did a similar drawing, without any real markings on here, then I think I’d be in worse shape than I am, and of all the other drawings I've submitted, this is the first time somebody’s said, do not use a drawing that was created by a surveyor. Use a drawing that’s created from a tax map? I guess I need some guidance here. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe I need some guidance as well, Mark, on that subject. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I don’t think there’s any prohibition against an applicant using a survey map, so long as there’s no confusion about which part is done by a licensed professional and which part is not. In other words, I mean, you can use the tax map as a base. I don’t think there’s any problem with using a survey map as a base map, again, so long as there’s no confusion as which part is prepared by the licensed professional, and which part is not. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I happened to talk to a surveyor today, a licensed surveyor. MR. SCHACHNER-And he told you something about not using, altering and all that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, it’s true. No question about it. The reason for that is because when people use a survey map prepared by a licensed surveyor, or for that matter, plans prepared by a licensed professional engineer, they tend to do so in a manner that does not make clear which part is or is not prepared by the licensed professional. You can run afoul of some serious legal constraints if you do that. I haven’t looked at this particular plan. I don’t know to what extent that confusion exists. By way of example, Bob, I mean, people have used survey maps or engineering plans and have added or augmented them and specifically stated on them, this is done separate from, in addition to, whatever, with the permission of the licensed professional. With the permission of the licensed professional and if it’s clear that that confusion does not exist, you’re allowed to take a survey map or an engineering plan and use them as your base. You’re not supposed to do that without the permission of the licensed professional and without making clear what part is yours versus theirs. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you have the map in front of you, you take a look at S-1, which was prepared by Van Dusen and Steves, and you’ll notice in the description block, it talks, Number Two and Number Three, is the building relocation by Mark Ryan and the property relocation by Mark Ryan, and that’s what it says. It doesn’t allude to anything other than the fact that Mark Ryan made these property lines. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’ll actually point your attention elsewhere. If you look in the legend on the left side of Sheet S-1, between the Van Dusen and Steves corporate label, and the title, which is map of a survey made for Mark Ryan, you see the typical New York State Licensed Professional disclaimer, and the first item says, and I believe I’m quoting it, it’s fairly small, but I think I can see it, unauthorized addition or alteration to a survey map bearing a licensed land surveyor’s seal is a violation of Section something or other, something or other of the New York State Education Law. That’s the legal provision I was referring to, and I direct the attention of the Board to the word “unauthorized”. As long as the alteration or addition is authorized by the licensed professional, there’s no violation. MR. MAC EWAN-The important thing I think we need to realize here is this particular drawing hasn’t been stamped. MR. VOLLARO-That’s right, it has not. There isn’t a stamp on here. MR. SCHACHNER-Nor a seal, I don’t believe. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Nor a seal. MR. MAC EWAN-And I can understand, now, where Mr. Ryan’s coming from. When I looked at this earlier today, I was kind of confused about it, too, as to why would one want to, for all practical purposes, alter a drawing that has been prepared by a surveyor, but basically this is, I don’t know if I want to say comes with a lot of clout to it, because it doesn’t have his seal or a stamp on it. So, as far as altering an official sealed drawing, I don’t think this is the case here. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. SCHACHNER-Nor could this be submitted to, for example, a County Clerk’s Office for filing or anything like that. I mean, for what it’s worth, I just eyeballed this for the first time, and I think I can tell which things have been handwritten versus being put on by Van Dusen and Steves. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Are you comfortable with that for the time being? MR. VOLLARO-For the time being, I’ll sit on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-If we approve this, and they don’t get the additional land, Laura, how would we know, because they haven’t got the land yet. He’s penciled it in here, and if they don’t get that land, how would we? MR. RYAN-In the past, on all the other variances, I always had to provide something of proof, a condition, right. MRS. MOORE-You can condition it, but my understanding is that his contract with Kirkpatrick indicates that for him to build the structure that he needs to obtain approval from this Board before he’s able to purchase it anyway. So there’s somewhere in their contract. MR. RYAN-Right. My contract with them has many contingencies, and this is one of those. MR. VOLLARO-But how do we know what we’re approving? I still have a problem approving a rough approximation of what’s going to take place. The property hasn’t been bought yet, and that line is, again, the new property line is a rough approximation of where the real line may be. MRS. LA BOMBARD-On the stamped plan, I’m under the impression that that new property line is exactly where it’s supposed to be. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RYAN-No, that was to show the placement of the tanks, in relationship to the building. That was asked for by the engineering department. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mark, bear with me for a second here. I know I’m dragging this out, but if you go to the second drawing, of Jarrett and Martin. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The stamped drawing, I mean the engineer’s stamped drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Now if you look up at the top of the drawing where it says, where the building is positioned, and then there’s a disclaimer on that drawing that says the new building location and new property line provided by Mark W. Ryan. So it’s really a translation of drawing number one to drawing number two. It looks like Jarrett and Martin doesn’t stand behind that line, either. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, in effect, Jarrett Martin is not a surveying firm. It’s an engineering firm. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. RYAN-And the request for this drawing was to show the location of the tanks, in relationship to the building, and the question was, is it 10 feet or not. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Would it be possible to get an official stamped drawing from Van Dusen and Steves, to show exactly what we’re looking for here? MR. RYAN-He wouldn’t know what to put on the drawing because Mr. Ryan doesn’t have an agreement with Dr. Kirkpatrick yet, and until he does, he can’t draw boundary lines, it sounds like. Is that correct? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Dr. Kirkpatrick, the way I’m looking at it is that, as long as the setbacks are met, and the property line is drawn in as to where it’s supposed to go to meet these setbacks, then Dr. Kirkpatrick will feel that everything is okay and in compliance, and then he’ll okay the deal. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I’m getting back to the point that we don’t, I don’t, not we, but I don’t know what I’m going to be approving or disapproving, by the drawings that are in front of me. I have, unless there’s a way to resolve this. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it a fair statement to say that your intent, with this drawing that you put the new property line dimensions on, if you were to get approval for this project tonight, you would take this to Dr. Kirkpatrick and say, that’s the size chunk of land I need to those dimensions. Lets survey it out and let me buy the parcel. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you follow that now? MR. VOLLARO-I know what the intent is. Except that that will never come before this Board again (lost words) relocation of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-But, if we were to approve this, then we would just have to delineate in our motion that we’re referencing this drawing, S-1, to the penciled in dimension lines for the parcel that’s indicated on the map. That way it would tie it down, so he couldn’t go and buy anything less, or anything more. It would have to be bought and laid out in accordance with these dimensions that are on here, and so whoever the surveyor would be that would go out and delineate those property lines would follow exactly what this drawing shows. MR. VOLLARO-He’d set the pins and the pegs to do that, yes MR. MAC EWAN-Exactly. I mean, he couldn’t do less than that, because if he did less than that, he would have to come back to the ZBA and ask for another variance, and I don’t think he wants to go down that road. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, he’s got to comply with the setbacks. MR. MAC EWAN-Unless you like going to the ZBA. MR. RINGER-I could be comfortable with that, if we put it in the motion, as Craig said. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question now, concerning the building that you’re moving. Do you have Plan B, if anything breaks or does not go as planned in the movement of that building? MR. RYAN-Yes. Well, we have many plans. The building was lifted once with a backhoe, just recently, to see how it was going to hold up, and it was fine. It was moved once before to get to this position, because it used to sit where the road was. So it’s been moved. We understand if there is damage to the building when it’s moved, to contact the Community Development office immediately for their advice. The contractors and the designers have looked at the building a couple of different times to try to formulate how they’re going to move it. Apparently one fell apart in Takundewide. So I guess that’s why everybody’s asking. We're going to repair and replace what’s necessary. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’re going to put it on a brand new foundation? MR. RYAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Footers or a real cellar? MR. RYAN-A foundation with a crawl space, but not piers and not blocks, nothing like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’re going to build this beautiful home around that structure. MR. RYAN-Yes, that’s the same dimensions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, could you give us an idea of an alternative plan if that building goes, falls apart? MR. RYAN-Falls apart, you mean where it could not be repaired or replaced? Replace the building with the submitted drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-With the submitted drawings. MR. RYAN-Right. The submitted drawings, there’s a two story 1,036 square foot building. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. VOLLARO-And you’re going to create that new building out of this existing structure? That’s your plan? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Because I was up there today, and I looked underneath that structure pretty carefully, and taking a look, and I’m not a structural guy. So I’m just trying to understand what’s happening up there, and taking a look at the floor joists, they’re two by tens, it looks like, underneath, but some of them look like they’ve been damaged, to me. MR. RYAN-Some have been damaged and have been sistered with other two by tens. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I saw the sistering up there when I looked underneath it, but I just don’t know how that’s going to, I mean, if your real intent is to build the building that you’ve given us the pictures of, trying to make this out of what I saw today, and I looked at that building pretty carefully. I walked all around and looked underneath, it’s going to be quite a feat. I can tell you that. That’s just my opinion. MR. RYAN-Well, most of that building is, the second story and all the roof area is all brand new. The foundation is going to be new. Right now it’s only on blocks. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. MR. MAC EWAN-How old is that building? MR. RYAN-Well, we’re not sure exactly. We know it was moved at one time. It used to be an ice cream stand, and it was sitting on Rockhurst Road. The road used to go through where the building exists now, and somewhere along the line, the Town and everybody swapped. The road moved to where Rockhurst Road is now, and the building moved over there. When Gates’ Landing, which is down where the deed line is, that’s where the steamships came in, they used to serve ice cream from it way back when. So I really don’t have the exact history. The deeds aren’t very clear about mentioning where the building is and so on. We thought it was built, rebuilt or moved over there in the 50’s. MR. PALING-Does the building that’s there now measure 28 by 18? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. I measured it this morning. I didn’t think it did, either, but it hits it on the nose. I used my tape this morning. MR. RYAN-Yes. The overhangs are actually quite large, since it was an ice cream stand. So they’re even further out than 28 by 18. MR. PALING-To make that building out of that, good luck. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m not an architect, and I’m not an engineer, but I do know that from building three homes of my own and renovating one, that the wall structure on the building that’s there, to put this kind of glass in, especially the second and third story glass on top of that bottom glass, with the walls that you have there, it seems to me like all you’re basically going to end up moving is the footprint, basically, of the building. I mean, it’s hard for me to see, conceptually, that you’re going to be able to put in this kind of glass, without reinforcing it, and by reinforcing it, you’ve basically just got to take apart what’s there and put in new stuff. MR. RYAN-Well, when they cut open the areas for the windows, yes, they are taking out quite a bit and putting in more. You always do structural around a window. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re going to have to put new floor joists over your new foundation, too. I don’t think you want to set a building like that on those floor joists. MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t imagine that this structure even meets Code right now. I mean, if you’re suggesting that that thing was built around the time of steamships on Lake George, that would put it right around the turn of the century. MR. RYAN-When it was moved and converted from the ice cream stand to, I guess the use of it now as a summer cottage, and a lot of it was changed. You can see within the walls where the lapping on the outside was over an old lapping. So the walls are quite fat. They go rough cut lumber, which is bigger than dimensional lumber today. Then an outside sheeting of some sort, and then the clapboard siding that you see now. So, yes, it is, it has changed over the years. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-But even then, you said that you thought it was moved in the early 50’s, and if that was the case, it still isn’t the Code that we use today. MR. RYAN-That’s correct, and it would have to be brought up to Code. MR. MAC EWAN-I've got a question for Staff. I need to know some what if’s. What if they pick this thing up and it falls into a billion pieces? What happens? MRS. MOORE-That’s why I've asked him to come talk to the Zoning Administrator. I don’t know what happens, other than he should have a discussion with Chris Round, and probably Dave Hatin. MR. MAC EWAN-What if they move this thing and start putting it on its new slab and start doing the renovations and find out this existing structure doesn’t even comply with current Codes and at that point they would have to tear it down and start all over again. MRS. MOORE-That’s a Dave Hatin question. MR. VOLLARO-Laura, what would have been the situation, had Mr. Ryan come in and said, I’m going to destroy this building, and I’m going to build a new building like that one? What would the reaction of Staff, what would Staff’s reaction be to that? MRS. MOORE-The first thing, he has to be able to put in a septic system. That was the first issue that came up when we discussed the entire scenario, and so when you realized that the place, I’m assuming that the holding tank came in to play because you couldn’t put a conventional septic system on there. So when you’re dealing with a holding tank, my understanding is that you can’t put that on new year round construction. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, and he would be building, essentially, a nonconforming building as well, a really new nonconforming building. MRS. MOORE-So his options were left to the expansion of a nonconforming structure. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but I have reflections of a prior incident in my head. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I would feel a whole heck of a lot more comfortable about this application if we could have an opportunity for you to sit down with the Zoning Administrator and the senior Building Inspector and kind of map out what a time line would be, or what a chronological history would be if certain events took place, and I’d like to know that, before I would lend my vote of approval to this project. I just need to know. What would happen if they went to pick it up and move it and the whole thing fell apart? MR. PALING-Well, isn’t there a straightforward answer to that, in that what he’s after now is a modification, and if the building falls apart, it ceases to be a modification and now you’ve got to build a new structure. Is that not? MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty clear. MR. PALING-Okay. So if he picks the building up and it falls apart, he’s got a problem. He’s got to start from Day One, but if he can successfully move this building and build around it, the way he’s saying, then he’s okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think the question is, the operative word there is “successfully” moved. I mean, I can move a whole pile of stuff from one place to another. MR. PALING-That’s Mr. Ryan’s risk, not ours. MR. VOLLARO-It depends. If he says, look, I've moved it successfully, but the building looks like sixes and sevens, and I’m going to, out of that mess, I’m going to create this magnificent structure. MR. RYAN-But what happened in Takudewide when that building came apart when they moved it? What was the result with Chris Round? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know the answer to that. I’d have to leave that to Staff. I don’t know the answer to that. MR. RYAN-I mean, we would have discussed this with Chris way ahead of time if that was something you guys wanted us to do. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Sometimes these things don’t become aware to us until we actually get in and start reviewing the applications and start to ask questions. MR. RYAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that was the first thing on our mind when we went over there. When we took our trip a couple of weeks ago. MR. MAC EWAN-On site visit, yes. MR. PALING-And could we ask, as part of the approval, that the building be inspected after it has been moved, to deem whether it’s still usable or not? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re caught between a rock and a hard place. What if it’s not? He’s already gone through the whole procedure of purchasing the land, and then he can’t do anything. MR. MAC EWAN-I think, in all fairness to Mr. Ryan, I’d like to have that question answered first. I mean, I wouldn’t want to see the guy go through the expense of purchasing the property, surveying it. MR. PALING-I’d leave that up to him. If he wants to take the chance, and the building is wrecked when he does it, then he’s got a real problem. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems to me, if we can get an answer up front, instead of having him go through that exercise and gambling. It’s an awful crapshoot. MR. PALING-I’ll leave it up to Mr. Ryan. If he wants to take the chance, then do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Has this been discussed at all with the Zoning Administrator? MRS. MOORE-I talked with him, and he agreed with my comments under Recommendations, where if something occurs with the structure, that the applicant’s to contact him. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where I’m hung up, is what would his determination be? I’d like to understand that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I don’t know what that is. MR. RINGER-He might not know what that is, either, depending on the extent, how reusable that building would be if something did happen. So I don’t know if Chris could be that helpful to us. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it would seem to me that it would be good planning to know up front than wait until the day that it potentially could fall down and be in ruins, then have to make a command decision. MR. RINGER-That’s why he gets the big bucks. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s poll the Board. What do you feel, Robert? MR. PALING-Well, I’d just be restating what I just said. I think we ought to set it up so that the building, after it’s moved, is inspected by our Building Inspector, and if it’s deemed unusable, then that circumstance has got to be met. If it’s deemed usable for reconstruction, then it can be modified as requested and the project can continue. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that our purpose here is to protect and give good advice to the applicant, too, and I think like you said originally, this is a gamble, and he should be aware of that, and I know Mr. Ryan is, but I can’t vote on anything right now until I have those questions answered, what would happen if it doesn’t move in one piece. MR. MAC EWAN-I feel the same way. I think we should get some clarification from the Zoning Administrator and the senior Building Inspector as to what if would happen, should, in the process of moving that building, it all collapse. I’d like to know what the next options are available to Mr. Ryan. I’d hate like heck to see him spend all this money to go ahead and start pursuing this thing and end up being stonewalled down the line. So I’d like to know those answers first. Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I echo the same. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I kind of go along with Mr. Paling, that we have the building inspected after it’s been moved, and then the Zoning Administrator can determine, from listening to Mr. Ryan, I assume that that is satisfactory with him, too. He’s willing to take that gamble. MR. PALING-Well, lets ask Mr. Ryan which way he’d like to go. MR. RYAN-I would like to move the structure now. MR. PALING-And then have it inspected before you keep building on it. MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And I think with the three of us you’re not going to get our support on it. I would rather see you get together with the Zoning Administrator and the Building Inspector before you even venture into this. It would be an awful waste of your money and efforts and frustration to find out that if it was moved and it fell apart, and then you ended up coming up against some sort of stone wall that you couldn’t move the thing or rebuild the thing, or redo the footprint or anything like that, I’d hate to have to see you waste that much time, effort and resources, and find out that there isn’t an alternative for you, and that’s what I want to be pretty sure of that there is an alternative for you. MR. RYAN-And that would be with? MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m going to suggest here is that Laura set this meeting up at a time convenient for you, with the Zoning Administrator, the senior Building Inspector and myself. MR. RYAN-Will I receive a document outlining his information, or his approval to go back to the Board for your review? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. What I’m going to be looking for is a written determination from him, and if you attempt to move your building, and during the process of relocation, it just becomes a pile of rubble, what happens. I mean, are you now not allowed to replace the building on a footprint? Are you back at square one and have to replace it where it’s existing spot is now? I think that’s reasonable to want to know that. It’s for your benefit. I mean, if it’s becoming an issue of time for you to get things through the process and wanting to develop, I’m certain that the Board is more than willing to want to, we could set up a special meeting for you, early in the month or whatever. MR. RYAN-No. We start in September. MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, sometimes things do move slowly and I just, I think most of the Board members feel that we’re looking out for your protection as well. MR. RYAN-Is there anything else we should do prior to the next meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think both the members on the ends feel that they have enough information to move ahead, but the three of us in the middle feel compelled that we need to have this information, and I don’t think there’s anything lacking in your drawings and your site plan drawings and your plot plans and stuff like that. It’s just what happens if. MR. RYAN-Right. Somebody asked me once about the APA, but I never answered. The AP A does it? MR. MAC EWAN-No issue with the APA on this? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. RYAN-No. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. RYAN-All right. Thank you. MR. RINGER-We have a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we do have a public hearing. I’ll open it and I’ll leave it open. If anybody wants to comment on this application, you’re more than welcome to come up, but we will leave this 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) open until the next time we meet, and it will be advertised again, legal advertisement in the paper. Won’t there be? MR. SCHACHNER-Part of the purpose of leaving the public hearing open would be to avoid the need to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I misspoke then. My apologies. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 30-99 MARK RYAN, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Pending a Zoning Administrator’s written opinion, ad that that written determination also include a meeting with the senior Building Inspector. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll be in touch, and as soon as we can set this up at the earliest convenience, we’ll get it done. Laura will be in touch with you, probably. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1999 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HELEN BARBER/CHARLES BARBER OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-10/SR-1A LOCATION: 232 FULLER ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS FINAL STAGE APPROVAL FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 273 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 75-1999 TAX MAP NO. 123-1-15.31 LOT SIZE: 27.3 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CHARLES BARBER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing back on February 16, 1999 was closed. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1999, Helen Barber/Charles Barber, Meeting Date: August 24, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision for final stage review. The applicant had received preliminary stage approval in February of 1999. The applicant was requested to provide a drawing with ten foot USGS contours for the entire parcel for Final Stage review. Staff Notes The applicant has supplied an updated drawing with the USGS contours. The Adirondack Park Agency has granted the applicant a permit to subdivide the property. The applicant was also granted an area variance to create a subdivision with lots having less than the required average lot width. The applicant has complied with the requirements for final subdivision review. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the subdivision.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BARBER-Good evening. Charles Barber. MR. MAC EWAN-Everything seems to be in order here. Any comments that you wanted to make to the application? MR. BARBER-No. If there’s any questions on it, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. RINGER-That’s one long driveway. I happened to be up next door to that property the other day. I went to a garage sale next door and went into that driveway, and it seemed like a road instead of a driveway, and I’m looking at the map today, and, boy, that’s a long driveway. No questions, though. I’m just rambling. Sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all right. No problem. Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1999 HELEN BARBER/CHARLES BARBER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the drawing presented, with the latest revision being July 24, 1999. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. BARBER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 40-99 TYPE II JOHN AND KATHY TARRANT OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: 338 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION AND ADDITION (108 +/- SQUARE FEET) TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/11/99 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-2 LOT SIZE: 21,952 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-99, John and Kathy Tarrant, Meeting Date: August 24, 1999 “Description of Proposed Project The applicant proposes to construct a 108 +/- square foot second story addition. The project requires site plan review and approval for expansion of a non- conforming structure. The project is located in the Waterfront Zone in a critical environmental area. Staff Notes The applicant’s agent met with Staff prior to submission. Staff requested the plans include specific setback information to demonstrate a variance is not needed. The plans submitted meet the zoning code requirements for expansion of a non-conforming structure in the waterfront zone. The new construction does not extend beyond the existing structure. There does not appear to be any neighborhood or environmental impacts due to the new construction. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-I have, for the County, they have No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. DEAN-Bill Dean, agent for the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about the project? MR. DEAN-Major renovations with an addition. I guess the only comment, unless I filled out the application wrong and they caught a mistake, is that it is a 108 square foot addition to the first floor and 140 to the second floor. MR. VOLLARO-It should be 248 as opposed to 108? Is that the? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. DEAN-Well, they list the 108 as the second story. It’s actually the other way around. MR. VOLLARO-The total square footage is 248? MR. DEAN-Yes, it is. On the second page here I have listed, Warren County, they have that as 248 square feet, too. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that. MR. DEAN-Okay. It’s just listed here wrong as far as, 108 is on the first floor. That’s all. Unless it was my mistake on the application, but I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-You put 248. You’re all right. You did your homework. Okay. Tell us a little bit about the project. MR. DEAN-Renovation/addition to an existing structure, keeping in context or not changing the style of the house. If anything, they’re accenting it. Following all, I mean, it’s got detailed rafters. They’re doing the same thing on all the additions. So no change from an old Victorian to a contemporary or anything to make it stand out in the neighborhood. Just everything to complement it the way it is. I don’t know anything else you would need to know. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MRS. LA BOMBARD-It looks nice. MR. VOLLARO-I just had a question of Staff. It says, Staff requested the plans include specific setback information to demonstrate a variance is not needed. They have setback information on the drawing. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And you’re satisfied with that? I saw nothing there that, it’s non-conforming but it’s pre-existing. So it doesn’t meet some of the setback requirements, I don’t think. MRS. MOORE-The project does not require a variance. That was my concern, and this way, by having all that information spelled out on the plot plan, to demonstrate that it does not need a variance. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing I had was you supplied an addendum to the plot plan, and said the second floor addition will change the setback from 2415 to 2115, and I couldn’t find it in this drawing. I mean, the 2415 is missing. The second floor addition will change the setback from 2415 to 2115. The setback changes like three feet. MR. MAC EWAN-The setbacks are measured from the foundation, not from the second floor, right? MRS. MOORE-No. They’re measured from the new construction. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s one dimension, but I can’t find the 2415 on. Do you know what drawing I’m looking at? MR. DEAN-Yes. That was an addendum I added because of Laura’s concerns. The only reason she felt it needed to be added because on the prints it does not spell out that dimension, because the draftsman did not, well, he’s not privy to this type of information. MR. VOLLARO-The 2415 wasn’t spelled out, but it’s not spelled out on Page Seven of Ten of this drawing either. MR. DEAN-It’s relevant to the fact that the second story addition, by being enlarged that much, that 140 square feet that we’re doing. MR. VOLLARO-You’re getting three extra feet out. MR. DEAN-Is going that distance. That’s the established distance on the addition on the second floor. That is the dimension that I was referring to. MR. VOLLARO-If you’re trying to look at this piece of paper and then determine where the other three feet are from the drawing, it’s almost impossible to do. It’s not dimensioned. That 24.15 is not 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) shown. So it’s hard for, when you look at the drawing, it’s hard to determine. I can’t determine it from this. MR. DEAN-Do you understand it, or do you need further explanation? MR. VOLLARO-No, I understand where you’re coming from. You could have modified this drawing, I suppose, to show where the other three foot extension is, because right now, you’re showing it as 21.15, and that’s the true dimension to the new building. MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Before that, it was 24.15. Is that correct? The setback was. This is moved out a little bit more so that the setback is three feet less. MR. DEAN-On the second floor, yes, and the plans do have a before and after drawing of the second floor, so you can see the size difference on that. Yes, I could have been a little more specific, I guess is what you’re saying. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Do New York State Erosion Control Measures apply to this project? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They need to be delineated on your plot plan, New York State Erosion Control Measures. MR. DEAN-As far as silt fence and hay bales, barriers? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. DEAN-Well, I guess in my mind that’s a given, but I’m used to working around the lake. That hadn’t been raised as a concern up to this point. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just a formality, they’re usually shown on the plot plans, a notation saying that you’ll do that. I just want to make that part of the record. Any other questions from Board members? I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment to this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA, Type II. Does anyone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-99 JOHN AND KATHY TARRANT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with drawings dated Site Plan 121898 of 10 pages, and that all work will conform to New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. DEAN-Okay. Thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED EDWARD AND BEVERLY KERR OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-10 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) LOCATION: HARRIS STREET AND SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 1.07 +/- ACRE PARCEL. TAX MAP NO. 117-1-7 LOT SIZE: 1.07 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS EDWARD KERR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-1999, Edward & Beverly Kerr, Meeting Date: August 24, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision in the Single Family Residential 10,000 square feet zone. The proposed lot sizes are 21,448 square feet; 12,999 square feet; 12, 196 square feet. Staff Notes The plans submitted meet the requirements for preliminary and final subdivision review. The applicant’s drawing indicates the location of house, septic, and driveway. Recommendations Staff recommends preliminary and final stage approval.” MRS. MOORE-And I do have Certified Mail receipts. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Good evening. MR. KERR-Hello. Edward Kerr. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed subdivision, Mr. Kerr? MR. KERR-We propose to take this 1.07 acre parcel, which part of it has, the front portion of the property has a two family home, existing home, and subdivide it into one lot which would be 21,448 square feet, with the existing house, and the remaining portion would be divided into two lots, one lot being 12,196 feet, and the other one 12,999 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems simple enough and straightforward. Anything else that you wanted to add to it? MR. KERR-I think that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. PALING-The .26 acres shown to the left of the .28, is that part of the total lot, or what? MR. KERR-No, that’s a separate deeded lot. MR. PALING-That’s totally separate. Just give me a rough idea where the septic tank for the existing house is located. MR. KERR-It is to the left of the house toward the front. See where the word “frame” is on the house, inside the house? It would be directly to the left of that. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all the questions I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment to this application? Come right up, please, and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEVIN IRELAND MR. IRELAND-My name is Kevin Ireland. I live on Harris Street, and I’m all for this project. The only thing I ask Mr. Kerr is that you trim back the trees a little bit on the Sherman Avenue side. So that as you leave Harris Street onto Sherman, you can see the traffic coming. Other than that, you’ve got my blessing. MR. KERR-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: EDWARD & BEVERLY KERR, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion for Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1999 EDWARD & BEVERLY KERR, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As written. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-And we need a motion for Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1999 EDWARD & BEVERLY KERR, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-With just one little stipulation, that the trees be trimmed so that you can see the traffic when you’re pulling out around the corner there by Harris Avenue, like your neighbor suggested. MRS. MOORE-Before you go on, I’m sorry. That’s an enforcement issue. Once you put it in your resolution, that’s an enforcement condition. Not that we can’t enforce that, but, you know, you’re going into how far you want to trim the trees and things like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see. Well, I think, then, that Mr. Kerr here will uphold his agreement with the neighbor, and we will take it out of the motion. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. SITE PLAN NO. 42-99 TYPE: UNLISTED BOB BECKER/MACHNICK BUILDERS OWNER: EDWIN KING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE AND HIGHLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 8,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BUILDING FOR A BEVERAGE CENTER (6,400 SQ. FT.) AND RETAIL STORE (2,400 SQ. FT.). BEVERAGE CENTER IS A RETAIL BUSINESS IN THE PC ZONE, AND HC ZONES ALLOW ALL PERMITTED USES IN PC ZONES. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 8/9/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/11/99 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.31 LOT SIZE: 1.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 ROBERT BECKER, PRESENT; BILL PETROSINO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-99, Bob Becker/Machnick Builders, Meeting Date: August 24, 1999 “Description of Project Applicant proposes construction of a Beverage Center with an additional retail space. This is an allowed use in the Highway Commercial Zone with site plan review and approval. Staff Notes: The applicant met with staff prior to submission to review site layout, traffic generation, landscaping, and type of business. The application submitted complies with site plan review requirements. Rist Frost comments include a concern about the shared access with McDonald’s. It appears there may be an internal traffic conflict with on site car stacking and entrance access. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the site plan.” MRS. MOORE-The County has “Approve with Conditions that McDonald’s curb cut on Dix Avenue be the only means of ingress and egress for this proposed project, with no ingress or egress on Highland Avenue, and that there may be internalized roadways utilized in cooperation with their neighbors.” And then I have an A/GFTC letter that’s dated August 20, 1999. “Per your request, A/GFTC has reviewed the materials that you sent regarding the proposed beverage center development at the corner of Highland and Dix Avenue. Our comments are as follows: 1. Highland Ave. Access – Highland is part of NYS Rte 32 and therefore should require NYSDOT review for access to the State highway. Dix Ave. Access – The proposed shared driveway access with the neighboring McDonald’s is a positive feature in terms of impact to traffic flows on CR 42. However, for internal site circulation, I would suggest that the following be considered in the developer’s traffic study (if they haven’t already): a. The proposed “Y” shape of the driveway does not permit easy travel between the two properties. A “T” shaped approach might address this and help facilitate better internal traffic control. b. Will any type of control device such as a yield or stop sign be employed for vehicles entering the driveway to exit? Without controls there are a number of potential points of conflict that could pose problems when multiple vehicles attempt enter and exit at the same time. 3. Other – A short pedestrian walkway between McDonald’s and the new retail structure could help reduce the number of vehicle trips between the two properties and improve safety. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Let me know if you have any questions.” And then I have Rist-Frost comments. These are dated August 11, 1999 “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the documents submitted along with the above referenced site plan and have the following comments: 1. The proposed Stormwater Management Plan utilized the 25-year storm even instead of the 50-year storm event, which the Town prefers for storage/infiltration devices. 2. The site plan did not include any erosion or sediment control details. As a minimum the plan should have the following note indicating that all work will conform to the NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 3. Water connection will be subject to the approval of the Town of Queensbury Water Department. 4. New curb cut at Highland Avenue will be subject to the approval of NYS DOT. 5. Internal traffic at shared entrance should be studied further. It does not appear that there 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) is adequate stacking room, which could result in possible conflicts at peak usage.” That’s all the comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. BECKER-My name is Robert Becker. I’m administrator for Brennan Design Associates. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about this project? MR. BECKER-This project is a 6,000 square foot beverage center, designed to be at the intersection of Dix Avenue and Highland Avenue in the Town of Queensbury, next to the McDonald’s. If I may, could I approach the drawing? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, take the microphone with you. MR. BECKER-The project is at the intersection of Highland and Dix Avenue, and it encompasses a 6,000 square foot beverage center, of which the owner, Bill Petrosino, is planning to build now, and a proposed retail center, which is a future unleased parcel at this time. In evaluating this project, the parking and buildings take up approximately 48%, and we have 51% green area around the buildings. In earlier planning discussions, prior to coming here, we discussed parking in relationship to Bill’s Beverage Center, and we decided on a parking area, one space every 200 square feet for a total of 30 spaces that that occupancy, would be a fair parking ratio, perhaps a little bit more than he would need, from passed experience as in other stores that he has. For the proposed retail, we used a higher density of 100 square feet per space, and we have a total of 24 spaces, using the worst case scenario, in this instance here, should the retail be a higher intensity that would need that type of parking. If, for example, the lease does, the perspective tenant or it is leased for something that requires less density, I’m sure the owner would gladly come back to the Board and look for less parking and more green area in that scenario. I think that our feel is that too much parking is as bad as not enough. We met with the Queensbury Beautification Committee. They had several recommendations on our landscaping. All of which we’ve included on the drawings. They wanted us to enlarge the dumpster area. They felt it was too small from their experience, that the dumpster areas have been a problem, that they’ve been experiencing problems with people who have underestimated their size, and so it’s enclosed and quite a bit larger than initially anticipated. Additionally, an earth berm was added along Dix Avenue, the length of the parking, and there’s a three foot high earth berm at the intersection of both roads, for giving the essentially current flat topography of the site some interest, because it is virtually almost dead level at this point. Greenery and screening planting, trees and shrubs were planted behind the building to screen the building, and there were several large trees planted around the parking area, along with low-lying shrubs. All this was recommended by the Beautification Committee, and was all implemented on those other drawings. Part of the recommendations that were read with Rist-Frost was a stormwater management plan, and we had that redesigned by Northeast Land Surveying and Engineering, and they recalculated the storm calculations. We had submitted them to the Planning Board. I have extra copies here. The redesign didn’t necessitate any additional drainage issues. They felt that because of the veracity of the soil in that area, that the current structures as designed were adequate to handle the 50-year storm design criteria as pointed out by Rist-Frost. To briefly touch on the storm issues, all the post design storm drainage will be contained on the site, and that was a consideration that we had to address, also, with the Department of Transportation. They wanted to make sure that any post design additional stormwater that we created on the site and it indeed will be, and in notes on the stormwater report and on the drawings to that effect. Essentially, we’re putting catch basins and large drywells at four different locations on the site, and everything drains to those locations. So that we feel that we won’t be impacting anything on these two roads here. The sewage disposal will be by means of a septic system at the rear of the building. Water will be supplied from a six inch main from Dix Avenue, and we’ve noted on the drawings that we will need approval from the Town of Queensbury Water Department to make hook ups and everything as they would approve. We're not sure, the buildings aren’t in design at this point, internally, nor is the proposed retail established yet. So the size and the needs of the water service haven’t been determined yet. So we’ll address that issue once working drawings are in process. The site plan, I’m referring to the Rist- Frost letter that had five items of note on it. The site plan initially did not include a sediment control for construction purposes, and a standard State of New York requirements, we have noted that on the drawing. We have put our standard details here for wind erosion while under excavation and for water erosion, of which shouldn’t be a real problem. Again, a very flat site so that water shouldn’t be a problem. We do have the standard details, and we do require compliance with the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. The third item I've addressed. That’s the water from the Town of Queensbury. Clearly, we need approval for that, and the issue of the curb cut on Highland Avenue and New York State DOT approval, that issue appears here, and it also appears on the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council letter, which we received today. We received conceptual approval from the DOT. Regretfully, we don’t have final approvals as we stand here tonight. I do have a letter from the Washington County resident engineer, approving the location. I have that with me tonight, the location of the curb cut, the width of the curb cut and his 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) approval of that location is subject to the design criteria for finishing the design. There are two things that he wanted on the drawing, and is consistent with other comments also, and that was the comment on the stormwater, as I mentioned earlier, and the other comment was he didn’t want any, and he wanted a note on the drawing to that effect, and it is there now, any obstructions to the visual ability at this intersection, being a very important intersection, and potentially dangerous if it was blocked in any way with landscaping, structures, signs or that nature. Also, we had to assure the Department of Transportation that we wouldn’t block any existing signs of theirs, speed limit signs, curve signs, intersection signs, and the obvious. We have to be very careful this intersection here. He reviewed the fact that we have a three-foot earth berm, and he felt that this was okay and not a problem. He is concerned about this sign. As the sign is detailed now, it’s my understanding is meets current setback criteria, but may be an issue, depending on the size and type of sign. It’s not our intention to receive approval for this sign. This would be for another submission and for a sign permit and we have no idea what that sign configuration will be, size or anything like that at this time, but we’d certainly have to consider the DOT recommendations on this drawing in doing so. Item Five on Rist-Frost Associates letter addresses the internal traffic at the shared entrance with the McDonald’s, and I believe what they’re discussing is this piece of exit onto this shared exit and ingress for McDonald’s. There’s cross easements covering both these issues. So they will have permission to use this, and I believe what they’re concerned about is the configuration here, and allowing of stacking for cars going on to this access, and what they mean by that is if it’s crowded coming in or out of the McDonald’s, possibly cars could back up into this parking lot, and we’ve allowed for at least two full car lengths before we would interfere with any of these parking areas here. We don’t feel that there’s a real solid issue here, but are willing to discuss anything with Rist- Frost or the Board that feel otherwise. If it’s felt that more stacking is needed internally on this site, we could perhaps relocate and move one or two parking spaces from this corner. In fact, I would appeal to the Board that if we did do that, that we do that to reduce the parking, because we feel that the parking for 30 spaces for the Beverage Center is, you know, he’d be delighted if he could fill 30 spaces for that Beverage Center. It’s a lot of parking, and coupled with the fact we’re using one space per every hundred square feet on the retail, that this would be a fair and equitable way to create more stacking here is perhaps eliminate two to four spaces and make a green area and make an island there, but that’s something, we haven’t discussed it with Rist-Frost at this point yet or anyone, but that would be a viable solution. MR. PALING-What about the “Y” versus “T” configuration? Do you address that? MR. BECKER-Yes. That was addressed by the Transportation Council, and there’s two issues with that, that we feel, and we just received this today, but our feeling at this particular point, and we haven’t had any dialogue with anyone on this, this short piece of road going to the common and shared entrance, it has a slight curve to it, and so it doesn’t allow someone to go freely and straight across into the McDonald’s. Now there’s two schools of thought on that. If you do create a “T” intersection, to do that, okay, there’s a possibility people will just zoom through and just go through without thinking and cross this area here. I feel that a stop sign here, and some kind of traffic control, and forcing people to stop, look both ways, and then cross into the McDonald’s, or vice versa, is much safer than a “T” intersection where you could just get in your car and even though there’s a stop sign or something like that, I feel that the configuration is more conducive to taking care because you have to consciously say, all right, I’m going to turn into McDonald’s or I’m going to turn into the Beverage Center. The other issue with that is there just is not the property configuration to do that. To build a “T” intersection here would mean that McDonald’s would have to give up parking, and we would have to come straight across somehow in their parking lot, in a drastically different area than is designed now, and it would probably mean McDonald’s losing one or two parking places there, and I don’t know if that is achievable. I don’t know how it would fit their parking requirements with the Town, whether it would reduce it lower than what it should be. I don’t know, but it would be a very difficult to issue to build. MR. PALING-You’re proposal is to put a stop sign on the exit from the Beverage Center? MR. BECKER-That’s correct, yes. MR. PALING-And that would be the only change you’d make to the drawing the way it is? MR. BECKER-I would do that, and the potential of increasing that driveway to stack more cars, so that, the only downside of stacking more than two cars is that the people parking in these two spaces here may have to wait a few minutes until these cars pull out. I don’t see it as a real issue. MR. PALING-You say in your parking spaces, the width, nine foot typical. What do you mean “typical”? MR. BECKER-Each space would be nine foot other than the handicap. Typically it would be a nine-foot wide space. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. PALING-All right. MR. VOLLARO-On the existing entrance to remain, up in the upper left-hand corner, there’s a concrete abutment that separates the two. There’s 15 feet to the left of that abutment, and 25 to the right. Now, which of those are ingress and which is egress? It doesn’t say. MR. BECKER-It doesn’t say, but usually speaking, in a situation like that, the wider would be two lanes out. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I have, one to the east and one to the west. MR. BECKER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that means that traffic coming westbound has to turn into that 15-foot wide ingress around the concrete abutment. That can be, I've hit some of those abutments. Maybe I’m a poor driver, but that abutment is sticking right out in the turn radius, it seems to me. MR. BECKER-That’s been that way for some time. It’s that way currently, and I don’t have any information that it’s a current problem. If there is a history of problems there, we’d be willing to meet with McDonald’s and address that issue, if it is a current problem. I haven’t heard of any issues there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, just looking at this, from a driver’s point of view, that’s a pretty hard left, particularly if I meet somebody coming out or coming in. In other words, if I’m going in and somebody is coming eastbound to go in, we’re both heading for that 15-foot wide. Somebody’s got to give there, and that’s a pretty hard left. MR. BECKER-We still have to submit our design drawings for the curb cut on Highland Avenue, and being that this concrete barrier is on Dix Avenue and is totally within the DOT right-of-way, in the process of addressing this in our design, I’d be delighted to ask the Regional Engineer what he felt about this. Any change in that would be totally up to them. Certainly, if the Board had recommended it and there’s an issue there, I’m sure they would be willing to listen. MRS. MOORE-I’ll correct you on that. The one on Dix is actually a County issue. MR. BECKER-I’m sorry. You’re totally right. I stand corrected. Dix Avenue is a County road, and Highland is the State, but certainly we would approach the County, being that it’s totally in the right- of-way, would be their call. Thank you. I stand corrected. MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of questions for you. Have you satisfactorily addressed all these Rist- Frost comments, and have they signed off on it? MR. BECKER-We haven’t talked to Rist-Frost since those comments. We received them. We completed our designs and our changes, and regretfully, the Department of Transportation is very slow in responding, and we weren’t able to, in fact, they gave me a handwritten letter today. We sent it to Albany figuring this project would be in Albany. They sent it to Washington County saying, and it kind of bounced around in DOT between Albany and the resident engineer at Washington County, and they finally got a hold of me today and gave me a written letter approving the entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-Just a matter of protocol here. Why would that go to Washington County and not Warren County for DOT’s engineer? MRS. MOORE-New York State DOT versus. PAT JAMESON MS. JAMESON-I know why. I asked them that last week. Washington County takes care of Route 9 to the City line. MR. BECKER-And Route 32. That was their answer to me. I asked the same question today. I said, why are you calling me? MR. MAC EWAN-You straightened us right out. Mystery unraveled. Okay, and you haven’t really had an opportunity to address the A/GFTC’s comments either, other than tonight? MR. BECKER-No, I haven’t. We just received those today. The only other comment there, beyond the “Y” versus the “T” intersection, was the pedestrian walkway between McDonald’s and the Beverage Center. I’m sure both businesses would welcome anything like that, it would accommodate both their businesses. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MR. MAC EWAN-I've got one more question. I notice that the drawing you have on the Board is different from what we have on our table. MR. BECKER-Yes, it is, and I brought several more to give to you. This is resulting from the comments from DOT today, and the comments from Rist-Frost. The design time to re-do the stormwater calculations, from the time we received their comments until now, is short period of time. MR. MAC EWAN-How long before you anticipate getting the comments back, positive or negative, from Rist-Frost? MR. BECKER-I would say that the issues are very simple. We could probably complete that, if not by the end of this week, if everyone is available, they’re not on vacation. It’s a very short issue, and if the owner is in agreement, and Rist-Frost in agreement, we’re very flexible on these issues. I don’t see any issue there that would be a deal killer for us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. My only other comment that I have is looking at the Highland Avenue exit curb cut that you have on Highland Avenue, I’m kind of inclined, I don’t know how the rest of the Board members feel, to want to have that only be westbound. That’s a pretty skittish short stretch of road right there, from the intersection of Quaker Road to where it T’s into Dix Avenue, and I can see a potential for hazards if you had ingress/egress going both east and westbound. If that was just an exit only going westbound, I think your potential for accidents would be dramatically reduced. I mean, you have the circulation to go out through McDonald’s, that you could go either eastbound or westbound. MR. BECKER-I don’t believe that we have restricted that entrance in any way, as far as exiting and entrance. I think we’ve noted that it’s a delivery vehicle entrance and exit, but we haven’t restricted right or left hand turn there, to my knowledge, at least it’s not our intention to. MR. MAC EWAN-I missed a little note that said it was a delivery vehicle entrance. MR. BECKER-Yes, and that won’t be delivery vehicle only, but we’d like to encourage delivery vehicles to come in off that portion, because of the rear of the building is there, and we would like to keep them out of the customer traffic, off of Dix Avenue as best we can. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of delivery trucks do you anticipate coming here? I mean, are they tractor-trailers, usually? MR. BECKER-Well, Bill of Bill’s Beverages came in, and, Bill, perhaps you could address that question. MR. PETROSINO-Bill Petrosino, and I’m the owner of Anchor Beverage, currently, in South Glens Falls, and this is my new project. The delivery vehicles are the same that you would see at Anchor Beverage. They’re just straight trucks. The delivery trucks that you see from Northern Distributing or DeCresnte Distributing, just a straight Pepsi/Coke. There’s no tractor-trailers in my business. It’s one week’s worth of inventory. This is strictly a retail place. It’s not a holding or a depot, if you will, for feeding anything else. It’s strictly retail. MR. MAC EWAN-My concern was that a tractor trailer would have a difficult time maneuvering in that parking lot and backing in there. MR. PETROSINO-Absolutely. It’s not my intention. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-Doesn’t Pepsi use those big trucks? MR. PETROSINO-They have what they call a Goose Neck, which is a short one, but I don’t even think that there is those types here. I've never gotten a delivery from Anchor Beverage with a tractor-trailer. They deliver off of a rear flat bed truck that has a lift, and we have a forklift and take it off. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Come on up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAT JAMESON 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MS. JAMESON-My name’s Pat Jameson, and before I start asking questions about this, I would like to make a comment. That when you have a brand new project like this, is it possible to have it posted like 15 minutes before a hearing starts? Because if you don’t see it until right now, there are things you’re going to miss if you have questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I understand what you’re saying. MS. JAMESON-But when you have a new project, isn’t it possible that you could put them up ahead of time? MR. MAC EWAN-I suppose. No one’s ever asked that. That’s a good question. MS. JAMESON-I came early today, hoping I’d be able to see that, and I didn’t see it until he started talking. So that’s a comment on that. I guess on this, I’d like to know, where’s the back of the building? MR. MAC EWAN-The back of the building would face toward the intersection of Highland and Quaker. MS. JAMESON-And if the driveway comes out onto Highland, where is that going to be in relation to the house across the street, that driveway? Because you show no residence there. In other words, are the headlights going to be right in the front room window? MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that that driveway, the way it’s shown right now, it looks to be like it would be west of the house. MS. JAMESON-But how far west? That’s what I mean. MR. MAC EWAN-So that the lights wouldn’t even shine, as far as I can see from this drawing, it doesn’t appear that the lights would even shine on the house. MS. JAMESON-Okay. Did they consider the residents when they laid this building out? Because you have the back of the building in their front yard. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll ask that question of them. MS. JAMESON-And where are the trash cans going to be, the dumpster? Is that going to be in the front yard, too? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s located in the back of the building. MS. JAMESON-In the front of the house across the street. MR. MAC EWAN-If you can see the two retail outlets there, the larger of the two, it would be located in the lower left hand corner, on the outside. MS. JAMESON-Toward McDonald’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Toward McDonald’s. MS. JAMESON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And they are fenced in. MS. JAMESON-They’re closed in. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re more than welcome to go up there and look at that drawing if you want to. MS. JAMESON-Yes, but I said before the meeting would have been 100% better. I have no objections to the building, but I just wondered how it was going to sit on the property, you know, how it’s going to interfere with the house and yard across the street, but they gave us no clue ahead of time. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you see on that plan up there, on the Highland Avenue side, right near the entrance, do you see that existing tree right there? Does that give you a bearing about where the driveway will be? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MS. JAMESON-There’s a house right here. MR. PALING-The lights wouldn’t affect it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think so. I think their driveway proposed is west of the actual house. MS. JAMESON-The house itself. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, you’re okay. MS. JAMESON-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-If you, in your own mind, can see that existing tree that they’re showing, where their proposed entrance is going to be, and get a frame of mind where that tree is located to your property, you’ll have an idea where the driveway will be. MS. JAMESON-This is their tree they’re going to put in, right? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s an existing tree. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a big one, a big Elm tree. MR. BECKER-The Beautification Committee asked us to keep the driveway between the two existing trees and not remove those trees. There’s quite a large Elm. There’s a smaller Elm. We’ve agreed to foster the entrance between the two trees and leave the existing trees. MS. JAMESON-Then that would be below the house. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s quite west of your parcel. MS. JAMESON-And then I guess my last comment is, I took math before most of you, maybe all of you, and according to your thing there, it says 6400 feet, 2400 feet does not equal 8400, at least when I went to school it didn’t. There must be a misprint in the notice. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The whole building is 8400 square feet. There’s two parts to the building. MS. JAMESON-Right, and when they gave us, it said 64 and 24. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That adds up to 88. You’re right. MS. JAMESON-That’s my point. I said I took math ahead of you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you for bringing that to our attention. MS. JAMESON-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I would blame it on a typo error. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-I have a comment from Clark W. Brink who owns the McDonald’s next door. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-He wanted to know what was the proposed retail space next to the Beverage Center, and my comment to him was I wasn’t sure what it was, and I also mentioned the issue about the shared access, and he said that if anybody had any questions or concerns that they could contact him. MR. MAC EWAN-Now was that a telephone conversation? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it was. MR. MAC EWAN-Is he opposed to the shared access? MRS. MOORE-No. I just mentioned the issue that there was a traffic, there may be an internal traffic conflict, and he said contact him if there was any concerns or if someone needed information about McDonald’s. MR. MAC EWAN-You were referencing the “T” intersection versus the “Y”? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Because when we approved that site plan, we approved it with the intent of a shared access, and they were all in agreement of it. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name is Bob Sears. I’m the realtor involved in this project, and I think the comments for what they wanted to know what their proposed retail was, well, in the deed, in the covenants to the deed, which the new owner is aware of, that says that there can’t be any hamburgers or anything of that nature next door to McDonald’s and this site. So you can kind of relieve his anxiety. We're fully aware of what the covenants of the deed says, and we’ve done our homework there. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. I think what we need to do is just leave this open and table it, because we have the issues of Rist-Frost comments haven’t been addressed. They haven’t signed off on them. Your DOT, you’re waiting on your curb cut approval, right? MR. BECKER-The curb cut, as it’s located, is approved and the width. It’s just the final specific design, pavement width and pavement thickness and that type of thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the other issue the new drawings, the revised drawings. Staff will need to review those, as well. MR. BECKER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you on some sort of timetable to get this? Okay. Well, the only thing I would suggest to you is that you get the Rist-Frost comments addressed so Staff can get them, get the opportunity for Staff to review these drawings. We’d be more than happy to set up a special meeting for you. MR. BECKER-Fine. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-One comment. In the County review, they’ve recommended that no entrance be on Highland Avenue, and I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I don’t know if we should address it. No matter how our Board feels about it. MR. PALING-That’s only a service entrance. MR. RINGER-No, it’s both. It’s a service entrance and a public entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s both. MR. RINGER-But the County’s recommending that no entrance or exit be there, and I don’t agree with the County. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t agree. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t, either. MR. MAC EWAN-Considering that the main usage that they’re proposing in this entrance is going to be for deliveries. MR. RINGER-I agree, but I just thought it was there, and we should address it and make sure. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. MR. SCHACHNER-And if I could answer that, please, you should understand that the County recommendation expressly conditions their recommended approval on no ingress/egress on 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) Highland Ave. So if the Board decides that we’re not going to abide by that, we need to make sure that we have a super majority vote in that respect. MR. RINGER-That was the other point I was going to make. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-Thanks, Mark. MR. MAC EWAN-We're going to leave the public hearing open on this. So get that to Staff and we’ll see what we can do to get you on a post-haste agenda. MR. BECKER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-99 BOB BECKER/MACHNICK BUILDERS, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Pending Rist Frost’s reviewing, signing off on their letter of August 11, and DOT’s formally giving th the curb cuts, and Staff to review the revised site plan drawings. Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, gentlemen, you’re all set. Before we pack it up tonight, I have a question that I’d like Staff to bring us up to speed. I know it was in everyone’s packet, the letters from DEC regarding the Batease parcel. Did you look at it and see it in your packet? It was attached to the Staff notes. It’s on the back of the Staff notes. Laura, could you just kind of bring us up to speed where all that stands at this point? MRS. MOORE-Glen Batease had a visit from DEC, and the comment letter came back for August 12, 1999, indicating that he was in violation and was requested to meet the conditions set forth in the August 12 letter, and there’s some deadline dates that he’s been made aware of by our office again, th and we’ve asked him to supply new drawings in regard to what the Planning Board asked from him last time, which included stormwater management plan, the flagged top of the slope, so that the Board could go out there and actually see it. He has not done that yet, and other than that, we’re still waiting for him to comply with what we requested, and the DEC is also waiting for him to comply with what they requested. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a sense, when you made your site visit, that the people from DEC, is there a timeframe given for him before he moves on this, before they? MRS. MOORE-As I say, his August 12 letter gives him specific deadlines. He has an August 18 thth deadline, an August 27 deadline. th MR. MAC EWAN-The August 18’s come and gone. th MRS. MOORE-So he’s on the August 27 deadline, currently. th MR. MAC EWAN-And do you know how swiftly they move if he doesn’t comply with those deadlines? MRS. MOORE-I’m not aware. MR. RINGER-Do they follow this up? Our office doesn’t do anything, it’s all up to the State now? MRS. MOORE-It’s with the DEC right now, but the conditions that you requested at the last meeting, he should comply with those or indicate that he’s now complying with the DEC conditions and provide that information that says that he’s complied with them. MR. MAC EWAN-Then it’s up to him to notify DEC and say, hey, I've got everything, come take a look? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MRS. MOORE-I don’t know whether it’s up to him or not. I didn’t read it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you find out for us, and let us know? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. RINGER-Do those fines start automatically if this isn’t done, Mark, do you know? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I know, and no, they don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Elaborate on that. MR. SCHACHNER-I know the answer to the question, and the fines do not start automatically. The point of the letter is that the statute allows for fines of up to that amount, but for DEC to actually assess those fines, they have to actually start a formal enforcement proceeding against the alleged violator. MR. MAC EWAN-How often do they do that? MR. SCHACHNER-How often do they start those kinds of proceedings? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, does it ever get to that point with them that they do that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. They regularly start those proceedings. They regularly commence those proceedings, correct. The outcome does not often result in fines, and never results, in my experience, in fines of $25,000 per day, but the Regional Office, which is what’s involved here, through it’s Regional attorney, does regularly commence proceedings like this and seeks fines in those proceedings and usually, most of those proceedings are settled in one respect or another, usually through a combination of compliance and some sort of civil penalty. It’s not unusual for DEC to collect some civil penalty or monetary fines. I've never seen them ever collect $25,000 a day, but that’s the maximum authorized under the Statute. As I said, yes I do, and no they don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes, but now it’s clearer. MR. PALING-I've got one comment on this Ryan matter. I voted no on the tabling, and I’d like to tell you why. I think that anything like that Staff should have prepared an answer and brought it back to this Board, along with the applicant, and make our decision based on all the facts that are brought before us. Having it go to you two guys, I don’t think is the way it should be done, to you and Chris. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. It’s going to Dave Hatin and Chris Round. MR. PALING-Then that information should be brought back here. You said you were going to go to the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-I asked if I could attend the meeting, but I also asked that Chris prepare a written determination for the Board. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I apologize. I stand correct. I think that’s the way it should be. MR. MAC EWAN-I just wanted to go for my own purposes. MR. PALING-I didn’t understand it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s what we’re going to do, a written determination so we know where we’re all coming from. MR. PALING-Good. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. Should we save Chuck Wilkinson’s septic system plans? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what about that Dr. Hopper’s Sherman Avenue thing? Are we going to get new? MR. MAC EWAN-He’s pulled that all together, hasn’t he? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) MRS. MOORE-He’s pulled that all together. So I’m not aware of anything new. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s going on with the trailer park overlay zone on County Line Road? MRS. MOORE-I haven’t heard any information from Mr. DeSantis. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s going on with the proposed subdivision on Ridge Road? MRS. MOORE-Again, I haven’t heard from Mr. DeSantis. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. PALING-Is the August 30 Town Board vote on the rezoning of the process still on? th MR. SCHACHNER-As of today it is. You never know, but as of today it is. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask that question about 4 o’clock on August the 30. Anything else? Site th visits, the 16 at four o’clock, and our two regular meetings are the 21 and the 28, and we will thstth probably have a special meeting some time early in September. MRS. MOORE-I’ll look into it. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, if things progress the way I suspect they will, you’ll have Mark Ryan and the Beverage Center. We can do them both on one meeting. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. RINGER-The article in the paper yesterday on The Great Escape, do you have any idea how the newspaper got into that? MR. MAC EWAN-I have no idea. MR. RINGER-Chris didn’t say why or he didn’t know why? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. RINGER-Who contacted the paper? I mean, it was out of the blue. I mean, there was stuff that was quoted in the paper that we don’t have any information on, as a Board or anything. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I mean, when they called me, they asked me about The Great Escape proposing two more rides, and they said that they talked about making application for two. MR. RINGER-They had that information? Did they say where that got that information? Since nothing has formally come in front of us about that. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the article kind of said that, that there was no formal applications made as of yet. MR. RINGER-I was just surprised to see it and even more surprised to see all the information they had when we don’t have any plans, plans have never been submitted to the Staff, that I know of. Right? It just concerned me when I saw it, as a member of the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Understandable. I mean, the way it was put to me, it was like he certainly knew all the information before he was asking me. MR. RINGER-I was just curious where he got that information, because it never came, there’s no record of it anywhere. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure it was. We discussed it here last Tuesday, on the record. Because I asked you about what was the message you wanted me to send back. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think the notation, I think you mentioned at that meeting that they were coming in with two new water rides, and that was all still part of our public record information. I mean, I have no idea how. MR. RINGER-But it was on the record, and we don’t have the minutes of that typed up yet, and there was no one here at that meeting. So unless there’s a bug around here someplace, no one would 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/24/99) have known about it. I was surprised, disappointed, and I just hope that the information didn’t come from us. MR. MAC EWAN-I have no idea where it came from. MR. RINGER-Once something’s submitted to Staff, then that’s public record, the site plans and stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else. I’ll make a motion to adjourn, then. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 28