Loading...
1999-01-26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 26, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES 11/24/98: NONE 12/15/98: NONE 12/22/98: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 11/24/98, 12/15/98 AND 12/22/98, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED ROSE PROTOTO BRANDT OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-5A, LG PARK CEA, APA LOCATION: CLEMENTS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 86.9 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 80.9 ACRES AND 6 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 27-2-9 LOT SIZE: 86.90 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ROBERT KELLY & ROSE PROTOTO BRANDT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-1998 - Preliminary and Final, Rose Prototo Brandt, Meeting Date: January 26, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to subdivide an 86.9 acre parcel into two lots of 6.0 acres and 80.9 acres. The applicant’s project was previously reviewed by the Planning Board for Sketch Plan stage. Staff Notes The applicant has complied with the subdivision requirements for the Preliminary and Final Phase. The applicant has requested waivers from the preliminary application, see attached. Staff would recommend that the waivers be granted as part of the preliminary resolution. Provided the certified mail receipts are received Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-And we did receive certified mail receipts. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as your request for the waivers, is this what you got, they just took the Preliminary plan requirements and put whether they wanted a waiver next to them? Nothing more formal than that? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) MRS. MOORE-No. I assisted in that. MR. MAC EWAN-You assisted in that. I mean, just how do we know that we can document this that it came from them? It’s not signed or anything, for the files. MRS. MOORE-So you want them to sign it? MR. MAC EWAN-Before they leave. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. KELLY-Good evening. This is the applicant, Rose Prototo Brandt, and I’m Robert E. Kelly, her attorney, and we would ask the Board to grant the waivers as indicated. We did have one question. We know there’s another $500 fee, recreation fee, due upon signing of the mylar. We would like some guidance as to when we might expect the mylar to be signed or released. MR. MAC EWAN-The mylar would be signed as soon as you get it to the Planning Department, if it’s approved by the Planning Board. So anytime you got the mylar prepared and up there with whatever conditions that are on the approval, if we approve this tonight. It’s up to you how soon you get it there. MR. KELLY-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. KELLY-Again, we’d just ask that the application be granted. MR. MAC EWAN-I think everything was pretty well covered last month. No outstanding issues. The only thing I think we really had outstanding was this waiver issue. Is that not correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. PALING-No questions. I noticed that there’s a new note on there from the engineer. I think that clarified the arithmetic, where there was question. Should you mark on there that that’s a revision to the original print, and put a date on it? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we’ll do that. MR. PALING-So you can differentiate between that and the original. That’s the only question I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does Staff have anything? I’ll entertain a motion, if someone will put one up. MRS. MOORE-You need to do SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-We did SEQRA last time, didn’t we? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we did not, pardon. MR. SCHACHNER-We don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re probably correct, then. Go ahead, lets do SEQRA first. MR. SCHACHNER-I hate to interrupt. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re right. I caught it. We need to open up a public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, aside from your public hearing issue, which is also true, as Bob Vollaro is pointing out, I think Cathy’s reading from a Short Form EAF, and I think the applicant’s prepared a Long Form EAF. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-But you also have a public hearing issue. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll get it squared away. Does anyone want to comment regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll close the public hearing. Now lets do our SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1998, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROSE PROTOTO BRANDT, 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 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Now, does someone want to put up a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1998 ROSE PROTOTO BRANDT, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) As is, except for just a little note that there was a little adjustment to the plan the second time around regarding acreage, and the acceptance of the applicant’s request for waivers, that he’ll sign the document before he leaves here tonight. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of, Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 14-1998 for Rose Prototo Brandt for subdivision of 86.9 acres of land into two lots of 6.00 acres and 80.9 acres ; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received December 30, 1998, consists of the following: 1. Preliminary Stage Application w/waiver request 2. Map F-2059 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 1/26/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/26/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 14-1998 - Rose Prototo Brandt. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone make a motion for Final. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1998 ROSE PROTOTO BRANDT, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 14-1998 for Rose Prototo Brandt for subdivision of 86.9 acres of land into two lots of 6.00 acres and 80.9 acres ; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received December 30, 1998, consists of the following: 1. Preliminary Stage Application w/waiver request 2. Map F-2059 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 1/26/99 - Staff Notes 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/26/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Final Stage for Subdivision No. 14-1998 - Rose Prototo Brandt. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. KELLY-Thank you. MRS. PROTOTO BRANDT-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 JOSEPH LEUCI OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: HC- 1A LOCATION: RT. 9 & ROUND POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 56’ X 108’ BUILDING TO CONTINUE AUTOMOBILE SALES AND TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE AND REPAIR. PER § 179-23 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE AND AUTOMOBILE REPAIR IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 1/11/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/13/99 TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 5.59 ACRES SECTION 179- 23 MATT STEVES & JOE LEUCI, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on the 27 of October and the 24 of November, thth 1998, those public hearings were tabled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-98, Joseph Leuci, Meeting Date: January 26, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to construct a used automobile sales, service and repair building. The application was tabled at the October 22 Planning Board meeting. Auto sales, service and nd repair require site plan review in the HC-1A zone. Staff Notes The Planning Board requested the applicant provide an updated drawing demonstrating the existing and proposed landscaping and an architectural rendition of the proposed structure. Clarification was requested of the type of drain used in the service center, who is responsible for maintaining the dry wells, and the term “flat ditch”. The Board also requested the Stormwater Management Plan be corrected concerning permeable surfaces. The applicant has submitted an updated drawing addressing landscaping and building type. Staff would encourage landscaping around the immediate perimeter of the building. Staff would recommend that a provision in the resolution stipulate that display of vehicles will occur only on the gravel or paved surface, there is to be no display of vehicles on any green area. Nace Engineering was informed that clarification was needed for the stormwater and drainage issues of the site. The applicant has submitted an architectural view of the building and floor plan. The drawing indicates a block building with enough space to accommodate display and service area. The Board may wish to include in the resolution if any expansion of auto use, including but not limited to, service of 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) vehicles other than for sale or autobody work on any vehicles that site plan review will be required. The applicant should submit an updated drawing that represents type, size, location, and schedule of new plantings. The updated plan should include the existing plantings as shown on revised drawing December 29, 1998, and the existing plantings surrounding the existing building. This drawing should include all the Planning Board recommendations, if any. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Would you read in the Nace letter of January 24? th MRS. MOORE-Okay. “In response to your letter of January 4, I offer the following: 1. The th owner has not yet decided if he will install a floor drain in the service repair bay. I have advised him that, if he does install a drain, it must empty into a holding tank for disposal at the sewage treatment plant or, if he discharges it into a drywell or other infiltration device, it will require a SPDES Industrial Waste Discharge Permit. 2. The existing drywells located on Mr. Passarelli’s property along Round Pond Road were installed at the request of the Warren County Highway Dept., when the property was originally subdivided. At that time Round Pond Road was considerably lower than it is now, and there was a significant amount of stormwater runoff from along State Rt. 9 which flowed into the low spot where the drywells are located. Since the State has re-routed this drainage and Round Pond Road has been raised, there is no longer any need for these drywells. The small amount of natural drainage which reaches this low spot can naturally infiltrate without any possibility of flooding Round Pond Road. Therefore these drywells could be abandoned. 3. In the context used, “flat ditch” means that the grade along the ditch line is flat enough that water flows slowly enough to allow infiltration into the sandy soils native to the site. Therefore the ditch acts as a natural infiltration device. 4. The Stormwater Management Report has been modified to indicate that the existing gravel surfaces are considered to be impermeable. A copy of the revised page 1 of the report is attached.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-The County. MR. MAC EWAN-The County, and Beautification. MRS. MOORE-And Beautification. The County, I’ll just read the Staff Notes. “Copy of a cover letter from Nace Engineering is included with the summaries along with a revised site plan prepared by Nace Engineering. Also, copies of the full storm water management plan are forwarded to John McGilvray and Bill Remington for their review and comment at the meeting. It appears that the applicant, through the Nace Engineering letter, has responded to the items identified by the County in their previous denial without prejudice. Staff is recommending discussion pending input on the storm water management plan by the County Highway Engineer. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approved based on the drawings provided to the Board and verbal input from Matt Steves, project representative present at meeting, clarifying storm water issues.” Beautification Committee comments, “Joseph Leuci and Matt Steves present. Suggest low clustering plantings on northeast and southeast corners of area shown as grass on plan. Plantings around existing building stay. Dumpster, enclosed as shown on plan.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-When was that meeting? MRS. MOORE-Which meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-The Beautification meeting. MR. RINGER-1/11. MRS. MOORE-1/11/99. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves, and I represent Joseph Leuci on this application. As stated by the Staff, we went back to the County Planning Board with the updated plans, and identified the stormwater concerns that were brought up by this Board and also by that Board via Tom Nace and they have no problems with that. Beautification as also stated by the Staff, we will incorporate the plantings on the corners of the front of the building facing Route 9, on the corners there where it shows grass areas. I didn’t include those on this plan at this time, in case there were any other modifications or additions by this Board, we’ll incorporate those all at one time. Tom Nace regrets that he couldn’t be here, but he’s home with the flu. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the number one concern is Paragraph One of the letter. MR. STEVES-Okay. The owner, as far as Tom Nace’s letter? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. The owner has decided to put in the drain, the floor drain, and we will be putting in the tank, the holding tank, to dispose of it, the sewage treatment plant. We will not be going into a drywell. Therefore, we will not require a SPDES Industrial Waste Permit. We’ll contain it inside the building and then pump it out and bring it down to the wastewater facility. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So it’s basically going to be a holding tank? MR. STEVES-Yes. It’s just a drain with a tank, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we need supporting engineering for that? MRS. MOORE-I’m not sure about that. I just know that when I spoke with Dave Hatin, that he was requesting information on the type of drain that was being installed. So I think as long as in the final submission of plans, that that’s addressed, then I think that should be sufficient. If Dave needs more than that, then he’ll request it. MR. MAC EWAN-They will at time of building, okay. MR. STEVES-Talking to Tom Nace for a few minutes earlier today, he said that that would be determined at the time building permit was issued, of what style drain would be worked out there at the building permit. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. As far as the plantings that you discussed with Beautification, is there some sort of plan or schedule that you submitted with them? MR. STEVES-Yes. They wanted a, they didn’t specify the number of type, they just wanted some low shrubs there in the corners. I’m going to have Jim Miller have up a planting schedule for me, but like I said, I want to incorporate any changes this Board may have at the same time. We’re going to basically put in a raised bed at those two corners, and just put in as much as we can low, mixture of evergreens, burning bush, that kind of stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. In previous times, you know, we’ve had some kind of plan in front of us so that when we make an approval, we have something to go by, as far as numbers, quantities, styles, types. MR. STEVES-Well, one of the concerns was the plantings that were there, and as you see on the revised plan, the number of trees along Route 9 has been shown, and their types, and then their types of shrub in the existing berm. Now on the two corner areas, because of the fact that, you know, they’re not an extremely large area, we will maximize it with a planting bed. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you referring to the areas delineated as grass areas? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. If there’s a specific number or type that the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-No. It’s just, you know, as a housekeeping thing, so you can keep track of what’s approved and what styles and quantities are put in. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a couple of things, I guess. The repair of vehicles, is that going to be just the vehicles that are being serviced prior to sale? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And how about the warranty period after that? In other words, do those cars come back under warranty for service? They will? Okay. MR. STEVES-So it’s just for the repair of the vehicles that are being sold at this facility. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’ve got a question for Staff on the Warren County Planning Board. I read their letter as almost in conflict. Their Staff Notes say that Staff is recommending discussion pending input of stormwater management by the County Highway Engineer. It looks like they’re still pending a decision here, and yet under the County Planning Board recommendations, they’ve approved it. It seems diametrically in opposition with one another. I don’t know. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) MR. SCHACHNER-I may be able to shed some light on that. The way the County Planning Board usually works, this form is filled out by their Staff, and forwarded to the Planning Board, which then takes action. So what happened here is the Staff Notes is what was given to the County Planning Board members prior to them taking action. The fact that this is signed and that the County Planning Board recommendation part is filled out means that they did take action, subsequent to the Staff recommendation, in other words. MR. VOLLARO-All right. On the face of it, this looks a little contradictory, but with that explanation, I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-And I can add to that, having been to many County Planning Board meetings, where it says “Staff is recommending discussion”, what they mean is that many projects are not discussed at all at the County Planning Board meeting. They are just approved without discussion. So what Staff was saying in its recommendation to its own Planning Board was, we think this one should be talked about. Presumably it then was discussed, I’m guessing, I don’t know if you were at the County Planning Board meeting. MR. STEVES-Yes, I was. MR. SCHACHNER-And my sense is it was discussed. MR. STEVES-Yes, it was. MR. SCHACHNER-In a project specific manner, which is not true of most projects that go to the County Planning Board. This one would have been one that was discussed, specifically this project, and based on that discussion, I wasn’t there, obviously, but based on that discussion, we have a County Planning Board recommendation which is signed by their Chairperson. So I assume that action was taken. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good. Thanks very much, Mark, and I have just one more question, and that’s with respect to Tom Nace’s letter of January 24. In his second paragraph where he ends it up th with “therefore these driveways could be abandoned”, and that’s the drywells that we’ve talked about on this slope. MR. STEVES-That’s on the bottom of the swale, along Round Pond Road. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was up there today, and I kind of looked at this, and I looked at the drawing itself, and we’ve got 329 feet of length there, and I just ask a question of whether or not, with a 40% slope is what I calculated that to be, based on these numbers, whether or not any perc data should be done there to say that, yes, indeed, that steep a slope will not invade onto Round Pond Road, but Tom seems to think that we can abandon those wells. MR. STEVES-He’s saying you could. He’s saying that because we have done perc tests on this site in the past, I don’t know if that’s labeled on here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, there’s a couple of “TP’s” on the drawing. MR. STEVES-And it’s all sandy soils, just, you know, the absorption rate is there, that he says that it is not necessary, that they could be abandoned. He’s not saying you have to abandon them. If you want to leave them, we leave them. They serve no purpose by being there at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we leave them, they’ve got to be maintained. That’s the other side of the coin. If you have them and they’re not maintained, they’re not going to work. If they’re not needed, then. MR. STEVES-Well, they’re not needed so it doesn’t make, really, a lot of difference whether they work or not. MR. VOLLARO-It just seemed to me a very steep slope. I guess when I looked at it I said, boy, that’s got to do a lot of absorption in a big hurry before it gets to Round Pond Road, but if he thinks that there’s enough there, based on test points that he’s made, fine. MR. STEVES-No question. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-I’ve got a couple of questions. The building that we see pictured on this drawing here, is that just a build up of the existing building, or is that new building? MR. STEVES-No, that’s the new building. MR. PALING-Why don’t you turn it at right angles, if it’s new? The side facing Route 9 I don’t think puts out a very good appearance. If it were turned at right angles, as shown in this picture, I think it would make a lot better looking lot. MR. STEVES-This at the bottom here is what is facing Route 9. MR. PALING-No, not according to this. All right. I’m being influenced by the one, they’re taking that away, and this is the front? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, the other thing is, we’ve talked several times about the strip to the road, which is State property, and I believe that the applicant has said he is willing to maintain that. MR. STEVES-Yes, after the State finishes their grading, seeding, topsoiling, whatever they’re going to do, the applicant has said that once the State has completed their work, he will maintain the vegetation that is placed. MR. PALING-Meaning mowing, whatever needs to be done to it to make it, because it’s looked terrible here for quite some time because it wasn’t maintained. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Okay, and I think that should be part of the motion on that. MR. STEVES-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Give me a definition of the drywells being abandoned. What do you mean by that? MR. STEVES-As far as being abandoned, it means that they could be filled in, because they’re really not needed. A drywell is nothing more than a pre-cast concrete pit, with stone around it so it’s hollow on the inside for infiltration into the existing soil. The cover could be removed and filled in, so that it’s not a hole in the ground, basically. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess maybe a legal question. When one abandons a drywell, who has the liability of that for the future? MR. SCHACHNER-Where is it located? MR. STEVES-On our property, on the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Does the property owner retain? MR. SCHACHNER-If it’s on the applicant’s property, there is nobody else that would be in the liability loop, so to speak, that I can think of. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-It would seem that if they’re not going to use them, they should be filled in, rather than left there. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I mean, that’s what I’m thinking of. I’m thinking if one of these things cave in or whatever. MR. RINGER-Right. That’s what I’m thinking of, too. If you’re not going to use them, lets fill them in, or lets use them and maintain them, one or the other. MR. STEVES-There’s traffic covers on them, but we have no problem in the spring removing the covers, filling them in, so that there’s no problem of somebody falling into them. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, as Bob raised here the question regarding the slope and stuff, wouldn’t it just be an ounce of prevention? It would be worth it in the long haul by leaving them and maintaining them operational? MR. STEVES-Like Tom’s letter states, and the brief discussion I had with him tonight, that he doesn’t think that any water will really reach them. So that he doesn’t believe that, you know, he said that he doesn’t believe they’re necessary, but at the same time, if the Board wants to see them remain, then we should make a note of it that they should be maintained by the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that if they’re there, the maintenance on them is going to be next to nothing, and it just would make good sense just to take care of them. MR. STEVES-That’s what Tom basically stated, that they could be removed or abandoned, but they’re there. No water will probably get to them, but in the case that, once in a while some does, they’re there to work. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this the metal building that you were talking about? I mean, is it a metal building, or is there siding in the front and on the side? MR. STEVES-That’s a block building, if I’m correct, Joe? I’ll let the applicant speak for that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and what kind of a roof? MR. LEUCI-Joseph Leuci. It’s a block building I’m putting up. MR. MAC EWAN-Architectural blocks, that kind of thing? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But this in the front is? MR. MAC EWAN-Block. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is block here? It’s not? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s wooden up there. MR. LEUCI-That will be siding. The rest of the building will be made of block. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s cedar siding, something like that? MR. LEUCI-Possibly. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what’s the roofing going to be, a metal roof or a shingled roof? MR. LEUCI-A shingled roof. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it looks very attractive. MR. LEUCI-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Lets open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) RESOLUTION NO. 55-98, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOSEPH LEUCI, 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 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put up a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-98 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As written by Staff, with the following conditions. Number One, the letter of Nace Engineering, dated January 24, should be part of the supporting documentation. Number Two, that the drywells th indicated in the January 24 letter from Nace Engineering shall be continued and maintained by the th property owner. I’d like the resolution to also state that the display of vehicles will be limited to those areas designated as display. There are 39 units on the drawing dated 12/29/98, and those 39 units would be used for display areas and automobiles for sale shall not be parked in the green spaces or green areas. The application is also limited to the repair of vehicles owned by Mountainside prior to those vehicles being offered for sale, and also would allow the warranty to be performed on those vehicles during the warranty period. This motion states that this is not a repair station for off the street vehicles. The green area within the New York State right-of-way shall be maintained. The drain that will be in the repair shop will be piped into a holding tank, which will have a periodic clean out, and material will be hauled away to a plant that processes that type of material, and that will be reviewed and approved by the Building and Codes Department. In addition, there was a sketch showing the front view and the floor plan of the proposed building, and the only way to identify that is in the left hand corner it’s said received by Laura Moore, 9/21/98. There’ll be a new site plan issued with modifications, and to that site plan will be attached an elevation view of the building, and a planting schedule. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 55-98 to construct a new 56’ x 108’ building to continue Automobile Sales and to add Automotive Service and Repair; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received December 30, 1998, consists of the following: 1. Application w/stormwater man. report 2. Map C-1 revised 10/30/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 1/26/99 - Staff Notes 2. 1/13/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution 3. 1/11/99 - Beautification Comm. Recommendation 4. 1/4/99 - Memo to T. Nace from L. Moore - clarification 5. 12/29/98 - C-1 - revised map 6. 11/24/98 - Planning Bd. Resolution - table 7. 11/24/98 - Staff Notes 8. 11/19/98 - RFA comments 9. 11/17/98 - To L. Moore from Nace Eng. - response to RFA comments 10. 11/16/98 - Revised Stormwater Man. Report 11. 11/16/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution - deny 12. 11/16/98 - C-1 revised map 13. 11/11/98 - RFA comments 14. 11/9/98 - Letter to RFA from L. Moore 15. 11/6/98 - Meeting notice 16. 11/2/98 - Nace Eng. To L. Moore - in response to Oct. 8 letter 17. 10/27/98 - Staff notes 18. 10/27/98 - Planning Bd. resolution - table 19. 10/20/98 - Beautification Comm. Comments 20. 10/20/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 21. 10/19/98 - Letter from M. Steves requesting tabling until November 22. 10/13/98 - Memo to RFA to review project 23. 10/13/98 - Letter to L. Penistan - Co. DPW requesting review and comment 24. 10/8/98 - Letter to J. Leuci from L. Moore 25. 10/8/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution - deny 26. 10/7/98 - Memo to C. MacEwan, Planning Bd. Chairman from C. Brown 27. 10/7/98 - Meeting Notice 28. 3/18/97 - Planning Board minutes from SP 14-97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 10/20/98 and 1/26/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 55-98 for Joseph Leuci. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced approved plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval requirements. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th MRS. MOORE-You have to mention to include the landscape plan of some sort. MR. MAC EWAN-We did. We tied it that in with the Beautification comments, Item 19. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The Beautification Committee, that’s why I addressed it, because the Beautification Committee didn’t really give specifics about what they’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Matt brought out the point about doing the corner, now when you said the corners, are you talking about the corners of Route 9 and Round Pond Road? MR. STEVES-The two grass areas and the two front corners of the building, because of the fact that it’s a showroom in the front, that small grass area between the canopy and the parking, but where the two actually bubble out into the parking area, those two are plant beds. I’ve put specific numbers on there, and I’ll have Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, write up a planting detail and list of what’s going to be in there. I’ll have him maximize it. I mean, you’re talking an area of about 10 by 15, but we’ll put in there what we can, and I’ll also make a suggestion, as far as the building print that was given to you with the elevation view, I can put that an attach it to the site plan, right on the cover sheet of the site plan, so that it’s all on one sheet for you, if that would be easier. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll modify our resolution to indicate that. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Are you talking about the revised site plan of December 29? MR. STEVES-The one that you will be getting with all these modifications, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’ll be a new site plan issued with modifications, and to that site plan will be attached an elevation view of the building. MR. STEVES-And a planting schedule. MR. VOLLARO-And a planting schedule. Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. LEUCI-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 MODIFICATION TYPE: UNLISTED LEHLAND ESTATES, PHASES I & II OWNER: MICHAELS GROUP ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: OFF OF WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO LOT 1, PHASE I; LOTS 47-52, 65 & 66, PHASE II. MATT STEVES & DAVE MICHAELS, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-86 - Modification, Lehland Estates - Phases I & II, Meeting Date: January 26, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a series of lot line adjustments to a Planning Board approved subdivision. The lots affected are Lot 1 in Phase I and Lots 47-52, 65 and 66 in Phase II. Planning Board review is required for modifications to an 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) approved subdivision. Staff Notes The purpose of the Phase II modification is to accommodate an adjacent property owner encroachment. Lot 47: was .91 ac., will be .54 ac.; Lot 48: was .47 ac., will be .54 ac.; Lot 49, was .47 ac., will be .54 ac.; Lot 50: was .47 ac., will be .54 ac.; Lot 51: was .47 ac., will be .57 ac.; Lot 52: was .49 ac., will be .61 ac. The purpose of the Phase I modification is to accommodate a purchaser of a lot for additional property. Lot 1: was .77 ac., will be .74 ac.; Lot 65: was .47 ac., will be .50 ac.; Lot 66: was .49 ac., will remain 0.49 ac. As described above, the overall acre per lot does not change significantly. There are no foreseeable neighborhood or environmental impacts. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent the Michaels Group, and with me is Dave Michaels. MR. MAC EWAN-Just give us a quick overview. MR. STEVES-This is in response to the King property to the north. You can see where the house is located, and the original subdivision we had left a notch out of Lot 47 to try to accommodate a boundary line agreement. None was specified because it was in the works at the time of the final subdivision approval, and we have now come to terms with Mr. King, as far as a resolution to this problem, and it is before the Board at this time. Basically, we’re extending the Lots 47 through 52 back into a 30 foot, isn’t it 30 foot deep, yes, of Mr. King’s property, about 40, and then conveying a piece of what was that kind of a tail of Lot 47 along the new subdivision road to Mr. King. So, basically, his lot doesn’t straddle the property line, or his house, I mean. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems simple enough. MR. VOLLARO-Seems pretty straight forward to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No public hearing is scheduled tonight, but we’ll accept public comment. If anyone wants to come up and comment on this, you’re more than welcome to. Okay. Would someone put a resolution up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 LEHLAND ESTATES, PHASES I & II, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As covered in the written motion. That the Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the subdivision modification and further finds that there is no sufficient change to the original SEQRA findings. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification request for Subdivision No. 15-86 LEHLAND ESTATES for modification to Lot 1, Phase I; Lots 47-52, 65 & 66, Phase II; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 12/30/98, consists of the following: 1. 12/30/98 - Letter from Van Dusen & Steves requesting modification 2. 12/29/98 - Map (revised) M-1 Sheet 1 of 1 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1/26/99 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve modification to Subdivision No. 15-86, LEHLAND ESTATES.. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MICHAELS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 54-98 TYPE: UNLISTED GARVEY KIA OWNER: GARVEY VOLKSWAGON, INC. ZONE: 714 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE. THE PROPERTY RECEIVED A USE VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR AND DESIGN. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE ADDITION OF AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE AND TO CREATE A SECOND ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/14/98 CROSS REFERENCE: UV 11349, AV 73-1998 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.30 LOT SIZE: 1.377 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to table that application pending further engineering and data requirements for the application. We will open up the public hearing tonight and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-99 TYPE II MTM, LLC OWNER: BOSQUE INVESTMENT REALTY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: BAY ROAD, SOUTH OF QUAKER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A HEALTH RELATED FACILITY IN THE FORMER STAN’S SEAFOOD BUILDING ON BAY ROAD. PER SECTION 179-23 HEALTH RELATED FACILITIES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 1/11/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/13/99 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-8, 4.22 LOT SIZE: 0.48 AC., 0.23 AC. SECTION: 179-23 DON MERRIHEW, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-99, MTM, LLC, Meeting Date: January 26, 1999 “Description of Project The applicant proposes to locate a health related facility in an existing building (formerly Stan’s Seafood). Health related facilities require Site Plan Review in a Highway Commercial zone. Staff Notes The applicant met with Staff prior to application submission. Staff discussed use, parking availability, dumpster location, and landscaping. The applicant has provided a site plan map, an interior alterations map, and a landscaping plan. The applicant has requested a waiver from the sign type and location. The applicant has indicated that the sign will be in conformance with the Town Code. The applicant has complied with the site plan application requirements. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-Beautification Committee comments “Plans to keep and improve existing plantings. Hopes to, and we highly recommend, a sprinkler system. Dumpster stays where it is. If sign on Bay 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) Road is kept we suggest “down” lighting and plantings.” Warren County has No County Impact. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Good evening. MR. PALING-It says “No County Impact”, but look at the next to last sentence of the County Planning Board report, and they’re questioning the curb cuts. Any comments from the County Highway? MRS. MOORE-I haven’t received any, if that’s. MR. PALING-It’s kind of a funny way to say No County Impact, and then with that mentioned in there. MR. SCHACHNER-Again, Bob, this is exactly the same circumstance that we had two applications ago. The language you’re looking at is in the Staff Notes. All that happens at the County is they consolidate documents. So that, for example, when Laura just read our Staff Notes, those notes do not appear on your approval document. At the County, they do. So the language you’re looking at which discusses the curb cuts and whether they should be renovated or not, that was the Staff’s Notes that the Staff sent to the County Planning Board. Again, and obviously I was not present at the meeting, but for whatever reason, the County Planning Board recommendation says NCI, which is No County Impact. So the County Planning Board itself, the members, not the Staff, evidently felt that none of this Staff Notes stuff matters because the project will not have any County Impact. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. DR. MERRIHEW-Hi. I’m Don Merrihew. How are you? MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Tell us a little bit about your project. DR. MERRIHEW-I am currently located in Northway Plaza Convenient Medical Care, and I plan to relocate at the location Stan’s Seafood near the corner of Bay and Quaker. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-I looks good. MR. VOLLARO-I looked it over. The only question that I had was on the percent of nonpermeable, but that’s something that you’re going to inherit on that property. There’s not much you can do with the degree of nonpermeability. It’s almost 90% nonpermeable property, and I think that goes with the land. That’s the way it is now. DR. MERRIHEW-I’ll have to agree with that, because I really don’t know the particulars. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the only thing that popped out for me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just think it’s nice to have this vacant building turned into something nice and constructive. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s been vacant for a long time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming you’re going to do major renovations inside? DR. MERRIHEW-I plan to gut the whole building and to do the whole thing over. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, as far as handicapped access, there doesn’t seem to be an issue. It’s all there. There’s four or five handicapped parking spots right outside the door. DR. MERRIHEW-I believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-As many as you’ll need. The dumpster issue. The dumpster is hidden. It’s all enclosed. MR. RINGER-Everything looks good. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Has anybody else got any other comments? We’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Craig, what were you asking about parking spaces? MR. MAC EWAN-The handicapped, and there’s ample handicapped parking, located right in front of the main door. I mean virtually, other than doing his interior alterations to accommodate the difference of style of business in there, really this site’s fairly site ready for you. MR. PALING-There are only two handicapped parking spaces. Maybe that’s enough. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s two back here. MR. RINGER-He’s got two more right next to it, just as close to the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. There’s some up here in the front, too, as I recall. MR. PALING-Not on the print. MR. MAC EWAN-Not delineated on there, but I think there are some right by the main entrance. He’s got more than enough space up there if he has to, you know, add one or two more handicapped parking spaces, he’s got the space to do it. MR. RINGER-He’s required to have so many per number of spaces. MR. PALING-What is the requirement? MR. RINGER-I don’t know it is, but I know there is a requirement. MR. MAC EWAN-If you want an answer, we’ll get you an answer right now. MR. PALING-It’s not so much I want an answer, but we’ve got to do it the way it should be done. That’s not a big deal, just mark them. There’s parking spaces right next to the one, two he’s got. If he needs more, he could designate those. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that requires four up there. MRS. MOORE-I don’t have that sheet with me, but I know when he speaks with Dave Hatin, he’ll have to, Dave Hatin will tell him how many he needs. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I don’t think it’s a big issue. He’s got more than enough to cover it. Okay. It’s Type II. There’s no SEQRA required. Does someone way to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-99 MTM, LLC, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the resolution as submitted by Staff. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 1-99, MTM, LLC for a health related facility in the former Stan’s Seafood building on Bay Road.; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received December 30, 1998, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map SP-1 dated 1/4/99, A-1, dated 12/29/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 1/26/99 - Staff Notes 2. 1/13/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. Resolution 3. 1/11/99 - Beautification Comm. Recommendation Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/26/99 concerning the above project; and 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 1-99 for MTM, LLC.. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced approved plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval requirements. Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. DR. MERRIHEW-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 2-99 TYPE II JIM VARANO VARANO CONSTRUCTION OWNER: MARK & LAURA SPRINGER ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 64 ROCKHURST RD., CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION TO SECOND STORY FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN C.E.A. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/13/99 CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-95, AV 4-1999 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-44 LOT SIZE: 0.09 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MR. MAC EWAN-We’re tabling it pending the ZBA determination. We’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business before the Board? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can we set up our meetings now? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. We’ll do that right now. Lets do site visits on the 13. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I won’t be there. I’ll be at my daughter’s ski meet, but I’ll get there some time. I probably won’t right now. MR. VOLLARO-I’m definitely not going to be there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, but then the 16 and the 23. thrd MR. PALING-The meetings are the 16 and the 23, and the 13. thrdth 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/26/99) MR. MAC EWAN-And the 13 site visits. th MR. PALING-Yes. I suggest the Board approach Staff or whoever and see if we can’t get something about replacing that lousy van that we have to ride around in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We need another vehicle to ride in. What happens is when we’re all there now, there’s not enough room for us all to fit. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 19