2000-02-08
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT PALING
ANTHONY METIVIER
ROBERT VOLLARO
ALAN ABBOTT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-BEN PRATT
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
RESOLUTION:
SITE PLAN NO. 70-99 GREAT ESCAPE – ACCEPTANCE OF SCOPE FOR DGEIS
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. PALING-Are we going to have a presentation?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it was just a, where it was left off was we were uncomfortable with some of
the language. We asked some of that language to be revised and changed to our satisfaction, and
that’s where we’re at right now.
MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then I do have a comment. I guess I was the loudest on this, and there’s
been quite a few changes that have been made to the document, not in any major way, but some of
the inclusions like the bobsled and different events like concerts that can be looked at as part of this
study, and it does now cover, to oversimplify it, both sides of Route 9, and as far as I’m concerned,
it’s okay now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set with the changes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks good to me the way it is.
MR. RINGER-Fine.
MR. METIVIER-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff comments? No? Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-99 (THE GREAT ESCAPE) FOR THE
SCOPE OF THE DGEIS AS COVERED IN THE MOST RECENT SCOPING
DOCUMENT DATED FEBRUARY 8, 2000, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 8 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a quick question for the applicants. Do you have a feel for when we might
see a draft, time wise?
JACK LEBOWITZ
MR. LEBOWITZ-Probably some time late March or early April.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 46-99 MODIFICATION CHRIS MACKEY OWNER: SAME AGENT:
DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: WR-3A, APA, CEA LOCATION: 15 WILD TURKEY
LANE MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION
PROPOSED ELIMINATES THE ATTACHED GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE
AND THE CONNECTING ENTRY FOYER. THE NEW PLAN ADDS A DETACHED
GARAGE LOCATED AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PARKING POD PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED AND A COVERED PORCH. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR A MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 78-1999 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-7 LOT SIZE: 1.54 ACRES SECTION:
179-16
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-99 – Modification, Chris Mackey, Meeting Date: ????? “Project
Description: The applicant proposes to construct an 815 +/- square foot detached garage no
higher than 16 feet. The applicant also proposes to construct a 260 +/- square foot covered porch
to an existing dwelling. The proposal is a modification to approved site plan (SP 46-99). Staff
Notes: The applicant’s modification decreases the amount of non-permeable surface and reduces
the amount of structure fronting the lake. The garage meets the required setbacks and height
requirements of the waterfront zone. Upon a site visit it was observed the area above the proposed
garage had been disturbed. This area appears to be highly susceptible to stormwater erosion and
additional erosion control measures would be recommended for this site. The project is exempt
from Stormwater Local Law No. 4 of 1999 because it disturbs less than 5000 square feet of land.
Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the modification to Site Plan 46-99 for the
construction of a detached garage and a covered porch as noted on the submitted drawings.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-That is it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there someone here representing the applicant?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design,
representing Chris Mackey, the applicant. Unfortunately, he’s out of town on business and wasn’t
able to attend this re-scheduled meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the reason for the modification in line with what Staff has noted in their Staff
notes?
MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. Yes. Upon further evaluation of the project, the applicant decided
that attached garage was better placed in the rear of the site adjacent to the parking pod, and it
downscaled the project somewhat. I think that was part of his reasoning as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add, Mr. MacElroy?
MR. MAC ELROY-No. It’s a pretty simple modification and really does decrease the scale of the
project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. METIVIER-If I can recall, what’s happening behind with the sand?
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s fill sand that was brought in for the raised septic system, which was part
of the approved project. It’s required to sit through a freeze/thaw cycle, and therefore it was
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
brought in some time in December. The area of the septic system was cleared of trees, as required
for that site, and the fill was placed as required.
MR. METIVIER-And the new structure will be in front of that?
MR. MAC ELROY-To the lakeside of it. That’s in front on your.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m thinking, from what I recall, it was up. So the structure will be in front
of that, the house in front of that.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes. I’m not sure if you could see where the existing paving was, of
the existing parking, but that’s where the garage will occupy a portion of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-In Staff Notes, Laura, where you say that the area appears to be highly susceptible to
stormwater erosion and additional erosion control measures would be recommended, but in your
recommendations, you didn’t state any recommendations that you wanted to make with that.
MRS. MOORE-I’ll explain a little further. On their plans, they do note additional erosion control
measures for the area around, disturbance around the house. This is just an added thing. I
understand it is for the septic system. It may be helpful to add an additional type of erosion control
measures in that area until the septic system is installed. It’s not a requirement. It was just a
suggestion.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking temporary, then, as opposed to permanent?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-You’re not recommending that we make that part of our motion or anything like
that?
MRS. MOORE-No, it’s more of a discussion item.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC ELROY-There is a note on the site details that refers to the New York State Guidelines
for Erosion and Sediment Control. So the direction is there. It’s just that it, at that point, probably
hadn’t been enacted. The contractor hadn’t done that at this point.
MR. RINGER-I have nothing else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I noticed that the perc rate here was eight to ten minutes per inch, and what
I’m really looking at is, well, let me start this way. We’re only sitting on 1.3 acres of ground here, in a
three acre zone. This is a pre-existing, and in your prior plan the septic field was approximately 58
feet from the house, last time I looked at the drawing. Now, when I look at this septic field and I
look at the elevations, the finished floor of the garage is sitting at 350.1, and the elevation at the
highest point of this leachfield is 359.0. So you’re 8.9 feet above that finished floor of the garage, but
you’re only six feet from it. Now, give me some idea of what the slope of that, in other words, if I’m
standing in the garage, looking toward the septic field, what kind of a slope are you envisioning
from? You’ve got a raised bed, 136 talks about a 10% grade as max. Because I don’t know whether
you’re going to get a 10% grade in here or not. That’s what I’m driving at.
MR. MAC ELROY-The slope across the septic field, I would say it meets the standards of the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the standards of the Town, the only thing that it says in 136, which is the, 136
is the Sanitary Code for the Town of Queensbury, and on a raised bed they only allow a slope of no
more than 10%, and in taking a look at the height of that, 8.9, eight feet nine inches above finished
floor, I just don’t know if you’re going to, and being only six feet away, I don’t know if you’re going
to get to that slope.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC ELROY-But it’s not 8.9 feet, at 6 feet away.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s how I see it. If you see it differently, show me how.
MR. MAC ELROY-The elevation at the down gradient side of the field is 356, three feet less than
the 8.9.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I see the finished floor is 350.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And I picked up 359.0.
MR. MAC ELROY-At the high side of the disposal field, the ground surface at the high side of the
disposal field.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC ELROY-The low side is 356, do you see on Sheet S-2, it clearly delineates that. That’s the
Detail Sheet.
MR. VOLLARO-S-2 has a better look at it?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it’s on S-1 also, but it’s a spot grade at the corners of the field, 359, 356.
MR. MAC EWAN-Come back to you?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Go on up and let me just look at this a minute.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, any questions?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-I was also concerned about the grade, but finish up with Bob.
MR. PALING-Is that sand stable, under those conditions? Can runoff cause that sand to be washed
away?
MR. MAC ELROY-If it was subject to a significant watershed above, that would flow down through
it before it got stabilized, re-established, but the idea of the raised system, through the Health
Department or the Town’s Standards, is for that to be placed and to sit through a freeze/thaw cycle.
So it helps stabilize or establish that fill material.
MR. PALING-They’ll have to live with it if it doesn’t.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, once the system is in place and the ground is re-vegetated, that will be.
MR. PALING-Well, you’re going to have a certain kind of growth.
MR. MAC ELROY-Sure. Grass will be re-established, yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Back to you.
MR. VOLLARO-I see the 356, and that 356, that’s right at the edge of the field. All right. So you
don’t have eight feet. Still and all, you know, being six feet away from the actual finished floor, and I
think that’s approximately what it is, from your finished floor, that’s pretty close. I still, I’m
uncomfortable with a septic tank, a leach bed sitting up that high, that close to a structure. I see on
the drawing that we have an area for potential alternate site for replacement of the septic system, a
four bedroom alternate. Have you looked at that piece of ground back there where the alternate
position is?
MR. MAC ELROY-We’ve done some preliminary investigation of that, yes. It’s further up the slope.
This site requires pumping as well, but that requires pumping and a longer force main up through,
you know, that existing ground, and a little more disturbance.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask a question here. What’s the requirements, setback requirements for
tanks from a structure. Isn’t it 15 feet?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s 20 feet from a dwelling.
MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty feet from a dwelling. Is a garage considered a dwelling in this case? I’m
looking for a positive or a negative nod.
MR. ROUND-I don’t know the Code that well, to be honest with you. Typically, it’s 10 feet
separation between a tank or a distribution box.
MR. MAC EWAN-The other side of the coin, I understand where Bob’s coming from, that it’s that
close to a proposed structure. If it requires that it be moved, do you have enough room to move it
back?
MR. VOLLARO-He also has an alternate site on the drawing. It says an area, potential alternate site.
This is obviously set aside for replacement, when this fails, but I see that as awfully close to a
structure, six feet. I’m just uncomfortable with that.
MR. ROUND-The project’s gone through engineering review, from Rist-Frost Associates, and they
did sign off on the location.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s fine.
MR. ROUND-I’m just offering you that fact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do they look at it for building codes, though, as well, or just Zoning Ordinance?
MR. ROUND-Well, compliance with the Town’s Ordinance and New York State Department of
Health guidance.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I wouldn’t feel so bad if this field wasn’t set up above the finished floor of the
garage. That compounds the issue, as far as I’m concerned. It’s 350 to 356 now. I see, but still and
all, we’re talking six feet of elevation. You get a good deal of hydrostatic pressure from six feet.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s the top grade of the disposal field. The piping system is an additional two
and a half feet below that, and the movement of the water is down, vertical.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re almost getting down to the finished floor level, if we keep working this way.
MR. MAC ELROY-But those grades you’ve discussed are finished grade of the ground surface.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess I’m still uncomfortable with the fact that it’s setting six feet from that
floor, and it’s above the finished floor level. That’s approximately where I’m coming from, and the
fact that you’ve got an alternate area set aside for septic. I would feel much better if that septic
system, because your effluent pump is certainly going to be able to make that grade. Do you know
what the head would be from that pump to the?
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s probably an additional 25 feet of head. I mean, pumps can do that, but
again, it’s the further distance crossing the driveway through some vegetated area just would involve
more disturbance. If the system could go closer to the source, then that was the owner’s preference.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand trying to compact this thing the way you are. I just have a problem
with it being that close to the finished floor of the garage. Using the effluent pump, what do you
have, a one and a half inch main there, with one pump at 25 feet. That’s not a big head for a one
horsepower pump. I just would feel a lot more comfortable if we talked about that being one back
further from the lake, for sure, although that’s not the key problem. My problem is its proximity to
the finished floor of the garage.
MR. MAC ELROY-The fact that the clearing was done and the fill was brought in, and that site, I
don’t know how to.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you what. I’ll let it go. Let the rest of the Board members dwell on
this a little bit, and see what they all think. I put this out for your benefit and for Board members’
benefits as well, and lets see where the Board comes down.
MR. MAC EWAN-At the time you placed that site for the septic tank, I mean, you weren’t
anticipating the garage going there. The garage was already figured in for going down closer to the
house toward the lake. True, untrue?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC ELROY-Not necessarily, no. This application went in in December, and the concept of
making this change was probably aware, or the owner was working on that at the time. If I could just
offer a suggestion. I mean, the fill has been brought to that site. It’s a site and design that meets the
Codes of the Town and the Health Department, and there is an area for a replacement, if need be.
The owner’s making a significant investment in the property, and doesn’t want, certainly doesn’t
want to be effected by a failing septic system, if that were ever to occur.
MR. VOLLARO-It’ll fail eventually, they all do, but that’s neither here nor there.
MR. ROUND-Can I just comment, the original approval, that was the area. The septic system hasn’t
changed. There was a parking area proposed there, a paved parking area. Now there’s a structure on
top of it. So I don’t know, the structural failure of the system, is that, or slope instability? I guess,
what’s the concern from a?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, proximity to a structure is one, and elevation above the finished floor of that
structure is two. With the outside possibility of a failure if you’ve got to have, you know, if you
exceed that 10% grade.
MR. ROUND-I’m just trying to get a handle on that. I think that the original plan had called for a
similar elevation, similar location, similar proximity to a finished floor of an uncovered structure.
Now there’s a covered.
MR. VOLLARO-It was kind of a macadam parking area.
MR. ROUND-Yes, a macadam parking area with a retaining wall structure. Now they’ve bumped it
out a little bit. I just wanted to make sure what the original approval was.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I looked at the old drawing, and I looked at this drawing, and I see the change
in it, and I’m just seeing a structure now where there was nothing but a parking field before, and
that’s my concern, and I’m going to drop it at that particular point and let the other Board members
think about it for a minute. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have anything else.
MR. PALING-If Rist-Frost approved it, the structure’s not a dwelling, and if Rist-Frost approved it,
I don’t have any trouble with it.
MR. ABBOTT-I’m okay with it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I feel the way Bob does, except what I can’t understand is why, I said I
feel the way Bob Paling does, but why Bob Vollaro, who is a retired engineer caught this right away.
How come, didn’t it have, didn’t it make you feel, when you saw it, didn’t it register anything? Didn’t
you have any kind of second thoughts about it when you moved the garage? I mean, right away he
catches it, and I can’t believe that you just, it just slipped your mind. In other words, you’re saying
when you saw this, I guess I’m not expressing myself very well, but when you saw this, it didn’t make
you think twice about it?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, sure. It’s all part of the design process.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-What the elevations were going to be, what the proximity was, but that’s, the
design as you see it is certainly acceptable to our office.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Because like Bob Vollaro says, in the long run, you’re going to be
the ones that are going to suffer the consequences if it doesn’t work out 100% effectively, like you
want it to, but again, if Rist-Frost says it’s okay, it’s fine with me.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure that Rist-Frost ever got queried on this. Maybe they have, maybe they
haven’t. If they’ve signed off on the drawings, they’ve signed off on the drawings, and that relieves
this Board of any responsibility, I suspect, but I still just don’t think it’s good practice, and that’s
where I’m coming from.
MR. RINGER-But the elevations didn’t change. The only thing is he’s putting a garage there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The only thing is he’s putting a structure where there was a parking lot.
MR. RINGER-He was going to have a driveway there. So there was going to be pavement there.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine, Larry. I hear you.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 46-99 CHRIS
MACKEY, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
As per prepared resolution.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 46-99, Chris Mackey for a
modification to an approved site plan. Modification proposed eliminates the attached garage/storage
structure and the connecting entry foyer. The new plan adds a detached garage located as an
extension of the parking pod previously approved and a covered porch, and;
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 12/99, consists of the following:
1.
12/27/99 – Letter to L. Moore from D. MacElroy (agent) with maps “As approved dated
9/28/99”, map North Elevation – Modified Plan dated 12/28/99, maps S-1, S-2 revised
12/27/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
1/6/2000 - Meeting Notice letter
2.
1/7/2000 - Letter w/map regarding garage elevation
3.
Staff prepared pictures of site
4.
1/25/00 - 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
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary;
and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve modification to
Site Plan No. 46-99, Chris Mackey.
Duly adopted this 8 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 2-2000 MODIFICATION MICHAEL & CHRISTINE BREDA
OWNER: DONALD SOKOL ZONE: NC-10 ZONE LOCATION: 340 AVIATION
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN.
MODIFICATION IS TO RELOCATE PLAY AREA. TAX MAP NO. 91-1-2.3 LOT SIZE:
N/A
MICHAEL BREDA, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has this been revised on the original site plan drawing where you submitted one,
or is this the only thing that’s now in existence?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MRS. MOORE-No. He has a full set of plans. What I provided was a copy of a portion of that
drawing. What I’ll do is I’ll read into the record what the Board approved last time under their
resolution. So you’re just familiar. It says “Motion to Approve Site Plan No. 2-2000 Michael &
Christine Breda, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro: With the following stipulations: That the applicant forwards a copy of the day care
license, as issued by New York State, to the Planning Office, prior to a final Certificate of
Occupancy, and a copy of the policy for pick up and drop off of children. That the play area be
enclosed and have two accesses, and that there must be a minimum of 15 feet from the play area to
the right-of-way of Dixon Road, and that along the side of the play area that’s bordering Dixon
Road, that there be constructed a six inch square, those six by six posts (barrier made out of wood,
like a guardrail), that will run the length of Dixon Road, that is on the same side as the play area.”
This proposal is a modification from that, and he moves the location of the play area from, if you’re
looking at the map, where the relocated shed was, to an area toward the left of it, I guess. I’m trying
to think of a better way to propose it. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-There was a question about, NiMo had a box there. He’s away from where the
electrical outlet is?
MRS. MOORE-He’s away from the electrical outlets. What happened at the previous Planning
Board meeting was an opportunity arose to put that to the side of the building, and that’s where the
electrical units are located, and so now he’s extending it. He’s not on the side of the building. He’s
still on the Dixon Road side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Larry?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. BREDA-Michael Breda.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us quickly? I think Staff pretty much summarized it, but.
MR. BREDA-Yes. We just need to relocate the outdoor play area, and we did that. We moved it
more toward the corner of the building, saved some parking spots in the process, and meet all of
what you asked for in the other meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems, actually, that the new location is a better location, looking at it.
MR. BREDA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s somewhat screened, with the natural vegetation there as well. Any questions?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s a lot better.
MR. PALING-That entrance door now, that’s on the corner of the building, how close is that to the
electrical equipment? I haven’t got that drawing with me.
MR. BREDA-There’s a door that goes to the side, it’s approximately, from the corner of the building
to the door is probably 35 feet.
MR. PALING-To the nearest electrical?
MR. BREDA-The door to the nearest electrical?
MR. ABBOTT-The gate to the.
MR. PALING-The gate, the entrance to the play area is at the corner of the building.
MR. BREDA-Right.
MR. PALING-How close is that to the nearest electrical apparatus?
MR. BREDA-Probably between six to ten feet, and that gate, the engineer put that gate right on the
corner, but I certainly can move that. He just put it there.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. ABBOTT-That’s not the primary entrance and exit of the play area.
MR. BREDA-Right, that’s the secondary gate. I’m not positive, but it’s quite a ways away from the
boxes on the wall.
MR. PALING-As a passageway, I think it’s okay, but I wouldn’t want to see any playing done around
that area.
MR. BREDA-Right, absolutely.
MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. PALING-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-On your drawing that you submitted, there’s this long area right here. What’s
that denote?
MR. BREDA-That’s to keep the cars off the wall of the building. So it allows for a walkway.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is it? Describe what it’s going to be constructed of?
MR. BREDA-Along the building, the dots along the building?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. BREDA-It’s pavement, black top.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it painted area or something?
MR. BREDA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BREDA-And then there’ll be parking lot bumpers so the cars can’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s primarily the walkway out the back door down to the play area.
MR. BREDA-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And where is the back door on this? Right there? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Does someone want to
introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO ORIGINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2-2000
FOR MICHAEL AND CHRISTINE BREDA, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
And to incorporate a detail called “Proposed Day Care Employee Parking and Play Area Location:”,
it’s a scale of one to forty, drawing dated 1/19/2000, and that the application is a modification, and
the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the
proposed modifications do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts,
and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary.
Duly adopted this 8 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Breda.
MR. BREDA-Thank you.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 3-2000 TYPE II GEORGE & CONSTANCE LANGFORD OWNER:
SAME AGENT: ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI ARCHITECTURE ZONE: WR-1A, AP A,
CEA LOCATION: 254 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 693 +/- SQ. FT.
ADDITION TO EXISTING DWELLING. THE ADDITION WILL INCLUDE A ONE
CAR GARAGE, MUDROOM AND EXPANSION OF THE MASTER BEDROOM. SITE
PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR AN EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 1-95, AV 4-2000 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 1/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 8-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION: 179-
16, 179-79
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 3-2000, George & Constance Langford, Meeting Date: “Project
Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 693 square foot addition that includes an
attached garage with a mud room (563 square feet) and expansion of the master bedroom (130
square feet). The addition is considered an expansion of a non-conforming structure in the
Waterfront Zone. Site Plan review and approval is required for this expansion proposal in a critical
environmental area. Staff Notes: The applicant and agent met with staff prior to submission to
review the proposed project. The agent explained the location of the building assisted in preserving
the character of the home, saving some trees, and providing the applicant with an indoor access from
the garage to the home. The expansion of the master bedroom meets the required setbacks as
shown on the plan. There are no other changes to the site with the exception of the removal of one
tree for the addition of the garage. The floor area ratio sheet dated January 14, 2000 replaces some
information on the site development data sheet. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of
the site plan for the addition of a garage with a mud-room and vestibule and expansion of the master
bedroom.”
MRS. MOORE-The County had “No County Impact”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall of Rucinski/Hall Architecture. With me is
George Langford and his wife Connie.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project?
MR. HALL-Basically what you have on the drawing is we have a one car garage that we wish to
attach to the structure. There’s currently a porch at the front of the building, or it’s actually the side
away from the lake, the front of the building, that we want to enclose, which would allow Mrs.
Langford to get in and out of her vehicle. She has a disability which makes it tougher for her to walk
in the winter time, and she’d like to be able to get out of her car and into the house without having
to walk outside the house.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. HALL-We looked at several different alternatives as different places to put this, and really this is
about the only place we could make it work and save as many trees on the site as we could. There’s
three really nice maple trees that are there that we’re trying to save them. One of them it was just
unavoidable to eliminate that one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-When we visited the site, I noticed that you have what is depicted on the drawing
as a boathouse. Taking a look at 179-16, which is Waterfront Residential zones, WR-1A, it talks in
there to accessory structures, and it says “Private Garage/Private Boat Storage Building”, and I think
what that means, my interpretation of that is either a private garage or a private boat storage building,
but not both. That’s the way I read it in 179-16. You already have a structure on the property that’s
sufficing as a boathouse, at the present time. We saw a set of stairs going up. Is there living space at
the top?
MR. HALL-Yes, there is. There’s a small efficiency type apartment, and a bunk room. It’s for family
who stay there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hearing different versions of what’s up there on the second floor. Is it a
bunk room or is it an efficiency apartment?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
CONSTANCE LANGFORD
MRS. LANGFORD-I’m Constance Langford. What was the question exactly?
MR. MAC EWAN-What is the use of the second floor of the boathouse/storage building?
MRS. LANGFORD-It is an efficiency. It’s grandfathered. My dad built it about 30 years ago. Got a
variance at the time. It was for the kids. There’s a tiny kitchen in there, and there’s a bathroom and
some bunks, and we renovated it last winter with the proper building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Were you done?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, for now. Go ahead.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Alan?
MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. PALING-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-The bottom half of that existing structure, the apartment, what do you use that
for? Is that for storage?
GEORGE LANGFORD
MR. LANGFORD-It’s a boat storage.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-And you plan on obviously keeping it there?
MRS. LANGFORD-Yes. If we could have turned it into a garage, I mean, we would have, but
wouldn’t have helped me because it’s too far from the house.
MR. METIVIER-I’m set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Okay. We have a public hearing
scheduled tonight. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. At a previous
meeting we attended on this project, and I think it was the Zoning Board of Appeals, it was made
clear that this whole operation was an effort to convert a seasonal use to a year round use, and I
notice on your program tonight, it talks about the expansion of a non-conforming structure. I think
you should give consideration to the fact that this is also the expansion of a nonconforming use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. LANGFORD-Can I just address that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MRS. LANGFORD-We’ve been permanent residents at that location for four years, and this is only
because my disability has gotten worse in the last five or six years, and I’m going to be in a
wheelchair probably before too long, which is the reason for the master bedroom expansion.
MR. HALL-When did the camp burn down? This was a seasonal residence, several years ago.
MRS. LANGFORD-Up until 1994.
MR. HALL-The camp itself burned down, and it was re-built on the same footprint at that time, and
changed into a permanent residence at that time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Any other questions or comments
from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I just want to, again, I’m taking a look at 179-16, on accessory structures.
Under “A”, it says “Private Garage/Private Boat Storage Building”, and it’s my feeling that the
boathouse that’s presently on the property fulfills the requirement of accessory structures, because
it’s a private garage/private boathouse and storage building, and I think that already satisfies, what’s
on the property satisfies the definition of accessory structures. We are asking for another garage.
MRS. LANGFORD-But it’s not an accessory structure. It’s an attached garage. It’s expanding the
house, not putting another accessory structure.
MR. HALL-We went through this before the Zoning Board. They addressed it and had no problem
with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Bob, what you’re saying is there’s only one garage allowed per residence, and a
boathouse can be considered a garage. So in effect we’d have two garages.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-What does Staff say about that?
MRS. MOORE-This is a subject I was approached on before. My understanding is that the Zoning
Board took care of this issue, and I would say it’s an allowed, you know, the garage that they’re
proposing is attached to the house, versus.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where did the Zoning Board take care of the issue?
MRS. MOORE-It may not be in their resolution, but apparently it was discussed at their meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-I was at that meeting, and I don’t remember that particular issue being sort of put
to bed, that there’s no problem with the second garage, and it’s certainly not in the motion to
approve the variance.
MRS. MOORE-Again, a boat storage building is different than a garage. A garage is defined as being
a place to store vehicles. The boat storage is a place that stores a boat.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. I’m just having problems with 179-16.
MRS. MOORE-I don’t know what you’re looking for, I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just don’t know how many garages we can have. This boat storage can
certainly be considered a garage.
MRS. MOORE-If it’s a garage, then it’s a second garage, and they would have to be requesting that
use from the Zoning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about if it was the only garage or the only boat storage building on the
property? Would it be considered an accessory use or a primary use?
MRS. MOORE-A boat storage building would be considered for a boat.
MR. MAC EWAN-And/or a garage. The Ordinance doesn’t separate the two into two different
definitions. It’s got them lumped into one. So, yes, they’re saying that they have boats stored in
there. It has regular garage doors. You could drive a car in there, too. There’s no difference in
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
definition of the physical aspects of the building. You can put a boat in there. You also can put a car
in there.
MRS. MOORE-But in the beginning of the Ordinance there are specific definitions as to what a boat
storage building is and a garage, a personal vehicle garage is.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess I’m still having problems with the words of the way 179-16 is written.
It sounds like once you satisfy the use of a garage or a boat storage, then that’s the only, it doesn’t say
two garages.
MRS. MOORE-But then you’re at the accessory structure. They have one accessory structure
located on the property.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess the key to what you’re saying is that because the garage is attached
to the house, is that?
MRS. MOORE-Correct, it’s not considered accessory.
MR. RINGER-I can live with it that way. If the garage was not attached, then you would look at it
differently.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that if we built this as a separate garage, then my position would
be valid in your mind?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2000 GEORGE & CONSTANCE
LANGFORD, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
As per prepared Staff resolution.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 3-2000, George and Constance
Langford. Applicant proposes a 693 +/- sq. ft. addition to an existing dwelling. The addition will
include a one car garage, mudroom, and expansion of the master bedroom; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 12/27/99, consists of the following:
1.
12/27/99 – Application w/maps C-1, CN-1, CN-2 dated 12/15/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
1/25/00 - Staff Notes
2.
1/18/00 – Notice of Public Hearing
3.
1/12/00 – Warren Co. Planning Board
4.
As Built drawing and plot plan dated 10/6/99 from BP # 99-314 of New Alger System
5.
1/6/00 - Meeting Notice Letter
6.
1/3/00 - C. Brown from E. Hall (agent)
7.
12/29/99 – C. Brown from E. Hall (agent)
8.
12/28/99 - Parcel History from BAS system
9.
1/17/95 - Planning Board resolution
10.
Pictures of site taken by Staff
11.
1/19/00 - ZBA resolution
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/8/00 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
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered,
and/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary,
and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 3-
2000, George & Constance Langford.
Duly adopted this 8 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MRS. LANGFORD-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 4-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED KEITH CRIST OWNER: WILLIAM
CRIST ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1025 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES THE
ADDITION OF USED CAR SALES TO AN EXISTING AUTO REPAIR AND QUICK
LUBE FACILITY. AUTOMOBILE SALES IN AN HC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 10-83, SV 3-2000
WARREN CO. PLANNIING: 1/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-11.1 LOT SIZE: 2.52
ACRES SECTION: 179-23
KEITH CRIST, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-2000, Keith Crist, Meeting Date: February 8, 2000 “Project
Description: The applicant proposes to use a portion of an existing building to operate a used car
sales business. The used car sales would operate in conjunction with the current auto and body
repair facility. “Auto sales” requires site plan review and approval in the highway commercial zone,
HC-1A. Staff Notes: The existing office was built in 1987 and the main building was built in 1961.
A portion of the main building as noted on the drawing will be converted into a second office for the
used car auto sales. The current site lighting comes from fixtures attached to the building. The
applicant has received a sign variance for an additional sign, SV 3-2000. The site plan indicates 42
spaces are available on the paved areas around the building (two of these spaces are to be handicap).
There appears to be more than adequate room for employees, customers for repairs and customers
for sales. The area near the sales office is proposed to be paved for display of vehicles. The
applicant indicates 7 vehicles will be displayed in this area, the Board may want to consider limit of
display vehicles to the amount and location. There is adequate space for customer parking and
pedestrian movements. The applicant proposes no new landscaping, stormwater management,
alterations to existing sewer or water connections or modification to fire access. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan for an additional use to A-2000 auto repair facility for a
used car sales operation – this would include the display of 7 cars, an office in the location as noted
on plans and the paving improvements as noted on plans.”
MRS. MOORE-And Warren County has “No County Impact”.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a silly question for you. We don’t need to do an Environmental
Assessment Form tonight, do we?
MRS. MOORE-I have it listed as an Unlisted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I have a motion in front of me that says the ZBA did a Short Form. So
we don’t need to do one.
MR. PRATT-The ZBA did one. They’re the lead agency. (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s enough for me. Okay. You said County No County Impact, right?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record?
MR. CRIST-I’m Keith Crist.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you tell us a little about your project, Mr. Crist?
MR. CRIST-Well, we’re just proposing to add a used car facility to our additional, our business. We
have a fast oil change business and a general repair facility at the moment, and we’re finding lulls in
the day where we have time, slow times, and I’d like to be able to use my facility to fill those slow
times with additional repairs on used cars. Not a large complex or anything like that, just roughly we
figured eight to twelve cars is what we’d figure for an inventory. We kind of figured that would be
enough to keep things rotating and pick up the slack time, from time to time, that we have, as well as
be able to eventually bring on more technicians, establish a larger work force.
MR. MAC EWAN-These two drawings are the only two drawings in existence for your application?
MR. CRIST-Yes, the two back pages here. The ones that picture the building that we had done for
the signage, and the other one’s a footprint, a layout I did. It shows the shop area and the other
offices, and existing customer waiting area to the south side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a question for Staff. When we hand out our packets for applications for site
plan review, is there not a list of things we’d be looking for to be included in that packet?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. The applicant met with Staff prior to submission. We went through in detail
information on the application.
MR. MAC EWAN-And this is acceptable to you, the drawings, the site plan map?
MRS. MOORE-I can read them, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add?
MR. CRIST-No, I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-No? Okay. Any questions?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I didn’t think the drawings were very good, and I just want to know
exactly where you’re going to put the cars.
MR. CRIST-It would be to the north side, off the other north end of the building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they won’t be in front of the building?
MR. CRIST-No. They’d be off to the side of the parking lot area, and displayed coming up the side
of the lot. There wouldn’t be anything on the front yard or any of that stuff.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’d have to really get out and pull over and walk around to see them,
because you won’t be able to see them from Route 9.
MR. CRIST-Driving by you’d be able to see the inventory. You wouldn’t be able to specifically see,
most of the time people would come in and they’ll.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now you’re only going to do 10 or 12?
MR. CRIST-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then what if that takes off and you want to come back for 30 or 40?
MR. CRIST-I don’t really see that large of a, because I don’t want to dilute my oil change business
and my repair facility as well. That’s kind of why I’d keep it as small entity, just as an add on
additional business. I kind of stated in my write up that we wanted to keep a small presence, not to
dilute our fast oil change business and our general repair facility.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess maybe I want to ask a question of my fellow Board members here, before
we dive into this thing too much deeper here. How does everyone feel about the drawings that were
submitted?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Awful.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. PALING-For something like this, I thought they were acceptable.
MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind it’s lacking a lot of information. The simple things that we ask any
applicant to prepare, that they get with their application packet, simple things like north arrow, scale
on the drawing, looking at ingress/egress. There’s no lighting shown on there.
MR. PALING-There is no lighting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if he’s proposing a car lot, a used car lot, do you know if he’s going to do it
after hours or not?
MR. PALING-That was going to be one of my questions. There’s only one light on the whole
property, and that’s at the sign.
MR. CRIST-Right, on the sign facing the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, we’ve been working real hard in that corridor up there to try to get
streetscaping up there. There’s no landscaping plan.
MR. PALING-Well, there’s a long hand note in there. That was my second question. There’s a long
hand note that said he would improve the property.
MR. CRIST-Correct.
MR. PALING-That he would, whatever you were going to do in front, and I wanted to know what,
specifically, that was going to be. So he does have a landscaping plan. If you’re going to add
lighting, you better tell us what it is, because it’s not on your plans.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not comfortable with this at all, to be honest with you. I’d rather see these
drawings taken back and re-worked and found more in line with what the requirements are of our
application packets. That’s my feeling.
MR. PALING-He’s not changing the dimensions of anything that’s existing.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true, but there’s other applications that have come in front of us before
that’s gone from one use to another use. They haven’t really changed it, but they’ve submitted
information required, that we were looking for.
MR. PALING-Well, if he has no lighting, there’s no need for a lighting. He’s only got one light, and
he has a plan in there, a general plan, about improving the appearance on the street front.
MR. VOLLARO-You said that was a handwritten note?
MR. PALING-It’s a long-hand note.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see that. Is it on the drawing, Bob?
MR. PALING-No. It’s a separate sheet of eight and a half by eleven paper. It was handwritten.
MR. CRIST-It’s labeled as the Detailed Description of Project.
MR. PALING-Do you have a copy of that handwritten note with you?
MR. CRIST-Yes. Did you want it?
MR. PALING-I left mine.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this what you’re talking about?
MR. PALING-No, I don’t think so. Is it?
MR. CRIST-Yes. That should be it right there. It says Detailed Description of Project on the top.
MR. VOLLARO-The current usage of our facility, is that?
MR. CRIST-Yes, that’s the one. That kind of gives a listing of what we wanted to do and what we
planned on doing, as far as appearance.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. PALING-No, this isn’t what I’m talking about.
MR. CRIST-Because we planned on re-painting the facility in the springtime, as well as a planter up
around the street sign or pole, put a planter in and some shrubs in that. I was kind of waiting until
they’d gotten the sidewalk project done, and they planted a few trees in front of the facility as well.
The State has done that.
MR. PALING-The detailed description, though, is in a handwritten note.
MR. CRIST-Yes, actually, you’re right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just ask this of fellow Board members, I guess. Based on this Detailed
Description of the Project, and based on the fact of the drawing that we have here, if it ever came to
a point where, for one reason or another, we had to take enforcement action, what have we got that’s
documented?
MR. RINGER-Enforcement action in what way?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, one never knows. To me, considering it’s a commercial site plan, I would
think I would like to see, in my mind, a little bit more detail into exactly, even though he’s going to
be selling cars and he’s looking to only do a half a dozen or so, I mean, there’s very basic information
that we require on a site plan map, and we didn’t get that. Why should we treat this application any
different than we do any other one that comes in front of us? Shouldn’t all applicants play by the
same rules? Am I all by myself on this one?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I’m the one that said I thought the plans could have been better in the
first place, but if there’s only one little light, then that means you have no intention of selling cars at
night, staying open?
MR. CRIST-Your basic hours is typically eight to five is what we run now, and some Saturday hours.
MR. PALING-But you’re not going to add any lighting?
MR. CRIST-No. I’ll leave what we have there. It’s existing. It floods, the floodlight illuminates to
the right and to the left of the yard.
MR. PALING-That long-hand note could not have only been in my packet. It had to have been in
somebody else’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not seeing it.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it. I didn’t see a long-hand note.
MR. PALING-He knows it exists because I forgot to bring it.
MR. CRIST-Would it be one that I filled out in the environmental assessment?
MR. PALING-All I can tell you is it was part of my packet, and I think you remember what I’m
talking about. Don’t you?
MR. CRIST-The one note that I had written up, the detailed description of the project, I was
thinking you were talking about that. It’s been quite a while since I’ve filled these forms out now.
MR. PALING-My only point was that you give us in detail about what you were going to do to make
the front more attractive in terms of a planter, how big it would be and what it would contain.
MR. CRIST-That I was going to leave up to Brian Oligny who does landscaping. I was going to have
him address that.
MR. PALING-We should know how big it is, where it’s located and what’s going to be in it.
MR. CRIST-I apologize. I don’t know.
MR. PALING-Well, maybe he should come back then, at least with a drawing of the area around the
building and any changes that would be made.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you. I feel that these drawings, when put on file, in our file, and somebody
comes to look at them a year from now, they really don’t tell much of a story. They don’t give you a
very good description of what’s going on here at all. I mean, I know what A-2000 looks like. I know
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
what Crist’s place looks like, and I can visualize it, but, you know, there’s going to be people that
come after us that want to take a look at a drawing like this, and if this is all that’s on file, it’s not very
descriptive, in my mind, at all.
MR. PALING-Well, I’d like to see detail on the planter, and he’s already made a commitment on
lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s no stormwater differential here at all? He’s not going to put anymore
macadam onto this?
MR. ABBOTT-Yes. Shaded area to be stoned or black-topped in the spring.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s eliminating some impervious areas, and we ought to know about that
on the drawing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s there on that drawing.
MR. CRIST-It’s just squaring off that lot, the end. It’s roughly.
MR. VOLLARO-Keith, do you see what I’m driving at?
MR. CRIST-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-That these drawings are going to go on file. They’re going to be a posterity type of
document, and two or three years from now, when most of us may not be, or whatever, this Board
changes, or this Staff wants to take a look at this for some reason, these are not very descriptive
drawings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask Staff the question. When we hand out a packet, an application packet
for site plan review, is there not a laundry list in there of things that are required on the site plan
drawing?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, there are.
MR. MAC EWAN-North arrow, ingress/egress, landscape plan, stormwater management, whatever
the laundry list is, it’s there.
MRS. MOORE-There is a laundry list.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what you need to do with your site plan drawing, make it conform to what
the list in the application packet says you should have on there. Some items in the past we have
given waivers to. If you request a waiver from certain items that you don’t feel are necessary to your
site plan, just put it in the form of a letter, and we’ll take those under consideration, whether you
need to, I don’t know. I’m trying to think of one you might need to.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the checklist for the drawings is relatively simple. It’s not a complicated
thing. I mean, you can take a look at that and just follow those recommendations.
MR. CRIST-Where are those recommendations?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you can get those from Laura.
MR. MAC EWAN-They would have been in your original packet that you received for your site plan
application, and in the packet would list in there items that are required on the site plan itself, like
scale, north arrow, so on and so forth. Okay?
MR. CRIST-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what I’d like to do, with the Board’s blessing here, is we table this thing. I
will open up the public hearing and leave the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll table this application until we get a more detailed site plan. Okay.
MR. CRIST-Yes, sir.
MRS. MOORE-The Board is looking for a more detailed site plan. I guess, information that appears
to be missing is the north arrow and an access drive?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. RINGER-And landscaping. Bob asked for landscaping.
MRS. MOORE-Landscaping plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to know existing lighting and proposed lighting. Even though he says
he’s only got one light out there, where is it on the building?
MR. PALING-It is not on the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I want to know, then, where is it located, so we have documentation
of that. I’m looking, personally for me, I’m looking for more than just a planter around your sign.
I’m looking for streetscaping, like we’ve been trying to get a lot of businesses that have come in front
of us, to try to re-do up there and make that corridor a little bit more presentable.
MRS. MOORE-Are you looking for a detailed landscaping plan from a landscaping architect or are
you looking for?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s necessary. As long as he has something delineated on his site
plan that tells the size and a species.
MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, my concern is that species change simply because of cost.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he’s got a landscaper that does work for him. This is the time for him to sit
down with him.
MR. CRIST-I’ll have Brian draw that up. That’s not a problem. So basically the planter. Any other
suggestions?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what you need to do is start, first of all meet the requirements of the
application itself by making sure that your site plan drawing conforms to what the requirements are
in the applicant’s packet. All the little things that are supposed to be on your drawing, that’s your
starting point there, and I think we’re looking for some more detail and information on your
proposed landscaping, lighting. Are there any other issues, while we’re right here, that the Board
may?
MR. RINGER-You show your auto display area as Area Number Five on your map, and that has
seven parking spots, and you talked about having twelve cars. Where will you be putting the
additional five cars?
MR. CRIST-That’s just Parking Area Number Five.
MR. RINGER-Right, but that shows that that’s your used auto display.
MR. CRIST-Seven spots is how we figured it.
MR. RINGER-There’s seven spots there.
MR. ABBOTT-Parking Area Five sticks out into interfere with Bay Six.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we can now see that’s an area of concern. So we can get some
clarification on that, on your drawing when you submit it?
MR. CRIST-Yes, I can re-vamp. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-Just that the Staff Notes did talk about the applicant indicates seven vehicles will be
displayed in this area. So when you make that parking area, decide how many cars are going to be in
there, and if it’s seven, then put seven spaces in.
MR. RINGER-The Staff Notes said seven, but he had mentioned twelve.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that. He said eight to twelve, actually.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Mr. Crist?
MR. CRIST-Yes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If you have any questions, get a hold of Staff and we’ll communicate here.
MRS. MOORE-When you make your formal tabling resolution, are you going to table it to a specific
date, is the other question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we table it, how long will it take you to compile this information do
you think?
MR. CRIST-When was your next meeting?
MR. MAC EWAN-Our next meeting, we have two meetings at the end of this month, if we tabled
him until the second meeting of the month, which is, what, the 22.
nd
MR. CRIST-The 22 would be fine.
nd
MR. MAC EWAN-That would give you ample time. Okay. I just put the motion up. Do we have a
second?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second it.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-2000 KEITH CRIST, Introduced by Craig
MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Until the 22 of February. (To provide a detailed plan to include items such as applicable from the
nd
Site Plan Application “Checklist” specifically addressing landscaping, parking areas, display areas and
lighting).
Duly adopted this 8 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 5-2000 TYPE II JAMES UNDERWOOD OWNER: SAME ZONE:
WR-1A, GLEN LAKE CEA LOCATION: 99 MANNIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
A 485 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION WITH A 140 SQ. FT. PORCH TO AN EXISTING
DWELLING. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING DWELLING WILL BE DEMOLISHED
TO RECONSTRUCT A LOG HOME ON AN EXISTING FOUNDATION WITH
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE
IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 6-2000 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-47 LOT SIZE: 1.91 ACRES SECTION:
179-16, 179-79
JAMES UNDERWOOD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-2000, James Underwood, Meeting Date: February 8, 2000
“Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 485 square foot addition with a 140
square foot porch. The new construction will be placed on top of an existing foundation and
attached to an existing garage. The construction will be log style similar to the garage. The proposal
is considered an expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Waterfront zone. Site Plan review
and approval is required in a critical environmental area. Staff Notes: The applicant’s building
permit history indicates the garage was constructed in September of 1999 and the home in the
1950’s. The existing home does not meet the required setbacks on the side or the shoreline The
applicant has received relief from the setback requirements, AV 6-2000. The site of construction
appears to slope towards Glen Lake with the remaining portion of the property appearing to be level.
Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the site plan as submitted with the
condition that the applicant include erosion control methods with the building permit application.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m James Underwood, the applicant.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little about your project, Mr. Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-My proposal would be to replace a camp that was built in the 1950’s. In
approximately 1987 or 1988 it was jacked up and a foundation was placed under it and a septic
system was put in at that time, too. My intent was to be as minimally invasive as possible. So by re-
using the foundation that’s presently there, it would involve no real excavation, other than for a small
85 square foot area on the southwest corner. Other than that, the other 400 square feet would be in
the connector between the newly constructed garage in the back. The construction would be a full
(lost word) log. I would pre-build it in the field in back. The house would be demolished down to
the foundation. I’m going to come up about three layers higher with the block to match the garage,
and then it would just be a matter of moving the logs over and putting them up. So it would
probably take maybe a week to do that, before putting the roof on. Since moving on the property,
put about 30 trees out in front, and perennial type flowers and things like that to create a buffer on
the lake side. So I’m well aware of it, having been involved with the Glen Lake Study that was done.
I did all the water testing over on the lake. The septic system seems to meet current standards, and
didn’t come up as a positive, either with the dye testing or with coliform testing. As far as you guys,
it would involve a couple of piers out in front there for the deck. Those would be quite a small area,
and I think it’s about a 17 foot ditch that needs to be dug, just to square off that southwest corner.
Everything else is in place, the infrastructure, furnace piping is all in the ground already. So it
wouldn’t involve digging up the yard or anything like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are these the plans that you submitted with your application?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, there’s a full set of plans, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Did you only Xerox us off the pertinent information or?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think they just wanted to see the areas that were going to be added. I think
that was more or less, with the setbacks from the property lines. Those were addressed with the
Zoning Board, too.
MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, there’s three sets of drawings that I have, and they actually interfit
together.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I gave them one set that was taped together, and it was a matter of I
didn’t have the ability to reduce it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing personal. I just get frustrated when I see drawings that don’t come
through the way I personally would like to see them come through, so that they’re easier to
understand, it’s part of the checklist that’s required. I don’t know if I’m the only one that’s having a
personal pet peeve with them tonight or everyone’s having kind of difficulty with them. Do you
have any formal drawings that have been made up?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ve got all the plans here if you want to look at them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Including a plot plan?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, everything is here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does the Staff have that on file? You have these sets, then?
MRS. MOORE-I haven’t seen that set, no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig has them, two sets. I don’t know what you guys have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Craig Brown. You haven’t seen these, then?
MRS. MOORE-Not in that form, no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s pretty straightforward. It’s the same foundation that was there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I realize your position that it’s pretty straightforward, but when we look at things
like this, it’s kind of hard to determine what’s straightforward and what’s not, and where things are
going, and personally I like to see drawings like this. It’s easier to understand and it leaves nothing
left to the imagination, and you have not received any plans like this?
MRS. MOORE-I haven’t, no, but I understand the plans that were submitted. So I don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-And these were the plans that were submitted?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And once again, they don’t meet this checklist.
MRS. MOORE-There’s an opportunity for an applicant to say not applicable or request waivers.
MR. UNDERWOOD-On the set I submitted to you guys, they were taped together.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It was a matter of, Craig wanted me to get the application in and I didn’t
realize, I got your thing like the day before that I needed to get in 14 more copies. So it was a matter
of rushing out at the last minute to get that done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Were you under some sort of code enforcement or something?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. It was the day before the deadline. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-The day before the deadline.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I wasn’t aware that you guys needed a set of them also.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I would ask the same thing of the Board. I’d like to table this thing and
have copies of these made up for everyone, so they can look at them.
MR. PALING-I agree in this case.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. I’m sure it’s fine, but we’ve got to see them.
MR. METIVIER-That’s fine with me.
MR. RINGER-Fine.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I wouldn’t want to send him back without something that I have to talk about
as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have more sets of this you can submit to Staff, more copies?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, those are my actual plans for my architect. I have three sets of them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’ll have to get some copied and submit.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want the whole plans, or just a section?
MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, out of that set, is there a specific one that you want that looks?
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a plot plan right here. There’s a house plan itself. Page One, Page Three,
Page Four, Page Seven, Page Nine and Page Ten. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and how many copies do you want?
MR. MAC EWAN-What are the requirements?
MRS. MOORE-There’s a requirement of nine copies, one original.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion to table?
MR. VOLLARO-Before we do, I’d like to just speak to the applicant, so he has a chance to
understand what I’m going to say on the next time around. On the floor area ratio, your existing
floor area is 2932, and the anticipated floor area is 3417. Now I see that the difference is really in the
covered deck. I see that by your numbers. However, when I read 179-16, it talks about, for example,
compliance with septic regulations, and it says, any increase in the floor area of an existing structure
serviced by a sanitary facility which requires a building permit shall conform with the requirements of
Chapter 136. Now, one of the reasons that I couldn’t buy these drawings is I don’t know how many
bedrooms. I see that you’ve, when I take a look at your detail drawings, it looks like you’ve got four
bedrooms there.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one in the new garage, and there will be one in the upstairs of the new
house, and two downstairs.
MR. VOLLARO-So that would be four.
MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s four.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s four bathrooms here, and I’m really trying to see whether or not, when I
read the words, the words are kind of very simple to me, at least. It says any increase in the floor
area of an existing structure, and on your floor area ratio worksheet, you show the existing floor area
as 2932 and the proposed area as 3417. So there’s a definite increase in the floor area, and I think
that Section of 179-16 now applies.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So what do you expect then?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says any increase in the floor area of the existing structure serviced by
sanitary facilities which requires a building permit shall conform with the requirements of Chapter
136. That’s the Sanitary Code, and I’ve got to have some assurance that with the four bedroom
proposed, that you are going to have, that the existing septic system was built in 1988.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I have a, there was an attached.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to get a feeling of whether these things go together, whether what you’re
proposing fits 136 or not.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a 1,000 gallon tank right now, and it goes, you saw that drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw that, and the leach field and the fact that it was built in ’88, and then I think
that you had.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The proposal from Craig was that, if necessary, a third eight by eight vault
would be added out at the tail end.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but Craig isn’t sitting here. That’s the problem.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s, it’s in the record from the Zoning Board, and that’s essentially
what he said, that it would be worked out with them, to their satisfaction.
MR. VOLLARO-With the Zoning Board?
MR. UNDERWOOD-With both Craig and with.
MRS. MOORE-It would probably be Mr. Hatin.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, with Dave Hatin. I did discuss it with them in detail at the office, and
they told me that it would be up, I left it up to them. I said, whatever you guys say, that’s where it
goes with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jim, from what I see here and what I see here, you have a pretty impressive
project going on, and I usually can get a handle by looking at things. Honest to God, visiting that
site, I had no idea that that is what you were proposing. I just could not get a concept of what you
were doing out there, and it’s going to be beautiful, but I had no idea, absolutely none, and what I
wanted to ask you was, I was wondering what all those stumps that were in the ground out there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s just the layout. It’s already laid out. That’s where I’m going to pre-
build it back there. So, you know, it’s just too difficult to build in a constrained area . I had a heck of
a time doing the other building, you know, and you’ve got to go around and back and forth, and so
it’ll just be easier to do it ahead of time, out in the field, and then take the other thing down at the
block, and just label the logs by number and bring them over piece by piece. Kind of like building a
Lincoln Log house.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I feel bad for you, because we did postpone this, re-schedule this
meeting, and now you’ve got to go back.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s no problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to ask the Staff one thing. On the septic system, is this going to be
approved, now, by Dave Hatin. Is that what we’re saying, that Dave is going to approve that this
system now complies with 136?
MRS. MOORE-I’ll take that information and I’ll have a meeting with Dave and go through that with
him, and provide that information to the Board, and if it’s an improvement, or if he has to upgrade
his system, I will let you know.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thanks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I told him whatever his decision was, that’s what I would do. So I have no
problem with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. I opened up the
public hearing and left it open, by the way.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2000 JAMES UNDERWOOD, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
Until a set of drawings are available, a set of drawings by page numbers that have been given to the
applicant, and it’s 1,3,4,7, 9, and 10, and the drawing is defined as the Fisher Underwood house. The
applicant will be postponed until the 22 of February 2000.
nd
Duly adopted this 8 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-There you are, Mr. Underwood.
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME
AGENT: THE LA GROUP ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 71 BIG BOOM ROAD THE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT
INCLUDES AN EXISTING EXCAVATION BUSINESS AND MATERIAL
PROCESSING ON THE 7 +/- ACRE SITE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES
ADDITIONAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF REGRADING, REVEGETATION, AND
RE-LOCATION OF PROCESSING MATERIALS TO A DEFINED LOCATION ON
THE SITE. THE EXISTING BULDING IS ALSO BEING OCCUPIED BY A COURIER
BUSINESS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 71-96, 33-94, SUB. 9-1994, 14-1994, AV 52-1998
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7 +/-
ACRES SECTION: 179-26
DAVID CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GLENN BATEASE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-2000, Glenn Batease, Meeting Date: February 8, 2000 “Project
Description: The applicant proposes to operate an excavation business with material processing on
site. The light industrial zone requires site plan review and approval for new uses. Staff Notes: The
applicant’s proposal is the result of compliance issues on the site for filling, grading and use. The
existing building was approved under Site Plan 33-94 for a storage building. Since that time the
applicant has applied for and received approval for a courier business. The applicant’s use of the
property for material processing for an excavation business requires Planning Board review and
approval. The proposed use will not alter the location, arrangement size, or design of buildings, signs
or lights. The site contains four curb cuts that assist in customer parking, employee parking, and
movement of business vehicles. There is adequate room on the site for parking and traffic
circulation of the two uses. The building has access from two levels, the road side and rear of the
building. The stormwater management indicates the stormwater will be handled on site in a
detention basin. The basin is designed for a fifty year storm as required by the Town code for
detention basins. The plans have also been forwarded to Rist Frost Associates for review and
comment. The site plan shows an existing sanitary drywell on site. There are no other details as to
the capacity it is to accommodate or the size. The site plan indicates a significant amount of grading
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
on the site including a small portion onto the neighboring property. The Board may request an
agreement be submitted between the applicant and neighboring landowner for the proposed grading.
The site plan shows a planting plan for the sloped area of the property where much of the grading
will occur. The Zoning Board required plantings to be placed in the buffer area as shown, per AV
52-1998. Recommendation: 1. Staff would recommend approval of the site plan for the
operation of an excavation business to include the storage of business vehicles and processing
materials as noted on plan of topsoil, sand, gravel, cobblestone; 2. The applicant is to have removed
all other materials that are not associated with the excavation business such as but not limited to
truck boxes, non-registered vehicles, scrap metal, and garbage. 3. In addition, the applicant is to
comply with the conditions set forth by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation letter dated December 27, 1999, and 4. The conditions set forth by the Zoning Board
of Appeals dated November 18, 1998 for Area Variance No. 52-1998, and where the conditions of
the NYSDEC and the Town of Queensbury conditions overlap, the applicant is to apply the more
restrictive condition; 5. In addition, the applicant is to comply with the conditions set forth by the
Warren County Planning Board dated January 12, 2000, and 6. The applicant’s final plans are to
identify the items noted in Staff’s letter of January 4, 2000.”
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’ve got some heavy reading to do here. Let’s start with the oldest Rist-
Frost January 24 letter.
th
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have a letter dated January 24, 2000 from Rist-Frost Associates, addressed
to Mr. Round, “We have reviewed the above referenced site plan and have the following comments:
1. No construction details for the stormwater detention basin outlet were provided. 2. No
construction details for the proposed fill areas were provided, (i.e. lift heights, compaction, type of
fill, etc.) 3. With the extent of the proposed fill and slopes and the possibility that filling will occur
over more than one session, an erosion control plan and construction specifications similar to those
previously approved for Site Plan 33-94 modifications submitted May 1997 should be adopted to
protect the fill slopes from eroding. These plans incorporated requirements for vegetation
establishment periodically if filling extends over an extended period. 4. Past submissions for this
property indicate that substantial fill exists where future industrial and commercial development is
proposed. We recommend that adequate geotechnical investigation be required as part of any future
development submissions. 5. A note stating that all erosion control measurements shall conform to
NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control should be included on the plans.”
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got one on the 31.
st
MRS. MOORE-A letter dated January 31 from Rist-Frost, addressed to Mr. Round, “We have
st
reviewed the site plan and additional information from the LA Group in response to our comment
letter of January 24, 2000 and have the following comments: 1. In regards to your Comment #3 we
have enclosed our comments and the site plan modification drawing from Site Plan No. 33-94
modification that was previously approved. These details or ones similar should be adopted to
protect the fill slopes from eroding. 2. All other additional details and information is acceptable.”
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got one February 7 from Rist-Frost.
th
MRS. MOORE-Okay. February 7, 2000 addressed to Mr. Round, “We have reviewed the revised
site details drawing dated February 3, 2000 submitted in response to our comment letter dated
January 31, 2000, and have no further comments.”
MR. MAC EWAN-And you have two letters from the LA Group dated the 26 of January.
th
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The first dated January 26. This is addressed to Tom Center. “I am in
th
receipt of your comments dated January 24, 2000 on the above referenced proposal and offer the
following revisions 1. The construction detail for the proposed culvert and rip-rap protection has
been added to Sheet S-1. 2. General notes concerning fill have also been added to Sheet S-1. 3. I
am not familiar with the May 1997 site plan modification. The slope seeding and stabilization notes
which have been included on the plan are taken from the “Guidelines for Urban Erosion and
Sediment Control”. If you need additional notes or detail, please let me know. 4. Geotechnical
investigation for any construction in substantial fill areas, will be addressed in the future when plans
have been developed. 5. The erosion control note has been added to Detail 4 on Sheet S-1
Sincerely, David Carr, Jr. for The LA Group, P.C.”
MR. MAC EWAN-And lastly, for the time being anyway, is the other one dated January 26, to you.
th
MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to myself, from the LA Group. It says, “I am in receipt of your
comment letter dated January 10, 2000 and the Town Engineers comment letter dated January 24,
2000. I have enclosed a copy of responses to his comments in this package along with ten copies of
the revised plans. The following responses correspond to the comments of your January 10
correspondence. A.1. There will be no fill removed from the site to achieve the proposed grades on
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
Sheet S-1. A.2. A NYS SPDES Permit Notice of Intent will be registered upon approval of the
proposed site plan modification. B. There is no question that some amount of fill has been placed
in the back area since October of 1998. However, there is substantial area for additional fill to be
placed to achieve the proposed grades. C. Subsequent to the December 27 letter my client has
th
spoken with Tim Post and will elaborate on those discussions at the upcoming Planning Board
meeting. D. It is my understanding that these stockpiles will be removed from the site. E. The
outlet has been detailed and added to the plan. F. The required SPDES General Permit along with
the required pollution prevention plan is normally filed at least two days prior to construction. We
normally view this as a registration and not a permit application, and therefore, do not usually include
the Notice of Intent on the SEQR form. However, if you require us to do so we can easily add this
to the form. I apologize for not addressing these comments sooner but I was waiting to hear from
Rist-Frost so we could address any proposed changes at one time. If you have any questions, or
need additional information, please give me a call. Sincerely, David Carr, Jr. for The LA Group”
MR. MAC EWAN-One more, the County.
MRS. MOORE-County Planning Board Recommendation, it says “Approve with the condition that
no excavation or placement of fill materials take place between mid-October and mid-April.
Additionally, proper erosion control procedures are to be used.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a question before we get underway. Why was it referred to the County
Planning Board?
MRS. MOORE-A new site plan. It’s located within 500 feet and the Northway is within 500 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because of the Northway then.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. CARR-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please?
MR. CARR-Yes. My name is David Carr, and I’m a Landscape Architect with the LA Group.
MR. BATEASE-Glenn Batease, owner of the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you tell us about the project, please.
MR. CARR-Yes. What we are proposing here, the site is on the eastern side of Big Boom Road. It’s
approximately seven and a half acres. What exists on the site currently today is an approximately
6,000 square foot building with two floors. The upper floor housing an office and a courier service.
The lower floor is basically storage for excavation vehicles. What we are proposing with this plan is
to basically bring the existing operation of the material processing into compliance, and to meet the
requirements of the variance which was approved in November of 1998. It is my understanding that
Mr. Batease made an application early in 1998, or rather 1999. Additional information was requested.
It was tabled at various meetings, and eventually it was denied in October. He contacted us in
December, and we created this plan, which we feel addresses those comments that were brought
about in the November approval, the conditions of the approval, also a drainage report with the
landscaping.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. Question and answer time. Mr. Vollaro, we’ll start with
you.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d like to know what the answer to Timothy Post’s letter is dated December
27, from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I just highlighted some
th
of the portions of the letter. I have visited on-site several instances since the letter was sent. They’re
talking about an August 12, 1999 letter, and adds “I have visited the site several instances since that
letter was sent, and have determined that the steps outlined in that August 12, 1999 have not been
properly and completely executed. Very little appears to have been done to correct the situation and
prevent further sediments from entering the stream”, and it goes on to talk about that kind of thing,
As a further measure of protection another complete row of haybale were to be installed, and I went
up to the site that one day when I came up there, and the silt fence looked to me like it had looked to
me back in July. Nothing has changed on the site, that I can see, and there’s requirements from the
DEC here that certain things should have been done. Recognizing now the ground is frozen. You
can’t get in, can’t do any work on it, but this has been an ongoing thing. I mean, what I did is I took
the time to go back, to take a look at all of the minutes of the meetings that took place from July 20,
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
1999 to the time we denied the motion on October 26, 1999, and just looking at the history of this,
and then taking a look at the letter from DEC, and myself going up to look at the site to see if
anything had been done in compliance with this letter, just recently, and this is in addition to this
Board going up to review the site on site reviews.
MR. BATEASE-I spoke with Tim Post, and we went over it. I ended up putting a four to six foot
trench down the back side of the property, with a detention pond on each end of it, and he said that
that would work for him. Any water runoff would go into the trench.
MR. VOLLARO-My problem with that is, and I understand that you probably, and I’m not denying
that you talked to him, but I need a response from him, and not from the applicant as to what he
said. That’s my position. I’m not speaking for this Board, but when I take a look at a letter like he
wrote, I would like him to say, by the way, I’ve been to see Mr. Batease and everything is now okay.
I mean, I think that this letter stands four square for me. It’s a recent position that was taken, and I
just can’t go much further with it than that, and the other thing I did is I took a minute to do some
calculations on your numbers, and just taking a look at, without getting into a big long discussion on
it, the pre-runoff that you calculated at 15.22 cubic feet per second, and I converted that down into
gallons, because I just wanted to see what it was. Essentially, it looks like you have a difference of
252 gallons per hour. You’re calculating down to one half of one percent, in trying to come up with,
that you’re meeting the pre-runoff capability. It’s very close. The numbers are tight, real tight. I
don’t know how you can get that close with these kind of calculations, to tell you the truth.
MR. CARR-Well, it’s run through a computer model, as you know.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MR. CARR-And basically what we did is because of the condition of the site, in that you can’t really,
yes, there’s soil there, but you can’t really consider it in a natural condition because there’s vehicles
running back and forth. Any fill that’s put in is being compacted. So a lot of the existing soil and
plus what’s being put down, as far as runoff number, isn’t that different from gravel, because of its
compacted nature.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, all I’m saying is in looking at the raw numbers, that calculating something
down to one half of one percent of the pre-existing is very tight.
MR. CARR-Right, but that really wasn’t our goal. What our goal was to do was to make sure that
whatever grading took place here there was a swale and a basin put in place at the top of the slope to
catch any sediment prior to going down that slope to that protected stream. That’s really the goal
here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else right now, no.
MR. PALING-I don’t have all of the papers on this with me, but I think that there’s a lot of items
that haven’t been done yet, such as Bob has mentioned, and removal of some of the junk vehicles
and what not from the property, and I’d like to see some of that stuff done, make it past tense before
we proceed with this. Because I think we’ve asked for this quite a few times in the past and haven’t
received it.
MR. RINGER-Glenn, when you talked to Tim Post, did he come up and look at the property after
you had reached an agreement with him?
MR. BATEASE-I’m not sure if he did or not. I think I may have a copy of the letter out in my
vehicle.
MR. RINGER-Well, you first said you talked to him. You wrote him a letter and then he responded?
MR. BATEASE-I spoke to him over the phone and he sent me a letter.
MR. RINGER-He responded to you? It would be nice if we could get a copy of that.
MR. BATEASE-I think I may have that. I’ll run out now and check.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know if you’ve got to get it now, because I don’t think we’re going to be
approving this tonight, but we may need it. We would like to have it.
MR. BATEASE-All right.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Area Variance 52-1998, are you in compliance with that at this point or not?
MR. CARR-With this plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, prior to this plan. Are you in compliance with Area Variance No. 52-1998?
MR. CARR-I would say, no, because I believe one of the conditions of the variance is that this
landscaping be placed, and that’s what’s addressed in this plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Under Staff Recommendations, six recommendations should we give
consideration to approving this site plan, item number two says, “The applicant is to have removed
all other materials that are not associated with the excavation business such as but not limited to
truck boxes, non-registered vehicles, scrap metal, and garbage”, and so on and so forth. I believe
that was a condition of a previous approval this Board granted? I recall it as being yes.
MR. CARR-I am not aware of that.
MR. BATEASE-I don’t know what you’re calling garbage and junk material and, I have steel on the
property, which I use in my business, which may be junk to you, but it’s not junk to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about unregistered vehicles?
MR. BATEASE-What about them?
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not to be stored there. That’s a violation. It’s a Code Enforcement
action.
MR. BATEASE-On a commercial piece of property, light industrial?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. BATEASE-Are you sure of that?
MR. MAC EWAN-According to the Code Enforcement Officer, and he’s the one that makes that
determination. Storage of unregistered vehicles.
MR. BATEASE-So you’re telling me if I take a dump truck off the road for the winter, when things
get slow, what am I supposed to do with that?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something you’d have to take up with Code Enforcement. They’re the
ones that enforce it, not this Board, but that was part of the condition of prior approvals. Also, on
condition number three, in addition to complying, I think Mr. Vollaro has already addressed that, is
the DEC letter, and you’re saying that you’re in compliance with DEC right now. You’ve remedied
your site?
MR. BATEASE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And made them happy. Okay. We’ve already talked about Area Variance No.
52-1998, and Warren County Planning. Okay. That’s a non-issue. I guess I’ll ask the $64,000
question. If we approve this site plan tonight, what guarantees do we have you’re going to comply
with this one?
MR. BATEASE-I give you my word.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you actually going to be doing any excavating on the site at all?
MR. BATEASE-What do you mean by excavating?
MR. MAC EWAN-Your application says to operate a construction company that includes an existing
excavation business and material processing. What excavating are you doing?
MR. CARR-I think the excavation business is your trucks. I mean, that’s the business.
MR. BATEASE-My trucks, my equipment that come and go.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Not actually removing of soils or anything like that, processing of soils?
MR. BATEASE-No.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. CARR-No, it’s not a mining operation.
MR. MAC EWAN-What materials do you plan on processing on the site?
MR. BATEASE-Well, from time to time I have topsoil coming in, and I run it through a screen and
screen it out re-sell the material. Some of the gravel I do the same thing with.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of gravel, I mean, different size gravel? You’d only do it like with
Number One, Number Two stone that you use on a septic tank or are you using cobbles or
something like that or what?
MR. BATEASE-Well, if you take gravel and you run it through a screen, and then you can make item
four, road material with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else?
MR. BATEASE-That’s basically it. I mean, if the material is big and you have cobblestones coming
off the screening plant.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about acceptance of demolition debris? Whether it be old asphalt concrete
from one of the local batch plants or cement blocks, crumbled up cement blocks, stumps, wood
materials, what? Will you still accept that?
MR. BATEASE-Well, that’s considered clean fill, concrete and asphalt, which is used, a lot of that’s
used fill material in that hole that was there.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what I asked you. Are you still going to accept that?
MR. BATEASE-I’m getting to the point where I’m going to have to stop taking in the concrete.
Now those blocks, those blocks are used for the retaining material, those concrete blocks that you
see sitting around on the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-How much more filling do you anticipate that you need to do?
MR. BATEASE-Well, I’ve got to bring the grade up in the back probably another six foot, if you
look at this map, roughly, because I want the back of the property higher than the front, so the
water will run toward the road. I’m not going to have a lot of runoff in the back.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to tell you. The part that personally frustrates me about this whole site
plan is that we’re way beyond what this Board originally approved a couple of years back. It just
seems like every time that you come in front of this Board, and we gave an approval, you haven’t
been bound by those approvals, and we seem to always end up in some sort of enforcement action
or something like this, and when you sit here tonight and tell me that, you know, your word is that
you’re going to do this, that’s a tough one for me to swallow because your word hasn’t been coming
through in the last three or four occasions you’ve been in front of us. So, for me, I need some sort
of real, for lack of a better word, concrete assurance that you’re going to live up to the site plan.
MR. BATEASE-Well, I’m trying to get that property and what not filled up as soon as I can. So I
can put more buildings on it and bring in some more business to the area. I want to get it filled up
and get it usable. So, I mean, I don’t know how many maps we’ve been through, but now we’re on
this map here. I mean, how much more do you want.
MR. MAC EWAN-We want you to comply is what we want.
MR. BATEASE-I’m trying to. That’s why we’re sitting here tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that I’d just like to talk about, for just a second, is on the Rist-
Frost letter of January 24, and it says “Past submissions for this property indicate that substantial fill
th
exists where future industrial and commercial development is proposed. We recommend that
adequate geotechnical investigation be required as part of any future development submissions”, and
then the answer from your LA Group is “geotechnical investigation for any construction in
substantial fill areas will be addressed in the future when plans have been developed”. I’ve been
watching this site I guess for about a year. We’ve been going, just taking a look at how long we’ve
been on this. Like you say, this is one of many plans, but I remember going up to the site and taking
a look at some of the fill that was in there before we got to, and I guess it was the 340 line, is where it
was supposed to delineate the top of that slope, and I’ve seen stumps in there and trees in there and
so on. Now I don’t know whether they’re buried now or not, but when we talk about building on
top of this kind of thing, this becomes, in my mind, extremely important that we bore and know
what’s under this. I mean, you know, out of sight, out of mind. You can’t see the stuff. It’s under
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
the ground. It decomposes. You get good compaction readings, I’m sure, up front, but you don’t
know what’s going to happen in the future, and I’m somewhat concerned about that.
MR. CARR-Yes, and I agree, and that’s why I put that answer on there, because I don’t think you
would do any of that geotechnical investigation or boring until you knew exactly what you wanted to
propose. I mean, normally any site that we deal with where there’s any kind of a fill, you usually
generate a plan on where you want these buildings to go, and then you bring in a soils engineer, like
Hoffman Engineering or someone similar to that to come in and do some borings and tell you what
you have, and what you have to do, but usually you would not do that until you generated some sort
of a master plan or know where these buildings would go, and that’s why I answered that comment
the way I did, but I definitely agree that you would, that would just be a normal course of action on
any structure.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to lose that. I want to make sure we keep the dots connected on that
one, because I think that’s important.
MR. CARR-I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-How much more fill do you think you need to bring in here to finish this off to
these elevations?
MR. BATEASE-Yard wise?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Assuming it’s clean fill.
MRS. MOORE-Is that something that you’re looking for to calculate in the future?
MR. MAC EWAN-I want to get a handle on it tonight.
MRS. MOORE-Tonight, okay.
MR. CARR-My answer would be we’re proposing to do some cutting on the northern portion of the
site to move that material where some of those existing stockpiles are today. So beyond that,
probably.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to cut down all those trees over there and move that soil from Point
A to Point B?
MR. CARR-No, no. There aren’t trees in that one section.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you cutting, then?
MR. CARR-What happens is the site climbs. It’s previously been disturbed, and what our proposal
is, is to more even that out, to prepare it for any future development. So we would be taking some
of that material and pushing it over to the other side.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that that south side of the site?
MR. CARR-The north side.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, the north side of the site.
MR. CARR-Yes, and it has been disturbed. You can see where it says sand pile, top soil pile, it’s in
that area. There are no trees in that area.
MR. MAC EWAN-When you say cut, what are you referring to, just cutting new contours, new
elevations?
MR. CARR-Yes. So it’s more of a regular slope. As you can see by the proposed contours, just
bring that down. If you go out there now and look, it’s very, I mean, you have the old stockpiles,
and then it comes up steeply, and basically what we’re proposing to do is just bring that down to a
more even grade. So some of that material would be brought over there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So how much more fill are we looking at, roughly.
MR. CARR-I would say, my opinion would be probably 50 to another 100,000 yards.
MR. MAC EWAN-And how much do you think you can get out of that area that you’re referring to
now, just by moving it around? 20,000, 10,000?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. CARR-Yes, maybe 20,000.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re looking at bringing in roughly 80,000 more yards of fill. What kind of
fill?
MR. BATEASE-It depends on what’s available.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s our bone of contention. It’s the things that have been brought in there.
MR. BATEASE-Probably concrete, black top, sand, gravel.
MR. RINGER-Well, you do have stumps and trees to be put down there, too. When we were up
there, there were stumps and trees, not a lot of them, but there were stumps.
MR. BATEASE-Well, once in a while, some of these landscapers will come in and dump when I’m
not around, and I can’t put a gate on the property. I mean, there’s businesses that come in and out
of there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have arrangements with people who dump on your property, or is it just
kind of like the word’s on the street, anybody and everybody can come?
MR. BATEASE-No. There’s only a few, but I’ll come back on a Monday morning and not being
around on the weekend and I’ll find a pile of brush or.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that a problem that you could notify these people and say I’m no longer
accepting these?
MR. BATEASE-I don’t know who’s been dumping those.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the point. So you don’t know who’s coming on your property.
MR. BATEASE-No, not all the time, no, I don’t. I’d like to, because then they’d be loading it back
on the truck and taking it away. I can’t police the area all the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-I think before anything can start here, before you can even think about doing a
shovel’s worth, I think you’ve got to look at Tim Post’s letter where he says, as further measure of
protection, since the site cannot be suitably stabilized until the spring growing season, another
complete row of haybales along the length of the property shall be placed 30 feet uphill….The entire
area between the two rows of erosion control shall be covered with at least 4 inches of mulch”.
What he’s trying to do is protect the stream down there, and I think, after looking at all of this data
and understanding that everything that went before us, good or bad, we’re now looking at a new site
plan, but I don’t think anything can start here until we have an agreement with DEC as to exactly
what we’re going to do. I really think this letter has to be answered. To me, it’s one of the key areas,
and the other key area, of course, is the compaction of that soil for building later on, but right now I
think this letter stands tall, for me, since it’s very recent. It’s not, you know, like six months ago
when we were flailing around or something like that. This is the latter part of December of ’99. It
really begs an answer, what this has to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you say you have a letter, you think, out in your truck from him that signed
off, that said the trench and the two detention ponds were fine?
MR. BATEASE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, why don’t you go look for the letter. I’ll open up the public hearing
and take some comment and hopefully between now and five minutes or ten minutes from now,
you’ll find it. Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? You’re welcome to come up and address the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Salvador, you’re never at a loss for words.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-I can’t tell you how much dumping is done on our property that we have no
control over. Okay.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
WINSLOW MC GUIRE
MR. MC GUIRE-My name is Winslow McGuire. I live on Island View Drive. I have a full time
residence there. It’s probably a couple of hundred yards from the area in question. My only concern
is, or one of my concerns is what is this going to do to water tables?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question.
MR. MC GUIRE-There are two residences, mine included, that use underground water for wells.
That’s my main concern.
MR. VOLLARO-Where are you located with reference to this property, to the north or south?
MR. MC GUIRE-East.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re to the east of it. So whatever runoff is coming down that hill is essentially.
MR. MC GUIRE-Running toward our property.
MR. VOLLARO-Running toward your property.
MR. MC GUIRE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you noticed like in the springtime or whatever that your property is getting
wetter?
MR. MC GUIRE-The property that I’m on is on a rise, but our well, I’m not sure how deep the well
is. I’ve only been there two years, but the well is driven down approximately 50, 60 feet from the
Hudson.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what, I don’t know if you’ve taken a look at that silt fence that’s down
there, but that’s what this letter is trying to do.
MR. MC GUIRE-That’s the black plastic, are we talking about
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and some of that black plastic is right smack down on the ground. It’s not
working at all.
MR. MC GUIRE-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-That silt fence has to be completely re-done, in my mind, and I think that Timothy
Post sort of says the same thing in his letter. That’s why I say that I feel this letter is one of the most
important things in here, that this be complied with. Now maybe Mr. Batease comes in with a letter
from Mr. Post that says everything’s fine. I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-And has Staff received any letters from DEC regarding this site plan?
MRS. MOORE-The only letter I have is the one that’s dated December 27, 1999.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So no follow up. It would seem to me that they would follow up with the
Town as well. Anything else?
MR. MC GUIRE-Only that I do not know where the water comes from. There’s a well sunk on our
property, and where is that water located, and where is it coming from, and I would assume that it’s
coming from somewhere up on the hill, from some area around that area, but I can’t answer the
question myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is your residence located on a private right-of-way?
MR. MC GUIRE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is. How far away are you from a Town water line? Is that over on Twin
Channels?
MR. MC GUIRE-I would like somebody to come and show me how they would get water to that
place. You would have to come under or over or somehow past the brook that was in question.
We’re on the north side of that road. The Town water system would be on the south side.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re probably, where you are, if I can imagine where your house is, you’re
probably a good thousand feet from a water line maybe, roughly, 700 to 1,000 feet?
MR. MC GUIRE-I would say probably pretty close to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BATEASE-I must have left it at the office.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. It’s Unlisted. What did he submit with this
application, a Short Form?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: 1.
Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,
solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, “explain briefly”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Groundwater. I see potential problems with groundwater. I see potential
problems for erosion. I don’t know how everybody else sees it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can any of this be mitigated?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-But I think the mitigation basis is right in the Department of Environmental
Conservation letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, the recommendations that DEC is making goes a long ways toward
staving off any potential impacts, but he’s yet to comply with it, but he also says that he’s taken other
measures, an alternate, I guess, way of trying to alleviate the DEC concerns, and he has a letter that
he says DEC has signed off on.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But we don’t have that letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You said it’s at your office.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s nothing on that letter that came to Staff to follow up on DEC’s 27
December letter? You have nothing?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have anything in my office.
MR. MAC EWAN-You do have a letter?
MR. BATEASE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe the appropriate thing to do is to table this thing until we receive the letter.
That way it will help us do this EAF better.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m not going to have a problem with it if that’s the case.
MR. PALING-We should definitely re-visit this site and look at what we’re calling junk, and what
we’re calling unused vehicles, if you will, and look again at the fill, because every time I can recall
being there, I’ve seen logs and stumps and branches of pretty good quantity down at the bottom of
the hill, and I thought there were unusable vehicles. Now maybe I’m wrong, but I’d like to take
another look at this site and look for those things.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/8/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe what we should do, here’s a thought., table this site plan to our first
meeting, which is the 15. That’ll give you time to get your letter, a copy of the letter to the Town.
th
Also, what I would like to hear from you
MR. BATEASE-March 15?
th
MR. MAC EWAN-No, February 15.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-One week from tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I would like to see is a list of what materials you plan on accepting on your
site as fill, and a list of what vehicles you feel are exempt from the unregistered vehicle ordinance of
the Town, that you think that’s part of your excavation business that’s only a temporary storage. Is
there anything else anybody else wants to add?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I noticed that the original letter from DEC has a carbon copy to Craig. If he
got a letter, I’m sure that they, that Mr. Post sent out the same cc’s. So we’d have to check with
Craig Brown.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to see, it would be inconceivable to me that Mr. Post would only send a
letter to Mr. Batease and not a copy to the same cc’s that are here.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And Craig Brown was a cc to this letter. So maybe the letter that Mr. Batease has is
with Craig?
MRS. MOORE-Craig has proceeded to put things like this in the Batease file.
MR. VOLLARO-And it’s not there.
MRS. MOORE-I don’t, it’s not here, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-That doesn’t mean that it might not be somewhere else either. So we’ll get that
clarified. Anything else that the Board members want to add to this list? Okay. Does someone want
to introduce a motion to table, please?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2000 GLENN BATEASE, Introduced by
Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott:
So he can give us the list of the things that we’ve requested, until the February 15 meeting. (The
th
applicant is to provide the NYSDEC letter in response to the applicant’s improvements to the
erosion control measures. The applicant is to provide a list of materials to be used as fill on the site.
The applicant is to provide a list of vehicles that will be used in conjunction with the excavation
business).
Duly adopted this 8 day of February, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-And I will Re-open the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other matters? Site visits, this Saturday, the 12. Okay. I’ll make a motion
th
to adjourn.
MR. VOLLARO-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
34