Loading...
1998-08-25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 1998 7:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO GEORGE STARK ROBERT PALING PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 46-98 TYPE: UNLISTED JOYCE BEARSS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 47 HERALD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DUPLEX ON AN EXISTING LOT LESS THAN ONE ACRE. DUPLEXES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 59-1998 TAX MAP NO. 125-9-20 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MR. MAC EWAN-Joyce Bearss application needed to have ZBA determination, which was tabled last night for more information that they needed. Is that not correct? MS. NOWICKI-No. For Joyce Bearss, their ZBA meeting is tomorrow. MR. MAC EWAN-Is tomorrow night. Okay. We’re going to open up the public hearing, and we’re going to table this item on the agenda until next month, and with that, we’ll open up the public hearing, leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Is there anyone here of the neighbors who are here, or anyone that wants to voice a concern regarding this application? Okay. Do we need a motion to table this, seeing as no one is here? We don’t, do we? Okay. MS. NOWICKI-I have letters, if you want me to read them. MR. MAC EWAN-I would prefer to hold off on reading those until we have, make sure we have a group of people here. MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve opened the public hearing and you’re leaving it open? MR. MAC EWAN-That is correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So, you’re not really tabling anything, the public hearing is remaining open. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re tabling the application but leaving the public hearing open. Is that not correct? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t matter. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED KIMBERLEE GOSLINE OWNER: WILLIAM AND MARYLEE GOSLINE ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: END OF BLACKBERRY LANE, OFF OF 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 9.30 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3 ACRES AND 6.30 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-1998 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-22 LOT SIZE: 9.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARYLEE GOSLINE, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-The same thing applies with this application, is that it’s going to be heard by the ZBA tomorrow night, and we’re going to open up the public hearing on this application as well, leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-I’d like to ask a couple of questions. MR. MAC EWAN-You want to ask a couple of questions, Bob, go right ahead. MR. PALING-Because I want to make sure that everything we need is here, so if you come back next time, we don’t send you away with something. I visited the site, and I see where you turn right off Blackberry, and you’re looking down a hill onto where the new house will be, (lost word) started to clear. Now, I think we’re going to need a contour on that and a drainage plan of some kind, at least because of the grading. MR. BREWER-She’s asked for a waiver from that, Bob. MRS. GOSLINE-I’ve asked for a waiver from that. MR. PALING-Why would we waive that? MRS. GOSLINE-Because, just the size of the project. MS. NOWICKI-She’s waiving the two foot contour, which she’s allowed to do, or asked to, or asked to, I’m sorry. MR. PALING-All right. What about a grading, that’s a pretty steep grade from the road to the, where the house will be. What about a grading plan and what not there? MS. NOWICKI-The Board may request one. I didn’t seem to think there was an elevation issue, but if the Board seems to think that there’s an elevation issue, then they can request Gosline to submit a grading plan. MR. PALING-There’s quite a difference between the road level and what would be the house level. MS. NOWICKI-You may have identified something I didn’t see. MR. PALING-If you want to waive two foot contours, that’s fine, but I do think we should have some kind of a grading plan on this one. Because if it were just let go, there would be serious erosion. MRS. GOSLINE-Well, they’ll make it so it’s accessible for fire trucks and ambulances or whatever, and a safe driveway down. MR. PALING-I’m thinking more of the runoff, from the erosion of soil, during a rainstorm. MRS. GOSLINE-Well, it’s going to be all planted grass. MR. PALING-Okay. We don’t know that. MR. BREWER-May I ask one question? Mary Lee, you’ve got 377 at the top of the lot. Maybe you could help us out and just tell us what the elevation will be at the house. It says 346 on the side, but I don’t know where that is. MRS. GOSLINE-I really don’t know all the different elevations and such. It does grade down, like Mr. Paling said, here, but they were planning on grading that, so the driveway can’t, they were going to go sideways, I think, and come in this way, to make it a better driveway, but I don’t know 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) the elevations. It does flatten out here. Way in the back here, it seems to go down some, but down in here it’s flat, just from the hill. You go down a little hill, then it flattens right out. MR. BREWER-But I guess my question is, it says 346 on the side, which is fine, but is it at that point, and then it’s level the rest of the lot? MS. NOWICKI-Those are distance measures. MR. BREWER-Distance. I’m looking at this and thinking, because Bob said that, I just looked at the numbers and thought. MRS. GOSLINE-We have a lot of rocks in that area. They’re planning on doing, you know, on the hill, like the stone wall in front of my house, they’re going to be doing the same type of. MR. PALING-What I would like to see is some kind of assurance that the runoff water won’t effect the soil. If you’re going to put grass or what not in, maybe that’s adequate, but just to leave it like this, I don’t know how much of a drop you’ve got there, but it’s quite a few feet. I would guess 20 feet, at least, from the road level to where the clearing is going on now, and that drop, I think, is too much to ignore, forgetting two foot contours, but tell us something about how you’re going to protect it from soil erosion when you come back. MRS. GOSLINE-All right. Is there anything else? MR. PALING-That’s all I’ve got. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing. Okay. We’re going to open up the public hearing on this application. We’re going to leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Mary Lee expressed to me that she may be under time constraints to get her project going. So if we need to, we could entertain having a special meeting for her at the beginning of next month. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read the public letters? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Lets hold off on those, too, please. MS. NOWICKI-Until next time. Okay. MR. PALING-Are there horses going to be maintained there? MRS. GOSLINE-The horses will stay on my property. It’s the same, we’re just going to, what she’s doing, we’re both joining. MR. PALING-I’m going to have trouble with this, then. If I’m alone, okay, but if I read this whole thing right, and the previous approval for this, made it property. It’s the same, we’re just going to, what she’s doing, we’re both joining. MR. PALING-I’m going to have trouble with this, then. If I’m alone, okay, but if I read this whole thing right, and the previous approval for this, made it very clear that the property would not be subdivided as long as she owns it, in the minutes of the previous meeting. Do you remember that? MRS. GOSLINE-I remember, they brought that up to my attention, but we all feel it’s a very unfair asking of me, because at that meeting, what the whole thing was, I had 9.47 acres for four horses, and I only needed five acres, and I said I don’t ever really want, I didn’t foresee ever doing anything with the property. MR. PALING-It’s even in the motion, in the resolution. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MRS. GOSLINE-Right, but still, I still have, with my 6.47 acres, I still have adequate property for three horses, and it’s not like I’m selling it. It’s for my daughter. It’s her horses. We don’t board horses. Even with the new standards for the acreage for horses, I still have adequate acreage. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s something we should worry about right at this stage, until we hear a ZBA determination. MRS. GOSLINE-I know what he’s talking about, because I did read that, but I don’t feel it was fair. MR. PALING-I’ll tell you, if there’s something on our minds tonight, I don’t see why we don’t bring it up, so that Mrs. Gosline can be preparing for it next time, and not come in with a surprise. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the ZBA’s going to meet on this tomorrow night, Bob, on the same issue, and I think they have the same problem we do. MR. BREWER-Will they revoke her, can they do that, revoke the variance? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a matter of revoking. As I understand it, the applicant has not yet, at this time, done anything in violation of the variance. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I think, I mean, this is the first I’ve heard of this, obviously, but from what I’m gathering, I think what’s likely before the ZBA tomorrow night is the issue of whether they wish to eliminate that condition of the previously granted variance, and since it’s their condition, that meaning the ZBA that previously imposed that condition, they, like you, on a situation where condition, that meaning the ZBA that previously imposed that condition, they, like you, on a situation where you would have imposed a condition, have the authority to relax, modify, or eliminate that condition, if they choose. I think that’s what’s before them tomorrow night. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mary Lee, we’re all set, I guess. MRS. GOSLINE-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 71-96 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO FILL IN AND LEVEL PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS AND TO USE PROPERTY TO STORE EARTH MATERIALS SUCH AS TOPSOIL, GRAVEL, FIREWOOD, ETC. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-1998 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7+ ACRES SECTION 179-26 GLENN BATEASE, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-The same with this application. It’s going to be reviewed, or it was reviewed by the ZBA. Is that not correct? MS. NOWICKI-That’s correct, and it was tabled pending additional information. MR. MAC EWAN-And the additional information the ZBA is looking for? MS. NOWICKI-I’m going to read their tabling motion. “The reason for the tabling is for the applicant to provide the Board with an updated map showing the stream and it’s entire length of the eastern property line, existing topography lines as it is today, and proposed buildings, and the existing buildings on a map. I would make this tabling motion for no more than 62 days, to allow the applicant to give us that map.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Glenn, do you understand what the ZBA is looking for, and our reason for wanting to table this tonight? MR. BATEASE-Yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing as part of this application. I will open the public hearing. We’re going to leave it open. MS. NOWICKI-No, you don’t. Craig, not for this. This is a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry, thank you for catching that. MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read the additional Staff Notes, or are you going to make a comment on those? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Go ahead and read those in at this point. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. This is additional Staff Notes, to Glenn Batease. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 71-96 - Modification, Glenn Batease, Meeting Date: August 25, 1998 “The applicant’s Area Variance 52-1998 was tabled until the applicant supplied the ZBA with additional information, refer to the tabling motion of August 19, 1998. The Planning Board should table Site Plan #71-96 for modification with the following conditions: The applicant’s map be prepared by a licensed surveyor. The applicant prepare a soil erosion control plan with stormwater management that has the support of the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District. The Board may recommend that the submission of the map and plan be submitted by September 30, 1998 for the October Agenda submission deadline. This will provide adequate review time for Staff, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Planning Board prior to the October meetings.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anyone up on the Board have any questions or comments? Basically, in a nutshell, there’s additional information that the ZBA has requested on this application, conclusive of a map delineating the wetlands, the 50 foot buffer, the stream. MR. BREWER-Only that we get a copy of the map that you submit, Glenn. Can we get a copy of it also? MR. MAC EWAN-Did the ZBA request of you to have your map done by a surveyor? They did? Okay. All right. Are we all set? Okay. MR. PALING-I have a question on the fill that’s going on this one, and I notice, if you look over the bank, there’s some plastic baskets. There’s some pipe and maybe wire, whatever it was. There’s logs. There’s trees. There’s a smashed trailer. Are we going to get into that? MR. BREWER-Tonight? MR. PALING-Well, tonight or the next time, but I don’t think. MS. NOWICKI-Are you concerned about the type of fill, and whether that’s okay or not? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Yes. MS. NOWICKI-We talked with Dave Wick from the Warren County Soil Water Service, as well as someone from the DEC, and they didn’t seem to have any issues with what type of fill Glenn had on the property. MR. PALING-That goes for branches and logs, too? MS. NOWICKI-We asked them. MR. PALING-I don’t think branches and logs are proper fill. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. PALING-And there were branches and logs there the day I looked down that hill. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. BATEASE-Those logs and branches that are there. Glenn Batease. I own the property on Big Boom Road. The branches and what not that are in the bottom of the hole are from trees that have been there. A lot of them have been taken down and used for firewood and what not, and a lot of that stuff is firewood that’s going to come up out of the hole before it’s filled over. MR. PALING-Okay, Glenn. Then I don’t understand your statement, Laura, saying that these folks you were dealing with said there’s nothing wrong. There is something wrong there. Mr. Batease is saying it’s going to be corrected. MS. NOWICKI-I’m sorry, I don’t understand. MR. PALING-Well, they’re saying there was nothing wrong with the fill, and I think there is something wrong, and Mr. Batease has acknowledge it and says he’s going to take care of it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know that he necessarily acknowledged that there was something wrong. He acknowledged to you, yes, there are trees and branches down there, but his intentions are to remove them from there and use them for other purposes, not to be as part of fill for the site. MR. PALING-Well, there’s wire and pipe or something down there also, and there’s, it’s a smashed trailer there, plastic baskets down there. So, I would have to disagree with someone that said the fill is proper. MR. MAC EWAN-What is our policy for fill? I mean, are there any guidelines that we have, in the Town that you can use as fill, and what you can’t use as fill? MS. NOWICKI-I don’t know what they are, but I can look into it. MR. BATEASE-What are you talking about, a smashed trailer? MR. MAC EWAN-On the top of the hill. MR. BATEASE-That’s a storage trailer. There’s a damaged storage trailer where I put plastic and store different materials in, so it’s out of the weather. That’s not used for fill. That’s just a storage shed. MR. PALING-Okay. I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-All set? Okay. We’ll table you. MR. RINGER-Craig, does he understand, do you have copies of the Staff Notes and the Zoning Board of Appeals? You know everything you’ve got to have ready for us for the next time? MR. BATEASE-Yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Now, on this one, because you don’t have a public hearing that’s remaining open, you do need a motion to table, seconded and voted on. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 71-96 GLENN BATEASE , Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Until the October meeting, or earlier if he gets the information to Staff. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: MR. RINGER-Table this to, when did you want, Laura, October? MS. NOWICKI-For October’s meeting date, but he can submit any time from therein. I don’t quite know what date. The date that was recommended by the ZBA did not fall within the time line to 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) th review. So that was why I suggested that we have him submit the application by September 30, to be on the October agenda. MR. MAC EWAN-Just as long as he gets in by the submission date. MR. RINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BATEASE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 45-98 TYPE: UNLISTED CAROL L. CORLEW OWNER: RAYMOND J. STORMS ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 93 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES BUSINESS IN HOME - PARALEGAL SERVICES. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE INCIDENTAL TO HOME USE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 143-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 0.69 ACRES SECTION 179-19 MR. MAC EWAN-This application also wants to be tabled, and her reason being? MS. NOWICKI-It’s pending sale of the house that she’s operating her business out of. MR. MAC EWAN-Is she looking for an indefinite table, or a tabling to a certain? MS. NOWICKI-No. She’s going to table it until September’s agenda. MR. BREWER-Craig, there are some people here that would like to speak on this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. What we’re going to do, is there anyone here representing the applicant? Okay. We’re going to open up the public hearing, and we’ll leave it open. If anyone wants to come up and address this application, please do. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED THOMAS VANNESS MR. VANNESS-Thomas Van Ness. I live at 85 Big Bay Road, right next door to the Corlew’s, just below them, and all the people that go over to their home for their paralegal services use my yard to turn around in. They’ve ruined my driveway. They’ve ruined my lawn. I’ve had to put a split rail fence up around my lawn to keep it from getting run over, because they don’t turn in my driveway. They turn off the edge of it. They turn in the lawn, wherever they want. This is a residential area. That’s why I built there. I don’t feel a business like this belongs there. She doesn’t have adequate parking. She doesn’t have a place for people to turn around, and she has seven, eight different people coming in and out of there, day in and day out, and I don't feel it’s in the right area for her to run that type of business, and my yard is taking the blunt of it, and I don’t feel it’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. MR. VANNESS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone else want to come up and speak? LISA SPOERL MRS. SPOERL-Lisa Spoerl. I live at 79 Big Bay Road, and my complaint is basically the same as Tom’s, that they come down, they don’t turn around in his driveway. Sometimes they’re block their driveway up, and they’ll come down to our driveway. I have two small children that play in my driveway. People back onto my lawn that I’ve spent thousands of dollars on, and I don’t agree with a service like that being down there. We don’t need anymore cars down there then necessary. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) I mean, it’s a dead end road. The only traffic pretty much down there should be people who live there, unless you’re going for something, to visit somebody or something like that, but, you know, we don’t need an extra eight or ten cars in our yard a day, and, I mean, I yelled at somebody, just about a week ago. He drove his little red Neon car on my lawn, backed right on my lawn. I said, what are you doing backing on my lawn? He just drove off. We put a lot of time and money into our houses, and we want to see them be nice, and not have to worry about people driving in our yards. I mean, what if one of my little kids was down at the end of the driveway? I think that’s a very big concern right there, are two little children that something could happen to them. MR. MAC EWAN-Are they frequently using your driveway? MRS. SPOERL-If they don’t use theirs, they use mine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. SPOERL-And it’s probably maybe twice a day, or once a day or twice every other day, but it’s two or three times a week. It’s enough to make you worry. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. SPOERL-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? We’re going to leave the public hearing open on this application. Have you got any letters or anything that you’ve received on this? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and just one more time. She is waiting on whether she’s moving to another location or something? MS. NOWICKI-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And what happens if she doesn’t? MS. NOWICKI-If she doesn’t move, then she will come in to explain her case for the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Was there any kind of time frame put on here, either knowing that, to inform the Town? MS. NOWICKI-She mentioned that she would be done before September. So we should know. MR. MAC EWAN-Before September? So we should have a response from her no later than th September 5. MS. NOWICKI-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-So the business continues to operate? MS. NOWICKI-I don’t know if it’s a continuing operation. She knows that she’s no, she has a pending application. MR. BREWER-I guess what I’m hearing is these people are saying that the business is operating, is it proper for her to continue operation or? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t sound like it. MR. VOLLARO-You have an inspector’s report here that talks about the operation of an unapproved professional office, and I don’t know, it doesn’t say anything about cease and desist. MS. NOWICKI-I can talk to Craig Brown about that, whether there has been a Stop Work Order issued. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. MAC EWAN-For you two neighbors, if you continually observe traffic over there, give the Town a call, and they’ll pay another visit. Okay. All right. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED WEGMAN COMPANIES, INC. OWNER: R. GEORGE WISWALL CHARLOTTE WISWALL ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: EAST SIDE WOODVALE ROAD BETWEEN GLENWOOD AND COUNTRY CLUB APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 33.78 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 7.38 ACRES AND 26.40 ACRES FOR AN ADULT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. TAX MAP NO. 61-1-21.1 LOT SIZE: 33.78 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1998 - Sketch Plan Stage, Meeting Date: August 25, 1998 Description of Project “ The applicant proposes to subdivide a 33.78 acre parcel into two lots of Staff Comments 7.38 acres (lot 1) and 26.40 acres (lot 2) The applicant has complied with the Town Subdivision Regulations for sketch plan review. Staff recommends the applicant submit a letter for all waivers with the preliminary subdivision application. In addition, the proposed use requires site plan review within the HC-1A zone. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent the Wiswalls and the Wegman Companies on this application. As you can see, it’s a proposed two lot subdivision to accommodate a proposed assisted living center that will be submitting a site plan application tomorrow. The project consists of two lots. This is currently Doc Wiswall’s property. Lot One would be the parcel that we’re proposing to place the assisted living center on, which is the 7.38 acre parcel, and then the remaining lands of Wiswall, which would be the 26.4 acre parcel. The lot one has the frontage on Woodvale of approximately 778 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s very simple, straightforward. MR. STEVES-Yes, two lot subdivision. For the site plan, we have also, you know, this is for sketch plan, I know that, but we have also already developed the two foot contours, did wetland delineation and mapping on that for the submission of our site plan, which we’ll be submitting to the Town tomorrow. MR. BREWER-So you’re going to submit preliminary and final and site plan all? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Even though you’re going to be showing your contours on your site plan application. MR. STEVES-And the subdivision. We have a subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-You will show them on the subdivision? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. We have a separate map here. It’s not the site plan. This is just the next subdivision map that will be submitted, and then we have an entirely separate package for the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a reminder, any waivers that you’re going to be looking for, put them in the form of a letter. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. PALING-Just a question for Staff. Your letter has considered Chris Round’s letter of July th 27? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Matt. I guess we’re all set. MR. STEVES-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 27-95 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION G. JOSEPH MONSOUR OWNER: SAME ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 676 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION IS TO INCREASE VENDOR AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: P5-95 TAX MAP NO. 104-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.86 ACRES SECTION 179-22 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & JOSEPH MONSOUR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-95 - Modification, G. Joseph Monsour, Meeting Date: August Description of Project: 25, 1998 “ The applicant proposes modification of a seasonal garden display area. This modification was tabled at the July 21, 1998 meeting. The applicant requested time to provide an updated plan showing the parking layout and the uses on the property in relation Staff Comments to the setbacks. The applicant was informed of violating the vendor area size on June 5, 1998 and was requested to submit a modification. The originally approved site plan indicates an 1800 square foot area. The applicant has submitted an updated plot plan that indicates that the proposed area in total is now 3,625 square feet. The applicant has submitted an updated plan that provides a clear depiction of both uses on the site. The applicant has indicated that the vendor site is a seasonal use operation open from May through July, October through December and is closed August through September, and January through April. The parcel accommodates 23 parking spaces for both uses. When the vendor business is operational, four (4) spaces are used by the vendor per Site Plan 60-96 Enterprise Rent A Car (9/24/96). The site appears to accommodate the vendor expansion area and the car rental use. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O’CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me is Joseph Monsour, and we have submitted a new map. When we did this, we had a couple of questions ourselves as to really the definition of the earlier application, and maybe a misunderstanding as to the area that we were intending to use for the non car rental area. Basically, we have not changed anything from Day One. We have not expanded the area at all. Probably what we have done here is attempt to show you, in a better fashion, the footprint of the area that is, from time to time, utilized in the flower sale or the vegetable sale or the Christmas tree sale. The area that was, as I understand it, the area that was in question was this area in the back, and if you’re familiar with the property, or you’ve seen the property, for the last 10 years or so, that area has always been used for these seasonal type sales. We’ve gone around and around a little bit, and Staff has been very good with us, as far as giving us some time to try and actually give you something to define if you need to have a definite detail as to the footprint, a footprint that we can live with. This is the footprint here that we can live with. I have even modified what was given to Staff yesterday or today, and I think Staff had another map the week before, and we’ve been running around in circles, but I think we’ve, I’ve asked Mr. Monsour, is this what he uses, is this what he can live with, and that’s what it is. We don’t know of any difference in impact, as to what is on the site already. The only modification is that if you look at that map that you have in front of you, that runs all the way out to Route 9. MR. VOLLARO-I want to know what the date is on the map that you’re looking at. MR. O’CONNOR-The same date, I think, as your map. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) th MR. VOLLARO-August 11? th MR. O’CONNOR-August 11, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-Which I just marked up 10 minutes ago, trying to pin down further, so we don’t have to come back, or you don’t have a question of us. That map shows a small part of the shaded area going all the way to Route 9, right to the edge of the property. In fact, that’s not been the custom. It’s not been the usage. If you’ll see on the map, there’s a sign there that’s shown, that touches out to Route 9. If you draw a line, a few feet behind that sign, parallel to Route 9, back to that dotted line, and there’s a little triangular piece that would then be included, a little shaded area that wouldn’t be included, and that’s an area that he’s comfortable with. We would file this as modified right here, and I’d be glad to show it to you, as opposed to have it up here. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we can see it from there. MR. O’CONNOR-But I’m just trying to find out exactly what he’s been using, what he hasn’t been using, and everything else, and I think that that pretty well encompasses the area that he’s been using. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get the status of something in my mind. It says the Lands of Queensbury, and there’s a small portion of the proposed area to be used for seasonal sales, right up in the corner of that triangle, that’s in the Lands of the Town of Queensbury. How does that, what’s the story with that? MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. That’s one of the changes we made on the map. I’m sorry if that’s. MS. NOWICKI-You didn’t submit 10 copies. So there’s only one copy of what was updated. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. We may, in fact, be using it, but we’re not entitled to show it as our use. That’s not a zoning issue. That’s an ownership issue of the Town. MR. BREWER-That was going to be my question, as to how much of the, it doesn’t make any, you can use my portion of it, Joe. MR. O’CONNOR-We’ve offered to buy it. Not recently, but some time ago, I offered to buy it and put it back on the tax rolls, and somebody said, yes, somebody said, no, and it got to be a big hassle, we said, the heck with it. MR. BREWER-How much land does the Town own there? MR. O’CONNOR-Just a little tiny triangle. MR. BREWER-Just a little chunk right to the Brook? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MONSOUR-Yes, about a tenth of an acre. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I don’t think it’s that much, to be honest with you, and I knew the history of it at one time. MR. BREWER-That would bring that lot up to an acre. MR. O’CONNOR-It was something to do that the State, when they widened Halfway Brook, I think before Joseph’s ownership, took a bigger piece than what they needed, and then abandoned that piece to the Town, because they didn’t need it for the Halfway Brook. st MR. RINGER-A couple of things. One for Staff. In your first Staff Notes, on the 21, Laura, the last paragraph, you were concerned with stormwater runoff, and they were supposed to build a drainage area, and you weren’t sure if that was ever done. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. That drainage area was done, and the stormwater drainage, I talked to Mr. Monsour and that wasn’t an issue, because he does not fertilize. All he does is water his plants. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. RINGER-Well, they run hoses out there when they have the plants there. MS. NOWICKI-Yes, but nothing should be impacting the Brook, from where he’s watering. MR. RINGER-Yes, but where does the water go when he waters the plants? MS. NOWICKI-It infiltrates into the ground, before it gets to Halfway Brook. MR. RINGER-Okay. The other thing, on the parking, when I’ve been over there, when Enterprise is bringing their cars in, I mean, you really do have an awful lot of cars. You’re satisfied that there is enough parking there, when Enterprise brings all their cars in, are being returned or checked out? MS. NOWICKI-I mean, according to Site Plan, it indicated that there was enough cars for. MR. RINGER-That met our requirements? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, that met the requirements. We don’t have a requirement for a vending area. We don’t have that. We only have requirements for a produce stand or, you know, inside of a building. So there’s nothing that, I can’t really indicate that he needs this much parking for a vendor area. MR. RINGER-It just seems that when I’ve been there, at times, I’ve rented a car there, at certain times, it really does become crowded. MS. NOWICKI-I’ve talked to Mr. Monsour, and he was willing to do striping, if that was a concern, to clearly identify whose parking was whose, or where to park on the lot. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my question I’d ask you is, when is your busiest time of the year? Is it during the holiday season, Christmas tree purchasing? MR. MONSOUR-Yes, Christmas trees. MR. MAC EWAN-And that seems to coincide with when it’s the slowest time of the year for Enterprise. So I would think it would probably balance out, wouldn’t it? MR. MONSOUR-I mean, they’re closed on the weekend. That’s when it’s real busy, and they’re only, I think they’re open Saturday morning for a couple of hours, and then. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think they close at noon. MR. MONSOUR-Yes. So, I mean, I’ve been monitoring it, you know, and it’s been, they’ve been working pretty good together. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the thing that I noticed about that place over there is that it seems that when people drop off cars, they just drop them off anywhere, but they eventually go out there and sort it out. I don’t know, to me, I don’t think parking’s that big of an issue. MR. BREWER-My only comment is that the employee, in overflow, unstripped, where he’s got it marked here, couldn’t you push the employee parking back further, and then that would allow for more room for customers? MR. MONSOUR-It’s possible, yes. MR. BREWER-I mean, that would just free up a little bit of room. You’ve got eight spaces there. If you just push them back, as far as you possibly could, I mean, that would free up, I don’t know how wide these are. MR. O’CONNOR-They seem to be able to accommodate themselves on site. I mean, they haven’t created any impact off site, and I almost think stripping is counter productive. MR. BREWER-No, no. I wouldn’t suggest stripping, just have the employees come back further. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I mean, they seem to be able to shoehorn themselves in there pretty good, when they get into a busy situation. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. RINGER-And that’s what it looks like, Mike. It seems like they’re shoehorning themselves in. I mean, they’re all over the place. They’re not organized. When it’s crowded, it’s not organized. It’s helter skelter, and people are trying to scurry, and it’s tough to get in and out of there, and when it’s really crowded, it makes it more difficult. I mean, it was only a comment that I was bringing up. MR. BREWER-I would suggest that the employees park, if you look at the map, where they’re parking here, have them park here. I mean, it’s just another. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we impacting on, you know, staying away from the Brook, and setbacks on the Brook? MR. O’CONNOR-Are you talking about moving the parking, the employee parking back one step? MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. O’CONNOR-We have no objection to that. MR. BREWER-I mean, that just frees up that area, whereas if you have eight or ten employees, that’s eight or ten customer cars that could be parking there, and they’re going to be there all day. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. We have to, I would like to submit a map to you with this little piece shown correctly, or as I’ve drawn it, and I’ll be happy to have that shown on there, too. MR. BREWER-That’s fine. MS. NOWICKI-I would be concerned, if it’s considered impervious surface, that we’re getting into the permeability ratio for that zone, but I’m not quite sure. I’d have to look into it further. MR. O’CONNOR-If I recall, you’re way away from your percentages. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-I think 30% is your percentage, I think, in that zone, max. No, 70% coverage is your max, and you’d have to have 30% reserved, and I think, just looking at that back area, you’ve got more than 30%. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The other day, I went in there to rent a car, and it seemed like we parked way up in the back. I mean, all the rental cars were, there were other cars lined up, and I just wanted to get out of the way, as much as possible. So I can remember, I know we parked way up in here, it seemed. Aren’t there a lot of cars up in that area? Yes. It was kind of pushed way back, because I remember I kind of had to come around. MR. O’CONNOR-I looked over this weekend, and there weren’t many there then. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s a lot of parking way up in there. MR. MONSOUR-Sometimes they have no cars, and some times they have 10, you know. MRS. LABOMBARD-But I mean, it seemed like all the parking was way up in there, not where your place would be, where all of your goings on would be, though. MR. RINGER-No more questions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, it seems to be working. It’s been there a couple of years now. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. Does somebody want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 27-95, G. JOSEPH MONSOUR , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As written in the resolution by Staff. The Planning Board has determined there is no significant change in the site plan modification and further finds that there is no significant change to the 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) original SEQRA findings, and that the applicant will submit a revised map within a two week period from this date, indicating the changes made. Where it shows on the map dated 11 August 1998, Lands of Queensbury, in the northeast section of that triangle, a small piece, the proposed area to be used for sales will be deleted from that small triangle. Secondly, the map will show the sales area toward the front of the property at Route 9 will be squared off to be approximately parallel to Route 9, two or three feet behind the existing sign, to the depth of the hatched line that’s already shown there behind the display area, and the area reserved for employee parking will be in effect doubled. It will be back to back parking, directly behind where it is presently shown on the map. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Modification to Site Plan 27-95, G. JOSEPH MONSOUR to increase vendor area approved previously; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/10/98, consists of the following: 1. 6/10/98 - Letter from M. O’Connor w/drawing Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 8/25/98 - Staff Notes 2. 8/12/98 - (rec’d) - Map S-1 dated 8/11/98 3. 8/4/98 - Meeting notice letter 4. 7/21/98 - Staff notes (see packet) 5. 7/16/98 - Fax to C. Round from M. O’Connor 6. 7/1/98 - Meeting notice letter 7. 6/5/98 - Letter to J. Monsour from C. Brown 8. 6/2/98 - Record of Field Inspection from C. Brown 9. 9/24/96 - Planning Bd. resolution for Enterprise Rent A Car (same site) 10. 11/21/95 - Planning Bd. resolution w/previous staff notes/map. Whereas, a public hearing was held not held on 8/25/98 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 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Modification to Site Plan No. 27-95, G. JOSEPH MONSOUR. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MONSOUR-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 34-98 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT OWNER: ANTHONY AND MARY SUE FERRARO ZONE: HC- 1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9, JUST SOUTH OF CINEMAS APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN - SEE LETTER DATED AUG. 10, 1998. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26-1998, AV 1230, AV 1124, SPR 6-87, SPR 14-93, NOTICE OF APPEAL 3-98 AND NOTICE OF APPEAL 4-98 BEAUTIFICATION COMM: 6/8/98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.3 LOT SIZE: 3.224 ACRES SECTION 179-23 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TONY FERRARO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-98 - Modification, Ferraro Entertainment, Meeting Date: Description of Project August 25, 1998 “: The applicant proposes modification of a previously Staff Comments approved site plan. The applicant submitted a letter dated 8/10/98 outlining the modification. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read the 8/10 letter? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’d like to read that in. We must have something from Warren County. MS. NOWICKI-Not for a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-No? Beautification? There’s a note on here that says 8/98. MR. RINGER-I’ve got Warren County, too. MR. MAC EWAN-They were at Warren County on 6/10. MR. RINGER-The original, okay, not the modification. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-This is 1998. 6/10/98 they were there. Did you go to Warren County, Mike? MR. O’CONNOR-Not on the modification. They did not want to hear us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry. MS. NOWICKI-That’s all right. A letter, August 10, 1998 from Little & O’Connor. “Please consider this letter a request for modification of your approval of the above site plan by resolution dated July 28, 1998. Through negotiations, the applicant has been able to obtain an adjustment to his southerly boundary line which was not heretofore available and with this adjustment has been able to move his proposed go cart track back 75 feet from the highway boundary and maintain a 20 foot setback on the southerly boundary. These adjustments entirely eliminate the need for any area setback variances. In conjunction with same, because more space is now available the kiddy track was slightly enlarged and the proposed repair shed was enlarged from 20 x 18 feet to 30 x 18 feet. The drainage has been recalculated and one extra dry well was added to more than compensate for the additional building and track surface. The green area now is larger, the landscaping was simply moved back from the road but kept in tact. This really represents a simple shift of the proposed track further to the rear of the lot at a slightly southern location. It certainly is a modification which is an improvement due to the ability to now comply with setback requirements.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. O’CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, again, I’m Michael O’Connor from the Law Firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicant, and with me is Tony Ferraro, one of the principals in the operation that is the applicant here, and basically what we’re doing is avoiding a two year court battle, and I can say it in six different languages, but that’s basically 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) what we’re doing. We legitimately came in and asked for a variance and asked for some recognition of grandfathering rights, and one of our competitors has chosen to challenge that. It looks like it’s going to be a long term challenge. So probably very reluctantly, I have made arrangements to avoid any of the issues that have been on the table, as far as grandfathering, and as far as area setbacks. We have simply taken the track and acquired an adjoining strip, or have a contract to acquire a triangular piece of property from our adjoining neighbor who has been very cooperative, as far as being willing to do that, and we’ve taken the track, which was in this angle, and pulled it back to 75 feet from the road, and shifted it so that we have the full 20 foot setback on the side. It’s exactly the same track, with a few exceptions. Because of the change of the layout of the track, I think we added 10 feet of length right in this section here. Because we had additional space, we made the kiddy cart track a little bit longer, and we made this building 30 by 18, as opposed to what it was. They all comply in every way with our setbacks, and everything else. I mean, (lost words) pick up some green space so we have more permeable space than we had before. It’s the same track. We didn’t change the landscaping. We simply pulled the landscaping back. So the additional landscaping that we offered as part of the justification for the variance, the Town will still have the benefit of. We thought it was a good plan, and we’re willing to still install it. We did talk to Staff, here, and we also talked to the County Staff, on whether or not we should go to the County Planning Board. We were prepared to go to the County Planning Board, and they said that they did not think it was significant, and they would not entertain it. So we did not go to the County Planning Board. That’s basically what we’re doing. th MR. RINGER-Just on the Rist-Frost letter, did everything that Rist-Frost wrote on June 15 they’ve been able to do with these changes, Laura? MS. NOWICKI-As far as I know. I haven’t looked at it in that context. MR. O’CONNOR-We complied with those at the time of the prior site plan approval. MR. RINGER-We tabled it before. We didn’t approve it. MR. O’CONNOR-No, we approved it. MS. NOWICKI-You approved it. MR. O’CONNOR-We approved it. MR. RINGER-I marked mine it was tabled. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I’ve got a resolution, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-This is the application where. rd MR. RINGER-Rist-Frost letter was June 15, 1998. The meeting was June 23, on Staff Notes. rd MR. MAC EWAN-The 23’s meeting. MR. O’CONNOR-This is the resolution to approve it. MR. RINGER-Okay, then. That’s fine, Mike, if you’ve got it there. MR. O’CONNOR-At the time of the meeting, the only thing that we didn’t have, I think, on the plan, because we had talked to Rist-Frost, prior to the meeting occurring, was the erosion fencing on the adjoining property of A-2000, and we stipulated in the approval that we would have that, and that’s now been shown on this plan here. MR. RINGER-The reason for my question was, I had marked mine that we had tabled it, and not approved it. So that was the reason for the question. MR. VOLLARO-I have a couple of questions. You mentioned a little bit, this whole proposal is predicated on the ownership of the new property, and you said it was in contract, but you don’t have ownership. MR. O’CONNOR-We do not have ownership at this time. We have a contract to purchase, subject to our obtaining the necessary Town approvals. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that any approval of this ought to be subject to the ownership of the property and not just the contract. MR. STARK-It’s always the other way around, Bob. A lot of people, like down here at Lowe’s. They didn’t buy the property until they had all the approvals. MR. BREWER-The same with K-Mart. The same with Wal-Mart. The same with all of them. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ve entered into a contract for the property, and without that approval, they can’t go forward with this plan. Is that correct? MR. STARK-No, but I mean, they’re not going to buy the property unless we approve it. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of stuff that happens betwixt the contract and the closing. Mike, you probably know that better than I do. MR. O’CONNOR-There is, but I’m not sure that I understand the reason. We certainly, the approval to us is meaningless unless we purchase the property because we can’t build on their property. I’m not objecting to the condition. I typically object to conditions, and I’m trying to think whether or not I should object to the condition, but I don’t think. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I haven’t made it a condition. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, this is a modification to their existing site plan, and they want to move this thing, and they can’t move this thing unless they have that piece of property. If they don’t, and they try to build, they’re going to meet all kinds of setback violations and everything else. MR. BREWER-I see what Bob is saying, and I understand exactly what he’s saying, and I understand what you’re saying and Mike is saying, and I don’t see the hurt putting it in there. I mean, the approval that, we give you a blessing with our approval, provided you have the property to do the improvements. I mean, you admitted, you said you can’t do them without the property. So, I don’t see any problem with this. MR. O’CONNOR-Isn’t that a condition of every application that the people have? You don’t get into private property rights. If somebody were foolish enough to come in here and spend money and seek an approval on somebody else’s site, it’s meaningless, but, I mean, everybody comes through the same hurdle. MR. BREWER-I don’t see it as a big deal. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t done it before. I don’t see any reason to do it now. MR. VOLLARO-Look, in the interest of moving this along, I’ll withdraw that, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The second thing I would like to ask is, and I’m talking in your letter, Mike, th where you say, this is your August 10 letter, “one extra dry well was added to more than compensate for the additional building and track surface.” I can appreciate, in looking at the drawing, what you’re saying. It’s just that, I certainly would like, from the standpoint of stormwater management, a stormwater report to see Rist-Frost just take a quick snap shot of that dry well to see whether it indeed does what it’s supposed to do. I’ve got your statement that it does, but that’s not an engineering statement. MR. O’CONNOR-There is an engineering stamp on the plan that says that it will. I thought Rist- Frost would look at it. You’re talking 180 feet of building and probably 10 by, you’re talking maybe 200 feet of track. So you’re talking 380 feet, and then there’s a small addition to the kiddy cart. I don’t know how big that is, 10 feet by 20 feet. So you’re talking probably 500 feet of paved surface, more than what we had before. That’s the change. MR. VOLLARO-And that one dry well is to compensate for that 500 feet of non permeable? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. There’s calculations on the drawing, I believe, as to all the drainage. I do have the prior map. We could compare exactly what they’re talking about, but I think if you get into the calculations proposed increase in impervious areas. MR. VOLLARO-I see it, the 13,000 square feet. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. Also, in addition to that, if you take a look at this area, before the track was built right on the property line. This area, on this side of the property line was not included in any of the calculations. So you now have a strip of land, 20 feet in width, along the full outside of the track, which would add natural drainage as well as the pits that could be utilized. I have no problem, if we can do that subject to that, I’d like not to have to come back and do it. We’d like to start construction, if we could, if that’s a concern. I don’t know if it’s a substantial issue. MR. VOLLARO-Looking at the calculations the drawing, the drawing is stamped by a P.E. or an architect, I guess those calculations look typical to me. So, I would probably go along with it. MR. MAC EWAN-What application, last month, did we do a conditional approval, if it was being sent to Rist-Frost for their review? MS. NOWICKI-Paul Knox on the subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it was Paul Knox. MR. MAC EWAN-Do the same thing tonight, if you feel that uncomfortable about it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t feel uncomfortable about it. Having been at least coached on to where on the drawing, and I probably missed that, and where the calculations are, it says see also submitted stormwater report by L. Dickinsen Surveyors. I looked for that and couldn’t find that. Now, that’s also on the plan? MR. O’CONNOR-That was in the prior application. MR. VOLLARO-That was in the prior application. Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-The prior map showed 11,906 square feet, (lost words) 12,000 square feet, 1,000 square feet total difference, and I would, well, they were using four dry wells for 12,000 square feet, and we’re now using five dry wells for 13,000 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-It’s no so much, Mike, that the dry wells, you can’t look at the drainage just in numbers, but you’ve got to see where the well is, and what the perc rate is where the well is situated. It’s more complicated than just saying, if you add one more well, you can pro rate across a certain amount of square feet. I understand what you’re doing. MR. O’CONNOR-We purposely had the same fellow do the calculations for this configuration that made the prior one, and I’m sure I can get something from him, a letter or whatever. You tell me what gets us to go forward. MR. VOLLARO-We can just make the approval of this application pending on a review by Rist- Frost. MR. STARK-Craig, that’s just his opinion. That’s not the rest of the Board’s. Lets poll the Board and see how they feel about this. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Sure. Do you think I’m off base on this? MR. STARK-Yes, I think you’re off base on it, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Fine. MR. STARK-I mean, if you’re worried about this, they’ve got more land to the south now that’s never going to runoff to the front, if you’re familiar with the property, he’s keeping the 75 foot. He’s got more land to the south now with the 20 foot border. Where is it going to run off to? I mean, where are you afraid it’s going to run off to? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t say I was afraid it was going to run off to anywhere. I’m just asking whether one additional dry well is going to take care of the additional 1,000 square feet. I mean, I think it’s a fair question. MR. STARK-I think you’re nit picking, period. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine, that’s your opinion. MR. STARK-Lets poll the Board, Craig, and see who’s. I mean, this is nit picking on the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Point taken. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How does everyone feel on the stormwater drainage issue? Tim? MR. BREWER-I don’t have a problem. Let him look at it and do it the same way we always do, and Mike thought he was going to look at everything, anyway. If there’s no problem, there’s no problem. MR. RINGER-I don’t see where it would hurt to look at it, if Bob has a concern. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I kind of go along with George here, but if Bob is here, then just take a look and see what happens, and probably nothing. MR. STARK-I don’t have a concern with it. I’m not worried about it at all. MR. PALING-I agree with Tim. Unless Staff has specifically said this is okay, or the engineer has said it’s okay, I think it should be looked at. It seems to be a routine thing. I’m not that sure of myself in reviewing a calculation like that, and it seems like a simple matter to have it reviewed. MR. MAC EWAN-I myself would ask that, I just assumed that this was standard operating procedure, it automatically went to Rist-Frost for review. Obviously, over the last few months, there’s been a change in venue about that, which we ought to talk about at a different time, but I am in favor of also sending it along, just make sure they have their blessing on it. We can make your condition of approval based on that, and if it has to come back and you’ve got to modify it or whatever, then we’ll just do that. Okay. We don’t have a public hearing tonight, but if anyone wants to comment on this application, we would certainly welcome public comment. No? Okay. I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 34-98 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT , Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As per Staff notes, with the one addition that the approval is subject to Rist-Frost revisiting the scene for stormwater drainage, reviewing the stormwater calculations. The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the site plan modification and further finds there is no significant change to the original SEQRA findings. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 34-98 - See letter of August 10, 1998; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/10/98 , consists of the following: 1. 8/10/98 - Letter from M. O’Connor to Planning Bd. W/map S-1 dated 7/30/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 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 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) 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 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Modification to Site Plan No. 34-98, FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. Engineering Fees to be paid prior to Zoning Administrator’s signature on approved plan. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. MR. FERRARO-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, anything else? MS. NOWICKI-No. AUDIENCE MEMBER-46-98, the Bearss duplex. MR. MAC EWAN-That was the first item on the agenda. It was tabled. She still needs to have ZBA approval. She’s on their agenda tomorrow evening. Is that not correct? MS. NOWICKI-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-For a zoning variance, and they’ll be right here in this room at 7 o’clock, the ZBA. We cannot review this application until whatever the outcome is of the ZBA. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Which is what, exactly? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know. AUDIENCE MEMBER-The Zoning Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the Zoning Board of Appeals. She’s asking for one or two variances? MS. NOWICKI-She’s asking for an Area Variance. There’s not a Use Variance, just an Area Variance. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Were you gentlemen here for the public comment? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. We live in Herald Square, and we were just wondering, it’s on the covenants and restrictions of the property that it’s single family dwellings only. How can you have a duplex in this zoning? MR. MAC EWAN-I would encourage you to come here tomorrow night. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I sent a letter to the Town Attorney, to the Planning Board, and to Fred Champagne. MR. STARK-Show up tomorrow and voice your concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-The Zoning Board of Appeals will have a public hearing tomorrow night on this application. I would encourage you to come. Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. Lets talk just a moment, seeing as how we’re really rocketing out of here early tonight, about Rist-Frost and the review process. What happened? MS. NOWICKI-Since it was stamped and everything, I didn’t feel that it was necessary to go on to Rist-Frost for one more additional dry well. Because it seemed that he was providing adequate drainage. I mean, it’s not a problem. It was an extra expense that I didn’t see as a necessity, and maybe that’s where we should visit that. MR. MAC EWAN-Answer me a question, just so maybe we understand how the system works here with Rist-Frost. Does Rist-Frost do everything on a per application basis? Do we have a blanket contract with them to review any and all, or what? MS. NOWICKI-We can send any type of application to him that we feel that is necessary to be reviewed by him. I don’t want to send him applications that are unnecessary, similar to the one that we had sent in the past was an applicant needed to show for a house, he needed to show a stormwater trench. We sent them to Rist-Frost, and Rist-Frost didn’t quite understand the application, but the applicant was still billed for that. MR. BREWER-Who decided to send it to him? MS. NOWICKI-I believe it was us, depending on, you know, that’s just it. We’re trying to avoid that situation, was it was unnecessarily sent to them. MR. BREWER-In my mind, anything with engineering on it, it would be my opinion to send it to Rist-Frost. MR. PALING-Unless Staff yourselves say, (lost words) that that is okay, you’ve checked the calculations, and in your opinion it’s okay, I would go along with that, if you say so, but if you just let it go like this, without anyone really saying it qualifies, then I. MR. BREWER-But we don’t have, Staff are not engineers, Bob. MS. NOWICKI-I’m not qualified to tell you that. MR. PALING-Okay. Then, well. MR. STARK-Then we can’t take Staff’s recommendation for anything, then. MR. BREWER-No, I didn’t say that. I said that anything that would have engineering on it, I mean, if they’re not qualified to examine. MR. STARK-They’ve got common sense though. I mean, jeez, one dry well, this is not going to make. MR. BREWER-Why does an engineer have to do it, George? I mean, engineers can make mistakes. It’s just a safety valve. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. STARK-She made the determination that she really didn’t think Rist-Frost had to look at it. MR. BREWER-I’m not talking about any particular application. I’m saying in general. MR. STARK-Well, I’m talking about this particular application, okay, that’s what we’re talking about right now. So I don’t think, I mean, if she made the determination, fine. I don’t think it’s a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s great. MR. BREWER-That’s just your opinion, though. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s great, but then it’s our prerogative, as a Board, if we feel that there’s enough of a concern, and a majority of the Board says that they want to have it reviewed by Rist- Frost, then that’s what we should do, and that’s what happened in this scenario. MR. STARK-The thing is, it’s an extra expense to the applicant, plus he’s got to pay for Rist- Frost to review it. It’s an extra time thing. In this case it’s going to be an extra time thing. MR. MAC EWAN-But on the other side of the coin, that’s an inherited chance they take, any applicant takes in coming in front of this Board. They don’t know what kind of other expenses might be incurred. MR. STARK-They know exactly what expenses are incurred. MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. I mean, we’ve had applications in front of this Board before where it started out, we thought it was something very simple, and then you get a few comments from some of the concerned neighbors around, and you find out it’s a little bit more than that, and you could add some additional engineering to it that you didn’t otherwise anticipate, and you could add a couple of grand to the price of your application. MR. STARK-Well, okay, now you don’t think there’s a problem with Mary Lee Gosline’s application, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t say that. MR. STARK-We’ll be happy to give you a meeting next week, whenever you need one, Mary Lee, because I know you’re a, this guy here is pressing to get construction underway, so is Mary Lee. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I couldn’t understand that. MR. STARK-You’re bending over backwards for her, and yet you’re putting it to this guy. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not putting anything to anybody. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I don’t think we’re putting anything, but I just don’t know, why did we say that to Mary Lee, that we would hold a special meeting for her? MR. MAC EWAN-She’s told me that she thought she was going to get, she wanted me, wanted the Board to give her a conditional approval tonight pending what was going to happen tomorrow night with the ZBA, and I told her we wouldn’t do that, she said, well, gee, we’re going to be running into a late construction season, if we get these approvals, if I have to wait another month, that’s going to put us way behind, and I said to her, if you get your approvals from the ZBA, you get your variances you’re looking for, I said, the Board may want to entertain giving you a special meeting at the beginning of the month. That’s all I said. We’ve done it for other applications. I didn’t feel it hurt to say it to her, but we didn’t hold up Ferraro’s tonight. He got his approval, his conditional approval. So he’s going to start his construction. I don’t feel that I was playing unfairly with one application versus another. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wasn’t comparing the two, but I was just wondering why Mary Lee, who really is a little bit more knowledgeable than most applicants. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, Cathy, if a K-Mart or a Wal-Mart or Applebee’s, or whomever, some big business comes in, and they want a special meeting, we jump through hoops to have special meetings. So I don’t, in this point I would agree with Craig. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MRS. LABOMBARD-But that was just the next thing I was going to say. Those are a lot. MR. BREWER-I mean, if we’re doing it for big corporations that have professionals. We certainly absolutely should do it for people that are. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would think just the opposite. MR. STARK-I absolutely agree with you, but I’m just saying, we offered it for one, but not for the other. MR. BREWER-Who did we not offer it to, George? MR. STARK-We didn’t offer it for Ferraro. MR. MAC EWAN-We gave him an approval. MR. BREWER-We gave him an approval. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, he got his approval. MR. PALING-I didn’t have any trouble with that part. Where I do have trouble, and I’ve got two things I’ve got to ask the Board tonight. Why did you not question her on the steepness of the grade, and lack of any plan whatsoever to take care of it? MR. MAC EWAN-And the reason why I didn’t, I’ll tell you why. I want to take another look at the site and actually want to walk way back in there and see exactly what she’s talking about. MR. PALING-Yes, but if she left her tonight with the opinion that no one said anything, and then she comes back next time and we nail her with this, that’s not fair to her. MR. VOLLARO-Well, one of the reasons I didn’t say anything is because the contours weren’t on the plan. I looked for that this afternoon when I reviewed that plan. I couldn’t tell you. MR. PALING-Well, I asked a question about that and the consensus seemed to be we want to waive it. That’s a heck of a steep grade. MR. BREWER-I asked for a contour of where the road and where the house was. MR. PALING-Well, I think she left with the opinion that she’s going to slide this thing through, and she talked about growing grass and stuff, there’s no plan before us for that. MR. VOLLARO-No, there isn’t. MR. PALING-And we should treat her exactly the same as we treat others. MR. BREWER-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. I agree with you. MR. PALING-Well, I didn’t hear much agreement when I was talking. MR. MAC EWAN-Because it was missing so much information, and actually, you know, I wanted to hold out and hear what the ZBA’s got to say about this whole thing. MR. PALING-Well, whenever an applicant is before us, and I have questions on my mind, I think it’s fair, and what we should do is tell them, so that they don’t come back and be surprised when they come back again. Tell them now, and let them prepare for the next meeting. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we usually do, I think. We’re pretty good about that, but I think maybe we were a little remiss here, Bob. MR. STARK-Is she coming back with a five foot contour map, or no map? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. BREWER-Probably none. She’s asked for a waiver, but that doesn’t mean we have to give it to her. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. We only talked with her tonight about. MR. PALING-She went away with the impression that she didn’t need a two foot contour map. MR. STARK-She didn’t need any contour map. MR. MAC EWAN-Why wasn’t this on for Sketch tonight? MS. NOWICKI-Because of time constraints. She wanted to submit Preliminary and Final, and you do have the opportunity to waive Sketch. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So she’s burdened herself, then. She asked to take one step ahead of the scenario. So if she comes back next month and we look at this thing and we say at Preliminary, we can’t let this thing go through. We need some more information. MR. BREWER-But, Mark, I though two lot subdivisions were. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, for starters, I’ve never seen this, I don’t believe, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this is too strong a statement, let me back off on never, but I think it’s very, very, very rare that this Board or any other Board for that matter, sees a Sketch Plan for a two lot subdivision. That’s not to suggest you can’t, but typically sketch plans are on major subdivisions, not two lot subdivisions. MR. BREWER-I thought a two lot subdivision could be done in-house? MR. SCHACHNER-Administratively, yes. That’s true for some, but there are constraints. MR. BREWER-Why, because of what reason? MS. NOWICKI-Because the lot that she is creating needs, requires a variance. MR. BREWER-But I thought she has a variance? MS. NOWICKI-She doesn’t have a variance to create a lot without road frontage. MR. BREWER-All right. I see. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The administrative approval is only if no variance is required. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think one of the key issues here, too, is that she’s planning to keep horses on this property. If you look at the ZBA, the original motion that the ZBA made, it said, whether that lot was sold or not in any way disposed of, whether it’s sold, given away, whatever, that that variance would be negated, and now she couldn’t keep horses on the lot that she wants. I think that’s the pivotal thing that the ZBA’s got to deal with tomorrow night. MR. BREWER-Well, she says that’s not fair because, but that doesn’t make any difference to us. MR. STARK-I would like Mark to explain to the Board, why it’s not really our problem or anything, you know, when we get into land ownership. Like, you know, down here for Lowe’s, they didn’t take ownership of the land until all the approvals were in place. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s very common that ownership is not finalized until approvals are in place, but I don’t understand what you want me to explain. MR. STARK-Well, I mean, it came up tonight about this, how can we approve this without, you know. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I don’t think anyone asked how we could approve it. Somebody just suggested that, I think all that happened was someone just suggested that a condition of the approval be that they in fact acquire the ownership, not merely have the contract, and that’s perfectly fine. There’s no harm in that condition. Even the counsel for the applicant didn’t have a problem with that condition. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. STARK-Well, I don’t think we ever required that from anyone else, though. MR. VOLLARO-I withdrew it after you. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you probably have, but not too often. The places I would sense an approval might contain a condition like that are, in this instance, let me say when it would never. You would not typically include a condition like that if somebody didn’t own any of the property at all, because it’s too obvious, but when somebody’s in the process of acquiring additional property, it’s not that unusual to say, okay, we’ll grant this approval conditioned on you actually acquiring the balance of the property. That’s not that unusual, and I’m not saying it’s necessary. I’m just saying it’s not inappropriate if the Board feels that way. MR. PALING-I’ve got a comment, for Staff and for the Board. Some time ago, we had Seeley in here, and we went round and round and up and down about fill and what’s brought in and what isn’t right. Jim Martin made, I believe, two trips out there, and among the things that he said was wrong was the logs and stumps and branches and miscellaneous junk to be considered good fill, if my memory serves me. I went out there and I looked down that hill, and it’s loaded with this kind of tree at the bottom, branches, stumps, logs, what have you. There’s some cement from where they empty the cement trucks, but I think we were told that’s okay. There’s asphalt dumped in there. I think that’s okay, but there’s also plastic baskets and there’s some stuff I can’t distinguish whether it’s wire or whatnot, and when I brought this up, I said there seemed to be disagreement, and the Board should even be bringing this subject up, and Staff also, and I think it’s a very legitimate right to be made, and I can’t understand, if site visits were made, why you didn’t see it. MR. BREWER-Recall, when we were there, three, four years ago, when this all started, they had trees, and when Jim Martin was here, there was something done so that they could not do that. I was at the ZBA meeting the other night, and that’s the reason I didn’t say anything about the application, because we’ve got a map that shows absolutely nothing that he’s doing. The contours are wrong. He’s filled into the buffer. He wants to eliminate the buffer. That’s why I asked for a new map. The map is from Day One. I asked at the ZBA the other night that we should have a map that shows what he’s doing, where he’s doing it, and he shouldn’t be allowed to use trees for fill. MR. PALING-Unless he dumped those trees and miscellaneous in there after you were there, Laura, with him. They didn’t look like they were there new. They looked like they’d been there a long time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But who did you say had okayed it? MS. NOWICKI-I’m not going to say they okayed it, but we did ask that question, because it was a concern about the steel, about things that were not able to be, that could hamper a building on that site. MR. PALING-Did you say you asked the question, or you looked at it? MS. NOWICKI-No, we asked the question of. MR. PALING-So you didn’t, you’ve never seen it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, we did. I asked the DEC and the Warren County Soil and Water District. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What does our Town Ordinance say about fill? Is there some way that we can get a determination of what is allowed to be used for fill? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. I agreed to look into that, because the concern was ours as well, was what fill is good fill. So, your question is not wrong. It’s a very good question. MR. PALING-Jim Martin researched this one, and I know he said logs and stumps are out. MR. BREWER-Because they decompose. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. BREWER-We went through this with the house over on West Mountain and Sherman Avenue. Remember the house, where the guy filled into the wetlands, and got a permit? Right on the shoulder of West Mountain Road, right by Sherman Avenue. MR. PALING-There’s another thing, too. Did you all remember the trailer with the smashed in side there? MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see that. MR. PALING-This looks more like a junk yard, and he’s calling it storage, but I’m not going to carry something like this on alone. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have to agree with Bob. I’m thinking, this place is unsightly, but who am I to question it? I mean, I’ve got all the powers to be, and all the, everybody else that is certified, qualified, has a stamp of approval, is an engineer and this and that, and they’re looking into this same pit, like we were that day, and they’re looking around, and I have, remember, with Seeley, the gosh darn bus that he put his electrical stuff in, and we questioned it and he came back two months later, or the next time, and there was no problem, and I’m the bad guy, you know, and I’m like, and I have to agree with Bob. MR. BREWER-Cathy, we can do that because we did it with Bill Threw. We can tell him, keep it sightly. I mean, that’s part of. MRS. LABOMBARD-I had no idea that that kind of fill was called fill, and I’m thinking, well, what in hell do I know about fill. They know more about fill than I do, and I’m looking down there, and I’m seeing the same stuff that Bob’s seeing, and I’m like, well, it must be okay. MR. BREWER-It’s not okay. We don’t have to allow that. MRS. LABOMBARD-We’re not the only people that looked at that site. MR. BREWER-Yes, but we’re the only ones that are giving him approval. MR. RINGER-What is the definition of fill, do we know? MR. BREWER-It’s not in there. I looked for fill in there. MR. RINGER-Laura, do we know what the definition of fill is? MR. STARK-She’s going to get back to us with a letter saying what fill is. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. If it’s not in your Ordinance, then I don’t have one. MR. RINGER-Yes. I can’t find it in here. MR. BREWER-I think, if you look in this file right here, under Batease, you’ll find a lengthy conversation that we had about fill over there. MR. RINGER-It seems like I remember hearing somewhere that you couldn’t use trees and stumps for fill, and that’s part of the problems they’ve got in Queen Victoria’s Grant and stuff, because that’s what they did. They used trees and stumps and all that rotted, and now they’ve got sink holes and everything else over there. MRS. LABOMBARD-And another thing, I know that we went through this before, and I’m like, well, my boundaries must have gone awry in my head because the river is right over there. MR. BREWER-Yes, and there’s a brook down there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. We had gone down there four or five years ago. MR. STARK-I’m saying it goes to the brook and then the river. MR. BREWER-Exactly. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. STARK-You’re talking about the real brook or the fake stream? MR. BREWER-The classified stream that’s down there. MRS. LABOMBARD-The classified one. MR. PALING-They’re both on that property. MR. BREWER-Classified in the letter from DEC here. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s no doubt that that whole site’s been a very arduous task from the beginning. It’s time that I guess maybe we really put it under a microscope and make sure that they comply with everything we’re doing. I for one, I can’t, in my wildest imagination, think that the ZBA would allow him to go in that 50 foot buffer. Stranger things have happened. MRS. LABOMBARD-I can’t, either. MR. MAC EWAN-If they don’t, I’m going to be of the persuasion, I want to see it all moved totally out of that buffer. MR. PALING-If he plans to put buildings on this property, that’s a part of the business (lost words) and he’s going to put a building on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty years from now. What he’s doing right now is making money on accepting other people’s garbage. That’s what he’s doing. MR. BREWER-That’s basically what it’s turned into. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what he’s doing. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s competing with the guy up there by the landfill. MR. STARK-McLaughlin, Scotty McLaughlin. MR. PALING-Laura said she’s going to look into this, and I strongly suggest we revisit this site, before he comes before us again. MR. MAC EWAN-When we do site visits next month, we’ll take another run over there, and we’ll also take another run up to Mary Lee Gosline’s property on Blackberry. MR. STARK-I can’t believe that the Town is jumping all over Monsour, about a little bit of land in the back, and they don’t say anything to PSM or Formula One Auto Body. The new kid that does the Code Enforcement or whatever, he’s jumping all over Jo Jo, and yet nothing is said to PSM or Formula One Auto Body who’s operating three businesses out of there, and I don’t think that’s a modification. I think that’s a new site plan. MS. NOWICKI-We were made aware of Formula One, and then they were requested to submit a letter of modification. They met with Staff. They have submitted a modification. I can address them to submit a site plan for the sale of cars. PSM Auto Body, we’re aware of it. I don’t know what we’re doing with it at the moment, but I can give you information, if that’s what you need. MR. STARK-I mean, you know, this guy finds time to go up there and look at some grass, and he goes by this place 20 times a day, and he doesn’t see three businesses at one property that’s a little dinky property. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets do what’s fair here. What is Formula One doing, a modification or a new site plan? MS. NOWICKI-They’ve made process at both. The site plan would be for the sale of cars, the use of rental, it could be interpreted as being part of his auto repair service, or whatever, his body work. So that the person can have their car worked upon, that they can have a rental car to take. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. MAC EWAN-So they’re going to do a site plan for the sale of cars. They’re going to do a modification for the rental of cars? Is that true? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the logical thing to do, was that by Staff direction, suggested that they do that? MS. NOWICKI-Right now, we’ve directed them to submit a modification for both the sales and the car rental. What you’re telling me is that something that we have, are looking at, is whether to ask them to submit for a site plan for the car sales. MR. STARK-Can I ask that, when we get the paper work on that, you can have the original motion about no cars being out front, and also a copy of the State Supreme Court Order about the right of way that goes through there, from Dier? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. STARK-Because I don’t think anybody in the Staff is aware of that, on the Board, I mean. MR. BREWER-Right of way for what? MS. STARK-Phil and Linda Hart have a right of way for their property in the back, and there’s not supposed to be anything on that right of way, period. MR. BREWER-It’s not our jurisdiction to take care of court orders, is it? MR. MAC EWAN-I believe it’s part of our original site plan approval, we put something in the approval about, that they weren’t to block that right of way. MR. STARK-And then they did block it, and then they went to State court to get it knocked off. MR. BREWER-Do we enforce court orders? MR. SCHACHNER-Generally, no, but if it’s part of an original site plan that the right of way area remains clear, then obviously we should look at that, and the other thing is, if we have something that’s, well, I guess what I’ll say is, we have something that’s clear and unequivocal or uncontested, I guess the example I’ll use, if somebody were to come and make an application to build something on my property with absolutely no claim of ownership, agency or anything else, I think if somebody were to bring that to the Board’s attention, we would say, well, you know, even though we’re not in the business of enforcing private property rights, an applicant has to show they have some color of claim to something, but if we know, you know, if we know that there’s something that’s been discussed, disputed and ruled upon, and we have it black/white, then we probably shouldn’t be granting approval. MR. BREWER-I don’t remember the right of way. MR. STARK-No, either did their lawyer, Muller, and he was wrong, and he lost in court over that. They have a clear right of way, and they were parking cars there, and they took them to court about it, and ever since then they haven’t parked cars there, along that one side, the south side. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my opinion would be here, whatever Staff is going to do, as far as assuring what Formula One does, as far as either a modification and/or a site plan, or both, make sure that KIA and the PSM Auto Body follow suit with the same thing. I think what’s fair is fair. Anything else? MR. STARK-Craig, Barrett car rentals. That’s a used car lot now. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but we gave them site plan for that. MR. STARK-Did we? I don’t remember. Was it for used cars, or for rental and car sales. Fine, but I know PSM was definitely. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/25/98) MR. STARK-Let me ask you this. What happened with Nemer on Quaker Road, with building and the store, did that die a death or what? MR. MAC EWAN-It died a death. It died a slow, quivering death. Because they wanted to re-do that. I’ve got to remember. They wanted to do the back portion. MR. STARK-As a warehouse. MR. MAC EWAN-They had a Light Industrial, in the front portion Highway Commercial. I think they ran into a big stumbling block in opposition from the people that live over in Windy Ridge. MR. BREWER-They bought Nemer, where (lost word) is. They bought that cheaper than they probably could develop the other piece. Probably there was opposition from Windy Hill. MRS. LABOMBARD-Windy Hill. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Lets go through the calendar. ththnd MR. RINGER-Site visits on the 10, and the meetings the 15 and the 22. ndth MR. MAC EWAN-The 22 and the 29. MRS. LABOMBARD-There’s five Tuesdays in September. thndth MR. RINGER-The third and fourth, that would be the 15 and the 22. Site visits the 10, and thnd the 15 and the 22 on the meetings. ththnd MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits are going to be on the 10, 4 o’clock. The 15 and the 22 are our meetings. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 29