1989-01-17
QUEENS BURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting: Tuesday, January 17, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman
Joseph Dybas
Peter Cartier
Hilda Mann, Secretary
Frank DeSantis
Paul Dusek, Counsel
Lee York, Sr. Planner
Mary Jane F. Moeller,
John Goralski, Planner
Stenographer
Absent:
Victor Macri
Keith Jablonski
Mr. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Minutes from four
December Planning Board meetings will be reviewed January 24, 1989. Mr.
Roberts read a letter from Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor, apologizing
that the Town Board has not secured a Town Engineer, but that one is
expected shortly. Although Planning Board By-laws calls for the election
of Officers at the first meeting of the year, this procedure was waived
until January 24, 1989 because of the absence of two members.
OLD BUSINESS
SITE PLAN 56-88
Green's Appliances
The application is for
creating three (3) retail
(Tax Map No. 102-1-10)
the alteration of the interior of the building
sales offices, 682 Upper Glen Street, PC-1A.
This application was Tabled previously, because of suggestions made by
the Town Planning Board. Thomas R. Green represented the application.
Mr. Roberts was of the opinion that most of the concerns were addressed,
with the exception of the loading area on Foster Avenue. It would be
adviseable to force the trucks to park parallel to the building. Mr.
Green advised that the distance between the road and the warehouse door is
approximately 14 to 15 feet. Since the truck drivers are his men, he con-
firmed to the Board that the trucks will park as instructed and will not
stick out into the street. Steel reinforcements erected for this purpose
most likely would be a hazard.
Mrs. Mann
at the end
proximity of
trucks unload.
read a letter to Mrs. York from the Fire Department located
of Foster Avenue stating concerns about the
the overhead door to the road and the manner in which the
1
Mrs. York verified that the tanks on the property have either been
removed or filled with inert material.
Mr. Green also confirmed that most of the deliveries to this site are
employees of Green's Appliances. He agreed with Mrs. Mann that there is
no excuse for parking in an unassigned manner. "The bigger trucks will
park the way we tell them." When asked if he will be responsible, Mr.
Green replied ·Yes, we will." Scheduled deliveries by the bigger trucks
are known: scheduled deliveries by the smaller trucks are not always
known. If delivery time is known, Mr. DeSantis suggested a temporary
barrier, such as three or four pylons, within which the vehicle had to
park while unloading: the applicant had no objections.
Mr. Cartier's concern is the curb cut off Route 9, while entering the
parking lot coming from the north. When he entered the parking area, his
vehicle was facing a tree: the access is 35 feet wide at its narrowest
point. Mr. Roberts suggested that a request could be made to the Dept. of
Transportation that the curb be cut back, in order to widen the access
area. Mr. Green agreed to write DOT and attach a copy of the Resolution.
Mr. DeSantis also noted that no signage was designated on the plan:
signage painted on the pavement is not adequate in this area because of
the weather conditions. After a discussion regarding the type of signage
for the parking lot, it was suggested that ONE WAY IN and ONE WAY OUT
signs should direct traffic in a counter-clockwise direction.
Mr. Goralski reviewed correspondence from Q. Kestner, Town Designated
Consultant/Engineer. The facility of the Central Queensbury/Quaker Road
Sewer District and the Queensbury Water Storage Distribution District will
service the building. Site drainage to either the front or rear of the
site will not be altered by the Site Plan, since no change in contours are
indicated: drainage will go to a catch basin. No problems to the plan
were noted.
Public Hearing: no comment
Mr. Cartier reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form, Part II, Sec-
tions A D: there were no adverse affects. In addition, Resolution No.
56-88 is affixed to these minutes.
Mr. DeSantis moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 56-88, Green's Appliances,
based upon the findings of no environmental significance and based upon
the fOllowing conditions:
1. the Applicant place signage near the tree that is shown near the
entrance to the parking lot indicating the flow of traffic one-way to
the right:
2. the Applicant
traffic control
building:
is to monitor the placing of temporary pylons or other
devices at the loading area on the South side of the
2
3. Lee York, Sr. Planner, will write a letter to the New York State Depart-
ment of Transportation recommending that the existing curbing at the
North end of the entrance to Glen Street be reduced in size by approx-
imately 20 feet.
The Town of Queensbury Planning Board reviewed the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.070, Requirements for Type 1 and Type II Site
Plan Review (Exbibit A).
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
Passed Unanimously
(Note Re. Item 3.: Mr. DeSantis' original statement required Mr. Green
to initiate correspondence to the N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation. How-
ever, at that point, Mr. Green expressed his opinion that DOT might be
more receptive to a letter written by the Town and not by the Applicant
himself, although Mr. Green would be willing to do it, if the Board so
desired. Mr. Green indicated he would absorb any necessary costs. There-
fore, Mr. DeSantis agreed to amend Item 3..)
SITE PLAN NO. 60-88
Margaret E. Bunke
Proposed use: One (1) bedroom, one (1) bath. Project description: Full
cellar (16 ft. x 24 ft.): water intake to lake, new windows and siding:
studio/loft 8 ft. x 16 ft., Rockhurst Road, Cleverdale, WR-1A. Location:
Route 9L to Cleverdale, take Rockhurst turnoff, left at bottom of hill.
(Tax Map No. 15-1-8)
Walter Rehm, Esq., represented the application, which previously was
Tabled for more information, including but not limited to Item #20 of the
Application. Mr. Rehm advised that he did meet with Messrs. Dusek and
Hatin and Mrs. York regarding SEQR. One of the decisions that was made
was that the water line, which was part of the Site Plan Review applica-
tion, was not a Site Plan Review matter and was withdrawn. However, Mr.
Dusek stated that the water line is a matter subject to SEQR review.
Also, a determination is to be made as to if there are other involved
agencies.
Under the Town of Queensbury rules, the project is listed as a Type I
action, because the application is an expansion of the septic use within
500 feet of a critical environmental area (Lake George). There are only
two agencies which would be jurisdictional: the Town Planning Board and
the Lake George Park Commission. Mrs. York discussed the matter with the
Lake George Park Commission and, under the Commission's rules, the project
3
is a Type II action. Therefore, the Queensbury Planning Board can assume
Lead Agency status.
There was further discussion regarding the septic system. Mr. Rehm
noted that, unless there was evidence of failure, an existing system could
continue if there was to be no expansion of the bedrooms that would re-
quire additions to the system. In this case, there is no new living space
to speak of, with the exception of a loft which Mrs. Bunke plans to use
for her artwork. Mr. Rehm noted a letter from R. Morse of Morse Engineer-
ing dated 11/29/88 that a test had been done on the septic system (Exhibit
C). However, Mr. Morse would not certify that the system would not fail.
Mrs. Mann's concern is, without changing the numbers of bedrooms or
bathrooms, that people are renovating and insulating what were one-season
dwellings into year-round homes. Regardless of the fact that there might
not be additional bathrooms, there is an increased use of approximately
nine months. On a limited-use basis, septic systems have a chance to rest
and recuperate. Further, when the Board notes that a project is being
insulated, water lines are buried, there is an expansion of rooms, etc.,
then consideration of the septic system on a year-round basis must be
made. Although Mrs. Bunke, through her Agent, has verified this site is
for seasonal use only, there is the possibility of a sale in the future.
Mr. DeSantis referred to Town Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.076 Seasonal
Dwelling Unit Conversion: "The conversion to year-round occupancy of any
seasonal dewelling shall be permitted only after approval under a Type II
Site Plan Review and in accordance with the New York State Building Code
and New York State Energy Convervation Construction Code and only after
certification of the suitability of the sanitary system by a licensed
engineer to accommodate year-round use." He was unclear as to what con-
stitutes "conversion," but has considered water usage to determine whe-
ther or not a site is year-round or seasonal, particularly around lakes.
When a water line is buried and available year-round, Mr. DeSantis's
opinion is that the buried line is a large step towards conversion, along
with insulation of the residence, upgrading, etc.
Mr. Dusek informed the Board that, when he met with the applicant, he
indicated what he felt to be the Planning Board's concern, and that was to
be sure that the system in place was suitable for the proposed Site Plan
(including the addition of a loft, etc.); the Board could not require more
than that. The Engineer's correspondence should refer to the additions
being added to the residence, when reporting on the status of the septic
system; Mr. Morse's letter of 11/29/88 does not refer to that point speci-
fically. The Board is looking for verification that the system will
function under the additional use.
Mr. Rehm confirmed to Mrs. York that Mrs. Bunke will not be requesting
a Certificate of Occupancy. Also, Mr. Rehm formally stated for the record
that the year-round water line will not be installed as a condition of
Approval, because the applicant has stipulated that the dwelling will be
used solely on a seasonal basis.
4
Mrs. York read Q. Kestner's letter of 12/16/88, which stated that the
applicant propose the use of a holding tank (Exhibit D). Other factors
brought out regarding the septic system were that the Board does not put
credence in dye tests; there are many areas in the Town where 150 feet is
not available: and the Dept. of Environmental Conservation does not like
holding tanks.
Mr. Dybas stated emphatically that the Board should be consistent;
other applications were approved solely on the basis that the applicants
agreed to holding tanks. In this case he is concerned about a substandard
system of less than 150 feet. Mr. Cartier pointed out that the intent of
the Ordinance is to protect water bodies (in this case, Lake George), and
he questioned if this system will serve that purpose.
Mrs. York questioned how the Board could be sure that a water line will
not be installed. She suggested that Mr. Morse submit a letter to the
Planning Board, which would address Section 7.076 of the Town Ordinance.
After studying the application, Mr. Dusek did not feel that a conversion
was being addressed. Mr. Rehm agreed that the application is not for a
conversion as there is no water line; the engineering information is suffi-
cient; the Town has no standards and the Town has not come forward with
any contrary evidence as to the inability of the system to service the
building as proposed in the Ordinance.
To clarify the question of "conversion" in future Site Plans, Mrs. Mann
suggested that the Site Plan Application should be amended so that the
applicant would have to stipulate if the application will change the use
from seasonal to year-round: and, that the applicant has to provide certi-
fication that the septic sytem would sustain the number of bathrooms, bed-
rooms, etc. in the building on a year-round basis.
Public Hearing: no comment
The Town Planning Board reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form,
Part II, Sections A D; there were no negative impacts. In addition,
Resolution No. 60-88 is affixed to these minutes.
Mrs. Mann moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 60-88, Margaret E. Bunke,
based on the consideration that the requirements of the Town Zoning Ordin-
ance require engineer certification that the existing system in place has
not failed; that other actions anticipated (loft, windows, etc.) do not
conflict with the Town Zoning Ordinance as stated; and, since the Appli-
cant's Attorney has stated for the record that the water line will not be
winterized and will not be made available for year-round use.
Seconded by Mr. Cartier.
Passed Unanimously
(Note: Mr. Dybas's affirmative vote was made with reluctance.)
5
Mrs. Mann recommended that the following addition be made to the Site
Plan Application, provided that it is legally permissible to do so.
An Engineer is to certify that the present system would be func-
tioning without failure on a year-round basis and that it would
handle an increase in living space or an increase in use.
Mr. Dusek recommended that, prior to amending the Site Plan Applica-
tion, the language must be compatible with the Town Zoning Ordinance; Mr.
Dusek stated that he will be responsible for that review.
SITE PLAN NO. 61-88
Roger and Karen Howard
The proposed project is to remodel the existing four (4) bedroom, three
(3) bath house on Rockhurst road, Cleverdale, WR-1A. Location: Route 9L
to Cleverdale, take Rockhurst turnoff, .4 mile towards point from Seelye
Road turnoff. (Tax Map No. 15-1-17)
Mr. Walter Rehm, Esq., represented the application, which was pre-
viously Tabled. Mrs. York reviewed Staff comments of 11/15/88 (Exhibit
E), noting that the applicant would have to seek a Variance for the 10 ft.
x 16 ft. deck addition only. Mr. Rehm verified that there will be no addi-
tional bedrooms or bathrooms; the bedroom is being pushed out, but not
passed the roof line of the house. The reason for the deck is access to
the bedroom.
Mr. DeSantis reviewed the 11/29/88 letter from Richard Morse, Engineer,
and questioned how a confirmation could be made that the leaching device
was working well, when it was not found (Exhibit F). Margaret E. Bunke's
father verified that he was present for the tests on the Bunke and Howard
properties. (Margaret E. Bunke is a neighbor; Site Plan No. 60-88). He
advised that the access to the septic tank on the Howard property was ex-
posed, a test was run and, after a few hours, it was determined that the
septic tank did not overflow. Mr. Bunke stated that the Howard's do use
the house in the summer; however, he was unsure of any rental status in
the winter.
Mr. Rehm confirmed that the interior additions to the house will not
affect the system, since the house is presently occupied year-round; it
will remain a four (4) bedroom, three (3) bathroom house and there is no
evidence of additional use. Mr. Kestner recommended a hOlding tank in his
letter of 12/16/88 (Exhibit G). The present sewage system complies with
the current code; he does not believe that there is any authority to
require a holding tank.
Public Hearing: no comment.
6
Mr. Cartier moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 61-88, Roger and Karen
Howard, considering the fact that it does not require Type I review. The
application is in accordance with Section 617.13 (8) of the NYCCR. In
addition, the Town Planning Board reviewed the Town Zoning Ordinance,
Section 5.070 A-E.
Seconded by Mr. Dybas.
Passed Unanimously
Mr. Rehm commented that it is not usual for him to appear before a
Planning Board, and that it is unusual for him to appear before a Board
where the Board really thinks about the facts.
SITE PLAN NO. 67-88
John P. Matthews
The proposal is for the construction of an
storage and storage building at 300 Bay
Glenwood Avenue, HC-15. (Tax Map No. 61-1-34)
outside display area, fenced
Road, corner of Bay Road and
Mr. Matthew was not present at the meeting; however, Mr. Goralski
advised the Board that he spoke to Mr. Matthews and was informed that
Charles Scudder, Engineer, is continuing to get the drainage calculations.
The applicant will return to the Board, as soon as the information is
available.
Mr. DeSantis
request of the
available.
moved to TABLE Site Plan 67-88, John P. Matthews, per the
applicant until further information regarding drainage is
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
Passed Unanimously
SITE PLAN NO. 70-88
Order of Friars Minor
The proposal is for the following: demolition of an existing 20 ft. x
35 ft. close-sided peaked boathouse; addition to a dock; construction of a
16 ft. x 32 ft. (w/skirt) open-sided boathouse, and 3 ft. x 16 ft.
close-sided storage closet; and reconstruction of a 2 ft. x 55 ft. stone
and concrete seawall. Location: Brayton Road, Cleverdale, WR-1A. (Tax
Map No. 11-1-16).
7
Mrs. York advised the Board that John Mason, Agent, could not be pre-
sent at the meeting. This application previously had been Tabled: how-
ever, at the time it was considered a Type I action. In a conversation
with David Hatin, Zoning Administrator, it was determined that the seawall
was not altering the shoreline, because the concrete footing is already in
place and the repair was on the existing seawall. Therefore, the appli-
cation is considered as a Type II action and no SEQR review is necessary.
Mr. Dybas moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 70-88, Order of Friars Minor,
Siena College Friary. It was determined that the application is Type II
action. The application meets Code 617.13 (8) of the NYCCR in either one
of two places or both: a) replacement of a facility in kind or b) construc-
tion or replacement of minor structures accessory or pertinent to existing
facilities, etc.
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
Passed Unanimously.
SITE PLAN NO. 2-89
Jean C. Taylor
The application is for an addition of a 16 ft. x 24 ft. single story
garage on the east side of Cleverdale Road, WR-1A.
Dennis
will not
is Type II
Davis, is Agent for the applicant and stated that the applicant
turn the garage into living space. Mr. Goralski noted that this
action.
Mr. DeSantis referred to Staff's notes which stated that fill will have
to be brought in, because of the steep slope. Steps will have to be taken
to ensure that during construction, in the event of a rain/snow, no fill
will enter the lake. Hay bales with stakes have been used in this type of
work; however, in his opinion have not always been effective because the
water does not necessarily penetrate into the bales, but runs down the
outside. Fabric is more effective as the water penetrates through the
fabric and catches the fill.
Public Hearing: no comment
Mr. Cartier moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 2-89, Jean C. Taylor. The
application is a Type II action and does not require a SEQR review. Recom-
mendations from Staff will be complied with regarding prevention of silta-
tion of the lake.
The Town Planning Board reviewed the Town Zoning Ordinance, Section
5.070, A-E.
8
Seconded by Mr. DeSantis.
Passed Unanimously
PLANNING BOARD BUSINESS
SITE PLAN NO. 4-89
Story town U.S.A., Inc.
d/b/a The Great Escape
(Water Slide)
Mr. Roberts requested to know the Board Members' thoughts regarding the
Department of Environmental Conservation (hereafter DEC) assuming Lead
Agency status for the SEQR review. This request was made via Robert
Stewart, Esq., Agent for the application. Reasons for this action are
that DEC might be able to move faster than the Town Planning Board and DEC
has the experts on hand, whereas the Town Planning Board would have to
hire the experts. However, the Town Planning Board would still be a party
to the SEQR review and would conduct the Site Plan Review.
Mr. Dusek informed the Board that, if a an Environmental Impact State-
ment is necessary, then concerns which the members would have would be
addressed at that time. Some of the concerns are as follows.
Would DEC make a critical review of the traffic problem?
Would DEC make a critical review of the 69,000 gallons of water to be
pulled from the system?
Where would DEC hold its hearings and where would determinations be
made? If the location is in Warrensburg, NY, it would entail travel to
that point possibly in the middle of the afternoon.
The Town Planning Board would request that its engineer be able to
review the project.
Is it adviseable to have DEC act as Lead Agency, when it has not re-
sponded to past actions by the Applicant regarding environmental areas;
ie: filling in and removing soil from those specific areas?
In writing, DEC is to advise the Town Planning Board if it wishes to be
Lead Agency.
In writing, DEC is to advise the Town Planning Board regarding its
concerns on this proposed project.
Mr. Dusek
sponsibility
requests to
sioner for the
explained that, if DEC becomes Lead Agency, it is DEC's re-
to uphold the entire SEQR review. Further, if no agency
be the Lead Agency, then the matter would go to the Commis-
final determination.
DIXON HEIGHTS; Old Mill Lane
Mr. Dusek requested verification that Old Mill Lane is to be made one
9
way immediately. After reviewing past minutes on this project, he was
unsure of the status. The Planning Board members advised that the deter-
mination was that Old Mill Lane was to be made ONE-WAY immediately, be-
cause it is a hazard to pedestrians and vehicular traffic alike.
LEAD AGENCY STATUS
Mr. DeSantis moved APPROVAL of a Resolution authorizing the Senior Plan-
ner to be responsible for the following procedure. Upon receipt of an
Application, an initial determination (subject to Planning Board Review)
is to be made as to whether the matter is a Type I or Unlisted Action, and
the Senior Planner immediately may submit a notice to other involved
agencies requesting Lead Agency status for the Queensbury Planning Board.
The purpose of this Resolution is to expedite the process of any applic-
able Site Plan Review.
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
Passed Unanimously.
Chairman Roberts adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Date
~
enographer
Date
Ie ~/· jJ f
I
10
TOWN OF QUEENS BURY ZONING ORDINANCE
SECTION 5.070 REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I AND TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW
In order to approve any Type I and Type II Site Plan Review use, the
Planning Board shall find that:
A. The use complied with all other requirements of this Ordinance, includ-
ing the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is
proposed to be located; and
B. The use would be in harmony with the general purpose of intent of this
Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location, character,
and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the
district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the
activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the pro-
posed use, and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on sup-
porting public services and facilities which will follow the approval
of the proposed use; and
C. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would
not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion, or the park-
ing of automobiles or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property and
improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town;
and
D. The project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural,
scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open
space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability
of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made neces-
sary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial,
residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from
the project. In making this determination, the Planning Board shall
consider those factors pertinent to the project contained in the devel-
opment considerations set forth herein and in so doing, the Planning
Board shall make a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to
the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in Section
6.040 of this Article.
E. The Planning Board review of the Site Plan shall include, as appropri-
ate, but not limited to the following general standards:
1. Location arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of
buildings, lighting and signs.
2. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circula-
tion, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces,
dividers and traffic controls.
11
3. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street
parking and loading.
4. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circula-
tion, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular
traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
5. Adequacy of storm water drainage facilities.
6. Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
7. Adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable
plantings landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or
noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands including
the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance
including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
8. Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision
of fire hydrants.
9. Adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas
with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Rev.: 8/16/88
12
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
Resolution No. 56-88
January 17 , 1988
Introduced by: Frank DeSantis
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by:
Hilda Mann
WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application
for: Site Plan No. 56-88, Green's Appliances, for the interior alteration
of three interior retail sales offices, and
WHEREAS, this Planning
and Planning Board action
mental Quality Review Act,
Board has determined that the proposed project
is subject to review under the State Environ-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
Warren County Planning Board;
New York State Department of
making a recommendation that the
Transportation, for the purpose of
curb cut be changed.
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of
the Town of Queensbury
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli-
cant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter-
mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Complilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of
the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file
as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this
vote:
17
day of January
, 1988, by the following
AYES 5
NOES 0
ABSENT 2 :
13
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
Resolution No. 60-88
January 17
, 1988
Introduced by: Hilde Mann
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by:
Frank DeSantis
WHEREAS,
for: Site
windows and
there is presently before the planning Board
Plan No. 60-88, Margaret E. Bunke, for addition
siding and studio/loft;and
an application
of a basement,
WHEREAS, this Planning
and Planning Board action
mental Quality Review Act,
Board has determined that the proposed project
is subject to review under the State Environ-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
Lake George Park Commission;
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of
the Town of Queensbury
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli-
cant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter-
mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Complilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of
the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file
as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this
vote:
17
day of January
, 1988, by the following
AYES 5:
NOES 0:
ABSENT 2
14
INEERING
J.... MORSE ENGINEERING
ilia
99 LOWER OIX AVENUE
~ GLENS FALLS,NY 12801
Mr. John Mason
Sunsoval, Inc.
P.O. Box 86
Cleverdale, NY 12820
RE: Bunke Proposed Development
Dear John:
Please be advised that on this date, 11/29/88,
inspection of the proposed construction at the
Rockhurst, Kattskill Bay, New York.
As you reported, the proposed construction is to place a
foundation under the existing seasonal camp and to
10ft. The current occupancy of the facility is one
it is proposed to be one bedroom after construction
On this date, a dye test was run and one day's
effluent/ISO gallons of fresh water, was added
tank. The leaching device was located and
no signs of failure, the leaching device seems
well, and no dye was evidenced around or near the
therefore assume the system is functional. .
If you have any questions concerning this matter,
free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
\
...
Richard S. Morse,~!.
Principal
RSM:lag
RICHARD S. MORSE J P. E.
Phon.a(GI8) .792-
€X/f/BI,-G
/'
ESTABLISHED IN 1955
KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
JOSEPH A. KESTNER. JR., P.E., L.S.
MARK l. KESTNER, P.E.
QUENTIN T. KESTNER, P.E.
ANTHONY M. KESTNER, B.S.
December 16, 1988
ONE KESTNER LANE
TROY, NEW YORK 12180
518-273-7446
FAX; 518-273-7583
JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E.
JEROME THORNE. S.E.T.
Ms. Lee York
Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
Queensbury Town Office Building
Bay at Haviland Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
RE: Town of Queensbury Site Plan No. 60-88 -
Bunke - Cleverdale
Dear Ms. York:
I have reviewed the subject site plan and would comment as
follows:
I see no way, based on the information in the application
provided, that the existing sewage disposal system can be
brought up to standards as found in the 1982 Sanitary
Sewage Disposal Ordinance. If one considers the
requirement for 150 I of horizontal separation between
Lake George and a seepage pit, the lot being only 80'
deep cannot accommodate the system.
I would suggest that the application be tabled and that the
applicant propose the use of a holding tank. Appendix B,
Table II, suggests the use of holding tanks in situations such
as this.
The larger question here is whether or not the Board wishes to
use the Planning Board Approval process as a method to enforce
the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance for existing sites that
do not represent a change or expansion of existing use.
Sincerely,
KESTNER ENGINEERS, P.C.
~7~
Quentin T. Kestner, P.E.
Vice President
QTK/cp
cc: Town Planning Board
MUr\IClP,"'.L EI'\GI,'\EERL'\G
WATER, SEWAGE, A,'\D DRAI,'\AGE SYSTEI\\S SOLID WASTE 1"1A'\AGUvIE¡'\T
FEDERAL/STATE GRi\,'\T APPlICA TIO:-.;S
PRECISIO,\ SURVEYI,\iG AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTION. ,\IETERL'\G & SAMPLL'\G
CO¡o...STRUCTION MANAGEMENT A'\D QUMITY ASSURA.'\CE
E'/.fflflz/ T b
'.
---
/
Jown 0/ Queenjbup'j
-/
l"" ~ l· ~:
~"I t
L¿.:.':.'·'.'··,"'I.'. r.'~1V\'.·
, ',' ~'~ 'I
:\lj. ~
.~
~ô
"NOTE TO FILE"
Planning and Zoning Department
LEE YORK
. Senior Town Planner
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 61-88
Nov. IS, 1988
Applicant/Project Name:
Roger and Karen Howard
This proposal is before the Board because it is an expansion of a nonconforming
use (Section 9.010). The Zoning Administrator has determined that the applicant
will have to seek a variance for the 10 ft. by 16 ft. deck addition (details on last
page of submission).
The majority of the proposed construction has no bearing on the deck addition
for which the applicant will seek a variance. With respect to that, I would suggest
to the Board that you approve the site plan. However, approve the 10 ft. by 16 ft.
deck addition contingent upon receipt of the variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals and Adirondack Park Agency approval. This will preclude the applicant
returning to the Planning Board for further review after receipt of the variances.
I have attached the response from the Adirondack Park Agency on this project which
indicates that the Adirondack Park Agency will review the variance.
Paul Dusek, Town Attorney will direct you as to SEQR Requirements.
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763... HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY... A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE I?Xff/Ø, T P'
'I
. Ir.n-f.) v;:¡r1;::¡nl:~R ;¡n""Tn\T~J t....,.;:);C! """"-T'" r''::o,~'-''''' ,~--- --.....--...-.... ----..-...-..---"
·.--- ~ ._~*. ..--....-'""'" c......___.~,~....._.............,,._.._..~___ '---1!
/
~OCAL GOV'T.-AP A REFERRAL/RESPONSE
ff",' ~L r C'J r"
D' ¡,~~p' V
II ., rr ,,;:¡ f,. ,. ,1. '
.~'.. 'crJ '
T tluNlt ~~'
u ~>l,u7 YI.JiI-11¿t C; 1(t
DATE: " .. -,..,.....
TO:
Local Government Services
Adirondack Park Agency
Box 99, Ray Brook, NY 12977
Phone: (SI8) 891-4050
1. [J A CLASS A REGIONAL PROJECT INQUIRY/REFERRAL
t p/~RrI1{W 7/0. ft;!-fr
Project Contact:
'PI !,
,I ,
q,
;.i¡
'~j
THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY IS HEREBY NOTIFIED OF:
2.0 'rHE RECEIPT OF AN APPLICATIOU FOR A.CLASS B REGIONAL PROJECT
No. Name or Location of Project:
Applicant/Address
Date application received by town Hearing Date:
(descriptive material on project attached) (if scheduled)
3. [J A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
No. Applicant
APA Land Use Area ~
Type of Variance: AREA (Practical Difficulty Criteria)
USE ----(Unnecessary Hardship Criteria}
Date of ZBA Approval: ----,
(Application, Map(If Available), ZBA record of findings to be att'd.}'
4. 0 OTHER REQUEST FOR INFORMATION/DETERMINATION
o NOT DETACH
J"é6- 'ft7PX ßv,t;hJ Pit ,,~~
FROM: Adirondack Park Agency
P.O. Box 99
Ray Brook, NY 12977
TO:
~ IN REFEREUCE TO ITEM (S)(j/
L:.1·HEREBY DETERMINES THAT
ABOVE THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
[J The Agency will not participate in the review of the Class B
project identified.
o The Agency will participate in the review of the Class B
project identified.
----
.,"--"'-
[]The variance approval is not subject to review by the Agency.
CJ The variance approval is subject to review by the Agencv, and
[J the Agency will not deny or modify the variance approval.
[] the variance approval was not based upon practical difficulty or
. unnecessary hardship and that the variance is ( ) denied:
( ) modified in the following manner
[:]PROVIDES THE INFORMATION REQUESTED, AS FOLLOWS:
ff~ ~ 't::: ~ ~~w~;:~~~r;:;j':rI'rð~';t: ~~:f-?
BY: d1P1 DATE: /I , L~
.dirondack Park Agency ~
!.
:,:
'.
, P" Xlrl/l.l T é'~
Dm~t.i~-·-·~---*-~-u"""'''~&TI.Jio~~''''Y~h~·¡'''~,;,£~~.~~j¡':;.h::'r.1\ÍÍi\.~MW.>rtI.j,¡t~1'Þ~~j¡ll¡:..f.r!\n1i,è,1i1.i."')".'tI~'~:~~jÞr;ozt!.~~~j~,,:!t.#.
FilE COpy
November 29, 1988
Mr. John Mason
sunsoval, InC.
P.O. BOX 86
C1everda1e, ~' 12820
RE. Bo~ard proposed Development
Dear John:
please be advised that on this date, 11/29/88, I made an
inspection of the proposed construction at the Bo~ard residence on
ROeI< hurst, llattsl< ill BaY· Ne~ YO rl< ·
AS YOU reported. the proposed construction is the remodeling of a
four-bedroom home intO a neW four-bedroom home.
on thiS date. a dye test was run and one day'S volume of septiC
effluent/600 gallonS of fresh water, ~as added to the septiC
tanl<- The leaching device was not located, but test holeS were
placed belo~ grade in the area of the leaching device and no
failure was encountered. There is no signs of failure. the
leaching device seems to be operating ~ell, and no dye was
evidenced around or near the project. I therefore assume the
system is functional.
If yOU have any questions concerning thiS matter. please feel
free to contact me.
verY trulY yours,
NGINEERING
Morse, p.E.
RSM:lag
PhOn.a(5,8} 192.5382
E f.Jf1 ß rf ¡:::.
",,,,
R\C~"'ARO S. MORSE, p. E.
,..., ...-
:-:.
"
, '.
/'
-../
ESTABLISHED IN 1955
KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
JOSEPH A. KESTNER, JR., P.E., LS.
MARK L KESTNER, P.E.
QUENTIN T. KESTNER, P.E.
ANTHONY M. KESTNER, B.S.
ONE KESTNER lANE
TROY, NEW YORK 12180
518-273-7446
FAX: 518-273-7583
JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E.
JEROME THORNE, S.E.T.
December 16, 1988
"', \0
Ms. Lee York
Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
Queensbury Town Office Building
Bay at Haviland Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
RE:,Townof Queensbury Site Plan No. 61-88 -
- Howard - Cleverdale . .
Dear Ms. York:
I have reviewed ·the subject site plan and would comment as
follows:
I see no way, based on the information in the application
provided, that the existing sewage disposal system can be
. brought up to standards as found in the 1982 Sanitary
Sewage Disposal Ordinance. If one .considers the
requirement for 150' of horizontal separation between
Lake George and a seepage pit, the lot being only 123'
deep cannot accommodate the system.
I would suggest that the application be tabled and that the
applicant propose the use of a holding tank.
The larger question here is whether or not the Board wishes to
use the Planning Board Approval process as a method to enforce
the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance for existing sites that
do not represent a change or expansion of existing use.
Sincerely,
KESTNER ENGINEERS,
-~>'J4(Z:
Quentin T. estner,
Vice President
QTK/Cp
cc: Town Planning Board
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING
WATER, SEWAGE, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPlICA nONS
PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTION, METERING & SAMPLING
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE '
ITX#-IH ~ r ç
"
,-
/
Jown 0/ Queenjbuf''j
--
,,/'
.~
n>-'
-NOTE TO FILE-
Planning and Zoning Department
¡
(,
'""
I ~ '
LEE YORK
, Senior Town Planner
Application Number: 0() -~
Applicant/Project Name: õ,<,('k ~ \=Y"I' ~
. \ .G\.~
~
'fYH v\ () Î ~ \ eV\ (\ "'- Qø\ l-e~
d.V\ (Q...A/.\s.\t...\'\.~ G1D1 X' l~f-)J ~\D~'o
D()o..t- ~(')() ~ 0 LD l \.\. ~Q V' ~X'ÝIC"~ d t:11Y\ d l'Î
\ll 1!: 3~ 1?'fQ(1'\) <;ìðuri bl".> 01. t- ~ m J--o 0 II')" \ \
6 h~\ \ t-. ì\v ~i"I"IIf"QS.~ À. c;. \,0 ~A. ì,^-\-Y-,~s:( ~
;-1ho \Ckf ~~~ ~¡~ d('o~ h&
cH ~00 lÔ~ (~ \ - .~. r-r- _ .' -: .p . 'c. :':CR..
~ ,rQ\0ilS-r.>rl.. Q/"W\~lh~ \, ìY\ Qæ()~U2
lú ~ ~ 0 (') '(' A.l r'\D...M ~ 1)
l\...o SQa. I,~OQ t~cù 'C \~ \;",^~\-ed. \oo~
IP ~ ~r-\t.CJY\ '1. D l ~_.
l'~ Oyt
n)
. s: c;e..,¿,
c) RETAINING WALLS: The addition, expansion or rcplllcCIIICIlt. of any
type of retaining wall shall be discouraged, exccpt. 111 the ca~H'
where the alternative of shoreline restoration to a natural staLc
is impossible duc to excessive slope or severe ero~lon problems,
I a condi tion t.o be determined by the Zoning Officcr'. Retaining
walls shall not be permitted to be constructed for only aesthetic
, reasons. When permitted, retaining walls shall not excecd
~ sixtecn (lb) inches in height, as measured from the stationary
~ mean high water mark, nnd shall be co~structed of native ~tonc or
wood. When treated lumber 1s used for the cons truct.lon of n
..etaining wall it shall be the scaled non-leaching type.
!.............~~- ,'~ " '~~'!'J 'rrh~1
.", .".~f~~. ' ':;·'·\·f;.;;·... "'~;' ",' .....' "'JiJ
~.._ .' ..1.."'.. .~ a!.....""',~o.:.. --.-' . ,..._~..t ",.,,,,r. .-:.':.,·:~·~,.t:. ..··~'f
- ":-:":':~ -' _.. ;';:':-,";'" ..,',.", ~~.:.;.~.".......;~
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSßURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763. . . HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
Æ'tl'¡'¡ IS rr .p-
"---
Jownol Queenjbuf''j
,~
:J-
'-~"---
. r.:>-'
UNOTE TO FILE-
Planning and Zoning Department
LEE YORK
, Senior Town Planner
Application Number: ~ () - ~ <:r
Applicant/Project Name: 6" à..R ~ 'l="v i -e\f"~
-:x=..=- "'-et kJ...~ '(' ~ {'~ \J~! or"' cl a. \ e. ~-€A. .~ (,(JY'r\..)
~o. u.e \\- 0 *' '0. \ ';(",^:Ä." 0\. '(tel 'M.À >'Vt.s.~~o. ~..
..u. ,. s. " c<=- .L:Þ ~
D-A., V\..A \ _ .....l) ~ .
~..
~;
~
~
Senior Town Planner
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (51B) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763... HOME OF NATURAL BU,UTY... A GOOD PLACE TC