Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1989-12-19
,_/ ~ "- '-' '--' -_/~" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19TH, 1989 INDEX Site Plan No. 77-89 Scott McLaughlin 1 Freshwater Wetlands FW2-89 Curtis L. Madison, Jr. 1 Subdivision No. 19-1989 Brian O'Connor Final Stage 3 Site Plan No. 66-89 Imperial Motel/Wayne Pelak 4 Recommendation Only Debbie and Steven Scheibel 5 Site Plan No. 79-89 Charles E. Norton 14 Site Plan No. 80-89 Adirondack Industrial Park, Lot 57 15 Site Plan No. 81-89 Adirondack Industrial Park, Lot 56 16 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ,~' \.... '-"~ -" --.-/--./ QUEENSBURY PLAIflUNG BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19TH, 1989 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES HAGAN PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS NICHOLAS CAIMANO MEMBERS ABSENT KEITH JABLONSKI TOWN ATrORNEY-PAUL DUSEK DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEERS-THOMAS NACE, JOHN FERGUSON JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER OLD BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 77-89 CR-15 SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN DIX AVENUE AND QUARRY CROSSING TO REMOVE THE TRAILER. TO ADD AN OFFICE AND GARAGE (42 FT. BY 75 FT.) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 111-7-5 LOT SIZE: 1.41 ACRES SECTION 4.020 L REQUEST BY APPLICANT TO TABLE UNTIL FIRST AVAILABLE MEETING IN JANUARY MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 77-89 SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN, Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Jablonski FRESHWATER WETLANDS FW2-89 SR-lA CURTIS L. MADISON, JR. HALFWAY BROOK, HAVILAND ROAD DIMENSIONS OF WETLAND: 300 FT. BY 750 FT. TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.6 TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND LEVEL LOT WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE WETLAND BUFFER. TO INSTALL A ROADWAY AIm BRIDGE THROUGH THE WETLAND IN THREE PHASES. PHASE I: FILL TO STREAM BANK; PHASE II: CONSTRUCT BRIDGE; PHASE III: COMPLETE FILL TO REAR OF WETLAND. CURTIS MADISON, JR. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, (attached) MR. GORALSKI SUMMARIZED THE 15 CONDITIONS TO THE DEC PERMIT. MR. CARTIER-Asked John, if he was suggesting they approve just Phase I or just part of Phase 11 Is there more in Phase I besides construction of the house? MR. GORALSKI-Stated he would recommend that their approval, or the motion that they make, be almost exactly worded the way the permit for DEC is worded which says "construct a single family residence in the adjacent area of Freshwater Wetland GF-19 along with a septic and leachfield and a foundation drain as shown on the sketch that is attached and made part of this permit". So that any other work Mr. Madison proposes to do, he would have to come back and resubmit a new wetlands application. MR. MADISON-Stated he has some property on Haviland road that he I d like to put a single family house on. The property is 19 ~ acres and is owned by himself 1 -~ '-../ '" "- ',,--,- ../ ..J --./ and his wife and her parents. Sometime in the future .... back and subdividing the land. Once this gets going, it will be subdivided into 3 lots. One being his in-laws, the second being their lot, and the third being vacant land in the back of the property. MR. HAGAN-Asked if Mr. Madison constructed this house and could not get approval for step 2 or step 3, what type of hardship would that present to he and his family? MR. MADISON-Stated it restricts about 15 acres of property which they can utilize. MR. HAGAN-Asked, in effect, what that would do to Mr. Madison's family? Also asked, if Mr. Madison meant prohibit them from building houses on the land? MR. MADISON-Stated he can't say that because they are planning on leaving the property for the children sometime in the future. He can't say that 30 years down the road they might want to build a house in the back. If they do then they'd have to get some way to get across the stream. Also stated, when he first bought the property, he went to ENCON and asked them if it were possible to put a house on the property, a bridge, a waterwheel, on that stream. They gave him verbal approval saying the whole plan with all the permits and proper work being done would take approximately 20 years. He's not on a time schedule, but this is something the property was bought wi th this in mind. As far as he knows, there will be only two houses on the property, his and his in-laws. MR. CARTIER-Asked if the in-laws were on the other side of the stream? MR. MADISON-No. MR. CARTIER-Asked if they were on this side (referring to map) the Haviland's Road side of the stream? MR. MADISON-Yes. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MADISON-Stated what Mr. Hicks and he had decided on was he agreed to give Mr. Madison the permit. At this time, to just take care of the buffer zone and no work done on the wetlands at all. That part of the permit was refused. To pursue this, as they had already given him previous permits to put a bridge in, lets start fresh with a new application since there's so much involved. Start with the house first because he wasn't honoring the time limit to get a bridge across the stream. There wasn't a hardship to get the house built to have the bridge itself. There's something he still wanted to do, but it was going to be further down the road. MR. DUSEK-Stated the Planning Board said it all in their recommendation. The only comment he has is the interplay between the DEC wetlands ordinance or laws or regulations and our own and because of some lack of clarity of procedure which they are still struggling to clear up, it is his recommendation to try to stay as closely aligned with DEC as possible, avoiding potential conflicts. Obviously the judgement of the Board is the most important thing. If they feel they should depart from what the DEC has done, recommended, then he thinks the Board has that power. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS FW2-89 CURTIS L. MADISON, JR., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: To construct a single family residence in the adjacent area of Freshwater wetlands GF-19 along with a septic and leachfield and a foundation drain as shown on the sketch that is attached to the motion and be made a part of this motion. In addition, the approval stipulates that Mr. Madison should comply with all conditions listed in the DEC approval and further construction of bridge or fill in the rear would require a new application, a new DEC approval. AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts (Mr. Cartier Chaired) 2 '-' --.-/ -' '---- - .-" ---' --./ \.... SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1989 FINAL STAGE SR-1A TYPE: UNLISTED ROAD TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.50 ACRE LOT INTO TWO 1.25 ACRE LOTS. BRIAN 0' CONNOR MARTELL TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.43 LEON STEVES, VAN DUSEN AND STEVES, REPRESENTING MR. O'CONNOR STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Thomas Nace (attached) MR. NACE-Stated he was sure Mr. Steves intended to put in 2 monuments delineating each lot as stated in the engineering report. MR. STEVES-Stated he intended to put iron rods in each lot in the corners. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they show in the plats? MR. STEVES-Stated they never do show them on the subdivision plat because it is redundant to sayan iron rod set appointed the whole corner. Also stated, no corner should be set until the Board has approved subdivision. MR. ROBERTS-Stated this was gone over when the Board was reviewing the master plan. There are new regulations. MR. NACE-Stated the regulations require it. MR. STEVES-Stated they will be set. Also stated, to run out there today or last week or last month really is presumption on his part that the Board is going to through with the plan. MR. GORALSKI-Read from page 14 of the subdivision regulations under final plat. "the final plat shall be laid out by a licensed engineer with properly executed... or licensed land surveyor. Such plat shall be prepared clearly showing (one of the things listed) a system of monuments to be located at all corners of intersections and angle points. MR. STEVES-Stated monuments to be located is referring, if the design criteria is checked, then you're talking about concrete monuments, not lot corners. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the Board also got into any change in direction needed to be marked. MR. DUSEK-Asked John if he were talking about monuments out in the field? MR. GORALSKI-Stated, he believes what Tom was asking was that the plat, the mylar that gets filed, shows that there are going to be iron pins at the corners. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. DUSEK-Asked, they're not on the mylar? MR. STEVES-Stated they're not in the ground yet. MR. DUSEK-Stated Mr. Steves didn't want to put them on the mylar until they're on the ground. MR. STEVES-Correct. Stated the minute he sent the map out say to set corners, what are you billing me a second time? corners, how come they're not on here? Stated also, they've trap too many times and don't want to get into it now. someone is going to or I can't find the been caught in that MR. DUSEK-Stated, reading the language that's in there, it says a system of monuments to be located at all corners. He agrees with Mr. Steves, it makes sense, that practically it is an added cost and it's a little presumptuous to go and put them in before this Board has approved it. He thinks the monument should ultimately be on the mylar, but he can understand that Mr. Steves doesn't want to place it on there until the Board approves. 3 "--' ''-'' '''"- '---, ----- - ./ -.-/-.1 MR. STEVES-Asked, if a 49 lot subdivision is done, can you say on it that a circle represents a iron rod set unless it's a square then it represents .....? MR. NACE-Stated you can sayan iron rod to be set. MR. STEVES-Stated he's been down that road, setting the monuments in, get it all done, and then you go in to construct your road and there isn I t a monument left in there, there isn't an iron rod left in there that's worth a hoot. Stated that this is crazy. MR. CARTIER-Stated that Mr. Steves has a very valid point, but he doesn't know if they should just talk about a two lot subdivision. When the issue comes up in the subdivision application, that is the time to address it. Is it a problem for this two lo~ subdivision? MR. ROBERTS-Stated they are not as clear on this as they should be. MR. NACE-Stated the whole thing needs to be worked out a little. MR. DUSEK-Stated to the Board, in subdivision regulations they do have the power of waiver and modification. It is to the Board's discretion to do what is best, keeping in mind they are setting a precedent. MR. STEVES-Asked if 35 were the maximum amount? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. STEVES-Stated if they approve a 35 lot subdivision tonight, then he I d have to get out and stake out 35 lots before he can file the map. MR. NACE-Stated that this doesn I t say that. Also stated, it was the same thing with Mr. Steves point about the road monuments, to be set when the project I s finished. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the question was whether the Board wanted an as built map after everything is signed? MR. NACE-Stated the Board called for property corners and road maps anyway. MR. GORALSKI-Stated the Planning Department and the Attorney's office are currently going over some revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and the subdivision plans, if Mr. Steves would like to come in and meet with them, maybe they could come up with some wording that would be appropriate and everyone would be happy. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1989 BRIAN O'CONNOR, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: All concerns by Planning Staff appear to be addressed with the understanding that the mylar map will show iron rods delineating each lot. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jablonski SITE PLAN NO. 66-89 HC-1A TYPE UNLISTED IMPERIAL HOTEL WAYNE PELAK 29 AVIATION ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 17 ADDITIONAL MOTEL ROOMS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 72-5-13 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION 4.020-K RICHARD JONES, RICHARD JONES ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING MR. PELAK STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Thomas Nace (attached) MR. JONES-Stated some of the items that are detailed in Rist-Frost' s letter were taken care of in the first set of drainage calculations ever submitted. 4 "---" ---,' '" ~ -" ~~ -.-/' \... MR. NACE-Asked, such as? MR. JONES-Stated the original submission back in October indicated a management plan and calculations that were updated by the second set that was submitted. The item number three (referring to engineer's report) where it talks about the combination of infiltration, the calculations do not show how much would be stored or infiltrated. This was covered by the first set of calculations. MR. NACE-Stated it only covers it as far as storage capacity not as far as total assimilated capacity of the dry well for percolation. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if it would be worthwhile if the engineers got together and go on to another topic and see if they can work these details out? MR. NACE-Agreed. MR. CARTIER-Asked Mr. Nace if he sees himself coming to a resolution of this tonight? MR. NACE-Stated that depends on what Mr. Jones has that can add to the situation. Also stated that his gut feeling was that the system would probably work, the numbers aren't there to show what they normally require. MR. JONES-Stated that they had talked with Wayne Gannett at his office and what was submitted as the second submission was what he had asked for. MR. NACE-Stated that these are Wayne Gannett's comments. MR. CARTIER-Stated to be able to vote comfortably on this he has to know that Mr. Nace is satisfied with the numbers also. MR. HAGAN-Asked if the applicant believes he has generated those calculations to support his claims? MR. JONES-Stated they thought they had generated everything that was required. MR. HAGAN-Asked you just can't identify them tonight? MR. JONES-Stated he would like to speak with the engineers if possible. TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE EVENING RECOMMENDATION ONLY WR-3A DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL DAJU{ BAY ASSOCIATION DRIVE, APPROX. 0.80 OF A MILE WEST OF BAY ROAD ON ROUTE 9L, DRIVE IS ACROSS THE ROAD FROM BOAT COVER BUSINESS. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY YEAR-ROUND RESIDENCE. AT PRESENT, IT IS VACANT WITH AN EXISTING DOCK AND STORAGE SHED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. 2-1-6.8 SECTION: NIA BOB STEWART, GLENS FALLS LAWYER REPRESENTING DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL MR. ROBERTS-Asked, if a recommendation is made to the Zoning Board one way or another, and the Zoning Board approves the variance, will the Planning Board see this back as a site plan review before the Board? MR. GORALSKI-Stated there has been quite a bit of discussion between the Zoning Administrator and Mrs. York and the determination that they came to was that if there was any filling taking place, that it would fall under the section of the ordinance Article 7 Section 7.012 which concerns filling within 50 feet of the shoreline. Addressed in Mrs. York's latest set of notes. MR. ROBERTS-Stated he was a little confused about the SEQRA review on this Project. They are within 500 feet of an environmentally sensitive area. Asked who becomes the lead agency for this, if anyone? MR. DUSEK-Stated for purposes of SEQRA review and since this is primarily a Zoning Board matter at this time, it is his opinion that they would be the agency that would take lead and they would conduct the SEQRA review as is required. If it's a referred to environmental that would mean it would be a Type I action and they would have to go through all of the steps. This Board is acting in an advisory capacity only and therefore it is not necessary for a member ..... to engage in the SEQRA process. If it should come back to this Board or if it is planned to come back to the Board for a site plan review and the only way that would happen 5 '-' "- .-/ ~.-- --" is if something in the ordinance triggered the necessity of site plan review, perhaps the Zoning Board and Planning Board jump into SEQRA review process at this time. You're both engaging it, since you're going to have to get that done anyway to come back for site plan, but if that's not going to happen in just an advisory capacity tonight, you're not going to have to do it. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if he meant tonight? MR. DUSEK-Asked John Goralski if this has gone to the Zoning Board already? MR. GORALSKI-Stated this is in front of the Zoning Board. They have requested that the Planning Board give them a recommendation. There is no site plan application currently submitted. MR. DUSEK-Asked if there was going to be one? MR. GORALSKI-Stated the only thing that would trigger it at this point that the Zoning Administrator can pick up is if they intend to do any filling within the shoreline which, as Dick said, is highly possibly but is not known for a fact yet. MR. DUSEK-Asked, they haven't committed themselves to that course of action? MR. GORALSKI-Right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Thomas Nace (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Read letters on file from Lake George Park Commission, To Mr. Stewart(copies to Lee York) and from Lake George Association, to Queensbury Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals MR. ROBERTS-Asked Mr. Goralski to read letter from neighbor. MR. GORALSKI-Read letter to Queensbury Planning Board from resident of Dark Bay Association, Beverly J. Winnery. MR. STEWART-Stated the history of the application as he understands it. Somewhere around October of 1988, the applicant filed for a variance. The applicant owned a small lot on the shores of Lake George. The lot is not large enough to meet the square footage requirements as they presently exist in the new amended Zoning bill of Queensbury. The lot is part of a preexisting subdivision that was approved back in the 70's and then resubmitted and reapproved in 1979. It is an approved subdivision. The applicant owned one lot. They do not own any adjacent land whereby they could make their lot larger. Under the zoning laws of the Town of Queensbury, they are entitled, therefore, to go ahead and use the lot for the intended purpose and the zone here is single family residential. MR. ROBERTS-Stated there was a point made by someone in one of the letters that they could build on another lot. MR. STEWART-Stated there was a lot number 8 which was owned by another member of the family who offered to allow a portion of that lot to be used for a septic tank and that was not viewed kindly by this Board. Dark Bay Associates does not own another lot that is in any way contiguous to this that could make this lot any larger. MR. ROBERTS-Clarified his last statement. Stated he wasn't talking about this he was talking about another lot which could be built upon. MR. STEWART-Stated he doesn't believe this to be true. Also stated, a point is that this is a preexisting, approved, legal lot. It has been appraised and there has been appeals to the Appraisal Board of Review until finally the appraisal on this property has been agreed upon at $200,000. He handled a couple of these matters this summer and the State of New York says that the equalization rate in Queensbury represents about 79.19 percent of true value. Assuming that to be true, what the assessors are saying is that this property is worth somewhere 6 '-' -...../ \.. ."--,--, - ../ -'- in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars and the people have been paying their taxes for the last three or four or five or six years at that rate. At that rate for three years because the big increase in assessments on Lake George went into effect three years ago. You have a piece of property that's worth, ballpark, a quarter of a million dollars by everybodys agreement. Its owned by these people and they have a legal right to use it. The only reason this comes before any Board is that, although they have the right to use the lot, they cannot place a house 75 feet back from the Lake George frontage because the lot simply is not that deep. So they therefore applied back around October of 1988 to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance allowing them to place the lot closer to the lake frontage than the 75 foot requirement. That does not require any SEQRA review. That does not require any site plan review. It does not require any Adirondack Park Association review because Queensbury hasn't approved the land use plan and your own rules take precedent and the APA backs away. It is not within the province of the Lake George Park Commission who has no jurisdiction because the lot preexisted their creation of the critical environmental area. The application was on file before the Board before there was any critical environmental area and they have filed a letter with the staff of this Board indicating that they had no jurisdiction whatsoever. The matter then went back in the fall of 1988 before the Zoning Board of Appeals. He was not representing these people at the time, they were representing themselves. The Zoning Board of appeals, if I understand the situation correctly, had three options. They could approve the variance, disapprove the variance, or approve it with some condition or qualification. In view of the fact that you have a preexisting, nonconforming lot. If you won I t let it be used for residential purposes, and if that's the only use it's zoned for, to deny it would effectively take away the value of these people's lot. Obviously, that created a problem in the mind's of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They also knew that it was a sensitive area in a small lot with steep frontage. So they sent it the following month to this Board to ask this Board to review the same and make some comments. I have to assume, what they had in mind was if they were to approve it, would this Board recommend some terms and conditions that might make the situation better. Obviously, if they were to disapprove it, they didn't need the advice of this Board. So the matter has been before this Board for somewhat over a year. Initially, the proposal was to have a standard type septic system to service this lot and to have the system placed back on a lot up the road and a relatively short distance away on a lot known as lot 8 in the subdivision which is owned by a member of the family who is willing to agree to allow that septic system be placed on his lot. This was reviewed by this Board and some members of the Board certainly made it clear that they would not like that proposal. They saw problems with it. About this point, he was asked to appear and to start to represent the people. He looked at the proposal. He saw problems with it. Planning, site plan, all sorts of legal and technical problems. They went into a huddle and after some debate decided to accept the recommendation that had been made by some members, although the Board had never as a unit made any recommendation, that we abandon the concept of a standard septic system on this piece of property which is a seasonal or occasional use property. The people that are going to use the property live in Philadelphia and come up here on the weekends. Instead, we decided to accept the wishes of the Board members and go to a holding tank. Before we did that we checked with representatives of the Town Board as to whether or not a holding tank was appropriate and if so what rules and regulations would be required in connection therewith. He got that information. He was told it was appropriate under these circumstances and the engineer who has been working on this Project, Dennis Dickinson, came up with a plan to place the holding tank on the property with all the bells and the whistles and the warning alarm systems to comply, as best they understand it, with the ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. Back before he was involved, there was a series of meetings, he believes other concessions were made, the house was reduced down in size, it was pulled back farther from the lake frontage as far as what they could do, and he believes there were some other concessions made but he's not entirely clear about that since he wasn't involved. Since he has been involved, there's been an abandonment of the septic system that was considered offensive and they have conceded to the wishes of the Board to go to a holding tank. A request that they would come up with some sort of a plan or recommendation as to how, during construction, they would try to minimize any surface runoff into the lake or silting of the lake, and this has been done. Mr. Dickinson has prepared and filed with this Board a plan in that regard. So, they are here tonight asking that this Board express its recommendation for good or for bad so that they can return to the Zoning Board of Appeals which is scheduled to here them tomorrow night. There is nothing to his knowledge that requires any site plan. This is sort of an unusual application before this Board because normally you review site plans and you as a Board have considerable jurisdiction total authority to decide the matters that come before you. This is not that normal type of thing. This 7 ~ ~' \... -' ',,--- -- '- ---' particular application falls within the sole jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but they have asked you for your opinion as to suggestions you should make to make it better or different or other and we would ask that you make those recommendations whether good or bad or whatever and let us proceed back to the Zoning Board of Appeals so we can finally put this matter to rest once and for all. They do not plan, to the best of his knowledge, to fill within 50 feet of the shores of Lake George. If as they proceed the engineers tell them yes they do, then they will have to be back here and notify you and be back before you or some board. No SEQRA is involved. This is just a setback, single family residential area variance on a setback. It is specifically immune from SEQRA by the definition of the SEQRA law. They are not under APA. They are not under Lake George Park Commission. It's before one board only - the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow night - who have asked for your opinion. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if there were anyone to clarify the SEQRA thing, the applicant was telling them SEQRA was not involved. MR. DUSEK-Stated at this point, all the Board has to do is act in advisory capacity. MR. HAGAN-Asked Mr. Stewart if he said this was a previously approved subdivision in 1978? MR. GORALSKI-Stated he believed it was '67. MR. STEWART-Stated this subdivision was approved in 1967. There were some changes and amendments to it, the precise nature which he's not clear of, and it was resubmitted and reapprove in 1976. MR. HAGAN-Asked if this was as the lot stands now? MR. STEWART-Stated as the lot stands now that was approved first in 1967 and later about 1976. MR. HAGAN-Asked what has been the current use of this property during this period? MR. STEWART-Stated it has been owned by the DEBARON ASSOCIATION, which is a family association. It stands for Debbie, Barbara, and Ron, three children of the Durante family. So they put it into a partnership using the three children's first names. The lot has been essentially vacant during this period of time. There is a dock on it. There is a small shed that might hold a life jacket. MR. HAGAN-Asked if in the original approval of the subdivision, was this land in any shape, form, or manner, set aside as what they refer to as a bridle area? MR. STEWART-Stated no. It was set forth as a separate, independent, single family residential lot number 4 out of 12 or 16. MR. HAGAN-Stated when you have a division approved, sometimes there is a piece of land, in order to get the whole division approved, you can set aside as he has heard them refer to as a bridle area. MR. STEWART-Stated he was not familiar with that phrase. It's not unusual to cluster lots and ... that all the remaining land not be further developed to meet density and sell it. Some comment was made that they don't meet density. They do meet density because they are a preexisting lot. The only thing they don't meet that they require to meet under the law, as he understands it, is the 75 foot setback from the lake and that I s the variance being requested. Submitted subdivision map which is on file. There is lot number 4, the lot in question. MR. ROBERTS-Stated this subdivision map shows lot number 4 where the present dock is? MR. STEWART-Stated, he believes the dock had existed before the subdivision was ever. He believes it is an old existing dock, but is not positive of that fact. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that dock obviously has access to the lake by some of the other parcels of land. MR. STEWART-Asked Mr. Roberts if he meant has anybody ever used the dock? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. 8 '-' ~' \.. ./ "-- - -- ...- --" MR. STEWART-Stated the gentleman on lot number 3, James Durante, father of these three children. He has tied a boat and kept a boat at this dock during the period of time the dock was in place. MR. CARTIER-Asked for how long? Since '67? Stated what he was getting at was easement by use. The fact that the person has been using the property for a certain number of years even though it hasn't been with permission, develops a legal easement for legal use of that property by easement. Correct? MR. DUSEK-Stated that's a determination that has to be made at some point. He doesn't see how that's related. MR. CARTIER-Clarified his question. it? Does the property now have an easement in MR. STEWART-Stated it was right that under certain limited conditions, use of a property adversely and in denial of the right of the...owner can develop adverse possession. However, you are using the property with the permission of the owner you do not develop any adverse possession. This is an interfamily situation. It's been done with the permission and their is no claim here. He represents Mr. Durante and his three children. There is no claimer of any adverse possession. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the current mapping Mr. Stewart was showing the Board leaves off at least one dock. It even shows on the subdivision map. There is a double, U-shaped dock. There are three docks on this property that don't all show. MR. STEWART-Asked to difer to Dennis Dickinson on the map. MR. ROBERTS-Stated he wasn't sure where they were going with this. MR. CARTIER-Stated one of the thing the Board has to keep in mind is they are making a recommendation only to the Zoning Board. A lot of these things being brought up are going to be brought up at site plan if and when they ever see this again in site plan. They should get on to making a recommendation to the Zoning Board and let this process proceed the way he perceives it should proceed which is they make a recommendation to the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board takes their recommendation and does with it what it wants to and then they see it again or they don't see it again pending Zoning Board process. MR. STEWART-Stated if the Zoning Board disapproves it, the Board is never going to see it again in any phase. If they approve it, the way he understands it, they might not see it again, but if the applicant wants to do something requiring site plan review, such as filling within 50 feet of the lake, then they will see him again. MR. ROBERTS-Asked how many feet the setback from the lake of the house was? MRS. PULVER-Stated it was 26-30 feet. MRS. PULVER-Asked when the new zoning, WR-3A, went into effect? MR. STEWART-Stated the new zoning went into effect in October of 1988. MR. CAIMANO-Read from the new master plan. There is a section of number 3, lakes and ponds: "the major findings of the DEC task force as presented in the final plans of the Lake George Park Commission, March of 1987, show inadequate controls (TAPED TURNED) He assumes, they don't want the Board to make the mistakes of the past. Given what they have been shown, all the red flags, they don't have much of a choice on a recommendation. It's a piece of land that should not be built on according to today's laws regardless of what the Zoning Board of Appeals has to take care of later. He believes they should take a vote and go from there and give these gentlemen a chance to go argue their case before the ZBA. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the septic tank is going to be one elevation and the road at which the septic tank truck is another elevation. MR. CARTIER-Corrected him-holding tank. MR. ROBERTS-Right. Asked if the wagon will be able to pump the stuff up that far? DENNIS DICKINSON, ENGINEER 9 '--' ---./ '" ../ .",--. . -- -- --' ---,' MR. DICKINSON-Stated before they '.:,.<J.,;!:ead with the proposal as submitted to the Town, they contacted a couple of the scavenger waste people and asked them if this '.l'¡:.: a situation that they could handle and they said yes. Apparently, what they do is add a remote pump that they take to the site of the holding tank and pump from the site up to the truck and under that regime they can pump against heads between 60 and 90 feet. MR. ROBERTS-Stated it was not a typical way of pumping out a septic system. MR. DICKINSON-Stated it's pretty common if you look around the lake. It's a pretty common situation which is one of the reasons they called to make sure that it was something reasonable. Most scavenger waste people are equipped to handle the situation. MR. STEWART-Stated this is a self-correcting situation because the Queensbury Septic Ordinance requires that at the time they are approved for the installation of a holding tank that we come forward with a contract with a scavenger waste person that they will agree that they will service, maintain, and pump that out. That is a sort of self-policing type of a thing. It is their representation to the Board tonight for the Board's deliberation that we can put a holding tank in and that it will meet all the requirements of the Town of Queensbury including that requirement. If they can't we can't have the holding tank and we can't go forward. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that that might be one red flag to give to the ZBA. might be the engineers report in front of the Board that is not sure is soil there enough to install the tank. Another if there MR. CARTIER-Asked Mr. Dusek if it were appropriate language to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board that they approve or disapprove or do they just make a motion to consider certain areas. He doesn't want to usurp or appear to usurp what is a Zoning Board function. MR. DUSEK-Stated the appropriate recommendations specifically address the individual aspects of the plan that's before the Board. It would not be general in scope, rather very specific. Obviously, if the Board makes a recommendation of approval or disapproval that's not binding on them. By the general tenure of the Board's remarks they would get that feeling in any event. He believes that's a judgement call. MRS. PULVER-Clarified Mr. Dusek's remarks. They would recommend either approval or disapproval for construction of a single family year round residence. MR. DUSEK-Stated, very specific as outlined in the plan. MOTION THAT THE 2M IN CONSIDERING THIS APPLICATION, DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL, FOR A VARIANCE REJECT THE APPLICATION, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: The slope analysis map shows the area is unsuitable for development. The proposal places a house that may impede the view of neighbors. The lot in question cannot support a septic system. A holding tank has been offered which is a poor substitute for a septic system. I would reference Rist Frost's comments of December 14, 1989. The map submitted shows as part of soil stabilization use of fertilizers would be applied to the lawns, they are upslope, up to the lake and probably migrate downslope. There is a reduction permeability of the soil that they're building the house in what is already a very sensitive area. There is a well in the proposal placed, apparently downhill from existing septic systems, while the horizontal distance may be appropriate in an area of shallow soils. As has been pointed out by other Board members, this application does not appear to be in keeping with the master plan. I would recommend the Zoning Board also review the Water Resources portion of the master plan and some of the strategies involved there. I would also recommend that Mrs. York's minutes of December 15, 1989 be attached to this recommendation and any other correspondence addressed to the Planning Board. The Zoning Board recognize that the Scheibel's do have reasonable use of the property in the form of the dock. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE 10 '---- ~ \... "----- -' .-/ -- ---' ABSENT: Mr. Jablonski RESUMED SITE PLAN NO. 66-89 IMPERIAL MOTEL WAYNE PELAK MR. NACE-Stated they reviewed the applicant's comments. Turns out that their comments number one and two were simply a matter of some typographical errors in the calculations and one place where things had been rounded two different ways and because of the units involved, led to some errors. They have reviewed that and one and two have been taken care of. Item number three which is the fact that the calculations really don't show that postdevelopment runoff will be equal to or less than predevelopment runoff. Still is a valid comment, the calculations that are on file don't show that clearly for the second set of calculations at all. That hasn't been done. That first set of calculations. it may be somewhere buried within them. but it's very difficult to ascertain. That is something that still needs to be worked out engineer to engineer. The more he looks at it, he is pretty certain that the system itself will work the way it's shown. The calculations just need to be upgraded to their satisfaction to make sure the regulations are complied with. MR. DYBAS-Asked if this was something that could be worked out amongst afterwards? MR. ROBERTS-Stated he wondered about this. but some members of the Board don't like to do that. MR. DYBAS-Stated he would not recommend this except for the fact that the consulting engineer has a professional opinion that it is going to work. If he had any doubt. he would not even attempt to move this, but as long as he feels, from a professional standpoint. that it's going to work then he would be more comfortable with something like that than. MR. CARTIER-Asked if this variance were originally given a variance on area? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Stated. which in turn generated the need for another variance. lack of permeability? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Asked how they keep track of things like that? Did it occur to the Zoning Board that granting this variance was going to trigger the possible necessity for another variance? MR. GORALSKI-Stated. typically yes. Usually the staff checks that. but they are not always on top of that. MR. CARTIER-Asked about Mr. Hatin's letter regarding sprinkler systems. of Mr. LaFontaine. the Board made that a condition for approval on Are they going to apply that same standard here? In term's that one. MR. ROBERTS-Stated Mr. LaFontaine didn't have any problem with that folks did. Insurance companies worry about the integrity of that. systems did more damage than not. and these Sprinkler MR. JONES-Stated in discussing this with both his insurance carrier and the underwriters they have a letter from his agency which indicates the cost to provide the insurance. The savings that he would realize. the insurance for one year is approximately $2.900. The savings he is going to look at is approximately 20 percent discount in his rates. One of the items in Mr. Hatin's letter indicated a l3R System which is not a full coverage system. In order for the insurance companies or the underwriters to provide the rating they are willing to give. it has to be a full sprinkler system which means a 15 design which means the attics have to be sprinklers. you have to have full coverage. They got two quotes from two different contractors to provide that 15 System and they ranged from $56.144 to $57.000. He feels fairly confident that the numbers are within the ballpark. They don't see the payback for that type of system. MR. CARTIER-Stated it could save someone's life. They're not just talking property, not just protecting property. The reason to put in. as far as he is concerned. a sprinkler system, is to give people in that motel time to get out and save lives. He thinks the philosophy that the Board has is they're not talking about property 11 ''-' .-/ \. -" "- "--' ~' so much as life saving. However, Mr. Hatin did address the property in terms of the proximity of this building to other buildings because they're so close to the property line. So maybe property is an issue, but it's not necessarily property belonging to the Imperial Motel. MR. JONES-Stated the closest building to that property is the Silo which is almost 47 feet away. If Mr. Pelak had not asked for a variance, he would be 20 feet off the property line and if the Silo had built to their property line, they would also be 20 feet, which would be 40 feet. They don't feel that that I s an issue. MR. CARTIER-Stated the issue, then, was how this Board wants to handle the issue of the sprinkler system. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they had asked for a letter from Bodenwiser on this issue? MR. DYBAS-Stated they don't have a town ordinance to that effect, do we? MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. DYBAS-Stated there's no state law in effect? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. DYBAS-Stated he agreed with Mr. Cartier on one point and disagreed on another. We all are safety conscious particularly when it comeS to people I s lives. He wonders if the Board can mandate arbitrarily that he will put a sprinkler system. He doesn't know if it's in our...to do that. MR. DUSEK-Stated the usually course of events would be that there would be a separate building code type of regulation or local law that would require that within the municipality. The current state of affairs is such that the building code that we have in effect in Queensbury does not require those at least in this application. The question as to whether this Board may impose it, basically the answer lies within 5.070 wherein they tell you what it is you can find as a Board as part of what makes additions part of the findings. To simply say can we just automatically require it, is there a regulation that says that? No, there isn't a regulation. A secondary question arises, that is 5.070. It indicates a couple of things. It indicates that you have to find that the use that the property is being put to will not increase the burden on supporting public services and facilities. MR. DYBAS-Stated it seemed they've impose restrictions quite awhile ago. It seems the fire marshall should have picked this up and consulted the Town Board and made this part of our fire protection system someplace. It's been quite awhile since they have discussed this with another applicant and during this period of time he wishes somebody would have made this part of the Town Ordinance somewhere along the line. MR. GORALSKI-Stated there is a draft sprinkler regulation that the fire marshall's office and Building and Code Enforcement office is working on. However, it's only in draft form. It's in no way been approved, denied, or any comments made by the Town Board. MR. ROBERTS-Stated they were not in receipt of a letter from the fire marshall. MR. CARTIER-Stated on the other hand, in the worst case scenario, if we have a fire in a structure like this and somebody looses their life, are they going to sit there kicking themselves saying they should have. That's a crowded area in spite of the fact that the nearest building is 47 feet away. That's a heavily trafficed area. That may be tough for fire vehicles to get to in case of a fire. We seem to think anything can suppress fire in a place like this particularly where it's inhabited by people at night asleep. He believes a suppression system is definitely in order. MR. ROBERTS-Stated this was a two story. MR. JONES-Stated all exterior corridors. MR. CAIMANO-Asked if the phones were all hooked up? MR. JONES-Yes. 12 '---- " ..,i ',- '-- MR. CAIMANO-Stated they can only vote on what they know, what they have in front of them. ~'.~ JIM DAVIES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT MR. DAVIES-Stated he thinks there is an emphasis on property damage when it comes to sprinkler systems. There are warning devices in these motel units to warn of smoke or excessive heat. A sprinkler system was to prevent damage to property. A sprinkler system is not going to give an early warning to an occupant to leave that room in the event of fire. The alarm is going to go off before a sprinkler system is going to go on or maybe simultaneously. Really what that's looking at is property damage. MR. CARTIER-Asked if Mr. Davies were saying there's an alarm system in each room? MR. JONES-According to the codes, yes. DAVID KINNEY, DAYS INN MR. KINNEY-Stated he went through same thing when he originally built the place with the sprinkler system cost. The insurance company told him they thought he'd be crazy to put one in. For the cost vs. the payback, he would agree with Mr. Davies completely. The state has done research. Two story motels do not loose lives. That's why it's in the state codes two story motels do not need sprinkler sys tems. There's a f ire alarm sys tem in every room independent 1y. There's a central alarm system in the hallways. Legally the alarm system is not in the sprinkler system. If you go three or four stories where people get trapped, then the sprinkler system is required. Where the State addresses lives, he believes a two story building is more addressing property damage. MR. CARTIER-Stated he could live with this in the case of outside corridors. MR. KINNEY-Stated it's been proven. If you could come to me with some facts that say people are loosing lives in two story motels with the interior outside. Just to make a hypothetical statement, you're saving lives. Tell me where a two story motel has burned and killed somebody. MR. CARTIER-Stated he can't do that. What he wants to be sure, is that in this Town, people feel they have adequate protection. He believes they have an outside corridor and he doesn't have a problem with that. When they start talking about motels having interior hallways, what he does know about deaths from fires is that most of it is from smoke and he assumes this sprinkler system suppresses smoke. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the other issues they were concerned with were permeability, which has been taken out of their hands with a variance. MR. DYBAS-Stated they need to deal with item number three of engineers notes. MR. CARTIER-Stated that engineer agrees with that engineer and he's not going to be sitting there with the other engineer to see each other. MR. NACE-C1arified. Mr. Cartier would agree that seeing the numbers properly, the dry well would work out, but he's not going to be here to back this up. Mr. Nace also stated he is only concerned about the general engineering agreement. MR. DYBAS-Asked, if this was the only thing that stands in the way of approval, they should site that as one of the conditions. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-89 IMPERIAL MOTEL WAYNE PELAK, Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Item number 3 from Rist-Frost be resolved for a satisfactory conclusion. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: 13 ~ '---' --...-/ \ ,/ ',._\....- -.-/ AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jablonski HEW BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 79-89 TYPE II WR-3A CHARLES E. NORTON EAST SIDE OF LAKE GEORGE, ROUTE 9L; TURN RIGHT ONTO DIRT ROAD; TAKE SECOND DRIVEWAY TO RIGHT; TO LAKE. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 30 FT. BY 32 FT. L-SHAPED ROCK-FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK. TO REMOVE PRE-EXISTING 4 FT. BY 8 FT. ROCK-FILLED CRIB FROM LAKE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 3-1-19 LOT SIZE: .6 ACRES SECTION 4.020-D JOHN MASON REPRESENTING CHARLES E. NORTON MR. MASON-Stated this was dealing with removal of a preexisting crib. The dock was hit by ice pretty severely over the last couple of years. The walkway that originally led out there is gone. The only thing out in the lake is a very small rock-filled crib which they are planning on removing and installing an L-shaped dock as per the diagram which was submitted. It I S currently 151 feet on the property. There could actually be two docks on the property. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the water was a little shallow and he would need to go out a little. MR. MASON-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Stated he did see the site. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they had to be involved with SEQRA? MR. DUSEK-Asked if this were a replacement dock? MR. ROBERTS-Stated basically yes. MR. DUSEK-Stated if it was essentially a basic replacement of what was already there, then it's a Type II of SEQRA and the Board could make the determination that it was not necessary. MR. HAGAN-Asked about the statement that there could be two docks there, how much frontage does he have? MR. MASON-Stated he has 151 feet. MR. HAGAN-Stated there was only 1 every 100 feet. MR. MASON-Stated, the way it reads, if it's 151 to 250 you can have two docks. MR. GORALSKI-Stated this was correct. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 79-89 CHARLES E. NORTON, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of a 30 ft. by 32 ft. L-shaped rock-filled crib and bridge dock that includes the removal of preexisting 4 ft. by 8 ft. rock-filled crib from the lake. There are no major planning considerations. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts 14 "---" -./' \ ./ ',-- '-- -./ -./ NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jablonski SITE PLAN NO. 80-89 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-3A ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK COUNTY LINE ROAD, LOT 57, TO THE RIGHT OF ORKIN PEST CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,000 SQ. FT. LIGHT/INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 3.705 ACRES OF WASHINGTON/WARREN IDA LAND. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 55-2-20 LOT SIZE: 3.705 ACRES SECTION 4.020-N MR. CARTIER-Asked why Site Plan 80-89 and 81-89 were two different site plans? MR. GORALSKI-Stated they were two different lots. MR. CARTIER-Stated they were one tax map? Asked who property is owned by? MR. GORALSKI-Stated they just research this. This property is owned by the Warren/ Washington Industrial Development Agency. When they originally developed this site back in 1978, they came up with a concept plan, basically it was a subdivision plan. They filed the covenants and that plan in the County Clerks office. At that time, industrial and commercial subdivisions did not specifically require subdivision approval from the Planning Board. This in fact was a legal subdivision at the time and it was never changed on the tax maps. MR. CARTIER-Asked if they were another QEDC type thing? MR. GORALSKI-Stated no, this was a legally subdivided piece of property in 1978. MRS. PULVER-Stated it wasn't given separate tax map numbers? MR. GORALSKI-Stated he understood that as the lots get sold off and separate deeds get filed, usually the County Real Property office assigns a new tax map number. MRS. PULVER-Stated, they were not separately deeded? MR. GORALSKI-Stated they are now. MR. DUSEK-Stated in this particular case the clerk's office did not pick up on the recording of the map on the assigned tax map numbers. There I s two ways you can pick up on the tax map numbers. When the subdivision plat is filed, everyone is assigned a tax map number and new buildings go out in that fashion or when the deeds are filed and if they don't pick it up off the map, which is apparently what happened here, they're picking it up off the deed, then no formal plat has been approved by the subdivision, it goes in there as an approved plat. That I s what's caused part of the problem. As John indicated, the reason for that was that back in 1978 this Board did not approve or review commercial and industrial subdivisions. It was primarily residential. It was in October 1, 1988 that the commercial/industrial subdivisions were added to the review of this Board. MRS. PULVER-Stated this was a problem of Warren County. MR. DUSEK-Stated it's not actually their fault, it's just the way things worked out legally. Also stated he didn't know if they were going about assigning tax map numbers for all those lots now. MR. GORALSKI-Stated they have been made aware of the situation. MR. HAGAN-Asked if he meant Warren County has? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Stated as he understood it today, if a subdivision is given approval, at that point, the minute it is recorded, each one of the divided lots become a separate tax map. MR. GORALSKI-Stated this was true. JOE CLARK, OWNER OF PROJECT MR. CLARK-Stated what happens is that no tax map because there is no taxes. five years. they are separately deeded, but there is There is a payment in lieu of taxes for 15 ~ \ ./ "- ."-- ~. --./ MR. HAGAN-Asked if this meant it was under separate covenant? MR. CLARK-Right. That's why there is no tax map. MR. CARTIER-Asked if there should be a motion to accept these two site plans as one and discuss them together? MR. ROBERTS-Stated he wondered if they would get themselves into trouble doing this. They're before the Board separately. MR. DYBAS-Stated the notes refer back to each other. MR. GORALSKI-Stated the engineer's notes do not. MR. NACE-Stated there may be one place where they would want to consider them separately. The drainage report for one of the lots is not correct. It's a drainage report for a previous lot. On one of the lots, 56, the engineer's don't have a drainage report that they've been able to review. MR. ROBERTS-Stated they should address them separately starting with the first one, 57. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, Consulting Engineer (attached) WALTER VAN DELOO, CONSULTING ENGINEER IN COHOES MR. VAN DELOO-Stated the last thing has been discussed, the issue about the description and the number. He doesn't believe there is any confusion about which parcel this is. He believes the comment about the access road and the access to the back of the lot has been discussed and he believes that there is a general agreement that anything further done on these sites would be done in the context of some kind of master plan or subdivision. He was in to see Mr. Goralski yesterday and discussed some of those issues and got some of the Planning Departments concerns on those items. He doesn't have any concern regarding items three and four (on the engineers report). They have, on lot 60, already constructed one of the retention basins. He believes the Town has generally found it acceptable. He was out to look at it late in the fall after some heavy rain and he looked at it yesterday and it seemed to be in good condition and there's no problem with retaining the water as is required. He doesn't have any dispute with item three. He doesn't have any problems with doing that or with item two. The calculations are pretty simple and straight forward and they may be derived from the drainage report. The only thing on number one, he believes the area being referred to is (Mr. Nace stated it was up front to the south) an undisturbed area. They are not creating any additional drainage on that. MR. NACE-Asked if that still flows to the back of the site? MR. VAN DELOO-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Stated there were two parcels and this one is the one that has not been built on yet except for the blacktop driveway. The other one they'll be dealing with soon, he wondered why they're so much simpler. MR. GORALSKI-Stated there have been two parcels that were already approved. MR. VAN DELOO-Stated these parcels are to the north of Orkin Pest Control. MR. CLARK-Stated (referring to map) that one was 58, it was approved two months ago. MR. CAIMANO-Stated that Mr. Goralski wanted to be concerned with the tenands). Asked that this be addressed. MR. VAN DELOO-Stated he believes the stipulation the County made on the tenancy was that the owner notify the Town and the County of who the tenant would be. He doesn't believe at this time that there has been a tenant identified. 16 --- \ .;' '-- '--' ------"-.-/ MR. CAIMANO-Stated one has 156 bathrooms in it, that's why they were interested. MR. CLARK-Stated in the Town of Colonie, what they usually do is to send back a narrative of something that their doing. It's usually approved informally between the Planning Boards, not at a full meeting like this. He doesn't believe they have an avenue to do what they are requesting right now. They have no problem giving their plans. They have, to send it to the building department to be approved. To give the Board an idea of some of the people they were talking to Alhstrom Engineering and Sherwood Catheter. There's about ten of them right now that they are talking to. MR. ROBERTS-Asked what the reason for concern was? Were they planning on usage, increased traffic? MR. GORALSKI-Stated you don't want a toxic waste hauler in the industrial park type of thing. Also stated, what he was really talking about was traffic. May get someone who generates a lot of traffic or you may get someone who generates no traffic. You may have someone who's going to have highly flammable materials, there are some unknowns here. This gives the Board the chance to say there are some impacts we can't perceive yet. When we get a tenant and know what exactly is going to be going on there, then we can make the final decision about whether there are any impacts to the neighboring properties. MR. CARTIER-Asked whether a traffic thing built up? if anyone knew, when the industrial park was first laid out, study was done addressing potential traffic effects on whole MR. NACE-Stated he doubted this very much. MR. GORALSKI-Stated, not in 1978. MR. VAN DELOO-Stated it has to be kept in mind that you are talking about industrial uses. '¡'hey are not proposing to put in a McDonald's. Talking about relatively high use, he feels that they are at the low end of the traffic volumes. It's more or less the idea to be aware of what the uses are and maintain some information on that for general municipal purposes. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if these lots were all large enough to accommodate several more buildings? MR. VAN DELOO-Correct. He believes, from the owners perspective, what they're looking at is he's trying to get some work done. He's got lots there trying to get something out of them. There are five individual lots that each are entitled to have access to and each is entitled to have a building on. Essentially, they're trying to do the simple part that faces on the existing right-of-way. Try to get something in the ground so that the owner can get some use out of the site and sort of catch his breath. Then they can come back with anything additional and, he believes, this is the stipulation that they're talking about. That essentially anything that was done in addition to these individual buildings on the front of the parcels, that beyond that they would come in with some type of master plan to give the Board a better feel for what's going to happen on the total site. He doesn't believe the owner has it clear in his own mind exactly what's going to happen on the site. MR. GORALSKI-Stated they would have to come back for a site plan and what he is suggesting is they have five lots that are contiguous. The best scenario for these lots is not to develop one building at a time on each lot and end up with 15 buildings just individually laid out. Instead, it is better to have these five lots laid out as a whole unit. He believes the owner doesn't have a problem with this and it would be to his advantage to have them laid out that way. His suggestion is that after these two buildings are approved, the next time the owner wants to continue his construction, he either have a master plan for these five parcels or a subdivision plan. MR. HAGAN-Asked, they were identifying the buildings did they emphatically mean that that was what they industrial warehouse? This excludes a lot of things. as industrial warehouses, intend to construct an MR. VAN DELOO-Stated he believes the owner intends to have a use in the building that complies with the zoning. 17 '-' \. .-/ "'--- -. MR. CARTIER-Asked if there were sewer lines out there? --' --' MR. GORALSKI-Stated there were. PUBLIC HEARING OPERlID NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CAIMANO-Asked John if he intended for the Board to have them approve this tentatively, the final approval being dependent on who the tenants were? MR. GORALSKI-Stated the approval the County made was for the construction of this building on this plan. Before this building is occupied, the County would like to approve that tenant. MR. VAN DELOO-Stated he believes what they're looking for is approval of the building and then they would come back in whatever form for approval. MR. DUSEK-Stated he believes the real intent was not to approve a particular tenant, but to approve a type of use the tenant would put that building to. That would relate then and tie into site plan review, traffic impacts, etc. For the record, what he believes the Board is referring to is the type of use action. MR. DYBAS-Asked if that type of use be...by IDA? MR. DUSEK-Stated they have some guidelines, but they are very general. MR. GORALSKI-Stated he believes their zoning ordinance is much stricter than what IDA lays out. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, depending on what kind of a customer they come up with, the Board may see this back again? MR. DUSEK-Stated, usually this type of thing would come in with the tenant and the building use known to the Board, so the Board is at a disadvantage at this point since they don't known everything that's going to happen. So, the applicant has chosen to come in and asked if they can do this building and he's at somewhat of a risk that he I s going to find a tenant, a marriage of building and tenant that will work and satisfy the Board's additional concerns when the Board knows the type of use the building needs to be put to. So, it probably has to come back again as Phase I of a two phase approval process. MR. DYBAS-Asked if it had to come before them or could it be done through somebody downstairs over there? MR. DUSEK-Stated the Board has some discretion in that. MR. DYBAS-Stated he would hate to see the people keep coming back unnecessarily in front of this Board when it could be handled by some competent staff at a level that's here full time. Doesn't want to clutter up the meetings with people coming back. MR. DUSEK-Stated if the Board wanted to give some guidelines to staff as to what parameters they would allow the staff to grant approve on the Board's behalf, the Board could do that. MR. GORALSKI-Stated he has no problem with this. He recommended that if for some reason staff has any concerns about a perspective tenant, then they would ask to place them on the agenda. MR. DUSEK-Stated the Board was not interpreting the responsibility, it's just giving someone else.. MR. DYBAS-Stated they were not. He believes they have a lot of redundancy. People coming in front of the Board which is spelled out in the books. Wondered why people kept coming back in front of the Board. MR. GORALSKI-Stated what he was trying to do was to opportunity to build a building on speculation while opportunity to address every possible impact that could the building. give the applicant an g~v~ng the Board the occur from the use of 18 ~ -' '- ~ ""---- MR. DYBAS-Stated the Board agreed with Mr. Goralski, but if they fall within the Board's guidelines and IDA guidelines, by all means grant it, if there is any doubt in his mind bring it to the Board's attention. MR. CLARK-Stated this is how the planning board in Co1onie does it. the planning staff and they have a zoning verification and if he has with it, they get the verification back if he has a problem, he puts Board, it's actually an informal hearing. They go to no problems them on the MR. ROBERTS-Stated they would be approving average parking areas. MR. GORALSKI-Stated the parking area meets the strictest requirements of any use that could be put in that building. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they had to look at SEQRA in this project? MR. GORALSKI-Stated since this was an unlisted action, they should. SITE PLAN NO. 81-89 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-3A ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK COUNTY LINE ROAD, LOT 56, HEAR ORKIN PEST CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,000 SQ. FT. LIGHT/INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 3.60 ACRES OF WARREli/WASHINGTON COUNTY IDA LAND. (WARREli COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. 55-2-20 LOT SIZE: 3.60 ACRES SECTION 4.020-N JOE CLARK PRESENT WALT VAN DELOO PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEERS REPORT Notes from Thomas Nace, Consulting Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Stated they had a stumbling block. Asked applicant if they had brought the wrong equipment or drainage report? MR. VAN DELOO-Apo1ogized to the Board for this. Stated they worked on three or four of these things and there apparently was some confusion when they were being bound together. It is unfortunate that the package was submitted in October. There is no question that the necessary retention can be provided on the site. He offered to show the Board the drawing of the area required for the retention of the water. It is a relatively small area. There's more than enough room to provide that fundamentally. The methodology and the general requirements of the retention are identical. The site conditions are almost identical. He believes there is no dispute or question that the retention can be provided. Adequate provision can be made for that on the site. Asked the Board's indulgence that they be allowed to resubmit the report for their staff review and maybe that should be a condition of the approval. MR. VAN DELOO-Referring to Independent Living Center Committee Meeting Report (on file), on the first one, the requirements of accessibility, he believes that's a code manner in terms of the submission of the building plans and is not an issue to be addressed in the site plan approval. MR. ROBERTS-Stated they do look at handicapped parking as part of it. MR. GORALSKI-Stated the handicapped parking was adequate. MR. VAN DELOO-Stated, in terms of the building, he only has a floor plan of the building. The same thing on the second one. They have the spaces and curb cuts as required and again the issue of the building detail would be picked up on building plans. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 80-81-89, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: 19 --./ \. ./ "--- "--' ---' ----,' WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Lots 56 and 57 County Line Road ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR A 25,000 SQ. FT. AND 10,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING RESPECTIVELY, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jablonski MR. ROBERTS-Stated there was some confusion on one of the lots as to drainage work. There were six items on the other one. Wondered if they were at a point where they wanted to see both of these again. Asked if Mr. Nace were satisfied with the finished product. MR. NACE-As to 56, they have not reviewed that. Looking at the report they got for lot 56, which was really a report for lot 58, significantly more storage capacity was provided than required from the runoff of that lot. The size of the lot I s a little bit smaller, but the paved, impervious area's a little bit bigger, so the amount of runoff is relatively in the same ball park. He doesn't know if the storage area actually provided on lot 56 is the same as the calculations show for 58 so he really can't address lot 56 at this point. One way or another, Mr. Nace is sure the applicant could provide adequate storage just by making the pond big enough, but he can't say, the way it is shown now on the plans, that it is big enough for sure. MR. ROBERTS-Asked about lot 57. MR. NACE-Stated he doesn I t believe is significantly serious. The applicant has got a small area which actually contributes to the pond which is not included in the calculations, however, the actual storage is almost 41,000 cubic feet and the runoff from the remaining portion of the lot which is the majority of the lot, is a little bit less than 7,000 cubic feet. There is much more access storage there than could be reasonable expected to be required by this little area that they left out. He believes that that will work. The sizing of the 10 inch PVC pipe, asked if this were a roof drain coming out of the building? MR. VAN DELOO-Stated yes. MR. NACE-Stated he doesn't know whether the s1.z1.ng of the 10 inch PVC pipe is adequate or not. Asked if it were 10,000 sq. ft. on this one? 20 \. ...- '--- '---' ----" MR. VANDELEW-Stated it was adequate under 20,000 feet. MR. NACE-Asked, being lot 58? MR. VANDELEW-Stated lot 60. MR. NACE-Stated per 10,000 sq. ft. there shou1dn I t be any question since they just went through one with 60,000 sq. ft. and that required a 15 inch pipe. So, items 1 and 2 are adequate, the net product is adequate, the calculations aren't there. The rest of the items he said he would take care of the rip rap. MR. ROBERTS-Stated they knew that there were large lots so they probably can make storm water drains work. Asked the Board if they should save some work and be satisfied with the engineers unless they can't come to terms and then they can send it back to the Board? MR. CAlMANO-Stated the more time the Board... .the less time the Board would have to approve all of these things. MR. ROBERTS-Stated this whole subdivision been somewhat planned. MR. VAN DELOO-Stated the other thing that they're looking at is, they've been up to talk to Mr. Goralski about the plan of what's going to go on with the rest of these things, and Mr. Van De100 doesn't know that the owner has specific plans at this point, but to the extent that they're able to get these out of the way, then they can catch their breath and go forward with more thoughtful planning on anything that additional is going to be done with these five lots. MR. ROBERTS-Asked how the staff feels? MR. GORALSKI-Stated he has no planning concerns as long as they agree to do some type of master plan. He believes it is up to Mr. Nace to make a decision as far as the drainage is concerned. MR. NACE-Stated he believes they could make something work on both of them. MR. GORALSKI-Stated he didn't want other applicant's to start coming in with half done drainage reports. They provide a couple of pages of drainage report that is not adequate and say I'll straighten it out later. If people start doing that they are going to have a problem. MR. DYBAS-Asked should it even appear before the Board unless the paperwork is complete. MR. GORALSKI-Stated they have a time frame they work with. They can't expect to get the applications to their engineer, have them review every single application, and tell them whether it's adequate or not. All they can do is say yes, they have addressed the drainage. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 80-89 ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 57, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for it~adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Provided that the concerns raised by the consulting engineer and staff are addressed and adequately before building permits are issued. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jablonski MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 81-89 ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, LOT 56, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Be approved with the stipulation that engineering and planning concerns be addressed before building permits are issued. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: 21 , "'--' -- ./ -'--"-.--" AYES: NOES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jablonski On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 22 \. '-- --- OLD BUSINESS -./ ;/ LOCATION MAPS December 19, 1989 Planning Meeting ---' -' Freshwater Wetlands FW2-89 Curtis L. Madison, Jr. (Staff notes attached) Subdivision No. 19-1989 Brian O'Connor Final Stage (Staff notes attached) R\Þ e ~P. £D. ~ -EJ r ). 7' ~ II ~ ~ Z Site Plan No. 66-89 Imperial Motel/Wayne Pe1ak (Staff notes attached) I*~~~~ "'.,.. ",<!s:' ~,"",(^rn' ,)- -< i -\-u ,rrhìUz o c <. r "TI II '" {\. íU 0 1.' ".. 1J {Ji Z \,.1\ I fI10õ>" TJ' -l f\' L- -.I> ~ 0 ..." f\! r 7... ~.a.. -1 (Jl CJ" TT1 » 1"'Ï=27\ ! ».i' 1T1 I - T.. '}J7.... ~1'\"11 JI1f11:r :Z:~() ~.....::t c\» "Ä) )- "7 "T~ ... u)- r ì1 TJ .,- t^ rT', -- r \- -<. "i:, -<.. o <" 1J fTl . ^-<.7J 0); ~-4\ '" 3.. o L 'Q . ('i\'i '" t: , , '.. - ,I', \ t· ',,- '---' OLD BUSINESS (cont'd) Site Plan No. 77-89 RECOMMENDATION ONLY NEW BUSINESS Site Plan No. 79-89 ---- LOCATION MAPS December 19, 1989 Planning Meeting ./ --" --" Scott McLaughlin (see letter and Staff notes attached) - " 1>ty; / -" J ! I I ~4A.&.~ ~ ttð ..,..., I~:/ iC AI vC ~ -' ~ . : ~ ! ~ ;..."'f"' ~ .":~.~ ~ ...... Debbie and Steven Scheibel'(Staff notes attached) Charles E. Norton (Staff notes attached) ß~ "'-0 G iBl4s.. ~¡.U> Bl-/ý IU>· 1 , . . J I ; / ( ¡..IIKE G-..ECd::'l,b Þ {)NfJfltf,( 5 ßH'f \ '''"- '-' NEW BUSINESS (cont'd) Site Plan No. 80-89 Site Plan No. 81-89 ',-, LOCATION MAPS December 19, 1989 Planning Meeting Adirondack Industrial Park, Lot 57 (Staff notes attached) NAMEN COONTY AIftf'()AT eMU lID ~,,----_.._~._-- -.--. ~"., ~ / ;!/ _/ \ \ \ \ Adirondack Industrial Park, Lot 56 '(Staff notes attached) -----~--_..~---_.~ Warren County , ./ -- ~ PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT 1 LOCATION TOWN OF QUEENSBURY .,.~ ---,' - PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- . Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 15. 1989 By: John Goralski Area VariaDce U. Variance - Sip Variance := Interpretation Other: SubdiYiaioa: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, Site PIaJ1 Rmew - - PetiüOD for a CbaDøe of Zaae -X- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Freshwater Wetlands Permit FW2-89 Applic:aøt'. Name: Curtis Madison. Jr. MeetiDg Date: December 19. 1989 ............................................................................................ Mr. Madison!s application was tabled by the Board until he received a Freshwater Wetlands Permit from D.E.C. Mr. Madison has received a permit from D.E.C. to construct a single family house with septic system and foundation drain adjacent to Wetland GF-19. I would· recommend that the Board approve only th is port ion of Mr. Madisons request. Furthermore, the approval should stipulate that Mr. Madison should comply with all of the conditions listed in the D.E.C. approval. If Mr. Madison would like to persue the construction of the bridge or the fill in the rear, I would suggest tbat he submit a new application after he receives D.E.C. approval. JG/pw .. . '- -...--/~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY .;' -./ -./ pJ_nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- . Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: December 14. 1989 Stuart Baker Area VariaDce Uøe VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == Interpretation Other: x Subdi~oa: Sketch, _ PreJimiDary, -L Final Site Plan Re'riew - == Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wet1and8 Permit ApplicatiOD Number: Subdivision No. 19-1989 Applicant'. Name: Meetmg Date: Brian O'Connor December 19. 1989 ............................................................................................ All planning concerns raised at Preliminary approval have been addressed. No alterations have been made in the Preliminary Plan approved by the Board on November 28, 1989. SB/pw .' . ~ RIð, .:IATES. PC. ~ ~ ENGINEERS '"--" ~' " ........ -' "--' 2' BAY S'TÆET POST OFFIŒ BOX 838 GLENS FAlLS. NY 1280! tV'" I "'"C~,..,,~~ ì)I~' ;.1, ~< !1(\\ì/- ~ ¡;.;. ' V ~ !~.' '-.., . ~ , ~t' "0" I L) 1'10:: . ,,' . . F Il E C ,- ,/ --.-/ --"" 518, 793"""1 December 14, 1989 RFA #89-5000.519 ?LA........,,:¡ &Ii -....... ,,," DEPAF-'·-1:f!" .... Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Brian O'Connor Subdivision 19-1989 - Final Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comment: The map should show 2 monuments, delineating each lot. Very truly yours, RI~OST AS OCIATES. P.C. ~~nn.tt. P.E. Man~~;' Project Engineer WG/ cmw , cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures e CJJ!NIIW.LS. NY'~ NH .. . --./ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY *" ------/-----'" PI:anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- . Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 15, 1989 By·. S B k tuart a er Area VariaDce U. Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi.øioa: Sltetc:b, _ Pre1imiDary, ::L Site PIaD R-mew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final AppHcatiaD Number: Site Plan Review No. 66-89 AppHC8Dt'. Name: Wayne Pelak - Imperial Motel MeetiDø Date: December 19, 1989 ............................................................................................ The applicant was tabled by the Planning Board at the October 17 meeting for a permeability variance. This variance was granted by the Zoning Board at their November 15th meeting. Richard E. Jones Associates have submitted a new site plan and cover letter addressing the Planning Staff, Dept. of Wastewater, Town Engineer, and Access and Independence Committee comments. SB/pw " , ~----_._- ...--~ ~ ~ 2' SAy STÆET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FAU.S. NY 12801 ""'1CIATES. PC. .ENGINEERS .-' 518' 793-4'''' fYi' \,Ir ~UI:C:"~c... F I L E (0 F ~~~!:, December 14, ]989 RFA #89-5000.066 ~LANNING I ZONING DePARTMeNT Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: IMPerial Motel, Sit. Plan 66-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. There ; sad i screpancy in areas used for pre- and post- development conditions (1.28 acres vs. 0.98 acres). Further, drainage subarea boundaries should be given. 2. The calculation of the CN for the developed conditions of drywe11 #1 area is incorrect. The area used is only 80% of the total area. 3. The stormwater appears to be managed by a comb inat ion of infiltration in the drywe11s, and by the existing 2 foot pipe in Aviation Road. The calculations do not show how much runoff will be stored/infiltrated, or the capacity of the existing storm drain. These additional calculations should be provided. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST A OCIATES, P.C. ~nett. P.E. Manag~g"project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures Ii GLI!NIIWJ.S. NY.......xNA. NH ( q ----- '''---' ~ -/ ~' lflnE OCO, Yy j "' \ {ttf ~ ?f 64-tJ ~ [ f<J r 130 frE:P/ P (~ BE ¡/fed o,".scJ) we. A-re. ~r.t£sfIPr f-d /Óe;.. f,Hj!6.,tJ tûlft/L-liB / 5' þ/H/1#6/¡;; HrPëj,µ-¡ IN S:1t-~. "tic:; S tt M L hI' - fWN \If ~UI:I:"',¡)Cì.. CO C aug In :~~ IE©li1W1~": TRUCK & EQU.PMENT SALES I ~ ':I . STAR ROUTE· GLENS FALLS. NEW YORK 12801 . (518) 656·95 1 r DEC 81989 U' 'JUNNING I ZONING DEPARTMENT ft .. 4 ._._-_.~ .wr~ RISTo, '-.~TES. PC, ~ AlNEERS 21 BAY STREET FIOST OFFIŒ BOX S38 GLENS FAI.LS. NY 12801 518, 793-41.1 "---' ~)~ijf~~ ~ OEC15198~....., !;)LANNING . ZONINt DEPARTMENT ,., ,-.. ,.. rl 1 ¡ ... , _ L- ( - December 14, 1989 RFA *89-5000.077 Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Scott Mclaughlin, Site Plan 77-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following caments: 1. The applicant states that the new drywe11 in the parking lot and storm drain connection has solved the ponding problem. If this is acceptable to the Highway Department we have no further coments on drainage. 2. NYSDEC recommends pretreatment when seepage pits are used in soils with a percolation rate less than 5 minutes per inch. 3. Details of the subsurface disposal system should be provided. 4. The app1 icat ion states that water use is 250 gpd and the wastewater des ign flow is 200 gpd. Water use shou1 d be consistent with the wastewater design flow. If the design flow is 250 gpd, the current system is not adequate. Very truly yours, ~OST A OCIATES, P.C. Wayn~nnett, P.E. Mana~9 Project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enc10sures CD <3LEN81W.LS. NY. L.ACQtiM. NH ,. . ',---, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -' --./ .----' P1sn'fti~g DepartlDent -NOTE TD FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: December IS. 1989 Lee A. York Area Variance U. Variance - Sip Variance - IDterpretatiOD Subdmåœa: Sketch. _ Preliminary, X Site Plan Rmew == PetitiOD far a CbaDge of ZODe Freshwater WetlaDd8 Permit FiDal Other: ApplicatiOD Number: Site Plan Review No. 32-89 Applicant'. Name: Debbie & Steven Scheibel MeetiDg Date: December 19. 1989 ............................................................................................ This plan has been modified to reflect a holding tank. It is before the Planning Board for a recommendation only. The ZBA has requested this because of their concern about environmental issues. The lot is ± 15,000 sq. ft. and is the smallest lot in an older (1969) subdivision. The current zoning is WR-3A. The house is proposed to be constructed between 26-30 feet from Lake George which is a designated critical environmental area. The lot is extremely steep going from an elevation of 320 at the Lake to 346 at the back boundary. The plan still does not show driveway access to the property. The applicant's representatives were requested to stake out where the holding tank would be placed on the lot. The Director of Building and Codes reviewed the situation and believes it is highly impractical to put a holding tank on this property because of the topography and the proximity to the Lake. The engineer has also addressed this problem. The Lake George Park Commission has indicated that this project does not fall within their moratorium, however, they do have serious concerns. The Lake George Park Association has submitted a letter siting concerns for Lake degradation. {. . '---' ---./ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ./ -./ pJ.nning Department -NOTE TQ FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 15. 1989 By: Lee A. York Area VariaDc:e U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce - IDterpretatiOD Other: SubdiWlioa: Sketch. Prelim· - - - 1DaI'y, X Site P1aø Re'f'Îew == Petition for a ChaDge of ZODe Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal ApplicatiOD Number: Site Plan Review No. 32-89 Appliamt'. Name: Debbie & Steven Scheibel MeeÜD8 Date: December 19, 1989 ............................................................................................ The resource maps indicate the following: The Slope Analysis indicates slopes which are unsuitable for development. The Scenic Views and Vistas map indicates the property is in a view shed area. The Intrinsic Suitability map indicates that this property is low - major planning changes needed. The Warren County Planning Board recommended denial of this project. The applicant should be advised that Article 7 (Section 7.012-D pg. 77), requires: "No fill or hard surfacing shall be permitted within fifty (50) feet of any lake, pond, river, stream or wetland except by Site Plan approval of the Planning Board, except that no review/approval shall be required for preventative maintenance or repair caused by erosion or other acts of nature." The plan shows the holding tank as :50 feet from the shoreline. The location of the proposed house is closer to the lake shore. Should any fill be required, Site Plan review is also required. If the Board feels the application warrants a positive recommendation the applicant should be required to comply with Section 7.063 - Standards of the Ordinance (attached). / . Ir~ ~ 'QATES. PC, ~, .:i ENGINEERS 21 BAV STREET F'OST OFFICE BOX æa GLENS FAlLS. NY 12801 518·793-4141 '--.../ --" .~III >oJ. .Uc.~· ;--"- J ~~mvr~JI ~ OE( 1" l~tI~ .~ -' ~--- . -...-/ ¡ : ... December 14, 1989 RFA *89-5000.032 ?LANNING . ¿un..... DEPARTMENT Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Debbie and Steven Scheibel, Site Plan 32-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOl1l1lents: 1. It should be verified that the proposed tank can be set at the proposed location. A test pit at an unidentified location indicates bedrock at 5'-4" and the 3500 gallon Fort Miller holding tank is 6'-4" high. 2. The holding tank will need to be accessible to a pumping vehicle. 3. A variance will be needed for use of ~ holding tank on a year round basis. 4. Only a partial list of electrical details and specifications are provided; the completed installation will need to meet the requirements of the Holding Tank Ordinance. Very truly yours, WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enc10sures e a.etS1W.LS. NY'~ NH t . -- -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ...-/' -- ..----- PI:anni"B Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: December 18, 1989 Stuart Baker Area Variance Use Variance == Sip Variance _ Interpretation SubdiYiåOD: Sketch, PreliJam..- - - -I' X Site Plan Re.iew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet:1aDd8 Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 79-89 Applicant'. Name: Charles E. Norton MeetiDg Date: December 19. 1989 ............................................................................................ The applicant proposes removing a preexisting rock fill~d crib from Lake George and constructing a 30' x 32' L shaped rock filled crib and bridge dock. Applications have been submitted for approval to DEC and the Lake George Park Commission. There are no other major planning concerns with this proposed action. SB/pw -- " 4 TOW N 0 F QUE ENS BUR Y-- PI"nning Department "NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Deceober 19, 1989 By: John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatiOD Other: Subdiñåoa: Sketch, _ Preliminary, X Site Plan Re9Ïew - - PetitiOD for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final ApplicatioD Number: Site Plan Review No. 80-89 Applicant'. Name: Adirondack Industrial Park - Lot #57 MeetiDg Date: December 19. 1989 .......................................................**.....**...................**.....** The applicant proposes to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. building on a 3.70 acre site. The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the plan and has determined that all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. This parcel is part of the Warren/Washington Industrial Park. The construction of Light Industrial space in this location is in keep~ng with the goals of the Warren/Washington I.D.A. and the Town of Queensbury Master Plan. However, the spec i fic tenant or tenants that wi 11 occupy the building \YÍ 11 affect how the site impacts the surrounding area. With this in mind, the Warren County Planning Board has approved this proposal with the condition that any perspective tenant be approved by the Board. I would recommend that this Board place a similar c~ndition on any approval. This parcel is one of five contiguous parcels owned by Adirondack Industrial Park. I have met with the applicant's Engineer concerning a Master Plan for the entire site. Mr. DeVoo agreed that it would be in everyone's best interest to have a Master Plan for the site. It is my opinion that a loop road entering between lots 56 & 57 and coming out between lots 59 & 60 would be the best way to provide access to the rear of these lots. With this in mind, I would recommend that the access road on Lot 57 be 24' wide and be built to Town standards. The centerline of the road should remain where it is so that a SO' R.O.W. could be provided in the future. .. 4 .-- ----_.~ ------ .'--T 0 W N 0 F QUE ENS BUR Y- " --' pbnning Department ---. ..----- -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: December 19. 1989 John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdiñåom _ Sket-Io I'r'eJimÏfta- ~ - -I' X Site Plan Rmew == Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit Final Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 80-89 Applicant's Name: Adirondack Industrial Park MeetiDg Date: December 19. 1989 ............................................................................................ As a final note I should point out that the applicant could place several buildings on each lot without subdividing. However, this would cause safety, drainage, and traffic concerns. I would recommend that any further approvals for these lots be accompanied by a Master Plan or Subdivision. JG/pw -2- .. .------- ~ RI\ -oATES, !'C, .. ENGINEEFIS \. '- ~ \~ 21 BAY STREET POST OFF/Œ BOX 838 Gl£NS FALLS. NY 12801 S18·193~1~1 l' ~)piftwr~ ~ DECltí 1989 ~!, -' _/ .---- December 15, 1989 RFA #89-5000.080 # ?LANNING I ZONINt DEPARTMENT Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 . '. Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Adirondack Industrial Park Lot #57 Site Plan 80-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOllll1ents: 1. The area referred to as A-I in the Stormwater Management Report contributes to the retention area. This area is not being included, however, in the total runoff that is stored. 2. Calculations sizing the 10" pvc pipe should be provided. 3. Rip-rap, for erosion control, should be placed at the outlet of the 10" roof drain. 4. Care should be taken to assure that the berm is constructed level and erosion control matting should be placed on the berm until permanent grass cover is established. 5. There is an extension shown for the access road. It should be indicated what other properties are going to be served by this road, if any, and where it will ultimately extend to. 6. The application form is unclear as to lot location. The descriptfon and tax map number given is the same as the previously approved lot #58. Very truly yours, P.C. WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures e QLEN6 ~ NY·LAOONIA. NH . ._-~--- "---" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -/ -- -..-- P1~nni"g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 19. 1989 By: John Goralski Area VariaDce Uee Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiYisioa: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary. X Site P1aD Rmew - == Petition for a <:baDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 81-89 Applicant's Name: Adirondack Industrial Park - Lot #56 MeetiDg Date: December 19, 1989 ............................................................................................ This applicant is for a 25,000 sq. ft. building on 3.6 acres. Please refer to my notes on Site Plan Review 8)-89. JG/pw " ~ ------_._-~- IP'~ RIS1: ,IATES, PC, ð: :NGlNEERS .,'-, "- 21 BAY sn:tEET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLfNS FALLS. NY 12801 518' 793..141 ,v lit ,)I' ...--.." ',. <- l)~~11WT-~]ì, ~ DEC 1 t 1~~~ -' --.-/ .' ... \" , - '- ~LANNING . ¿UNlrtt DEPARTMINT December 15, 1989 RFA #89-5000.081 Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Adirondack Industrial Park Lot #56 Site Plan 81-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOlllllents: 1. The drainage report provided is for lot #58, which is a 20,000 square foot warehouse on a 4.02 acre parcel. Drainage calculations for lot #56, which is a 25,000 square foot warehouse on a 3.6 acre lot, should be provided. 2. The swale within the parking lot is not recolllllended. A crown or cross slope would be a better design, because of protential problems caused by freezing within the swale. 3. A deeded access to lot #56 across lot #57 shóuld be provided, because these will 1 ikely be in separate ownership at some future time. 4. Care should be taken to assure that the berm is constructed level and erosion control matting should be placed on the berm until permanent grass cover is established. 5. Calculations sizing the 12" pvc roof drain should be provided. 6. Rip-rap, for erosion control, should be placed at the outlet of the 12" roof drain. Very truly yours, ;!!}faST A t-'~~nne:t. P.E. Mana~~~' Project Engineer P.C. WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures e CI.EN8 FW.LS. NY·I.J(X)NIA. NH .. ~------+.- ~ -./ --' ~- ----