1988-08-09 114
TOWN BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 9, 1988
4:10 P.N.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN BORGOS-SUPERVISOR
MARILYN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN
RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN
BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN (enter meeting 4:15pm)
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT
GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN
TOWN COUNSEL
PAUL DUSEK --
TOWN OFFICIALS
RICK MISSITA, DAVE HATIN, LEE YORK
PRESS: WENU, G.F. Post Star
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN POTENZA
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN INTO QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 326, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Montesi.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board recesses from the Town Board meeting into the Queensbury
Board of Health.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Monahan
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEWAGE ---
DISPOSAL ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 5, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the
Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury, and as such, is authorized under
Section 5.035 of the Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, to issue variances to
such Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Storytown U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a The Great Escape, has applied to the local
Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards
of the sewage disposal ordinance set forth in Section 3.O2OB, such standard providing
as follows:
"No component of a leaching facility shall be located under driveways, roads,
parking areas or areas subject to heavy loading." and,
WHEREAS, the Storytown U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a The Great Escape, has indicated a desire
to place a component of a leaching facility under a paved parking area,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold
a public hearing on August 23, 1988, 7:30 P.M., at the Queensbury Town Office
Building, Bay at Haviland Roads, to consider the application for a variance of
Storytown U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a The Great Escape, to place a component of a leaching
facility under a paved parking area situated off of Round Pond Road, Queensbury,
New York 12801, at which times all persons interested in the subject thereof,
will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER
115
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed
and authorized when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject
property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required
by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining
neighbors.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
--- Absent: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Monahan
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF SANITARY SEWAGE
_ DISPOSAL ORDINANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 6, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the
Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury, and as such, is authorized under
Section 5.035 of the Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, to issue variances to
such Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Stan Lewza has applied to the local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury
for a variance from certain standards of the sewage disposal ordinance set forth
in Section 3.030 (D), such standard in referring to Table I of Appendix A providing
among other things as follows:
WASTEWATER WELL OR TO STREAM DWELLING PROPERTY LAKE GEORGE
SOURCES SUCTION LAKE OR LINE AND TRIBS.
LINE (a) WATER COURSES
Seepage Pit 20'
Seepage Pit
WHEREAS, Stan Lewza has indicated a desire to place two (2) seepage pits within
20 feet of the building foundation, k
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a
public hearing on August 23, 1988, 7:30 P.M. at the Queensbury Town Office Building,
Bay at Haviland Roads, to consider the application for a variance of Stan Lewza
to place two (2) seepage pits within 20 feet of the building foundation situated
off of Court House Drive, Queensbury, New York 12801, at which times all persons
interested in the subject thereof, will be heard, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed
and authorized when receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject
property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required
by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining
neighbors.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN FROM QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 7, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health is now adjourned.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
TOWN BOARD RE-OPENS i
OPEN FORUM 4:25
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Commented on the severe storm the hit the area, thanked the Queensbury
Highway Department and Niagara Mohawk for their assistance to the residents in
the Community.
ELIZABETH COLBY, Dream Lake Road=Noted that due to the storm, the bridge on Dream
Lake Road, is damaged. Concerned about the safety.
RICK MISSITA-The Deputy Superintendent of Highway stated that the Highway Department
was presently working on Ellsworth Road that had been washed out by the storm and
immediately after they were finished they would proceed over to Dream Lake Road
and have it completed by the end of this week.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-The attorney advised me that the Rond Pond issue is in the works.
COUNSEL DUSEK-Noted that he spoke with Attorney for Queensbury Association, John
Caffry, to discuss legal matters involving resolution that is in the process of
being prepared for the Board,should be ready soon.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Will hold Special Town Board meeting at 4:00 P.M., tomorrow,
to file for special election, and set date, noted the special election will be
held before general election.
BERNARD RAYHILL, 37 Wincrest Drive-Referring to Rond Pond, questioned the Board
if they have considered any kind of funding?
1
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Will consider all funding. Noted previously that the Town had
been turned down with the Gurney Lane and Ridge Road Park projects. 5
JOHN CORDES, 36 Clark Street-Questioned if the zoning comment period was still
in effect?
COUNSEL DUSEK-Comment period has ended, but anyone who wishes to speak will have
an opportunity at the Public Hearing.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 327, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approve the July
12th minutes.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT ROADS WHICH HAVE NOT RECEIVED FINAL BLACKTOP SURFACING
RESOLUTION NO. 328, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
117
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, pursuant to Article 3, Section
6 of the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations, accept for dedication of a
road, which has not received a final blacktop surface under certain conditions
more specifically set forth therein,
WHEREAS, a number of roads will be offered for dedication to the Town of Queensbury
in the near future, some of which will be offered without the final blacktop surfacing,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will consider for acceptance
roads offered for dedication from this date forward which are offered with all
construction complete except for final blacktop surfacing and not require final
blacktop surfacing prior to acceptance, under the conditions that the developer
furnish a certified check covering the cost of satisfactorily completing construction
of the subject roads in an amount recommended by the Town Highway Superintendent
in accordance with Article 3, Section 6, of the Town of Queensbury Subdivision
Regulations and upon the further conditions that:
1. The road is to be surfaced, in any event, not later than two (2)
years from the date of dedication and the Town Highway Superintendent
is hereby authorized to specify the date such road is to be surfaced
with final black-top, such date not to be more than two (2) years from
the date the road is dedicated to the Town of Queensbury, and such date
is to be at least sixty (60) days following the time the developer is
notified of the date the road is to be surfaced,
2. In the event the Town Highway Superintendent fails or refuses to
specify a date for any road to be surfaced with final black-top material
and/or in the event the Town Board desires that any road subject to the
provisions hereof be surfaced with black-top prior to the date selected
by the Town Highway Superintendent, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
may, specify a date the road is to be so blacktopped and completed and
such date is to be at least sixty (60) days following the time the developer
is notified of the date the road is to be surfaced,
3. In the event the Developer fails to black-top the roadway by the
date set by either the Town Highway Superintendent or the Town Board
of the Town of Queensbury, the Town Board with the assistance of the
Town Highway Superintendent shall thereafter make the necessary arrangements
for the road to be blacktopped and completed regardless of what steps
may have been taken by the developer to complete the road, and such cost ti
of the completion shall be born by the developer in accordance with Article
3, Section 6 of the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations,
4. All other Town of Queensbury road specifications set forth in Rules
and Regulations adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury or
any other agency of the Town of Queensbury, and in effect at the time
of the agreement with the developer to complete the road as provided
hereunder, are to be met or exceeded,
5. The Applicant is to secure the necessary written letters of review
form the Highway Superintendent and Water Department Superintendent,
and
6. The Title deed, survey, and all other documents referred to in and
required by Article 3, Section 6 of the Town of Queensbury Subdivision
Rules and Regulations are to be provided in a form satisfactory to the
- Town Attorney and of the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that any notices required by the previous resolution shall be in
letter form and shall be deemed served on the developers on the date of mailing,
such mailing to be by deposit with the United States Postal System.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT DEED TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FOR PREMISES FOR TOWN HIGHWAY KNOWN
AS QUEEN NARY DRIVE
RESOLUTION NO. 329, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, Queen Victoria Ventures, Ltd., has offered to dedicate to the Town of
Queensbury a road known as Queen Mary Drive in the Queen Victoria's Grant Subdivision,
which is more particularly described in the annexed survey map, and which road
has not received a final blacktop surfacing, and
WHEREAS, Queen Victoria Ventures, Ltd., has offered the sum of $32,000 represented
by a previous deposit of $24,000 with the Town of Queensbury and the sum of an
additional $8,000 recently deposited by the developer to cover the expense of blacktop
surfacing of Queen Mary Drive and one other road, Queen Anne Court, at a later
date, and
WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has
advised that he has inspected Queen Mary Drive, the road proposed to be dedicated
to the Town of Queensbury and that he finds the same to meet the Town of Queensbury
specifications, and that he finds the offer sum of $32,000 a satisfactory amount
to cover the cost of completion of both Queen Mary Drive and Queen Anne Court,
and
WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury,
has advised that he has made an inspection of water line installation and finds
that the said installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of
Queensbury Water Department, and that said installation is approved, and
WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the roadway offered for dedication together
with the affidavit concerning completion of the road, have been reviewed and approved
by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the offer
of dedication of Queen Mary Drive as incomplete under the terms set forth above,
such terms including the deposit of the sum of $32,000 and such acceptance subject
to the conditions for road dedications in such cases made as set forth in Town "
Board Resolution No. 328, dated August 9, 1988, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deed be and the same is hereby accepted and approved
and that the Town Clerk be hereby authorized and directed to cause said deed to
be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office after which said deed shall be
properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury,
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the roads be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways,
to be described as follows:
Road Number: 446 Description: Loop Road running north then southerly
form Margaret Drive then easterly and northerly back to Margaret Drive Name: Queen
Mary Drive
Feet: 2,450 feet.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT DEED TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FOR PREMISES FOR TOWN HIGHWAY KNOWN
AS MAPLE DRIVE IN THE HIDDEN HILLS SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 330, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, Michael G. Woodbury and Ralph B. Woodbury, have to dedicate to the Town
of Queensbury a road known as Maple Drive in the Hidden Hills Subdivision, which
Is more particularly described in the annexed survey map, and
WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has
advised that he has inspected Maple Drive, the road proposed to be dedicated to
the Town of Queensbury and that he finds the same to meet the Town of Queensbury
specifications, and
WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury,
has advised that he has made an inspection of water line installation and finds
that the said installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of
Queensbury Water Department, and that said installation is approved, and
WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the roadway offered for dedication has
been reviewed and approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deeds be and the same are hereby accepted and
approved and that the Town Clerk be hereby authorized and directed to cause said
deeds to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office after which said deeds
shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town
of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the roads be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways,
to be described as follows:
Road Number: 438 Description: proceeding northerly and easterly from Hidden
Hills Drive
Name: Maple Drive Feet: 1650 feet.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr, Kurosaka •'
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT DEED TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FOR PREMISES FOR TOWN HIGHWAY KNOWN
AS TIMMONS LANE
RESOLUTION NO. 331, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, Anthony A. Locascio, Harry Bargmann and Arthur Baretta, have offered to
dedicate to the Town of Queensbury a road known as Timmons Lane, running easterly
and northerly from Lambert Drive, such road being more particularly described in
the annexed survey map, and
WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury had
advised that he has inspected Timmons Lane, the road proposed to be dedicated to
the Town of Queensbury and that he finds the same to meet the Town of Queensbury
specifications, and
WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury,
has advised that he has made an inspection of water line installation and finds
that the said installation in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury
Water Department, and that said installation is approved, and
WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the roadway offered for dedication has
been reviewed and approved by Paul B. Dusek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
120
RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deeds be and the same are hereby accepted and
approved and that the Town Clerk be hereby authorized and directed to cause said
deeds to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office after which said deeds
shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town
of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the roads be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways,
to be described as follows:
Road Number: 447 Description: east/north, with cul de sac at northerly end,
Name: Timmons Lane Feet: 1050 feet from Lambert Drive to and including cul
de sac
Duly adopted by the following vote: --
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT DEED TON TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FOR PREMISES FOR TOWN HIGHWAY
KNOWN AS HERESFORD LANE IN THE WOODM1ERE SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 332, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, Gregory J. Weaver and Jeffrey L. Kelley, d/b/a Woodmere, have offered
to dedicate to the Town of Queensbury a road known as Heresford Lane in the Woodmere
Subdivision, which is more particularly described in the annexed survey map, and
WHEREAS, Paul H. Naylor, Superintendent of Highways of the Town of Queensbury has
advised that he has inspected Heresford Lane, the road proposed to be dedicated
to the Town of Queensbury and that he finds the same to meet the Town of Queensbury
specifications, and
WHEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent of Water of the Town of Queensbury,
has advised that he has made an inspection of water line installation and finds
that the said installation is in accordance with the requirements of the Town of \
Queensbury Water Department, and that said installation is approved, and
WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the roadway offered for dedication has
been reviewed and approved by Paul B. Ousek, Town Attorney for the Town of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the aforementioned deeds be and the same are hereby accepted and
approved and that the Town Clerk be hereby authorized and directed to cause said
deeds to be recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office after which said deeds
shall be properly filed and maintained in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town
of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the roads be hereby added to the official inventory of Town Highways,
to be described as follows:
Road Number: 448 Description: extending northerly and easterly from Sherman
Avenue to Wintergreen Road, Name: Heresford Lane Feet: 1714 feet.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUL DE SAC AT DIXON HEIGHTS AND RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING
BOARD FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
121
RESOLUTION NO. 333, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Betty Monahan.
WHEREAS, C & L Realty Associates who are presently developing the Dixon Heights
Subdivision have approached the Town Board for the Town of Queensbury concerning
the use of lands presently owned by the Town of Queensbury to create a cul de sac
for the end of the road known as Tiffany Lane, which road presently intersects
Dixon Road, in the subdivision of Dixon Heights,
and
WHEREAS, members of the Town Board, accompanied by some members of the Planning
Board, the Town Highway Superintendent, the Town Engineer, the Town Attorney, the
developers and their attorney and engineer, visited the site of the proposed cul
de sac and reviewed the proposal on-site as well as another proposed cut onto Dixon
Road, and a presently existing road cut for Old Mill Lane,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is not in favor of the
use of lands owned by the Town of Queensbury for a cul de sac at the end of Tiffany
Lane as proposed by the developer, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury after consideration of
site distance, road conditions, comments made by a local resident, hereby offers
a recommendation to the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury for its consideration,
such recommendation being that the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury consider
allowing three (3) road cuts onto Dixon Road upon the condition that Old Mill Lane
be made a one-way road leading into the subdivision and the Town Board, if requested
by the Planning Board, will seek to impose said one-way designation on Old Mill
Lane upon following due legal process.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS F
RESOLUTION NO. 334, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, the Building and Code Enforcement department and the Department of Parks
and Recreation wish to make certain purchases, and
WHEREAS, funds do no exist in the proper accounts, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, to transfer funds from one account to another in order to make said purchases,
as follows:
AMOUNT FROM TO
$250. A2158010440 Bldg. Codes Misc.Contr. A2158010412 Printing
150. A2158010440 A2158010408 Advertising
1000. A2158010413 Bldg.&Codes Legal Serv. A2158010411 Vehicle Repair
600. A2158010413 A2158010201 Office Equip.
400. A2158010413 A2158010422 Training
9200. A2158010136 Bldg. & Codes Enf. Officer A2158010137 Bldg. Insp.
578. A2057310207 Parks &Rec. Equip. A2157310201 Off. Equip.
500. A2057310440 Parks &Rec. Misc. Contr. A2057310427 Chemicals
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
122
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 325 OF 1988
RESOLUTION NO. 335, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby rescind Resolution
No. 325 of 1988 entitled 'RESOLUTION TO RETAIN COUNSEL.'
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None ,
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka --
COMMUNICATIONS
Dream Lake Road Petition-on file
Assembly Point Petition-on file
REPORTS
Town Clerk Monthly report-on file
Building & Codes Monthly report-on file
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT
RESOLUTION NO. 336, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
RESOLVED, that the audit that appears on Abstract August of 1988, numbered from
1472-2012 and totaling 1,341,504.15 be and hereby is approved.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 337, Introduced by Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Betty Monahan.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury move into Executive Session
to discuss the retaining of a special firm, and personnel matters regarding salary.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO MOVE BACK INTO REGULAR SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 338, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury move into Regular Session.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
123
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO RETAIN ADIRONDACK CONSTRUCTION
RESOLUTION NO. 339, Introduced by Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Marilyn Potenza.
Resolution forthcoming from Town Counsel /� (� ,S?
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos
T Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
Abstained: Mrs. Monahan
The following comments have been submitted by the public, the Town Board will now
review those comments and determine if the Advisory Committee responses will be
accepted... on the Zoning Map, Zoning Districts and Regulations, Subdivision Regulations,
Natural Resources, and Miscellaneous...
A. ZONING MAP
Comment
Route 149. The commercial areas at the Bay and Ridge Roads intersections should
be rezoned to the neighborhood commercial. Under the current highway commercial
zoning such things as waterslides, McDonalds, motels and other inappropriate uses
could be built in what remains one of the few rural areas of the Town. This would
be similar to the NC zone at Oneida Corners.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Route 149.commercial areas are designated in response to highway traffic rather
than to a neighborhood need, therefore the designation of Highway commercial is
appropriate.
Comment
N
Round Pond We support the proposed rezoning of this area to a 3 acre minimum,
but one key parcel has been left out. This is the parcel between Birdsall Road
and the Great Escape Campground which as has been left at RC-15. This error would
allow high-density commercial development in an otherwise rural residential area,
and in a location that is much too close to Round Pond. This parcel is within
the Town's Critical Environmental Area.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Town designated Environmentally Sensitive Area of 500 feet around Rush Pond
already goes into existing developed area. The RC-15 designation of the property
commented on is appropriate for that location.
Comment
To rezone the Lawton Road area where there are commercial establishments in the
same area as residents so as to eliminate the 50 foot buffer between the change
in use. The request is that the line be moved to Lawton Road to accommodate the
commercial uses.
124
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
In review of the site it appears that there currently exists no real buffer between
the uses since what is supposed to be buffer has been used for commercial purpose.
A buffer zone is an unpaved, natural area without any buildings, with no parking
or storage on it. The zoning line following property lines will be maintained
and not moved to Lawton Road. The residential neighborhood is already impacted
because of the commercial business. Reducing the 50 feet which is supposed to
protect a change in use would be inappropriate and in opposition to the philosophical
intent of the Ordinance.
Comment
Big Cedar Swamp We wholeheartedly endorse the proposal to rezone the Big Cedar
Swamp to LC-42, in order to preserve this unique ecosystem. This is consistent
with the zoning of other major wetlands which as Dunham's Bay and Rush Pond. However,
the following resource-based improvements should be made:
A. Rezone the entire wetland, including the portions along Quaker Road.
B. Dryland fringes are an important part of the ecosystem. A 500 foot buffer
zone around the wetland should also be protected excepting along Ridge Road where
the buffer should only go up to the rear of the existing lots, and Quaker Road,
where we would consent to a smaller buffer so as to allow valuable non-wetland
commercial lands to be developed. Much of this is cornfield and does not provide
much wildlife habitat.
C. Farming should be eliminated as an allowed use of LC-42 zones. All or most
of these lands are in wetlands where farming is impractical and would destroy the
wetland. Earltown has already tried to destroy the Big Cedar Swamp with its "farming"
and could try again if this loophole is left open. An alternative would be to
rezone it PC-42, where no farming is allowed.
Response
The rezoning of Quaker Road is consistent with development in that area.
DEC has designated the extent of the wetlands and the Town has used the official
wetlands maps in zoning this area.
Agricultural uses were predominate in the Big Cedar Swamp area prior to the purchase
by the Earltown Corporation and this activity is not inconsistent with an LC-42
zone.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
Changed the LC-42 to LC-10
Comment
The Zoning Map should be translated on to tax maps for public.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The neighborhood maps are reduced tax maps and are available to the Planning Office
for the public.
Comment
Williamson Store and Gwinups Store have been rezoned as residential rather than
Neighborhood Commercial which they were previously. The request is that they remain
Neighborhood Commercial.
Response
The residential zoning would not affect the use of the store unless they were not
maintained as a commercial enterprise for over 18 months.
Zoning these establishments commercial would be detrimental to those other commercial
uses existing in residential zones. -`
It is felt that the prior zoning of these establishments was spot zoning and is
not in accordance with the good long range land use planning.
The viewpoint in the rezoning of these stores was, if they were not currently in
existence would that type activity be encouraged where they do exist.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
125
Williamson Store and Gwinups Store have been changed to Neighborhood Commercial.
Comment
It should be enumerated what lines are typically used for zoning boundary lines,
streets, lot lines, etc.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This has been done in Article 3. Zoning Map. The Neighborhood paps will make it
easier to define specific lines.
Comment
The property owned by Theodore Zoli, Adjacent to the C.R. Bard Industrial Complex
should be rezoned residential. This would protect the residential neighborhood,
however, the industry would be prohibited from using 50 ft. of their property in
order to provide the necessary buffer.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Light Industrial line will be moved to within 50 feet of the C.R. Bard property
leaving the remainder of the Zoli property residential. This will protect the
residential neighborhood while allowing the industry use of its property and maintaining
a 50 foot buffer between uses.
Comment
A request to move the Highway Commercial zoning line on Glenwood Avenue to incorporate
an existing machine shop.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This situation is more appropriately brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Comment
A parcel of 62 acres between Mountain Drive and the Northway is being rezoned one
acre and was formerly Urban Residential 5,000 square feet. This decrease in density
is a hardship to the property owner.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The soil conditions in that area and the proximity to the Rush Pond Environmentally
Sensitive Area determined the zoning change. The 1 Acre zoning is consistent with
other properties in the area.
Comment
The area behind the Queensbury School should be zoned to accommodate high density
housing which is needed in the community.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Given the soil conditions in the area the zoning should be maintained as proposed.
If sewer and water facilities become available then rezoning of the property at
a greater density should be considered.
Comment
Property on County Line Road of approximately 8 acres went from a zoning of SR-30
to SR-1A. The owner, feels this is a hardship and inappropriate given the location.
The owner requests a change to MR-5 to be able to construct duplexes. This is
consistent because County Line Road is similar to Bay Road which is zoned MR-5.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The zoning of this area is consistent with the down zoning throughout the Town.
This is a rural area and should be maintained at are acre. It was not felt that
it was desirable for County line Road to become like Bay road either from a development
stand point or a traffic generation stand point.
Comment
The Earltown, Quaker Ridge property should be maintained as Industrial Reserve
rather than being changed to Land Conservation 42 acres. This is because it is
a PUD under review. The property cannot be developed at an LC-42 designation.
The Town needs this type of development to attract golfers and improve the economic
climate of the Town.
Response
The LC-42 are designation is consistent with the designation given other wetlands
in the Town. The zoning designation will not affect the review of this project
since it is grandfathered. This is a Town Board and Planning Board issue rather
than a zoning issue. The zoning of the DEC designated welands should be maintained
at LC-42. Wetlands Protection ranked among the top five Town issues expressed
by citizens at the seven neighborhood meetings which initiated the rezoning effort.
In the area which was zoned LI-lA the line should be removed to allow for residential
development (SR-1A) This is in accordance with the wishes to the property owner
and will have no detrimental effect on the area.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
The Earltown, Quaker Ridge property has been zoned LC-10 in the DEC designated
wetlands.
In the area which was zoned LI-IA the line should be removed to allow for residential
development (SR-IA). This is in accordance with the wishes of the property owner
and will have no detrimental effect on the area.
Comment
The property on the corner of Fox Farm Road and Aviation Road should be rezoned
for professional offices.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The zoning is consistent with the criteria developed for rezoning the Town. There
has already been designated one commercial area along this roadway to serve the _-
neighborhood. It is not the intent of the rezoning to expand commercial areas
but rather to protect the quality of life in the community. This issue belongs
before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Comment
The Schuh property on Route 9 and Route 149 is split zoned and should be looked
at.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The property is not split zoned. The zoning line is the Marren County Bike Path.
Comment
The change form HC-15,000 square feet to HC-1 acre is a hardship for commercial
property owners. The change was made to reduce road cuts and traffic congestion.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The sizes of the allowable commercial structures has increased with the size of
the lots and should be maintained as zoned. The philosophy behind this was to
zone with the physical carrying capacity of the land in mind. Therefore lot sizes
were increased where appropriate and permeability was increased. This was what
the citizens indicated they wanted since the size of allowable structures per lot
has increased with the lot size; this is not felt to be a hardship for commercial
businesses.
Comment
This issue of fences was not addressed in the ordinance.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
12 1
This is an oversight and will be rectified. The fences will be defined and their
use detailed.
Comment
Mobile Home Parks and single sited areas were omitted from the map.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This was an oversight on the large zoning map, however, they were shown on the
neighborhood zoning maps.
Comment
Some property on Twin Channels Road which is vacant and surrounded by developed
property is now zoned for a lesser density and will not meet the new regulations.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This is a preexisting nonconforming lot and will be reviewed as such.
Comment
The Recreational Commercial area at Ledgeview Village was changed to SR-15. The
owner requested it be changed back.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The property in question has single sited mobile homes and an R.Y.Park. The R.Y.
Park has a number of approvals which they can use to expand. The mobile homes
are allowable uses in SR-15. The R.C. definition and permitted use schedule has
been changed so that single sited mobile homes are not allowed. The community
has a number of R.Y. Parks and is in greater need of moderate income housing.
The SR-15 zone was developed with this in mind.
Comment.
— The Cronin Road-Meadowbrook Road area should be lift UR-5 because properties cannot
conform with the 150 foot road frontage required under the 1 acre zoning. Also,
this is a commercial rather than residential area.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The high water table and the flood plain of the Halfway Book Corridor wake this
area unsuitable for less than one acre. In review of the property in question
it is felt that this is still primarily a residential neighborhood and should be
maintained as such.
Comment
The RR-3 acre zone from Cronin Road, north to Oneida Corners should be changed
back to 1 acre based on the soils and current development.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This will be done on the final map.
Comment
The Lindon property on Haviland Road surrounded by the PUD has not been identified
on the map.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This is an oversight and will be done on the final map.
Comment
Request was made to rezone an area of Tuthill Road - 5 acres instead of 10.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
128
This area is within APA Jurisdiction and has been carefully looked at. The zoning
will remain as it appears on the map.
Comment
The Moon Hill - Bay Road area has been rezoned form SR-30 to RR-3A. This is not
in keeping with the neighborhood. Soil tests in the area indicate the area is
good for tile fields. The property owner has a hardship with the RR-3A zoning.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The land in the Moon Hill area was rezoned to 3 acres because of the following
conditions. The slopes in the area are very steep. The soils in the area are gravel
and sand. Mater percolates very quickly through them without sufficient time for
cleansing. The Development Suitability Map which was developed based on physical
limitations for the land identifies this area as requiring major planning considerations
necessary for development. Given this criteria the RR-3A zoning is logical.
Comment
The rezoning places a light industrial zone on the south side of Sherman Avenue
and a residential zone on the north side of Sherman Avenue. This was done by removing
the buffer zone of 500 feet along the southern side of the road. This will change
the residential character of the neighborhood. The Town Board agreed to this buffer
six years ago. The buffer zone is necessary to protect the residential character
of the neighborhood.
RESPONSE
In order to accommodate the request of the Sherman Avenue residents the wording
in the Ordinance will be modified to indicate that where an industrial zone abuts
a residential zone along a street, the buffer zone required for the industrial
zone will be 100 feet from the property line.
This change in wording plus the fact that all industrial subdivision have to have
the roadways internalized will help alleviate the traffic concerns of the citizens.
The industrial zone along Sherman Avenue will remain as the map indicates. Sherman
Avenue is becoming a major artery in the Town. The State of New York does own
property on Sherman Avenue which is for another entrance to Route 87. It is logical
that a light industrial area be located in this area.
w �
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Town Board agrees with the residents and the 500 foot buffer along Sherman
Avenue will be maintained.
Comment
Nineteen acres of property just south of the airport was purchased with the intent
of industrial development. The zoning currently splits the property in half with
half being light industrial and the other half being residential. The property
is not suited for residential purposes.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This was an error on the map and will be rectified by placing the entire parcel
in the light industrial zone. This is appropriate because of it location to the
airport and flyway and Marren-Washington Industrial Park.
Comment
There is too much encroachment of industry in the Big Bay - Big Boom Road area
of Queensbury. The zoning should protect the Hudson River and the fragile ecology
in that area.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The industrial zone line in that area has been moved north of the peninsula an
substantially reduced. The peninsula is residentially zoned and the size of the
lots has been increased in order to protect the ecosystem near the Hudson River.
129
Comment
The residential neighborhood around Carlton Drive has been zone multiresidential
5,000 square feet. This is not a residential area where the average lot size is
11,000 square feet. MR-5 is not appropriate for this area.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This comment is well taken and it is noted that the area is miss zoned Mt-5. It
will be changed to SFR-10 which is more in keeping with the neighborhood.
Comment
The Seeley property on Bay Road and the adjacent properties should be zoned to
heavy industry since that in fact is the use of the property.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
It is not in the best interests of the Town to change the Highway Commercial zone
on Quaker Road and Glenwood Avenue to accommodate the interests of one individual.
Comment
I own 34 acres on Bay Road that is zoned UR-5. The proposal is that it be UR-1
acre. The property was purchased with high density in mind. The new zoning is
unfair.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Urban Residential Zones are divided into two areas of different densities: (UR-10)
where one (1) principal building is allowed for every 10,000 square feet of land
area within the zone. And UR-IA where one principal building is allowed for every
1 acre.
Urban Residential Zones (UR-10) encompass mostly the older, more traditional, high
density neighborhoods in Queensbury. Secondly, areas subject to intense development
pressure, located near service areas, are zoned similarly. This protects and enhances
the urban character while providing adequate opportunity for infill and high density
housing. Urban Residential Zones IA encompass environmentally more sensitive land ,
in areas of intense development pressure where the uses permitted in UR-10 are
desirable, but at less density. . k '
This area has poor drainage and is in the Halfway Brook floodplain. It is felt
that the UR-1 acre is appropriate for this area. This in no way precludes clustering
of dwellings to protect the environmentally sensitive stream corridor.
Comment
The property north of the Glen Lake Road and south of Route 149 has been rezoned
RR-3A. This is a substantial change for this property which was formally RC-15.
A zoning change back to RC-15 is requested.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The map presented with this request indicates that this property is in the middle
of a wetland. This is an environmentally sensitive area and the zoning of 3 acres
is necessary to protect it. The uses currently on the property are grandfathered.
Comment
The Hudson River area should be rezoned to three acres so as to accommodate the
100 year flood hazard.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Waterfront Residential area was rezoned in accordance with the Flood Plain
Insurance Naps detailing flood zone areas. The cement is well taken, however,
and certain areas along the river have been rezoned at 3 acres.
Comment
130
I own property on the corner of Glenwood and Glen. As it stands I would need a
fifty foot setback from a residential area to expand my commercial business. To
go to residential uses in that area would devalue my property.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The property in question would be a preexisting, nonconforming use, which is no
change. The owner would have had to get a variance to expand previously and this
will also in the same.
Comment
The Chartrand property which is close to the airport and industrial park is zoned
SR-1A. This is inappropriate.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The comment is correct and the Chartrand property will be zoned light industrial. -!
Comment
There is a unique situation on a property adjacent to the Cleverdale Store. The
front of the property cannot be used for residential purposes because of its proximity
to the store. The request is for the front of the property to be zoned commercial.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
It is the policy of the Board not to split zone properties except in extreme circumstances.
This property is not suitable for commercial uses because it is located on a steep
slope and on a curve. It is felt that the existing neighborhood commercial area
handles the requirements of the neighborhood adequately without expansion.
Comment
Opposition to zoning of Big Boom area form WR-1A to WR-3A. Such a change would
represent a 77 percent decrease in lot potential from the previous SR-30 zone (1982
zoning).
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This area is one of low development suitability because of the designated flood
plain, steep slopes and poor soil conditions. The feeling is that this area requires,,,
less density because of the sensitivity of land and river resource. 4,
Comment
We recommend that you consider using the APA's definition of clearcutting and selective
tree cutting.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The recommendation is appreciated, however, since the Town does not employ a professional
forester who could measure residue basal areas of tree remains left in forested
areas, the definitions included in the zoning ordinance are felt to meet our needs
while protecting our forests. They are: "Selective Tree Cutting" means the removal
of single or scattered trees of any size, resulting in the appearance of the land
area as not having been substantially disturbed.
"Clearcutting" means the cutting of more than 50 percent of any trees over six
(6) inches in diameter 4.5 feet above ground level over the entire area of the
cutting.
Comment
The property on Quaker and Ridge Roads including Mead's Garden Center, the Benack
property and the Heber property should be zoned Highway Commercial rather than
residential, since they are all commercial uses.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This change will be made to the Zoning Map.
Comment
The property on the peninsula in Queensbury which Michael O'Connor is a part owner
of should be rezoned light industrial. The reason for this is that there would
be no access to the property which is zoned residential except through the property
which is light industrial. It is, therefore, very unlikely that any residential
development will occur.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The character of the property in question is not suitable for light industrial
given the slope. The land is similar in character to the land to the east of
it which is residential rather than the land to the west of it which is light industrial.
There Mould be possible access to this property through the waterfront residential
zone instead of through the industrial zone.
Comment
We have been in the process of buying a building lot on Sherman Avenue across I' m
Lupine Lane. It was formerly zoned SFR and now is light industrial. We are opposed
to the light industrial designation.
Response
The zoning will not affect the use of the land since a building permit has already
been obtained. The Town has very few light industrial areas. In�order to provide
work for the citizens of the community it is necessary that area for employment
are developed. The regulation involving the light industrial zones are stringent,
requiring internationalize of roadways and greater setback should protect the adjoining
residential areas.
ACCEPTED TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
In accordance with the wishes of residents of Sherman Avenue. the Town Board maintains
a 500' buffer zone between the residences and the existing industrial zone.
Comment
Since we own 18 acres of land adjacent to John P. Burke and the Sheraton Motor
Inn which is presently zoned for two family and since there presently exists the `y
227 units of multifamily dwellings at John P. Burke Apartments, we of course are
wondering just how this new zoning proposal will affect our present units and the
18 acres of land? We are concerned that the 18 acres will not only diminish in
value under the new proposed zoning, but that single family dwellings will not
be a compatible use of these 18 acres.
ACCEPTED COMM
Preexisting uses will not be affected by the new zoning. The area which is mentioned
contains high percolation rate soils and is an aquifer recharge area. It will
be a recommendation in the Master Plan that when community facilities (water, sewer)
become available in the area that densities be increased.
Comment
The Robert Guyette property should remain SFR-1A rather than being changed which
is a proposal before the ZBA.
ACCEPTED C01ME1iT
This is a matter for the Zoning Board of Appeals. There is no consideration being
given to rezoning this property.
Comment
I am asking you to review the zoning of the property located west of our land.
This property is located in the Adirondack Park, on the north side of Clendon Brook
Road (Upper Sherman Avenue) and extends north to Fuller Road. There is a considerable
amount of wetland on this property. We are located on a steep slope of West Mountain
and the land to which I am referring is at a higher elevation than our land.
ACCEPTED COMER
132
It is felt that the land use in the area in question is justified based on the
physical criteria developed during the rezoning effort. If development were to
take place on the property you described it may be that the Planning Board would
require clustering to insure protection of the sensitive lands.
Comment
Mr. Timms property (23.89 acres) was color coded blue along with the Pine View
Cemetery which means "Comnunity Service Lands". We request a clarification.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This was an error and will be rectified. The color coding was simply to look at
broad brush land use trends. It has nothing to do with the zoning and was only
for the use of the Advisory Committee.
Comment
My name is Doctor John Cordes. I would like to hand my support to the opposition
of omitting the buffer zone on Sherman Avenue. As you know, right across there
is the new development Hidden Hills and there are 150 new homes going in there
a lot of them are going to be first time home owners and they are going to see
their dream just shot down with light industry adjacent to it or across the street,
that is all I want to say.
Response
The traffic on Sherman Avenue is one of the big issues that was brought up during
the meetings. With the five hundred foot residential set back it was essentially
with the density and lot size, it would essentially mean strip residential along
Sherman Avenue which would have meant a number of driveways. We tried to avoid
that. In order to do that we either had to widen the residential strip to take
all the industrial land or to try to get as little development as possible along
Sherman Avenue. The way that we finally decided to do that was to expand the Industrial
Zone up to Sherman Avenue and require a buffer strip between Sherman Avenue and
any industrial development that would occur. Yes, there would be no industrial
activity on Sherman Avenue. It would be internalized. The internalization is for
all development, not just residential. It's subdivision requirement so that the
internalization would be inside, not on Sherman Avenue.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
The Town Board has agreed with the residents of the Sherman Avenue area and will
maintain the 500 foot buffer zone between the residential and industrial uses.
Comment
I am writing to express my disapproval of the new Zoning Laws that are being proposed.
I own commercial property on Route 9 and Route 149 in Queensbury. The property
is under one acre. therefore limiting greatly the future usage or sale of the parcel.
The proposed Zoning Law creates great financial hardship for not only me. but hundreds
of other Queensbury Town residents.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The property is a preexisting nonconforming use and the business can be expanded
by variance. The new ordinance will not affect the sale of the property for the
use that is currently there. Should a buyer want to change the use of the property
this can be done by variance or by purchase of enough adjoining property to meet
the acreage necessary to conform to the ordinance. It is not felt that the ordinance
creates a financial hardship for the property owner.
Comment
There are several undeveloped properties on the north side of Sherman Avenue between
Seward Street and Interstate Route 87 which will be zoned Single Family Residential
1 acre. I would ask for a rezoning on the lands east of 87 to Single Family Residential
20 and the strip on the north side of Sherman Avenue to be Light Industrial 1 acre.
Response
13
The philosophical outlook in rezoning this area was to down zone it because of
the high percolation rates of the soil which limit the effectiveness of on site
septic systems. Also the neighborhood in that area is primarily residential and
the zoning is consistent with the existing neighborhood.
ACCEPTED TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
500' buffer zone
Comment
Request to rezone the Wiswall property on the north side of Glenwood Avenue MR-5
rather than UR-1A.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
After discussion and review of this request, the property will be changed to M-5.
The property to the east of Woodvale Road will be !R-5 rather than UR-IA. The
reasoning for this change is that the sewers will be extended to this area very
shortly and therefore, an increase in the density is justified.
Comment
My suggestion is that the underlined portion of Article 7, Section 7011 A2b5 (page
83, draft of May 16, 1988, enclosed) be reworded to be at least as strong as the
Lake George Park Commission's regulation 646-1.4(k) (page 75 enclosed).
Also, in the interest of preventing hazardous conditions and confrontations between
neighbors, we feel that there should be at least one foot of open water on either
side of the property line extension whenever boats are properly secured to their
respective docks.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Town of Queensbury regulations are reflective of the Lake George Park Commissions
regulations. It is felt, however, that being more restrictive than the Commission
and requiring more open water between docks and property lines would be very difficult
and expensive to enforce.
B ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS
Comment
Private boat storage should be added under accessory use for all Rural Residential,
Land Conservation zones and private docks should be added as an accessory use under
Waterfront Residential, Land Conservation and Rural Residential Zones.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This recommendation will be acted upon and included in the regulations
Comment
Planned Unit Development The proposed amendments to the P.U.D. rules, Article
15, represents a serious threat to the integrity of the entire zoning plan. The
current ordinance, as amended only 1k years ago, ties the density of a PUD to the
existing zoning, with an appropriate bonus of additional density in return for
preserving additional open space. This is a wise planning concept. The proposed
Section 15.040 would virtually gut this requirement and allow almost unlimited
density if a developer can supply some information to support the increase. If
these weakening amendments are adopted, we may as well throw the new zoning map.
The amendments would have the following negative effects:
A. It would be unfair to the developers of the current PUDs (as well as conventional
subdividers) who were required to comply with the existing density rules.
Their new high-density competitors would have a cost advantage over them.
Even Earltown, with all of its faults, has attempted to comply with this
rule.
B. The Town Board would be flooded with applications. Rather than submitted
a subdivision application to the Planning Board, developers will go to
the Town Board with a PUD application in hopes of getting higher density.
134
This will burden the Town Board with numerous hearings and usurp the function
of the Planning Board.
C. The areas which are supposed to be protected by the low density zoning
of the new plan will in fact not be protected and will be vulnerable to
excessive development.
D. The project review process will be changed from an administrative process
reviewed by the Planning Board, to a political and legislative process
reviewed by the Town Board.
E. Even though individual projects may be able to prove that the land in
question would support the proposed density increase, the cumulative effect
of many such developments will exceed the capacity of the land and the
road systems, thereby negating the benefits of the new plan.
F. The removal of the limit on commercial construction will induce developers
to create PUDs and lead to a large amount of commercial development in —
residential area.
RESPONSE
Philosophically the Town Board has adopted the approach that a PUB is a complete
rezoning of a specifically designated area in response to a designated development
plan. Since it is a rezoning by the Town Board it can be done without consideration
of existing zoning densities.
Since a PUB is a total development plan incorporating a number of elements, a creative
design and a greater integration of land uses than traditional subdivisions, it
is more desirable for the Town.
Any rezoning may appear to be unfair to those who developed either before or after
the rezoning depending on ones perspective.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
The Town Board agrees with the comments and has decided to maintain the NO Ordinance
which ties the density to the existing zoning.
Comment
Enforcement Enforcement is noticeably weak in the areas of erosion control, vegetation
preservation, and other resource protection measures. To remedy this problem,
the following should be adopted.
A. All such permit conditions should be incorporated into the deeds for such
parcels. This practice is already used by the APA.
B. Before a certificate of occupancy is issued, the Town should inspect a
site for compliance with these conditions, and not just the buildings.
If violations are found, the C.O. should be withheld until the situation
is corrected.
C. Maintenance of these systems should be inspected annually by the Town,
especially for the stormwater control systems.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Enforcement procedures have been upgraded within the past month amd a computerized
permit system will be instituted in the next few months.
Comment
Buffer Zones All subdivisions and apartment/condo complexes should have natural
vegetative buffers of at least 100 feet between the buildings and the road so as
to preserve the scenic qualities of the Town's travel corridors. Commercial and
industrial areas should also be screened by trees to the extent feasible.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The buffer zone and screening regulations detailed in the new zoning ordinance
are felt to be adequate. In some cases it would be preferable to encourage clustering
and allow greater roadway vistas than to screen buildings. Open space and scenic
vistas are something we want to protect in Queensbury.
Comment
135
Low Income Housing Upgrading zoning may increase housing costs. To offset this,
a few areas should be set aside for low income housing, with safeguards to ensure
that it is actually used for that purpose.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
There currently exists areas of low to moderate income housing in the Town. In
addition the new zoning does designate areas where increased density will be allowed
in conjunction with community facilities.
Comment
Clustering Open space may actually be lost. To provide the same amount of housing,
more land will be needed. Most homeowners will turn their entire i acre lot into
lawn, thereby destroying the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. To offset
this, we suggest the following:
1. All lots of one acre or more should be required to retain 25 percent of
their vegetation in perpetuity; this could be made a permanent covenant
in all deeds.
2. Clustering should be mandatory for all subdivisions of 10 acres or more,
or ten lots or more, so as to preserve some open space within all subdivisions.
This will also benefit the developer and homeowner by reducing infrastructure
costs.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Clustering should occur where the land affords that type of development and should
be a decision of the developer in concert with the Planning Board. Most of the
Town has been rezoned with larger lots being mandated and this will allow for greater
areas of natural vegetation.
Comment
Duplexes now require twice the acreage per zone to be constructed which is an unnecessary
hardship on any duplex owner. A requirement of 131 acres per duplex in a 1 acre
zone would be more reasonable.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE >
Duplexes are two units and therefore should require twice the land area. Increasingt
the density is not the philosophy behind the rezoning effort. The Master Plan
will indicate that densities can be increased when community facilities become
available.
Comment
Planned Unit Developments should be designated for a mixture of commercial or industrial
uses, also not just as it is defined, for residential mixed uses.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Town Board reviewed the PUD Ordinance and feels it meets the needs of the community.
Comment
There should be some consideration for deeded homesteads for children
Response
In review of the APA regulation allowing for this situation it becomes apparent
that frequently this is a loop hole which allows for unregulated subdivision to
occur.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
Will be looked at, at a later date.
Comment
The Town should do something about lowering taxes for those who are preserving
136
the rural character of Queensbury.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
It is not within the scope of this document to address that issue.
Comment
In the Commercial Residential zone most property owners do not have enough road
frontage to allow them to use their property for commercial purposes. This creates
a hardship for the property owners in that they are unable to see their property
in a commercial area for a commercial use.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE ---
Commercial Residential zones are those areas of Queensbury which are transitioning
from residential to highway commercial uses on narrow arterial roads. The purpose
of this zone is to allow for this transition in a manner which permits the widening
of the arterial route and encourages safe traffic patterns, an aesthetically pleasing
environment and safe pedestrian circulation.
Commercial Residential zones will allow one (1) duelling unit or office use in
existing residential structure for every 15,000 square feet of land area within
the zone. At least one (1) acre of land will be required to establish any other
allowable commercial use in the CR zone, up to 12,000 square feet for single story
buildings and 15,000 square feet of gross floor area for multiple-story buildings.
An additional 500 square feet of land area will be required for each additional
150 square feet for single-story buildings and 200 square feet of gross floor area
or portion thereof for multiple-story buildings.
The Commercial Residential zone allows for the conversion of existing residential
buildings to professional offices. In changing the use of the property from residential
to commercial one acre of land will be necessary to accomplish the above stated
purpose of the zone. It may be that in order to met the requirements for area
and set backs that two adjoining lots may have to be combined. The zoning of this
area was done with the knowledge that it was a transition zone. All commercial
zones in the Town have been uniformly dealt with. The philosophy is that small
lot commercial development is not in the best interest of the Town because of the
parking and traffic problems which are created. One acre for a commercial use
is a realistic size. The goal of this zone is to protect the residents of the
neighborhood while allowing for the transition. Existing structures can be renovated
for business use, however, for larger businesses larger lots are necessary to support',
the business, reduce traffic and provide adequate parking. Further, the larger
setbacks will accommodate road widening which is logical in the future. It is
felt hat in the long term property values in the Commercial Residential zone will
be enhanced.
Comment
there should be a grandfathering of any lots that have been owned by residents
for twenty years or more.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Property which is recorded at the County Clerk's Office is considered to be a lot
of record and can be developed with a variance form the Ordinance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Comment
I oppose the proposed amendments to the PUD rules, Article 15, which represent
a serious threat to the integrity of the zoning plan. It currently allows for
a total rezoning without allowing for any conformity to the existing zoning densities
which have been established.
RESPONSE
The advisory Committee is strongly opposed to the proposed PUD amendment which
would allow greater density than the zoning allows.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
1.37
The Town Board agrees with this comment and will maintain the PUD Ordiannce which
ties the density to the existing zoning.
Comment
Building heights constructed on slopes should have additional height allowances
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
"Building Height" means the vertical distance measured from the lowest portion
of the natural grade of the building site coverage by the building or finished
grade of cut required to accommodate the building to the highest point of the structure.
This is felt to be adequate and appropriate even on steep slopes.
Comment
Principal Building 87b.1. "A single family dwelling constitutes one principal
building." Read with the definition of single family dwelling, page 31, which
states that a single family dwelling is "designed or used exclusively as the living
quarters for one family, whether seasonal or year around" this could exclude a
single family type dwelling which is fractionally owned.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
"Single Family Dwelling" means a building, not including a mobile home of one or
more stories of height above the main grade level, which is designed or used exclusively
as the living quarters for one family, whether seasonal or year round.
This means that the unit is designed for single family use. It does not prohibit
the use by many families at various times.
Comment
87b.2. "A tourist cabin or similar structure...involving 300+ square feet "counts
as one principal building. Does this mean that a hotel room of over 300 square
feet is one principal building? I think it does. What about a lockout of two
adjoining 300 square feet units? Would that count as 2/10th of a principal building
or one whole principal building? \
.1
Response
The answer to both questions is yes.
RESPONSE BY TORN BOARD
No action to be taken at this time.
Comment
87b.3. "Each dwelling unit of a multiple family dwelling, including each separate
dwelling unit used on a time-sharing, leased time or other similar bases...constitute
one principal building." This might be applied to condo-hotel units sold on a
fractional time basis.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Yes. The building is designed for one single family even if it is used by other
families.
Comment
87b.5. "Each commercial use structure and each industrial use structure in excess
of 300 square feet constitutes one principal building, except hat for a commercial
use structure which involves the retain sale or rental or distribution of goods,
services or commodities, each 11,000 square feet of floor space or portion thereof
of such commercial use structure constitutes one principal building.
Response
This is an APA definition. Commercial density outside of the APA jurisdiction
will be redefined.
138
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
Disagree...will study further
Comment
The definition of structure, at page 33, is very broad and includes virtually any
object such as "sheds, signs, service station pumps, above ground tanks", etc..
As applied to the portion of the project in Queensbury, separate structures could
include the health club, tennis courts, bleachers, stables, parking or security
booths, gazebos, pools, fountains and water features, the carousel, play equipment
and other amusement facilities, shelters, patios, terraces, fences, gates all signs,
retaining walls, bridges, steps, walks, drives, parking lots, traffic islands,
towers, drainage structures, transformer pads, utility vaults, natural gas tanks,
water tanks, golf clubhouse, golf cart storage, other storage buildings and maintenance
sheds, solid waste screening, pump houses, garages, fire house, ski lifts and each
separate structure associated with the ski operation.
Response
Yes.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
Exclude, Animal Shelters, Tree houses, playhouses of less than 100 sq.. ft.
Comment
Minimum off-street parking requirements: We may have difficulty providing the
number of spaces required especially if we have to provide all required off-street
parking at the top of the mountain. This would not be a problem if the lots at
the ski area base can be counted toward the required spaces.
Dwelling 2 Spaces for each dwelling
Rooming house
(motel,hotel) 1 space for each room
Clubs and
Restaurant Greater of 1 space. for each 100 square feet or 1 space for each
4 seats plus 1' space for each 2 employees
Retail Store 1 space for each 100 square feet
Commercial or
Shopping Cntr. 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet gross leasable
There are no parking requirements for recreational or amusement facilities i.e.
ski,golf,tennis,health club.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The parking regulations have been modified.
Home Occupation calls for (1) space for each three hundred (300) square feet of
floor space devoted to that use.
Professional Offices or office space has been modified so that (1) one space is
necessary for each (150) tone hundred and fifty square feet of floor space devoted
to that use.
Taverns(bar)
One space for each 100 square feet, plus one space per linear foot of bar, plus
one space for each 2 employees.
Boat Storage - One (1) space for each one and one half (1s) boats stored at the
site.
Marinas- One (1) space for each boat moored or stored at the marina plus one (1)
space for an automobile and one (1) trailer space for each boat launched which
is not seasonally moored or stored at the site.
Amusement Facilities, Tennis Clubs, Health Clubs and Ski Facilities are considered
to be commercial as the following definition indicates.
139
"Commercial use- weans any use involving the sale or rental or distribution of
goods, services or commodities, either retail or wholesale, or the provision of
recreation facilities or activities for a fee. The term shall include but not
be limited to the following: drive-in restaurant, fast food operation; filling
station; public garage, restaurant; retail store;retail stand;riding academy and
tavern.
Comment
Page 102, Section 8.021 - Review for Overall Density - counts "...land area...
excluding...steep slopes" This would likely exclude counting of the ski area for
density determination.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Yes, steep slopes would be excluded if the design is of a traditional subdivision
lay out. If the subdivision is clustered then steep slopes would be part of the
density calculation.
Comment
Page 112, Section 12.072 - Expiration of building permits - permit expires if project
"is not in existence" within 180 days of issuance. This needs to be clarified.
Does existence mean started, completed or something in between?
Response
In existence means that the footings are in existence and the project is under
construction.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
Study for further consideration.
Comment
Are mixed agricultural uses allowed? The schedule just refers to A,B,C,and D.
Could these farming classifications be explained as they relate to the zoning.
RESPONSE
The classifications of farm land are related to more intense zones, it was a transitional
kind of classification so that if you are in an area that is large lot zoning that,
for agriculture and you don't have neighbors on 5,000 square feet lots you could
do anything to the farming. As you got into the more populated zones then there
are restrictions placed on the point where you could have a garden but you couldn't
have hogs, and that is where the classifications come in.
TOWN BOARD ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Ordinance reads as follows:
Section 7.080 Farm Classification - Because of the diversity of land use in Queensbury
and for purposes of this Ordinance, farms are classified in four (4) categories
(A,B,C,D,) as defined below.
Class A. Any Parcel of land in excess of ten (10) acres used for the raising of
agricultural products of the keeping of poultry, fowl, livestock, small mammals
or domestic animals for commercial purposes, including the necessary farm structures
and the storage of farm equipment.
Class B. (Animals) Any parcel of land less than ten (10) acres, but more than
five (5) acres, used for raising or keeping of livestock, poultry, fowl, small
mammals or domestic animals either for commercial purposes or for personal pleasure
or use.
Class C. (Agricultural) Any parcel of land in excess of five (5) acres used for
the production of agricultural products and especially fresh fruits and vegetables
(as distinguished from grain and other staples) for commercial purposes.
Class 0. Hobby. Any parcel of land less than five (5) acres used for the raising
of agricultural products or keeping of large or small mauueals, poultry, fowl, or
domestic animals for personal use or pleasure and being indicental to residential
use.
Note: In the case of horses and ponies, a minimum of three (3) acres shall be
required for one (1) horse or pony, however, where two (2) or more horses or ponies
are concerned, aminimun of two (2) acres per horse or pony shall be required.
The classifications of farm lands are related to the Zoning Ordinance in that farms
are premitted uses in specific zones. The above regulations relate to the amount
of land required for specific agricultural uses. Nixes uses are allowed and the
greatest use of the property is usually what is considered to classify the farm.
Commment
The FCC regulates satellite T.Y. receivers as of 1986 and local municipalities
have very limited rights as far as regulating them. The new zoning regulates their
location and screening.
Response
The zoing regulations state that satellite dishes are accessory structures and
have to meet the requirement for such structures. Further the regulations for
those is
Section 7.080 Satellite Receiving Antennas
A. Not more than one satellite dish antenna shall be allowed on any lot.
B. All satellite dish antennas shall be properly anchored as determined by the
building inspector.
C. The construction and installation of satellite dish antennas shall conform
to all applicable building codes and other regulations and requirements.
0. Satellite dish antennas shall be adequate grounded.
E. Subject to the provisions contained herein, satellite dish antennas shall be \
located only in the rear yard of any lot. If a usable satellite signal cannot
be obtained from such rear yard, the antenna may be located on the side yard 4.
of the property subject to the requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
In the event that a usable satellite signal cannot be obtained by locating
the antenna on the rear side yard of the property, such antenna may be placed
on the roof of the dwelling structure.
F. Satellite dish antennas shall be designed and located to minimize visual impact
on adjacent property and roadways. The color of the antenna should blend in
with its surroundings.
G. A landscape evergreen planting screen shall be provided for any ground mounted
satellite dish antenna to screen it from the view of adjacent lots and public
view.
H. A satellite dish antenna greater than three (3) feet in diameter shall comply
with the setback requirements of a principal use or structure in the zone in
which it is located. A satellite dish less than three (3) feet in diameter
shall comply with the setback requirements of an accessory use or structure
in the zone in which it is located except that it shall not be located less
than ten (10) feet from any property line or easement.
I. A ground-mounted satellite dish antenna shall not exceed a grade height of
twelve (12).
J. Wiring between a ground-mounted satellite dish antenna and a receiver shall
be placed beneath the surface of the ground.
K. Roof-mounted satellite dish antennas shall not be mounted on chimneys, towers,
spires or trees. The antenna shall be placed below the ridge line of the roof.
The Town has been in touch with the FCC and they have indicated to us that FCC
regulations do not supersede local regulations. We feel that the regulations in
141
this matter are fair and reasonable.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
No action taken at this time, requesting further review.
C. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Comment
Dose the division of property in an estate settlement become a subdivision and
necessitate Planning Board review. Are there situations where the property could
be divided (i.e. family estates) where it woluld be a subdivision of property but
not for the essential purposes of the ordinance.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The only time it becomes a subdivision is if you want to sell part of that property,
or if you wanted to develop that property with two or more uses.
The purpose behind a subdivision is if you want to have defined parcels that you
are going to sell or manage differently not as a partnership; it has to be subdivided.
If you are going to sell off part of that land it has to be subdivided. If you
are just saying you have a big chunk of land and giving half of it to your brother
but it will be operated the same and functioning the same as it is now, you do
not have to subdivide it.
The devinition of Subdivision in the Ordinance reads:
Subdivision- means a devision of land into two (2) or more lots, parcels or sites,
whether adjoining or not, for the purpose of sale, lease, license or any form of
separate ownership or occupancy by any person or by any other person controlled
by, under coon control with any such person or group of persons acting in concert
as part of a common scheme or plan. Provided, however, that this shall not aply
to conveyances of small amounts of land to correct a boundary of a lot so long
as such conveyance does not create additional lots. For the purpose of these regulations,
a condominium shall be reviewed as a subdivision.
Comment
We are presently zoned for 3 acres and we sold a parcel of five acres. The new ,
zoning is ten acres. Can the person who bought the property still build.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Yes. The lot is considered to be a preexisting nonconforming lot of record and
as such is grandfathered.
Comment
What is going on in the Town of Queensbury has impacts on the surrounding communities,
and we need a policy of regional planning.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Town of Queensbur does not have any y jurisdictional rights in any other caummity.
It is, however, the philosophy of the Town to work with other communities on issues
of mutual interest and those having mutual impacts.
Comment
I own two lots, one directly behind the other. My intention was to build on each
lot. I have my home on one lot now.
Response
If the property has a mutual boundary and has constructed a building on one then
the two nonconforming lots become one conforming lot with one principal use, if
they are in the ownership of a single individual.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
142
Requested Town Attorney to review.
Comment
More detail in necessary at sketch plan and there is no distinction between different
types of information necessary at different levels of submission. Street standards
are not clear either.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Subdivision Regulations have been improved in this area. Requirements for
submissions at various levels of review have been spelled out in more detail.
The street standards have been reviewed by the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent
and have been revised in accordance with their recommendations.
Comment
I have questions and I would like clarifications. Several pages that I would just
bring to your attention. Page 2 of the regulations, require a map of a survey
including the layout of the proposed subdivision prepared by a licensed professional
land surveyor, licensed professional engineer, or landscape architect. Page 3-7,
sketch drainage plan, prepared by a P.E. Why a P.E., and how else with exemption
or landscape architect? page 9-2, A copy of a survey of subject roadway certified
contractor, the engineer, the developer?
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The regulations have been modified based on the comment. They now read:
The applicant shall submit fourteen (14) copies of a sketch plan for a parcel of
land which has not been clearcut within five (5) years. Such subdivision sketch
plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer, licensed professional
land surveyor with properly executed New York State Education Department Exemption
M or Licensed landscape architect.
Drainage Report
A Drainage Report shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer or a licensed
landscape architect. Such drainage report shall be prepared in accordance with
the design standards established under Section VIII, Design Standards, of these
regulations.
A certificate of the licensed engineer and/or land surveyor making such plan to
the effect that the plan is correct and made from an actual survey. License number
and seal of the engineer and land surveyor shall be affixed to the drawing.
Comment
Page 23E1 where an existing sanitary sewer is within 1,000 feet of the subdivision,
the developer shall extend it to accommodate the proposed subdivision. All elements
of the system must be approved by both the Sewer District of Warren County and
the Town of Queensbury. Under the zoning regulations, say two lots is a subdivision,
therefore the reason that I ask this question, it is not impossible to believe
that the individual who owns property on the corner of Dixon Road and Peggy Ann
having a large lot and building, wishing to subdivide that would be obligated by
the regulations to hook into the Reservoir Park Sewer District. I do not believe
that is the intent—this should be clarified.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This has been rewritten to indicate the developer within 1,000 feet of an existing
sanitary sewer must submit a request to extend the sanitary sewer.
Comment
Page 22 E, it is talking about surface flow on streets, shall be limited to a maximum
of 350 feet and discharge shall be carried to a stream with bed and bank. I think
that needs clarification.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This has been rewritten:
143
Surface flow on streets shall be limited to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350)
feet and discharge shall be sheet drained away from the street or directed to a
detention basin and then discharged into a natural drainage way.
Comment
Beginning on page two Article 2, Section 1, it isn't spelled out all that clearly
what level of detail the sketch plan should be relative to the preliminary plan
and the final plan.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This has been done.
Comment
On page 6, Article 2, Section 3, it indicates that a final subdivision application
must be made within six months after the approval of the preliminary plan. In
some cases that may not be --in many municipalities the period for that is a year,
the approval of a preliminary plan is often good for a year, six months may not
be enough, for a developer to take all the steps and do everything that should
do done property.
Response
It is felt that six months is adequate. If not, there can be a agreement between
the Planning Board and the subdivider to extend the time period.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
This has ben changed so that preliminary plat approval is good for one year.
Comment
One of the goals of your subdivision regulations is to preserve the rural character
of the Town, by establishing standards for streets that are more suitable toward
an urbanized area you may be detracting from the rural or residential character
of the Town. These have to do with maximizing the number of building sites above
the grade of the roads that intersections with streets must continue at a right
angle to the street for one hundred feet before starting a turn. That subdivision •
of twenty or more lots require two connections to two streets or a double width
entry street. The standards for fill heights and for slopes the distance of guard
rails the radius for cul-de-sacs at the end of dead end streets and the lot run
offs or strom water run off on streets into lots instead of being inflexible standards
these should be recommendations that, deviations could be allowed under certain
circumstances.
ACCEPTED COMMENT
Street standards have been developed by the Highway Superintendent, Town Engineer,
and Town Board and are felt to met the needs of the community while providing for
the health and safety of the citizens.
D. NATURAL RESOURCES
Comment
Hudson River Several areas along the Hudson River deserve better protection.
Much of the shoreline is virtually undeveloped and should be upgraded to WR-3 to
preserve it as unspoiled. In particular, the wetland areas along the river, especially
at Clendon Brook, should be protected. This is consistent with the proposed rezoning
of other wetlands and shorelines in town.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This area of the Hudson River is already designated a flood prone area as indicated
on the National Flood Plain Insurance Maps and, as such, has inherent development
limitations. The areas along the Hudson River are consistently zoned with those
i
144
properties north of the zone line. However, the Development Suitability Map indicates
that the peninsula is a low development suitability area and in accordance with
this rating a change to 3 acres per principle dwelling unit will take place.
Comment
West Mountain The slopes on the face of West Mountain should be all zoned LC-10
are since they are far too steep to support development. Most slopes this steep,
i.e. French Mountain, are zoned this strictly. Flatter areas, such as Tuthill
Road, are appropriate at 5 acres. The ski area and the area west of it are zoned
at 3 acres and are the only mountain areas in town not zoned for 5 or 10 acres.
This inconsistency should be eliminated, as there is no rational basis for it.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE --~
There are two factors which entered into the zoning of West Mountain. First is
the fact that clustering is going to be encouraged in this area. Secondly, the
other steep sloped areas referred to are inside the Adirondack Park. In developing
the criteria for rezoning, it was decided that land inside the Park would be more
restrictively zoned than lands with similar characteristics outside the Park.
This was done because of the special regulations involved in changing densities
within the Park, and also because many of the development constraints within the
Park are not applicable outside the Park.
Comment
The stream corridor setbacks should be changed, under hard surface fill, Section
7.001C of the Zoning Ordinance form 50 ft. to 75 ft. pending development of stream
corridor management regulations.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
This change will provide for greater stream protection and will be instituted.
Comment
Wetlands To reduce conflicts between Town zoning and DEC wetlands protection rules,
all DEC mapped wetlands (12.4 areas or more) should be rezoned to 3 or more acre
lots. This will reduce the common problem of a purchaser believing that the zoning ---
allows intensive development, only to find out that this is prohibited by State
Law. Such zoning would allow,houses. to be built near, but not in, the wetlands.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
An officially designated wetlands map, an upgraded ordinance, and development of
zoning map overlays will accomplish the goals of protecting the property purchaser
and the wetlands.
Comment
Stormwater Runoff The stormwater runoff standards should clearly require that
flows be attenuated so that there will be no net increase in flows offsite due
to the development. There should also be a provision that pollutants from streets,
homes, etc.., be prevented from leaving the site. All projects must have permanent
plans for maintaining these systems.
RESPONSE
The Queensbury conservation Council has been requested to consider developing storm
water runoff standards which will accomplish the aforementioned goals.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Subdivision Ordinance reads as follows:
I. Storm Drainage
1. A storm drainage plan must be approved by the Planning Board encompassing
all drainage elements for the drainage of the Subdivision, areas feeding
the Subdivision, and areas 'downstream' from the subdivision. Said Plan
should be submitted with evidence of the use of acceptable engineering
standards.
In designing for storm drainage the Mater Pollution Control Federation
Manual of Practice on Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers
and other good engineering practices if approved may be accepted by the
Town, shall be used as a guide.
Drainage plans and facilities, in any new development shall be designed
with the goal of minimizing runoff and the potential for any structural
damage due to flooding. For subdivisions greater than four (4) lots,
the rate of runoff from the subdivision shall not be greater than existed
prior to construction.
Drainage patterns and points of storm water discharge from the subdivision
should be the same as before construction. Mater retention or detention
basins should be used when required to maintain pre-construction storm
water dischage rates.
Comment
Scenic Vistas These should be identified and protected by appropriate
setback, land clearing and building height restrictions. These include
the views of Vermont from Bay Road and the view of Prospect Mt. from Quaker
Road
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
A scenic vistas map has been prepared and will be utilized by the Planning Board
in their review of projects.
Comment
Clearcutting The practice of some developers of stripping the land prior to submitting
a site plan application should be outlawed. It is impossible for the Planning
Board to preserve native vegetation in accordance with the site plan review standards
if it has already been destroyed.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
A site work permit will be instituted to deal with this problem. Cutting for surveying
and test holes will be allowed.
Comment
Karner Blue Butterfly According to DEC, this endangered species is found near
the Queensbury School, Potter Road, Dixon Road and the Northway, in remnants of
its rare Pine Barrens habitat. These areas should all be zoned LC or PC, not just
the City Reservoir property.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
Endangered species habitats have been identified on a Resource Map and this will
be utilized by the Planning Board in determining appropriateness of development
in specific areas.
Much of this area has been greatly down zoned. A large percent of this area of
Town has been designated Parkland Recreation 10 acres and Plarklnad Recreation
42 acres.
Comment
Cronin/Bay Roads Area This area has a very high water table and is unsuitable
for development. This includes the Halfway Brook Corridor between Quaker and Cronin
and the lowlying area now mainly occupied by the Bay Meadows course. It should
be zoned for at least a 3 acre minimum, consistent with similar areas elsewhere.
Because it is now mostly woods, wetlands and golf course, the impact of this change
on the landowners will be minimal.
Response
146
The Bay Meadows area has been down zoned substantially to 1 acre and the sewer
district being expanded to that area should accommodate this intensity of development.
TOWN BOARD RESPONSE
Requested that Lee York further research the Cronin/Bay Road area.
Comment
Wetland GF-23 This wetland is located west of Bay Road, and south of the Baybridge
Townhouses. Although Baybridge has already encroached upon it, it provides flood
control for the Bay Meadows Golf Course, wildlife habitat and protects the water
quality of its stream, which is a tributary of Halfway Brook. It is currently
zoned UR-5. It should be rezoned to a land conservation or rural residential classification
or else pressure to develop it will be intense, particularly since sewers will
soon be built on Bay Road.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The zoning in this area is appropriate given the sewer district expansion in the
area. The zoning is MR-5. The Planning Board will have the Environmental Resources
Maps to aid in the locating development.
E. MISCELLANEOUS
Comment
Bike Paths In order to protect the Warren County Bike Trail and (hopefully) future
bike paths from the intrusions of development, they should be included within the
list of resources protected by the shoreline standards, or similar rules designating
setbacks and limiting land clearing should be imposed.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Conservation Committee has been requested to consider future bike routes and
prepare proposals for the Town Board.
Comment `
My next comment I will direct toward the Advisory Board and I wish you to know
how sincerely I thank you as a private citizen for all of your efforts the hundreds
of countless hours that you have put into this project which I know is not easy.
I can't even imagine doing it myself and being objective about all the factors
involved.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
The Town of Queensbury applauds the efforts of the citizens on the Advisory Committee
and gratefully acknowledges their selfless dedication in preparation of the Zoning
and Subdivision Law.
Comment
Is there a proposal to widen Main Street and if so is there a time table for it.
ACCEPTED RESPONSE
There is currently no time table for widening nay of the Town Road. The Commercial
Residential zone in that area has been devised to allow for larger setbacks for
commercial establishments. Part of the reasoning for this was that Main Street
is a major Town artery and would in the future probably require widening. This
is in line with good long term community planning and traffic concerns.
OTHER ITEMS AGREED TO:
1. Subdivision Regulations, page 8 Landscape Plan for subdivision greater than
10 lots.
2. Subdivision Regulations, page 21 Public Streets, certified check and or letter
of credit.
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen M. Dougher, Town Clerk