1990-03-20
,~
'~
-./
QUEENSBURY PLARlUNG BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR. MEETING
MARCH 20TH, 1990
INDEX
R~comm~ndation for Petition P7-89
for a Change of Zone
Sit~ Plan No. 11-90
Sit~ Plan No. 9-90
Sit~ Plan No. 62-89
Sit~ Plan No. 77-89
Sit~ Plan No. 17-90
Georg~ L. Sicard 1.
Charl~s o. Sicard
Karolyn W. Smith 4.
Christopher C. and 5.
Lori L. Cart~
Douglas Mab~y 7.
Scott McLaughlin 12.
J. Paul Barton 17.
d/b/a Docksid~r R~staurant
Sit~ Plan No. 18-90
Aviation Road D~v. Corp.
Carl Rls Caf~
36.
Subdivision No. 5-1990
W. Eric and Carri~ Wil~y
44.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECTED TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
"--
QUEENSBORY PLARHING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 20TH, 1990
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTSs CHAIRMAN
PETER CARTIER
CONRAD KUPILLAS
NICHOLAS CAlMANO
MEMBERS ABSENT
CAROL PULVERs SECRETARY
JAMES HAGAN
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT
JOHN GORALSKIs PLANNER
OLD BUSINESS:
RECOMMENDATION FOR PETITION FOR A CHARGE OF ZONE P7-89 GEORGE L. SICARD CHARLES
O. SICARD SOUTH SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD, LAKE SHORE ACRES PRESENT ZONING: 3
ACRES PROPOSED ZONING: 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 43-1-24.1
MICHAEL MULLER
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d this is a r~comm~ndation by th~ Planning Board to th~ Town
Board for any r~zoning matt~rs. This is a r~zoning that w~ had se~n and approv~d
s~v~ral months agos but som~thing' s happ~ns in th~ m~antim~s to bring it back
to our att~ntion. Johns do you want to try to ~xplain wh~r~ w~ stand on this?
.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated as you can s~~ by th~ map that's attach~d to th~ applications
th~r~ is a small p iec~ of prop~rty that I s surround~d by th~ larger p iec~ that
was pr~viously approveds thatls own~d by G~org~ Sicard and G~org~ Sicard has
r~qu~sted to b~ includ~d in th~ r~zoning of th~ prop~rty. He is curr~ntly WR-3A.
H~ would lik~ to be chang~d to WR-IA.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~ds that's that 24.3?
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d thatls right.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I had 24.2.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d that's along th~ road.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d we do hav~ som~ conflicts h~r~. I thought this cam~ back for
th~ 24.2.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I'm sorrys 24.2s th~ on~ along th~ road.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~ds is the on~?
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d is G~org~ Sicard's property.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d now explain to us about th~s~ 24.3s 24.4 and so forth and th~
other 5 parc~ls down in th~ corn~r.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated th~ fiv~ parcels down in th~ corn~r s last w~~k I b~liev~ it
was s our offic~ and th~ Zoning Administrator I s offic~ rec~iv~d a r~vision to the
tax map from the Warr~n County R~al Prop~rty Offic~. It seems separat~ de~ds
w~r~ fil~d for th~se fiv~ lots s subdividing th~m out from th~ original 24.1 and
ther~ was no subdivision approval.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~ds he hasnlt com~ b~for~ this Board for subdivision approval?
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d that's corr~ct.
1
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~d s these lots s at this stag~ s cO'Uld not get building approval s
building permits b~caus~ th~y don't front on a Town road?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated thatls corr~ct.
MR. CARTIER-Askeds ar~ th~y 1 acr~ in siz~?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated no.
MR. CARTIER-Askeds they'r~ not ~v~n on~ acr~ in siz~s ar~ they?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated no.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated theylr~ appar~ntly nonconforming in s~v~ral resp~cts. It se~ms
to throw a lot of mud in th~ wat~r h~r~. Is th~re anyone h~re repres~nting Mr.
Sicard tonight?
MR. MULLER-Stat~d good ~v~ning. For the records 11m Micha~l Muller.
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~ds Mikes did you get a chanc~ to g~t the Staffls R~port?
MR. MULLER-Stat~d I'm aware of it. I r~pr~s~nt th~ two Mr. Sicards this ~v~ning.
This has b~en a long standing r~quest b~for~ th~ Town tos basicallys allow it
to go from 3 acres back to one acr~ and 1111 comm~nt about the r~c~nt subdivision
in just a mom~nt. I point~d out b~for~ the Towns when the Town was ready to approve
this ors I assume the Town was going to approv~ it. Th~r~ was no opposition to
what w~ r~qu~st~d. Mr. Georg~ Sicardls parc~ls th~ tini~st of th~ twos wh~r~
h~ has his boat shops was not included within th~ public notic~ss public hearing
and all that and they justs certainlys couldn't chang~ th~ zoning without including
it. SOs w~ w~nt all the way back to squar~ One and throughout the considerations
on why this ought to be 3 acres or 1 acre or all of the zoning changes s I did
k~ep th~ Town posteds sent letterss said I r~pr~s~nt th~ two Mr. Sicardss basically
took th~ position it was unfair to hav~ th~m bound~ds on on~ sid~s by on~ acr~
lotss bound~d on th~ oth~r sid~ by on~ acr~ lotss bound~d across th~ road by on~
acr~ zoning ands of cours~s Gl~n Lak~ is th~ fourth sid~ and tos basicallys call
th~m 3 acr~s. No on~ I s told m~ this s but I b~liev~ s basically s what happen~d
with Gl~n Lak~ was that th~y looked at th~ larg~r tracts of own~rship and pr~sum~ds
as w~' r~ all busy looking at th~ whol~ Towns that th~s~ must be larg~ parcels s
wh~n in r~ality s although Charli~ Sicard owns a nic~ siz~d pi~c~ of prop~rty on
GI~n Lakes I beli~v~ it has 11 or 12 hous~s on its and so I think it is appropriat~
to allow it to b~ one acr~ zoning. I think thats as d~nsity go~ss it IS probably
max~d out anyway becaus~ of the 11 or 12 hous~s that ar~ on th~r~s but it mak~s
s~nse to allow it to be on~ acr~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d all of which w~ agreed with.
MR. MULLER-Stat~d y~s. Now w~ hav~ th~ lat~st wrinkle and th~ latest wrinkl~ s
I don't know if I'm happy to say or whats but I ~xplained to Charlie that I didn't
think that h~ could accomplish whats I truly know was his estat~ plan all along.
I m~an for y~arss h~Is b~~n t~lling m~ what h~ wants to do is transfer th~ homes
that h~ has giv~n his childr~n into his childr~n I s nam~s and h~ w~nt to John
Fitzg~ralds the attorn~y John Fitzgeralds and John just did five d~~ds and this
will accomplish it. I think that John had all of the consid~rations in mind that
Charli~ had ~xplain~d to hims tax considerationss the ~stat~ plan consid~rations.
I think h~ forgot On~ major on~s that has to do with th~ Town of Qu~~nsbury.
SOs imm~diat~lys wh~n I got wind of its Charli~ gav~ m~ on~ of thos~ nic~ littl~
blu~ l~tt~rs that saids and I think it was from Pat Collards said this is its
quit~ succinctlys your ass is grass. H~ cam~ to m~ and he saids what is its br~ad
and wat~r?s and I said pr~tty much. I said I donlt b~liev~ that you can do what
you did and I f~~l certain that you've got to undo it. SOs h~Is definitely in
th~ proc~ss of undoing it. Undoing it might m~an h~ III go through the numb~rs
and ...for a variance b~caus~ they ar~ und~rsiz~d lots and h~ can prov~ a hardship
and g~t subdivision approval. I would hop~ that it do~sn I t add to what mak~s
this proj~ct doabl~ h~re to allow it to be on~ acr~ and it do~sn I t d~tract from
it. It I s just changing th~ zonings ands as far as an illegal subdivisions this
plan's simply an ill~gal subdivision and it's going to have to b~ corr~cteds of
r~cords and th~n go back to squar~ on~ on that on~ ands I assum~s Mr. Fitzg~rald
is going to do thats but I cam~ her~ this ~vening to sp~ak for the two Mr. Sicards
becaus~ Charli~ was unabl~ to mak~ it and Georg~ is in Florida.
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~d s is it r~asonable to ~xpect us to act on the r~zoning until
we g~t som~ of the details clarifi~d?
2
'--'
~
MR. MULLER-Stat~d I think it is and I III t~ll you whys b~caus~ th~ Town Boards
you're making a r~commendation to th~ Town Board s and the Town Board may v~ry
well ~xp~ct th~ same thing. You t~ll m~ s how, do~s it diminish it s in any ways
to chang~ th~ zoning if h~' s got som~ ill~gal subdividing going on th~re sand
I 1m t~lling you on th~ r~cord that h~ I s going to conform with th~ r~quir~m~nts'
of the Zoning Ordinanc~? In fact s I can t~ll you that s wh~n I spoke to Charli~
about its h~ said to m~s Mik~s I didnlt giv~ any d~~ds. What I did was I gav~
my childr~n ~quitabl~ own~rships in this prop~rty. H~ says I 'm sur~ I didn't
giv~ d~~ds. I said Charli~s I'm positiv~ you gave d~~ds. You knows I think h~
was r~ally confus~d about what h~ was doing. H~ c~rtainly didn I t int~ntionally
violat~ th~ Ordinanc~s but I'm standing h~r~ t~lling you h~ did violat~ it and...
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d I just don I t think w~ can act on it until this is clear~d up
b~caus~ I don' t lik~ to s~t pr~c~d~nts h~r~ and I think w~ I d b~ doing that. I
und~rstand Mr. Sicard's position. I und~rstand your positions but I r~ally think
this n~eds to b~ cl~ar~d up b~for~ w~ can go back to squar~ on~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I was going to say s as a g~n~ral policy s w~ do not lik~ to
mak~ approvals subj~ct to a lot of things.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ have no quarr~l with your...rezoning.
MR. MULLER-Stat~d yess I knows and that's th~ way it's b~~n sinc~ 1987. I m~ans
wh~n w~ start~d thiss I start~d out with L~~ York. I said L~~s this is kind of
silly to hav~ 3 acr~s whil~ h~ I S bound~d on on~s on~s and one. Sh~ saids you
know s you I r~ right. W~ I 11 tak~ car~ of that. Spok~ to T~d Turn~r about it s oh
y~ahs you'r~ right. We'll tak~ car~ of that and this thingls b~~n going sinc~
1987 and now we' v~ got anoth~r good r~ason why we shouldn't do it. Mayb~ your
rights which is that w~Ill go back to squar~ on~s but l~tls not go back that far.
MR. CAlMANO-Stat~d w~ can tabl~ that.
MR. MULLER-Stat~d y~s, tabl~ its but l~tls not have
public h~arings. I mean nobody ~v~r com~s and obj~cts.
som~ mor~ advertising and
This is crazy.
MS. CORPUS-Stated actually Mr. Muller is corr~ct. This Board is just making a
r~comm~ndation for som~ l~gislativ~ action th~ Town Board will or will not tak~.
Th~ issu~s h~r~s is wh~th~r th~ crit~ria for r~zoning has changed at all, whichs
in itself, is not r~lat~d to the illegal subdivision issu~s. This Board will
just b~ making a r~comm~ndation to the Town Board whos ultimat~ly, will take that
l~gislativ~ action which they could dos with or without both Mr. Sicards permission.
Itls my r~comm~ndation to th~ Board that that issu~ of th~ r~zoning b~ tak~n car~
of. It would b~ within th~ Board I s discr~tion to mak~ a r~comm~ndation or not
and to r~comm~nd to th~ Town Board that no l~gislativ~ action be tak~n until th~
subdivision issu~ is r~solved.
MR. CAlMANO-Askeds ~v~n if w~ chang~d th~ zonings they'd still have to com~ back
h~r~ for subdivision approval?
MS. CORPUS-Stat~d corr~ct.
MR. MULLER-Stat~d I think he's got to g~t a varianc~ first.
MR. CAlMANO-Stat~d right.
h~r~ for th~ subdivision.
Ev~ntually s thoughs th~ subdivid~r has to com~ back
MS. CORPUS-Stat~d and they still hav~ to convinc~ th~ Town Board to actually do
th~ r~zoning.
MR. MULLER-Stat~d th~r~' s n~v~r b~~n any opposition.
wows this isnlt straight
Wh~n I saw this s I w~nt
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d my conc~rn is not th~ possibility of opposition. I think that
issu~ls b~~n addr~ss~d. It just bothers m~ that w~Ir~ doing things out of s~quenc~
h~r~. I IV~ s~~n that happ~n b~for~, w~ 'v~ mad~ som~ ~xc~ptions ands all of a
sudd~ns th~ sam~ thing shows up s bas~d on th~ fact that w~ made th~ ~xc~ptions
and I'm both~r~d by that.
MR. MULLER-Stat~d agains I'm not trying to assign blam~ as much as 11m trying
to d~scrib~ what happened. Mayb~ Mr. Fitzg~rald doesn I t know th~ r~quir~m~nts
of th~ Zoning Ordinance b~caus~ I sur~ly wouldn I t hav~ l~t five de~ds fly on
som~thing
3
'-"
lik~ that. 1111 mak~ a r~pr~s~ntation h~r~ that w~'ll undo th~ fiv~ d~~ds within
th~ n~xt two we~ks. Nows I could do it tomorrows but I can't. It's not my fil~s
not my activity. I I d quickly fir~ off a lett~r to Mr. Fitzg~rald and chang~ it
and som~on~ told m~ that h~ show~d up in th~ Planner' s Offic~ making inquir~s
and all that. Could you giv~ us approval conting~nt upon just r~storing th~
property back into Mr. Sicard's name?
MR. CARTIER-Stated wh~n I g~t into th~s~ things, I always ask myselfs whatls gain~d
and what's lost.
MR. MULLER-Stated w~lls 1111 t~ll you whatls gain. You'v~ got th~ guy in total
complianc~ within th~ next two w~eks, that is wh~n Mr. Sicard will r~stor~ it
and totally undo it. Th~r~'s no ~nforc~m~nt asp~cts impos~d upon th~ Towns nothing.
I 'm t~lling you he will do it b~caus~ he told me that he just wants to unwind
it and start from square on~s but her~ I 1m r~pr~s~nting to you h~ III do it in
the n~xt 14 days. It would be my int~ntion to call m~ Fitzgerald and say canc~l
th~ d~~dss put th~ prop~rty back th~ way it was b~for~ w~ had thes~ conv~yanc~s.
MR. CAlMANO-Stat~d fourt~~n days is neith~r h~r~ nor th~re b~caus~ we ~ith~r
r~commend to th~ Town Board
MR. MULLER-Stated itls n~v~r going to go befor~ th~ Town Board in th~ n~xt fourt~~n
days.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ll s w~ don I t hav~ to let it lay th~re. I think w~ could
flag this thing with the Town Board if oth~r things n~ed to b~ don~. We could
flag it with th~ Building D~partm~nts that no building p~rmitss of cours~, I gu~ss
th~ buildings ar~ alr~ady th~r~.
MR. MULLER-Stated they are. Maybe this is .a subdivision that is worthy of approvals
but tonight's not th~ night to argu~ why it is.
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds Couns~l is sugg~sting that w~ mov~ thiss ar~nlt you? It's
on~ thing to be getting off our back.
MR. MULLER-Stat~d and I thought I sw~~t~n~d it by sayings mak~ a condition that
h~Is got to cl~an it up. I think h~ can do it quickly. For my fil~s and my d~edss
and my r~al ~state transaction to be undon~ tomorrows I think it IS prof~ssionally
~mbarrassing to be a part of it.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I I d lik~ to g~t something off th~ ag~nda, if it' s Couns~l IS
r~commendation.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I can liv~ with it.
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PETITION FOR A CHARGE OF ZONE P7-89 GEORGE L. SICARD
CHARLES O. SICARD, Introduced by Peter Carti~r who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d
by Nicholas Caimano:
That this Board recommends that th~ zoning chang~ b~ approv~d with th~ stipulation
that th~ l~galities conc~rning th~ subdivision of property b~ cl~an~d up b~for~
any final approval of th~ zon~ chang~ b~ granted by th~ Town Board.
Duly adopt~d this 20th day of March, 1990s by the following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagans Mrs. Pulv~r
SITE PLAN NO. 11-90 TYPE II WR-1A KAROLYN W. SMITH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH
ON CLEVERDALE ROAD, SECOND LEFT ON HILLMAN ROAD, PROPERTY AT JUNCTURE OF HILLMAN
AND LAKE SERVICE ROAD FOR AN ADDITION OF A COVERED WHARF CONFORMING WITH QUEENSBORY
AND LGPC REGULATIONS FOR USE BY OWNER ONLY. (WARREN COUNTY PLARHING) TAX MAP
NO. 8-12-34.2 LOT SIZE: 0.557 ACRES SECTION 4.020-D
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from John Goralskis Plann~r (attach~d)
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d th~ application was forward~d to th~ Warren County Planning
Board wh~r~ it was approv~d. Qu~stions hav~ come up with regard to th~ varianc~s
4
"--'
-...-'
and p~rmits that w~r~ r~quir~d. Th~r~'s a l~tt~r h~re to the Planning Board from
L~e York (on file). Lett~r from Pat Collards Zoning Administrator to L~~ York
(on fil~)
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d th~ Smiths ar~n't her~. I gu~sss if you'r~ familiar with th~
proj~cts I donlt know wheth~r itls nec~ssary to mak~ anoth~r pr~sentation. Maybe
I'll r~f~r to Pet~r. You s~~med to hav~ a probl~m with this befor~s but I think
youlre qu~stion.
MR. CARTIER-Stated y~s s I 1m satisfi~d.
chang~s that that w~ r~quest~d.
I appr~ciat~ that th~ applicant mad~ th~
MR. CAlMANO-Stat~d the Warren County Planning Board approved it.
hav~ one mor~ than four
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d we can't overrid~ its you'r~ right.
If w~ donlt
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-90 KAROLYN W. SMITH, Introduced by P~t~r Carti~r
who moved for its adoptions s~conded by Nicholas Caimano:
Th~ applicant has mad~ the chang~s w~r~ request~d.
Duly adopt~d this 20th day of Marchs 1990, by th~ following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Carti~rs Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagans Mrs. Pulver
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I probably k~pt th~ public h~aring op~ns didn I t I. Just in
cas~s is th~r~ someon~ h~r~ who car~s to comment on this? I'll clos~ th~ public
h~arings all of which is out of order.
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
SITE PLAN NO. 9-90 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A CHRISTOPHER C. AND LORI L. CARTE OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE NORTHERLY SIDE OF LUZERNE ROAD, APPROX. 400 FT. WEST OF THE STEPIlAHIE
LANE, LUZERNE ROAD INTERSECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO FAMILY APARTMENT HOUSE.
TAX MAP NO. 121-4-7.1 LOT SIZE 2.88 ACRES SECTION 4.020-G
RUSSELL SCUDDER
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from Stuart G. Bak~rs Assistant Plann~r (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Not~s by Wayne Gann~tts Town Engine~r (attached)
MR. ROBERTS- Ask~d s (r~f~rring to Engin~~r R~port) does som~body want to ~xp lain
th~ diff~r~nce b~twe~n absorption b~ds and absorption tr~nches to m~s quickly?
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d in an absorption tr~nchs a conv~ntional l~aching syst~m in
a r~sid~ntial houses th~ pip~s ar~ laid in an individual tr~nch built of grav~l.
So s th~r~ I s an interfac~ b~twe~n th~ grav~l and th~ crush~d stone on th~ bottom
and on both sid~s of th~ tr~nch. In an absorption b~ds an ~ntir~ ar~a is excavat~d
outs fill~d with crushed stone and th~n th~ pipes ar~ laid in that bed of crush~d
ston~. Th~ r~ason why an absorption trench is consider~d pr~ferabl~ wh~r~ th~r~Is
rooms th~r~'s more ar~a for th~ septic waste to s~ep into the ground at the junction
b~tw~en the gravel and the native ground b~caus~ you have th~ sides and th~ bottom
of each individual trench.
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~ds do you usually use a bed when youlr~ putting...pr~ssur~?
MR. SCUDDER-Stated Russell Scudder s Scudder Associates s here on b~half of Mr.
and Mrs. Carte. We have no problem with that. We hav~...that th~re's plenty
of room. In the future.. .most times on. .with DEC on thes~ absorption tr~nches.
We I d be happy to change it to absorption trenches s if that' s th~ pref~rence.
Althoughs I should make one comm~nt here and that is that ther~ is pl~nty of spac~
ands in backs the beds are oversized on th~ drawings purposely.
5
,--,'
MR. ROBERTS-Stated as I recalls it's a pretty good sized lot. We'r~ not r~ally
pressed for room h~re.
MR. SCUDDER-Stated right. Itls well over 3 acres.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked s do you have a problem withs if you have to redo a map or
somethings changing the design? Can you sign off on that?
MR. GANNETT-Stated w~ hav~ no probl~m with approving it, just have a revis~d s~t
of drawing for the files if that's acceptable to the Board.
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds Board how do you feel.
MR. CAlMANO-Stat~d that's no problem.
MR. CARTlER-Askeds are w~ talking fi 11 systems out h~res too?
MR. GANNETT-Stated no.
MR. CARTIER-Askeds the perc rate is such that we donlt ne~d to slow it down?
MR. GANNETT-Stated nos we have percolation rat~s ranging from 1 to 1 and thr~e
quart~rs minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CAlMANO-Askeds do we need a SEQRA?
MR. ROBERTS-Stated wells I hoped we had done SEQRAs but I gu~ss I donlt remember.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d I would r~commends since I wasn't here at th~ last meetings
that you review the Short Environmental Assessment Form to determine if there IS
any impact.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO.9-90s Introduced by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoptions
seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
WHEREAS, th~r~ is present ly before this Planning Board:
for construction of a two family apartment houses and
the unlisted site plan
WHEREASs this Planning Board has d~t~rmin~d that th~ propos~d proj~ct and Planning
Board action is subj~ct to r~vi~w und~r th~ Stat~ Environm~ntal Quality R~vi~w
Acts
NOW s THEREFORE s BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No f~d~ral ag~ncy appears to b~ involv~d.
2. Th~ following agencies ar~ involv~d:
Non~
3. Th~ propos~d action consid~r~d by this Board is unlist~d in th~ Departm~nt
of Environm~ntal Cons~rvation R~gulations impl~m~nting th~ Stat~ Environm~ntal
Quality R~vi~w Act and th~ r~gulations of th~ Town of Qu~~nsbury.
4. An Environmental Ass~ssm~nt Form has b~~n compl~t~d by th~ applicant.
5. Having consid~red and thoroughly analyzed the r~l~vant ar~as of ~nvironm~ntal
conc~rn and having consid~red the criteria for det~rmining whether a project
has a significant ~nvironmental impact as th~ sam~ is s~t forth in S~ction
617.11 of th~ Official Compilation of Cod~s s Rul~s and R~gulations for th~
Stat~ of N~w Yorks this Board finds that th~ action about to b~ und~rtak~n
by this Board will hav~ no significant ~nvironm~ntal ~ffect and th~ Chairman
6
--
of th~ Planning Board is h~r~by authoriz~d to ~x~cute and sign and fil~ as
may b~ n~c~ssary a stat~m~nt of non-significanc~ or a n~gativ~ d~claration
that may be r~quir~d by law.
Duly adopt~d this 21st day of Marchs 1990s by th~ following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Carti~rs Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulv~r
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-90 CHRISTOPHER C. AND LORI L. CARTEs Introduc~d
by P~t~r Carti~r who mov~d for its adoptions s~cond~d by Nicholas Caimano:
For construction of a two family apartm~nt hous~ with th~ following stipulations:
That th~ cl~aring plan provid~d b~ adher~d tos that disturb~d ar~as b~ stabilized
upon compl~tion of constructions and that th~ absorption b~ds to b~ provid~d be
~liminat~d and absorption tr~nch~s b~ provid~d and that the applicant submit a
r~vis~d set of drawings r~fl~cting sam~.
Duly adopt~d this 21st day of Marchs 1990s by th~ following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carti~rs Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagans Mrs. Pulv~r
SITE PLAN NO. 62-89 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA DOUGLAS MABEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
BIG BOOM ROAD, ~ MILE SOUTH OF MAIN STREET FOR AN 8,000 SQ. FT. STORAGE AND
WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 12,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLAHHING)
TAX MAP NO. 137-2-4.1 LOT SIZE: 11,066 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N
CHARLES FOSS
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from John Goralskis Plann~r (attach~d)
ENGINEER REPORT
Not~s by Wayn~ Gann~tt, Town Engin~~r (attach~d)
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d and th~ Citiz~ns Committ~~ on Acc~ss for the Handicapp~d agr~~s
with your ass~ssment of th~ handicapp~d parking.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated right.
MR. FOSS-Stat~d my nam~ is Charles Foss with th~ Clav~rack Group. I have b~~n
h~r~ b~for~ r~pr~s~nting Mr. Mab~y. I might tak~ the first part, addr~ssing th~
possible expansion of th~ facility. If w~ may r~m~mb~rs at some times I did com~
h~r~ with an ov~rall view of th~ situation and at that tim~, we d~cided it would
b~ b~tt~r to approach the Board on a, more or l~ss s as n~~d~d basis s wh~re w~
would approach th~ Board as w~ had a r~quir~ment and w~ could tak~ it as it cam~
b~caus~ from our original concept s it was v~ry difficult s and th~ 11 acres s to
proj~ct ~v~rything ahead as to what w~ would want in th~ final analysis and that'ss
more or l~ss s the reasoning that w~ I v~ taken. I f~~l that this is a good on~ s
that Mr. Mab~y do~sn' t know s non~ of us know for sur~ and what w~' r~ trying to
do iss as tim~ go~s ons to accept what th~ r~quir~m~nts ar~s what are n~~ds may
b~ as w~ ~xpand. So, that r~ally is som~thing that w~ decid~d h~r~s som~ tim~
agos on which w~ continu~ to go in that dir~ction. With r~f~r~nc~ to runoff and
th~ p~rcolation testss the f~w questions that ar~ h~r~, I would pr~f~r to answ~r
som~ of th~ms I am not a qualifi~d ~ngin~~r to specifically answers for~xamples
th~ calculations in paragraph 3. What I would pr~f~r to dos w~ met with th~ Town
Engin~er som~ time agos with our engin~~rs what I would ask th~ Board to do is
to p~rhaps giv~ us a conditional approval provid~d that our ~ngin~~r can answ~r
th~s~ qu~stions that th~ Town Engine~r has propos~d. I don I t think th~r~ are
any that w~ cannot ov~rcom~ or that w~ cannot manag~ b~caus~ we c~rtainly have
th~ ability to do its but I am not qualifieds tonights to give you th~ ~xact answer
as to what we should do. Th~ handicapped parkings of cours~, will b~ tak~n car~
of and th~ ~xplanation of how th~ catch basins will manag~ runoff so as not to
7
'"--'"
incr~as~ th~ flows as I m~ntion~d b~for~s I would pr~f~r to tak~ car~ of that
with our ~ngin~~r rather than mys~lf b~caus~ I 'm r~ally not qualified to answ~r
that qu~stion. w~ I v~ don~ consid~rabl~ work in this. We have app~ar~d b~for~
the Board on s~v~ral occasions and hav~ always f~lt thats or at l~ast I hav~ f~lts
that w~ hav~ com~ back to you with th~ answers that you wanted and I would make
that r~qu~st tonight.
MR. CAlMANO-Stat~d I hav~ two things, Mr. Chairman. Numb~r on~, is what Mr. Foss
says tru~s th~ pr~vious m~mb~rs of th~ Board..go through this as it w~nt?
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I was trying to r~fr~sh my m~mory on that. I was going to
ask th~ same qu~stion. Do~s anybody ~ls~ hav~ that recollection. In gen~ral s
I think I would agree.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d yess
that soon we would look
for the entire thing.
it would b~.
I think we did kind of
at an ov~rall conceptual
In other words, if th~
approve it with th~ understanding
plan so we could deal with traffic
whole thing were maxed out, what
MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is not a v~ry thing as part of the total acreag~. Th~
soils are good.
MR. CAlMANO-Stated I guess th~ probl~m is. .with th~ sit~ ands I gu~ss s it I S on~
thing to approve it, lets do it as we gos but the r~st of th~...would just simply
clear. It looks s certainly s if the Planning Board is going to have any kind of
how th~ Town would grows that is not how you Ive proceed~d becauses as you drive
in ther~s franklys it just looks lik~ a whol~ bunch of buildings put up on a pi~ce
of dirt. It isn't suitable to what we p lann~d for this Towns althoughs it may
very well be. W~ just simply donlt know. I hav~ a tough time approving anything
further until we s~~ something beyond what w~'v~ got now.
MR. FOSS-Stated If I mays at the tim~ I cam~ ins it was somewh~r~ in the area
of about a year ago and we had an ov~rall vi~w of it and ther~ were very many
obvious qu~stions came up, of which traffic was on~ of th~m. Drainag~ was anoth~r
and we could not giv~ a realistic answer because we weren't sures ourselves s of
what the future would bes but as we develop the ar~a and we find where we fit
into the community and where our busin~ss becomes a part of that s w~ g~t a much
better handle on what our requir~ments will be and I would say that I probably
would be back to you within about 6 months with an ov~rall concept s firstly s to
get your view of what your concept of it is. At that points w~ will hav~ drainage
calculations and w~ will hav~ traffic studies. Up until nows w~ r~ally didn't
have much of a handle on it.
MR. CAlMANO-Stated I und~rstand that s but I think somebody ne~ds to be paying
attention. For examples traffic..is a very, v~ry big thing th~re becaus~ on the
other side of that bridge is now a traffic light. SOs what has become a traffic
probl~ms nows may becom~ insurmountabl~ when that light turns red. W~ don't know
who's going to be able to get in and out of that parking lot and I would think
before we did anything further on that road, for anybodys we hav~ another traffic
study done and determine what I s going to happ~n on that road when anoth~r group
of cars goes in and out now that we have a traffic light on the other sid~ of
th~ northway, thatls going to change everything thatls happening.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked, you donlt think that's going to help?
MR. CAlMANO-Stat~d nos I think itls going to hurt. I think whatls going to happ~n
iss that instead of having a natural break in traffics we're going to have a natural
line in traffic. It I s going to be very difficult s for examp l~ s to turn left out
of Big Boom Road on to what amounts to Main Street there. It's tough now. You
come out of Carl Rls nows and itls an act of Congress to get out of there. When
we have a traffic light which artificially stops traffic in lines, it I s going
to be worse. I certainlys think we should have someone who is an expert in traffic
tak~ a look at that. I don I t think w~ should be approving anything furth~r on
that road until what.... My s~cond point was s I personally s am against any
conc~ptual with this.. I just think that I s putting too much of a burden on th~
State.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I would tend to agree with that and this is no r~fl~ction on
yous but we don I t hav~ an ~ngine~r to answer th~se questions which would mak~
me more comfortable with what you' re r~questing. So s I think mayb~ we'll table
this until this can b~ answered.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I'd like to clarify. Nicks are you saying you can I t go along
with this without more traffic or l~tls draw th~ line here?
8
'"--"
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I guess I want to draw the line.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated the next question iss where?
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d yess I think I want to draw the lin~ now.
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds you mean before we approv~ this?
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I think lid like to hav~ a traffic study don~ now.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it I S not a v~ry big traffic gen~ration outfit shere s we' r~
talking about. It's not warehousing.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated my point is s Mr. Chairmans that we have changed th~ rules of
the game.. traffic light in there. Mayb~ there's something on th~ drawing boards
now. Johns John Goralskis is there anything that you guys can h~lp us with as
far as anything new on traffic there?
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d I have spok~n with the County DPW and they hav~ b~en working
with State DOT and trying to improv~ the int~rsection on Exit 18 and Main Stre~t.
As you saids I think theylre putting some lights up there now. At this points
ther~ are no improvements p lann~d for the intersection of Big Boom Road and Main
Street. The point I think I was trying to make is that this proposals in its~lf,
most likely will not severely impact that intersection. Howevers that is a light
industrial zone. There is pot~ntial for several large buildings on this site.
You have another application on th~ corner of Big Boom and Main Street that you're
going to look at tonight. There I s a sign across the stre~t s for 20 acres for
sale and I thinks as a 10ng term planning issues the Board iss eventuallys going
to have to address the problem of that int~rsection. I don't know that it I S
appropriat~ at this time to mak~ this applicant do a traffic study that I s going
to cover the ~ntire light industrial zon~ along Big Boom Road. How~vers I think
we, as a Planning Departm~nt and as a Planning Board s have to start looking for
a solution to this problem. This intersection is not the only place that probl~m
exists. There are oth~r places wher~ areas are starting to develop and th~re
are problems at intersections or with th~ width of a roadway. So s I think we
all hav~ to try to solv~ the problems wh~ther it be impact. .or taxes or I'm not
sur~ whats buts as I saids I don't know that this applicant can address the ~ntir~
problem.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated and, going along with that, Nicks wouldnlt it be a littl~ unfair
since we saw this quite a few months ago s wouldn't that hav~ b~~n the time to
have said.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated point well taken. He has a points too.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I think maybe what we can do when w~ do get around to approving
this s is to stipulate that s b~fore we look at anymore expansion out h~r~ s that
the whole picture b~ looked at and Mr. Foss...hels willing to go along with it.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I don't want this applicant to have to pay for th~ sins of
the Town. I just thinks at this points with this things we should..to solidify.
However s I do stand by what I said earlier and that's the fact I I d like to s~~
something conc~ptual with that whole plot. It really isn I t up to any standards
at all.
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds agains before you approve thiss you want to s~e something.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I'd like to se~, and I think you said you're going to give
us that.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think he indicated he was going to give us that down th~
roads but not for this application. We looked at th~ ~ntire parc~l a long time
ands somehow we got discouraged trying to look at th~ whole thing.
MR. FOSS-Stated yess sirs you're quite right. I brought in an overall conc~ption
of it and I had to admits from the beginning, that it was dr~amings thatls about
all it was ands at that point, it's almost a y~ar ago nows we decid~d that w~
should take it on a on~ on one basiss which is the way we hav~.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d but then the whol~ property was cl~ar cut completely.
9
'-"
'--
MR. FOSS-Stated nos that was don~ before hands sir. When I enter~d the pictur~s
th~ prior owner s this did not enter into that controv~rsy of the cutting of the
property.
MR. CARTIER-Stated when you say "we" agre~d to, I assume you are ref~rring to
your organization and not including the Planning Board in that.
MR. FOSS-Stat~d anything that I said "we" agreed to would be my organization.
Y~ss sir. I do mention heres in passings that th~r~ are some of the things that
ar~ r~quired on here. The actual size and location of the system should b~ shown
on the plan. I b~lieve that that is on the plan and the other it~ms that are
on heres I would appreciate your possibly excepting the fact that I will addr~ss
these if I coulds perhapss g~t the conceptual approval. It would be very h~lpful.
I've been here quite a few times and I realize that the qu~stions s some of th~m
have come ups and I would appreciate if something could be reviewed in that matter.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated Waynes we know this to be pretty good soils easy to work with.
Do~s that change things any h~re? W~lls I don't know if itls a qu~stion whether
w~ mak~ him come back again or nots I gu~ss.
MR. GANNETT-Stated if you're asking my opinion as to th~ relative severity of
the comments, I donlt think there's anything in here that really can't b~ readily
addressed. The applicant has proposed a drywell out on the west sid~ which may
very well be adequate for the new runoff for the roof. It I s just not possible
to verify it with the calculations that they have shown. I think calculations
need to b~ expanded and incr~as~d and they may v~ry w~ll have d~alt with th~ issue
of the 18 inch culvert under Big Boom Roads but there simply arenlt calculations
to verify that. I did me~t with Mr. Shriners th~ ~ngineer for th~ applicants
a couple of months ago. We reviewed all thes~ it~ms and he assured me that h~
would address all the comments and I think the effort has be~n mad~s but I think
they need a little bit more work to meet the int~nts but I don't believe the it~ms
her~ ar~ so serious they can It be addr~ssed.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's one.. I guess have to h~ar back
Are you willing to back away s a littl~ bit s from requiring
the ~ntire parcel before we address this issue? Agains
something we should have don~ several months ago?
from yous Nicks too.
overall sit~ plan of
isnlt thats perhapss
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d maybes buts I guess I'm taking my c~e from you and s~v~ral
of the older members who are no long~r her~s in thats this s~~ms to b~ a quantity
of works we donlt even hav~ someon~ here in front of us who can verify that it IS
going to be don~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated actually s I was asking anoth~r question. You indicat~d that
you didn't want to see this mov~ forward until you saw a total sit~ plan.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I guess I I d like to her~ if anybody ~lse f~els as strongly
as I do about it. If the r~st of the Board does not s then I certainly would go
along on that with the wishes of the Board.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it just se~ms to m~s agains that's something that w~ would
have required several months agos not throw at him at this..
MR. CAIMANO-Stated wells ok. Pet~.
MR. CARTIER-Stated all I was going to say is I feel as strongly as you do about
it s but I think w~ I II see it s or we can stipulate that w~ will not see another
sit~ or addition on the property until th~ whole thing is d~alt with next time.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated now, I guess s we have to decide whether we think w~ should
let th~ir engineers satisfy our ~ngin~~rs with th~s~ d~tails or should w~ put
them back on the agenda in the future. I gu~ss Wayne has indicated
that.. . significance h~re. We know th~ property is not a difficult prop~rty to
develop. I don't knows isn't this something we can get off our agenda? How do
you think? Is that your feeling, Waynes that you don't f~~l strongly about this?
MR. GANNETT-Stated I would hav~ no problem if it was the Board's pleasure to do
a contingent approval contingent on addressing these it~mss I would hav~ no problem
because I know that thes~ ar~ all items that can be address~d. Th~ drainag~ s
ess~ntially s does work and the septic system can certainly be installed with the
appropriate details. There are no t~chnical problems that are insoluble for the
site.
10
--'
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it gets down to a matter of philosophy th~n.
Board want to handle this?
How does th~
MR. CARTIER-Stated wh~n I hear the word contingents my spin~ puck~rs. Agains
it I S a qu~stion of what I s gain and what's lost here and my impr~ssion, from this
applications is that it is not a gr~at rush to get anything done her~. We didn't
look at this, almost a y~ar agos and here it iss nows back. I think what we lose
is, again, setting a prec~d~nt and I don't really like contingent approvalss ~v~n
if th~y ar~ s~~mingly a relatively minor thing. We lose something in the planning
process. I guess what 11m suggesting is a tabling.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated y~s s there isn' t on~ thing h~re, there are several things.
They'r~ all littl~ things ands as you says th~re are no insurmountables technical
things anywheres for that matter. At what point do we draw the line? Ther~ ar~
four or five other items on th~ agenda tonight. If all of th~m have attach~d
som~ kind of conceptual approval where it I S after the fact s thens at som~ point s
welre going to be overwhelm~d.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d you're working against yourself. The system I s going to b~
overwhelmed if we keep tabling ~verything and donlt g~t something done.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d w~lls from our standpoints thatls right.
MR. CARTIER-Stated but my assumption is s if we table this s these are items that
ar~ going to be dealt with in less than thr~e minutes at the n~xt...meeting.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I would think so.
MR. FOSS-Stated ther~ is a bit of urgency h~re. It has been quite som~ time since
welve been back to the Board with this and our engineer had discussed it with
your engin~er and we knew that there might be some questions. The tenancy s for
examples of the one half of the new facility is an ~xisting tenant who is just
going to m~rely s kind of s move out into the area and there is urgency on their
part and I didnlt stress that befores but it is quite important that we are abl~
to have an answer and I assure yous I understand why you don I t like th~ idea of
the contingency. Howevers I haves in good faiths com~ to the Board now. This
wil1 be the third occasion. It may ~ven be th~ fourth and at th~ first one is
when w~ had the whol~ concept and it became obvious to us that this just wouldn't
work. Th~n I came back with the second concept and I feel that I hav~ approach
the Board with good faith and would continu~ to do so. SOs I think I would ask
that we do hav~ s I don I t lik~ to use the word contingent approval s but at l~ast
the ability to move ahead when your engineer is satisfied that our calculations
ar~ proper.
MR. CARTIER-Stated well s I think I could live with that if we had an engineer
standing here saying this. We have hads on occasions these kinds of situations
that have backfired on us. We try to avoid thats b~ing in that situation.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d what if we date this thing. What if we say tonight w~ would
give the approval tonight contingent upon all of these things b~ing answ~red in
writing prior to the end of our next meeting and if th~y ar~ not done sO by thens
there is no approval and it has to come back all the way through to us. H~ has
to submit to you in writing. Not to do a lot of BS works these have to be answered
in writing and signed by the engineers or whoev~rs and it has to be done by the
clos~ of the next me~tings which is next Tuesday.
MR. GANNETT-Stated we certainly have no problem with that.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated so it doesnlt drag on forever.
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds are you willing to tack that on to the n~xt meeting?
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I would be willing to. I just don't want to ov~rwhelm thes~
guys ands agains if it IS just a matt~r of two or thr~~ minut~s on your works wh~re
you see the lett~r and says oks he IS done it. You com~ back to th~ and it's dat~d
and don~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated we do have a long agenda n~xt we~ks howevers we don't anticipate
that this is going to take any tim~.
11
'--
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I just want to b~ clear on that. You don't want to put this
on next week's agenda. What you want to do is say, by March 27th at what~ver
times the corrections have to be submitteds in writings and approv~d by th~ Town
Engineer.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated right. We give the approvals tonight, conting~nt upon the
fact that thatls done. If it's not done, the approval is nO good.
MS. CORPUS-Stated it IS disapprov~d.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated just one other thing. I would request that all th~ information
be submitted to the Planning Department and we will distribut~ it to th~ Town
Engineer. The reason being thats technicallys the S~nior Planner has to authorize
all work that is done by the Town Engineer. SOs we Ire having a probl~m right
now, in that s some peop Ie are approaching the Town Engineer. Th~ Town Engin~~r
is consulting with them. Somebody I s got to pay that bill. SOs I would request
that all the information g~t submitted to the Planning Department. We will get
its within minutes of receiving it, turn it over to the Town Engine~r and they
will review it.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated obviouslys you'll ne~d some time for that..
MR. FOSS-Stated yess sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SITE PLAN NO. 62-89 DOUGLAS MABEYs Introduced by Nicholas
Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by Conrad Kupillas:
For an 8s000 sq. ft. storage and warehous~ addition to an existing 12s000 sq.
ft. building contingent upon the fact that the applicant answer all of th~ questions
contain~d in the Rist-Frost l~tter of March 16th, 1990 pertaining to it and that
th~se qu~stions be answ~r~ds in writings to th~ Town Planning Board and Rist-Frost
and pr~sented to this Board no lat~r than 8 pm on March 27ths 1990 and if th~y
ar~ not presented by that tim~s this approval expires. In additions this will
be the final approval of anything on this property until we se~ som~ kind of
conceptual plan as to how this property is going to be developed.
Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagans Mrs. Pulver
MS. CORPUS-Stateds Mr. Chairmans I donlt beli~ve a SEQRA review was done.
MR. CARTIER-Stated John's letter says it was done.
MS. CORPUS-Stated 11m sorrys youlre right.
SITE PLAN NO. 77-89 TYPE II CR-15 SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE Drx
AVENUE AND QUARRY CROSSING TO REMOVE THE TRAILER. TO ADD AN OFFICE AND GARAGE
(42 FT. BY 75 FT.). (WARREN COUNTY PLAHHING) TAX MAP NO. 111-7-5 LOT SIZE:
1.41 ACRES SECTION 4.020 L
SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN, PRESENT
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I se~ Scott McLaughlin just walked into th~ room and Scott s
we've got trouble again tonight with ,a quorum. With Peter abstainings we r~ally
can't address your project again tonight b~cause welr~ short handed.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I would suggests Mr. Chairmans this Board...
MR. ROBERTS-Asked is that legally practical or possible?
MS. CORPUS-Stat~d w~ll, Mr. Chairmans the only problem I could sees possiblys
is the ~xpiration of the tim~ limits for revi~w.
12
--'
MR. ROBERTS- Stat~d w~ll s there I s nothing we can do about that if w~ don't have
a quorum.
MS. CORPUS-Stated if the Board understands it's automatic approval if th~ time
limit expires because no action can b~ takens thatls up to the Board.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated well, thatls not up to the Boards welr~ helpless.
MS. CORPUS-Stated wells as long as thatls understood.
do.
There I S nothing you can
MR. GORALSKI-Stated you may want to discuss the application and if you f~~l
confidents make a motion and vote on its at any rat~.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked, why, with thre~ vot~s? Whatls that m~an?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated just to be on record as the three present memb~rs voting on
the issue.
MR. CAIMANO-Askeds are we sayings Karlas that this is going to be automatically
approved because of the tim~ limit?
MS. CORPUS-Stated I haven't calculated our time frame yet s but it does run into
that possibility.
MR. CAIMANO-Askeds that it automatically becomes approved?
MS. CORPUS-Stat~d if no action is taken within the time periods and I b~lieve
itls 45 days.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated rather than g~t into trouble in the futures thens Mr. Chairmans
maybe John is right. At least if we were on record as having said something
tonight s if Karla finds out that the time tak~s it out of our hands, th~ record
will have shown that we would have approved it anyway.
MS.
all.
CORPUS-Stated correct. Ther~Is
Itls at your discretion.
absolutely no legal harm in
doing that at
MR. ROBERTS-Stated but it IS also a waste of time.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated yes s it really is. All it does is cover our tails a little
bit, in case anything happens.
MR. KUPILLAS-Stated maybe could get Mr. McLaughlin to agree to the stipulations
that are on here or th~ questions that ar~ on here.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d that's a good point.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated maybe we can have an informal discussion.
MR. KUPILLAS-Asked would you be willing to discuss some of these that w~ hav~
and possibly agr~e to them and then we could move it along or fe~l bett~r about
it?
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d why donlt we do as we routin~ly do and here from Staff, Staff's
comments.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Bakers Assistant Plann~r (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Stated Scotts I think we came down on you pretty hards or I did.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated you dids real hard.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated and I see you have moved some equipment off the south sides
off the neighbors propertys basically.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stat~d the north side and the south side and the east sid~.
13
--'
MR. ROBERTS-Stated right. Th~re are peopl~ who still think it looks pretty
congested. What it I s going to look like after you build the building and can
keep some stuff inside and make the improvements that welve suggesteds I guess
I still don't knows but I still wish there was some way that we could make that
lot a little more attractive, franklys than it is now.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated wells 11m sure a good looking building would make it more
attractive and 11m not planning on putting up a used tin buildings it's going
to be a.. building. It I s going to be a good looking building with shrubbery s
whatever the beautification departments they requested.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated you have met with the Beautification Department.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated I'll do everything that I can. It's used equipments
construction ~quipment. There's some things that are going to look pretty and
there's other things that are used. That is not new equipment
MR. ROBERTS-Stated yess rIm just thinking back to when we originally approved
that. There was going to be a few pieces of equipm~nt there for sale and then s
all of a suddens it got so it looked more like a junk yard than anything ~ls~.
MR. CAIMANO-Askeds Mr. McLaughlins what do you think of this letter.
anything there that you can't do?
Is there
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated well, this is the first time I've se~n it.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated w~lls A and B is what we're concern~d about right now.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated wells the location..
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that should be on the map.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I guess not.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated as far as the maximum number of pieces of equipment show
am I going to say that s I mean if they're all.. bulldozers. I could measur~ th~m
out and tell you how many there would be. If theylre garden tractors or farm
tractors s there I s no way there's going to be a maximum number of pieces of
equipm~nt.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated w~ didn't get n~w plans for thiss did we.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I donlt have anymore than I had before.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guesss this is still pretty much all we still hav~. It doesn't
denot~ the buffer zones too cl~arly.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated the new plan that was submitted just addr~ssed the septic
qu~stion.
MR. KUPILLAS-Stated 11m wonderings Mr. McLaughlins if 11m not out of turn her~s
being new at it, but couldnlt you..your business, designat~ certain sized parking
areas ands for instances say that there'd be 100 parking spaces on your property
and that they w~re the size to accommodate a D8 ands in turns if six lawn tractors
fit in theres I think it would be an understanding of thats but ther~ must be
certain sizes spaces that your business occupies the same as mine or anybody elses
you know s roughly. I'm just throwing something out s I really don't know your
business.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated well s things mov~ in and out of th~re b~cause s you know,
live had pieces come in here that havenlt be~n in h~r~ 20 minutes and somebodyls
bought them and live had other pieces that have been th~re for a year. So, you
know, itls hard to say just how long that they'll be there.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's the trouble with tenancy s it seems to hav~ built up
larger and larger all the time. 11m overwhelmed a lot.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated well, thatls what I was hoping it was.
losing business.
I don't work at
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that wasn I t th~ int~nt s thoughs for your initial approval s
if you go back to just a few pieces of equipment there and it I s gotten out of
hand.
14
--'
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated. .my intent. I didn't want to start a business in that
location that was going to be a losing busin~ss. Right nows my step sonls working
at it, my wife I s working at it. It I S a family op~ration and we're doing well
at it. W~ I r~ working outdoors. We worked outdoors in th~ snow today. All 11m
asking for is a building. lId like to get this ~quipment inside and be able to
work on it under cover. Have an office other than in the trailer and some plumbing
where you can flush the toilet.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated Mr. Chairmans let me try to clarify what these not~s are saying.
I donlt think that Stuart Bak~r is saying that he has a probl~m with the building
going up and I think that we all agree that putting a building ther~ will most
likely help the situation. The problem where peop Ie have obj~cted to is having
the ~quipment all over the yard and what Stuart is asking for here is that s on
this plans you indicate wh~re equipment is going to be stored and you also indicate
th~ buffer zone that is going to be along Dix Avenue and Quarry Crossing to ke~p
that equipm~nt away from the road.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated yess wells I think it states in there itls a 50 foot buffer
zon~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it doesnlt seem to say so on the map.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated it's not on the maps thatls the problem.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated it says somewher~ that there is 50 feet. I thinks maybes
in our first site p Ian review I beli~ve we stat~d that s and I'll admit that I
had some trailers out that were parked on the lawn area last summer. We'v~ moved
all that stuff away s but I think ev~rything is within the 50 foot buff~r zon~
at this time. I do have a problem with Mr. Beeb~s he has his swimming pool on
the property as welve stated before. His garden is on my property. He's got
a rose gardens flower gardens his wif~ does. This is in an area that is in back
of my trailer b~tween my property and his and I don't want him disturbed. I don't
want to hav~ him move any of that. The gardens as far as I 1m concern~ds he can
continue using the gard~ns but s I means I could park stuff out in th~ gard~ns
but 11m within my 50 foot buffer zon~ss I believes at this tim~.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated the probl~m with all this is s we can I t do a darn thing one
way or another.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated wells except to discuss its perhaps.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I guess everybody agrees s Mr. McLaughlins that the building
will certainly be attractiv~ to that lot s but I guess what we I r~ concerned about
iss and as I..talk~d about last times now this times is that we agree to one thing
and then, because your business becom~s mor~ and more successfuls all of a sudden
th~re may be things parked on top. All kinds of things could happ~n. I'm not
saying youlre going to do thats but it just kind of gets away from us and there's
no ways unless it IS addressed nows there's no way that th~ Town can say g~es Mr.
McLaughlin, l~tls stop right here and look at this.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated wells a lot of...is still vacant. 11m not going to go any
farther than the lot line.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated buts historicallys you haves Scott.
bunch of stuff ov~r the neighborls prop~rty.
You've parked a whole
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated well, he I s got his swimming pool on my property and h~ IS
got his garden on my prop~rty. Do you want me to have him move all that stuff?
MR. ROBERTS-Stated no.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated nobody has a problem with the prop~rty thatls in back th~r~.
Out in back of his back yard s I mean there I s woods back th~r~ and if you walk
around and tak~ a look and see what's in back of the woods. Ther~ isnlt $lOO,OOOs
$200s000 homes back in there.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated rights I understand.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated I means 11m not degrading anybody or whatever. I 've liv~d
in a house trailer mys~lf. Th~re was no probl~m. Nobody was complaining that
it was adjacent to that prop~rty in the back where we have stuff stored and Ilv~
15
--'
moved that. lIve moved it ov~r onto my propertys but I put it back th~re so it
just was out of the way and nobody careds apparently..a couple of neighbors that
didn't ~v~n liv~ in that area. I donlt think those neighbors where th~ equipm~nt
was parkeds back in th~r~, I donlt think that th~y?
MR. ROBERTS-Asked wasnlt there a change in zon~ back ther~? I think the ~quipment
was park~d in what would have been a buffer zone, actually betw~~n zones. You
knows in hindsights I think we should have n~v~r approv~d this particular busin~ss
on that location. You've got out of hands too successful and this is what happ~neds
historically. I guess snow s we I re stuck with a business there ands hop~fully s
th~ new building and with Mr. McLaughlin' s coop~ration with th~ s~tbacks and
reducing the size, som~what s which h~ has s will improve th~ situation. I don It
know if w~ can go anything b~yond that.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated w~ canlt ask him for a maximum number becaus~ of the diff~rent
sizess but we certainly could ask for a location. W~ can r~quir~ that Mr.
McLaughlin have a specific location or locations for parking or, let I s put it
th~ other way, locations where there will not b~ ~quipment parked. So that it
r~quires him to have the buff~r zones around the property.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated but then th~ buffer zones r~ally just should b~ sketched in
on this p Ian a little more cl~arly. Is that part of s mostly what we I re talking
about?
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d right.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated right. I think that I s th~ big conc~rn is the buffer zon~s
and having a plan that actually shows them.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ talked to th~ siz~ of it s but it didn I t r~ally g~t drawn
on the map. If we can get you to agree to that s I gu~ss, probably, w~ I d all go
hom~ happy.
MR. CAIMANO-Ask~ds can we get Mr. McLaughlin back on th~ agenda next week for
a quicky?
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d I think you will not use up your tim~ fram~ if you didn't
vote on this till n~xt w~~k.
MS. CORPUS-Stated looking at the time tabl~ as pres~nted in Stu's notess it app~ars
at the last meetings this was tableds appar~ntly with Mr. McLaughlinls consent.
Th~r~fores your time fram~ wouldnlt runs at th~ first no action was then tabl~d.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d so you could wait to vot~ on this until n~xt we~k. You wouldnlt
neces sari ly have to put it on th~ ag~nda or rehear it. You'd jus t vote on it.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated w~lls I guess that's my sugg~stion to the Board.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated your suggestions ok. Sinc~ we don' t hav~ a quorums I don't
want to load up n~xt weekls agendas but if we Ire just h~aring it tonight and voting
on it n~xt week which we hav~ the right to do, I gu~ss s that I s s probably, the
thing to do. If w~hav~ that times that's what we should do.
MS. CORPUS-Stated it app~ars that way. At l~ast from the record as I s~~ it h~r~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I gu~ss th~ public hearing I s still op~n on this. Is ther~
anybody who car~s to comment on this proj~ct? If nots w~Ill clos~ the public
hearing and we will mak~ a motion on this when we g~t a quorums or next w~~k.
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I wills thoughs say that it would b~ nice if this came back
and you show~d an area wher~.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated wells I thought the ar~a was on ther~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated youlve got some tr~~ss...grass and it just n~~ds to b~ mark~d.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stated this is. .l~ss than 50 f~~t{ r~f~rring to map).
th~ 50 f~~t runs back in here.
Actuallys
16
--'
',,-,
MR. ROBERTS-Stated rights that's what w~ want. W~ just want a m~asur~ in 50 f~~t,
m~asure in 50 f~et and mark it on this map h~r~.
MR. CAIMANO-Ask~d s wh~r~ will the ~quipm~nt not b~ allow~d to park? That's what
welre looking for.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Stat~d well s out here in this grass ar~a. This is a littl~ out
of scal~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's the thing. We want the scal~.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated just draw it in so we can say this is where...and thatls it.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN-Ask~d, do you want m~ here next w~~k? I don't know if I'll b~
able to be here.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated no. W~ hav~ done
pres~ntation. We Ire just going to vot~.
the public h~aring. W~'v~
W~ can vot~ on thiss now.
heard
your
MR. GORALSKI-Stated if you can just get me a copy of that showing wh~r~ the
equipm~nt will not be park~ds I III bring that to the Board and show it to th~m
and if it IS okay with you, you can vote on it.
HEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 TYPE I WR-1A J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURAHT
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD, NORTHSHORE, AT THE SHORELINE TO ADD 1,826
SQ. FT. TO EXISTING RESTAURANT SPACE WITH STORAGE OF DRY GOODS, BUSINESS RECORDS
ON SECOND STORY PORTION. FIRST STORY OF EXISTING RESTAURANT TO BE RENOVATED.
SLEEPING QUARTERS TO REMAIN AS IS ON SECOND STORY. (WARREN COUNTY PLARHING) TAX
MAP NO. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACRES SECTION 9.010
MACK DEAN, ACTING AS AGENT FOR APPLICANT; PAUL BARTONs OWNER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Gora1skis Plann~r (attach~d)
ENGINEER REPORT
Not~s by Wayn~ Gann~tts Town Engineer (attach~d)
MR. GORALSKI-Ask~ds (r~ferring to his not~s) I know that I s a little complicat~d.
Is that clear to th~ Boards th~ process?
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d the only thing w~Ir~ doing tonight, thens is SEQRA.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated exactly.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated wells yess SEQRAs and in the proc~ss of doing SEQRAs recomm~nding
mitigating circumstanc~s or whatever.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated obviously, in r~vi~wing the SEQRAs you will also b~ revi~wing
the same issues that would com~ up at site plan revi~w.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated tru~. Rath~r than you going through all your comments s we
might as well go through the SEQRA form and do this as we go s hadn I t we? Or is
that not th~ way you'v~ done it in ord~r?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated w~ll, y~ss you could do it that way if you'd lik~. Actuallys
thes~ comm~nts are based on Articl~ 5 of th~ Zoning Ordinanc~.
MR. CAIMANO-Asked s Mr. Chairman and John, I gu~ss my qu~stion is s if th~r~ ar~
som~ ~xt~nuating circumstanc~s which make us f~~l th~ pro j~ct just can I t go any
furth~r than here s do w~ ne~d to go through SEQRAs if th~re' s som~ r~al probl~ms
with th~ project?
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d yes, but wouldnlt th~ SEQRA r~vi~w d~t~rmin~ that.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I donlt know.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d yes, I would recomm~nd that you go through the SEQRA.
17
---
MR. CAIMANO-Stated ok.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated Mr. Chairmans if you'd like to go right to revi~wing the EAFs
thatls fine. How~ver yould like to do it.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d wells it se~ms to m~s that mak~s sens~. It gets to the h~art
of mOst of these matterss I would thinks unless Mack wants to mak~ som~ kind of
pres~ntation first s here. Do you agree that w~ might as w~ll get right to th~
SEQRA?
MR. DEAN-Stated Articl~ 5 iss basicallys based on SEQRAs anyway.
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds r~mind mes what is Article 5, that's th~ site plan review?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated that's the site plan revi~w s~ctions right.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it I S a question of which com~s first s h~res the chicken or
th~ ~gg. I think weIll do all the same thing.
MR. DEAN-Stated just for the r~cords my nam~ is Mack Dean, acting as agent for
Paul Barton. He is also h~r~ tonight and he is the owner of th~ Docksid~r
Restaurant.
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds wells do w~ have any qu~stions with Part One, any quarr~l with
thats or ar~ we going to tak~ his word for the acreage and the location?
MR. CAIMANO-Askeds do you hav~ Part One?
MR. ROBERTS-Stated yess that's this.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated ohs I've got it.
MR. DEAN-Stat~d you should hav~ survey maps.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d normally. .w~ will skip Part One and go to Part Two and jump
in. Would som~on~ care to get us start~d on this?
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d w~ll s I don I t have my ch~at sh~et. I can read th~ form with
no problem.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d I have included in my notess I gu~ss you would call them sampl~
answers s what I feel would b~ appropriate answers. You don' t n~cessarily have
to agre~ with thems but you could use th~m as a guide.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think that I s the way to go. Why don't we listen to you s
then.
MR. CARTIER-Asked, if th~re' s a 3 and a half foot depth to water table s is that
s~asonal high wat~r table or when was that m~asured?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I think Mack could answer that.
MR. CARTIER-Askeds water tabl~ depths how did you d~termin~ that?
MR. DEAN-Stated wells by test holes although the t~st hole was not dug at th~
optimum tim~ of y~ars which is gen~rally b~tw~en March and Jun~s it was dug in
D~cember.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d thank you.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked but those test holes were dug in the fill area?
MR. DEAN-Stat~d I couldnlt tell what a fill area...th~rels...tr~~s th~re.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d it was don~ in th~ location of the proposed septic syst~m.
MR. DEAN-Stat~d ~xactly s y~s. We did two test holes in the immediate area wh~r~
w~ knew th~re b~ would seepag~ pits and we did two test hol~s at th~ low~st
el~vation which would be. . elevation as opposed to 408s which we did want to.. .as
low as ground wat~r and thatls where th~ 3 and a half(TAPE TURNED)
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d it was down by th~ Lak~.
18
--
MR. DEAN-Stated we have it ref~rr~d to as th~ low~st point on the prop~rty s the
lowest elevation.
MR. CARTIER-Stated thank you.
MR. CAIMANO-Askeds Johns again, going back to what we did last time, at the last
meeting wh~n we had determined that when we do on~ of these w~ ar~ doing it for
th~ proj~ct as a whole as if we were going back to day one, is that corrects
r~gardl~ss of what's happening? You weren I t here. I had asked Karla, wh~n you
do one of th~ses we ar~ doing it on the proj~ct as a whol~s not just for what
is happening now and I think th~ answer was yess and if that was sOs then w~ hav~
to go back to what's happening in your lett~r with adding stormwater runoff that's
happening right now.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated 11m not sur~ what youlre getting ats but as far as stormwater
from the parking lot s there is grading taking p lace in th~ parking lot so that s
in my ~stimations it IS part of the proposed proj~ct.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I gu~ss what I'm saying is, we alr~ady have impactss regardless
of whether there's an increase or not. If we I re going to do a long form SEQRAs
we already have impacts on this lands..increase it.
MR. DEAN-Stated th~ impact created by th~ additions will not impact upon the
drainag~ ~xisting in the parking lot. It will not ~ven reach it.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d I think we I re talking About two different things h~re. My
point is that there's going to b~ some grading taking place in the parking lot
that is relat~d to the project as a whole.
MR. DEAN-Stated ok.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I honestly cAn't tell yous at this point, whether SEQRA should
be addressing the existing conditions.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated that I s the question I asked last tim~ and th~ answ~r was y~s.
The answer was that when we do thes~ four, in addition to somethings w~ are now
looking at the project as a wholes again, as if we were looking at th~ Docksider
for the first tim~ when it was first built, that's what I understood from Karla
last tim~s but I could b~ wrong.
MS. CORPUS-Stated actuAlly s I don't recall ~xActly what I said and if that was
the case.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated wells we usually like to look at th~ ~ntire parcel...sit~ plan.
MS. CORPUS-Stated this is adjacent to a CriticAl Environmental Area.
th~ first times At least sinc~ I've b~en heres that the Boardls had to
thiss sOs taking that in minds it would b~ within th~ scope her~ to look at
that would ~ff~ct thAt Critical Environmental Area.
This is
look at
anything
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d yes, we might r~quires as a condition of approval, improvement
of something that's already ther~. Does that answ~r your qu~stion?
MR. CAIMANO-Stated yes.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated ok, now, just as far as explanation is concern~ds my
und~rstanding of the drainage that is proposed for the parking lot area, is that
there will be retention within th~ parking lot area and ifs in facts that retention
area is not large ~nough to handl~ th~ peak flows that the additional water will
be handled by discharging it into the Lake in the area of th~ boat ramp. Is that
correct?
MR. DEAN-Stated you I re looking at a 50 y~ar storm.
dischArg~s just by ~ngin~ering design.
There would hav~ to b~ a
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d wells we donlts mayb~, have to design this for a 50 y~ar storms
but how about a 10 y~ar storm.
MR. DEAN-Stated basically, Mr. Roberts and members of the Board, the design, what's
shown h~re is r~ally no differ~nt than what exists today and the only proposed
grading is to add additional crushed stone at th~ lower area to imped~ any sh~~t
19
---
runoff ands you knows you catch gravels and what~ver ~lse might be in the stormwater
before it ent~rs into the Lake. ThAtls an existing condition. ...years the
condition is caused, primarilys by runoff from Glen Lake Road and Sullivan Drive
which is not shown on this map, but it comes from other prop~rti~s up and through
some amounts the stormwater drains both onto th~ parking lot of th~ Docksider
and also onto a 50 foot wide Town property used as a launch. Both thes~ properties
take th~ majority of roadwat~r from GI~n Lake Road and it I S b~en an existing
condition for many s many y~ars. It' s r~ally a very s v~ry difficult situation
to try to mitigate in terms of containing this water and not ponding and creating
icing conditions in the wint~r. Gravel will help because it may ~liminat~ the,
unl~ss we get a tremendous amount of water and ic~ built up. Gravel will help s
number on~s ke~p the ice from freezing in a solid mass and also creat~s a rougher
surface than you might have with a pav~d surfAC~.
MR. BARTON-Stated this grav~l parking lot is not a on~ time Occurrence. This
is something that I do twice a yeAr sinc~ I 've b~~n th~re becaus~ of th~ holes
that are th~res to fill it in for people' s saf~ty driving through. So this is
a continuing, ongoing thing that I dos replacing th~ grav~ls lev~ling it out.
Itls not a one tim~ deal.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I guess w~Ive got a runoff situations mAyb~, we wish we didn't
have, but it is existing. I don't know what w~ can do about improving that.
MR. DEAN-Stated the Town HighwAY Department could h~lps that iss p~rhaps installing
som~ drywells on the Town right-of-way to catch that s but that s I think that I s
about the only thing that could be done.
MR. BARTON-Stated last Octobers I had Rick Missita from th~ Highway Department
and I pres~nted this probl~m to him with a coup Ie of oth~r things that wer~ of
concern to m~ and I sAid to him thAt that would b~ my thought that putting a drywell
in the Town prop~rtys one on th~ corner of my prop~rty and on~ down th~ road farther
to catch a lot of this that's going down through and h~ said he would get back
to Paul NAylor and let me know and I have not h~ard from him since th~n. SOs
I have also addressed th~ situation myselfs to see if the Town could do som~thing
to correct this situAtion. I do have pictures her~ that will show the gullies
that go right down through th~ Town property because of th~ runoff of the rOAd
coming down. Glen Lak~ Road does not slope down from Sullivan Road.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d this might b~ something w~ could recommend to th~ Highway
D~partment.
MR. DEAN-Stated I do have photographs in my hand if I could submit thos~s basicallys
showing th~ parking lot area from the ~ntrance to th~building and other photographs
that show th~ westerly s towards th~ west AS you go up and around the curv~ on
Glen Lak~ Road. Th~se are all snOw melt photographs. Th~se are not tak~n in
the last coupl~ of days. This is strictly snow m~lt that you I re looking at and
other shotss just down towards th~ Lake from Glen Lak~ Roads but it does give
you an idea b~cause some parts of th~ road is dry b~cause of the limit~d snow
m~lt that particular day. It gives you a good idea of what that flow is s the
dir~ction. If I may continu~ with th~ drainAg~s it was suggested to our engin£!!~r
at Morse Engineering whols been working on this project with mes that we should
addr~ss th~ addition of the building becaus~ that I s th~ additional runoff that
the property will have to handl~ And it was sugg~sted one way it might easily
be don~. The peak of the roof runs kind of east to wests this way. SOs th~ major
runoff would b~ the 600 square feet of roof area here and the remainder from this
point across here would run to here. Wh~re the landscaping will take place around
the perimet~r of the buildings where it is shown on th~ front on this map and
not shown on the rear s but... subsequ~nt maps s there could be 2 to 3 foot deep
by s approximately, 3 foot wide trench filled with stone which would catch th~
runoff. It would be light...and that would handl~ all the stormwater runoff from
th~ addition ands therefore, not further impact the drainage design of the parking
lots occasional ponding situations that we hAV~ now. The main conc~rnls that
we felt that the parking lot situAtion has existed and probably will ~xist for
manys many years. As long as there is annual maint~nanc~ don~, it wonlt g~t worse.
MR. GORALSKI-Ask~ds is that on th~ plans now?
MR. DEAN-Stat~d not on pap~r.
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d I didn't notice that in the r~view.
MR. DEAN-Stated
sugg~st~d means
was a negligible
that was r~cent information passed on to our
to d~aling with th~ runoff from th~ addition.
firm today AS a
w~ felt that it
20
--
amount of runoff that would be absorb~d by the grassy ar~as already existings
but to ~nhAnce the containment of the roof runoffs the addition of the trenches
would certainly mitigate any f~ars of channeling of water from the r~ar of the
building to the front of the building. Really it's not a major conc~rn. Th~r~'s
a b~rm that's cr~at~d by moth~r natur~ in th~ form of ice. Th~r~ is a b~rm that
pr~tty much follows th~ entir~ shor~lin~ on Mr. Barton' s prop~rty which prev~nts
wat~r from rushing through th~ Lakes but th~re is runoff in th~ r~ar of th~
building.. to a slop~ that r~ally shouldnlt b~ contain~d.
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~ds w~lls do~s this mitigat~, to som~ ~xt~nts your conc~rnss what
he IS talking about building around th~ addition?
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d that may b~ th~ case. This is new information that I wAsn't
Aware of in my revi~w. ThAt was on~ of th~ conc~rns is the additional imp~rm~abl~
ar~a of th~ building r~lAtiv~ly clos~ to th~ Lak~. There I s no discussion of how
that drainag~ would b~ managed.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated w~ll, it would seem to mitigat~ thiss to som~ ext~nts I would
think tos maybes chang~ it from potentially larg~ to small to mod~rate. I just
wond~r if w~ IV~ address~d this enough to r~duce that down to a small amount with
th~s~ mitigating circumstanc~s. Johns youlr~ th~ on~ giving us your id~as h~r~.
Do you s~~ anything diff~r~nt than you hav~ s~~n befor~?
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d wells I think we'r~ going to hav~ to get through Johnls comm~nts
from Articl~ 5 also.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I think w~ should just k~~p going.
MR. GORALSKI-Ask~d, ar~ you answ~ring that one nows or ar~ you l~aving it? Youlr~
not answ~ring it right now. Youlr~ going to com~ back to its is that whAt you'r~
saying?
MS. CORPUS-Stated thatls an option for th~ Boards if th~r~Is some n~w information
or things that would be addr~ss~d at som~ lat~r tim~s the Board can choos~ to
l~av~ th~ qu~stion op~n.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d it seems to m~ that if w~ answ~r~d th~m one at a time. N~ith~r
on~ of th~s~ l~tt~rs from Staff wer~ don~ on~ at a tim~. I suspect that w~ should
go through this entire form and then go back to that.. and tie in your comm~nts
to th~ form. You didnlt writ~ this AS you went alongs did you? You didn't app~ar
to.
MR. GORALSKI-StAt~d no, I wrote that bas~d on Articl~ 5 of the Zoning Ordinanc~.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d w~ll, that I s why
John I s comm~nts from Articl~ 5 first
those it~ms befor~ we ~v~n look at
fundamental to th~ application thAn the
I say s I wond~r if w~ maybe should look at
and g~t sOm~ agr~~m~nt or disagr~~ment on
the EAF b~caus~ th~y ar~s I thinks mor~
EAF Form.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d could be. I donlt know wh~r~ to start h~r~.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d a probl~m aris~s with a Typ~ I action in that you cannot do
a conditional n~gAtiv~ d~claration. By laws you hAV~ to ~ither say th~ plan in
front of you hAS no ~nvironm~ntal impact or it may possibly have environmental
impact.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d no significant ~nvironm~ntal impacts ~v~rything has impact.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d rights significant ~nvironm~ntal impact.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d but you say th~ plan its~lf should show the mitigativ~ m~asur~s
and we should not just do it AS w~ go Along.
MR. CARTIER-Stated w~ll s I gu~ss what I 'm h~aring from John is s I will withdraw
what I was saying about Articl~ 5. We probably should go through this EAF as
it is.
MR. ROBERTS-StAt~d oks mayb~ not vot~ on anything until w~ discuss som~ oth~r
things furth~r.
MR. BARTON-Stat~d as a point of informations 11m not familiar with th~ g~ntl~man
on th~ ~nd.
21
"-'"
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d Wayn~ Gann~tt from Rist-Frost.
MR. BARTON-Stat~d thank you v~ry much. The Town Engin~er?
MR. GORALSKI-StAted right. I don't know if you want to addr~ss number
four(ref~rring to form) or just l~av~ it and not answer it at this point until
you get mor~ information or what you want to do.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I donlt know if somehow w~ n~~d to som~how g~t a littl~
philosophic as to wh~th~r or not w~ ar~ going to ~xp~ct this addition to allow
us to go back and chang~ th~ ~xisting drainag~ pAtt~rns of which th~y're not lArg~ly
th~ applicantls fault. Historicallys it's b~~n th~res you knows go back and Answ~r
you qu~stion. W~ som~tim~s lik~ to r~nder approvals wh~r~ w~ cans in this cas~s
with that sh~~ting stormwater coming off th~ road and from across th~ road s I
donlt know if itls fAir to ask this applicant to solv~ that probl~m.
MR. CAIMANO-StAt~d w~ll s I gu~ss what I I d lik~ to se~ happ~n is I I d lik~ to us
go through th~ SEQRA Forms g~t through its find out what John's comm~ntss Staffls
comm~nts ar~ as th~y go throughs find out s th~ns how this impacts on th~ Form
And th~n find out how th~ir comm~nts impact on the Form and then go back correct
or chang~ Answ~rs as we ne~d to. We've got to get to squar~ on~ first.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d go Ah~Ad th~n John.
MR. GORALSKI-Continu~d r~ading th~ EAF Form.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d to go bACk to your first comm~nt und~r constructions how~v~rs
w~ routin~ly requir~ m~asur~s to b~ tak~n h~r~ as a standard op~rating proc~dur~.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated at th~ point that I was doing thiss th~ plan that was originally
submitt~d did not show th~ ~rosion control m~asur~s I beli~v~ it's a silt f~nc~s
cov~ring the ~xcavation part of th~ proj~ct. It ~nd~d where the fill was b~ing
plac~d.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ll s th~r~ Ar~ almost requirem~nts of that construction that
around th~ Lak~ that w~'d hav~ to comply with. Some of thos~ r~quir~m~nts would
mitigat~ those m~asur~s I would thinks und~r construction.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d 11m just saying it wasnlt on th~r~ wh~n I did this.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~ds Propos~d action 10CAt~s comm~rcial And/or industrial us~s which
may r~quire n~w or ~xpAnsion of ~xisting wast~ tr~atm~nt and/or storag~ faciliti~ss
do~s that not also apply here?
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d y~ss it would.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d it's th~ last thing...thoughts oth~r than...
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~ds is this going to r~quire a SPDES P~rmit?
MR. DEAN-Stat~d yess it will.
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d a SPDES P~rmit will b~ r~quir~d.
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~d s do~sn' t that probably tak~ car~ of th~ last paragraphs th~n?
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d yess theylr~ both r~lat~d.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d Johns if you' r~ going to hav~ a significant impact ons mayb~ s
drainage and th~ runoff and pot~ntial flows what comes in thats th~ns obviouslys
you I re going to ~ff~ct som~ non-thr~at~ned or non-~ndangered fish. On~ of thos~
has to b~ ~ff~cted.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d ok.
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~ds why is that?
MR. CAIMANO-Stated w~lls if h~Is going to complain about th~ fact that th~r~'s
a. .. in th~ water runoff coming down that hill or anywh~r~ els~ off that prop~rty
into that Lak~ which is alr~ady and ~nvironm~ntally s~nsitiv~ places th~n th~r~
is a pot~ntial thr~at to non-thr~at~n or non-endang~r~d sp~ci~s such ass propos~d
action would substantially int~rf~r~ with any r~sid~nt or migratory fishs sh~llfish
or wildlif~ sp~ci~ss that mayb~ small to mod~rat~.
22
"-'"
MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes s but not n~cessarily coming from th~ propos~d ~xpansion.
H~Is addresseds tak~n car~ of that division of stormwat~r, but he's talking about
~xisting conditions here after that problem is solv~d. So that mitigating measur~
for th~ ~xisting...application to th~ Board.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d w~lls h~ has said thats that th~ whole proj~cts that th~ whol~
thing has b~en mitigat~d s but w~ still hAV~ a s~rious drainag~ problem on this
prop~rty and water runs down that hills wh~th~r it IS his fault or nots lik~ Niagra
Falls. It carries oils. It carri~s crap from th~ road. It go~s into th~ Lak~.
It has to thr~at~n som~things oth~r wis~ we wouldn I t be filling out this form.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d y~s s but w~ hav~ to fill out th~ form b~caus~ th~yl r~ clos~
to Gl~n Lak~s itls r~quir~d in an environmentally s~nsitiv~ area.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d right.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d (reading from EAF Form) Will propos~d action affect a~sth~tic
r~sourc~s. I answ~r~d y~s to this. The propos~d land uS~Ss or project compon~nts
obviously diff~r~nt from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land us~
patt~rnss wh~th~r mAn-made or naturAl. I sAid this WAS a smAll impact and c~rtainly
could b~ mitigat~d by minimizing th~ amount of tr~es th~y cut down and by placing
the addition as far away from th~ Lak~shor~ as is practical. I also answer~d
y~s tos th~ Proj~ct compon~nts that will r~sult in th~ ~limination or significant
scre~ning of sc~nic vi~ws known to b~ important to th~ area. Th~ sc~nic vi~ws
map that was us~d in th~ Compr~hensiv~ Land Us~ Plan indicated th~ shor~s of Gl~n
Lak~ as a scenic vista ands th~r~fores by cutting tr~es or putting an addition
clos~ to its you would hav~ som~ impact on that ands once agains it could b~
mitigat~d by minimizing th~ tr~~ cutting and what not.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d I think I might disagr~~ with both of thos~. It s~~ms to m~
th~ylr~ ~xpanding an alr~ady ~xisting commercial building there. I can't se~
th~ first on~s th~ s~cond one is ify.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d w~lls h~'s indicat~d a small to mod~rat~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d tru~.
(TAPE TURNED)
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d (reading from EAF Form) is th~r~s or is th~re likely to bes
public controv~rsy related to pot~ntial adv~rse environm~ntal impacts? My answer
to that was y~s. At th~ Zoning Boards I must say that ther~ w~r~ manys many p~opl~
who spok~ in favor of this. How~v~rs I fe~l that if th~r~ ar~ environm~ntal impacts
that ar~ caused by this s ther~ will c~rtainly b~ public controv~rsy ov~r th~
d~gradation of Glen Lakes thatls why I said y~s.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated mayb~ w~ should op~n th~ public hearing And find out if W~IV~
got controv~rsy ours~lv~ss her~s tonights to h~lp answ~r th~ question.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRANK BRUNO
MR. BRUNO-My nam~ is Frank Bruno. I liv~ at 1731 Gl~n Lak~s Lak~ G~org~. 11m
concern~d About parking ar~a. 11m conc~rn~d about s~ating capAcity and 11m
conc~rn~d about th~ water runoff going into Gl~n Lakes to k~~p th~ wat~r cl~ar
and what you wer~ talking about b~for~ and what Paul was talking about b~for~
as far as th~ runoff goes, it has be~n ther~ for y~ars, but that I s going down
to th~ parking lot and w~ did address the Town on it. Mr. Naylor went up with
m~ and I showed him wh~r~ th~ wat~r' s been running down for y~ars and is going
in and w~ just wond~r~d if something could b~ div~rt~d, lik~ h~ SAid dryw~lls
or som~thing, put in there to tak~ that away, buts as you said, the runoff from
th~ n~w addition and th~ ~xisting addition going down into th~ ground s which has
b~~n th~r~ for y~arss but th~ n~w addition going on, now if they'r~ going to put
som~thing in th~r~, which th~y may have th~ir plans and they may not have plans
already s will effect th~ quality of th~ wat~r that's in th~r~... and going back
to th~ impact stat~m~nt, as Mr. Caimano said b~for~, that will ~ffect th~ quality
of fish in th~ Lak~ and that I s what w~ I re conc~rn~d about and 11m on th~ Board
of Dir~ctors of the Glen Lak~ Association.
MR. DEAN-Ar~ you sp~aking for th~ Board?
23
-'
MR. BRUNO-No. I 'm sp~aking for mys~lf. 11m a conc~rn~d citiz~n of that ar~a and
th~ parking is a probl~m. It always has b~en. Itls a small ar~a and it IS confin~d
and if you look at the property of th~ parking ar~a, it I s good siz~d, but half
of that' s tak~n up by th~ boat launch and the way th~ ground is situat~d th~r~s
th~ way th~ Gl~n Lake Road com~s down ther~, when you'r~ trying to put a big boat
in th~res lik~ a 25 foot~r, a 20 foot~rs it g~ts pretty tight on th~ w~~kends.
If you donlt put it in during th~ w~~k, but wh~n hels not busy, it g~ts v~ry tight
in ther~ becaus~ of th~ way th~ road curvatur~ com~s down th~r~. As a matt~r
of facts lIve hads mys~lf, p~rsonally, an accid~nts b~~n ther~, doing that, putting
it in, on~.... it was park~d too close to that ar~a. I gu~ss som~body w~nt in
and was visiting the restaurant and just left th~ir v~hicl~ out too far and I
just happ~ned to hit th~ side of it trying to squ~~z~ down th~re betw~~n th~ rail
and the vehicl~. So that I s anoth~r thing that should b~ a conc~rn. If th~r~ IS
mor~ s~ating capacity, mor~ parking area, thatls all I hav~ to say.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. 01 CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, 11m Micha~l O'Connor. I'm sp~aking tonight as a r~sident
of Gl~n Lak~, as an owner of a r~sidenc~ on Gl~n Lak~, not on behalf of th~ Gl~n
Lak~ Association. I hav~ not r~vi~w~d th~ plans and, maybes just for background,
you should understand I have app~ar~d befor~ th~ Board and spok~ on b~half of
the Association. Wh~n I do that, I do that on a volunt~~r basis s as a m~mb~r
of the Association and I hav~ put som~ limitations upon that participation with
th~ Association and told that if th~y thought that th~r~ were proj~cts that w~r~
coming along that n~~ded some additional r~vi~w oth~r than what I curr~ntly was
working on that th~y should hir~ som~body ~ls~ outsid~ of that to do it from a
prof~ssional point of vi~w. I donlt us~ that as an ~xcus~, but I hav~ not r~vi~w~d
this. .with what Mr. Barton has proposed. I would lik~ to sp~aks g~n~rally, as
a r~sid~nt. I think it I S important that w~ hav~ an operating facility on th~
Lak~. I think it adds to th~ quality of lif~ on th~ Lak~. 11m sure that th~
Board wills from an ~ngine~ring point of view, make sure that it do~sn't contribut~
to th~ runoff into th~ Lak~. On~ point that I haven't heard m~ntion~d is that
this facilitys if it's op~rating and itls run in a good facilitys is th~ only
public facility that I s availabl~ on th~ Lake for th~ p~ople who come onto th~
Lak~ eith~r by using th~ Town acc~ss or by using th~ acc~ss that's on th~ Barton
prop~rty, but itls the only facility on th~ Lak~ that provid~s bathroom faciliti~s.
So, I think it's important that w~ k~~p it ther~ and that w~ k~ep it in an op~rating
condition and one that is economically f~asible to th~ op~rator or els~ w~ I re
going to hav~ a problem thatls going to contribut~ to the Lak~ indir~ctly b~cause
it's not ther~. If Mr. Barton comes forth and t~lls us that he thinks that this
is a nec~ssary improv~m~nt to his prop~rty, I think w~ should listen to him and
work with him and try and do som~thing that will be f~asibl~ to him and also
f~asible to us as resid~nts. It c~rtainly is a conv~nienc~ to th~ Lak~ r~sid~nts
to hav~ this facility on the prop~rty. It's almost lik~ a n~ighborhoods if you
will, store thatls s~t off in a r~sidential neighborhood. Itls th~ only comm~rcial
prop~rty that' s op~n to th~ public. Th~re ar~ two oth~r on th~ Lake and one of
th~m, dir~ctly on th~ Lake, I gu~ss, th~ Gl~nmor~s and that has Bay r~sid~nts.
I donlt think itls open to th~ public as a general point of view. Th~y do allow
r~sid~nts to go in, I gu~ss, if you mak~ r~s~rvations, go th~r~ for a m~al mayb~
one or twic~ a summ~rs but th~y don't encourage that or at l~ast I havenlt h~ard
th~m ~ncourag~ it. Th~r~'s no oth~r plac~ on the Lake that you can go. So, I
think, th~r~ ar~ problems and I would ev~n suggests maybe, that th~ Board try
and get Naylor involv~d mor~, as to th~ runoff. I tried to get the Town involv~d
with som~ oth~r runoff probl~mss but I hav~ not be~n succ~ssful up to this point.
Either put some catch bAsins on th~ side toward the Lak~ or mayb~ ~ven s~t up
som~ typ~ of positiv~ drainag~ wher~ it can go und~rn~ath Gl~n Lak~ Road ov~r
to th~ ball fi~ld that I s on th~ oth~r sid~ which has a natural diki:hg ~ff~ct s
probably about 80 feet or so from th~ av~rag~ surfac~ to the road surfac~.
MR. CARTIER-Who owns it?
MR. BARTON-Gl~n Lak~ Park Commission.
MR. 0 I CONNOR-Park Commission which is part of th~ Association and 11m sure that
that could be work~d out with th~m if th~ Town n~~ded an ~as~m~nt to get that
drainage over th~r~. Th~ Association, as I und~rstand it s or some part of th~
Associations own that and own th~ d~~d.
MR. ROBERTS-So, ~v~n if w~ k~pt th~ water on north sid~ of the rOAd, so it wouldn't
sh~~t across the road.
24
---
MR. O'CONNOR-If we put some ditchings or som~thing to that, or ~v~n put in som~
~levat~d typ~ catch basins ins that would mayb~ t:ak~ ~v~n mor~ major construction,
but catch it ~v~n on th~ south sid~ of th~ road and put it back across, by natural
drainage, to th~ north sid~. Th~r~' s ~nough el~vation diff~r~nc~ thAt you should
b~ abl~ to. I would not~s as a resident, that I think Paul, sinc~ he's tak~n
ov~r, has tri~d to work with the drainag~ probl~m and improve it hims~lf b~caus~
h~ k~~ps it constantly maintain~d. B~for~ you had ditch~s and ruts that ran
dir~ctly into th~ Lak~. H~ is trying to buff~r that to what d~gr~~ that h~ can
by his annual maint~nanc~. Th~r~Is a much b~tt~r proj~ct that w~'v~ got ther~
now than what welv~ had th~re. The sam~ is tru~ of the s~ptic syst~m h~ has.
I would ask that you coop~rat~ with him th~ b~st that you can. I don' t exp~ct
that you' r~ going to do anything diff~r~nt than what your Ordinanc~ r~quir~s,
but it is an ass~t to th~ Lak~.
MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, I don't know if that h~lps us to answer this Numb~r 19 (on EAF
Form) any bett~r or not.
MR. BARTON-Last m~eting, at th~ Zoning Board of App~alss we had a p~tition, which
I had, I'll get ah~ad of mys~lf a littl~ bit, I had plans s~t up in the r~staurant
for anyon~ to s~e. Anyone that would lik~ to look at th~m, as a r~sid~nt of th~
Lak~, and sign p~titions saying theylre in favor of it, could sign, aft~r th~y
look~d at th~ plans and I talked with th~m. At th~ Zoning Board m~~ting, I
pr~s~nt~d a list of 43 nam~s and John said h~Id bring it with him.
MR. CARTIER-Excuse m~, Mr. Barton, let m~ int~rrupt h~re. I've got a philosophical
problems h~r~, with what youlr~ saying to me. It sounds lik~ what you'r~ saying
to m~ should b~ address~d to th~ Zoning Board. W~Ir~ h~r~ to look at this pur~ly
from an ~nvironmental p~rspectiv~. Som~body corr~ct m~ if 11m wrong. You I re
not h~r~ to s~ll th~ project to us. You'v~ got to s~ll it to th~ Zoning Board.
What w~ ar~ considering ar~ th~ ~nvironm~ntal impacts of th~ proj~ct. So, I'm
not sur~ we n~~d to look at a p~tition, listing in favor.
MR. BARTON-The agr~em~nt with Mr. Goralski was that th~re wer~ six lett~rs that
w~r~ s~nt to th~ Zoning Board and also those p~titions, which I just m~ntion~d,
that W~IV~ brought to this m~~ting and also will b~ pr~sented as part of...sp~aking
and I also hav~ an additional 21 her~ that lid lik~ to pr~s~nt.
MR. GORALSKI-I hav~ th~m in th~ fil~.
MR. BARTON-Okay s but that's what 11m just trying to say as far as op~n public
opinion. I asked him if w~ had to hav~ thos~ lett~rs r~written and s~nt h~r~.
H~ said no s h~ I d b~ happy to p rovid~ th~m to this group s as part of tonight's
m~~ting. Do you understand what I'm trying to say to you.
MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think Pet~rl s point is w~ll taken. Here w~ get into public
controversy with number 19 and y~t s you I r~ right, w~ I r~ suppos~d to b~ kind of
sticking with th~ ~nvironm~ntal issues and not looking at the sit~ plan tonight,
but itls hard to s~parat~ th~ sit~ plan.
MR. BARTON-I just thought this was tim~ for op~n discussion and go ov~r part of
th~ things.
MR. CARTIER-Und~rstand what w~ ar~ b~ing ask~d to do as a Planning Board. W~
hav~ b~~n ask~d by th~ Zoning Board to look at this application from an
~nvironm~ntal standpoint and to mak~ r~commendations to you as to how you can
mitigat~ those things. In other words, how you can improv~ your application to
th~ point wh~r~ you hav~ a b~tt~r chanc~ of g~tting a varianc~. Th~y want from
us ~nvironm~ntal input.
MR. BARTON-Okay. I apologiz~ for bringing that up. I thought this was th~ tim~
for op~n opinion and that was going to be part of th~, John is that?
MR. GORALSKI-What I can do is, I can tak~ those, th~ petitions I m~an w~ hav~
a p~tition with 40 something nam~s on it. I will plac~ that iti th~ fil~s that
thos~ p~opl~ ar~ in favor of th~ proj~ct.
MR. BARTON-I have no probl~m with that.
MR. CAIMANO-..wh~n he com~s backs John?
MR. GORALSKI-And c~rtainly, if you want to h~ar th~m at th~ sit~ plan r~view,
I'll r~ad th~m all if you want m~ to read th~m all.
25
"-'"
MR. CAIMANO-As P~t~r was sayings isn't that when it' s g~rman~? Right now, all
we' r~ conc~rn~d about, it do~sn I t mak~ any differ~nc~ if 50 million p~opl~ ar~
in favor of it.
MR. ROBERTS-Well, and y~ts Numb~r 19 askss is th~r~ public controv~rsy.
MR. GORALSKI-I think what you hav~ to r~m~mb~r is that th~ question is, will th~r~
b~ public controversy relat~d to th~ pot~ntial ~nvironm~ntal impacts.
MR. ROBERTS-Adv~rs~ ~nvironm~ntal impacts.
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. CAIMANO-Not th~ proj~ct.
MR. DEAN-I think that IS what Paul was trying to address.
MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, I still f~~l strongly that th~ Staffl s l~tt~rs should
b~, both of th~m, both Wayn~Is and John'ss should b~ discuss~d.
MR. ROBERTS-I think that I s th~ n~xt place to go. Do w~ want to go with John or
Wayne's h~r~? John, why don't you carryon with your comm~nts.
MR. GORALSKI-Sur~.
FRANCIS SULLIVAN
MRS. SULLIVAN-I donlt und~rstand why(ref~rring to Staff Not~s) w~ have to sign
off that Qu~~nsbury's not responsible. W~ hav~ th~ lett~r her~ that w~ will abandon
th~ w~ll, if w~ hav~ to, but why do w~ hav~ to sign off that youlr~ not r~sponsibl~?
MR. ROBERTS-It has to do with the lat~ral s~paration distanc~ from th~ septic
syst~m to your w~lls I assum~.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. Th~ Qu~ensbury S~ptic Ordinanc~ r~quires that th~r~ b~ a
150 foot s~paration distanc~ b~tw~~n your well and th~ n~ighboring septic syst~m.
MR. DEAN-Any septic system.
MRS. SULLIVAN-Any s~ptic syst~m.
MR. GORALSKI-Any s~ptic systems rights ok. Now, th~ only way that you could hav~s
th~ only way that s~ptic system could b~ plac~d on that prop~rty and maintain
th~ separation betw~en th~ w~ll and th~ s~ptic syst~ms is for you to not hav~
a w~ll on your prop~rty at all. Nows if this Board approv~s this plans th~y would
b~ liable if you w~nt in and says wells wait a s~conds I want to put a w~ll in
th~re.
MRS. SULLIVAN-You mean I canlt put a well where we want to?
MR. GORALSKI-Nos you cannots if that syst~m is put in th~ way it is.
MRS. SULLIVAN-But Paul and I hav~ talk~d it ov~rs and my daught~rs and w~'ve com~
to an agr~~m~nt. Welve reached an agre~m~nt on it. Why do~s that both~r you
peopl~?
MR. CAIMANO-B~cause if youlve r~ach~d th~ agr~~m~nt, then you guys tak~ it up s
what youlr~ doing iss you'r~ not complying with the laws of th~ Town and w~ donlt
want to b~ responsible.
MRS. SULLIVAN-So, you don't want to b~ r~sponsibl~.
MR. CAIMANO-Right. If you want to r~ach a s~parat~ agr~~ment, which is extra
of th~ Townls lawss fine, I guesss but you've got to det~rmine that by yours~lf.
I assum~ thatls what you're saying.
MR. BARTON-Basicallys youlr~ saying you'r~ not going to blame the Town?
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. CAlMANO-Right.
26
~
'-"
MS. CORPUS-I think this would only r~ally com~ in if th~ prop~rty w~r~ sold.
I m~an if th~ ~xisting own~rs stay on it, it might not b~ a probl~m, but if th~
prop~rty' s sold at a lat~r date s the ~ventual own~rs might not hav~ that sam~
agr~~m~nt.
MR. GORALSKI-The problem is thats if this s~ptic syst~m is install~d th~ way itls
d~signed curr~ntly, it would b~ impossibl~ to put a w~ll on your prop~rty and
m~~t th~ r~quir~m~nts of th~ Town.
MRS. SULLIVAN-That, I und~rstand.
MR. GORALSKI-So, w~ do not want som~bodys a futur~ own~r of th~ prop~rtys p~rhaps,
to com~ back-
MRS. SULLIVAN-Should w~ s~ll.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. To come back and says w~lls wait a s~conds you told him he
could put a septic syst~m ins so yous nows ar~ making it impossibl~ for me to
put a w~ll in. Wh~ns in fact s th~ agre~m~nt was mad~ betw~~n you, th~ curr~nt
own~rs and Mr. Barton.
MRS. SULLIVAN-Buts truthfullys 11m not as concern~d about that as I am that runoff
youlv~ be~n talking about. That didnlt com~ up b~for~s but it goes on our prop~rty
and th~n it runs right down to Paul. That wat~r that I s in that parking lot is
not paul'ss itls from all Ov~r th~ Lake so why blam~ him? Why do~sn't Mr. Naylor
com~ up. W~IV~ talked to him. All of us have talked to him about this.
MR. CARTIER-Two thingss we'r~ not blaming Pauls Numb~r On~ and Number Two I donlt
know how much control this Planning Board has. This sounds like 11m passing th~
buck, I know it.
MRS. SULLIVAN-No youlr~ not and I shouldn't be up h~r~, probably.
MR. CARTIER-No, thatls okay, I donlt mean it to sound that ways but it sounds
lik~ a highway probl~m that ne~ds to b~ solv~d by th~ Highway D~partm~nt conc~rning
th~ drainag~.
MRS. SULLIVAN-But ther~Is always going to be drainag~.
MR. CARTIER-Well, it can b~ improv~ds thoughs and I don't know that this Planning
Board can do that.
MRS. SULLIVAN-W~'r~ hoping.
MR. GORALSKI-C~rtainly the Town Board could addr~ss the drainage problem.
MRS. SULLIVAN-W~lls I think you'd h~lp mor~ than our talking to th~m. Thank you
v~ry much.
MR. ROBERTS-Is th~ pr~s~nt septic system is probably to clos~ to Mrs. Sullivan.
MR. GORALSKI-Okays can I go on now? I still hav~ mor~. (Continu~d r~ading not~s)
MR. ROBERTS-Do you want to hav~ some discussion about th~se or do you want list~n
to Wayn~?
MR. CAIMANO-Ild like to list~n to Wayne b~cause th~re's something he says.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay, Wayne.
MR. GANNETT- (r~f~rring to his notes) would you 1ik~ m~ to read all th~ comm~nts
p~rtaining to septic d~sign?
MR. CARTIER-A through E?
MR. GANNETT-A through E p~rtaining to th~ septic d~sign.
MR. CARTIER-I could r~ad them myself.
MR. CAIMANO-We'r~ mor~ conc~rn~d with th~ lett~r from Mrs. Collard.
27
--
MR. GANNETT-Would you lik~ m~ to read that on~s too.
MR. ROBERTS-..tell DEC how to do their busin~ss. W~ assume it's going to r~quire
a SPDES P~rmit. W~IV~ discuss~d that.
MR. DEAN-Actually DOH does th~ revi~w and I don't want to g~t into whatls revi~wed
by on~ ag~ncy for another ag~ncy for anothßr ag~ncy' s permit, but th~ D~partment
of H~alth will r~vi~w th~ application pr~sented based on their r~quirem~nts and
pass that on for thßir approval and ther~ ar~ diff~rences in th~ir crit~rias design
crit~ria. This was d~signed based on D~partm~nt of Health crit~ria.
MR. CARTIER-Wells I think Mr. Gann~tt was doing you a favor h~r~ by just flagging
som~ things.
MR. DEAN-Yes. W~Ir~ awar~ of thos~. We appreciat~ that.
MR. ROBERTS-Whols revi~w is th~ more stricts Our cod~ or the Departm~nt of H~alth?
Can w~ tak~ solac~ in th~ fact that th~s~ peopl~ ar~ going to do a good job?
I wond~r if we should ask Wayn~ about that.
MR. GANNETT-I would susp~ct that all thßs~ problems will be addr~ssed in th~ cours~
of the N~w York Stat~ Revi~w.
MR. ROBERTS-L~t's not try and..this particular vi~w.
r~f~rr~d to another lett~rs Nick?
What oth~r comments s you
MR. CAIMANO-Y~s,
Qu~~nsbury Zoning
Wayn~'s lett~r
Ordinance says
to Pat Collard.
that grav~l is
Basically it sayss that thß
to be consid~r~d imperm~abl~.
MR. ROBERTS-Okays but thiss again, is an ~xisting situations isnlt it?
MR. CARTIER-No s all h~' s saying is this is going to requir~ anoth~r varianc~.
Do I understand that?
MR. GORALSKI-Corr~ct.
MR. CARTIER-In other words, a fourth variance.
MR. GORALSKI-A third. That was on~ of the thr~~.
MR. ROBERTS-That was th~ one you alr~ady not~d?
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. ROBERTS-About parking ar~a, I assum~ this is in conformitys th~r~ is spac~?
MR. GORALSKI-Ther~ were two small probl~ms with th~ 20 foot cl~ar driving lan~.
How~v~rs theylre minor things that can be addr~ss~d at th~ site plan, with a small
r~vision to th~ sit~ plan.
MR. DEAN-Thatls r~ally a good points John. Those hav~ b~en altered. Copi~s hav~
b~en submitt~d to the Planning D~partm~nt. I hav~ copi~s h~r~ for you g~ntleman.
Basically s what John's talking about is an additional space that was locat~d in
this position which, that's been r~mov~d which giv~s a v~ry cl~ar acc~ss to th~s~
s~v~n spaces. The other point John was r~f~rring to was s near th~ building
~ntrance s ther~ I s a scr~~ns in th~ form of a solid f~ncß with a flow~r box on
top. While thes~ ar~ not paint~d on lin~s, ~v~n th~ plan its~lf indicated thats
by scal~, th~re is only 15 f~~t from that screen f~nc~ to the first v~hicl~s
howev~r, by moving th~ entire grid north~rly 5 f~~t s would giv~ us the 20 foot
n~c~ssary s~paration and still maintain your 5 foot distance from th~ v~hicl~
n~ar~st th~ property lin~s nearest th~ highwayls right-of-way.
MR. CARTIER-Can I ask just a quick question h~re? Th~ on~ you IV~ got up th~r~
is diff~r~nt than th~ on~ I have in my pack~t. I hav~ diagonal parking, her~.
MR. DEAN-Oh, throw it away. Itls terribl~.
MR. CARTIER-Is that th~ only change b~tw~~n that and what w~ haves this diagonal
parking?
MR. DEAN-Essentially, yes, th~ parking will go in as it currently occurs on the
prop~rty.
28
'-"
MR. CARTIER-Nothing els~ on this diagram is diff~r~nt ~xcept the parking?
MR. DEAN-That's correct. I suppli~d copi~ss last month.
MR. ROBERTS-Last month?
MR. DEAN-Yes
MR. ROBERTS-Old copi~s?
MR. DEAN-No. Th~y w~r~ up to dat~.
MR. GORALSKI-I think you should have r~c~ived a r~vised plan.
MR. CARTIER-It n~ver got to us.
(TAPE TURNED)
MR. CAIMANO-Assuming that th~ ston~ parking lot is impermeabl~s do you hav~ th~
perm~ability p~rcentag~ on this land as it is right now?
MR. GANNETT-Imp~rm~abl~?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes. How about th~ oth~r way?
MR. CARTIER-Would you hav~ th~ p~rcentage of imp~rmeabl~? I saw it som~wh~r~.
MR. DEAN-It's at the top
calculations w~r~ rath~r
for non grav~l~d ar~a.
p~rm~ability.
MR. ROBERTS-For th~ addition?
of the LTl (r~ferring to plan) Our original perm~ability
radical. B~low that you will find th~ lot perm~ability
With the additions th~r~ I s a n~t loss of 5 percent
MR. DEAN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-The 91 p~rc~nt includ~s th~ parking lot, is that right?
MR. DEAN-Yes, that's corr~ct. SOs existing w~ hav~ 57 p~rc~nt perm~ability.
With the additions w~'d hav~ 52 p~rc~nts which is a net loss of 5 p~rc~nt.
MR. CAIMANO-W~lls th~ purpos~s tonight, is simply I hop~ to...what Mr. Bartonls
s~~kings right?
MR. ROBERTS-Y~s.
MR. DEAN-W~lre hoping to leav~ with a n~gative d~c tonight as w~ll.
MR. CAIMANO-That's what w~Ir~ here to do tonight.
MR. ROBERTS-I IV~ heard a lot about s~tback from th~ Lak~s why don I t w~ discuss
that.
MR. CAIMANO-I think what I was g~tting at wass l~tls assum~ something. L~tls
assume that this is a n~gative d~claration. It nOw go~s back to th~ ZBA. It
has to com~ back to us for sit~ plan r~vi~w anyways at which times all of thes~
things can b~ taken car~ of. Ar~ you sugg~sting that w~ l~t th~m knows now, that
we have a littl~ probl~m lik~ s~tback is not 50 fe~t and thos~ kinds of things s
so that they can prepar~ for th~ next time th~y com~ backs or what? What would
you lik~ to do?
MR. ROBERTS-Wells th~y'll probably g~t that indication as we go along. A s~tback
from th~ Lak~ might b~ som~thing that would have a b~aring on th~ SEQRA r~vi~w.
MR. GORALSKI-Th~ thing that you ar~ att~mpting to do tonight s ok, actually you
hav~ thre~ choic~s. You can As tabl~ this; B, you can make a n~gativ~ d~clarations
which means this Board f~~ls that th~r~ will b~ no significant n~gativ~
~nvironm~ntal impact from this proj~ct as it is curr~ntly propos~d in front of
you; or Cs you can mak~ a positiv~ d~claration m~aning that this Board feels that
th~r~ may b~ som~ significant ~nvironmental impact and th~n a draft ~nvironm~ntal
impact stat~m~nt would have to be prepared. Those ar~ your thr~~ choices as far
as the SEQRA revi~w is conc~rn~d. C~rtainlys it is within your purvi~w to mak~
a list of things that
29
-
you would lik~ to see addr~ssed wh~n it comes back for a sit~ plan. One thing
I do have to stat~ on~ mor~ tim~ is s you cannot make a conditional n~gative d~c
with resp~ct to SEQRA becaus~ this is a Typ~ I action.
MR. CAIMANO-Itls got to b~ eith~r positive or n~gativ~.
MR. GORALSKI-Or you can table it and l~t them mak~ som~ chang~s. Am I right s
Karla?
MS. CORPUS-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Well s I guess I 111. . by saying ther~ ar~ an awful lot from the Staff
and from what w~ s~e her~, there's an awful lot of r~d flags conc~rning th~
pot~ntial for a positive d~clarations in my mind. Th~r~ obviously are som~
questions that could s answers, that could mitigat~ all of this s so wouldn I t it
be logicals th~ns to put thos~ all on th~ tabl~ and pot~ntiallys l~t th~ applicant
go back and work on those sO that th~re may be a n~gative d~claration.
MR. ROBERTS-11m not sure th~y would lik~ it that way.
MR. CAIMANO-Ilm not eith~r.
MR. ROBERTS-Let's go back ov~r, ours~lv~ss aft~r welv~ look~d into this a littl~
mor~ clos~ly and go back and look at the red flags.
MR. DEAN-You knows in on~ resp~cts welve h~ard from Staff and s~~m to b~ going
back to th~ir r~commendation and p~rhaps wish to tabl~ thiss howev~r, you hav~n't
h~ard from the applicant r~garding some of th~ses sO calleds r~d flags.
MR. ROBERTS-Tru~.
MR. DEAN-I think that's th~ purpos~ of this r~vi~w.
MR. CAIMANO-That was my qu~stions to straighten things all out, w~ might l~t you
comm~nt on th~m as we bring th~ r~d flags out.
MR. ROBERTS-Yes. If you would like to mak~ a pr~s~ntations shall w~ go back and
look at the r~d flags and l~t you respond to th~m. Alright. (Read EAF) Would
proposed action effect any nonprot~ct~d or new body of water. We said yes becaus~
of a possibl~ incr~ase in dir~ct discharg~ of stormwater runoff from the parking
lot and roof. You IV~ alr~ady discuss~d how you I r~ going to handles mitigat~ the
m~asures of the n~w roof.
MR. GORALSKI-That's not on th~ plans though.
I just want to point that out.
MR. ROBERTS-Ok.
MR. CARTIER-I donlt think w~ can sit h~re and n~gative d~c this thing on the basis
of, h~r~' s what we're going to do. W~ n~~d to s~~ this on pap~r. W~ n~~d to
s~e a finish~d plan, so that w~ can says oks with this finish~d plan b~for~ us
is not going to hav~ an incr~as~d ~ff~ct on Gl~n Lak~.. 11m not sur~ what IS going
to b~ served by your going through these it~ms. When I look~d at what Staff's
comments ar~, I've r~ad through these Staff comm~nts and I agre~ with ~v~ry singl~
on~ of th~m.
MR. ROBERTS-But I don't think we'v~ given th~ applicant much of an opportunity
to pres~nt his cas~s h~re.
MR. CARTIER-Okays but what are w~ s~lling? Are we trying to sell a negativ~ d~c
b~caus~ I donlt think thatls going to happen.
MR. GORALSKI-I think, you knows I donlt want to tak~ up a lot of tim~, but I think
it would b~ important that you go through and th~ app licant know if ther~ ar~
chang~s that you want mad~ b~fore you I r~ going to mak~ a d~cision on th~ SEQRAs
that h~ know ~xactly what you want. So, I think it would b~ advantag~ous to him
and to you to layout exactly what your probl~ms ar~.
MR. ROBERTS-And this is a probl~m and you know it now and you hav~ it partially
on th~ diagram and you IV~ alr~ady discussed what you I r~ going to do about it,
but I think also on this Numb~r 4s trigg~rs this philosophical things are w~ going
to make this applicant solve all th~ drainag~ probl~ms in that n~ighborhoods part
of which com~s down across his parking lot. I donlt think w~ can do that. Weld
lik~ to and if there was som~ easy way to do its that's fin~s but I'm not sur~
th~r~ is.
30
-
'---'
MR. KUPILLAS-Nos but I think that you have to provid~, if I und~rstand this
correctly, it's b~~n d~clar~d that grav~l parking lotls are impermeabl~. I think
you do n~~d to provid~ that th~r~ is a certain amount of runoff that's going to
com~ from your property and your parking lot s notwithstanding th~ road runoff s
which w~ all agr~~ is a probl~m that w~ would like to see. .as w~ll as you, but
you do n~~d to provid~, I thinks I would thinks som~ typ~ of dryw~ll syst~m n~ar
your building at th~ end of your, to catch what~v~r runoff is yours and.. . that
would come from th~ n~w addition and your parking lot. I think you hav~ to address
that. Ther~ is som~thing that n~~ds addressing ther~. Th~r~ is runoff from that
parking lot.
MR. ROBERTS-It I S an ~xisting situations how do w~ handl~ that for an existing
situation?
MR. KUPILLAS-I donlt know wh~th~r it impacts th~ stat~m~nt, but it c~rtainly is
th~re.
MR. CAIMANO-I think it do~s impact th~ stat~m~nt.
MR. KUPILLAS-W~lls I mean it says it IS proposed action, so..of an addition probably
do~sn't impact...
MR. ROBERTS-That's what I'm trying to get at.
on~.
How much ~mphasis do w~ put on
MR. KUPILLAS-Ther~ is runoff in that parking lots if it's imp~rm~abl~.
MR. ROBERTS-Existing.
MR. KUPILLAS-Y~s.
MR. CARTIER-W~lls can w~ agr~~ that this Board is going to d~v~lop som~
correspondence to th~ Town Board or Highway Departm~nt or who~ver n~~ds to h~ar
it to addr~ss this issue?
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. ROBERTS-No question. Youlr~ going to tak~ car~ of th~ stuff around your new
addition?
MR. DEAN-Right.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, w~ don't know hows y~ts though.
MR. DEAN-W~ll, I had explain~d it. It's a v~ry simpl~ ditch..fill~d with ston~.
It will app~ar on paper at your n~xt m~eting. How~v~r, it's a v~ry simpl~ method
of ground water ret~ntion. It's not an op~n ditch.
MR. ROBERTS-Okays Numb~r 5s Will propos~d Action, w~lls l~tls s~~s we didnlt flag
anything serious h~r~. That was all small to mod~rate ~ffect on groundwater.
MR. CARTIER-Hav~ th~y all be~n addr~ssed, how th~ylr~ going to b~ taken car~ of?
Construction or op~ration causing contamination of a wat~r supply syst~ms how
is it going to b~ mitigated? Can th~ impact b~ mitigat~d by proj~ct chang~s you'r~
saying y~ss ok, what's th~ chang~ that's going to mitigat~ that impact?
MR. GORALSKI-Are you asking me?
MR. CARTIER-I'm asking anybody who wants to answ~r that.
MR. GORALSKI-I think the point of everything in 4 and 5 and, probablys ~v~n 6
is that th~ Town Boards by a r~qu~st from the resid~nts of Glen Lakes d~t~rmined
that Gl~n Lake is a critical ~nvironm~ntal area and, ther~fores n~~ds som~
prot~ction. Th~ r~ason for doing this revi~w, this detail~d reviews is to mak~
sur~ that that critical ~nvironm~ntal area is prot~ct~d. SOs th~ point is to
almost go out of our way to minimiz~ any impact on th~s~ things. For ~xampl~s
as Mack saids as far as th~ additional surface ar~a of th~ building is conc~rn~d,
ifs through ~ngin~ering meanss th~y can provide a tr~nch around the addition that
will stor~ th~ water and let it percolat~ into th~ ground th~ns you knows that
mitigat~s that probl~m. As far as th~ runoff from th~ parking lot s 11m not an
~ngine~r, but my opinion was thats in the pasts what youlve don~ to control storm
wat~r runoff is put som~ dryw~lls in the parking lot that provid~d for a c~rtain
amount of storag~ so that the wat~r would not b~ discharg~d onto adjac~nt
prop~rties. That's just on~ sugg~stion.
31
-
Mayb~ Wayn~ has oth~rs. I don't know. I'm not saying tak~ all th~ wat~r from
Glen Lak~ Road. Th~rels a c~rtain ar~a and th~re's a c~rtain engin~~ring formula
that can calculat~ the amount of runoff that will b~ produc~d from th~ parking
lot its~lf. A dryw~ll that could handl~ that amount of runoff, in my opinions
would minimiz~ th~ impact on GI~n Lake.
MR. ROBERTS-Wh~re ar~ you going to put th~ drywell, down n~ar th~ Lakes in a wat~r
tabl~ thatls probably 2 f~~t b~low th~ surfac~ because it wonlt work?
MR. GORALSKI-Nos I would suggest, in the c~nt~r of th~ r~t~ntion ar~a that th~ylr~
proposing.
MR. KUPILLAS-Thatls ~v~n mor~ shallow than down n~ar th~ Lake.
MR. GANNETT-Is ther~ a r~ason why you havenlt considered dryw~lls in your r~t~ntion
ar~a?
MR. DEAN-Becaus~ th~ groundwat~r is so high, itls ridiculous ev~n to put a drywell
in that would b~ of any ~ff~ct at all. It would se~m to mak~ mOr~ sens~ to try
to build up some crushed ston~ in an ar~a that is not a trav~l~d highways but
m~rely a plac~ wher~ cars ar~ parked for a l~ngth of tim~.
MR. CAIMANO-But you run smack into the Town Ordinanc~ which says that th~y wonlt
buy that, that's not going to drain through th~r~.
MR. DEAN-I have to accept thats but basically what w~'re saying is to try to imped~
wat~r flow and siltation into the Lak~ by building this up with fr~sh grav~l and
in th~ area wh~re cars are not park~d or is v~ry s~ldom driv~n on b~ing th~ boat
launch ramps but that's not a h~avily used boat ramp and it IS not going to compact
on th~ natur~ that it would on a parking lot or highway. Th~ int~nt is not sol~ly
to cr~ate a p~rm~abl~ situation, but as a r~t~ntion situation and a filtration
situation for that stormwat~r drainag~. Th~ only solution that w~ IV~ b~~n abl~
to com~ up with at Morse Engin~ering is to rais~ th~ level of th~ parking lot
by at l~ast 3 f~et s r~grav~l it s try to figur~ out som~ way to k~~p th~ runoff
from th~ parking lot becaus~ th~ floor el~vation at the Docksider would b~ b~low
that of th~ parking lot. Ar~ ~stimat~d cost of that proj~ct would b~ $20s000,
to raise that parking lot l~v~l sO w~' d hav~ ~nough depth to put in any kind of
drywÛ 1.
MR. BARTON- I I d like to mak~ a point of information to sOm~ of you that may not
b~ familiar with this prop~rty, th~ only dir~ct runoff into the Lak~ is through
the boat launch. (R~f~rring to map) All across h~r~ th~r~Is a natural b~rm which
is probably a foot highs foot and a half and I hav~ pictur~s h~r~ that will show
that s which I took. That do~s cr~ate a barri~r along this ~dge h~re b~for~ it
runs down off through. Th~ only direct is right through the boat launch and also
right n~xt door on th~ Town property. Weld like to do som~thing. Welv~ talk~d
about it. Itls something thatls been there for a long tim~ and live don~ ~v~rything
I can to control that and by putting that stone in th~r~ twic~ a years in th~
spring and th~ fall s I' v~ tri~d to catch it. I I v~ tri~d to filter it and I plan
on continuing to do that b~cause I want to k~ep the prop~rty the way I IV~ k~pt
it and ~ven b~tt~r with this addition.
MR. DEAN-If you hav~ a grav~l parking area and youlv~ got.. and so forth and aft~r
...gravels som~times som~ of that dust and this gray matt~r shows up on th~ doors
and it's not th~ gr~atest situation in th~ worlds but to try to fix it has had
a lot of p~opl~ scratching their h~ads for quite som~ time. Ther~ was talk of
paving its just because it would be ~asi~r to plow and you wouldnlt be tracking
mud and wat~r and so forth. Pavingls out of the qu~stion. I donlt think ther~'s
anyon~ who would disagr~e with that. We r~ally do f~~l that we can supply som~
mitigative measur~s to th~ ~xisting situation and w~ can c~rtainly handl~ th~
additional runoff created by th~ propos~d addition. Much more ~asily, I wish
w~ had the availability or the perm~ability in th~ parking lot that w~ do down
h~r~.
MR. ROBERTS-It s~ems lik~ we'v~ got a
~xisting. . . other than, p~rhaps, up on
down on th~ir prop~rty befor~ we g~t
wh~th~r..wat~r table is so high.
siz~able probl~m to try to corr~ct th~
the road, to k~~p th~ wat~r from coming
into this parking lot. I don't know
MR. DEAN-It does p~rmeate to som~ degr~~.
all ~vaporat~ in a matt~r of two hours.
You can watch th~ wat~r and it do~sn't
32
---
'----'
MR. ROBERTS-It I S probably b~tt~r to k~~p it grav~l th~n... it ~ven though that's
not id~als it's probably b~tter, I suppos~.
MR. CAIMANO-W~ll, but what 11m hearing h~re, Mr. Chairmans from th~s~ g~ntl~man
and from you, is that th~re' s no id~al way of solving this probl~m and yet we
ar~ fac~d with the pr()bl~m of pulling this from out against the Lake which is
an ~nvironm~ntally sensitiv~ ar~a. How can we accept that? How can we accept
th~ fact that ~verybody knows th~re are ways to mitigate this, th~re ar~ costly
ways. Everybody knows that th~re ar~ probl~ms and y~t we hav~ to say, oks there's
no impact on this very environmentally s~nsitive ar~a. It I S not his fault, but
if w~' r~ going to ~mploy philosophy her~, w~ I r~ fac~d with a situation in 1990
wher~ som~body's got to say no.
MR. ROBERTS-W~lre talking significant impact, environm~ntal impact, of an additional
building.
MR. CAIMANO-Significant impact? This Lake is about to di~.
MR. DEAN-Mr. Caimano, w~Ir~ not discussing a gr~at deal of runoff b~caus~ w~ pr~v~nt
any runoff from the Lak~, simply by damming it. Th~ runoff coming off Mr. Bartonls
prop~rty is l~ss than what's coming off from th~ road on adjoining properti~s
and at St. Mary's Bay and any numb~r of oth~r p laces along Qu~~nsbury' s road.
W~' r~ not b~gging off because ther~ ar~ probl~ms som~wher~ ~ls~s but this is not
a heavy runoff on Mr. Bartonls property.
MR. CAIMANO-What's not a h~avy runoff?
MR. DEAN-From what com~s off this parking lot. Th~r~ ar~ ponds h~r~ now, ~xc~pt
in h~avy storms when th~ ground' s froz~n and it ov~rflows and ther~ I s just som~
littl~ pot holes.
MR. CARTIER-W~s hav~, as a Board, hav~ op~rated under th~ assumption that w~ do
not, incr~ase th~ runoff on your prop~rty. W~ r~tains on your property what falls
on your prop~rty, ignoring th~ Town road probl~ms. So you'v~ got to com~ up with
a plan that does that.
MR. DEAN-We do.
MR. CARTIER-Well s you I re telling me about runoff through th~ trail~r launching
ar~a into th~ Lak~.
MR. DEAN-That's in a 10 y~ar storm.
MR. CARTIER-W~ll, I don' t car~ wh~n it is s it I s still happ~ns and you I ve got to
mitigat~ that som~how?
MR. ROBERTS-You hav~ to mitigate an ~xisting circumstance?
MR. DEAN-That I s part of an ~ngineering stormwat~r design.
hav~ an ov~rflow outl~ts it's coming direct.
You didn' t hav~ to
MR. CARTIER-It do~s not hav~ to b~ th~ boat launch ar~a into th~ Lak~.
MR. GANNETT-If I may mak~ a coupl~ of comments on th~ drainage situations th~
fact that th~r~ is a propos~d r~t~ntion area within the parking lot, it is an
improv~m~nt ov~r th~ existing situation, wh~re the parking lots mor~ or l~ss drains
dir~ctly into th~ Lake. Th~r~ has to b~ an alcov~ for any kind of a r~t~ntion
ar~a becaus~ ret~ntion areass by their natur~ are d~sign~d for a c~rtain fr~qu~ncy
storms typically 50 y~ar storm. W~ have som~ qu~stions on th~ specific m~thods
that w~re used for th~ calculations, wh~r~ w~ think thats on th~ basis of
p~rcolation rat~ s the ret~ntion ar~a mayb~ und~rsiz~d but the basic conc~pt of
a r~t~ntion ar~a is an improv~m~nt. What mak~s me less comfortabl~ with th~
r~t~ntion ar~a is that th~r~ is no dryw~ll typ~ outl~t for low flows and th~re
is some conc~rn about wat~r ponding and fre~zing up in th~ wint~r time as a
maint~nanc~ and safety probl~m.
MR. ROBERTS-Ther~ do~sn I t s~~m to b~ an answ~r s not ~v~n an ~ngin~~ring answ~r,
is th~re?
MR. CARTIER-I gu~ss, I think what w~Ir~ saying iss and 11m speaking for mys~lf
onlys her~s and my answer is not that itls okay to ov~rflow into th~ Lak~. The
point of this whol~ process that w~ I r~ going through is th~ prot~ction of th~
33
--
Lake. What 11m saying is, to m~, that's not...th~r~Is got to b~ a b~tter way
to handl~ this s otherwis~ w~ ar~ not dealing with the ~nvironmental issu~s h~r~.
Itls a tough pißc~ of property and I can appr~ciat~ th~ situation.
MR. CAIMANO-Th~ r~st of it s I don' t s~~ that... th~ parking for examp l~ s inl~ts
and ~gr~ss. Thos~ things, ar~ easilys I thinks tak~n car~ ofs th~ s~tback problems
thos~ things are taken car~ of easily.
MR. GORALSKI-If I could try to move this along. It app~ars that th~ oth~r issu~s
that hav~ com~ up ar~ probably small to mod~rat~ impacts, minor, may not ~ven
b~ significant. Th~ sticking point s~~ms to b~ th~ drainag~ probl~m. If the
Board do~s not f~~l confident doing a n~gativ~ d~c at this tim~s p~rhaps, Mr.
Barton' s engin~er should m~~t with the Town's engineer and attempt to COm~ to
som~ agr~~m~nt on what solutions what th~ best solution could b~ to hav~ minimal
impact with r~gard to stormwater runoff.
MR. ROBERTS-Tabling for that purpos~, I gu~ss.
MS. CORPUS-Of cours~, th~ Board could always mak~ th~ d~termination ~ither of
a n~gativ~ dec lat~r or that th~r~ is no mitigation requiring a draft EAF.
MR. ROBERTS-I still thinks p~rhaps s som~how along the lin~ w~ hav~ to satisfy
ours~lv~s as to what our responsibiliti~s are to ~xisting situations.
MR. CAIMANO-I think your right and I think you and I may hav~ a littl~ differ~nt
vi~w of this and I want to g~t cl~ar~d up s if I'm wrong. I ask~d th~ qu~stion
last tim~ and I'll ask it again. My opinion is that if Mr. Barton or Mr. X wants
to r~op~n becaus~ he wants to do som~thing on this propßrty s and w~ go through
this Environmental Impact Forms w~ go through this Form as if it was day on~ of
this prop~rty. That is my und~rstanding of it.
MR. GORALSKI-I donlt know that that is correct becaus~ th~ way the law is written
th~y talk about th~ propos~d action.
MR. DEAN-Thatls rights it's a propos~d action.
MR. CAIMANO-It's a proposed action through the whole proj~cts though, thatls what
I asked last time.
MR. DEAN-My question is without th~ additions we still have th~ sam~ probl~ms
as far as drainag~.
MR. CAIMANO-Thatls corr~cts but you didnlt bring it up for us to do this.
MR. DEAN-Wßlls as you just saids itls th~ impact on th~ proposed proj~cts corr~ct?
Not th~ whol~ entire thing.
MR. CARTIER-I donlt know how you separatß th~s~ things out.
MR. GORALSKI-I donlt know that you can now s~gr~gate and say this is part of th~
proj~cts this isnlt part of the proj~ct.
MR. ROBERTS-But it comes down to we I r~ going to do what I s r~asonabl~ in som~ of
th~s~ cas~s.
MR. GORALSKI-C~rtainly and that's
including the Highway D~partment s
this particular prop~rty.
why I'm sugg~sting that mayb~ a workshop, mayb~
to at l~ast minimiz~ th~ impacts that ar~ on
MR. CARTIER-Thatls fair.
MR. ROBERTS-I think w~ I r~ going to hav~ to leav~ it that way tonight. I think
w~ I r~ all g~tting a little antsy her~ and I think we 'v~ com~ to th~ conclusion
that this n~~ds to be tabled for, hop~fully, som~
MR. DEAN-I would lik~ to r~quest to th~ Board that th~ applicants Mr. Barton,
with Town Staff and oth~r prof~ssionals revi~w those questions put forward by
th~ Staffs th~ Planning Department and w~Ill s~~ you in a month.
MR. ROBERTS-I think sO and Wß will agree betwe~n us to table it.
MR. CARTIER-Wh~n do your Article 5 conc~rns gßt addr~ss~d?
34
----
MR. GORALSKI-I think th~ylr~ part ofs I think if you address thos~, you address
th~ ~nvironmental impacts to a larg~ degree.
MR. DEAN-Your site plan r~vi~w proc~dur~s...SEQRA. They're synonymous.
MR. GORALSKI-Th~y are not one in the sames how~v~rs they are bas~d on th~ same
philosophy that w~'r~ trying to minimiz~ the impact.
MR. CARTIER-Th~ trap I don't want to fall into is that s if, down the lin~ s th~se
varianc~s ar~ granted and it comes back h~re for a sit~ plan (TAPE TURNED) Will
your Articl~ 5 conc~rns be addr~ssed in this workshop s~ssion that we are sugg~sting
b~ h~ld?
MR. GORALSKI-W~ c~rtainly will discuss them and try to iron th~m out. On~ point
I want to mak~ clears just b~cause an applicants any applicants r~c~ives a varianc~s
do~s not mean that th~ Planning Board has to approv~ that plan as it was propos~d
and approved by the Zoning Board.
MR. ROBERTS-Nos but as a practical matt~r it backs us into a tighter corn~r,
~sp~cially if we have alr~ady approv~d th~ SEQRA. We can't say no to th~ sit~
plan.
MR. DEAN-W~lls if you wer~ to obtain a varianc~s an ar~a variance, for a setback
I think th~ Planning Board would be hard pr~ss~d to turn down th~ application
based on that...
MR. ROBERTS-I think so.
MR. BARTON-This is all n~w to m~ and this s~~ms lik~ it IS g~tting push~d and shov~d
back and forths which it is which mak~s it v~ry difficult for a lot of r~asons.
I am willing to go along with it. On~ qu~stion I have at this point is, is th~re
anything ~ls~ on that SEQRA r~vi~w that ne~ds to b~ addr~ss~d oth~r than this
stormwat~r drainag~? Are w~ agreeing that everything ~ls~ is n~gative d~c?
MR. CAIMANO-Th~rels som~ minor things.
MR. BARTON-W~ll s why can' t w~ go ov~r th~m now, to g~t th~m out of th~ way or
tell us what th~y are.
MR. ROBERTS-W~Iv~ alr~ady don~ that.
MR. CAIMANO-The only oth~r one, Mr. Chairmans that you check~d no, Johns and I
would qu~stion b~cause it com~s up in your letter is the traffic patt~rn in and
out of th~ patt~rn b~caus~ of th~..curve becaus~ th~r~ is a question h~re regarding
impact on transportation and it says will it caus~ major traffic probl~mss
potentially good and since w~Ir~ doing it anyways why donlt w~ just answ~r that.
MR. DEAN-W~ will, but I think that r~f~rs more to mor~ major
MR. CAIMANO-I understand thats but Mr. Barton ask~d for qu~stions.
MR. BARTON-Right and my point iss if you'd hear me out a littl~ bit h~r~, if w~
discuss that issu~ now, w~ would find out what your conc~rns on that ar~.
MR. ROBERTS-I'm sorry, Mr. Barton, the discussion is closed off for tonight.
MR. BARTON-Okay s I'm trying to l~arns lik~ in my original statement and I'm just
trying to und~rstand this process.
MR. CARTIER-Th~ only oth~r comment that I would mak~ is th~se lett~rss th~s~ Article
5 s I'm trying to sp~ed this up a littl~ bit s is that thes~ comm~nts from Articl~
5 that Mr. Goralski has mad~ ar~ v~ry appropriat~s all of th~ms and I think thos~
n~~d to b~ addr~ss~d in any workshop s~ssion we hav~ b~tw~~n Staff.
MR. DEAN-W~Id r~vi~w all thos~, ~v~ry on~ of th~m.
MR. CARTIER-I hop~ so.
MR. DEAN-Fin~. That I s what I want to know b~caus~ I don I t want to wait another
month. That's what I was trying to say. Thank you.
35
'-_/
'-'
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANTs
Introduced by P~ter Carti~r who mov~d for its adoptions second~d by Nicholas
Caimano:
So that ~ngin~~r and staff on both sides of the application can g~t tog~th~r and
addr~ss conc~rns rais~d by staff, by engin~~rs and qu~stions in th~ Environm~ntal
Ass~ssm~nt Form b~ addr~ssed.
Duly adopt~d this 20th day of March, 1990s by the following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagans Mrs. Pulv~rs Mr. Dybas
SITE PLAN NO. 18-90 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 AVIATION ROAD DEV. CORP.
SAME AS ABOVE RESTAURANT: CARL R'S CAFE MAIN STREET (CORINTH ROAD)
CONSTRUCTION OF A 940· SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE DINING AREA, AND A 505 SQ.
ADDITION TO THE KITCHEN PREPARATION AREA. (WARREN COUNTY PLAHHING) TAX MAP
135-2-5 LOT SIZE: 1.054 ACRES SECTION 4.020
OWNER:
FOR
FT.
NO.
MALCOLM O'HARA, BARTLETT/PONTIFF; CURT DYBASs CUSHING/DYBASs AGENT FOR APPLICANT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Plann~r (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Wayne Gann~tts Town Engineer (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~d, that last application, what did th~ County have to say about
that?
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d th~y approv~d it. Warr~n County Planning Board approv~d
(r~f~rring to Aviation Road D~v. Corp.). I believ~ with th~ conditions ~ntranc~
only sign must b~ plac~d at th~ front entranc~ and dir~ctional signs placed to
dir~ct the flow of traffic to th~ parking in th~ rear.
MR. 0' HARA-Stated my name is Malcolm OlHara. 11m from Bartl~tt/Pontiff. 11m
her~ tonight with Curt Dybas from Cushing/Dybas whols going to addr~ss th~ t~chnical
qu~stions and asp~cts of this application. We 've h~ard the Staff concerns. I
think th~ first Staff concern has already b~~n address~d. We IV~ cons~nt~d to
~ntranc~ only at the County l~v~l to gain their approval. W~ can addr~ss th~
sp~cifics s but s basically s we hav~ no probl~m with th~ Staff r~commendations and
w~ can incorporate thos~ into this plan. As far as th~ addition go~s s w~ f~~l
it's a r~lativ~ly minimal impact on th~ traffic pattern. The main purpos~ of
th~ addition is to r~construct our kitch~n int~rnally and then, of cours~, th~
addition is going to create som~ additional dining spaces but thatls, at th~ parking
l~v~l anyway, about 3 or 4 additional parking spac~s, so it shouldnlt hav~ a major
traffic impact.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d I'm Curt Dybas from th~ architectural firm of Cushing/Dybas
Associat~s. To addr~ss your first point on th~ parking,...of this ~ntir~ addition,
and th~r~'s only 300 squar~ f~~t of it that is d~signated for dining spac~s p~rs~s
the r~st of it will be corridor spac~ and w~ ar~ r~locating th~ toil~t rooms to
th~ main floors banning th~ public toil~t rooms in th~ bas~ment and th~ remaining
is addition to th~ ki tchen spac~. So s if you say, tak~ th~ 300 squar~ fe~t for
dinings ~ith~r way you calculat~ it, eith~r four s~ats p~r car or the 100 square
fe~t p~r parking spac~s you I r~ looking at thr~~ cars, four maximum and w~ don It
f~~l that this is a substantial impact to that int~rs~ction. Primarily wh~n th~
maximum us~ for Carl R I S is in the ~v~ning hours, primarily aft~r 5 pm in th~
~v~ning. Th~ s~cond plug raised on th~ parkings you are rights John, that th~s~
islands(ref~rring to map) do not exist. Th~ pr~sent sit~ iss basicallys a s~a
of asphalt. B~sid~s th~ building, th~r~Is only 1 p~rc~nt of th~ sit~ that's
permeabl~. We ar~s obviouslys cutting back pav~ment in various locations all
over and w~ thought, since this is a 60 foot right-of-way from Big Boom, and th~
paving is just continuous right throughs is that w~ would create th~s~ island,
ind~~d on County prop~rty. If this is not p~rmitteds we would b~ mor~ than happy
to cr~at~ a barrier to block traffic flow similar to th~ one that is across th~
north boundary curr~ntlys if th~y wonlt allow us to do th~ island. As far as
th~ p~rm~ables th~ islands ar~
36
--/
'--
not consider~d a part of the perm~abl~ ar~a. The qu~stion rais~d on th~ p~rm~abl~
mas w~ did includ~ th~ pav~rs that ar~ s~t in sand as part of th~ p~rm~able
area in our calculations. Nows I donlt have my draft..fil~ss so I cannot addr~ss
wh~r~ this d~ficit is suppos~d to occur as far as.. but s if n~~d be s w~ can g~t
togeth~r and work that out. Stormwat~rs as far as th~ perc t~sts IIv~ got tos
again, look at my not~s. Basicallys I took the p~rc rate that was giv~n by Charli~
Scudder for th~ s~ptic syst~m d~sign and what~ver that was basing it on th~...p~r
squar~ foot from that calculation. I don't hav~ it with m~ this ~v~ning. Basically
what welr~ doing with the dryw~ll situation, if n~~d b~s we can add anoth~r on~.
W~, obviously s hav~ suffici~nt site area and w~ I re handling th~ runoff from th~
roof addition and also w~ ar~ cr~ating planting ar~as arounds with th~ ~xc~ption
of th~ ~ntrance way which happ~ns to b~.. there ar~ plant~r box~s and gr~~n areas
around the ~ntire building whichs obviouslys will handl~ runoff from th~ roof
which now runs on the pavem~nt and probably 50 perc~nt of...
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d your s~a of blacktop looks like a bomb I s b~~n dropp~d on it
in th~ backyard th~re.
MR. OlHARA-Stated what has happ~n~ds ands basicallys it do~snlt conc~rn uSs but
they had a s~ptic probl~m.
MR. CARTIER-Askeds who's th~y?
MR. O'HARA-Stated Carl RIs.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d it was we in the b~ginning.
MR. DYBAS-Stated we, okay. That
reconstruct th~ ~ntir~ s~ptic syst~m.
is we applied for a r~c~iv~d
What you s~e was reh~avel.
a
p~rmit
to
MR. CARTIER-Ask~ds do th~y know why it collaps~d or what was going on?
MR. DYBAS-Stated when you say collaps~d, I'm thinking of th~ ar~a that I s dug up
back in this ar~as collapsed. This ~ntire sit~ is all fill s in SOm~ ar~as your
down 12 f~~t and it's all good fill s old stumps s bricks. This parc~l that h~' s
in the proc~ss of acquiring h~r~ iss p~ople talk about m~rely regrading of grav~l,
h~ talks about mer~ly r~surfacing h~re to take up the
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d in oth~r words, that whole ar~a s~ttl~d becaus~ of d~composition
of stumps and so on and so forth.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d th~ pres~nt s~ptic system is down On top of this s lik~ 14 f~ßt
b~low grad~.
MR. CAIMANO-Ask~d, how about gr~as~ traps?
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d grease traps are ups th~ pr~s~nt on~s.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d that's wh~r~ th~ collaps~ iss....gr~as~ traps...
MR. DYBAS-Stated it's probably s~dim~nt becaus~ right now s what is th~r~ now is
. . . concr~t~ and what is propos~d is s h~' s got mor~ gr~as~ trap s in th~r~ than
I'v~ s~~n in a long tim~.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d w~ll s somewh~re in all of this s som~how that's going to hav~
to be addr~ss, s~ptic, and s~diment and so on and so forth.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d th~ septic is addr~ssed.
MR. CARTIER-Stated w~ll, w~' r~ creating a parking lot that I s going to continu~
to s~ttl~.
MR. DYBAS-Stated the parking lot is th~r~ and itls...continu~ to settl~.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d okay.
MR. DYBAS-Stated itls a maintenanc~ problem, quite frankly.
MR. CARTIER-Stated w~ll, it's going to be a custom~r probl~m toos at sOme point.
Are w~ going to do a short form on this?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated y~s.
37
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds hav~ we got anymore significant qu~stions for th~ applicant?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. 0 I CONNOR-Stat~d I I 11 v~rify how d~~p that whol~ s~ptic syst~m was. It f~d
th~ bas~m~nt and bathrooms by gravity. Georg~ Kurosaka designed it about 20 y~ars
ago and it cost about $15,000 in that day. It was an expensiv~ syst~m to put
in.
MR. CARTIER-Stated w~lls I guess I n~~d to know wh~re we are h~re. Are w~ talking
about tabling this so that Staff and Engin~ering comments can be addressed?
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I don't think w~ hav~ a choices Mr. Cartier.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I think we can still do th~ SEQRA.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d yes.
MR. CARTIER-Stated (referring to
...writing off this subs~nanc~ in
somehow. W~ hav~ a parking lot
car ~nding up in a hole out ther~.
Short Form EAF- C6.) I'm conc~rned h~r~. We'r~
th~ parking lot. To m~s that has to be addr~ss~d
s~dim~nt. We hav~ th~ potential for somebody IS
Why are w~ not addr~ssing this.
MR. O'HARA-Stat~d I don't see how you want it addr~ssed.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~ds how ar~ w~ going to do somHhing about that? Do w~ just kiss
it off and says okays welv~ got a bunch of stumpag~ up th~r~ and this parking
lot is going to continue to s~ttle. Do w~ just writ~ this off and ignore it?
MR. O'HARA-Stat~d it has b~~n this way for 20 y~ars.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d but it I S part of this n~w application. Mr. Goralski, am I
out of line h~res or am I off bas~ or is this something we just ignor~ or what?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I'm not familiar with the history of what happened th~r~.
MR. GANNETT-Stated if I could comment on th~ ~ngineering aspectss my r~commendation
would b~ it really d~pends on the s~v~rity of th~ sedim~nt probl~m. Is it som~thing
that is a structural problem or is it something that can be correct~d with periodic
work in the parking lot? 11m not that familiar with the situation mys~lf.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d they ar~
They , r~ jus t coned around.
col1aps~.
MR. CARTIER-Stated we'r~ not just talking about littl~ dipsy doodl~s h~r~. W~Ir~
talking about hol~s in the pav~m~nt that ar~..fe~t deep rather than a few inch~s.
de~p s th~y are continuings
I suppos~ they I r~ waiting
and th~y ar~ not fix~d.
for the whol~ thing to
MR. O'HARA-Ask~d, is th~ pav~m~nt in the bottom of th~ d~pression?
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d nos ther~'s a hole th~r~. Th~rels a d~~p hol~.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~d, haven't you b~~n out to s~e this? Ar~ you familiar with what
w~lr~ talking about in th~ back parking lot out theres with th~ con~s around it?
MR. O'HARA-Stat~d y~s I am.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d you cannot park in thos~ ar~as.
MR. O'HARA-Stated I do know that this area back th~re was dug up this wint~r.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d this do~sn't look lik~ digging up
subsenance to me. We I re talking about directly behind
gu~ss th~ propos~d addition would b~ part of that ar~a.
to m~. This looks
th~ propos~d w~ll.
lik~
I
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d wh~n we w~r~ out th~r~ lookings th~y wer~ putting in n~w con~s
because of n~w collapse.
38
~
MR. OIHARA-Stated okays I think I know where you're talking about. Th~re's this
ar~a right approximat~ly in h~re. That is where th~ s~ptic tanks ~xisting s~ptic
tank is locat~d. This is th~ one that is downs like, 14 feet. This wint~r they
had a probl~m. Th~y had to pump that and do th~ manual work in th~ dryw~ll ar~a
that's out h~re. If anyone I s familiar with what happ~n~d in Dec~mber of this
y~ars obviouslys a lot of frozen soil and ev~rything ~ls~ got buri~d back in that
hol~ and I assume, I hav~n I t been out th~r~ in probably a w~ek and a half, but
I assume what you I r~ g~tting is the frost coming out from what was put back in
that hole. Nows in the y~ars that I IV~ b~~n familiar with this site, I 'v~ n~ver
s~~n anything that you I r~ saying that a car's going to fall into or a wh~el' s
going to fall into.
MR. CARTIER-Stated okay. W~'r~ talking about two differ~nt things, th~n. Wh~n
you started talking about stumpage and fill and so on and so forth I mad~ the
assumption that
MR. O'HARA-Stated thatls primarily in this ar~a and what you get iss basically,
rolling pav~ment.
MR. CARTIER-Stated just irregular settling.
MR. OlHARA-Stat~d yess nothing that youlr~ ~ven going to los~ a whe~l in.
MR. CARTIER-Stated you ar~ representing to m~ that the holes back th~r~ ar~ not
th~ result of decomposition of stumpag~.
MR. OlHARA-Stat~d not in that ar~a.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d thank you.
MR. OlHARA-Stated in fact, the last addition was builts on thr~e sidess basicallys
all four sides of that building and th~r~ I s absolut~ly no ~vid~nc~ of s~ttl~ment
whatsoever.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d okays thank you.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 18-90s Introduced by P~t~r Carti~r who moved for its adoptions
seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
WHEREAS, ther~ is presently b~fore th~ Planning Board an application for:
Construction of a 940 sq. ft. addition for the dining area and a 500 sq. ft.
addition to the kitchen and preparation area of the AVIATION ROAD DEVELOPMENT
CORP. otherwise known as CARL R' S RESTAURANT and,
WHEREASs this Planning Board has det~rmin~d that th~ propos~d proj~ct and Planning
Board action is subject to revi~w und~r the Stat~ Environmental Quality R~vi~w
Acts
NOW, THEREFORE s BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No f~d~ral ag~ncy appears to b~ involv~d.
2. Th~ following ag~ncies ar~ involved:
Non~
3. The propos~d action consid~r~d by this Board is unlisted in th~ D~partm~nt
of Environmental Cons~rvation Regulations implem~nting the Stat~ Environmental
Quality Review Act and th~ regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environm~ntal Assessment Form has b~~n completed by the applicant.
5. Having consid~r~d and thoroughly analyzed th~ relevant areas of ~nvironm~ntal
conc~rn and having consid~r~d th~ crit~ria for det~rmining wh~ther a proj~ct
has a significant environm~ntal impact as th~ sam~ is set forth in S~ction
617.11 of th~ Official Compilation of Cod~s, Rul~s and R~gulations for th~
State of N~w Yorks this Board finds that the action about to b~ und~rtak~n
by this Board will hav~ no significant environmental ~ffect and th~ Chairman
of the Planning Board is h~r~by authorized to ex~cute and sign and fil~ as
may b~ n~c~ssary a stat~m~nt of non-significanc~ or a n~gativ~ d~clarat:j.on
that may b~ r~quir~d by law.
39
-------
--
Duly adopted this 20th day of Marchs 1990, by th~ following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carti~rs Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulv~rs Mr. Dybas
MR. CARTIER-Stated we have agr~~d to tabl~, have w~ not.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d no, w~ didnlt.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated yess but for what purpose?
MR. CARTIER-Ask~d, we donlt n~~d to tabl~ this?
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d yess w~ dos but w~ can't.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~ds why can I t we.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I gu~ss w~ could tabl~ it s but.. .
MS. CORPUS-Ask~ds can I clarify that for a second. Onc~ agains th~ qu~stion of
a simply majority versus a majority plus on~. You would ne~d th~ majority of
th~ whol~ Board to ov~rturn a disapproval from th~ County. A simple majority
would b~ enough to disapprov~ th~ site plan if the County approved. Are w~ clear?
Do you want me to r~p~at that.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d y~s.
MS. CORPUS-Stated if th~ County had disapprov~ds it would take a full majority
of th~ Boards plus one to override.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d fiv~ vot~s.
MS. CORPUS-Stat~d right. Howev~rs in this cas~s an approvals to overrid~ that
approvals you just need a simple majority.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d so, w~ can table it. Table does not apply to ov~rriding.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated that doesnlt apply.
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds do we find it necessary to tabl~ this?
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d I don't knows maybe I'm missing som~things maybe I'm still
stuck on holes here.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d w~ could tabl~ it.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d 11m looking at engineering comments.
has address~d the issues, it seems to me th~y n~ed
In other words, w~ need to see a finished product.
Ev~n though th~ applicant
to be on pap~r som~wher~.
MR. OlHARA-Stat~d I think th~ respons~ to that is that w~ hav~ alr~ady cons~nt~d
to th~ first concern of th~ County. Th~ County I s approval is conting~nt upon
entranc~ only for that. That was a Staff conc~rn. Your approval could hold th~
sam~ conting~ncy. W~Ire bound by th~ County. W~ chang~ that, th~ Countyls approval
is gon~.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d y~ss but that's not th~ probl~m.
MR. OlHARA-Stated the oth~r probleml s th~ Staff has addr~ss~d w~ hav~ indicat~d
that we have no probl~m withs make it contingent on that.
MR. CARTIER-Stated but we don' t hav~ an app lication that shows that. We don It
hav~ a blueþrint in front of us that shows thos~ things.
MR. OlHARA-Stat~d you hav~ a blu~print in front of you that shows islands that
w~ int~nd to construct. What your Staff r~comm~ndation is, is that the driv~way's
betwe~n th~ islands b~ small~r than shown on that blu~print. The approval is
simply r~quiring that thos~ openings b~ smaller.
40
~
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I think you're talking about th~ engin~~ring comm~nts, aren It
you?
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d yes.
MR. O'HARA-Stated th~ ~ngineering comments s~em~d to b~ just comments. Th~y didn't
mak~ any specific recommendations for us to follow or for you to suggest it.
MR. CARTIER-Stated 11m missing something her~s obviously.
a motion.
I'm not r~ady to make
MR. ROBERTS-Askeds can you make any furth~r comments about your comments?
MR. GANNETT-Stated yes, let me discuss the gr~en spac~ first. I b~liev~ th~
requirement is 30 p~rcent p~rmeabl~ area. Our comm~nt was that s bas~d on our
ch~ck of th~ site's statistics s th~r~ did not appear to be 30 percent permeabl~
area. (TAPE TURNED)That was bas~d upon not acquiring this parcel which mayor
may not b~ acquired. Maybe th~ applicant has some docum~ntation that shows that,
in fact, th~r~ is 32.5 percent s but w~ weren't able to find it in our review of
th~ sit~ plan. So far as th~ stormwat~rs the fact is ther~ is no contour
information on the site plan. SOs it I S not possible to t~ll how and wher~
stormwater from th~ existing parking lot is going and if s in fact, th~r~ is any
impacts on adjacent properties.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d w~lls I gu~ss that I s wh~r~ I was going in t~rms of tabling.
Th~s~ things hav~ to be addr~ss~d.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d I gu~ss, my comm~nt th~r~ would b~... this parking lot ~xists s
the parking lot is going to b~ improved by this..Ther~'s no complaint here. Therels
no n~ighbor here alleging that th~re's a runoff probl~m on the n~ighboring prop~rty.
I don I t think w~ have to exclude ev~ry hypoth~sis of a probl~m in order to me~t
approval. That conc~rn has been raised. You I v~ be~n th~re. You I v~ look~d at
the contour of th~ property. W~lr~ repres~nting that th~r~ is no probl~m. Th~ylr~
saying we Ire not sure that th~re couldnlt b~ a problem. At some points it s~emss
we 'v~ got to mak~ a d~cision. W~ can I t ~xclud~ ev~ry possibility to a morale
certainty in order to g~t sit~ plan approval.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated wells w~ ar~ dealing with an ~xisting parking lot.
MR. KUPILLAS-Ask~d, did I und~rstand you to say there was a 300 square foot addition
to the restroom? On th~ Warr~n County application is says 940 square feet addition
to th~ dining ar~a and you say that it was 300 square feets I believe.
MR. DYBAS-Stated that is corr~ct. Out of that 900 p lus squar~ f~~t, you I v~ got
menls and women's toilet rooms to cOm~ out of there. Youlve got a five foot...~xit
passag~ way that comes out and an office spac~. Ther~ I s no offic~ on th~ main
floor of this building. Which gives you a 15 by 20 foot dining room addition.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d welr~ talking about a n~t figure.
MR. DYBAS-Stated a net figure.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated as far as for parking.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d no, and when you make th~ application, if I turn~d around and
said dining room is 300 or the toilet room is 300.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d well, her~ again w~ I r~ d~aling withs pretty much, an ~xisting
parking lot.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated w~ll, I think th~ qu~stion that has to b~ asked is, are you
mitigating the incr~ase in the p~ak runoff produc~d by this proj~ct? I b~li~v~
that' s th~ crit~ria that has b~~n used and I think it's up to Wayn~ to d~t~rmin~
wh~th~r all th~ activity that I s going to take plac~ on that sites wh~ther th~
chang~ in drainag~ from all th~ activity that I s going to tak~ place on that sit~
has b~en mitigated or not and I donlt know if h~ has th~ information to do that.
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d th~ dryw~ll thatls shown h~re is int~nded to tak~ care of th~
roof additions but th~r~ is no information as to what is happ~ning with the ~xisting
drainage.
MR. CAIMANO-Asked, what is happening with the existing drainag~?
41
'--'"
MR. DYBAS-Stated from th~ sit~ plan, the State has a right-of-way across this
pie~e of prop~rty with a larg~ drainag~ culv~rt that com~s downs that's handling
dra1.nage off the northway. Th~re is a catch basin right in this location which
drops into that drainag~ ditch which primarily tak~s care of th~ larger portion
of this parking. Grant~d som~ of it does flow onto the Adirondack Northway.
If you go off the sit~s th~r~ can It b~ any flatter pi~c~ of prop~rty...and basically
it go~s into that catch basin. Som~ drains this way. This parking do~s drain
onto Big Boom Road and follow th~ natural drainag~ down to the Hudson River.
MR. GANNETT-Stated now once this ar~a' s pav~ds is that all going to be grad~d
to drain positiv~ly?
MR. DYBAS-Askeds positiv~ly to wh~r~?
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d to wher~v~r th~ drainage is going. That I s why it I S hard to
tells without contours or spot ~levations, what the drainag~ patt~rns are.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d I tri~d to get information off th~ USGS Map as far as th~ contour.
There's nothing. Of course, that's a large contour anyway. I would think yould
probably hav~ to g~t down to like a 6 inch int~rval to get any typ~ of meaningful
contour information on the sit~ and my fe~ling was we ar~ making a poor condition
b~tt~r by making mor~ p~rmeable ar~a and that was th~ approach we took coming
into this.
MR. GANNETT-Ask~d yess but in your parking lot d~sign you're going to hav~ sp~cifi~d
slop~s and spot ~l~vationss ar~n't you? Welr~ not going to simply l~av~ flat
ar~as of pav~m~nt?
MR. DYBAS-Stated w~Ir~ basically going to resurfac~ what is ther~.
MR. CARTIER-Stated wells it's g~tting late and I think what w~ n~~d to dos my
pref~renc~ is to S~e this thing tabl~d so that ~ngin~~ring conc~rns can b~
addressed. Th~y maybe r~lativ~ly minor, but I think th~y n~ed to b~ addr~ss~ds
oth~rwise welr~ talking about conting~nt approval her~ which w~ s~~m to be trying
to get away from and are not doing a particularly good job. Do~s som~body hav~
some strong f~~lings that this thing ought to be approv~ds 11m willing to list~n.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated agains w~' re dealing with an ~xisting situation. Do w~ n~~d
to look at this ~ntire parking lot? The h~ight that th~ wat~r can drop into and
this go~s this way and as long as h~' s tak~n car~ of his additional stormwat~r
runoff which h~ says h~' s dOing with these box~s around th~ building and anoth~r
manhol~
MR. GORALSKI-Ask~d, can I just ask a question? Currently, that parking lot is
not pav~d. Itls grav~l. As part of this proj~cts in completing all th~ work
that's going to b~ done on that site, youlr~ going to pave the back parking lot.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d w~ ar~ paving back to this portion. This back h~r~ is currently
grav~l s but this will become grass. Th~ gravel area stops s approximat~ly s right
ther~. It I S sort of a m~andering lin~s but that portion of it now is grav~l.
The paving starts from her~ ands of course, som~ of it has be~n dug up with the
work on the septic systems but befor~ thats this whole thing is basically a seed~d
grass area around the building ands as mention~d in an ~arlier applications you
knows th~ grav~l is consid~red a paved surfac~ nows it I S nonp~rm~abl~ anymor~.
SOs technically wheth~r itls grav~l or asphalts itls still th~ same.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated it s~ems to m~ that putting grass th~r~ is making a bad situation
bett~r.
MR. CARTIER-Stated 11m not arguing with that at all. What 11m saying is, I se~
som~ qu~stions rais~d by Engin~~ring Staff and some conc~rns raised by Planning
Staff that hav~ be~n addr~ss~d v~rballys but hav~ not b~~n addr~ssed on pap~r.
W~'v~ got to g~t away from taking things verbally...problemss I think.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ll s or d~t~rmine that some of th~s~ are nit picking things
that w~ donlt n~c~ssarily have to agr~e with. I means w~Ir~ looking at
r~comm~ndations h~re.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d I donlt much lik~ going against Staff.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I know w~ normally don't.
42
'---"
MR. CAIMANO-Ask~d s Pet~ s what do you n~~d to see answer~d, that has not been
answered?
MR. CARTIER-Asked, what do I ne~d to see?
MR. CAIMANO-Ask~ds what do w~ n~ed to se~ answer~d?
MR. CARTIER-Stated I want to se~ Mr. Gannett satisfi~d as to It~m One and Two
on his l~tter.
MR. CAIMANO-Ask~ds has anything th~ylv~ said, Wayn~, satisfied you or not satisfied
you or not answer~d it or what?
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d I thinks in a normal site d~v~lopment s it' s appropriat~ to
s~~ som~ spot elevations and some sp~cifi~d grad~s to indicat~ how a paved parking
lot is going to be graded. Granted that that grav~l parking lot s for purpos~s
of th~ d~finitions is considered imperm~abl~s th~ consequences of having a parking
lot which is d~ad flat and is paved with low spots, you have th~ pot~ntia1 for
fr~~z~ thaw and br~ak up of th~ pav~m~nt if it doesnlt drain prop~rly. My concern
was, th~re I s no information at all as to how this parking lot is going to drain
and, onc~ it's paved overs th~re's not much that can be don~ about it. It should
be don~ right th~ first time.
MR. CARTIER-Stated and th~ applicant is sayings yes s w~ can do it and 11m just
sayings okay, make your case on paper and give it to our engine~r and let our
~ngin~er sign off on it. Thatls all.
MR. DYBAS-Stated I donlt think the applicant is saying that. I think th~ applicant
is saying he I s going to pav~ what I s pav~d and what I s gravel now is going to b~
gravel. Is that what you said?
MR. OlHARA-Stat~d primarily.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d you said what's gravel is going to be paved and th~ back part's
going to be grass. You said th~r~'s going to b~ pavement back to a c~rtain point
and the rest is going to be grass.
MR. 0' HARA-Stated you I re talking about a 60 foot strip right th~r~ that is now
gravel that will be pav~d.
MR. CAIMANO-StAted right.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d and what IS b~hind that that's gravel is going to b~ grass.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated right.
MR. DYBAS-Stat~d so, as I und~rstand its it's this Board's position that in ord~r
to hav~ a parking lot in the Town of Que~nsbury now s you' v~ got to show grading
and exactly wh~re the runoff is going to go on any parking and you I r~ going to
r~view that and if th~ applicant com~s b~fore you without that data on a sit~
plan r~vi~ws then itlll b~ tabled and he's got to put that in any sit~ plan revi~w,
when th~rels no drainage probl~m that IS been all~g~d to th~ existing property.
MR. CARTIER-Stated th~r~' s nothing new ther~. We I re not r~quiring this for th~
first tim~ ev~r. W~ usually g~t this information. Engine~ring Staff has r~quest~d
it, as far as I'm conc~rneds it ne~ds to b~ suppli~d.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d okay, apparentlys thatls th~ f~eling of th~ Boards ors sinc~
w~'r~ shorthand~d enoughs th~re's.. .point to bring it to a vot~. I gu~ss th~
only question is s would we be willing to handle this in th~ same mann~r that w~
did one earli~r, wh~re the qu~stions w~re addressed quickly on pap~r and if th~
engin~er is comfortable with it, we can put that to a quick vote next week. Is
that w~ did ~arli~r with som~on~?
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d we did it contingent upon th~ fact. That I s up to thems if
they can handl~ that kind of work load. W~ did an ~arlier on~ contingent upon
the fact that it's okay provid~d you answ~r~d that qu~stion on paper with ~v~rybody
by th~ clos~ of th~ m~eting n~xt we~k, but I want to make sure that th~y' re
comfortabl~ with that.
MR. GANNETT-Stated we hav~ no problem with that. 11m speaking for myself.
43
'---"
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d I don't like its but I gu~ss I can live with it. Welre getting
ourselv~s back into some old stuff that we us~d to do and I really don' t lik~
it.
MR. OlHARA-Ask~d, do w~ hav~ to come back next w~~k?
MR. CARTIER-Stated I don't know, it d~pends on how the motion is mad~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d nos this would not really be agendas I gu~ss we would b~
r~s~rving our right to vot~ on it at a lat~r date.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated well, we...vote on it nows but you have answers in by 8 olclock
next Tu~sday night.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d alright, that would b~ more exp~ditiouss I gu~ss. We ar~ getting
hung up on some awfully small d~tails here. Th~ ~xisting conditions s I gu~ss s
...but I think everybody would be more comfortabl~ if w~ see it on pap~r to satisfy
our Engin~~ring Staff. I hav~ no problem with that.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-90 AVIATION ROAD DEV. CORP. s Introduc~d by
Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by P~t~r Carti~r:
For construction of a 940 sq. ft. addition to th~ dining ar~as and a 505 sq. ft.
addition to th~ kitch~n preparation ar~a conting~nt upon the applicant answering
the engine~ring qu~stions on Wayne Gann~tt' s l~tt~r of March l6ths 1990 prior
to 8 0' clock n~xt Tuesday night s March 27th, 1990 with the Planning Departm~nt.
That th~ applicant also provid~ a l~tter indicating that they will maintain th~
southern portion of the parking lot h~ld in res~rv~ for futur~ parking.
Duly adopted this 20th day of Marchs 1990, by th~ following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Cartiers Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagans Mrs. Pulv~rs Mr. Dybas
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1990 PRELIMINARY PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA LC-10A W.
ERIC AND CARRIE WILEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST OF AND OPPOSITE INTERSECTION
OF BRONK DRIVE AND WEST MT. ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION ON 58.53 ACRES OF LAND.
(ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 87-1-22 LOT SIZE: 58.53 ACRES
MICHAEL OlCONNORs RAYMOND IRISH, LEON STEVESs AGENTS FOR APPLICANT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from L~e A. Yorks S~nior Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Not~s by Wayn~ Gann~tts Town Engin~~r (attached)
MR. GORALSKI-Stated attach~d to this(Staff Not~s) is the motion of approval by
th~ Zoning Board of App~als and th~ discussion with Brian LaFlur~ which was
d~scribed by Mrs. York. I can r~ad that if you want m~ to. Also the l~tt~r
addr~ss~d to Micha~l 0' Connor concerning the Highway Departm~nt I s request that
if th~ ar~a I s furth~r subdivid~d that a Town road b~ built and a letter from Don
Coalts from th~ City of Glens Falls to Stuart Bak~r stating that th~y would not
approve a tap into their wat~r main.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d let I s cl~ar up on~ thing about the stream crossing. Do~sn It
a str~am crossings in fact, allow stream crossing it and ther~' s not supposed
to be any setback from th~ stream. ...not allow~d to cross it.
MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d I thinks y~s s certainly you can cross th~ str~am. I think
Mrs. York I s comm~nt and concern is that th~ cours~ of th~ stream is not shown
on the plans other than wher~ it crosses th~ driv~way so that you cannot t~ll
if th~r~ ar~ any other impacts on the stream. I think that's h~r conc~rn.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d l~t me turn it overs thens to th~ applicant.
44
~
MR. OICONNOR-Stat~d Mr. Chairman, 11m Micha~l O'Connor from the law firm of Littl~
and 01 Connor. I repres~nt Mr. and Mrs. Wiley and Mrs. Wiley is with us h~r~ this
evening. Mr. Wil~y's cours~ of employm~nt r~quires that h~ not b~ h~re this
ev~ning. With m~ also is L~on St~v~s from VanDusen and St~v~s and Ray Irish who
has don~ some engineering work on th~ proj~ct. I really hadnlt intend~d to mak~
an activ~ presentation on this things thinking that this was a simple two lot
subdivisions but I app~ar to be going back to the Staff resistanc~ or m~~ting
th~ same type of Staff resistance that I've m~t when w~ submitt~d an application
for a variance from th~ Ordinance so I think I do hav~ to mak~ a pr~sentation
and mayb~ for the Board's identification I' 11 giv~ you a little bit of history.
This is th~ pi~c~ of prop~rty that is some 58 acres. It' s situat~d on th~ w~st
side of West Mountain Road. It seems to b~ a pi~c~ of prop~rty that f~ll through
th~ crackss if you will, with th~ various Zonings that took plac~. This has be~n
h~ld in this siz~ and this shape som~time prior to our Zonings passed by their
will of 1970 and befor~ then th~ own~r had mad~ som~ subdivisions prior to 1967.
So, basicallys what welv~ got is a 58 acr~ parcel of land thats without som~
assistanc~s und~r th~ curr~nt Ordinanc~s could not b~ utiliz~d unl~ss you put
in a full scales public road. In 1984s when th~ Wileyls bought th~ property,
th~ existing Ordinance was not in eff~ct. The ~xisting Ordinance cr~at~d a probl~m
that said that W~st Mountain Road was a travel corridor or an art~rial road s I'm
not sur~ of th~ classification.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated art~rial.
MR. OlCONNOR-Stat~d and it said that the normal lot widths instead of 150 feets
had to b~ 300 f~~t per each lot s averag~ lot widths not av~rage lot frontag~.
This lot her~s and in this zon~ in the fronts for this parcels it says one acr~s
and in th~ backs you g~t to this line h~r~s you turn it into 10 acres s to this
point h~r~ it's on~ acr~ and if you take th~ four acres here and you tak~ a look
at th~ adjoining lots that ar~ along the back of that parcel, as far an access
of th~s~ half acr~ lotss th~ impact upon th~ n~ighborhood of what welr~ proposing
is nonexist~nt. What w~' r~ doing is keeping th~ same charact~r that is th~r~
pr~sently. I think this is an opportunity to pr~serve the rural n~ighborhoods
th~ rural aesthetics which really is within th~ provid~nce of the Planning Board
and I'm glad that when we mad~ th~ pr~s~ntation to th~ Zoning Board of Appeals
we w~re able to convince th~m of that. We initially mad~ th~ application and
w~r~ tolds w~lls you canlt hav~, and when Wil~y's bought this prop~rty th~y...th~y
int~nded to build th~ir own lot on th~ back. Part of the Staffl s comm~nts ar~
incorrect in that they say that th~ Wil~y I S have future plans for subdivision.
Th~ Wiley's have nO future plans for subdivision. Th~y intend to build th~ir
residenc~ h~re. Now, maybe somebody down th~ road is going to subdivid~ it and
w~ hav~ kind of set it up on that basiss to ke~p that option op~n if som~body,
down th~ roads want~d to subdivid~ it. Wh~n we cam~ in(TAPE TURNED) what it would
cost to construct a Town road from this point back to this point with a color
sign sO that this lot would be front~d on a Town road. This lot would th~n b~
front~d on the sid~ of this as a Town road and wouldn I t be r~quir~d to m~et th~
sid~ r~quirem~nts h~res or th~ siz~ r~quirements. This is not an art~rial road.
You probably could cut this up into thr~~ lotss maybe four lots in th~r~. Th~r~Is
a littl~ bit of positioning you'd hav~ to do b~caus~ if you look at the maps ther~'s
an old rural... that I s in there. You get at l~ast thr~~ lots. W~ got th~ pric~
figur~. I think it WAS $98,000. Th~r~'s an ~stimat~ by th~ contractor that was
in th~re that we submitt~d. You'r~ talking about 1200 f~~ts in a water districts
of paved road. For a driveways or what we int~nded, had hopeds to be a driveways
this s~rvic~d on~ lots that was th~ practical difficulty that w~ put b~for~ th~
Zoning Board of Appeals and said that w~ know that youlv~ turn~d down oth~r lots
that didn't have the averag~ lot widths but w~ think that w~ made strong ~nough
cas~ that s in this cases that should b~ s~t aside. These n~ighbors all signed
a petition saying that they had nO objection. From about this point, back, these
thr~~ lot owners came in and said they liked th~ tr~~s that were in that op~n
ar~a. Th~y lik~d the vista that was th~re. Th~y didn't want anoth~r hous~ right
ther~. SOs they shot down what w~ had propos~d ~v~n to mak~ this thing mor~
economical by having one lot h~r~ that would go off this roads by right-of-way.
This lot that would go off this road by right-of-way and the third lot that th~y
w~r~ going to ke~p for thems~lves. So s w~ back~d off and said s okay, leav~ th~
old apple hous~s the Bronk Appl~ House, as is. K~~p this as open ar~a. Pr~s~rve
the op~nn~ss to th~se p~opl~. Pr~s~rve th~ tr~~s as much as possibl~. We'll
put a privat~ driveway ins but thatls all and that satisfied th~s~ thr~~ p~opl~s
saying if th~y understood. .to do som~thing. They und~rstood that th~ alt~rnative
for us was to give up th~ proj~ct and s~ll it to some dev~loper and hav~ th~m
build a Town road which would m~an mor~ houses in th~ir imm~diate back lot and
backyard which th~y didn I t want to have. So, if I can go through the Staff
comments. The first comment was that I would disagree with, that th~ Wileyl s
indicat~d that they hav~ th~ int~nts in th~ futur~s to subdivid~ wh~n itl s in
their b~st int~r~st. Th~y
45
,--",'
will represent to th~ Boards ~ither through Mrs. Wil~y or mys~lf, that th~y hav~
no intention. They would fully understand that this approval would be simply
for a single family residenc~ on 54 acres of land. That would b~ th~ only
additional structur~ that would be allow~d. Th~y would be able to S~ll off th~
appl~ house and, let me just lay this out for you geographically. What th~ir
intention would b~ is to s~ll off th~ apple house with the 4.66 acres. This littl~
roadway that go~s out to W~st Mountain Road from th~ apple hous~ now s would be
discontinued and this would b~ ~stablish~d as a roadway and ther~ is an old timber
road there now that would servic~ th~ir lot in the back and would giv~ th~m acc~ss
to th~ road. We 'v~ drawn and had submitt~d to th~ Zoning Board of App~als a
restriction of access to West Mountain Road. In ess~nc~ s saying that th~ lot
own~rs h~re, could not acc~ss West Mountain Road from his frontag~. H~ had to
go onto the 50 foot strip and com~ out. W~ I re trying to buffer the ~ff~ct of
having two driveways within so many feet of frontage which I think was th~ whol~
purpos~ of not having lollipop lots or bowling alley lots or whatever you want
to call th~m from th~ planning concept. When w~ got into thats 11m not sur~s
IIv~ n~ver seen a lett~r from Brian LaFlure on an application that lIve b~~n b~for~
th~ Board withbefores but if you r~ad through that l~tters from what I'm saying
or from what h~ls saying is, I thinks is that if youlre outside th~ wat~r district
and you I ve got to lay two trucks in tand~m, you shouldn I t be building buildings
within th~ Town of Queensbury. We've got a lot of ar~as within th~ Town of
Qu~ensbury that are outside water districts, some of which, I thinks is in
Qu~ensbury C~ntral's area. I used to b~ an active fir~man with Queensbury C~ntral.
We've laid lin~s in tandem, at working fires. Itls just a n~c~ssity thats
som~tim~ss youlre going to have to do. The Wileyls understand thats they acc~pt
that s that is th~ir risk when th~y put the hous~ in this particular area. 11m
thinkings offhands of a road along Glen Lak~, wh~re this Board used to be ask~d
to approve varianc~s. Rose Lane is at th~ end of Fitzgerald Road and Manus Road.
It meand~rs up to Rick Moz~ll property. I think ther~Is a lot prop~rty that was
part of Bob Nolan's property. Th~re hav~ got to b~ five or six different full
tim~ or permanent r~sidenc~s in th~r~ that ar~n't on more than a 20 foot roadway.
I don't know if it's n~cessarily th~ best practic~s but som~times w~ hav~ an odd
p i~ce of property. This is about what you're going to g~t. Th~r~ I s not anoth~r
way of doing it. Th~r~ I s no oth~r acc~ss to a road that's available for that
particular prop~rtys but if you don't g~t into thiss youlre saying, you can It
k~ep th~ rural effect. You IV~ got to go commercial. You've got to have a full
time d~v~lopment which I think is contrary to most of th~ int~nt that welr~ trying
to preserve with what welre doing. Staff also comm~nt~d that the Highway
Sup~rintendent also had concerns. I took the plan to Paul Naylor, on purpos~,
so that I would be ready to say to the Zoning Board of Appeals that, if this w~r~
subdivided, in th~ futur~s a Town road could b~ constructed along th~r~. He didn't
hav~ any conc~rns. H~ simply said, and youlve got to r~ad his lett~r, to s~~,
I think th~r~' s b~ing read into this a 1ittl~ bit more than what th~r~ is. It IS
a lett~r address~d to m~ and he says s p~r our conversation, I review~d the plans
of Eric and Carrie Wiley I s futur~ proposal ands at this time, I have no probl~m
with conc~pt of th~ plan ands at that points w~ ~v~n had befor~ him a thr~e lot
subdivision, but th~n what he was saying is that when you actually construct th~
Town roads he wanted th~ opportunity to look at th~ construction plans and look
at th~ actual plan, that was th~ intent of that letter. I was th~r~ wh~n Paul
dictated it. I know what he said. I know what h~ m~ant wh~n he said and I know
what my conv~rsation with him was. H~ did not hav~ a concern with a thr~e lot
subdivision. I am going back with him with a two lot subdivisions but I can It
imagine wher~ h~Id have anymore concern with that th~n what h~Id have for a thre~
lot subdivision. Let me correct the l~tt~rs th~ns that com~s from th~ City for
whatever purpos~. He does say that he sees nO n~gative impact on th~ Glens Falls
Watersh~d property, but that was the purpos~ of the notification that was giv~n
to him, but h~ does say, and they hav~ an ~as~ment. Th~y hav~ a waterlin~ ~as~ment.
This for one of their wat~r1in~s. We hav~ nO intention of disturbing th~m. We
hav~ nO int~ntion of cr~ating a probl~m with them. This is the next comm~nt that
they mades as to the r~sidential tap. issues since this is an ar~a servic~d by
the Que~nsbury Wat~r D~partment s the hous~ is within th~ water district, sO it IS
not within the area s~rviced by the Queensbury Wat~r District. SOs I think w~
ar~ ~ntitl~d to a tap agre~ment. W~ can enter into one simply by payings I think
it's $l50s now. The last on~ I got was up on Eldridg~ Road some tim~ ago. Wh~re
you hav~ th~ line run through your prop~rtys they give you th~ privileg~ of tapping
on. Now, mayb~s actually for a long t~rm ~ff~ct, although itls shown on th~ plan
that th~y would hav~ a tap on, w~ might not do it. If the villag~ or th~ City
of GI~ns Falls is in th~ process of maybe shutting down th~ir op~n wat~r syst~m
and going to some oth~r type of systems this is good only as long as th~y use
th~ gravity fe~d from Butl~r Pond and Keegan Pond and the other ponds that are
up on the top of W~st Mountain. W~ might be just as well to put in a well and
with 54 acr~s of land, I'm sure w~ can establish th~ w~ll that would b~ satisfactory
46
'---"
for our particular uses s though, and I thinks in ord~r to g~t a building permit
fors this giv~s us p~rmission to subdivid~. It doesnlt giv~ us p~rmission to
fill. w~ c~rtainly should g~t a building p~rmit and get an occuplincy p~rmit and
w~ will have to show that w~ have a potabl~ sourc~ of water or ~lse we won It b~
abl~ to get that. I don I t know if you go that far with your approvals at this
l~vel for a two lot subdivision, but w~ hav~ the ability to go to th~ taps becaus~
we ar~ outsid~ this wat~r district with th~ hous~, and ev~n within the wat~r
districts w~ would hav~ th~ ability to go to it if we showed hardship and I think
we can show hardship b~cause of the amount and th~ cost, it would b~ to tap out
h~re, back and I think the wat~r lin~ on that parts if I recall right, itls ~ven
on the opposite sid~ of th~ road. Itls on th~ south side of the roads I thinks
that you hav~ to hav~ a major tap in front of.. W~st Mountain Road, you g~t into
that expense factor, again, w~ can simply show the cOst ~ffect of it and I don't
ev~n knows from an ~ngin~ering point of vi~ws and mayb~ Mr. Irish could addr~ss
that, what your pressur~ would be at th~ end of that.
MR. IRISH-Stat~d youlre out of th~s kind of th~ practical limits of the elevation
w~'r~ at right now. Itls near the practical limits.
MR. OlCONNOR-Stated we have a subdivision that you approv~d or fill throughs that
w~ IV~ sold th~ lot by, that's right on the map s down on th~ oth~r area th~re.
Furth~r downs it says the wat~r departm~nt will not servic~ any faciliti~s... 500
f~~t ~l~vation.
MR. IRISH-Stated we're up to 520s 530.
MR. OICONNOR-Stat~d so, ~ven if w~ w~r~ in a wat~r districts from a pr~ssur~ point
of views I donlt think the water departm~nt would giv~ us wat~r. SOs th~r~ is
hardship and it's very easy to... address th~ comm~nts has made as to that and
I think that address~s Mr. Gann~ttls comment. H~ would like to s~e the agr~~m~nt
that w~ hav~ with th~ City. My und~rstandings Wayne, is that thatls simply an
application for a tap. The sam~ as if you were in th~ City and you pay a f~~.
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d y~s, w~ hav~ no problem with the taps as long as th~ Cityls
agreeable to them.
MR. O'CONNOR-Ask~ds would you have a problem with th~ well?
MR. GANNETT-Stat~d either one would b~ acceptabl~.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stat~d if itls properly spac~d away from th~ sanitarium.
MR. GANNETT-Stated ~ither one is an option.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stated th~ oth~r comm~nt that Staff mad~, I think, was at this str~am
crossing. That I s th~ only str~am crossing that w~ I r~ aware of s the one that's
shown. Ther~ is a sp~cific exemption in pag~ s~v~n.. .of your Zoning Ordinanc~
that ~x~mpts a private stream crossing or a driv~ways s not in ~xc~ss s I think,
of 15 feet and we show 16 fe~t. So s mayb~ for that crossing w~ would hav~ to
make that conform. It do~s say that you can do construction with that sit~ plan.
As to th~ natur~of that stream, th~ most that it has b~~n classified is a s~asonals
int~rmitt~nt str~am.
MR. STEVES-Stated th~ str~am its~lf is shown on the plan. It is on~ that w~ pick~d
up during th~ wint~r when w~ had a January thaw. Prior to that tim~ th~... it
reach~d th~ to th~ water lines th~ City water lin~s its~lf and it had no d~fin~d
cours~ and I think that holds to..th~ appl~ hous~.
MR. CAIMANO-Ask~ds let m~ ask you a qu~stions if the hous~ w~r~ to b~ built, wh~re
would th~ hous~ b~ built? Ask~d, h~re (r~ferring to plan)?
MR. IRISH-Stat~d right ther~.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d sO th~ house would b~ built and th~ r~st of this is woods.
MR. IRISH-Stat~d thatls correct.
MR. CAIMANO-Ask~ds wh~r~Is th~ w~ll going to b~?
MR. IRISH-Stat~d well, we..about that becaus~..the wat~r lin~.
O'CONNOR-Stat~d there's a lot of possibiliti~s on that..
47
'---"
'~
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I hav~ a concern. I voic~d it the oth~r day.
to you th~ other day. This lies next to th~ lands of Ashton, right?
I voic~d it
MR. IRISH-Stat~ Ashton's down h~r~.
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d you know there's a big pond that sits th~r~ about right h~re
somewh~r~.
MR. IRISH-Stated yes, ther~. That's th~...
MR. CAIMANO-Askeds is there a...in that pond.
MR. IRISH-Stat~d no, it's a, I'd have to..
MR. CAIMANO-Stat~d I guess what I 'm conc~rn~d about is drilling a w~ll h~re that
might som~how might get into a water table.
MR. IRISH-Stated that IS a good argument for tapping th~ Cityls main.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated exc~pt that might b~ a t~mporary solution. He said h~Is going
to do something else within thr~e y~ars.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stated as I und~rstand it, th~ Town would allow us to uses som~times
would allow you to use th~ water systems but you have to build in from the water
syst~m your own st~p up for th~ pr~ssure b~yond th~ 500 f~et. I thought it was
530 f~~t. You'r~ saying 500 feets but th~r~'s A way doing that also.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d youlre going to b~ putting a line in from W~st Mountain Road.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stat~d yes.
MR. IRISH-Stated th~re is considerable ar~a on the prop~rty in which you could
drill a w~ll and th~ pond you'r~ speaking of down h~r~ is something in th~ rang~
of a lsOOO feet away from a potential site for a w~ll up above the house and also
wer~ talking about a differ~nc~ in elevation of probably about 7 to 8 feet p~r...
wh~r~ that str~amls coming nows those kind of things.
MR. OlCONNOR-Stat~d I would also submit, Mr. Caimano, that these hous~s her~ w~r~
well systems, do~s anybody hav~ a date when th~ Town put th~ir waterlin~ ~xtension
up theres that I s b~en recent years. When th~se hous~s were built, th~y w~r~ all
built on individual w~lls.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d th~y were th~re before, actually.
MR. OlCONNOR-Stated yess and I'v~ don~ a number of tra.nsf~rs in th~r~ and with
a privat~ w~ll you have to get a bact~rial analysis and what not. I Ive n~v~r
had a problem, in my ~xp~rience with r~al prop~rty transf~rs. Th~ylr~ at a low~r
l~v~l than this. I' ve nev~r ~xp~ri~nced a probl~m with something coming off the
Ashline prop~rty. If som~thing' s on th~ Ashline prop~rty, c~rtainly s somebody
would be asking them to cl~an it up.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stated Brian LaFlur~, in his letters and I didnlt mean to go by its
ask~d that th~ strip of 50 f~~t b~ cleared in full. The applicant wouldn I t have
an objection to that, but I don't know if it would be that productiv~. You
typically ar~ going to hav~ your driv~way that youlr~ going to k~~p cl~ar that's
going to be 12 to 14 f~et s something of that nature, but you don I t hav~ tr~es
on th~ side of it, really, I donlt know how tr~es are th~re. Carri~, mayb~ youlv~
got to answ~r that.
MRS. WILEY-Stat~d its ~xt~nsiv~ly treed down through ther~.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stat~d th~s~ peopl~ down object~d to possible moving any tr~es.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d w~ don't want to see a 50 f~~t strip ~ith~r. Thatls what Paul
Naylor..insists ons it was a Town road, but I can It see us asking for..
MR. OlCONNOR-Stat~d th~n Niagra Mohawk ask~d for 10 f~et outside of it.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d that's right.
48
'--""
~
MR. O'CONNOR-Stated and then they talk about the APA.
be adopt~d as a condition if you w~re going to approv~
would have a more d~trimental ~ff~ct than positiv~ ~ff~ct
I would ask that not to
this b~caus~ I think it
on it.
MR. CARTIER-Asked what l~gal liability would the Town hav~ if this thing goes
this way and ~n emergency vehicle can It g~t up in ther~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated itls th~ir own private driveway from W~st Mountain Road.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stat~d ther~ is no liability.
MR. CARTIER-Ask~d, ther~ is non~?
MR. OlCONNOR-Stat~d th~re is non~. W~ had a working fir~ at the...resid~nc~s
right at the v~ry top.. .n~xt door to... W~ got the first two trucks out to wh~n
th~y. . around the back end and nobody ~ls~ got up that road s ev~rybody ~lse had
to go a diff~r~nt way. It's his ro~d. Itls his prop~rty. Th~r~'s no doubt about
it. It's a fact of lif~, if you get off that far into th~ woods s you I r~ going
to hav~ not as much prot~ction then if you liv~d on Bay Road, but th~r~ is no
liability. I think th~ Towns you ran into a law suit, didn I t th~y with r~gard
to the Kowaskis wer~ you part of that lawsuits South Qu~~nsbury?
MR. DUSEK-Stated no.
MR. OlCONNOR-Stat~d w~lls th~y got sued down th~r~ for a building down n~xt to
H~rcul~s Park. The Town is ex~mpt~d from liability unl~ss it IS...
MR. ROBERTS-Ask~d s is ther~ som~ way we can sign off on som~thing lik~ that or
make th~ comm~nt that th~ applicant..
MS. CORPUS-Stat~d w~ll, the applicantls awar~ of that.
MR. 01 CONNOR-As I understand part of the application. .ask for your approval is
that w~ hav~ submitted th~ topographical f~atures of th~ ar~a that will b~, in
any mann~rs disturb~d by construction. In facts a lot mor~ than what would b~
disturb~d by construction. W~ ask~d for a waiver, sp~cifically in writings of
the topographical and th~ whol~ sit~.... th~ whole 54 acr~s for what w~' re going
to buy th~ hous~ down h~r~ for.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think w~ I ve don~ that in l~ss~r cases than this.
b~liev~ w~ have a probl~m with that.
I don't
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d you repres~nt~d s somewh~r~ in th~r~ s that th~re ar~ plans for
subdividing lat~r on.
MR. OICONNOR-Stat~d th~re ar~ none.
MR. CARTIER-Stated th~r~ ar~ non~. Th~r~ are no plans to subdivide by th~ Wil~yls.
MR. OlCONNOR-Stat~d right.
MR. CARTIER-Stat~d buts how~v~r, you said som~thing to the ~ff~ct that.
MR. OlCONNOR-Stat~d we said thiss and part of my approach to Paul Naylor was simply
so that I wouldn I t b~ gr~~ting a d~adlock~d piec~ of land and somebody ~ls~ cam~
along and want~d to subdivid~. I s~t it up sO that th~re was a possibility of
a roadway. Thatls why maintain~d that width through th~r~. You're only requir~d
to hav~ 40 f~~t. W~ actually h~v~ 50 f~~t with an appropriat~ acr~.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated and I suppos~ that maybe it's the int~nt of th~ property own~rs
to someday subdivid~...
MR. OlCONNOR-Stat~d this is right along their prop~rty lin~ and that might,
although, I don't know. Th~ Wileyls have no plans to build and from th~ir
~xperi~nc~ that th~ylv~ hads and not with this Board, but th~r~ experi~nc~ that
they've in g~tting th~ir one house built back h~r~, I don't think th~ylr~ going
to b~come d~v~lop~rs.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated at l~ast not in Qu~ensbury s is what you I re trying to t~ll us.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stat~d I wonlt mess up my own application, but you'v~ gott~n to a
point that you Ive got som~ pretty cl~ar submittal ch~ck lists and th~y ought to
b~ follow~d. I think we 'v~ tri~d to follow them. I I 11 probably ~at thos~ words
in two minut~s, somebody will find something I didnlt follow.
49
---./
MR. ROBERTS-Stated since this is a two lot subdivision. W~Ir~ starting a
Pr~liminary which m~ans we go for a SEQRA befor~ w~ can go any further.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated I think we should hold th~ public h~aring first.
MR. ROBERTS-Stat~d true.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. GORALSKI-Do you have the c~rtifi~d l~tter tick~ts?
MR. ROBERTS-Ohs wher~ you notify th~ neighbors.
MR. GORALSKI-Did w~ notify the neighbors?
MR. O'CONNOR-W~ do not have that.
MR. ROBERTS-Did you notify th~ publics did you post your sign?
MR. CAIMANO-Ther~ was a sign th~re.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay.
MR. OlCONNOR-We have not don~ that. Is ther~ a possibility that that can b~ waiv~d?
MR. CARTIER-Y~ss but itls ~xtr~mely slight.
MR. OlCONNOR-L~t me say thiss okay? If you will look at th~ Zoning Board fil~.
MR. CARTIER-I think you're going ask us to allow us to us~ th~ Zoning Board... in
that.
MR. 01 CONNOR-Nos but if you will look at th~ Zoning Board of Appeals fil~, do
you have thät with you at all, John?
MR. GORALSKI-Y~s.
MR. 0 I CONNOR-W~ hav~ a petition in th~r~ saying that ~v~ryone around th~ sit~
has nO objection to the proposed thre~ lot subdivision.
MR. CARTIER-That I s no problem, but we still hav~ to go through th~ l~ga1ities
of subject to notic~ ev~rybody and c~rtifi~d mail. Itls not a subdivision
r~gulation anyway, thatls part of th~ Ordinance, isnlt it or not?
MR. GORALSKI-I beli~v~ it's a subdivision r~gulation.
MR. CARTIER-What~v~r, it's got to b~ don~.
MS. CORPUS-Th~r~Is the possibility of obj~ction from the n~ighbors.
MR. OlCONNOR-Can we complete SEQRA?
MR. CARTIER-No, becaus~ we can't do Number 19.
MR. O'CONNOR-We hav~ not don~ that. Can w~ g~t on another agenda so that we can
submit that to you? I'm sur~ that it's a s~ven day notic~ r~quirement.
MS. CORPUS-Fiv~ days.
MR. O'CONNOR-Fiv~ days? Alrights we can hav~ th~m in, w~lls tomorrow.
MR. CARTIER-W~lls wait a minut~s youlve got to get on an ag~nda first, so you
can notic~ the p~opl~ as to wh~n th~ m~~ting is.
MR. O'CONNOR-What agenda?
MR. CARTIER-That should be worked out with Planning Staff.
MR. ROBERTS-See how full the hopp~r iss I gu~ss.
MR. GORALSKI-Aprills ag~nda is not full at this point.
50
'--'
---./
MR. ROBERTS-Thatls th~ good n~ws.
MR. OlCONNOR-But we don't have to submit anything to the Board at this point?
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-All you ne~d is c~rtifi~d mailings r~turn r~ceipt requ~st, stub and
an affidavit that th~ylv~ been mail~d.
MR. GORALSKI-All we n~ed is the receipts. (TAPE TURNED) Call m~ tomorrow. I'll
tell you th~ dat~ of th~ m~eting.
MR. ROBERTS-For th~ sake of the applicants did w~ find anything els~ that we ought
to turn on him?
MR. CAIMANO-Nos but Mr. OlConnor said that ther~ is no liability in. . regarding
fire. lId lik~ to h~ar something from our side saying that. If som~on~ would,
th~n I would f~el comfortable with that part of it. Not that Mr. OlConnor would
li~.
MR. STEVES-P~rhaps I could answer that by asking you a qu~stion, or Staff a
qu~stion. Is it possible for th~ applicant to ask for a building p~rmit to build
this hous~ up on top without th~ subdivision on it?
MR. OICONNOR-W~ could have
th~ s~cond one and r~nt it.
two principal r~sid~nc~s on...acres.
W~'ve gone through that already.
W~ could own
MR. GORALSKI-Y~s.
MR. STEVES-So th~ answ~r to th~ qu~stion is y~s s he g~t' s a building p~rmit, h~
can put a hous~ anywhere h~ wants and not go through th~ subdivision r~vi~w.
MR. OlCONNOR-We could just own two hous~s on on~ prop~rty.
MR. ROBERTS-I didn't think two principal dw~llings on an individual lot was
permitted.
MR. GORALSKI-It doesn It say that anywhere in any of our Ordinanc~s or Regulations.
MR. CARTIER-If youlv~ got 10 acres, you could build 10 hous~s on th~m if you own
them all. What ar~ you suggesting h~r~? Ar~ you changing gears h~re?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. We do not want that.
MR. STEVES-P~rhaps th~ Staff isn I t willing to go on r~cord saying that you do
not have th~ liability. Mayb~ they want to res~arch that s but I think that was
a good way of answering th~ qu~stion that was pos~d. The lot could stay th~
same, but w~ could build another house up on it just by simply asking for a building
permit.
MR. ROBERTS-I think w~ I d lik~ to h~ar that from ~ith~r Bodenwis~r or the l~gal
staff .
MS. CORPUS-We can do that.
is that corr~ct?
That's not a problem. W~ n~~d a motion to tabl~s
MR. CAIMANO-Y~s, I will ask this qu~stion, ar~ you going to b~ h~r~ wh~n we finally
put it to vot~s som~body?
MR. OlCONNOR-Y~s.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1990 W. ERIC AND CARRIE WlLEYs Introduc~d by
Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoptions s~cond~d by Peter Carti~r:
W~ n~ed to have the public notifi~d of the subdivision and we also n~~d to hav~
a l~gal question answ~r~d r~garding liability in cas~ of fire so that w~ can
prop~rly addr~ss Brian LaFlur~ I s letter and that w~ k~~p th~ public h~aring open.
Duly adopt~d this 20th day of Marchs 1990, by th~ following vot~:
AYES: Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan
51
'---"
'--
MR. 0' CONNOR-On~ qu~stion, if the Board was satisfi~d as to th~ question that's
asked of Couns~l and w~ submitt~d th~... would th~r~ be anything r~quir~d furth~r
of the applicant to persuad~ the Board that at th~ next meeting you could giv~
us th~ pr~liminary and final approval?
MR. CARTIER-In on~ night?
MR. 01 CONNOR-Yes , becauses in facts w~ would not b~ submitting anything in additions
that 11m aware of.
MR. GORALSKI-Proposed tax map numb~rss school district boundari~s, and fire district
boundari~s.
MR. O'CONNOR-You'r~ going to make us com~ back for anoth~r month simply to
MR. CAIMANO-It could be two we~ks in a row.
MR. ROBERTS-Aren't we told we couldnlt do that.
MR. OlCONNOR-Ilm not aware of an Ordinanc~ that says you can't.
MR. GORALSKI-I know, for a facts that th~re is nothing specifically that stat~s
you cannot. It stat~s that th~r~ is two separat~ and distinct approvals. Thatls
all it says.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you hav~ the sam~ plans thatls my qu~stion.
MR. CARTIER-Thatls been tri~ds in the pasts with mixed success.
MR. CAIMANO-I would say thiss rath~r than get ~verybodyls tail wagging h~res why
don't w~ do it right. Th~ way it's b~en done.
MR. OICONNOR-That doesn't n~c~ssarily m~an it's right.
MR. CAIMANO-It does h~r~.
MR. ROBERTS-Could you sugg~st... if you would go along with two meetings in one
month.
MR. CARTIER-I don't hav~ a probl~m with that. Preliminary th~ first w~ek. Final
the second week. I don't hav~ a problem with that. You pays your money and you
takes your chanc~s. If som~thing pops up in the public h~aring, what happ~ns
is you get into d~adline probl~ms with Staff in that way.
On motion me~ting was adjourn~d.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Richard Robertss Chairman
52
LOCATION MAPS --.,/
March 20, 1990 Planning Board Meeting
OLD BUSINESS:
R~commendation for P~tition for a Chang~ of Zon~ P7-89
Charles O. Sicard
G~org~ L. Sicard
(Staff Notes and maps
attach~d)
Site Plan No. 11-90 Karolyn W. Smith (Staff Notes and Map attached)
Sit~ Plan No. 9-90 Christopher C. and Lori L. Cart~ (Staff Notes and Map attach~d)
Sit~ Plan No. 62-89 Douglas Mab~y (Staff Not~s and Map attached)
Sit~ Plan No. 77-89 Scott McLaughlin (Staff Not~s and Map attach~d)
NEW BUSINESS:
Sit~ Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider R~staurant (Staff Not~s and
Map attach~d)
Sit~ Plan No. 18-90 Aviation Road D~v. Corp.
Carl Rls Caf~ (Staff Not~s and
Map attach~d)
Subdivision No. 5-1990 PRELIMINARY PLAN W. Eric and Carri~ Wil~y (Staff Not~s
and Map attach~d)
'---
..",
.-------
P!-~7
1:?'~~ ~~ ~~~;:~~,~~Y 518-792-5832 <il~
Fr[E [OPy
'.;.;~. ',. ~il';""'W\~"~~1
. . t\',~...'j . L
1; ,- ..,. .
, .~ .. ..
. ~AAf< ,- 0 1990 . , ,.. !
March 9, 1990
- "
MR. CHARLES SICARD
RD 11
lake George, New York 12845
'.ANNING "ZONIN'
""CD4A'r"~N.
RE: Parcels 43-1-24.5, 24.7, 24.4, 24.6, 24.3, 24.1
Dear Charles:
It has been brought to my attention that deeds for the above referenced
parcels have been filed in the Warren County Clerkls Office.
This zoning violation has created an illegal subdivision of six lots and
is noted as such on my reference tax maps.
Definition '289 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance states that:
"Subdivision" means a division of any residential, cOlllllerc1al
or industrial 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
common control with any such person or group of persons
acting in concert 'as part of a commons scheme or plan.
Provided however, that this shall not apply 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 purposes of these regulations, a condominium shall
be reviewed as a subdivision.
These parcels are located in a RRJA Zoning District and would require
a variance to be subdivided into less than three acres.
Should a building permit be requested for any of these parcels, it will
be denied.
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. , , A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
----
'--"
M. CHARLES SICARD
3/9/90
PAGE 1110
Please feel free to contact me if you want to discuss this.
Very truly yours,
y/~¥aL
PATRICIA M. COLLARD
Zoning Adlrtnistrator
PMC/jjd
cc: LEE YORl
Senior Planner
DAVID HATne, DIRECTOR
Bldg. I Code EnforceBent
PAUL DUSEK
Town Attomey
"
"---"
WARREN COUtII'y
ASS!SSMEtrr DEPARTM!tII'
fl7"W C<.~ ~~
FILE COpy
NOTICE 0' TAX MAP REVISION ---./
"p, C"r_ 0<_ Town or '()f~'''ll. or Iue or ch.....
Sectlon~ Blook--1.:... Parcel ~. .9..V'''J ZI.f,ç--. ZH,c:' (2'1.7 Sj)llt iz{.
/89/'i1 ) Conaolldat1on'd
Change Author~t~ "'" ï~197 .,J /n Correction ø
Deed Book 7'7L Page' ~ ) Deed Date I~/"''D Other CI
Grantor aADI~ 0 &c-l4£n Grantee ~.os 1 ~ iL SICARD. Ortice Reoord
e ?/J. ¡Ai r~J'~r Eï1kll) Reo '~_out_
Plot_b,_
. .....-:J Ck Id b,
Other (uplaln)(Ù 43-/- 2t1" / /'1£"DVGC-O Z Traced_b',JA..¡
;;z.q, QIJ.4,,) ;)/.t;.o Iqò
'J
-/-;)-If.4 O,IIAt.- - ~.; 3-/-;)"'/,ç..
O.lbA,,) t~?>-I-~417 (ð,14A~) A-"'ß SH~;J.~#J (")~
Uùl="' LS"D W.I?(Ju~c€:SUR.v~~tcR,e, S',c..4Æ.LJ (/~-¡?l)
!
tll\C i
IWI\D
on
..,
...
...
...
.
2' 24.2
II
..
!?
24,/
6,86 AC IS)
ø
I
r
I
108
108
.
o
!!
,
.
(
~
;
0:
;, :1- u
G I!
!
.
,;
-."'do
"
, "'1\; q,..
~
~
..:-.............
'7:--
-
'to
~
w
~
"-
-.,-
-
-
,
~
,--../
ue"
=---
~
" ...
7l~,... ~
"-i ~"
~ ..... .~
,
......... .,
" ~
- "-
"'~
--......
"
-
"--'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
---./
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
March 16s 1990
By:
John Goralski
Area VariaJIce
Uøe Variance
- Sip Variance
== IDterpretatioD
Other:
SubcImIioa: Sketch, Prelim'
- - mary,
X Site PIaa ReYiew
== Petition fQl" a ChaDge of Zcme
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDa1
AppticatiOD Number:
Site Plan Review No. 11-90
Apptiamt's Name:
Karolvn Smith
MeetÜIg Date:
March 20. 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant has submitted new information which appears to address all
of the concerns brought up by the Board. If the Board is satisfied with the
responses provided I would recommend approval of this application.
JG/pw
(
-L
'-4<- tþ
c..e., ~ AKEA.
4(fò)(S; =: ë.?~
, L(:')(..ß} a ~
~c4*
- ,-----,---_._. - .._~-
AlìA'-HMENT ill
~~ : 2. (2.1 I~å ~e; 'f'~0-' a-TI Ot...{ Nìa l-AKE Tð ~' -G:." .
Ace Cov€':'" o..m..I NC. .. ~ T",':' ~ ) ADD N01'""E", )
e'·o'· t 8'-Q" ~'2.ð~1'_'1 *'
, ...77 ~ Tör.
z..
Yz.Ú'.
zc...'h.
'5TA,c> 'TO
c.où~
~.. WIOê
w~ :S~..
L. AÑ1:)/ """
~T TOP,
''4 12.1 SEX.6
@ '%,..IIIãA.
t~
, -..;
....~...\ -
\~~/ 'I;
. RAN \I '80
-::<Au:: ~ '" = ,z..!.
'----'
... N~: ÂU- DIM~~loN.~ Ft!.~ ~"'Oe..el.INe. ~ ~ "Su~r=
IN R.AN vts.o ~ se:cncv..i A-A A-('£" ~M~ L.otù w~ MA-~
B
3'-0- - "-0"
e '-0"
ïf-O"
'/ I'.~ // / ~.
/ r:::; /1' (--=- /1'(' ::c-
S~LT1oM Â- A
-=cALE: ~ ,":" I .-,¡--
f
9
;a
IÍJ
-
~
0
c:,." I
,~ ..
~
.
~
:J
...
¡of
-
\l\
-I
:;
o
I
M
W~)
~£.Fk.E.
. ' '
.
-
'---"
'--"
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: March 19. 1990
By: Stuart G. Baker
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sip Variance
== Interpretation
SubdiY.iaioa: Sketch, Preüm'
- - - mary,
X Site PlaIa Rmew
== Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDal
Other:
Application Number: Site Plan No. 9-90
Applicant's Name: Christonher C~ and Lori L. Carte
MeetiDg Date: March 20, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and a letter responding to the Engineering
Staff's original comments. The new site plan shows the proposed limits of clearing, as
requested by the Board.
According to the revised comments submitted by Rist-Frost, absorption trenches,
rather than absorption beds, should be used.
SGB/sed
..
~
AlST-FROST ASSOCIATES. I>,C,
CONSULTING eNGINeeRS
ARCHITeCTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFice BOX 131
, 21 SAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 51. . 783·41...
51' .783-4141
...-. ,
~~~~
'ANNING a ZONIN'.,
.,...~....
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. CJ - q D
'-"
March 16, 1990
RFA #89-5000.009
fiLE -COpy
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee Yorks Sr. Planner
Re: Christopher C. & Lori L. Carte
Site Plan 9-90
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project regarding previous
engineering comments dated February ISs 1990.
1. It is agreed that there will be a minimal increase in runoff from
the site. All disturbed areas should be stabilized upon completion
of the construction.
2. The subsurface dhposal system proposed is an absorption bed.
Currently the NYS Dept. of Health Standards do not allow beds. NYS
Dept. of Environmental Conservation Standards allow the use of beds,
however, their use is not recommended where space permits the use
of trenches. Since space is not a constraint, absorption trenches
should be used.
Very truly yours,
~STUC.
~~nett, P.E.
Mana~Vri;' Project Engineer
WG/CnM
cc: Town Planning Board Members
$ GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH
l'
----
/.r_..
,",\, /
,,¡/
.:-.,
" // ~'~'~-~~~c ~,'~
<=~::X'-------, ,.:;:~~':. .
",- ':-~ "-', Gta,,~'¡; .;' .!f~.'
') ',Pil.. , ;::i';" ..
--------.~,,' ~,' ,(1o·..;~,~,
--.. ~/ '''ðt'6'F'opét ..;-;-.
(.....,'. .,; .'~ ...7'
>'\------.. .. ',--:" .,
\ 1 t: ':). "'.
.. .(0;:: \ ....
'-"!~£" \_ :'11, ii: '0
'~~.'~"'< "'""
"~""
\ ''''':'r_~'~~'
:::e:- I LoêA T(O~
~
¡,
,
.!
\_./
"
~~..~,..:
"~,
,.,
"
. '
GraVel
p,! ..
:: 110, Gt£
-rnr,
'~l 1\',1, C
, \
,m'\
. /~.., -------.r:~i
~. ¡ '--- '
·.;:--c~: " . '-., : ":~
... .......... ,/
::z:: ~ .,....:- . : '.. .' _;. /._-' _., ' I,' .
"t. I .-......; " 0 1.1
8':: :~ '~~~~~":'7,,;..J..~NL..~;¡ .. '
~j:. , I,
~', . ,-- ---;--¡ C~N"'''''' '~J'I(t.T-·
=='-"T' =,0.;,= "1V'eS1""":-- ", ;-',,:,
~I,. Gr.ve' Glens Falls..:" ",
~". " "'f .,' ""'îNfÌÌ'RCHANGE
~, ,.\ JI
'~ '. -
. ' ......!..-~_:...:-.':'~-:.:.:..·--·7~:-:-: ',:'. ,.'
SM: ,: .' ~_ .-:- . '.J8~ .
~,""""'--'--,.,.. .....
/" . J98 .'..: .,
'; . .... ~
','. '.
, '
\
-+--
SITE LOCATION MAP
C~I(ZX'S -+- LoRI C () R'rr
Aa
..
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
pI_ftftiftg Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, A88istant Planner
Date: March 19s 1990
By:
Tn}," ~n,..~1 at".;
Area VuiaDc:e
U. Variance
- Sip Variance
== IDterpretatiOD
Other:
SubcImåœI: Sketch, Prelim'
_ _ 1IIaI'J',
X Site Plan Reriew
- Petition for a ChaDge of ZoDe
- Freshwater WetJaDds Permit
FiDal
ApplicatiOD Number:
Site Plan Review No. 62-89
Applicant's Name:
Douglas Mabey
MeetiDg Date:
March 20, 1990
............................................................................................
This application was tabled by the Planning Board in September 1989. At
that time the SEQRA review was completed and the public hearing was held open.
They instructed the applicant to address all of the cOImllents made by the
consulting Engineer and by the Planning Staff.
In addressing the Planning Staffls cOImllentss the applicant estimates 20
additional vehicle trips per day. At this point no improvements should be
necessary to handle this increase. Howevers as this site continues to develop
there will be a substantial increase in traffic to and from the site. At some
point in time this will severely decrease the level of service of the
intersection of Main Street and Big Boom Road.
The applicant also states that no additional runoff will enter the 18"
culvert under Big Boom Road. This is satisfactory to the Highway Department.
I will let the Boards consulting Engineer address the engineering
concerns brought up at the previous meeting.
JG/pw
i'
~
AlST·FAOST ASSOCJATES. P,C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793-4148
518 .793·4141
W"~II ''"
JU;;~UWWll
\\'-~~Ak 191990 ~_!
~ITE PLAN REVIEW NO. {p J - jJq
'.ANNING a ZONIN"
~.D6"""'FN'"
March 16s 1990
RFA #89-5000.062
¡-'ILE- (opy
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Douglas Mabey, Site Plan 62-89
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
cOlll1lents:
1. It should be indicated which percolation test was performed at the
subsurface disposal system location. Percolation tests 1 and 2
indicate that a fill system for rapidly permeable soils (perc rate
< 1 min/inch) be recolll1lended, in accordance with NYSDEC Standards.
The applicant proposes a conventional leach field.
2. The actual size and location of the system should be shown on the
plan. The tank should be 10 ft. (min) from the building.
3. The stormwater management prov ided may be adequate; however the
calculations should be reworked to indicate how the developed runoff
in excess of the historic runoff will be managed. In the rational
method, peak discharge is expressed as a rate, (cfs) not a
volume (cf).
4. Explanation of how the catch basins will manage runoff so as not to
increase flow in the 18" culvert should be given, i.e. will the
catch basins act as drywells using infiltration?
5. A handicapped parking space should be provided.
Very truly yours,
:J:llf'0ST A
~~~nett, P.E.
Man~~g' Project Engineer
P.C.
WG/Clmtl
cc: Town Planning Board Members
e GLENS FALLS. NY-I.ACONIA. NH
..
-
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. ~ ~ - ¥q
-, '
'~Jþftwr~~l
\~ MAR 1 ~ 1990 '"" .
fILE COpy
,t.ANNING . ZOMar.' ,
CITIZEIS ADVISORY COfItlmE ON ACCESS FOR THE HANDICAPPED "I=DARTMF.W"
March 14. 1990
RECOfltENDATIONS
Present: Katharine Cornwell, Chairperson
Nancy Calano, Secretary
Margo Burrell
Joseph Denig
Ludwig Weber
Re: Site Plan No. 62-89 Douglas Mabey
Dear Chairperson:
This warehouse needs to conform to Article 13, Part 1100 of the N.Y.S. Codes,
Rules and Regulations regarding accessibility and adequate parking for the
disabled.
~-~
Nancy a a
Secretary
cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor
Lee York, Senior Planner
Dave Hatfn, Code Enforcement Admin.
Planning Board Committee
..
..
----=::::::=
DIXON ROAD
LJPPE-R SHE-RMAN ROAD
I-UZE:'RNE:-
TO\VN OF-
aUEE:-NSeURY
MA\N '5TRE:E=T
l'
(JJ
~
rr
)..
~
-
~
rr
o
z
o
d
C(
~
8
!1J
fD
LOCAT\ON MAP
NO SCALE:
Dou GLA S (ð)fi ßE Y
--../
tJj
)'
<t
Z
[(
~
~
GLE:N5
FALLß
~
<f
Z
rr
~
ùJ
~
~
.,
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: March 12,. 1990
By: Stuart G. Baker
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sip Variance
== IDterpretaticm
Other:
Subdi'risioD: Sketch. Prelim·
- - mary,
X Site Plan Reriew
:=: Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
Filial
Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 77-89
Applicant'. Name: Scott McLau2hlin
MeetiDg Date: March 2,0. 1990
............................................................................................
This Site Plan Review submission was tabled at the applicants request in January
1990. In February, no action was taken at the first Board meeting, and the application
was tabled by the Board at the second meeting (February 2,7, 1990). At the Boardls request,
new information has been submitted which addresses the engineering concerns raised by
Rist-Frost. However, some Planning concerns remain which must be addressed.
The aesthetic impact of the applicantls equipment sales and repair business must
be minimized. ~e Board may wish to approve the application with the following stipulation:
That the applicant submit to the Planning Department a plan showing the following
details:
A. Location of all required buffer zones,
B. Location and maximum number of equipment to be parked on premises.
Such a plan submitted would serve as a basis upon which the Zoning Administrator
can enforce new and past conditions placed upon this use of this property.
SB/sed
,.
"-
':--..""
'1/
/,
...p
G"
~
"?
~
'~
"
"
..r........
o
"5-'
~
;.:;::0......
I~
r,
,
"
,.,.... ~ ' -<.,-
" ..s-
".0 _
'J'
"
",
"'f'
I \ .j
.', !"
, . ~ .
' IA~,I
.' ,.\,'
, I'i'
I" (\
í' ". ('I.' "
/~
" I'
. /'
('ì'-, '1·
;, I (""
{ /¡
¿- / "
\ /. I ','
v :-
--(:.....:,.
f'\J
~
~
I')¡
..;::.-,
"",
"....
"~-'"
\)
\t
b
'f
t't
:t
"
"
...
\It
'.
C',
.~
~,
I
..........
~
N
-.....)
Q
....
~
...
1 /
- - "b
-. '"
- "1 c" ,
\l;¡ ;(~ 0 c' '
"
" ... "- to
~ " ,I "- ).
t1 -< ? , \
-' ..oJ _"" .
/,,/
~ --
<A
--..
r,
(\
...
't1.
..
"
~
'\
"
~,
t
~
¡
I
(
. '
'.,
!
1 _/ i
. f' -. ~.. ;r-:
\
r ",:
".W,q reJ:/'" ¡
~' ,0 -:- '. - :
[ ~".,: ,.. .' t'!.':'
I
I~,,-
, , ,
¡
; Fr---,---
i
;--
! --
, ---
, -
,- -. ------
, \
4', ~
~ ., (~. ~
" ':7... ,-'
'" 1\I'ç;-..~·-
\~ r, "t -~1:7" ~ '\
\) ..r:.", .....
'" r; "'. ~, \'0
......,. ,... c·, I '() ,
r ,:~,' ¿) ~ /1
, ~
,..
t\
-;':-.
f.;
/', ,
,,' I'
'} ,
. '
.'
"
,-.
\ "
, I
I
, I
j
i [=-'..
,
I
I
t-J
.....
~
:
,~- _-:..
¡ /J"~ r
, r~ .
.".,
"
\ r
I :
I
~
'"
(~
>,.
~
-'I
¡
I
I
!
I
I
. .-.
"
'h
'.
','
,'(:) " h,__"
(
'"c...
~
.....~..,...;\
... \.
" ..
v' ,..
, ' .
" . .,.::.
,",
.. ".'. ..l')
. t\.'~:~
'\".'" . ..
<:" "*:j'
...
. .
"
.',
~'.
"
....
"-
r"
~
~
I
Ì\
.......
\~
tr,
,
~ I
( i
f:\
~. I
I
i
\\ l !
IJ\
"
\.: ~
'. ",'
" 1"1
'. Ü) "
:. \ ,., \'ì
,. ~ì
G; \], ,/
" . !
~, ...
':' "
" ...
I' ""
:-t: t\
lo,
\C'
~
~
.~
(~,
. ,\ "" +
! ~ .
\ ('\ ...,
~ '"
} ~ ;
I
~
\,\
f),
(Q
f'1
~
f\
~
..,
1
""'"
~
"
~
~
~
"
"
~
-J
.....J
\
CIoQ
'^'
...
ç.
~
f~
'-.--
.
1~7\-
¡ )
1
" (
; <:)
"._,...1 { .l....
- - , ':.-,
,-'I
,\ C\ l ~
-' '} ~Jod u ~ '\"
\ '
/" - ,- ,-"..,.'
1"
..' I
" ,.-..J
(i)
L__,
./ .r-.-:- ,-
V.:J
"
~
..
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: March 15 s 1990
By: .John l:nr.::ll Q!t- ;
Area Variance
U. Variance
- Sip Variance
:= IDterpretatioa
Other:
SubdiftaiaD: Sketch, PreJimiDm-y,
-X- Site Plan Reriew -
Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDal
AppJicatioa Number:
Site Plan Review No. 17-90
AppHamt'. Name:
J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant
MeeâDg Date:
March 20, 1990
............................................................................................
This application is for a proposed addition to the Docksider Restaurant on
Glen Lake. The additions as it is currently proposed, would require three
variances. An area variance from the 75 I shoreline setback, an area variance from
the 60% permeable area requirements and a use variance for expansion of a
nonconforming use. The Z.B.A. held a public hearing on these variances on February
28, 1990. Because this ¡'an unlisted action taking place within a Critical
Environmental Areas the Z.B.A. has determined that this should be treated as a Type
I action and a coordinated review should be conducted. The Z.B.A. also requested
that the Planning Board act as Lead Agency. It was felt that the environmental
concerns related to this project would be better addressed by the Planning Board.
The Planning Department has notified all other involved agencies (D.E.C. and
D.O.H.) and we have not received comments from any of them. If the Planning Board
reviews the Full EAF and determines that there will be no significant negative
environmental impacts a Negative Declaration will be filed. At that point the
applicant can return to the Z.B.A. for approval of the variances. If the Z.B.A.
grants all of the variances then the applicant will return to the Planning Board
for Site Plan approval.
If the Planning Board determines that there will be a significant
environmental impact that cannot be mitigated, the applicant will be required to
submit a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. After the D. E. 1. S. is accepted
there is a minimum 30 day public comment period. Next a Final Environmental Impact
Page I of 3
Statement must be submitted and the Lead Agency must make their findings. This
would complete the SEQRA review. The applicant could then return to the Z.B.A. for
variance approvals.- If the variances are approved then the applicant would return
to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval.
I have reviewed the Full E.A.F. and have attached suggested answers to Part 2.
I have also reviewed the proposal with respect to Article 5 of the Zoning
Ordinance and I have the following comments.
]) The addition should be located as far away from the Lake as possible.
This would minimize the aesthetic impact on the shoreline and provide for
greater protection from stormwater runoff pollution. I would recommend
that the addition be no closer to the Lake than the existing building.
2) Access to the parking lot should be limited to one ingress point and
one egress point. This will provide mitigation of the site distance
problem caused by proximity to the curve and incline on Glen Lake Road.
3) There is not a 20' clear access to the seven parking spaces in the
northeast corner of the lot. The fence and flower box must be removed to
provide 201 clearance in front of the building.
The handicapped spaces are very c lose to the Lake. Some provision
should be made to prevent direct runoff of oils, grease and other
pollutants from the cars into the Lake.
4) The stormwater runoff calculations should address all of the
development on the site. The Calculations provided only address the
parking area. The non-permeable building area and the grading around the
septic area and addition area should be addressed.
The detention area in the parking lot may be inadequate when the
gravel is compacted bY traffic or when frost is present. In order to
minimize the possibility of direct stormwater discharge from the parking
area into the Lake,s I recommend the placement of a series of catch basins
and perforated pipe to provide stormwater storage.
5) The existing well on the Sullivan property is not shown on the plan.
My conversations with the applicant indicate that the Sullivans have
agreed to abandon their well and to obtain domestic water from the
applicant. This being the case s the Board should request a letter from
the Sullivans agreeing to abandon the well s receive all water from the
Docksider and indemnifying the Town from all responsibility regarding the
supply of domestic water to their property.
Page 2 of 3
{
~_._--~
JG/pw
Attachment
"
6) The proposed construction will cause several large trees to be
removed. - This will increase the potential for erosion due to stormwater
runoff. It will also impact the visual quality of the site both from the
Lake and from the road. The removal of trees should be minimized and any
dis turbed soils sho.uld be stabilized until permanent vegetative cover
can be re-established.
In the area of the septic system 2 I to 4 I of fill will be placed
around some of the trees. This could kill the trees. I recommend some
type of "well" be constructed around the tree trunks so that the grade at
the base of the trees will remain the same.
7) Erosion control measures should be provided around the area of the
foundation excavation.
Page 3 of 3
~
~
FllST ·FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 831
21 SAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793-.148
518 .793-.1.'
......., -
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. I 7 - q D
. ~ilW[~
. { !ßAR 1 c 1990 J
,~'
'ANNING . ZONI."
~CD6.""pN·
filE -COpy
March 16, 1990
RFA #89-5000.017
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: J. Paul Barton, Site Plan 17-90
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
conments:
1. Where sites have existing development, it is recommended that
the drainage plan manage the developed runoff that is in
excess of the historic runoff, where new construction is
proposed. The applicant has proposed an extensive retention
area for the existing parking lots but no stormwater manage-
ment for the new building addition.
2. Recent interpretation of the Town's ordinance considers gravel
parking as impermeable area. Due to this interpretation
little permeable space remains on site.
3.. ~~T-t\~~tion area within the parking area is not reconmended
',-;:""'I"sl"ce lce formation in the lot may be a hazard.
4. The percolation rate for drainage design should be one third
the stated rate, since 3 s.f. of absorption area is available
in a percolation test hole.
5. Erosion control measures should be shown at all areas downhill
from any construction to ensure protection of Glen Lake. All
bare earth areas shall be stabilized,
6. For wastewater design, a NYSDEC SPDES Permit will be required,
DEC's review may note the following:
A. Water and wastewater use val ues should be just ified.
According to NYSDEC Expected Hydraulic loading Rates,
(1988 Standards) use should be approximately 2620 gal.,
(Which includes the 20% reduction allowed for water
sav'jng devices). The hydraulic loading rate recol1ll'lended
by NYSDEC would require a larger septic tank size.
Further, the NYSDEC may also require pretreatment due
to a percolation rate faster than 5 min/inch.
CD GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH
"
~
"
,----"
Town of Queensbury
Attn: Ms. lee York
Page 2
March 16, 1990
RFA *89-5000.017
B. A 3 ft. minimum separation distance between the bottom
of the seepage pit and groundwater is required. The
test hole result indicates this may not be possible
without fill. Verification of elevations and depths in
this area should be given.
C. The septic tanks should be located a minimum of 10' from
the building. The seepage pits should be separated from
each other (sidewall to sidewall) by at least 3 times
the diameter of the largest pit.
D. The grease trap is undersized according to NYSDEC
Standards. Further, the placement of the inlet to the
sept ic tank from the grease trap does not allow for
settlement and treatment of solids from the trap in the
septic tanks.
E. It is not clear why the flow used in pump design was
reduced further by 201. Also, a 1" water line is shown
servicing a 2 story frame house on the adjacent
property. This should be considered in the water use,
if it is in fact serviced by the new well.
Very truly yours,
'~ST AS CIATES,
¡ri~tt, P.L
Managing Project Engineer
WG/CDf
cc: Town Planning Board Members
.~
~~_:t~ '\ ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IJJ )... )~-. ,
_ ~~ Bay at Haviland Road, aueensbuty, NY 12801 ·9725 - 518-792.SS3!( JErt. ".,J ¡ Vi!i ì I
~ _ ~::~~~]J
·":Þ4A@~'
!"
~~y
March 7, 1990
tit. J. PAUl BARTCII
Box 1748 Glen Lake Road
Lake George, New York 12845
SITE PLAN REVIEW II / 7 - ~ 0 _
RE: Pe,...bl1ity Definitions - Docksicler Restaurant
Dear Mr. Barton:
Attached is a letter from Wayne Gannett, Managing Project Engineer, Rist
Frost Associates, dated March 5, 1990.
That letter and the definitions in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance of
Permeable 1199 and Pavement 1198, confirm the need for a variance from the
permeability requirement of 65% in the WRIA zoning district.
If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Ve~~rU1Y yours,
\~~~
' PATRICIA M. C'LA~
Zoning A~inistrator
PMC/jjd
cc: MCIC DEAN
Morse Engineering
LEE YORK
Senior Planner
~VID HATII. DIRECTOR
Bldg. I Code Enfore_nt
Attachment
"HOME OF NA rURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1783
..
~
~
RIST,FRQST ASSOCIATES. PC,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
'-../
~}~~
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GlENS FALLS. NY
12801
518' 793-41.1
March 5, 1990
RFA #89-5000-301
Mrs. Patricia Collard
Zoning Administrator
Town Of Queensbury
Bay/Haviland Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
Att: Site Plan Review - Permeability Definitions
~;7~ ,"'LAN REVIEW NO.
Dear Mrs. Collard:
Confirming our discussion, this letter is set forth to explain why
gravel drives and parking areas are considered impermeable with
respect to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Under the Zoning
Ordinance, permeable is defined as "ground surface through which
water can percolate in a natural manner. Said ground surface could
be undisturbed natural terrain or a landscaped area with generally
unpaved surfaces. Foliage increases the permeability of the ground
surface." It seems clear from the definition that the intent is n21
to include surfaces which are normally driven on.
The reason why gravel or crushed stone parki ng areas should be
considered impermeable is that the compaction of the surface due to
traffic over a period of time tends to reduce the infiltration
capacity of the surface and increases the rate of runoff as compared
to an uncompacted surface. This is confirmed by Desion Coefficients
in Urban Hvdro10ov for Small Watersheds publication TR55, by the USDA
Soil Conservation Service. Considering Soil Group A, which is
representative of the well-drained soils in much of Queensbury, curve
numbers are compared, as follows. The higher the curve number the
less the degree of permeability:
Curve No.
Open space (lawns) in good condition
with grass cover greater than 75~
Paved streets
Gravel roads (including right-of-way)
39
98
76
The value for gravel roads includes an allowance for the vegetated
right-of-way. Considering the gravel road itselfs the actual curve
number is undoubtedly higher than 76. These values confirm that the
impermeability of a gravel road is much closer to that of a paved
street than that of a vegetated area.
$ GLENS FALLS. NY·IXX)NIA, NH·WATERTOWN. NY
"
"'llr~U
Mrs. Patricia Collard, Zoning Admin.
Town of Queensbury
;.'----.-"'-
March 5s 1990
RFA #89-5000-301
Page 2
If you have any further questions regarding the impervious classi-
f1 cat 1 on of gravel roads and parking areas, please feel free to
contact us.
Very truly yours,
~IST - ST AS
J¿, ~
ay e ~ett, P. .
Manag~ Project Engineer
WG : mg
cc: Mrs. Lee A. Yorks Senior Planner
"
.' .
B- Rd '\t.
'-,.. '
."'----
----- .,
.....,....
,,'
D
)
.
'II':, ":
. .
---
it'it
.. , . ,
:.,. ,
,.
J:
flluL
6AR\Of\J
~
.
-
'---'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
,~
PI.nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
By:
March 21, 1990
John Goralski
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
Area Variaace
U. Variance
- Sign Variance
== IDterpoetation
Subdmåaa: Sketc:b. _ Prelimillary,
~ Site PlaIa ReYiew -
_ Petition for a ChaDge of Zaae
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDal
Other:
AppUcatiOD Number:
Site Plan Review No. 18-90
AppUcant'. Name:
Aviation Road Development Corp.
MeetiDg Date:
March 20 s 1990
............................................................................................
This application is for a 1,290 square foot addition to the existing Carl
R Cafe Restaurant. The applicant received a side setback variance from the
Z.B.A. in February.
The major concerns with this site are in the area of vehicular
circulations both on and off site. The concern is access to the rear parking
lot. Although the plan shows an existing island within the right of way, I
could not find it on the site. I recommend that some type of barrier be
constructed on the applicants property so that access to this area is limited
to two points of ingress and egress. These points should be no more than 24'
wide. The proximity of the entrance to the front parking to the intersection
of Main Street and Big Boòm ¡oad is also a concern. This should be an
entrance only and all exits should be from the rear of the building.
As I have stated regarding previous applicationss the intersection of Big
Boom Road and Main Street is a trouble spot. Theoretically this project will
increase traffic flow through this intersection. This combined with the
increased light industrial development along Big Boom Road will have a
significant impact on the level of service of this intersection. As a long
term planning concerns the Board should consider ways to mitigate this problem
before it becomes a burden on all of the tax payers in the Town.
Page 1 of 2
..
~
~
Finally, the parking spaces in the front of the building cannot be used
in the parking calculations because they are partially in the County
Right-Of-Way. I would recommend that the Board require the southern portion
of the lot be held in reserve for future parking. The Board's mot ion should
state that if the applicant is forced to abandon the parking in the front that
this area will be developed as parking.
JG/pw
Page 2 of 2
"
~
AlST.FAOST ASSOCIATES. P,C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 831
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793-4148
518.793·4141
..,"'.... -
,~~W~I
\{ ~MR 1 µ 1990 ~
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. J ¥ - q 0
, 'ANNING a ZON.H' ,
........"....-
:= J ! F -r n ~ "
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Aviation Road Development Corp.
Site Plan 18-90
Dear Ms. York:
,,-------'"
March 16, 1990
RFA #89-5000.018
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
cOlllllents:
1. Due to the lack of contour data, it is not possible to verify how
stormwater is being managed from the existing parking area. Does
that stormwater impact adjacent propert ies or roads? Dra inage
cal cul at ions us ing the rat ional method should indicate that the
difference between the developed and historic runoff for new
construction areas is managed onsite. The percolation rate for
drainage design should be one third the stated rate, since 3 s.f.
of absorption area is available in a percolation test hole.
2. Green space without the 6534 s.f. parcel was estimated by our office
to be approximately 26%, not 32.5%. If the entire acquired parcel
is to be left green, the green space for the site is approximately
38%, however, with the proposed parking shown in the area, the green
space is about 32%.
3. Parking for the site is adequate without the 8 spaces proposed
within the parcel to be acquired.
Very truly yours,
WG/CIIM
cc: Town Planning Board Members
e GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH
..
.
-
, ---.,/
, :-O\'·:N n~ (, U"'j,.N~·mï.
TOWN OF QUEENSBURYt~ílW~'
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9720\\iÞ~" U I
'F' - MAR (01" 1990
.1'ir PLAN REVIEW 10. Ii - 9 D
: '.ANNING It ZONINtl
:",-ÞARTM!N'!'
fiLE COpy
To: Queensbury Planning Board
From: Patricia Collard, Zoning Administrator
Re: Parking, Carl R
Date: March 20, 1990
As noted in staff comments, the parking in front of the
restaurant cannot be used in total calculations, but
there is ample area south of the restaurant for additional
parking.
\
'-"
"
"HOME OF NA TURAL BEAUTY, . , A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
..
~ -
~
~~f11Jìii11à
~,
-
(
--/
p
y
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
March 20, 1990
By:
T ~~ å. V ^we1r
Area Variance
Uøe Variance
- Sign Variance
::= Interpretation
Other:
X Subdi.ïaiOD: Sketch, X Prelim'
- - - mary,
Site P1an Rmew
::= Petition f(]l" a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDaI
Application Number:
Subdivision No. 5-1990
Applicant'. Name:
W. Eric and Carrie Wiley
MeetiDg Date:
March 20, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant received a Variance from Section 4.053 of the Zoning Ordinance
requiring double the lot width on an arterial road. This allowed the applicant to prepare
the two lot subdivision which has been submitted. The proposal is for 2 lots. One lot
of 4.66 acres with an existing house on it, and one lot of 53.88 acres which is to be built
on. The major concern has been the development of a subdivision on less than a Town
road. The Wileyls want to build a new home on the back acreage which would be 1,200
feet from West Mountain Road. They agreed to leave a 50 foot access way that could,
at a later date, be developed into a Town road when the property is further subdivided.
The Board has to decide if this is appropriate. Looking at the entire area, the Board may
want to see a broader concept than is being presented. The Wiley's have indicated that
their intent is to further subdivide when it is in their best interest to do so. Our Ordinance
requires that all subdivisions be ,accessed by a Town road. The Zoning Board of Appeals
allowed a Variance to do this because the applicants stated it would be practical difficulty
for them to build a Town road given the cost, at this time.
The Chief of the Fire Company, Brian Laflure spoke with me on this issue, and I
have attached his comments. The concern is that a fire truck carries 1,000 feet of hose.
To reach the back property, multiple trucks would have to be used to link the hoses. The
trucks would have to park side by side which limits any further access to the property.
In the event of injury, an ambulance could not get through. Also, the length of the response
time would be extended because of the need to link two fire vehicles. The Wileyls have
agreed to leave a 24 foot wide driveway to the back property which the Fire Chief does
not believe to be adequate. His request is that minimally, the driveway be cleared to
50 feet. The property is heavily treed and any fire would endanger the Applehouse Lane
Subdivision, and could spread rapidly through the West Mountain area.
The Highway Superintendent also had concerns about any subdivision being developed
that was not on a Town road. Mr. Naylor has indicated that if there is any further
subdivision of the property, he would want a Town road.
;
---./
The City of Glens Falls Water Department has an easement over the property. They
have indicated that the applicant could not tie into their transmission line which is indicated
on the plan. The back property is outside the Town of Queensbury water district, although
the applicant can apply to be serviced by the district. If for some reason the applicants
decide to drill a well, the plans would have to be modified and approved by the Board.
This area has a stream on it which the applicants intend to cross with their driveway.
A culvert is proposed to handle this. The actual stream course is not shown on the plan.
The Board may want further information on this, since you should know how the construction
will affect the stream. Our regulations require that no construction be within 75 feet
of a stream, and there be no clearing within 35 feet.
There is a natural drainageway through this property from West Mountain. The
plans indicate that a swale will divert the water from the house to be constructed.
In the past, the Board has requested that if further subdivision is anticipated, that
a concept plan be presented for the entire property. This ensures that future development
will be in accordance with good planning practices. It also assures that the applicant
does not limit his options by creating a problem for himself by segmenting the process.
LA Y /sed
.
;
~
TUWN Uk" UL:t:,t:,L'\J~JjLJl<Y
_" ~ Road. ~. NY 72"""1'25-57.m-5132
F i~ ( 0 P Y
Suaan Geotz, Secretary
19 WiDcrelt Driye
Queeubury, New Yark U8~
Theodore TUl'Der,'1$airman
R.D. '5, Box "'09
139 M...towbrook RoM
Queeub...,. New Y" 121M
TO: W. Brie WUe,. , Carrie M. Wiley
RD 12, Box 174
RE:
Area Variance No. 77-1989
W. Eric Wiley, Canie M. Wiley
welt lide of Welt Mt. Road
Queensbury, N.Y. 12804
ATTN:
W. Eric Wiley, Canie M. Wiley
DATE:
August 16, 1989
Meeting Date
We haye reyiewed the request for:
X Area Variance
Use Variance
Sign Variance
Other
and have the following recommendations:
-X. APPROVED DENIED TABLED
MO'nOIf TO APPROVE AREA V ARlANCB NO. 77-19.9 W. BBIC WILBY. CARIUB II.
WlLBYJntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
This approval is for the applicant seeking the area variance. The relief is sought for the
minimum lot width requirement is Section 4.053 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant has proposed that from a large parcel they own they would create one lot 4.67 acres
which would have frontage on public roads 226.4 feet. If this proposed lot was aUowed there
would be a residual lot of 53.87 acres, this would have a long narrow corridor to the municipal
roadway, and 51.91 frontage on the roadway. These are the reasons that the proposal should
be approved. Practical difficulty has been demonstrated they are meeting the requirements
of the Ordinance. They have sought minimum relief. They have reduced their three lot
subdivision to a two lot subdivision. There are great considerations for favoring this especiaUy
cost considerations. A creation of a road would be $100,000. The variance would protect the
integrity of the present neighborhood. The environmental consideration~ thAt bAv@ b__n
eXDressed bY the nei~hbors will be addressed when the Wiley"s build on the residual DarceL
They will have to go before the Queensbury Planning Board and have these considerations
.addressed. Th@ applicant has indicated that the 4.67 acre lot and the 53.87 acre parcel will
come into the municipal roadway at one curb cut which should be placed within the 51.91 corridor
into the west side of West Mountain Road.
Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1989, by the foUowing vote:
NOES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turne
A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. KeUey, MI'I. F.aJ-t-. Mr. Mun.r AI8DT:None
.. . ......
..'..
TIm JI£CJI OW ~ roaa
'r .. ,..
....¿.... ;.- ~ ._1 J ...,,_ ,-- ··..1.......... _...__ .1.._. ...._ ___,.___... __ ___ ..._1- 1_ _ ~........._- 'IIIa_.l. A.._I___
,.
~ -
.
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-S832
, --.,/
Brian LaFlure - Chief
Queensbury Central
Fire Co.
1 Foster Ave.
Queensbury, NY 12804
RE: Wiley Variance
The Chief of the Queensbury Central Fire Department, Brian
LaFlure, reviewed the plans for the Wiley development which
is before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. LaFlure was concerned about the 24' wide driveway leading
to the back lot. In the winter this may cause a problem for
emergency vehicles because of the snowbanks. He would request
that the Board mandate that the driveway be cleared to a width
of SO feet. The minimum driveway can be 24 feet but in order
to assure emergency vehicle access the cleared area should be
SO feet for the entire length.
Mr. LaFlure stated that the fire trucks caTry an average of
1000 feet of hose per truck. In an emergency situation they
would be required to involve multiple trucks which can cause
a time delay in responding to die emergency'.
As a general recommendation, Mr. LaFI~re stated that the Town
should consider limiting the maximum length of private drive-
ways without hydrants to correspond with the supply line avail..,
ible to the fire department. This should be done to protect
the health and safety of the residents as well as the fiTe
fighters.
The Fire Department has expressed a concern beca'Use the Sub-
division Regulations li~it the lengtn of town roads to lQOO
feet for health and safety reasons but the length of private
driveways is not limited.
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
l'
',-, œø&rn of COueenø&urv ~iglrføav ~epartment
--
.a, at Haviland Aoads
Office Phone 518-713-m1
Queen.bury, New York 12101
PAUL H. NAYLOR
Su".rintent»nt Highwaya
RICHARD A, MISSITA
Deputy Superintendent Highways
June 12, 1989
Michael OlConnor
Attorney at Law
19 W. Notre Dame St.
Glens Falls, New York 12801
" "
RE: W. E1:7ic .ir;Carrie M. Wil~y, ,prop~s~l
t. *i. .;' ... .... <~. "~ , ,,'1.
Dear Mik~~ .1
. . .' ,. ~ ."
t. ~ '~~ : ': ;'\, ..~' '.;I~, . . ~ ·C"b:~.~.~' . I.
Mike'a~:per our conversation on June 12, 1989, I have
reviewed the plans of the Eric & Carrie Wiley future proposal
f
and at this time I have no problem with the concept of the plan,
but if this project becomes a reality in the future I would
like the road to meet the town specifications at that time.
I would also like to review the proposal again at that time.
/R~;:~':9Y' ~ ç"
. )Cc~ ~ ~,-
/ ,/ Paul H. Naylor, /'
~ Highway Superintendent
.
.
~
AlST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 831
21 SAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793·41'"
518 .793·4141
....-
'\~'ilWi~
~ ~l,
'; r1AR 1 ~ 1990 'D"
~U8D1VISION NO..5 - I q q D
~
'.ANNING . ZONIN",
'"\CD'II~f=N"
March 15, 1990
RFA #89-5000.505
-Ilr: CO-'"
f .: - : I ~:
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: W. Eric & Carrie M. Wiley
Subdivision 5-1990, Preliminary Stage
Dear Ms. York:
1. According to the application, the proposed water service is from the
City of Glens Falls. The agreement with the City should be
submitted.
Very truly yourss
æROST A
~~nett. P.E.
Ma~iñg'project Engineer
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
e GLENS FAU8, NY-LACONIA. NH
t
,.
WI [r<.-:ç c ~ c.. A RR:r::. E
w-rJ-f:Y-- .