1990-04-17
Subdivision No. 5-1990
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Subdivision No. 13-1989
FINAL STAGE
Subdivision No. 21-1989
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Subdivision No. 17-1989
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 21-90
Site Plan No. 22-90
Subdivision No. 6-1990
SKETCH PLAN
Site Plan No. 23-90
Site Plan No. 78-89
",-'
QUEENSBURY PLARHING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 17TH, 1990
INDEX
W. Eric and Carrie Wiley 1.
Herbert Tyrer 4.
Cross Roads Parks Phas~ II 5.
Imperial Acres 16.
Dr. Kit E. Burkich 19.
Robert Scheidegger 24.
Adirondack Technologies, Inc.
Adirondack Plantationss Phase II 26.
Charles A. Diehl
Lloyd DeMaranvilles Jr. 33.
James Fregoe 36.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
',-
-.../
QUEENSBIJRY PLARHING BOARD
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 17TH, 1990
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTSs CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVERs SECRETARY
JAMES HAGAN
PETER CARTIER
NICHOLAS CAIMANO
MEMBERS ABSENT
CONRAD KUPILLAS
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT
TOWN PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA LC-10A PRELIMINARY STAGE W.
ERIC AND CARRIE WILEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST OF AND OPPOSITE INTERSECTION
OF BRONK DRIVE AND WEST MT. ROAD FOR 2 LOT SUBDIVISION ON 58.53 ACRES OF LAND.
(ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 87-1-22 LOT SIZE: 58.53 ACRES
LEON STEVESs VAN DUSEN AND STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. ROBERTS-We went through a rather comp lete review of this and couldn't quite
finish the Preliminary Stage because th~ neighbors had not b~en notified. SOs
obviously, that would mean the public hearing would remain open tonight and weIll
go from there. I assume that the neighbors have been notified at this stage.
Okays we have our packet. Do you have anything to bring us up to date on?
MR. STEVES-Not a thing. My name's Leon Stevess for the records here representing
the Wiley's who are present s in the audi~nce. So is their engineer. You have,
before you, the application. The attorneyls also here. You haves before YOUs
th~ application. Plus you have the letter from Michael OlConnor addressing some
of the concerns that were brought up last month.
MR. ROBERTS-I wonder if that's worth us going through?
MR. STEVES-One of the concerns was of the Fire Chi~f and he wanted the roads cleared
to a width of...where the gravel..to a width of 12-15 feet. In the letter, it
says 16s but w~ have a little bit of conflict with that. As you knows when you
cross the streams you..into 15 feet. So what we're doing is going into the first
portion of the roads 16 feet wide, and then r~ducing..bottlenecking..15 feet?
MR. ROBERTS-Does the fire company know that?
MR. LEON-Yes s that's wider than they asked for s actually, because they asked us
to widen it to 12 and we said w~ would widen it to 16. Alsos we have a letter
from the City of Glens Falls about the hook up to th~ water line. The widening
of the road has changeds slightly, the r~tention area that we have depicted upon
our plans. Ray Irish has addressed that and we have elongated it and Wayne will
g~t the new calculations and configurations before the final submittal.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay, refresh my memorys then we must have finished SEQRA?
MR. GORALSKI-No, we couldnlt
hearing.
MR. ROBERTS-Okays that
Is there anyone in the
should have a map on the
address
SEQRA because we couldn't hold a public
makes sense. Let m~s firsts open the public
audience who cares to comment on this project?
boards if somebody's got one.
hearing.
Maybe we
1
',--"
---
PUBLIC HEARING
MRS. BARRAL
MRS. BARRAL-Ilm Mrs. Barral. I live on Applehouse Lane and my concerns I just
wanted to know s is there going to be a single family dwelling on both pieces of
property that they divides no mOre than that?
MR. ROBERTS-That's correct.
MRS. BARRAL-And then in the futures if they were to sell the property, it would
have to go to the Board again?
MR. ROBERTS-Further subdivisions yes.
BRIAN LAFLUREs CHIEF, QUEENSBURY CENTRAL FIRE DEPARTMENT
MR. LAFLURE-Mr. Robertss my name is Brian LaFlure. 11m the Chief of the Queensbury
Central Fire Department. In several discussions I've had with John and Lee about
this project s we were involved in this back when the variance was gone through,
several months ago. I just wanted to make a few comments. It appeared the fire
department just kind of jumped off the page here and had SOme requirements that
they wanted..and I wanted to explain them as much to the Wileylss I have no problem
with the Wileyls projects as I do to the Board. The fire department, as much
as the Planning Board may not realize it s observes a lot of these projects very
closely. John and Dave Hatin are both in the fire department, we go over the
minutess we go over the plans. We do look at this stuff quite closelys although
we donlt attend all the meetings. A problem that the fire department has to deal
with, that we are faced with in this particular projects with the length of this
driveway is the amount of hose that our trucks carry per vehicle. With this width
driveway and the way the water system is set up, in order to fit ourselves and
our vehicles into this facilitys down this roads and relay the one lines one piece
of fire hose on that road, the hose cannot be driven over, th~ road s basically s
becomes impassible for us. Additional vehicles neededs and generallys you need
at least two or three at the scene, an ambulance s or any other equipment that
may be needed at either of these two residences becomes impossible. It becomes
a long hike fOr ambulance personnel s paramedics s whatever the situations if they
are needed at the scene. This is how we address the problem. This is what we
feel the situations that needs to be dealt withs not only on this projects but
other projects in the future. SOs Mr. Steves was corrects we did talk to Michael
0' Connor and we suggested the widening of the road. Our biggest concern is that
a driveway that is a driveway in the summertime is not a driveway in the wintertime.
Plowed with a four wheel pick up truck or whatever the situation, the snow banks
start to impede back on the roadway. A roadway that I s 12 feet wide in the
summertime is not 12 feet wide in the wintertime. My vehicles are 8 and a half
feet wide and I can't change thats thatls the way it is and I canlt ask my drivers
to thread a n~edle down one of these drivewayss so I would ask the Boards we are
accepting the minimum of 16 feet with 15 feet on the drainage area over your
culverts okay. Sixteen feet, that's a minimum for a space. All it takes is for
one vehicle to be coming in the opposite direction when one of our vehicles are
trying to go ins in an emergency situations and you're in trouble, theyl re not
going to pass. Two vehicless one that's 8 and a half feet wide and another ones
are not going to pass with snow banks on either side of the street. SOs I just
wanted to pass along to you our feelings towards the 24 foot clear space which
gives, hopefullys the plow person a place to put the snows sO thats even in the
wintertimes he can maintain that 16 feet of roadway with the sidewalks outside
of that. Alsos there's a lot of equipment on our trucks. Our trucks are almost
10 feet high. A car takes a certain amount of spaces okay. I said our trucks
are 8 and a half feet wides theylre 8 and a half feet wide and 9 feet high. SOs
if you only clear s at the lower level s a certain area, all the tree limbs and
all the things that are sticking out then become a problem to the people riding
on the trucks and to the equipment that I s on the trucks. We I ve had a nUmb~r of
vehicles damaged that way, so, agains another reason for the 24 foot clear spaces
for the 16 foot roadway in the centers okay?
MR. ROBERTS-We've COme to that accommodation?
MR. LAFLURE- I think, you know s in the discussion I had with Mike the other day s
you knows welre agreeable to that.
MR. LITTLE-Yess therels no disagreements no problem.
2
-../
MR. LAFLURE-I just wanted to make my point to the Board as much as to explain
to the Wileyls why we Ire doing what we Ire doing. We're not trying to be difficults
but it's tim~ that we set a precedent and we start and we have a number of homess
nows up on the mountains and in other remote areas where the driveways are almost
as long as this one, which would become a very difficult firefighting situation
for us. The firefighting loads the amount of equipment and water supply that's
necessary for a 250 or 300 thousand dollar homes it's no longer a camp up on the
mountain. We Ire dealing with full size homes, twos three stories and it involves
some heavy duty equipment and we have to be able to get that equipment there safely.
Thank you for your time.
MR. ROBERTS-11m just wondering how many littles narrow roads throughout Green
Lake and places like that that are probably
MR. LAFLURE-Too many.
MR. ROBERTS-Too many, yes. That doesnlt solve the probl~m.
MR. CAIMANO-Just for the record, Mr. Chairmans lid like the fellow, the gentleman
who said there's no problem to identify himself and say it for the record.
DAVID LITTLEs LITTLE AND O'CONNORs REPRESENTING THE WILEyIS
MR. LITTLE- Ohs sure. I apologize for being a minute late.
Little and OlConnors representing the Wileyls.
I'm Dave Littles
MR. ROBERTS-Anyone else in the audience who cares to comment on this project?
Thens I guess s if we can find sOme copies of the SEQRA form, we better get at
that.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-1990s Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption,
s~cond~d by Nicholas Caimano:
WHEREASs there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a
subdivision and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Plannign
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review
Acts
NOW s THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
None
3. Th~ proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department
of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project
has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codess Rules and Regulations for the
State of New Yorks this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman
of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as
may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration
that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
3
~
~
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-C~n I ask for just on~ cl~rific~tion from Mr. LaFlure and then I think
I can make th~ motion, it m~kes reference to 12 foot width at a culvert. Do I
underst~nd that we Ire talking about ~ 16 foot wide driveway, with the exception
of the 12 foot width over the culvert Or ~re we t~lking about 16 feet wide total?
MR. ROBERTS-Didnlt this say 15 feet over the culvert?
MRS. PULVER-Yes, 15.
MR. LAFLURE-In a discussion with Mr. Goralskis todays with Leons they advised
me that the m~ximum they could go was 15 feet ~nd I allowed that. I would prefer
th~t s at some time down the road s that this be changed sO that, if we I re going
to ~sk for a minimum of 16 foot roadway, th~t, obviouslys the culvert could remain
16 feet s but I underst~nd that there I s ~n Ordinance, right now s that does not
allow it to be l~rger th~n 15 feet.
MR. ROBERTS-Is that a DEC Ordinance?
MR. GORALSKI-Nos thatls in the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. LAFLURE-So, in ~n effort not to go through another zoning variance, we went
for the 15 feets at this point.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE W. ERIC AND CARRIE
WILEY s Introduced by Peter Carti~r who moved for its adoption, seconded by J~mes
Hagan:
With the following stipulations: Th~t the final plans will show ~ cleared are~
for the driveway to a width of 24 feet for the full length of the drivew~y and,
before the installation of the driveway, 16 feet wide with the exception of the
culvert which will allow it to rem~in at 15 feet depth and it would include th~
letter of April 12ths 1990 from Little and O'Connor addressed to Mrs. York.
Duly ~dopted this 17th d~y of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA FINAL STAGE HERBERT TYRER OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE ASH DRIVE TO SUBDIVIDE 5 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS. THERE ARE PRESENTLY
TWO EXISTING HOUSES ON THE THIRD LOT, A HOUSE WILL BE BUILT APPROX. 52 FT. BY
28 FT. TO REAFFIRM THE FINAL APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 39-1-45.2, 58.5 LOT SIZE:
5 ACRES
WALTER LAWs REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTs PRESENT
MR. ROBERTS-This is a 3 lot subdivision that forgot to get filed and they're merely
asking us to reaffirm the final approval.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (att~ched)
MR. ROBERTS-We have a lengthy letter from their attorneys Mr. Laws probably stating
the same things here. Is there an applic~nt in ~ttend~nce, tonights who cares
to comment on this?
MR. LAW- I'm Walter Law and Mr. Tyrer is here with me. Briefly, I was retained
by Mr. Tyrer a few months ago to conduct a real estate closing and in the course
of gathering the paperss I found that the subdivision map had not been filed and
I ~sked Herb ~bout it ~nd he shrugged and said, wells I thought it was filed.
He had hired a surveyor to represent him at the time of the subdivision and he
thought that everything had been done. Wells it turned out that there w~s som~
l~ck of communic~tion between Mr. Tyrer and the surveyor as to the ~mount of the
recreation fees which was 500 dollars per lot and I wasn I t a party to that sO
I can only speak third hands buts as I understand it, that's where things got
4
-...-'
~
lost and the map s unfortunately, was never filed. As sOon as I realized that s
I mentioned that to Herb. He got a hold of the surveyor whos I think has provided
you with a mylar and with 14 copies of the map. First of all, I would like to
say, I appreciate the fact that welve managed to get on to the agenda as quickly
as we did. I thought we might have a problem with that and we appreciate it.
Other than thats I really have nothing to add, other than what IS in my letter.
MR. ROBERTS-Maybe I should asks are the fees paid now?
MR. LAW-I haves with me, a $1300 check. There weres also, some engineering fees
that, I believe, have been paid.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes s all the engineering fees have been paid and I would ask that
Mr. Law just bring that in to the office tomorrow and we'll take care of it.
MR. LAW-Thatls fine.
MR. ROBERTS-I don't believe this is a public hearing and probably needs to be.
MR. GORALSKI-No s the public hearing was held at Preliminary, sO SEQRA has been
taken care of and the public hearing has been taken care of.
MR. ROBERTS-Most of us s or sOme of us s at least s remember this subdivision. I
would think that we wouldnlt have any problem reaffirming this.
MOTION TO REAFFIRM SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1989 FINAL STAGE HERBERT TYRERs Introduced
by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoptions seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
R~ason for the reaffirmations a misunderstanding and failure to file mylar in
the County Clerk's Office.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 TYPE: 1JHLISTED MR-5 PRELIMINARY STAGE CROSS ROADS
PARK, PHASE II OWNER: BAY ASSOCIATES CORNER OF BAY AND BLIND ROCK ROADS FOR
A SUBDIVISION OF 9 LOTS TO BE USED FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34
LOT SIZE: 20.8 ACRES
LEON STEVESs VAN DUSEN AND STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralskis Planner (attached)
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Gebo called our offices today. He reviewed the traffic report
and said that they had no problem with this project and felt thats with the traffic
light at Bay and Blind Rocks this increase in traffic could be handled by the
Countyls roadways.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Does the applicant care to respond to any of these comments or fill
us in with any further information at this time?
MR. STEVES-Good evening. For the record s my name is Leon Steves s Van Dusen and
Steves. 11m with Dick Jones, tonight, Frank DeSantis and we didn't have problems,
at aIls with Waynels comments. There maybe a question as to what you're talking
about on Item 4 s but s other than that s no problems at all. We also noted the
letter from Brian Fear. We talked to Brian Fear..understand fully...
MR. CAIMANO-Waynes he needs an explanation of Number 4s I guess.
MR. STEVES-We can talk to Wayne about that another day, if you wish.
5
"---'
v
MR. CARTIER-Wells lId like to h~ars too.
MRS. PULVER-I'd like to know what it is.
MR. GANNETT-Basicallys there may be no problem with the traffics there just isn't
enough information in the report to be able to determine that. There were some
calculations that are normally included in a traffic report to verify the level
of service based on counts and I presume those calculations are available, they
were not included in the report. So s it may just be a matter of clarifying the
report.
RICHARD JONES
MR. JONES-The information that was put in that report, Wayne, came from the study
that was done by the Town of Queensbury in Warren County which was done last year
and I'm not sures without doing a complete studys what else we could do to
substantiate that. Those were numbers that were in that report which we pulled
out. They had existing levels of service and proposed with development up to
the years I believe it was, 2008.
MR. CAIMANO-I don I t think it I S beyond the realm of reality to ask for a detailed
analysis and it's my feeling that if we I re going to have this, we're going to
have, we have Hiland both of which are going to develop a lot of traffic along
with people.
MR. GANNETT-My point in the comment is, it's not clears from the information thatls
provided s the assertions particularly about the level of service "C". There's
a reference to level of service "c" and then there I s also a reference to a level
of servic~ "D". There's nO diagrams for the intersections that indicate which
is whichs so itls not clear to mes is this the same intersection or is it different
intersections.
MR. JONES-Okays the firsts the level of service for the intersection is the first
one th~re. The level of service for Blind Rock, is Blind Rock Roads west of Bay
Road and, at this points the level of service is "c" s with development by 2008s
it would be level, it would be liD" s at that point.
MR. ROBERTS-And thatls with the light?
MR. JONES-That I s with the light s yes. That was the entire report indicating the
intersection of Bay and Haviland, or Bay, Haviland and Blind Rocks with the light,
at the indicated level of service. It indicated the level of service for Haviland
or Blind Rock, excuse mes west, to be a level "C"s with the lights and with
development a "D" up to the year 2008.
MR. GANNETT-That I s not clear to me. Normally, there are worksheets included for
the intersections that analyze s with the counts s what is the impact and 11m not
clear s from this s whether that I s talking about the westerly road, entering Blind
Rock or the easterly roads ent~ring Blind Rocks or both roads because normally
there's calculations and diagrams included which demonstrate.. drawn and in this
report s there are some statements made s but there's no back up numbers behind
th~m and I presume those calculations exist and I think it would be a simply matter
of just improving them for the sake of completeness.
MR. STEVES-Yess we understand.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JERRY THORNE
MR. THORNE-My namels Jerry Thorne and I live at 32 Blind Rock Road. I have prepared
some comments and suggestions which lid like to give to the Board for your review
and comment. I haven't proposed.. public commentary at the moment, I'd just lik~
you to read it into the minutes and do as you see fit.
MR. ROBERTS-Fine. I donlt know how far you want to get into this?
MR. THORNE-Not really s I don I t want to take up a lot of your time. All I ask
is that you look at this and do as you see fit.
MR. ROBERTS-I appreciate your input.
I don I t know whether we really have time.
6
~
MR. THORNE-Itls a little lengthy. I don't think you want to get into it.
MR. ROBERTS-Maybes prior to Final, weld certainly have a chance tos this is
Preliminary approval tonight.
MR. THORNE-Right.
MR. ROBERTS-Could yous brieflys synopsize this for us a little bit?
MR. THORNE-As the statement says, I was here during the Phase I discussion.
MR. ROBERTS-Right.
MR. THORNE-And I expressed concern in three categories and that was traffic,
stormwaters and septic. I have commented on those three itemss again, in regards
to this ones and also I've added a fourth one and that is whats in my minds appears
to be a problem in getting work on the Phase I constructed and constructed correctly
ands just as a typical example, we have, which is very obvious to anybody who I s
been around this area or from over heres the flooding condition that is occurring
over here on Blind Rock Road because of that culvert that was put in and it was
done twice and thatls been there for about 8 months and nobody's made any attempt
to correct it. I told the County. The County says it's a Town problems the Town
says it's a County problem and no one wants to take care of it. Nows the roadls
breaking up and, as I said in the statements now it's the tax payers problem.
SOs there are sOme other comments, you know, to that.
MR. ROBERTS-That IS the culvert going under their?
MR. THORNE-The new road.
MR. ROBERTS-Their new road.
MR. THORNE-There's been SOme problems with siltation that IS gotten into the pond.
It's been looked at. It's been determined that s I guess it's coming from the
project to the north, but it still occurs and the last time the property called
on its this last storms in the last week or sOs nobody got back to hers but we
just found out that the people did COme over and did look at it. ...report..copy
of the report in the Planning Department's Office s but nobody got back to the
property owner. Nobody said anything and, as far as we know, nothing's been done
to correct it and there was some recommendations, that I understands that were
written up by Rist-Frost and we have no idea of knowing if those were implemented.
MR. ROBERTS-This is another development farther up.
MR. THORNE-This is the one just above it.
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
MR. THORNE-That I s referred to in my comments because it effects this and some
other work that's going to occur under Phase II. I don't have any problem one
way or anothers probablys with this project..the biggest concern, right nows it
was before and it is now even more sOs is the fact that youlve got to build this
thing the way itls supposed to be done. If you go through all this rhetoric here
to improve a set of plans and specifications s then let's build it right and if
problems occurs then letls get somebody down there to correct it. We have,
supposedlys heres in the Towns a department that does that and from what I can
find out right now, somebody I s not doing their job and I've asked you to address
that question. So, that's briefly lIve talked to Mr. Gannett and lIve looked
this situation and made my comments.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Thank you, we appreciate your input.
in the audience who cares to comment?
Is there anyone else
MARYLEE GOSLINE
MRS. GOSLINE-My name is Marylee Gosline. I live at 25 Blind Rock Road. I'm part
owner of the pond which is down there and I own the 12 inch culvert that's On
the pond. My main concern is for drainage on the project. lIve already experienced
runoff on the adjacent project, north on Bay Road. I don't know the name of its
but it's over here (referring to map).
MR. ROBERTS-Cedar Courts I think youlre referring to.
7
'-'
,---,'
MRS. GOSLINE-I know these projects are not complete, but I wonder how do the two
projects plan to come in as ones as far as runoff from the pond? Mr. Thorne has
pointed out to me, on the project, on one end of the projects here, they're going
to be putting a mound around there to hold the water for a temporary time and
that comes through a culvert and then leaks back down into the pond, gradually s
but a lot of this water may runoff from here and down and you'd be blocking up
water from above and I just wondered if anyonels every looked at the project as
a wholes the two projects, how they ~ffect one another.
MR. ROBERTS-That I s a fair question. Wes fortunately s are going to have another
review of that other projects next week sometime, and I think we would want to
look more closelys since itls been pointed out to us.
MR. GOSLINE-lIve lived near a pond before, which was a victim of progress in the
pasts that pond is Hovey's Pond which now the Town is trying to revive. 11m not
against development if all Town specifications are followed and the community
where the development I s taking place is all taken into considerations not just
the project at hand, so no one has to fall victim to progress. Thank you.
MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. Anyone elses Peter did you?
MR. CARTIER-Nos I was going to says in a sense, just ~xactly what you said.
MR. CAIMANO-John had some comments, I thinks regarding who did or didnlt do
something at the Town.
MR. GORALSKI -Well s I guess I should go on record as saying that the Town has had
calls on two separate incidences. One is the ponding on the corner of Bay and
Blind Rock and we did contact the developer about that and spoke to him about
that. As far as the sediment in the ponds we also had our building inspectors
go out there and take a look at that and they did contact the developers of Cedar
Court to see what could be done about that. So s both of those calls hav~ been
acted on. lId just like to have that on the record.
MR. CARTIER-If I recalls the flooding on the corner was sort of a temporary thing
because of some soils that were
MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that that occurred because of SOme utilities
that were installed and it's also my understanding that that will be regraded.
MR. CARTIER-If it hasnlt already. I was under the impression that that had been
taken care ofalreadys but maybe not.
MR. GORALSKI-I donlt believe it has.
MR. HAGAN-If it had been, it wasn't done properly because it's still accumulating.
MR. ROBERTS-And somebody drove through that, I see s the other day and it messed
up what IS theres but is there any further...
FRANK DESANTIS
MR. DESANTIS-My name I s Frank DeSantis. 11m here on behalf of Bay Associates.
I want to address just a little issue of the ponding on the corner. Just this
past weeks I sent a letter to the Town Board because I did speak with the Planning
Department on that. They did have contact with Mr. Thorne. That lot was solds
as I believe this Board may know, to s I may not have the exact name of the
corporation correctly s Bay Road Realty s which was the company that developed the
Prudential building which is over there ands at the time this Board the plans
for Phase Is if you may recollects Rist-Frost Engineerss it was Tom Nace sitting
in the seat that Wayne Gannett is sitting in now, at that times initially called
for a catch basin in that very same corner and our plans included such a catch
basin. It was afters I believe it was Thomas Flaherty of the Queensbury Water
Department, decided where to final site the water main which hes we were required
to bring under Bay Road, that he talked with Tom Nace and they decided that th~y
couldn I t have a catch basin in the corner because that I s where the water main
was going to go. This Board approved a set of plans that did not have that catch
basin there. Subsequentlys the water mainls been put in that corner ands
additionally, and I don't know at whoses whether it was Bay Road or the telephone
company of their own accords the telephone company has placed a concrete vault
structure in that very same area to service, 11m sure not only that one buildings
but this whole area. Additionallys Niagra Mohawk has placed some utility structures
in
8
'''--'
that area and we had it graded out and then I know that the people who developed
the Prudential building had it graded out to specs according to their site plan
and I don't know what the telephon~ company or Niagra Mohawk did in that corner.
We realize there I s a problem there. I have contacted the owner of the lot. I
have sent a letter to the Board and saids basicallys Bay Associates will do whatever
they can. Additionallys the County dug the ditchs which youlre all aware ofs
in theres beyond everybody I s control. The culvert underneath Hunter Brook Lane,
twices has been checked by my people to determine and I think it's been checked
by the Town I s people. I know I talked with Dave Hatin about this, to make sure
that it is at the elevation in the plans s but the ditch on the other side has
been dammed up with some rubble and some stuff in there and lIve tried to contact
Roger Gebo about the ability to clean that out because s as of the last storms
I was here last Thursday and I came over and met with Lee York and John and Dave
Hatin and asked them to COme across the street with me because the water was
reaching the culvert, was standing in the culvert and was reaching 25 feet past
the culvert and it was dammed up by something in the Countyls ditch.
MR. ROBERTS-West of your
MR. DESANTIS-West of the culvert. What we were willing to do is whatever we can
in that area, buts again, and we're not trying to lay it off on anybody, but it
is the Countyls ditch and the County's roadway and Spears Doug Spear is the name
of the fellows but Bay Realtys Inc. who owns the lot, itls their property line
and there are some structures in there that don It show on anybodyls plans because
they b~long to the utilities, the telephone company and Niagra Mohawk, but there
is a drainage basin, a subcatchment areas that includ~s about half of Lot 1 that
do~s drain to that corner and that was shown on all of our plans and Rist-Frosts
the Town's Engineers s in consultation with the Town Water Department s agreed to
remove a drainage structure which we were willing to put in which is not there
and I understand that there I s a problem and I understand that Bay Associates s
it's being laid at our door and we Ire willing to do whatever we can, but I wrote
a letter to th~ Town Board in an attempt to outline what I know to be the facts
in that corner.
MR. ROBERTS-Obviouslys it has gotten complicated.
MR. CAIMANO-Wells' .nots Mr. DeSantis certainly wish that he had made the speech
yesterday morning to the assembled people.
MR. DESANTIS-I don't know who was theres but I did write a letter to the Town
Board saying we Ire willing to do whatever we can and if it amounts to, quite
honestly, if there I s a way to put a drainage structure in that corner, because
11m not an engineer, but there is a drainage area that does flow to that corner
and I think that IS been recognized since day one, by all the plans we submitted
and I don I t know s that water now has no where to go, other than to sit in that
corner. Plus, lIves in discussions with Dave Hatin, these are not engineering
comments, but the soils in that areas this is an interesting sites in thats there
are many different soils on this sites tend to be of clay nature and it's his
belief that the water is not draining naturally into the ground in that corner s
it is sitting until it evaporates because I asked him the same questions could
we not take something out of there and put in sand or some loam to allow it to
soak up because, what IS happening iss if you go over there and you walk on its
it is a clay substance and it's not going anywhere until it evaporates and the
problem is s is that s even though there I s a flow to the culvert s you see water
standing in the culvert, sO water is reaching the culverts but not going on through
it down to the ditch.
MR. ROBERTS-11m not sure whose doorstep we can lay this at.
MR. CAIMANO-Wells the first doorstep it IS at is ours.
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-The question I haves do we need to have the SEQRA completed prior
to giving your Preliminary?
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay s it seems to me that we can't even give Preliminary tonight s
anyway simply because I can't see how we can get by, impact on transportation
and if we were to get into the SEQRA process s we I re going to force this issue
into an environmental impact statement s so s maybe some of these things could be
handled while we Ire. . . I don I t know how we can get by SEQRA tonight with the
questions Wayne Gannett has regarding traffic, thatls my question.
9
'-"
---
MR. ROBERTS-Do you feel that strongly about thats that traffic studys more
background information?
MR. GANNETT-There just isnlt enough information in th~ study to
conclusions. I have no reason to doubt the conclusionss but the back up
isn't there to verify them, which that should be in a traffic study
a drainage study.
verify the
information
as well as
MR. THORNE-That IS one of my points that IS in my notes, it has to do with the traffic
and the report that really isn't really sufficient..and made SOme suggestions,
you can read that in there too.
MR. ROBERTS-Well, we dos usuallys see a little more complete traffic study ands
yet, this was based ons apparently, a more complete study of the County's and
the Town's that s I would assume s is available s maybe something we even have in
houses I donlt knows that perhaps puts a little different light on it.
MR. THORNE-If I might go back to discussion on the corner up here and the confusion
has existed becauses as was proposed, with some adequate drainage, the County
had drainage in theres and then along came other utilities. Alright now, the
water main was know to have to go in. I donlt know about the rest of thems but,
from my experience and the work that I used to dos there use to be at least one
coordinator there that took care of these things s saw to it that everybody got
in, work got done, and problems didnlt exist and what I'm saying, heres is the
way th~se functions are going on and the discussion youlve got going on here right
tonights confusion reigns because nobody seems to who's responsible. How did
the phone company get in where they did and the Water Department. Everybody has
got to move things around and put in and nows what you've gots is a problem and
who's been looking after it s who's the coordinator, and s even tonight s who are
you going to talk to. Whols going to resolve it and thatls my problem. I think
thats somewhere along the lines the Town ne~ds to have somebody, one persons who
has an overall handle on all the things that go on. You've got a lot of Department
heads doing their job s but a lot of things happen and I know from personal
experience, years of construction, this can happen. One of my jobs was to make
sure that they didn't and what's happening right now is you've got a problem over
here that I s 8 years old and you stand here talking about it tonight. There's
a lot of good reasons why it happeneds but no solutions and nobodyls doing anything
about its sOs that's what my intentions.. remarks s when plans are approveds as
Mr. DeSantis said they weres and problems occur, things have to be changeds nobody
bothers to take a look and see what that change does s how it effects something
else and what kind of a problem it's going to cause.
MR. CARTIER-Well, let me address a couple of those things. Number One, this is
why we go through the process we go through. We go through Sketch Plan and we
go through Preliminarys we go through Final. The process is there to d~al with
your concerns. Secondlys I'm not sure I'd agree with the statement that nobody's
looking at it. Dave Hatin does a superb job in this Town. He may not get to
things as fast as you might like him to because he's a very busy man, but things
do get looked at. I share some of your concerns s but I want you to understand
that welre trying to make this process work. Nobodyls going to walk out of thiss
even if we do give approval tonight s a stick is not going to go up until Final
and these things are addressed. SOs I think we've got a handle on it, if we don'ts
you keep telling us.
MR. THORNE-Wells one of the thingss it'll be proof of the pudding,
problem. Get that ironed out. Get the water out. Get it drained.
of the road and finish it up.
is solve this
Keep it out
MR. CAIMANO-If we canlt get Phase I done rights why should we go on to Phase II.
MR. JONES-Could I mak~ a comment about the drainage problem in the corner? The
utilities that were put in for this first phase were put in properly. The problem
has occurred from New York Telephone Company in placing a piece of equipment on
the corner. If I could show yous there's as as part of the original proposals
there I s a swale that goes down along the side of Bay Road and what has happened
is, they p laced apiece of equipment, here, on the corner s which, in essence,
cuts that swale off. Right now s everything is forced to drain in this fashion s
but therels a high point back heres so it naturally ponds. Therels no place for
that water to go.
MR. CARTIER-You are sayings if understand you, that it's the telephone company
who created the problem?
10
'-....-/
---
MR. JONES-Yes.
corner.
If you look at s there's apiece of equipment, right here in the
MR. CARTIER-And it will be solved by having the telephone company move that piece
of equipment.
MR. JONES-I don't know if theylre willing to move that equipment. I donlt know.
MR. HAGAN-Wells I still think that IS the develop
MR. CARTIER-I don't want to get into who IS willings 11m just trying to understand
the problem. Will the problem be solveds if that piece of equipment is moved?
MR. JONES-If that piece of equipment were moved, yes it would.
MR. CARTIER-The problem would go away?
MR. JONES-Yess because it sits right in the drainage swale which goes north along
Bay Road.
MR. CARTIER-So the onus is s or the question is s who is responsible for placing
the piece of equipment where it was. I would assume that whoever placed it there
is also responsible for moving it. They created the problem, they get to move
it.
MR. JONES-I don't know who did it. I donlt know why it was placed there. It
wasn't placed there as part of the development.
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute.
telephone company put it in.
It's telephone company equipment.
I assume the
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. HAGAN-With whose approval, though?
MR. DESANTIS-Not at our request and without our approval.
MR. HAGAN-Wells what was the purpose in putting in there.
MR. DESANTIS-I have nO ideas sir.
MR. HAGAN-Who owned the property?
MR. DESANTIS-At the time they placed it there?
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. DESANTIS-11m not exactly sure of where, exactly, they put it, but at the time
they placed it there it was either in the public right-of-ways which they retain
easements because they have utility easements along the public rights-of-way.
MR. HAGAN-It was not privately owned?
MR. DESANTIS-I'm not exactly sure where the structure is. I haven I t located the
structures is what I'm trying to tell you, Mr. Hagan. At the time they placed
its that lot had been sold to Bay Road Realty is what 11m saying and I don't know
wheth~r they put it there at their request or they put it there as part of their
general development plan for servicing people with telephone service. What 11m
saying to you is s while the construction was underway, after the lot had been
sold to the people who currently own its a concrete vault structures whatever
you want to call it s which was rather large, I would guess it I S a least 4 to 5
feet squares was placed where Mr. Jones just told yous right in the middle of
this swale.
MR. CARTIER-Doesnlt the telephone company have to check with somebody and say?
MR. DESANTIS-Peters I canlt answer that.
MR. HAGAN-Yess they dos that's why.
MR. CARTIER-That IS not a rhetorical questions I'm not asking
11
'-'
-..../
MR. DESANTIS-I know. 11m sayings w~ didnlt ask them to put it there and we just
were aware that they were putting it there and it's resulted in this problem.
MR. CAIMANO-Are you saying they donlt have to ask anybody?
MRS. PULVER-Do they have tos if they have easements.
MR. GORALSKI-Excuse mes can I just answer that one question. If that structure
is in the right-of-ways they can put it wherever they would like.
\
MR. HAGAN-If it I S in their right-of-way s but if it's on private property, they
have to get permission.
MR. STEVES-Wells they're supposed to get permission.
There is a difference.
MR. HAGAN-That I s the property owner's concern, not the TOwn's, that I s the point
11m trying to bring out.
MR. CARTIER-Wells what 11m trying to get tos heres is, we've got a problems how
does it get fixed and I guess the question we have to answer is s who's supposed
to fix it? I don't know if I can answer that tonight and I don't know if anybody
else can.
MR. DESANTIS-Well s I certainly can I t answer it tonight and that I s why I said I
was going on record with the Town Board as saying, we'll cooperate and if it's
determined that it IS the phone company, weIll contact them and ask them that they
fix whatev~r they haves but I do want to, on the record, take exception to what
Mr. Caimano said abouts if Phase I isn't done right becauses based upon the comments
you I ve heard tonight s I think that I s a rather far reaching assumption on your
part.
MR. CAIMANO-And I should back offs too. As I was thinking about its you have
a rights and I apologize for the use of the words. It isnlt a matter of it being
done right. I guess 11m mixing a couple of things. You even said it earlier
on yourself. Once it got into it s somebody else owned the property, somebody
else did thiss somebody else did that. If the Board doesn't assign those
responsibilitiess if you wills from the beginning of times then these things happens
not because itls your faults...and I apologize for that.
MR. DESANTIS-Fines but I understand everybody's frustration. I would like to
say that as the Planning Department knows, there I s a preconstruction meeting and
responsibilities are delegated to various people. I think thats in this case,
quite honestlys a lot of people were at that preconstruction meeting. One of
the peop Ie that weren I t there wer~ the general utility peop Ie s the Niagra Mohawk
representatives s New York Telephone Company. I know that they were not at that
meeting because I have the minutes of that meeting and representatives of Bay
Associates were present at that meeting (TAPE TURNED) and they have gone in and
dropped in whatever theylve put in the ground ands believe mes they have not graded
it after they left. They did things such as you noticeds Mr. Robertss tire tracks
left there, rubble just piled up, and they didnlt really care about the drainage
situation and we care about its buts agains we can't move their structures, as
John has saids if theylre on a public right-of-ways they have easements placed
on. . .
MR. CARTIER-Alrights 11m still trying to get at a solutions here.
MR. ROBERTS-He has notified the Town Board. A step has been takens maybe we can
magnify that somehow.
MR. CARTIER-What I'm saying is, might it not be preferables and 11m thinking off
the top of my heads might it not be preferable to do something with the swales
would it be easier to do something with the swale, rather than get the telephone
company back there and I don't even know if we I re getting into an area that we
donlt want to deal with.
MR. CAIMANO-My point is s we I re getting into an area we don't want to get into.
My only concern wass and lIve said it to Mr. DeSantiss was the fact thats if we're
going to do Phase II s let's make sure that we tie down the loose ends so these
things don't happen at the end of Phase II, as our happening out here on Phase
Is thatls my points and I don't think we have any right to be where we ares right
now, as far as 11m concerned.
12
"'-'~
--'
MRS. PULVER-Karlas lid like to ask you a questions and that is, I don't, you knows
t~ll me if I'm right or wrongs but I don't really think itls the job of this Board
to police the other Departm~nts within the Town to see whether or not they're
doing their job.
MS. CORPUS-That's a good assumption. Therels only so much this Board can do.
You do your approvals with your conditions and then the Planning Department, along
with Building and Codes all work together to take all that and work through it
and the enforc~ment agency is the Building and Code Department.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. ROBERTS-I think thatls a good points but I also wonders we are addressings
tonights Phase II with itls owns perhapss it's own problemss 11m not sur~s that
some problems with Phase I should pr~clude us going ahead with Phase II.
MR. CAIMANO-No, it shouldnlts only th~ fact that we didn't tie down, the lesson
that we didnlts all of us, didn't tie down th~ loose ~nds of Phase Is before hand,
like who has that responsibility? Was this going to happen? Maybe you couldn't
se~ it alls I donlt know.
MRS. PULVER-Karlas I have another question. If ther~ is a problem with the project
b~cause someone didn't do their jobs are w~ to correct it?
MS. CORPUS-Agains it appears to me that that would be the purview of Dav~ Hatin
in th~ Building and Cod~s Department. Someone could alert him and he could look
into it and if someone wasn't satisfied then it go~s on from there.
MRS. PULVER-Sos if we were to alert Dave right now that there is a probl~m th~r~
with the drainages he should...
MS. CORPUS-Corn~cts you could do thats you could dir~ct Dave Hatin to look into
this. I don't know if he hasn't already don~ that.
MR. CAIMANO-He's alr~ady been al~rted, apparentlys from what John says.
MR. ROBERTS-I think there probably can be a solution to the problem, but I guess
w~ donlt feel it's in our hands, accept to through up a red flag.
MR. GORALSKI-I can say that this is not som~thing that we are just ignorings w~
being the Staff in the Town office building, all of the departments. W~ have
been looking into it s especially the Building and Codes Department s th~ Highway
D~partment is also involved.
MR. ROBERTS-And the develop~rls not ignoring it either.
MR. GORALSKI-Nos the developer has met with us and, I beli~ve he said that h~
would do what he can to solve the problem.
MR. ROBERTS-Mayb~ we ought to jump ov~r across to the n~xt road and look at Phase
II for a minute. I guess it do~sn' t come as any surprise to those of us that
saw Phase Is we looked at the entire parc~ls..change with the stormwater managements
and I gu~sss Waynes you feel that stormwater management plan will work? I don't
know that you addressed that too specifically did you?
MR. GANNETT-W~ reviewed th~ stormwater management plans Mr. Chairman, and,
g~n~rally, we have no probl~ms with it. What they have done is they hav~ taken
the ret~ntion basin that was originally design~d for Phase I and they hav~ relocat~d
that down to th~ back of Lots 12 and 13 and they have provided retention capability
to provide r~t~ntion for not only what was part of Phase I originally s but the
additional lots in Phase II. A f~w details to be ironed out s as we I v~ noted in
our letter, but, basicallys th~y've provided that. Our comm~nt about the catch
basin, in th~ corner where Lots 5, 6s 4s 8s and 7 all meet, they hav~ shown a
catch basin which. .accept runoff and theylve enlarged that pipe from a 12 inch
pipe to an 18 inch pipe we're suggesting that catch basin simply be relocated
west sO that itls right next to the roads so that maint~nance would be easi~rs
in the futur~.
MR. ROBERTS-I wonder, do~s that mak~ sense?
MR. DESANTIS-We have no problems w~ revieweds if these are the same plans that
Mr. Gann~tt put in his written not~s
13
'~
'--'
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, they are.
MR. DESANTIS-There were four commentss the first threes we have, actually, no
problem with doing. I agree with th~m. I thinks basicallys theylre housekeeping
details and we agree, if we can make the maintenance of the catch basins easiers
we'll move it to the road side and we will place in the two lots that have the
drainage burdens basically s in the northwest corner of the property s will have
a maintenance covenant and deed and I don't remember the third one, right off
the top of my head, right now because I donlt have a copy right in front of me.
MR. GANNETT-That was the separation distance.
MR. DESANTIS-The separation distances of course, is something that is on a lot
that has it's own on site drainage provided for it and when you do site plans
any plans that come to you are going to have to show this separation distance.
This is not something we can show now because we're not p lacing a building on
a lots but, obviouslys those are in the regulations and, anybody that COmes to
you with that lot is going to have to comply with those regulations. The only
comment I would have is with Number 4 concerning the traffic study. It's my
understandings and weill be glad to supply this to Mr. Gannett, is that this traffic
study is based on a one year old traffic study done by the Town of Queensbury
and the County of Warren and I believe that I s why Mr. Gebo said that after he
looked at the study, that it was okay with hims with traffic west of this
intersection, is that he was involved with a study that was done a year ago and
these comments s the study resulted of comments that were made at Sketch Plan
approval at the end of November of 1989 by Mr. Goralski where he said that the
County showed certain levels of service at this intersection. Obviously s we all
know that welve been awaiting a light at this intersection for over a year now.
We've made it to the point where there are utility boxes in the ground in the
same sections NiMo is doing work in that same area. There are signal light poles
in the ground and in place s but there I s no light s as of yet. What Mr. Goralski
asked us to dos at Sketch Plan, was to show the impact of development and the
light, which wasn't yet there and that's what we attempted to do. We attempt~d
to use the basis s being the one year old County study. We could not do actual
traffic countss obviouslys because it's a vacant parcel of land. So what we did
is took maximum buildout numbers and added them to the County traffic study and
11m not a traffic engineer, Mr. Gannetts but if there's something else that we
can dos we III be glad to do it. I understand that that was the general process
that we used to come up with these levels of service.
MR. GANNETT-Again, I'll repeat s 11m not disagr~eing with your conclusions in the
study. I'm just saying there's more back up needed which I presume already exists
in th~ file.
MR. DESANTIS-What 11m saying is that when Mr. Gannett refers to back up, about
the only thing that we could generate would be to give him the County study and
our hypothetical numbers becauses obviouslys the traffic counts were done a year
agos I suppose there I s new traffic counts nows which we did not take that step s
one year later.
MR. GANNETT-That was the information that we're looking for, basically.
MR. DESANTIS-The one year olds would that be satisfactory? I guess what 11m trying
to pin downs Waynes quite honestly s do we leave here saying, let I s go do traffic
study counts on this intersection?
MR. GANNETT-Nos 11m not suggesting that counts b~ dones but the analytical work
has been done by someone to show that the level of service is "c" or "D" or whatever
it is and it I s simply a matter of retrieving that from the files and showing it
as the documentation and backup.
MR. DESANTIS-We can have that in your hands tomorrow mornings quite honestlys
that work is done.
MR. CAIMANO-You nodded your head befores John.
it around, too?
That information, you've seen
MR. GORALSKI-We have a copy of the Warren County Traffic Studys yes.
MR. CARTIER-I think the
Mr. Thorne's materials s
but I think some of his
only two other quick comments here, 11m trying to digest
heres as quickly as I can and it doesn I t always works
concerns have also been addressed by Engineering Comments
14
"-'
-./
ands possiblys Mrs. Gosline's remarkss I think that some of those have been
addressed and also it looks to me like sOme of the things that Mr. Thorm~' s
addressing or is ra1.s1.ng questions about will be dealt with at site plan for
individual lots s which we will be looking at again. Whether or not all those
will be addressed, 11m not sure. I guesss what I'd like to suggest is that maybe
Mr. Gannett get a copy sometime and take a look through Mr. Thorne'ss I don't
mean tonight s but some time in your review between now and final. There maybe
some comments that are appropriate.
MR. HAGAN-I'd like to add a words toos that when you do review Mr. Thornels notess
you include those in your engin~ering report and/or have the applicant satisfy
all his concerns because what I'm concerned about is not only for the Town IS
welfares but the applicant I s welfare, toos that years down the line, if we had
these issues become real problems s then who I s going to be liable and I thinks
if theylre all addressed properlys we maybe free ourselves from that.
MR. GANNETT-We will review these and report to th~ Board.
MR. CARTIER-And I would also ask that you do the same with Mrs. Goslinels remarks
that will become part of the minutes of this meeting.
MR. CAIMANO-Actually Mr. Thorne sayss in a stumbling ways he sayss the site works
who checks the construction work and then he has a number of things s meanings
whose responsibilitys if we set that up beforehand then none of us would get into
trouble.
MRS. PULVER-Nick, it's already set up. The Building Department
MR. CAIMANO-Well, obviouslys it IS nots that's why we have problems.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I think a lot of times this goes slower than people expect it
to, which is true of uSs too, in more ways then one.
MR. CAIMANO-Yess okay.
MR. CARTIER-You knows I think things are being addressed and 11m sures and I hope,
that if something isn I t addressed s Mr. Thorne will be right here talking to us
again.
MR. ROBERTS-Should wes jump in, do we need to do SEQRA on this?
MR. GORALSKI-You certainly do.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 21-1989s Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Peter Cartier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
preliminary stage of CROSS ROADS PARK, PHASE II for & subdivision of 9 lots to
be used &s professional officess and
WHEREASs this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review
Acts
NOW s THEREFORE s BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
The Department of Health
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department
of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
15
'--'
--/
5. Having consider~d and thoroughly analyz~d the r~levant areas of environmental
conc~rn and having consider~d th~ criteria for d~termining wh~ther a project
has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in S~ction
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codess Rules and Regulations for the
State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be und~rtaken
by this Board will have no significant ~nvironmental eff~ct and the Chairman
of the Planning Board is h~reby authorized to execute and sign and file as
may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration
that may b~ required by law.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. GORALSKI-Th~re are two requ~sts for waivers from subdivision regulations that
should be addressed.
MR. ROBERTS-Thank you.
MR. GORALSKI-And I just was ask~d to add that I spoke to Paul Naylor today and
he said that he was not prepared to mak~ any comments on this project or on the
waiv~rs until he had a m~eting with the applicant about Phase I and som~ of the
drainage changes that ar~ taking plac~ On Phase II.
MR. CAIMANO-Is it necessary tos can w~ put this off until before Final or is it
n~cessary that we approve these waivers nows at Preliminary?
MR. CARTIER-I don't we have to approve them.
stipulation. Is that it?
I think I can cover that with a
MR. GORALSKI-Thatls it.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE CROSS ROADS PARK,
PHASE lIs Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Nicholas Caimano:
With th~ following stipulations: That prior to final applications the applicant
will provide a letter from the Highway Department agreeing to th~ waiver r~qu~st
from Articles 852 E and Article 8 E9. That the comments of th~ Consulting Engine~r
in his letter of April 12s 1990, be addr~ssed and that appropriate DOH approvals
be obtain~d. We have indicated that Engin~ering Staff was going to look at the
concerns raised by Mr. Thorne and Mrs. Goslin~ and report back to us.
.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Rob~rts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A FINAL STAGE IMPERIAL ACRES OWNER:
ROBERT LENT MOON HILL ROAD FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. TAX MAP
NO. 44-1-3, 4.1 LOT SIZE: 27.56± ACRES
KEITH MANZs C.T. MALEs REPRESENTING APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attach~d)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Wayne Gannetts Town Engineer (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-The plans do look rath~r complete. Would you care to fill us in and
bring us up to date?
16
'-
--'
MR. MANZ-Ilm Keith Manz with C.T. Male.
MR. ROBERTS-Excuse me, do you have a question, Carol?
MRS. PULVER-Yess what about this from
MR. CARTIER-Warren County D.P.W.
MR. GORALSKI-I think Keith wills I believe these were addresseds the letter from
Fred Austin dateds I believe it IS March 5th. Those were included in your
Preliminary approval, I believe. Is that correct?
MR. MANZ-Is this from Fred or is it from Roger?
MR. GORALSKI-From Rogers 11m sorry.
MR. MANZ-Yess we'ves lId have to check to see this drawing to see if that verticals
I know the vertical curve has been added to the mylar s itself s but 11m not sure
as if it got in in time for this submission.
MR. GORALSKI-Rights wells I spoke to Warren County about this letter. I called
them and they said that they had spoke to Keith and that it was all taken care
of.
MR. MANZ-Yess I just spoke to Rogers today, furthers on the drainage situation
which I can update you on, but we've decided what to do on that, which is basically
what he wanted to dos since it's their County right-of-way. Rather than go through
every comment on our letters which basically resolves all the engineering and
planning questionss if there's any questions on those, 1111 be glad to answer
them now. Other than that s I'd like to just update you on the drainage, which
is an issue that lIve been talking with Roger Gebo on. What we've decided to
dos rather than take all of the stormwater flow from the cul-de-sac and have it
head east along Moonhill to that Moonhill-Bay intersections we're taking the western
portion of the cul-de-sacs the seepage pit 6s all of the flow from this area,
and we I re going to take down a drainage easem~nt. Actually s correct that s it's
catch basin 8, all of this is going to go down a drainage easement on this Lot
of Ronald Lent and it I s going to come out to Moonhill Road, go under Moonhill
Road in a culvert pipe to the north side drainage ditch and then head west and
then, ultimately s discharge into the outlet creek of the Glen Lake. This will
minimize the amount of flow that's heading east s going to that intersection of
Bay Road and Moonhills which doesn't have an outlet. Therels no culvert pipe
to take flows from that intersection. SOs basically, what we Ive done is reduced
our peak discharge rates by .6 cfs. Originallys we had 2.8 going to that
intersections in the developed case which is the same as the existing case, so
we did conform to the regulationss but we cut the flow from 2.8 to 2.6s so welre
actually reducing the flow going to that intersection by .6 cfs, so you get a
better situation.
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. You went from 2.8 to 2.6.
MR. MANZ-2.2s 11m sorry, .6 reduction.
MR. CARTIER-Okays alright.
MR. MANZ-I do have a letter from Roger which I thought he copied everybody ons
but in his haste to get to Florida three weeks ago s he didn It. You might want
to copy that and then send me the original back. Basically, that just states
that he wants to go with the alternative solution that we submitted to hims which
doesn I t mean anything to you because you don I t have the map that goes along wi th
it, but this is the map, alternative. We submitted two alternatives to Roger.
He selected that alternative. Agains I think it's a relatively s kind of a minor
issue, but it's something that we can simply change the design plans to reflect
and I don't think it would necessarily hold an approval. We can get s probably s
a conditional approvals unless therels any other issues, obviouslys a conditional
approvals conditional on us making the design changes to reflect the updated
drainag~ routing. It basically conforms to what he stated in his letters that
March 5th letter, that itls the second item in that we've basically done what
he IS requested in that letters which is reroute the storm flows to the west.
MR. ROBERTS-Was there any success in trying to keep peace with the neighbors?
17
~
'--'
MR. MANZ-I believe they've been in our office onces since our last meeting. We
met with them for some period of time. I don't believe a resolution has been
made. W~ haven't changed the boundarys in other words, buts agains that IS because
we feel we shouldn't. Just to make you feel a little more comfortables the point
of contention would not effect this subdivision in conforming with zoning and
subdivision regulations. It just wouldn't effect it at all. It would still be
a valid subdivision if, in deeds they were correct. Let's say C.T. Male was wrong,
it would still be a subdivision that you could get all 8 lots cut out of.
MR. ROBERTS-Yes. I didn't think that was ever a question.
MR. MANZ-Right. No, I don't think theylve been pushing its other than that one
meeting which wass I believes about a month ago.
MR. ROBERTS-I guess that's something we had hoped that we could iron out and yet
the legal staff tells us that, perhapss we ought to mind our own businesss anyway.
MRS. PULVER-Does anybody have any questions?
MR. ROBERTS-I don It. It looks pretty complete to me. I gu~ss the only question
is whether welre willing to make an approval subject to Wayne okaying these final
changes.
MR. GANNETT-I don I t see any problem with the drainage concept that Keith has
outlined here. Obviously, the final drawings will reflect that on the approved
plans. You're basically just diverting some of the runoff. Instead of having
it all go down the catch basin system, down the new road, some of it is being
div~rted out into the separate easement. Is that corrects Keith?
MR. MANZ-Yess Waynes thatls correct. An easements thens would be heading in this
directions northerly s thens northeasterly and then a culvert will be installed
under Moonhill Road to get the water to the north side where therels a more well
defined drainage ditch. We tried to leave it on the south sides but what happens
to that ditch is that it dies out and then the water crosses the road on the surface
of the roads which is a bad situation that already exists. So welre going to
go to the north sides right away.
MR. GANNETT-If the County prefers that s then I think that I s the better solution.
MR. ROBERTS-It would seem to help. Well, maybe this is something we could move
along. We are looking for Final approval, here, for this subdivision.
MR. GORALSKI-SEQRA is done.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1989 FINAL STAGE IMPERIAL ACRESs Introduced
by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoptions seconded by James Hagan:
For a subdivision of 9 single family lots contingent upon Mr. Gannett's final
approval on the plans onc~ he IS had a chance to look at them.
Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. MANZ-Not to throw a wrench into things s there may be a waiver that I s needed
for the .35 and the .20s John.
MR. GORALSKI-Wasn't that done at Preliminary?
MR. MANZ-Did we grant an official waiver? I just don't want to
MR. GORALSKI-Yess I believe we did.
MR. ROBERTS-I thought I remembered something like that.
MR. GANNETT-I think that has been requested and granted.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
18
'-""
MR. MANZ-Okay. Thank you. Thanks for your time.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 21-90 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-10 DR. KIT E. BURKICH
ALEXANDER BURKICH 112 AVIATION ROAD, RIGHT BEFORE SOKOL' S MARKET
SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE SOUTH END OF THE EXISTING DENTAL OFFICE.
91-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES SECTION 4.020
OWNER: DR.
FOR A 2,264
TAX MAP NO.
RUSS SCUDDER, SCUDDER ASSOCIATESs REPRESENTING APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralskis Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Wayne Gannetts Town Engineer (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. SCUDDER-Russ Scudders Scudder Associates. Shall I put the map up?
MR. ROBERTS-Yess it's probably a good idea, Russell.
MR. SCUDDER-First off s I think we've addressed both the waste water system and
the drainage report s which John alluded to on his let ter. A drainage report was
submitted along with the waste water system report. I can tell you that the
existing dental office has been there sOme 23 years and both Dr. Burkich' s are
here this evenings Dr. Kit Burkichs her fathers Dr. Alexander Burkich are here.
They can assure you that there I s no problem with their existing system. We have
not gone out there to dig it up to determine its size. We don It have any record
of its size at this point. I should also point out that s on the map pr~pared
by Van Dusen and Steves s there are some existing spot elevations on here and we
also have some contour lines revealing the existing situation. The building sits
ups relative to the rest of the property. This contour here is 476. It encircles
the existing office and as you are looking at the map heres the property falls
away, this way and this way. We're following its natural drainage path and locating
a drywell down in this areas h~re, to collect any of the runoff. We also have
located, and indicated, on our submission, where we will catch the additional
roof runoff. I just spoke to Wayne a little bit about the test pit and perc test
information. As this Boardls probably well awares we're on some 90 feet of sand
up in that general area. We felt it wasn't quite necessary to go through that
exercise in this case and as to the entrance to the parking lot s I think we can
address the channelization through our striping plan which is indicated on the
drawing h~re. We can make an entrance in this way to serve these lots and to
come in this ways and this'll be our outgoing on this side. Any questions?
MR. CARTIER-I don't see any s at least in the map I looked at s any provision for
handicapped access or handicapped parking.
MR. SCUDDER-Perhaps you can help me.
DR. KIT BURKICH-I think the first space closest to th~ office is the handicapped.
MR. CARTIER-It was never signed.
DR. KIT BURKICH-Wells it IS larger than any of the others.
MR. CARTIER-But it needs to have sOme signage out there indicating that it I S
handicapped parking for the people who are driving ins using it. Secondly, there
seems to be no handicapped access to the building. The only entrance I could
find was the two entrances or steps and sO on. You're adding more building space,
I assume that you I re going tQ have a doorway in there somewhere and I think the
easiest way to address that is to provide handicapped access to the new additions
rather to modify the present building.
DR. KIT BURKICH-I think it's kind of hard to see on that plan, your absolutely
right, where the main entrance would be, but I do have elevations and you'll get
to see them on there. Youlre not going to be able to see the sidewalks but you'll
be able to see where the main entrance is and it is right where that handicapped
space is.
MR. CARTIER-So s what you're stating is there will be handicapped access to the
building.
19
"--"
"'--"
DR. KIT BURKICH-There will be handicapped access to the building s right s and I
will put up the elevations for you, if you would like. They look really nice.
MR. CARTIER-Yess lId like to see them. Put them up.
MR. CAIMANO-While we I re putting the elevations up s Russ, all this area here is
going to be blacktopped?
MR. SCUDDER-Yess it is.
MR. CAIMANO-Counting 20 spaces? I counted 20.
MR. SCUDDER-20 spaces is correct. I think that our report indicates that s if
you refer to your drainage report s the present parking lot it 4600 square feet
and the proposed developed would be 8900 square feet.
DR. KIT BURKICH-Did you want me to show you that now?
MR. CARTIER-If yould just hang those up and point out to us where the handicapped
access iss fine.
DR. KIT BURKICH-This is the existing building now. That sidewalk that you see
on there goess this is the main entrance now. The addition will be on the south
end as you see in the application and the entrance is here.
MR. CARTIER-So, thatls a new main entrance to this?
DR. KIT BURKICH-Exactly.
MRS. PULVER-Is it a ramp or do you have steps or, what do you have in there?
DR. KIT BURKICH-It'll be a graduals like a ramp. I guess it has to be 3 degrees
per, is it degrees...
MR. GANNETT-One on twelve slope.
DR. KIT BURKICH-These are the other... This is the back. This is the view from
Aviation Road and this is the view from Dixon..s the building behind us, the other
professional building and then there is a floor plan here, but I don't think itls
really significant. If you can sees this is the main entry way.
MR. CARTIER-The only other question I haves one handicapped parking space is
required?
MR. GORALSKI-Itls one spot for every 25 spaces they have.
MR. ROBERTS-That would do it.
MR. CAIMANO-Thatls it then because theylve got 19 spac~s.
MR. CARTIER-Johns was there anything from Beautification, here?
MR. GORALSKI-Thats I don't know. There is nothing from the Beautification Committee
and Warren County Planning Board approved.
MR. CAIMANO-My only other question iss increase in traffic..a lot, a little, one
or two cars a day, what?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I wouldn't say one or two cars a day. If there were only one
or two cars a day, I don't think they'd stay in business. There will be a minimum
increase. The only increase is going to be their patients. We're anticipating
approximately doubling their number of patients. How many patients do you haves
per days now? Do you have an average number?
DR. KIT BURKICH-Between 30 and 40.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
20
',,--,
---
MR. ROBERTS-We'll address th~ Short Environmental Assessment Form.
MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a quick question heres before we get into that. Wayn~s
I understand that your concerns s 2 and 3 s have been addressed. How about Number
I?
MR. GANNETT-Let me clarify that, in order. The purpose of the grading plan was
to tell the contractor how to build the project so it drains correctly. Mr. Scudder
has provided a Sketch Plan of a retention basin in the drainage report and some
notes about grading the pavement to drains the purpose of having that on the site
plan is when the contractor goes out to build its that we're assured that it works
ands in fact, the pavement does slope towards the catch basin and the retention
basin. Itls simply standard procedure to provide either contours or spot
elevationss that iss new spot elevations to tell the contractor how to build the
parking lot sO that it drains properly. As far as Item Number 2, knowing th~
soils in that areas if the information is not available to verify the size of
the existing seepage pits the fact that it is operating adequat~lys we would have
no problem with accepting that. So far as conducting perc tests, that's simply
been the Town's standard procedure on any site plan or subdivision is that the
septic system is baseds the d~sign is based On an actual perc test.
MR. ROBERTS-The actual septic system that you're going to be using here is the
old one, right, existing?
MR. GANNETT-They're going to continue to use the old one and they I re going to
supplement it with two new seepage pits. What welre recommending is that there
be perc tests for the new seepage pits, the same as if it was a Health Department
approval for a subdivision or a DEC approval for a larges commercial system.
MR. ROBERTS-Wells is that a reasonable requests to ask for perc tests?
MR. CARTIER-I don I t knows we might be in the area of needing a fill system over
here if it IS too highs right? I mean, this is an area of high percs for sure.
MR. GANNETT-That is a PQssibility. We have nots the Town has not been requiring
that for subdivisions because that infringes on an area of Health Department
approval. The Town has the option of r~quiring that for site plan reviews which
are based on the DEC standards. That I s certainly wi thin the Planning Board IS
purview if it chose to require a fill system for rapidly permeable soil.
MR. CARTIER-That's something we need look at. We have been doing thats
consistentlys in this area because it is apperfur recharge.
MR. ROBERTS-Ands again, we wonlt be able to know that until we get perc tests.
MR. CARTIER-Right.
MR. SCUDDER-If I mays you're probably aware of some of the soil samples that were
done relative to the industrial parks Dr. Shutz offices nearby. There was a 25
foot test hole which, it's the building that you see outlined on the side there.
That was less than 100 feet away.
MR. CARTIER-The depth of the hole is not the question here.
MR. SCUDDER-Nos nos I realize that. That's addressing part of it, the test holes
but as to the perc test and the rate of absorptions I believe therels some precedent
fors these soils are similar type.
MR. ROBERTS-Wells what was that?
MR. SCUDDER-For examples I was here a month agos I think, and we had one at One
and three quarters...
MR. ROBERTS-This is nots this is close by.
MR. CARTIER-What we need to know iss what the perc rate is over theres so we can
decide whether or not a fill system is going to be required and 11m a little
uncomfortable using data from another site.
MR. SCUDDER-Alright, why don't I ask this questions what is the Town I s position,
then, on absorption rate? If it is below a c~rtain numbers do you want to see
some kind of fill system?
21
---
'-
MR. GANNETT-The Townls policys Russ, generallys has been to require a fill system
for rapidly permeable soils if the perc rate is less than one minute.
MR. SCUDDER-Less than one minute?
MR. GANNETT-Less than one minute, it's in the 1988 DEC Standards.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, if experience can come to play here, I think we could probably
address that.
MR. CAIMANO-What about, ands Petes this is really on the, just to kind of explore
this a little bit, this is really on the same piece of lands if you will. I donlt
know how far away that test pit is that they've dug.
MR. CARTIER-Oh, I donlt have a problem with thats but I need to know the numbers.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, is there a distance away where it canlt be used or is there some
kind of limiting number? If it's within X amount of feet, can we use that data
for this property.
MR. CARTIER - Sp eaking geologically s as far as I I m concerned, for this part icular
situations yes.
MR. CAIMANO-You just want to know the numberss right?
MR. CARTIER-This is very similars the soils are very similar up theres it I S all
deltaic sands and stuff s so I don't have a problem with using the numbers from
next door for perc rates, but we still need to know that, so we'd have to decides
you knows if it's less than the numbers that Waynels givens we've got to talk
about fill systems.
MR. SCUDDER-If I can defer heres for a moments do you recall? I'm advise that
the perc rate on the adjacent parcel was a minute and a half.
MR. CARTIER-Do you have documentation to show that?
MR. SCUDDER-I believe the Town has that in their files and we have it in our office
as well.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I think that needs to be submitted to us, in documentary form.
MR. GANNETT-Is that something you can show on your site plans where the location
of this perc test was done?
MR. SCUDDER-Certainlys ands if you'd like we can arrange to do another one, that
is easily done. For the purposes of tonightls meeting, howevers we ask that you
make that a condition, if possible.
MR. CARTIER-Wells we get into kind of a double condition here because now welve
talk about fill systems.
MR. ROBERTS-Wells maybe. . condition that. .Mr. Scudders Sr. has saids alrights if
not, maybe we better go and design a better system.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, I guess I can live with that.
MR. CAIMANO-Sos itls a pass fail.
is adequates everything is fine.
into the motion?
If it passes this, if what we have on file
If it is not, then itls off. Can we right it
MR. CARTIER-The approval is going to be contigent upon
MR. CAIMANO-The one thatls on file.
MRS. PULVER-The numbers being within the acceptable range of what the Town normally
takes.
MR. GANNETT-If that test is not very far away and Russ can tell you where it is
and it's the minute and a half range, we have no problem with the design based
on that.
MR. CAIMANO-Are you familiar with that area?
22
"'-"
'-"
MR. GANNETT-I knows generallys where it is. I'm not exactly sure where the
MR. CAIMANO-Itls, essentially, the same piece of property.
MR. CARTIER-Yess I'm not saying we can't do this, I just (TAPE TURNED)
MR. ROBERTS-I think we opened and closed the public hearing. I guess we need
to go over the Short Environmental Assessment Form in this matter.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 21-90s Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Peter Cartier:
WHEREASs there is presently before the Planning Board and application for: a
2,264 sq. ft. a.ddition to the south end of the existing dental office owned by
DR. ALEXANDER BURKICHs and
WHEREASs this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review
Acts
NOW, THEREFORE s BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
None
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department
of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Qu~ensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project
has a significant environmental impact as th~ same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rul~s and Regulations for the
State of New Yorks this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman
of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as
may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration
that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-90 DR. KIT BURKICHs Introduced by Nicholas
Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by Carol Pulver:
For a 2 s 264 sq. ft. addition to the south end of the existing dental offic~ of
Dr. Alexander Burkich subject to review of perc tests taken on adjoining property
which meet the criterion set forth in Town policy that is no less than 1 minute.
In additions that the applicant is going to comply with Numbers 1 and 3 on
Rist-Frostls letter of April llths 1990 and I specifically refer to the
channelization of the in flow and out flow of the parking lot and number one parking
spot to be utilized as the handicapped parking and signed.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
23
--'
SITE PLAN NO. 22-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-3A ROBERT SCHEIDEGGER ADIRONDACK
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. OWNER: WARREN WASHINGTON IDA NORTH ON COUHTY LINE ROAD FROM
DIX AVENUE, PAST WARREN COUHTY AIRPORT, BETWEEN HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION AND ADIRONDACK
INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR USE IN ASSEMBLY,
CONFIGURATION, AND SERVICE OF COMMERCIAL COMPUTER AND COMHUlUCATIONS SYSTEMS.
(WARREN COUHTY PLAHHING) TAX MAP NO. 55-2-20 LOT SIZE: 1.84 ACRES SECTION
4.020
JACK HUNTINGTONs MORSE ENGINEERINGs REPRESENTING APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. GORALSKI-The Beautification Committee approved.
MR. CARTIER-May I just read the first line out of the Beautification notes. I've
never seen one of these and I think the applicant ought to hear thiss if he hasn't.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-"This is one of the finest planting plans that has been presented
to the Queensbury Committee for Beautification. It is a solid layout s but also
has provid~d for colorful plants throughout the year. II
MR. ROBERTS-We have a note from the Zoning Administrator(on file). Is there some
one here who cares to comment?
MR. HUNTINGTON-To answer your statements s Wayne and John Goralski s my name is
Jack Huntington with Morse Engineering. To answer the statement s the 15 inch
culvert s the reason we put that culvert there is because the one at Hilltop
Construction Company is also a 15 inch culvert. We matched their size. The waters
coming from here s there I s going to be more water here than there is down here,
sO we matched the size of their culvert. The answer on the 8 inch pipe going
into the retention basins we can eliminate that pipe and just put a swale into
it and that might correct the problem. What was the other?
MR. GANNETT-Parking.
MR. GORALSKI-Parking has been addressed by Mrs. Collardls letters I believe.
MR. CARTIER-Yess no need to address that.
MR. GANNETT-That appears to supersede my comments on the parking. Retention basins
th~ drainage basin map showing subareas.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay, the water s previously undeveloped s from this point s drains
this way. We have graded the parking lot and the building so that now this much
of the area comes back this way for drainage. We have provided a siltation fence
around the entire site to prevent silt from going into the ditch that's there.
MR. ROBERTS-As to the phrase about trying to save the stone wall. You're going
to, arenlt you?
MR. HUNTINGTON-The stone walls..
MRS. PULVER-Theylre way out there.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes s below the project.
about?
Is that the stone wall you I re talking
MR. GORALSKI-Those were Stu's comments. 11m not sure where the stone wall is.
MRS. PULVER-It shows on this.
MR. CAIMANO-It's on here.
MR. HUNTINGTON-That stone wall is somebody elsels property down there.
24
'-'
--
MR. GORALSKI-It may be the one that goes across the property.
MR. HUNTINGTON-There is remnants of a stone wall there.
MR. ROBERTS-There'd be no point in tearing that out if you didn I t have to, it
would help for beautification.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We can't get a truck in here and back into here without moving
sOme of the stone wall.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay, that wall that goes that way.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Right.
MR. ROBERTS-The more important one is the one between the property, I would assume.
MR. HUNTINGTON-This is really over the hill from County Line Road.
really see it from County Line Road.
You donlt
MR. CARTIER-Okay, that's going to be an improvement down there because...property
is known to have cars on it and remnants of that old farm.
MR. HUNTINGTON-The cars are for sale. The sewage is public sewer and public water.
Any questions?
MR. CAIMANO-You' re into some comput~r and communication systems s electronic type
things any need for any solvency or anything for cleaning?
MR. HUNTINGTON-No.
MRS. PULVER-Do you have your handicapped parking...
MR. HUNTINGTON-Therels one right there.
MRS. PULVER-Okays that is one and you want to..
MR. HUNTINGTON-Therels a cut in the curb here and a ramp up the side walk.
MRS. PULVER-Okay, that's good.
MR. ROBERTS-It seems to me like theylve done their homework pretty well. Let's
sees where do we stand with SEQRA on this?
MR. GORALSKI-It's a site plan review and you should review the Short EAF.
MR. ROBERTS-Let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who
cares to comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 22-90s Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoptions
seconded by Carol Pulver:
WHEREASs there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: for
construction of a 4,000 sq. ft. building for use in assembly, configuration and
service of commercial computer and communication systems by ADIRONDACK TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. sand
WHEREASs this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act,
NOW s THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
25
"--'
--'
1. No fed~ral agency appears to be involv~d.
2. The following agencies are involved:
Non~
3. Th~ propos~d action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department
of Environm~ntal Conservation Regulations impl~m~nting the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has be~n compl~t~d by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having consider~d the crit~ria for determining whether a proj~ct
has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes s Rules and Regulations for th~
State of New Yorks this Board finds that the action about to b~ undertaken
by this Board will have no significant ~nvironmental effect and the Chairman
of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as
may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration
that may b~ required by law.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-90 ROBERT SCHEIDEGGERs Introduced by Nicholas
Caimano who mov~d for its adoptions s~cond~d by Carol Pulver:
For construction of a 4s000 sq. ft. building for use in assemblys configurations
and service of comm~rcial computer and communications systems by Adirondack
Technologies, Inc. with modified drawing to be submitted as follows: th~ grading
at the retention basin is going to be modified for mor~ positive flow of water
into the r~t~ntion basins not r~lying on th~ 8 inch pipe. There was also a comment
to bett~r d~fine the swale on the south side of the driveway l~ading out towards
the County Road and that the planting plans approved by th~ Queensbury QCCB be
incorporated.
Duly adopt~d this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by th~ following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-I would also comments here, toos that I guess thats in looking at
that s th~yl re going to combine with Hilltop Construction, next doors and come
up with a compr~h~nsiv~ plan. I think thatls a great idea and we ought to encourage
more of that.
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA SKETCH PLAN ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS,
PHASE II CHARLES A. DIEHL OWNER: SAME SOUTH SIDE OF SHERKAR AVENUE, APPROX.
1,490 FT. EAST OF INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. ROAD, nømDIATELY WEST OF ADIRONDACK
PLANTATIONS, PHASE I
WILSON MATHIASs AGENT FOR APPLICANTs PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Not~s from Stuart G. Bakers Assistant Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Wayne Gann~tts Town Engineer (attach~d)
26
'-'
---'
MR. GORALSKI-I think that Stu Bakßr I s comments s at this point s are supßrsßded
by a letter by Pat Collard. The one thing I woulds the last paragraph thats this
proposed dßvelopment does not appear to be in conflict with the Town's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Howevers there are numerous rubbish piles on the propßrty that
should be removed and disposed of properly when the property is devßloped.
MR. ROBERTS-Wouldnlt we assumes that thßylre going to want to do that?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes, we cßrtainly would. The point iss the Building and Codßs
Department went out therß and thßre is a significant amount of rubbish out there
that should be cleaned ups as soon as possible. I have a letter from Pat Collard,
Zoning Administrator(on file). And bßyond that{rßferring to letter) so long as
this is considßrßd a cluster dev~lopments we have no problßm with the Sketch Plan.
MR. CARTIER-Cluster...quadraplex units, ßach one of those is a cluster unit.
Is that?
MR. GORALSKI-This entire property
MRS. PULVER-Wells itls single family one acrßs is that right?
MR. GORALSKI-That's correct.
MRS. PULVER-And they have Ißss than an acrß pßr unit.
MR. MATHIAS-The density will be one acre per unit.
MR. GORALSKI -The density will be one acre per unit. It I s simp ly that each unit
will not be separately placßd on a 1 acre piece of property.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-But, thßrß will be one acre per unit as a density calculation.
MR. CARTIER-Overall density.
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. ROBERTS-Clustßrings genßrallys is something we promotes morß so than not.
MR. CAIMANO-Therels a Ißtters heres from Rist-Frost, too.
MR. ROBERTS-Ohs okay. Shall Wß hear from our Consulting Engineer.
MR. MATHIAS-My namß is Wilson Mathias. I'm a lawyer and my offices are at 525
Bay Road and I I m here on bßhalf of Charles Diehl s thß owner of this property.
Just to give you a brief oVßrview s we rßally don't care what you call this and
I think that the p Ian that we I ve proposed raises somß questions about the Town IS
Ordinancß and dealing with somes what I would says would be somß innovative design
mßthods. I think whats normallys when we think of a cluster development, we think
of cul-de-sacs and roadss you knows piß shaped lots or small lots with some open
arßa in the back or around wetlands or on steep slopes. The fact of the matter
is that this is relatively flats sandy soil. I means it's prime Queensbury stuffs
hßrß. What we've dones howßver, rather than use eithßr a traditional grid
development s whßre we I re going to put in a ton of roads, or eVßn a traditional
clust~ring concßpt s with cul-de-sacs and I think we IVß taken into account thß
character of the lands but primarily the fact thats when you look at it, you knows
we don't havß a nice big rectanglß. Itls more of a thinner rectangle and I think
what this concept dOßs is, Numbßr Is it mßets the density rßquirement which
~verybody' s concerned about, but Number 2s and more importantlys it providßs a
tremendous amount of open space and buffered area betwßen adjoining owners. I
think that's really, I think if you had the time and wanted to spend it, I think
that this plan really lives up to what your objectivßs are set forth in the
clustering concept ands actuallys from one standpoints we donlt have to do its
bßcause the land doesnlts it's morß a design concept as opposed to what thß lands
the constraints of the land itself imposes on this. As you can seß from the
overlay, or I'm sure from your own familiarity with the areas this propßrty kind
of sits between some relatively large subdivisions in the West Glens Falls arßa.
The othßr thing it dOßs is it sits dirßctly north of one of s and I think maybe
it's your only, overlay mobile home zone and thatls anothßr reason why Wß buffered
this. There's a big distance between these units and wherß the mobilß homes are.
Obviously s we think that that I s going to mean that the propßrties are much more
saleable. Again, we. . from the side, thß units, from the other subdivisions that
are already existings sO
27
'--.-
'"--'"
I think that this design concept takes into account s Numb~r One, what's actually
out there. The other thing that it doess as you can s~~s by clust~ring our units
like this, w~Ire able to set them off or backset them well back from Sherman Avenue.
I can't say that s onc~ these things go ins you' r~ not going to be able to see
them, but theylre certainly going to b~ much less noticeable just because th~y're
set back from the roads that are there. The other thing I think we I ve done is
welve conc~ntrated our road that we're going to b~ offering for th~ Town so that
w~ don't hav~ to spend a ton of money in terms of developing a road that's going
to add to the cost of the lot. W~ also hav~s ev~n though we donlt have 50 units
h~re, but we IV~ got two entrances which should make the fire chief happy about
our design of the road and we do what Mr. Flahrety and Mr. K~ssler think is
wonderful which is provid~ a loop for the water system in the ar~a. SOs I think
that we've taken into account some good design concep ts that have work~d in the
Town in the past. The other thing that this concept does is that we Ire able tos
as you se~ in our cl~aring plan, each one of these combin~ units results in
approximately a cl~aring of about an acre of land. That means that there I s a
v~ry high percentage of our property that's going to r~main as soon as we get
rid of this zon~ in its nice, pristine, wood~d state and, agains that h~lps with
th~ buffering from the adjoining neighbors and does something for th~ community
in t~rms of our preserving th~ trees. The other thing that it do~s s frankly s
is that it reduces our cost of putting a project like this together and this is
som~thing that Mrs. Pulver may be interested in. Welr~ looking at marketing this
units these units, somewhere in the $80,000 pric~ ranges which is virtually low
income housings wh~ther we lik~ it or not. It is in this Towns or pretty close.
We think that those units can be sold at that price. Welr~ able to do that becauses
in effect s we' ve clust~red, limited the roadways that we I re putting in, limit~d
the amount of cost for clearing. Alsos obviouslys the fact that we're using som~
common walls is going to reduc~ th~ cost of the units but I think that w~Ive looked
at sev~ral diff~rent designs and haven I t come up with a final one y~t because
it's a littl~ too earlys but I think that th~se are going to look nice, I m~an
th~y I re going to b~ not just a bunch of jumbl~ s but it's going to b~ a quality
homes but we can build it for a r~duced price because of these other things that
w~'re doing. SOs although it do~snlt really looks in on~ sense, like a clusters
we think that it r~ally takes into account all of the clustering concepts and
I think we've produced a really nice result. The one thing that I think the
application states and wes certainly s are w~ll aware of the problems that the
Town's experienced where someone says, well s I want to put on a porch or I want
to put on a d~ck on my unit. Wh~n sOm~on~ buys one of these thingss they're going
to g~t one of these little rectangl~s and that's all theylll get a deed to. Th~
Homeown~rs Association will own everything else and I think, as part of our
covenants and r~strictions s we're going to have to s in addition to the standard
on~s s make sure that it I S explicitly cl~ar that no furth~r construction is going
to be p~rmitted on these units becaus~ they I d b~ building within the Homeowners
Association property· and outside the bounds of their own lot. So the lot line
is going to b~ the footprint of the building.
MR. CARTIER-Are they going to have garages?
MR. MATHIAS-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Are th~y going tos how many bedrooms are we talking about?
MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think that they'r~ talking about two and three bedroom units.
MR. CARTIER-Whatls the total square footage per dwelling units living spaces
roughly?
MR. MATHIAS-Roughly? I don't know. I think som~where s 1900 square feet s 2100
square fe~t, something like that. We've designed th~se boxes. Peter s I don It
recall what the number iss but if you multiply out to actual box, it's a pretty
good size building. I think that one of the things that's hdd us up a little
bit on the design is s we want to mak~ sure that we I re not sitting ther~ with,
youlre staring at four garages as you drive through th~ road. I means som~ of
these s w~' re going to hav~ to design it so that some of th~ garages are on the
side and maybe even s in sOm~ cases s on the back s too s sO it I s just not a seri~s
of open doors.
MR. CAIMANO-Just out of curiositys ar~..a square foot..
MR. MATHIAS-Wells
r~alistic. I think
I think we may b~
that work heres but
again, thatls the concept. Nos I think you've got to be
if welre going to say it's going to cost us 120 on these thingss
sitting on them for a long time. Ther~' s some magic numbers
that's more a function of mark~tings I think.
28
'--'
-....-/
MRS. PULVER-Wells everything that you've done, youlve cut down the infra structure
as much as you possibly can. The only question I have right now is the garage.
I'm looking at this and 11m seeing four driveways s from every building, going
to the road. I don I t like that and thens and this is a little prematures but
I will be very interested in this projects when you get to the end, of who is
going to do the landscaping and be responsible for it.
MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think the answer the to that really is pretty simple.
Obviouslys the developers initially, is going to have to do the landscaping, but
all of that will be part of the Homeowners Association.
MR. HAGAN-Letls talk about the Homeowners Association. I'd like to know a little
bit more about your concept of just how that's going to be run because there are
Hom~owners Associations that are a little less than has been desirable.
MR. MATHIAS-Wells I have to be frank, we get an expert to do that and Homeowners
Associations aren't my particular bailiwicks in terms of law. We Ire talking with
Ruths the Ruth Associates because she I s the person who puts the prototypes of
these plans together in this area at a reasonable cost.
MR. HAGAN- I'd like to go on further. It's my op inion that the developer should
be responsible for how this Homeowners Association is going to be established.
Therels certainly got to be some kind of laws governing.
MR. MATHIAS-There is.
MS. CORPUS-There iss Jims the Attorney General has to approve. Let me interject
for a second. In a townhouse development and a condominium development s the
Attorney General has exclusive control over that. Before they can start selling
units s they have to submit their paperwork and the big thing is the Homeowners
Association and a townhouse development s that's where a lot of the effort comes
in. They have to actually approve it before they can go out and start selling
the units. SOs they will be policed that way.
MR. HAGAN-That satisfies me.
MR. MATHIAS-I think the other thing, too, just sO you knows and we are talking
about a large amount of areas but, at this points there are no plans whatsoevers
in terms of any kind of amenitiess no walking trailss no tennis courts, no swimming
pools s so that the Homeowners Associations obviously s is going to be responsible
for hiring somebody to p low snow in and around the common driveways, take care
of th~ lawns in the planted areas ands agains welve limited that. I mean therels
a limited amount of cleared space to take care of rubbish removal or other things
and, obviously, insurance those are the kind of things and s again s by minimizing
the type of amenities theres welre figuring we can lower the actual monthly payment
that sOmeone has to make towards the Homeowners Association.
MRS. PULVER-Go back to my comment s though, about the landscapings I would be
interested in having something in line with saying they could not plant s I know
they donlt own the propertys but lIve seen where they have a rosebush that theylre
just dying to put in and somebody else has an arborvitae and something and youlve
got four families who have now got these p lantings of everything running around
and everyone else has to live with what it is that they've done. I would like
to see the developer come up with some sort of plantings you knows a foundation
planting for each building and that's its not to be added to, but to be maintaineds
or maybe no planting. I means I would rather see nothing, than a mish mash.
I realize you I re trying to keep your costs s but rather than sell these units s
and I truly believe they can put in plants wherever they want on thiss I wouldn't
drive by there and I can imagine in my mind...
MR. CARTIER-One of the things we have to be aware ofs that happens, is that when
a person buys a piece of property s whether it's only a footprint or not s they
will do something to individualize that piece of property because they're sayings
this is mine and we're going to stake it out somehow.
MR. MATHIAS-Well, I know what you're saying, but this really is different. I
means this isn't, 11m trying to think of
MR. CARTIER-Well s let me finishs what 11m trying to suggest is that you leave
rooms within those restrictions and covenants, I think you need to leave room
for some of that. To have a person buy a piece of property and say s you can do
nothing to this except live heres it may be an innovative designs but your going
to have a tough time selling it on that basis. In other wordss it may be sO
restrictive that itls not going to...
29
'-'
---
MR. MATHIAS-Yess I know what you're saying. I think the problem is th~ situation
with the guy that sayss gees it would be nice to put a deck on. I means that IS
the practical problem that the Town has run into, you knows where the cost is
not going to be an extensi ve one. The guy do~sn I t need to the bank, so he's not
going to be consulting a lawyer as to whether he I s building on his land or not.
You knows I think you're commentls well taken.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, I guesss at this stage of the games thoughs w~'re just looking
for
MRS. PULVER-Right. This is a little prematures but
MR. CAIMANO-Y~s.
MR. MATHIAS-Yes s we have to start somewher~. My concern was to get something
up h~re sO we could get going and if this was something that wasnlt going to work,
well, w~'ll go back to the drawing board.
MR. CAIMANO-I think itls a great idea.
MRS. PULVER-I'm very much in favor of clustering.
MR. CARTIER-One of the things this Board usually requir~s is to see a copy of
the covenants and restrictions, sO we'll have a chanc~ to look at thos~.
MRS. PULVER-So, this could bes you've had advanced warning of what we're going
to make you...
MR. MATHIAS-Yes, nos I think thatlss maybe ev~n further advanced warning.
MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think this honors Our attempt to internalization of roadways.
I think it's a serious attempt at affordable housing. It does a lot of things
that you've m~ntioned and I think it's..of wheth~r you can sell them that large
for that much mon~y s it remains to b~ se~n, but let I s hope you can. You were
talking some pretty good sized places.
MR. MATHIAS-Yes. Agains you knows we Ire nows assuming we Ire going to go forwards
we'r~ going back to the engineers, welr~ going to talk about working arounds what
are the driveways really going to look lik~ and that type of thing and that also's
going to force us intos reallys d~ciding upon the size and type of materials you
knows typ~ of units that are going to go in ther~s so we know what the type and
~xact model.
MR. ROBERTS-As a procedural matter s John, apparently s Mrs. Collard thinks that
this requires work for the Zoning Board befor~ we see it again?
MR. GORALSKI-Nos I don't know whichs are you r~ading the letter dat~d today?
MR. ROBERTS-April 17th.
MR. GORALSKI-Y~ss this is a cluster development and therels no variances necessary.
MRS. PULVER-Nos 11m reading, "This creates 46 parc~ls that would require subdivision
approvals but, prior to thats would require area variances for d~nsity."
MR. GORALSKI-If you wer~ creating a subdivisions but s since this is a cluster
developments you don't n~ed that.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-You're superseding what she's saying here.
MR. GORALSKI-No, if you read her letter, it I S a little bit confusings but what
she says is s if this is consid~red under the cluster development provisions of
Article lIs I b~lieve it iss then ther~ are no varianc~s necessary.
MR. ROBERTS-Ohs and she thinks we can consider this?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I misunderstood.
MR. CARTIER-In other words, within the development s there are not going to be
any subdivision lines?
30
'--'
--'
MR. MATHIAS-Right.
MR. CARTIER-This is going to be one huge chunk of property owned by the Homeowners
Association.
MR. MATHIAS-Owned by the Homeowners and an owner is going to get one footprint.
MR. CARTIER-Right.
MR. GORALSKI-T~ll them to leave that off all their maps.
MR. MATHIAS-Rights well, we've put in a couple of maps.
you some ones that donlt have those lines.
Next time we'll give
MR. CARTIER-We have a question regarding phasings here.
MR. ROBERTS-Yes, we do.
MR. MATHIAS-Yess herelss basically, the reason for that..request. Agains when
you think of someone putting in a traditional development, either with a series
of cu1-de-sacss it's pretty obvious theylre going to start h~re and move this
way s then that way s start building the ones c10s~st to the road and move out.
To do this projects they're going to put in the roads everything is going to be
theres in terms of the intra structure. I means we canlts you knows there's no
p1anss at least at this points to say we're going to start at this end and stop
for a while and then go forward.
MR. CARTIER-Is this the first phase subdivision we've looked at since the new
Ordinance?
MR. GORALSKI-Yess it is.
MR. CARTIER-It is. I thought it was.
MR. ROBERTS-And that stands at 35s right?
MR. CARTIER-Yess 35 and 11. I guess my question iss does that have to be decided
tonight?
MR. GORALSKI-No, it doesn't. The waiver is at Preliminary.
MR. CARTIER-Okay because I guess I need to think about it s a lot. I'm talking
just for me, here. 11m uncomfortable with the first time that we get a phased,
something that requires phasing, that we get requested for a waivers you knows
the first time around kind of thing.
MR. MATHIAS-Yess the only thing I could say to thats Peter, is that it's a little
bit unique, in the sense thats it IS all got to go there.
MR. CARTIER-Yess but you could still build the infra structure and not build the...
you could build the roads and not build the unit and the other question I haves
concern I have is, yes s it is innovative and I guess I want to be sure, in my
own mind, that these things are going to sell rather than, that we I re going to
sell all 46 unitss rather thans we Ire going to have a bunch of empty units sitting
there. I want to go back and rethink about the phasing thing, a lot, before I
decide. SOs yes, I guess lId like to postpone that phasing decision.
MR. ROBERTS-Yess the phasing is an attempt to protect the developer as wells not
to get in to deep. As you were sayings maybe even building half that road with
a temporary turnaround wouldn't be such a bad idea.
MR. CARTIER-Off the top of my head, I can live with the idea of you putting the
U-shaped road in, already, you just don't build the units.
MR. CAIMANO-Wait and see what he has in mind and go from there and not do anything
with phasing at all.
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MR. PULVER-As long as the applicants can continue on without the decisions 11m
..decision on that.
31
'-'"
MR. MATHIAS-No, but if you don't ask for it, you donlt get it.
MR. CARTIER-Wells sometimes you don't get it wh~n you ask for it.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay s w~ don I t addr~ss SEQRA at this stage and it's not a public
hearing.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1990 SKETCH PLAN ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS,
PHASE lIs Introduced by Carol Pulver who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by
Nicholas Caimano:
For development of 46 single family units in townhouse designs footprint only
to be solds Homeown~r' s Association will be formed and will own all open space
and common acres. Decision on reli~f from phasing will be at a later dat~ and
we would lik~ to s~e a copy of the restrictions and covenants of th~ Hom~own~rs
Association at Pr~liminary.
Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. GORALSKI-Exuse mes Mr. Rob~rtss can I just requ~sts I b~lieve the 10ng EAF
was submitted with the Sketch Plan application. Can I r~quest that you all hang
on to that so we donlt have to ask for another 13 copi~s of that EAF at Preliminary.
MR. ROBERTS-That seems fair.
(END OF FIRST DISK)
32
--
---.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-90 TYPE II WR-1A LLOYD DEMARAHVILLE, JR. OWNER: SAME ROUTE
9L TO PILOT KNOB ROAD, TO PULVER ROAD (~ MILE), BEAR RIGHT AT FORK AND TAKE LEFT
UP HILL, HOUSE ON TOP OF HILL ON THE RIGHT. FOR AN ADDITION OF A SECOND DOCK
AND BOATHOUSE TO THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE. (WARREN COUNTY PLAHHING) (ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 18-1-6.2 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION 4.020
LLOYD DEMARANVILLEs JR.s PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Did we get any other s anything from County or the Lake George Park
Commission on this?
MR. GORALSKI-The Warnm County Planning Board approved and there was no response
from the Lake George Park Commission.
MR. CAIMANO-Is that significant or just..
MR. GORALSKI-Wells it IS a Type II action for us, so they must felt that, I think
they also consider this a Type II action and therefore they just didn I t have any
comments.
MR. ROBERTS-Sos a Type II action means we do not
MR. GORALSKI-Have to review SEQRA. SEQRA is not involved because this is an
accessory use.
MR. ROBERTS-Okay, can we hear from the applicant.
MR. DEMARANVILLE-Good evening, 11m Lloyd DeMaranville. I have been looking at
your comments. In the environmental area, we wonlt be cutting any trees or shrubs
along the shoreline. Along our shoreline, there's a 9 foot rock walls cliff,
from our lawns downs which has very limited shrubs on it, if any, and we won't
be moving any of those. On the scenic vistass our house is on top of the hills
which is over the cliffs sOs viewing the Lake or the mountains beyond it s from
our house is no problem with the addition on it.
MR. CARTIER-The concern is not the view from your house, necessari1ys from
neighboring houses.
MR. DEMARANVILLE-Okay s I'll adjust that. Our two neighbors s on both sides s from
the boathouses when youlre on the boathouses you canlt see either neighbors house.
If you look at the shoreline on the map that I gave yous it I s quite a distance
away and about the attaching of the new addition of wharfs we plan to have 3 rock
filled cribs, 4 by 4s rock filled cribs which will be sunk into the water on the
bottom of the Lake and we had planned and, if you have comments on certain
conditions on doing it a different way, we would be happy to look at thems to
use that as our stationery ground and with the deck above and the beams going
across s attached to the second, the existing boathouse now so it I S secure. We
didn't want to go into the rock wall if we didn I t have to s but if you feel as
though we should s we certainly will. It I S our family that I s going to be on it s
we certainly want it safe.
MR. CARTIER-I've got some questions about the...
MR. GORALSKI-They will need a building permits so that will all be checked.
MR. CAIMANO-What will?
MR. GORALSKI-As far as stability and how it's attached.
MR. CAIMANO-So therels some number problems, go ahead.
MR. CARTIER-Yes, specifically, referring to this 4 feet heres there iss at presents
more than 4 feet on this dimension. It looks more like on the order of 8 feet.
Are you saying that you are going to reduce this down to 4 feet?
MR. DEMARANVILLE-On that submission there? On the dock that's on there now?
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
33
'-'
"-,,,""
MR. CAIMANO-Actuallys all those dimensions are not
MR. CARTIER-I just want tos we have questions about a lot of these dimensions
on here, but that's one I want to be specific about. lId like to see some total
square footage for the dockage. Usuallys you haves in effects heres aU-shaped
docks already.
MR. DEMARANVILLE-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-I assume, you're adding a section on like this, correct?
MR. DEMARANVILLE-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Sos you are adding an L-shaped docks okay?
MR. DEMARANVILLE-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Welre involved in a maximum of 700 square feets heres for dock surfac~s
you knows we need to see some numbers on that. This is in the Ordinance, Articles
whats John?
MR. GORALSKI-7.
MR. HAGAN-Isn't the maximum width docks 40 feet?
MR. CARTIER-The maximum length out from shore is 40. The maximum width is 8.
MR. HAGAN-8?
MR. CARTIER-8.
MR. CAIMANO-8.
MR. HAGAN-8.
MR. CARTIER-What 11m saying iss we don't have any numberss first of aIls the numbers
on this are not accurate, sO I can I t figure out what the total square footage
is.
MR. ROBERTS-But Staff is saying that we generally...compliance for the side lines
dock for that size lot. He can have this much.
MR. CARTIER-I donlt know if Staff is aware that these numbers are not accurate.
MR. CAIMANO-Staff can't be aware that they I re inaccurate because they would have
asked the same questions before. We were down there and these numbers are not
accurate at all.
MR. DEMARANVILLE-Well, I can certainly do the dimensions over again.
MR. CAIMANO-Wells as Mr. Cartier's pointing outs it leads to other thingss that IS
why w~ have to have the answers.
MR. HAGAN-What is the total Lake frontage that you own?
MR. DEMARANVILLE-230 feet.
MR. HAGAN-230 feet.
MR. CARTIER-Help me out, Johns what page are you on (referring to Ordinance)
MR. GORALSKI-78.
MR. CARTIER-Wharf accommodations?
MR. GORALSKI-Wells it IS actually back.
MR. CARTIER-There we go.
MR. GORALSKI-74s I'm sorry.
MR. CARTIER-Tourist Accommodations. Yes s there I s no maximum width except this
has to be a maximum of 8s buts totals there is no maximum.
34
---
"-'"
MR. HAGAN-What becomes proliferation of dock...there wass somewheres writtens
something to prevent proliferation of docks and shorelines.
MR. ROBERTS-Our Ordinance doesn't seem to do a very good job of thats 11m afraids
at the present time. Let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the
audience who cares to comment on this dock enlargement?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. PULVER-Well s my comment was going to be that I don't believe any of these
dimensions are correct and if they're not s then you can't get a proper reading
or square footage or anything on its sOs therefores wes probably, will have to
table the application.
MR. CAIMANO-Wells for examples the 8 foot docks if it's indeed what we think it
iss is beyond what it should be, rights according to what we just read?
MR. GORALSKI-If it's existing now.
If it I S preexisting, that has no bearing.
MR. CARTIER-But total square footage does.
MR. GORALSKI-Total square doess yes.
MR. CARTIER-I think it would help us a lot, toos Mr. DeMaranville, if we had an
aerial view of this thing. This is a nice perspective drawing, but we need an
aerial square footage layout and some accurate numbers.
MR. ROBERTS-Well s even though Staff seemed to feel it was within our perameters,
(TAPE TURNED)
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
MR. GORALSKI-If the Board wishess what I can do, if you come into Our offices
I can give you some examples of other dock applications and the plans that were
drawn. This way you can see what the Board usually looks at.
MR. DEMARANVILLE-Sure.
MR. CARTIER-Thatls a good idea.
MRS. PULVER-By the ways you have a lovely place.
MR. CAIMANO-Are we going to officially table this things is that what we Ire going
to do?
MRS. PULVER-With, yes, with the applicantls approval.
MR. CAIMANO-If you donlt say we can table its then welve got to take a vote.
MR. DEMARANVILLE-Table it.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 23-90 LLOYD DEMARARVILLE, JR.s Introduced by Nicholas
Caimano who moved for its adoptions seconded by Carol Pulver:
For an addition of a second dock and boathouse to the existing boathouse owned
by Lloyd DeMaranville for more accurate information regarding the square footage
of the dock space and, hopefullys we'll have an aerial view of that.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. ROBERTS-Okay, Karlas tell us what we need to do to make it right with the
world, here.
MS. CORPUS-The next thing on the agendas I guesss Mr. Chairmans is the Fregoe
application which is coming before this Board.
35
'--'
--./
MRS. PULVER-Next Tu~sday.
MS. CORPUS-Nos it's doing it, it IS now.
MR. ROBERTS-Well, you can explain why.
MS. CORPUS-Okays yess rights itls be~n added to this ag~ndas rath~r than on next
week's because of the time frames with th~ Article 78 action. Itls been stipulat~d
b~tween the parties that this would happens that the application would come back
before this Board and, according to Johns becaus~ of the time frames involveds
w~ would hav~ to do it at this meeting rather than next weekls meeting. For th~
records just let m~ say a few things. What the Board has to do tonight is a couple
of things. First of all, first motion would be to rescind th~ pr~vious denial
motion on the Site Plan Review. The second thing the Board would have to do is
reconsider th~ record on this. There won I t be any new information provided.
It's just going back over the record, thinking back ov~r the record s the legal
opinions provided by Paul and the seminar that we just had recently. In doing
this s I realize it's going to be the Board I s decision ~ither to approve or to
deny. W~Ir~ not coming befor~ just to say, okays go ahead and approve. Nows
after you consider the record, legal opinionss everything elses itls not our legal
staffl s d~terminations it I 11 be th~ Board I s determination whether to approve or
deny this application. Aft~r thorough consideration of the record, if you need
any information, John said we hav~ s to refresh your memory or whatever s we have
John's fil~ right her~. You must eith~r approve or disapprov~ accordinglys thatls
your mission tonight.
MR. ROBERTS-Fair enough.
MR. CAIMANO-What is the Site Plan No?
MRS. PULVER-78-89.
MS. CORPUS-Rights and I would ~ncourage the Board to go over sOm~ discussion before
approving or disapproving.
MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I guess we should apologize s the Board members didn I t knows I
happened to b~ talking to Lèe at quart~r after four and sh~ m~ntioned it tonight.
MR. CAIMANO-...first and that's rescind th~ previous motion.
MOTION TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS MOTION ON JANUARY 23RD, 1990 ON SITE PLAN NO. 78-89
JAMES FREGOE, Introduced by Carol Pulv~r who mov~d for its adoptions seconded
by Nicholas Caimano:
Becaus~ of legal opinion from Town Attorney and the recent seminar that we just
took.
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. ROBERTS-And nows are we all familiar with the project? It hasn't been that
long ago. I think we can bring that to mind without digging through the files.
MRS. PULVER-I think the only question that I would like to bring up is that th~
applicant is going to use this as a singl~ family residence.
MR. ROBERTS-Th~y so stated that before.
MRS. PULVER-I just want to be sures again.
BOB FINNECYs OWNERs PRESENT
MR. FINNECY-I'm Bob Finnecy. I'm the owner. Nic~ to see you, folks. 11m sorry
that I wasn I t abl~ to be her~ in the previous meetings s but if had I known what
happened was going to happens I certainly would have been here. lIve had this
as a single family residence, thatls my plan. I have nev~r rented it and I don't
plan to rent it. I don't use it all that muchs myselfs but wh~n I use its I would
like to have a little bit more space.
36
~
--'
MRS. PULVER-Okay,
bath still stands?
and your original plan to just add the two bedrooms and one
You've made no alterations to that?
MR. FINNECY-None.
MR. ROBERTS-And as Carols I thinks pointed out, we are getting a new septic system.
MRS. PULVER-Yess we are getting a new septic system still, right?
MR. FINNECY-Right.
MRS. PULVER-That hasnlt changed.
MR. HAGAN-Just for the records I would like you to states specificallys th~ square
feet involved in the structure now and what it will be when you finish with the
addition.
MR. FINNECY-I have a set of plans.
MR. HAGAN-Wells I believe that was one of the stat~ments..
MS. CORPUS-Welve got the file.
MR. HAGAN-The statement was made that it would not be increased by more than 50
percent and, just for the record, lId like those dimensions to be recorded.
MR. FINNECY-Is it something that's on there that I can read?
MS. CORPUS-This looks like all of your maps and plans.
MR. CARTIER-It should be on the original application.
MS. CORPUS-Here it is.
Is that your original application?
MR. FINNECY-Yes. It could be. Itls a little bit awkward to get the square fòotage
if it IS not already in the file.
MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. It should be right in the front.
MR. CAIMANO-Karlas while..., I have a questions alsos while we Ire doing this.
Since we are going backs doing this, again, must a public hearing be held and,
if so, will it be advertised ands if nots where are we?
MS. CORPUS-I'm assuming a public hearing wasn't advertised because this was a
last minute thing for tonight's meeting.
MR. ROBERTS-Wells even, it wasn't even advertised for next week. See, originallys
this was on the 24thls agenda and it says public hearing was held November 28.
MS. CORPUS-As far as I know, from my discussions with Paul s I don't believe that
that's necessary, in this particular cases since the record stands as it was that
same night of the public hearing, there's been no changes. If there had been
a changes that would have been a separate issue.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. ROBERTS-We didn't get a lot of public informations anyway.
MR. FINNECY-The question was
according to the applications
square feet.
the square footage. The current square footage s
is 1 s 041 and a half square. The addition is 391
MR. ROBERTS-Wells I don I t know as we need to discuss this too much further. I
guess somebody might as well make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 78-89 JAMES FREGOE, Introduced by Carol Pulver
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
For an addition of a two bedrooms one bath addition to his existing single family
residence. They are going to comply and put in a new septic system.
37
"--
--'
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. ROBERTS-I guess we have on~ more things John?
MR. GORALSKI-Wß have two more things. You want to do AVI first? We need a
resolutions if you wishs to accept the material that was submitted today to the
Planning Department on the Astro Valcour Site Plan Review and, included in thats
if you I d like, that you wish the Planning Department review it and to have the
engineers rßview it.
MR. ROBERTS-Yess I think Lee indicatßd that that should be part of the motion.
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLARHING DEPARTMENT RECEIVE THE MOST RECENTLY SUBMITTED
ASTRa VALCOOR APPLICATION AND THAT THE PLARHING DEPARTMENT ALSO REVIEW THAT AND
FORWARD IT TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEWs Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved
for its adoptions seconded by James Hagan:
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. ROBERTS-Oh, and there is one more thing. Whether or not we're willing to
meet with the scoping session?
MR. GORALSKI-Rights the scoping sßssion for Attractions Land Roller Coaster.
I hav~ spoken to some of you and I have spoken to Mr. WoodIs agent and they would
like to have a scoping session Thursdays April 26th at 3 p.m.
MR. ROBERTS-Most of us can make thats do you think?
MS. CORPUS-Before you make a motions I just want to bring up the fact that s we
have to figure out what s my opinion is that it has to be 30 days from the last
meeting and welre going to check that out right now, but also to clarify for yous
the scoping session, normally it's either the applicant or the Board ors in this
case s it would be the Planning Departmßnt, would prßpare the issues that would
be discussed at this scoping sessions which would eventually get on the EIS.
SOs basicallys when you do your motions I guess you woulds I'm assumings right
now, it'll be the Planning Dßpartment who would preparß those issues for review
by the Board.
MR. CARTIER-Okays I guess my questions thens iss doess maybe itls an answers does
a week from Thursday give Staff enough time to do that?
MR. GORALSKI-Okays you can vote.
MR. CAIMANO-My question is, do you have to get things done by next Thursday?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-All we have to do is vote to meets right?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MS. CORPUS-And have the Planning Department prepare
MR. GORALSKI-And have the Planning Department
MR. CAIMANO-And accept their material?
MRS. PULVER-Yßs.
MR. ROBERTS-Welve donß thats Carol, this is to set thß meeting for the roller
coaster.
38
,-",'
~
MR. CAIMANO-This is for the roller coaster.
MR. ROBERTS-Scoping session.
MRS. PULVER-Ohs we Ire doing that.
MR. GORALSKI-What you want to do is pass a motion to set a date for the scoping
session of April 26th at 3 p.m. and to have the Planning Departments if you wishs
prepare a scope of issues for the EIS.
MOTION TO ESTABLISH A DATE FOR A SCOPING SESSION FOR SITE PLAN OF MR. WOOD' S ROLLER
COASTER FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 26TH, AT 3 P.M. AND TO DIRECT THE PLAHHING STAFF TO
DEAL WITH THE ISSUES OF NOISE, PARKING OR ANY OTHER FACTORS WHICH THE BOARD MAY
SUBMIT TO THE PLARHING DEPARTMENTs Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
Duly adopted this 17th day of Aprils 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEDs
Richard Robertss Chairman
39
LOCATION MAPS
May 16th, 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
OLD BUSINESS:
Subdivision No. 5-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE W. Eric and Carrie Wiley (see Staff
Notes and map attached)
Subdivision No. 13-1989 FINAL STAGE Herbert Tyr~r (see Staff Notes attached)
/':
Subdivision No. 21-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE Cross Roads Park, Phase II (see Staff
Notes attached)
Subdivision No. 17-1989 FINAL STAGE Imp~rial Acres (see Staff Notes attached)
NEW BUSINESS:
Site Plan No. 21-90 Dr. Kit E. Burkich (see staff notes attached)
~
~1
--
...-'
May 16th, 1990
LOCATION MAPS
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
HEW BUSINESS: (cont'd)
Site Plan No. 22-90 Robert Scheidegger (see Staff notes attached)
Subdivision No. 6-1990 SKETCH PLAN Adirondack Plantationss Phase II
Charles A. Diehl (see Staff Notes attached)
Site Plan No. 23-90 Lloyd DeMaranvilles Jr. (see Staff Notes attached)
~
I)
"
J..
It
\J
"
..
~
...
I?
SAN bY slty )
i
. 1 +-N
L_
HÞ-I.I. ,'s
6 At
LA .. L.
~ pø,"1'
,¡. II~C: (l
Site Plan No. 78-89 James Fregoe
.
-
"-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
-./
pltI'nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Aui.tant Planner
Date: Apri 1 II, 1990
By: John Gora] Ak i
Area VmiaDœ
U_ Variance
- Sip VuiaDce
== IDterpoetatieJa
-L. SubcIiYiIriœ: _ Sketcb. ~ PreJiaiaary,
Site PIma Reriew
- Petition for a ChaDge of Zaoe
- Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit
FiDa1
Other:
Application Number:
Subdivision No. 5-1990
Applic:aDt'. Name:
W. Eric and Carrie Wiley
MeetiDg Date:
April 17.1990
............................................................................................
This application was tabled in March because the applicant did not notify
the property owners within 5001 of the public hearing. It is my understanding
that this has been done.
The Board also requested that the Town At torney I s office research the
liability of the Town concerning access of emergency vehicles to the proposed
house.
JG/pw
~
....~--- ~,-- _.-
·
'Z.<,ç't
, .,-
,,/
f·
.':."
\~ \
"
"
..
W, ~tZ~c ~C.At<R:r:~
W:t: 1-(: y- .
.
-
"--./
--'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
pI.nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: April 10. 1990
By: Stuart G. Baker
Area V..-iaDce
Use Variance
- Sip Variance
== IDterpretatiaa
-1L ~ Sketch. _ Pre1iJDiIIIIry. -1L FiDa1
Site P1ua Rerie. -
- Petition for a ChaDge of Zaae
- Freshwater WetJaDda Permit
~er: Reaffirmation of previous approval
Applicatiaa Number:
Subdivision No. 13-1989
Applic:aDt'. Name:
Herbert Tvrer
MeetiDg Date:
Anril 17. 1990
............................................................................................
This subdivision received final approval from the Board on August 22s
1989. After approval s the approved mylar was not fi led at the County Clerk I s
office within the required 60 day period.
I have reviewed the subdivision plat submitted for re-approval, and there
do not appear to be any changes from the orginal approval.
SGB/pw
.
-
"'--'"
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
--'
PI.nni~g Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, AHistant Planner
April 12, 1990
Date:
By:
~T()hn GnrAl~1ci
Arw. VariaDce
Uøe Variance
- Sip Variance
== IDt_petatioa
x SubdhiIia8& Sketc:b, ~ preU.d..ry,
Site PIaD Reriew -
== Petition for a CbaDge of Zoae
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDal
Other:
AppJicatioa Number:
Subdivision No. 21-1989
AppJiamt'. Name:
Cross Roads Park - Phase II
MeetiDg Date:
April 17 s 1990
............................................................................................
This application is for Preliminary approval of Phase II of the Cross
Roads Park Subdivision. Phase II consists of nine commercial lots and one
residential lot comprising the westerly portion of the property.
The applicant has requested that two provisions of the subdivision
regulations be waived. They are: Article 8I(2)e - Maximum allowed surface
flow of 350 feet; Article 8E(9) - Minimum center line radius of 250 feet. It
does not appear that either request would endanger the health s safety and
welfare of the public. It would be in the applicants best interest to receive
the Highway Department's approval of these waivers prior to final subdivision
approval.
As you can see from the'plans, the drainage plan approved for Phase I has
been modified to accommodate Phase II. The Town I s consulting engineer has
reviewed this plan and will comment on its adequacy.
As requested at conceptual stage, the applicant has provided a traffic
study which indicates that the total traffic generated from this,site should
not have any significant impact on the Blind Rock/Bay/Haviland intersection if
the proposed signal is installed. The study does not address a split scenario
where a portion of the traffic enters and exits from the west utilizing Blind
Rock Road. I have asked Roger Gebo to review these plans and forward any
concerns of the Warren County D.P.W.
JG/pw
"
~
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
----
!)~fiWf¡:ì~
~ APR 161990~
'FJ:~ COpy
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 BAY STREET
GL.ENS FAL.LS
NY 12801
FAX 518.793·4146
518.793·4141
)LANNING . ZONIN'
OIPAImftINT
April 12, 1990
RFA #89-5000.521
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Cross Roads Park - Phase II
Subdivision 21-89s Preliminary Plans
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments:
1. We recommend that the catch basin located in the retention ditch
between lots 7 and 8 be relocated to the west end. of the ditch,
next to the road, for more ready maintenance access.
2. An agreement for the ma intenance of the stormwater retent ion
facility on lots 12 and 13 should be included in the deeds for
these parcels.
3. A separation distance of 50' should be maintained between the
absorption field and stormwater retention facility on lot 11.
4. Additional information is needed to back up the level of service
of "c" determination that results from the increased traffic at
the Blind Rock/Haviland/Bay Road intersection. Furthers clarifi-
cation is needed of what the level of service "0" means for Blind
Rock Road. Is this at a different location from the Blind Rock
Road/Bay Roàd intersection?
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST AS P.C.
~n tt. P.£.
Mana ng Project Engineer
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
e GLENS FALLS. NY-lACONIA. NH
"
~
-'-'STATE OF NEW YORK --' , .'
--- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH íJ~~~L '~'
District Office 282 Glen Street Glens Falls. N.Y. 12801 (51 Ei' ¡~~
David Axe/r<?d, M,D. \' APR 1 ~
Commissioner
?Y
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH 'LANNING NIN':,
-.. '" '-' Ù
Linda A, Randolph, M,D., M,P.H. )1 II (0 f DEPARar:NT
B DsirecFtor SUBDIVISION Nß. (.~ ·..~-t:: ,.n /'( ",--"
ran, ear, P.E. íI J i(
District Director C . --7 "í C) JL ';~ '-.Oc.?c - --
A7)~::> tc:c....æ') y f.-¡ ,"'I" April 16, 1990
PRELIMINARY PLAN
: F ) l E
COpy
Mrs. Lee A. York
Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
Bay at Haviland Road
Queensbury, New York
12804
Dear Mrs. York:
We recently received an Environmental Assessment Form, Part
I for two projects with a request as to determination of Lead
Agency. Please be advised that the Sherman Acres II Subdivision
would be jurisdictional for any lots which are five acres or less
in size. Further the Crossroads commercial subdivision would be
jurisdictional with respect to approval of the water main
extension. We would concur with the request that the Town
Planning Board be designated as Lead Agency for both projects and
would ask that as a conditional approval be required the projects
obtain the requisite Department approval.
Very truly yours,
~ . ~ .----./
. ~-- \ / (,~---'"
/~,,~ ¿ ,.~
Brian S. Fear, P.E.
District Director
BSF:ns
~ --"
---.- ---
,/
-./
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
ORIGINAL
Planning Department
"NOTE TO FILE"
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: April1?,1990
By: John S. Goralski
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
~ Subdivision: Sketch, _ Preliminary, -X.. Final
Site Plan Review
Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Other:
Application Number:
Subdivision No. 17-1989
Applicantls Name:
Imperial Acres, Robert Lent
Meeting Date:
April 17, 1990
********************************************************************************************
All planning issues have been addressed. All the suggested conditions and
restric.:tions have been included, either on the plan or on the attac;hed deed restrictions.
JSG/sed
~
AIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
-...
r' 1 . .-
.. ]-
--'
r ~. ~ ..,
I "'
POST OFFICE BOx 838
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793-4148
518.793-4141
"... .",',",..v-
~~!o~
April 11, 1990
RFA #89-5000.517
)LANNING . ZONIN(
nE"A~N~
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensburys NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Robert Lent Subdivision
Subdivision 17-1989 - Final
Dear Mrs. York:
All engineering comments on the above referenced proje'ct have been
satisfactorily addressed.
Very truly yours,
y~ett, P.E.
Man~4';~~"Project Engineer
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
e GLENS FALLS. NY-L.ACONIA. NH
~
WARRF' '
WAARENSBURG a:FCES --
261 Main Street
Warrensburg, NY 128á5
Tel. 518-623-4141
518-761-6556
FAX 518-623-2772
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC We '<8
'-""
MUNICIPAL CENTER OFFICES
Lake George, NY 12845
Civil Defense and Natural Disaster
Tel. 518-761-6490
Buildings and Grounds
Tel. 518-761-6494
Superintendent's Office
Highway Division
Parks and Recreation
Airport Administration
Equipment Maintenance
Engineering
Hatchery Administration
FRED AUSTIN. P.E.
Supt. Public Works
, ROGER GEBO .
Dep. Supt. Public VfÞris,-,
\.ùPy
WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT
Tel. 518-792-5995
Ro.1 Box 573
~nsbu~Avenue
Queensbury, NY 12804
March 5, 1990
).< ."'..~. ISION NO. /7 -(1M
l~il ~Ltif.
\~ MAR -71990 ~.~
'..ANNINO a ZONIN'
""~DARTMFN'"
C.T. Male Associates, P.C.
65 Bay st.
P.O. Box 533
Glens Falls, NY 12801
Attn: Keith Manz, P.E.
RE: C.T. Male Project No.87.3585
Imperial Acres Subdivision
CR 63 - Moon Hill Road
Dear Mr. Manz:
This department reviewed the proposed Imperial Acres subdivision
adjacent to CR 63 - Moon Hill Road and we are listing below the
following requirements that must be addressed before a proposed
town road entrance permit can be issued:
A. We will require a vertical curve where the proposed
town road entrance meets the southerly edge of Moon
Hill Road. This will force the storm water into SP 1 and
SP 2 and not upon the bounds of CR 63.
B. The 2-8cFs runoff that flows from ES 1 easterly to Bay
Road will present a problem in the future. We do not have
any drainage structures at the southwest corner of the
Bay Road/Moon Hill Road intersection. spring run-off has
flooded this intersection in the past causing hazardous
driving conditions. We checked with a local pipe dealer
and he informed us that N-12 (HDPE) had "slits" for
perforations instead of holes. Our experience in using
this type of pipe is that these slits fill up with fines
from road sanding operations in a couple of years which
reduces their exfiltration rate. We, therefore, request
that the storm water exiting SP 1 be rerouted to the north
side of Moon Hill Road and then westerly to the outlet
brook of Glen Lake.
~
---
-../
Page 2.
We will be available to discuss the above two requirements at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
~~
Roger Gebo
Dep. superintendent
Warren County DPW
RG: lb
cc: Lee York
File
-
'-../
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning De¡)artment
RNOTE TO FILER
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
By:
April 17, 1990
John S. Goralski
Date:
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdivision: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
--X- Site Plan Review
Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 21-90
Applicant's Name:
Dr. Kit E. Burkich
Meeting Date:
April 17, 1990
********************************************************************************************
This application is for an addition that is more than twice as large as the existing
building. In reviewing the proposal with resped to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance
I have the following comments:
1. Drainage and septic facilities should be addressed by the consulting engineer.
2. This proposal should have little effect on adjoining land uses.
3. The possibility of providing a more defined access to the parking area has been
discussed. Because of the extremely low volume of traffic on Poplar Lane, I do
not feel any change is necessary.
4. This is an Unlisted Action and the Board should review the Short EAF.
JSG/sed
~
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. p,C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518.793-4146
518.793-4141
~
.., w. ."'~....'v_ F I L t [0
~~~I!r~ p y
April 11 s 1990
JLANNING a ZONIN' RFA #89-5000.021
DEPA~NT
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Dr. Kit Burkich - Aviation Road
Site Plan 21-90
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the referent project and have the following cOl1ll1ents:
1. A grading plan with spot elevations for the parking lot and dry
wells should be provided. The retention basin grading should
also be provided.
2. The size of the existing seepage pit serving the building should
be stated to verify that it is adequate to accoßlllOdate the
existing 384 gpd flow. At the new seepage pits, percolation
tests with test pit data including depth to seasonal groundwater,
mottling or bedrock should be provided. Two tests per pit are
required; one at half depth and one at the floor of the pit.
3. The entrance to the parking lot should be channelized to permit
an orderly and safe flow of traffic into and out of the parking
lot.
Very truly yours,
Ii GLENS FALLS. NY-LACON/A, NH
.
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
OR'rlJINAl
'-'
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
April 16. 1990
Stuart G. Baker
Area Variance
Use Variance
== Sign Variance
_ Interpretation
Subdirision: Sketch, _ Prelimmary,
-X Site Plan Reriew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. ZZ-90
Applicant's Name:
Robert Scheidegger, Adirondack Technologies, Inc.
Meeting Date:
April I?, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant proposes construction of a 4,000 sq. ft. building for assembly
and service of commercial computer and communications systems.
After reviewing the application and site plan submitted, I have the following
comments:
1. The Board should consider preserving as much of the existing stone wall on
the property as possible. The current plan calls for the removal of most of
this wall. If possible, the proposed gravel area could be reduced to preserve
a large portion of this wall. Properly maintained, stone walls can serve to
enhance the appearance of the property, as well as serve as a reminder of
the past use of the property.'
Z. The drainage swales to and from the proposed retention pond should be carefully
contoured so as to adequately direct storm water runoff in the correct direction.
The proposed contours south of the driveway access indicate the stormwater
may flow onto the adjacent property. The drainage report submitted that
the flow from the retention pond will be directed into a ditch south of the
driveway. Contours for this ditch should be more clearly shown.
SGB/sed
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
~ COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION
~fllE
COpy
Robert L. Eddy, Chairman
11 Owen Avenue
Queensbur.J. R. Y. 1280A
To. (X) Warren County Planning Board
(X) QueensburyTown Planning Board
( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals
(X) Applicant
Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary
8 Queensbury Avenue
Queensbury, N. Y. 12805
Date.
4/9/90
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. d c:ÌI - q D
Re. Site Plan #...... - Robert Scheidegger (Adirondack Technologies, Inc.)
County Line Road - Warren/Washington County Industrial Park
We have reviewed the request for.( ) Variance. (x) Site Plan Review,
( ) Other - and have the following recommendations.
(x) Approval ( ) Disapproval
This is one of the finest planting plans that has been presented to
the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification. It is a solid
layout, but also, has provided for colorful plants throughout the year.
The Committee not only complimented the applicant on the planting
plan, but also, due to plans to coordinate construction design and finish
with the next door neighbor - Hilltop Construction.
The Committee is in favor of Industrial and Office Parks providing a
uniform appearance as to design of the buildings and coordinating
planting plans.
In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions,
the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve.
1. Non-conforming signs,
2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers.
In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed
or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees,
shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All
rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be
mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed.
~tfullY submitted,
~~4J/¿: ff ~ k/
Robert L. Eddy. Cha~an
~
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. p,C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793-4146
518.793-4141
--
.1... ...UC;L.I.v..
1)~ilwr~1~
~ APR161990~
F I L E,-, ( 0 P .
)LANNING . ZONIN'
nE'A~NT
April 11, 1990
RFA #89-5000.022
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee Yorks Sr. Planner
Re: Robert Scheidegger - Adirondack Technologies
Site Plan 22-90
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments:
1. 18 parking spaces should be provided in accordance with the off-
street park ing schedul e for the Town of Queensbury and the
app 1 icants statement that there are 8 employees in the 1 ight
manufacturing area.
2. The grading of the retention basin should be adjusted to better
channel the park ing area runoff into the bas in rather than
relying on the 8" inlet pipe.
3. A drainage basin map should be provided showing the subareas used
in the drainage report. It is not clear why runoff from the
front section decreases after development.
4. Calculations for the 15" culvert under the driveway and the 8"
retention outlet should be provided. This 15" culvert should
also take into account flows from the north along County Line
Road. Further the inlet and outlet areas of these pipes should
be stabil izèd in accordance with the NYS Guidel ine for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control.
Very truly yours,
ATES, P.C.
WG/CIIM
cc: Town Planning Board Members
$ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACOHIA. NH
---
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Oueensbury, NY 12804-9725-5 18-792-S8I2I L E ( 0 P Y
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
. I, w -..èVI:Llhl..
~~~1!~
»LANNING I ZONINC
DEPAR-.~NT
TO: Queensbury Planning Board
FROM: Pat Collard, Zoning Administrator
RE: Adirondack Technologies. Inc.
DATE: April 17. 1990
The proposed use of a 4,000 sq. ft. building for use in assembly,
configuration and service commercial computer and communications systems requires
seven (7) parking spaces plus one handicap space.
I base this on the manufacturing use (k) of the parking schedule, i.e.,
one (l) space for each two (2) employees on the maximum working shift, plus
one (I) space for each company vehicle.
I hope this clears up any confusion that may exist concerning the parking
for Adirondack Technologies, Inc.
PC/jjd
ì
Øf'/'
L ",/
- /
t/' "
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
-
~,
-
FILE ropy
-/
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
. 0 -/Q40
SUBDIVISION NO. _..",_
. . ..,. ....vc.c........
)~aw~
~ 'LA::~N~NIN'
OEPARTU!NT
From:
Queensbury Planning Board
Pat Collard, Zoning Administrator
Adirondack Plantations - 46 Townhouse Units
April 17, 1990
To:
Re:
Date:
In discussion today with Paul Dusek, John Goralski, Dave
Hatin and Lee York, concerning the above referenced proposal,
it was agreed that as requested per application, there is no
choice but to cluster this project per Article XI in the
subdivision regulations.
This is a townhouse development with each unit having deeded
to it that footprint of land under each unit. This creates
46 parcels that would reqûire subdivision approval, but prior
to that would require area variances for density, frontage on
a public street and possibly building setbacks.
Again, cluster development seems the only way to accomplish
this proposal.
'-#
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, , . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
·
-
-
'-'
---
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
"NOTE TO FILE"
April 17, 1990
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
Sttl~rt c; R::Ikpr
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
X Subdivision: ~ Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site Plan Review
Petition for a Change of Zone
Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Subdivision No. 6-1990
Applicant's Name:
Adirondack Plantations, Phase II, Charles A. Diehl
Meeting Date:
April 17, 1990
********************************************************************************************
The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 48.28 a<.:res of land with 46
single family residen<.:es built in townhouse/<.:ondominium design. Please note that this
is not a cluster project, nor is this parcel being further subdivided. (See attached letter
from Pat Collard, Zoning Administrator.) Buyers will own the footprints of the residential
units, and the remaining property will be managed by a Homeowners Association.
The applicant is requesting relief from the phasing requirement of the Subdivision
Regulations. Any decision by the Board on this request should be part of a motion.
In a cover letter dated March 26, 1990, the applkant's agent requested relief from
the side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It should be pointed out
that no relief is needed since multifamily dwellings are an allowable use. The applicant
should also be advised that such relief, when ne<.:essary, can only be given by the Zoning
Board. '
The proposed development does not appear to be <.:onflict with the Town
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The numerous rubbish piles on the property should be
removed and disposed of properly as the property is developed.
SGB/sed
-
~
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, PC,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
'-'
FJLf cOpy
¿)~ü¡f~), ->
~ APR161990~
April 11, 1990
JLANNING a ZONINf RF A #89 - 5000.506
I)DAFrftJt!NT
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518.793-4146
518.793-4141
Town of Oueensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee Yorks Sr. Planner
Re: Adirondack Plantations - Phase II
Sketch Plan 6-1990
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments:
1. The suitability of the land for subsurface disposal systems will
be determined at the Preliminary Review based on the percolation
rate of the soil and test pit data which should include depth to
seasonal groundwater, mottling or bedrock. Since a Homeowners
Association will be responsible for the maintenance of the open
space and common areas, a NYSDEC SPDES permit will be required
for the subsurface disposal systems.
2. When the Preliminary Plans are submitted, the 12" culvert size
should be re-examined. Even if 12" is large enough for the
calculated flows, it is our experience that culverts this small
clog eas 11 y .
Very truly yours,
~ 5T A5~TE5. P.C. ¿___
:~ L\~~
W ne annett, P.E.
Mana g Project Engineer
WG/Cllftll
cc: Town Planning Board Members
@ GLENS FAlLS. NY-LACONIA. NH
~~~_--::~
o R J'-d.. 1 N A l
TOWN OF QUEENSBUHY
Planning Department
"NOTE TO FILE"
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: April 16, 1990
By: Stl1~rt r; 'R~kp)"
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdivision:
---x- Site Plan Review
- Petition (or a Change o( Zone
- Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 23-90
Applicant's Name:
Lloyd DeMaranville, Jr.
Meeting Da te:
April 17, 1990
************..................*..********..**...****.....***...***..*..*..*.*.**........**..
The applicants would like to build a second dock and boathouse adjacent and
attached to the existing boathouse on their Warner Bay property. The size and
setbacks of the proposed dockhouse are all in compliance with th~ CUtTent zoning
regulations regarding docks and boathouses.
In reviewing Section 5.071 of the Zoning Ordinant:e, it would appear that the
following development considerations should be reviewed carefully:
Critical Resource Areas:
Lake George and its adjacent lands within 500 ft. are a designated critical
environmental area. . (Please note that this is a Type II adion.)
Aesthetics:
Scenic Vistas should be considered by the Board in all lakeshore
development proposals.
Other Site Fadors:
Adjacent land uses should be considered along with the adequacy of the
site facilities.
From the application submitted, it is unclear how the proposed boathouse will
be secured. Will it be built into the existing rock ledge or is it to rely on the dock
base and existing boathouse structure for support?
5GB/sed