The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-05-14 -./ QUEEBSBUR.Y PLANNING BOARD HERTING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 14TH, 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 5-1990 W. Eric and Carri~ Wiley FINAL PLAN 1. Sit~ Plan No. 64-89 Dr. Robert R. Kana AMENDMENT OF 9/26/89 APPROVAL 2. Subdivision No. 21-1989 Cross Roads Park, Phase II FINAL STAGE 3. ... Site Plan No. 27-90 John and Rosann Curran 12. Petition for a Change of Zone P4-90 Petition for a Change of Zone P5-90 Petition for a Change of Zone P6-90 Site Plan No. 28-90 Site Plan No. 29-90 Sit~ Plan No. 30-90 Site Plan No. 31-90 Kar~n L. Somm~r 14. Loomis J. Grossman, Jr. and Richard A. Grossman, ~tal. 15. David E. Williams, Sr. 15. Dunhamls Bay Boat Co, Inc. 17. Marion E. Michel 18. Albert and Eleanor Oudekerk 23. John E. and Martha G. Schmulbach 24. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 14TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN NICHOLAS CAlMANO PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT PLANNER-John Goralski STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1990 FINAL PLAN SFR-1A LC-10A TYPE: UNLISTED W. ERIC AND CARRIE WILEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST OF AND OPPOSITE INTERSECTION OF BRONK DRIVE AND WEST MT. ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION ON 58.53 ACRES OF LAND. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 87-1-22 LOT SIZE: 58.53 ACRES MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING THE WILEY'S, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Not~s from John S. Goralski, Planner (attach~d) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engin~er (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Does the applicant have any further comm~nts to add to this project? It would app~ar to us that we've got all our ducks in a row, here. MR. O'CONNOR-Michael O'Connor, on behalf of th~ applicant. I think welve answ~r~d all concerns and w~'d ask for final approval. MR. ROBERTS-I know of no reason w~ shouldn't b~ thinking final approval. Do Board members have any other quarrels with this. I think we could entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1990 W. ERIC AND CARRIE WILEY, Introduced by P~ter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following stipulation: chlorination system for the houses. met. That the homeowner provide an individual All other coordinances have been satisfactorily Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Roberts, can you entertain one question with regard to that..s.pproval. MR. ROBERTS-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, before the map is signed, the applicant has to pay a r~cr~ation fee per lot. Becaus~ what we'v~ got h~re is a preexisting house and there's no plan to chang~ that particular lot or to construct on that lot, 1 -....' and w~, in essence, are creating one additional lot, her~, although it is a two lot subdivision, would the Board consider waiving a recreational lot for the existing house, as opposed to requiring the two? MR. ROBERTS-I think I I d have to pass this on to Staff or the L~gal D~partment because we've got some prec~dents s~t h~re as to what welve done in the past. MR. GORALSKI-I can addr~ss that. Don' t ev~n make the argument because th~y just changed the law and you don't have to pay for the lot that already has a house on it. MS. CORPUS-It's a brand n~w amendment to the Recreation Fee Law. Just out this week, Mike. MR. ROBERTS-We didn't know that either. I'm glad to know that. SITE PLAN NO. 64-89 MR-5 TYPE: UNLISTED AMENDMENT OF 9/26/89 APPROVAL DR. ROBERT R. KANA OWBER: JOHN M. HUGHES SOUTH SIDE OF BAYWOOD DRIVE, LOT 5 IN JOHN M. HUGHES SUBDIVISION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING AREA. TAX MAP NO. 60-8-5 LOT SIZE: ±D.77 ACRES SECTION 4.020 F DR. ROBERT R. KANA, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-I guess you've all read the letter, h~re. Basically, he would like to be abl~ to pave fewer of the parking lots and less of the road. It sounds like something we often do pr~vious to this. I guess I talked to John on the lot the oth~r day when we were out there freezing. Apparently that's because that was the way th~ map came through and we didn't question it, but I would assume that none of us would hav~ any quarrel with this. Am I wrong about that? MR. CARTIER-No. I would just make a comment, first of all, to make it publicly known that Dr. Kana is my own personal dentist. I don' t s~e any conflict of interest here, however, but I did want to make that public. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, fair enough, but this is som~thing that we customarily do and I don't think you're on very thin ice. STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS- (Referring to Staff Not~s) too fast, here. I think it should be we'r~ allowing less paving at th~ moment, if, in fact, we all find it n~cessary have done in many p laces in the pas t. Department in r~gard to 64-89, as w~ll. Yes, we may have been moving a little made clear to th~ public that, although we are r~quiring that th~ land be provided in the future. This is, again, what we We also have a comment from the Water MR. GORALSKI-I think that letter is for th~ road dedication. MR. ROBERTS-Is more concerned with som~thing down the road. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-There's one from th~ Independent Living Center. MR. ROBERTS-The Independent Living Center, and be sure we alert them to "According to New York Stat~ Codes, Rules and Regulations, handicapp~d parking spaces should be at least 96" wide on the shortest possible route to the ~ntrance. Exterior and interior acc~ssibility should also be provided". As I recall, the map, I think, showed this. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I believe it did. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, Okay. It's good for them to keep us alert on this, howev~r. Now, I think we can entertain a motion. This is not a public hearing. MR. CAlMANO-I wasnlt here for the original, what was the reason for the reductions from 20 to 10 f~et for the driv~way. Why is Stu concerned about this? DR. KANA-11m Dr. Robert Kana. Th~ only reason for the reduction in the parking on that east side was that that was where I was going to have the staff park, along those 5 spaces on that side and I thought the 10 foot wide space would discourage patients from going up in that area, but it makes no difference. If th~ Board would prefer that we ke~p the 20 feet, that's not a problem. 2 --/ MR. ROBERTS-Well, it would se~m like a reasonable plan to me. I'd like to reduce the blacktop wherever it seems feasible. MR. CAlMANO-Any comments? MR. GORALSKI-We certainly have no probl~m with the number of parking spaces. It was just the width of the driveway. Twenty feet was what the Advisory Committe~ had decided on and what the Town Board had adopted as a safe driveway width and I would recommend that you stay with that. MR. CAlMANO-Doctor, you1re saying this is not a problem? DR. KANA-No, that's not a big concern. MR. CAlMANO-I'd feel a recommenda t ions and, as going to be one hold up. lot mor~ comfortable if we stayed with the Mr. Cartier says, in the winter time, that 10 Staff's f~~t is MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I guess it's th~ f~eling of the Board that we better stick with th~ Staff's recommendations for a 20 foot wide driveway, since that I s actually where the rules meet. Well, I guess we'v~ got it down to, maybe, wh~r~ we can make a motion. MR. CAlMANO-John, is that drawing, that plan that you looked at, is that the final? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would just request that, if this is approved, you submit a p Ian just showing us which parking spaces are going to be provided and which parking spaces ar~ going to be left in green spac~. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-89 DR. ROBERT R. KANA, Introduc~d by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, s~conded by James Hagan: For construction of a professional office building and parking area for Dr. Robert R. Kana. The request to go from 20 f~et to 10 feet is denied. It should remain 20 f~et and, befor~ any construction is commenced, a final drawing has to be on fil~ in the Planning Office. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 MR-5 FINAL STAGE TYPE: PHASE II OWNER: BAY ASSOCIATES CORNER OF BAY SUBDIVISION OF 9 LOTS TO BE USED FOR PROFESSIONAL LOT SIZE: 20.8 ACRES UNLISTED CROSS ROADS PARK, AND BLIND ROCK ROADS FOR A OFFICES. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34 FRANK DESANTIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-R~ad letter from Dave Hatin, to the Planning Board, dated May 11th, 1990 (on file) (Referring to lett~r) I can add to that, that this has b~com~ the overriding problem. As far as planning concerns, I think th~ Planning Department is satisfied. Also, I have a letter from Paul Naylor with regard to the waivers. Do you want me to r~ad that now? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, please. MR. GORALSKI-Read letter from Paul H. Naylor, to the Planning Board: advised that I have no objection to waivers from the minimum road radius flow distanc~ requested by the applicant. Resp~ctfully, Paul Naylor Pleas~ be and maximum MR. ROBERTS-We have som~ engineering comments, as well. 3 ...-' ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CAIMANO-Therels also another l~tter here. MR. ROBERTS-A letter from the Beautification Committee. MR. CAlMANO-No. MR. HAGAN-No, hels(Mr. Gannett) not finished yet. MR. ROBERTS-Oh. MR. GANNETT-Yes, I have another letter regarding a meeting that was held with Warren County and with Mr. Naylor from the Highway Department. I'll read that. "At a me~ting held on Monday, May 14th, with Roger Gebo of Warren County DPW, Paul Naylor, Queensbury Highway Superintendent, and Wayne Gannett of Rist-Frost, r~garding Cross Roads Park, Mr. Gebo stated that the County would like to s~~ the roadside ditch along the north sid~ of Blind Rock Road, widened and provided with flatter slopes, that is, 1 on 3 or 1 on 4. This would require slope easements from the lots fronting Blind Rock Road. The extent of the widening should b~ from th~ downstr~am end of the culv~rt to the east section of Hunter Brook Lane, extending west to the limit of the subdivision. This would result in an easi~r to maintain roadside ditch." I would just add to that, that, as far as Mr. Naylor's concerned, that was acceptable to him. MR. CARTIER-Do~s this have anything to do with th~ puddling, the area where the puddling is? Does this get into that area? MR. GANNETT-This is down stream of that area. MR. CARTIER-Down stream of that. So this is not going to solve the puddling problem? MR. GANNETT-No, that's a maintenance issue. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DESANTIS-Well, it reduces it. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe not necessarily. I guess, a number of us have seen th~ County trucks and SOme of the principles out there within the past week and maybe they'd like to bring us up to speed on what has occurred, as far as that puddling is concern~d. C~rtainly, an attempt has been made. MR. DESANTIS-My name's Frank DeSantis and I'm one of the partners in Bay Associates. Just addressing our comments at this time, from th~ meeting that took place this morning, the water, a great portion of the water flows westerly along the north sid~ of Bay Road, in this ditch thatls referred to. It reaches th~ culvert thatls placed under Hunter Brook Lan~. It passes through that culvert and the ditch on the other side, which is the subject of this letter, to be exact, at the end of the subdivision, do~s need to be altered, whether it's the slope ~asements theylre talking about, which, for the record, Bay Associates has no problem with complying with, that's..mad~ this morning, at 8:30, as the letter says and it's in the County right-of-way. We can grant the County the easement to cr~ate th~ slop~ ratio that they desire without any problem and then they could create the ditch they want. MR. ROBERTS-Is all that on the County easement? It sounded lik~ some of it would have been on your property. MR. DESANTIS-They need an easement, the ditch would be in the County easement, the actual bottom of the ditch. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. DESANTIS-The slope easement, so that they can maintain the ditch ~asier because the ditch would be if it were steep and their equipment, I understand, could not reach it. They need to cut the slope back so their ~quipment can get it. In other words, cut th~ edge off the ditch. MR. ROBERTS-That does tak~ SOme cooperation from you. 4 ~ -......./ MR. DESANTIS-That's right and we're willing to grant that earth away. So they can maintain this ditch. r~aches the culvert, passes through the culv~rt, and ditch, du~ to the placement of the ditch. them that easement to tak~ Right now, the wat~r that does not move on down this MR. ROBERTS-How about after th~ results of this..three days digging? MR. DESANTIS-Well, it still sits a littl~ farther down the ditch and I was just over there 30 minutes ago and th~re is probably a foot of water sitting in the ditch that's not moving on down th~ road and, of course, that causes it to settle there and go back up through the culvert and be on the ~asterly side of the culvert. Now, to dir~ct myself to Mr. Cartier's point, does this solve the standing wat~r problem at the intersection to th~ ~ast, here, as I've stated at our last meeting and in a lett~r that I sent the Town Board,..I was at the me~ting that Dave Hatin r~ferred to and John Goralski referr~d to on the 23rd of April, wh~r~, it was the feeling of everybody that part of the probl~m at the corner would b~ all~viated if a swale or ditch were cut to the north along Bay Road so that th~ water would run in this dir~ction, towards us and it was agreed at that time, when we looked at the stakes and the location of the corner, Mr. Steves was th~re and pointed out to us the boundary mark~r, that this would nec~ssitate cutting across land that was owned by Bay Road R~alty. Essentially, digging a ditch acrOss this property owners prop~rty. MR. ROBERTS-To g~t around the ~lectrical box? MR. DESANTIS-Well, to have the proper location of ~lectrical box. On the 24th of April, the next day, I who's the principle in Bay Road Realty, and I sent a I l~arned tonight, itls not part of your fil~, but l~tter just for your information. the ditch, also, and the sent a letter to Doug Spear, copy of that to Dave Hatin, here I s four copies of that MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. MR. DESANTIS-Essentially, the letter summarizes what had happened. It also asks Doug Spear, as you'll see in the third paragraph, or the middle of the s~cond paragraph, rather, to, simply, if he agrees with this, to initial the lett~r and facsimile it back to me so I could have evidence that he was giving me permission to cut a ditch across his property and I tell him in the letter that it would be done by our subcontractor at no expens~ to him. To this date, I have not receiv~d anything back from Doug Spear. I had a subsequent conversation with Dav~ Hatin where he had rec~ived a copy of this. He inquir~d, did I r~ceive anything. I said, no. He ask~d m~ for Mr. Spear's telephone numb~r. I gave it to him. I have called Mr. Spear and l~ft messages. David says, in his l~tter, which I have reviewed tonight, that h~ had a conversation with Doug Spear, or somebody did, and said, . it's okay to do it, but to this point in time, Bay Associates, me or I, don't have any ~videnc~ that that is okay and this, I'm sure, I know it's frustrating us and itls frustrating everybody else. If h~ would just put two initials down and okay, as the letter says, we' d b~ glad to do it. We ar~ very hesitant to simply dig a ditch across somebody else' s prop~rty, bas~d on t~lephone conversations that third parties tell us they've had. MR. HAGAN-You have ~nough problems already. MR. DESANTIS-Well, I m~an, I think we'd just be substituting one probl~m for another, part icularly when we I re not told,.. comp licated further by the County, that in their..by Mr. Paul Roche, who is a County employee, at least in his opinion, that h~ do~sn't know if that would totally solv~ his standing water problem anyway, but that's neither here nor there. In oth~r words, even if w~ dug the ditch, it would be an attempt at the solution to this problem. We have lowered the culvert in attempt, part of the digging that you saw is that th~ culvert that was r~placed under Hunter Brook Road, was lowered about a foot in an attempt to get th~ water moving and that digging from th~ far side of the culvert was, again, an attempt, and w~ did that in the County right-of-ways and that I s th~ digging that you saw and it did do something. I mean, th~ water is mov~d on through the culvert, it's now standing ther~, but w~ have not dug out the ditch all the way down to the Fen, for oth~r obvious reasons, becaus~ it's not our property and it may caus~ other problems, in our opinion if the water were to flow right down that ditch in a rapid fashion. So, that's the update on the standing water problem. I hav~ no probl~m with Dave Hatin' s opinion, that if there I s a problem, let's fix it before we go ahead with Phas~ II and I'm saying that for the record. We're not trying to get away with som~thing. W~ just cannot cross third parties prop~rty without, at least, initials, by facsimil~ or something, so I could point to it later on, if someone said that I trespassed on their property. 5 '----' --../ MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, we certainly understand that. MR. DESANTIS-And that's where I'm stuck. MR. CARTIER-Is this all h~ got? Did he get a map or anything? MR. DESANTIS-No, sir. I sent that to him in hopes that he would telephon~ m~ and he knows, well aware of wh~re it is, allegedly, because MR. CARTIER-I mean, he's b~en out there and somebody's pointed out, this is what w~'r~ going to do. MR. DESANTIS-I don't know. This gentl~man's out in Utica. I mean, h~'s not local. Halland Patten is wher~ his office..which is near Utica. MR. CARTIER-Does he have a local ag~nt to act with him? MR. DESANTIS-The g~neral contractor on the job is J.M. Weller Associates. MR. CARTIER-But what I'm saying, is th~re som~body who can speak for him and give his p~rmission? MR. DESANTIS-Not that I 'm awar~ of. As a prop~rty owner, nO and I have had no communication, from him, directly, sinc~ I sent this lett~r. MR. ROBERTS-You indicat~d sOmeon~ said that might not solv~ all th~ problems, but even if we were to solve part of those problems with a ditch heading north along Bay Road to wh~re it wouldn't flood out on the road, it wouldn't get high enough, p~rhaps, to. . doing some good. If you had a minor. .as long w~ knew it wasn't going to get too deep. MR. CAlMANO-Well, as was brought up at the last m~eting, however, we are really g~tting kind of a feel here into something that this Board r~ally shouldn't be g~tting into at this point. Just..abeyance, you don't have any problem with this, do you? Do you have any probl~m with this lett~r from Wayn~, th~ problems he brings up. MR. DESANTIS-I think w~ can address those. Dick Jon~s is h~re. W~ show a b~rm, to address th~m kind of in rev~rs~, w~ know that there's a water flow from the north. W~ showed the b~rm on our r~tention area on Lots 11 and 12, as far back, in ord~r to hav~ as larg~ a r~t~ntion area as possible for safety reasons, to margin of ~rror and now Wayn~' s suggestion is that we mOve that farther to th~ ~ast to not interfere with any possible flow to the north. We have no probl~m that. We have no probl~m with installing that prior to any construction so that it would act, essentially, as a sediment barrier should anything flow. I think all those are good suggestions. I don't remember, v~rbatim, what the other on~s w~re, but it' s b~~n indicated by our consultants that there's no difficulty with m~eting anything that he suggests in that area. MR. CAlMANO-Again, I think we can move this thing along. As I said last time, my only conc~rn in Phase I is that we learn any lessons that ar~ going to stop us from Phase 11. If we can look at Phase II as Phase II, find out if that's okay, th~n W~ can back up. I think we should decide wh~ther Phase II, on its fac~, is okay. If w~ so choose or somebody so choos~s to answer Mr. Hatin, that's another story, but I think Phase II is what we're talking about and my only concern last time was, if you had problems in Phas~ I, that you learn from them and, obviously, what you're t~lling m~ is you did. So, we are not here, as Mrs. Pulv~r said last time, to be a polic~ MR. DESANTIS-W~ r~tained, just, again, for the r~cord, Bay Associates retain~d a 10 foot eas~m~nt insid~ of th~ prop~rty lines for utility installation and water lin~ installation. MR. ROBERTS-Along Blind Rock Road? MR. DESANTIS-All lot lin~s, Blind Rock and Bay Road. Even, when w~ locat~ the ditch, W~ n~ed to get inside ther~ ~ven then. So, it's a fairly substantial ditch. I mean, it's not as larg~ as th~ on~ on the other side, but it has to carryall that water that's caused th~ problem. MR. ROBERTS-To addr~ss your comments, Nick, I think, perhaps, enlarging the ditch and reducing the slope back on to their property, in Phase II, is something, l~gitimately, to b~ addr~ssed. 6 '~ -./ MR. CAlMANO-I agr~e. MR. ROBERTS-And that ditch, apparently, has not ev~n been finished... MR. DESANTIS-Right. The County said they w~re willing to do that today and welr~ willing to give them the slope eas~m~nt. MR. ROBERTS-But we got a littl~ testy with th~ County, frankly, the last time th~y dug that ditch and took no erosion control m~asures and I think you've just alluded to that. When we g~t them, or.. to dig this ditch in a more substantial fashion, I think w~' re going to want to ~voke som~ r~asonable erosion control measur~s which are boil~rplat~ standard in our Ordinanc~...I think we should address that in Phas~ II. MR. DESANTIS-I think that's a v~ry real concern. If all this water wer~ to flow down this ditch that is now standing th~re and that has gon~ through, unimpeded, it's going to end up bringing all, and it's just a raw ditch, if you go by ther~, it's just a dirt cut ditch. So, it has to ~rode, by definition, and carry down to the bottom of the ditch, down to that stream entrance. MR. ROBERTS-But I think this can b~ d~alt with, wouldn't you say, Wayn~? MR. GANNETT-Absolutely. MR. ROBERTS-They could a.ddress that and I think that should be a pa.rt of.. MR. GANNETT-I think your conc~rn about erosion control is well taken. MR. ROBERTS-Certainly, the n~ighbors have raised the point enough where we can't sw~~p that und~r th~ rug. We wouldn't anyway. Okay, I gu~ss we'r~ writing some things into a possible agreement, her~, that might b~ in somewhat of a disagr~ement with Dav~ Hatin' s suggestion that w~ not allow anything, but I think, perhaps, that I s a suggest and maybe we I ve l~arned mor~ her~ tonight than what he I s up to date on. MR. DESANTIS-I think that David conv~rsations with him. I think would sugg~st to the Board that, w~'r~ going to continu~ to try and is, I know that David's frustrated, from my that's a fair ass~ssment of how he fe~ls. I I would state Bay Associat~s position is that get Doug Spears approval to cross his prop~rty. MR. CARTIER-Worse cas~ sc~nario, what happens if you don't get it? Wher~ do~s that l~ave the Planning Board, in t~rms of approval, here? MR. DESANTIS- I don I t know how I could cross his land, P~ter, wi thout som~thing indicating that it's okay. MR. HAGAN-Well, I'd like to h~ar mor~ on what your efforts ar~ going along this lin~ to obtain that permission. You say you can't get it, but I certainly MR. DESANTIS-I'm saying I have not gott~n it, sO far. MR. HAGAN-But I'd like to h~ar som~ more from you on what you int~nd to do to try to g~t it. MR. DESANTIS-I int~nd to k~~p trying to contact Mr. Spear and talk to him directly and impr~ss upon him that this is going to b~nefit his property as well as th~ Town and our property. MR. HAGAN-Uticals only two hours away. MR. DESANTIS-W~ll, I suppose I could make thos~ efforts in person, but what I'm saying is that, unless I have something in writing, I can certainly say that I can't, voluntarily, just cut across his land. MR. ROBERTS-I think it's a good point, though, that's it's going improve th~ looks of his prop~rty as much as anybody's. It impacts his area more than anybody ~ls~. MR. DESANTIS-I agr~~. MR. ROBERTS-And I don't imagine that h~ will eventually refus~ to do this. 7 -/ MR. CAIMANO-Well, I guess, letls go back to Pet~r's question before. If we assume ...even driving out there is no guarant~e that he's going to be there. So, that's another whole story. Worst case scenario, Mr. D~Santis is not able to do it. Wher~ does that l~ave us in terms of approval.. if anywhere, should we even be consid~ring that. That is something that h~ needs to do. It is something that Hatin's Department is working with him to do. Is that really our concern? Is that your question? Is that our concern or not? MR. CARTIER-I guess my real concern here is we're looking at final approval. By the time w~ reach final, all the T's need to be crossed and all the I's dott~d and so on and so forth and I just see a whole lot of things still up there, floating around in the air. MR. DESANTIS-With regard to Phase II, Peter? MR. CARTIER-Some things. MR. CAlMANO-Well, that's what I said befor~, let's close those up and then go back to.. MR. DESANTIS-Well, that's what I'd like to do. I mean, I don't b~lieve that there's anything left up in the air on Phase 11. If we can, as difficult as it is to separate..water problems, Mr. Naylor's been out there. We've satisfied ev~rything that hel s asked us to do, which included replacing the culvert und~r the road, re-positioning it, bringing the road side up to grade and seeding it and mulching it and we've agreed with all of the comments that the consulting engineer has made. The only on~ that, I guess, we haven't shown on the plans or anything is th~ one that r~sulted from the meeting this morning at 8:30, which, again, involv~s the County and the ditch that's off our property which, to be quite honest, has been a thorn in our side since th~ moment it appeared, myst~riously, months ago. MR. ROBERTS-But the slope theor~t ically, I suppose, final resolution agreed to. of that ditch will go back on to your property and, should show on the final mapping whenever we get the MR. DESANTIS-I don't have any problem with that. th~ maps that are there now. Obviously, it doesn't show on MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. DESANTIS-Just this morning, w~'ll show that. As I said, we will grant thos~ slope easements to the Town. MR. ROBERTS-As well as these oth~r changes. MR. ROBERTS-You I re asking about worst case scenario, efforts have alr~ady been made to reduce that puddling. More will continu~ to be made, apparently,... that we just talked about...that that puddling won't b~ as great as it was in the past, if in fact, w~ can't reduce the.. MR. DESANTIS-Dave says the ditch should disappear. MR. ROBERTS-We're not going to recomm~nd you do that. MR. DESANTIS-And Ilm not going to say that I'm going to do that. MR. ROBERTS-As an attorney, we didn't expect you would. MR. CAIMANO-I'm going back to my first comment, before, and that was, let's take care of Phase I1. If we can answer all of those questions, now, let' s g~t that done and then, if we still have to argue about what's going to go in Phase I, we'll do that, but I think we should wrap up Phase II, if we can. If we can't, we should let them know that there are problems, but let's wrap up Phas~ II as it's own self, if we can. MR. ROBERTS- If we got the answ~rs as to what we want to do, I guess ~verybody has agreed to deepening, widening the slope of the ditch. Obviously, we will want to writ~ into any approvals some serious erosion control measures that we didn't g~t b~fore. MR. DESANTIS-Recommend to the County that they place them. I mean, w~ III try th~ mat~rial. If they'll allow us to put it in their ditch, weill do it. I can say that. 8 --- MR. ROBERTS-I would think that w~ could g~t Fred Austin to coop~rate with that. MR. DESANTIS-I talked with Roger Gebo, not this morning, but informed him of that and he said, at that time, h~ wasn't planning on doing any further work, but, obviously, hels changed his mind this morning. MR. CARTIER-Well, it point, based on his h~'s not going to let would appear that Dave Hatin' s going to be your stopping letter. Until things are cl~ared up to his satisfaction, this building go on, is that correct? MR. DESANTIS-W~ll, this is what I was, I stopp~d short of finishing my statem~nt, is that, I don't really have any difficulty with David's position, conc~rning building. If we could just say that, hypothetically, we had final approval on Phase II already in place, and all of th~se other measures were tak~n, that hav~ been recently sugg~sted this morning, it still would not, I submit, solve the standing water problem, that's a s~parate and distinct problem and itls certainly within David's purview to state that h~'s not going to issue any building permits until this problem is solved and we're going to, obviously, work very hard to address Mr. Hagan's concern, what are we going to do if we can't get building permits. We I re going to do everything we can to at l~ast.. this ditch and th~n se~ what other sugg~stions ther~ ar~ if that doesn't solve it. I would ask th~ Board to proceed with approval, knowing that, th~ Building Inspector is on record as saying that, until he' s satisfi~d with this standing water problem, he's not going to issu~ any building permits. I think it's a separate issu~. I don't think we can talk about him issuing building permits until we have approval. MR. CARTIER-But you are stating to us, in effect, that you are in agr~ement with his position on that? MR. DESANTIS-As to construction? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DESANTIS-I'm saying that that problem needs to be solv~d and we' r~ willing to do ~verything we can to solve it. We've offered to do the work on somebody elses land. I don't know what more w~ can do. I mean, I suppose I could drive out to Utica and sit outside his door. MR. ROBERTS-No, I don't either. MR. HAGAN-No, lid make a phone call first, but it doesn't sound to me, the way you're presenting it, you just can g~t in touch with him and that's the end of it. MR. DESANTIS-Well, I guess that he has made Hatin has not told me this, personally, but or som~body' s communicat~d with Dave Hatin. me, it would go a long ways to telling me to prop~rty. a tel~phone call, I gath~r. David I read his letter, I believe him, If Mr. Sp~ar would communicat~ with get somebody to do sOme work on his MR. CARTIER-Yes, I don I t know why Dav~ is involved in getting in touch with Mr. Spear. MR. DESANTIS-I didn't ask him to do that. As I said, he tel~phon~d m~ and asked me if I had a respons~ to that letter which I put in front of you and I said no. H~ said, have you telephoned him and I said, yes. He said, would you pl~ase give me his phone numb~r and I did. MR. CARTIER-But you donlt know whether Dav~ called him or not? MR. DESANTIS-I pr~sume h~ did. He says in his letter that h~ spoke with him. MR. GORALSKI-I can answ~r that qu~stion. Dave has spoken to th~ owners of th~ prop~rty and they said to Dav~, th~ only thing I know that th~y said to him and this is what Dave told m~, is that they had no problem with the swal~. I donlt know why they haven't signed Mr. DeSantis' s l~tter and I don't know if Dave discussed that letter with them. The reason Dave called the owners of the prop~rty is b~caus~ w~ have been swamped with complaints, phone messag~s, people coming into our offic~, my office, Dave's office, complaining about it and we have don~, as I guess ~veryone h~re keeps saying, we've done everything w~ can, more than we usually do, to try and solv~ th~ problem. 9 --- -.-' MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I hav~ the feeling we don't need to b~ any further stumbling block for those that are already being thrown out that it would seem the solution's in sight. A number of solutions. MR. CARTIER-There is a Phase III with this, is there not? MR. DESANTIS-Not regarding, there is, as has b~en disclosed since day one, there's other property in the back. There are no plans to develop it. It is 15 or 18 acres in a different zone, up on the other side of the pond, but there is no plans, at this time. I mean, that's not an office zone and it's just property that sits there sO we had to show it on our conceptual plan, initially. MR. ROBERTS-How do you feel? Do w~ make some progress here? Okay, l~t's try to do it. This is not a public hearing, again. We've satisfied SEQRA, overall. We simply haven't forgott~n about it, though, w~ are concern~d about when we ~nlarge that ditch. .part of our motion. MR. CAlMANO- If they want to do this ditch, lat~r on, they have to come back to the Board for approval? MS. CORPUS-Y~s, if the plat needs to be revised aft~r it's been signed, it will have to be re-submitted to th~ Board. MR. GORALSKI-That's the County. As long as they show they the slope easements on their mylar, the County is responsible for doing the work. MS. CORPUS-Right. MS. CORPUS-They could throw a proposed ~as~ment on the final plat, that's acceptable. MR. ROBERTS-I'm assuming we won't sign or accept, really, the final plat on this until this has be~n solved, anyway. MS. CORPUS-Th~ Board could grant conditional approval which would expir~ in 180 days. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, subject to our ~ngineer and everybody else being satisfied with th~ final plat showing this new ditch configuration. MR. DESANTIS-Sure. MR. CARTIER-I donlt know if you've got this in here? MR. ROBERTS-We mention~d it, but I don't know if we r~ad it. MR. CARTIER-This is from th~ Beautification Committee. (attached) MR. ROBERTS-I 'v~ had another letter from the B~autification Chairman about this type of thing. They are trying to push for some uniformity within our Light Industrial subdivision, commercial subdivisions, professional subdivisions. This is not Town law. It's probably a pretty good idea, but we don't have an architectural r~view board. It is their recommendation, I think, only at this point and I don't know how much farther we can go. MR. DESANTIS-Well, we have retained, the developers have retained, archit~ctural approval of anything that goes in there. We have prohibited off premises signs, that's in the declaration that I s fil~d with the Town, copy of it. It's a matter of record in the Warren County Clerkls office. Th~re's c~rtainly different sized buildings b~cause there are different siz~d lots and your site plan review regulations require that th~y all have c~rtain standards. Some of the buildings may b~ two stories in height before buildout and sOme are going to be, obviously, single story buildings. We're not going to allow a tremendous amount of diversity in t~rms of design, but I don't know what, these are going to be sold to individuals and they' r~ going to all have different ideas about what they want. Th~y I r~ all going to have to come before this Board for sit~ p Ian approval and they're going to be th~ on~s building the buildings. MR. CAlMANO-I might remind the Board that we just approved the Qu~ensbury Economic Developm~nt Corporation and we didn I t ask for any uniformity in that building for area, quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. 10 ~ -./ MR. ROBERTS-Yes, this is the Beautification Committ~e IS op1.n1.on and I think we have to realize that that's what that is and w~ don't necessarily disagree with that. MR. DESANTIS- I have a copy of that l~tter and I don't disagree with the intent of it. I just really can I t agree that I'm going to sit th~r~ and make every building look like the one that's there already. MR. ROBERTS-Beautyls in the eye of the beholder. MR. DESANTIS-That's right. MR. ROBERTS-That I s why we don't have an architectural revi~w board in th~ Town b~cause not everybody thinks thatls th~ best idea. MR. CARTIER-But youlre saying you hav~ some param~ters. MR. DESANTIS-Yes, ther~ are restrictions already filed as part of the titl~ on the property and, as I said, we've made some prohibitions, out right prohibitions, and the rest w~ have to r~vi~w all of the plans, prior to them b~ing submitted to you and then again, you have the opportunity to review the plans and I think that, as a sugg~stion, that sit~ plan is the time to take Mr. Eddy's suggestion to heart and talk to the own~r of th~ building and suggest to him, if it's out of line trem~ndously, that h~ maybe bring it mor~ in line with what you think is acceptabl~. MR. ROBERTS-Th~ question is, do we have the authority and how much authority do we have to say that? MR. CARTIER-Let's hope this..might set the tone for what's going in th~r~. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. ~DI\I&~Lo,J MOTION FOR. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL STAGE ~ ~ NO. 21-1989 CROSS ROADS PARK, PHASE II, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, s~conded by Peter Cartier: For a subdivision of 9 lots to b~ used for professional offices with the following stipulations: Rist-Frost' s letter of May 11th, 1990, with 3 recommendations is adher~d to; Rist-Frost's letter of May 14th, 1990, is on file as part of th~ motion; that th~re b~ good erosion control measures on the ditch; as a part of the motion, Mr. Goralski's comments regarding the proposed addition to the mylar, be address~d in the motion; the applicant has indicated he understands that Mr. Hatin may hold up building permits prior to solving this drainage probl~m. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-The Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee l~tter as a part of th~ motion, as a recommendation. MR. ROBERTS-As a recommendation? MR. CAIMANO-As a r~commendation, thatls all. MR. ROBERTS-I think we want to be a little careful about that. They don't hav~ any authority MR. DESANTIS-I don't know if the Beautification Committee has the authority to ask MR. ROBERTS-They do not. MR. CAIMANO-Scratch it. MR. ROBERTS-If w~ put it in our motion, then it's law and I'm not sure that it's MR. CAlMANO-Rather than fight that, let's scratch it. here? What els~ should be on 11 MR. ROBERTS-We've got to have SOme good erosion control measures on the ditch. Welr~ not going to l~t the County off the hook on this, frankly. MR. DESANTIS-No, I'm not asking that you do, but I don't know how, I sound like a brok~n record, but I can't do work in the County right-of-way either. MR. ROBERTS-I know it. I think w~ have to have SOme agreement, I think this motion, w~ have to hav~ some agreement with th~ County as to how we're going to proc~~d with that ditch. MR. GORALSKI-Can I make a recommendation, that your motion include that th~ final mylar show the proposed easements to. the County and that, if you'd like to mak~ a separate motion, after this, that the Planning Department draft a letter to the County explaining your conc~rn about ~rosion control when they're doing the work in that ditch and have the Chairman sign it or have on~ of us sign it. W~ could do that. MS. CORPUS-It seems perfectly within the Board's discretion to do that. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. HOTION THAT MR. GORALSKI WRITE A LETTER TO THE COUNTY EXPRESSING THE CONCERNS OF THE PLANNING BOARD WITH REGARD TO THE DRAINAGE AIm EROSION MEASURES TO BE TAKEN AT SUCH TIME ALONG BLIND ROCK ROAD AIm THAT A COPY OF SAID LETTER BE SENT TO THE APPLICANT, Introduc~d by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, s~conded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-90 TYPE II SFR-IA JOHN AND ROSANN CURRAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 15 RESERVOIR DRIVE FOR A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE ADDITION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 94-1-17 LOT SIZE: ±o.28 ACRES SECTION 9.010 JOHN AND ROSANN CURRAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-And th~ Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. ROBERTS-Without comment. MR. GORALSKI-Without comment. ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gann~tt, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS- In r~ference to Stuart Baker I s backing out onto the road comments, ar~n't they going to be the same as what exists currently,..driv~way still back out on, I don't think there's a turnaround there, is th~re? MR. GORALSKI - I don't think there is. No, I think that his point was that th~y will be even closer to the road, now, than the existing garage is. MR. ROBERTS-I 1m not sure, in my mind, what difference that makes. You don It get quit~ such a fast start, so you I r~ not going hit the road at such a high sp~ed. MR. CARTIER-Well, I assume, cars are not going to be left parked in this driveway. They're going to be put in the garage. They'r~ going to stick out onto the road, otherwise. 12 -../ MR. CURRAN-Right, they will be put in th~ garage. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, why don't I ask the applicant if you want to make any further comments or help to clarify SOme of our questions on this. MR. CURRAN-I'm John Curran. MR. ROBERTS-You had some questions, Jim? MR. HAGAN-Yes, John, I wondered why, in your application, you didn't include ~levation drawings because, as I look at your dwelling, it's one story, but th~ topography of the land comes down to your present garag~ entrance which I visualiz~, wh~n you put a two car garag~ on there, it would have to be, in essence, a two story building? MR. CURRAN-No. MR. HAGAN-Well, that I s why I think you should includ~, you have no ~l~vation drawings. The application suggests you give them. MR. CURRAN-Well I have the topographical lines right here, 76, 78, 80. MR. CARTIER-No, h~'s referring to side view of the building. MR. HAGAN-The elevation drawings of the building. MR. CURRAN-I could provide you with that right now. I have a copy of that right now. MR. HAGAN-Okay, that's all. MRS. CURRAN-I'm Rosann Curran. I believe, in our initial application, we did have an elevation drawing, sid~ view. MR. HAGAN-It's suggest~d here. MRS. CURRAN-Yes, I did have that attached. MR. HAGAN-Okay. That's fine. MR. CARTIER-You hav~ no plans to add b~drooms or other.. MRS. CURRAN-No. MR. CURRAN-Not at all. MR. HAGAN-If you had added this, I wouldn't have even asked th~ question. MRS. CURRAN-No, this was attached to the original. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, there is one copy of the el~vation. to everyone because we only had one copy. We couldn't distribute MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Th~ entrance to the garage is going to be a little differ~nt before it's.. MR. HAGAN-Well, they show that. They show the change in the garag~. MR. ROBERTS-Whatls this distanc~, here? MR. HAGAN-It's 9 foot. MR. CARTIER-It's 9 this way, so we're talking, 11, 12. MR. CURRAN-From this corn~r of the garage to th~ ~dge of this road is 27. MRS. CURRAN-To the ~dge of the road, not to the property line. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 13 '-- --./< PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-This will require a SEQRA review? MS. CORPUS-Type II. MR. GORALSKI-This is an accessory use so it would not requir~ a SEQRA revi~w. MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any further questions? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. ROBERTS-Th~n I guess we can move along for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-90 JOHN AND ROSANN CURRAB, Introduc~d by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For the addition of a 24 ft. by 24 ft. attached two car garage. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF 9L, NORTH 2.7 MILES FROM RR-5A PROPOSED ZONING: AGENCY REQUEST. ZONE P4-90 KAREN L. SOHMER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE ROUTE 149 ON RIGHT TAX MAP NO. 22-2-3 CURRENT ZONING: LC-I0 LOT SIZE: 1. 45 ACRES AS PER ADIRONDACK PARK STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And the County approv~d without comm~nt? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-I have to confess that I wasn't sure which property I was looking at, here. Is someone here? MR. GORALSKI-Mrs. Sommer is not here. It's the small house. MR. ROBERTS-Is it. MR. GORALSKI-Just south on Ridge Road of MR. ROBERTS-Of the Fish and Game Club? MR. GORALSKI-Of th~ Fish and Game Club. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, th~rels only on~ house there. MR. GORALSKI-Right, thatls it. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. I don't know why we would have any quarrel with this. This is not a public hearing. How do you care to make your recommendation to th~ Town Board? MOTION TO RECOMMEND p4-90 KAREN L. SOMMER TAX MAP NO. 22-2-3 FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RR-5A TO LC-IO, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: The minutes of this meeting plus Staff Notes on these petition changes b~ included in the recommendation of the Board. 14 -- -..-" Duly adopt~d this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P5-90 LOOMIS J. GROSSMAN, JR. RICHARD A. GROSSMAN WALTER H. RUBIN ROBERT C. BAKER ADS PLAZA, WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 TAX MAP NO. 71-1-3 CURRENT ZONING: HC-IA, 0-5 PROPOSED ZONING: HC-IA LOT SIZE: 16.46 ACRES MR. ROBERTS-This would appear to have be~n a mistak~. Those of us that served on the Committee. I don I t know quit~ how this could have happened. We tried to go along property lines with this r~cent re-zoning and why that property was cut in two, it mak~s no sense whatsoever. I don't know why we would have any quarrel with this. It would rectify an obvious error or omission. Ilm sorry. I'm jumping the gun here. Staff? MR. GORALSKI-These notes ar~ from Lee York and you basically said the same thing she did. I'll read it. STAFF INPUT Notes from L~e A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Any quarrel with that or any further discussion? MR. CARTIER-No. MR. ROBERTS-This is, again, not a public hearing. The County approved without comment. MR. GORALSKI-Thatls corr~ct. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY APPROVE PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P5-90 LOOMIS J. GROSSMAB, JR., AND RICHARD A. GROSSMAB, ETAL. AMES PLAZA, FROM THE ZONING OFMI.-5 TO HC-lA, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Which is mor~ in keeping with the property and to correct what, apparently, was a past ~rror. Duly adopt~d this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P6-90 DAVID E. WILLIAMS, SR. OF BAY ROAD AT ROUTE 149 TAX MAP NO. 51-1-40 CURRENT ZONING: ZONING: HC-IA LOT SIZE: 6.85 ACRES SOUTHEAST CORNER RR-3A PROPOSED ELON CHAIRNEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-A little history behind this. I'll let Staff. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-Does Mr. Williams have a copy of this? MR. GORALSKI-I believe his attorney took a copy of it. MR. CHAIRNEY-I reviewed it, but I didn't take a copy. 15 "---' ...-' MR. GORALSKI-Oh, itls all yours. Attached, I believe you got a copy of the Zoning Board resolution and, if you want, I can r~ad that. If not, I think you've all read it. MR. ROBERTS-We may..interpretation of here so we know how to proce~d in this. really what's occurring on the prop~rty Mayb~ you should read the ZBA. MR. GORALSKI-Read the Zoning Board motion from February 28th, 1990 (attached) If I can just try to add to Lee York I s notes, I think the point her~ is that, from a planning perspective, there really is no problem with expanding that Highway Commercial zone at the corner of 149 and Bay Road and this request for ~xpansion of the Highway Comm~rcia.1 is not inappropriate. The point is that th~ applicant should be awar~ that the Zoning Board is of the opinion that, even if this wer~ re-zoned to Highway Commercial, that us~ would still not be allow~d. So, the request for re-zoning is appropriat~ and there I s no reason, in our opinion, that the Board should not make a positive recommendation. Just, the applicant should be on notice that that should be straightened out as to whether his use is allowable in the Highway Commercial zone. MR. CARTIER-And that ne~ds to be straightened out with the Zoning Administrator and not with this Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-Thatls right. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, because I think ther~ is some question as to, really, the use of the property and I'd like to have that clarifi~d. As you point out, that's probably not our bailiwick. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I think the point is, to use that piece of property for Highway Commercial use is not inappropriate. MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. GORALSKI-Whether or not the use Mr. Williams is proposing is in ke~ping with the Highway Commercial zone is a question that the Zoning Administrator and, possibly, the Zoning Board should address and the Planning Board should simp ly addr~ss the re-zoning of this parcel to Highway Comm~rcial. MR. ROBERTS-Perhaps th~ applicant would lik~ to have som~ comments on this. W~ seem to be in the horns of a dilemma, here. MR. CHAIRNEY-My name is EJ.on Chairn~y. I am the attorney for Mr. Williams and this is Mr. Williams, standing to my right. At this point, that is all w~' re asking for is to have this re-zoned to Highway Commercial as it was when we purchased it. As far as what h~'s going to be doing with the property, we b~lieve it clearly comes under the Highway Commercial, but, of course, that I s som~thing we'll have to take up with the Zoning Board, I believe, at that time. MR. CARTIER-That is correct. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, that makes it easy for us, I guess. Theylre asking to be Highway CommerciaJ. and we find no quarrel with that. We can say so. MR. CAIMANO-I think we should find out if anybody else has any quarrels with that. MR. ROBERTS-No, there is no public hearing. The Town Board will hold a public hearing on a r~-zoning. We're just making a recommendation. We might want to throw some r~d flags up.. in our minutes. .maybe can be clarified, somehow, th~ use of the property, to accomplish what you want to accomplish. I donlt know. MR. CAlMANO-It IS interesting. Most of the property around there is r~sidential. MR. ROBERTS-Well, not as usage. Across the str~et you IV~ got an antique store. You've got a major engineering firm. MR. CAIMANO-You're right. MR. ROBERTS-Next door I think there used to b~ som~thing of a commercial nature. MR. HAGAN-I think the Zoning Board would have a tough time denying this. MR. CAlMANO-I do too. 16 -.../ MOTION TO RECOMMEND P6-90 FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING FROK RR- 3A TO AN HC-lA FOR DAVID E. WILLIAMS, SR.. ON THE SOUTHEAST COHHER OF BAY ROAD AT 149, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Jam~s Hagan: As part of that motion, I suggest that w~ include Lee Yorkls memo of May 14th, 1990 and include all comments that are mad~ by this Board. Duly adopt~d this 14th day of May, 1990, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN NO. 28-90 LC-42A TYPE: UNLISTED DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT CO., INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE DUNHAM'S BAY, EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE OF 70 BOATS AND UP TO 2 BOAT TRAILERS (WITHOUT BOATS). (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 10-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 13.59 ACRES SECTION 9.010 MR. ROBERTS-Th~ next order of busin~ss, Dunhamls Bay Boat Co., has ask~d to b~ tabled. Th~y wer~ unabl~ to make the County Planning Board meeting b~caus~ of th~ d~ath of the father of th~ attorn~y, Walter R~hm' s father. So, I assum~ w~ would hav~ no problem with tabling this until they can get together. Do w~ n~~d a motion to that effect? MR. GORALSKI-I think so and w~ will send this back to th~ County for their June m~eting. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-90 DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT CO., Introduced by Pet~r Carti~r who moved for its adoption, s~cond~d by Nicholas Caimano: Until applicant has had time to appear before the Warren County Board. Duly adopt~d this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas JOHN SHRINER MR. SHRINER-Befor~ you continue on, I cam~ here for that thing, not having a full idea that it was cancelled. MR. ROBERTS-I just heard about it myself. MR. SHRINER-Y~s, w~ll, what I would like to know, my name is John Shrin~r, will ~v~ryone in concern be notified of the n~xt meeting? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, we will ask the applicant to pay for re-notifying. MR. ROBERTS-H~llI have to re-notify. MR. GORALSKI-Right. You'll get another letter in th~ mail. MR. SHRINER-Okay, that's all I want~d to be sure that we wer~ going to get notified. You don't know wh~n the meeting will b~? MR. GORALSKI-It will b~ the third Tuesday in June. MR. SHRINER-Third Tuesday in June? MR. GORALSKI-Right. If you don't receive something by, say, the middle of June, I would recommend that you call the Planning Department. MR. SHRINER-S~e, this is what happened to us this last time. I know this got canc~ll~d at th~ last minute, but w~ never got any notification until Wednesday. Last Wednesday we got notified that th~ meeting was tonight. 17 -~ MR. GORALSKI-You will get notifi~d again. MR. SHRINER-And nev~r did find, except through the grapevine, that the meeting was off. MR. GORALSKI-Y~s, I tried to contact whoever had call~d me, regarding this application, but I really had no way of contacting ~veryone we sent letters to, but w~ will send you another letter and it will b~ the third Tu~sday in June. MR. SHRINER-I appreciat~ it very much. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A HARION E. HICHEL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 34 LOWER WARREN STREET CORNER OF LOWER WARREN STREET AND HIGHLAND ON ROUTE 32 FOR RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR USE AS A RESTAURANT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 110-7-3 LOT SIZE: ±o.81 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N MARION MICHEL, APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Not~s from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved. Town of Que~nsbury Beautification Committee, disapproved. (Beautification Committee Notes) This application has been disapproved by our Committee as data for landscaping, screening and plantings for the above applicant for a Sit~ Plan Review or Variance has not b~~n submitt~d or is incompl~t~. Would you please, ther~fore, refer the applicant to our Committee for approval of its plans prior to granting th~ application pending before your Board or before construction permit has been granted. You and the Building Department will be notified just as soon as plans have been approved by us. Robert Eddy, Chairman MR. ROBERTS-Excuse me, before you get into that, talking about this ~gress, as I read my map here, there r~ally only the entranc~ on Highland Av~nue, unless- MR. GORALSKI-W~ll, thatls what the map shows, if you go out to th~ sit~, th~re's a road cut that goes on to Warren Street. What Stu is suggesting is that you close off that access so that there is only access onto Highland Avenue. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gann~tt, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Alright, you' r~ saying, in Item 2, that you I re not comfortable with the stormwater layout, as it ~xists? MR. GANNETT-What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that, if there is no increase in paved area, then I don't hav~ any problem with the stormwater point of view, but ther~' s not enough information on the drawing to indicate if all of this parking ar~a is existing paving and it IS just being r~defined or whether there is additional paving. Th~re just simply isn' t ~nough information on the drawing to tell and just as a matter of design practices, there should be some grading, dimensions to show how the parking area will, in fact, be laid out. MR. ROBERTS- I have a feeling that's already pav~d.. We also have comm~nts from the Handicapped Acc~ss people "According to Article 13 of the N. Y. S.. Codes, Rules and Regulations, this restaurant should be accessible to th~ handicapped, including bathrooms, seating and parking. II I notice you do have two handicapp~d parking spaces and a r&mp and I assume this is taken care of. MR. CARTIER-Well, which one applies then, since we have two of th~m? MR. ROBERTS-Okay, this single one came from Mr. Buckley. I think he was primarily conc~rned on this..about the subdivision. I don't think he was getting into th~, but perhaps we could. MR. CAlMANO-Which map ar~ you on? 18 ^--" MR. ROBERTS-Well, we do have several, but this one shows th~ handicapp~d and the ramp. This is the one that.. was r~ferring to from engineer.. just addressing that issue. But is there SOmeone here to speak on behalf of the applicant? MS. MICHEL-I'm Marion Michel. I'm here with Ralph Jameson, my contractor. If I could, for just a moment, one of the first things you mentioned was the disapproval by the Beautification Committee. I, appar~ntly they had a meeting last Monday night. I spoke to Mr. Eddy on Thursday. He told me that they did send me a notification of that m~eting. I nev~r r~ceiv~d the letter. I told him that I nev~r r~ceived the letter, that's why I did not go to their m~eting. The letter I received on Thursday. .stating their disapproval for this purpose. I spok~ to Mr. Eddy, as I said, and we'll agree to, wi thin reason, what~ver landscaping that the Beautification Committee would want. I also mentioned to him that this building, when I bought it, was a vacant building and I really feel that anything I do is going to be an improvement over what was there. MR. ROBERTS-So, they'll probably feel the same way and, in this case sinc~ th~ facility, basically, exists, I think, probably, we could send you to them after the fact which we have be~n known to do and, hopefully, both parties can come to SOme agre~m~nt because they can be very helpful. MS. MICHEL-Great. I don't know what happened to that lett~r, but I n~v~r receiv~d their l~tter notifying me of the meeting. RALPH JAMESON MR. JAMESON-On the size of the parking lot.. .10 by 20 and.. .12 by 20. W~ didn It figure the ingress and egress on Warren Street was safe, so we.. p~rmanent. We just usedoothe Highland, thatls why w~oothe Highland Avenue end, instead of the Warr~n Str~et. We figured on discontinuing the Warren Str~et. MR. ROBERTS-For the record, give us your name. MR. JAMESON-I'm Ralph Jameson, sales contractor. MR. ROBERTS-So this map does hold water? MR. JAMESON-Yes, this is the..to be used, but as soon as we get our permit, th~n we'll. . MR. GORALSKI-I would just ask, since we've had problems with enforcement b~fore, that if this does get approved, that somewhere on that Site Plan it be added that that road cut will b~ closed off. MR. ROBERTS-I would agree. MR. JAMESON-You'll get it in writing from me. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Just a question, from memory, something.. .that this bUilding, at the time it was called the Stone Crest, or whatever, was condemned, by the Stat~, for what reason? MR. GORALSKI-I donlt know. MR. HAGAN-Is it on the record? MR. GORALSKI-I donlt know. MR. HAGAN-I mean if it was, it must hav~ been for a good reason and I just wanted to ask what th~y were going to do to correct it. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe the applicant can t~ll you. MR. HAGAN-We're you aware, at one time, that this building was condemned. MR. JAMESON-After it was th~ Stone Crest, it was the Townhouse II and th~n, wh~n we purchas~d it, it was.. and then when John Doyle purchas~d it from me, he had apartments in there. They had no washing machine hook ups because.. . and h~ had welfare peop Ie in there, I guess, that were giving him a hard tim~ and h~ was trying to kick them out and I guess they were trying to do their best to ~ducate him, so the State got involved. 19 ',,-, --/ MR. HAGAN-Alright, that was the reason it was condemned, then? MR. JAMESON-Yes. MR. HAGAN-And you're not going to have apartments anymore? MR. JAMESON-No, no apartments. MR. CAlMANO-I'm more concerned, I guess, with the septic system. MR. JAMESON-Therels a letter there from Engineer, Ray Buckley, stating that th~y dug a t~st hole th~re. The copies went to John Goralski. MR. GORALSKI-I think it's attached to the application. MR. CAlMANO-It's in the applicant's packet? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. JAMESON-This test hole was done when th~re was two feet of wat~r and everybody ~lse..and we had no water in the cellar and we had two feet of room, th~n we hit sand and then we hit.. gravel and at 15 ft. 7 inches we did hit water, but Ray Buckley's letter stated...leachfield sustained the largest system for now. MR. ROBERTS-Does this give you SOme comfort, Wayne? MR. GANNETT-Regarding Mr. Buckley I s letter, the key point that h~ do~s cover is that, Number One, the apartment's will not be used anymore. I think that's a good point because he says he believes that the failure of the septic syst~m was caus~d by the discharge of grey water and that th~re will be a new grease trap provided and that the groundwat~r conditions were not bad when the test hole was done on March 22nd. I would fe~l more comfortable if Mr. Buckley rendered a stronger opinion as to how suitable the ~xisting l~achfield is for the continued use of the r~staurant and maybe h~ I S in a position to render a mor~ firm opinion on that. H~ hasn't really stated in the letter whether the leachfield is suitabl~ for continued use. MR. JAMESON-He designed one for us. So, if that one ever was to bother, we could make a change, but right at this time, it would really b~ an asset to us if we could start with what we have. MR. GANNETT-I certainly would have no problems with engineering plans as long as the applicant agrees that th~ylre willing to upgrade the septic system if there are problems in the future. MR. JAMESON-We've agreed to that already. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I believe that's been agreed to. r~port, here. Itls a part of the engineers MS. MICHEL-I have to because if there's a problem with the septic system I can run the restaurant. MR. ROBERTS-No, you probably wouldn't, not for long. MR. GANNETT-I would have no problem with an approval on that basis, Mr. Chairman. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Do we have anymore questions for the applicant? Again, it's a recycling of an existing building. I don't know that w~ would jump up and down about it, on the other hand, it's a.. MR. HAGAN-When did you start the renovations? MS. MICHEL-Some of the renovations, I bought the building in D~cember, the end of Decemb~r and som~ things have been done in conjunction with th~ people from 20 '--' '--'" the Town agr~eing that certain things could be done, but we ne~ded to wait for a building permit until we had Planning Board approval for making certain, doing certain other things. For instance, putting in the handicapped ramp, r~novating the bathrooms to make them handicapped accessible and putting in th~ grease trap for the septic system. MR. ROBERTS-These folks have just miss~d several months me~tings. MS. MICHEL-We've b~en trying since January. MR. CARTIER-Well, the only comment I would make, 11m a littl~ bit bothered, ther~ seems to be a lot of unfinished business, here, but I'm not going to hang it up on that basis. The only thing I would point out to you is, you are suggesting to us that you are willing to go back to the Beautification Committee and abide by whatever recommendations they offer. MS. MICHEL-Within reason. I'm not sure. I havenlt dealt with th~ Beautification Committee before. MR. CARTIER-That's the problem I have. We Ire going to give you a, I would certainly want to include in the motion that you do appear before the Beautification Committ~e. . . catch-22 situation, if you' r~ saying yes, Ilm willing to agre~, within reason, and th~n you go to th~ Beautification Committee and you decide what theylre asking for is not r~asonable and then you're back up in the air here as far as approval. MS. MICHEL-Well, when I spoke to Mr. Eddy on the phon~, he did not sound unreasonable. MR. CARTIER- I just want to be clear about that. I want you to understand this. MS. MICHEL-Yes, I don't think it's a problem. I really donlt because one of the things I said to Mr. Eddy, also, is that, if I'm going to have a nice restaurant, I want it to look nice. The nicer it looks, the better it is for my business. MR. CARTIER-I agre~. MR. HAGAN-It wouldn't tak~ much to make it look a whole lot better. MS. MICHEL-And that's what Ilm looking for. I want it to be a fine r~staurant and I would like to attract local people. Mr. Eddy asked me why I came up here and picked the spot I did. On~ of the things that I liked about it is that itls betw~~n Glens Falls, Fort Edward, and Hudson Falls, to attract local people. It I S not too far off the beaten track to, hopefully in the summer, attract some tourism, too, but I want it to b~ a year round business. MR. CARTIER-I just want to make the point that I think the property could be improved considerably with some landscaping. I think that's been seriously lacking on that property. It would make it much more attractive. MS. MICHEL-I do want landscaping. One of the things. that I said to Mr. Eddy is that I might have a problem with trees out in front because I don't want anything that's going to be tall and block traffic views of traffic for the intersection, but, like, the mounded landscaping ideas, either with the chips or with stone and then low shrubbery on top of that, I think is very attractive. MR. ROBERTS-That is a thought. be. . . I suppose a lot of plants in the corn~r could MR. JAMESON-W~ had a sign on that corner when we first bought the building and Mr. Bodenwis~r stopped and said it was grandfathered in because you can s~~ it blocks vision so I went out and took.. down. But we I v~ cooperated and the Town, as far as I'm concerned, has cooperated with us. We missed out a little bit on getting our, a little slow in getting started. MR. ROBERTS-You and I have talked on the phone for several months. MR. JAMESON-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, can we mOve this along? MR. GORALSKI-She did the short EAF. MR. ROBERTS-SEQRA. We have to go through New York State Environm~nta.l Quality Review Act, short form, I guess. 21 '--./ RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 29-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently b~for~ the Planning Board an application for: renovation of the existing structure for use as a restaurant at 34 Lower Warren Street and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involv~d. 2. The following agencies ar~ involv~d: None 3. The propos~d action considered by this Board is unlist~d in the Departm~nt of Environmental Conservation R~gulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Qu~ensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has be~n completed by th~ applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the r~l~vant areas of environmental concern and having consider~d the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of th~ Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and R~gulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will hav~ no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is h~r~by authorized to ~xecute and sign and file as may be n~cessary a stat~ment of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Is DOH involved? MR. GORALSKI-No, well, there are agencies, like Mr. Roberts says, there may be a necessity for a SPDES P~rmit, however, there is no coordinated review. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-90 MARION E. MICHEL, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For the r~novation of the former Stone Crest Inn into a restaurant with the following stipulations: That th~ ~ntrance to the parking lot from Warren Str~~t be blocked off or removed and that no accessibility be provided from Warren Str~et; th~ area b~tween the roads and parking spac~s should be developed in such a mann~r so as to discourage automobil~ access other than by the Highland Avenue access. Second stipulation: that the applicant appear befor~ the Beautification Committ~e and that the Beautification Committee recommendations be instituted by the applicant, within reason; that the comments made by Rist-Frost, 1, 2, 3, b~ incorporated; that handicapped parking be indicated as 12 by 20 and that handicapp~d access for your building be provided and that all stipulations be indicat~d in a r~vised sit~ plan map showing that the stipulations have been met. The applicant has agreed to upgrade the septic system, should failure of the present septic system occur. That that revised site plan map be submitted to the Planning Department prior to any further site work. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: 22 '-- -./ AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MS. MICHEL-When you say work has to stop, does that mean th~re I s no painting on th~ inside of the building? MR. CARTIER-You're doing that work already. MR. GORALSKI-The work that is taking plac~ now, just to clarify that for you, is work that the Building D~partment has determined does not require a Building Permit and, therefore, does not COme under the Site Plan Review section of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-So, you're free and clear to continue that. MR. GORALSKI-And, believe me, Mr. Hatin will not allow anything to take p1a.c~ until we tell him that th~ approved plans are in our hands. MS. MICHEL-Okay. MR. JAMESON-Believe me, w~'re not about to do anything. MS. MICHEL-W~'v~ been waiting patiently. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, you have. SITE PLAN NO. 30-90 RR-3A TYPE: UNLISTED ALBERT AND ELEANOR OUDEKERK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 623 BAY ROAD, 1 MILE NORTH OF TOWN OFFICES, WHITE FARMHOUSE ON RIGHT FOR A TWO BEDROOM BED AND BREAKFAST BUSINESS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 48-3-51.4 LOT SIZE: ±5.0 ACRES SECTION 4.020 C STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved with no comment and we did not request an engineering review because there were no exterior changes. MR. ROBERTS-Right. We have approved this kind of thing elsewhere in the Town. Peter, do you have any problems with the on~ across the str~et from you? I didn't think so. MR. CARTIER-I would have no problem with this one on Bay Road. MR. ROBERTS-I shouldn't have asked the question. Well, this is all pretty self explanatory. I don't know that we need the Oudekerkls to make a pres~ntation beyond what we see on pap~r, do we? Any other questions you can think of? They certainly have the acreag~ to do what~ver th~y need to do, if th~y need to do anything for it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GORALSKI-And this is an unlisted action. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. GORALSKI-So the short EAF should be reviewed. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 30-90, Introduc~d by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, s~conded by Nicholas Caimano: 23 "-- -../ WHEREAS, there is presently b~fore the Planning Board an application: to operate a bed and breakfast consisting of two bedrooms, or using two bedrooms, at the residence of 623 Bay Road and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review und~r the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agenci~s are involved: None 3. Th~ propos~d action considered by this Board is unlist~d in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Que~nsbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having consider~d and thoroughly analyz~d the rel~vant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining wh~th~r a project has a significant environm~ntal impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rul~s and Regulations for the Stat~ of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant ~nvironmental ~ffect and the Chairman of th~ Planning Board is hereby authorized to execut~ 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 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-90 ALBERT AND ELEANOR OUDEIŒRK, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To create a bed and breakfast busin~ss at their residence at 623 Bay Road. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN NO. 31-90 TYPE II WR-1A JOHN E. AND MARTHA G. SCHMIJLBACH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SEELEY ROAD, CLEVERDALE FOR AN ADDITION OF A 6 FT. BY 7 FT. UTILITY ROOM AND AN 8 FT. BY 16 FT. ON-GROUND DECK AT THE FRONT OF THE COTTAGE (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 16-1-51 LOT SIZE: ±D.22 ACRES SECTION 9.010 JOHN AND MARTHA SCHMULBACH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Plann~r (attached) MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County Planning Board approved and there's a brief ~ngin~ering comment. ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engin~er (attach~d) 24 "---" --../ MR. ROBERTS-Do you folks care to add anything to what youlve given to us, h~re? MR. SCHMULBACH-My name is John Schmulbach and this is my wife Martha Schmulbach. About four years ago we asked for and got an okay to build a house on this site, to tear this one down and about that time I had th~ opportunity of a lifetim~ of having my knees replaced. So, I went into th~ hospital and I scraped the plans for building a new house and now that I have new kne~s in place of the arthritic knees, I can, once again, walk and hope to get back into th~ hiking business to a limit~d degree because I' ve be~n a camper on Lake George and the Adirondacks for 40 years and as a senior citiz~n I'm now seeking shelter. I don't really like th~ outdoors as much as I used to because I can't take the elements. So, this is our little greenhous~ in the summer tim~. Th~re are two things that I have learned about in sitting through th~se meetings and one of them seems to be hazard and beautification. Th~ r~ason I'm seeking to put a platform in front, which is a ground level platform, is that the front, ther~ is a little concret~ box~d step there and when you open the door, it's a dangerous kind of thing to step back, you have to step back when you open the door. You step back and st~p down a step. That's fine if you're agile, but if your not agile, the door can knock you off the porch. I'm not quite that agile and sOme of my friends ar~ in the same g~neral age group that I'm in and we would like to increase the size of that step/porch area. It is not to put chairs out and sit ther~ and watch the cars go by b~cause we face Se~ley Road. As I envision it, and when you look at the pictures of the house, it' s mor~ of a beautification as w~ll as a safety measure in this respect. If you look at this picture, here, th~se are xerox pictures of th~ photographs. MR. ROBERTS-I think we're probably all pretty familiar with th~ property. We usually all look at it. MR. SCHMULBACH-You all look at it, alright. Instead of having just th~ littl~ concrete block between th~se two large windows, which is the main front door, that patio, so called patio, there, would b~ spread out along, balanced b~tween th~ two sides of the house so that it would b~ symmetrically balanced instead of just..concr~te barrier. Dean Hallen built, about 1950, when he put those houses up. That would take car~ of the appearance as well as the safety and th~n the little boxed storage area that we're talking about is in this lower corner h~re. We I d fill that in and we would use that for taking care of brooms and buckets and camping gear and ice containers and things like that. As it stands now, theylre in a hallway, which, using th~ word hazard, it is a hazard coming in and out of the back door, unless I put it in the living room and Martha hasnlt been too kindly about my piling all of my stuff and my boots in the living room. So, I still hav~ boots and 11m still going to get back into th~ walking business. Those are th~ two things. MR. CARTIER-You have no plans whatsoever to ever take that patio and enclose it into an addition or anything like that? As far as you're conc~rned it will remain just an open spot, patio area? MR. SCHMULBACH-Right. We sit in the back, when we sit, because the sun com~s back there, near the shed and it's a nice, warm, L-shaped place that you can g~t warm and fe~l the morning sun there or we go down to the Lake, which is about 700 feet walk down there. No, I don't propos~ to(TAPE TURNED) MR. HAGAN-John, I have a problem with nonconforming situations that youlr~ adding on to and when we were up to inspect your building, could you tell me what th~ original dim~nsions of the original structure was? In oth~r words, the part that you show as an existing flat roof, it's an area 6 foot by 21 foot wide. MR. SCHMULBACH-Right. MR. HAGAN-Wasn't that an addition to the original structure? MRS. SCHMULBACH-That was before we bought it. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but it was an addition. MRS. SCHMULBACH-I believe so. MR. the how HAGAN-Okay. Therefore, I'm asking you, what are original structure. It's 26 wide, but I can't d~ep it is without that additional sh~d plan. the original dimensions of tell, from th~se drawings, 25 "-' "-../ MR. SCHMULBACH-Let's see, it shows, the back view. MR. HAGAN-It's 26 foot wide. MR. SCHMULBACH-Okay, that's 26 f~et wide, nOw. MR. ROBERTS-Plus 6 feet, isnlt it? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. SCHMULBACH-Then you'd add 6 feet. MR. HAGAN-That was the addition. What I want to get at is, what was the size of the original building and here's my point. We start in with a structure. It's nonconforming. I tis grand fathered and then we come along and we ask for a variance to put an addition on. Then you COme again, several years later, and ask for anoth~r variance, for another addition and we were cited with a Section 78 because we denied approval or we didn't give approval on an addition becaus~ his addition was less than 50 percent of the original structure. So, I'd like to nail that down, specifically, on all nonconforming situations wh~re th~ additions, total additions, to the original structure, which is nonconforming at this point in time, be limited to th~ 50 percent addition. Now, have I made myself clear? MR. CARTIER-I understand. MR. ROBERTS-Well, this falls within that. MR. HAGAN-Well, thatls what I'm doubting. MR. ROBERTS-Doubting? MR. HAGAN-Well, they're adding 170 feet. MR. ROBERTS-It IS only 6 by 7. The other one is MR. HAGAN-One's 42 feet and the other is 128 squar~ feet. MR. CARTIER-If I understand what we saw out here, the original building is 26 by 27 fe~t and then a porch got added on to the tune of 14 feet by.. MR. HAGAN-No, 6 feet by 21 feet. MR. CARTIER-Six by twenty-one. Okay, at understand your point, but I'm not sure Ordinance MR. HAGAN-Well, I want to make sure. least that I s what I saw out ther~. I it applies here because the original MR. CAlMANO-What was the original, 26 by what? MR. CARTIER-If I'm reading this corr~ctly, 26.29 by 27.57 f~~t. I'm working off this. . MR. CAlMANO-That's a total of, for all practical purposes, 725 square feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay, 725. The porch is 6 by 21, which is 126 feet. MR. CAlMANO-If the original expansion is 126, now they're looking for MR. HAGAN-On~ hundred and seventy feet more. MR. CAIMANO-How much? MR. HAGAN-One hundred and s~venty feet more. MR. CAIMANO-One s~ven zero? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-So, 126 plus 170 is 296 divided by 7.5 is 40.8. MR. CARTIER-So what you I re saying is absolutely valid. I agree with what you Ire saying, but it doesn't apply here. 26 --./ MR. GORALSKI-The two additions are less than 50 perc~nt of the original building. MR. HAGAN-Thatls right. MR. ROBERTS-Correct. MR. CAlMANO-Right, 40.8 percent. MR. HAGAN-I'm just citing this b~cause they could come back in another three years with another addition, say, well, that's only adding 20 perc~nt, in reality, they'v~ gone over the 50 percent and thatls, I'm not picking on you folks. MR. CARTIER-Unfortunately, you'r~ sitting on the wrong Board. MR. HAGAN-The point is that w~ keep seeing these plac~s that have been grandfather~d and they'r~ the ones that keep adding and adding. MR. CAlMANO-Itls less than 50 percent, so youlr~ safe. MS. CORPUS-That's correct, Mr. Hagan. They do need a Zoning Variance to MR. SCHMULBACH-May I say something? I don't know exactly when the porch was added, but I doubt that it was, or I suspect that it was added about the time the tool sh~d was turned into a hQuse becaus~ Dean Hallen must have don~ it about 1950 and he built, none of the windows ar~ alike. We're going to make a couple of th~ windows so they're alike because he used what was left over from building projects to put the windows in, that's just an aside. The way I envision what happened back in 1950 is that, as he built these five little shacks there, and they've all been approved since then, and th~n come time that he wanted to s~ll them off, I guess he rented them out for awhile as individual units. When h~ sold th~m off, h~ just took a pencil and said, okay, w~'ll slice it up this way because there was no planning in those days, as far as I can tell. It I s just whatever the land owner want~d to do and he spun them off that way. MRS. SCHMULBACH- It's possible that the little surrounding area of the main shack which has a flat roof was built at the same time. MR. HAGAN-I had a question and it's been answered. MR. CAlMANO-Do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. GORALSKI-No, this is a Type II. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAH NO. 31-90 JOHN E. AND MARTHA G. SCIlKULBACH, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: For an addition of a 6 ft. by 7 ft. utility room and an 8 ft. by 16 ft. on-ground deck at th~ front of the cottage. Duly adopt~d this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CAlMANO-I just want to go on record. .most especially by you and by John.. Frankly, I took great exception to Dave Hatin's letter. I went through som~ sole searching with Mrs. Pulver about enforcem~nt versus what we do and I kind of came along to her way of thinking and that's why I kind of backed away from Phase I of the Cross Roads subdivision, but I got the impression that, I don't. I just felt that there was some pressure here that I really didn't like and I maybe r~ading this wrong, but it seems to me that Dave was writing a letter to us saying, I don't r~ally give a damn what you guys do, you can do whatever you want, but I'm holding this project up and that means Phase II and I donlt think, I gu~ss I felt. I don't know. I read this letter and I just turned red. 27 ---'" MR. HAGAN-You're a v~ry sensitive person, Nick. MR. CAlMANO-I know. MR. GORALSKI-I'm going to try to speak for Dave here, because I've been working with him on this project since ~v~ryone or th~ neighbors, specific neighbors, have begun and continued to complain about the progress that has taken place over ther~. Dave may be a little frustrated, as a matter of fact, I'm sure he is. We hav~ been dealing with that project across the street, every single day. People comp laining to us. Town Board members comp laining to us. There is only so much that Dave can do, legally. I think that was the point he was trying to make in his letter. Th~re are places within the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations that give the Code Enforcement Offic~r the right to stop a project. One of the specific sections that I think Dave was referring to is on Page 20 where it says, "If the Planning Board or Zoning Enforcement Officer finds, upon inspection, that any of the required improvements have not been constructed in accordance with the Planning Board recommendations or the approved construction plans or details, the applicant and the bonding company, if any, will be severely and jointly liable for the cOst of completing said improvements according to specification." Now, the developer, as I stated in my not~s, has repeatedly said, yes IIII do whatever you want, yes I'll do whatever you want and nothing has been done, okay. I think Dave was asking the Board to help him out. Maybe he was stretching it a little, but he was asking the Board to help him out by saying, look, you can not continue until you get these problems straightened out. You did not feel that you wanted to do that. Well, Dave feels that it is still within his rights to not grant any further permits to that proj~ct without straightening out the previous problems. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, I appreciat~ that and I appreciate the work that he does. Number On~, as Mrs. Pulver said last time and I totally agree, we are not an enforcement and, therefore, we can It go back to Phase I, except as the lessons are learned from Phase II, that IS Number On~. Number Two, he says, or accept any approvals for Phase II. As far as I know, he doesnlt have a choice whether to acc~pt. If we accept the approvals, he accepts them...but the approvals, unl~ss I misread that sentence, are not his to look or overlook, that's Number Two. Number Three, given all the frustrations, all I'm asking for is, that when we have our frustrations on our end, that he, and I understand that because there are some problems over there, that he listen to us, and not in terms of, and me, personally, just dismiss us out of hand. MR. GORALSKI-If he IS done that to you, personally MR. CAIMANO-Y~s, he did. MR. GORALSKI-That's between you and him. MR. CAlMANO-Well, he did it as an Officer of the Town of Queensbury in another context. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you know, if you have a problem with any of Dave's conduct, I suggest that you pursue it. MR. CAlMANO-AII 11m saying is that, he wrot~ this letter in which I question whether he has th~ authority to accept or not accept any approvals of this Board, that's all I'm saying. MR. GORALSKI-Well, Ilm not going to argue that point with you. MR. CAlMANO-I don't know, I'm asking. MS. CORPUS-The one thing I pointed out to John, earlier, was in regards to this Board looking at Phase II. It states in the Subdivision Reg I s for th~ final approval that "Final approval of the Subdivision Plat Plan shall be limited to that Phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board" and it IS right there in black and white. More or less, the Board appears to be limited to that. If the probl~ms in Phase I are also part of Phase II, then there's a possibility that that would also be reviewable, however, th~ way the Ordinanc~ reads, you are limit~d to the issues raised in Phas~ II. MR. GORALSKI-And, I donlt mean to disagree with our attorney and, maybe 11m not disagr~eing, however, I will go on record as saying that that job across the street is a mess and it continues to b~ a mess and live said this to Mr. DeSantis, that 28 ~ '--' I fe~l that the mess that has b~en made in Phase I does impact Phase II and I have ~xpressed that to him and I think what Dave Hatin was looking for was, basically, what Ilm saying now, that there is a problem and as we continu~ to give these people approvals, they do not fix the problems that they alr~ady hav~. Now, just aside from any probl~ms we have with Dave or with the developer, or anyone else, I think th~ reason the whole mole hill got turned into a mountain across th~ street is because, before th~ construction of th~ road was finished, a building permit was granted for a lot and the ownership of the lot was transf~rr~d and it got much more complicated. The int~rpretation of the Ordinance was that that was l~gal to do, th~ way it was don~, however, I think thatls what th~ problem, that's why the problem arose. It didn't arise from a poor approval by th~ Planning Board. It didn't arise by poor enforcement. It didn' t aris~ because of Phase II. The problems arose because of the sequ~nce of events and nothing else. MR. ROBERTS-The problem arose originally when we all, som~how, screwed up and that building got built too close to Bay Road. It should have been back 75 feet. We would have had a lot mor~ room to work with for drainage, but that' s wat~r under th~ bridge. MR. CARTIER-I hate sitting here with only four Board members because if there had been five Board m~mbers, I would hav~ raised a hell of a lot more concerns about that and I would have gone on record as being oppos~d to what we just did, with that thing across the street, but when we're sitting here, four peopl~, I don't like to b~ the only guy who put's the spikes in somebodyls cannon or whatever you want to call it. MR. ROBERTS-That's right. That's a difficult position. MR. CARTIER-We have got to get our act cl~aned up and get, that thing, tonight, n~ver should have been approved, as far as 11m concerned, not with that many stipulations. We're doing ourselves, we' r~ getting right back into this QEDC kind of deal, when you start making approvals with those kinds of approvals. I don I t know. I don't have an answer, but I hope w~' ve learned something from that tonight and maybe we're not going to make the same kind of mistakes again. MR. ROBERTS-It would also b~ nice if we had a full Board. MR. CARTIER-We'v~ also discussed a whole problem..Dave Hatin's letter and 11m bothered by the fact 'that I can It, every time Dave Hatin' s come to this Board asking for h~lp, I can It think of any time when we giv~n it to him and while you might disagree with the way he says things, I have a great deal of sympathy for Dave and the position he's in and I think he needs to get a hell of a lot mor~ backing out of this Board than h~'s gotten in th~ past. MR. ROBERTS-Well, perhaps he could b~ a little more diplomatic in the way h~ asks for it. MR. CARTIER-I think that's the nature of the job. I think we need to have somebody like that, in that position. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe. Well, I don't think we've ran rough shot over Dave, tonight. I think w~'ve addressed most of the issues. MR. CAlMANO-If you felt that strongly and you had spoken up that strongly, I could have stuck with you. I don't have any problems with that. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I appreciate that, but it's sitting here, in a four person Board, and it's really terrible. MR. GORALSKI-Once again, I think, you, as individuals, may want to make it known to th~ Town Board that you would appreciate another member. MR. CAlMANO-How do we do that? Do we keep feeding them names? What should w~ do? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I mean, I don't know, Ilm just saying, you know. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'll tell you how it's going to change, is.. five members and something goes down three to two or ther~' s four members and something goes down thr~e to one, then the applicants are going to start screaming at the Town Board. 29 '-- ..-' MS. CORPUS-Basically, if ther~ I s no action within a certain period of time, th~y get th~ir approvals which is not n~c~ssarily the corr~ct way, but this Board could pass a resolution requesting the Town Board to appoint a member or report back to you regarding the status of appointment of another memb~r to th~ Planning Board. MOTION THAT THIS BOARD REQUEST FROM THE TOWN BOARD AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY WE HAVE NOT HAD AN ADDITIONAL SEVENTH MEMBER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: We are in a situation wh~re we are in a meeting with only four members and it makes it very difficult to vote on issues. MR. CARTIER-What happens, is this in the form of a l~tter to the Board or what? MR. GORALSKI-Well, th~ Board gets the minutes of your meetings. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. They're not likely to be reading them as long as they are now. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, why don't you amend that, then, MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CHAIRMAN DRAFT A LETTER REQUESTING INFORMATION FROM THE TOWN BOARD REGARDING STATUS OF OUR SEVENTH MEMBER, Introduced by Peter Carti~r who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MOTION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduc~d by P~t~r Cartier who moved for it IS adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION, Introduc~d by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, s~conded by P~t~r Cartier: Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MS. CORPUS-For the last piece of business, I r~quest that the Board vote to authoriz~ Paul Dusek, th~ Town Attorney, to sign an amendment to th~ stipulation for th~ Earle Town settlement agreement. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE PAUL DUSEK, TOWN ATTORREY, TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE EARLE TOWN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, Introduced by Pet~r Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1990, by th~ following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillas 30 '-- On motion meeting was adjourn~d. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 31 . ---- "- LOCATION HAPS May 14th, 1990 Planning Board Meeting - OLD BUSINESS: Subdivision No. 5-1990 FINAL PLAN W. Eric and Carri~ Wil~y (See Staff Notes and map attach~d) Sit~ Plan No. 64-89 AMENDMENT OF 9/26/89 APPROVAL Dr. Robert R. Kana (See Staff Notes attached) Subdivision No. 21-1989 FINAL STAGE Cross Roads Park, Phas~ II (See Staff Notes attached) ~,.;~ .....f\ T .. ....................- - ......".,..-.T .JON~;. J. "¡ÞIAÞI.' . h) ...~... i I: ~...~ÅP,~...".¡J J"þ~.)L~T'~fJ"""""" . ....~..., ".1.1 Â.. 6~'" lU&.LJ' ~"I· , '" ~I"1Þ>Ito( 'ft~T''( .oJ"'. '0·1." WtW,.lAr-f tot. 15~1''''''''. . '-þ- z.- 1"1 ",. __ __....... ,.:1 ,/ -- . '-... ::MoVlD 6.4 Dtl. () It" lC..ff~1""'" 'þ" '1.-%0 ÄPfIU"'P~ U,..þ;tUtJlrY 4ILJ.I. '.....,.-1..1 '/0'. ",4.. NEW BUSIBSS: Sit~ Plan No. 27-90 John and Rosann Curran (See Staff Not~s attached) 1 N t .- IS" R~.serV.f'" Df'" t\.. . 'f P~tition for a Change of Zon~ P4-90 Karen L. Sommer (s~e Staff Notes attach~d) · · I · · · A~\~f' ~ I . \_ ~ . ,: i - ~ _ ~ alDOl .,.ø;¡ ..J I -"'C: I> "19" - .,,!!~..r I ....... ""I':'n~. . '- --" LOCATION MAPS May 14th, 1990 Planning Board Meeting NEW BUS.INESS: (Cont ' d) Petition for a Change of Zone Loomis J. Grossman, Jr. and Richard A. Grossman, Etal. (See Staff Notes and map attached) Petition for a Change of Zone P6-90 David E. Williams, Sr. (See Staff Notes attach~d) Site Plan No. 28-90 Duhnam's Bay Boat Co. , Inc. (S~e Staff Notes and map attach~d) Site Plan No. 29-90 Marion E. Michel (S~~ Staff Notes and map attached) Site Plan No. 30-90 Alb~rt and Eleanor Oudekerk (See Staff Not~s attached) -.I f, Site Plan No. 31-90 John E. and Martha G. Schmulbach (See Staff Notes and map attached) 4a. - - "- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY '--" pt_ftftiW\g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Semor Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Asailtant Planner Date: May 8, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area VariaDce U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDtel'pl'etatiOD Other: x SabdØiIIiœ: Sltetcb. _ PN1bDiury. ~ FiDal Site PIaa Røiew - - PetitiOD ffa" a CbaDge of ZODe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Applicatiaa Number: Subdivision No. 5-1990 Applicant'. Name: W. Eric and Carrie Wiley MeetiDg Date: Mav 14. 1990 ............................................................................................... It appears from our review that all of the previous comn1ents concerning this project have been addressed. If no new concerns have arisen I would recommend approval of this project. JSG/sed ~-_._-_.._._- ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. PC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS --/ POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 . 793-4146 518.793-4141 May 10, 1990 RFA #89-5000.505 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: W. Eric & Carrie Wiley Subdivision 5-1990 - Final Dear Mrs. York: With regard to domestic water service, the City of Glens Falls has confirmed that an individual chlorination system must be provided by those homeowners who have taps off the City's raw water main, and that is coordinated directly between the City and the homeowner. We have no further engineering comments. Very truly yours, ay~net t, P. E.. an~ñg' Project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members t~ GLENS FALLS. NY.LACONIA. NH ~ -----. . r ,^"t' ~: , i',~ I: , -/' u ',I Ire C'I) q, 0) ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I t£ADWALL MAP I J.-f,L¿- VI I E ~ .:c C J\:N D C Pre R:r: F-: L<.J':S LEy . - ----" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY planni-.g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 3, 1990 By: Stuart R;1~(f='r Ana Variace - Uee Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatioD SubdiYiåœ: Sketch. _ PreJimiDary, --X Site Plan Reriew - - Petition for a CbaDge of ZoDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal x Other: Revision AppJicatioD Number: Site Plan Review No. 64-89 AppJiCIIDt'. Name: MeetiDø Date: Dr. Robert R. Kana Owner - John Hu~hes l-lay 14. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is requesting a reVlSlon of the John Hughes Subdivision Lot I! 5 approval of September 26, 1989. The applicant would like to provide 13 of the 14 required parking spaces. The additional spaces would remain as green area for future use if needed. This seems like a reasonable request. The applicant has also requested permiss ion to decrease the driveway width on the eastern portion of the lot from 20 ft. to 10 ft. I recornI:1end that the Board deny this request. Such a reduced driveway width would limit driver Daneuverability and would potentially create a hazardous situation. No approvals should be given until the Board and Staff have had an opportunity to review the proposed changes on a revised site plan. SB/p\.¡ Ð~ "- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER D"fPARTMENT R.D. 2 CORINTH ROAD . QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12801 . PHONE 793-8866 A,me'lca~ oNater WorkS Assoc'atIon MEMBER THOMAS K. FLAHERTY, C.E.T. Superintendent . "'......... ~aWf~ì(, ,~ ~AY -71990~ RALPH V AN DUSEN Deputy Superintendent FILE COpy ILANNING . ZONINI , "'uæPARTMEN'" Lee York, Senior Planner Plaming Board t-Jsrbers Queensbury TOom Office Building Bay @ Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12801 SITE PLAN RMEW NO (¡; Jj - ¡ 'J Re: Baywcod Drive Dear Lee: An inspectiext has been made of the water mains and appurtenances installed in Baywcod Drive. We find that this installation has been made in accordance with the requirEllE!E1ts of the Town of QJeensbury Water Department said installatiext is hereby given appraI1al subject to Sectiext II of said requirements. Section II requires that the subdivider or his contractor be respatSible for the repair and maintenance of the installatiext for a period of one year frem the date of this approvaL Sincerely, K. Flaherty Water Superintendent '--' -..-/ Glens Fans Independent IJvino Ct. ¡-er .:w..-...¡_ ))~ilW[~1 t~ ~AY lð.199Q . ~ I.&.HNING & ZONi,> "'FP.RT~EN'" Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped May 9, 1990 Recommendations Present: Kay Cornwell, Chairperson Nancy Ca1ano, Secretary Sue He1ffrich Margo Burrell Joseph Denig Re: Site Plan No. 64-89 Dr. R. R. Kana Dear Chairperson: According to N.Y.S. Codes, Rules & Regulations, handicapped parking spaces should be at least 96" wide on the shortest possible route to the entrance. Exterior and interior accessi- bility should also be provided. Respectfully SUb~ N~~secretarY. on behalf of the Committee cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor Lee York, Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee Quaker Bay Center, Corner of Quaker & Bay, P.O. Box 453. Glens Falls, NY 12801, Voice (518) 792-3537 TTY/TDD (518) 792-3548 Ii - '--- --.,../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planni"g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 14, 1990 By: JQþ¡¡ >. CQnh¡ki Area VariaDce Uøe Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatioø Other: x Subdi~ Sketch. _ PrelimiDary. X FiDal Site Plan Rniew - - Petitioø for a CbaDge of Zœe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Application Number: Su1:Jdivision No. 21-1989 Applicant'. Name: Cross Roads Park, Phase II MeetiDg Date: ~1ay 14:, 1990 ............................................................................................ There has been extensive discussions on the work that has already taken place on this site. Throughout these discussions, the developer has repeatedly stated that he would do anything he could to solve the problems. At this point there appears to be one major stumbling block remaining. This is the puddling on the corner of Bay Road and Round Pond Road. At an on-site meeting between several Town Officials and the developer, it appeared that a solution \7aS agreed upon. That solution involved regrading the corner so that a portion of the vlater would drain toward Bay Road. After this fJeeting, Mr. Hatin spo~{e to the owner of the Prudential pr()perty. The owner of the Prudential property indicated that he had no probler:1 with the developer corning onto his property to solve the drainage problem. Several times during the review of this project there have been accusations made regarding the conduct of Town Officials regarding this project. l can state that se\'eral ¡own Departments have spent a great deal of tir..1e and energy on this project. ',"Te have attempted to w'ork with all of tlle parties involved. Hov.rever, we cannot physicaily do tIle work. David Hatin has submitted a letter regarding this project, and his feelings on how he would like the Planning :3oa!"d to proceed. JSG!sed ; ---.-.--- ~ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Oueensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 .-" M E M 0 RAN DUM '(,,)"ft¡I ~'¡4J"''''' 'J æ~~ ." ~ Wmll . ~AY 141990 ~ . 'I.ANN'NQ . "rI»A",.,.:~'N' TO: Planning Board FROM: David Hatin DATE: May 11, 1990 RE: Crossroads Park Subdivision Corner Blind Rock & Bay Road Dear Board Members: Please excuse my absence from this meeting to deal with the Crossroads Park Subdivision, but unfortunately I have a previous engagement to attend. However, I would like to go on record at this meeting stating that there are still problems existing with the Phase I part of Crossroads Park Subdivision and contrary to several comments made by adjacent land owners, I have been working on this diligently since the day it was brought to the Board's attention. However, even though we seem to have cooperation with the developers as well as the land owners, nobody seems to be moving forward to finish the project. As I stated to you in a meeting we had several weeks ago, my job is only to tell people what they have to do. I cannot do it myself, otherwise it would be done. Therefore, I am requesting that the Board not grant approval to Phase II until all items which have not been addressed in Phase I are complete. Also, for the Boardls information, if we have a problem getting compliance with Phase I approvals done, I will continue to take this position and will not allow any construction to go on in Phase I or accept any approvals for Phase II unti 1 such time as work on Phase I is done. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. jjd "HOME OF NA rURAL BEAUTY" " . A GOOD PLACE ro LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ~ AIST-FAOST ASSOCIATES. PC CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 . 793-4146 518.793-4141 - ~ ~~!J~ May 11, 1990 RFA #89-S000.521 'LANN'NG . ZON'N' . "EPARTMENT 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 21-1989 - Final Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. The Traffic Evaluation Report has been upgraded. The report concludes that the Blind Rock/Haviland/Bay Road intersection will be improved to a level of service C through the year 2008 with installation of the traffic signal, with or without this development. Blind Rock Road, west of Bay Road will go from a level of service C to D with development, with a year 2008 peak hour volume of 683 vehicles per hour with development vs. 489 VPH without development. Although this represents a decreased level of service, it is difficult to say whether, by itself, it is significant to Blind Rock Road. The pace of bu i 1 dout, and the presence of other development in the area will affect the actual traffic growth rate. . Over the short term, it may be advisable to monitor traffic growth in this area, with the new traffic signal in operation, and if necessary, work with the County and landowners on area- wide improvements. 2. An overflow spillway with rip-rap should be provided at the retention areas along with a maintenance plan providing for cleanout and repairs of the basins. It is recommended that the proposed retent ion bas ins be con- structed and stabilized before any other construction begins so they may act as sediment traps during construction. e GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH .. ~ Town of Queensbury Attn: Mr.s. Lee York Page 2 May 11, 1990 RFA #89-5000.521 3. Runoff from the north crosses the west end of lots 12 & 13. The appropriate clear flow path for this runoff should be maintained outside the retention basins. Very truly yours, ~T ASSOC ~~t. P.E. Manag~"P~~ject Engineer P.C. WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members ; ~ .. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ;- . I - Bay at Haviland Road. Oueensbury, NY 12804-9725-S18-792.S83[ 1 :. t C Ù p y 5/7/90 Queensbury Planning Board Warren County Planning Board /7 C J/ f t'~ ~. From: Robert L. Eddy, Chairman (J~ Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification Re: Subdivision #21-89 Bay Associates Bay and Blind Rock Roads The Beautification Committee urges that approval of this Cross Roads Park II stipulate that buildings conform as to architecture, plantings and signs. It is the Committee's opinion that conformity of these three features will result in the park being more attractive to purchasers and to the general area. "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ; . - ',,--, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY --/ pI.ftfti~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mra. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 8, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area V...... U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == IDterpl'etatioa Other: SubcImIiam SUtc:b. _ PreU.iMry, X- Site PlaIa Rerie.. - - Petition for a CbaDae of Zaae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppUcatiaa Number: Site Plan Review No. 27-90 AppUant'. Name: John and Rosann CUlTan MeetiDg Date: Mav 14. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicants are proposing a 24 ft. by 24 ft. two car garage addition to their existing one family house. Cun-ently they have a one car garage under the east end of the house. The proposed addition received the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 21, 1990. Although the applicant's property is not on a major road, careful consideration of health and safety factors at the intersection of Clark and Reservoir Drive should be given. The proposed location of the garage is such that cars leaving the property will have to back into the road. The distance from the driveway to the intersection will be less than 20 feet. 5GB/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 '-- --- .¡¡ ...........'...~ ^~ )~ilwr!:j I ',},," ""AY 1 J 1990~ May 10, 1990 RFA #89-5000.027 'LANNING & ZONINI "eÞ4ATMENT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: John and Rosann Curran Site Plan 27-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: The increase in stormwater due to the increase in impermeabl e area appears to be minimal. Proper erosion control measures should be provided during construction for the protection of adjacent properties. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST AS P.C. ~nett. P.E. Man~~g"Project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members (I) GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH ; Aa .. - ',,-, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY '-' pt_""i"g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 8, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area VariaDce U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == Interpretation Other: SuhdiYiIiaa: Sketch, Prelim' _ _ UUII"f, Site Plan Reriew X Petition for a ChaDge of ZoDe Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Petition for a ChanlZe of Zone. P4-90 Applicant'. Name: Karen L. Sommer MeetiDg Date: Mav 14, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application for Rezoning is presented as part of a request by the Adirondack Park Agency. In the recent rezoning of the Dunham's Bay Fish and Game Club (Tax Map Numbers 2.2.-2.-1.2., 2.) this adjacent parcel was left out. The Club property was rezoned LC-10A from RR-5A. The Sommer property was part of the RR-5A zone and is now the only parcel in the area which is still designated RR-5 acres. The property is 1.45 acres and is considered a preexisting, nonconforming parcel under the ClUTent zoning. Karen Sommer is requesting to be zoned LC-10A to conform to the zoning slUTounding her property. , , ~ -- ~ ~{i"" ~ - "-- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY c---/ PlJlnni"'g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 14, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area Variance Uee Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretation Other: Subdiftllioa: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary, Site Plan Rmew -X Petition for a CbaDge of Zoae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Petition for a Chani(e of Zone, PS-90 Appliamt'. Name: MeetiDg Date: Loomis J. Grossman. Jr.. Richard A. Grossman, Walter H. Rubin, Robert C. Baker Mav 14, 1990 ............................................................................................ After reviewing this Petition, I have concluded that the split zoning of this property was an en-or. I have attached a tax map reduction. The tax maps are our officially adopted Zoning Maps. It appears that at one time the Ames - Robert Gardens area was set out in small lots. The Warren County Real Property Tax Office is in the process of revising the tax maps, however, in reviewing this Petition it became obvious why our consultant placed the zoning line where it is located. I would suggest that the Board recommend the zoning line be moved so that the entire parcel (71-1-3) be included in the Highway Commercial 1 Acre zone. LA Y /sed { I ~l- I Ii- I L_ ---":~ -.-... -"-..-- .-.-- .. .----.. - r. - o , !O!..~ ..-, I i Nã .-----. ¡ !j I ! I : ~ r I I I I ;:' "" - , 6· ~~' :! . t!" \I) 9 o . I , , 0 I '!o- , , :1 e.~ D.~ =.I!! ... ..-- IIi; . !ill ~ .:,..:. ,.:¡;.~ , .. ---- ... ... I. ~.. -:- 1- \J! :t.: '.. ¡ . " . ! 'I . ~... . . -- ... t- - _ . , '. .. '..-- ~ .....-,-r-..t- ---- , ,'" . . I ' I I I . I I. " ¡ ,. \ \ \ \ ..IRI--' _____ '.0" , ::------'\ .. I L 00 f\//Y> 5, b(DSStttAN) ¡- R.., A-r\O R~(~ [) ~ 0 GroSs«\tW) 8~L-. I - - 8 -.. , -, I 1- T -r -'j -'"T' -~ -, I I I , I " .. -....j , '1 I i . I . ! I I I ...1.. ..; . . , I . I ,r) 't , I" I ! . .. .J. _ I - ".- --¡ . 1 . -.. ..-. .. 1 ~._.' -- i .. '. -- ~ -K~I . . :. . ·..f·· _.. ".---i , , t . . f L-- ··.---t- . .J I .. . -- - 1 -1 ._1_____. ~- --+ .. -- . . ..-.._--- -.., ..-- ¡.-- . , '1 I j .f . I ,.1 i .J "" Oi. ~: I I , ~. "1 . ~ .... 0"'- .__ I 4' . - - -." .--1 1 .j j - -- ~ , : - . " n_ -+ ....: -"-I ~. - -.. -+:- -- -'1 r . - -..- - 1-. --, - -j ~n -.: - -t- - '--"1 ï _·_--t-~--·Î ,'- . -..+ ---.--, '''--.---+--.- Î r-.-:----f- _:_, L-..J. . --'- - __. _--.J . I . ....., I I . I f· - - I -. . -.. ~ I. _. .~ I'" ·1 1- -_...~ L . -_.~ ... J . ,. ~ I ~ . - I ··--i r ·-..·....t ....::. --1 t .~-- -i .. -'..- -1 r - '- -f - -.- --j L. _.__. -1 __ ~ _ J -~ IIUn11.0 L ^- -- -~ 1_ . - ,,,'H""- --- )lftOl .. ~ ... ~ lie .- - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Mav 14. 1990 By: Lee A. York Area V8I'ÎaDce Uee Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation SubdiñlioD: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary. Site PIaa Reriew - --x- Petition fClr a CbaDge of Zcme - Freshwater WetJa:adø Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Petition for a Chansze of Zone. P6-90 Applicant's Name: David E. Williams. Sr. MeetiDg Date: Mav 14, 1990 ............................................................................................ The Williams' property was zoned Highway Commercial prior to October 1988. The Assessment records which were used to identify properties indicated that the Williams' property was residential, and the zoning was changed. The preexisting use and former zoning on the property does verify that lot 51-1-40 should be rezoned to HC-IA. This would limit the owner's ability to expand this residence, but allow an expansion of the retail sales use. The property is adjacent to a Highway Commercial Zone, and a rezoning would not be inappropriate. The applicant has a preexisting business (Williams Heating and Plumbing) on this site. Mr. Williams recently requested a Use Variance to build a storage facility in a Residential Zone. The Zoning BQard of Appeals resolution is attached. The applicant has stated that the Zoning Board misunderstood what his business is. He believes that his business is primarily retail sales. The Zoning Administrator determined it was a Light Industrial use. Mr. Williamsl Use Variance was denied (Resolution attached). A concern I have is that the applicant will continue to be prohibited from expanding even if the property becomes Highway Commercial. Light Industrial uses are not allowed in Highway Commercial zones. It would be advisable, prior to any action by the Town Board, that the applicant get a determination from the Zoning Administrator stating that his business is a Highway Commercial use. LA Y /sed 1" ~ --.- --- --- TOWN OF QUEENSBlJRY '~at HavII8I'IQ Road. OuHnsbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792·5832 -- -..../ Theodòre Turner, Chairman R.D. IS, Box 409 139 Meadowbrook Road. Queenabury, New York lZ804 Susan Geotz, Secretary 19 Winerest Drive Queensbury, New York 12804 TO: David E. Williams. Sr. RE: Use Variance Ho. 12-1990 RD I. Box 1504. Bay Road Lake GeorRe. New York 12845 David E. WiUiarns, Sr. corner of Bay Road at Route 149, blue ranch on right ATTN: David E. Williams, Sr. DA TE: February 28, 1990 Meeting Date We have reviewed the request for: Area Variance X Use Variance Sign Variance Other and have the following recommendations: APPROVED ~ DENIED TABLED RESOLVED: IIOTIOII 'fO DØ! usa VAalAIICB 80. 12-1990 DAVID B. VII.LIAIIS. sa., Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: The applicant is asking for a use variance to place a light industrial use in RR-)A zone. The applicant doesn't pass all the criteria necusary to pass the variance. He pruently livu in the singh family ruidence and has lived then for the three years since he . bought the property. I t is an allowed use there. the light industrial use here would be detrimental to the ordinance. The residential qualifications say that he should be providing openness. A light industrial building here wouldn I t be conducive to the ruidents near by. The hardship is self imposed. The property was highway commercial when it was purchased. The use he wants now wasn't allowed then. This should remain as a residential lot. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Ellleston PLEASE READ THE BACK OF THIS FORM 11wùt you. Approval of tbia appUcattOA meea that the applicant CaD now apply fOIl' a Suildial Permit \IDle. yoUI' laDd. are Adh'oDdack Park jurtadictional. S~4' 9~ Theodore Tuna.., ChainDaa QueeubUl'1 %oDiD1 Board of Appeala 'M'/_ ee Warren County Planning Dept. \ . - ',,-, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -./ plslW'ning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, SemOl' Planner Mr. Job S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Aui.tant Planner Date: May 8, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Ana Vart.ce U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == IDt_¡â'etatiaD Othen ~ Slretc:Ja. Prau---" X Site P1aa Rerie.. - - Petition fer a ChaDøe of Zœe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal ApplicatiaD Number: Site Plan Review No. 28-90 Applicant'. Name: Dunham's Bav Boat Co.. Inc. MeetiDø Date: May 14, 1990 ............................................................................................ As the application states, the applicant received a special use permit in 1972 for interior boat storage. The applicant cUlTently stores approximately 70 boats outside on the site. The Zoning Administrator has determined that a site plan review is required to continue this use. This site is very well buffered. It does not appear that this use has any significant impact on the development considerations set forth in Section 5. The Board should consider traffic flow between this site, and the site on the lakeshore with respect to transporting large boats across 9L. JSG/sed ~ 0 0 . -' 0 '-...- ~ 0\ II - N : - .-4 M W ~ ...I g 0 U <- H .' 'C) '-.)1 r-\ <t:-: ~: <n \~ ~ >Ic' , ~I~ ~, , I " <../'\ I ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ! it Ç) ~ - '< ':2 lit óo < t! :) a 0 It" ~ ~ .... I ¢ / " f ~ "- / '-. '" rv ~ "t" / " " õl .J ~ I " IJ.. / "- ~ 0 "- ~ ~ / "- ~ " l. a "- 4- -.. \ 0 .3 41¡ ..... " . ..... " . ..... þ-~ ..... \ I ...... ...... / ..... ~ I ...... I ~ \ ...... ..... .... q(~ ..... 1I:''i- ~¿ ~ .oQ ~ 8 s~ r--- / ~/ \ /' ./' / ,// .,. .....~. .."../'"'' .~ / ./ ,// / . - ~ ---./ 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, Assistant Planner Date: May 4, 1990 By: Stuart G R:::a1cør Area VariaDce - U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == Interpretation Other: SubdiYiåoa: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, X- Site PlaIa Reriew - - Petition fer a ChaDge of Zoae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Site Plan Review No. ?q-qO Appliamt'. Name: Marion E. Michp] MeetiDg Date: Mav 14. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing renovation of the former Stone Crest Inn for use as a restaurant. At the Planning Department's request, Rist-Frost Associates did a preliminary review of the application in April. The engineering comments on the attachEd letter dated April 16, 1990 should be properly addressed before any Board decision is made. I would recommend that the proposed ingress and egress on Highland Avenue be the only access point to the property. This roadcut shown on the site plan provides approximately ~95 ft., which should provide a 4 car stacking distance to the Highland Avenue/Warren Street intersection. The Warren Street access should be removed, as it would be unusable if all the parking spaces along the road frontage are occupied. The area between the roads and the parking spaces should be developed in such a manner so to discourage automobile access other than via the Highland Avenue access. Existing and proposed areas of pavement, as well as proposed green areas should be clearly shown on the site plan. SB/pw ~ -, _____________________n__ '--' TO~N OF QUEENSBURY -/ FilE COpy COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. -,12801 To. ex) Warren County Planning Board (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Date. 5/7/90 Res Site Plan #29-90 Marion E. Michel 34 Warren Street (corner Highland Avenue) We have reviewed the re~uest fors( ) Variance, ex) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendationss ( ) Approval (x) Disapproval This application has been disapproved by our Committee as data for landscaping, screening and plantings for the above applicant for a Site Flan Review or Variance has not been submitted or is incomplete. Would you please, therefore. refer the applicant to our Committee for approval of its plans prior to granting the application pending before your Board or before construction permit has been granted. You and the Building Department will be notified just as soon as plan~ have been approved by us. ~ Respectfully Submitted, ~/£: £,~ Robert L. Eddy r( Chairman -: ~ ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, PC CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS FOOST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 e 793-4146 518 e793·4141 '-- ~. ....,.......11.,. I)~awr~) ~\ MAY111990~ May 10, 1990 RFA #89-5000.029 'LANNING & ZONIN' .,eDARTMENT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Marion E. Michel Site Plan 29-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. SeDtic Svstem The applicant proposes to reuse the existing leach field and install a new grease trap and sept ic tank. If a 1 icensed engineer is able to provide reasonable assurances that the existing leach field will adequately function for the restaurant, we would have no problem with deferring the replacement leach field until sometime in the future. Since the design flow of the septic system is more than 1,000 gallons per day, the applicant may wish to get input from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the need for SPDES Permit. When a new leach field is provided, a percolation test must be done to verify the application rate. 2. Drainage and'Site Lavout If there is no increase in the amount of paved or parking area, then there should be no impact on drainage and we would recommend not requiring a stormwater report. However, all site plans in the Town of Queensbury must show dimensioned parking areas and indicate clearly the limits between parking areas and turf or landscaped areas. If any new paving is being done then a grading plan or, at least, spot elevations should be shown so that the contractor can grade the site to drain properly. 3. Parking Spaces If the existing septic leach field is retained, then it appears that the 37 required parking spaces are provided (1 space per 100 $ GLENS FALLS. NY-lACONIA, NH ~ '-' ~ Town of Queensbury Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Page 2 . May 10, 1990 RFA #89-5000.029 square foot under the zoning ordinance). If a replacement leach field eliminates parking spaces in the future, a variance may be required. Very truly yours, R~70ST AS ~~n.tt. P.E. Man~~g' Project Engineer P.C. WG/Cßil cc: Town Planning Board Members . , '--' -../ Glens Fa H:; In depe n 1:~ ;':: nt ttV;. n..... C, ti If·;\( '\,.,..q ,_ I . _. ". ,.,,~._. ... )P~W¡f~1 ~ ~AY lð 199C' ,J 'I..MNING & ZON'~ '"U~PARTMEN''' Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped May 9, 1990 Recommendations Present: Kay Cornwell, Chairperson Nancy Calano, Secretary Sue Helffrich Margo Bu rre 11 Joseph Denig Re: Site Plan No. 29-90 Marion E. Michel Dear Chairperson: According to Article 13 of the N. Y. S. Codes, Rules & Regulations, this restaurant should be accessible to the handicapped, including bathrooms, seating and parking. Respectfully submitted, /h ~~ Nancy c~cretarY. on behalf of the Committee cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor Lee York, Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee Quaker Bay Center, Corner of Quaker & Bay, P.O. Box 453, Glens Foils, NY 12801, Voice (518) 792-3537 TTV/TDD (518) 792-3548 ,. ,¡::;'" II 30 ~ .sc..{-1 .L\~ ., . ::::. '" f\A':tON (Yì.l. c. ""' ~ \ ( fo«.M. er S Tö;(¡r¿ (¡::'~\.T :c /IlN) .: ",: ~ /I () ("/../ Sr£L I 1 , o. q 5 ' c..... 3)1 I -Y" 'J IiA~1J I ' - l' t(,' ~I \ \ \qZl"; £U.5H(.ðW 'II I \ oS' f N ~ ~ ~tI~tr-f.8()'~E. ,- , ~ ~, .... ..... tJlÍ I C'f..I>-(1 '1P I ~I!. ¡ -flcÞ g""'" ~ f"t.,.r { I" U.!, If ~(f·.~' C~~ &. tJ· ':'1£.6 r ¡oJ. If D (2..*'" ~ 't ~ "< I 1.0 -c~~r~ - ..,} o t1DD ~,... ,.ÞJ'f/o ~cPTI' 1 pf/#f"'~ II1'1IÞ r-'l¡ ~,t(.. ~~~ ~ ¥ -1,. Tt.f' I " fll S 1 ttV ~.' . // 1- ,,,, C. I~~~~- 1;-:;:~~: &:~~~r"'l" 1-d·; l..... ":-~r" P/ /,!J I' II{ ~,O , II ~-f1 , . /'l,S 1.".0 1'.£ t '~f' BA.ÞMJ¡J \. ~ "' I:"" aJ ,,' 14. If. ,1'" '; . D,,,.,J1' " __ p~.rO~çÞ 56 '!;oF '" tal S"N IS'J.ti ~ -,.. tI. ,~'J1I. ' Þ r~".~~ 5ð.' ,~ 8 ,ø~ L L.,.J 1'5' H r. ,M'tP ~ I. J/./J. '<1,,} ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ~ " ~ "/ --._.----_....~-_.....-- --" -150' Ill:: µ !Sri-f.!.;' I)J A (l. If,.of;o ¡I/ : Jt> I STOCKDRAf'TING FORM NO. 101'" . - "--- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -../ PI-nni9llB Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, SeDior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Auiatant Planner Date: Mav 8. 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area V.... U. VariaDce - SIp VariaDce := IDterp-etatioø SubdmIiœI Sketch, _ PreIiIaiury, X Site P1aD Reoriew - - Petition for a Chuge of Zaae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppUcatiOD Namber: Site Plan Review No. 30-90 AppUc:aDt'. Name: Albert and Eleanor Oudekerk MeetiDg Date: May 14, 1990 ............................................................................................ Because there are no exterior changes proposed, I do not feel that there will be any impact from this project. The increase in traffic as a result of this project will be insignificant. JSG/sed " ~ ï!)s, - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY --' pI..ftft~ Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Semor Planner Mr. Jolm S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Auistant Planner Date: May 8, 1990 By: John S. Goralski ANa V.... U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == IDterpretatioa Other: ~ Sbtc:1a, _ PreUaiMrJ, . X Site PlaIa Rnte" - Petitioa far a CbaDøe of z-e - Freehwater WetJaDda Permit Fbaal AppUcatioa Number: Site Plan Review No. 31-90 AppUcaDt'. Name: John E. and Martha G. Schmulbach MeetiDg Date: May 14. 1990 .......................................................................................1.... The existing camp is very close to the neighboring camp. A variance from the setback requirement has been granted. The Board should decide whether this project has a significant impact on the neighbors aesthetic enjoyment of their property. That appears to be the only potential impact from this proposal. JSG/sed , ~ RIST.FROST ASSOCIATES. PC CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 -- .~. "-Wh...·' ))~aw~l ~~ MAY 111990 ... J May 10, 1990 RFA #89-5000.031 'LANNING. ZONIH' .,ePAATME~T Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: John E. & Martha G. Schmulbach Site Plan 31-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: The increase in storJllllater runoff appears to be minimal. Proper erosion control measures should be provided during construction for the protection of adjacent properties. Very truly yours, ~ROST ~~Gannett, P.E. Ma~~i~g Project Engineer P.C. WG/CJIIII cc: Town Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY-I.ACONIA, NH ; ·.. .. ~ --- ... l ; ." ., , .~ .. . -"',.. .!~~ .. "" .~ $PIA"" Hfa 'SLAI'IO .-- ". \/2 I I StALl ~IL(S 10'0' ::to h Y\ \7 . A r-JfJ m 1\1ZT11A G. '&},.... \J I Þr t