Loading...
1990-07-17 '--' -...../ QUEENSBURY PI.AlDfING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 17TH, 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 14-1988 PRELIMINARY STAGE Hickory Acres 1. &idney H. Timms Subdivision No. 7-1990 FINAL STAGE Patti Rathbun 2. Subdivision No. 6-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Sherman Pines 3. Charles A. Diehl Site Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton 20. d/b/a Docksider Restaurant Site Plan No. 48-90 Malcolm O'Hara 26. Community Workshop Resources, Corp. Site Plan No. 49-90 Site Plan No. 50-90 Site Plan No. 51-90 Site Plan No. 54-90 Robert Tyrer 29. Warren Electric Supply, Inc. 35. Michael and Trudi Calabrese 37. GF Elks Lodge 46. 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 PI.AlDfING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 17TH, 1990 7: 30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAlMANO CONRAD KUPILLAS PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN TOWN ENGINEER-TOM YARMOWICH DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 19th, 1990: Page 26, next to last paragraph, sib pride of authorship, not private authorship; Page 25, Mr. Cartier's speaking, in the middle of the page, third paragraph, third line, there's a phrase that says, "elusive explained" and it sib lucid explanation STAND AS AMENDED OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 PIELIMINARY STAGE SFR-lA HICKORY ACRES 200 FT. SOUTH OF SWEET ROAD AND 1,000 FT. WEST OF OOORTII.Y CLUB LOT SUBDIVISION OF 13 ACRES. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS TO APPLICATION FOR FINAL REVIEW. PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS JULY 18TH, NO. 64-1-5.1 LOT SIZE: 13 ACRES SIDNEY H. TIMMS ROAD FOR A 10 PERMIT A TIME[. Y 1989. TAX MAP MR. GORALSKI-I have a few comments I'd like to make. First of all, I hope everyone got in the mail a copy of the Plan because several of you were not on the Board when this was originally approved. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-You'll see in your packets a memo from Rist-Frost. The applicant has been working with Rist-Frost and those comments really don't have to be addressed tonight. They are for the Final submission and I assume those will be satisfied before the Final submission. MR. CARTIER-Does the applicant have a copy of those? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, he has a copy of those. MR. ROBERTS-Let the record show, he's nodding his head, yes. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-John's already said yes. MR. ROBERTS-Any questions from the Board? I don't have any problem with this, myself. Why doesn't somebody make a motion. MOTION TO PROVIDE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 WITH A SIX MONTH EXTENSION ON PRELDUNARY STAGE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 1 "-' --- With the following stipulations: That the boundary of the wetland be shown on the map and that the applicant obtain a determination from D.E.C. regarding the wetland, if any, prior to final approval. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Just for clarification, six months from when? Six months from tonight? MR. GORALSKI-I would assume, from tonight. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-One other clarification. For the record, my name's Lecn Steves. Your motion says to delineate the wetlands, if any, please. MR. HAGAN-Well, you're just hoping that we'll wait until December or January and it'll freeze up and dry up and go away. MR. STEVES-No, well, that's true, but live written a letter to..Ashline and asked if. .the wetlands and he is supposed to put us on his schedule either this week or next so that we can go out there and locate them, if any. I say if any because they expanded that map, recently, as John just pointed out and 11m not sure that this is true and, so, weill find out. MR. HAGAN-Because we had a very wet spring. wetlands? You I re saying they extended the MR. STEVES-No, they mapped their extension. They had a very large wetland shown between Bay Road and Country Club Road. They've extended that in a westward fashion and, to do that, it has to be a part of a larger, 12 acre parcel. It can I t be an isolated, one acre deal. It has to be 12 acres or larger to be on the wetlands map. MR. ROBERTS-To be a D.E.C. wetland, not necessarily a Queensbury wetland. MR. STEVES-D.E.C. I was told that the Town no longer has that. They let D.E.C. handle it. MR. ROBERTS-For the big ones. MR. GORALSKI-The Town of Queensbury wetlands map is the same as the D.E.C. wetlands map. MR. STEVES-I didn't mean to start this, but, if you could just say if any. MR. ROBERTS-It seems a reasonable request. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I don't have any problem with that. MR. ROBERTS-The second thing on the agenda we do not have to deal with, tonight, it's been determined that our 60 percent of certificate of occupancy for second and other phases of the project takes care of this problem of the request for Extension of Phase I. So, we don't have to deal with it. SUBDIVISIŒ NO. 7-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 PATrI 1IA'lBB0N OWBER: SAME AS ABOVE ¡£STERLY SIDE OF œIO AVEN1E TO DIVIDE THE SINGLE Lor WITH TWO HOUSES ON IT INTO TWO LarS, ONE Lor PER BOOSE. TAX MAP NO. 127-9-6 Lor SIZE: ±12,000 SQ. FT. STAFF INPUT John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Does the Board have any further questions about this? MR. CAlMANO-Individual septic systems? 2 -..-/ MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they each have individual septic systems. septic systems. They are existing MR. ROBERTS-The public hearing was held the last time. I think we're ready for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1990 PATTI IlATBBUN, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: To divide the single lot with two houses on it into two lots, one lot per house. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SUBDIVISIŒ NO. 6-1990 PIELDUNARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA SHElMAN PINES OWNER: œARLES A. DIEHL SOUTB SIDE OF SHERMAN AVEN1E 1,490± FT. EAST OF WEST MT. ROAD, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF ADIRONDACK PLANTATIŒS, PHASE I FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 46 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS IN TOWNHOUSE DESIGN, FOOTPUNT œLY TO BE SOLD, H(J{EOWNER'S ASSOC. TO OWN OPEN SPACE AND OOMMœ ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 121-2-22 Lor SIZE: 48.28 ACHES WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Read letter from Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent, to Planning Board, dated July 16th, 1990 (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MS. CORPUS-My comments for the Homeowners Association Document. This is the Preliminary document. There will be others that are submitted to the Attorney General for review. I do believe a special risk page and a same contract form will also be submitted. Those are just two of the things I'd like to see. After checking it over, I didn I t find any conflict with our Zoning Ordinance or our Subdivision Reg's and the Attorney General will review this before it can go to any prospective purchasers, so that will be taken care of. MR. MATHIAS-My name is Wilson Mathias. I'm an attorney with offices at 525 Bay Road. I represent Charles A. Diehl who is the owner/developer of this project. I come before you, this is the Pre liminary Stage. I think we've firmed up some of the details that have been previously discussed at the Sketch Plan level. I think we've done a much. .part of the drawings submitted to you. Youlve got a better idea of the actual size of these units. You can see they're going to be three bedroom units with approximately 1900 sq. ft., provide for one car garage and parking for one other.. I think that I'd like to poin t out a couple that we think we've done very well, in connection with developing this property. First of all, we'd be complying, completely, with the density requirements because of the available acreage and the number of single residential units that we propose. Secondly, I think what we've done is, althoug4 there are 46 units before you, we actually front, we've got two entrances on to a main road, I think, that this woul d be beneficial to public safety in terms of fire and also for access to and from the subdivision. One of the concerns that some of the neighbors had stressed at the time that Mr. Diehl received the variance for the four units which are on the most easterly portion of this property and, obviously, not part of this project, but still were part of the matters that come before you, we're concerned with some type of connecting road between Birch Road and Sherman Avenue. In other words, something that ran north and south between the roads and we don't do that, obviously, but what's proposed here, but what's proposed here is to really interior route to the south of Sherman Avenue. Again, what we've done with the routing situation, it makes good common sense for the Water Department. .to provide there. The other things that I think we've done pretty well, here, have to do with the fact that over 70 percent of this site is going to remain untouched. The clearing plan requires approximately an acre around each one of the dwellings and the road takes up about two acres. So that we Ire going to, on this subdivision, only really 3 --- ...../ effect less than, somewhere around 19 percent of the real property involved and I think, in terms of, when you compare that to the type of clearing involved in a grid subdivision or even a more traditional cluster concept, you see that we're doing a much better job of not disturbing these trees and the vegetation that already exists there. What we've done, in terms of, the other thing I think it unique in this situation is that the closest unit to Sherman Avenue is going to be buffered from Sherman Avenue, from the legal confines, as opposed to where the pavement actually is, actually I think it's a little more distance, but the closest one is 50 feet on that front row and that's that little two unit closer to the east and the farthest ones on that first row are 175 feet. So, I think we do a really good job of buffering these units from people who are driving along Sherman Avenue. Basically not, at the worst, you've got a 50 foot separation, at the best 175 feet. MR. HAGAN-Are you talking about south of Sherman Avenue, now? MR. MATHIAS-Yes, south, the whole property is south of Sherman. MR. HAGAN-Okay, well, in your letter you state here, 95 feet and 200 feet. MR. MATHIAS-Right, well, in terms of scoping it out, it looks more to me, to my untrained eye, as 50. a couple of weeks and, probably, have measured it. tonight, for the presentation, Now, you've had the plans for MR. HAGAN-It could be..you signed this, though. MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. HAGAN-I donlt like to be confused. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I'm correcting myself right now and I think that we're trying to be up front, in terms of what the setbacks are. Obviously, we're well within the setback requirements from Sherman Avenue. The other thing t hat we've done here is that the private driveways leading off the proposed public road there are going to be gravel. I think, again, t hit helps us in terms of the drainage and it also, I think, adds a little unique aesthetic quality to it, and also, frankly, helps us decrease the cost of what these units are going to be marketed at, rather than..and, again, welre well above the requirements for the absorption area for any of the lots. I think one of the Planning Board's concerns for a development along this concept has been that the tendency or the possibility of owners who buy a particular unit and then say, a deck would look great or a screen would look wonderful. I think our covenants and restrictions and the Home owners Association Plan make it very clear that what people are buying is simply the footprint and you're not committed to, obviously, build within any of the common space which is all going to be owned by the Homeowners Association. I think that the comments the engineers have raised, your engineers, I think we can address those, in terms of putting it together for the Final plan, because I don't think they're terribly extensive. We have submitted a drainage report by our engineers, Morse Engineering, and I don't know whether Mr. Naylor had a chance to look at that or not, but we're certainly happy to make it available to him, and if he needs any further detail about the drainage system, we're glad to provide it. I think the other main point I would like to make, really, is one that addresses Mr. Goralski's comment that he makes in connection with the concerns about traffic in the area. The fact of the matter is, is that the Planning Board and Town Board, actually, in adopting a Master Plan for this area, set a certain density. You, in particular, Mr. Cartier, know, and we don't want to belabor the point, here, but, in arriving at that plan, a lot of facts were taken into consideration, among them, traffic, in terms of providing a density. In terms of saying, t his area ought to, it can be appropriately developed to a certain number of houses per acre. In this case, it's one house per acre. Now, mathematically, we can compute, I think, as part of the Environmental Impact or our EAF, which you passed when you looked at both projects, the number of car trips that are generated by a project of this type. I would simply say that we sized this project, in accordance with the Master Plan that took into account traffic and we're not doing anything with this project that goes beyond, or does anything to trigger an increase in what the Master Plan contemplated for this type of a use. In fact, I would say the likelihood is, in terms of the size of the units, the fact that we've got only one car garages and also a hope to market these things at what we think is a reasonable price, that the tendency is going to be that you're not going to get a family with a bunch of kids and a lot of cars. I think that the other issue, really, that comes before you is, is this, you know, what we talked about, the first time, was looking at marketing these things in the $80 to $90,000 range. 4 '---' -./' Obviously, if we go forward with our engineering costs and everything else, thit number keeps increasing, because of the sandy soils out there and the change in the new D.E.C. regulations with respect to septic discharge, we're looking at having to spend more money than originally contemplated, in terms of complying with those regulations because of the fast perc in that area. We don't know, it used to be a wonderful thing to bui ld in sand and now pe ople are beginning to realize, hey, what are you doing to the Lake underneath. I think that that, again, because we've sized this project well within the Zoning Ordinance and within the Master Plan that I don't think that you ought to impose, on this particular developer, the requirements of the traffic study because, basically, he's doing what is allowed to be done, here. The other thing I think that's unique about this situation is that, as you all know, and what we III have to show you in our Final plan, there I s a mobile home park overlay zone which is just to the south of this property. I think that our concept of setting these units well north of that area, leaving the trees and the vegetation that already exists as a natural buffer, makes good planning sense in terms of the use of this property and, also, I think, allows us to have a use, because of the space is compatible with what's going on to the south, and still allow us to sell these things at what the developer envisions a fair purchase price. So, I think those are the main points I want to cover and I'm happy to answer any questions youlve got or anyone else. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, this is an excellent example of internalization of roadways which the Master Plan does promote. I guess we discussed it at Conceptional and, I think, perhaps, at Conceptional we also, it seemed to me, got beyond the point of traffic to addressing the SEQRA and I'm not sure that we need to re-hash that anymore than we have in the past. My only question is, when do we want to address the applicant for the waiver, perhaps we should hear from the public before we do. MR. MATHIAS-The other issue, here, is that, one of the requirements under the Subdivision Regulations is that the proposed developer has to locate the septic systems and wells of all adjoining owners. What we requested is that you waive that requirement and I think we've given a pretty good basis for doing that. Obviously, it's costly for everybody, but the main point here, is, Number One, we're separated to the property to the north with Sherman Avenue, the whole length of the property, there's setback requirements there. So, there's certainly no, there's a very large separation for anybody's possible septic systems to the north of the property. To the east, we've already given you thit information, in terms of the subdivision approval that you granted for Mr. Diehl in connection with the Adirondack Plantations, next door. To the west, thit property is the, I don't know the subdivision name, but it's Cranberry Lane and, again, a recent subdivision that's been approved by you that's served all by public water and so's, actually, Mr. Diehl's. The property is kind of a hodge podge. Some of them are on wells and some of them, Mr. Flaherty indicates to me, t hit some of them are served by public water. We I re requesting, however, that you waive this requirement because there's a separation that's in excess of what youl re requirements are between the separation of the well and the septic systems. Again, maybe my plotting maybe inaccurate, but it's in excess of 200 feet, I believe. As I measure it out, between where the proposed septic systems, from this unit, are, and our southern property line and, obviously, the other adjoining owners are not going to be permitted or aren't authorized to have their septic systems, you know, they're supposed to be set back, somewhat, from the property line. So, we think that should serve as a basis for you to grant us a waiver from this particular requirement. MR. ROBERTS-Well, unless the Board has any burning questions, I'd like to hear from the public. MR. CARTIER-I don't have any burning questions about anyt hing that was said, but what we do have to remember, here, is we have phasing, a phasing situation to address, here, at some point, also. MR. ROBERTS-Have you given any thought to that? That's a good point. MR. MATHIAS-Of course, who know's what the market's going to be like, right? Initially, we requested a waiver of that provision, basically, because we were so close to the 35 limit. I think, again, because of the current market conditions, my client's not here, but I think that what our feeling would be is that, we'll go with 35 and then come back, I guess. I would think that would make you happy. MR. CARTIER-Is that a firm commitment? MR. MATHIAS-Well, it is, particularly if you don't grant the waiver. 5 "'-- '--" MR. CARTIER-Well, my personal feeling, here, is that this is the first time since the new Ordinance existed that we've been looking at it. Secondly, you have a rather unique concept that we're sort of plowing new ground and to do that. .very much in terms of phasing. I hope it flies, but I think we have to be careful here. I don't like to give up the phasing portion of the Ordinance and Subdivision regulations the first time the issue has come up. MR. MATHIAS-I think they were close enough, in terms of number, here, so that I would withdraw that request. MR. CAlMANO-Given the excellent conditions and. . conditions , that I s probably the most..thing to do, anyway. MR. CARTIER-And as has been pointed out by somebody, it doesn't have to be 35 and 9. It might be 23 and 23, you know, 35 is the max, but keep in mind, if you go with 23, then you've only got to get 60 percent co I s on 23 before you have to go to Phase II. MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. CARTIER-There are different ways to play with this. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, we're worrying about the economics, as much for the applicant as for the Town. MR. MATHIAS- Ye s, and I think, obvious ly, he's concerned about those same things, in terms of building a road through the whole thing. If he normally sells what's- MR. ROBERTS-Right. Alright, let's open it to the public and it's been recommended that we first here anybody in the audience who cares to comment on this project that might be in favor of it. We will do it, those in favor of it, first and those that, perhaps, might be opposed to it, secondly. PUBLIC: HEARING OPENED WILSON MUNROE MR. MUNROE-My name's Wilson Munroe and I'm a very southerly property owner off Birch Road. By the way, gentleman, I didn't get your letter in the mail. The post office lost it. My neighbors gave it to me. I have not seen much about this. live heard a lot about it and, from what I see of it, 11m ify. I'm kind of glad that they are doing something out there and Mr. Diehl's got a pretty big mess to clean up because it's the local dump for everybody. We've had a lot of fires out there. In fact, there was just one here about a month and a half ago. So, this is going to put a stop to a lot of this. Also, there's one area that's right where theylre going to be building, that's where the kids used to have a lot of pot parties and beer parties that I had quite a problem with and I've had cars and motorcycles and snowmobiles running through my yard and in my trailer and everything else at all hours of the day and night. So, I finally dropped trees and everything else to stop that and, as far as the land, for drainage, is concerned, I know what they're talking about. Drainage is excellent up there. You can't keep water around. It's very dry, but you're water level, over where I am, and 11m on a well, you hit water at 30 feet. You'll run out of it and I'm down 56 feet and I have, all within 8 feet of the ground, all the water I want. I do have a question on what they're going to do about Birch Road. Are they going to block that off completely? Because I know, over the past 20 some years I've lived there, we've had a traffic problem through there. It's a dirt road. live asked the Town to close it off. They can't, it's a fire lane and, as a personal man from the fire department, myself, there's no way you're going to get a fire truck through there, at least not now. They have a traffic problem through there. There is a six inch water main that comes right up the end of Birch Road and, if we went straight out to Sherman Avenue, there's another water hydrant. My only question is, they're saying they want to close that off. I've been trying since Mike Brant was a supervisor and, right up to this very day, to get that road put on through for fire prevention. Also, for better patrols and everyt hing else in that area and to stop the problems that have been out there. I understand ,now, they're going to close off. The Town, I've talked with Mr. Borgos and I talked with Mr. Kurosaka. They promised that they we're going to put the road through. We I ve built a new fire station up on Luzerne Road. It's just a mile from that point, my yard to that fire station and that'd be the quickest access to Sherman Avenue we have. As it is now, they're going to travel another two and a half to three miles around West Mountain Road to get back to it. They 6 -- -./ had one other.. because. . tried to go between Luzerne Road and Sherman Avenue and that was blocked off. So, we only have two accesses to Sherman Avenue through either fire station. It's either ..Road or West Mountain Road. That was my only question on blocking that off, but if they do block it off, I hope they make it so that nobody can get in and out of there and I hope Mr. Diehl has some fun with this because my neighbor just told me last night that there's been several tractor trailer, tandem type trucks dumping stuff out there in his field and I I ve gone through that before, turn all this stuff in and was just politely told it I s the land owners problem. We had rats and everything up there and now it's getting back the same way. So, I'm kind of in favor of this going in there to stop this problem. I see no problem with it, myself, with the buffer zone or with anything else. I just had the question on the fire end of it, personally. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thank you. I guess the answer to your question is, you do plan on blocking that road off? You made that statement. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, as far as we know, the Town doesn I t have a road. I mean, Birch Road doe s not run through thi s propert y. If it doe s , it doe sn I t show up in any abstract of title and the Town certainly doesn't work it, doesn't exercise any type of ownership over it, but, yes, and, actually, what we got from the first time, it seemed, at least, when we were here on the variance, is the bulk of the neighbors, to my recollection at the ZBA meeting was they didn't want us to have any kind of through road, so I think that I s one of the reasons we went with this kind of a route. MR. ROBERTS-The gentleman made reference to another attempt that had been made in the past and I think we still have some hopes that another road, in fact, can go through. I don't think that's a dead issue. I hope it's not. Thatls still my understanding. Anybody else who would like to comment, preferably in favor of this, at the moment? LEE REEVES MR. REEVES-My name is Lee Reeves. I live on the northern side of Sherman Avenue. I'm, tentatively, in favor. I haven't seen any major objections, yet, myself. I did have a couple of questions, though. One, you mentioned a footprint concept. I'm a little fuzzy on that. I take that to mean that the consumer would purchase the property and the house, and so forth, ~uld not be allowed to have like a back yard, for instance, that went all the way to Sherman Avenue where you could cut clean and that type of thing. MR. MATHIAS-We've..a zillion of these things. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, maybe that deserves refinement because it's a little different concept. MR. REEVES-I havenlt heard that before. MR. ROBERTS-The common area will be controlled by all the owners under strict regulations. MR. MATHIAS-With this survey, we just tried to show the general location of all the units, plus the other land holdings that he's got thát have the four plexes on it. Let me just find a good example of \\bat we're selling, but, basically, what someone is buying is just one fourth of this, okay, it's a 45 by 26 foot footprint. The Homeowners Association will own all the rest of this land, including the driveways and everything else. I think I've got a better picture. MR. ROBERTS-And the restrictive covenants on this are rather extensive. MR. REEVES -Right on the southern edge of Sherman Avenue, for instance, t hat would be specified to be a green, vegetative buffer? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. There are going to be 46 buildings up here and that I s it. No other construction whatsoever. MR. REEVES-Okay, I didn't understand. I wasn't clear whether the homeowner would have access to clearing that. You did mention they couldn't build decks. MR. MATHIAS-No. Here's a kind of schematic, not a schematic, but example of what we I re talking about. This would be one four unit, okay. Each homeowner would get a garage, but this would be two units and this is two units and that I s all they get. They won I t own anything to put a deck, to do any extension of the property towards Sherman Avenue. 7 '--' -....../ MR. REEVES-Okay, that clears it up. Thank you very much. The other question I had was, it shows that loop road going into the ingress and egress on Sherman Avenue at two locations. I know the Board, in the past, has always tried to keep roadways into an existing, I think Sherman Avenue is classified a main thoroughfare, I don't know what the exact classification was, type of road that they want to keep the access to a minimum. I notice you have two accesses. Do you know where these come out, specifically, in relation to the other roads. For instance, maybe, on the north side, Algonquin and William Taylor, up in there. That's kind of hard to tell from.. MR. MATHIAS-To be truthful, I don't think I can tell you. With this schematic, again, we're showing, basically, things to the north, although. Let me see, I've got a tax map representation I think may show you that. MR. CAlMANO-Wouldnlt this do it? MR. MATHIAS-Yes, right, it's the first sheet. MR. REEVES-While he's checking that, I might comment, it seems to be a generally well thought out design and development and I haven I t seen any really objections, at this point. I just have these two questions for clarification. MR. MATHIAS-And you can probably judge it better than I can, but if you look, this is approximately 263 feet, the entrance way on this side. So this other point is someplace down here. MR. REEVES-So, you're, actually, down east of Algonquin. MR. MATHIAS-Right, there's not going to be a four way intersection with any of the buildings. MR. REEVES-Then this does not actually come over from Cranberry, right? MR. MATHIAS-Right, it's strictly, internally within the subdivision. MR. REEVES-Thank you very much. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, sir. Anyone else who has a similar viewpoint on this? If not, we'll hear from people who might be in opposition to it. TOM HAMMOND MR. HAMMOND-My name is Tom Hammond. I live on Upper Sherman Avenue, north of this proposal. One of my main concerns is, of most of us in here, is the short notice of this thing and this is under Old Business. The first I've heard about this proposal was last Thursday. I work shift work, so it's been hard to get information that I might better have to judge this whole thing. Plus, another comrrent I have is that there's units that were built before, most of us like the residential one house per acre setup, that's what the neighborhood is, up where I am and that's what we'd like to see continued, the quality of life in Queensbury, but we got steamrollered once before and they put apartments up down below us and we were told, by lawyers, that no children are going to be in these apartments. At the time, I don't care if there's children or not, the point was, there are children there now. So, it seems like these people are willing to tell us anything, but after they build and sell and leave, then things change because the apartments below me are really deteriorating. No one's keeping them up. So, I don't care about the cost because, eventually, the market might get even more depressed and they have to sell cheaper and, eventually, they're going to get run down, that's my main concern, that we didn't have a lot of time to study this and I was really shocked to see that it's under Old Business because I would have liked to have more time to study the situation. That's my main concern, that I haven't had any time and this is a pretty big thing going on in my neighborhood. Cranberry Lane I'm really happy with. The houses are nice. It's more of the neighborhood atmosphere I'm looking for and I've lived there about l3, l4 years. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-I might try to explain that to you. We see these projects, usually, a minimum of three times, conceptional, preliminary, and final and the public hearing is held at the middle stage, at preliminary, tonight, and that's why youlre here and so we can get everything out on the table, that's what a public hearing's for, to explain this to you. 8 ~ -....../ MR. HAMMOND-But some people were sent letters when there only eight units and we never had that letter, even, and that's why 11m a little upset. I never heard about this until Thursday and it does effect me and where I live. MR. MATHIAS-Can I just say that we believe we've complied with the notice requirements. My client posted the sign that's required and the fact is, if you're within 500 feet, which is, there are 92 property owners who got certified letters. I've got them and will file the originals with Mr. Goralski and I think we gave them the requisite notice that's set forth within the regulations. I would just say that the likelihood is, that the reason you didn't get notice of the apartment unit subdivision was simply because you weren't within 500 feet and the other thing, just as a point of clarification, is that my client had nothing to do with the original apartment application, didnlt build them and he made no representation when the Planning Board got the approval and didn't make any, my guy, didn I t make any promises. These units do have three bedrooms and the likelihood is that there are going to be kids there. The other thing is that, in terms of, with the layout of this property a development such as the Cranberry Lane just isn't going to work out. It I s going to, Number One, result in a lot more roads, all of which are cul-de-sacs because we've got no place to put them, which is going to have more people entering, at various spots, onto Sherman Avenue and the other things is, it means, frankly, that the lots are a little bit less desirable because of the proximity of the ones to the south to the existing trailers and stuf f. So that, that's basically the reason that it's lined up, but these are not apartments. This project, people are going to buy one of these units. They're not going to rent them. They're going to purchase just as a homeowner would and a Homeowners Association is going to have all that green area, buffer area, have to pay for the snow removal of the driveways, etc. and pay the insurance, in terms of the property and it my client are going to have to deal with the junk that's already there. MR. CAlMANO-I think a part of Mr. Hammond's concerns may have also been answered by Peter. Do you want to go through that phasing again. I heard him concerned. I don't think Mr. Hammond understood the phasing portion that these pe ople have to go through, \\bich helps prevent what you saw down the road. You want to go over that again. MR. CARTIER-The point of phasing is for uS to get a handle on development. In other words, before he can come in for the second phase, and get approval for the second phase, he has to have made good on the first phase. One reason is, \Ie don't want to end up with 46 units unsold. Worst case scenario, we only end up with 23 or 24 unsold units. My personal opinion of this is that I think this type of development, the way it's laid out, itls going to have less impact on the neighborhood than if we put 46 single family units on 46 single acres because now youlve got 46 lawn mowers, okay, and so on and so forth. Plus, a considerable amount of this is wooded, but, again, I'm offering that purely as my own opinion. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we all like the clustering concept. We're promoting that in the Town because it has some benefits both to the developer, for costs, and for the Town, less roads to maintain and a lot more open space that's being..a lot more buffering. Is there anyone else in the audience who cares to comment with some comrrents, perhaps, that havenlt been yet made. MR. HAMMOND-I just have one more because if you take that picture, there, and you put it in that closet and you close the door part way, that's where his client had his sign. I just saw the sign yesterday, after they told me it was up. It wasn't out there clearly. I just feel I'm getting a bum rush, here, and I've lived there 13 years. MR. ROBERTS-Well, \Ie' re not giving final approval tonight. This is the public hearing and you do have further time, another month, in which to get more involved and to make more comments. This is the way the system works, right or wrong. JAY MCADAMS MR. MCADAMS-I Avenue, right said you were correct? have a few comments. My name's Jay McAdams. I live on Sherman next door to Tom. A couple of things I was concerned about. You going to go with septic systems and did you say wells, is that MR. MATHIAS-No. MR. MCADAMS-Okay, it would be Town water then? 9 '--' MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. MCADAMS-Now, ~uld you say, let's say the average person moving into that place, more than likely, a couple is going to be working two jobs and they're more than likely to have two jobs? Is that, just to get back to the track. MR. MATHIAS-All I can say is that we I re designing three bedroom units. The likelihood is, in this society, that two people will work. I think one of the things, we haven't done a specific marketing plan, frankly, because there's not enough units to justify the cost. It would cost a lot of money, but the fact of the matter is, that we're going to try to market these things forootheylre close, here, to West Mountain. It may very well be that these units, some like the Summit at Gore where you have people from the Albany area, wherever, come up and are going to ski on the weekends and nobody's going to be there during the week. I don I t know. If we had individual ones. What are you going to do? Are you going to put in restrictions and say how many cars can go there? I mean, one family could have 15 cars. MR. MCADAMS-Okay, my big point is, Sherman Avenue is a very fast road, right now. I don't know whether youl re aware of it or not. I live right on the road. It's a very, very fast road. If you put more cars on it, obviously, there's going to be more traffic, faster cars. I have a son, 20 months old. I can't let him play out front and I'm just concerned, you put more cars out there, it's going to be faster and what's going to happen next. MR. ROBERTS-Well, you live on a major collector road in the Town of Queensbury. Obviously, you should not let your son play in the front lawn. MR. MCADAMS-Yes, I know, but is there a point where it stops? MR. ROBERTS-We've addressed that point in the Master Plan, as Mr. Mathias has said, and the zoning is geared to making the highway system to handle this kind of density and I don't think we can knock him for what he's trying to do. MR. MATHIAS-Just as an example and I think your concern is right, but I mean, \lelre doing what it's zoned for. If we had the foresight to come here a month before you adopted the Master Plan, \Ie could have five times the number of units there. I mean, it was zoned SR-20 which is, basically, five units to an acre. So, \Ie make it a five. .\Ie're just living within what the regulations are right now. MR. MCADAMS-Just another question. The road closer to the City of Glens Falls, now exactly where does that come out? MR. GORALSKI-It's just past the bend in the road. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I can tell you exactly where it is, in terms of our property, but it's someplace, I think this property is owned by the City of Glens Falls. It somewhere right out in the middle of it. You can see where the property sort of hooks. MR. MCADAMS-Okay, the only other thing that might be bad for you is that that goes right into the City of Glens Falls dump, right there. I believe they dump all their brush there and everything, just as a point. Other comments, I don't really have any other ones. I found out, really, \\bat I wanted to know and that wa s about it. I wanted to find out more about the deve lopment. Again, 1 ike Tom said, \Ie were very vague on what was going on. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's why we're here tonight. GEORGE PENNA MR. PENNA-My name is George Penna and I live at 208 Upper Sherman Avenue. I happened to be here at that last meeting when we talked about the existing units that were up. My whole point, with this entire plan, basically, is what I talked about the last time, is that I object to this type of housing, whether it be four or five family units, in this area. I think that the Planning Board or Zoning Board has already made accomrrodations to this SR-l. I happen to have just built a house in the area. I've been in it for 14 months. I picked this area of Queensbury because I felt that it was going to be that type of single family residence type setting. The apartments were down there. I was aware of them 10 '--' '- when I moved in and I thought that would be the end of it, okay. The last time I was here, it was brought up that these apartments that are down there, now, are, I believe, they're about 50 percent occupied and 50 percent unoccupied. I don't that this is the type of area where you're going to find people that are going to want to rent apartments and I think proof of that is what I s existing there now. MR. CAlMANO-These are not apartments. You have to buy these. MR. PENNA-Okay, it's just the wording. townhouse? I understand it a four family home MR. CAlMANO-But it's a whole different, you have to shell out money. It's not a matter of rent. It'sa mortgage. MR. PENNA-I understand, but if I was going to shell out $90,000 or $100,000, I would buy my own private home as opposed to one.. MR. CAlMANO-But that's just the point in argument to you, Mr. Penna, and that's the fact that you're not going to get just some old schmuck to come up with $100,000 to buy that piece of property. MR. PENNA-I understand that. I would still say, though, I would much rather and I prefer, as a resident there, to see single family homes. Someone made a comment that 46 individual homes might be worse than 46, whatever you're calling these, town homes, okay. The 46 homes there, assuming that people have two cars, as most do, you're looking at about 180 cars, minimum coming in and out of this at full occupancy, as opposed to 46 times 2, if you're looking at single homes. A three bedroom apartment, I would think you would also have to take into account that some of them might be teenagers with additional cars. If you have one garage to park the cars, youlre going to have a lot of cars on the road and I think, in the winter time, the people that plowing those roads are also going to have a problem. MR. CAlMANO-Have you read the covenants regarding parking? MR. PENNA-I know what they are. MR. CAlMANO-Have you read the covenants of this? MR. PENNA-No. MR. CAlMANO-There is a very specific covenant covering the parking and where those cars must be, by law. MRS. PULVER-And if you have 46 single family detached homes, one on an acre, each æving two cars, you have 92 cars. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MRS. PULVER-If you have 46 homes, quadra plexes, two cars per family, you have 92 cars. (TAPE TURNED) 46 homes and 46 homes, that's what they're building. MR. PENNA-No, but each one of the homes that their building holds four families. MR. PULVER-No. MR. ROBERTS-No, each four plex is divided into four parts and a person is going to own a quarter of that building. MR. CARTIER-We have 46 dwelling units, here, okay, single family dwelling units, divided among how many buildings, spread out over how many buildings? MR. MATHIAS-Fourteen. MR. PENNA-So, at the completion of the entire project, all you're looking at is 46 dwellings? MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. PENNA-I thought there was a lot more than that. 11 '~ ..-- MR. MATHIAS-There's no increase in density. obviously MR. ROBERTS-I think he's got it now. Just to help clarify things because, MR. PENNA-I understand now. have anything to do with the bui ldings and there was also a variance on at that time. I have another question with regards to, does this previous meeting where we talked about the existing a 10 acre lot back there that they were asking for MR. ROBERTS-A separate project. MR. PENNA-It's not incorporated into this at all? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. MATHIAS-No, I just showed it there it to.. MR. PENNA-I I d just like to finish by saying I object to the entire project. I'd still like the SR-l that the Planning Board has said should be in this area and thatls a single residence, one family home. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe, Peter, youl d like to comment what he I s allowed in that SR-lA zone. MR. CARTIER-Thatls, basically, what I was going to say. SR-lA is suburban residential and is not to be confused with what's called an SFR zone where only single family residences are allowed. There are a number of things allowed in the SR-l zone and if you are living in an SR-l zone and you want to know what is allowed there, I sug~st you check with the Planning Department time. I'm not going to go through it now, but there's a lot more than just a single family residence on one acre of land. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, if you want to get an idea of what the concept is, you just drive down Bay Road, here, and look at Bay Ridge. Their density, I mean, we're one fifth of that, we're 20 percent of the density, but that's what they look like and, frankly, my client thinks that someone would rather buy one of those units in the woods than out in a field, thatls what we're hoping for. The other thing is, I would just say that if you put 46 individual houses up there, I can guarantee you that more than 14 acres of land is going to be disturbed. Each person out there's going to want a lawn MR. ROBERTS-This is the advantage of clustering. advantages. I think there I s some serious RUTH GOLDMAN MRS. GOLDMAN-My name is Ruth Goldman and I live at 3 Amy Lane and I have just a couple of questions. I'm not sure what Homeowners Association does, but, conceivably, could these people decide that they want swimming pools, tennis courts? MRS. PULVER-No, they only own the footprint. MR. HAGAN-It's spelled out in the covenant that I just handed out. MRS. GOLDMAN-And I'd just say, I am in favor of the clustering thing because I like to see as much wildlife left up there because there's fox and racoon and I'd like to see them have their space. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think it sounds like we I re trading one kind of wildlife out there for another. MR. ROBERTS-There's certain advantages to development sometimes. LOIS HOLMES MRS. HOLMES-My name is Lois Holmes and I live on the corner of Cranberry Lane, across from one of your units, there. Conceptually, this is a step forward, I believe, in quality to Queensbury and. .one acre is.. \lell, this is a little bit different, but it does go within the rules and regulations. I have a couple of questions, though. First, the 60 percent occupancy. It means that, after that, you can go ahead and finish it, is this correct? 12 '--" MR. MATHIAS-In order to take, well, they can tell you better than I can, but, as I understand it, in order for us to come back and give you all notice and everything else, we have to sell 60 percent of the MR. GORALSKI-No, you don't have to sell 60 percent, you have to have 60 percent completely constructed. MR. MATHIAS-Right, in other words, we could do what some developers, we're not going to do that, I don It represent a contractor. MR. CARTIER-Don I t tell us what you're not going to do, tell us what you're going to do. MRS. GOLDMAN-The second thing is the buf fer zone. I believe you quoted, here, 50 feet and 175 feet. I, personally, I am on the corner of Cranberry Lane and I would like to see maybe 250 feet from the road inside..on all sides. MR. MATHIAS-I'd just say, is this you up here(referring to map)? This is the corner. MRS. GOLDMAN - Ye s . MR. MATHIAS-I mean, we don't have a unit, this is you, this is the corner. MRS. GOLDMAN-This is Cranberry Lane? MR. MATHIAS-Right, this is Cranberry Lane. This is the map that they're looking at, so we donlt have anything within, this would be the closest unit. MRS. GOLDMAN-Okay, fine. Well, I'm not concerned aboutooI'm not only concerned with myself, 11m concerned with everyone there on Sherman Avenue. We all like the privacy. We live there and we would like to see it, the buffer zone, extended. I don't like the idea of 75 or 150 feet. I would like that, possibly, a resolution or something and, also, make sure that it's only 46 units, never can be changed. MR. CARrIER-You can It. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. HAGAN-What would you do if you had 45 individual homes? Theyl d only have to be 15 feet back. MRS. GOLDMAN-Yes, I understand that, sir, in Queensbury, but this is a conceptional idea. This is a step forward to the quality of life, so why don I t we really step forward and think about it. I have deer in my yard a lot. I have racoons out there. I would like to preserve this. Also, my neighbors would like to have this. MR. CAlMANO-If we approve this, it's going to be approved as you see it. MRS. GOLDMAN-Okay, then I'm on record asking for.. MR. CAlMANO-okay. MRS. GOLDMAN-Thank you. MR. CAlMANO-And just for the sake of argument, I did a little multiplication. If we did this, in terms of three quarter acres for each of these people, that would give them 35 acres that would be used up and not l4. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, it would just clear a lot of space. Just another thing, just to respond to you, I think, again, we're trying to deal with these issues and I think we've done a fairly good job. The one that's closest to the road and also, I think, that I s closest to any of the other units, is the one that's a two unit that's closest to the existing apartments. MRS. GOLDMAN-Down on the east side? MR. MATHIAS-Yes, right here. I mean, this is 1400 feet from the renewal. welve got a lot of road frontage. Itls l,OOO feet, anyway, and youlve get 50 acre s. I think got to 13 '--' MRS. GOLDMAN-I would and I've seen where you can clarify it. really know. really like to be clear on that because I've been out there the point of entrances are and I'm kind of confused. Maybe You must have a scale on the map, or something, so we could MR. MATHIAS-Boy have I got maps. I I ve got 14 copies of 85 different things. I'd be happy to have you to take a look at these, but I think Mr. Goralski can measure out the distance, at least, from this side. MR. GORALSKI-From Mrs. Goldman's property, you're 350 feet. Cranberry Lane, you're 150 feet. From the lots on MRS. GOLDMAN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-The duplex is 100 feet from Sherman Avenue. MR. MATHIAS-See, I misspoke the second..I used the wrong ruler. MR. HAGAN-This is why I question you in the beginning, because your correspondence, here, is June 22nd. This is the latest developed statement on the setback. If you followed this, youl d get a little better response from the neighborhood. MR. ROBERTS-The setbacks, we think, are rather extensive there. It's extraordinary, I think, to ask for more. I think we'd be pressing our luck a little bit, here. MR. CAlMANO-You know what it sounds like to me, too? final approval, tonight, right? This is not final? There's not going to be MR. GORALSKI-Preliminary. MR. CAlMANO-It sounds, to me, as if, that there is really not so much anti-this project as a lack of comrrunications and I wonder if it I S not a good idea for Mr. Diehl or yourself or whoever to hold some kind of an open house in your of £ice and show all of these things to these folks, because I don't hear a lot of really, "get this guy out of here" talk. I hear a lot of "I don't understand this". Mr. Hammond, obviously got notified late in the game which is, of course, \\by we have these periodic steps, so everybody gets into this thing, but that's what I'm hearing, am I wrong? MR. HAMMOND-No, you're right. MR. ROBERTS-I think welve answered most of the questions. DAVE 01 BRIEN MR. OIBRIEN-My name's Dave O'Brien and I live on Cranberry Lane. We came up yesterday and picked up a map of the proposed subdivision and we've got a different map than what Mr. Mathias has up on the board, here, showing the units a lot closer to Lois's property than it is up there and that's What we're going by. MR. CARTIER-What you have, I think, at Conceptional, W:1ich is the first map. is the map that was presented to this Board step of this process. This is the updated MR. ROBERTS-Well, therels some of the old maps still hanging around, obviously. MR. O'BRIEN-I do have a few questions on this subdivision. First of all, I think that, you just brought it up, is talking about the lack of information on that, maybe you should consider postponement so people could get further information on that. MR. CAlMANO-That' s why we have months of preparation. MR. 0' BRIEN-I have a couple of questions. Mr. Mathias, one that I heard was concerns about traffic, right over here, from the Staff and the second time, Mr. Mathias gets up and says I ask you not to consider traffic. Well, 11m not sure which way it goes because, if you're talking about 46 family units going on to Sherman Avenue versus a low impact unit, all those units coming out. So, I'm sort of curious about that. Why not look at traffic concerns. MR. ROBERTS-We're not changing the density, versus what? l4 '--' MR. O'BRIEN-Well, you're increasing the traffic flow coming on to Sherman Avenue, at this point. If you put those units in, you're going to increase the traffic unit. .exists now. MRS. PULVER-No, the traffic study, When it was originally done, was done on Sherman Avenue as if the road were fully developed, which meant they looked at it as being 46 single family homes and I don I t whether they figured two cars per family, one car per family, or whatever, but when the original traffic study was done, am I right, John? MR. GORALSKI-No. MRS. PULVER-Was it as if it were fully developed? MR. GORALSKI-The way the traffic study that Warren County produced and C.T. Male produced for the Master Plan was simply traffic counts on the road, as of that date, okay? Then the Zoning Ordinance was developed, based on those traffic counts and what the traffic engineers and the committee developing the road could handle in increased traffic, that's why this was zoned one unit per acre. It was felt that Sherman Avenue was at a level of service and it could handle the increased impact of one unit per acre in that area. MR. CAlMANO-But the point was this, just to answer your point, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Mathias was not asking us to. .those traffic studies. What he was pointing, and it was a pretty. .point, \\as that this Board, absent me and a couple of other members, \lent through an arduous process of zoning this Town with densities in it and it took into consideration, at that time, the traffic as it would be. So, what he I s saying is, use those numbers, don't bother me now and, in fact, he may be right. MR. 0' BRIEN-He may be right, but there seems to be a little misinformation, here. MR. CARTIER-Maybe I can clear this up. Level of Service A is the best traffic we can have, outside of zero traffic, okay. It's goes from A to F. I'm not a traffic engineer. Somebody jump in and straighten me out if I misstate something. MR. GORALSKI-Thatls right. MR. CARTIER-Level of Service A, out there, is what it was in '88. When it starts to grade down to Level C is when we start taking some serious looks at some problems. We donlt like to be grading down to Level of Service C. Where's a place where we've got C Service? MS. CORPUS-Right here. MR. CAlMANO-Right here. MR. CARTIER-Problem before or after the light? MR. GORALSKI-Before and after the light. MR. CARTIER-When it gPt to Level of Service C, is When they put the light in? MR. GORALSKI-Was when they decided to put the light in. Now, that's, the point being that with the development of the Town Hall and the Highway Department and Cross Roads Park across the street, that Level of Service has not changed because of the light. MR. CARTIER-You cannot, at least I can It, ask the developer of 46 dwelling units to do whatever he has to do to make sure that the Level of Service stays at A because there's gPing to be other things that impact the traffic. MR. 0' BRIEN-I understand what youl re saying. However, we're not saying that. We're also hearing, in different words, that if this unit is marketed as they expect it to, they plan on putting further units in there. MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. O'BRIEN-Would you think..in a different phase? MR. GORALSKI-Forty-six units will be split into two phases, okay? go in a build 46 units all at once. They can't 15 '--' --./ MR. O'BRIEN-Are we talking about 11 buildings with 4 buildings, or, 11 and 1 or 2? MR. GORALSKI-There are l4 total buildings, okay? There are 46 total dwelling units, that's the maximum they can possibly put on this site, okay? MR. CARTIER-He can have 400 phases and all he can have are 46 dwelling units. MR. O'BRIEN-Can he come back, two years from now when he get's them sold" and want to put another roof because there's a lot of room in there? MR. CARTIER-No, because now he IS got, he IS met the zoning of one dwelling unit per acre, 46 units on 46 acres. MR. HAGAN-We have to correct the record. You said 14. MR. GORALSKI-Isn't it l4? MR. HAGAN-That's 56 acres. MR. GORALSKI-Eleven, I'm sorry, twelve. MR. O'BRIEN-As I read the Zoning Ordinance, it's one principle building per acre. MR. CARTIER-Thatls correct. MR. 01 BRIEN-Right, one principle building per acre and each one of those units, is one principle building. MR. ROBERTS-No, it's not. It's each dwelling unit is a principle building. MR. CARTIER-It's crystal clear to me. All he can build is one dwelling unit per acre. Now, he can put more than one dwelling unit on one acre of land, but he cannot exceed a total of, in this case, 46 dwelling units on that 46 acre piece of property. What he I s got is something called a cluster concept which is also addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. O'BRIEN-And I don't understand what he's talking about, the waiver of the septic system? I mean, \\e sort of went over that real quick and I don't think anyone. . tha t . MR. CAlMANO-Because it hasn't been done yet. MR. GORALSKI-Would you like me to do it? One of the requirements in the subdivision regulations, When they present a plan for preliminary approval, is that they show, on the plat, all of the septic systems and wells of the adjoining property owners so that the Board can look at it and say, \\ell, you're not going to contaminate anyone's well and your well is not going to be contaminated by anyone's septic system. Theylre putting in a water line so, obviously, their wells, they don't have to worry about. As far as the wells of the surrounding property owners, the separation distance that's required by our Septic Ordinance, I believe, is 150 feet. None of their septic systems are within that 150 feet of the property line, so they couldnlt be within 150 feet of somebody's ~11. MR. 0' BRIEN-What's the relationship to the relatively high water table at that location? MR. GORALSKI-Nothing. The waiver's gpt nothing to do with the design of the septic system. It's just locating the neighbors septic system. MR. CARTIER-I think I hear another question in there, though. Let me see if I can ans~r it. He has to put in septic systems that will not contaminate the groundwater and that's been addressed by engineers. Our Town Consulting Engineers are looking at that. MR. CAlMANO-And he also has to get a SPDES Permit, right? MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. 16 '--' -/ MR. CAlMANO-Yes? MR. ROBERTS-Okay, yes, that's right. MRS. GOLDMAN-What's a SPDES Permit? MR. GORALSKI-A SPDES Permit is a permit by the Department of Environmental Conservation for septic systems. MR. MATHIAS-If I can cut to the quick, here, on the waiver. The Planning Board requirements say youl ve got to give them a lot of information and we have this survey which is in four things and 11 additional sheets to help them provide that. If wa have to set up a meeting, wa're going to do that, but in addition to saying who owns this land adjoining it, the requirements say, tell us where this guys septic system is and where his well is, okay. Now, Number One, \\e know that everybody over here is on Town water. In fact, you should be on Town water if you live on Cranberry Lane. MRS. HAMMOND-We have a separate well. We live right across the road from Cranberry Lane. MR. MATHIAS-But you're on the other side of the road, okay. I mean, \\e're 300 or 400 feet from anything on the other side and we know that the drainage goes south and southeast of.. but what we're saying is, \\e know that these folks are on public water and, actually, they have records that they're that septic systems, where they should be, \\bere the developer said they ware going to be. We know this is on public water over here, these four units. All this stuff is vacant. We know where these septic systems are. What we I re asking them to do is to not have to go out and identify these people to the south and say, where is, do you have a well, Number One, because some of these people do, and, Number Two, tell us where your septic system is, that's what welre seeking the waiver and we're saying, \\by should we have to go through the cost, time, and expense of that if the closest septic system on our property is over 150 feet away and, also, I would add to that, another reason for it is, unless we go out and dig them up, how are we going to know where they are, anyway. MR. ROBERTS-We're not going to give this waiver if there's any danger here. MR. HAGAN-Sure. MR. ROBERTS-We're protecting your interest. Donlt worry about it. MR. CARTIER-The point is, this is a public hearing and thatls exactly what a public hearing is designed to do, is to raise some questions. Now, one other quick comrrent on this material that's being handed out that you get to carry home, that we don't have to, is the fact that that I s not chiseled in stone. There are going to be some changes made to that, \\bat you're looking at, in reference to answaring questions raised by engineering staff, planning staff, legal staff, and so on. So, understand that if and when you come to the final, you see a different map from the one you've got, understand that those changes are being made in response to concerns that have been raised. (END OF FIRST DISK) 17 '- -/' MR. HAGAN-What we're trying to say, we have an advantage. all this stuff. We've been through MR. 0' BRIEN-My question on the buffering between Cranberry Lane and the proposed subdivision, is there going to be a wooded area between those units, so you're not looking right Over into people's yard? MR. ROBERTS-We have, one of those maps, that shows that, actually. MR. OIBRIEN-All the bushes, all the shrubberies will be cut? MR. ROBERTS-We're going to cut as few trees as possible and, in this case, it's not a problem because we're not cutting too much. MR. MATHIAS-Just to clarify one thing, we're going to have l2 buildings will be out there. Eleven of them will contain four units, to make 44, and one will have two. MR. 0' BRIEN-My final question is that, Mr. Mathias brought up earlier that they hope that people from Albany come up and buy them for skiing lodges. My real concern is what would happen, the same thing that's happening at Queen Victorials Grant, where people come in and buy 5, 6, 7, 8 units and turn them into rental properties and that's a tax advantage. So, rather than the landowner building them and renting them out, now pe ople are buying these things and putting them out for rent. So, it IS my concern thatooturned around in there, if you take a look at some units in Queen Victoria's Grant, t heyl re starting to deteriorate, at this point. MR. MATHIAS-I don I t know who's going to buy them, but I can tell you this, the density at Queen Victoria's Grant is, again, five times what we I ve got here and the fact of the matter is, welre not even going to pretend to market these things at $60,000 in hopes that we get some..I mean, they've got to go for $80, $90, or $100. MR. O'BRIEN-You can always rent them out for high figures to cover that. MR. KUPILLAS-I think people can rent their private homes, too, if they wanted to. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. KUPILLAS-I think $90,000 compared to $57, there's, obviously going to be a $40,000 difference, that's a little tougher to rent and a little less speculative than $57,000 Queen Victoria's Grant. MR. MATHIAS-We won't promise it can't happen, but I just think, with the purchase price, it IS not very likely. MRS. PULVER-Yes, and this Board can't put any kind of condition on this, make them promise it canlt be rented or, you know. MR. 0' BRIEN-I understand you can't put the regulations on, but it is a concern that everyone should look at, especially with the clustering technique. MR. ROBERTS-Well, we're also concerned with trying to provide affordable housing in the Town. Thank you. Well, I think we've probably heard most of the discussion from the audience. Does somebody else, do you have something that hasn't been brought up? GARY CARMOSEN MR. CARMOSEN- Yes. Gary Carmosen, Upper Sherman Avenue. Could I have approximate footage from Cranberry Lane to the first entrance way, how many feet that is. MR. CAlMANO-Sure, John. MR. GORALSKI-263.90 feet. MR. CARMOSEN-I knew it was eit her real close to my neighbors house or my house, that entrance way and my biggest concern is having the entrance way across from my house. I've got 96 car lights shining in my window every night when I'm trying to sleep and I think that's very distracting. ..build up single family dwellings, 18 -.-/ "--'" it would be different entrance ways, probably, two or three more, because they'd have to go to build more streets to accommodate that many single family houses. MRS. PULVER-Not really. MR. CARTIER-I'm not sure that's true because as came up in an earlier comment, we try to cut down on the number of road cuts, so you still might have.. MR. CARMOSEN-You'd be able to do it with two streets? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe with a big circle inside or something. MR. CARTIER-The reason we donlt want to go with one is because of safety and fire concerns and so on. MR. CARMOSEN-Again, that's very distracting to my property, but, if there's nothing we can do about it. The other one seems to come out across from dead property where there's a landfill and that's going to bother no one, but I'm real concerned about that entrance way. MRS. PULVER-If they were single family on lots, half acre lots, or one acre lots, I mean they could have 5 or 6, 7 cars, but because they're only going to own their footprint and a driveway, they'd be lucky, max, if they stacked them and had four in a driveway. I mean, I suppose, if they stacked them up, they could have four. So, you're really better off having it this way then you were if there were 46 lots in there and they could have double wide driveways and 8 or 9 cars each. MR. CARMOSEN-The other thing is, Who's going to be the maintenance to these lots? MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's taken care of by the Homeowner's Association and each of the owners are going to have some responsibility, apparently, \\bat the legal term is. MR. MATHIAS-Basically, in addition to whatever they pay for the purchase price and they're taxes and the rest of the stuff, they're going to have a monthly common charge of something, in terms of maintenance of the grounds and everything else. One of the things that, again, comes into our thinking, in terms of What we want to price these things and for your concerns about what goes on later, ~ want to keep those charges to a minimum, so there's absolutely, you know, this disclosure plan and everyt hing else, t here are no plans for swimming pool, tennis courts or anything else because they don't want to increase the cost of the monthly maintenance. MR. HAGAN-Besides, I think that driveway going out will be elevated slightly above Sherman Avenue. So, When the cars come out at night, the headlights won't be coming down and shining.. MR. CARMOSEN-Okay, thank you for your time. MRS. GOLDMAN-Could I just ask one thing? Essentially, it looks really good and everything else and I kind of think it's not going to be too bad. I believe in doing things right the first time, so I still have one main concern. First, okay, the zoning, right now, is for 46 units. What happens if, down the road, they change the zoning? I mean, we just changed it back in '88. What happens then if everything isn I t in? Is there a possibility something could happen and they could put more in? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I would suggest that you volunteer for the Citizens Land Use Advisory Committee and you could spend two years helping rewrite the Ordinance and..youlre concerns. MR. ROBERTS-And attend public hearings when you're asked to. MRS. PULVER-I doubt they'd increase the density and, even if they changed it, tbeyld probably make it 3 acre, right? MR. CARTIER-In the Master Plan, right now, the big if, in terms of increasing density, is if services are provided, like sewer and so on and so forth, and Town water, at least out in that area. MR. ROBERTS-But public hearings. this can't be done without a lot of Town Board involvement and You'll know about it. 19 '-- '-' MRS. GOLDMAN-Alright. MR. ROBERTS-We've addressed SEQRA, previously, on this. We are talking Preliminary approval. The applicant already knows about a few things that the Engineering Department wants addressed. I'm not sure we had a lot of things come up, tonight, that are definitive, that need to be. . changes . If we like the concept, and I think we still do, I guess most of the public is more familiar with what's going on. I think we're ready to have a motion. MR. HAGAN-Did you close the public hearing? MR. ROBERTS-No, I haven't. I think, perhaps, I can close the public hearing. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE PJlELIMlNAltY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1990 SlIERMAN' PINES, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For development of 46 single family units in townhouse design, footprint only to be sold, Homeowner's Association to own open space and common acres. Subject to this motion are the letter's submitted by Tom Yarmowich from Rist-Frost and those concerns he has should be addressed by the applicant; also the letter from Paul Naylor, the Road Superintendent, that his problem is going to be addressed; and a phasing plan is to be submitted. Final plat and mylar should include a note which reads the developer shall assume full responsibility for all grading in this subdivision and accept the letter of waiver from the developer, concerning the location of septics and wells of neighboring properties. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-What about Karla's letter? MR. MATHIAS-We're happy to submit the additional document at ion that the Town Attorney's office is requesting. MR. ROBERTS-Something that can be handled at Final? MS. CORPUS-Thatls fine. SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 T1PE I WH.-1A J. PAUL BARTœ D/B/A DOOŒIDER RESTA1DBANT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE lOAD, NOHTII SHORE AT THE SHORELINE TO ADD l,826 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING RESTAURANT SPAœ WITB STORAGE OF DRY GOODS, BUSINESS HEOOES ON SECOND STORY PœTIŒ. FIRST STORY OF EXISTING RESTAURANT TO BE RENOVATED. SLEEPING QUARTERS TO REMAIN AS IS ON SECOND STORY. (1iARBEN OOUfTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 Lar SIZE: 0.98 ACRES SECflœ 9.010 MAC DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; J. PAUL BARTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUI Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Before I read my notes, I should clarify that we're here to review this for SEQRA purposes, just to refresh your memory. If the Board sees fit to do a negative declaration with regard to SEQRA, tonight, the Zoning Board will review this project, next Wednesday, and then they will come back to you, in August, for the Site Plan approval. The letter you have, in your packets, from the Sullivan's is not the correct letter, that letter has been withdrawn and I will read the letter that is the correct letter: Attention Planning Department, Town of Queensbury, I have examined the plans for the proposed expansion of the Docksider Restaurant. I have also discussed them, at great length, with J. Paul Barton and Mac Dean. I am willing to abandon my existing well as a potable water source, if necessary, and accept J. Paul Barton as providing me with an alternative, potable water source, subject to my approval. I also release the Town of Queensbury as being liable for any actions resulting from this agreement between myself and J. Paul Barton. 20 '--' --' MR. CARTIER-What is the date of that letter? MR. GORALSKI-March 20th, 1990. MRS. PULVER-You're saying thatls the letter. July l7th, she doesn't want? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that has been withdrawn. I have a letter withdrawing that from the record. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. YARMOWICH-(Referring to Engineer Report) Item 4c., and for the record, there's some typographical errors, here, that I will correct as I read this. Seepage pits should be separated from each other by at least 2 times the depth of the pits. The effective depth of the pits is 8 feet requiring 16 feet of earth between the effective diameters. MR. ROBERTS-This project was approved by the County Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Does the applicant care to comment on any of these comments before we get into the Environmental Review? MR. DEAN-For the record, my name is Mac Dean, from Morse Engineering, representing Paul Barton, who is also here, tonight. In as much as we will be back, hopefully, to see you in about a month, for Site Plan Review, I think, unless there's something with great concern regarding comments by your Consulting Engineer that might effect the EAF Review, that we might address those. MR. ROBERTS-I think that's a fair statement. I guess I'd like to ask the engineer, in your comments, do you think there's anything that cannot be coped with, at a future date, of significance enough to turn this into a full environmental, I know that's asking quite a lot to make a comment like that. Just how serious are these? MR. YARMOWICH-We believe that there may be certain site constraints that would require variances to local Ordinances, if, in fact, they constitute irreconcilable problems. The general nature of our comments are, most ly, of a technical nature, which can be worked out through modifications to the design. In answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, no, we don't believe that there's any comments that should prevent SEQRA process at this time. MR. ROBERTS-What would the variance s be that they'd be asking for from the ZBA? MR. DEAN-Well, currently, we're looking, of course, for a Use Variance, the Area Variance for setback from the Lake shore and permeability. Those are the only three that I'm aware of. ' MR. ROBERTS-Well, I guess, if some other crop up, some other variances you might think necessary, tonight, I suppose. in our SEQRA Review, perhaps, we might discuss them, here, MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the issue of the well location and it I S proximity to the property line, if that can be dealt with and still maintain the required separation between the sewage disposal system. MR. GORALSKI-That's been dealt with. MR. DEAN-¡ think it has been indicated that we are expecting shoreline reclamation..which will add to our property line. MR. YARMOWICH-Am I correct in understanding that the property line shown on this plan is the reclaimed position? MR. DEAN-That's not correct, no. MR. YARMOWICH-Will that be the property line? 21 -" MR. DEAN-That's the current property line. The proposed property line is shown, on a somewhat larger scale map. At the closest point, it will add, approximately, two feet. Of course, the well can be adjusted, that's two feet to the west. The south will be a considerably greater distance. So, the well location can be adjusted without infringing on our separation distance requirements from the septic systems. MR. CAlMANO-Let me ask a question of the Staff, though. The Variances he's going to seek, two of the three he's going to seek, impact on the SEQRA Form and we could very well not pass the SEQRA Form, on a negative basis, because we can It answer these questions, right? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know which questions you're talking about. MR. CAlMANO-Well, \Ie've got both of which would have an in the SEQRA process, no? the setback from the Lake shore and permeability, impact on the questions that are going to be asked MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-When we look at this, we look at the SEQRA in terms of what your Final plan is. MR. GORALSKI-Let me try to figure out exactly what you're question is. Your question is, how can you address SEQRA until you know if the variances are being granted? MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Well, Whether or not those variances are being granted doesn't change what impact is going to be created. It just says, legally, they can do it. You have to determine whether this project, as itls presented, will have any environmental impacts. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, I understand. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, since our primary duty tonight is attempting to address SEQRA and this is not a public hearing. MR. GORALSKI-I think the public hearing was held open. additional letter on the project. We've received one MR. ROBERTS-Do you want to read that, then? MR. GORALSKI-We received this letter this afternoon. To Whom It May Concern: Once again, I am unable to attend the meeting tonight, regarding the Docksider Restaurant. I have just reviewed the plan at the Town Offices before I return to Vermont today and I must reiterate my objections and those of my siblings who own property five lots away from the Docksider. One of our major concerns is that Glen Lake has reached its capacity and that water quality and all that entails has been declining for many years, primarily because of the increase in the number of motorized vehicles on the Lake. The Docksider remains the only public access to the Lake for those vehicles. In addition, we have the problem of additional noise and septic use which doubling this commercial enterprise entails. I sincerely hope that the Planning Board will look very carefully at the Environmental Impact of such a large commercial venture on such a small Lake. After swimming in the Lake today, I find it very sad that more people do not have concern for Glen Lake. The water is no longer clean and clear. Thank you for your consideration of our objections. Please feel free to contact me in Vermont or at Glen Lake. Signed Susan Papowski MR. ROBERTS-I guess, since the public hearing has been kept open, \Ie should, therefore, also try to refresh, in our mind, tie comments of the previous time as well as.. MR. GORALSKI-We also have, approximately, 25 to 30 letters in support of the application and we have a petition with, I believe, it's about 30 names, is that right? MR. BARTON-There's two different petitions. I'm totaling somewhere around 60. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. 22 ....-/ MR. ROBERTS-I'd like you to keep all these in mind, but I will remind you that the public hearing is open and, perhaps, even now, is there anybody in the audience who cares to comment on this project? MR. GORALSKI-You can close the public hearing whenever you like. MR. ROBERTS-Well, if there's no one here, I guess we might as well close the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING <LOSED MR. CARTIER-(Referring to SEQRA) Item 1. Will proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes. MR. CAlMANO-For one thing, there I d be construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than three feet. MR. ROBERTS-The question is, how serious is that, and can that be mitigated and that project change. MR. CARTIER-Well, considering that there are wells in the area. There's no Town water, at all, over there, right, that's all wells. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. ROBERTS-Perhaps, we'll ask the applicant, at this point, what mitigative measures are being taken to cope with this problem because, obviously, t he high water table, this is a serious problem. MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that the reason for placing the fill on the hill around the trees is so that they can raise the seepage pits and, therefore, maintain the separation distance between the seepage pits and the ground water. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that would be a mitigative measure. Is What's stated true? MR. DEAN-That, actually, \\ElS precisely what my answer was to be to that. In addition to that, the lowest area, towards the Lake, where the proposed dining room addition would be, will be on a slab, on a grade. So, it will minimize the construction in that area. MR. ROBERTS-So, ~at we'll say here is, small to moderate impact, can be mitigated, yes? MR. CAlMANO-It's okay by me. MR. GORALSKI-Is that what you'd like marked? MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, thank you. MR. CARTIER-Item 4, Will proposed action effect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. CAlMANO - Ye s . MR. DEAN-Well, if you look at the examples, I think we're talking, maybe I'm talking out of turn. MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. DEAN-I think theyl re looking at a larger proposal then what we have before us, in terms of 10 percent. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's a potential impact on Glen Lake, in terms of the parking lot. This falls into other impacts, I think. MR. CAlMANO-Don' t look at the first two, look at other impacts, and the fact of the matter is, you're going to have a construction project which sits half a foot from the Lake, so there's going to be some impact. The question is, is it small to moderate and can it be mitigated. 23 -/ ',--, MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I would think we would say there small to moderate because theylre taking steps circumstances. cert ainly is some, probably to mitigate it, under the MR. CARTIER-That's backwards. We have to decide what the impact is first. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Not that it's small to moderate because it I S been mitigated. not get this backwards. The question, first, is, is it Small to Moderate or is it a Potential Lar~ Impact. Do you follow what I'm saying? Let's Impact MR. ROBERTS-I guess youlre right. It certainly is not on the magnitude of the examples of there, but what's small and what's lar ~. This is an addition to an existing situation. We have to keep in mind here. We think welre making some improvements, even on what exists, in many cases. MR. CAlMANO-But there will be some impact on the land. MR. ROBERTS-Well, everyt hing we do, t bare's some impact. MR. CAlMANO-Right, so it would be ludicrous to say no. MR. ROBERTS-Ye s. MR. HAGAN-Believe it or not, if it's small or lar ~ is really irrelevant. The old saying the last straw was small, but it broke the camel's back and I think that's What we have to consider, here. MR. CAlMANO-Well, What's your thoughts? MR. HAGAN-Do we have enough information to determine that answer? MR. CAlMANO-I don't know. MR. HAGAN-I don I t think we do. MR. CAlMANO-What do you think, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-In the case of the impacts to the Lake a direct impact would be the construction of sea wall which, apparently, is being addressed by DEC in their determination. You're answer can be based on that event. With regard to stormwater management and construction impacts, t he standard measures will be taken and those would comply with engineering principles. MR. CAlMANO-So, what youl re saying is, t hat there will be impacts, but they can be mitigated by project changes? MR. YARMOWICH-Or they could be small to moderate. MR. CAlMANO-Or they could be small to moderate, okay. MR. GORALSKI-Are we going with that? MR. ROBERTS-That gPes back to what I said in the beginning. MR. CAlMANO-But we had somebody who went and got a degree to tell us. MR. ROBERTS-I agree. MR. GORALSKI-So what's our answer to Item 4, is Small to Moderate and can be mitigated? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Item Number 5. quality or quantity? Yes. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater MR. ROBERTS-Same kind of answer. MR. CARTIER-You're going to require a discharge permit? 24 '----' .......,/ MR. GORALSKI-A SPDES Permit, yes. MR. CARTIER-I'm just going through these Item by Item. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Is that the Sullivan well? MR. GORALSKI-That will be abandon and they will be providing water from Docksider. MR. CARTIER-I'm confused. I thought that agreement has been withdrawn . MR. GORALSKI -No, the July 17th letter has been withdrawn. MR. ROBERTS-But you read a new letter that said, basically, the same thing. MR. GORALSKI-The March 20th letter is the MR. CARTIER-The letter withdrawing the original letter was withdrawn? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. ROBERTS-Are we calling Glen Lake, itself, a potable water system? MR. CAlMANO-That' s what I'm looking at. Thatconstruction is going to cause con tamination of a water supply system and that water supply system is Glen Lake because pe ople draw water from the well. MR. ROBERTS-So, again, probably, Small to Moderate. MR. CAlMANO-I don It know. I'm asking the people who know, up here. MR. GORALSKI-The septic design will have to maintain the separation distances as required by DEC and the Town of Queensbury. So, t here should be no impact from the septic systems on Glen Lake. As far as construction, erosion, and that type of thing, t here I s that possibility and theyl re providing silt fences and hay bales which are standard construction practices. MR. CAlMANO-Even for the sea wall, that would be sufficient? MR. GORALSKI-The sea wall has certain restrictions that will be placed on it, as far as construction is concerned, by DEC. MR. CAlMANO -Oka y . ( TAP E TURNED) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERHlNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 17-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: to add 1,826 sq. ft. to the existing restaurant space with storage of dry goods, business records on second story portion. First story of existing restaurant to be renovated. Sleeping quarters to remain as is on second story. For the DOQ.ŒIDER RESTAUllANT on Glen Lake owned by J.. PAUL BARTœ.. 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. The federal agencies involved are: The Army Corp of Engineers 2. The following agencies are involved: DEC Department of Health 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I action in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 25 '--" 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mr. Hagan MR. ROBERTS-Which means, then, that you will pass this information to other agencies? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, what we have to do is, t he Chairman will have to sign the determination of significance. At that time, I will distribute it to all the involved agencies and then they can continue with t heir reviews. MR. CAlMANO-One comment I have. I have a particular concern about the drainage and I think the way you handled it, for me, is great. The other is, the fence. I was there Sunday. There wereooscattered allover, coming out of the parking lot. It's a disaster. If you fix that, I think that would be terrific. MR. CARTIER-We're going to look at this again at Site Plan. MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to do that tonight? MR. CAlMANO-No. MR. ROBERTS-So that completes our review for tonight, then? MR. GORALSKI-Right. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-90 T1PE: œLISTED HC-lA MALOOLM O'HARA OOMMtJIUTY WKKSHOP IlESOORœS roD. OWNER: MARY JANE Q\NALE 691 GLEN STJlEET (IIOUfE 9) TO USE BUILDING TO PIIOVIDE AD1JILT DAY CARE SERVICES DmuNG NORMAL BŒINESS HOURS TO 36 ELDERLW AD1JILTS. (\\1/!\RREN OOŒTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-22 Lor SIZE: 2.86 AaŒS SECflœ 4.020 (K) MARK CRAWFORD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved and there were no engineering comments since there was no construction proposed. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, does the applicant want to fill us in on any further comments you wish to make or address the comments Staff has made? MR. CRAWFORD-Good evening. My name is Mark Crawford. I'm with the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes, and Judge, in Glens Falls appearing on behalf of Mr. Malcolm OIHara, tonight, and representing Community Workshop. I'd just like to point out that Ms. McEwen and Mr. Poliquin of Community Workshop are here tonight as well and also the property owner, is with uS tonight as well. The Staff has aptly pointed out what it is that Community Workshop Resources would like to do with this building and that is renovate the existing structure to provide for a daycare facility for senior citizens, elderly adults and they will be coming there during regular business hours. Most of them will be coming to the premises by bus, the Community Workshop bus, entering the premises and leaving the premises by bus and there should be a maximum of 36 adults in the facility at anyone time. 26 -/ '---' Community Workshop Resources expects that will be a maximum of six staff personnel in the facility, as well. It would seem that Staffls only concern, at this point, is parking. We would submit that parking is a little tight in that area. There are some buildings that are nearby, a furniture store, Buy Low Carpet. The parking, as proposed, right now, \æ would like very much because of its proximity to our building. Again, we do not think it is all that significant of an issue, based upon the minimal amount of traffic that is going to be in that area. No senior citizens will be driving their own cars to the facility. If a senior citizen or some cne who's going to use the facility comes to the facility in a car, t hit vehicle, I've been told, will be dropping them off and will be leaving. Again, the bus transport ation will be the main method that pe ople will be coming to the building. We also talked to, to address the parking issue, I asked Mr. Canale to speak to, actually, Mrs. Canale to speak to the owner of Buy Low Carpet and also Furniture Company and Buy Low Carpet indicated that, as far as truck traffic, at a maximum, they have one to two semi tractor trailers travel through that alley in a week. The furniture store has its own truck which comes in and out of there on a daily basis. It I S not that large of a truck. It's my understanding it's a block truck with a cab on it. So, in sumnary, ~at we submit is that the current situation, as proposed, should not have all that much of an impact or effect on the parking situation. There is one thing t hit this property has and that's an abundance of pavement area. So, in the event that this Board determines that parking should be changed and modified, there is plenty of parking space available. However, it is the proximity to the building that the current plan proposes that we I d like very much, but, at the same time, \Ie realize that there is plenty of ample parking, and would be willing to conform to any type of requirement or modification, that you would submit. MR. KUPILLAS-I donlt even see where parking is gPing to be a problem there. Most everybody is being bussed. MR. CRAWFORD-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-But how many Staff? MR. CRAWFORD-Six, maximum. MR. PULVER-They only show six on the staff, that's why six parking, but they could park over here, on the side. MR. CRAWFORD-There's a total of 18 spaces. MR. CAlMANO-Eighteen spaces? MRS. PULVER-It is? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, even if you took out some for truck radius, there, I can't see this as a problem. MR. CAlMANO-How are you going to heat and cool this building? MR. CRAWFORD-I would like to Mr. Canale to speak to that, if he would. BILL CANALE MR. CANALE-Bill Canale, owner of the building. In the building, now, there's a new gas furnace and heat pump for air conditioning. MR. CAlMANO-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't have any questions. I think it's a good use of the building. MR. CARTIER-Youl re only gPing to put two windows in this building, t hit's it, two, 4 by 6 windows? MR. CRAWFORD-That's my understanding. MR. CARTIER-And you're going to have 36 pe ople working in a building with only two windows. MR. ROBERTS-They're making big windows. 27 -../ JOE POLIQUIN MR. POLIQUIN-It I S a wide open building. There's about 2800 square feet of floor space and it's basically a wide open building, so that wherever you are in the building, you still have a view of the outside. MR. CAlMANO-I guess in defense, Peter, of CWI, I have seen what they do and I guess I'm going to suggest that anything they have done for the elderly has always been on the cautious side for the elderly and the handicapped. MR. POLIQUIN-The building is very accessible which is one of the things we're interested in. It's very easy for pe ople who use wheelchairs to get in and out of the building. The location is very good, as far as the community goes and the use that we expect from the community. So, there's a tremendous amount of advantages to that site, to that building, that we see. MR. ROBERTS-It does seem like a very good recycling of that building. Let me open the public hearing. P1JIBLIC HEARING OPENED NO OOMMENT P1JIBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any further questions? do SEQRA. I think John I s going to make us MR. GORALSKI-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 48-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, t here is presently before the Planning Board an application for: the conversion of a building to provide adult day care services during no~l business hours to 36 elderly adults and WHEREAS, t his Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by t his Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, t his Board finds that the action about to be undert aken by t his Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby aut horized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a st atement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE 28 ',,--, -./ MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-90 MALOOLH 0' HARA OOMMUNITY WORKSHOP RESOURCES CORP., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To use the building to provide adult day care services during normal business hours to 36 adults. Duly adopted this l7th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO.. 49-90 T1PE: UNLISTED BC-lA IOBEItT TDER OalEII.: SAME AS ABO\TE 60 GLEN1I>0D AVENŒ FOR AN ADDITIŒ Œ A 3,072 SQ.. F,]!,.. BWlILDING am 18 NE~ PARKING SPAtES.. TRlS WILL BE USED AS AN ANTIQTIIE MALL aTB A OJNNECfING \it\LK TO THE EXISTING ANTIQUE MALL. (WARREN OOTßNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. 62-1-1!..2 Lor SIZE: 3 AQŒS SECflœ 4.020 (K) BOB TYRER, PRESENT STAFF INPur Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-There I s also a letter from Mike Shaw, Deputy Superintendent of the Waste Water Department, to Lee York, Senior Planner, dated July 7, 1990 (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Also, \Ie have a comment from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped, to Chairman of the Planning Board, date July ll, 1990 (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Also, warren County Planning Board approved. MR. CAlMANO-With comment, however. MR. ROBERTS-With some comments: "With the condition that the dumpster from view of the Bike Trail and vegetative screening be placed along line to screen view from Bike Trail." There's quite a buffer already. Mohawk is a buffer between this property and the Bike Trail. be moved property Niagara MR. CAlMANO-No, not where this comes out. Not where this comes out on the end. MR. ROBERTS-And the Beautification Committee approved with some comments, as well. (attached) Would the applicant care to respond to some of these? MR. TYRER-Yes, I'm Bob Tyrer, owner of Glenwood Manor. I have a couple of comments, first, that I could probably clarify. As far as the dumpster, most of the refuse, if there is any refuse, \Ie take it away ourselves. I don't feel I would even want a dumpster on this property. We remove our trash or any debris every day and that would be something that we wouldn't have to have in the back section of the structure. We have, already, plans to put up a buffer of shrubs going across the whole back perimeter of the site. Now, there is, also, between the bike path, there is a buffer zone there and Niagara Mohawk, also where there is fairly good coverage right now, t hit exists, going up behind where our structure would be along the Niagara Mohawk power lines. So, \Ie would only add to that, as far as shrubs are concerned and whatever's necessary. As far as the dumpster, it's just something that I had no plans of even putting in, unless it were a requirement, but as long as we take our own trash away every day, I don't see why it would be necessary. MR. cARTIER-Are you saying you donlt have a dumpster? MR. TYRER-No, I take my trash away every day. MR. HAGAN-How come the County says you have a dumpster? I'm getting confused here. 29 '---' -./ MR. CARTIER-Did you get the comments from the County? The County says, "with the condition that the dumpster be moved from view of the bike trail". MR. GORALSKI-Because there's a dumpster shown on the plan. MR. TYRER-There might have been a dumpster on the site plan, put in there by the architects, but, as far as I'm concerned, I don't own a dumpster. MR. CARTIER-Okay, you don't have one. MR. TYRER-But we do remove our trash every day. If it did come to a point where we would need one, I would put a stockade fence covering the dumpster, so it would be out of sight of any pedestrian. As far as the sewer system which exists now, because we just had the new sewers put in.. with last year, Mr. Horning put the sewers in. We had a complex of 9 bathrooms in the matter itself. So, to figure out the easiest way and the best way, the most efficient way to do this, \Ie did it where we ran out the side of the building and the rear and around to the front, instead of changing all the mechanisms inside the house itself and when Mr. Horning put the joint in the back, Where we had planned ahead of time, hopefully, we would get this approved and a new building up, he made compensation for that and his measurements, he felt that that was down sufficient amount of depth to handle everything all the way to the power line. So, this might be a controversy between him and Mr. Shaw on the. .of that unit which I could have Mr. Horning check out and get back on that. He felt there was enough depth there. There would be three bathrooms in the structure and then they're only going to be used during business hours more or less for the people that would be in there running the business. It's not gqing to be something where it's used day in and day out, like a restaurant or anything like that. MR. CAlMANO-The concerns, here, are not those concerns. They're stormwater runoff. MR. GORALSKI-Well, no, there's a letter from Mike Shaw of the Waste Water Department and he's concerned that there may not be enough pitch from the new building to the pipe. He says that it may not be and he says that, an on-site review of these conditions will be needed to see if it is possible to use the existing connection." MR. ROBERTS-I wonder if he knows where you intend to hook up, although, maybe hels seen the plans. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it's only l~ feet this is definitely to determine that. he's seen these plans and, apparently, his records show that to the connection. As I say, I don't think he's saying that not going to work. He I s saying he needs an on-site inspection MR. ROBERTS-I suppose there's some way to make it work. something and raise the building a little higher. Bui ld up the perc or MR. TYRER-Well, Mr. Horning feels that it wouldnlt and lid like to have him come back over there and meet with Mr. Shaw so they could both go over this and finalize that situation. MR. YARMOWlCH-What I was going to indicate was, excavations to actually determine that depth would be relatively simple since there should be an existing clean out at that location, is there not? MR. TYRER-Ye s. MR. yARMOWlCH-Can you confirm that before final plans to satisfy that? In the absence of an adequate elevation, you can consider alternative approaches, such as pumping. The intent of the Town of Queensbury's Waste Water Department is to ensure that you get an adequate level of service and that you don't call them because something's wrong with your system. This is a private party system. It's not owned by the Town of Queensbury, their comment in here that, to protect your interest and keep them from coming out for an unnecessary service call, but itl s simply test pitting that location, I think you can make the determination. MR. TYRER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that is something that cert ainly will have to be clarified and then, to get on, I guess to the more serious one, stormwater drainage. MARK HANCHETT 30 ~ ~ MR. HANCHETT-My name is Mark Hanchett and I'm from Richard Jones, Associates and I would like to address the stormwater and maybe clarify the situation, if I can. What we have attempted to do is to collect the stormwater drainage and collect it in the catch basin, here, at the corner of the proposed parking lot and bring it by way of a culvert underneath Glenwood Avenue to a retention area over here next to the existing parking lot. It's kind of an over sight to the drawing, here. This 12 inch CMP says that the invert is at 314 and that's an oversight by us, but we want to clarify that what we, eventually, will be doing is replacing the bottom of the basin to 312, so it's below this CMP, here, Wiich will allow for any sedimentation or siltation through the. .and the basin. Your concern was that stormwater would go across Glenwood Avenue and what we're saying is that the stormwater will drain into this corner where the catch basin is and, Wiat holds it from going all the way over across Glenwood Avenue is a six inch curb, here, that holds it back from going all the way over Glenwood Avenue. MR. YARMOWICH-That I s the curb area showing around the parking perimeter, right? Is that what you're saying? MR. HANCHETT-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Our concern is with the clogging of that inlet, should a mat of leaves or something like that accumulate over that individual grading which provides all the site drainage, the impact would be to fill that parking area and back water up onto Glenwood Avenue. There's not enough site topo to show what would happen if that condition occurs because we wouldn'tooparking lot to fill up and go over the top of the curve. Will that water back up on Glenwood Avenue or will it flow off site in another direction? MR. TYRER-Well, that parking lot area, on the other side of Glenwood, it's shown on this section, here. There's an acre in here of property and this is all stone and top fill. If anything did run over, here, it would more than likely MR. YARMOWICH-J.on the road, is having standing water on Glenwood Avenue. MR. CAlMANO-Or ice. MR. TYRER-I think, the way that road is pitched, I don't think any water would stay on the road. MR. YARMOWICH-Where would water go if the grade inlet is clogged? MR. HANCHETT-If it were clogged, it may go over into this land, here, of Niagara Mohawk. . MR. CARTIER-It may? Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe we can speed this up. I think we've got an awful lot of things, here. I don't see this getting approved, tonight. I think maybe we ought to think about tabling this and let the engineers and staff and all these concerns get addressed on here because there I s a number of things here that need to be addressed. MR. HANCHETT-We can address those, if you want to go through those. MR. CAlMANO-We can't address them tonight, though. We have to address them to their satisfaction and I don It see thatls going to happen tonight. MR. ROBERTS-I tend to agree. I'm just wondering, we worried about a drop inlet getting clogged? can happen, but how far do we go with the measures? though, When, in the past, have Obviously, anything like that MR. TYRER-It' s something youl ve got to maintain on a daily basis, how can it get clo gged ? MR. CAlMANO-Because the concern now, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we I re dealing wi th a major thoroughfare near a heavy traffic intersection and we I re dealing wi th a piece of property that is close to a sensitive piece of water, to Halfway Brook. If water did come out of there and go across that stream, it could be a major problem. MR. ROBERTS-Would a sensible solution, there, be somehow to make it, in case it did clog and overflow, as you sug~sted, have an overflow. .Niagara Mohawk or, presumably, it wouldn't do much damage. Maybe you could have some sort of a hole in the driveway entering the parking lot. 31 ',,--, '-.../ MR. CAlMANO-Right and that's what Peter is saying, that these folks have to get together and decide about it. MRS. PULVER-Tom, do you think these things that you brought up can be addressed tonight, that they can address them, or should we go for tabling? MR. YARMOWICH-I can't tell you what the engineer who prepared this design can and cannot address, here, tonight. The question about the drainage was one, ~ere does it go if the basin clogs. Either the engineer will tell me where it goes or he'll tell me he'll find out, one or the other. MR. CARTIER-I think what he's going to have to do is, he's going to have to come in with a revised set of plans, here, because there's some drainage concerns not just here but on the parking lot across the road. MR. YARMOWICH-What's the situation with the flood plan issue? MR. HANCHETT-I have tried to cont act several agencies on this issue and I have not been successful in obtaining this information. The Halfway Brook, here, has been changed recently, so the 10 and 50 year flood plan has been changed. MR. CARTIER-So, you're presenting a plan to us, tonight, based on incomplete information, is that what youlre saying? MR. HANCHETT-No, 11m saying I've tried to locate the information. MR. CARTIER-But you donlt have the information? MR. HANCHETT-No, because the information is unavailable at this time. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but then you're putting us in the position of passing something where we donlt have the information. MR. TYRER-Who has the information on the new thing with the brook going down Quaker Road because, right now, it goes past Cool, it goes past Glens Falls Electric. MR. CARTIER-Well, \Ie've got a lot of issues to deal with, tonight, and I don't think we're going to resolve this thing to a point where we can approve this. MR. CAlMANO-Who has that information? MR. YARMOWI CH -We're not in a position to furnish information to applicants. MR. CAlMANO -No, but who ha sit? MRS. PULVER-Who has it, so they can ge t it? MR. YARMOWICH-I'm not aware if there's been changes that have effected flood plan, that's up to the engineer to determine and furnish to us. We will use the information that they provide. If they can demonstrate that the concept will function with the current available information and they are satisfied, ~rrant it as being correct, \Ie will review that information. MR. ROBERTS-Are you saying, increase the depth of that settling basin, is that it? MR. YARMOWICH-No, the issue is over topping. If the flood levels of the stream over top the structure, it provides no value in stormwater management. MR. ROBERTS-Right, there again, you could build it up high enough, so that we could figure out what the flood plan was. MR. YARMOWICH-Within the limitations of existing site topography, yes. MR. ROBERTS-Well, apparently then, with both stormwater and waste water a little bit fuzzy MR. CAlMANO-I have a question to ask, though, of concern. I'll just ask you guys, and you tell me why. We have a letter here from Mike Shaw. This is a letter written on July 7th and this applicant is going to appear on the 17th and he's writing a letter which, in effect, causes a stoppage of the applicant's plans and indicates in the letter that he might have changed his mind if he had simply 32 "--' -..../ gone and made a review of it on site. I just wonder, if all the rest of us go visit these places and you go there, here's a man stopping a project, purportedly, and even says, in his letter, "An on-site review of these conditions will be needed to see if it is possible to use the existing connection." My next question, after that sentence, is, ~y did he do it? MR. GORALSKI-Okay, I think I can answer that, and I'm not here to defend Mike Shaw, but Mike Shaw has a lot of other things to do besides go out and do site inspections on proposed projects. MR. CAlMANO-Fine, but if he's going to turn one down, he's got to go. MR. GORALSKI-I don't think that he's turning this down. What Mike's saying is that there may be a potential problem and he doesn I t know that without digging up that connection. I don't think he's asking you to stop this project. MRS. PULVER-Could we make it part of the motion, then? MR. GORALSKI-You could, that the Waste Water Department inspect the sewer connection or something like that. MR. CAlMANO-I'll accept the answer, but it says very clearly, "I'm concerned that it may not be possible", "on-site review of these conditions will be needed". Those two sentences, alone, indicate to me that he expected that this would not be possible, tonight, and, if he did so MR. GORALSKI-No, that's not true. Mike Shaw has no idea how you conduct your business. MR. YARMOWICH-Furthermore, that gravity service is the issue, t hit there are alternatives with a pumping system if it were necessary and those site constraints can be met. MR. GORALSKI-And we try to you would say, as possible. any comments, he says, yes, solve that problem before the get as many comments from as many experts, I guess We simply give him the plans and say, do you have t here may be a problem here. We didn I t ask him to meeting. MRS. PULVER-I have a question, here, with the proposed Antique Mall. Are you going to have just dealers in there? It's not going to be any part of the auctions? MR. TYRER-No, it will be separate shops. MRS. PULVER-And then, I assume, that it will be connected from there? MR. TYRER-Connected only by a walkway. MRS. PULVER-That's what I mean. MR. TYRER-Walkway, gardens, shrubs. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-I think the concept, fitting into the zoning and so forth, I don't think anybodyls had any problems, itls the engineering details. MR. TYRER-Were there other problems besides the waste water and the stormwater? MR. CAlMANO-I have one question. You have a fire door between the paint shop and the rest of the building. Is there any need to have something between the paint shop and this new edition? MRS. PULVER-The new edition is not attached. MR. TYRER-The new edition is not going to be attached. MR. CAlMANO-It's a separate building. MR. ROBERTS-I don I t think we're that concerned about this increasing the traffic in this area. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. ROBERTS-There's several ways out. 33 -..-/ MRS. PULVER-I want to know about, is this going to be big enough for 3,000 feet, because I'd like to see 6,000? MR. CAlMANO-So would 1. MR. HANCHETT-Could I make a suggestion? Perhaps with the problems of stormwater and waste water, perhaps make a motion for a conditional approval? MR. ROBERTS-We're very reluctant to do that and I don't think the Board feels, tonight, I don It think they're in the mood for that. I'm not sure if I'm reading the Board right. I think, perhaps, these are significant enough that we would like to see, before, perhaps, \Ie get into the SEQRA, \\hether or not these things can be properly addressed? MR. CAlMANO-Sure, because when we get into the SEQRA Review, with the questions we have now, it could very well wind up into an environmental impact st atement. MR. ROBERTS-I would sug~st that might be the case. I think we I re going to have to sug~st that we withdraw this or table it for information. MR. HAGAN-I'd like it detailed, for my benefit, \\hat other concerns we have besides this letter from the Department of Waste Water because I think we can disregard that letter. If as he explain, it is correct, necessity will correct that. MR. ROBERTS-It can be coped with. MR. HAGAN-Yes, \lell, if it starts backing up, he's going to have to start pumping. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think, to be fair to the applicant, if it is going to come up again, he needs to know that he will have to be able to resolve it. MR. TYRER-If it's not correct, at this point, \Ie would make it correct before we do anyt hing else. MR. CAlMANO-That's not my concern. My concern is the stormwater. MR. TYRER-As far as the storm sewer getting clogged up with leaves, that's something that, if you don't do your maintenance it's going to happen, if you do your maintenance, it's not going to happen. MR. ROBERTS-And then there's the question of the settling basin, down by the brook, as to how deep that needs to be. I don't know, \\hat is the feeling of the Board? Am I speaking out of turn, here? MR. CAlMANO-Table this for discussion on how theyl re going to solve the stormwater runoff and, as Carol said, obviously, if there's a question on the sanitary sewer, they might as well handle that too. MR. ROBERTS-Well, if that's the feeling of the Board, can we agree, with the applicant? MR. CAlMANO-It's up to them, you guys accept what they do, technically, then put it on the agenda, right or wrong? MR. GORALSKI-Put it on what agenda? MR. CAlMANO-The next available agenda. MR. GORALSKI-That would be August. MR. CAlMANO-August, okay. MR. ROBERTS-Do we agree to hopefully, do it correctly. to this tabling. table this so we can iron out these problems and, I guess, to make it easy, \Ie need to have you agree MR. TYRER-I will agree with you, yes. I have no alternative. The only thing I want to know, you said there were other comments, are there any other problems that would have to be addressed other than this? If there are any letters or any other problems, are these the only two things that are involved? 34 "'-- -..-/ MR. CARTIER-The only other I had had to do with people crossing the road there. Is there any way you could put a cross walk? MR. TYRER-This is separate, see, this has its own parking. MR. CAlMANO-Has it own parking on the other side? MR. TYRER-Own parking. This is completely separate and has it's handicapped parking and that black section, there's all macadam, that'll be it's own parking. MR. HAGAN-When we reviewed this, wa were on the other side of the road. MR. CARTIER-That's right. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, walll need to make a motion to table this. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-90 H.OBEIIT TYllER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Until the next available agenda to give the applicant time to address concerns raised by Lee York, by Rist-Frost Associates, by Michael Shaw, Queensbury Waste Water Department, with the understanding that the notes from the Beautification Committee be incorporated into the Final approval and that the material be submitted by July 25th. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. cARTIER-What's this Committee want to do with handicapped? I understand what they're saying. MR. ROBERTS-They'd have to come up to code with that. MR. GORALSKI-They have to meet the handicapped code. SITE PLAN NO.. 50-90 T1PE: œLISTED LI-lA WARREN ELEt:rRlC SœPL~, INC. 01lfER: GERARD & C:1NTØIA Nun 26 DIX AVEN1E EXTENSIŒ FOR O>NSTII.UCTIŒ OF A 5,600 SQ.. FT.. WARElIOœE ADDITlœ.. (WARREN O>ŒTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. nO-1-b..28 LOT SIZE: 2.103 SEt:rION 4.020 (N) JACK HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPur Notes from Lee A. york, Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved. approved. Beautification Committee ENGINEER REPOIa Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. HUNTINGTON-11m Jack Huntington with Morse Engineering representing Warren Electric and Mr. Nudi is here tonight. I can answer the questions from Mr. Yarmowich and that would take care of them all. Storage below the 12 inch outlet from the retention basin to allow for siltation. We can make the retention basin 12 inches deeper, \Ie' II put a note on the drawing which says it'll be maintained properly. Is that satisfactory? MR. YARMOWlCH-The intent of that maintenance include removal of silt, be in there. comment is to provide that the, that the wen it accumulates, and debris that would MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. MR. YARMOWlCH-Those are just specific maintenance measures, making sure that the berms are st abilized. 35 "---' -.-/ MR. HUNTINGTON-Handicapped parking spaces will move. We have to show a handicap here and a handicap here. On the west side of the building, there is an existing handicapped ramp. So, \lelll move this handicapped space over here, both together, and that III provide the 24 feet required for the 2 handicapped access parking spaces. It appears the existing septic system area will have increased heavy traffic. We've provided a drive completely around the building. As it is now, trucks are backing in off Dix Avenue, or they're pulling in from Dix Avenue and backing out. It's creating a hazard, as far as driving over the septic area. There's no way of predicting, it will not be any worse than it is and very probably less traffic than there is now. MR. ROBERTS-You're currently driving over that area? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, it's paved, that is a paved area over that septic system right now. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that must easy the load, somewhat. MR. YARMOWlCH-We did not know whether it was currently being driven on or not and, to answer your question, there won't be any additional impact. MR. HUNTINGTON-No, I see nO additional impact. MR. YARMOWlCH-If there is an impact, it must be changed. MR. HUNTINGTON-Right. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO OOMMENT PUBLI C HEARING o..OSED MR. ROBERTS-I guess this requires a Short Environmental Assessment Form? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERKlNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 50-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: cronstruction of a 5.600 sq. ft. _rehouse addition to WARREN ELEaR! C StJPPL Y on Dix Avenue owned by Gerard and Cynthia N1Udi 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 RE SOL VEÐ : 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Re gulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a st atement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 36 ''"---' -./ Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MarION TO APP:aoVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-90 WAIUlEN ELEClRlC SUPPLY, INC., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of a 5,600 sq. ft. Wlrehouse addition subject to the fact that the engineer has agreed to comply with the Rist-Frost letter of July 13th, 1990 and its concerns and also the handicapped parking space requirement in Mrs. York's letter of July~ 17th and a revised plan be submitted to this Planning Department and the Committee for Community Beautification and its recommendations. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO.. 51-90 T1PE II WR-lA MIOIAEL AND T:RUDI Q\LAB:RESE fMØEII.: SAME AS AB(WE SEELB ROAD, CLEVERDALE BORDERING WARNER BAW TO RAISE EXISIING BQ!\TBOUSE roVER BW APPKOX.. 2 FT..; TO O)NSIII.UCT A NEV BOATHOUSE (sœ DEO{) (WER BALANCE OF BQ/\T SLIP (APPROJI.. l4 FT.. BY 32 FT.. BY 9 F'l..)1iLH (ADlRONDAQ( PARK AGENCy) (WARREN roUlTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. l6-l-l4 Lor SIZE: 0..689 AaŒS SECfI(Jf 9..010 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INFUI Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved with the condition that: "Steps from the sundeck come down to the dock." MR. HAGAN-Why did this applicant not need a variance? MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Administrator has determined that this expansion requires site plan review, but does not require a variance. MR. HAGAN-Why do we have zoning laws? In my opinion, this ignores the planning laws, the zoning laws. MR. CARTIER-We have the right, correct me if I'm wrong, to appeal that decision and kick it to the Zoning Board for a decision, do we not? MR. GORALSKI-That's right. If the Planning Board would like to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator they certainly have the right to do that. MR. HAGAN-Absolutely. MR. GORALSKI-You would have to make a motion in that regard. MR. HAGAN-Since I brought it up, I'll make the motion. MR. ROBERTS-Well, ~ got our head handed to us the last time we disagreed with the decision of the Zoning Administrator. MR. HAGAN-Well, let them hand me my head again. MR. ROBERTS-What are the variances. MR. HAGAN-Well, it's over 40 feet from shore. MR. CAlMANO-It I s going to double, ~ll, it's going to half again as long from the shore. MR. HAGAN-It's nonconforming. It's grandfathered, as far as \ole know. I would like to know ~TIen the original dock was built, though. 37 '",-, '-./' MR. CARTIER-Well, lets consider our options. We can approve this. We can table it. We can disapprove it. We can go for a re-decision from the Zoning Board. MR. GORALSKI-You would have to table it if you were going to appeal the Zoning Administrator. MRS. PULVER-Well, it's already 57 feet and he wants to make it 58 feet, right? MR. HAGAN-No. MR. CARTIER-Well, before we beat this, he's 27.9 feet and he wants to make it 57.9 feet. MR. ROBERTS-Well, it's a present covered dock. MR. CAlMANO - Ye s . MRS. PULVER-Why does it say here, "The dock currently extends 57 feet into Lake George"? MR. CAlMANO-The uncovered portion. MRS. PULVER-Okay, \lell, that's what I'm saying, he's 57 feet out there. MR. CAlMANO-oh, 11m sorry, right. MR. HAGAN-And now he wants it covered. MRS. PULVER-Right, but he also is going to add another foot. MR. CAlMANO-Not really. I think that's just MR. GORALSKI-I think that's just a calculating error. MR. HAGAN-I just look at this and say, What if every party on that entire shoreline were allowed to build what this applicant proposes to build without a variance. MR. CAlMANO-How would they get around the Lake? MR. CARTIER-Well, if the Board is unhappy with it, \Ie don't have to go the appeal route. We could take care of it right here. MS. CORPUS-The Board can do that. You can deny the application without reviewing the zoning considerations. MR. HAGAN-Since the applicant is here, I think, before we make a motion, \Ie ought to listen to him. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we should too because in talking with the applicant, he is, I think, willing to make some concessions, maybe some improvements made here, if the existing roof were to be removed and made into a dock with a railing for sitting in combination would probably improve the existing situation. MR. ROULIER-Good evening. I'm Joe Roulier. I'm representing Mr. Michael Calabrese. There'll be several items that I'll address. I'll start with the dock. The dock is, approximately, 58 feet long. To the best of my knowledge, the existing dock was put in, at least, 30 to 40 years ago. A lot of the new zoning reg's have made it so that variances are in order, but we are not, at this point, altering the dock, \oß're altering the distance. We'd be going further out or moving the dock further to the north side which would be approaching..on the 12.4 foot setback that we currently have. I did have several discussions. In fact, I'm always in talking to John or talking to Pat, continually. On this particular one, I have spoken with Dave Hatin. I had Dave Hatin up to the site to find out what the correct procedure would be because I didn't want to get into a situation where lid have to come in with a site plan and, all of a sudden, be thrown back into a variance. They concurred that what I would need for this particular project was a site plan review and that there would be no alteration to the size of the docks, that I s why I'm here tonight. One of the things that I do want to point out to you, t hit's most important, is that there is a covered boathouse and I donlt know how many of the Board members have been up to the particular site. MR. ROBERTS-I think we've all been. 38 ',,--, ...- MR. ROULIER-Yesterday there was a meeting with Mr. Calabrese. This is a hip type roof, right here, that extends up 28 feet. He is very concerned about, Number One, the visual impact of the entire project because of the length of the project, and also the effect that the project will have on the neighbors, particularly to the south. The neighbor to the north has a view, primari ly, to the east and to the north. Whereas, the adjoining neighbor to the sout h will be looking more at the structure and in an easterly direction. After our discussion yesterday, Mr. Calabrese has agreed to limiting the hip type of roof and reduce this section right here, vbich I've indicated is, approximately, three and a half feet, down to, approximately, one foot showing. So, from a visual aspect, the structure that is there now will be reduced by, approximately, 75 percent, Wlich should not only he lp the view from the north, but also to the sout h. In conjunction with that, vhat we're proposing to do is to maintain the line of the raised boathouse with the line of the proposed boathouse, extend out over the slip. We're hoping to keep it as narrow as possible, so that the line of sight from the adjoining neighbors to the sout h is not impeded. Additionally, t here is a proposed rail that will encompass the surface of the sundeck and Mr. Calabrese has indicated to me, Number One, t hit he wants to keep it as open as possible and yet maintain its safety for his own family. So, we would tender any suggestions regarding the rail up in that particular area, but our primary concern right now is not to be offensive to the neighbors and to have the least visual impact as possible. MR. KUPILLAS-Are you going to change to a continuous roof line? MR. ROULIER-Thatls correct. MR. KUPILLAS-Being about a foot or a foot and a half? MR. ROULIER-It would be, approximately, 14 inches, which is an extension of my . . consolidated together. By making a concession of this particular roof, \Ie I re hoping that, if you want to turn around and look at the windows behind you, if you were to take those windows and compact them down into 14 inches, it has a significant less effect and opens up the visibility for the adjoining neighbors. MR. CARTIER-In spite of the fact that it's also addition on the end. Letls be very clear, here. sight view. We are decreasing that sight view. restricting their view, with an We're not improving nei ghbor' s MR. ROULIER-Thatls right. MR. HAGAN-Why do we need more than 40 foot of boat coverage, to begin with? What is the necessity of that? MR. ROULIER-The necessity is that there is a boat that will fit into the slip. He has an existing slip. We were not allowed, under the Lake George Park Commission Rules, to put in an adjacent, U-Shaped crib dock, ~ would be in the Town of Queensbury, but we would not be under the Lake George Park Commission Rules. So, because of that, ~ widened the slip by removing a portion of the interior of the slip, not disturbing any of the setbacks that already exist, so, because of that, we widened the slip by removing a portion of interior of the slip, not disturbing any of the setbacks that already exist, so, because of that, this boat will now be kept in the forward portion of the existing U-Shaped crib dock and, in order to protect it, for the long term, people renting out, and also to provide a nice sunny area for his family. MR. CARTIER-How much shore frontage does Mr. Calabrese have? MR. ROULIER-Approximately, 129 feet. MR. CARTIER-l29 feet. He could put a U-Shaped dock at this..could he not? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, under the Town of Queensbury Regulations, he could put aU-Shaped dock, I believe it's 700 square feet, 40 feet into the Lake. MR. CARTIER-Okay, if this dock were not here, okay. MR. ROULIER-A lot of people up around the Lake, regardless of whether a boat has an existing cover or not, like to keep their boat's under shelter. MR. HAGAN-Yes, and most people do it with 40 feet of coverage. 39 -_/ MR. ROULIER-Well, it's not a question of 40 feet. The dock that's there is an existing dock. MR. HAGAN-That's true. MR. ROULIER-And we're just trying to utilize it to the best extent that we can. MR. HAGAN-Not only do you have an elevated dock, but you have a cover sticking out of there and you take that house on the south side, I don't know if they're here or not. MR. CAlMANO-They left. MR. HAGAN-They left? MR. CAlMANO-Yes, they were here. MR. ROULIER-I had spoken to two of the adjoining neighbors to the south. They were concerned about the project. I met with them this evening with Mr. Calabrese. We told them, first of all, that we were raising the roof, reducing it to, approximately, 14 inches so that the line of these continue out and we also told them that we would tender any suggestions regarding the type of rail that could be placed out on top of the boathouse and we assured them that it was Mr. Calabrese intention that he wanted to make it as less obtrusive as possible to the neighbors. MR. CAlMANO-Well, this reminds me, a little bit, of a salesman selling..I understand what Mr. Calabrese's trying to do, in fact, those are the questions that I asked, too, but nOw you look at st aff comments. You've got 872 and a half square feet and you're only allowed 700. You're 12.4 off the north property line when you're supposed to be 20 feet. You're 57.9 into Lake George and you're only supposed to be 40. My question is, Wiy don't you leave well enough alone. MR. HAGAN-Besides, itls nonconforming and you're adding more than 50 percent of structure on there, because you already have one cover, 27.9 feet. You're adding 30 feet more, that's more than the 50 percent you're allowed, even in a nonconforming situation. MR. GORALSKI-That 50 percent rule only applies to single family dwellings. MR. ROULIER-I don't have any control over the existing 59 feet that's currently there or the 12 feet. MR. HAGAN-unfortunately, neither do we. MR. ROULIER-No, but what I'm saying to you is this, three years ago I could've come in here and, at least with the 12 feet 4 inch setback, been 2 feet 4 inches to the positive side. MR. CARTIER-But you didn't come three years ago. You're here today. MR. ROULIER-Youlre asking me to comment on something that I didn't have MR. HAGAN-Well, no. You're asking us to approve something that, once we keep approving these type of things, the Lake is just becoming obliterated with docks and dock covers and I still request that you answer why the applicant needs more than 40 feet of the dock covered. Does he have a boat longer than 40 feet? MR. ROBERTS -He's got two boats. MR. ROULIER-He has two boats. MR. HAGAN-Okay, put them side by side. MR. ROULIER-That' s the problem, the boat slip is so narrow that one has to go in behind the other. MR. CARTIER-There are other alternatives. This is not the only possible solution to this problem. MR. ROULIER-We had looked into the alternative of building an adjacent dock that would not extend out past the 40 foot mark and we cannot do it, tt.e can conform to the Town of Queensbury Regis, but we can't do it with the Lake George Park Commission Reg's. 40 ~ -.../ MR. CARTIER-I don't think you're going to get much sympathy from a considerable amount of people on this Board, for what you're proposing. MR. ROBERTS-As far as blocking the view, the view is largely blocked by the humungous size of the boat. It's interesting to me that a man who owns a magnificent piece of property needs that large a cabin cruiser when you own property on the Lake, but that's what's going to block the view, Wlether it's in the boathouse or whether it sits where it is now. Even more so than the covered deck. I don't think there's anything you can do about that. The neighbor's view is already blocked there. MR. ROULIER-But I think Mr. Calabrese is working in the, he realizes that it has an effect on the neighbors, there's no question about that, but he's willing to bear the expense of having me raze the additional roof so that the sundeck is as least obstructive to the neighbors as possible. Right now, this particular roof is obstructive and is there. MR. CARTIER-No que stion about it, but I think that's very minor compared to the overall impact of what's being proposed here. MR. HAGAN-If we allow that sundeck, it's going to be there forever, after we Ire long gone, Wlether anyone has two boats that need that 60 some feet of boat coverage or not and I think it's unfair for one individual to make that much of an impression on a 100 foot lot when he has neighbors on both sides of him. MRS. PULVER-Well, is there a public hearing? MR. GORALSKI-There should be a public hearing, yes. PUBLI C HEARING OPENED NO OOMMENT POBLI C HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-I'm sorry the neighbors couldn't stick it out. MR. ROULIER-I just feel as though, after my conversation with the neighbors, I felt as though they were concerned about obstructing the view, but they realized everything positive that Mr. Calabrese has done to the property. MR. CAlUIER-I don't think it's appropriate to use neighbors, frankly, even though they're not here, that's not appropriate. MR. HAGAN-If you have it in writing, \Ie' d be glad to listen to it, I mean the neighbors comments. MR. ROBElUS -I do, however, think that this is a site plan should review it as such and not throw it back to the ZBA. It does not require a SEQRA review. review, and tha t we We've gone this far. MRS. PULVER-There's a Short Form in here. MR. GORALSKI-There's no SEQRA review required. This is a Type II action, accessory structure. MR. ROULIER-Let me ask you another question, then. Would you consider approving this with, let say, some stipulation so that we were to build the additional boat cover out to the extent of it, but over the portion of the existing boathouse, eliminate the railing there, so that we have one continual roof line, but just with the sundeck portion out towards the end of it. MR. ROBERTS-It would be an unsafe way to get out to the end of the dock, ~uldn' t it, without a railing? MR. ROULIER-No, there would be a set of stairs here, that would access the front portion of it. MR. ROBERTS-I see, alright. MR. ROULIER-But then the railing would continue around and this would just be a flat portion here, that would be considerably, the visual impact would. .38 feet of railing, 28 feet of railing. 41 '''"-' -- MR. CARTIER-Well, you asked, I'll answer for me, no. I think the impact of this is horrendous. Why zoning's not looking at it, I don I t know, but, here we are looking at it as a site plan and this is, I've never seen a dock application with this kind of impact. I hate to set a precedent. MR. ROULIER-Could the sundeck be somewhat altered, maybe to the 40 foot mark? MR. CARTIER-No, you're looking for a compromise from me and, I'm speaking purely for me, here, and, if you're going to do something where you can get two boats and then a cover, my response is to pullout the 60 feet of dock and go wider, you can get in the Town of Queensbury, a U-Shaped dock that will hold those two boats, but not..60 feet or under 60 feet. MR. HAGAN-The thing I'm against is going out, with a cover, beyond the 40 feet limit a t ion. MR. ROBERTS-Is there room for compromise? MR. GORALSKI-I think that's what he just said. MR. CAlMANO-That' s what he just asked. MR. CARTIER-Say that again, then. MR. ROULIER-Okay, my question was, after the proposal to eliminate the rail, here, and just have the sundeck MR. HAGAN-You're still going out more than 40 feet. MR. ROULIER-No, excuse me. The second part of that was, suppose that we were to go from where the existing sundeck is from that point out 40 feet. In other words, \Ie would be eliminating, approximately, 18 feet of the deck. MR. CARTIER-What does that do for getting two boats under storage? MR. CAlMANO-That was the original plan, wasn't it, not a sundeck. MR. ROULIER-That' s the original plan, but I'm just wondering, at least at that junction, right now, half of the boat is under cover. MR. CAlMANO-What about the compromise that Mr. Cartier offered and that's the fact that we redo that dock differently. MR. ROULIER-The cost would be prohibitive. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that I s a crib dock. MR. GORALSKI-If he redid the whole thing, he could still come back with a 40 foot section. MR. ROULIER-You're saying, then, if I moved it, let's say, to a 16 or 20 foot slip, I could come back for a 40 foot sundeck. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. ROULIER-Okay, then if I understand you correctly, you would at least approve a 40 foot sundeck. MR. HAGAN-That's right. MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sure we'd all agree to it. MR. HAGAN-No, but I wouldn't have any objection to it if it was only a 40 foot cover. MR. ROBERTS-That would be changing the present roof line which would be an improvement. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. ROULIER-In other words, Mr. Roberts, it would still raze this..here, so that..so the structure, instead of being approximately 58 feet, ~uld be reduced to a 40 foot deck. 42 '---' MR. ROBERTS-Which is fairly comrron. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm hearing a change of gears, here, now. The original intent that was presented to us was that we needed 58 feet of decking to get two boats under cover. MR. ROULIER-Right, wa do, wa absolutely do. MR. CARTIER-And now, it's being represented to us that we don't have to get two boats under cover, that we can get one and a half boats under cover. We've got an either or deal, here. MR. ROBERTS-Well, this is a compromise. MR. ROULIER-Yes, I'm trying to reach a reasonable compromise. MR. CARTIER-My question is, \<bat kind of a design can you come up with, in such a way that it will not be nonconforming, that will still be in conformance with the Ordinance. Do you follow that? MR. ROULIER-Okay, I think I can address that. The north setback has to be 20 feet, if 11m not mistaken? MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. ROULIER-Okay, the proposed sundeck would be almost at 20 feet from the line, I think it might be, like, 19 and change. MR. ROBERTS-If you didn't cover the northern slip. You wouldnlt be covering both. MR. GORALSKI-No, I think he's talking about because the dock is eight feet wide. You have 12 feet 5 inches to the dock, and then if the dock is 8 feet wide, you have another 6 or 7 feet, so you're 19 feet. MR. ROULIER-Okay, that's one of your concerns, right? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROULIER-Which would be a concern on the rear portion, not on the existing portion. MR. CAlMANO-Why are we sitting here redesigning this thing. We have a site plan review in front of us which, obviously, has some concerns to it. There are other avenues in which you can get help, here, from the Board or whatever, but I think sitting here in a meeting and redesigning the form is just not right. If we did that for every applicant, wa'd be here until after the moon goes down. MR. ROBERTS-Is it reasonable for us to try to come up with some kind of a compromise? MR. CAlMANO-We've gone through it several times and I think it IS up to the applicant to go back and come back with a new plan to submit to us, if, in fact, this one is going to be turned down. MR. CARTIER-I don't think it's valid for an applicant to negotiate a.. MR. CAlMANO-I don't either. MR. CARTIER-And I think this needs to be looked at and I think, maybe, in the meantime, possibly, \Ie could go into the question, formally, with the Zoning Administrator, if the Board so desires. MRS. PULVER-I do think that we should give the applicant some direction as to what we think. MR. CAlMANO-How much more direction are we going to give him than what we've given him so far? MRS. PULVER-I feel that's what he was asking. Do you want us to stay within 40 feet? Can we go 42 feet, 46 feet. MR. CAlMANO-Fine, but, Carol, \Ie give the direction, generally, through the Staff. If we sit here and give directions and spend hours giving directions 43 '-' '-"" MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm still confused as to whether or not, just so you know, I plan on abstaining because I did not see that, t hit's the only piece of property I did not see on site review. So, I understand you I re drawings perfect ly, but, now that I see there's so much talk about it, 11m going to go out there and make a point of seeing it, if this gets tabled, but I'm confused as to who wants what. I'd like to know, myself, before I go out there. MR. ROULIER-Are you saying that, Wlen you said it has to go back through Staff, are you concerned that I'm at site plan and, perhaps, should have gone for a variance first? MR. CAlMANO-No, I'm concerned that, I'm reading the Board, here, a little bit, and saying, youl re probably going to get turned down for the site plan review, but that doesnlt mean that we're not sympathetic with the fact that you need some help, so I'm saying, sit down with the professionals and find out all of the things we've said, here, and how we can redo it and then come back with a new site plan review, that's what I'm saying. I don't feel that we have time to go through all of these reviews with every applicant. I mean, it just doesn't seem right. MR. CARTIER-In addition to that, I would like time, and this is up to the Board, definitely, but I'd like time for this Board to think about whether or not we want to kick this to zoning for a decision and maybe that's something we could decide between now and next week. MR. HAGAN-In the meantime, \Ie have a site plan before us. MR. CAlMANO-That's correct. MR. HAGAN-Specifically described. I'm introducing a motion to reject Site Plan No. 51-90 to Michael and Trudi Calabrese. MR. GORALSKI-Could you use the term disapprove, if that's what you mean. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MS. CORPUS-And if I might also add one more thing, in Lee York's comments, there were a series of elements that were also found in Section 5.070 of the Zoning Ordinance which deal with Site Plan Review, but if the Board chooses to either approve or deny, that those particular items, they are also addressed here, be incorporated into whatever resolution. MR. GORALSKI-I think youlll find them on the second page of her notes. MR. HAGAN-Why can't I just reference that whole thing. MR. ROBERTS-It needs to be noted that we have addressed these, Jim, and I think, basically, thatls what we're talking about. We donlt think it's in harmony with the neighborhood, and blah, blah, blah. MS. CORPUS-The Board would have to discuss whether it agreed with these comments or not. These, apparently, appear to be positive comments. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I think they're negative comments. The next to last paragraph, thit's a negative comment. MS. CORPUS-No, the portions from 5.070 A, B, and C. MR. GORALSKI-A, B, and C. In order to approve a project, the Board would have to find A, B, and C. Apparently, if youlre going to disapprove it, you don't find those. MS. CORPUS-Just so we have a clear, fact finding basis. MR. HAGAN-Now, youl ve got me stymied. MR. ROBERTS-What you're hanging your hat on is A, B, and C and we don't agree with them. We can't make those positive determinations, so that's why we're turning it down. MR. GORALSKI-You don't have to say all of those things. MR. HAGAN-Why does it have to be addressed in the motion. 44 '~ ~ MR. GORALSKI-You have to have a Findings of Fact. MS. CORPUS-If I might bring the Board's recollection to a previous time when the fact finding wasn't enumerated in the motion and it was challenged. If it's not done in the motion, you have to search through the record to find what particular elements found in 5.070 you used to come up with your decision. It would just be more concise. MR. HAGAN-The site plan does not conform to our Ordinance Laws. MS. CORPUS-That is a separate issue and something that really cannot be considered for disapproval or approval of the project. The Planning Board can bring this before the Zoning Board to challenge the Zoning Administrator I s decision, but the Board has to consider the application as it's presented tonight. MR. HAGAN-I withdraw my motion. MR. ROULIER-Let me ask one more que stion. First of all, I almost wonder, could we have it tabled until we could have the problems MR. ROBERTS-You can withdraw your application anytime you want. MR. GORALSKI-You can withdraw your application and submit a new one next month. MR. ROULIER-That's right, otherwise, What would be the waiting period? MR. GORALSKI-There's re-submit next month. no waiting period. If you get denied tonight, you can Your other option is to withdraw and re-submit next month. MR. ROULIER-Well, I guess what I have to find out is, if youl re going to kick this back for a variance or is it your recommendation that next month I come in for another site plan with some alterations. MR. CAlMANO-Well, let me try the motion and then see if you get something out of that. Either way, the timels going to be the same. MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-90 HIœAEL AND TRUDI CALABRESE, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: To raise existing boathouse cover by approx. 2 ft.; to construct a new boathouse (sun deck) over balance of boat slip (approx. 14 ft. by 32 ft. by 9 ft.) due to the fact that the Board finds that, under Section 5.070 of the Zoning Ordinances, this dock and this application is not in harmony with the general purpose or intent of the Ordinance, due to its size and location. Also, potentially, there is a traffic hazard due to the size and, potentially, the project might have an undue adverse impact on the natural scenic, aesthetic, ecological, and recreational aspects of this area. Further, the Board has carefully considered the cumulative aspects of the expansion of this dock and other expansions along the Lake and feels, further, that this should be denied. Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver MR. ROBERTS-How are we, if he wanted to withdraw it now, are we too late? MR. CAlMANO-It doesn't make any difference, really. MR. ROBERTS-As long as he can re-apply. MR. CAlMANO-John says if he's going to re-app1y MR. GORALSKI-Yes, he can re-apply. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-He can't re-apply with the same proposal. 45 ~ MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. CARTIER-One quick comment. I think you didn't get a question answered and that is, is the Board going to go the Zoning route? MR. ROBERTS-I don't see any need for it. I think, as long as the Staf f has recommended Site Plan, \lelve got as much control over this, I think, as ZBA, does probably. Why fight Staff on thi s, if they've made that determination. Since welve stayed in control this way. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-I agree. SITE PLAN NO.. 54-90 TJPE II BC-1A GF ELKS LC]I)CE OIØEII.: SAME AS ABIlNE 50mB SIDE OF QWNIN lOAD ±!t; OF A MILE FAST OF BA~ ROAD PIQHC PAVILIØ{, STORACE BUlJILDING, AND PARKING EXPANSIŒ.. TAX MAP NO.. 59-1-'..4, '..7 Lor SIZE: 9..35 ACRES SEcrIŒ 4.020 (K) DON MCPHERSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPur Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. MCPHERSON-I'll try to keep this brief. I'm Don McPherson from the LA Group representing the Glens Falls Elks Lodge which is actually located in the Town of Queensbury. The application before you was actually the first part of an overall master plan that the Elks Lodge wants to incorporate over the next, possibly, 10 years, the exact time period is indefinite, but you can see by the overall master plan that we've developed that it really goes beyond the parking expansion and the Picnic Pavilion that we're here for tonight. They intend to expand to a soft ball field, tennis and basketball courts, as \-Jell as a small parking area with a picnic area down towards Halfway Brook. We have been in touch with the DEC and the wetland has been located and flagged by Al Koechline of the DEC and approximately ends in this area. It's shown more accurately on the survey submitted with the application. Again those are all. .potential for the wetlands that has been est ablished. Along with the overall improvements, there would be a peripheral hiking or jogging trail,..down in the wetland area..by way of DEC regulations and the idea behind all this is, obviously, to try to upgrade the Lodge's overall recreational facilities to attract new members. More specifically to the details of the. .m.ich, again, is, primarily parking expansion and the Picnic Pavilion. The Site Plan, really, covers only that portion of the site. The key to that will be the parking expansion shown, here, on the shaded area, the paved area within that is the existing parking which accommodates about 79 parking spaces and the expansion would include 136 spaces that would meet the..requirements under the code. The Picnic Pavilion would be located just to the south of that parking area and, right now, that would be the extent of the improvements. The Pavilion, itself, ~uld be an open pole structure with a small enclosure at the north end that would have bathrooms and.. there would be a barbecue area adjacent to that, but the only plumbing or real.. ~uld be the bathrooms and so forth. The utility services for this would be, \oSter service would come from the existing Lodge and beyond their existing water meter and then running a pipe out to the Picnic Pavilion to the service area, although it will be built, initially, 1.but, so that they can put that in and..the water line will be run as part of the additional project. The sanitary sewer is connected to an existing clean out that was installed when the sewer system for the existing Lodge was revamped a few years ago because they did plan on the expansion. . and that. .existing clean out drains the existing sewer in Cronin Road. The stormwater management, wich was the focus of some of the engineering comrrents, 1 .with collecting the increased runoff frcm the parking area along the swale on the east side of the parking, here, and then taken to a detention basin before discharging into the existing swale along Cronin Road and, in looking over the engineering comments,. .of the sub cat chment diagrams which we've used to calculate the water runof f and so forth is no problem. Again, \Ie' ve got them in worksheet form back at the office and we can submit those to Rist-Frost and, to make sure I addressed them correctly, the culvert draining the retention basin, I guess, \oSS correct in it being a 6 inch pipe because we wanted to try to minimize the amount of water realized to the existing basin at anyone time and I gue SS 46 -../ that would be addressed, somewhat, by the third comment, also, the retention basin was. . for a 50 year storm rather than a 10 year which was previously used. The reason for that was, in conversations when we initially started the project, with Wayne Gannett from Rist-Frost, he hadoosandy soils on the project as..is somewhat minimal. If there were sandy soils, the soils might be better accommodated to. . runof f, but since we do have somewhat heavier soi ls , \Ie do need to provide a retention area before sizing that for a 10 year storm and. .calculations, and so forth, for 50 year storm would be nO problem to provide. and the final comment regarding the erosion control measures, \Ie would be happy to comply with any regulations in the textbook referenced regarding hay bales, preliminary installation of a swale..can be established at site plan. MR. ROBERTS-Would that, perhaps, create a need for a larger catch basin here? MR. MCPHERSON-I think it might, yes. The retention area would stay in the same general area. I think that I s shown on another sheet. As you can see on Sheet 2 of the set, the filling retention areas. .along the property lines and we do have, not only contours, but additional spot elevations that we could fill in..not that many contours lines show up, but we do have another survey which was included the packet. . information required for that and, again, instead of being right along the property line, it would just. .larger. .and I know it looks like a huge basin out there. MR. ROBERTS-This doesn't seem like a real major problem. MR. YARMOWICH-No, \Ie appreciate the value of a computer program to do this and when you have the map, \Ie' d be satisfied that you can address it. The time of concentration will control the design and we feel that, we'd like to see the outcome of the analysis and then let you decide as to what measures need to be taken, so we feel comfortable that you can address it. MR. ROBERTS-I'm just thinking that, perhaps, this project may not get held up for. .Of course, erosion control measures are boilerplate. We expect that of all new construction. PUBLI C BEARING OPENED WILLARD SHANAHAN MR. SHANAHAN-My name is Willard Shanahan and my eastern neighbor is the Elks club running the full length of my property, about 500 yards and I think youl re all familiar with the water table from about the other side of the College all the way down to Quaker Road. The flow of the land and the water seep down into our area and make it a wet area and we can cope with it if there's no problem. The Elks come in a cause one big problem in that they build in to about a height of four feet up to about half of the length of their property. It's made it pretty much of a bath tub of our area that we've never had before. We used to have prize winning gardens. We can I t have them anymore. We're under water 25 percent of the time. We have a nursery out in back. .Fir trees, that 25 percent is going down the drain because the high water has killed them and I have no complaint with their Pavilion area and all the rest of it except that when they fill in and box us in the full length, \Ie're going to be in real trouble. It's going to be the coup-de-gras that really puts uS under. I'd like to give each of you these photos of what we have to put up with. I have nothing against the Elks, per se. We get along alright, but I must have assurance that that is not filled in the way the front part of the property is. We have enough problems.. with what we have to contend with. Twenty five percent of the year we can I t use our land and unless there's some arrangement for them to drain this or to provide some source of drainage to this so we can use it, then I urge you strongly to. .in approving their parking lot because we cannot cope with this. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder if any consideration's been give to this problem? MRS. PULVER-Well, let me just ask, you're saying all this water is coming from the Elks over to you? MR. SHANAHAN-No, you see the flow of the water goes from west to east. MRS. PULVER-Alright, \Ie 11 , that's what I'm thinking. It's coming down MR. SHANAHAN-And the flow used to be to Halfway Brook, the way it normally always has been, but their blocking it up made a bath tub of all of our property. It's a tremendous assault on us. 47 "-' .-../ MR. HAGAN-It's your runoff that can't get away? MR. SHANAHAN-Right, that can't get away. MR. CAlMANO-Look at the other maps, the Number 2 map, of the topographical. All of this is 1 or 2 feet above.. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's why he's saying they filled it in. Is there a potential of deepening roadside ditches. I suppose the flow it to Halfway Brook, probably, east. MR. SHANAHAN-It flows toward Halfway Brook and then it stops at their wall that they built. MR. MCPHERSON-I can address that. I know the,1.application, the additional parking won't flow steady on the existing grade, but I think what Mr. Shanahanls referring to..Lodge's..and the Elks are concerned with keeping good relations with the neighborhood. They might be able to work scmething out in private discussions with the neighbors. It does appear that the Elks have had good relations. LENA SHANAHAN MRS. SHANAHAN-I'm Lena Shanahan, neighbor on the same lot and we came up tonight because we thought that they were probably going to fill that whole back and raise that more than it is now. KEN GRAVES MR. GRAVES -Ken Graves, I'm the immediate past exulted ruler there. Committee. I'm on the MRS. SHANAHAN-Mr. Graves says they're not going to put in anymore fill in the back, but the thing is that I think the. .is a ditch all the way from the back down to the front ditch which runs toward Halfway Brook, to drain, right along that side, that would drain that land back there. MR. SHANAHAN-A trench of full of crushed rock with a pipe with holes in it that would siphon that water out to the main ditch and run down to the Halfway Brook would probably solve our problem. MR. MCPHERSON-I think the Elks t4)uld be acceptable to trying to ~rk out some situation. For the initial application, the initial parking expansion will hold to the existing grade..excavating..sub-basin..pavement and so forth. MRS. SHANAHAN-Well, that is one question that we were concerned with is wether thereld be fill or not and you say there is no additional fill? MR. CARTIER-Mr. Graves, I assume you're here representing the Elks, is that correct? MR. GRAVES-Yes. MR. CARTIER-As part of any approval that might be given to this expansion tonight, ~uld you be willing to commit yourself to some sort of mitigative measures to deal with the water problems? MR. GRAVES-Well, I doni t have the authority to make any commitment because it is a Lodge and it's owned by 1100 members. the only thing that I can say to the Board is, W'iat is there now, grade wise, there's very little change and, if anything, ~ are improving the runoff because we are taking it the other way and out of the drains in the parking lot and out tnto the front of the building anyway as it is now. What is there, unfortunately, is there and I was not around at the time that that was built so I really don't know how to address that situation. We have allowed a certain amount of budget mo~ey to do this project as it is right now, to make any changes or make any commitmønts, I don't if I can, but what I'm saying is, what we are planning on doing now and what we would like to do will in no way increase, at all, the water on }fr. Shanahan's property and, in all probability, it will lessen what goes on there.' MR. CARTIER-Well, I think, for me, anyway, ~ 'm looking for more than just an, "in all probability". I think that, if, in f~ct, their property is being impacted by past development, I think the Elks Lodge J whether or not you were there, I 48 '--' -.-/ think this is the time we need to address it. get better, not "maybe" it will get better. We have to be sure it's going to MR. GRAVES -It will not get worse. Let me ask Chairman of the Board of Trustees to speak. NORM NELSON MR. NELSON-My name's Norm Nelson and I'm Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the Elks Lodge. We appreciate my Shanahan's problem over there. I've driven by there many times and felt very sorry for him out there trying to mow his lawn in a pair of waders on trying to get through the water. The problem exists all the way back. If you go back to the further end of our property down beyond where the Pavilion is proposed to be placed, that whole area is very, very wet. As a matter of fact, wen we, the only reason. we're here tonight at all is because we lost both of our Pavilion I s in a windsto+m last fall. They ~re just brought down, just demolished completely, and, ratQ'er than replace both of them, \Ie I re looking to replace both of the Pavilion's with one Pavilion. MR. ROBERTS-We're they only concrete slabs? MR. NELSON-They were on the concrete slabs way in the back there. We're bringing it up closer to the front and, again, one of the reasons is because out in back it is very wet. We had sane visitors from &ine, here, a few weeks ago and they asked if they could park down there overnight with RV's and we had to get a wrecker in there to get them out and we have not been able to replace our fence. If you go down Bay Road, you'll notice the fence ot,tt there is down, or 2/3rd' s down and the reason for it is, to get that replaced,· \lelre going to have to go over onto Quaker Electric property. Quaker Electric property has been so wet that they just don't want us out there and I don't blame them. I talked to Larry Dickinsen. He called me the other day and said, Norm, I think itls dry enough, now, so we can put some trucks out there with some lin~s to pull that fence up, so it goes beyond Mr. Shanahan's property right down onto our property and right on to Quaker Electric property, that whole area is all wet down in there. What we're proposing, here, as what'soois going to go, really, in ~he other direction. It may, in fact, help Mr. Shanahan and help ourselves, too, 'þy getting that stormwater to runoff the front of the property, rather than down towards the back. MR. CARrIER-Well, considering that you've shown us a master plan, here. you put that master plan back up, please. Could MR. NELSON-We have no time table on this, probably, 10 years or so. MR. CARrIER-I understand that, but at some point, ~'re looking at, to have to be addressed, somehow, in this master plan,! .try to see come up with some accommodation, here. it's going if you can MR. SHANAHAN-Do you plan on filling in the rest of that? MR. NELSON-In the back? MR. SHANAHAN - Ye s . MR. NELSON-No, sir. There would be no more fill in the back there at all. MR. SHANAHAN-Well, that was my objection, my only objection. MR. NELSON-I appreciate that because I underst4nd your situation. MR. SHANAHAN-I know we're stuck with the wet! land and there I s nothing ~ can do about it. MR. NELSON-No, \Ie do not plan on whatsoever, that land will stay just drainage right, really, back towards there. filling; anything back there at the way! it is now so there will Quaker ~lectric and that Halfway all, none be natural Brook back ! MR. CARrIER-Mr. Shanahan, are you saying th~t, as long as you understand that they're not putting any more fill back there ! MR. SHANAHAN-If they're not going to fill it tn, I have no objection, but if they put in an inch of fill, there's going to be a p!roblem. 49 ~ '-"" MR. ROBERTS-It would be nice, for everybody, if an overall drainage plan could be worked out. MR. YARMOWICH-Don, can you show Mr. Shanahan precisely what areas will be filled, from the map, there appears to be a small amount. MR. NELSON-I might say that, as Chairman Qf the Board, this is something that we have not probably addressed as much as ,we should, but, now, being aware of it, again, I can't say that we will do it, 'but we certainly will look into that area in the future and see if we can I t corr~ct that as much as possible and help Mr. Shanahan out because we appreciate good ne!ighbors also. MR. MCPHERSON-To sumrr.arize the overall, I gu~ss, grading changes to the property, right along here is the existing edge of the parking area, as it stands now. The additional parking will be below that, a,gain, mostly to the south and to the east. The proposed grading shown, again,1.contour lines, will hold, starting at the existing, continue that same pitch or follow the existing contour line and end up, approximately, maybe, within, :r can't say exactly, again, without looking, exactly, in the pinpoint areas for the particular spot elevations, but the existing drainage patterns which, in the areas. .are to the south and then to the east, will be maintained and won't be any water re-directed towards the Shanahan's property except for, again, what may have been..as far as the drainage coming across their property, but, again, the paving expansion to the south and east will meet the existing grades. The existing soil will be excavated out. . sub-basin.. MR. CAlMANO-Did he answer your question? MR. YARMOWlCH-Yes, Mr. Shanahan, I'd like to have Don describe to you what it was that I was looking at, rather than characterizing any of this work as fill. I think what you have here is a fine grading operation and that is the extent of it. What will be done, from my view of this plan, is that elevations will be smoothed. They're sighting elevations, here, within two tenths of a foot across dist ances that are more than 60 and 80 feet. (TAPE TURNED) They would be grading operations only. Grading which would provide for smooth and uniform distribution of flow. I think that the answers that you've been given, as far as, there would be nO increase in flow directed towards your property is evidenced by the spot elevations shown here. MR. SHANAHAN-Are you saying there's gPing to be fill or not? MR. YARMOWlCH-There' s not going to be fill. There will be some minor grading. MR. SHANAHAN-Well, as long as there's no filll. That's the only thing I'm not going to put up wi th . MR. YARMOWlCH-Well, there is no fill, per se, shown. What you see here is a grading operation, that would be a leveling and smoothing. There is no fill to raise elevations, to provide new surfaces, anything ~ike that. MR. CARTIER-In other words, they're not add~ng any more material, they're just moving around the stuff that they've got there? MR. YARMOWlCH-Well, there will be the material added, in replacement, in kind, generally, for parking areas. You can't take! mush and make it into good parking. There will have to be stone and things like t¡:hat imported and the re-distribution of material will cause small changes in grad~. There won't be any fill added. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I guess I asked for pubUc comment. Anybody else? weill close the public hearing. If not, PUBLIC BEARING (1.OSED MR. ROBERTS-I involved? believe weill entert ain a m?tion. Apparently, no SEQRA looks , I I MR. GORALSKI-I think you can consider both l the storage accessory structures to the principal use an<¡i, therefore, action and no SEQRA would be required. I shed and the P avi lion it would be a Type II MOTION TO APPJIOVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-90 GF EL S LODGE, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nichol Caimano: 50 "--" '-"" To add a Picnic Pavilion, storage bui lding and is not to be any fill added to this site, just the engineering comments are to be addre$sed engineering approval. expand the parking area. There general grading as needed. All and submit a revised plan for Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. CAlMANO-I have one question for Tom. Three times, tonight, \Ie' ve talked about clogging and I canlt remember, in the six months I've been on the Board, ever talking about this before. What I want to find out is, is that going to be something that you look at more carefully than others and should we be looking at this? MR. YARMOWICH-I'm not sure if this is a mattCþr of circumstance or is it something that needs interpretation of the policy. Dµe, \Ie seem to have a lot of small site plans before us that don't have redundånt, interconnective facilities. You look at a roadway and you've got all these catch basins along the way with a common pipe, one clogs over flows, it goes into the¡ next. Typically, you had some sort of containment to look for drainage that chiannelizes and contains things. When youlve got these small sites, you can get into! these problems. MR. CAlMANO-Is that something that you, beca¡use of whatever things you've looked at. . ? MR. YARMOWICH-No. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 5l "--' '- LOCATION ~S July 17th, 1990 Queensbury Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Subdivision No. 14-1988 PRELIMINARY STAGE Hi!ckory Acres Sidney H. Timms (See Staff Notes atta!ched) Subdivision No. 7-1990 FINAL STAGE Patti Rathbun (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Subdivision No. 6-l990 PRELIMINARY STAGE She~an Pines Owner: Charles A. Diehl (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant (See Staff Notes and Map attached) NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 48-90 Malcolm O'Hara Community Workshop Resources Corp. (See Staff Notes and Map attachèd) Site Plan No. 49-90 Robert Tyrer (See Staff Notes attached) ~ Site Plan No. 50-90 Warren Electric Supply, 14c, (See Staff Notes attached) ..... '- -/ LOCATION ~S July 17th, 1990 Queensbury P~anning Board Meeting NEW BUSINESS: (Cont'd) Site Plan No. 51-90 Michael and Trudi Calabr~se (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 54-90 GF Elks Lodge (See Stafß Notes attached) UJ. tz.Þ>. ROJ€CT 5œ- ~ ..- TOWN OF QUEE$SBURY PlslIW,ni"8 Depart~eDt -NOTE TO FtLE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Julv II. 1990 John Goralski Area Vmiaøce U. Variance - Sign Variance :=: Interpretation Other: x Subdi~ Sketch. -1L- PreJimiDary, Site Plan ReYiewi == Petition for a ~e of Zone Freshwater We~ Permit - i Final AppJicatioD Number: Subdivision No. 14-1988 AppJicaøt·. Name: Hickorv Acres MeetiDg Date: Julv 17. 1990 ·..···..··..····.....·..··...················..···t··.....····............··................ This proposal received preliminary appr oval in July of 1989. At that time there were several engineering concerns ~ich the applicant is attempting to address. . Since preliminary approval was gran4ed D.E.C. has increased the designation of Freshwater Wetland GF-23 so t'Jat a portion of it may ~ within this subdivision. I would recommend grant in a maximum 6 month extension of the preliminary approval. I would also rec .mmend that the motion include a requirement that the boundary of the wetland !be shown on the map and that the applicant obtain a determination from D.E.C.! regarding the wetland prior to final approval. JG/pw ~ ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIAT!l$. PC CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 I "--- ~ . ..UCL"IIIv- ~)~ilwr~~ ~ JUL 131990 - ~llE COP v SUBDIVISION NO. J to¡ -I q F ~ ")LANNING . ZONIHe. DEPARTMENT Jul y 13, 1990 RFA #89-5000.514 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Hickory Acres Subdivision No. 14-1988 Preliminary Plans Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the referent projeft and have the following comments: 1. Outlet weir calculations shquld be provided in the stormwater management plan and the weir ~hould not allow runoff in excess of the existing runoff to leav~!the site. I An agreement for the ma inte~ance of the stormwater retent ion facility on lots 2, 3 and 4 hould be included in the Deeds for these parcels, and drainage easements should be indicated on the final plot. ! I I Water service connections shquld be shown to maintain a minimum 10' separation distance fro~ sewage disposal fill absorption systems. . i All previous engineering comments ~ave been satisfactorily addressed. 2. 3. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. dð- vvvv,:. ...1 Thomas M. a owich, P.E. Project Eng eer THY/cmw cc: Planning Board Members ,. ~ nl I:'t..Ict 1:&1 t Ct tJV_1 AI't'\a.UA Jl.IU ;. ~ .. - ',--, .-- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pt,.nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- I Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior ~lanner Mr. John S. Goralski, PI~er Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assis*ant Planner I Date: July 16, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area V....ce U. Variance - Sip Variance - Interpretation x Subd.måoa: Sketch. _ Pi'eUmiDary. -L- FiDal - Site P1aD Reriew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Other: Applicant'. Name: ¡ I I I SUbfivision No. 7-1990 patti Rathbun Julr 17, 1990 Application Number: MeetiDø Date: , ..........................,................................................................. I I have reviewed qhe above referenced project and would recommend approval of same. JG/pw " '---' o ..-' ~ <..1.0 ~ ¡VO~\H 'l ~ "<{. ~ <; <¥- J l ~ ~ --- l. \ ~ ( \ \ l l " ¿N[)Íf\N~ ------------- ----- . .// II I' ~~ i . ":',.(J./ 1,1{' ~ &\J rJv<L \ \ oE- ('f(:::,r 0Q..( "- L. A" D S ,., 0'" 0 'S",> I:. ¡vi' ItA" ø¡ '" N' () bPl/ I? P\ .[ l \ . f6~ .\. 0 ~ 0'\ r· pC{ f<:,JI" V " \ l (1.\ o~ or- ¡,A.,vP S f foriV'U- \,-\ ð (") t-.ÑD ..A\\¡\~ \ . c ~v f'< '-~~- ") 1\.) Ñ Þ? l c::J :) 2 \W \ "> 4: l ,(;::; I \ I I \ . J / ( ~ .< ,^..r \-\ ~ ~ r.> S \I ° v.:> 0 f \..-C" ~'1- \ ......... \....~ ~ I\Ñ\) - ...J f- -s,.(-1·{'-1 l 7 01\. vE:.~~ .\ V r" \~ t<t \... \ \ \ \' .--J <:t: ~ \ z \ \Jl ~ lU l l ( f ( \ 1- ) () V) NÓv' oj H (.:\')(L¡.t-. , '\ '~ o ~ y(.SL1 ,\-1 t^i ~ \ r [' f\,~Q , N ouJ.'f" 0 ~\,p~~/S1.iSl) ~\eyJ ~e ' ~ : 'l ___ r o}( -:Ç C'I It V C ,J V I':; c " \ L I \ /" r........J / -.:; / ~ ---- ___ ,-_ .r- \ .------- r /' ..-. fAíTI S ~1\ì\-\ßUN ~ . - '- ..-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI:n,ning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior *anner Mr. John S. Goralski, Plamj1er Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assis~ant Planner Date: By: Julv 17. 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area Variuce Uee Variance - Sip Variance - Interpretation X SubdiYiåaD: Sketch, X Prelim' - mary, - Site PlaD Reriew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: ApplicatioD Number: Sub4ivision No. 6-1990 , Sherþan Pines - Charles A. Diebl ! Jul vi 17. 1990 Applic:aDt'. Name: MeetiDg Date: .......................... ................................................................. This projeŒ rec~ived Sketch Plan approval from this Board in April. The recomendations made II by Rist-Frost Associates at Sketch Plan approval have been added to the Pre~iminary plans. I The applicant ha~ requested a waiver from preliminzry plat requirement to show adjoining build~ng lines, wells, and sept ic systems. Considering the distances from the~e items to the proposed septic locations in this development, this app~ars to be a reasonable request. The Attorney's I Office has reviewed the Homeowner's Association Declaration, and has Isubmit~ed written comments. The Planning Department has also received commenta from the Highway Dept. regarding the proposed Town Road and drainage system. (Both letters are attached.) Neighboring prorerty owners have expressed concerns to the Planning Departœent about the¡ traffic that will be generated by this development. A traffic count done qn Shert!lan Avenue by Warren County in the Fall of 1988 indicated a level of ¡ service "A". If the Board feels that the traffic volune on this road has incr~ased significantly since the tine of this study, or that this l'roject may ha~e a significant impact on the traffic flow, a traffic study and il'1pact ana~ysis should be provided. Updated traffic studies are necessary in order ~o more accurately evaluate the cumulative impacts of residential developmeþts in Queensbury. -1- ; ;0 ',-, ..-- In order to avdid future problems in subdivisions, the final plat and mylar should includd a note which reads "The developer shall assume full responsibility for al!,l grading in this subdivision." A SEQR Negative þeclaration was done by the Board for both the Adirondack Plantations and Sherm~n Pines projects on April 24, 1990. SGB/pw -2- t' " ~ . - "---' MEMO TO: Stuart G. ¡Baker, Assistant Planne P'R(»I : Karla M. Clorpus, ! DA'I'B: July 5, 19190 0: Review of ~egal Documents for Planning Board Our File Nþ.: 89-l30-TQ Stu, I have revi~wed the attached declaration, and believe that it contains all the necessary elements required by law. However, I would like to be able to review the rest of the Offering Plan docu- ments, particular~y the Special Risk's page, and a sample Contract of Sale form tha~ will be included when the developer sends this to the Attorney ~neral' s Office. I do see some special risks that will have to be a~dressed in the Offering Plan documents to be given to prospective purþhasers. ! I am not ov,rly concerned about the adequacy of each element in this document, as the Attorney General's Office will review it for sufficiency ~n terms of the statutory requirements. Although they will not pas~ judgment as to the soundness of these particular elements, there ~re very specific regulations that require certain items be included.! For this reason, I will not comment on any partic- ular item within I this declaration, except to note that there does not appear to be ~ny conflict with our Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations. I ~lieve that the Attorney General will thoroughly review this projecF before the units can be offered for sale. If you have a~y questions, please give me a call. -Karla KMC: pam "HO~E OF NA rURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE ro LIVE" SETTLED 1763 -------- .-- ".--, .. ~ RIST.FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS \ SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 SAY STREET GLeNS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 . 793-.146 518 .793-.1.1 '--'. ...UI::.L.I....._ ~~~1!r~~ r-i~t .- -..-/ SUBDIVISION NO. !IJ - J "q 0 ~NINQ . ZONINt ¡ DEPARTMENT Ju 1 y 13, 1990 RFA #89-5000.506 Town of Que~nsbury Office Building Bay and Haviiland Roads Queensbury, , NY 12804 Attn: Mrs.! Lee York., Sr. Pl anner Re: Shermah Pines~ Subdivision 6-1990 - Preliminary (Adirordack. Plantations - Phase II) Dear Mrs York.: We have rev~ewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. The maximum allowed width of an absorption bed system in accordance with NYSDEC Standards is 15 feet. A 25 ' width is curreþtly proposed. 2. The drawings indicate that catch basins will be placed in the roadw~y. The drawings should be corrected to indicate drywells, if th~t is the case. I , 3. Maint~nance of erosion control devices shall be provided during construction. 4. The 2i" water mains from Casey Court to the townhomes do not conform to the standard, a 6" main is normally provided. Coord ~nat ion of the copper serv ice pipe deta 11 as shown on drawi~g 0-2, with the water service pipe connecting to Casey Courti is also necessary. 5. Gradi,g plan., sheet L-l, omits proposed grading for the 448 contowr at the Sherman Avenue - Casey Court intersection. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ~SSOCIATES, P.C. ~~y! òWYcn4 Project Eng er THY/c_ ~c: Plann1~g Board Members @ GLENS FALLS. NY-LAcoNlA. NH ; ,-- " rnr.. ..t'A£4 ........ & . - - . œoínn of (@ueenøbur\f ~igqína\f ~epartm.DMšíON NO. 6 - ¡cfJð .., at H_ØMd ROIIcia Office Phone 518-793·7771 .. Queenlbury, New York 12801 PAUL H. NAYLOR Superintendent Highways RICHARD A, MISSITA Deputy Superintendent Highway, .~~ UNNING I ZONIN~ DEPARTMeNT ". DATE: JULY 16, 1990 PLANNING BOARD PAUL H. NAYLOR SHERMAN TO: FROM: RE: ). . ewinq. the with paved ,..",,¿"4. Thank you. .~ ì.-' . paUl:.~~~ \. "'t )il7.:~ .< Hiqh~ay ~Pint~ndent ~.:~~:Q " '" . - -' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pb,nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior flanner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planþer Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: July 17, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area VmiaDce u.. Variance - Sign Variance == IDterpretatica Other: Subdi~ Sketch, PI'e1im' - - - mary, X Site PIaD ReYiew - Petition for a CbaDge of ZcDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppUcaticm Number: Site flan No. l7-90 AppUamt'. Name: J. PaW Barton, Docksider Restaurant MeeÛDg Date: JulV 17, 1990 .......................,..,................................................................. Several modifications ~ave been made to the original submission. The most significant change is the addition of a shoreline reclamation plan. I have spoken to Les Saltzman at DEC, and he indicated that a permit would be issued as soon as the 30 day comment period has expired, provided I that no new issues arise in the interium. The storm water drain~ge design has been modified. The shoreline reclamation will allow the applicant to crea~e a small berm which will help to mitigate the impact of direct runoff into the lake. The ptoposed drywell and berm in the northwest corner will minimize runoff in the parking lot, ~d the perimeter trench will help to facilitate infiltration of storm water from the parking area. A post and rail fence I is now'proposed along Glen Lake Road. This will provide for a more orderly traffic flow to and from the site. The new plan shows! tree wells around the trees that could be damaged by the regrading. The exiatiDø tre, legend indicates that all trees to be removed will be replaced in kind. Although severa! i mature trees have been or will be removed, replacing them will minimize the environm~tal impact. The problem of the ~paration distance between the proposed septic system and the Sullivan's well has alSO! been addressed to my satisfaction. The applicant has agreed to supply water to the Sulli~ans, and the Town of Queensbury will have no liability related to this agreement. It is my opinion that! this project as cUlTently proposed will not have a significant impact on the environment.i There may be some details such as sizing of trees, etc. These can be worked out prior to s.te plan approval. JSG/sed 1" " ....~lJ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVE't'ORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793.4148 518.793-4141 "--' F J L E ,.. - - ! ..../ ~)PÜWfF)l ~ ~Ul13 1990 'lJ 1LAt4NING a ZON.Hf DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. / 1- 9 () July 13,1990 RFA #89-5000.017 Town of QueØnsbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, !NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: J. Paul! Barton, Site Plan 17-90 Dear Mrs Yo~k: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: I. The p~oposed perimeter trench appears to be adequate to manage stor~ater from segment #2, however, it is not clear how segment #3 is !being managed, which includes part of the new building. Ca1cu11ations should be provided for segment 3 and justification for thØ time of concentrations used in all calculations should be given.' 2. The 0~t1et from the 8" pipe in the perimeter trench should be stab Hi zed. 3. There 'i s some grad ing shown beyond the west property 1 ine on Town of Que~nsbury property. 4. For walstewater design, NYSDEC SPDES permit will be required and agencyi review may note the following: a. Water and wastewater use values should be justified. Accord,ing to NYSDEC Expected Hydrau1 ic loading Rates, (1988 Standards) use should be approximately 2620 gal., (which ,includes the 2~ reduction allowed for water saving ~evices). The hydraulic loading rate recolllllended by NYSDEC would require a larger septic tank size. b. ~est pit information provided indicates that groundwater was found at elevations ranging from 393 to 396.75. Glen lake elevation is indicated at 398.0. The bottom elevation of the proposed seepage pits must be 2' above groundwater. ¡Further, these tests were taken in December which may not give an accurate location of groundwater depth. Verifica- tion of elevations and depths to groundwater in this area should be given. e GLENS FALLS. NY-I.ACONIA NH I -_._--_.- ...- ;þ ~ , -"" Town of Que~nsbury Attn: Mrs. ¡Lee York Page 2 Ju 1 y 13. 1990 RFA #89-5000.017 c. ¡Seepage pits should be separated from each other by at ¡least 2 times the depth of the pits. The effective ~iameter of the pits is 12 feet requiring 16 feet of earth between the effective diameters. d. Relocation of ex. seepage pit B to a point C as shown is þartially within the area of existing sewage disposal. e. The gate valve should not be placed inside the pump station $tructure. f. It is recommended that the sewage effluent pump match the maximum sustained well pump flow rate. g. The new well should be no less than 15 feet from a proptfly 1 ine. 4. Supply~ng an adjacent property with water for purposes of insta11ing a subsurface disposal system is irregular and has the potent~al to effect title transfers in the future. Very truly yburs, RIST-FROST A$SOCIATES, P.C. ~ ·tà·· . Thomas ~ Y '.. wlC)'~ Project Engi e r . TMY/cmw cc: Planning Board Members ""'-~.~'-- þ B 1.-.- ..- .. ~ ' D ) . I :r fIIuL 6AR\OI\J ~ ~ . - ---" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior ~lanner Mr. John S. Goralski, Pl~er Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assis~ant Planner Date: Julv 12. 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area VariaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi'riaioa: _Sketch, Pre!imnua_ _ _ -I' X Site Plan Re-riew - Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final Application Number: Site WI an Review No. 48-90 I Applicant'. Name: Ma1c<1>lm O'Hara, Community Workshop Resources Corp. MeetiDø Date: July ¡7, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant would .ike to renovate an existing metal storage shed into an adult day care facility for 36 eldezi'ly adults. I have reviewed the lapplication according to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, and I have the following co~ments. The Board should look carefully at the the proposed parking an-angement. The ~oning Administrator has determined that the Zoning Ordinance parking schedule (Section 7!.07Z) does not address parking requirements for this type of use, so "the Planning BoaJtd may establish parking requirements consistent with those specified in Section 7 .07Z." (Section 7.071, p. 85) In order to maintain adequate room for truck traffic to access the loading dock for the furniture store, at least a· 45 ft. turning radius around the northeast end of the furniture store building (near "Pulse") must be available. Accordingly, the last parking space on the southeast corner of the storage building and the last four spaces near "Pulse" should be removed or relocatled. SGB/sed ___4__'·'_ '........... ¡ " ''"--' 3(\~3(\\t 7J 7~.::\ rn:n ~~ ~ [!l 'Pc;.{" !-t ~ "JÏ ~ (3 E ~~ ~, ~ g ~ ~ -...,/ --r g\~ o i!1 Ji 3(\~alai\~ - O. : \. ' ,<' ~, L. (i -,¡.; ~~ ~j ;'j ~1 'J - /'i ,¡ ~ ~ :,~ " -~J I M~/(olllf o (/}1/,(4 ) COMMI/N:iy' L.!ðf.,/(>Aop (orf - .. - '-- "-'" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1ann;ng Department FIt f ropy -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior P.anner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Julv 16. 1990 Lee A. York Area V.uace Uøe Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Subdi.uïoa: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, X Site P1aD Reriew - - Petition for a CbaDge of ZoDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppUcatiaa Number: Site Plan Review No. 49-90 AppUc:aDt'. Name: Robert Tyrer MeeÛDfl Date: July 17. 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is for a 3,072 square foot building and 18 parking spaces to be added to a parcel containing an existing commercial facility. The lot size is 3 acres and the zoning is Highway Commercial 1 Acre. 'I'he drainage on this property may be of concern. The topography would indicate that any stor~ water will flow from the addition and proposed parking area across Glenwood Avenue through an existing parking area and into a retention basin which has a depth of 2 feet. The edge of the basin on the plans is 30 feet from Halfway Brook. Around the retention basin is a temporary silt fence. The invert and spillway are at 314 ± and the top of the bas in is 316 ft. There fore, there is no retent ion in the retent ion bas in. Any water captured in the basin will go directly to Halfway Brook. Siltation of the basin is not considered either, nor is Maintenance of the basin. The Board may want to consider whether it is a positive situation having drainage cross Glenwood Avenue, a designated local arterial and major thoroughfare. The Otdinance requires that applicants control drainage on their own lots. The Board may want to consider the intent of the Ordinance in ,thIs case. Glenwood Avenue at Bay Street is at a level of Service E, which means traffic conditions are at or near capacity. To allow drainage to cross this roadway could increase traffic problems and accident potential. The -1- " ---./ Board may also want to consider requiring filtering devices for any stormwater coming off of parking areas. This would cleanse the water of grease and oil prior to entering the ground water or surfa~e channels. The plan also shows the placement of a storm sewer under Glenwood Avenue, off the applicants property. A permit may be required by Warren County DPW. The layout and design shows a pedestrian walkway from the parking area to the commercial facility. Lighting will be arranged so as not to illuminate other property or buildings. The Board should require that lighting will also not affect traffic on Glenwood Avenue. LAY/pw -2- ~ ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. PC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVë'YORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 . 793-4146 518.793·4141 . ...UC&.lh.... ~)~awr~11 m: JUL 131990 ~J Frr E r'~;" '-./ SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. L¡ q - q 0 UNNING . ZO~IHf DEPARTMENT July 13, 1990 RFA #89-5000.049 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Robert Tyrer, Site Plan 49-90 Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. It is proposed to collect the increased storr~ater from the site in a drop in 1 et and discharge the water to a retent i on bas in across Glenwood Avenue, next to Halfway Brook. Clogging of the drop inlet grate and 12" pipe is of concern and mitigating measures are recommended, since stormwater may flow into Glenwood Avenue in the event the water could not enter the grate. 2. Storage in the retention basin should be provided below the invert of the 12" outlet pipe, to allow for possible siltation of the basin. The basin outlets should also be properly stabilized. Proper maintenance of the basin and its structures should also be provided and repairs made as necessary. 3. Permission from Warren County to place the storms ewer beneath Glenwöod Avenue may be required. 4. The 10 and 50 year flood plain of Halfway Brook, in relation to the proposed, detention facility should be shown to demonstrate that the stormwater management concept will function under the design conditions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~....... ~ ___ ~~,~"Á Thomas M. P. E. Project Engin TMY/cmw cc: Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH " ;> Town of Queensbury SITE~~~N~ Jy'9... r¡O Department of Wastewater ~ IfJl'er R. D. 2, BOX 386, CORINTH ROAD, QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 1_4 '--' THOMAS K. FLAHERTY, C.E.T. Oi rt'(·' or PHONE: (518) 793-0997 RE: Glenwood Manor Site Plan Review F : L E (C~:; 'I ,5 þÜ¡~J"':·'·· DIP. NT FROM: Lee York, Senior Planner Deputy Superintendent f/l!::,. flf TO: Michael O. Shaw, DATE: July 7, 1990 In reviewing these plans for gravity-feed sewer service, I am concerned that it may not be possible. Our records indicate that the connection to the existing sewers is only 1 " deep. At the 1/4" per foot slope, or 2\, in the approximately 65' of new sewer line you would lose that 1 " of ground cover leaving the sewer atop of the ground. An on-site review of these conditions will be needed to see if it is possible to use the existing connection. If you have any other questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me at my office. Thank you. ms/aw " ..~ . . I ' .....-' July 11. 1990 . ..U"'''I~.._ DEPART NT Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped Present: Sue He1ffrich Margo Burrell Joe Denig Nancy Ca1ano Recommendations Re: Site Plan No. 49-90 Robert Tyrer Dear Chairperson: The Committee would like to recommend the parking spaces for this Antique Mall be 8' wide with an access aisle 8' wide. according to N. Y. S. Codes, Rules & Regulations. Respectfully submitted, N1¿. s~~ on behalf of the Committee cc: Stephen Borgos. Town Supervisor Lee York, Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee I ._~---~--- " TOWN OF QUEENSBURY '-(X)MMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFI CATION -..-/ Robert '1. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue QueensburJ, ft. Y. 1280~ Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! To. (X) Warren County Planning Board Da t e . 7/9/90 (X) Queenabury Town Planning Board ( ) Queenabury Town Zoning Board of Appeals ex) APplicant Re. Site Plan #49-90 Robert Tyrerl Glenwood Manor Antiques 60 Glenwood Avenue We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the fOllowing recommendations. (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval This applicant proposes to construct a separate building from the main antique center to look like a carriage houseing, in a northeasterly direction from the paint shop to house another three dealers. The Glenwood planting the rear carriage house will have it's own separate parking area off Avenue. On either side of the driveway entrance there will be a consisting of one sargent crab apple and six and ora junipers. At of the paint shop will be another planting of these species. The dumpster will be placed near the back far corner of the new structure with a privacy fence surrounded by Austrian Pines. There will be a walkway connecting the two buildings with grass on either side EXisting trees and shrubs on the property will be retained. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaahed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~llY submitted, . / .¿ %,,44/ Rooert L. Eddy, Cha~ --------- ~ .. - '---' 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: July l7, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance := IDterpl'etatioa Other: Suhcl.hisioo: Sketcb. Prelim' ~ - - mary, ^ Site P1aD Reflew _ Petition far a CbaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Applicatioa Number: Site Plan No. 50-90 Applicant'. Name: W 81Ten Electric Supply, Inc. MeetiDg Date: July 17, 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to put an addition of a 5,600 square foot warehouse addition to an existing electrical supply warehouse. The proposed facility will be between a wholesale/warehouse building and a cold storage building. The truck accessway has been rerouted to provide a driveway around the building. The existing graveled driveway will be used for shipping and receiving. The concern with this new 81Tangement is that truck traffic will go over the existing septic area. This may not be a problem but an engineer should attest to that. Handicapped parking spaces are required to be 16 feet for a single space and 2.4 feet in width for two spaces together. The applicant ~¡¡nt to put the two identified handicapped spaces together as they have allotted 12.. for each single one. If the two spaces were together, the applicant would be using the same amount of parking area and would meet the code. There are no further planning concerns on this site. LA Y /sed " ...... .I.J~ U RIST.FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORG ' POST OFFICE BOX 838, 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 ~ 793-4146 518.793·4141 . .U~L;.'.v.. ?}pilwr~~, ~ JUL 131990 -,' "LANNING . ZONINt DEPARTMENT FilE COpy SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 50 - 9 Ù July 13, 1990 RFA #89-5000.050 - Town of Quee~sbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Warren Electric Supply Inc., Site Plan 50-90 Dear Mrs York: We have revi~wed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. Storag~ below the 121t CMP outlet from the retent i on bas in is advisable to allow for possible siltation of the basin and cloggiþgof the 12" pipe. Proper maintenance of the basin and its sttuctut'es should be provided and repairs made as necessary. Handic.pped parking spaces are required to be 16' for one space or 24 ft. for two spaces next to each other. It appears that the existing septic system area will have increa~ed heavy vehicle traffic over it due to the addition of the' new gravel access road. This may cause damage to the absorption field. 2. 3. Very truly yours, ' RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~ i vv_~~j^, Thomas M. Y mowich, P.E. Project En~~ eer TMY/cmw cc: Planning Board Members CD GLENS FALLS. NY'LACO~ NH " TUff 1'i U~· I.olUJS,t;N~BURY ~OOMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION --, r ,-... - Robert 'L; Eddy. Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue ~eensburr. ft. Y. l280¡ Queensbury. N. Y. l280! To. (X) Warren CoUl1t~ Planning Board De. te. 7/9/90 (X) QUeensbu17 ToWn Planning Board ( ) Queensbury To~ Zoning Board of Appeals (X) APplicant Re. Site Plan #50-90 Warren Electric 26 Dix Avanue E~tension We have reviewed the r~quest for c ( ) Variance. (x) Site Plan Review. ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) APproval ( ) Disapproval Two separate buildings on this property are to be connected by addition between the front structure and a cold storage building rear. The proposed add~tion will be a cold storage building to under cover some of the: materials in a fenced-in outdooor area. a large to the bring Jerry NUdi, owner proposes to plant six Red Bud Crab Apples along the westerly side of the property as a screening for the Car Wash next door. The.committee expressed[some concern about these trees being placed in a draInage swale, so it w~s suggested that inquiry be made of the nurseryman to see if this were ~ satisfactory location for these cUlivars, as some plants do not like wet feet. Jerry Nudi has agr.ed to install two shade master locusts inside the crescent formed by the ¢urb cuts. These do not show on the blue print. The committee is inte~ested in planting trees, not to hide the building, but to enhance the prop~rty and as an improvemnet to the area. Otherwise, the planting plans were approved as submitted. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the committee wishes to fo on record that it does not approve, 1. Non-conforming is gns, 2. Plastic or art~ficial trees. shrubs or flowers. In approving the above I(or attaohed plans). the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement ot the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and tlo give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dµmpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~þfU:;Y ¿u;~: ~EddY. Cha~ ,. " ~ , ~" - .- -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY plJlnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J OM S. Goralski, Plann~r Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistiant Planner Date: By: July 17, 1990 Lee A. York Area Vm'iaDc:e U_ Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpntatioD SubdmIIiœa: Sketch. _ Pre1imiury', X Site PlaIa Reriew - Petition for a Chuge of ZoDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: ApplicatiaD Number: Site Plan Review No. 51-90 Applicant'. Name: Mich~el & Trudi Calabrese MeetiDø Date: July 17, 1990 ............................................................................................ I The request is to remove the existing boathouse roof and construct a sundeck on the top which would be a9proxirnately 2 feet higher. The applicant further requests to construct a boatl:1ouse and sundeck extension which would attach to the existiqg boathouse and extend 30 feet further into Lake George. The total size of th~ proposed boathouse and sundeck would t~en be 58t feet. The new construction ¡will not be sided and will be placed on existing 7 foot and 8 foot docks. The dock is a pfeexisting nonconforming structure. It is considered to be nonconforming because; A) The dock is approximately (Section 7.012A,2,d) states that exceed 700 square feet. 872.5 square feet no U-shaped dock and our Ordinance sur face area wi II B) The dock is 12' 4" from the north property line, and our Ordinance (Section 7.012A,2,C) stipulates that every dock constructed shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet fron the adjacent pr0gerty line. C) The dock currently extends 57'9" into Lake George, and our Ordinance (Section 7.012,.,2,b) stipulates that no dock shall extend more tban forty feet offshpre. -1- ~ '---' . . The project is before the Board because any expansion of a nonconforming structure requires si~e plan approval (Section 9.010). The Planning Board has a number of issues to consider regarding this request. These considerat ions are listed in Sect ion 5.070 of the Zoning Ordinance. A) The use would be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location, character, and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use, and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use; and B) The establish¡ment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create public haz~rds from traffic, traffic congestion, or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town; and c) The project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ec~logical, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resou:r.ces of the Town 'of the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting. facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account t~e commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. The current docki is nonconforming with regard to three aspects of the Town of Queensbury Zo~ing Ordinance. The proposed construction will allow a boathouse and sundeck,out 58~ feet into Lake George. This will substantially increase the nature a~d intensity of use of the boathouse/sundeck/dock. Lake George is a DEC desigpated Critical Environmental Area because of the impacts of development on this resource. The Board has to carefully consider the cumulative impacts o( expansion along the lake and the associated health, safety, ecological, and aesthetic impacts. It would appear that the neighbors to the south have their view of the Lake impacted by the proposed construction. The applicant cur,rently has the ability to place a sundeck on the roof of his existing boathouse which will give him approximately 250-279 square feet of deck area. LAY/pw -2- ---~---_._..._--- . ~ ! I \ I' I ~ \: ','''" I "-\":~~~1. \ \ t .1, \ ~I'~'-: \ 1(' \:;\0J~ ~ ;\ ~)\II c ()l!\;;; I, \ ,,'- \~ Ion'. I ,~ '\ \ \ 1'1 ¿.... r ,~""" r:tf:·...·!f.1'11.. ~'" J\\ ~ .' f 1'1"'1,,1 ,,-=-' -' "i ...I 1 J '-: f:L) . '~, \\{/~\' "" I""'~: .. .rho ),,~. J~¿~<~"~~ ~"..;., ),~' "~L"'~;~"- ,// .,l' /' " ~ .- ") ^fTOrrW;' t'('ItH ....- -. - ' ,\ ('(1/,\0('.'.'.1 ~~"'-"""""i\ RA.Y : , ~l, I (r;~ ~~~ . - Ý \ \ '- ','~ . . ',,: \j\;) 1'11('1 jlf OM ^ ~ f.J()ß ,', ( M\AI' r.....\ (....ni" (J. (1tING^CIfCC'C'~ 1\1 if¡ ;Il¡{ , I ' \0\1" \l\ V tJD\1(\ )~ ~,-,G~ (~(~ ~'O'\ BAI'B(P~\ RAY" \'~<~ /'(11.'1 ~ RAY(O Il~;~t ~. f("tln "~/~.",, rj/- ". '-- 1I'^'!I'~ / '. I 1" Jill' \....-'./1 '117,\11111' r '\:~;'~~ I" ^III'" " 'I \ '~( . ( ('olloy PO 'I \ \ ,l' \..'\ ',110" I'd ,i,\ ( , :, T'.IIII' ' ,f,' Pi, .. r(," (',,,.,110"'0, l" 1'.....·,1 (' fir,.r¡ . 1 ~ ..- I" _. 1"1' "I ~(~ /-- .' "' '''''', \(¡'r""..P'1 'II ~ /f.. -r ¿t~¿.~~ 1"- ,-2 ~ ~.,¿~" ~--~ ~ ~ , .... ---- Ce..(' " ! \/ , /' ( /)/;? :"í~ / (11 ~:. ; tr' )1 ! I ~ I " f , I) ïl ,; If ,': 1/' l {(~ w lilt ~(i I( "'1M II' ,,(' III" I, ',,, .,\1 II' ! . , ~ r! , ! ' '_ ' I 1 ';' I'f", t,',"';r'I' ,~. ' 'f ,-\n I"", t ,{,<II! <\ ¡ '. ',' \ ( '~ , ",I, \1 I' . , ; "0)\ Ii \\]{~ -(~ ~¿"c.. ¿ " \\ , \ I ),,' . c;. 'Y- o, ~ t" r:Ilt ( ,n 11'( I' ,,\ " I \ "') L___., _L- J 1 ".' -;ïï -ï;ï,ï~--J TOP 0' Hlr'I/Ol'lI) ( 1,.,;,·1.1 1ç>'¡, I f) 11<"1 "A' (,1'1 ',I' M', (~çqeJ \ ¢-WJDj C A \ ~ bre $<¿ (-" ~) Aa .. - "'--' F LE -{opy TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pt..nn¡"'R Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Pl_nner Mr. John S. Goralski, Plann.,r Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Julv 12. 1990 Stuart Baker Area VariaDce Uee Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation SuhdiYiåoa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, -X Site Plan Rniew - - Petition far a Change of ZoDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Sit~ Plan No. 54-90 Gleqs Falls Elks Lodge Jul~ 17. 1990 Applicant'. Name: MeetiDg Date: ..................................................................................1 It I...." I The applicant is applying for a parking lot expansion and construction of a new picnic pavilion: on the Elk Lodge property. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the proposed storage shed, which received a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals last month, should also receive site plan review as part of this appli¢ation. The expansion of their recreational facilities appears to be very carefully planned out. There do not appear to be any planning concerns associated with this ¡application. The applicant should check with the Dept. of Environmental Conservation regarding wetlands pert1\itting for the proposed nature trail. SB/pw -------- " ....~-u RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS ~ ' SURVEYÖRS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 e 793-4146 518 e793-4141 -- FILE ...- r --. .~ ., . .... ..' '. " ...UI:~I"v_ ~~~1!r~~ SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 5 'i - q 0 July 13, 1990 RFA #89-5000.054 "'LANNING a ZON.N( DEPARTMENT Town of Que~nsbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Glens Falls Elks Lodge, Site Plan 54-90 Dear Mrs York: We have revi~wed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. It is not clear how the site is divided into subcatchments. A site plan of the development indicating subcatchment areas, existiing and proposed, is needed to adequately evaluate the stormwater management plan. 2. A 6" r~tention basin outlet culvert is proposed. Clogging due to siltation may become a problem with this small size culvert. Area below the culvert should be provided to allow for possible siltation of the basin. 3. Retention basins should be designed using a SO year recurrence interoJa1. 4. Proper erosion control measures, including stabilization of the swa1e 'and basin should be provided in accordance with New York State ¡Gu ide1 ines for Urban Eros ion and Sed iment Control. Very truly yours, " RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ¿j~ · '^^"'~Jt Thollas M. P. E. Project Eng . TMY/c_ cc: Planning Board Me~rs $ GLENS FALLS. NY-l.ACON~ NH <----.-.-----