The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-09-20 -- -- QUEENSBDRY PLABIIING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20TH, 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 88-1 SKETCH PLAN Claude Charlebois 1. Site Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton dlbla Docksider Restaurant 1. Site Plan No. 28-90 Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc. 7. Subdivision No. 7-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE Farm to Market Commons John A. and Stephanie B. Mason 10. Site Plan No. 65-90 James M. Weller, P.E. 26. Subdivision No. 8-1990 SKETCH PLAN Adirondack Industrial Park, Inc. 28. Freshwater Wetlands Permit FWl-90 Lloyd James Diamantis 37. Subdivision No. 9-1990 SKETCH PLAN Madison/Diamantis 45. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUIES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINurES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINurES. '-- ~ QUEEBSBDRY PLABNIIIG BOARD HEETIIIG FIRST REGULAR HEETIIIG SEPTEMBER 20TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESEIIT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN PETER CARTIER NICHOLAS CAlMANO JAMES MARTIN JAME S HAGAN MEMBERS ABSEIIT CAROL PULVER CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGlBEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH ASSISTANT PLANNER-STUART BAKER STEIIOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ROBERTS-Any Further Business tonight, Claude Charlebois, Dix Avenue Industrial Park, I think we can knock out rather quickly, so these folks doni t have to sit around all night. I think everybody has probably read the letter from their attorney, which I think is quite self-explanatory. Do you feel the need to add anything to that? MR. ZURLO-Attorney Ge orge Zurlo, here for Claude Charlebois. Not really, Mr. Roberts. I think it is self-explanatory. MR. ROBERTS-If I get the gist of the Board, I don't believe we're going to have any problem with this extension. It seems like the reasonable thing to do and, for the public, what we're doing, here, is extending a Sketch Plan approval because, at that time, we told them we didn I t want to see them again, basically, until they had solved some sewer problems and water problems and zoning problems and some of those things are still hanging fire, through no fault of "the applicant. It would seem reasonable that we, again, extend it, as requested and, if there's no further problems with that, I'll accept a motion to that effect. MOTION TO GRANT EXTEBSIOII OF SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN NO. 88-1 CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a period of one year. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 TYPE I WR-lA J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVJB: GUN LAKE ROAD, NORTH SHORE AT THE SHORELINE TO ADD 1,826 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING RESTAORABT SPACE WITH STORAGE OF DRY GOODS, BUSlllESS RECORDS ON SECOND STORY PORTION. FIRST STORY OF nISTIIIG RESTAURANT TO BE REIIOVATED. SLEEPIIIG QUARTERS TO REMAIN AS IS ON SECOND STORY. (WARREll COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACRES SECTION 9.010 MICHAEL OICONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-I think we'll ask their representative, tonight, to fill us in on what they would like to do. 1 --- MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm Michael OIConnor, from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. 11m here representing Mr. Barton, tonight, along with Mack Dean from Morse Engineering. Welve been retained, within the last couple of weeks, and have been involved with the application over that period of time. It is apparent, to me, that the appropriate actions for the applicant, at this time, is to ask the Board to table the application until we submit further documentation to the Board to satisfy the questions that the Board has asked of the documentation that has already been submitted. Since the last meeting, there has been quite a bit of activity. As I understand it, Patricia Collard has issued a letter with regard to her understanding of the definition of the parking requirements to this type use and this type of application. We have arranged to have a deep hole dug on the site to verify the groundwater level. That dig was witnessed by Mack Dean. There has been a meeting between the Town Consulting Engineer and the engineer for Mr. Barton and they have discussed the septic system that has been proposed and possible changes to the septic system. We have, outside of the application and maybe in part in response to some of the concern that has been expressed by some of the adjoining owners, asked the Board to consider posting Glen Lake Road for no parking and they have initiated a study of that. They have a report from Paul Naylor, as Superintendent of Highways, and, as I understand it, they are going to set the date for a public hearing, not have a public hearing, but set the date for a public hearing to consider that subject at their first meeting during the month of October. MR. ROBERTS-That was the Town Board you were referring to then? MR. O'CONNOR-That's the Town Board. I think we are pretty much getting all the ducks in line and, rather than try to use the map that we have, which is marked up greatly and which has not been submitted to this Board and which is not part of your record, to answer the questions that you have, I would think it would be appropriate to table the application. We will, hopefully prior to next Wednesday at 2 0' clock, file so that we would be able to get everything on to your agenda in October, that's basically where we stand. MR. CARTIER-Just for your information, Mike, I want you to know, I disagree with Pat's letter. As one who was involved in writing the Ordinance, rewriting the Ordinance, I think we have to look at the parking situation in terms of the number of uses that are there and it's in Article 7.071. Itls the item that Jim brought up, the last time we looked at this. Those areas are not mutually exclusive. What I mean by that is, you don't have people at the bar or at the restaurant, or on the deck. I think the possibility exists that all of those things could be occupied and I think parking has to be provided for all of those areas. MR. 0' CONNOR-In our proposal that we will make to you, we will submit a parking schedule based upon a schedule of the square footage of the building and a comparison of the number of seats within the building and I think, from what I've seen of that comparison, the square footage will dictate the higher number of spots. We will also make a suggestion to you for the dockage that is rented. We will make a suggestion to you for, not dockage rented, but day launches with people who come with trailers that they want to leave on site. MR. CARTIER-The only reason I bring it up is, Mr. Barton's been through the ringer on this thing and I don't want to have him walk in and get some more surprises when he shows up~ again. MR. O'CONNOR-I appreciate your comments. I would be happy to accept any comments that you have. MR. ROBERTS-I think it's reasonable that this could be a minor scoping session. If anybody else has got any things that they think they want to throw out, here, I think that it might be helpful to everybody concerned. MR. MARTIN-I would just like to reiterate what Pete said. I've been in to see Pat, since I I ve seen this letter, and she had some real problems with the boat launching area and I think she explained that to Paul and, again, I would have to take a long hard look at the parking requirements as t hey are dictated in the Ordinance. MR. 01 CONNOR-My suggestion to Paul is that he agree to stipulate that the boat launching will not be used for more than four trailer boats at anyone time and if there are four trailers on site, that means nobody else can launch a boat that is going to use his site as parking and that, in our formula, would set fort h eight spots. Four spots for the vehicles. Four spots for the trailers. It's 2 '- -' hard to say per day because people come in and launch, fish in the morning and then are gone by 10, 11 o'clock in the morning and then you have people that come along in the afternoon that want to launch for water skiing purposes or something of that nature. Along the same line, launching, if you're talking about that, we've heard, I've had a discussion with Mr. Doyle who, I think, is down the road a little bit and his concern was that we were renting ski mobiles or allowing the use or rental of ski mobiles from the site. That's not a present use and if this Board wants to stipulate that there be no launching of ski mobiles, not ski mobiles, jet skis, personal water craft, boats 16 feet and under that are self propelled, that it be prohibited. Mr. Barton has no objection to that, in fact, might find some relief that that was a stipulation of his approval and on that basis he canlt allow that use. MR. MARTIN-Well, just to be specific to, as to where I stand, I'm still going to be looking for parking requirements that include the deck and parking requirements that are to the letter of the Ordinance which calls for one space for every hundred square feet of restaurant and one space for every linear foot of bar and those are the requirements. So you know and it's in the record, those are the requirements. MR. O'CONNOR-I think, though, t112re is roqm for discussion on whether or not the bar is mutually exclusive for the restaurant and I would want you to consider that, the same thing when we get into the deck. 11m not sure, t112 basis that Pat has excluded that. I haven't had the opportunity to talk to her, but she has excluded that as being a seasonal use, as I understand it, and I'm not sure all of what her understanding is there, but I would think that that, if it's going to be included at all, would be included on a square footage basis. MR. CARTIER-Well, I want you to know that I've considered it, as you are requesting me to do and I already have, and I strongly agree with Mr. Martin, that I'm going to be looking at it as restaurant plus bar space, plus deck. MR. MARTIN-And the calculations of that deck could also influence your sewage calculations and so on. MR. CAlMANO-Well, because if you don't, you're going to assume, we're going to have to assume that they are people who are going to use, all t112 people who use the bar are going to eat, which, of course, is MR. 0' CONNOR-I think, historically, we can show that during the season, When the deck is used, the interior of the restaurant is not used and if you're ever there during the summer, you just see that. During t 112 winter time, you see that the restaurant is used and the deck, obviously isn't used. Theyl re not necessarily one hundred percent exclusive, but they are, I would say, probably, seventy five percent exclusive. I think, in the summer time, when the deck is in use, \\hen it is a nice day and the weather isn't inclement, doesn't prohibit it, you will find less than three or four tables, inside, being used, at anyone time. MR. CARTIER-But, nevert112less, we've got to remember that we are working in what is considered a Critical Environmental Area, here, and it is conceivable that the deck area could be full, the restaurant area could be full, the bar could be filled and I think we have to account for that, in terms of parking, particularly considering the fact that we already have some difficulties in parking with the present structure. These are just things that are going to come up again, for me, anyway. MR. ROBERTS-Peter, is there enough controversy about this interpretation of these parking regulations that we need to talk to the ZBA for an interpretation. I think we all need to get our ducks in a row on understanding of this. MR. CAlMANO-I don't think t112re's any controversy, here, at this table. The question is, is the Board going to come up with some kind of a formula and agree to some kind of a formula, rather than one hundred percent exclusive, a seventy percent, or an eighty percent or something like that. MR. ROBERTS-Except that we seem to be at odds with Pat Collard and she makes these decisions, as I understand it, we don't. I've been brought on the carpet, before, with this Board, disagreeing with Dave Hatin and his office and had my head handed to me. MR. CARTIER-But, ultimately, we are the ones who approve or disapprove projects. MR. ROBERTS-True. 3 - MR. CARTIER-And I think we have to a right to take under advisement; anything that comes our way and do the best job we can to support the master plan and make sure the Ordinances are adhered to and I think there are going to be times when we disagree with Pat. Do we resolve those, I donlt know. MR. ROBERTS-That's what I'm suggesting. It would seem to me it would be nice to have a resolution to have everybody on the same wavelength. MR. CAlMANO-Well, while they're working on their end of it, obviously, the Planning Department, andlor yourself, or you, could be working with Pat to ask that. I don't think it needs to go back to the ZBA, though. MR. ROBERTS-Well, theylre the ones that make interpretations. MR. MARTIN-When I spoke with Pat, she said she had no problem with us coming in with this agreement. These things happen. I mean, it's a matter of interpretation and she had no problem with it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Does Dave know this? MR. MARTIN-I didnlt meet with Dave. MR. ROBERTS-We may have a little internal problem, here. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that you have a Staff determination like a Building Department ruling and that you're not much different than we are, that that's bound, you're bound by that, unless that is reviewed and appealed. Now, I'd be glad to discuss it. I don't think it's black and white because I think part of what we're talking about, obviously, there is no schedule and I think that, she, in her letter, even indicated that. So, I think, before we come to a point that we decide that we're going down different streets in completely irreversible directions, we ought to really know what we're talking about, in quantitative form. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think that's why you requested the tabling. we Ire going to resolve that, tonight. I don I t think MR. OICONNOR-No, I don't think so. I don't have the information to put before you and I haven't filed the information, ahead of time, for you to be able to review it before you get here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Again, my only reason for bringing it up is that, so you don't get surprised, again. You'd know what your, I'm going to go on record as, these are things you have to look at, that we're going to look at. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm a little surprised by Mr. Martin's discussion as to it also being included in calculations for sewers. MR. MARTIN-Well, the reason why I say that is because, the last time I saw, the sewage calculations were based on a square footage computation. MR. O'CONNOR-That's the way they are done. MR. MARTIN-Right and if the square footage of the deck, now, is to be included as to an accessory use, that impacts the sewage. MR. 0' CONNOR-Well, okay, let me answer that, in part, from my limited knowledge, not being an engineer, but the Department of Health, DEC, and no other, in our Town Ordinance, does not include that. Our Ordinance has certain rules and regulations and has certain dimensional requirements and certain dimensional product. MR. MARTIN-I'll just read the definition of floor space, this is for a commercial structure, ',IThe total area in square feet within the exterior walls of a building or structure, and, When applicable, the sum total of all floor areas of the principle and accessory buildings or structures under single ownership or business." MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay, and then if you go on further, and you look in the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Martin, and you look at the definition of buildings and structures, you're going to find that a deck is not there and I'm just telling you that for that particular issue. 4 '- -- MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but that does not mean we exclude it in our deliberation, here. The fact of the matter is, we're going to have people occupying that deck those people are going to make use of the septic system. MR. CAlMANO-Are we going to make them disappear? MR. O'CONNOR-No, but this is, again, you get into a quantitative argument, Mr. Caimano, as to whether you're talking about a duplication, and we can show you an actual history, or maybe we show some other type of limitation, close areas or something of that nature, so that we donlt duplicate what welre talking about, as far as actual use. We're not trying to get permission to use the restaurant building, within all four walls, at the same time that the deck is being used. That's not our goal. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but that is a real possibility. MR. O'CONNOR-Our position will be to try and determine some manner in which you are assured that is not going to happen, so that wonlt be a burden upon that site and I'm not sure, yet, the mechanics of doing that, but I understand what youlre saying to me. MR. CAlMANO-There's a logical conclusion to what you just said, is that you would be willing to accept some kind of a restriction, as to the number of people who are going to go into this premises. If that I s the case, then what's the sense of expanding? MR. 0' CONNOR-Well, as I understand it, there are a lot of reasons that dictate expanding, most of which is the facility that I s there, itself. The facility is not an easy facility to work from. It's not a modern facility. The actual expansion there, in square footage for actual use, is not that great. A lot of it is going to be a changing of the kitchen, making the kitchen bigger, getting a better storage facility. There are a lot of improvements that are being made besides simply trying to get some square footage for additional floor space for customers. MR. ROBERTS-I think we've understood that it needs modernization and greater efficiency and so forth. There's one thing that bothered me a little. I was sitting in the parking lot, yesterday, I guess, and maybe we've discussed this, but theylre pulling boats out of the water, now, and somebody pulling out with a boat, a trailer and a boat, behind a car, going out on the road, at the very westerly most portion, closest to the curve, and kind of slowly, and I could just visualize somebody whipping around the curve and, maybe, not quite making the trailer. Maybe we've discussed having that exit, really, go farther to the west and I think, probably, that is something that we've discussed. MR. CAlMANO-Farther to the east. MR. ROBERTS-Or farther to the east. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they've set up a traffic pattern, set up some type of definition of entrances, Which, actually, should be a great improvement over what's there, presently, as opposed to one straight curb. MR. ROBERTS-Anybody else in our mini scoping session, here? MR. CAlMANO-My only question is the timing. One of the things we were going to discuss, tonight, was the potential for rescinding our negative declaration. When doing that, it requires that the applicant have a reasonable amount of time to discuss it among himself. Is this going to be counted as the reasonable amount of time? MR. CARTIER-I think we're not going to know until we see what's on the "new" application, \\hether. the negative declaration, \\hether the thing has changed so much that, that no longer applies. MR. CAlMANO-Well, the reason for the negative dec, the reason for rescinding the negative declaration was the fact that it appears that the evidence that we made that declaration on, was not proper evidence. So, What he has to say, a month from now, is neither here nor there. The question is, are we going to consider changing the negative declaration, and, if we are rescinding it, is this his notification, for time purposes? MR. ROBERTS-John, do you need to clarify where we stand on this, or Karla? 5 -../ MS. CORPUS-The regulations state that the lead agency must rescind a negative declaration, if it determines that a significant environmental effect may result from a project modification or there's a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MS. CORPUS-At this point, I don't know if we have the project modification. The Board has to determine that, at this point, or a change of circumstances that was not previously addressed. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We havenlt really submitted anything, Mr. Caimano, and, also, I think, when we do make our submittal, it will be a downsizing, that we I ve come to some recognition of, among ourselves and, hopefully, in areas that will be satisfactory to the Board. MR. ROBERTS-Staff would agree that tabling this makes sense, at this time? JOHN GORALSKI MR. GORALSKI-It would be my recommendation that the Board not take any action until they see what revisions the applicant is going to propose. At that time, you can make an educated decision as to whether you feel there is going to be any significant change in the impacts. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Anybody else need to throw anything at him? MR. HAGAN-There's one thing that is going to bother me, and that the question be answered as to the number of seats available in the establishment, now, and the number of seats that will be available, after the expansion is completed. Those are two questions I'm going to look for answers to. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HAGAN-I don't want to talk about deck. I don't want to talk about bar. I want to talk about total seating capacity for the entire establishment. MR. ROBERTS-I believe we should vote on this tabling. Does somebody want to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 110. 17-90 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For the reason stated in the September 20th letter of Michael J. O'Connor. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to recognize, as a practicing attorney who's probably been here, often, in the last 15, 20 years, your service to the Town. As I understand, your service is coming to an end, on this Board. I haven't always agreed with you, as, obviously, tonight, sometimes, I disagree with people, but you have treated me fairly and I think you've done a service to the Town and, on behalf of attorneys that practice before this Board, I think that you've brought the quality of this Board up, substantially, and I appreciate it and I thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Thanks very much, Mike. I appreciate that. MACK DEAN MR. DEAN-If I might take a moment of the Board's time. Now, that welve finished the official business of our application, Michael, being a very good attorney, 6 '-' --' beat me to the punch. I, too, had an opportunity to work with Dick Roberts for many years and I, too, have also found him to be fair and just in his treatment of any applicant and he's probably put more hours into planning and the growth of this Town then many of us will ever have the opportunity to do and I would like to thank Dick for your time and energies. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you, Mack. I appreciate it. A:D SITE PLAN NO. 28-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT CO., INC. OWNER: ^1\ SAME AS ABOVE DUNHAM'S BAY, EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE OF 70 Á/'.)Y BOATS AND UP TO 25 BOAT TRAILERS (WITHOUT BOATS).. (ADIRONDACK. PARK AGEIICY) (WARREN V\ COUNTY PL.ABBING) TAX MAP NO.. 10-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 13.59 ACRES SECTION 9.010 MR. ROBERTS-I understand, here, again, we have a request for tabling. Is there anybody here to represent the applicant, tonight? MR. GORALSKI-I don't see anyone. MR. CARTIER-That is in the September 10th letter, from a Mr. Rehm. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, last page. MR. CARTIER-Last page. MR. ROBERTS-A rather lengthy letter from their attorney, but I guess the only thing we need to consider is a request, again, to be tabled, or does this deserve any discussion? JOHN SCHRINER MR. SCHRINER-Can I get into this, before you take your vote? MR. CAlMANO-No. MR. SCHRINER-No? MR. CAlMANO-This is not a public hearing and there's nothing before this Board. There's been a request to table this motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. ROBERTS-Well, the public hearing was left open, as far as that's concerned. MR. CAlMANO-I think it would be unfair for anyone to speak when the applicant is not here. MR. SCHRINER-I'm not going to speak against him. MR. CAlMANO-Just a second, Mr. Chairman. The applicant is making the appearance before this Board, not the people who are against him. I think it would be unfair for anyone, without the applicant's presence, to make any kind of a comment where the applicant cannot respond. MR. ROBERTS-Is that the feeling, the attitude of the Board? MR. CARTIER-I would agree with that. opportunity when we see this again. I think the gentleman will have his MR. CAlMANO-He'll have his opportunity. MR. CARTIER-I think the applicant should hear this. MRS. WOODIN MRS. WOODIN-How many times are we expected to come? MR. ROBERTS-That is the problem, as the lady said, how many times are the neighbors expected to come out and that is an unfortunate part of these meetings, but I guess our hands are tied, here. MR. CARTIER-Well, ma'am, please understand that this is not the Board that's tabling this. It's a request, ~ll, ultimately, ~ are, but it's a request by the applicant to table. 7 ',-, '-- MRS. WOODIN-Yes, I understand that, but this is has been going on, before, and we drive 50 miles to come to these things and then it means nothing. MR. CARTIER-Well, it's my hope that the tabling will lead to some more resolution of some of the problems. MR. ROBERTS-And we only knew about this, today, ourselves, as far as that's concerned. There was no way to even let anybody know. MRS. WOODIN-Isn't there a law on the number of times it can be tabled? MR. ROBERTS-Not that we know of. MR. CARTIER-When did you get this letter, today? JOHN GORALSKI MR. GORALSKI-No, we received this letter about a week, a little over a week ago. I called John Salvadore, only because he's the only one who's number I had, of the neighbors, and told him about it and asked him if he had anybody elsels phone number, if he could call them. I had no other way of getting in touch with anybody. MR. CARTIER-Ma'am, I think you have a legitimate concern, if you've driven a long way and what I suggest you do, is, \\hen this thing comes up again, you call the Planning Department and find out if it's going to fly. MR. SCHRINER-May I say something? I called the Planning Department Monday morning. I checked with the Planning Department, today and this was still on. MR. CARTIER-It stays on. All they can do is notify you, I think, that the applicant has requested that the thing be tabled, okay. The Staff cannot tell you that it's going to be tabled because that has to happen at this meeting. MR. SCHRINER-That's right. So, \\here would we stand if we didn't show up and you decided not to table it because this is the third time, now, that this has been tabled. It will be the third time. The last time, we went for a sixty day, at the request of this gentleman, to meet with them and try to resolve all this. We had that meeting. I'm not going to speak about it, like he said, they're not here to defend themselves, but we don't feel that this is fair to us for you just to keep postponing this at Mr. Rehmls request. The last time, Roger was supposed to be out of town. I know for a fact that he wasn't out of town. So, there you are. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 28-90 DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT CO., INC., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: At the request of the applicant I s lawyer, in a letter dated September 10th, 1990 and the applicant be required to re-notify the neighbors involved within 500 feet at his expense. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. HAGAN-I'd like to interrupt this a minute. 11m disturbed, a little bit. I'm putting myself in the shoes of these people that attended tonight. Could you tell me who you spoke to at the Town Board office, today? MR. SCHRINER-Yes, I talked to Stuart. I talked to him, Monday morning, I called up from Troy and he said the meeting was on and I stopped by today, the meeting was still on. MR. HAGAN-Specifically, \\hat did you tell him, Stu? MR. BAKER-I believe the question I got over the phone was, WiS the Dunhaml s Bay application scheduled for the hearing and I answered that it was on, as far as I knew. I couldn't say, as the Board has stated, that it would be tabled because that's a decision that the Board needs to make and I cannot second judge the Board. 8 ~ MR. CARTIER-That's right. You didn't get any misinformation from the Staff. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but couldn I t you have said that the applicant has asked to have it tabled? MR. BAKER-I believe this gentleman was informed that today. MR. SCHRINER-Today, yes, today. MR. HAGAN-You were told that? MR. SCHRINER-But we were already up here tOday. We already drove our 50 miles to get that information. MR. ROBERTS-Well , we don't seem to have a perfect system. MR. HAGAN-And you weren't given that same information Monday? MR. SCHRINER-No. MR. CARTIER-Sir, you did get accurate information by the Staff. The Staff told you that the item was on the agenda, that is correct. The Staff cannot say, well, I anticipate that the Board will table this. MR. SCHRINER-The gentleman told me the truth. He told me the truth, but that IS not helping us, today, when I had to come up here, today, or I did come up, here, let's put it that way, drove the 50 miles and then find out that it was a request to be postponed. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I guess all we can do is apologize. I don't know how we can improve the system. MRS. WOODIN-When is the next meeting? MR. ROBERTS-The next meeting, has he asked to be on? MR. CAlMANO-No, he hasn't requested anything. MR. CARTIER-I think, yes, he adjourns to the October meeting. MR. CAlMANO-I'm sorry, the October meeting. MR. ROBERTS-Is there room on the first meeting on October. MR. BAKER-I believe there may be room under Old Business. I am not certain. MR. CARTIER-But, again, that's something you're going to want to check out, by way of phone call and, at that point, it becomes your decision as to whether, if you hear, or Staff says they've requested to be tabled, at that point, it's your decision whether you come or not. MR. SCHRINER-Just answer me this, how many days do we have to give you if we can't show up in October for this to be cancelled? Is that a different story, now? MR. CAlMANO-I hate to be a stickler for detail, but there is a motion on the table. MR. ROBERTS-Did somebody second that motion? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I believe I did. MR. ROBERTS-The motion's been made and seconded, then, to table this application until the first available October meeting, that's all we can say, for now. MRS. WOODIN-Do you know when that meeting is? MR. ROBERTS-Staff cannot tell us, apparently, at this point, whether there I s an opening on the first meeting or the second meeting. MR. BAKER-Mr. Goralski is telling me, right now, that we do have room under Old Business for the first meeting. So, we will place it on the first agenda. 9 '-- ~ MR. ROBERTS-Alright, then, it will be the third Tuesday of October. MRS. WOODIN-It will be the third Tuesday of October? MR. GORALSKI-You might want to add something, since there is a lot of neighborhood interest in this and the applicant is requesting to be tabled. You may wish to add that the applicant will pay the cost of re-notifying everyone within 500 feet, that's been done before by the Board. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, go ahead. Add it. MR. ROBERTS-And you have our apology. I just don't know how to improve the system. MR. SCHRINER-Can I leave numbers with John? MR. GORALSKI-They're gping to notify you by mail. MRS. WOODIN-Who will do the notifying? MR. ROBERTS-The applicant, like they did originally. MRS. WOODIN-You mean Mr. Rehm? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-We will make sure that you get notified and the applicant will pay the cost of that. MR. SCHRINER-Okay. SUBDIVISIOII 110. 7-1989 PJŒLDlIII.6UY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED Bc-1A. F~ 'l'O HARKEr CCØKOBS JOBB A. AND STEPBANIE B. IIASOR SOUTBEILY BOUNDS OF PROPERTY ARE 200± n. BORTH OF THE III'rERSECTIOII OF ROUTE 149 AIID BAY ROAD AND LIES BIL'IWEEN THOSE ROADS FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR C<JIIIERCIAL RE'rAD. USE. (ADIRONDAUt PARK AGENCy) TAJr MAP NO. 27 -1-40 LOT SIZE: 3 .79 ACRES JIM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant planner (attached) MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, these were the comments I wrote for last months meeting. They're dated August 21st, 1990. MR. ROBERTS-Did the applicant have access to this letter? MR. HUT CHINS - Yes . ENe lBEER. REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS -We have other letters in the file, here, Stuart, that need to be addreøøed? MR. BAKER-Yes, we do. We have the letter I referred to from Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent, to Queensbury Planning Board, dated August 15th, 1990 (attached) We also have a letter from Ken Carlson a Senior Transportation Analyst, with the Department of Transportation, to Mrs. Lee York, Senior planner, dated August 10th, 1990 (attached) MR. ROBERTS-It would appear that this piece of property has some development problems. Are you able to deal with most of these problems? MR. HUTCHINS-My name is Jim Hutchins. I'm an engineer in private practice, representing Mr. Krantz and Mr. Mason. Mr. Krantz is here and also Mr. Bolster from Van Dusen and Steves, a surveyor. I will go through the letters of comments, I guess, item by item, and if there IS any questions along the way, let me know. The Town of Queensbury Planning Department, I discussed this, briefly, I believe, with Stu Baker. He indicated to me these were comments, but we will address them as such. We did move, from the Sketch plan approval, the access onto Bay Road south. We did that to try to accommodate Warren County who was concerned about site distance 10 ~ --' to the north and I think we did duly note that in our application, that we were varying it, slightly, from the Sketch Plan. Under B. Stormwater Management, I believe, and I don't have it right with me, but, in the original Sketch Plan Review, one of the comments was, I believe, from the Planning Department, that the Board may very well prefer a system that minimizes the number of catch basins, in that, they have; freezing problems and the like. This was done in an attempt to accommodate that comment. Access road parking de;sign, maybe, at this point, I should address the access road issue, in that, it appears in the Planning Department Comments, the Enginee;ring Comments, Mr. Naylor's Comme;nts, and appears to be a central theme; to all letters. I have reviewe;d, with the clients, the comments and we;'re prepared to eliminate access onto 149. We; do this as a response to the Enginee;ring Comments, Mr. Naylor's Comments. In effect, we will accept that recommendation and I guess, specifically, it is Number Two of the Enginee;ring letter. MR. ROBERTS-Do these changes, are they reflected on ne;w maps or are we still dealing with the old maps, here? MR. HUTCHINS-No. I believe the agreement was, last time, that we could not change our submission and we; tried not to do that, that's why we're; offering this as a response to your comment. The; material you have; in hand does not reflect that. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a question? Maybe I can shorten things up, a little bit, here;, for us all. Has a traffic study been done? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Can we; complete a SEQRA Review if the traffic study has not been done? MR. CAlMANO-Wel1, we can't according to this letter. MR. CARTIER-We can't, okay. MR. CAlMANO-Wait a minute. MR. CARTIER-Let me finish my point, please. MR. CAlMANO-But that's not a right answer, I donlt think. MR. CARTIER-Then we cannot give a Preliminary approval if we have not done the SEQRA process. Do you see where I'm going, here? MR. HUTCHINS-May I comment? If our access onto 149 is eliminated, I believe we no longer need a permit from DOT, State DOT. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-And I believe; in the letter it spe;cifically says, and this is the letter from DOT, that, as a part of that permit process, a traffic study will be required. I discussed the need for a traffic study with the County a.nd they did not indicate one was needed for access onto Ba.y Road. MR. CAlMANO-Tha.t's why I said, Pete, wait just a minute, because if it's not on the State highway, then the requirement of having that for the SEQRA Review is no longer there, is it? MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-It wou1dnlt se;em to be necessary. MR. CARTIER-Right. HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Chairman, could I speak to that? Howard Krantz, one of the owners. We, frankly, don't necessarily agre;e that one of the accesses onto 149 is not appropriate or safe. We're making a very practical decision, as the applicants to eliminate that because we understand that is an area of concern from the Planning Board and the, your advisors. So, we have eliminated that. The only aspect of it tha.t required a traffic study was because we were proposing coming out of 149. As Mr. Hutchins has indicated, we originally showed on the map which received 11 -- '-'" Sketch Plan approval, a location for the driveway from Bay Road. Roger Gebo said, gee, please move it south. So, we did that to accommodate Mr. Gebo. I understand the technicalities of making variations, no matter how slight, to the maps. What I asked Leon Steves office to do, and he accommodated me, is, we have the same map, but with, accommodating the concerns of the Planning Board, i.e. what we've done is we have erased the access to 149 and we have shown the driveway onto Bay Road at the location requested by the County. We donlt want to, technically, lose time, by submitting a new map, but, frankly, I thought it's something you'd want to see. So, we have it if you want to see it. It's an identical map. He's shaking his head. MR. CAlMANO-De ja VUe Where was I last month. MR. CARTIER-De ja vu allover again. MR. KRANTZ-Alright, so we won't show it to you, but we have the map with what you want, but if you don't want to see it, we'll leave it. MR. ROBERTS-Well, this is Preliminary approval of a three stage project. It's a little different. MR. CAlMANO-It is different. MR. CARTIER-What youlre asking us to do is to approve something that hasn't been through the review process, in effect. MR. KRANTZ-No, I'm not asking that at all. Two changes have been requestad. We've accommod ated them both. If you have in your minds eye what they are and welve agreed to them, fine, but we have it on the same map, if you want to sae it . MR. CAlMANO-Well, Petar, the Chairman brought up an interesting point. If this is only a Preliminary approval, obviously, the Staff still has access to this befora any Final approval. So, it is a little different than the sticky wicket we had last weak. MR. KRANTZ-Yes. I thought you'd want to sae it, frankly, to see how the changes would look, that have been requestad. Those are the only two changes. MR. CARTIER-Lat ma ask another question. I'm looking for direction, here, from Engineering Staff, I think. I understand the suggestion that a traffic study is not needad becausa thara' s not cut onto Routa 149, howaver, thare is still going to be an impact on 149. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-And, particularly, at that light, and I'm wondaring if, perhaps, that still requires a traffic study? Do you undarstand what I'm asking? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, I do undarstand what you'ra asking. The particulars of the subdivision could craate diffarant usas, depanding upon sita plan. The zoning of the area permits the particular type of subdivision being proposed. The subdivision lots baing for sale and not under control of tha subdivider, it would be difficult to determine the precise traffic impact and they would be dealing with a number of variables which could change. As these lots come up for Site Plan Review, traffic impact could be looked at and, of course, the cumulative effect of those utilizing the lots in this subdivision could be assessed at that time. MR. CARTIER-But are we not, then, passing the buck onto the owner of an individual lot to do a traffic study and then are we not duplicating or triplicating our efforts, here, Where each applicant for these three lots or however many there are, has to coma in and do a traffic study. MR. YARMOWICH-If a traffic study were done, at this time, and an applicant proposed no more intensive use, then that was assumed at this time, traffic studies would not be an issua for this particular, or any particular Site Plan Review, subsequent to this approval. So, the Board could ask that it be done, but that would not necessarily eliminate the nead for it, dependent upon Site Plan proposals. MR. KRANTZ-We'd like to concur with that. That's been our approach all along, here. We're seeking Subdivision approval only. No matter whom these lots are sold to, they have to come back to this Board for Site Plan approval, as I understand 12 -- it. We don't know what kind of use itls going to be. I'm telling you right now, we have nothing under contract. We're not even talking to anybody. It could be an owner of a lot that I s going to have a very intense use of the property. It could be someone that's going to have very little effect on traffic. It I S total speculation, at this point, but whatever is proposed has got to come back and, at that time, I would think you would want, if you deem it appropriate, a traffic study for that particular proposal. For example, on the Site Plan that we have prepared, we have laid out parking and approximate square footage for what we think might be three typical uses, but they may vary. They may be smaller. Theoretically, they may be larger, but, \\herever they are, they've got to come back and get approval. MR. CAIMANO-Well, as a practical matter, he makes a very good point. However, again, as a practical matter, from this Board's standpoint, we tend to get ourselves in trouble with that, that is, if we don't iron out what the subdivision is going to be pretty much in the beginning, it just doesn't happen and I point out to you, and I can't think of the name of it, but the one behind Carl R's. When they changed that motel and when they increased the size of the motel, it became a very difficult matter to turn that down, even though we all knew there was going to be a heavy impact on the traffic. So, I certainly understand what you're saying, but it doesnlt happen here. If it doesn't happen now~ it doesn't happen. MR. ROBERTS-I still question the need for a traffic study, anyway. We're talking about a fairly small subdivision and not a large, and we're talking about a major County road, I think it is, State or County. Anyway, it's well lighted at the corner and it's not heavily trafficked. MR. CAIMANO -Tha t 's true. MR. ROBERTS-I don't see the need to be worrying about traffic. MR. MART IN- I just don't see, at this point, you're not going to be able to make an accurate assessment. It's only going to be conjecture. If you do a traffic study, it could be totally inaccurate. MR. KRANTZ-Exactly. What is the engineer going to use as his variables? If, when Project Owner A comes in, you feel it needs or warrants a traffic study, you've got, certainly, the power to do it. I can't imagine what Jim is going to by gu.eøø and by golly, \\hat these three might be. There I s no theme to this. We Ire not looking for any particular type. We just don't know. We just, honestly, don't know what's going to come along, but you're not giving final bleøøing to any particular use. MR. CAlMANO-Nor final blessing, if you will, to your project. It's only Preliminary, which means that we could still question some of the things before the next meeting. MR. BAKER-If I may make a suggestion, it seems to me that we're getting into a debate between a piecemeal approach to looking at the traffic impacts, as opposed to a holistic approach. Granted, it is difficult to put to gether any sort of traffic study when you don't know what the uses are going to be and, yet, if you look at what the allowable uses are in the Highway Commercial zone, some of them do generate a large amount of traffic. If a traffic study were to be done, I would recommend that it be done using a worse Case scenario, using three of the most traffic intensive uses as examples. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I have another suggestion. It appears, when you open the public hearing, that we're going to get some COmments from the audience, so maybe something there will open up some thought. MR. ROBERTS-Could be. now? Is there anyone we should have Iii. map about. Is there any objection to opening the public hearing, then, in the audience who cares to comment on this project? Maybe on the Board, here, to show the public what we're talking PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EILEEN BENTLEY MRS. BENTLEY-I would just like to comment on the traffic study. My motherls here. She lives across the road. MR. ROBERTS-Give us your name, please. 13 '-- MRS. BENTLEY-My mother is property owner across the road from this proposed subdivision and if the traffic study is going to be done, which I think it definitely should be done, if anybody's been up Bay Road during the summer time, the traffic is bumper to bumper coming down from Lake George to Glens Falls. If a traffic study is going to be done, which should be done, it should be done during the summer time, not now, because now the traffic problem is less and the people coming out from that, since you're not going to have any access to 149, coming out onto Bay, going towards Glens Falls, are going to have to cut across all that traffic coming down from Lake George and I think thatls going to present a big problem because that corner is dangerous anyway. MR. CARTIER-Does the County, Stu, are you aware, does the County have any traffic stuff for those corridors, traffic studies at all, any background traffic numbers? MR. BAKER-I'm sure they do, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-This is a County road, isn't it? MR. BAKER-Bay Road is a County road, yes. MR. CARTIER-As a matter of fact, the State must have something on 149, too, come to think of it. MR. BAKER-I believe they do. MR. ROBERTS-Anyone else who cares to make a comment on this project? CHRISTINE MINES MRS. MINES-Christine Mines, adjacent property owner and I do agree with Mrs. Bentley, the traffic problem, especially during the summer months, starting from the First of May, even now, through the foliage season. The only one incident I can give. We live on that corner at Bay and 149. Four years ago, I ended up with a tractor trailer in my front yard and there's a traffic light there now. I'm concerned about the traffic situation. MR. BAKER-The Board should be aware that Bay Road is a local arterial street. MR. CAlMANO-I'm not sure it is out there, thougn. MR. CARTIER-Where does that end? MR. BAKER-The whole of Bay Road is listed. MR. CAlMANO-The whole of Bay Road? MR. CARTIER-Which involves, let's not miss this one, like we did before? MR. ROBERTS-Is that a setback? MS. CORPUS-It was amended, just when I began. We amended that Section of the Ordinance to include it all the way up to 149. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, so MR. ROBERTS-Wait a minute, up to 149. This is beyond 149. MR. CAlMANO-Up ~ 149. This is beyond 149. MR. BAKER-Itls just across the intersection. MS. CORPUS-I thought the Town of Queensbury ended at 149? MR. ROBERTS-No, we go all the way to Lake George. MS. CORPUS-I'm afraid I don't remember. I think it's only to 149, the amendment. MR. ROBERTS -Well, we'll have to get a clarification of that. That would have a bearing on the setbacks for this property. There was someone else, I think, Who wanted to speak. 14 ......-' ANNE MARIE LOCKHART MS. LOCKHART-Hi, I'm Anne Marie Lockhart and I live acroøø the street from this subdivision proposal and I'm very concerned about the traffic and I'm also concerned about the drainage because that is wet over there and it is wetlands. It appears to be. The first hundred feet of my property is declared wetlands and I'm directly across the street where that driveway's being proposed. So, I would hope that you would do a traffic study because it's a very dangerous road and there are lots of accidents, not only the one that Christine has spoke about, but, at least once or twice month, there are cars going off, around that turn, and if you put more traffic there, I don't know how we're going to get out and we live on that road. MR. ROBERTS-Well, traffic does seem to be a question with some of the neighbors. I don't know whether we're, we've lived here a long time and we're kind of spoiled with t he traffic and whether it's not really that big a problem, or whether it is, but I gueøø, perhaps, somewhere along the line, we need to get some kind of documentation to back up this decision. MR. CAlMANO-Well, let me ask a question of the applicant. In view of the concerns, is it not in everyone's best interest to obtain a study? Would that be the neighborly thing to do, or something? MR. KRANTZ-This is property that is zoned Highway Commercial. It is Highway Commercial on the northwest corner. I have not heard of any problems with traffic brought to the Town Board or to the Planning Board as a result of that development. It is Highway Commercial at the southwest corner. I have not heard of any problems or observed any. I would call upon the common sense and observations of the Board. The restaurant has been opened and expanded at the southeast corner. I haven't heard of any problems regarding traffic. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Krantz, I think youl re operating under a misconception, here, that there has to be a problem before we request a traffic study and that I s not neéessarily the case. MR. KRANTZ-I was just in the process of making a point, if I could. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-And Mrs. Mines property is zoned Highway Commercial and, in fact, they use it commercially, from what I understand, Wiich is their right to do. We thought it was best to come out, have one access from Bay and one from 149. We thought that would make the most sense. We've heard comment, well, 149 might not be the best access point, we really think you should acceøø onto Bay Road only. So, for the easy of getting this process through, as I said before, that's what we did. We eliminated the 149. We eliminated the traffic study requested by DOT as to how it would impact, there. We only have one place left to go and that's Bay Road. We already have an existing driveway on Bay Road from the former house that was on the site. We have relocated that, at the request of Roger Gebo, because he felt it was better to have the acceøø further south than where we originally had proposed. So, fine, we moved it to the south. I really don't know how much more we can do, here. That, occasionally, there may have been a problem because of the curve on 149, we I re talking about, we I ve eliminated the access on 149. MR. CARTIER-11m thinking back to situations Where we haven't done traffic studies because there's been no problems and then something else develops, nearby, and we don't do a traffic study because there's no problem and, ultimately, somebody, the last guy in line, does a traffic· study and we find out that his impact is going to be so great that he has to significantly revise his application to account for and have to deal with the impacts of traffic that has accumulated from all of these other places and I gueøø what 11m saying here is that, let's face it. This corner's going to develop commercially and I think we ought to get a handle on it as soon as we can so that the impacts can be shared equally. MR. CAlMANO-But does the expense have to fall on this applicant? MR. ROBERTS-And there's already a light on the corner. MR. CAlMANO-And there's already a li gh t on the corner. 15 -......- --" MR. ROBERTS-If our zoning made any sense, the last time around, we considered traffic, When we re-zoned that corner, that the area could, in fact, stand a little more traffic and that I s what we're talking about, here. I don't see it as .a problem, personally. MR. KRANTZ-And, again, What I think is the most practical, sensible way, is, youlre not approving any particular use, just our ability to sell vacant lots. Any commercial use, Whatsoever, has to come back before. MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Then some Ole' s going to come back with, we want to put up an antique car showroom. If you feel a traffic study is warranted, it'll be addressed to whatever traffic that would generate. That would seem to make more sense then by guess and by golly for MR. CAlMANO-But let's be fair, here. You're not going to put up a lemonade stand and sell to whoever comes around. You have some idea of what you'd like it to develop into, do you not? MR. KRANTZ-We absolutely do not. MR. CAlMANO-You do not? MR. KRANTZ-Nick, we truly don't. We have nothing under con tract. We're not even talking to anyone. I have no idea What's going to go there, except it's going to be a retail or commercial use, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Thatls, obviously, why we're developing the property and that's when you have, not only your bite at the apple, the most sensible bite at the apple, when a particular applicant comes before you with a particular use. MR. CAlMANO-That's a fair point. MR. KRANTZ-If you didn't have that control, I could see, maybe, ordering it, but it really seems to be putting the cart before the horse. MR. CAlMANO-Well, he makes a good point because, in reality, we may get things in there that are onesy, twosy, threesy, types of automobiles or traffic that comes in in the morning and leaves at night. We have no idea what the traffic is going to be, at this point. MR. CARTIER-On the other hand, suppose two of thase Site Plans for two of these lots come in with a heavy traffic sort of item. Now, What happens to the guy who's bought tha third one. It places some limitations on what he or she can do with that piece of property. MR. CAlMANO-He gets killed, right. MR. CARTIER-And that's my concern. MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-For a buyer of the lot? MR. CARTIER-For whoever's going to come in on the third item. MR. KRANTZ-Well, I don I t think anyone would buy a lot without tha contract being contigent upon Site Plan approval. MR. CAlMANO-No, he I s not concern about the buyer, so much as the fact that he won't be able to do what he wants to do and go through all kinds of fights. MR. KRANTZ-They're all going to have to come here, Whoever they are. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, maybe we're making too big a deal of this, at this particular review juncture and, as you point out, we are just talking subdividing the land and you don't know much about the use and it is as zoned and as promoted. Is there anyone else in the audience who cares to comment on this project? DICK KILMARTIN MR. KILMARTIN-I'm Dick Kilmartin. I have property that's very close to where this gentleman's talking about. live farmed it for years. I don't farm it anymore, 16 '- but I do take my equipment and 1 truck it up and down the road to keep the ground from growing up to brush and I have a little conservation project going on. I have tractors and I have mowers and balers that I drive up and down the road and I drive up Bay Road and I go down 149 and, now, I'm not trying to put you off or anything like this or divert the situation, but I drive up and down Bay Road all the time and over 149 all the time and there is a traffic light there. Now, anybody that's driving an automobile or a truck, the signs are up, there's signs all ways, on the four corners, saying that there's a traffic light a head. My God, if you drive an automobile and you can't see these signs, 10 and behold, you shouldn't be driving. I drive heavy equipment up and down the road and like I'm saying, farm tractors with balers and mowers and racks and I have never had any problem. I don't see what the problem is, here. It is zoned Highway Commercial. My God, What the Hell is the matter with this Town that they cannot see what's going on here. Somebody is trying to stop somebody from doing what they're property is zoned for. Come on you guys. Wake up. Do your job. MR. ROBERTS-One voice doesn't think there's a big traffic problem. MR. CARTIER-May I raise an iøøue, here. This is a public meeting and I am very disturbed by the fact that a member of the audience walks up to a Planning Board member and hands him a note. Sir, would you at least identify yourself. STEVE BENNETT MR. BENNETT-Yes, 11m sorry. I'm the Managing Editor of the Post Star, Steve Bennett. MR. CAlMANO-We have a problem. I'm handling the problem on the side. MR. CARTIER-In other words, therels some Post Star business going on here, besides Planning Board business, is that correct? MR. BENNETT-Yes, that's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I think that should be on the record. MR. CAlMANO-You got it. MR. ROBERTS-Then, next time, maybe that could be done in the hallway. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I feel much better now, thank you. MR. ROBERTS-I guess welve heard from the public. We've gotten mixed reactions. The next thing to do would be to go through the SEQRA. I guess, if we're hung up on traffic and requiring a traffic study, maybe that's not worth going through the SEQRA, but I think we ought to go through the SEQRA. MR. HAGAN-Hold it. Has the applicant finished addressing all the comments? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I'd like to hear him go through, he was going through item by item. MR. HUTCHINS-I think we were at Item Two of the Rist-Frost letter? MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I kind of combined that with the last Item of Stu Baker's letter, I believe. Item One of the Riøt-Frost letter asks for deed right of ways or easements and stormwater easements. We have no problem with that. Item Two of the Rist-Frost letter, if access, we've agreed to eliminate that. Item Three is, if access to 149, that access road is eliminated. That becomes, I believe, a moot question, in that that was directed at our access road. Item 4a, I had a discussion with Mr. Yarmowich about this one. What we did in our drainage study, was consider the poøøibility the parking lots would be paved, in the future and I believe that it was proven to his satisfaction that, shoul d everything, and I'm saying parking lots, be paved, in the future, we could handle it on site. 17 '- -- MR. HAGAN-Well, are you going to show that in your MR. HUTCHINS-We did show it. MR. HAGAN-You did show it? MR. HUTCHINS-The question about the gravel permeability, essentially, results from, that we proposed this access road to be gravel. Since we've eliminated it and we don't have the gravel road, we don't have a question over what the permeability of the gravel road is. In terms of the parking lot in the front, on the Bay Road side, the drainage report considered those as all being paved and we treated them as being paved and, again, I said, I believed to his satisfaction, we proved that we can handle that on site. MR. YARMOWICH-We are recommending that stormwater detention be a feature of this particular subdivision, is what the substance of the comment is. MR. HUTCHINS-Am I missing a point? MR. HAGAN-Yes, the last sentence of Paragraph 4. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. What Mr. Hutchins has said is, in fact, correct. The calculations that have been offered properly address the stormwater concept that relies on detention basins. We are willing to agree to that stormwater management concept and we feel that stormwater detention should be required as a part of the subdivision, to be handled on an individual site, private site basis and not rely on gravel permeability to manage stormwater. MR. ROBERTS-So, we're on the same wavelength, here? MR. YARMOWICH-I think so. MR. HUT CHINS-I think I, you're saying that we're agreeing, but I'm not sure. I'm confused a little bit. MR. YARMOWICH-What I'm saying, in essence, is, if you indicate, through the final submission, that you're going to be using a detention system for each specific site, we will not have any problem with your concept. MR. HUTCHINS-The sizing, the specifics of that detention would be the subject of Site Plan Review? MR. YARMOWICH-That I s correct. The concept of detention should be a part of the subdivision. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and I believe it's noted on our Preliminary plan. MR. MARTIN-For each lot. MR. YARMOWICH-It's not indicated. Itls indicated, if it's paved only. feel it should be a part, regardless of whether it's paved or gravel. So , we MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, very good. MR. HAGAN-So, youlre saying, it's not shown on it, yet? MR. HUTCHINS-We showed detention on the Preliminary plan. We sized it, in the calculations, for paving. MR. CARTIER-You will show, on the final, something that will satisfy the engineer, is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and I may have to talk to him. I don't think we're that far apart, but I'm a little confused. I will move on. (Item) 4b, sizing, we have no problem with that and that's, I think, a detail t hat we can work out and, I think, we probably have worked it out. Item C., we must addend or add to the drainage report, to handle that request. We foresee no problem in doing that. The County has also asked to review those computations. (Item) 4d., we have no problem with that. MR. HAGAN-Okay, if you take care of C And D, I just want to make the point that one of the neighbors qualms would be put to rest by you addressing, C and D. Somebody was concerned about the drainage. 18 -- ..- MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I think it's fair to state that we have addressed a good portion of drainage on site. These are some details that were not included and I agree with you. Item 5, with the elimination of the driveway or access road, the profile becomes much shortened. We have no problem supplying exactly what is needed, but, like I say, with the driveway substantially eliminated, thatls substantially a moot question. (Item) 6a, I discussed this, also, with the engineer. We proposed a fill system to be consistent with Sketch Plan. His cOIllIllQnt is substantially correct, that the Code more properly directs us toward an alternative system. We will provide that. (Item) 6b, we are in the process, Leon Steves, I believe, is in the process of gathering that information. (Item) 6c, we will address that on the plans. (Item) 6d, we will address that on the plans. Mr. Naylorls letter, I think, with the elimination of the access road, becomes a moot question. MR. ROBERTS-What about DOT's concern about any of your stormwater going onto their right-of-way? Is that eliminated by eliminating the access to 149? MR. HUTCHINS-I would say a major, major portion of it is, yes. MR. ROBERTS -I guess, really, you almost have to berm it, or something, to keep it on site. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. In terms of DOTls letter, I did meet, on site, several weeks and maybe months, at this point, on site, with Mr. Stone, a representative of the Warrensburg office. It was my impression, from him, he had great concern over the impact of our traffic on Route 149, essentially, because of the level of traffic and the ge anetrics of 149 and, eliminating thi s, I believe, eliminates the DOTI s, eliminating the access road would eliminate DOTI s jurisdiction, in terms of aCcess. MR. ROBERTS -I guess that covers most of the details, here. Are we now ready to hit the SEQRA Forms. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a recommendation, at this point, not to hold up this project, but, right now, the Board is considering doing a SEQRA Review on a plat that the Planning Department has not reviewed. There have been some, what I'd say are, substantial changes, which I think the Planning Department should have a chance to review, as well as the Engineering Staff, before a SEQRA Review can be done. MR. CAlMANO-What I s the substantial changes, besides the lack of an entrance and exit on 149? MR. BAKER-They I re also talking about changes in the septic system, as well, which I think, the design of which, needs review. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. BAKER-I'm just not comfortable with going a head to do a SEQRA Review on a subdivision plat that the Planning Department has not had time to review. We have not seen these changes until tonight. MR. CARTIER-I agree. Letls not get into this kind of deal, again, where we end up approving things, contingent upon. The purpose of a Preliminary is to get almost all of our ducks in a row and to clean up, at Final, minor details and I think there are more than just minor details, here. I don't think all our ducks are in a row, on this thing. I'm also looking, for example, at the recommendation from the Beautification Committee. I think those need to be addressed and I would strongly agree with what Mr. Baker is suggesting, here, that we do not approve something that has only shown up tonight. We have done this, in the past, and it has created horrendous problems for us and I think it's time that we stopped doing that. Let's let this thing go through the proper review process, so Staff and everybody else has a chance to look at it. MR. ROBERTS-I guess I'd make the comment, in the past, I don't know that we had to have all of the ducks in a row before we address SEQRA, but, perhaps, if you feel there are major problems, here. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm speaking for myself, but when Staff says, as far as I'm concerned, When Staff says, we need more time to look at these changes, I feel it incumbent upon me, anyway, to provide Staff with that time. 19 MR. HUTœINS-If I might, I would submit that anything we're proposing has been, essentially, suggested by Staff. MR. KRANTZ-I thought we were agreeing with what your Staff wants. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's true, but we would like to see most of these things pretty well defined on paper, and I can agree that, at this point, I don't think we have any real resolution to the septic systems. You say you'll provide an alternate system, I mean, what's that going to be? I guess, in this high ground water, I don't know what, are you going to have holding tanks or something? MR. HUTœINS-I have discussed that with your engineer and we will be proposing a Mound type system. MR. ROBERTS-Does the engineer feel that, in fact, there is something that can be done, here, satisfactorily? MR. YARMOWICH-I'm looking for a piece of information and, maybe, Jim, can you answer the question, okay, perc tests were, in fact, completed and you have information on groundwater. There's nothing in the information provided that would suggest that inadequate sewage disposal is going to be a problem. There are alternative methods that can be applied to deal with the particular soil conditions that have been revealed by the applicant's data. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm about to be asked to do a SEQRA Review on something I havenlt seen yet and neither has Staff and I'm very uncomfortable with that, t hat smacks of somewhat questionable planning practice, as far as I'm concerned and that's my concern. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I guess it's just a question of how accurate things have to be, how far along things have to be before we deal with SEQRA. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I'll go back to my question to Stu, then. Now that he's cleared up the septic system, other than the cut on 149, what significant changes are there? MR. BAKER-Well, I think it's a matter of the design changes, plus I think there are some questions that haven't been adequately responded to for the SEQRA Review. Is the Board prepared to say that there will be no traffic impacts from this project? That's one aspect of the Long Form SEQRA Review, which I think needs further looking into. MR. CAlMANO-But, absent a report, a traffic study, which we're not going to get because it I S not going to be done and not going to be requested, that's not going to change between now and the final approval, that I know of. MR. CARTIER-But the answer is, we don't know what the traffic impact is going to be. MR. CAlMANO-That' s right and it'll be the same tonight as the next time we look at this thing, unless the traffic study's done. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. BAKER-That's correct. MR. ROBERTS-Well, either that or, in your judgement, knowing the area, you don It think it I s going to be significant. Remember, we know everyt hing is going to have an impact. The question is, is it going to be significant. MR. BAKER-Is this Board prepared to say t hat there will be no traffic impacts, based on no traffic data being provided, that's my question? MR. ROBERTS-You don't have to say ~ traffic impacts, significant traffic impacts. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I'll do whatever anybody else wants. I just think that there is, the Staff has recommended that we do not do a SEQRA because there are significant changes. I don't know that there are going to be any significant changes, other than the cut on 149, which is, now, not going to be there. The question of the traffic is one of a judgemental thing of this Board because we're not going to get a report. We didn't ask for one. We're not going to get one. So, itls our judgement. 20 '-- ~ MR. CARTIER-Well, we're not done. We haven't decided not to ask, as far as I'm concerned, we haven't decided not to ask for one. MR. CAlMANO-That's another story. If you want do that, that's fine. MR. CARTIER-Just looking at Item 14, in here (Referring to Long Form EAF), Impact on Transportation, Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems, the answer is yes. Items that apply to Column Two, which is potential large impact, alteration of present patterns of movement of people andlor goods. I don't know. I donlt know, and the only way I'm going to know is if some kind of traffic study is done, Where, as Stu points out, you take a worst case scenario and go from there. You max out the property and you do a study, based on max numbers. MR. BAKER-And, if I might add, a traffic study done for a worst case may also provide some minor internal traffic circulations or traffic on site that could improve the project and prevent problems down the road. scenario controls MR. CAlMANO-Well, 11m not saying that's not so. All I'm saying is that I walked in here, tonight, looking at this, I felt the same way as I felt the first time I saw it. This is a horrendous project because of the problems on 149. The problems at 149 have been deleted by the applicant. MR. CARTIER-Not completely, because there's still going to be a traffic impact on 149. MR. CAlMANO-So is every other thing that is built on Bay Road or 149. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. KILMARTIN-Right, I agree with you. MR. KRANTZ-We have here a proposed subdivision approval, in the zone approved, in the densities approved. I just don't know, realistically, What more we can do, honestly. We've had comments from Staff, comments from the Engineer. We've agreed with about two thirds of them, completely. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but you haven't substantially showed that you are going to adapt to those changes, specifically and formally, with your site plan. MR. KRANTZ-We agree. We agree with the changes. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but you haven't made them yet. MR. ROBERTS-Well, this is Preliminary. MR. HAGAN-I think thatls the point that Staff is asking, the right to review those changes when you formalize them. MR. MARTIN-Stu, do you have to review this Whole thing, again, before it goes to Final? MR. BAKER-I'm recommending that the Staff have a chance to review this again before a SEQRA Review is done. MR. CAlMANO-That's not the question. MR. MARTIN-When it goes to Final, you have to look at this again before it gets final approval, right. MR. BAKER-That's correct, but the SEQRA Review has to be done at Preliminary. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Well, my question is, What are we approving, tonight? Are we approving that? And, What I'm hearing from the applicant is, no because what is being shown to us and what has gone through the Staff Review process is a road with a road cut onto 149. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. We are approving that. MR. CARTIER-We are being asked to approve something that hasn't been through Staff. 21 ',,--, ---' MR. CAlMANO-We are being asked to preliminarily approve that, which is going to be reviewed by the Staff. MR. KRANTZ-My understanding is that, at Preliminary, rarely have I seen, at Preliminary, zero changes between Preliminary and Final. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. KRANTZ-My experience has always been, applicant, we're giving you preliminary approval, but, based upon the following conditions, that this, this, and this better be 00 that final map or you're not going to get final approval. Staff has given comment. We agree with it. All we're asking for is preliminary approval, conditioned upon all the items that you've heard and you've agreed to and they will be on the final and you will get to see the final map before you approve it. MR. MARTIN-My understanding of Staff Comments are to make the project better or to mitigate any negative impacts of the project. Those comments have been made and agreed to. I just don't see the point, why it can't go on to a final look, final approval. MR. BAKER-If the Board feels that you get through the Long EAF and do the SEQRA approval this evening, by all means, go right ahead. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to take a shot at it? MR. ROBERTS-Well, it is the public hearing. lid like to do as much as we can while we've got the people out and they require SEQRA to be done, prior to Preliminary, for good reasons, I think, because you don't really require all the I's to be dotted and the Tis to be crossed at the time of reviewing SEQRA, as long as we think we I re addressing things adequately. I guess I would suggest we try to get through it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. KESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE KESOLUTION NO. 7-1989, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano Who moved for it's adoption, seconded by James Martin: MR. CARTIER-(Referring to Long Form EAF) Item 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Yes. Alteration of present patterns of movement of people andlor goods. MR. CAlMANO-Make a guess. MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I don't have any information to make a decision. MR. CAlMANO-But you know how large the project is. Will it be a large impact? MR. CARTIER-I don It know. I really don't. MR. ROBERTS-Of course, just subdividing the land is not going to create any traffic impacts, as such. MR. HAGAN-No, not until you get the final plan. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. CAlMANO-Not until the individuals come in for their site plan approval. MR. MARTIN-Not until you go to site plan review. MR. HAGAN-The answer to this is, no. MR. CARTIER-The only thing I don't want to have happen is that we pass the buck onto the site plan owner or purchaser and have problems, or create problems. MR. CAlMANO-I don't either, but how do you make the decision before then? MR. CARTIER-Okay. 22 '-....- '-..-/ MR. HAGAN-The applicant even put words into our mouths. He said that any sale would be contingent upon site plan approval and I think if we put that in there, we'll cover everybody. MR. KRANTZ-I Can tell you right now, we would agree to that as a stated condition because no one in their right mind would buy a lot that needs site plan review, without the protection of getting your blessing for whatever they choose to do. MR. CARTIER-19. Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? There has been some controversy. I think what we're saying is, we're postponing looking at that until we start looking at site plans out here. MR. CAlMANO-I' d like to go sake of the people who are of the existing community. activity. back to 18, Peter, just for a second, just for the here. Will the proposed action effect the character I think it should be noted that it is zoned for this MR. HAGAN-So, it won't change. MR. CAlMANO-No, that's Why we answered no. MR. ROBERTS-Then we didn't seem to trigger anything that would not allow us to negative dec it, at this time. So, we can proceed, I would think. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: FAIH TO MAIKET COMMœS of John 4.. and Stephanie B.. Mason for a three lot subdivision for commercial retail usa. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency is involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: The Adirondack Park Agency 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 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 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-Okay, that allows us to gO forward. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLI/C: HEAtilKÞ CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-And I guess we're ready for a possible Preliminary recommendation, motion. 23 '--/ MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIHlNARY STAGE- SUBDIVISION- -NO. 7-1-989 FAJlKTO-- MAJDŒT COMMONS JOHN A. AND STEPHANIE B~ MASON, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For a three lot subdivision for commercial use subject to the applicant submitting the revised plans concerning the elimination of the entrance and exit on Route 149 and also implementing all of the changes discussed tonight regarding Stuart Baker's comments, Rist-Frost's comments, in their letter dated August 8th, and the Beautification Committee comments of 8/6. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. KRANTZ-Reference was made to the Beautification Committee's input. I have not spoken directly with Mr. Eddy, but the co-owner has and what I understand the gist of it was, Mr. Eddy wanted to know what the theme was going to be for the subdivision, in terms of the architectural theme, because we're not building anything, we, honestly, just don't have a theme. So, we could tell you, it's going to be a log home theme, similar to the northwest part of that intersection, but we just don't have a theme, per se, to give you, now. MR. HAGAN-Why did you detail it as commercial retail use? What did you put the word, retail, in there for? MR. KRANTZ-Why? That's what we think itls gPing to be, I think. MR. HAGAN-Okay, you have some kind of an idea. You keep saying you don I t have any idea, but yet you detail the use for retail use only. MR. KRANTZ-No, I donlt think that's correct. MR. HAGAN-Well, thatls what you're application says. MR. KRANTZ-You're looking at the summary. I donlt think that's the application. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that's not his application. MR. KRANTZ-Thatls not our application, sir. MR. HAGAN-What does the application ask for? MR. KRANTZ-I can tell you, however, that I think, in all honesty, at least one of the lots is going to be retail. MR. HAGAN-Well, if you limit it to retail MR. KRANTZ-No, that's not our intent. MR. HAGAN-You void an awfully lot of businesses. MR. KRANTZ-No, \\hatever the zoning permits is what we're applying for. Youl re asking me, honestly, What I think. I think retail is going to be a likely use. MR. BAKER-The Sketch Plan application and the Preliminary application lists it as three lots for commercial development. MR. HAGAN-Okay, then why don't we keep the record clean. Delete the word, retail. MR. BAKER-It will be deleted at final. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Did you have something more, Peter? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I'm appropriate request, out there. However, to be residential just thinking about Bob's letter. I think that's an considering the fact that, yes, it is Highway Commercial there is some residential use out there that will continue 24 ~ --" think what he's looking for is not so much architectural design, but some sort of complimentary use on those three lots, in terms of design. MR. MARTIN-And you, as the site owner, can dictate that. MR. ROBERTS-Something that will blend into the area as well as can be. MR. CARTIER-We're not looking for elevations, I don't think. MR. KRANTZ-No, I understand. MR. CARTIER-He is looking for some... MR. MARTIN-Continuity. MR. CARTIER-Yes, thank you. Thatls the word 11m looking for. MR. KRANTZ-If it please the Board, I will speak to Mr. Mason and will get back to Stuart on that and try to address that. MR. CARTIER-Great. Thank you. MR. KRANTZ-I mean, I voluntarily brought it up because I did want to discuss it, but, again, I haven't spoken to Mr. Eddy, direct ly, so I don't want to say what he said, exactly. . MR. ROBERTS-I think it's a good idea if we can work it out. MR. BAKER-That has been a point of much discussion between Mr. Mason and Mr. Eddy and Mr. Mason and myself. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay, because we I re seeing it in the Adirond ack Industrial Park and it seems to be going well and I think it's something we want to encourage. MR. KRANTZ-We're not opposed to that at all. MR. CARTIER-Great. MR. CAlMANO-I would like to say one more thing to the pe ople who came here in, somewhat, opposition, and that's the fact that, the people who put in whatever, stores or offices, in there, have to come back here, again, for final approval. This approval, tonight, was for the general subdivision, as Mr. Krantz has said. So, it isn't the fact that we would let somebody in with fifty million cars or no cars. You have an opportunity, again. MRS. BENTLEY-Then would a traffic study be done? MR. CAlMANO-It could very well have to be done because of the type of business that goes in. We have no way of judging. MRS. BENTLEY-Just don't forget, once they eliminated the access to 149, it doubles whatever's going to go in there and go across Bay Road. MR. CARTIER-Ma'am, I want you to know, I'm going to ask for a traffic study. MRS. BENTLEY-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute it. Before I set myself up, here, that doesn't mean we're going to get one, because I'm one of seven members. MRS. MINES-I think if you just went to your police department and noted the number of accidents on that corner. MR. MARTIN-Well, the other thing I want you to bear in mind, too. I live on 149. I live about a half a mile from this place and I know what 149 can be. MRS. MINES-149 is bad. MR. MARTIN-It's the worst, but don't think t hat a traffic study is the end to this. All a traffic study is going to do is tell you how to mitigate the impact. The impact will still be there, no matter what, and that IS because of the zoning. So, don It think that the traffic study is the answer, but it'll help mitigate. 25 '---' ---- MRS. MINES-I'd like to say something. lid just like to say how I feel, especially living right next door to what the applicant proposes. I think the applicant, from what I've heard tonight, is trying to think of the area surrounding and I commend the applicant for that. I feel that they're aware. Also, the surveyors, they have come and talked to me, direct and I told them three points that I was concerned about, as far as the water table and the septic system and so on and so on. I just am asking to, we, the people in the area, know what that corner's like and the comment was made about driving farm equipment up and down 149 and up and down Bay and there was a traffic light there when a tractor trailer ended up three inches from my front porch and it just wasn't a tractor trailer. There were two other vehicles involved. I live on that corner. It's commercial. You have a right to develop it as commercial, but I don't want to have a vehicle in the middle of my front yard, again. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I'm sure that there 's nothing this Board can do that will ever say that that will never happen again. MRS. MINES-And you can't, but the comment being made, if some idiot can't look at a traffic light and know that they're supposed to stop, yes, that's what traffic lights are for, but just be aware there is a problem. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. We appreciate your input. MR. KRANTZ-As long as we're being informal, I'd just like to say, in fault to Mrs. Mines comment, that she felt somewhat more comfortable wit h the subdivision approval process at this point. I have never felt, in all honesty, that developing property is mutually exclusive of responsible development. They don't have to be at logger heads. You can make a reasonable profit and do something that IS still responsible for the neighborhood and the community and, since you've already received kudos from Mr. O'Connor and I've mentioned, before, not just Mr. Roberts, Wiols leaving, but you all volunteer your time. I have volunteered my time before, on a board, for 10 years. You don't get paid and you put up wit h long hours and, sometimes, a lot of aggravation and I think, seriously, that the community should be appreciative of those who get out, instead of staying home with their families on an evening, and wrestle with these problems of growth and development and all of you, not just Mr. Roberts Who's leaving. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 65-90 TWE: UNLISTED LI-IA JAMES M. WELLER, P.R. OWNER: R. JAMES BARRETT QUAKER ROAD, NORTHWEST OF QUAKER ROAD CAR WASH (AD.JAŒBT Lar) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE STORY BUILDING TWE 2B NœCOMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR WALL. PROVIDE œ SITE PARKING FOR. A MINIMUM OF 16 VEmCLES. FOR TRUCK BPAIR AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT (TRUCK) SALES. (WARIEII COUNTY PLAlfBING) TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.23 Lar SIZE: 1.963 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N JAMES WELLER, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-This was tabled for outstanding engineering comments. So, let's here the up to date comments from Staff and our Engineers. STAn' INP'Ur Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Does the applicant have any comments about these comments? MR. WELLER-Well, on Stu's comments, I think the first two are positive and don't require any comment. The locations of the signs in the ingreøø and egress, we did indicate, on the revised drawing, that signs will be placed there. We didn't show, on the drawing, the exact location of them. I had no difficulty in showing additional detail. MR. ROBERTS-Excuse me, Jim. I don't think we gave your name. MR. WELLER-I'm sorry. 11m Jim property, Barrett/Hertz Project. which we have no trouble showing has not been changed. I think was a comment, Weller and 11m representing the owner of this So, I think the signs is a matter of detail on a drawing. The location of the truck display t hat was addreøøed at the last meeting. There 26 -- t he last time. I don't think that was, at least I didn't leave here with the indication that that was going to be a requirement. The location and design of the rear access way has not been changed. I think itls addressed by the engineer in the engineer I s report. It is still shown as it has been and we did indicate that, the F. comment, the applicant has indicated to the Board that the slopes on the edges of the existing fill will be cleared of rocks. That is, wa believe, indicated on the drawing. The entire piece of property is to be graded and seeded and erosion control methods instituted. On the engineer's comments, the first one is a maintenance note and, if you choose that we put a maintenance note on the drawing, wa can put a maintenance note on the drawing. I have no difficulty with that. The second one is the comment on the rear access drive and, as the engineer says, it was placed on there at the request of the owner of the property. MR. ROBERTS-Our biggest hang up, the last stormwater retention. Youl re satisfied, now. minds on this, have we? time, seemed We've come to be the method of to a meeting of the MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, it seems to be okay. It is okay with us. MR. ROBERTS-Alright. MR. CAlMANO-Just to set the record straight, on D., I was the one who made the comment. The reason the trucks ware displayed up front is because this is a place that sells trucks and that's where you want to display them. I don I t see any problem with doing that, at all. MR. BAKER-It was merely a point of observation. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, you put it on the notes, so I'm going to answar it. MR. ROBERTS-We probably left the public hearing open on this. Is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project? We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC BEARING <LOSED MR. ROBERTS-Is everyone satisfied that welve taken care of the details on this project, now? If so, I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. CAlMANO-No, SEQRA on this? MR. ROBERTS-What did we, we did the SEQRA, I would assume. MR. WELLER-You did the SEQRA at the last meeting, that's correct. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-90 JAMES R. WELLER, P.E., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following stipulations: That a note be made on the plat regarding the stormwater retention basin maintenance as listed in the engineer's comments in the Rist-Frost letter; that the exact location and detail of the entry way signs be shown on the plat; that the Comment F. on Stuart Baker's letter of September 15th be addressed; that it should not be used for normal truck maintenance traffic. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think signs need to be added to the MR. CAlMANO-He already did that. MR. WELLER-We indicated that signs would be located. of the sign or the exact location of the sign. We We didn't give the detail can add that information. 27 ---' MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. WELLER-May I ask a question? On your third stipulation, you referred to Item Two of the Engineer's letter. MR. MARTIN-Yea. MR. WELLER-Item Two of the Engineer's letter says, the Board may wish to consider if a stipulation on use is appropriate. What is your intent on the stipulation on use? MR. MARTIN-I don't know if we have any. MR. WELLER-Then I would respectfully request that there not be a stipulation on use. MR. CAlMANO-Because, the concern is the grade and the trucks will destroy that grade. Is that what your concern is? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, it I S because of the slope and the necessary approaches to the thing, we don't feel that it's a necessary element for the use of the facility for truck maintenance. MR. WELLER-It's intended only to gain access to the right-of-way, on the rear of the property. MR. HAGAN-By whom? MR. WELLER-By the owners of the property. MR. CAlMANO-So, if we put a stipulation that it should not be normal traffic of maintenance, that wonlt be a bothersome thing. Will it? MR. WELLER-I wouldn't think so. MR. MARTIN-Okay, that'll be the stipulation as relates to that comment. MR. CAlMANO-Not that it not be used at all. MR. ROBERTS-It would be more in an emergency. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, sure, fire. MR. YARMOWICH-The Comment E., by the Planning Department indicates that the grading is a problem with that and that's not necessarily consistent with the comment that was made as part of the resolution, or motion, excuse me. MR. BAKER-If the use stipulation will take care of problems caused by the grading- MR. YARMOWICH-I think the grade is not the problem, as long as it's not used for regular truck maintenance traffic. MR. MARTIN-Right, then we strike Letter E, then, from the resolution. MR. YARMOWICH-The issue, then, is the drainage culvert, as part of Item E., necessary for the use. MR. WELLER-My comment to that is, is that whatever construction we do back there and development we do back there, we will not make any change to the existing flow. We will not restrict anything that currently exists. MR. MARTIN-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISI" 110.. 8-1990 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: urr.ISTED LI-IA ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. OWiNER: SAME AS ABOVE WARREN!VASHIBGTœ OOUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK, COUNTY LINE ROAD, LarS 54-60, tEST SIDE œ OOONTY LINE ROAD, 1//4 JlILE SOU'rll OF BlQ{S ROAD.. B-ZCJNED BY TOliN BOARD:: JOL'! 9, 1990 FOR. A SUBDIVISlœ CÆ 14 Lars TO BE USED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL B1DlLDINGS.. TAX MAP NO.. 55-2-20 Lar SIZE: 2~..2 ACRES 28 "-- ----' TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF IIIPM Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) ENGINEER IŒP(QJRT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer, (attached) MR. ROBERTS-We also have a couple of other letters in the file. MR. BAKER-Yes, we do. We have a memorandum to the Planning Department from David Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement, dated September 6, 1990 (attached) We also have a memo to the Planning Department from the Highway Superintendent, Paul H. Naylor, dated September 20, 1990 (attached) And we have a memo from Tom Flaherty, the Director of Water and Wastewater, To John Goralski, Planner, dated September 17, 1990 (attached) MR. ROBERTS-I guess we have some complications, Tom. Do you care to address these things? MR. NACE-I sure do. For the record, my name is Tom Nace. I'm with Haanen Engineering who is the engineer for this project. First, I guess, let me clarify, maybe, \\hat appears to be a misunderstanding of the Planning Department. The re-zoning for this parcel was requested specifically, not to increase the density. The density doesn't matter, whether it's one acre or three acres, the density at which the lots can be built out is the same, in your Zoning RegiS. The reason that we wanted the zoning approval or the re-zoning of the parcel is so that, in the future, if the developer wants to sell off individual lots, individual buildings, he can do so, okay. The internalization of access was simply a benefit of having subdivided it. In reality, Whether we had one acre lots or three acre lots, the developer would probably put the road in and simply maintain it himself and have it as a private road, if it were not re-zoned to one acre and simply have multiple buildings on one lot. So, I think, probably, the most important issue to address, here, is the internalization. My feeling is that, if you look at this, \\a have provided for internal access, even prior to the subdivision, for the lots that front on the road, where it is reasonable that access be provided. The lots up front that were already developed under previously approved site plans, \\a have even combined access to limit the access onto Queensbury Avenue, for instance, between these two lots. So, at present, there are one, two, three, four access points onto Queensbury Avenue. With the subdivision, ~ would simply be adding one more to what already exists and that's all. We can, if it comes down to that, ~ can, probably provide access onto the proposed road for Lot Number Two. I feel that to do so, for the Lots Number Three, Four, and Five, is unreasonable. The original subdivision for the Industrial Park anticipated all these lots being developed and each lot having an individual road. In fact, ~ are combining these two, and we're combining these two. So, ~'re reducing what the original subdivision anticipated for that area. The second issue is something I've got to clear up and, in fact, it may require a variance. I'm a little unclear on lots with dual frontage, as far as the regulations go. What is the front? What is the side? Are both dimensions considered? MS. CORPUS-Both fronts. MR. NACE-Both fronts and both depths? MS. CORPUS-Tom, I think you'd probably have to get a determination from the Zoning Administrator on that. MR. NACE-Okay, \\a will do that, obviously, have to do that and if, in fact, there is a problem with the depth, ~ will either reconfigure this side of the subdivision. I don't see reconfiguring this because it already exists. So, I would anticipate, if necessary, ~ would go back for a variance for Lot Number Two. So, I guess thatls a problem we've got to deal with. If necessary, \\a'll reconfigure it. I think that takes care of the first paragraph of the Planning Department comments. The second paragraph, I don't think, requires comment. The third paragraph we'll address later, Wien we go through the Highway Department comments. The comments from Rist-Frost, the entrance drive for proposed Lot Two, I agree that we can and, if we can, ~ will re-configure that sO it takes access off of the new proposed road, rather than County Line Road. Number Two, \\a agree with, that's okay. We will provide a 40 foot radius edge of pavement on COtmty Line Road, that will 29 --../ be detailed at Preliminary. The proposed, Comment Number Three, the proposed road minimum radius of 150 feet versus the 250 feet, actually, why don't we deal wi th that, now. I would, obvious ly, 1 ike the chance to go back and talk to Paul Naylor about it. I feel that 150 feet is reasonable, not due to the traffic. The traffic, trucks Can turn in a great deal smaller radius than 150 feet, but due to the speeds Which anybody would be utilizing this road at because of its limited length and, anybody coming in here, or coming out, traffic coming out is going to be originating from one of these lots. Traffic going in is going to be going to one of these lots. So, anticipated speeds would probably be in the 15 to 20 mile an hour range, at maximum. MR. CARTIER-So, the 250 feet radius has to do with vehicle speed, is what you're saying? MR. NACE-Yes. A truck, tractor trailer, can turn arOtmd in this parking lot and that's much less, it's not the physical limitations of how much a road it needs to be able to negotiate a turn, it's simply the speed and, again, the grade, as Tom has pointed out. To answer your question, Tom, we have started to work up the profile which will be presented at Preliminary. I believe the grades in this area are somewhere in the three and a half to four percent range, which are fairly low. MR. CARTIER-While we're on it, Tom, are we creating some mini drag strips down here? MR. CAlMANO-I was just wondering the same thing. MR. NACE-Are we what? MR. CARTIER-Creating some mini drag strips down here? MR. NACE-How so? MR. CARTIER-I'm just asking the question. You know the road, one road over, is a wonderful drag strip that was created by the MR. NACE-I can't anticipate, it's such a short road. MR. CARTIER-This part, and so on. MR. NACE-This is only, it's 400 feet from here to here. Any self respecting kid needs that to get up to speed. MR. CARTIER-Well, we're back to 250 foot curbs, then. MR. NACE-At any rate, I feel that the 150 feet is reasonable for the intended use. MR. ROBERTS-I would think so, too. MR. NACE-Ild like the opportunity to go back and discuss the matter with Paul and see if we can't resolve it and, at that time, I could, in fact, Tom and Paul and I could discuss that, along with a layout of the profile. MR. ROBERTS-He's given this waiver, or we've given this waiver, in other subdivisions, but not for such heavy traffic, but if you say tractor trailer are not impeded by that kind of curve, I don't know what the problem would be. We're not talking high speed. It's a question I needed to know, though. MR. MARTIN-I think something that you might want to bring out in your discussions with Paul is just say, you know, that if anything, it will have the effect of reducing the speed of traffic and that is a positive result of it. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I agree. MR. BAKER-Perhaps, a reduce posted speed limit on that road. MR. NACE-I have no problem with that. I wouldn't mind, a 15 mile an hour posted speed limit would be reasonable. MR. ROBERTS-But the curve will almost be self, will take care of it. MR. CAlMANO-The curve will be self limiting, yes. 30 -.-..-/ MR. NACE-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Of more importance, however, is the private sewer line and the right-of-way. MR. NACE-Okay. Let's discuss that a minute. Yes, the proposed sewer line will be private. It will be maintained by the developer. The intention of putting it in the right-of-way would be that, if the Town ever forms a sewer district out there, and I know there's been discussion about that in the past, of taking the entire Industrial Park and providing a collection system, bringing that into the City. .!i the Town were ever to do that, then it would be advantage ous to have that piece of sewer already there and in the right-of-way, Where it can be maintained by the Town. I would think, I don't know, this might require legal input, but I would think that there could be some sort of an agreement that would give the developer access onto the right-of-way in order to maintain it. MS. CORPUS-Legally, that might be possible, but the policy determination will have to be that of the Wastewater Department and the Highway Department. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. YARMOWICH-It may be more expedient to convey an easement with that private sewer line at the time itls incorporated into the District. MR. NACE-We could. I have, from a practical standpoint, there could be an easement along the frontage, here, the same as is given to Niagra Mohawk or the cable companies or whatever and it could be put in that easement. MR. ROBERTS-Except the Town prefers to have their own sewer lines in their right-of-way. MR. YARMOWICH-Or in an easement dedicated to the Town for that sewer. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think that's a problem, or, maybe not. MR. NACE-Well, I would see an easement dedicated, but not the property, okay. If you want it off of the road right away, I don't foresee the property being dedicated to the Town, in the future, for it, but simply an easement for maintenance. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. NACE-So, that, again, that may be up to, a discussion item with Paul and however he feel about it is the way weill go with it. MR. ROBERTS-It's out of our hands. MR. NACE-We can do it either way. Item Four of the Engineering Comments, a road grading, that will be provided at Preliminary. Item Five, minimum lot depth required, as I have stated before, that has to be ironed out on Lots Two, Six, and Seven. MR. YARMOWICH-Tom, the requirementls 200 feet, width and as the average across the front and back lot lines. lots that are 175 by 337. depth, depth being measured So, that these rectangular MR. NACE-It is depth too? MR. YARMOWICH-It' s width and dept h. MR. NACE-For that zone? MR. YARMOWI CH - Ye s . MR. NACE-Then I missed it. Okay, well, then, in that case, \\hat we will do is we will re-configure that corner of the subdivision. MR. HAGAN-That's going to effect three different lots. MR. NACE-Yes, that will. Well, that'll effect t his whole, you know, my guess is, at this point, is What we'll do is bring the road down here, bring the road in. We can ease this curve, here, and probably end up creating two lots in here, rather than two lots this way and maybe reduce t he size of t his lot a little bit, in the process. It's not the most 10 gical way out, but, to comply wit h zoning, it looks like it may be necessary. 31 ~ MR. CAlMANO-These are phantomad in, here. discuss, after this, supposedly? Are these the ones we're going to MR. NACE-It looks, at this point, the discussion may be, they are the ones that welre talking about, that is correct. MR. CAlMANO-That we ~ going to talk about. MR. NACE-That we ~ going to talk about. MR. ROBERTS-It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to put your roadway at the boundary line. You'd be putting it over, possibly, over here and then. MR. NACE-I realize that. MR. ROBERTS-You don't own this? MR. NACE-No, we do not. MR. ROBERTS-We're kind of losing some of our potential internalization by doing that, too. These two lots can now come off of here. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. CAlMANO-What do you think about internalization? his rationale, anyway, about the MR. ROBERTS-Well, I like it. It's going to promote their internalization and eliminate as many road cuts as possible. MR. CAlMANO-Well, he's saying these are already, youlve already given approval for those. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I can't see back tracking on those. I don It agree with, I think what's here is, I kind of question, too, you're suggesting, there's already a building here, but you're thinking that more building can be built on this lot? MR. NACE-More building could be, in the future, yes. MR. ROBERTS-So, that you're willing to change this to come in this way? MR. NACE-We can do that, if the Board requires it, is all I'm saying. MR. ROBERTS-I'm just wondering if that, these already existing, that seems asking quite a lot to change what exists. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but if it I s going to be expanded, that might be an appropriate thing to do. MR. ROBERTS-It might be. MR. NACE-Or it could be changed at site plan, When and if that is ever expanded, ~uld be the other way. I don't know that it will be expanded. I'm saying that the request to internalize this lot is possible to do. These lots, if you ask me to internalize these three lots, then I've got real problems. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's unrealistic. MR. CAlMANO-Well, you've got some work to do. MR. NACE-Yes. The rest of the comments, I think we have addressed most of them. The comment from the Building and Codes Department, we have calculated the allowable square footages on each lot and they do meet your requirements. MR. YARMOWICH-Are you sure, Tom? MR. NACE-Positive. MR. YARMOWI CH - Lo t Number Seven? MR. NACE - 'las. 32 --' MR. CAlMANO-That's going to be changed, anyway. MR. HAGAN-Well, Lot Number Seven's not acceptable. MR. CARTIER-That's up for grabs, anyway. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I went through it and 1111 do it again. MR. NACE-Okay, Which, as far as area of the building? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, based on 1.4 acres, 17,227 square feet. Now, granted it's close, but there's some merit in Mr. Hatin's comment. MR. NACE-Wait a minute. You used 365 or did you use 337? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, 11m using 1.4 acres because of the fact that there's a curve there, it's a bit irregular. MR. NACE-Try 365 by 175. MR. YARMOWICH-1.466 acres. MR. NACE-Okay, these are rounded off, okay. I think if you take that number, you'll find that it works out. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but that lot size is not acceptable, anyway. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the lot doesn't conform to zoning. The size of the building conforms to the area available. MR. NACE-The lot doesn't conform, so it will be re-configured. MR. ROBERTS-Well, the points been made, the building can only be so big for each lot. MR. NACE-Right. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, there's work to be done. Is there some much work that we can't give conceptual approval or Sketch Plan approval? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if I might interject. Recently, I was required to do some research, quite a bit of research and investigation for Paul Dusek on a different problem, a similar one, regarding whether the Planning Board can approve items that need zoning variances and the determination was that, even if the Planning Board were to approve such a subdivision, a court could over turn that and void that, Which is actually what happened in a Case that we were determining. At this point, I would recomn:end that the Board have the applicant investigate the need for a variance further, before granting, even Sketch Plan approval, or, in the alternative, any approvals you give would have to be conditional upon obtaining the required ZBA variances. MR. ROBERTS-I guess that makes sense and you're not sure, right now, yes. MR. NACE-I'm really not sure. MR. YARMOWICH-Although, is the possibility of rearranging the lots without requiring a zoning variance, something that you would do to comply? MR. MARTIN-Hels still got Lot Two, though, that's the problem. MR. NACE-I've got Lot Two. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, that doesn't mean that Lot Two and Lot Three could not be combined. MR. ROBERTS-They're existing. MR. YARMOWICH-No, they're not. They are existing lots, but there's are-subdivision of the entire parcel and those could remain under the same ownership. These are options that the applicant has, that there may be ways to use this property without requiring a variance. He may elect to obtain a variance before proceeding. 33 ~ -- MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but you're putting on to that, now, is putting an extra burden on this, so called, Sketch Plan Raview because it begins to change it more and more and more and that's the question is whether we should approve this Sketch Plan. MR. YARMOWICH-I'm merely pointing out that, engineering wise, there appears to be avenues to change the thing and not require a variance. MR. CAlMANO-I know. We're just thinking out loud. MR. NACE-If I can address the Board. At this stage, with the comments and the zoning problem we've got to clear up, I'd just as soon table the decision, rather than put you through the debate of trying to figure out whether or not and come back. MR. CAlMANO-Would you like to table all three? MR. NACE-Yes. There is no point in reviewing the two. MR. CARTIER-Does anyone want to have a discussion on whether we want to table this or not? MR. ROBERTS-In fact, that does effect the other two items on the agenda. MR. MARTIN-As a matter of fact, it might be worth your while to take that before the Zoning Board, that very Sketch, and see what they think of that, before shifting that road. MR. NACE-Yes, my problem would be showing hardship. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. ROBERTS-It may be a tougher nut, though, getting past the Town, and the road radius and Paul and ownership, well, thatls a little MR. CAlMANO-He makes a good point, though, for Paul, in terms of the curvature. MR. ROBERTS-I think so. I agree, too, but I'm not sure how Paul's gping to MR. CARTIER-Can I aSSlU1le that we are going to see a significant change, and that I don't need to hang on to this. MR. NACE-I've just given you some kindling or some recycling paper. MR. ROBERTS-This was not a public hearing. We're not up to SEQRA. I guess, if we're tabling, we're at motion for tabling. IIOTION TO TABLE SOTeR PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1990 ADIRONDACK INDUS~RIAL PARK, INC., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Ha gan: With the applicant's agreement, in order for the applicant to address concerns raised by Planning Department Staff, Engineering Staff, Building and Codes, Highway Department and Wastewater Department. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CAlMANO-And because you table that, the other two are automatically tabled. MR. CARTIER-Can we do that in one motion? MR. CAlMANO-I think so. MS. CORPUS-I'm sorry? MR. CARTIER-We have, the following two applications have to do with site plans on this. Do those require a separate motion to table? 34 MS. CORPUS-I would recommend that the subdivision be handled separately from the site plans. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I just have one quick comment. Is the permeability alright on Number 71-90. It was supposed to be, and it's only 31.2 percent permeable. Is that, did anybody else catch that? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, 71-90 is a nonconforming. MR. MARTIN-He already had the MR. YARMOWICH-lot. MR. MARTIN-Just in case, if he's going back and going to all this trouble, I just wanted to bring it to his attention. MR. CARTIER-71-90 is the next item on the agenda. MR. MARTIN-It was going to be the next item. MR. YARMOWICH-I determined 31 percent permeability, based on the proposed lot and 37 percent based on the existing. MR. MARTIN-Okay, as long as he was going to all this trouble, I wanted to bring it to his attention. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CAlMANO-Just a question, Karla, and I don't know, the other two that come behind it, if we did not approve the subdivision, then there is no application, is there, or can they come separately? MR. CARTIER-I think they need to be withdrawn. MS. CORPUS-Also, I would have recommended to the Board that all three be handled, for SEQRA purposes, together, as related actions, since they would have a cumulative impact. MR. CARTIER-But, Wiit a minute. That all changes, because we can handle these when we do the SEQRA for the subdivision. Am I correct? MR. YARMOWICH-If the applicant withdrew the subdivision application, you could have gone ahead with these. For obvious reasons, the applicant doesn't want to encumber the subdivision process with these site plan approvals. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So, if I'm reading the situation right, the most appropriate thing, at this point, is for the applicant to withdraw these two. MR. CAlMANO-He already has. MR. YARMOWICH-No. MR. CARTIER-No? MR. YARMOWICH-Unless he wants to, he can modify them. MR. CAlMANO-How can he continue with the one, \\hen it's going to be changed by the new plans he's going to put in? MR. YARMOWICH-If the lots have to be changed, then, these configurations wouldn't apply to a new subdivision. As the subdivision stands, you could go ahead and do these lots. MR. MARTIN-He has to withdraw the subdivisions. MR. CAlMANO-lf he withdrew the subdivision. MR. YARMOWICH-Correct, only if he withdrew the subdivision, but not the converse. 35 "-../ MR. NACE-We are withdrawing those two plans, okay. I do have a question for the Board, though. One of the comments on the review of those two site plans was a recommendation that any site plan for one of the existing lots not be approved until the subdivision final approval is issued. I I d just like to get a general consensus from the Board whether or not you might feel it appropriate to be able to approve one of the existing lots, after Preliminary approval of the subdivision. MR. CARTIER-That would be a door that I would not want to open. MR. NACE-Well, by your o~ admission, at Preliminary approval, there are only, you know, you've agreed to the overall subdivision. There are only miscellaneous little odds and ends to clean up at final. MR. CARTIER-Theoretically. MR. CAlMANO-And that applies to your subdivision, but maybe another subdivision, that doesn't apply and the rules that are made, here, set precedent. . MR. CARTIER-The question becomes, are we willing to do that to every applicant that comes in with a subdivision. MR. NACE-That is true. MR. CARTIER-11m certainly not prepared to do that. MR. ROBERTS-I wouldnlt want to get into that. MR. NACE-Even though it's an existing lot? MR. CARTIER-Yes, because the Ordinance does read that you do not grant site plan approval for an area that's tmdergoing subdivision approval, until final approval is given. MR. NACE-Isn't that for one of the subdivided lots? MR. MARTIN-You have to have a lot on the COtmty books, I would think, in order to have site plan review. MR. NACE-Yes, but we do have. MR. ROBERTS-These are. MR. NACE-These are already on the County books. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but they are also part of a subdivision, now, or a proposed subdivision, and we don't want to lock ourselves into an approval of two lots in a subdivision that is not finished. MR. CAlMANO-Right, and Tom had the right words. He said that if you wanted to approve the lot, individually, and forget about the subdivision, then you could do what youl re saying, but if you want to have a subdivision, then you have to wait for the subdivision approval in order to approve what you're going to put on each individual lot. Is that what you said? MR. YARMOWICH-That's Wiat I said, but thatls not necessarily what it means, in it's entirety. MR. NACE-In reality, though, I could circumvent your ~ole purpose and withdraw the subdivision, get site plan approval for those two lots and come back, the next month, with a subdivision approval and start allover again. I don't want to do that. MR. CARTIER-I know that, but the possibility of getting site plan approval, under those circumstances, might be somewhat slim. MR. NACE-Okay, question answered. MR. CARTIER-Do we need anything formal, with regard to the withdrawal of these two? MS. CORPUS-No. The applicant is formally withdrawing? 36 '---" MR. NACE-That is correct. MS. CORPUS-No. MR. BAKER-Just for the Planning Department's records, could we get that in writing, please? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. ROBERTS-Thatls just for the second two items. The first was still tabled. MR. NACE-Yes. FESHWATER WETLANDS PEIKIT FWl-90 T1'.PE: œLISTED SR-1A LLom JAMES DIAMABTIS OWNER: SAME AS ABerlE STEAM IIIVCLVED: BALFWAYi BIOOKs 19..25 ACRES ON HAVILAND lOAD AQlOSS FIØI MAIiTELL lOAD TO BUILD A SINGLE F AMIL Yi HatE IDØ Þ ..09 AcmE PORTICIf OF AN 18..8 AcmE PAKEL PARTIALLYi WITHIN CLASS TWO WETLANDS B1IIFFE.... TO SUBDIVIDE TBE PIIOPEEY INTO FOUR Lars.. ANDREW MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. MCCORMACK-For your record, my name is Andrew McCormack from the survey office of Coulter and McCormack, representing Mr. Madison and his father, Mr. Diamantis, in both the Wetlands Permit application and the Subdivision application. I guess, in order to follow through and understand what's happening with the Wetlands Permit, we still have to consider the subdivision. There is a comment that Mr. Baker just read, in connection with the note to file on Item Number Three, Stu, and it says the house must be a minimum of 40 feet from the edge of the wetland as determined by D.E.C. Currently, D.B.C. is, I guess, preparing this second wetlands permit, as noted in their letter to the Planning Department. With reference to the first permit that was issued, on the last page of that permit, therels a sketch Which they made a part of the permit, showing a 27 foot distance from the rear of the house to the wetland. So, I was wondering where the 40 foot figure came from, in your letter? I need this for clarification purposes, that's the figure, there, that's in connection with our first permit issued. On our map, ~'re showing that same 27 feet on Lot One and 25, plus or minus, on Lot Two. So, again, I'm wondering where the 40 foot figure comes from. MR. BAKER-I believe Mr. Goralski shows a distance of 40 feet as a measure to ensure protection of the wetland, to keep grading, any grading work and other construction work, as far away from the edge of the wetland as possible, While still keeping the building within the limits of the zoning. MR. MCCORMACK-You said Mr. Goralski sug~sted that, not D.B.C. MR. BAKER-In as much as moving the building closer to the road would still keep it within the required building setbacks, but would give a bigger buffer between the actual construction area and the edge of the wetlands. MR. MCCORMACK-Yes, I understand what you're saying, but this is not a, as determined by D.E.C., as stated in his letter. MR. BAKER-He was referring to the edge of the wetlands. D.B .C. determines the edge of the wetland, that's What he IS referring to. MR. CARTIER-D.E.C's not referring to the 40 feet, D.B.e's referring to the edge of the wetland. I see what you're doing. MR. BAKER-Yes, D.E.C. determines the edge of the wetland. They blue flag it. MR. CARTIER-You misread it the same way I did. Okay. MR. CAlMANO-Could I ask a question, here, to this letter of September 10th, 1990. but they kind of go together. before we go any furthez:? Let's refer I know we're on two different things, MR. CARTIER-Where are you? 37 MR. CAlMANO-I'm on, actually, the packet that you have for 9-1990, which is the actual Subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Which letter? MR. CAlMANO-Itls John Goralski's starts it, and then there's a New York State, D.E .C. letter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAlMANO-Have you got it? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAlMANO-In this letter, let me just read something, here, and see if we can short circuit something, or at least get on, the Department, meaning D.B .C, has already Negative Dec'd the Diamantis proposal, and is well underway in its review. On August 1, 1990, I notified the Town of our having received the Diamantis application and solicited comments at that time. Given these considerations, it is not appropriate for DEC to participate, etc. However, should the Town positive dec the proposal before the DEC permit is issued, DEC will rescind its negative dec and participate in the, etc. What are we doing here? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Caimano, this is an uncoordinated review, a very good example of an uncoordinated review. DEC had itls first shot at this, before the Board did. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MS. CORPUS-Because they, they're sort of informally granting you lead agency status, without being required to. They neg dec'd it. They will rescind that, based upon any change of circumstances the Town might find that they missed, although I don't know what that would be. MR. CAlMANO-My question is, Why should we even bother doing the SEQRA, since DEC has already neg dec'd it and they are the ones who request this thing? MS. CORPUS-Well, because it's still an unlisted action. It's an uncoordinated review and there is no lead agency determined, at this point, and each agency must make itls own determination. MR. CAlMANO-So, \\6 are going to take a form and a process, sponsored by the DEC, and pass on it, even though DEC has already passed on it? MS. CORPUS-I follow all that, it sounds right to me. MR. MARTIN-Well, I guess, the idea being that it I S another set of eyes to look at it. MR. ROBERTS-I think what we've, I guess, informally, have said, in the past, that we would let DEC be the lead agent and make the determinations on the larger ones of these and, for small ones, maybe we use our own, because we have our own Wetlands Ordinance. MR. CAlMANO-Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't SEQRA sponsored by and doesn't it come from the rules and regulations of DEC? MS. CORPUS-Correct. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, but this is a little different then SEQRA. We're dealing with a wetland. MR. CARTIER-Youlre trying to apply logic. MR. CAlMANO-I'm sorry. I rest my case. You're right, I was trying to apply logic, and I refuse. MS. CORPUS-Just to let you know, a lot of times, DEC designates itself lead agent in certain things and, at this point, I don't understand what they're saying, if they said the Town finding some reason to positive dec it. MR. CAlMANO-And the reason I jumped on you, Pater, is because Karla had said that, under the SEQRA Review, if you have the Sketch Plan plus, \\6 can do them both together, because they are related, that's why I did that. 38 ~' MR. ROBERTS-Okay, we do have to do a SEQRA determination, here, at the same time we're doing our Wetlands Permit. Is that what we're saying? MR. CAlMANO-Well, they've got a Wetlands Permit. MR. ROBERTS-No, we have our own. It's What we're doing, here. Wetlands Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury, that's what's surprised, really, that requires SEQRA, but I guess it does. We have our own before us. I'm MR. MCOORMACK-I think, maybe, something needs to be clarified. Wetlands Permit from DEC and the Town for Lot One. We do have a MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. ROBERTS-And the Town, too? MR. CAlMANO-And the Town . MR. CARTIER-Yes, we did that. I remember when we went through that. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Caimano, I had a discussion with John Goralski and I believe that his notes indicate that he would defer to the DEC Wetlands Permit, in this case, rather than hiring an expert for the Town to review it, since the Town does not have the expertise to review the in I s and out's of the Wetlands Permit and he said that, because DEC has already done that, he was confident in recommending that the Town follow in that permit process. MR. BAKER-That really gives the Board two options. You can table this until they receive a DEC Permit, or you can approve it on the condition that they obtain a DEC Wetland Permit. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-The only question I have, here, is, Why four lots? Why not two? MR. MCOORMACK-Well» I'll try to do that briefly. I think Mr. Madison might want to comment on it further. I guess it comes down to taxation, dollars and cents, I suppose. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I understand. MR. MCOORMACK-To be able to identify a portion of somebodyl s property that is under water, almost, in a jurisdictional wetland, and to identify it, separately, on a tax roll, so that it can be assessed separately. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MCOORMACK-As opposed to the assessor looking at the front end of the lot, the good end and the bad end. It was Mr. Madison's thought to do it this way. MR. CAlMANO-Good thought. MR. ROBERTS-Either that or maybe you could, also, give those back lots to the Town to tie into their other, over here, and farther down the brook. MR. CAlMANO-Take a tax write off, ri ght ? MR. CARTIER-Get it off the tax maps, completely. MR. ROBERTS-Get it off the tax rolls, entirely. MR. MARTIN-Well , it's a way of circumventing your recreation fee, also. MR. CARTIER-Does he have to pay a fee? MR. ROBERTS-Sure. MR. MARTIN-A subdivision, yes. MR. CARTIER-He's got to pay a recreational fee on this deal. 39 MR. ROBERTS-And maybe the Town would accept this, in lieu of your recreational fee and save yourself $1,000. MR. MARTIN-That is supposed to be the preferred method, rather than cash. MR. ROBERTS-If the Town wants it. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-You don't have to commit yourself to that, tonight, or anything, but that's something to think about. CURT MADISON MR. MADISON-My name is Curt Madison. I'm the owner of the property. The reason for the four lot subdivision was, basically, because the ruling of the wetland, starting here, proceeding to the back edge of the lot, I had nothing that I could do, as far as development, with that lot. I have got an application to go !£ DEC to put a bridge over Halfway Brook, for my own personal use, to gain access to that property, to put a building out back, as far as storage of firewood or Whatever and can do to get out back, there. No development, just for my own personal use, with my father-in-law being on the lot next to me, that he would have access to that property also. MR. ROBERTS-So, you'd rather own this open space, yourself, and have a little roaming around, a little wood lot area? MR. MADISON-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Isn't putting something on that piece of property considered development? MR. MARTIN-Well, it's a secondary building. MR. CARTIER-An accessory building. MR. MARTIN-An accessory building. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MCCX>RMACK-This is what the frontage, here, on this map, looks like, as far as the rear of these lots are concerned. MR. MARTIN-I was just offering, for this applicantls own knowledge, that, as going through the subdivision process, there I s gOing to be a recreation fee involved, on a per lot basis, but, in lieu of the actual cash payment, you can offer land to the Town. MR. CARTIER-And it does not have to be the entire parcel, either, for that matter. It can be a portion of it. So, that you can preserve some of the stuff that you're talking about. MR. CAlMANO-The portion under water. MR. MADISON-That's the reason it I S being deeded that way, is for preservation of that area. MR. MARTIN-What I'm trying to say to you, instead of cash out of your pocket, for the recreation fee, actual cash, you can deed over a portion of this land to the Town. MR. ROBERTS-But I think he's saying that, for $1,000, held rather have that to be able to be his, right? MR. MADISON-Correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So, we need to do a Long Form EAF? Is that where we are? MR. ROBERTS-Is it a Long Form? MR. CAlMANO-That's my question, \\hy? 40 '-"" ' '-- MR. CARTIER-Only DEC can answer that. Are you ready for an EAF, here? MR. CAlMANO-Let' s do it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-I guess so. RESOLUTION WIlEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. FWl-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: MR. CARTIER-(Refering to Long Form SEQRA) Will the proposed action effect any body of water designated as protected? MR. CAlMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. Isn't this a protected classified body of water that flows through here, Halfway Brook? MS. CORPUS-No, a wetland is a determination of foliage and animal type not necessarily related to the body of water. MR. CARTIER-A wetland is still considered a water body, is it not? Then where do wetlands get protected in here, if this thing doesn't cover wetlands? MR. MADISON-It's within the 100 foot buffer zone. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, but the entire property ~'re looking at, here, you have Halfway Brook going through it and that is a protected, Class A stream. MR. MADISON-Correct. The Wetland Permit is for building a house in the buffer zone. It has nothing to do with the wetlands at all. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, but for the subdivision purposes, we're looking at the entire parcel. MR. MADISON-That's why I asked if you were dealing with just the Wetlands Permit or the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-We're doing the Permit, now. MR. CARTIER-Will the proposed action effect any water body designated as, building a house in the buffer zone, does that have an effect? It has a potential effect, but itls small to moderate. Therels no concern, here, about it. So, we can ans~r yes to that question, without it being a problem. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Ans~ring yes to that does not mean there are major impacts. MR. ROBERTS-As long as you take normal precautions, during construction, not to pollute the brook on your property, that's all we're talking about. MR. MADISON-Right, that's why 11m asking because we're not even in the Wetlands, at all. MR. ROBERTS-The whole subdivision is and I think we're talking about the whole subdivision. MR. MCOORMACK-We have a question, though. Are we doing the Wetlands portion of this application or the subdivision? MR. CARTIER-We're doing the Wetlands portion and we will go through the same thing, in a couple of minutes, when we do the subdivision. MR. CAlMANO-Well, we don I t have to, Karla said. We can do them both together because they're, Wiat was the word you used? MS. CORPUS-They're related. 41 '-- ---,' MR. CARTIER-So, we are doing both the Fresh Water Wetlands Permit and the Subdivision by going through this EAF, correct? MR. BAKER-The Fresh Water Wetlands Permit is both to build the house and to divide the land. Both are regulated activities under the Wetlands Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Great. MR. ROBERTS-So, we can do them altogether. MR. MARTIN-Okay, I would say, yes, but small to moderate. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. CARTIER-And you are going to put bales up for siltation and that sort of thing? MR. CAlMANO-Yes, and the Permit has a whole bunch of things he has to do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Item 5, Will proposed action effect surface or grotmdwater quantity or quality? Yes, but it will be minimal, correct? Is there any Discharge Permit involved, here? MR. ROBERTS-There's some requirements as to the type of septic system. It's being addressed because of the requirements of the septic system. MR. MADISON-There's no SPDES Permit. MR. ROBERTS-There's a SPDES, but doesn't the other permit require the kind of MR. MADISON-Just that it was a fill system. MR. ROBERTS-So, it's being addressed. MR. CARTIER-Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? So, I guess it's time to open the public hearing. MR. CAlMANO-probably not. MR. ROBERTS-Does this call for a public hearing, tonight? MR. CARTIER-SEQRA does, if we're doing a SEQRA. MR. ROBERTS-SEQRA does not necessarily require a public hearing. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so we don It need it. MR. ROBERTS-And this is, \\hat is this subdivision? Sketch Plan Subdivision, ~ have public hearing at Preliminary. So, we really can't answer that question very well because we normally do SEQRA at Preliminary. So, you can have the public hearing at the same time. In this case, we're doing it a little earlier on. MR. CAlMANO-I can't see any public controversy or there'd be a whole bunch of folks here, now, I think. MR. ROBERTS-Well, they haven't been notified. MR. CAlMANO-Youlre right. MS. CORPUS-I see where the Board's going with this since, normally, Preliminary is Where the subdivision is done. MR. MARTIN-Maybe we're better off having two SEQRA reviews just for the MS. CORPUS-It's perfectly acceptable, if the Board wishes to do it that way. MR. CARTIER-Come back and do it again for Prelim, right? MR. CAlMANO-Okay, let's just do it for the first one. Then we can answer, no. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. 42 WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a Freshwater Wetlands Permit involving Halfway Brook 0111. Haviland Road to build a single family home within a Class II wetlands buffer and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: DEC 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 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 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-Before we ask for a second, I guess I'm still a little confused because this application is to build a single family home on about two acres of land, partially within two wetlands buffers, and subdivide the 18.6 acres into four lots. MR. BAKER-Mr. Roberts, maybe I can clarify this. The wording of our Wetlands Ordinance for the Town is such that both building the house and subdividing the land are regulated activities. So, they both are under the blanket of this Permit. MR. ROBERTS-But are approval tonight, as far as SEQRA' s concerned, really does not apply to the subdivision, only to building the one home, doesn't it? MR. CAlMANO-Right. We've allowed him to build a house in the 18.8 acre parcel, that's What we've allowed him to do. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-The subdivision is coming next. MR. CAlMANO-Well, it also says, though, they're subdivided into four lots. MR. ROBERTS-Itls a little confusing. MR. MARTIN-The problem is that you need the Wetland Permit to do both. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Well, he's gPt to have the Wetland Permit to build the house, first. MR. MARTIN-Ri ght . 43 ~ MR. CARTIER-He also needs a Wetland Permit to subdivide, but the Wetland Permit is going to cover both situations, the house and the subdivision. MR. MADISON-If I may address the Board. Last year, When I applied to DEC for this Wetland Permit, I had, on the plan, of two houses on 19 and a quarter acres, the way the measurements read, on my map. DEC said, fine, we'll put it through this way and see what happens. Going to the Town, they said, you're only putting on one house, right now, that's all you need the Wetlands Permit for is that one house. Once I received the Wetland Permit from DEC and from the Town, once I got into the subdivision, now I needed a Wetland Permit for the other house, which I had already tried to get, before, but the Town wouldn't let me get it because it was still one lot. Now, I have to have the second DEC Permit and Stuart and John told me, the other day that I also needed a third Wetland Permit for the subdivision itself. So, if all of this had been clarified, to begin with, I could have done it last year, under one DEC Permit, drawn up the temporary plans, that thi s is the way it was going to be, put it in front of the Town Board and they would have voted on it, also, at that timé, as being two lots, two houses, but, the way it's worked out, I've got the one permit for 19 and a quarter acre, for one house on 19 and a quarter acres. So, that permit is in effect, nowt for that parcel of property. Now, I'm trying to get it for the other house plus, also, subdivide. So, everything has been thrown together and overlapping and that's where a lot of the confusion has come in, but this is put together piecemeal. MR. CARTIER-It seems like, I don't know why this Freshwater Permit that we're issuing can't cover both of those situations. MR. ROBERTS-Including the subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's what I mean, the second house and the subdivision. MR. CAlMANO-It can. The only reason we stopped it from doing so is because of the public hearing concept of it. MS. CORPUS-I believe the Board would be able to do that, in effect, if the Wetlands Permit were to cover both things, there would be an instance where t perhaps, the Permit would not be applicable if the subdivision were not approved, at least part of the Permit, but the house provisions would still be able to stand. So, the granting of the Permit would not necessarily preclude any other determinations for the subdivision, since you've decided to do two separate SEQRA reviews. MR. MARTIN-We couldn't make the approval of the Permit, as it relates to the subdivision, contingent upon approval of the subdivision, itself? MS. CORPUS-Yes, it seems plausible. MR. MADISON-Well, I can't ~t subdivision approval until I get the Wetlands Permit. MR. CAlMANO-Welre trying to do them both together, is what we're trying to do. MR. MADISON-So, I have to get two Wetlands Permits from the Town, to be able to get the subdivision. MR. ROBERTS-We're going to work this out, somehow. MR. CARTIER-It sounds like hel s got it all straightened out in his head. He knows what hels got to do. Let's just give him the Wetlands Permit for the second house, tonight, alright, and there'll be another Wetlands Permit process when you come in for Preliminary on the subdivision, correct? MR. MADISON-There'll require a separate application or would be included under this Wetlands application? MR. ROBERTS-We ought to be able to include that, now. MR. MCCPRMACK-I wouldn I t think you'd need one for the subdivision since you've issued one for each house going in the subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but the issue is a public hearing issue and we've got to have a public hearing in here, some place. MCCORMACK-If the Wetland Permit application requests were approved tonight, and if, in the September 10th DEC letter, Mr. Bliss states that the Department has 44 already Neg Dec' d the Diamantis proposal and is well underway on its review. Did they give you any indication of when, is it next week or the week after? MR. MADISON-I talked to Kevin Bliøø, last week, and he said it would be within a couple of weeks, that Allen Koechlien was on vacation. MR. CAlMANO-Can I say something, here. The DEC is contingent on their approvals, why don't we just simply conditionally approve this SEQRA for both, on the condition that the public hearing doesn't show up any negative comments that would warrant a re-opening. I mean, DEC's doing it. Why canlt we do it. I mean, that's what the DEC is doing in that letter. They're telling us they're going to do it, alright, if you happen to disagree with us; we'll open it up again. MR. MARTIN-Why don't we just, plain and simply, condition it on approval of the subdivision. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think we might as well find some language to get this thing done, not to have him come up with another Wetlands Permit application. IIOTIOII TO ISSUE :rRESHWATER WETLANDS PEBBIT 1'Wl-90 TO LLOYD JAllES DIAllAJlTIS AND CURTIS IlADISON :rOR PROPERTY ON HAVILAND ROAD, ACROSS FROII IlARTELL ROAD, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: This Permit applies to the construction of a house on Lot 2 and to a 4 lot subdivision, No. 9-1990, subject to the following stipulations: A fill septic system must be utilized. A D.B.C. Wetlands Permit be obtained. The house be a minimum of 25 feet from the edge of the wetland as determined by D.B.C. Appropriate erosion control measures be maintained between the construction site and the wetland bound ary tmtil such time as the lot has been re-vegetated and no development take place on Lots 3 or 4 and contingent upon the public hearing not exposing any significant environmental problems. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SUBDIVISIOII NO. 9-1990 su:rœ PLAN T1PE: UNLISTED SR-IA MAD I SOli IDIAMABTI S OWNER: WRTIS MADISOII, JR. ELAINE A. MADISON, LL01D DIAMABTIS, RENE DIAMABTIS SOtrrø SIDE OF HAVILAND ROAD, OPPOSITE SOUTHERLY END OF MARTELL ItOAD PItOPOSED 4 Lar SUBDIVISI(Jt: TWO LarS FOR OOIISTJWCTI(Jf OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDIRCES, TWO LARGER LarS TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. TAX HAP NO. 54-5-6.6 LOT SIZE: 18.8 ACRES ANDREW MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUTS Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-This subdivision gets around the internalization because it's got adequate road frontage? MR. CAlMANO-Because they're not going to build on it. They can't build on those lots in the back. MR. ROBERTS-They canlt build on the back lots, right. MR. CAlMANO-There's Engineering Comments, too. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. I'm just trying to clarify, in my mind, how the internalization reads for preventing strict development that requires double the lot size, double the lot width, I guess, have we done that, or am lout in left field, here? MR. BAKER-Are you referring to revision in the Zoning Ordinance? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, as part of the internalization procedure, a subdivision that is not able to internalize is punished by requiring double the lot width in that zone, isn't that correct, in an attempt to reduce road cuts, driveways? 45 ~ MR. BAKER-I don't know. I've got to look into this. MR. YARMOWICH-It complies with it. MR. ROBERTS-Does it? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, it does it complies with it. MR. ROBERTS-Alright, good. I'm assuming it did. They've got a lot of frontage, here. MR. MC<PRMACK-The lot width in the zone is 150. 319, in one case, and 437, in the other. It should be 300 and we have MR. ROBERTS-Okay, good. Super. Engineering Comments? ENGINEER 1ŒP0.ID' Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Are these going to be individual wells? MR. MC <PRMACK - Ye s . MR. ROBERTS-Are they listed, on here, and they're, I assume, far enough away? MR. MC <PRMACK - Ye s . MR. HAGAN-Onels existing and one is proposed. MR. MARTIN-The other question I had, Tom. systems being so close together. Is groundwater area like this? Do you have any problem with the septic that a problem and, especially, high MR. YARMOWICH-The septic system will be suitably separated and 10 foot criterias maintained. In the absence of that, it still would not be a problem, due to the acceptable perc rates and the size of the septic. The size of the septic fields is not based on the fill. It's based on the subsurface conditions that do permit a certain amount of use. MR. MC<PRMACK-I'd like to maybe clarify some of your points, Tom. On Item One, no problem, grading diverted away from the existing wall. Driveway sizing calculations, fine, wa'll provide those. (Item) 3a. Effluent pumping will be necessary, in speaking with Mr. Madison, tonight, he anticipates that the first floor elevation of both his and his father-in-law's building ~uld be raised sufficiently high, to provide a gravity flow into the fill systems. MR. YARMOWICH-The septic tank elevation, presuming that youl re going to require adequate cover over the buildingl s filling drains, that I s obvious, to protect them from freezing. With that and the location of the septic tank, as shown, I don't see how you're going to accomplish that. Maybe, can you explain further. MR. MCCORMACK-Well, it looks like the existing grade around the proposed house locations would be up about 4 feet or so. MR. YARMOWICH-That' s assuming, you know, using normal slopes and the location of the septic tank, the fact is, is that the bottom of the, for the absorption field to work, the lowest lateral must be no closer than the existing grade. From there, you've got to go up, along the lateral, until you get back to the distribution head or into the distribution box, \\hich has a couple of inches loss back to the septic tank and the septic tank has to have a certain amount of cover on it. So, you're going to end up filling in that whole front yard, if that's what you intend to do and youl d be filling in a very large area to do that. Is that what you intend to do? I think it's something you can work out between now and the next submission. I'd advise you look into it very closely, before you plan the septic system, as it is, because you will find yourself running out of grade unless it's very carefully planned, or having a freezing condition in your building drain, or not being able to construct a tile field above the existing grade. The entire tile field has to be built no closer than existing grade. MR. MCCORMACK-I understand. On your Item 3b., 10 feet of horizontal separation must be maintained between the limits of the absorption field fill area and property 46 ---> lines. I imagine you're referring to the fill system on Lot One, which has the limit of the fill area coninciding with the property line? MR. YARMOWICH-Both fill systems, as shown, encroach on the front property line. MR. MCOORMACK-The highway boundary. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. MCOORMACK-We realized that, but felt that, to move the whole bed 10 feet closer to the wetland, MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the Ordinance requires that you comply with the Department of Health requirements, as does your drawings refer, that Department of Health standards for a fill system require a 10 foot separation. The only mechanism to modify that is through a variance before the local Board of Health. Your option is to move your fill system or obtain that variance before you proceed with the subdivision. MR. MCCORMACK-I understand. MR. ROBERTS-You've got more than 10 feet, here, don't you? MR. CAlMANO-No. MR. MADISON-Are you talking about the setback from the center of the rOad? MR. YARMOWICH-No, the setback is from the property line to the edge of the fill and by moving your septic systems back a little bit, you may be able to get that. MR. MCCORMACK-The edge of the field, right now, is touching the MR. CAlMANO-No, it's not, not the end of the fill. MR. MCCORMACK-It's touching this lot line. MR. CAlMANO-The field is, but the fill isn't. MR. YARMOWICH-No, the edge of the fill is the criteria. It I S not the trenches it's the end of the fill that sets the criteria for these types of systems. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-What you're saying also applies to, too, to the Lot One, septic fill system right against the property line and Lot 2, right? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. Now, it may very well be that those fill distances that are shown, at this scale, may not be what's required. MR. ROBERTS-Small scale, here. MR. YARMOWICH-Ilm not in a position, here, to redesign the lot. MR. CARTIER-Okay, you don't have to. MR. YARMOWICH-But if the applicant should find that they can't do that, the avenues are variances which would stop the process of subdivision review or redesign. MR. CAlMANO-Right, it's only Sketch Plan. MR. YARMOWICH-This is Sketch Plan, that's correct. MR. CARTIER-Thatls right, these are all things that can be addressed. MR. YARMOWICH-We want to make sure that the applicant I s aware that if there's a problem with a subsurface disposal system, that modifications such as relocating the houses or things like that are other options, and not to get involved with a septic system that won't work on this lot. MR. MARTIN-Now's the time to do it. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. BAKER-The Board can stipulate that that situation be resolved before Preliminary application is submitted. 47 -' .- MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MCCORMACK-Engineers Comments are understood. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Well, do we have any other burning questions, here? Again, we're ~ing to have to go through the SEQRA Process again. MR. CARTIER-Not now. MR. CAlMANO-We just did it. MR. ROBERTS-Not now. We did that. MR. CARTIER-I think we're ready for a motion. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think we are, too. MR. YARMOWICH-In order to proceed to that SEQRA Process, at Preliminary Plan, it will be important to resolve the septic system detail. ØDœION TO APPIOVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1990 BADISON/DIAKANTIS, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following stipulations: Concerns raised by Engineering Staff be addressed at Preliminary and that the waiver request from the two foot contour interval requirement on Lots 3 and 4 be granted and that the deeds show no development taking place on Lots 3 and 4. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. BAKER-Mr. Goralski stated in his notes that he would like no development on Lots 3 and 4 also placed in the deeds for those two lots. MR. ROBERTS-That's What he just said. MR. CARTIER-I think that's What I said. Didn't I say that? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. Okay. Thank you gentlemen. MR. MC CORMACK -Thank yo u. MR. ROBERTS-We have two other quick, possible, things we want to deal with, tonight. One, Stuart Bakerls letter dealing with Robert Tyrer and Glenwood Manor. Do you want to brief us on this, Stuart? MR. BAKER-Okay. Basically, I reviewed the minutes of that approval and comments from Morse Engineering on the engineer. First of all, the approval that you gave was based on the stipulation that they get engineering changes done and approved by Rist-Frost by the following week's meeting. That did not happen. Morse Engineering got the engineering changes over to Rist-Frost at about three 0' clock the afternoon of that following meeting and Tom did not have time to have the time to look at the changes. The changes have been looked at, since then, and Tom can up dati'; you a little more on the engineering status of that. Also, the SEQRA Negative Declaration was based on the assumption that the County would be putting in a light at Glenwood Avenue and we now know that that's not the case and that's something that the Board needs to think about. I don't know, from a legal aspect, what that does to the SEQRA Negative Dec, but it was stated in the minutes, by two Board members, that you thought traffic would be mitigated by a light. MS. CORPUS-Just to inform the Board, in my research on rescinding Negative Declarations, that can only be done prior to any final action by the Board, and if the Board feels that it's made it's final action, the Negative Declaration cannot be rescinded. 48 "--' MR. ROBERTS-Even if, When we did it with contingent or subject to thus and so? He's not finished. MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't have approval. MR. ROBERTS-He does not have approval. You're right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-Okay, so the Board feels that there is no, Where do you feel that the application stands, now? MR. CARTIER-He did not meet conditions of the approval. Therefore, the approval doesn't stand, because he didn't get the stuff in on time, by the deadline date. MR. CAlMANO-It's not approved. MS. CORPUS-Does that mean he would have to re-submit or does that MR. CARTIER-It seems like welve got to go through the process of looking at Tom's notes and making sure that this guy has got done what he was supposed to have done. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me explain to you what has happened. The eleventh hour submission, from Morse Engineering was submitted directly to our office. MR. ROBERTS-Instead of the Planning Department. MR. YARMOWICH-That' s correct. The engineering response to our comments was not precisely as what we had intended. What happened, the applicant made a change in concept. You may recall that the issue was drainage in the parking lot. The applicant, at the meeting, proposed, at the time the plan was approved, proposed providing a drainage ditch as a fail safe mechanism to prevent flooding of Glenwood Avenue. The applicant came back with a proposal to provide a redundant storm drain catch basin within the parking lot, however, they were placed adjacent to one another, with no separation, Which didnlt give an adequate way to prevent one clogging. I mean, a large piece of cardboard would have clogged both of them. So, we advised them of that and also advised them to utilize the mechanism of going to the Planning Board. Mr. Nick Scartelli called back, about a week ago, and we advised him that we could not get eleventh hour submissions and get them done and we still haven't heard from him, as yet, today. MR. CARTIER-Has anyone addressed a letter to Mr. Tyrer or Mr. Scartelli, to the effect that, his approval no longer, he did not meet the conditions of the approval and, therefore, he does not have approval? MR. BAKER-No, that hasn't been done. MR. CARTIER-That hasn't been done? You're waiting for US to do that, right? MR. BAKER-We're waiting for the Board to make that determination. MS. CORPUS-I think the Board has to make the determination as to what course the applicant, they feel the applicant must take, Whether this incident of nonapproval means he will have to re-submit, because it also sounds like there are same changes in the plan, re-submit the application, if that is the case, then you go through the SEQRA Process again. If you wish to continue hearing this, I'd have to think about how that effects the SEQRA. MR. MARTIN-I would think the course of action is to out right deny it. He didn't meet the conditions of approval. MR. CARTIER-Isn't it denied, defacto, because of that? MR. CAlMANO-That's What I think. MR. MARTIN-And then he has to re-submit and if he has to go through SEQRA again, so be it. MS. CORPUS-The Board would also have the option of making that clear. I mean, you could do a re solution and clarify that for the applicant, in case they had any questions. 49 '-' --.-/ MR. CARTIER-Well, could we direct Staff to write a letter to, MR. CAlMANO-Well, let's do it legally. MR. MARTIN-You've got to do the resolution, first. MR. ROBERTS-I think welve got to do that as a resolution, wouldn't we? MS. CORPUS-I think that, for the applicant I s benefit, to clari~ywhat the effect was of not meeting the conditions because I'm not sure what the exact motion did say. MR. CAlMANO-It's right here. MS. CORPUS-It said it was conditioned upon receiving that, but there was no, well, \\hat if that didn't happen, \\hat happens then. MR. ROBERTS-Nick, do you want to read your motion? MR. CAlMANO-Yes, "The response of August 21st, to the engineers letter of August 8th, has to be checked for accuracy, prior to the next meeting. II That's one of the contingencies. MR. YARMOWICH-And we got it 3:15, the day of that meeting. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-And I was getting ready for the meeting and not waiting for other data. MR. CAlMANO-Not only that, When he did get it checked, it wasn't right. MR. ROBERTS-At least, we don't like it. MR. YARMOWICH-And you'll note that they were instructed to bring it to the Planning Department and not to us. MR. CAlMANO-Right, and it's still not right, right? MR. YARMOWICH-They haven't, I discussed it with Nick, recently, Mr. Scartelli of Morse Engineering, and he still hasn't come forth with any new information, or any correct information. MR. ROBERTS-Didn't we want any kind of overflow to go onto NiMo land, instead of on Glenwood Avenue or something as simple as that? MR. YARMOWICH-Or the option was to provide a redundant system with enough fail safe provisions so that there would not be water going onto Glenwood Avenue. We discussed options. They elected to use a ditch, at the meeting, and changed their approach when we got information. MR. ROBERTS-There is this engineering problem that came in late. There is the possibility that we had misinformation about the light at Glenwood Avenue, dealing with traffic. There is also, now, a rumor that he intends to hold his auctions on that praperty and we did not, I don't know if that's true or not. MR. CARTIER-That question came up with me. MR. ROBERTS-It wasn't raised, was it? MR. CARTIER-No, but somebody brought that up with me and I checked into it and the question was raised with Mr. Tyrer, and I believe hels planning on coming in with a site plan for another building some place, to be used as an auction house. I think John told me that. MR. BAKER-Okay. I haven't heard that. MR. ROBERTS-I guess there is more land to work with, there, isn't there? MR. CARTIER-Well, itls a different site, completely. 50 --' MR. ROBERTS-It is? MR. CARTIER-It's some other piece of property. It's an existing building some place. I can't remember what it was. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. It would be nice to get that auction off of Route 9, where he's using everybody else's parking facility. MR. CARTIER-I think that's a question that should be asked of him, at a meeting. MR. ROBERTS-If we ever get him back here. MR. CAlMANO-He'll come back, now. MR. CARTIER-He doeøn't have an approval. He'll be back. MS. CORPUS-Yes, I think for everyone's clarification, and the applicant's especially, it might be helpful if the Board did make a formal resolution stating that, because the conditions were not met, the approval has, obviously, expired and the project is denied. IN REGARD TO SITE PLAN 110. 49-90 GLEIIWOOD JlABOR ABTIQUES, SINCE THE APPLICANT DID NOT PERFORII THE NECESSARY RESPONSES IN A TDlEL Y AND COIIPLETE IlAJIlŒR, AS STIPULATED III OUR APPROVAL OF AUGUST 21ST, APPROVAL HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. THEREFORE, THE APPLlCABT IlUST RE-SUBIIIT HIS APPLlCATIOII PRIOR TO ANY FORIIAL APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE IIOTIFIED TOIIORROW, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CAlMANO-I would like to state, though, I think it's important that the applicant be notified tomorrow. MR. BAKER-As soon as I have the motion. MR. CAlMANO-As soon as itls done. MR. BAKER-Yes, as soon as the motion is done. A letter will be in the mail tomorrow. MR. CAlMANO-Will it be delivered tomorrow? MR. BAKER-Would you like it delivered or mailed? MR. CAlMANO-I' d like him to have the letter tomorrow. I think it's fair to him. MR. ROBERTS-Peter, do we want to address your proposed amendments to the Planning Board rules and procedures, tonight? MR. CARTIER-Can we do it in one minute or less? MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-I think, probably. MR. CARTIER-Everybody's had a chance to see this, right? Okay. Do you want a motion? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. IIOTION TO AlIEND PLABBIIIG BOARD PROCEDURES AS OUTLINED IN THE ATTACHED AND THAT A COpy OF SAID AllEBœlEBT BEdSUllllITTED TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR APPROVAL, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: 51 "'-- AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 52 ..- - --- LOCATION MAPS September 20th, 1990 Planning Board Meeting NEW BUSINESS: (Cont'd) Site Plan No. 71-90 Adirondack Industrial Park, INc. Lot 54 (SeeSStaff Notes attached) ø i ~oA9 $\"tE: Site Plan No. 22-90 Adirondack Industrial Park, Inc. Lot 55 (See Staff Notes attached) Freshwater Wetlands Permit FWl-90 Lloyd James Diamantis (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Subdivision No. 9-1990 Madison/Diamantis Owner: Curtis Madison, Jr. (See Staff Notes attached) '--' --' LOCATION MAPS September 20th, 1990 Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton dlbla Docksider Restaurant (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 28-90 Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc. (See Staff Notes attached) SuöHivision No. 7-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE Stephanie B. Mason Farm To Market Commons John A. and (see Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 65-90 James Weller, P.E. (See Staff Notes attached) NEW BUSINESS: Subdivision No. 8-1990 SKETCH PLAN Adirondack Industrial Park, Inc. (See Staff Notes attached) - FilE COPY.-l7-70 SITE PLAN RMEW NO. MaRS.INGINEEAING. P.C. II Lower Dlx Av.nu. I Qu..nsbury, NY 11.. August 29, 199. M/E '89-128 Mr. John Goralski, Planner Queensbury Planning Department Town of Queensbury Bay Road, Box 98 Queensbury, NY 12884 REI Planning Board meeting of September 18, 1998 Dear Johnl Please accept this correspondence as confirmation of placement of the Site Plan Review Application of J. Paul Barton/DBA Docksider Restaurant (No. 17-98) on the next regular meeting agenda of the Queensbury Planning Board. As you know, the Planning Board, at the August 21, 199. meeting, tabled application No.17-98 for 38 days for the purpose of obtaining information from the Queensbury Zoning Administrator regarding certain parking requirements relative to the parking schedule (sec. 7.872) and "Tavern or Bar" parking requirements in addition to parking spaces required for "Clubs and Restaurants-, ·Dwelling· and "Marina/Boat Storage", and further, whether or not the restaurant deck should be included in the computations of floor space for determining parking requirements. In as much as these and possibly other questions will not be discussed until said meeting date, no changes or revisions to application No. 17-98 ar,e being submitted at this time. Please contact me should you have any questions or other information relevant to the Docksider Restaurant application. Yours truly, MORSS BRGI....~~.C. ~At/#~& Mack A.· Dean Project Coordinator MAD/pl llMO.1: .11-'....3.. FAX: .11- '..·ICMI ,. f .; · - -..-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbuty, NY 12804-972~518-792-5832 MEMORANDUM TO: QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FROM: PATRICIA COLLARD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: AUGUST 29. 1990 RE: PAUL BARTON/DOCKSIDER SITE PLAN I: 17-90 Dear Board: In reply to your request that I clarify the definition of floor area as it relates to the outside deck and the number of uses present on the property, I offer the following: floor area for the purpose of computing ;parking requirements shall be the sum of the horizontal area within exterior" walls of the several floors of a building. Therefore, the outside deck is not considered in computing the number of parking spaces. The principle use of this property is the operation of the Docksider Restaurant. A restaurant is defined in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as a place for the preparation, serving and consuming, indoors of food and beverages other than a tavern. Therefore, the parking shall be computed per the parking schedule for the restaurant, marina, and single family living area above the restaurant. Parking require~nts for the boat launch are not listed in the parking scheduled. Therefore, per Section 7.070 of the Ordinance, the Planning Board may establish parking requirements consistent with those specified in Section 7.072. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, .'--/~~'1 PATRICIA COlLARD PC/jjd cc: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DAVID HATIN MACK DEAN "HOME OF NA rURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE ro LIVE" SETTLED 1763 . .,,;- "-- F ì L E coo,' )' ¡ LITTLE & O'CONNOR ATTORNEYS AT LAW NINETEEN WEST NOTRE DAME STREET - P. O. BOX Bge GL.ENS FAL.L.S, NEW YORK 12801-0898 ·.;.~.!~]R., W~ lli ' \ J '~ . , ' . ~..... .' ~t.~ 2'\ 1990 J. DAVID L.ITTL.E MICHAEL. J. O'CONNOR September 20, 1990 ~NMNGtpE.MI" TEL~Ø"'""'3-4-S FAX 792-6972 COLLEEN A. SHAW Queensbury Town Planning Board Queensbury Town Hall Bay and Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Re: Site Plan Review- J. Paul Barton- Docksider Site Plan 17-90 Gentlemen: We, on behalf of the applicant, J. Paul Barton, respectfully request that the above application be tabled until your first meeting in October so that the applicant can submit further documentation for the Board's consideration. Since the last meeting of the Board much activity has taken place with regard to this application. Patricia Collard did issue her opinion as to the definition of the parking requirements of the applicant. A test hole has been dug on the subject premises to confirm the seasonal high water level. A meeting was held between consultants for the applicant and the Town and a discussion of downsizing of the project has occurred. Now, the applicant is putting together the documentation that will reflect all the above and should be in a position to submit same by the September filing deadline for your consideration in October. The downsizing on the project that has been discussed is a reduction of the square footage of the restaurant, a limitation on dock rental spaces and a limitation on boat launch use. Further, the applicant has requested that the Town Board look into posting Glen Lake Road for no parking. The Town has obtained a report recommending same from Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent and we believe intends to set the date for a Public Hearing at the first Town Board Meeting in October. t l '-' ,~ The purpose of this letter is of course to request in writing an adjournment on behalf of the applicant but also to keep you advised in a general sense of progress to date. Yours respectfully, ~& O'CO~OR by: MiC~ O'Connor MJOC/ms ,. ~...-._--_... " ~ ~IST.FROST "ssoPATES. P.C. CONSU:" TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 '- 'I r.:V"íBr:t':"~'I- )-?-\\ ;.1 '. ;~ I ~ ,\-1 ; '.. ; , . ~. .. ,~ . "~ r" : I ' \ ..," , ~. . -.., ¡ " <:.'"' 1 ~ 1QQO ~t - - ~ ~ .~... ïiLt L.J ~NNING & ZONI~ September f'~DM1M~N'" RFA #89-500.017 RC 90 Town of Queensbury Planning Board Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attention: Richard Roberts, Chairman Re: Site Plan 17-90 J. Paul Barton/Docksider Restaurant Dear Mr. Roberts and Planning Board Members: Rist-Frost has prepared project review letters to the Planning Department dated 3/16/90, 7/13/90 and 8/13/90 to address various concerns related to engineering issues. Outstanding engineering concerns inadequately addressed by the appl icant's submitted information relate to sewage disposal and water supply. Sewage Disposal Subsurface condit ions and percolat ion test ing for sewage disposal system design were investigated by the applicant during December 1989. Queensbury's Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance, paragraph 5.030 B.7) and Appendix F requires groundwater determinations be conducted in "March, April, Mayor June within six (6) weeks of the time frost leaves the ground". The appl icant's subsurface testing does not comply with these requirements. It is recommended that the Board require the applicant to comply with the Ordinance to insure the rel iabil ity of the data rel at ing to subsurface sewage:disposal design due to the designation of Glen Lake as a Critical Environmental Area. More restrictive subsurface conditions, if encountered, would cause the existing sewage disposal systeM design to be inadequate. Vater Supply With regard to the restaurant water supply dis'infection system, it is recommended that the Board require the applicant to furnish the necessary retention in the system to achieve at least 10 minutes of contact time after chlorination under all conditions. Piping, tankage and chlorine application details are necessary to evaluate this. Based upon these notes, previous review comments and the current information provided in the application, the Board should consider if the project proposes adequate water supply and sewage disposal systems * GLENS FALLS, NY-\.ACONIA. NH ì f ~ " Mr. Richard Roberts Page 2 ~ September 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.017 RD 90 as required by Queensbury's Zoning Ordinance, paragraph 5.070 E.6. for this proposed Type I action. Other minor engineering concerns numbered 1, 2, and 4. of our letter dated 8/13/90 should also be satisfactorily addressed for the proposed project. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2;\L~~v":,, ,.II_- Thomas M. Ya~owich, P.E. Managing Proje~ Engineer TMY/cJmll cc: Mrs. Lee York t ! ,- :.. '¡ . \~ti. ---- )Jl!;~aWf~)t ~~ SEP18 O~Jj I ~ITf PLAN REVIEW NO MR., JAMB ..., CAROLAN . aaa ROSIMARY ST. #& ZONI'" N&KOHAN, NA 0.184 /1, J ~ ·r(~/¿' . E " 1- [ . t \.~'.!, /7 :"C,ð ~Tl ,.~.; ;..;Y'/ ~I i ;Ýo I I'. ¡f I' ~ ,_4 ,¡ (. _l ~ -t t. ,::,It.-tI..-. ¡¡-.. ,A ,^ -A I -r-I'. b fJ",CU<!.J>1C- ''L--4'£..:: .. l~,;'~ / - ,~-J ~ /:;:::;Y' ¡ .(L., L .,. . -'- ~. .-, ..,... '" " - '- "-,-, ,L. J'- l ^-~ . r1J-tI ' ,/.. , (. ''- 'f' '.' . -- ,j' " . . /, ;'o../-. 1-... .~ /'/1,1-- Ut!Jft t.¿ (. II ,) l /¿'¿j ,y ........L~(.:... j r'V',. . . ,'. / " ') -.,/ I ~"-' ,~ ""7- . "'}' .C'~1I'·" J-,~ f-~r 'jèZ ,,"<-t.z. L--i., ",¡U~""" _i......,~......... ci. '. ,.:..- ..' " ....r~J......<.J.-L.C '--''-'~-l f ..x ·"t " (c .-J-,;."tA-... 'I . .7!..k'J, /-T'-«('C/'ý.· ,,{I .,c.'--/ai -<-rt L ~ '.:. ùu"'.J¡~OJ .¿ . .~ I.' 'J ., /] , {ú ¿/-j.f..«.f' I!L.¿,L" '~/\J-~ft. -i~~ -<L.,.L~-·( Ji..,<.-L-It C. ~ . J / þ,~ tit.. ~ '-' " f Vø G '¡¿..' ¡;,/l J/...-~t'V-¡L,CL( L.....,J · I (.' , '(' ~é. \__ Co-;( /.. - i...__ ~ :'1 \' ~ >_ U-r <10(')- (~·U4 ~ ¿ rf ~I " ¿'( .-ß--t:<.<.:,Þ" /,-,~ <.' I r-y- j¿¿ L"--" ¿.lû.d c.-~'''' Z1'u. .. t' . J J~"l.L{/ ,:,. tzi· J/L~' c¿,.j¿,I._ü~.f.( , .1 /Î // _.'-a: _- ~:~.¿ ~-. #~ :! ¡:;;~ .~Q... ~ . ....~ /'J , jI,j' ~ _ ~ . ~....(A~ ___<-+~"u! :.. -Þ" __.".. ,I ~. ,,:. .... ~ I -~ .,..... /1 C<¿''¿(...('_C>L1~'~ ¿'.:{/:..'(.U¿.J.AA_-é....:d ~')-tCr C.œ.~ f ¡ _J --fú~ ..A>f.U Ú-UJJ-)-t''-Á,'-1 .Y7c.L~.~ __'-'- --:t-W:'-(..~ ./ ,-( . I .- -- ------ -- f , '--' Ck AL _"'!--f. "'''_it. ..~- ..-_.j /' I ' . '" :J. .i I ' ¡ l. .(.. ' ,---.. ',) ., ~~ J' / t \.. I'~ f :.\' . . :. - ... .--- __~~,,;'(c.. / J !/ .(¿/_r .\ " ..... ../_ . f;". 1.... I ~'..: . ..- ~.' ..:..,' ;.- I /' '- I / I,. c t ~ _/-.... t -. r.._' . c. I' '--: ~- '" ,,( /'L/ -/ r,., iI c:.-á, ¡/ )_F --- (;j: " ...Ì' J ) ",~L.:., J-', .' . / <It /'/t..{·tvCL1L-, ...-----. I . f I l I AREA CODE 518 TEL.EPHONE 792-2113-4-5 F'AX 792-6972 LITTLE & O'CONNOR /)ÐJü SITE PLAN REVIew NO. /7 -1 tJ ~ ATTORNEYS AT L.AW NINETEEN WEST NOTRE DAME STREET - P. O. BOX 898 GL.ENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801-0898 .J. DAVID I.ITTI.E MICHAEI..J.O'CONNO" COI.I.EEN A.. SHAW September 10, 1990 Queensbury Town Board Queensbury Town Office Building Corner of Bay and Haviland Queensbury, New York 12804 Re: Parking on Glen Lake Road Gentlemen: On behalf of J. Paul Barton, I request that the Board consider taking necessary steps to prohibit parking on that portion of Glen Lake Road that lies between Birch Road on the west and Sullivan Place on the east. It is requested that the Town Board set a Public Hearing to receive public input on this subject. Yours very truly, MJOC/ms cc: Richard ROberts,V Chairman- Planning Board <~~& ~~OR by: Micd:SJ~~ John Goralski, Town Planner J. Paul Barton ._~---- ----..- '-" SITEPLANRM£W~ . ~llWr~11: \~ SEP -'í 1990 c,¡ t / Iii li) [j"~ [1, a Œ OD li) lID ~ Box 1776 Birch Road Glen Lake Lake George, New York 12845 I4NNtNG & 10t..i;· ....cDAA"NlIFN.. FILE (Opy September 3, 1990 Richard Roberts, Chairman Queensbury Planning Board 531 Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804 SIR: I _ writing this letter regarding the issue of a proposed expansion at the Docksider Restaurant at Glen L.... I recently read in the Post-Star that mem- bers of fOur committee expressed doubt about the quality ..d appropriateness of this Improvement. I would like to digress from the direct topic for the next few paragraphs to provide some background. First, I am conveying my opinions and feelings regarding this subject via this letter since I will be unable. attend the September 18, 1990, meeting due to a prior commitment. As you know, I have lived in Queensbury all my life; I have long had an Interest In the welfare of this town ... in its residents; I am also fortunate that I also b_ my career In Queensbury. I grew up at Lake Sunnyside and its environs during the '50s . and '60.. 11111 neighborhood had the Sunnyside Pavilion, numer_ camps and the Sunnyside Par 3, All these attractlll numerous visitors during the summer; Saturdlr night dances were very busy; the music from the live bands could easily be heard around the lake and e.. to my house and beyond on Rockwell Road. The rOllls were even narrower than today; many were still u...ved. Traffic would frequently be congested sinc."s was a popular "summer-spot" with . , . , ---- 2 -- travelers as well as local-area residents. As a neighbor of this I, and most others, learned to tolerate the traffic, multitudes as well as the noise it generated! Why? ... Because people were having a good time, enjoying themselves at the 'LAKE' and were enabling our friends and neighbors to make a living and provide a needed recreational outlet in our neighborhood. Glen Lake had similar outlets, Sullivan's Thomas's, Breen's, LaCabanna and others. Many of the places mentioned in this paragraph are now just memories! In short, when a person or family lives in a recreational area traffic, boats, people and noise just another part of the environment. Obviously, if this were a wilderness environment then these would be detrimental. (No I am not always happy about these inconveniences either, at times these are aggravating but are, in balance, tolerable!) Now, back to the topic at hand, the Docksider project and its proprietor, Paul Barton. I have looked over the proposed plans, gotten explanations from Paul as to what is going to occur and have discussed this with numerous neighbors as well as patrons of the Docksider. If there is a technical deficiency in a proposed septic system, as stated at the last hearing on this matter, then this deficiency ought to be dealt with in a technical fashion. Another point I wish to raise is the alleged problems and complaints raised by some persons. I do not personally know any of the parties with complaints; I d:O know that the vast majority of the neighbors with whom I have spoken are either in favor of is expansion or willing to allow it to proceed; This project will: improve the appearance of the business, it will allow handicapped. access to this businel., it will provide a roomier place for Docksider patrons, the parking will be enhanced, a small business which provides employment for more than a dozen people, which pays taxes and provides a desirable service will be able to modernize and hopefully prosper while being a good neighbor. I know first-hand that is facility hosts the annual Glen Lake ... ......-~."- ~. '---' 3 ~ Field Days, meetings of the lake association and at least one service club. Another point stated In the public account of the last Board hearing related to noise. There is noise at Glen Lake. People come here or live here in the summertime to enjoy the beauty and recreational value Glen Lake offers. There have been parties with live bands, parties on side roads with 50 or more cars parked on narrow roads, boats, water skiers, wave jammers, fireworks all over the lake, families and friends having a good time, chalnsaws buzzing, motorcycles, children laughing and playing in the water, contractors building, util- ities working, highway crews paving and on to eternity. I have lived at Glen Lake for eight summers and seven winters. It is extremely rare that there is much loud activity after 11 P.M. I always sleep with an open window in summer. I am more dis- turbed by the noise from Route 9 nature attractions during the night than by any human activity at Glen Lake; the worst sound of all Is the heavy traffic flows on 1-87. Again, human activity abounds at Glen Lake, whether at the Dockslder, private residences or other nearby businesses. Traffic is a concern to me; I have been Involved in rescue work more than 20 years; accidents happen; many happen on Glen Lake Road. Most result from ex- cessive speed or carelessness. General traffic. Is high In this area; this Is seemingly due more to congestion on aoute 9 and Route 149, since this makes Glen Lake Road a desirable by-way to avoid long delays. (I wonder who helped- create the traffic snarls on Route 9 & 149? Just recently on a cool wet Sunday west-bound traffic on 149 was backed up to Ridge Road. Many of these travelers 'DISCOVERED' the Glen Lake Road; I know first-hand since more than a dozen of them stopped at the fire house seeking directions to 1-871) Singling out any business on the Glen Lake road as being a cause of traffic is at least unfair, naive and probably myopic. Traffic on Glen Lake road comes because of the residences in . -------- ; i t I l -- 4 -.....F the area, the businesses in the area, the by-way usage mentioned above, access to the Warren County Municipal Center, the Warren County Bike Trail as well as tourists and sight-seers _ many of whom are area residents. Also during the summer there is increased traffic due to the Queensbury Recreation programs at the Glen Lake Park, just opposite the Dockslder. Throughout the snow-free months others also use the Glen Lake Park. Take a look at the total picture! Does anyone realistically think all the traffic occurs due to the Docksider? The Docksider is a family and friendly style establishment. Loud music Is extremely rar e; live entertainment only once or twice a year. The patrons are mainly ar ea people or neighbors. I see people from all professions and diverse backgrounds gather at the Dockslder to enjoy themselves, maybe have a meal, maybe have alcohol, maybe just to visit with friends or neighbors. The deck and the scenery are certainly attractions for patrons of the Dockslder; I feel It unfair for anyone to characterize the people (myself Included) who take advantage of this facility as loud, boisterous and unruly. I have seen emergency service workers gather here and picnic; I have seen people from other restaurants party and picnic here; I have seen numerous Queensbury employees frequent this place; In short many people from the area utilize this facility I I suggest that the Planning Board question some of the people who are negative and ensure their motives; could it be a competitive pique? Could it be a personal disagreement (this has been suggested in gossip making the rounds)? Can legitimate concerns be ameliorated? The Planning Board should also consider the "Track-Record" of any business when It comes to reviewing and rendering decisions on proposed projects _ especially in non-conforming or sensitive areas. Some businesses operate on the 'hand-shake' principle, they make a commitment and then honor the commitment. Frequently the reality of a project does not match its 'up-front publicity'. Judge if a project 5 ~ -- will really live up to its requirements. I have known Paul Barton over a dozen years; I have been a patron of his restaurant; I personally know of his commitment to his business _ AND _ to his community. He sincerely tries to be a good neighbor; of course, it is not possible to keep everyone happy all the time. Paul spent his childhood summers at Glen Lake. He long dre amed of owning Sullivan's Pavilion. He has been fortunate to realize that dream; like many business today he faces myriad barriers in running a successful operation. The proposals will go a long way towards making this success more likely and contribute to its continued vitality. In conclusion, I am always long-winded, I urge you and the other Planning Board members to concisely Identify any areas of legitimate concern and ask Paul Barton and his engineers to design the best solutions to those concerns, negotiate limits with Paul, if that is prudent. Then hold him to the commitments made in addre ssing those concerns; I am confident that Paul will uphold his endl Remember, this NOT a new business intruding upon a residential neighborhood, BUT, one which has existed for generations and has been restor ed to vitality. I urge that the Queensbury Planning Board heed the positive in this project, strive diligently to ensure reasonable safeguards and ultimately respond affirmatively to this project! Sincerely, ~ !~n~ .---- I t L B " ) ~: ~¡ :..,:",.' ',.1 / -:J PAuL ßAR\OI\J ~ '. - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI---Ift8 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Plauner Mr. John S. Goralski, Plauner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 19, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area V....... U. Varbmce - Sip Variance == JaterpretatiGD SubdmIIiaD: Sketch. _ Prelim""', --X Site P1aa Rerie. - - Petition far a Chuge of ZaDe - Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit FiDal Other: AppJicatiGD Number: Site Plan Review No. 28-90 Applicmat'. Name: Dunhamls Bay Boat Co.flnc. MeetiDø Date: September 2.0, 1990 ...................................................................................".,..... There was considerable discussion at a previous Planning Board meeting which covered three basic points: 1) Traffic safety on Route 9L, 2) Use of the R.O.W., 3) The condition of the storage site. At the above referenced meeting, the Board tabled the application in the hope that the concerned parties could meet and settle some of their differences. Although a meeting was held, none of the differences were resolved. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the Board proceed with its review based on the information that has been received to date. Regarding traffic safety, it is true that there have been no reported accidents attributed to the Dunham's Bay Boat Company. However, the transporting of boats across Route 9L does create the potential for a serious accident. In an attempt to minimize this potential, I would recommend placing a time restriction on the movement of boats from the storage site to the lakefront site. If the movement of boats were limited to 10 A.M. to 4 P.M., it would avoid peak traffic hours and assure that the operation were conducted during times of ample sunlight. This will minimize any potential traffic problem. There are two concerns with respect to the use of the R.O. W. One is the speed of the vehicles and the related dust. The other is the number of vehicles that use the R.O.W. ." The applicant should discourage the use of the R.O. W. by anyone except Dunham's Bay Boat Co. employees. All patrons of the Boat Co. should be required to go to the Boat Company office prior to going to the storage site. As for the dust problem, a 5 mph speed limit should be established, and the road should be paved. Paving the road may cause some additional storm water runoff which must be handled, but it is the only permanent solution to the dust problem. As for the condition of the storage site; the site haa been cleaned up substantially since these proceedings have begun. To date, N. Y .S. D.E.C. continues to pursue the clean-up page 1 of ¡ (' i Site Plan No. 28-90 '--' ~ of this site. I would recommend that the Board require that no used oil, engines, engine parts or debris of any kind should be stored on site. Only boats and trailers should be stored on site. JSG/sed page Z of Z -- '-- '"'-" WALTER O. REHM, III ~1~~)~ttWl\~ì~ ' f4_ \ .. "" .'..... .J ) ~~ I ì \ ,," - .....~I I ~ ?;ø" , ...) '\ ~ tY - ,.~.-' ATTORNEY AT LAW 1715 OTTAWA STREET LAKE GBORGB, NEW YORK 1284ð 1518-668-1541a 1518-668-15413 o1OHN o1. RAY September 10, 1990 FAX 1518-668-3629 Mr. Richard Roberts Town of Queensbury Planning Board Queensbury Town Offices 531 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Re: Dunham's Bay Boat Co. Inc./ Roger and Karen Howard Our File No. 3226-1 FilE COpy SITE PlAN IŒVlEYlIO ;¡?- 9 () Dear Mr. Roberts and Board Members: This letter will supplement my letter of August 2, 1990 regarding the Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc., matter which is currently before the Board. In that letter I indicated that the Howards were in the process of formulating a series of measures which could be undertaken to mitigate those legitimate problems raised by the neighbors. After monitoring the situation and in light of the comments made by those in attendance at the previous Planning Board meeting, it is the intention of the Dunham's Bay Boat Co. Inc., to accomplish the following: 1. Traffic safety - Route 9L. Since our meeting with the neighbors was totally unproductive and there was an absolute refusal to allow Dunham's Bay Boat Company to increase the width of the right of way at its intersection with Route 9L by purchase of an additional easement area, the most obvious improvement would appear not to be possible. It should be emphasized that the storage facility has existed for approximately 20 years with- out traffic mishap which is testimony to the care and safety measures employed by the marina personnel over the years. Never- theless, -the Howards have and will continue to insure that all employees transporting boats to or from the storage area exercise extreme caution and are kept constantly aware of their responsi- bility to do so. Furthermore, notwithstanding statements made to the Board to the contrary, the sight distances when traveling in both directions on Route 9L are substantial which probably accounts for the lack of difficulties in the area over the years. Nevertheless, it is suggested that either the Town of Queensbury or the New York State Department of Transportation may wish to look at the possibility of additional signs in the area. --"-~. '----- ~ Mr. Richard Roberts Town of Queensbury Planning Board Page 2 2. The following changes with respect to the utilization of the right of way road will be implemented: (a) A portion of the road which is not paved will be repaired, the potholes filled and any grading that is required will be accomplished. Also, efforts will be undertaken in the future to keep the road, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances, in a good state of repair and free of potholes. (b) A preparation called Soil-Sement which!s an environmentally safe dust retardant will be applied ~o the non- paved portion of the road as necessary. Information regarding that project is annexed to this letter. (c) Company vehicles utilizing the road will be modified so that exhaust will no longer be directed downward onto the road, thereby eliminating a fair amount of dust. (d) A five mile per hour speed limit will be utilized on the entire length of the right of way road. (e) The possibility of paving the entire road was examined, however, given current thinking regarding storm water runoff and the recently enacted Lake George Park Commission regu- lations relating thereto, it was decided that allowing the currently existing pervious surface would better conform to the spirit and letter of those regulations. (f) Although private traffic cannot be completely eliminated on the right of way, every effort will be made to limit private traffic to the degree possible. It should be pointed out that at this time there is very little private traffic using the right of way. 3. The storage site. A great deal of effort has gone into the improvement of the storage site. The general cleanup and removal of old boat parts and other items as been substantially completed. The only activity remaining in this regard will be the placement of some additional fill and grading in areas where debris was removed which work is to be completed within the next two weeks. The area will not in the future be used for the dis- posal of any type of material. The Howards sincerely believe that the measures referred to above which they intend to undertake notwithstanding the failure of the neighbors to cooperate in any manner whatsoever, will substantially mitigate any reasonable problems which exist or have existed. It should be pointed out that perhaps the only positive note voiced at our August meeting with the neighbors was that there appears to be a consensus that the use of the right of way and the other activities relating thereto during the 1990 season is, in fact, a marked improvement over the previous year. . . -~- ,..- ~'--~ --' Mr. Richard Roberts Town of Queensbury Planning Board Page 3 Finally, we must again request that the Dunham's Bay Boat Company matter be adjourned to the October meeting by reason of our clients' travel schedule. Also, by the October meeting, all of the work referred to above will be completed and available for inspection by the Board and representatives of the Planning Department prior to the date of that meeting. WOR:bar Walter o. Rehm III Enc. cc: Mr. and Mrs. Roger Howard ..- - o Oft ,. -./ I t}® eIlTfllelI1l u Duet Retardant Outltandlng Features . (!) Order your SUpply todaYl Sotl"'Semem MIdweIt IndUltrlal Unconditional . SU....... InC Guarantee ....... ,- IVery ørodUCt you purcn.e frOm MldWtlt .. P.O. Box 8451, canton, OH 44711 COYftII laY our .rIeI ftI",M no-rlsk "IItIIf8e. taon GuIIWfttMCI" ØOIfCY. YOU must be com- pllCllY ___ WIth ,adt øurchISI Of any MICIWIIt IW'OdUCt Oft yOur ØW'ChIII ørtce will 1M tIftØtdICt. If you .... nat AtISfIId, notIfV UI WIthIn so claVI fOr . CQMJII'tI refUnd or . ctICIIt. . . ..... Ålllll'lCla'I c.... MI~. IDduør . III c..w... ~11149Gt",. MidWeSt IndustrllllU~ It\c. · COfttrð't TIP and PM10 fUgitive øartlculat. matter. · stODl dust,· GUst cloud.. dUlt nullance. · RedUces rutting, slnkln.. anet overall rotIø su....c. Clet8rloratlon. · tncNlltl ,oad-Þearlnì atrlngtt1 of all types of soils. · EffeCtIve .1 011 . . . the bitt ,.p'aç,ment fOr 011. · "1tJI traction and safety . . . minimIze. mud 'ItION. :nurn weltherablllty to rain, ultraviolet - Ind wind. h ( ~ ; · c;uml.uaUVe effeCt from .ach application. · ecologically safe. · £)0. NOT lelch or wash away. · DOli NOT traCk. I. NOT çarrlect away on tires. · DOli NOT becoml brittle and þothðte. · Will NOT polute uncl,rground water ...."øly. · DOes NOT' corrode or Ø1t metal and equlpm.nt. · clean. . . easy Clean-up. · Iconomleil: At I to 1 mix ,.,trot workin, solution çosts only 1&C per g.non. FtJIt faSt ¡Qf\Ifce or a discuSSIOn of your requirements, caU: Bob Vitale. pete Spillos, Lynn Edwards, Shannon NOble, Brian Janes, Jon carroll or Steve Mathews 216-456-3121 or TOLL-FREE 1-800-521-0699 PAX 218·41..1247 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. d ¥-'1 D FILE COpy :/~ftWl~l: t~ AUG - 3 1990 '--' WALTER O. REHM, III ATTORNEY AT LAW 1 715 OTTAWA STREET LAKE GEORGE. NEW YORK 1284ð 1518-668-15412 1518-668-15413 'LANNING 1& ZONIN:; I)EPARTMENT JOHN J. RAY August 2, 1990 FAX ð18-668-0629 Town of Queensbury Planning Board 531 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Attn: Mr. Richard Roberts Re: Dunham's Bay Boat Company, Inc. Our File No. 3226-1 Dear Mr. Roberts and Members of the Board: Pursuant to the request of the Planning Board in connection with the above captioned matter, a meeting was held at the Queensbury Town Offices on Wednesday, August 1, 1990, the purpose of which was to attempt to resolve difficulties perceived to exist by the various neighbors of the Dunham's Bay Boat Company storage facility. By my letter of July 13, 1980 to OWen D. Connolly, Jr., Esq., attorney for Earl Shortsleeves, a copy of which was forwarded to the Planning Department and should be included in the file in connection with the above captioned matter, the following were invited to attend that meeting: 1. Attorney OWen D. Connolly, Jr., and his client, Earl Shortsleeves, 2. Mr. and Mrs. John Salvador, 3. Mr. Gilbert o. Boehm, 4. Ms. Mildred Woodin. Mr. and Mrs. Salvador, Mr. Boehm and Attorney Connolly chose not to attending the meeting which was attended by Roger and Karen Howard, Mr. Shortsleeves, Ms. Woodin and John Schreiner who maintains a mobile home on Mr. Shortsleeves' property. Initially, I advised those in attendance that the purpose of the meeting was to attempt to identify the problem areas per- ceived to exist by those in attendance and once those problem areas were identified, to attempt to work out solutions that would mitigate the impact of the boat storage operation, partic- ularly with respect to the use of the right of way road, on Ms. Woodin's and Mr. Shortsleeves' property and to otherwise attempt to improve the situation from their point of view. They were advised at the outset that the Dunham's Bay Boat Company was pre- pared to undertake that which was reasonable in order to achieve those ends. ''''--/ Mr. Richard Roberts Board Members Page 2 The meeting lasted about one hour during which time Ms. Woodin, Mr. Shortsleeves and Mr. Schreiner reiterated a litany of complaints, some of which were valid and some of which from my clients' position were not valid, similar to those voiced by them at the pUblic meeting before the Board. They did point out that the use of the right of way this summer appears to be substan- tially improved. They would not, however, undertake any discus- sions whatsoever regarding improvements or operational modifica- tions that could be undertaken by Duhman's Bay Boat Company to improve the situation. Their original and final position was clearly that they would not agree to any arrangement that would increase the number of boats stored on the Dunham's Bay property beyond that authorized by the 1972 permit under any circumstances From our point of view, the meeting was particularly frus- trating and unsatisfactory since it was not possible to engage in any productive discussion, and also since the Howards did wish to engage in a productive dialogue with their neighbors. Because that was the case, it is the intention of the Howards to unila- terally formulate and communicate to the Board a series of measures which Dunham's Bay Boat Company is prepared to undertake for the purpose of mitigating those legitimate problems raised by the neighbors and by the Board during our previous discussions. We will forward those proposed measures to the Board within the next ten days and would consent to the inclusion of the measures as conditions should the Board approve the application as presented. Finally, Mr. Howard will be away on business on the date of the August Planning Board meeting and given the nature of this proceeding, we feel t~at it is vitally important that he be pre- sent when the matter is again considered by the Planning Board. We would, therefore, respectfully request that Dunham's Bay Boat Company, Inc., application be placed on the September Planning Board agenda and would request that you communicate with me regarding the acceptability of that date. Thank you for your continued cooperation relating to this matter. Very truly WOR:bar o. Rehm III cc: Mr. and Mrs. Roger Howard .------.--.. .--.... . - '-' '-..,./ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI.ftfti"'B Department -NOTE TO FILE- -.- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: AU2USt 21. 1990 Stuart G. Bal<er By: Area VariaDce U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce = mterpntatiaD Other: x Subdi"f'iaiam Sketc:b. ...JL PrelimiDary t - Site PlaIa Reriew - == Petition fer a ~e of Zœe Freshwater Wet1aDù Permit FiDal ApplicatiaD Namben Subdivision No. 7-19A9 Applicmat'. N....: Farm To Market Commons John and Stephanie Mason AU2uSt 21. 1990 MeetiDø Date: ..................................................................1t........................ This 3 lot commercial subdivision received Sketch Plan approval from the Board on Apri 1 2S, 1989, and a 6 month extens ion on the Sketch Plan was granted February 27, 1990. I have reviewed the approved S~etch Plan and the Preliminary Plan submitted and I note the following changes: A.) Access onto Bay Road Moved from 470 ft. north of the intersection of Bay and 149 to only 380 ft". no"rth. B.) Stormwater Mana~ement Sketch Plan proposed draina~e showed catch bas ins in the par1tina area and along the road directing water to existin~ "and altered drainage swales. Preliminary plans for drainage indicate no catch basins. Sheet flow drainage will be directed to ~reen areas and drainage swales. Retention areas are as bein~ feasible, but are not proposed for construction. 1 -1- ¡ t , >,-, c.) Access road/parking design At Sketch Plan approval, both the access road and the proposed parking were to be of paved material. Pre 1 iminary plans show the parking road to be covered with crushed stone. The proposed roadcuts on Bay Road and Route 149 have both been reduced in width and are no longer divided by traffic islands. Ingress/egress to parking areas are also no longer divided by traffic islands. The proposed access road must be bui It to Town des ign standards, as per Article VIII of the Subdivision Regulations. The Highway Superintendent has reviewed the proposed drainage plan, and he has submitted a letter requesting that a revised system be submitted which provides for more on-site stormwater management and is designed to Town standards. Mr. Naylor also states that he would like drainage aprons along the access road instead of the proposed riprap ditches. Ken Carlson of DOT has submitted a letter requesting that a traffic study be done to DOT standards. This traffic study should be reviewed by the Planning Board before an. SEQR review is completed. DOT will review the traffic study and submit t~eir comments to the Planning Department. SGB/pw ---_._-- I ~ T·F~OST ASSOCIAl'ES. PC )NSUL TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 .~ --..r August 8, 1990 RFA #89-5000.507 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 d JE©Ìfiwt~),. l~ AUG ~O ill; 'LANNIN~ONIN( r)EPARTMENT Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Farm to Market Commons Subdivision 7-1989 - Preliminary Stage Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following comments: 1. The driveways should provide deeded right-of-ways or easements which would include agreements between the lot owners for maintenance responsibilities. Drainage and stormwater easements are required (per Subdivision Regulations Article VIII, Sections E.I.b., I.4.m. and 1.6.f.). 2. Access to the site at Route 149 is not recommended due to the steep slope of the proposed driveway and the proximity to the Bay Road intersection. 3. The outlet of the 8" pvc perforated driveway underdrain should be shown. It is recommended that the ditch outside slopes have no more than a 3:1 (H:V) slope, subject to more severe soil capabilities as determined by the applicant. Grading from the driveway edge to the ditch line should be no more than 4:1 (H:V). 4. (a) The applicant proposes that the increased runoff will be infiltrated into the pervious driveways and parking areas found on site. Retent ion areas are proposed to be buil t if the driveways and parking areas are paved in the future. Gravel driveway and parking areas can not be considered entirely permeable as the applicant proposes in the stoT'ßlllater management report. They can ref1 ect some permeability through use of a proper· runoff çoefficient. The driveways and parking areas should not be relied upon for stormwater management, and stormwater management by detention should be required. (b) Sizing for all the proposed culverts should be provided. Further, it is not recommended to use a 12" culvert at the Bay Road intersection, since siltation and plugging can be a problem with culverts 12" and smaller. * GI.&NS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH ~ -- Town of Queensbury Attn: Mrs. Lee York Page 2 August 8, 1990 RFA #89-5000.507 (c) The relocated drainageway and 24" CMP should be sized to adequately handle any additional stormwater. Additional future stormwater that may flow to the existing ditch on Route 149 should be addressed. (d) The eave trench deta il is shown to be 2' deep, however, seasonal high groundwater is at 12". The eave trench design requires revision. 5. The driveway profile should indicate culvert locations and depths. 6. (a) The Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance (Para. 3.040 B.l.) requires 2 feet of naturally occurring soil above seasonal high groundwater to utilize fill systems. Alternative sewage disposal systems other than fill type should be provided, and construction details and design should be revised. (b) Wells and septic system components on adjacent lots should be shown and the required separat ion distances must be maintained. (c) Floatation of pump stations and septic tanks should be addressed due to the high groundwater condition. (d) Pump station volumes between pump levels should be indicat- ed and should be consistent with dosing requirements for the proposed disposal system. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ¡y~tw~JL 'Thomas ~ Yarmowich, P.E. Project ngineer THY/e_ ce: Town Planning Board Members ------ ¡ 1 '-' æoÍDn of (Queenøburv ~isqfua~ ~epartment FILE COpy lay .t Haviland Aoada Office Phone 518·793·7771 QUHnabury, New York 12801 PAUL H. NAYLOR Superintendent HighwaY' ¡;;~ftWj¡i~' ~ . AUG 16 1990"'î]j RICHARD A. MISSITA Deputy Suøerintendent Highways 'LANNING. ZONIW. nIPARTMINT DATE: AUGUST 15, 1990 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD PAUL B. NAYLOR TO: PROM: PARM TO MARKET CO~..:· .!1/.~~~~~' ~ , I fi~d ~~~7;VieWinq the proposed dr~..i...·~~. .'~~ s:u~' t 1Ii'.;:~ must meet.. with spec1ftd.irons Øl~ ap;o~s... Also it shows IROst of the drai~~e runni~~;~ - ". . " ~. ··~~Þi.9..hW.y'~ and I would like to s~,~mor..~~t :.I: ~ 41 ".~ 0: system. ~-.,~ Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent fPrtL t" \ l (j "- FILE CO~·.' SUBDIVISION NO. ï -, q¥ c¡ PREUMINARY PLAN ¡vt ,0/1<:.. 1'- t' t . \~. I; . . ; I ~! ~" ,-" C(;/'1 ¡v, U tv .-.J ~(l~WirS')1 ð AUG 2111990 Sf)J STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 84 HOLLAND AVENUE ALBANY. N.Y. 12208 LANNING & ZONIN' I)EPARTMENT JOHN E. TAYLOR. P E. REGIONAL OIRECTOR FRANKLIN E WHITE COMMISSIONER AUgust 10, 1990 Mrs. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Planning Commission Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 Re:Farm to Market Commons Proposal Dear Mrs. York: We concur with your letter of 8/1/90 designating the town of Queensbury Planning Board as the SEQR Lead Agency for the Farm to Market Commons review. If the applicant desires to do any work in the right of way of NYS Route 149, a NYSDOT permit will be needed. Since a project of this scale (a 3.79 acre commercial/retail sUbdivision) is likely to impact traffic conditions, a Traffic Impact Study will be required as part of the permit process. I have enclosed NYSDOT's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies for the applicant's information. For further information of the Permit process, the applicant should contact Herbert F. Steffins, NYSDOT Warren County Resident Engineer at 623-3511. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. ~~ Ken Carlson Senior Transportation Analyst cc:R.Carlson,Director Reg 1 planning and Program Management H.Steftins,Warren County Resident Engineer F.Austin,Warren County Highway Superintendent AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER I 1 l '~ Pala -Af 2 . GEN!U1. GUIDELINES rOl 1'lW'rIC L"æ4C'I' STUDIES SUIKI'.tTID to NYS1)OT D~ING Tal S!el PI.OC!SS P~apa~.cI by. II~INIV~-lalin 1 'l&D1Wa1 . D.vaJ.opa..c (July 1988) . . \.,':. ., .,~~.; "'.. - Tba Traffic Impact Scudy lhould ba pr.,a~.cI by a qualift.d indiVidual or fi~ , uailal tha 1IOac ~ur~-c matboda .ae foreb by tha Inac1tut. of TrC8pOrt&t101& Bat1aaar. (Itz) (fo~ cr1p laDaratta1&), the T:&DIpo~tat10G I....rch Board (TRI) (fo~ htlnay c.paci.y aul,.1a) &Del tb. .......1 of trufora Traffic: Cotu:~ol Da.ta.. (MDTCD). .. 0<. - ~ba Sc.41 abou1d iDC1~a & I1C. ,laa .howtDI .t.. ace,.. pota.a 11& 1'.1&1101& co tha ana'. t1:'au,01:'C&'1oa fac::U111... iDtanaal .tra,e IYle. and P&I'&1q Layout.. & .cbadu1a of tapl...Gtat1om (project pbaliAl>. . d.ta:u.d 4..lIr1,cto1a of cu cI""lopMDI (D""~' Ii... '7P' .... 'I"" of Icnatur... aCI.) aDd any otb.~ tDformat10G d..... p.rctDe1&t to lba &D&1y.lI. _. fta W iâ.l,. lUu1a1 boJ.uda & cI"lIr1,I10. of tbe .xllCiq tr....pol'..eiota .,..... rilUa ella '1'0311Ce .~.. iu11141iq zoo&ll., vide". .boaU.n. .,... 11ait." ..t.'" aaCU&l. .p.,ca.. hon.lODea1 aU v...ical ~waet.n.ae1c.. .qlae cls.a.... U.Ultøu U.f a1&,.>. .c.. - '1'be ...., .bou.14 1_1'1" . 118t of czoic1c:a1 10eat1.. 1DeJ.uclaal ia eM Ie"", Th. .... auJ.,..u ar.. laao.U axe... ,. flZ .. cba .1c. la"'I"a'ad c~"fil hu a .1pU1caae illfMt. - TU ....,. .u.u 1uJ.uU .U G......, ll&Üiu traffil coaCt ad CunUI 11ft AI..e a_s. co 'rote.l,. aul,., botla 4&111 .... p.. hoa entia. tA aM1tia s. ."ùa1 we"''' c:cnaau. cauUa..acioa .1uIu.U be 11".. to ~ ....MIMI daCe if .1Ie ...ca. ... loeastea of cis. clrNJ....... v&ftlas. it. .. 'fila ...., .-.w saw. ftaa.. ,ne..s_ c..... 11'1, dulftbuctou. cn.,. .-.." 1t, IU ,nj'lc, ... 'l'Oj"'" utp cliall'1!a.ltou I' waU .. _ a.,1aøùa .1 tlae l'a.iou1e \11&4 U d...1op.. .... - '1M ..., .....W t~.1UI fi.... 1102"".1" tile tutu. c....,... cnI'... ..~. Z·d ' ..~':' .~:..#-~..~ ',., t\, /:,:, i:~' -,~ '. ,'. ~i~·, <~,.i.·~~ NÓI.l~iè:OdSNt1~.(ØE:vt Ø6,·1o:g'-"r. ~,:' :'~~':':'" h. '. . ~.~',:\' ....; . . '~ GEND.\L GUtDELtNlS FOIl TWitC L'Œ'ACT S'l'tJ'DI!S Pat. -.4f 2 - Th. Icady lbou14 taa1u4a back¡rouDÂ (i... no~-project relate.) eraff1c Irowcb , au aD&111U of le..1a of .'ntice ae all critical locaciou to'C .silti~l. becklrouDd vitbouc dev.lo,..~c aDd future with d,~.lo,..~c couditio~1 fo~ the ,at of .ecb proj.cc pbale aa4 for co.,letiou of tbe project. - The Icudy .boul¿ include a cOP1 of all LOS cOmfucer analy.i1 Iheece .~ ray ccnmt 4.ea .1 _ ."...1.& to the I cuci,. . c:I: . .. c· - - The ltu4y ahoul. iaclude a w.rr~c check ae key u~11D&11&ed 1~tl~llccioGa co daca~. it cbe 1aat&11ac10D of & crllf£c lilDAl i. rlqu1re¿. · the IC1aÄ, I~d 1desac~y ex1lt1AI 11iCI project.. probl.. 11'''' (t~_ both lal.cy aD4 c.,..1C7 .caUÅ'~iACI) aad .hould d..elo, aDd Ivaluatl .alutioue to tis.. - !be .cu.,. .bould 1Kluci. tba p.nn to vb. qUlc1au ripI'd . a¿dr... au cala,... ~ab.~ of 1 cnuct ch. IlwI, ..,. b. dù..ctcl. NoCI' 'tratU.c 1m,... ICUCU.II lublliteu ''!~r I'Win b,. NYSDO'r rill bl cuoW fal" \ boch caapl,c"ll a1Ml acc\&I'Ioy. 0IaiU10-.,..y clue chi renl. ta b. d.1a,.. 01r the '''''''t:.~ ~ b.. ~j"ca4. QuutiIÙ. ~.""'åI tile.. ~. _ lie (,!.~ ""'~ON. dù.cctcL to ....ioll&1 ., _'1'" .. Davelop_tit:. 84 !aU.... A~.... A1~,.. 'e. tork 12201 {.haaal (51')'1"621')~ .... t·d tt ~~ NOIlIj.L~ 9£:vt 06, €a TIt TOWN OF QUEENSBURY '-'" COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION '(I L E [ 0 P Y Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. l280¡ To. (x) Warren County Planning Board (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Appli cant . Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. l280~ Date. 8/6/90 Re. Sub Div. #7-1989 - Farm-to-Market Commons Bay Road near Rte. #149 We have reviewed the request for.( ) Variance, ( ) Site Plan Review, (X) Other - and have the following recommendations. ( ) Approval ( ) Di sapproval The Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification is asking all developers of industrial, commercial and office parks to propose a theme for design of buildings to be constructed in the park and a theme for plantings on the lots to be sold in the park. It is the Committeels opinion and others, that the idea will assist in sales of lots in the development and should improve the appearance of Queensbury which has hodge podge of building designs and planting plans. This developer has been approached with this thought in mind, but has not, as yet, corne up with ideas. In addition to the above landscaping. screening and planting provisions. the Committee wishes to fo on record that it does not approvel 1. Non-contominc s gns. 2. Pl.stic or artiticial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approvinc the above (or attaohed plans). the Committee has the expressed or implied a¡reement 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. &~ lbni:1l Rob rt L. Eddy, ~i~ .----- ~.~~·t"" j' ._~ ~, - '-- ..- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- By: September 14, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Area Variance Use Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretatiOD Other: SuhcImsioa: Sketch, Prelim· - - - mary, X Site Plan ReYiew - PetitiOD for a ChaDge of ZaDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppUcaticm Number: Site Plan Review No. 65-90 AppUcaøt'. Name: James M. Weller, Owner: E. James Ban-ett MeetiDg Date: September 20, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application was tabled by the Board on August 28, 1990 in order that the applicant could address Engineering and Planning staff concerns. I have reviewed the revised site plan with regards to the Planning Department comments of August 2.7, 1990 (attached), and I have the following comments: A. The location of the freestanding sign now appears to be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. This will be confirmed by the Zoning Administrator when a Sign Permit is applied for. B. The lighting at the ingress and egress is directed away from Quaker Road. c. The locations for the signs at the ingress and egress should be shown on the site plan. D. The location for truck display has not been changed. E. The location and design of the rear accessway has not been changed. If this entrance is to remain, the grading should be changed so that the slope is equal or less than 10 percent, and a drainage culvert should be provided to insure continued unobstructed flow of storm water from adjacent properties to the east. F. The applicant has indicated to the Board that the slopes on the edges of the existing fill will be cleared of rocks, graded, and seeded for erosion control. This should be made a condition of any approval given. G. Engineering changes will be addressed by the Town Engineer. SGB/sed ~ ~T·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSUL7 iNG ENGi+lEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 SAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 e193-4146 518 e 193-4141 '-- September 17t 1990 RFA #89-5000.065 RC 90 (! !:I. \ ~ ~ [~~\V!!t') 1 , ~, \,,~~.. ~." . " " r'" I f \ ' . , ·'1 . \ ') t. ~ 1 V 1990 . ~ Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attention: Mrs. lee Yorkt Sr. Planner Re: Site Plan 65-90 James Weller/Hertz-Penske Truck Maintenance Facility t\NNING & ZONU' '"\I:D.RTMI=N..... Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering col\1tlents: 1. A note should be added to the plan indicating that the stormwater retention basin should be cleaned as necessary of sediment to maintain a 1.5 foot depth and prevent clogging. The note should also require the maintenance of turf and regular mowing in the (ëtention basin. Snow should not be deposited in the basin during snow removal operations. 2. The applicant has chosen to retain the steep access drive at the rear of the property to permit access at the request of the owner of the right-of-way. The appl icant indicated that the steep access is not for use by trucks at the proposed maintenance facility. The Board may wish to consider if a stipulation on use is appropriate 3. Previous en~ineering concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Very truly yourst RIST-FROST ASSOCIATESt P.C. ~ L~>. ~-~,-A Thomas M. Yar~ich, P.E. Managing Projeèt Engineer TMY/cmw e GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH c_ . - .--.-- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlA"'''';ftg Department F J ! r- L '- COpy -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: August 27, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area VariaDce Use Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation SubdiWlioa: _ Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, X Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppticatiOD Number: Site Plan Review No. 65-90 Apptic:ant'. Name: James M. Weller MeetiDg Date: August 28, 1990 .................................................................................................. The applicant is proposing the construction of a single story, 13,600 square foot steel frame building for use in truck repair and heavy equipment sales. I have reviewed the application in accordance with Article 5 of the zoning ordinance, and I have the following comments: A.) The proposed sign should be set back 15 feet from the front property line, as per Section 6.101 of the Sign Ordinance. B.) Lighting near the front property line should be directed a\o7ay from Quaker Road. c.) Signage should be provided at the roadcuts on Quaker Road indicating one way access. (i.e. exit on1y/do not enter, no exitlentrance only) D.) Truck display could be arranged in the side parking areas in such a Manner as tc? provide adequate visibility to traffic on Quaker Road. Such an arrangenent \olOu1d have less of an aesthetic impact than the proposed truck display area. E.) The proposed access way in the rear of the parcel should have a drai".age culvert. The drainage ~.¡ay at the rear of the property appears to drain stormwater from other properties to the east, and should remain in use. -1- ~ --'" F.) The slopes on the edges of the existing fi 11 should be cleared of rocks, graded and seeded for erosion control and aesthetics. Any improvements on the fill slopes within the Quaker Road right-of-way should be approved by Warren County. G.) Warren County DPW has approved the proposed Quaker Road roadcuts. SB/p\oT -2- . , ; '. - -../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlSIIftftift8 Department WNOTE TO FILEw Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 20, 1990 By: Lee A. York Ana V...... U. VariaDce := Sip VariaDce _ IDt_~Matiœ Subdi.uioa: Sketch. _ Pl'elimiDary, X Site PIaD Re9iew - - Petiticm far a ChaDge of ZODe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Filial Other: Applicatiœ Number: Site Plan No. 71-90 and 7Z-90 Applicaøt'. Namel Adirondack Industrial Park lot 54 and lot 55 MeetiDøDatel September 20, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant has submitted for a concept subdivision approval and two site plans within the proposed subdivision. There is nothing in the Ordinance or Subdivision Regulations to prohibit this, but it is when this unorthodox type of situation has come up in the past it has not been in the best interests of the applicant. The Board may want to consider a formal policy on this. It is difficult to prepare separate but conforming plans for the applicant, and it is difficult for the Board review them. Further, it is best not to segment the SEQRA. It would be my recommendation that the subdivision be finally approved prior to any site plan approvals. If the Board finds that the preliminary subdivision review, when SEQRA is done, that there are environmental concerns that could have been mitigated by modifying one of th~· approved site plans, it can be difficult. Lot 54 of the Adirondack Industrial Park, as submitted, as a site plan, does not conform to lot 6 on tbe subdivision. Although these two are one and the same. The reason for this is that site 54 is presented as owning half of the proposed subdivision road for access from Queenabury Avenue. When the subdivision is approved, lot 54 will become 175 feet in depth which is nonconforming according to the Ordinance which requires ZOO feet in the U-1A zone. The applicant will either have to get a variance or redesign the project since no nonconforming lots can be created through the subdivision mechanism. The same conditions and concerns also apply to lot 55 in the Adirondack Industrial Park. LA Y Ised .._-----.- ¡ t ~ œø&m of ~1Uenøburv ~iB¥Uav ~eparlment lay .. H....... ROIIda Office Phone 518-793..7771 f\lE COpy Queenabury, New York 12101 PAUL H. NAYLOR RICHARD A. MISSITA Superintendent Hlghw.,. Deputy Superintendent Highway. )~ \~ S £ P 2 4NNING HIM . ~cDAATU'-'N· DATE: September 20, 1990 TO: Planning Department Prom: Paul H. Naylor Re: f all traf.fic use dri vevays cOlDing Res ,~ .:.~;.;...: ~ ~~~ ....-..... ~ aul B. Baylor Highway Superintendent , . ------_. .~ '-' Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater R. 0.2, BOX 386, CORINTH ROAD, QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12804 THOMAS K. FLAHERTY, C.E.T. Dirl'fl0r PHONE: (518) 793-0997 TO: John Goralski,~ Planner FROM: Torn Flaherty, Director of Water and Wastewater ~~ DATE: September 17, 1990 RE: Adirondack Industrial Park Sewer Service Lots 54-60 I spoke with Ray Waterhouse this afternoon regarding the above site. He and Ray Buckley have reviewed this and do not feel that there will be a problem with the existing sewer plant accepting the increased load due to the subdivision of the exisiting lots. Based upon their decision, I have no further concern relating to capacity at this time. However, it is my understanding that the developer intends to install a grinder pump pressure sewer system in the new road and connect to the county system. For lots 8-14. It is my further understanding that this road will be a town road. This brings forth the following questions. 1. Who will own and maintain this pressure sewer system? Ray Waterhouse feels it will be the developer. If so will we allow a private system in a town ~oad? 2. If it is offered to the town it will be necessary to create a sewer district if in fact the town wants to accept the responsibility. Thank you. tf/aw Attachments ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE SOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 '-" 4 ': .. r-- 1'---1 -: ",I (!~.,\,J~IlWlr~II.· ',' -., I ".:- J/li9G . r 4NNINa{ON'. ""~DAATI\,II~u- . i _ C September 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.071 RC 90 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attention: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Adirondack Industrial Park - Lot 54 Site Pl an 71-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering cO\'llßents: 1. The utility plan should indicate the invert elevations of the existing sewer manhole and the proposed building sewer to verify proper gravity service. 2. In accordance with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 7.071, the proposed parking area should have: a 5 foot buffer from the proposed property line subsequent to subdivision under pending application 8-1990, a sidewalk between the building and parking, a comprehensive planting plan consisting of: buffer ~rea trees, and park ing dividers with pl ant ings for each 20 spaces. 3. The proposed access driveway culverts should be designed for a 25 year storm in this intensely developed light industrial area as required by Subdivision Regulation item VIII I.2.d. The proposed 18 inch diameter culverts are adequate however. 4. With regard to storm water management: a. The storm water management retent ion bas in drawing does not match the calculations. The storm water management calculations however provide for adequate storage for the concept proposed. The drawing should be revised to provide adequate detention basin storage per the calculations. e GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH .: ----> ...J 1/- ,- ~ -- 0:>,54- '-' Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Page 2 September 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.071 RC 90 b. The presence of high groundwater may affect retent ion bas in feasibility. Groundwater depth and soil infiltration capacity should be verified by field investigation. c. From soil infiltration data and revised storm water detention basin configuration, a storage-release hydrograph should be provided to characterize the basin operation. Of concern is the period of time standing water would remain in the retention basin under design conditions. d. Notes should be added to the drawings stipulating that the basin be properly maintained (i.e. mowing, removal of debris and sediment) on a regular basis by the Owner and that snow removed from parking areas not be placed in the retention basin. e Pending subdivision application 8-1990 indicates that the project proposed for existing lot 54 will be situated in a reduced size lot of approximately 175 feet by 365 feet. The resubdivision of lot 54 would place the private storm water management retention basin outside the boundaries of the proposed lot. The private storm water management retention basin should be located within the lot limits of the proposed resubdivision of lot 54. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~L ~s!,^^,,:,~A-- Thomas M. Va wicht P.E. Managing ProJ ~t Engineer TMY/cam ~ liST· FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. :ONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS AACHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793.4146 518.793-4141 ~ i! 1(è~~í1\tr}r c4) 1Ir.\, .:". ~i' ,11:.1 II 1 (..,.:'.:' -. (' r I ~' '>'1 , , :: ,J.. ~99(ì' ~~N'NG & %01\1.. I:D4ATMt:N- September 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.072 RC 90 ~. L ~ ) P V t '.J ¡ '-' Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attention: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Adirondack Industrial Park - Lot 55 Site Plan 72-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering cOlllllents: 1. The utility plan should indicate the invert elevations of the existing sewer manhole and the proposed building sewer to verify proper gravity service. 2. In accordance with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 7.071, the proposed parking area should have: a 5 foot buffer from the proposed property line subsequent to subdivision under pending application 8-1990, a sidewalk between the building and parking, a comprehensive planting plan consisting of: buffer area trees, and parking dividers with plantings for each 20 space~ ., 3. The proposed access driveway culverts should be designed for a 25 year storm in this intensely developed light industrial area as required by Subdivision Regulation item VIII I.2.d. Calculations should be submitted which demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed 18 inch diameter culvert. 4. With regard to storm water management: a. Pending subdivision application 8-1990 indicates that the project proposed for existing lot 55 will be situated in a reduced size lot. The resubdivision of lot 55 would place the private storm water management detent ion bas in part ial- ly outside the boundaries of the proposed lot. The private storm water management detention basin location should be _ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH ~_._-_._~. ~ .:Jr . - . I J- 55 '-" Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Page 2 September 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.072 RC 90 revised to within the lot limits of the proposed resubdivi- sion of lot 55. b. The presence of high groundwater may affect retention basin feasibility. Groundwater depth and soil infiltration capacity should be verified by field investigation. c. From soil infiltration data and revised storm water detention basin location, a storage-release hydrograph should be provided to characterize the basin operation. Of concern is the period of time standing water would remain in the retention basin under design conditions. d. Notes should be added to the drawings stipulating that the basin be properly maintained (i.e. mowing, removal of debris and sediment) on a regular basis by the Owner and that snow removed from parking areas not be placed in the retention basin. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSO IATES, P.C. ~ L-b t .,,~~:,Jl Thomas M. Yarmo~~ h, P.E. Managing Projec~ gineer '- THY/cam . . .. ~-_._.- . - --- '--' 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: September 20, 1990 John Goralski By: Area VariaDc:e Uøe Variance - Sip Variance == mterp-etatiOD Other: SubdiYisioa: Sketch, Prelim· - - mary, Site Plan Re.ïew - Petition far a ChaDge of Zone ---,r Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal ApplicatiaD Number: FWI-90 Applicant'. Name: Lloyd James Diamantis MeetiDg Date: September 20, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant proposes two activities. One is to subdivide the CUlTent parcel into four lots. The plan indicates that no development will take place on lots 3 or 4. The applicant cUlTently has a Wetlands PenÌ1it to construct the house shown on lot 1. The second part of this permit is a request to construct a house on lot 2 within the 100 foot buffer zone of the wetland. The Wetlands Permit for lot 1 is based on the conditions required by D.E.C. The conditions include a fill septic system and substantial erosion control measures. Several conditions should bé included in an approval of this permit. 1. A fill septic system must be utilized. Z. A D.E-C. Wetlands Permit must be obtained. 3. The house must be a minimum of 40 feet from the edge of the wetland as determined by D.E.C. 4. . Appropriate erosion control measures shall be maintained between the construction site and the wetland boundary until such time as the lot has been revegetated. JSG/sed -- '" '" $4·3·"·2,' , , , I , ,......... I ....... I , I I I I I I 4f,-I·~ I I I I I I I / "... 40CJ I I I I I : ~. z-t I ~t \ \ \ , \ - " " / '<... .... -- - '----' ~4·5·'-4(, ~ ~ $4-' -',~Jz ",," - Si- ~S .,.-1, - - -.-......... 'u-!$ ·(,,133 ,.,.,.·s·, .11 .. ~ ' \Í )., , , , A\ , \ 'W fH'S",.Jl ~i , Þ ~ ~ ~ \ \\¡ !H'S.(...jl 'I; $+-5·,.7 ~ -.¡ ~ ~ .... $ 4-5·(,·# ~ ~ , // .' // / " / / I ' / / / , ,< / // ,// ~. , ~ 1:(' /54 -5 - '.t. / ~ '/ / ./ ~;( / ,'// / ~. ,/ // // / /1 ~ ~,/' ,// 0/ j 1:\ '/ / ~ / " / / , / / / / / / I .. --./ / -.. I I . 5~-5 -8 I I I I ./ ,/ I I I I I ".' I 4.,.,'-S -.!J I I I I I I . I I ," ~ I I I I I I .5'4- -.:1' -/7 .s", ·S-I/.~z F'y:¿es /-1 WATS< L I ,-( od ~ ¿ S tv £tLA rJ l) S; PBrN:\' t-Lu l-9D , \ 7:>. ~M tt-f'\. \' ,$ . - -- ,--",' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI:lftftb'g Department -N OTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 20, 1990 By: John So Gnr;¡ h:ki Area V8riaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretaticm Other: v Subdi.uioa: -X Sketch, Prelim' ~ _ 1IIarJ. Site Plan Rniew - Petiticm for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetJaDda Permit FiDal ApplicatiOD Number: Subdivision No. 9-1990 Applicant'. Name: Madison/Diam antis MeetiDg Date: September 20, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant wishes to subdivide 18.8 acres into four lots. Two lots of just over one acre fronting on Haviland Road and two lots that will be land locked. The Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations both require road frontage to erect a building. They do not say that every lot must have frontage on a Town road. In most cases, it would be very poor planning to allow an applicant to create land locked lots. In this case, the subdivision map states that no development will take place on lots 3 and 4. If this restriction is included in the new deeds for these parcels, I would recommend approving the layout as proposed. They would serve to protect Halfway Brook and the associated wetland. The applicant has requested a waiver from the 2 foot contour interval requirement on lots 3 and 4. Because these lots will not be developed, I feel this is a reasonable request. JSG/sed .....--.--.- í I t ~ ~IST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENßINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 F i L '-' ----. . ~~">1'1r t~'h ~~\~ . ,'. ¡¡, , U;; \,dJ ',: ~ \ , SE.r I~Qn :,;1 ~NN'N~Y'''¡¡ ....CþAP,.M~N... September 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.509 RC 90 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attention: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Madison/Diamantis - Subdivision 9-1990 Sketch Plan Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Lot 1 grading should divert any surface flow away from the location of the existing well. 2. Lot 1 driveway culvert sizing calculations should be submitted. 3. Regarding sewage disposal for lots 1 and 2: a. Effluent pumping will be necessary to utilize fill systems. b. Ten (10) feet of horizontal separation must be maintained between the limits of the absorption field fill area and property lines. c. Absorption field size must be final ized based on the stabilized fill pere test results. Very truly yours, RIST-FR(OST AS~O ~ATES, P.C. ,-Æ I' ~\ ~ ,\:., ',- '-.~~,~~~ Thomas M. Yarmowlth, P.E. / Managing Projeet,ßngineer " TMY/eam @ GLENS FALLS. NY-L.ACONIA. NH New York State Depart:ent of Environmental conse,f.~U (0 p v ~ Division of Regulatory Affairs ~ P.O. Box 220, Hudson street a -/9'10 % Warrensburg, New York 12885-0220 cmRn,VtS'Ott MO.1' _ Telephone: (518) 623-3671 or 668-~ l·f ~~ lí)itÂ-fVJ .se. Jorllng ¡v1 ~I . I _ CO"!.~.I~.lonlf sePte~r 10, 1990l(~1l~r~), .StP181990~J 4HNINQ & ZON,,., ~C:D4RTMF'N'P Mrs. Lee A. York, Senjor Planner Town of Queensbury Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 Re: SEQR Coordination Madison/Diamantis Subdivision - Haviland Road Dear Lee: I have received your request that the Town of Queensbury act as lead agency for a coordinated review of the above-referenced project. Mr. curtis Madison applied for and received a DEC freshwater wetlands permit in 1989 for his proposed development. At the time of our Department's review the Town was contacted and did provide comment. The Department is currently reviewing a wetlands application (#5-5234-00181/00001-1) submitted by Mr. Lloyd Diamantis. Both proposals are unlisted actions for which coordinated review is not required. The Department has already "Neg Dec'd" the Diamantis proposal, and is well under way on its review. On August 1, 19~0 I notified the Town of our having received the Oiamantis application and solicited comments at that time. Given these considerations, it is not appropriate for DEC to participate in a coordinated review at this time. However, should the Town "pos dec" the proposal before the DEC permit is issued, DEC will rescind its neg dec and participate in the EIS process as required by SEQR. Enclosed for your consideration is the wetlands permit issued to Mr. Madison. Feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, ~f~~ ,. Kevin R. Bliss Environmental Analyst enclosure KRB/dd I /. / .- 'I YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION " ..M ,..,1- He ,. UtC "liMIT NUMBER 5_5234~00074/00003 1 fACILlTY/PROCRAM NUMBER\s) O Article 15. Title 3; 6NYCRR 327, 328, 329: Aquatic Pesticides O Article 15. Title 5: Protection of Water O Article 15. TItle 15: Water Supply D Article 15. Title 15: Water Transport D Article 15. Title 15: Long Island Wells D Article 15. Title 27: Wild. Scenic and Recreational Rivers PERMIT ISSUED TO Curt' ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE RD AGENT FOR PERMITTEEICONTACT PERSON e ...... PERMIT Under the Environmental Conservation law D 6NYCRR 608: Water Quality Certification D Article 17, Titles 7,8: SPDES D Article 19: Air Pollution Control· D Article 23, Title 27: Mined land Reclamation I New I Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands N-New, R-Renewal. M-Modlflcatlon, C-Construct (·only). O-Operate (·only) " .. .. ;; ; " t I EXPIRATION DATEIsI 10/01/90 D Article 25: Tidal Wetlands D Article 27. Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: Solid Waste Management- D Article 27. Title 9: 6NYCRR 373: Hazardous Waste Management D Article 34: Coastal Erosion Management D Article 36: Floodplain Management . D Articles 1. 3. 17. 19, 27. 37; 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROIECTIFACllITY (If diff_t from Pennltteel COUNTY Warren UTM COORDINATES . LOCATION OF PROIECT/FACIlITY FWW GF 19 DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY Construct a sin Ie famil Wetland GF-19 along with a septic as shown on the sketch that is at leach field and a foundation drain GENERAL CONDITIONS By .ccept.nce 01 thi. permit, the permltt.. ....... lhal Ih. .,.,mIl I. conllnlenl upon .Irlet compll- .nce wilh the ECL,. .11 .ppllca.... r..ulatlon. and lhe condlllOlll sped"." herein or ....ched hèntlo. 1. The permittee shall file In the offlc. of the .ppropriat. rqional'pennit .dmlnlstr.tor. or other olllc. desl",.ted In the ,pee..1 conditions.. notice of Intention to commenc. work .t ".,t 48 houn In adv.nce 01 the time 01 c:__nt .nd shall .110 notify hlmlher promptly In writin. of the comø\etlon of the work. 2. The permitted worIt shall be subiKt to iMpectlon by .n .uthorlzed repmentathle 01 the Department of Envkorlment.1 Conserv.tlon which mIIY order the worIt suspended H the public "'temt 10 requires punuant to ECl 171~301 .nd SAPA 1401(3). 3. The permittee ha, .ccet'ted.....-IY. by the -..tlon of the appllc.tlon. the full....1 responsibility for .11 clamalfl. direct or indirect, 01 whatever n.ture. .nd by w,*,- ,ufleted. ."'.... out 01 the pntect ~ ...... and ha, ...... to incIernnIfy Md _ harmles, the State from 'ults. .ctlons. dame.., and costs 01 ""'"Y n._ .nd ~ tion multi", 110m the said IIOject. ". The Department ..-- the riIht to modify, _pend or ,evoke thi, pennlt .t any time .lter due notice. .nd, If requested, hold . he.rln. when: ., the 'coøe of the project II anedId or . vIoI.tion of .ny condition of the permit or M'ovlslons of the ECL .nd pertinent .....I.tion' .,. found; or bl the permit w., obt.ined by ~tion or f.llure to di,close ,.Ievent f.cts; or ' c) _Iy discovered Information or ,,,""Ic.nt physical ch.n.., .re dl,coverad ,Ince ,he permit w., Is,ued. S. The pennlttee Is responsible for keeolnt the permit .ctlve by submlttln. . _.I.ppllcation, Includlnt any form" f.., or supplementallnfonnation which may.be teQUinId by the Departmant. no I.ter than 30 cia." 1110 cia." for SPDES or Solid or H.za,d_ Wa,te Ma...........t pe,mltsl prior to the expiration d.t.. 6. This pennit ,h.n not be cOMtruecl .. convey"" to the .ppllcant .ny rl,ht to "'-SINISI upon the I.nd, or Interfere with the rlparl.n 'Ithts of otllen In orcIer to perform the permitted _,k or ., .uthorlzlnt the Impalnnent of .ny rl.hi,. tltl. or Int_t in ...1 or perso...1 PfCII*tY held or vested In . penon not . party to the permit 1. The pennittee Is responsible for obtain.... any other permits. .pplOV.I" I.nds. ea_t, .nd rithù-of....y which m.y be r.,quinld for thlt project a. I,suanc. of thlt pennlt by the Depanmant doe. not. unless ellM'eSlly PfOVIded for. modify. supersede or rescind .n· order on con.....t or detennl...tlon by the Commissioner I,,,," hemofore by the Deøllttnleftt or any of the tann.. condition,. or requl-u cont.ined In such orcIer or detannlnation. 9. Any modlfic.tion of thi, permit ....nted t..... 'ðPI'atrIUn, .nd .tt.ched hereto. PERMIT ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS Jose h C. Prall Hudson St. NY ", :'........ ... ... ':"a~. .. " I . .". -··c.......··..·-.. ..-."...~,- -I"" '7r. .-?~~·"1'1II"I'k~1.. ~.~."!\. wv........ -~~11R·f't~ . .-.. .' ...·TT·· . ..., 0> .... ..,... .. . ~"I~R'l.'· '",+ ".,. . . _~ ~. i..t. :!.: !.:¡'.: :J~':"'~¡~" ~.:..~ ~ ,.:: ':"'.~..~ t:.~,~·~~~·'~·~:_". . .,.. ,.~~lti,J.~.;.):;t~~~.t-:\·....~;.·:,~;~~~~'i.'!~:~_~ .1':~~1.'~.r ": ~~.~¿~:._tr.i:..~~~~,' ~ .. '~~'ri~:~! ~:;S~~:i:.··i~ :.,I{·t;··}"'r~:)··!.~:';;¡,~t·~ - (1/16)-Z5c '-" 24 Curtis L. Madison, ,T.ONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 15 (Tiele SI. 24, 2S, 34, 36 and 6 NYC'RR Part 604 I 11, ThIS If. future operations by the State of New York require an II· teration in the position of the structure or work herein luthorized. or if, in the opinion of the Deplrtment of Environmentll Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the fr.. navi,ation of slid waters or flood flows or endan,.r the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Department to remove or liter the structural work. obstructións, or hlurds caused thereby without expense to the State. and if. upon the expiration or revocation of this permit. the structure, fill, excavation, or other modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be com- pleted. the owners. shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require. remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore to iu former condition the navi,able and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall be made a,ainst the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. That the State of New York shall in no case be liable for any dama,e or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the conservation ~ improvement of navi,ation, or for other purposes, and no claim or ri,ht to compensation shall accrue from any such dama,e. Grantin, of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsi- bility of obtainin, any other permission, consent or approval from the U.S. Army Corps of En,in..,., U.S. Coast Guard, New York State Office of General Services or local pemment which may be required. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents. lubricants, epoxy coatin,s, paints, concrete. leachate or any 12. 13. Jr. ) other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the project. Any material dred,ed in the prosecution of the work herein permitted shall be removed evenly, without leavin, lar,e refuse piles, ridles across the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a tendency to cause dama,e to navi,able channels or to the banks of a waterway. 15, There shall be no unreasonable interference with navilation by the work herein authorized. If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the project hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall, without expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may require, remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to Its former condition. No claim shall be made a,ainst the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. If Iranted under Mticle 36. this permit does not silnify in any way that the project will be fr.. from floodin,. 18. If Iranted under 6 NYCRR Part 608. the NYS Department of Environ- mental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under Sections 301. 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 CPt 95-217) provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met. All activities authorized bv this permit must"be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his alent as part of the permit application. 14. 16. 17. 19. Such approved plans were prepared by on SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. A DEC permit sign is to be conspicuously posted at the work site, protected from the weather, far the duration of the projec~. 2. The permittee shall require th.t any contractor, proj.ct engineer, or other person responsible far the overall supervision of this project reads, understands .nd compli.s with this p.rmit~ including all speci.l conditions, to prevent environmental degradation. 3. A copy of this permit, including all maps and drawings ..ntioned in special conditions,' is to b. available for inspection by DEC at all times of active work at the project site. Failur. to produce a cOpy of the p.rmit upon requ.st by a DEC representative is a violation of this p.rmit and i. .ufficient ground. for an order to immediat.ly c.... .11 work on the project. 4. Objects t~.tw~. placed by DEC that define boundaries of the wetland and/or permitted structure<s) mùst not be removed or substantially alter.d without per.is.ion of DEC prior to one calendar year after permit expiration date. D!~~~~~~74/00003-1 PROGRAMlfACILlTY NUMBER 3 2 Pa~e of ,.... ;r.:,·.-.w;"'.·.;,"'.I.~;.:;~.. ":'..·..."...'!;4'~.,':':I':~r')~~..,··.,~..,'~~..·...-······ ..... "., . , "~'-I.:,.'r~:~.~"~~' . .,1. ': ':~~ !:I". ' _.. ~ ;1"61 (7/87)-25c ,-. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEPVATlON ...-' . SPECIAL CONDITIONS . "'4 For Article · Curtis L. Madison, Jr. 5. All necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the entrance of fresh concrete into the waters of New York state. Only watertight or waterproof forms shall be used and wet concrete shall not be poured to displace water within the forms. Equipment, tools and trucks used in this project shall be cleaned in such a manner as to prevent wash water from entering any stream, lake or wetland. ó. Any debris or excess materials from construction of this project shall be immediately and completely removed from the bed and banks of all wetland areas to an appropriate upland area for disposal: 7. All dredged and excavated material shall be disposed of on an upland site and be suitably stabilized so that it cannot reenter any waterbody or wetland area. 8. Bales of hay or other means to control erosion are to be used on the downslope edge of any disturbed areas. This barrier to sediments is to be put in place before any disturbance to the ground occurs and is to be maintained in good condition until all disturbed land is heavily vegetated. 9. No burning of wetlands vegetation or construction debris is permitted. . 10. All areas of soil disturbance resulting from this project shall be· seeded with an appropriate perennial grass seed and mulched with hay or straw within one week after raw earth is exposed. Mulch shall be maintained until a suitable vegetative cover is established. 11. Equipment operation in the wetland is prohibited. 12. Disturbance to the wetland and its adjacent area shall be strictly limited to the work ar~a identified in the work plan. 13. All fill shall consist of soil and gravel (not asphalt, slag, fly ash, brok8n concrete or demolition debris. 14. The foundation drain shall be installed, covered, seeded and mulched in one continuous operation. All final grading up to and around the foundation shall occur after/June 1. 15. Four (4) inch stone rip-rap shall extend 4 feet into the wetland beyond the invert of the foundation drain. cc: ECO J. Timko FACILITY 10 NUMBER Page 3 of 3 ~~5~~~~~~b~4/00003-1 - --"~.""-'..' ····.:'..._7-~--..-·..-·..C'O'·_·_·_~-P"'~~.._.._.,...-~~··:_...··~---.·...... ··'----··"···t· ... ._-- . . -." ~. '" .~.. .-, -_.. .---..--. ...----- ,. ~ "l.tc~ . . II ~ '-' C v r \., 5 J'\ "'- ~'S· r¡ -- . t ~~- SJ,3"I.o007"'!oOO~-1 A*c..I.~ M .,"\\ \.J 2.. '\:1" \ .1'- I t.'¿ o VIr \ J" .. I. ( O\:. 'f.!, \ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '. . $ r ({,'" ~." , . == = '= = = = ~:::'==d,~~'~- -- - T>J~'·~-- (J I I t\\)~ tJ ~ ,,~. I O \ 0-1 ~O" ~t\ ~~oÞ1'7 . ~' (\:I .' I¿O . ~ D I I· . . :1 :; DD _ _). ·v -- ! ~ ~\ ., ~ Q ~ >-" 0 ~ ~ ~I -t Ot .: ~ 0, I :1 \l Q. a u ~ \ F ~ð: !4----~.=~ ._I~:'~"~ t'1' ..---.' /""..¿. ..¡. -.. .. '-K,:o",...,~ ~ \ 1:= ..9 "" t>. ~ (/- ~~. l1" 1-10 \J$ e. '. \ I I I I' í)(\vt~ø~ 9IJ -' 9 ~r~~~\i~ lé'" ~ , /()l> I' . 4, -- ~~.~; 2-"l...f.:-__.__2' Ay!l A __ J ~_~~_. ~~-.::IL- ¿' . Sf,f{TC¿1 . '6 ' I . '\ oS Sc. ¡/{.t: ". , 1=)0 ,'. ....-..;... " . '.~:7'~I'I:'.::'; 7. i .,..'·,':.·..rf' ::~r ·,,:H:;....·~'-. 't'1iY.".¡I·-.~'c~'ï:·,;~!..W:(7'~~'~'Bt.;l1"n··:o.r,;o··:.-::'··~;1~:. ·;i~·¡i~'.-~!.···u:r: '·':·;;.'f,m;'r.:·,1.'.~ . "¡'l,.:~"t';'.; ':.'.':~.-::. :".:r; ~{~.'l-~"'" :.",.i:\r~l.t;rf~~f(~t!'.t~f~\-r~~~"\:·~.I~·~í~·~~.:~~'.M~~;~~.:t;·~::.r:, I.~~··~ .'II"~.(:·'':~· .~.' ·r.~:·~tF~·~"::.. ~ ¡,~:. ~~'!a'~':·~·:",!:":"·~ . . '--, DRAFT AMENDMENT Proposed amendment (addition) to Rules and Regulations, Planning Board Procedures, page 3, Section 3, A, 2. 2. Special Sessions; The Board members may, at a scheduled meeting, set a special meeting using the following criteria: a. Any request for a special meeting is to be made in writing by the applicant and submitted to the Planning Dept. The request will include reasons why a special meeting is being requested. Said request will be placed on the agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Board. b. If a special meeting is granted, the Planning Board will establish a deadline submission date of no later than the first Tuesday of the month of the special meeting. Should the applicant not meet the submission deadline, the special meeting will be cancelled as of the submission deadline date. Submitted by Peter Cartier r.; '-