1990-12-18
'---'"
---
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18TH, 1990
INDEX
Subdivision No. 14-1988
FINAL STAGE
Hickory Acres
Owner: Sidney H. Timms
1.
Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 2-90
Sidney H. Timms
2.
Subdivision No. 12-1990
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Alene Brown
2.
Subdivision No. 15-1990
FINAL STAGE
Edgar Eggleston, Jr.
5.
Site Plan No. 87-90
James M. Weller. P.E.
6.
Site Plan No. 88-90
Michael Kaidas
14.
Subdivision No. 14-1990
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Inspiration Park
Adams Rich Associates
20.
Site Plan No. 89-90
Marion S. & John P. Cushing
22.
Site Plan No. 90-90
Susan K. Ba 1 four
Owner: Guido Passarelli
24.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL
APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
~
r'
"--"
-./
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18TH, 1990
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PETER CARTIER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
JAMES MARTI N
JAMES HAGAN
EDWARD LAPOINT
MEMBERS ABSENT
NICHOLAS CAIMANO
CONRAD KUPILLAS
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS
TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH
SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 25th, 1990: NONE
MR. CARTIER-We're going to do this all in one motion, here.
November 5th. 1990: NONE
December 4th, 1990: change heading from Special Meeting to Workshop Session
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE RIIIUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption.
seconded by James Martin:
Duly adopted this 18th day of December. 1990. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-Before we get into the regular agenda, just one other item. We have scheduled. tonight,
a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Rules and Procedures of the Planning Board regarding
special rules relating to expedited matters. It is my understanding that it was not properly advertised.
So we are going to have to postpone the public hearing on that issue until until December 27th and
that will be re-noticed. Was there anybody here to make any comments about that? Okay. Karla's given
us another version of that for us to look through and suggested that. if we wanted, we could make
more changes in that.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA HICKORY ACRES OWNER: SIDNEY H. TIMMS
200 FT. SOUTH OF SWEET ROAD, 1.000 FT. WEST OF COUNTRY CWB ROAD FOR A 10 LOT SUBDIVISION OF THE PRESENT
13 ACRES OF VACANT LMD. LOTS WILL BE SOLD. THERE WILL BE 900 FT. OF NEIl ROAD. TAX MAP JI). 64-1-5.1
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. PRESENT (7:30 p.m.)
MR. CARTIER-And we have a request from the applicant's agent, Mr. Steves.
MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves from the firm of VanDusen and Steves. I have to ask for a tabling.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. The reason being?
MR. STEVES-As yet. we have not received the Wetlands Permit from DEC and without that in hand. I feel
it premature to go further and ask the Board for a Wetlands Permit.
1
'-...-'
-...-"
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Has anybody got a question on the Board, here? We need a motion to
table that.
MOTION 10 TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 HICICORY ACRES AND FRESHWATER IÆTLAfIDS PERMIT NO.
2-90, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
Tabled at the applicant's request.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-Any further discussion?
MR. STEVES-Mr. Cartier, could we include the application for the Permit No. 2-90 on Freshwater Permit?
MR. CARTIER-Good point. Thank you. We'll kill two birds with one stone. (7:35 p.m.) The next item
on the agenda, we are moving it until such time as our other Planning Board member of the Planning
Board shows up because we have some vote number problems with his not being here. So, we'll put
Inspiration Park on hold for the time being.
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ALENE BROlIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
INTERSECTION (SOOTHEAST CORNER) OF RIDGE ROAD AND CLEMENTS ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. (ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 27-3-1.2 LOT SIZE: 11.02 ACRES
ANDREW MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:36 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. CARTIER-We don't have anything from Warren County on this?
MRS. YORK-Warren County does not review subdivisions.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant.
MR. MCCORMACK-For your record, I'm Andrew McCormack from the survey firm of Coulter and McCormack.
The Browns are out of state so I'm representing them here, tonight. The Engineering Comments at the
previous meeting, as I think have just been commented on by the Town Engineer. have been added to the
drawing. Specifically, we've moved the location of the septic system to be at least 200 feet from
the drainage way to the south and a note added that the percolation test would be taken prior to the
construction of the two septic systems on Lots 2 and 3. Those are the only comments that we had to
address. They've been addressed on the drawing. Proper notification has been given to the immediate
surrounding owners and I've given evi dence of those notifications to Mrs. York just thi s evening.
Other than that. we have no further comments.
MR. CARTIER-Great. Thank you. Does the Board have any questions of the applicant? We'll open a public
hearing. Does anybody wish to address this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DAVE BANNON
MR. BANNON-My name's Dave Bannon. I'm an adjacent property owner and behind, just to the east and
south of that property, there's a pond which is, I think. designated a wetland and I think it's less
than 1.000 feet from the proposed subdivision and we're a little bit concerned about the drainage going
into that pond because the lay of the land is such that it would curve right down into that low spot
and I can't see how the drainage that's going to be going off to the south, it's going to be going
to the south and to the east, right into that, and I think that's a designated wetland, according to
the APA. I recently was notified of this and that's our concern, that that drainage is going to off
into that wetland.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are you referring to the drainage from the septic system?
2
'---'
-../
MR. BANNON-I'm referring to the drainage, just generally. from the septic system and from the fact
that's there's going to be houses there that are going to be fertilized with chemicals and whatever
sort of concerns there would be. This is our concern that drainage is going directly into my pond
and I want that to be looked into. prior to any sort of clearance for this.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's an appropriate concern. Mr. McCormack, would you have a comment to make?
MR. MCCORMACK-We're not aware of any jurisdictional wetlands in any close proximity to the proposed
system. The system on Lot 3 would be approximately 7 or 800 feet from the southerly boundary line
of the lot on which it's going to be constructed and I believe that's where the gentleman is referring
to ownership to the south and/or the east.
MR. HAGAN-Is this the area that you refer to as Seasonal Swale, that's south of Lot 3?
MR. MCCORMACK- Yes.
MR. HAGAN-Is this the same area that you call wetlands?
MR. BANNON-That is not a seasonal swale. That's a pond that's been there for years and years and I
have, in fact I should have brought it tonight, but I have a document from the APA that has designated
that a wetland. In fact, with the Soil and Water Conservation Department, they have that on file as
a wetland also. There are a number of wild life on that pond. including American Bittern and some
other birds that are unique to that area. That's a common place for birders to go and look at the
wild life and the birds and that certainly is not a seasonal sort of thing. Now, I can look into that.
whether that has been designated a wetland by the Park. a "wetland". I think it is.
MR. CARTIER-How big is it? Do you know how many acres it is?
MR. BANNON-The pond?
MR. CARTIER-The wetland. There's an acreage number.
MR. BANNON-There's a pond. there.
MR. HAGAN-For clarity, could you identify whether or not there had been previous excavation in that
area that now you're designating as a wetland or a pond?
MR. BANNON-Never.
MR. HAGAN-Never?
MR. BANNON-No.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MR. BANNON-I mean. farming went on in that field for years, but as far as, there's never been a building
there. and if there was, it was a long, long, long time ago.
MR. CARTIER-Mr. McCormack, is there anything being done on this property that would increase the drainage
off the property?
MR. MCCORMACK-I don't believe so. The septic system location, any surface drainage across. around,
or on the side of the septic system, the path of that drainage is to the northeast. not down to the
seasonal swale that we indicate on the map. The system on Lot 3 is where my finger is, the path of
drainage is to the northeast from that system and it's in a relatively flat area. The seasonal swale
is down here, probably in this direction 7 or 800 feet.
MR. CARTIER-Tom, do you see. in the soils that are out there. any potential for the materials not being
filtered out prior to their getting 7 or 800 feet?
MR. YARMOWICH-The character of the soils, in general. appear to support this type of subsurface disposal
for this density of development, certainly.
MR. CARTIER-So, you're saying, from an engineering standpoint. this should have no impact? That water
should be sUfficiently filtered to not create any problems?
MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
3
~
~
MR. HAGAN-Well, plus the fact, I respect their note here on their drawing regarding site grading.
I think that might put some of your fears to rest. They intend, I'll read it. "Areas disturbed for
site grading shall be seeded and covered with straw mulch within 10 days of completion of grading.
Maintain mulch until vegetative cover is reestablished and stabilized." Now, to me. that. from the
distance that any building is going on, would at least mitigate any fears you might have about that
pond becoming contaminated.
MR. BANNON-Is this a 3 lot subdivision?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. BANNON-This is a 3 lot subdivision?
MR. CARTIER-Correct. It will not be further subdivided because it's gone through the subdivision
process.
MR. BANNON-And there are going to be two houses on Clements Road and one house on Ridge Road?
MR. HAGAN-That's correct.
MR. BANNON-Now. what about that middle lot between the lot on Ridge Road and the lot, the frontage
on Clements Road? There's a middle lot there.
MR. MCCORMACK-There are three lots in the subdivision. The lot at the corner of Ridge Road and Clements
Road is the Brown residence.
MR. BANNON-Right.
MR. MCCORMACK-There will be only two additional residences on the property.
MR. BANNON-Okay, two, not three.
MR. MCCORMACK-Two.
MR. CARTIER-There will be a total of three.
MR. BANNON-Total of three.
MR. CARTIER-One is there already. There will be an additional two.
MR. BANNON-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-And I think Mr. McCormack's point is well taken that the drainage will appear to be north
and east of the property. Lot Number 3, by the topography, it appears that it's going to go north
and east.
MR. BANNON-We thought there were three additional houses. but there's only two, so that's more acceptable
to us. We thought there was one in between the Clements Road lot and the Ridge Road lot. back in that
corner, which goes down into that pond. but I didn't realize that their house was one of the houses.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Would anybody else care to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a SEQRA Review.
MR. HAGAN-Before we get into that. I didn't hear the applicant address the Engineering Comments, did
you?
MR. MCCORMACK-Yes.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, he did.
MR. HAGAN-Would you mind repeating what you're going to do about the perc test? It didn't register.
I'm sorry.
MR. MCCORMACK-As noted on the revised map, under the column where it says "Minimum Well Yield
Requirements", there's a type written note which says. "Prior to construction and installation of
absorption fields on Lots 2 and 3, an additional soil test pit is to be excavated at the actual location
of the disposal area in order to confirm that the seasonal high groundwater is a minimum of 42 inches
below grade. If seasonal high groundwater is found to be less than 42 inches below grade, an alternate
sewage disposal design consistent with standards in the current Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance
will be requi red."
4
-
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. SEQRA Process. please.
RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 12-1990, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol
Pulver:
WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a subdivision, Prel1.inary
Stage No. 12-1990, a three lot subdivision, and
WHEREAS. the Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject
to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
None
3. The proposed action considered by 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 Secti on 617.11 of the Offi ci a 1 Compi 1 ati on of Codes. Rul es 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 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Caimano. Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We need a motion to approve.
tÐTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1990 ALENE BROlIN. Introduced by Carol Pulver
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin:
For a 3 lot subdivision. All engineering and planning concerns have been addressed.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1990. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Caimano. Mr. Kupillas (7:55 p.m.)
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 EDGAR EGGLESTON, JR. OWNER: SAME AS
ABOVE NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, CENTRAL AVEflJE, AND VEIUlJNT AVEflJE FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. SEPARATION
OF EXISTING PARCEL TO ESTABLISH SITES FOR CHILDREN. tÐBILE HOMES PRESENTLY OCCUPIED. TAX MAP NO.
128-4-6 LOT SIZE: 36,000 SQ. FT. (7. : 55 p. m. )
MRS. EGGLESTON
MR. CARTIER-Is there somebody here to represent that applicant? Thank you.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Hi. I'm Mrs. Eggleston and the only thing we're doing is just separating the property.
The mobile homes are already on there.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that. Excuse me. Let me take Staff Comments first. I just wanted to make
sure there was somebody here to represent the applicant.
5
--
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Now. Mrs. Eggleston. if you have any comments that you'd care to make.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No, I don't.
MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? We've addressed SEQRA. Are we ready for
a motion?
MOTION 10 APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1990 EDGAR EGGLESTON, JR.. Introduced by Carol Pulver
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan:
For a 2 lot subdivision. Separation of existing parcel to establish sites for children. All engineering
and planning concerns have been addressed.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December. 1990. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas (7:57 p.m.)
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 87-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA JAMES M. "ELLER, P.E. OWNER: JOE ROOLIER, MARSHALL B.
AND EVELYN J. SEELYE BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVEflJE AND THE BOULEVARD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING
"ITH OUTSIDE STORAGE FOR OPERATION OF A WHOLESALE PLUMBING, HEATING AND IIIOOSTRIAL DISTRIBUTIOI BUSINESS.
(F.... "EBB) ("ARREN COUNTY PLANIIING) TAX MAP NO. 110-4-1.2 LOT SIZE: 2.53 ACRES SECTION 4.020
K
JAMES WELLER, PRESENT (8:00 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. While we're going through the rest of these notes, I would appreciate it if
the applicant would hang a blueprint, please. Lee. do you want to take us through that Warren County
Department of Public Works?
MRS. YORK-I received this transmission from Roger Gebo, Warren County Department of Public Works. to
Lee York, Senior Planner. Town of Queensbury, dated December 10, 1990 (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Clarify something for me (referring to letter from Warren County DPW). Is
that A and B or A or B. as alternatives?
MRS. YORK-I believe it's A or B, because he attaches a Maintenance Agreement for a StonJIWater Control
Facilities which is taken from the Lake George Park Commission Regulations.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. I assume the other letter from Warren County DPW dated September 27
is superseded by the letter you just read. Is that correct?
MRS. YORK-I would make that same assumption.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Warren County Planning Board indicated "No County Impact". Tom, will
you take us through your comments, please.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Mr. Weller, please.
MR. WELLER-Where would you like me to start?
MR. CARTIER-At the beginning. Let's go back to Mrs. York's comments, if you'd like to start there.
Item One, she refers to lighting not reflecting in the roadway.
6
'---
-.../
MR. WELLER-Well, we don't have any trouble with shielding those lights so that they don't reflect either
into the roadway or onto the neighbors.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Item Four.
MRS. PULVER-The pedestrian access.
MR. WELLER-The pedestrian access really wasn't given a lot of consideration. There's a lot of parking
area provided. There's handicapped parking provided and pedestrian access is through the paved areas
to the building. I'm not sure. specifically. what we might be looking for.
MRS. YORK-Okay. There is one more attachment from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the
Handicapped and you may want to. at this point, refer to that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. this is from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped. "According
to N. Y.S. Codes, Rules and Regulations auto cuts are needed from handicapped parking onto sidewalk
and into building."
MR. WELLER-If I'm interpreting what this means correctly, that is all being provided for. This means
that a wheelchair can go from a vehicle to inside the building without having to go over a curb. That's
my understanding of the intent of that and that is being provided for.
MR. CARTIER-I think the question here, though, if I'm reading Lee's, correct me. Lee, if I'm wrong,
is concerned about trucks traveling through the pedestrian right-of-way. Is that correct?
MRS. YORK-Right. Where the truck docking lane is, there.
MR. WELLER-There's a main drive that really goes across the end of the property from one street and
the trucks come in at the lower level through the building. The pedestrians would be up in this upper
parking lot.
MR. CARTIER-So, there's no mixture between truck pick up and delivery and pedestrians walking into
the building?
MR. WELLER-Not if we're talking large trucks that would go to a truck dock. If you're talking small
pick up trucks that their customers would come in on. Yes. certainly. They would be up here in this
upper parking lot. I'm not sure what you mean by pedestrian.
MR. CARTIER-I drive in there and I want to go in there to buy something. so I park my car in the parking
lot and I walk into the building. What we're saying. I think. is I don't. as a pedestrian. want to
have to tangle with large vehicles coming in, making large scale deliveries or large scale pick up.
Is that correct?
MR. WELLER-And you won't have to do that.
MRS. YORK-Yes. Perhaps I can clarify this. Do you see. Mr. Weller, where it says "Loading Docks".
where you have the loading dock area? Right. and then you have eight parking spaces, immediately.
to the truck ramp where the trucks come in? That's what I'm talking about there, that you might want
to make some provision, at that point.
MR. WELLER-Those eight parking places are on the upper parking lot which is some four feet higher than
the lower area where the trucks are coming in.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. He shows a retaining wall separating them.
MRS. YORK-Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. so Item Four, I think. has been addressed.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Lee, does that take care of your comments?
MRS. YORK-Yes, thank you. except the screening and buffering adjacent to the neighboring property.
if the Board feels that is sufficient.
MR. CARTIER-I agree. I assume that's being done. That's part of the plan, is it not?
MR. HAGAN-You don't have any elevation drawings, do you. Jim?
MR. WELLER-No, sir.
7
"--
--
MR. HAGAN-Is this a two story building?
MR. WELLER-No. sir. It's a single story building.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-I'm referring. Mr. Weller, to Item Seven on Lee's notes.
adjacent to a residence cedar trees are to be planted in a 10 foot strip."
"On the west side. which is
Does that show on the plan.
MR. WELLER-Yes, it does show.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. it shows it.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. It shows it on the plan.
MRS. PULVER-Her comment is. do you think that's enough.
MR. CARTIER-Do we need greater buffering, I understand.
MR. HAGAN-Has this been before the Beautification Committee?
MR. WELLER-Yes, it has, and I believe the Beautification Committee gave us a conditional approval.
They want to see the actual plant materials and the mulching plan in more detail, which we've agreed
to provide them with. but we do have the letter, if you'd like to see it, from the Beautification
Committee.
MR. CARTIER-Do we have that in the file? "A concept for planting plans was presented, but species
were not shown. Plans will be submitted to nursery men and landscapers for proposals of bids on
landscaping, after which plans will be re-submitted to the Committee. Approval of concept was passed
by the Committee. with the understanding that Final Plans showing location and species of plants and
plans for mulching be presented to the Committee as part of final approval." So. we can incorporate
that into any motion that we might make.
MR. MARTIN-Have you talked at all with the Perkins' about the screening? Has there been any comment
from them.
MR. WELLER-There has been no comment from the Perkins. to the best of my knowledge.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. WELLER-And this plan has been up on this board twice before now.
MR. MARTIN-That's why I'm asking.
MR. WELLER-No. There has been no comment.
MR. CARTIER-Let me ask a question, here. Do you see all of these issues being addressed tonight, to
the point where we can grant approval? I guess I'm throwing that out to the Board, first. I guess
what I'm asking is. do we want to put the applicant through going through each one of these items.
item by item, if. in fact. we're going to table this so that all these things can be addressed?
MRS. PULVER-Well, don't we normally give the applicant a chance to address it?
MR. CARTIER-If he wants to. I guess I'm offering him the option, too.
MRS. PULVER-I mean, I think if he can clear it up, I'd rather he cleared it up and got it out of the
way.
MR. CARTIER-Fine.
MR. HAGAN-All I want to hear is how you finally laid to rest or met a resolve on the Warren County
DPW's statements? That would be my main concern.
MR. WELLER-Okay, Mr. Hagan, I think I can answer that. Could I answer the earlier? We think we're
going to request a tabling this evening. We think that when we get to the Engineering concerns. that
there are going to be some things that we're going to want to talk to the engineers and not get into
a debate, here. I'd like to run through it, quickly. I'd like a little bit of input from the Board
on the direction that maybe you'd like us, as engineers, to take. and then I'd like to come back with
our final submittal. So, hopefully we can go through it fairly rapidly.
MR. CARTIER-Great.
8
'-
-......../
MR. WELLER-The Warren County situation. we have got the understanding of our client that they will
sign the Maintenance Agreement. We don't fully understand. and I'm not sure what the engineering
position might be, but we don't know why they even are concerned with the detention area, but rather
than make an issue out of it. we've got the agreement of the owner to sign the Agreement. and we'll
submit it.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. WELLER-I think the only thing that remains is the Engineering Report.
MR. CARTIER-I believe.
MR. WELLER-The water system connection, I'll show any additional detail that you may require. The
water system is shown coming in under Highland Avenue. We have indicated that it may be sized such
for a sprinkler system, as well as domestic requirements. We're not absolutely sure. The building
has not been designed. We're not absolutely sure the sprinkler system will be required or be provided.
I'm not sure just what you might want. as far as additional detail. We know that, in order to go under
Highland Avenue. certain permits have got to be obtained, traffic has got to be controlled. Whether
it's bored or whether it's open excavated is usually controlled by the municipality that has title
to the highway. So. we want to comply with whatever the highway requirements are. Do you want us
to put something else on the drawing to address that item?
MR. CARTIER-That's a question that Tom is going to answer better than we are.
MR. YARMOWICH- The Queensbury Water Department did not provide any comments as to such. Our concern
was with the road being a New York State route. The booring and jacking situation would be something
that they may require by virtue of their permit. How that's going to be done and how it's going to
be connected in that particular location would be of concern, protection of the existing fire hydrant,
maintaining that in service at all times and how they'd do the wet tap. I think that that particular
water connection that's being shown may not be as straight forward as it appears on this plan and I
think that they ought to consider it some more before, maybe discuss it with the Water Department,
before they settle on this plan.
MR. WELLER-I'm willing to do whatever you might want. We know that in order to make water taps. we
have to get permits and put up bonds with the State of New York. being it's a State highway, and then
we have to make arrangements with the Water Department in order to make the tap. I don't anticipate
a problem. but I agree there are concerns that need to be addressed in order to do that work.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Item Two?
MR. WELLER-The retaining wall between the parking and the truck ramp, in talking with Tom earlier,
I think what he's really looking for is to be sure that we put a hand rail, that we indicate a hand
rail on top of that retaining wall and that you're not actually concerned with the construction details
or the reinforcing details. at this time, of the retaining wall. Usually what we do with the retaining
walls is design those at the time that we design the walls for the building. The walls for the building
are actually partially retaining themselves in the truck dock area and we would usually show the
construction details at that point, if it's a handrail that you'd like us to show, that certainly should
be provided and we can show it on the drawing.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. WELLER-The septic system including the tank and the absorption trench profile. there is a second.
There's a supplemental drawing. There is a not an absorption trench profile and the system inverts
are not indicated on the drawing. We'll indicate them on the drawing on the re-submittal. The high
seasonal groundwater issue. I was just notified in my office. yesterday. that this was a requirement
in the Town of Queensbury. I checked with the Building Department, today. There is, in fact. only
one person in the Town of Queensbury that is so certified to be doing this groundwater observations.
We will make suitable arrangements so that we can have a certified person provide that determination.
The 2B. Item is a drafting error and we'll clear that up.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. WELLER-The possibility of existing wells within the required setback across the street on Highland
Avenue. we'll do a survey and determine that. I'm sure a presumption was made in our office that because
there was Queensbury water that they were connected to Queensbury water. but that may not be the case
and we'll check into that. Sediment and Erosion Control measures should be provided in accordance
with New York State Guidelines for Sediment Control. we thought we addressed it. If we need to address
it in more detail. we will. We did provide, on the drawing, a note that says, "Erosion control using
straw bales and mulch planting shall be provided and maintained through construction until adequate
seeding of lawn is established." We thought that was in compliance with this regulation, but I'll
check that.
9
'--.-
----
MR. CARTIER-I think if you just add the phrase "In accordance with" I think that will cover that.
Is that correct?
MR. YARMOWICH-Well. the extent of site development, here, is significant, in terms of the size of the
parcel. depending on how it's going to be phased and how it's going to be done. We'd like to see some
sediment control measures on this plan. Something that's going to dove tail with the sequence of
construction is what we intended by that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. WELLER-I don't have any trouble doing that. I will say that, in doing this plan, we have not given
consideration to the sequence of the actual construction that might take place. We have not fully
developed a construction plan for this project, and that construction plan could be different based
on the different times of the year that this facility might be built. Are you looking for some of
the details of straw bales on steep slopes and these kinds of things?
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. We would like to see some sort of perimeter controls being placed in an appropriate
fashion.
MR. WELLER-Any place where water is likely to flow?
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, and that's dependent, like I say, on the sequence of construction and how you do
the activity. This is a relatively significant disturbance and I think it merits some thought with
the sediment control design and not just leaving it up to the time in which you start construction,
put a little in here and put a little in there and see what you can do. You ought to think it out
beforehand.
MR. WELLER-The fifth item. additional grading information and flow arrows should be shown at the proposed
access from the Boulevard to ensure drainage does not flow onto the Perkins property, what we should
have done and will do is provide a curb on the low end of this paved area between the development and
the Perkins property and will show some flow arrows to be sure that we are keeping the water on the
developed property. Regarding the Stormwater Management Plan. the A. item. we did not give
consideration, we can. to tributary areas. We made an engineering judgement in our office that tributary
areas were not significant and if we were making an error, the error was actually on the side of being
conservative in the design. but we can look at tributary areas. The B. Item, I think is really a
continuation of the A. Item. It has to do with detention calculations for the tributary areas and
we can address that. I think the C Item is a mathematical or technical thing relative to the
interpretation of curves in the, we used the TR-50 I think it is, method for small projects. So I
think it's just an interpretation between us having our calculations down and the way we did it. We'll
clear that one up. The D. Item is the one that we'd like to ask a question of the Board on. That's
the configuration of the outlet device and the potential problems that this outlet device might have.
Essentially what we're doing is retaining the water down near the Boulevard in a paved storage area
with a concrete wall that goes around the paved area, then a fence on top and the planting is on the
outside. This entire lower paved area, during a heavy storm, and I guess we're looking at 50 year
storms is going to fill up with water to within six inches of the curb wall. The curb wall, at the
low point where it discharges is close to three feet high. The water then leaves the detention area
through a slot in the wall that's just a little over two inches wide. There's been a continual concern.
and that slot is some maybe two feet deep from the top of the wall to the bottom. There's been a lot
of concern about the maintenance of that and how that discharge device could be redesigned or it could
be made to do a better job and be less troublesome from a maintenance standpoint. The fact of the
matter is. if it plugs up, it's the owner's problem and it does not cause a problem to the highway
or to the Town or to the neighbors. It actually causes the problem to the owner. The owner has a
vested interest to maintain it and be sure that the water flows through it. The reason why in this
design approach it is so small is that we're allowed to discharge the water from the developed site
at basically the same rate as it discharges now and it discharges now relatively slowly. We're trying
to get it to that same slow discharge rate. It's a narrow slot in the wall that's going to require
a lot of maintenance. We're willing to take another look at it and see if there's a way to increase
the storage capacity of that particular area and maybe widen the slot out a little bit or put a different
kind of a weir in there. We think. when we get all done, you know. maybe we can widen the slot out
to six inches and so small debris is not so likely to plug it up. It still will have the potential
of being plugged up. I don't know, totally, how to. I guess I'd ask the Board what their concerns
are and how they would best like to see us address it.
MR. CARTIER-I'll speak for me, I'm going to defer to the engineer on that. I'm going to have to hear
from the engineer that that item has been satisfied, as far as he's concerned. We're in an area of
expertise that I don't have and that's why we have Engineering Staff. So. whatever satisfies Tom.
MR. MARTIN-Did I hear you say that the water will be within six inches of the top of the curb?
MR. WELLER-In a 50 year storm, that's correct. That's the calculation. There's actually about a 20
to 25 percent larger retention area than would actually be required for a 50 year storm. I think that's
indicated in some of the numbers, here. There is a concern with the maintenance of it. There's also
10
-.../
a concern with the clearing of it in the winter time and whether or not it freezes up. whether or not
the area stays full snow and ice and doesn't work as a detention area. The fact of the matter is it
is a storage area that the owner will be using regularly and plans to, and we've gone through this
with him extensively so they understand what's happening, plans to remove the snow from so that he
can use the area, but it serves, really, two purposes. It serves his purpose for outside storage and
it serves the purpose of a detention area so that we control the release of the water to the storm
sewer system.
MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else on the Board care to comment?
MR. WELLER-In my judgement. it's going to be a maintenance problem and any device that we put there
is going to require maintenance. It's going to be somebody's judgement as to which one can most easily
be maintained.
MRS. PULVER-Didn't we have this before at the Manor. Remember? The clogging of the, he wanted to
build for the antiques? We went around and around and around with that and the whole bit and, I mean.
it's up to the owner to keep them clean. If they don't, they get flooded.
MR. MARTIN-In the event of a 50 year storm, how deep does the water get?
MR. WELLER-I think it's two feet nine inches deep, at the low end. The whole bottom is sloped back
away from the building.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, I understand.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I understand what you're (Mrs. Pulver) saying. but somehow we gave approval to that
thing and it got hung up on that issue, somehow. It had to do with drainage or the way it was flowing
or something.
MRS. PULVER-Not over that. in the parking. It was over something else. Remember Bob Tyrer's? Okay,
there was some question about the outlet possibly getting...
MR. YARMOWICH-That outlet, if it were to plug, would have flooded Glenwood Road. which would have been
the hazardous situation we would want to prevent.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. YARMOWICH-So, there we're looking for redundancy. That flooding was a bit different from this,
in that it represented a hazard which didn't relate only to that site. I think you have to consider
this one a little differently.
MRS. PULVER-But how did we solve it?
MR. YARMOWICH-How did we resolve that?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. YARMOWICH-They ended up putting in redundant facilities, an extra catch basin designed so that
if one plugged. the other would function.
MR. WELLER-This one. if it plugs, causes problems only to the property owner.
MR. HAGAN-There's no chance of overflow down there from the Boulevard?
MR. WELLER-Well. theoretically. it can 't overflow, except if a 50 year storm is exceeded. I think
the 100 year storm, if it's 20 percent over the 50 year storm, it's pretty likely to accommodate a
100 year storm. that's about the range of difference. So, it's not likely to happen.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, well. how does the Board feel on this?
MR. LAPOINT-Well. again. if he's not impacting off site and our engineer agrees with that, he can take
another look at it. If it's purely internal maintenance problem for the owner. I have no problem with
it confi gured the way it is, but if, confi gured the way it is. it's goi ng to impact off si te, then
it's got to be fixed.
MR. YARftI)WICH-Well. there would be the potential for one off site impact with this particular design
and it's noted in the next comment. E., which we probably ought to let Jim get a chance to address.
MR. WELLER-Yes, E. is the proposed stormwater management design should include provisions for sediment
and other contami nants removal. we di dn' t make a bi g provi si on for sediment. There is. the bottom
of the paved area is some three inches below the bottom of the slot. So when the thing totally drains,
there will still be three inches of water that must evaporate for an area out about ten feet from the
11
"--"
'-'"
outlet device: So there is a small sediment area there. I'm sure there's other ways to address this
with catch basins or whatever. I don't know what you want. With this narrow slot and this high wall,
all the problem and all the contaminants and all the debris is going to be retained on the owners
property. It's going to be a problem for. the.owner, there's no doubt about it.
MR. CARTIER-How deep might this get?
MR. WELLER-How deep might what get?
MR. HAGAN-Two feet.
MR. CARTIER-Accumulation of water, how deep?
MR. MARTIN-Two feet nine inches.
MR. WELLER-The accumulation of water. the way it's detailed ri ght now, there wi 11 be three inches of
water after it totally drains. There will be a little ponded area right there that runs out about
10 feet from the wall. That's the way it's detailed right now. Now. if a catch basin would do better.
right there, at the outlet device, in the paved area, so that the sediment went into that and the grade
could be removed from that and that dug out. I wouldn't have any particular problem with that.
MR. CARTIER-Well, let's not keep dancing around this, here. Mr. Weller's asked the Board the question,
what do we want to do with this issue. You've heard two things. We've heard from an engineer on the
Board. You've heard from me. Where do we want to go with this thing?
MR. HAGAN-I just want to be convinced that there's some steps that are going to be taken so when this
means of catching the water should get plugged up it doesn't overflow off the owner's property.
MR. WELLER-Well. that is exactly the concern of Roger Gebo and the reason for us signing the maintenance
agreement. That was his particular concern. We didn't totally understand why he was concerned with
a pond on the owner's property, but he is.
MR. HAGAN-Yes. because some people can live in a muck mere and it won't bother them.
MR. MARTIN-Well. yes, but it just strikes me that if enough sediment builds up in the bottom of that
pond. that's volume, where water normally would sit. you have something else and that's going to then
force the water up over the top of the curb. So you have to have regular maintenance to clean out
that sediment. I know it's on his property. It's his problem. but still that sediment takes up volume
in that storage basin then it's going to push the water over the top.
MR. LAPOINT-I think he can work it out with Rist-Frost and then if Rist-Frost comes back with another
comment. that's the only item left on their list, then we'll deal with it then. So try to work it
out with them.
MR. MARTIN-I think the answer is in the maintenance agreements. There's got to be very regular
maintenance.
MR. WELLER-We could go forward with the concept?
MR. CARTIER-I think what you're hearing is. well. maybe this is me talking. you're going to have to
come up with something that satisfies Tom.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's what I want also.
MR. LAPOINT-Correct.
MR. CARTIER-You get together with Tom and come up with something that Tom is satisfied with. A fair
statement? Okay. Item Seven?
MR. WELLER-Item Seven. we recognize that there is some grading shown on the Seelye Property and with
the submittal there is a letter of authorization from Seelye to do that work.
MR. CARTIER-That's on file?
MR. WELLER-It was submitted. We submitted it with each of our applications.
MR. CARTIER-I remember seeing it. So, Seven's been addressed, correct? Item 8.
MR. WELLER-Item 8 deals with the same issue that we were back on with Item 6.
MR. CARTIER-If you address Item 6, is it fair to say that you will also have addressed Item8?
MR. WELLER-It has to do with ice accumulation in this detention area and whether or not it backs up
into the truck area. Certainly, it's got to be maintained.
12
',,-,
'-""
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. WELLER-In Item 9. It appears that the area for stormwater detention is also to be used for storing
items pertaining to the proposed business. Has the impact of this dual use been considered? It has
been considered by us and by the owner and the operator of the properties.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but the flooding is going to occur at 50 year storm levels, correct?
MR. WELLER-In excess of 50 storm levels.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, anything else? Does the Board have any other questions of Mr. Weller? Okay. I'd
like to open the public hearing on this. Is there anybody who'd care to comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. CARTIER-The last time this showed up on the agenda, there was somebody, and it got withdrawn. there
was somebody here, it may have been the owners of the property, and they're not here tonight? Do we
have a record of notice? The neighbors have been noticed on this project?
MRS. YORK-If the public hearing was kept open. we don't re-notice.
MR. CARTIER-This is the first time we've seen this.
MRS. YORK-Yes, then it was publicly noticed.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. and we do have a record of that?
MRS. YORK-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. There being no comments. I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-What's the Board's druthers. here? Do you want to wait to do a SEQRA Review until we see
the revised version of this?
MR. HAGAN-I think you have to.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. WELLER-Can I ask you a question on the SEQRA Review? We checked the records this afternoon.
Apparently. the SEQRA Review was done by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Does it need to be done a second
time? It's my understanding that it does not need to be done a second time.
MR. CARTIER-Did the Zoning Board see all of this in the amount of detail that we did?
MR. WELLER-Yes, they did.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I would say that since the plan is being revised. yes, we're going to have to do
a Short Form SEQRA, again, on it, because it was revised.
MS. CORPUS-Jim, we didn't do a coordinated review.
MR. HAGAN-I don't see how they could with all the questions that have yet to be answered, because we
couldn't do it now.
MR. CARTIER-Right.
MR. WELLER-I just mentioned that. The only place I picked it up is on the Zoning approval. "A Short
EAF indicates no adverse environmental impact.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. We'll go through it again. I don't anticipate any problems. but I think just to
cover ourselves and cover you. we'll go through it again, okay.
MR. WELLER-It's not possible to go through it, tonight, so that if there is a problem with it. we can
address it?
MR. CARTIER-No, because we have to do a SEQRA Review on the changes that are going to be done and we
need to see those changes and the Engineering Staff has to address all of those changes. I would assume
you'd have more problems getting through a SEQRA, tonight, than you will the next time because of those
changes.
13
'--
'---'"
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. HAGAN-You'd get a lot of noes if we did it tonight.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a request by the applicant to table this application. Do we have a motion
to that effect, please?
tl)TION TO TABLE SITE PLAN (1). 87-90 JAMES M. WELLER, P.E., Introduced by James Martin who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
Tabled at the applicant's request. pending a meeting between the applicant and the Consulting Engineer
to work out the Engineering concerns, as stated in the Rist-Frost letter of December 18th.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December. 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Caimano. Mr. Kupillas (8:37 p.m.)
SITE PLAN NO. 88-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA MICHAEL KAIDAS OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF QUAKER
ROAD, BETWEEN NORTHERN HOMES AND GROSSMAN LUMBER TO LEASE EXISTING KITCHEN STORE TO KEY BANK N.A.
AND CONSTRUCT SMALLER STORE BUILDING ON SAME 1.84 ACRES OF PROPERTY. INGRESS/EGRESS TO REMAIN AS IS.
ADDITIONAL PARKING TO BE PROVIDED TO MEET ZONING REQUIREMENTS. (WARREN coum PLANIIING) TAX MAP (1).
105-1-1.3 SECTION 4.020 K
MACK DEAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
MRS. PULVER-There was a variance received for the .16 of an acre and it was Variance No. 93-1990.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralski. Planner (attached)
MR. CARTIER-We have comment from the Warren County Planning Board. It's approval with the following
comment, "County DPW concerns and conditions must be addressed. (Please see attached letter)" Lee,
to answer your question on this. they do have a variance.
MRS. YORK-They do? Great.
MR. CARTIER-Warren County Department of Public Works letter. to Lee York, Senior Planner, dated December
11, 1990 (attached) Tom, your comments, please?
ENGINEERING REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Is someone here representing the applicant? Just one quick question.
Beautification Committee, did they look at this?
MR. DEAN-Yes, they did. We have a copy of that, also.
MRS. YORK-Yes. they did.
MR. CARTIER-And they approved, I assume? Mr. Dean. can you identify yourself, please.
MR. DEAN-My name is Mack Dean from Morse Engineering representing Mr. Kaidas and Key Bank. Also here
tonight. and I probably should do these introductions first, Mr. Al Guerra, who's the architect for
Key Bank, Mr. Michael O'Connor who needs no introduction to this Board, I'm sure. who's representing
Mr. Kaidas, and next to him is Michael Kaidas from Kaidas Kitchens. owner of the entire parcel that
we're looking at tonight and seated behind them is Walt Hopehaling who is Vice President of Property
Management with Key Bank. In regard to Queensbury Beautification Committee, we met with that Committee
prior to our meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals and soon afterwards received a letter of approval
from the Beautification Committee, notwithstanding that should there be any changes due to findings
of the Zoning Board. that the Beautification Committee approve the plans as submitted.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DEAN-The project before us, as I think you're aware, consists of about 1.84 acres, just under 2
acres. Shown in pink is the existing Kaidas Kitchen and Bath building which is proposed to be leased
14
'-
----
by Mr. Kaidas to Key Bank, N.A. To that building will be added a small addition of about 230 square
feet to the rear of the building and two islands covered with a canopy which will consist of two teller
assisted drive thru's and an automatic teller machine on the furthest end of the islands. Adjacent
to that will be what's called an escape lane which is a drive thru lane unencumbered traffic drive
thru. Mr. Kaidas intends, to the southeast of the existing building and more towards the rear of the
property, to construct a new and smaller building than is existing. It will be in the neighborhood
of 2364 square feet which will house new display areas for kitchens and baths, as well as his office
and his secretary's office. To the southwest. notice we have another building that is as large as,
or perhaps larger than the existing which is a storage building for cabinets, counter top, bath fixtures
and that sort of thing. There is no fabrication done on the premises. Therefore, the size of the
storage building, which has been in existence for a number of years, as I say, because there is nothing
fabricated that all the cabinets. counter tops, everything that comes in already in bulk form. To
continue. I guess. parking. currently. is in front of the existing store in the amount of about nine
to ten spaces. That will be enlarged to meet the requirements of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Parking
Schedule. Off Street Parking Schedule, wherein the bank would be required to provide 33 spaces. We
are currently providing about 21 spaces in the front of the building, in the split parking area. To
the rear of the building are 12 spaces and I may as well address one of Mr. Yarmowich's comments at
this point. as he referred to those 12 spaces possibly being blocked by queing of vehicles as they
approached the drive thru lanes. The parking in the rear will be for employees, of which there
currently plan to be 11 employees. which leaves one vacant space which really shouldn't be a problem.
as far as backing into a driveway. In addition, we could easily, by means of painted surface, indicate
the break in the single line into double or triple lines by means of arrows to better direct the
vehicles. Mr. Kaidas' proposed Kitchen and Baths Store is required by the Off Street Parking Schedule
to provide 24 spaces plus 4 spaces for, I guess we felt that because this is technically a storage
building, although it's accessory. that the schedule requires 4 parking spaces for that building.
although no one works there. but we have provided those 4 spaces. In addition to that, we need a space
for each company vehicle of which there is one delivery truck and that also is provided for. for a
total of 29 spaces relative to Kaidas Kitchen and Bath. The parking areas and drive areas around the
bank which, by the way, is currently totally crushed stone. Even though we don't have any defined
parking areas around the existing store, a good portion of the existing property is currently graveled,
although there is. from the entrance of the property it looks like it's entirely lawn, but it is graveled
with growth on it. That area is now existing crushed stone. To the rear of the bank, the twelve parking
spaces will be paved. Mr. Kaidas' new store location will be paved to a point at the end of his 16
spaces of parking. The east west parking/driving area to the south end of the lot will be gravel only.
If it were possible. we could easily live with fewer spaces, but we are meeting the intent requirements
of the Ordinance. The remaining portion of the property not covered by buildings. gravel, and/or paving
leaves us with, out of the total land area 80,206 square feet, leaves us with a total of 34,843 square
feet of permeable area which is 43.4 percent in an area that I believe still requires 30 percent.
I don't think that's changed recently. I'd like to introduce Mr. Al Guerra who's spent quite a bit
of time working on a new building design and we'd like to show you his elevations and floor plans and
if you have any questions in regard to.
MRS. PULVER-Do you have the two elevations of what Kaidas Kitchens will look like and the exterior
of the bank, together on one plan?
AL GUERRA
MR. GUERRA-What I have is two sheets that show both those elevations.
MRS. PULVER-All right.
MR. CARTIER-Can you also give us your name for the record?
MR. GUERRA-Yes. My name is Alfred Guerra. I'm a principle with the firm of Peterson, Rye and
Malemendal.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you.
MR. GUERRA-The building that you see here is a one story building. It's the current Kaidas Kitchens
which is being transformed into the Key Bank facility. The elevation that you're looking at. here.
is the front of the building. This is just a proposal. Generally all of the materials you see here
exist. It will be an asphalt shingle roof. The brick exists on the bottom, as you see here. We're
going to be replacing the siding and adding some additional windows. It has a small scale residential
character to it. The Kaidas Kitchens, we are not involved with the building itself. but we have done
a proposal for Mr. Kaidas on elevations that would be compatible with the existing Kaidas Kitchens
building. As you can see here, we've used the same technique that's on the existing building. Providing
brick at the lower base level, using siding. the same kind of siding. at the upper levels. Pitch roofs,
as the Kaidas Kitchens has, all asphalt shingles and fenestration to use for display windows at the
front end of the building, which is this end facing Quaker Road. The entrance will be toward the east
side of the property and will be situated as you see there in the drawing. Do you have any questions?
MRS. PULVER-That's only a proposal, though. Mr. Kaidas has not accepted that?
15
'---'
'--'"
MR. GUERRA-Yes, he has accepted it.
MRS. PULVER-He has? I mean, that.li. going to be the building, then?
MR. GUERRA-Yes.
MRS. PULVER-All right. Great.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
and Warren County.
I think what we'd like to have you do is address the comments by Staff and Engineer
Let's start with Staff Comments from John, regarding right turns only.
MR. MARTIN-Well. I think that's going to be even. maybe, superseded by the County's comments. right,
in terms of what they require for permit?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Where are you?
MR. MARTIN-Item A.
MR. CARTIER-Use westerly drive for, well, it still requires. no, I think that's in addition to.
don't see the County saying anything about right turn only out of there, on the exit. The County is
saying the westerly has to be entrance only and the easterly has to be exit only and John is saying,
on the exit, it has to be right turn only.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Right?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-So there's two different things involved here. Do you have any problems with that?
MR. DEAN-Yes. and so di d John. In our di scussi ons with the County, whi ch is the fi rst recommendati on
made, that we have one exit. one entrance, with Mr. Kaidas' customers and tractor trailer delivery.
by using the westerly entrance only creates a roadway through the parking lot and John was in complete
agreement with that. It was John Goralski's suggestion that we have a right hand turn only at the
easterly area shown as an exit at the current time. We have discussed this and because we've only
had a couple of days to work on this with the County we have nothing from them in writing. tonight.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. DEAN-We have discussed this with Fred Austin and his initial remark was, well. I'll take another
look at it and. in further discussions today, he felt that if we rearranged the lot, that we could
get tractor trailers into the property without having to traverse through the parking area.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but that's a discussion you're going to have to have with the County.
MR. DEAN-Right. I just wanted to brief you on it, as to where it stands at the moment.
MR. MARTIN-I don't see how he could ever avoid the tractor trailers having to cross in front of the
bank, though.
MR. DEAN-Well, the entrance, here, would be direct and that was the intent of this entire plan. We're
looking at a 24 foot wide area.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. DEAN-This is not a structure. This is a painted. cross hatched area to divide the two. So we're
not looking at an actual structure dividing those two lanes. So, it's not as narrow an area, as close
together as it may appear. Because these are existing cuts, there really is no County Permit required.
A permit has been issued. The County's option, at this point in time or at any point in time, really,
is to revoke a permit.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I guess what we have to hear is that the County's concerns have been satisfied.
at some point. We need to see some documentation to that effect, down the line, at some point.
MR. DEAN-Agreed.
MR. CARTIER-Engineering Comments? You've dealt with. I think. Item One.
MR. DEAN-Yes, Item One is covered, I believe.
16
''-'
'--"
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute.
You had a comment about that. What did you say?
MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd just like to see it marked to that effect. Signs for Employee Parking only and,
as you said, the striping on the lanes there.
MR. DEAN-So noted. Right. That really should have been on the plan and wasn't. I apologize for that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Engineering Comments Two.
MR. DEAN-"Proposed grading on the site indicates that only approximately half the site drains to the
proposed detention pond." The drainage report, in itself, states that the drainage design is such
that it will encompass the entire lot. Currently the location in the existing building, is highest
point on the property. All surface drainage drains in all four compass directions. currently. It
drains to the large drainage ditch at Quaker Road. It drains to the west, to the south, and to the
east. The easterly area, which isn't really fully indicated since it's not Mr. Kaidas' property and
we couldn't do a proper surveyor cause to have a survey done, our firm did not do the survey, but
site inspection will indicate that there is a sizable drainage channel to Quaker Road from the south.
This has been in existence for probably over 60 years or more since D & H built their tracts and it
does take drainage from, even as far as the Glens Falls City line off Bay Road and perhaps even farther.
but it does flow some great distance to Quaker. There's an existing drainage culvert at about the
depth of four to six feet below the existing trench. in this area. that traversed Quaker Road and drained
northerly from there and I think some of that existing drainage is still there in the form of Halfway
Brook and some other areas that drain into Halfway Brook from the north.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. but unless I'm missing something obvious. here. and it's very possible, we're talking
about Item 2A.
MR. DEAN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-And it says. "The stonJIWater calculations should reflect the proposed grading. II Are you
addressing that at the moment?
MR. DEAN-I'm leading up to that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. DEAN-I guess beginning at the building. again. and stating one or two important facts in this
situation is that the majority of this lot is currently graveled, as I mentioned before. creating a
somewhat impervious area what we are adding to the site is an additional building or hardsurfaced area
of some 2300 square feet and some additional pavement near Quaker Road. The majority of this area
is currently graveled to a point where we are not decreasing the permeability of the site. We are
not changing, significantly, the stonJIWater drainage as it exists today on the site. Except that we
are reducing the amount of drainage off site, in as much as we have provided a drainage swale on the
westerly boundary that leads into a four foot wide ditch at about two feet deep which leads to a
retention pond in the southeast. From that point. at an invert of 320. it drains northerly along or
near the property line to a point, we have a drop inlet at an elevation of 319.10. which is at the
location of the existing Quaker Road drainage ditch.
MR. HAGAN-On that statement there. somehow Rist-Frost calculated that still half of the site drains
into Quaker Road and you're disputing that statement, if I understand you?
MR. DEAN-That's correct.
MR. HAGAN-On what grounds?
MR. DEAN-Our drainage report would reflect that and the contours shown on the map would reflect, first
of all, that we have less than a three foot change in elevation from the highest point to the lowest
poi nt on the property and that pretty much surrounds the enti re hi gh poi nt whi ch is off center of the
property and what I'm saying is that rather than draining onto adjoining neighbors property to the
west and to the south, we are picking up, now will be picking up all the drainage from that area which
will flow to the rear and be discharged via a drainage pipe to the Warren County Highway Drainage ditch
at the northerly part of the site.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. but what I'm reading. here. correct me if I'm wrong. Tom.
MR. YARMOWICH-Could I clarify the concern that we have and maybe Mack can explain it in those terms.
MR. CARTIER-Please.
MR. YARMOWICH-What it appears to me is the area north and east of both of the buildings, okay. tends
to drain toward Quaker Road. The areas to the south and west of the buildings tends to drain into
17
--..
----
the detention pond. That there is an increase in impermeable area draining out to Quaker Road would
increase the discharge, not convinced from the calculations that I've reviewed that, yes, though the
design of the detention pond is sufficient to limit the flow coming out of that detention pond. that
enough flow would ever reach it to mitigate the proposed over-all development. That is. you need to
consider the two areas separately so that the total discharge from the site out into Quaker Road is
in fact no greater than pre-development and I'm not convinced that the calculations that I've reviewed
reflect that. I think what you have is half of the site going out there unchecked and half of the
site going to the detention pond.
MR. CARTIER-So you need to see a new set of stormwater calculations. correct?
MR. YARMOWICH-I think that the results would reveal a different conclusion if you were to look at it
that way. Mack.
MR. CARTIER-And you need a new set of stonJIWater calculations?
MR. YARMOWICH-Correct.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then let's go on to Item 2B.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cartier. can I ask a question with regard to that issue because I didn't understand,
necessarily, the comment. I am Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor and I appear
on behalf of Mr. Kaidas. My understanding is that there is very little improvement of any nature that's
going to take place to most of the site which would lie, probably, north of this particular point on
the map and I have a little confusion, myself. There is some drainage, I think, that goes off site
now. In fact. it probably goes off site in all four directions. Basically, we're not talking about
a great deal of change up in this area. We're not talking about construction of any building to the
front of what is there, the parking that is there and. in fact, at one time, if you go way back to
when it was Harold's Office. there used to be parking all the way back to here where the retention
is that is now going to be part of the green area.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. but, Mike, I'm going to cut you off, here, because I don't want to spend 20 minutes
to a half an hour on every single one of these items. What I'm seeing here, taking your comments into
account, what I'm seeing here, what I'm hearing from Town Engineer is that stonJIWater calculations
need to be re-done to refl ect the proposed gradi ng and I'd 1 ike to accept that from everybody and get
on to the next item so we can go on.
MR. 0 'CONNOR-Can I ask one point, though? Are we tal king about new drainage being created by the new
impermeable area?
MR. YARMOWICH-We're talking about looking at the whole site for all existing conditions with the existing
curve numbers that you characterize them with, with proposed numbers. To be specific with you. gravel
and asphalt have different curve numbers and will give you different runoff rates.
MR. o 'CONNOR-I 'm not trying to design it tonight, here, Tom, but what I'm just asking, in the past.
we've talked about new construction providing for drainage that will be created because of new
construction or we are to take into consideration all the existing building and paving.
MR. CARTIER-What I don't want to have happen, tonight. Mr. O'Connor, is what sometimes happens is that
we spend an hour and a half on an application. only to end up tabling it when we should have done it
an hour and twenty minutes ago. Let's get on with this. Let's move this along. If you have questions
that need answering. fine. Let's take a few minutes to get them answered, but let's get on with things.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is the Board concerned with the existing drainage or what is to be newly created
constructi on?
MR. CARTIER-I'll speak for myself. I am concerned with satisfying the Town Engineer's concerns about
this. He's an engineer and I'm not. If the Town Engineer, as far as I'm concerned, if the Town Engineer
says we need to consider the whole site. then we need to consider the whole site. I'll speak for myself.
Does anybody else on the Board want to make a point?
MR. LAPOINT-I agree.
MR. MARTIN-I agree.
MR. O'CONNOR-My point is where I've come in with Site Plan Reviews where there's no exterior construction
to be done. we've talked about waiving.
MR. CARTIER-Let's talk about this issue. Let's not talk about other applications.
18
'---
'-""
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the whole north end of this site, there is minimum construction.
MR. HAGAN-The point is. Mr. O'Connor. we're not talking about what is there now. We're talking about
what's ~ to be there and I don't care what changes. insignificant or not. There are changes being
made and we have to consider the entire site and I agree with our engineer. If this causes a flow
into Quaker Road, then we have to have some action to correct that situation. whether it's there now
or not. That's my sentiment.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. With regard to 2A., I think it's the consensus of the Board that we want to have
the Town Engineer see some new stonJIWater calculations. Correct? Let's get on to Item 2B. "Grading
for the entire swale to the west should be shown on the plan. Grading of the general area to the west
is incorrect or incomplete." Any questions or problems with that? Can you provide those?
MR. DEAN-Well, I would suggest that in regard to any further comments by the Consulting Engineer that
we are. obviously, not going to resolve those issues this evening and therefore any questions raised
we will address on a revised Site Plan and/or by additional stonJIWater calculations and attempt to
satisfy the Town and the Consulting Engineers.
MR. CARTIER-Great. I thank you.
MR. DEAN-And I would also ask that we would get together with the Consulting Engineer to resolve any
difference of professional opinion or however.
MR. CARTIER-There we go. Thank you. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who
wishes to address this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. DEAN-I have a question. Does the Board have any particular questions. other than what we've
discussed, something I might have missed?
MR. CARTIER-Well, I'll speak for me. want a, and I think this has been answered. As far as I'm
concerned, the Warren County DPW has got to be satisfied before I'm satisfied. I think the right turn
only that Mr. Goralski's referring to is appropriate. from whatever arrangement you have on egress
and entrance.
MR. MARTIN-And I think, just to state on record what you mean by County satisfaction is a letter stating
such.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. Good point.
MR. DEAN-As I mentioned, previously, the time frame to generate that was inappropriate or we were unable
to provide that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does Staff have any further comments or questions?
MRS. YORK-I don't.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are you leading us into a request for tabling. Mr. Dean? Is that what you're
suggesting?
MR. DEAN-I was waiting to hear, maybe the public had some.
MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry. I didn't finish that, that's right. Is there anybody here who cares to comment?
Okay. We've dealt with any other Correspondence. Do we need to leave the public hearing open on this?
MRS. YORK-It's up to you.
MR. CARTIER-Let's leave it. We're going to table it. Let's leave the public hearing open. This
requires SEQRA. Do you want to wait until we see the next. and then we'll do SEQRA and we'll take
care of County.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. At the request of and with the agreement of the applicant. I'm not which of those
two terms applies.
MR. DEAN-I think we have to take a vote.
MR. CARTIER-Do you? Go right ahead. Do we have a motion to table?
tlJTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 88-90 MICHAEL KAIDAS. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
19
'-'
--'"
Pending the applicant's consultation with the Town's Consulting Engineer, regarding the comments as
listed in the Rist-Frost letter of December 17th and. Two. pending the outcome of the applicant's
discussions with the County regarding DPW Comments.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano (9:21 p.m.)
MR. CARTIER-Let's return to an old piece of business, here. Welcome back, Mr. Caimano.
SUBDIVISION fI). 14-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20
ASSOCIATES OWNER: ANTHONY P., CAROL A., AND ROBERT RICCIARDELLI, JR.
APPROX. 0.1 MILE rlJRTHEAST OF WEST MI. ROAD FOR A 42 LOT SUBDIVISION.
7.4 LOT SIZE: 22.48 ACRES SECTION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
INSPIRATION PARK ADAMS RICH
SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD,
TAX MAP fI). 148-1-7.1, 7.3,
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached)
MRS. YORK-Then we have a letter from Karla Corpus, Deputy Town Attorney requesting that a new SEQRA
Resolution be done for the site plan approval. Basically. the Town Board has done a SEQRA Review on
this. However, it was not a coordinated review, and please correct me if I'm misstating anything,
Karla. and, therefore. our Deputy Attorney recommends that you do a new SEQRA resolution for this
particular subdivision plat.
MR. CARTIER-Resolution, or go through the whole SEQRA questionnaire?
MS. CORPUS-Starting from scratch.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. All right. Has anybody got any questions or problems on that? That's
Long Form, I assume?
MR. MARTIN-Right. subdivision Long Form.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. Rist-Frost Comments, please.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Attached to this is a December 4th memorandum. Do you have that in front of you.
Tom?
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. The applicant had met with us to discuss this plan, prior to agenda to allow him
to act on our comments and to try to satisfy them, although a formal re-submission could not be made
in that time. At the request of the applicant. further review of the project was conducted and we
are satisfied with the applicant's response to these. So maybe we can make this a shorter matter by
you knowing that in advance.
MR. CARTIER-If I understand what you're saying. the December 4 memorandum. in effect, supersedes your
November 29 letter. Everything was addressed in that.
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the December 4 memorandum does not indicate that. The December 4 memorandum
indicates that we, in fact. met with the applicant's agent and discussed all these comments and we
were given enough information to know that they would be properly addressed and have since seen revised
drawings that indicate that's correct.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. Mr. Nace?
MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace of Haanen Engineering. I have nothing to add, really. to what Tom
has said. We've addressed the Engineering Comments. All of the comments were valid and we have
accommodated them. corrected the plans. The one issue of any non engineering significance would be
the fact that we, on the Preliminary Plans. showed temporary turn arounds at the end of Phase I. In
order to comply with the comment on drainage being phased and. in effect, to make the subdivision more
affordable.
20
'-
we have phased the development of lots only and the infrastructure, we are proposing to construct the
entire infrastructure with Phase I and we'll simply separate Phase I and Phase II in the development
of lots.
MR. MARTIN-Now, when you say. infrastructure. the road?
MR. NACE-The roads. the drainage system, water.
MR. MARTIN-All that will be in place with Phase I?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. NACE-The other thing is that we have provided a drainage easement down here for excess drainage
between these two lots and we've provided stop signs where they've been requested and revised the
drainage report.
MR. CARTIER-How many units are you building in Phase I? I don't remember.
MR. NACE-I've got to count. 28.
MR. CARTIER-28.
hearing on this.
Thank you. Does the Board have any questions or comments? We will open the public
Is there anybody who wishes to address the Board regarding this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-Would somebody care to take us through the SEQRA application, Long Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATIOø OF 110 SIGNIFICAMCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 14-1990, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James
Hagan:
MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to SEQRA Long Form) "Impact on Water,S.. will proposed action effect surface
or groundwater quality or quanti ty?"
MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you a question, here. did you have to get into using fill systems on septics,
or not?
MR. NACE-We have shown them. There will be site specific percolation tests for each subsurface system
when it's installed. There have been provisions made on the plans in case the perc rate is lower than
one minute. then a fill system will be used.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you.
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a 42 lot subdivision called
INSPIRATION PARK, 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:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
21
-.-/
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.U 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 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Kupillas
MR. NACE-Excuse me. Could I make a correction, just for all your motions. It, in fact, is a 43 lot
subdivision with the addition of the Homeowners Association property, for records purposes.
MR. CARTIER-Forty two residences. forty thr~e lots.
MR. NACE-Forty two residences and forty thrée lots.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you.
MR. CARTIER-I'll entertain a motion. now, for disposition of.
tlJTIOII TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1990 INSPIRATION PARK, Introduced by Nicholas
Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin:
For a 43 lot subdivision. Phase One. inclusive of infrastructure in Phase II.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December. 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas
MRS. YORK-I just want to make sure. The Board is approving Phase I only.
MR. CAIMANO-Phase One only.
MRS. YORK-Right, exclusive of, and I think Tom stated it very well, exclusive of the infrastructure
in Phase II.
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Wouldn't we do that at final?
MR. HAGAN-You're telling me that this is a final for Phase I?
MRS. YORK-No. What I'm saying is, you can only approve for Phase I, except you are approving the
infrastructure in Phase II. You coul d not approve, at thi s poi nt in time, the lots in Phase II.
just want to make sure we all are understanding of that.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Good point. Thank you. (9:38 p.m.)
SITE PLAN NO. 89-90 TYPE: UftLISTED WR-lA MARION S. I JOHN P. CUSHING OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
CLEVERDALE ON MASON ROAD PROPOSED PROPERTY USE WILL REMAIN THE SAME. PROJECT INVOLVES THE REMOVAL
OF HAZARDOUS PORCH AND REBUILD A NEIl SLIGHTLY LARGER PORCH. (WARREN COUNTY PLANIIING) TAX MAP rIJ.
13-1-9 LOT SIZE: 9154.20 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 D
JOHN CUSHING. PRESENT (9:38 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Is there somebody here to represent the applicant, please? Okay. Could you put up a,
since we're going to conduct a public hearing, would you put up a blue print of your design, please.
Thank you.
22
~
MR. CARTIER-Comment from Warren County Planning Board, they approved with no comments. Sir, would
you use the microphone, introduce yourself and make any comments you care to make please.
MR. CUSHING-My name is John Cushing and I'm the applicant and I think that all of the papers that you
have in front of you adequately explain any comments that I could make.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I have a note to myself. here. ZBA. Was the Zoning Board involved in this?
MR. CUSHING-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-There was a variance you received?
MR. CUSHING-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions on the Board, here?
MR. HAGAN-No. This is one of the few projects close to the Lake which is dear to my heart that I have
no problem with. I just want that on the record.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing. Does anybody care to address this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-I will request that someone take us through the SEQRA Process. I believe it's the Short
Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMIKATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 89-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol
Pul ver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a rebuilding of a porch
by MARION S. AND JOHN P. CUSHING. 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:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of 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.U 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 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
23
"'-'
-...../
MR. CARTIER-Okay, we can entertain a motion, now. for disposition of this application.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 89-90 MARION S. I JOHN P. CUSHING, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano
who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin:
For the rebuilding and slight enlargement of a porch. The new porch will be 14 ft. by 13 ft. 6 in.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December. 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. HAGAN-Could we just add the new dimensions of the porch, just for the record.
MR. CAIMANO-Sure. Have you got them?
MR. CUSHING-I have them, if you want them. The new porch would be 14 feet by 13.6 inches. That's
13 feet 6 inches.
SITE PLAN NO. 90-90 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 SUSAN K. BALFOUR OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI BAY ROAD, JUST
SOUTH OF ADIRONDACK COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAMPUS, 417 FT. SOUTH OF BAYBERRY DRIVE PROPOSAL FOR A REAL
ESTATE OFFICE IN EXISTING BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 LOT SIZE: 82.09
ACRES SECTION 4.020 F
SUSAN BALFOUR, PRESENT (9:45 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
MRS. YORK-I just want to make a point to the Board that when I did a site visit, there is some recently
paved area. That was what I was tal king about, as far as the parking area goes. That did not seem
to be the same as what was represented on the plan. Now. the Board has the option, at any time. to
keep property in green space if they do not feel that it is necessary to have all the parking required.
So, you may want to consider doing that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. In other words, as long as they hold that in abeyance. if it's needed.
MRS. YORK-Right. I mean, there's 82 acres there. I don't think there's going to be a serious problem.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. There's a memorandum from Pat Collard, to Lee York, dated December 18. 1990 (attached)
We have a letter from Warren County Planning Board indicating "No County Impact". A letter from the
Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped, "According to N.Y.S. Codes, Rules and
Regulations, this office must be made accessible to the disabled including entrance, interior and
parking." Mrs. Balfour, would you care to address the Board, please, or make comments.
MRS. BALFOUR-The only comment I have is I was under the assumption that I did not need to make the
building accessible to the handicapped. It is an existing building under 2500 square feet.
MRS. PULVER-No. Just parking space. You need to have a handicapped parking space.
MRS. BALFOUR-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-No. If you've got a handicapped parking space. you also have to have the building accessible
to handicapped. It's more than just being able to park.
MRS. YORK-Yes. That would be something you'd have to take up with the director of building and codes,
as far as those standards go.
MR. CARTIER-Mr. Hatin, I see you sitting in the audience. Would you care to answer that?
DAVE HATIN
MR. HATIN-There is a section of the New York State Uniform Building Code that does not require existing
buildings that are being converted, and conversion does mean a change in occupancy. to be handicapped
accessible. We recently found that out about a couple of weeks ago. However. this Board, I believe,
can require that, if you want to. I think that's an option you have, but the Building Code does exempt
existing buildings. We've been through that with the Codes Division.
24
'-
--
MR. CARTIER-Okay. What are the chances of business expanding in this building?
MR. HATIN-That would be up to the applicant.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's who. I guess, I'm addressing that question to.
MRS. PULVER-They would need Site Plan if they expand.
MR. CARTIER-If they expanded, they would be required to come back for Site Plan and at that point,
we might want to consider handicapped access.
MR. HAGAN-My concern to the applicant is, just from a practical point of view, what will you do, or
how will you handle, say, a customer who comes in a wheelchair?
MRS. BALFOUR-You seldom do business at your office. as far as bringing people in. Right now I'm in
a real estate office that's on the second floor and we've been there for a year and have never had
a problem with that. Normally. you'd be meeting people in their vehicles and very often at their home,
so it has not been a problem.
MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think we also tend, not to argue that point. but we also, I think. forget about
people with temporary handicapping conditions. some guy who's broken his leg skiing or something like
that. I think we have to make places accessible for this kind of situation. I don't know. How does
this Board feel?
MRS. PULVER-I would think with the real estate market, if you had a client that had a broken leg and
couldn't get into your office. you would find a way to accommodate him.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, how does the Board feel?
MR. MARTIN-I think the New York State Code in this instance is sufficient.
MR. CARTIER-The exemption. okay.
MRS. PULVER-Right, I don't think we need to put an extra burden on a small business like that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-The problem is not with this Board. It's with those people who represent the handicapped
always finding fault with municipalities for not making considerations for the handicapped. That's
my only concern. I have no real hang ups about this. but I keep reading items where municipalities
are held almost in contempt because they don't enforce requirements about handicapping.
MRS. PULVER-I think sometimes maybe the building doesn't have to be accessible to the handicapped.
The person who is operating the business in the building may have to make themselves handicapped
accessible in another way.
MR. CAIMANO-Just one other thing. Karla. there's a letter here from the Citizens Advisory Committee
that quotes New York State Codes. Rules and Regulations. Are we saying that Dave's comments are
superseding this letter?
MS. CORPUS-I'm not familiar with the background on what exactly the Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MS. CORPUS-They may not have known about this particular application being one of the exempted buildings.
1'm not sure.
MR. CARTIER-Well, we sometimes make exception to this. To go back to Jim's comment, I think there
may be Towns that may stand rightfully accused of not making things handicapped accessible. I don't
think that can be said of this Town and I think we could make exceptions. We're pretty good about
that.
MR. HAGAN-The record shows we recognized it and we're very forgiving about it.
MR. CAIMANO-Right, and Mr. Hatin is on record.
MR. CARTIER-And I agree with Mr. Hatin.
MR. CAIMANO-Me. too.
MR. CARTIER-Any further comments that you care to make? Okay. We'll open the public hearing on this.
Is there anybody that would care to comment?
25
'--'
--
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD HUGHES
MR. HUGHES-Hi. I'm Richard Hughes, adjacent neighbor at Bayberry Drive. The only question I have
is, if they do anything in the future, as far as expanding the land or anything, subdividing the land
or anything at that point, will they have to come back again before anything further, so it doesn't
interfere with our neighborhood?
MR. CARTIER-If they were to expand the business, yes, they would have to come back in. If they were
to subdivide the 82 acres. they would have to come back into the process and there would be a public
hearing involved.
MR. MARTIN-And all adjacent property owners would be notified.
MR. CARTIER-That's right.
MR. HUGHES-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anybody else care to comment? Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-It's unlisted. so this requires a SEQRA Review. Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF JI) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION JI). 90-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James
Martin:
WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a proposal for a real estate
office in existing building by SUSAN K. BALFOUR. 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:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of 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 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-A motion for disposition of this application. please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 90-90 SUSAN K. BALFOUR, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for
its adoption, seconded by James Martin:
26
-.....-/
For proposal for a real estate office in existing building and let it be noted that the Planning Board
has di scussed the request by the Citi zens Advi sory Committee for the Handi capped and been advi sed that
this applicant is in accordance with the proper rules.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December. 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas (9:55 p.m.)
MR. CARTIER-At our last workshop session. we discussed this idea of looking at Site Plans for zones
that are not yet in existence. It is now a moot point. However, looking down the road, this issue
could come up again. Is this Board willing to entertain a motion directing the Planning Department
not to accept Site Plans for zones that are not yet in legal existence?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes. I am.
MRS. PULVER-Sure.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion to that effect?
MOTION TO DIRECT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOT TO ACCEPT SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS OR SUBDIVISIONS WHICH
INVOLVE lONIIIG DISTRICTS THAT ARE (l)T OR HAVE (l)T BEEN FORMALLY ADOPTED, Introduced by James Martin
who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-Okay, Nick. just to let you know. We were supposed to hold a public hearing. tonight,
on the proposed changes in Expedited, but things did not get advertised correctly, so that's been kicked
to the 27th.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. the floor is open to anybody on the Board who wants to jump in.
MR. CAIMANO-I have received a letter from the Town Attorney, Mr. Paul B. Dusek. in reference to Dunham's
Bay Boat Company. indicating that I am not in conflict of interest. I have signed the letter. I've
asked the Chairman to sign it and asked the Planning Department to enter it in Dunham's Bay's folder.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, anything else?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, I wanted to discuss the letter regarding the parking requirements on a previous
application. here.
MRS. PULVER-Parking requirements for what?
MR. MARTIN-Site Plan No. 17-90. J. Paul Barton, Docksider. I would propose that now that we've heard
the formal comments from the Staff and from the Building Administrator, that we as a Board come up
with a number that we feel appropriate, having had thorough review of this application and should that
come in conflict with what's been determined to be required, that we make a motion for appeal for
interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals as to what the parking requirement would be.
MS. CORPUS-Mr. Martin, if I can make a clarification for the Board and everyone, when an appeal is
taken, it's just a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MS. CORPUS-And not an interpretation. I just wanted the Board to be clear on that, so that we wouldn't
be using that word, just for future reference.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
27
',--"
'---"
MR. CARTIER-I think the issue. here, is that we have a determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding the parking issue over there and I think the problem is that this Planning Board, and I think
the applicant, too, read it one way, that parking would be required for the deck and I think then.
and please correct me if I'm wrong, I think the Zoning Office, Building and Codes, read it the other
way. When Building and Codes decided to come up with a number of required parking spaces. they read
the Zoning Board action to read the deck would not be included in the calculation for parking. Dave.
is that an accurate statement? I'm just trying to layout the problem. here, and get ourselves sorted
out. I think it's a question of everybody involved in this deal doesn't understand the same thing
or read it differently.
MR. HATIN-If you read the interpretation, all it says is a deck is not listed. To me, that does not
mean it's a use. That does not mean it's a part of this, it's a part of that. It says it's not listed
in the parking requirements. That's exactly what they said. Now it becomes, I guess, an interpretation.
I don't know if I understand quite where Mr. Martin is coming from with this, is whether the deck is
a part of a restaurant. and I'll just put it to this Board blatently, the way I'm going to put it to
the Zoning Board if you appeal it. The deck is not a use. The restaurant is the use. The deck is
a part of the restaurant.
MR. HAGAN-That's double talk. isn't that, Dave?
MR. HATIN-No, it's not.
MR. HAGAN-It isn't?
MR. HATIN-No, it's not.
MR. HAGAN-Tell me why it isn't.
MR. HATIN-What do you call a deck?
MR. HAGAN-Well, you're saying it's a part of a restaurant.
MR. HATIN-That's true, and so is a bar.
MR. HAGAN-You're saying it's part of a restaurant and then you're saying that the seating can't be
included.
MR. HATIN-It's not listed. It's a fault in the Ordinance is what it is.
MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. One of the things I'm worried about, here. is that we end up arguing with each
other and I don't want to do that. Let's keep our cool and see if we can get this thing sorted out.
Okay. I understand what you're saying. but when I go back and I read the definition of restaurant
it says, "Restaurant means a place for the preparation, serving and consuming, indoors. of food."
MR. HATIN-Correct.
MR. CARTIER-Now. that, to me. is a significant word. here. That means a restaurant only includes the
indoor.
MR. HATIN-Then I guess the question would be, what do you call the deck?
MR. CARTIER-I would call a deck some other use that's going to be used by the restaurant. but I can't
say, for me. I can't see that the deck is included in the restaurant in the way that you're saying
it is.
MR. HATlN-What I'm saying is a deck is not listed anywhere in the Ordinance. It's a fault of the
Ordinance.
MR. CAIMANO-That's a good point.
MR. MARTIN-In that case. where the Ordinance. through it's written word, doesn't define it, then it's
up to the ZBA to make the determination what that use is and should it be included.
MR. HATlN-I don't think it's an interpretation by the ZBA either. I think it's a glitch in the
Ordi nance.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but when there's a glitch like that. the ZBA. then, is the...
MRS. PULVER-No. I think it should be a determination by the ZBA.
MR. HATIN-Well. then you're asking the ZBA to create law and the only one that can create law through
the Zoning Ordinance is the Town Board.
MR. CAIMANO-Fine, then we'll bounce it all the way back. The point is, as you and I. I mean the Board.
agree. there is a glitch in this Ordinance.
28
',-
-----'
MR. HATIN-Correct.
MR. CAIMANO-And the only way to get that glitch fixed is to push the envelope and find out where it
gets corrected.
MR. HATIN-Paul Dusek and I met last week and this has been included in some revised language to include
outside dining. I don't know exactly how Paul worded it, but we did correct it so it will go to the
Town Board. hopefully soon. but right now this is a glitch in the Ordinance that the Board is stuck
with and I'm not making excuses. It's there. It's been researched thoroughly.
MR. CARTIER-I don't necessarily mean to say we're stuck with it. I don't think we're willing to accept
the fact that we're stuck with it, the idea that we're stuck with it.
MR. HATIN-Well, if you want to appeal it, I'm telling you the position that I'm going to take.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that and I don't have a problem with that.
MR. MARTIN-No. My interest in appealing it is, like I said, we've heard from Staff and we've heard
from the Building Department. now, what they're opinions are and what your determination is. Now we.
as a Board, have a right to develop what we think the number is and then. if that is in conflict with
your determination, then we go for appeal. That's how the process works.
MR. HATIN-I understand that and that's what I'm saying.
MR. MARTIN-And I'm not so much concerned about the deck as I am about this two use issue with the tavern,
as well. and I think this is an issue that needs to be heard. There's points that need to be heard
by the Zoning Board of Appeals that haven't been heard yet and then, once they've heard all sides and
all issues and all points, then once they make their determination. then fine. but they haven't heard
all the points, from what I've seen in the minutes.
MR. HATlN-Let me just try to reason with the Board a minute about the restaurant and the tavern issue.
Number One. if you read the Definitions, Restaurant says, Peter. can you read definition, exactly.
for me.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. Let me find it. "Restaurant means a place...
MR. MARTIN-Hold it right there. A place. Now, a place is not necessarily a structure. A place can
be an area within a structure. I just want to make that point.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. "A Restaurant means a place for the preparation. serving, and consuming, indoors.
of food and beverages other than a tavern."
MR. HATIN-Now, would you read the definition of a tavern, please.
MR. CARTIER-"A tavern means a place....
MR. MARTIN-Again, a place. I want to make that noted.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. "Means a place in which the principal income is derived from the sale or serving
of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, with or without live entertainment."
MR. HATIN-Correct. Now, Mr. Barton, through Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. O'Connor is here. You can correct
me if I'm wrong. stated that 70 percent of his sales is through food. Also, if you investigate a little
further. you will find out that most people who frequent the bar area do buy food. So. therefore.
even if you treat the bar as a tavern. it won't meet the criteria because the main consumption is not
strictly derived from alcohol. All the receipts from the restaurant are rang at the bar. The other
problem you have. too. is you cannot arbitrarily draw a line in a building. The Zoning Ordinance is
set up to deal with buildings, not areas in buildings.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it doesn't matter if you draw a line because the parking requirements for tavern
and the parking requirements for restaurant overlap. They're one space for every hundred square feet
and they're one space for every linear foot of bar when it comes to a tavern. That's where it differs
and you can draw that out without arbitrarily drawing any lines.
MR. HATIN-I disagree with you and I believe if you appeal. you're going to lose.
MR. MARTIN-And the other point that needs to be made is, the Ordinance. in the Off Street Parking Design.
does not make reference to a principle use or a secondary use. I've said this time and again. It's
for any building having more than one use. It doesn't say more than one principle use. It says more
than one use, whether one's secondary in nature or principle in nature. it doesn't matter.
29
',-
---
MR. HATIN-Well. I would just go on record with this Board as saying, if you want to appeal it, I'm
going to go the other way. I'm not going to agree with this Board.
MR. CAIMANO-But don't you think it will clear it up?
MR. HATIN-It will clear it up once and for all. I do feel, however, that the Board had the decision,
back in August 29th of 1990. given to them as to what the use of the place was. You didn't choose
to appeal it then. However. Mrs. Popowski appealed it and the Zoning Board ruled that it is a restaurant
and the parking will be calculated as such. The tavern and bar issue, as far as I'm concerned, was
answered in that appeal and I think that if further research is done by the attorney's, that they're
going to agree with me. I think your appeal is going to be null and void.
MR. CARTIER-All right, but at least, whichever way this goes. it will be cleared up, once and for all
and that's what I'm looking for.
MR. HATIN-Right, obviously, it will, but I just think it's dragging and issue that's not an issue.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the reason I'm bringing it up now is, so we don't delay the project any further.
We will have opportunity to hear the appeal before the applicant comes again for Site Plan Review.
MR. HATIN-Mr. Martin, just let me ask you one question. At the last Planning Board meeting I was at,
you said that when the Zoning Administrator makes his determination as to what the parking is, that's
what we'll go with. Now, why are we sending it to appeal?
MR. CARTIER-Could I answer that? Because it was my understanding that from that very long drawn out
discussion about the deck that we had that night that the applicant. not only did the applicant
understand that parking for the deck was required because it showed up in the application, but we
understood that we thought, not we. 1 thought you understood that, too.
MR. HATIN-We did some research. because there was some bouncing around and a question was raised.
It was raised by .!!!!t. as to whether this deck really has to be included because of the way the Zoning
Ordinance is worded. What is the use? Where do we draw the line, here, I guess. and I had to draw
a line somewhere, and I drew it.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the fact of the matter is, reality is involved here and as far as the deck and
that bar is concerned, that people can come and use that deck and sit at that bar and never eat within
the restaurant or sit at a table at the restaurant and still take up use and area in that parking lot
and just because we're putting semantics into it or some definition is given to language in the
Ordinance, the reality is just removed, then. and I don't understand that.
MR. CAIMANO-Can I just say two things. Mr. Chairman, please? Number One, certainly not on my intent.
is there any intent to downgrade. degrade or other grade Dave Hatin. There is an honest difference
of opinion.
MR. HATIN-I don't think there is. I'm not taking it personally.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. HATIN-My thing is, this project has gone on since March. Now, we're at the end where the applicant
is looking for an approval and we're starting to raise these questions all over again. I just think,
you know, these questions were raised back in August and I think they were answered and now we seem
to be dragging through it again.
MR. CAIMANO-I understand your point. However, we have to look at other things, down the road, and
I think we're trying to come to a conclusion before we get another one. My second point is. I love
him like a brother and I see him hanging in the weeds. This is not a public hearing. The other side
does not have a chance to talk. I do not think. on the public record, Mr. O'Connor should be allowed
to speak or say anything and I, for one, do not want him on the record.
MR. PULVER-All right. Let me ask a question. here. Forty six, Dave. you determined forty six parking
spaces?
MR. HATIN-Correct.
MRS. PULVER-The Docksider can accommodate 46 parking spaces. Am I not correct?
MR. CARTIER-Yes. but that doesn't include the deck.
MR. MARTIN-And it doesn't include the bar requirement. either.
MRS. PULVER-All right. well, that's an issue that I'm not sure I'm on your side with, with the bar.
30
'---"
----'
MR. CARTIER-Well, look, let me see if I can spell this out, in terms of options. okay. Number One.
one option we have is to go back to the Zoning Board and ask for a clarification, not an appeal process,
go back and ask for a clarification. The second is. we can appeal the decision of the parking numbers
based on the December 17th letter that we just got. That's another one. The third option is. we can
make the assumption that Jim is talking about. that this Board is going to require that parking be
provided for the deck. and make a motion on that application based on the applicant's meeting that
parking or not meeting that parking that we are requiring. At that point. the applicant, if it's not
approved, the applicant can appeal that decision and get us involved in an Article 78. That's just
one of the consequences. Those are three options that I think Ms. Corpus would like to address.
MR. CAIMANO-But before we get to Ms. Corpus. however, let me just bring up a point. Excuse me, Karla.
but just let me bring up a point. On the record, Mr. Hatin has just said that the Town Attorney and
he are looking at a change in the Ordinance to bring to the Town Board. We had an issue here a couple
of weeks ago in which it was determined that. by Mr. Dusek. that Ms. Corpus works for Mr. Dusek. For
her to advise this Board, now, in a situation we may appeal, is, I think, improper.
MS. CORPUS-I won't advise the Board as to this specific application.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MS. CORPUS-As far as the concept of appealing to the Zoning Board. in general, for any particular case
that the Board may have, the Board can appeal any decision by the Zoning Administrator. However. the
Zoning Board cannot clarify or interpret. There can only be appeals before that Board of certain
decisions.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, then what we're saying is, we, somebody correct me if I'm wrong. We want to appeal
Dave Hatin's decision that the Docksider only requires 46 parking spaces because that does not include
the deck and it is our determination that the deck should be included in calculated parking spaces.
MR. MARTIN-And I would also argue for the linear foot of bar calculation. too.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes. it's not clear. The ZBA's answer is not clear.
MR. LAPOINT-I remember leaving the Workshop Session fairly clear that we were going to listen to what
Mr. Hatin had to say and I was pretty clear that that was going to be the number, from everything we
said up here. that we were going to have him make a determination and go with it.
MR. HATIN-And that was my understanding also.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, so I tend to go with the 46 I see in front of me. here, now. So, I think that Option
C that Peter talked about, you won't get a concurring vote from me on that, the third option.
MRS. PULVER-I happened to say, too, that I see my little circle of 46 and the arrow and stuff is because
I was under the same impression that we were going to get a determination from Dave and we were going
to live with it and they were going to remove docks or whatever it was to come up with the right amount
of parking spaces.
MR. HATIN-Which they have done.
MRS. PULVER-Right, which they have removed docks. I mean, how can we now, in mid stream. change the
rules?
MR. HATIN-And whatever number that they come up with is the number that that establishment is going
to live with as a capacity.
MR. LAPOINT-I agree with that, also.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. HATIN-Can I just clarify one thing? Has the Board seen a new proposal? Has this Board seen a
new proposal?
MRS. PULVER-No.
MR. HATIN-You are aware that this decision was based on a new proposal that was submitted to me last
week, for the Docksider?
MR. LAPOINT-The 46 number. you had given us a letter last week at 50?
MR. HATIN-At 50, I believe. That was based on the way it was before the Board that night.
31
.............
---
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. right.
MRS. PULVER-This is the new one. I got?
MR. HATIN-And this is the new one based on the new submittal.
MR. LAPOINT-Let me make sure that's clear. So you got a revised Site Plan.
MR. HATIN-Correct.
MR. LAPOINT-And then you revised it to this 46, which still stands, is my understanding what we were
doing at this Workshop?
MR. HATIN-Yes.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-And I'm willing to live with that 46.
MRS. PULVER-Right. I have to say that Ed and I are probably thinking the same way, that it was whatever,
how many docks they would have to remove and how many parking spaces and whether they could or could
not come up with it. that's what they would have to live with.
MR. CAIMANO-Docksider notwithstanding, and I agree with what you say, Docksider notwithstanding, there
is still a glitch.
MR. MARTIN-That's the other issue here, too. It's not just the Docksider. It's not some personal
vendetta. by any means. Thi s is a broader issue. You're going to have restaurants come before thi s
Board with outside dining and taverns with seating capacity, because when I tal k about that Tavern,
you're talking about a bar as a utility that has seating capacity. There are bar stools at that bar.
They accommodate people just like those tables out in the room do and, therefore. they should earn
their parking space out in the lot or that lot should accommodate parking spaces for that stool at
that bar. that's why the Ordinance is written the way it is. That bar has seating capacity. It's
a seating utility, just like a table out in the open room does in a restaurant.
MRS. PULVER-But, Jim, don't you think it's a flaw in the Ordinance. now?
MR. MARTIN-It's not a flaw. The Ordinance reads. when there's more than one use present, you accommodate
the needs for each use. The Ordinance flows very nicely. It connects very nicely with itself.
MR. CARTIER-The Ordinance authorizes this Board to require parking.
MR. HATIN-If I could just make one comment, too. I'd like to remind the Board, historically, Carl
R's Cafe was was reviewed by this Board. This issue was never raised and we have the same use.
MR. MARTIN-That's why I'm saying, it's a mistake that needs to be corrected, reversed.
MR. HATIN-We have the same set up. actually, a bigger bar.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that. but....
MRS. PULVER-Well, maybe it should be corrected. then. when you don't have an applicant in front of
you that has the issue. So, it doesn't look like your making an issue out of the applicant.
MR. MARTIN-I just want the Town, meaning the Zoning Board of Appeals and this Board, to go into this
decision with it's eyes wide open and have, like I said earlier, having heard all the points and seen
all the ramifications of its decision.
MR. CARTIER-I agree with Jim.
MRS. YORK-Carol, Karla just stated that you can only correct this by appealing a decision that the
Zoning Administrator makes. So, you have to hang an applicant up somewhere.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. At the ri sk of soundi ng li ke a broken record. I woul d also, again, menti on that one
of the things I hope this Board remembers is that we are dealing with a Critical Environmental Area
which means you filter this application through a much finer screen and you look at it much more
carefully than you might normally look at an application.
MR. CAIMANO-In fairness to the applicant, however. we did, last time. put a definition on this thing
and Mr. Hatin is right and so is everybody at the other end of the table. We said, whatever Mr. Hatin
32
'-
says we will abide by, in this case, and I think. Mr. Chairman, that we can tie this motion down, when
it comes to a motion, and you, too. Jim, so that we leave ourselves and out. so that the applicant
knows full well and they're put on notice that, and I think you're right. I think sometime in this
summer we're going to drive to the Docksider and see 85 cars. I think we can solve both issues. but
I don't think it's necessary to hang. yes, we have to do it through an applicant and appeal a motion,
but I think that we ~, by making an issue of this, by not hanging the applicant up, we can accomplish
both. I believe that. I think we can do that. After all. Mr. Hatin already. through Mr. Dusek. is
looking at some kind of re-wording. You make a good point. but maybe we've got to sit down and talk
about this. Yes. we have to hang up an applicant in order to find the right leverage to get this thing
done. However, we did make a determination at this Board, right. wrong, or indifferent. in which we
said Mr. Hatin should go back. make a number. and let's go with it.
MR. CARTIER-Well. let me finish that off. The discussion was. we, I believe that statement was made
by Mr. Goralski. that ~ will get together and make a determination, okay. as to what the parking would
be.
MR. CAIMANO-Who, we?
MR. CARTIER-Mr. Goralski.
MR. CAIMANO-No.
MR. CARTIER-The idea came from John.
MR. HAGAN-Yes. and we didn't dispute it.
MR. CARTIER-The idea came from John. John said. I will suggest that. how about this. How about we
get together, okay, and make a determination.
MR. CAIMANO-I think the motion reads, Mr. Hatin.
MR. CARTIER-There was no motion made.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes. there was.
MR. CARTIER-There was?
MR. PULVER-I have the minutes, right here.
MR. CAIMANO-I think we made a motion that Mr. Hatin's determination would be notwithstanding.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Without reading it right now, I believe that's what we did.
MR. CAIMANO-Have you got it, Carol?
MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I'm looking at it.
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Wasn't this at the Workshop Session?
MR. HATIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-We couldn't make a motion. We couldn't vote.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MS. CORPUS-Yes, you can. I don't know whether the Board did. I don't know, but the Board can make
motions at Workshop Sessions.
MR. CARTIER-We can make motions and vote on them at Workshop Sessions?
MS. CORPUS-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, as long as we're all present and we have a quorum.
MRS. PULVER-We didn't, but we have everything else in here.
MR. CARTIER-Wonderful.
MR. HATIN-We didn't make a motion.
33
~
--.-/
MRS. PULVER-No. we didn't make a motion.
MR. CAIMANO-We agreed. We didn't make a motion. Is that what you're saying?
MR. MARTIN-We didn't have a formal motion. no.
MR. HAGAN-I don't believe we had a formal motion. but we all agreed.
MR. CARTIER-No, there wasn't because I have been operating under the wrong assumption, then, with regard
to Workshop Sessions and my assumption at a Workshop has always been that you cannot make motions.
Wait a minute. you have to vote in public. You have to vote in public, correct?
MR. HAGAN-Yes, but the public was informed we were having the workshop.
MS. CORPUS-It was noticed.
MR. CARTIER-The Workshop Session is open. Okay. To go back to something somebody else said while
we're looking for this. I do have some sympathy for the applicant, considering everything he's been
through.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I do. too.
MR. CARTIER-But I have. frankly, more sympathy for the Ordinance in general and the Administration
of this Ordinance on a much wider scale. I am in agreement with Mr. Barton. in terms of, specifically.
I think the deck should be included in parking. A what if situation, Dave. Suppose I come in to you
with an application for an outdoor cafe and I have a very small building that I'm going to put just
two tables in and the rest is going to be kitchen and serving area for the waitresses and waiters.
but I have a huge outside deck. What do we base the parking calculation on? Do we base it on strictly
just that little building?
MR. HATIN-Right now, the way it stands. yes. The problem you have is that when this Ordinance was
drafted, nobody considered outside dining areas. I mean, it was just not thought of. Otherwise, it
should have been listed as outside dining, which we have requested that it be listed now.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I guess what I'm referring to is in Article 7.072.
MR. HAGAN-The County did disapprove an application on the Lake George Road.
MR. HATIN-Right, and I don't believe that was. at the time, we sent him for an expansion of a Use
Variance and I believe that should have been just strictly a Setback Variance. I think the use was
wrong. I've got to agree. but I've researched this thing out. I didn't just haphazardly make this
decision and certainly the Attorney and I don't always agree on things. Paul and I often take the
opposite end of the table. but I have to know. I have to look at more than just what the Board's going
to think. I have to look at the legal ramifications in Article 78. I have to look at. when I go to
court, which way is this thing going to stand, and that's the way I approached it from and this is
the only legal way I could back myself, and that's the bottom line.
MR. HAGAN-But we are going to work on the Ordinance?
MR. HATIN- There are changes proposed and I would suggest that this Board, in fact. if you want to,
I'll make sure you get a copy of them. because I would much rather have them answered before than after
and this Board can certainly go to the Town Board and request that it be corrected, without having
somebody else do it.
MR. CARTIER-Where are we going, here, folks? Do we need a motion. here, to decide whether we're going
to pursue this or not?
MR. HAGAN-Well, it depends. Dave mentioned that there is some activity, at the Town level, to change
the Ordinance and he agreed he would inform us as to what those changes would be.
MRS. PULVER-Well. I think the applicant, though. may ask to be grandfathered, even if the Town....
MR. HATI N-We 11 , if those change, I don't think they would effect this project anyway. because it's
already in the process.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. HAGAN-No. I don't think we're going to effect the applicant, as far as Jim's concerns. I'm not
speaking for you, Jim, but that's what I'm interpreting you're saying.
MR. CARTIER-Well. I don't want to leave this vague and up in the air, here. I want to know where we're
going to go with this. Do we need a motion to decide the direction we're going to take? Do we need
34
"-'
---"
a motion that says we want to pursue this by the Appeals Process or do we want a motion that says we're
going to drop this, or what?
MR. HAGAN-It depends. Can you make privy this information at your workshop?
MR. HATIN-Well. there were a number of changes that we proposed. Paul and I. There's a bunch of mistakes
in the Ordinance. We tried to correct some of those. With the Mall just getting accepted with their
9 by 20. we've proposed 9 by 20 throughout the Town, because I don't feel there should be two ways
of doing parking. That's going before the Board.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. I agree with you.
MR. HATIN- The outside dining has now been worded so hopefully we will include the outside dining in
future proposals such as this, and there were a number of other ones. I think there were about 15
or 20 altogether, plus I'm sure there will be other ones. Article 8 and Article 9 were revamped to
hopefully clear up some confusion there and some things the Town Board wanted that have already been
put before the Town Board. There were a number of items. We just want to get it moving and get it
before the Town Board because it's been sitting still for over a year now and some of these are because
of what's happened recently.
MR. HAGAN-If that came to pass, Jim, would that satisfy your...
MR. HATIN-It definitely won't effect this project. I want to make the Board understand that.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I just want to go on record as saying that, given it's current configuration, someday
we're going to regret the parking situation at the Docksider.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-It's bad now. right? I mean, nothing's really going to change. Whether they do this or
not. it's going to look the same next summer. Hopefully, they won't be parking on the road which is
an enforcement. I mean. let's be realistic. I know it's a sensitive environmental area, but what
difference does six parking places make?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but that's why I'm concerned about how I view it, because how I view it, you would
need 80 or more because of the linear foot of bar calculation.
MR. LAPOINT-Eighty?
MR. MARTIN-And what I'm saying is when you're saying he can't park in the street because of thi s new
Street Ordinance and you've got a 3600 square foot area with a 35 foot bar and you're saying, now,
you can only have 45 spaces. you're effectively limiting the capacity of that building. You're saying
that you've got all this square footage, but at any given time, you're only going to be able to use
65 or 75 percent of it.
MRS. PULVER-But he also, knowing the circumstances and everything that's happened with the Docksider,
even if we said he needed 80 spaces. he could get a variance and claim a hardship because he has no
more land. He can't expand and that bar has been there and the seating capacity isn't going to change.
He'd get a variance for the parking.
MR. CAIMANO-Well. of course, the other thing. Ed, is the long term view.
MR. LAPO INT -We 11, no, if we're goi ng to say. and I agree, if the Ordi nance is changed from here on
out. we're clear and it's well defined, but. again. I'm not going to read through it, definitionally.
If Mr. Hatin comes up with 46. he's our professional. I've got to agree with that and then if it should
change some time in the future, to be clear, that's fine, but if this is our professional's judgement
on it.
MRS. PULVER-Well, he can only seat so many in this place and serve so many and as I recall, that's
going to change very little.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I think it sounds like the way this Board is going is this thing is going to go by
the wayside. I think that's a mistake on this part. I think we're not doing Glen Lake a favor. I
don't think we're doing the Ordinance a favor and I'm sorry to see it go this way.
MR. HATIN-Peter. if this will make Mr. Martin and you happy. if you want to appeal it on the side,
that has no impact on this Board. I'll be happy to go and state my case to the Zoning Board.
MRS. YORK-How can you appeal it if you're not appealing your decision on a specific case?
MR. HATIN-Well. I say. if they want to appeal it off the record. It may not have a hearing, but if
you want to know for your own satisfaction.
35
"---'
----./
MRS. YORK-I think maybe the Board wants to know. Karla keeps saying you can't do it that way. Why
can't you. legally?
MS. CORPUS-It's not in the Statute. It's specifically in Section 267 of the Town Law that says what
can be appealed to the Zoning Board. Lee, and I know Paul did a memo to you on that. Our Ordinance
says and so does the Town Law, upon which our Ordinance is based. but the Zoning Board can hear. and
what the Zoning Board's jurisdiction is.
MR. CARTIER-What Article is that?
MR. HATIN-Article 12.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you.
MS. CORPUS-Town Law Section 267, Number 2, says. "Such Board of Appeals shall hear and decide appeals
from and review any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official
charged with the enforcement of any Ordinance adopted pursuant to this Article."
MR. MARTIN-Dave. I think, since you and Karla are going to such lengths to review the Ordinance, that
you should take into consideration some model definitions that would tighten up Restaurant and Tavern.
MR. HATIN-Well. what I would suggest is that if this Board has ways that you feel that that would be
much better served, that you get them to us. I mean, you have just as much right as I do to have input
in this Ordinance and put it before the Town Board. I think that's your right as a Board if you see
problems with the Ordinance.
JlJTION THAT TIlE CHAIRIWI REOOEST A SUBCOMMITTEE 10 WORK WITH DAVE HATIN ON THE REVAMPING OF THE
DEFINITIONS OF TAVERN, RESTAURANT, BAR. SO THAT IT IS CLEAR. REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL OR KEY USE OR
USES OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded
by James Martin:
Duly adopted this 18th day of December. 1990. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-Is that already in the works?
MR. HATIN-Well. that's what we started. I mean, if the Board wants, as soon as Paul prepares the
language, I'll be more than happy to make it available to you.
MR. CARTIER-Essentially, the motion involves volunteering to work with the Zoning Administrator and
Legal Staff to work out some definitions, provide input for definitions.
MR. HATIN-As soon as it's available, I'll contact you.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does that mean that we are not going to pursue this appeal for clarification
or whatever it is you wish to call it?
MR. CAIMANO-That's what it means.
MR. HAGAN-That's the only assumption you can make.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a request from Mr. O'Connor to address us for a very short period of time.
regarding the appeal of the Hogan situation. Does the Board care to entertain a question from Mr.
O'Connor.
MR. CAIMANO-On only the Hogan issue.
MR. CARTIER-On only the Hogan issue.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. 0' CONNOR- I am here for two reasons, okay. One, because I got a noti ce as an adjoi ni ng property
owner, that the Hogan determination of the Zoning Administrator was being appealed by this Board and
secondly because of a conversation I had with Paul Dusek with regard to that, is I understand what
we're talking about, are two different letters of Pat Collard. One was dated May 18th, 1990 and the
other was dated April 20th, 1990 and it regarded the Hogan property and what variances would be required
36
or not required for that. We came through a variance procedure before the ZBA. We came through a
variance procedure with the Town Board for the septic and then we came through this Board for a Site
Plan Review and obtained approvals with some conditions throughout the whole process. Now, apparently,
this Board attempted, afterwards, to get a clarification of application of a specific section of the
Ordinance for buildings that are being completely replaced and not expanded. They're being demolished
and a place is being built in their footprint. As to the effect of the Section that Mr. Caimano brought
up, of the limitation of square footage of, it shall not be an expansion beyond the first expansion
50 percent and somehow that got thrown back on to being an application to the Hogan determination because
I think Counsel has said that you can't make a general request for a clarification to the ZBA because
of the way that Article 12 is written. It has to be a specific determination that you are, in fact,
appealing. I submit to you, and I will argue if necessary, that Article 12 has a time limitation in
there that says that you will make that appeal within 30 days of the determination and the only
determination that I'm aware of. although I realize that you got backdoored into going to the ZBA on
an appeal where you tried to go on an informal basis. The only two Articles that I have that related
to the Hogan application itself were the letter of May 18th and the letter of April 20th and you're
appeal was filed, as I understand it. some time in October. You're well outside of the 30 days. I
will submit, and what Paul suggested, although. and I have a problem and 1'11 submit to the Town
Attorney, I don't think the Town Board. the Planning Board. Zoning Board or whatever, or the Building
Administrator should be left without Counsel simply because of an apparent disagreement. I don't think
that any of the Boards. and maybe the Boards will correct me.
MR. CARTIER-Mike, you're getting off the issue. Stick with the Hogan thing. I appreciate your comments.
but not tonight, okay. Let's stick with the Hogan issue.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My suggestion is that you withdraw the appeal. It's not appropriate because of
the time limitations on it's face. You're going to waste your time. whoever attorney's, time, that
you hire and the Board's time in getting it on the agenda. You're also going to waste a residents,
taxpayers money. for me to go and argue that, like I sat here, tonight, to argue this particular point
with you. If you have a particular issue. as to that question. I will gladly submit a letter to the
Building Department asking for a determination as to how much I may expand my square footage on my
residence which is immediately adjacent, or two places away and see whether or not your Section applies.
You can then, if you disagree with whatever they give you, for my. in fact. actual, question, appeal
it and you can have an actual determination that would then be binding and then would have some merit
and I can do that without jeopardizing the present status of this application. We took your application,
in October. We've been out to contractors since then. We have spent a great deal of money and time
with builders. with sanitary sewer people, lining up work to get it done and now it seems like we're
throwing it right back into the air again. I don't believe that was the intent of the Board by filing
that request.
MR. CARTIER-Questions? Comments? My answer. I guess. is to let it go. To keep it going. let it go
through the process and let's get it sorted out. It was never this Board's intention, correct me if
I'm wrong. it was never this Board's intention withdraw or can the approval that was given in the first
place. If what he is saying is true. then I think our Legal Department needs to get involved and advise
our Zoning Board of Appeals and let it be handled that way. Somebody from our Legal Department might
get up, tomorrow night, and say to the Zoning Board of Appeals. this needs to get pulled off or tabled
for clarification or withdrawn because, and if our Legal Department agrees with Mr. O'Connor, fine.
I don't a problem with that, okay. but I'm not going to pull an appeal out of the process because an
attorney for an applicant is asking us to do that. I don't think that's appropriate.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask a question, specifically? Is the Board appealing a determination. other than
what I've set forth?
MR. CARTIER-I don't have the appeal in front of me. at the moment. I don't know.
MRS. PULVER-I thought we were asking for a determination of that particular part of the Ordinance from
the ZBA?
MR. CARTIER-It was the more than half, or something like that, more than 50 percent. We don't have
it in front of us. Mike. and I don't know that you're going to get an answer, tonight, that's going
to satisfy you. Let's leave it in the hopper and let it go through and see where it goes.
MR. 0 'CONNOR-Well, that's the whole purpose of my staying and obviously you can object to that. but
I think that's a waste of a taxpayer's. resident's dollars.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Even if you simply say ask the Town Attorney to have it tabled for a month and have them
report to you. as opposed to going into a big full fledged argument. That can happen tomorrow night.
That can happen at the Zoning Board meeting tomorrow night. Karla, how is the Legal Staff going to
deal with that? Is the Legal Staff going to be able to give the Zoning Board any direction on that
or deal with that?
37
r-
MS. CORPUS-My instructions from Paul have not changed from his previous letter in that we are not
involving our Department in the specifics of anyone application when it's an appeal from the Planning
Board to the Zoning Board of the Zoning Administrator's decision.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, well, we have some other issues that we're going to have to wrestle with. We're
not going to do it tonight, but we're going to have to figure out if it's legal stuff, somewhere along
the line.
MRS. PULVER-So, you mean we have an appeal tomorrow night and no one represents us?
MR. CARTIER-Correct.
MRS. PULVER-And Mike is going to show up and the applicant's going to pay for him to show up to kind
of discuss it. right Mike?
MR. CARTIER-The applicant's going to pay Mike to show up.
MRS. PULVER-Well. that's what I mean.
MR. o 'CONNOR-I honestly have a particular problem. I have two problems. I got a notice, on Friday
I think. I'm scheduled to appear before Greenwich Planning Board by about a month agenda that they
have for about the fifth time and I hope for a final approval on a subdivision, but I can have somebody
covered. It's just a waste of dollars.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm just asking, we've given this applicant approval to do this and the night that
they got approval it was brought up about the 50 percent, correct. and how it should have had a variance
or it shouldn't have gotten this far and so forth. We discussed it. but we still gave approval to
this applicant. Now, if it seems that by appealing it, we are going to put an extra burden on this
app 1 i cant, as fa r as expense. I want to know. i sn 't there another way to do that? I don't want to
take this approval back from this applicant. We had the opportunity not to give the approval that
night and didn't.
MR. CARTIER-Does the Board wish to withdraw that appeal? Does the Board wish to not withdraw the appeal?
MR. MARTIN-Well, I guess what we're hearing is that the appeal is legally, it's not effective because
we didn't file it within the 30 day time frame.
MR. CAIMANO-In Mr. O'Connor's opinion.
MR. CARTIER-Karla, are you in a position to give us some advice on that or not?
MS. CORPUS-I'm afraid I can't do that. at this point.
MR. 0 'CONNOR- The night that we discussed the Site Plan here. I submitted those two letters. I just
retrieved them tonight from Lee York. they were the only determinations that were being discussed.
MRS. YORK-As I understand it, there was no determination needed that another variance for a 50 percent
expansion was needed.
MRS. PULVER-That was correct.
DAVE HATIN
MR. HATIN-This one I haven't even been involved in. I have no idea what's going on here. I thought
they had gotten the variance because I didn't hear anything.
MRS. YORK-So, there was a determination. you're saying there was not a determination made that another
variance was required?
MRS. PULVER-That's correct. That's what happened that night.
MR. HAGAN-Well, then, how did you give them approval?
MRS. PULVER-Well. Nick or Jim brought up, why is this here because it's more than a 50 percent expansion
or he should have had a variance, but it was determined by the Zoning Administrator that no variance
would be needed for that.
MR. CARTIER-Is this Board interested requesting that the Zoning Board table this until we get further
clarification and can get some legal advice on this issue?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
38
',-
-...-/
MR. CARTIER-Do you want to go that route?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-All right?
MR. MARTIN-That sounds good.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay, let's table this.
MR. CARTIER-We'll entertain a motion to table our appeal of the Hogan decision pending before the Zoning
Board tomorrow night.
MRS. PULVER-So we can get some legal council.
MR. CAIMANO-Pending legal counsel. So moved.
MOTION TO TABLE THE HOGAN APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD> ON DECEMBER 19TH, PENDIIIG LEGAL ADVICE
REGARDING THAT ISSUE. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol
Pul ver:
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hagan
MRS. PULVER-Didn't we discuss this at the last meeting. though. whether or not we wanted legal counsel?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, we did.
MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, but we said at some point we're going to and when we do, we'll discuss it then.
MR. CAIMANO-We weren't sure. then, but now we're sure that she cannot represent us.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cartier. can I make one suggestion. This Board might, by motion, ask the Legal
Department whether it would consider, assuming what I think the role of Counsel is, to simply advise,
down the middle of the road, what the law is, not to present argument or persuasion on a particular
issue and take the consent of this Board, the ZBA, and the Zoning Administrator waving any conflict.
because I think you're all looking for the same thing. You're trying to get one uniform application
of an existing Ordinance. You're not trying to find an interpretation that is in your corner, as opposed
to their corner and I really don't think that there is an actual conflict that couldn't be overcome
if all two Boards and the Zoning Administrator actually recognized the role simply to give you a ruling
on what the applicable law is, not to give you a persuaslon and it might resolve a lot of your problems.
MR. CARTIER-I understand what you're saying. Karla, could you ask Paul if he could be present, pending
Board's consensus here. Would you like to have Paul Dusek here, next week. so we could talk to him
about this legal issue or not?
MR. MARTIN-Well. the other thing I think. the other situation I think that should be developed is just
like...
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Let me get that question answered first. Let's not jump. Do you guys
want Paul Dusek here?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-All right.
MS. CORPUS-I'm sure he wants to know why he's going to be here. Apparently, there are two possibilities.
here. The possibility that Mike's talking about, which I'm not sure is a possibility.
MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. We don't even want Paul to come in with answers, next week.
MS. CORPUS-Okay.
39
""-'
--../
MR. CARTIER-We just want him here so we can ask him questions. What we're going to find out is what
we have to do to be able to have legal representation here and legal advice.
MS. CORPUS-Okay.
MR. CAIMANO-One last thing. The Hiland Park letter.
MR. CARTIER-The Hiland Park letter. Dave Hatin made a determination on the Hiland Park letter. He
sent it out to all of us. Does anybody have a question on that or a comment? I am in total agreement
with what David did on that. I think it's fine. It's a reduction.
MR. CAIMANO-Fine. but he asked us to comment and I think we should comment on the record and the comment
is there.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does that answer your question or concerns?
MR. HATIN-I was just curious as to what's going on because, obviously, I've been getting phone calls
from the Post Star. and that's how I'm finding out about these things.
MR. CARTIER-I have no idea either. I got a call from the Post Star, last night, from a reporter who,
1 et me put thi s on the record. because I thi n k it wi 11 answer one of your concerns. The Bowen's,
apparently, were concerned that this letter was made public. I read the report of the letter because
she was confused about some things and I said. wait a minute, I want to get this straightened out.
So, I read her the 1 etter. You got a ca 11 from the Bowen's. I got a ca 11 from a reporter. I got
a call from the Bowen's, Jim Bowen. tonight, same comment, what's going on. I said, Jim, I don't know.
I don't know. I said, I don't know what's going on. I said, there's a problem, here. I don't think
it's with the Zoning Administrator. I don't think it's with the Planning Board or Planning Department.
If you have a problem. I think it's with the Post Star, okay.
MR. HATIN-That's why I was here. I wanted to know if there was a problem. because all my information
is coming from the Post Star. I got a call from Paul. tonight, wondering why it was going to be
discussed. I said, I didn't even know it was going to be discussed tonight.
MR. CAIMANO-All we're going to do is say. you. in essence said, I'm going to do it unless you disagree
and we're telling you we don't disagree.
MRS. PULVER-Was it in the Post Star. anything about it?
MR. CAIMANO-No, he doesn't want it to be. He. apparently. he meaning Gary Bowen, wants to release
it in his time and doesn't understand that once he goes to the Town it's public knowledge.
MR. CARTIER-One last item. Would this Board like to have a member of the Zoning Administrator's Office
present at Planning Board meetings to answer questions?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-I think it would be a good idea.
MR. MARTIN-I think it would avoid a great many future problems.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. HATIN-I would also ask that, if that's the case. then so we have some time to react to questions
that may be before the Board's mind before the meeting, that you also contact us to give us some notice.
MR. CARTIER-And I don't want any Board members to feel like they've got to go through the Chairman.
whoever that happens to be, to go to Dave. Board members should feel free to contact anybody directly.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Peter Cartier, Acting Chairman
40
---
~'
LOCATION MAPS
DECEMBER 18TH. 1990 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
OLD BUSINESS:
Subdivision No. 14-1988 FINAL STAGE Hickory Acres Owner: Sidney H. Timms (See Staff Notes attached)
Subdivision No. 14-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Inspiration Park Adams Rich Associates (See Staff Notes
Attached)
Subdivision No. 12-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE A1ene Brown (See Staff Notes attached)
Subdivision No. 15-1990 FINAL STAGE Edgar Eggleston. Jr. (See Staff Notes attached)
Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 2-90 Sidney H. Timms (See Stãff Notes attached)
NEW BOSINESS:
Site Plan No. 87-90 James M. Weller, P.E. (See Staff Notes attached)
UdJ.Þl
fl0. 0&bb
~E~
e"^~.,..'~'
";',\¿,"';.L./ "
~"
~
~",
Site Plan No. 88-90 Michael Kaidas (See Staff Notes and Map attached)
Site Plan No. 89-90 Marion S. & John P. Cushing (See Staff Notes and Map attached)
Site Plan No. 90-90 Susan K. Balfour (See Staff Notes and Map Attached)
£,
.~
~.
-
"--"
....-
1
. '
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
FILE COpy
PlJI'"'~g Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: December II, 1990
By: John Goralski
Area Variallce
U. Variallce
== Sip Variance
_ IDtd'pl~tiœa
x SubdiWåoD: Sketch,
_ Site PlaD Re-riew -
_ Peûûon far a CbaDge of Zcme
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
PreliJDiDary, ...!- FiDal
Other:
AppUcatiœ Number:
Subdivision No. 14-1988
AppUcant's Name:
Hickory Acres - Sidney Timms
MeetiDg Date:
December 18. 1990
............................................................................................
The Final Submission for this 10 lot subdivision appears to have
addressed all the concerns raised at previous meetings.
The applicant has applied .for a D.E.C. Wetlands Permit and a Town of
Queensbury Wetlands Permit. These permits would allow the discharge of
stormwater from the proposed roadway into the wetland. The plan calls for
100' of riprap and a hay bale dike to provide energy dissipation and erosion
control as the stormwater is discharged into the wetland. I recommend
approval of both the Wetlands Permit and the Subdivision.
JG/pw
----.-
...
.
-
-.-/
J
TOWN OF QUEENSBVRY
531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 (518) 792·5832
18~~~s
rTl.A....
November 9, 1990
~~
/tf-t?i<r
Kevin Blisa
Dept. of Env. Con.
Hudson Street Ext.
P.O. Box ZZO
Wan-ensburg, NY lZ885-0ZZ0
RE: Hickory Acres Subdivision
Dear Kevin:
I have just received your notifkation regarding the Sidney Timms Subdivision. This
project is currently under review by the Planning Board of the Town of QueeD8bury. When
the Planning Board began its review of this project, in 1988, there were no D.E.C.
Designated Wetlands on the property. The Board made a determination of non-significance
regarding SEQRA.
Because of the recent revisions to the D.E.C. Wetlands Maps, a Freshwater Wetland
is now present. Please ,be advised that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury
intends to continue its review of the SUbdivision, and will require a Town of Queensbury
Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
--
JSG/sed
cc: Steve Bargos
Leon Steves
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . .A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
~
"....
'--"
...-'
....
. "'".
NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY FOR REVIEW
Please return this form to:
KEVIN R BLISS
DRA
NYS DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
REGION 5 WARRENS BURG
HUDSON ST EXT - PO BOX 220
WARRENS BURG NEW YORK 12885-0220
Phone: 623-3671 EXT 260
Application ID: 5-5234-00191/00001-1
Permits Applied for:
1 FRESHWATER WETLANDS
Batch ID: 76927
Applicant-Permittee-OWner:
SIDNEY H TIMMS
OWner ID: 31861
Facility-Project:
TIMMS PROPERTY--FWW-GF-23
Program ID:
County: WARREN
NYTM-E: 608.0
Town: QUEENS BURY
NYTM-N: 4798.9
Description:
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RIP-RAPPED STORMWATER CHANNEL
EXTENDING TO THE EDGE OF CLASS II WETLAND GF-23. THE CHANNEL IS
EXTENDING FROM A NINE-LOT SUBDIVISION ALONG SWEET ROAD IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY.
Sender Comments:
PLEASE ADVISE OF ANY CONCERNS
Distribution:
Date Sent for Review, 11/01/90 11/01/90
Date Due Back
Reviewer sent to ALK T
This Copy for X
Reviewer C~nts:
Prepared by:
(name)
(unit)
(phone)
(date)
4
.--.
,
-
'..,
NEW YORl< STATE OEPARThtENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
SIDNEY H TIMMS
37 SWEET ROAD
aUEENSBURY. NY 12801
APPLICAllON D: 5.5234-00191100001.1
Date 1 1,01'90
PERMfTS APPLIED FOR:
1 ARTICLE 24: FRESHWATER WETLANDS
PROJECT IS LOCATED IN aUEENSBURY IN WARREN COUNTY
PROJECT DESCRPllON:
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RIP-RAPPED STORMWA TER CHANNEL
EXTENDING TO THE EDGE OF CLASS II WETLAND GF-23. THE CHANNEL IS
EXTENDING FROM A NINE-LOT SUBDIVISION ALONG SWEET ROAD IN THE TOWN OF
aUEENSBURY.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW (SEaRl DeTERMINATION:
SEaR· 3B Project is an unlisted action and will not have a significant impact on the environment.
A negative declaration is on file. No coordinated review was performed.
SEQR LEAO AGENCY None Designated
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (SHPA) DETERMINATION
SHPA· 0 The proposed activity is 'not subject to review in accordance with SHPA. The permit type is
exempt or the activity is being reviewed in accordance with federal historic preservation regulations.
AVAlLABLITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Comments on this project must be
submitted in writing to the Contact
Person no later than 11 í22'90
CONTACT PERSON ____
KEVIN R BLISS
HUDSON ST EXT - PO BOX 220
WARRENSBURG, NY 12885-0220
TO THE APPLICANT
1 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT
2 TIlls is to advise vou that yO\M' appllcallon IS complete. and a review has commenced Additional ,nlormatlon may bø reqUllsltKJ
Irom vou al a lulure datlt II dltemed necessary, to order to reach decISion on your applicatIOn
3 Your prO ect IS cl88Slfled MAJOR Accordingly, a declS,on w~1 be made .,thm 90 days 01 the dale 01 this Nollce It a
public hearing IS nllC8ssary, you WI" be nollfied within 60 days and Ihe hearing wlM commence ""thln 90 days ollhtl date 01
this notice II a heanng IS hetd, lhe final deciSion w~1 be made Wllhln 60 days alter the heanng IS compleled,
4, PublicatÌOll 01 this Nollce In a newspaper IS requwed Consult the accompanying Instructions lor Newspaper Pub~callon
cc: Chiel Executive Ollicer
Environmental NOllce BuMetin. Room 509. 50 WolI Ruau, Albany, NY 12233-4500
File
4
.'N ......_, . - . _ .._ -
~1Iftt ntI..,.., ~ INttIÙllMiNTAE COIIIHIWAT1ÓN'" ..J~ '(.)
~~ .... 'JOINT APPttCATlON FOR PERMft"? ...,. ", .' ~~'~~~I~~_~'~Nt..i~~
u~!o- N'''L~íl~ NYMlta
;'1<,'''' ~;"~l;-'~I: ~-,' 'J'_'-" -.of -,J ~~~fl,tX''''f
- , ",.
, .......... ALL inItNcttoftt on back before èompletlnå this application. Pl.... .,..or ..... (~ ~ ....,...ttHh ~I ",to.Nöan ..........
, CA...." """\ ØTICU otNVCU 6*.(tAI(E CEORCE RECREATION ZONEJ. ' , _
OAlTICU 15, TlTU 3tAQuþ'TICPESTICIDES CONTROl) 06NYCRR 327 (AQUATIC VECETATION) D6NYCRR 32a'(FISH) D6NVCRR 324J(INSECTS)
OMYlCa.1$-...... ~~ OF WATERS) ,
DFor the c:GMCP~ íìf] V1\ctlM. or repelr of a DAM or other impoundment structure.
o For the ~. '''Á t~ft8MtÏfDrOIl BANKS or excavation in or fill of NAVICABLE WATERS. 0401 WATER QUALITY CEIIT'FICATION
DAI'ßCII15, TI1"Ia _ ~06IWC"6II'(WATER SUPPlY) 06NVCRR 602 (LO~ ISlAND Well)
DAlTIC..,5, Tml2"'N~èu'" (WILD, SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVERS) ,
DAlTlCU 24 6NYCRR 662. 663 (FRESHWATER WETLANDS)
DAITlCU 2S 6NYCRR 661 (TIDAL WETLANDS) DAlTlCU 34 6NYCRII 505 (COASTAL EROSION)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSECTION ,. (RIVER AND HARBOR AcT OF 1899) for structures and work in navil.ble w.ters of the U,S, DCOASTAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION.
DSlCTION _.(CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977) for dispos.1 of dredlecr or fill m.terial in w.ters of the U,S. _ ' ,. '
DSECTION 113 (MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACn for the tr.nsportation of dredae6 materials for dulllplne into OCUlI waten.
" Lln PREVIOUS PERM.T/APPLICATION NUMBERS AND DATES (If any)
2. APPLICANT IS AlAN
. 1l0wMr '
o Operator
DLes_, . DMunicipalityJCovemmentaJ AIIfICY (Chedr IS''''IIIY lS'aPPM
3. NAME OF APPLICANT (Use Full Name). ,
MAILINC ADDRESS
POST OFFICi
TELEPHONE (Where can be _hed durin. day)
(
STAn
ZIP CODi
4, NAME OF
DOw~_
(Check one)
-..
MAILlNC ADDRESS
;...:,,;/
TELEPHONE.\W..... can be reached ~ day)
) ! '. -
.'
POST OFFICE
S. PROJECTIFACIUJ'f LOCATION fMa" location on map, see Number 1a on reverse side)
~_ l~nM_
STREET ADDRESS (If different from applicant)
I Villa..
" .
"
6. NAME OF STREAM OR BODY OF WATER
ZI' CODe
PO$T OFFICi "
7, HAS WORK BfCUN oN PROJ!CTl If YES. attach explanation on startinl work without permit. include dates. 8, WILL PROJECTUTllIZi STATEI:ANDf
Dyes Show wort on map and/or drawinp. Dves I!JNo
9. PR~PO~:~icUSE!:'V ~7;:;'~~ 10, PROPOSED STARTINC DATE: ". APPROXIMATE CO;~ETlON DATE: 12',FEE OF (NVS perm:::
13. PROJECT DESCRIFT , IIId type of materiaL to be exc.vated, dredaed oruse61c11' 'ill or rip r.p, location of disposal sites: tvPe of
structure tobw~ ~~~IIi. of i!"poundent; capacities of proposed w.ter -as; extent of distribution system; etc.) _
. ... .~ .:~!J.; ~ _..
......-~.:'. ..:..... ., ~~. .
..:., -~ .,';"_:, ..~,... ~I...,~'f'
SIB An.CÌI.......·
14. WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE ADDITIONN- FEDERAL. STATE ANDIORLOCAL PERMITSr
iI,Yes
o No If .,.¡, pl.... list:
'"
TOVl or QUIIISIU.' SUBDIYISIOa APPIO,¡L,
1:',
15. CERTIFICATION:
I hereby .ffirm that unde« pen.l~ of perjury that information provided on this form and all attachments submitted herewith is tJue to the best of my knowled..
,arid belief. FilM stafements made herein .re punishable as a CllSs A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.4S of the Penal Law.
Further, the applicant Kcepts full responsibility for all damale, direct or indirect. of whatever nature, and by whomever suffered. arisl", out of the project
described herein and alreel to'lndelllnifv and save harmless the State from suits, actions, d.m.... .nd costs of every name and description resultin. from said
project In addition, Federal Law, 18 U,S.C. Section 1001 provides for a fine of not more than '10.000 or imprisonment for not more than five yean. or both.
where an applicìilt knowinlly and willfully falsifies. conceals. or covers up a materi.1 fact: or knowinaJy makes or uses a falMt, fictitous or fraudulent statement
Ijl hereby authorize the a... n.med in Number 4 above to submit this application on my beh.lf.
-- ./.........~. r . ~. ,
,/~,/' ¿ ..c.'. ,'- ',.- ,
; , .J ..~.... - ..... .~-. '.- -;í1
DATr
C~T~
..-
PLEASE READ ALL INIDUCTIONI ON IEVEIIE SIDE
PROGRAM
.
~
IIIT·FAOIT AIIOCIATD. t.e.
CONSULTING ENGINEEA8
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 831
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518.793-4148
518.793-4141
'-,
,
.
t
.¡
~
¡/~ftWr~I"'Fllf (Opy
t~ D£C181990 ~lb
ILA December 18, 1990
NNING a ZONIN'RFA #89-5000 514 RC 88
r)ePARTMENT .
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Hickory Acres
Subdivision 14-1988 - Final
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering
connents:
1. The appl icant previously proposed a detention basin to manage
stormwater runoff. Under the current amended plan, runoff is
allowed to discharge directly to the wetlands via an 18" CMP and
rip-rap channel. The direct discharge of a channelized flow from
the road storm drain system will carry increased flows and
sediment with it. Normally the applicant is required to
demonstrate that stormwater runoff 1 eaving the site does not
exceed pre-development conditions. If the applicant proposes to
increase pre-development runoff then a waiver is required from
Queensbury Subdivision Regulation VII!.!.1
2. Haybales are not appropriate for erosion control where there is
concent rat i on of water in a channel. An alternate method of
erosion control should be used.
3. Previous engineering connent #3, regarding water service and
sewage disposal fill absorption separat ion distance has been
addressed on the typical lot layout drawings (Sheets 2 and 3 of
3). However, it should be shown that this separation can be
maintained on lot #9.
4. lead tipped gaskets are not permissible in the water system.
Very truly yours,
~FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~~~ .
Thomas M. Ya w ch, P.E.
Managing Proje ngineer
THY/call
cc: Planning Board Members
$ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH
, ;
·
-
----
'--'"
,
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
FilE
COpy
P1:nlfti"l Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
By:
December 13. 1990
John Goralski
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
Area VariaDc:e
U. Variance
== Sip Variaøce
_ Interpretation
x Subcü.œoa: Sketch, -L- PrelimiDary.
- Site P1an Rerie. -
== Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit
FiDal
Other:
Appücation Number:
Subdivision No. 14-1990
Applicant'. Name:
Adams & Rich Associates - Inspiration Park
MeetiDg Date:
December 18, 1990
...................................*******.*.*****...**...**..*****..*.*.**.*.*......*....**
The applicant has addressed all of the previous concerns regarding this
project. I recommend Preliminary Stage approval of Subdivision 14-1990.
JG/pw
. - --------~._.-
-....
----"
.~.
.
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 (518) 792-5832
""'....... ,~
M E M 0
~~~;~o[~L
\ L-' NI'2!.ONIN'
AttorneY\(,)7J,1(7 PARTMENT
TO:
John Goralski, Planner
FROM:
Karla M. Corpus, Deputy Town
DATE:
November 6, 1990
RE:
Whether a Coordinated Review was Done for the
Ricciardelli/Adams & Rich Rezoning
Our File No. 89-l3-TQ
John, as we discussed, I looked into the matter of the
coordinated review for the above mentioned project.
After reviewing the files and consulting with Paul Dusek, it
appears that the coordinated review was done only for the rezoning
application. Additionally, my recollection of the Planning Board
Meeting. is that there was no consent resolution done at that time
designating the Town as Lead Agent with regard to the site plan
approval. Also, the site plan that appeared before the Planning
Board this past month is not the same as the one presented before
the Town Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Therefore, I would recommend that a new SEQRA Resolution be
done for the site plan approval. This, of course, will be done at
preliminary approval.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me.
Karla
KMC:cs
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
- --~- ------ - -
~
--
--
J!i.,/~~O
SUBU\V'~lUN NO.
PRELIMINARY pLAN
December 4, 1990
RFA #89-5000.514 ;.<c.qò
M E M 0 RAN DUM
, "''".......
~Z:~~
nEPARTMENT
TO: T. Yarmowich R. Jess
FROM: T. Paol icell f1b~
SUBJECT: Inspiration Park
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I met with Tom Nace of Haanen Engineering regarding Inspiration Park preliminary
stage subdivision plans. I reviewed the new drainage concept with Tom and agreed
that his revised approach is in accordance with previous comments. A detailed
review was not done at this time.
Temporary turn-arounds will be eliminated and the entire infrastructure will be
built at the same time. House construction will be phased. Tom said this has
been discussed with the Town and they have agreed. Tom will address the
remainder of RFA's comments dated November 29, 1990.
TGP/cmw
(J,e, Ósbð P/",,,""'J Þ-eft.) J c,h" Go rq'S~L
.------- -- ---
~,
~
RlST.F~ ~IATES. P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793·4148
518.793-4141
r:'lE COpy
--
-../
.."c.II."~"
~1~a'IFìt
~ 'MOV:'¡ I) 1990 ~
November 29, 1990
RFA #89-5000.514
'1L,ANNING . ZONINf
. DEPARTMENT
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Inspiration Park
Subdivision 14-1990 - Preliminary Stage
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering
conunents:
1. Surface runoff on streets shall be limited to a maximum of 350
feet per Subdivision Regulation VIII I.2.e. This limit is
exceeded between Station 3+20 and Station 8+05 of Ampersand Lane
and between Station 11+90 and 7+50 of Seymour Drive as shown on
the grading, drainage and clearing plan.
2. The grading, drainage and clearing plan does not match the road
centerline profile drawings. The plan shows catch basin/drywell
facilities at Station 10+40 of Ampersand Lane and 7+50 of Seymour
Drive, while the road centerl ine profile drawing shows these
structures at 11+50 and 7+00 respectively.
3. The phasing of project construction includes temporary turn
arounds. The stormwater management concept should be addressed
in terms of the phasing proposed.
4. Regarding the drainage report:
a. It should be noted that the "C" value, or coefficient of
runoff is used in the rational method, not the "CN" value
or curve number which is used in the SCS-TR55 method.
b. The calculations should be revised to characterize the
operat ion of each component in drainage subareas. The
number of infiltration drywells on the plan should match
the calculations.
c. The roadway system storm drainage should be designed for a
10 year storm without ponding. The subdivision stormwater
management must maintain 50 year predevelopment discharges
from any place stormwater could leave the site. Because
* GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH
-----,,---..--
..
~
.
"--'
-../
Town of Queensbury
Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner
Page 2
November 29, 1990
RFA #89-5000.514
runoff may result from undeveloped areas this needs to be
addressed in the stormwater management calculations.
d. The area at lots 40 and 41 may be subject to subdivision
drainage. When the drainage comments are addressed it may
reveal the need for additional drainage system components.
Drainage facilities across lots will require easements.
5. The septic tank sizes should be adjusted in accordance with NYS
DOH regulat ions, Wastewater Treatment' Standards - Individual
Household Systems, which take effect December 1, 1990.
6. lengths of subsurface disposal system laterals should be adjusted
to reflect the percolation rate of the fill material.
7. Stop signs need to be shown at the intersection of Ampersand lane
and Seymour Drive.
8. All easements for ut i1 it ies and storm drainage need to be
indicated on the final plat.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST AS~CIATES, P.C.
~~.~~Jl
Thomas M. Yarm~ich, P.E.
Managing ProjecÎ'Engineer
TMY/crrrtl
cc: Planning Board Members
------- ._-
,.
.
-
'"-,,
-.../
,
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:
December 14. 1990
Lee A. York
By:
Area Vari8Dce
U. Variance
- Sip. Variance
~ IDterpretatioa
x Subdi'risioa: Sketch,
Site P1aD Rmew
- Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
x Pre1imiDary.
FiDal
Other:
Application Number:
Subdivision No. 12-1990
Applicant'. Name:
Alene Brown
MeetiDg Date:
December 18. 1990
............................................................................................
This 3 lot subdivision is located on the corner of Ridge Road and
Clements Road. The zone is SR-IA and the lot sizes range from 2.16 acres to
6.49 acres. All zoning requirements have been met and there are no planning
concerns. Drainage and septic issues will be addressed by the engineer.
LAY/pw
. . .__ _~n.·· ___ __
~
.r
RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 BAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518.793·4148
518 .793-4141
'..........
--
,w,...... ..
~~~![~]!
. . 4 ,.
~"' i ¡ ..:
. .-, '71 '(,
1,' ~
December 17, 1990
RFA #89-5000.512 RC 90
'LANNING & ZONIH
""'!PAATMFN"
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Alene M. Brown
Subdivision 12-1990 - Preliminary
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering
cormnents:
. 1. Regarding sewage disposal systems design:
a. A PERC test should be conducted at the sewage disposal area
for lot 2.
b. Test hole data to determine h igh seasonal groundwater shall
conform to Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance Section
5.030 B.7 and Appendix F. Data shall be collected within
the time frames stipulated or the data should be certified
by aqua 1 if i ed person approved by the 1 oca 1 Board of
Health.
c. The required sewage disposal design data can be furnished
to the Town Enforcement Officer for approval prior to
systems construction.
2. Previous englneering coments dated 9/24/90 have been satisfacto-
rily addressed.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~ ~l
Thomas M. Ya owich, P.E.
Managing Pro'e t Engineer
TMY/cam
cc: Planning Board Members
* GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH
-~-_._-_.
.
-
,
"---
~
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Flannh,! Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: December 14, 1990
By: Lpp A. Ynrk
Area VariaDce
U. Variance
- Sip Variance
== Jnt~tioD
X SubcÜ9Ï8iOD: Sketch, _ PrelimÜlary, X FiDal
Site PIaD Rmew -
- Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit
Other:
Applicatioø Number:
Subdivision No. 15-1990
Applicant'. Name:
Edgar Eggleston, Jr.
Meeting Date:
December 18, 1990
............................................................................................
The subdivision request is to divide a ~.83 acre parcel. No new
development is proposed on lots A & B. Lot C is to be conveyed to the
adjacent property owner.
There are no environmental or neighborhood impacts.
Board grant final approval.
I rec ommend the
LAY/pw
,
.
-
---'
'---'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PI$lnning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
December 13. 1990
Lee A. York
By:
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sip Variance
- Interpretation
SubdiYisioa: Sketch,
X Site Plan ReYiew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
PreJimiDal"y,
FiDal
Other:
Appücation Number:
Site Plan No. 87-90
AppUc:aø.t's Name:
James Weller - F. W. Webb
Meeting Date:
December 18. ]990
**..........................*.****...........................*........................*.**..
The site plan detai ls the construct ion of a new building with outside
storage. The use will be Wholesale Plumbing and Heating. The applicant
received a zoning variance to have this light industrial use in the highway
commercial zone. This occurred on Sept. 19, 1990. On November 28, the
applicant also received a variance on a small piece of additional land
adjacent to the lot.
The size of the lot is 2.53 acres. The building is 19,600 sq. ft. and
the paved area will be 47% of the lot. The paved area will be for parking and
storage. The entrance will ' be off of both Highland Avenue and the Boulevard.
The
drainage.
major concern with this project appears to be the
I have attached a transmission from Warren County D.P.W.
stormwater
I reviewed this plan with regard to Section 5.070:
J. Location, arrangement, si,ze & design of buildings - not a concern
although the Board may want to stipulate that the 1ightin~ not reflect into
the roadway.
2. Vehicular access is adequate.
3. Off Street parking is sufficient.
-1-
-.--------~- --
'---'
-../
Site Plan 87-90
James Weller
4. There is no spec i fie pedest r ian access way, however, the parking lot
is designed for 33 spaces and this may not be a problem. One thing that the
Board may want to review is the pickup area. Trucks will be moving in and out
of this lane. The lane is 24 feet wide, however, the adjacent parking may
impact the ease of movement. This is an area that provisions for pedestrian
access may want to be considered.
5. Adequacy of stormwater drainage will be discussed by the Town
Engineer.
6. Water supply and sewage disposal seem adequate.
7. Screening and buffering is accomplished by a deciduous hedge and
leaving trees along the buffer line to the east. On the west side, which is
adjacent to a residence cedar trees are to be planted in a 10 foot strip.
This area is adjacent to the access way into the parking lot from both roads.
The Board may want to review if greater buffering is needed adjacent to a
residential use.
8. Fire access is adequate.
9. Erosion control devices should be maintained during construction.
LAY/pw
_...._._._u___·· _ _... _
..
.
,
"-- -....-'
1
¡
WARREN CouNlY DEPARTMENT OF PuBUC WORKS
WNR:NSII,Ma:FŒS
281 Main Street
Warren.burg, NY 12Ø8S
Tel. 518-623-4141
518-761-6558
FAX 518-623·2772
Superlntendltnt" Office
Highway DlvI.1on
Parks and RecnNation
Airport Administration
Equipment MaIntenance
Engineering
Hatchery Administration
MUNICIPAL CENTER 0fF!ÒES
Lake George, NY 12845
CIvil Defense and Natural Disaster
Tel. 518-761-6490 '
Buildings and Grounds
Tel. 518-761-6494
FRED AUSTIN, P.E.
Supt. Public Works
WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT
Tel. 518-792·5995
200 R Queensbury Ave.
Queensbury, NY 12804
ROGER GEBO
Dep. Supl Public Works
December 10, 1990
Town of Queensbury
Queensbury Town Office Bldg.
531 Bay Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Lee York, Senior Planner
RE: site Plan Review
F.W. Webb - Boulevard
And Highland Avenue
Dear Lee:
Enclosed, please find the following information as referred to
above:
A. A copy of a letter from James M. Weller, P.E., to Roger
Gebo dated 9/20/90;
B. A copy of a letter from Roger Gebo to Jim Weller dated
9/27/90.
This department met with Mr. Weller and Mr. Vandewater at the site
on Oct. 10, 1990 to discuss the above project as it affects the
Warren County Dept. of Public Works existing storm drainage system.
The results of the meeting were as follows:
This"department still recommends that F.W. Webb finds other
alternatives for storm water management.
Two alternative measures that we recommended are as follows:
A. Increase the size of Warren County's existing storm
drainage system so that the proposed detention system
would not be needed;
. -.---.----- .-
.j
.
.
--
--
Page 2
B. Enter into an agreement with the municipality which
shall include provisions for the future maintenance of
the site.
(See enclosure).
To date, we have not received any reply from the owner's
consultants.
Very truly yours,
~~
Roger Gebo
Dep. Superintendent
Warren county DPW
RG: lb
encl.
."-----~-
'",--,
--
§646-4.14
SECTION 646-4.14 MAINTENANCE OF' STORMHA'l'ER CONTROL FACILITIES UNDER
STORMWATER REGULATORY. P~OGRAMS. . E~ch Stormwater Regula~orYProgram \¡/
shall include, at a m1nlInUm, provls10ns for the future malntenance of ~
the site, consistent with the following. (
(a) Applicabilitv. Prior to issuance' òf a certif icate of com-
pletion for any major project, or any minor project where it is deemed
necessary, the municipality shall require that a stormwater management
maintenance agreement be entered into between the owner(s) of the site
and the municipality.
(b) Purpose. The stormwater management maintenance agreement
shall ensure that stormwater control facilities are maintained in
working condition, throughout the life of the project.
0;.,
(c) Reauirements.
agreement shall:
(1) Be in writing and be executed by each owner of the
project and the municipality, and shall bind the owner(s), their suc-
cessors and assigns to future maintenance of stormwater control
facilities serving the project.
The stormwater management maintenance
(2) Be binding on all owners of lands within the proj ect
and all parties to the agreement, their successors and assigns for the
life of the prÐject.
(3) Include provisions to raise, maintain and expend funds
for necessary maintenance and repair functions over the life of the
project.
(4) Provide that if maintenance and repair activities are
not performed in compliance with its terms, the municipality shall be
entitled to perform or contract for the necessary services and charge
the then current proj ect oWI1ers for the cost thereof, including any
related legal fees and disbursements~
(5) Provide for timely and routine inspections to be per-
formed on all stormwater control facilities at intervals of no less
than five years, and that written reports of these inspections shall
be filed with the municipality and with the Commission.
(d) Notice. The stormwater management maintenance agreement
shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk or its terms shall
be incorporåted into covenants appearing in the deed, declarations of
covenants and restrictions or other such documents to ensure that
record notice of its terms is provided to future owners of the site.
It shall also be included in the offering plan, if any, for the pro-
ject. A copy of each stormwater management maintenance agreement
31
~.------
'---
"-'"
'~
§646-4.14
shall.b~ filed with the~éommission, Wh~ch shall be made a third-party
beneflclary of all such agreements, entltled to enforce their t~rms.
(e) Initial Maintenance Security. The project owner(s) or
sponsor shall establish a maintenance security in the form of a bond
letter of credit, escrow account, or other acceptable security, fo~
the purpose, of rebuilding, maJntaining or repairing the stormwater
control facilities during the first two years following construction.
SECTION 646-4.15 CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS IN STORMWATER
REGULATORY PROGRAMS.
(a) All Stormwater Regulatory Programs shall provide that an
application may be approved, denied, or approved with modifications or
conditions, including modifications to non-stormwater aspects of the
development necessary to achieve the required level of stor'mwater
management.
(b) All programs shall include a provision which requires that
no stormwater management permit shall be issued unless the municipal-
ity makes the following findings, which shall be supported by substan-
tial evidence. The facts supporting such findings shall be set forth
in the decision document or permit. The issued permits shall set
forth all required conditions and incorporate all necessary documents
'and maps. ~
,
(1) That the project meets, the design requirements and
performance standards set forth in ECL section 43-0112, this Subpart
and the municipality's'stormwater Regulatory Program.
(2) That the project will not have an undue adverse impact
on the health, safety and welfare of the public or on the resources of
the Lake George Park and will not lead to a diminution of water qual-
ity, an increase in erosion, or an increase in stormwater runoff from
the site either during oS following construction.
(3) That the stormwater control plan proposed for the
proposed project will function as designed and that such plan repre-
sents the best possible methods and procedures for controlling storm-
water runoff that is feasible and practicable at ,the particular
project site.
(4) That adequate and sufficient measures have been taken
to ensure accountability and responsibility over the life of the
project should the stormwater control plan not function as intended,
fail, or suffer from inadequate maintenance to ensure its proper
functioning.
(5) That the proposed project will not contribute to
flooding , siltation or streambank erosion and will not ~result in any
32
.....__..~.
~
'---'
'"-"
UPPER BAY ROAD. P.O. BOX 2015 · GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 · PHONE 518·793-3509
J. M. Weller Associates, Inc.
September '20, 1990
Mr. Roger Gebo
Warren County Highway Department
261 Main Street
Warrensburg, New York 12885
Re: Site Plan for F.W. Webb
Between The Boulevard and Highland Avenue, Town of Queensbury
Dear Roger,
Please consider the following as my response to the concerns you raised
with Tom VandeWater earlier today.
1) It will be the responsibility of the building owner and tenant
to maintain the outlet control device.
2) It is expected that miscellaneous debris will tend to collect at
the outlet device and that it will require regular cleaning. It
will be in the best interest of the owner/tenant to keep the
device clean, otherwise the paved storage area will be full of
water.
3) Ice and snow will need to be removed from the detention area.
The owner/tenant will need to accomplish this removal work in
order to use the detention area as a storage area.
4) The owner/tenant will have a responsibility to maintain the
concrete work around the detention area and at the outlet
device. I would expect that the Town of Queensbury will
regularly inspect to be sure everything is kept in good working
order. I would also expect that if something malfunctions,
there will be complaints from neighbors which will have to be
addressed.
As with all other structures used for storm water management,
maintenance will be required. The advantages with our proposed system
is that everything is above ground which will allow for easy inspection
and repair work.
If I have not adequately an~wered your concerns, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
/i1 ~:kJ4
M. Weller, P.E.
dent
/hn
- - ~------ --~---
·
#
~
'-'
"
WARREN CouNlY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
wAARENS8URGa::FŒS
261 Main Street
Warrensburg. NY 12885
Tel. 518-623-4141
518-761-6556
Fo\X 518-623·2772
- MUNICIPAl CENTER OFFICES
Lake George, NY 12&45
Superintendent's Office
Highway Division
Parks and Recreation
Airport Administration
Equipment Maintenance
Engin8/Jrlng
Hatchery Administration
september 27, 1990
FRED AUSTIN. P.E.
Supt. Public Works
Civil Defense and Natural Disaster
Tel. 518-76.1:6490
Buildings aner Grounds
Tel. 518-761-6494
ROGER GEBO
Dep. Supt. Public Works
WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT
Tel. 518· 792-5995
200 R Queensbury Ave.
Queensbury, NY 12804
J.M. Weller Associates, Inc.
Upper Bay Road
P.O. Box 2015
Glens Falls, NY 12801
RE: site Plan - F.W. Webb
Boulevard & Highland Ave.
Dear Jim:
In answer to your letter of September 20, 1990, we have the
following comments to make and/or address concerning the proposed
provisions f~ storm water management:
A. Who will maintain the outlet control device if the
owner and/or tenant cannot be reached during a heavy
snow & sleet storm or heavy rain storm?
B. Who will maintain the outlet control device if the
owner or tenant goes out of business?
C. Where will the owner or tenant put the SHOW and/or
ice when they clean the storage area?
D. Who will be responsible for cleaning the County's storm
drainage system if debris, etc., from the proposed
development plugs it 'up?
This department recommends that you find other alternatives for
storm water management. Perhaps increasing the sizes of the
existing county and State storm drain systems may be the
alternative.
We will be" available to discuss the above at your convenience.
vrr:~ours,
Roger Gebo
Dep. Superintendent
Warren County DPW
RG: lb
cc: Lee York, Queensbury Planning
._--~
~
RIS~.. ~CIATES. P.C.
CONSIJ. "'GINEERS
SUAVE', JAS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 SAY STAEET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 . 793-4148
518 .793-4141
'-'
..--
'CTS
....,....... ~
!l ~ilWí~1 ~
l~ DEC181990~
FilE COpy
'LANNING It ZONIN'
"EPARTMfN'"
December 18, 1990
RFA #89-5000.087 RC 90
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attention: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: F. W. Webb Corporation (James M. Weller, P.E.)
Site Plan 87-90
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the above-referenced project and have the following
engineering comments:
1. Design and construction details should be shown for the
following:
a. Water system connection;
b. Retaining wall between parking and truck ramp;
c. Septic system including tank, absorption trench profile and
system inverts.
2. Regarding the design of the septic system:
a. High seasonal groundwater is to be established in
accordance with the methods stated in the Sanitary Sewer
Ordinance Section 5.030 B 7. and Appendix F. In the event
high seasonal groundwater is not determined in the time
frame stipulated, the determination must be certified by an
individual approved by the local Board of Health.
b. Confl ict ing depth d imens ions from the surface to the
disposal lateral are shown on the typical absorption trench
detail on sheet 2.
3. A note should be added to the plan confirming the absence or
presence of any existing wells on the northwest side of Highland
Avenue within the minimum separation distances from the proposed
septic field.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures should be provided in
accordance with the "New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion
& Sediment Control" and shown on the plan.
5. Additional grading information and flow arrows should be shown at
the proposed access from The Boulevard to ensure drainage does
not flow onto the Perkins property to the west.
$ GLENS FALLS, NY·LACONIA, NH
/r
../'
~ ./ '--'
"".'~
Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Page 2
-..-'
December 18, 1990
RFA #89-5000.087 RC 90
6. Regarding the stormwater management plan, the following issues
need to be addressed:
a. A drainage area map of the site and all tributary off-site
dra inage areas is needed. Time of concentrat ion travel
paths should be shown.
b. All off-site areas draining to the proposed stormwater
management detention area must be considered in the
calculations. Although stormwater management control is
not required for these off-site areas, the resulting flows
must be established in order to design a control structure
that operates properly.
c. The peak discharge factors used in the drainage report
(page 6, nos. 5 and 6) for comput ing the peak di scharge
from the developed site are beyond the recognized limits
for the method used . All factors ut 11 ized for method
selected must be consistent with the method applicability.
d. The configurat ion of the stor_ater management outl et
control structure is unacceptable due to potential
c 1 ogg i ng. It is noted that ca 1 cu 1 at ions for the outlet
control are based on weir conditions that are not met. The
outlet as proposed should be considered as a flume and not
a weir.
e. The proposed stormwater management design should include
provisions for sediment and other contaminants removal.
7. Off-site grading is shown on the Seelye property to the east.
8. Ice accumulation in the paved detent ion area appears likely,
impacting the internal access road and the truck ramp. Grading
for the stormwater detent ion area should be investigated to
minimize this condition.
9. It appears that the area for stormwater detention is also to be
used for storing items pertaining to the proposed business. Has
the impact of this dual use been considered?
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
t:--1 ( ("
1hõmas ~:'"'rà;mowich, P:È.
Managing Project Engineer
TMY/cam
cc: Planning Board Members
{\
" \
. ------"---- ----. - -
". .
~
-../
December 12, 1990
ß~~!~1
Citizens Advisory Committee
on Access for the Handicapped
Present:
'LANNING I ZONIN'
"EPAATIIIEN'f'
Margo Burrell
Nancy Calano
Sue Helffrich
Katharine Cornwell
RecolTll1endations
Re: Site Plan No.87-90
James M. Weller
Dear Chairperson:
According to N.Y.S. Codes, Rules and Regulations
auto cuts are needed from handicapped parking onto
sidewalk and into building.
Respectfully submitted.
'k..... y¿,
\ " c:.... i. "'. ""-":I.. ). ". \.
c_~...:.'-'U. ~ ,-I...... c.
C"~ .," ,
~ '\-~ L-
L;"~,,, \ I,' ,'L...J,,'
-~, , , " <
'''--'-. '-
cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Superv;sor
Lee York, Senior Planner
Dave Hàtin, Code Enforcement Admin.
Planning Board Comm;ttee
--~-,_._-_.- --"
.,
.
-
'---'
-'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
.. ~ :
C 't J:
ropy
P1.ftfti~g Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Date:
December 17. 1 QQO
John S. Goralski
By:
Ana VariaDce
Use Variaøce
== Sip Variance
_ IDtel'pl"etatioa.
SubdiYision: Sketch. _ P.reJimiDary,
-X... Site P1aa ReYiew -
Petition for a Chauge of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDal
Other:
AppJicatioa. Number:
Sitf~ Pl;¡n Nn 88-90
Applicant'. Name:
Michael Kaidas
MeetiDg Date:
December 18, 1990
............................................................................................
After reviewing the standards set forth in Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, I have
the following comments.
Because Quaker Road is developjI,lg as a major commercial conidor, this is an
appropriate location for both the retail store and the bank. It should be noted that the
addition of a bank will significantly increase the amount of vehicles entering and exiting
this site. It should not, however, significantly impact the number of vehicles on Quaker
Road.
Because traffic moves at a high rate of speed on Quaker Road, any left hand turning
movements are dangerous. I recommend that both exits be posted as right turn only to
minimize any potential hazard. Also, all trucks making deliveries to Kaidas Kitchens
should enter and exit via the easterly driveway to avoid conflicts with the pedestrian
and vehicular traffic around the bank.
The Board's consulting engineer will address the issue of storm water management.
JSG/sed
-----~_.__.- .---
.. ..
"'--'
-.-/
WARREN CouNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
wNÆNSSlRia:FŒS f I L E ( 0 P Y
W~~~~~~:~~]88~)61 ~(t~I~fjWj"~~
518-761-6556 t!1~~ ~
FAX 518·623-277 DEC 131990 j
Superintend8nt's Office
Highway Division , ~LANNING. ZONINt
Parks and Recreation
Airport Administration I)EPARTMENT
Equipment Maintenance
Engineering
Hatchery Administration
December 11, 1990
MUNICIPAL CENTER OFFIÒES
Laka George, NY 12845
FRED AUSTIN, P.E.
Supt. Public Works
Civil Defense and Natural DI.ster
Tel. 518-761·6490 .
Buildings and Grounds
Tal. 518-761-6494
ROGER GEBO
Dep. SÛPt. Public Works
WARREN COUNlY AIRPORT
Tel. 518-792-5995
200 R aueensbury Ave.
Queensbury, NY 12804
Lee York, Sr. Planner
Town of Queensbury
531 Bay Road
Queensbury, NY 12804-9725
RE: site Plan Review - Kaidas
Kitchens/Key Bank N.A.
Dear Lee:
This department reviewed the above mentioned site plan and we offer
you our comments listed below:
A. We will require the developer to use the westerly
drive for an entrance only and the easterly drive for
an exit only. (Appropriate signs will have to be erected
to show these conditions).
B. We will also require the developer to bore under Quaker
Road for the proposed 1" Type-K copper water service.
A County DPW permit will be required for the above two comments.
We also noted that the drainage report addressed the existing site
only and not the large volume of water which flows from the
property south of the existing site along the D&H R.O.W. to the
di tch on Quaker Road. '. Does this water from the south enter the
proposed retention pond or continue along the existing ditch? This
question should be addressed by the developer to see if the
existing 12" culvert under both existing driveways is large enough.
When the above conditions are rectified, we will issue a permit for
our part of the project.
V~ truly yours,
v~~
Ro er Gebo
Dep. Superintendent
Warren County DPW
RG: lb
cc: Pat Tatich, we Planning Board
Michael Kaidas, Developer
---~_._-_.-
-
~
. RI8T-FAQ8T ASSOCIATES, P,C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 SAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518.793-4148
518 .793-4141
'--'
--.-/
~~~!t~h,
'_~~l.E copy
December 17, 1990
RFA #89-5000.088
'LANNINQ, & ZONIN
~ePARTMFN"
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Michael Kaidas
Site 88-90
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering
cOßlßents:
1. The 12 parking spaces provided to the south of the proposed Key
Bank building may be blocked if more than one lane of vehicles
are permitted to stack at the drive through.
2. Regarding StormwaterManagement:
a. The proposed grading on the site indicates that only
approximately half of the site drains to the proposed
detent ion pond. The northern part of the site drains
toward Quaker Road. The stormwater ca 1 cul at ions shoul d
reflect the proposed grading.
b. Grading for the entire swale to the west should be shown on
the plan. Grading of the general area to the west is
incorrect or incomplete.
c. The capacity of the existing Quaker Road ditch and culverts
should be considered in the stormwater design.
d. The location of the test hole should be indicated on the
plan. The test hole data indicates high groundwater and
may effect the detention basin construction/operation.
e. Sed iment control within and maintenance of the proposed
detention basin should be provided. Notes should be added
that instruct removal of accumulated sediment and mainte-
nance of the detention basin outlet opening and precludes
the placement of snow in the basin.
* GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH
r- --- -..----,---
./ .
r'
~~
--
--...;
Town of Queensbury
Attn: Mrs. lee York
Page 2
December ,17, 1990
RFA #89-5000.088
3. Erosion control measures should be shown on the plan, and shall
be in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control.
Very truly yours,
RIiT-FROST SSOCIATES, P.C.
~I~ .
Thomas M. oWich, P.E.
Managing Pro ct Engineer
TMY/cmw
cc: Planning Board Members
^ ..~_._--_.._.- --
·" .,~~
. i.' ,,'.' ',..;';>1;",.,1,
,(';",;' ,;
, "--'
--
"'
,
,
",:'
'"
,j,
~.,
.
m. J1cudo.A
J.
~
J·e
~1
-
--
-_/
,
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PlAnnb_8 Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
December 14, 1990
Lee A. York
By:
Anta VIR"iaDce
U. VariaDce
== Sip VariaDce
_ mtel'pl'etatiaD
Other:
Subdirision: Sketch,
X Site Plan Review
- Petition far a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
Pre1imiDary,
FÜIal
App1icatiaD Number: Site Plan Review No. 89-90
App1icant~N8IDe: Marion S. and John P. Cushin~
MeetiDg Date: December 18. 1990
............................................................................................
In reviewing the criteria set forth in Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance,
it does not appear that this proposal will have any negative impacts on the
surrounding area.
Specifically, there will be no impact on traffic and there will be no
visual impact. Because the increase in non-permeable area is minimal and is
greater than 75 feet from Lake George, there should be no significant impact
due to stormwater runoff. Furthermore, there is no increase in living area so
there will be no impact on the septic system.
JG / pw
.-,--.-
f{'»
, .
.J -
U ..)
.
------
....
rl
"
0- 0 ,t-\
í :: ..,
<l . - ...:t:
..JD-
. 1/.. pi ' 0 '.!J
~ \J -
N
.J " 0 (J
bI ..J 0
~
':t:' 0
3 ()\
<S' -r 1/
..
~
A(
'^ ï
y '''P ' . "''1.'0('
1
J C>
.J
,t
~
0
()
\~
'^
,
0
:r::
~
~ ,¡
'>J "
). ¿
J
I
I
I
" I
·~U
, "
~~
7"2iO":':)
-:{9
3-;rt/7
:
;i
.
oJ
~
.
'Z
-----
;/
i'-'
v',
. (~I...
JY/
¡?/
ði/I
0;;
-
.
J
<1
¡.:
'"
II
,
/
I
.'
-../
r-
eO
<f)
-
\,J j
J ~
1- ~
~ \- ..:(
1 I
\L.. ~ 0-
~ \II
.J
"" '~
.
~ -:; 3
-::1.
¡. J ~
I)-
, ~
çf.
d'>"P"
, ,-""".""..
t,~:(;",~'1.'~-·
fJ1A~oAl S. ~ JOhN P. (uç[.., ;r-j
\
'"
t
\j
I~ ~
~ ø
.J -:r.:
'1
':&
o
~)
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
F' L E
COpy
1
.~
-,
.
-
"--'
-..-'
pw.""¡"IJ Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
December 14, 1990
Lee A. York
By:
Ana Variaac:e
U.. VarlaDce
== Sip VarlaDce
_ IDterpretatiaa
SuhdmsioD: Sketch.
X Site Plan ReYiew -
-Petition for a CbaDge of ZoDe
- Freshwater WetJa:ad8 Permit
PreJimÜUll"f,
FiDal
Other:
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 90-90
Applicant·. Name:
Susan Balfour
MeetiDg Date:
December 18. 1990
............................................................................................
The application is to allow a vacant house on 82+ acres to be used as a
real estate office. No new construction is planned. This is a change of use
in an MR 5 zone. The plan presented with the application appears to be
inaccurate. The driveway and parking area are not correct on the map. This
is not a serious problem as with 82 acres and over 1336 feet of road frontage
the applicant has enough area to provide a sufficient access way and parking
area. I am requesting a zoning determination on what the parking and access
requirements are for this use and building. I would recommend that any
handicapped access be located as close to the building as possible. Also, if
the sign is to be lit it should be done so that the reflection does not affect
traffic.
I reviewed the site plan Section 5.070. Since there are no proposed
changes to the site, except designation of a parking area, the standards do
not apply except as referenced previously.
LAY/pw
-../
.
'~."
..
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Lee A. York
FROM: Patricia M. Collard
RE: Susan Balfour Application
DATE: December 18, 1990
I am writing in response to your memo of December 14, 1990. - The use
proposed by Susan Balfour of a Real Estate office will require 10 parking spaces
plus one handicap parking space and there is adequate area for this number
of parking spaces.
Also, 20 foot access to the site is proposed as required per Section 7.071
Off-street Parking Design of the Zoning Ordinance. A visit to the site revealed
ample width available for this requi-rement.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
.c_.}
.
\ "
. .
.
'-
--...-/
Citizens Advisory Committee
on Access for the Handicapped
December 12, 1990
¡IL~ftWit~)1
l~ DEC 1 f¡ 1qqn 1.)
Present:
Margo Bu rrell
Nancy Calano
Sue Helffrich
Katharine Cornwell
'LANNING a 20_,..
"I:PAll11lfN?
Recorrmendations
Re: Site Plan No.
90-90 Susan K. Balfour
Dear Chairperson:
According to N.Y.S. Codes, Rules and Regulations, thåis
office must be made accessible to the disabted including
entrance, interior and parking.
Respectfully submitted,
\,--
'\ ') -;,,~ '\'':.'~ (--'\. --:..-.... \
'I
(A~
'.J
~._\. ":'_ ......., 1..-' . ( (....."
L, í ' 1.'.1' ','
",' "._, ,__, \:~·_-~U_'-.....)....À.....",- \ " ! ~
cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor
Lee York, Senior Planner
Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin.
Planning Board Committee
--~---~--~~
"'t..... _.....
/
3.32
10.0~AC.(S)
l---/
~.,
Jt~Ulct
rT
)
---'
-
..
.-.J
--
,
-
-../
1
r
L ICHT'N
ÐIH.
'- r---: ---- ----
J O:':~:J:) ,)
/~
It-
'---
~
...
c
.
-'~
;/
\
,
.I
+\
'Ç)
&
r..:j
/
I
I
(
"
~~S 1 ,-
..
-
~
/ ~
f "
.
.; /
/
15.1 t
10. 88AC(,i) -~
)
..
I , .f
100t -(gOB!
4'1
~
'j u 5 A-tJ k . 8ft tÇ'ð U(