1986-10-21
/9
QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
'--
Regular Meeting held: Tuesday, October 21, 1986 @ 8:00 P.M.
Present:
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Hilda Mann
Frank DeSantis
Susan Levandowski
Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Planner
Kenneth Sorlin, Secretary
Victor Macri, Jr.
R. Case Prime, Attorney
Susan E. Davidsen, Stenographer
Absent:
Joseph S. Dybas
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Richard Roberts, Chairman.
Corrections were made to the September 16 minutes as follows:
* Hilda Mann was not present
* page 4, the resolution authorized the Chairman to sign the plat for
Subdivision No. 8-86 when the N.Y.S. Department of Health stamp
is placed on the plat and the recreation fee received.
* page 7, the public hearing for Site Plan No. 18-86 was left open
until October; it was not closed.
* page 9, Site Plan No. 22-86, third paragraph. Comments attributed
to Mr. Macri should be attributed to Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Macri excused
himself from the discussion.
* page 10, 3rd paragraph. Separate motions were made by Sorlin
(Levandowski) and Dybas (Levandowski) to issue a negative declaration
for S.E.Q.R. and approve the project, respectively. Also, second
sentence of resolution should read, "measures are outlined..."
Mr. Roberts announced that the following project had been tabled until
November or withdrawn, and would not appear before the Board tonight.
Kings Plantation, Courthouse Estates, Hallmark Nursing Home and Anthony Jones.
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDMSION NO. 11-86 Preliminary Approval
Edgewater Place, Laskin Development of New York, Inc. on Haviland Avenue.
David Higgs, Laskin Development described this subdivision which is located
in both the City of Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury.
Mr. Sorlin read letters from the Boards consulting engineer, Nick Sciartelli
of Richard Morse Associates, outlining the engineering review indicating that there
'-
1
;{o
'"---
were no major problems. It was eXplained that the subdivision was proposed to hook
up to City water, sewer and stormwater systems, have roads built to City
specifications, be maintained by the City, and have City fire protection.
Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report recommending tabling the application
until a meeting could be arranged between the City, Town, and developer. Mr.
Mesinger said he had no objections to the proposal, but as it was a new and unique
arrangement, it ought to be agreed to by the Town before being approved by the
Board.
Public Hearing Opened:
Ms. Phillips, 61 Haviland Avenue, asked if the City had approved the subdivision.
Mr. Roberts said yes, but no permits have been issued.
Ms. Phillips said that the area is wet and needs sewers. She felt that as
compensation for the loss of open space, sewers should be extended up Haviland
Road.
Eric Nelson had questions concerning drainage. Bob Leaver of L.A. Partnership
explained the drainage system. Drainage will not be discharged onto adjacent property
through existing open pipes. Mr. Nelson had no objection to this.
Public Hearing Closed.
Ms. Mann MOVED, second by Ms. Levandowski,
RESOLVED THAT Subdivision No. 11-86 be tabled until a meeting could be held
on the issues raised in the memo of October 16, 1986 from Nick Sciartelli of Morse
Engineering.
Passed Unanimously.
SITE PLAN NO. 16-86
Adirondack Body Basics, Keith Wrigley and Gretchen Sunderland, west side Country
Club Road.
Mr. DeSantis excused himself from this project.
Attorney, Bob Kafin represented the application on behalf of Adirondack Body
Basics. He outlined the history of the project, specifically, the Zoning Board of
Appeals interpretation that this is a health related facility allowed by site plan review
in the urban residential zone. The applicant now wished action on the site plan.
*
Bob Leaver of the L.A. Partnership described the site plan. He said that the
facility would be onubtrusive and that traffic generation would be minimal. Septic
wastes would be handled by two mounded systems, one for pool backwash and one
for seepage. Mounded systems are required because of a high groundwater condition.
Finally, Mr. Leaver noted that the Beautification Committee had reviewed and
approved the proposal.
.,--
Mr. Roberts said that the public hearing on the project was still open. In as
much as the Zoning Board has resolved the question of use, comment would not be
entertained on this subject.
* unabtrusive misspelled
2
)/
"-,
The Boards consulting engineer for the project, Mr. Morse, described his review
for engineering details. The major concern was wet soils. Mr. Morse said that the
proposed mounded systems would be more than adequate. Drainage details were
also addressed and were not seen as a problem.
Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report recommending approval. He said that
in his opinion traffic impacts would be minor. The site was wet, but he was satisfied
with the engineering review.
The Board went through its site plan review checklist. No major impacts were
seen except for traffic. The consensus of the Board was that traffic would not be
a problem. Ms. Mann dissented. She felt that traffic would adversely impact Country
Club Road and the bike path. The Board also noted that provision should be made
for handicapped parking spaces.
Mr. Dan Valenti, 60 Sweet Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He
disagreed with the Zoning Boards interpretation that this was a health related facility.
Mr. Valenti asked whether perc tests had been done.
Mr. Morse eXplained that it was assumed the soils were essentially unusable
for septic disposal; this was the reason for mounded systems.
Mr. Valenti questioned the flow assumptions used for septic system design.
He believed that the system was undersized and stated that single family houses
which he had built used nearly as much water as this system was designed for, which
would have many more individuals taking showers and using water. He felt that
a more sophisticated system should be used.
LLoyd Jones, Country Club Road, said that the Board should consider traffic
impacts, especially in regards to the bike trail. He also noted that the land is wet.
Liz Valenti, 60 Country Club, said that the Zoning Boards decision was wrong.
She believed that different presentations had been made to the two Boards. She
asked if an E.I.S. was required.
Mr. Roberts replied that the Board had completed a short form E.A.F. and
issued a negative declaration.
Ms. Mann asked if membership would be sold to the public.
Mr. Kafin said they would.
*
Mrs. Mann questioned the proportion of people who were patients vs. public.
She said that in her opinion this was a health related club, which is not allowed in
the urban residential zone. Mrs. Valenti said that she had reviewed the Zoning Boards
decision and she believed that different presentations had been made before the
two Boards. This was a commercial development; the Zoning Board had failed in
its interpretation.
Mr. Roberts reiterated that the decision on use had been made by the Zoning
Board, and was not for the Planning Board to decide.
"--"
Mr. Eric Loomis asked what happened to the public. Mr. Roberts replied that
* Mrs. Mann said the facility was not a health ~lated club. Mrs. Mann questioned Mr.
Morse as whether daily septic flows were based on an aerobics or health related facility.
;2)
the public had input into the project.
\---
Mary Jane Solebury questioned the design of water usage rates. She said that
people at the club now take showers before and after using the pool. She also said
that the bike trail was on Country Club because it was a safe route and that the
proposal would adversely impact safety.
Mr. Mesinger asked Mr. Morse whether he thought the design water use rates
were accurate.
Mr. Morse said that he had reviewed the design water flows and felt that they
fell within accepted standards.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Sorlin said that there appeared to be few problems. The question of use
had been decided. Engineering review indicated it was acceptable. The only potential
problem was traffic. There were not many reasons to say no to the project.
Mr. Roberts said he was unsure why there was so much animosity toward the
proposal. He felt that the use was reasonable.
Ms. Levandowski also said the use was reasonable.
Ms. Levandowski MOVED APPROVAL, second by Mr. Macri
RESOLVED THAT Site Plan No. 16-86 be approved. The Town appointed engineer
has agreed that waste water disposal plans are adequate and traffic concerns were
addressed. Approval is conditioned on providing two handicapped parking spaces.
Passed, 4 yes (Levandowski, Roberts, Serlin, Macri) ; 1 no (Mann).
SITE PLAN NO. 18-86
Sherman Place, Laskin Development of NY, Inc., 199 Sherman A venue. To
construct rental townhouses (20 units).
Mr. Roberts said the public hearing was still open. David Higgs of Laskin
Development read a statement into the record. The project was tabled at the last
meeting for further information. He said that drainage would be directed into
stormwater drains on Grant Avenue. Sewage would be handled by on site septic
systems. The site would be raised 1 1/2 feet because of high groundwater. A traffic
engineering study had been conducted; impacts were expected to be very minimal.
Lastly, screening would be provided.
Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report. He said that revised plans had been
delivered that afternoon, which was inadequate lead time for review.
He noted that the site was quite wet. Traffic numbers were not a major
problem, but safety could perhaps be. The major question was whether a 20 unit
apartment complex belonged in a single family neighborhood. If the Board felt this
'-- was inappropriate, it should be denied. Otherwise it should be tabled to allow adequate
review of the materials submitted that afternoon.
4
)3
'--
The Towns consulting engineer for the project, Richard Morse, said that the
major engineering problems had been addressed by adding fill. He agreed in principal
with the conclusions of the traffic study. Storm water drainage would go to the
City.
Mr. Higgs said he did not know if the City would accept the drainage but that
he would check.
Andy Scarfallino, Sherman Avenue, said that the City had plugged the Grant
Avenue drain and that it no longer worked. He asked what the allowable density
on the site was.
Mr. Higgs said the ordinance permitted 9 units per acre. Five were proposed.
They will be rental townhouses serviced by a private road.
Mike Davidson, Sherman Avenue, questioned the traffic study and impacts
on his property adjacent to the site.
Mr. Leaver explained that all drainage would be directed to the Grant Avenue
drain.
Phil Norman, Sherman Avenue, questioned traffic and drainage. He said that
the biggest problem would be the change in the single family character of the
neighborhood. He said that school children walk along Sherman Avenue, where there
are no sidewalks.
Mr. Roberts noted that the Board had received a letter from Councilman
Kurosaka opposed to the project. Mr. Roberts said that the Board would be justified
in denying a project if it would adversely effect the surrounding neighborhood.
Bob Havens, 14 Seward Street, stated that he lived adjacent to the site and
that drainage would be a major problem.
Mr. Mesinger agreed with Mr. Roberts that the Board could deny the application
based on its effects on the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. DeSantis said that in order to approve the project the Board would have
to make an affirmative finding that neighborhood character would not be adversely
affected. He also expressed concern over drainage.
Ms. Mann said that the use is not appropriate for the neighborhood.
James Powers, 178 Sherman Avenue, said that P.C.B.'s on the site should be
investiga ted.
Dan Murphy, Harris Street, said that the City dumped snow up gradient from
the site; spring runoff carries snow melt onto the property.
Mr. Higgs said that contacts with the Department of Environmental Conservation
indicated that P.C.B. contamination was unlikely.
.,--
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. DeSantis said that while multifamily dwellings are allowed in the urban
5
:2i
"-
residential zone, they are not appropriate everywhere. The purpose of the urban
residential zone is to encompass older, more traditional neighborhoods. This particular
site is not appropriate for multifamily dwellings.
Ms. Mann agreed, adding that future single family residential growth is planned
for the area. Mr. Sorlin agreed.
Ms. Levandowski stated her concern for site drainage.
Ms. Mann MOVED DISAPPROVAL, second by Mr. DeSantis
RESOLVED THAT Site Plan No. 18-86 be disapproved based on the grounds that
this is an inappropriate use in an area that is predominantly single family residential.
Future potential growth in the area is residential. Children presently walk along
the roadside; safety is a concern. The neighborhood is occupied by homeowners,
as opposed to renters. The proposal would be detrimental to the character of the
neighborhood.
The Board references Section 5.070 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance which
specifically directs the Board to make an affirmative finding that establishment
of the use would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of
the neighborhood. The Board cannot make this affirmative finding.
The Board also references Section 5.071 (c)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance which
requires that the Board, when considering a site plan, consider developmental
considerations, including adjoining and nearby land uses.
The Board has given approval to other single family subdivisions and has received
testimony that the character of the neighborhood is single family. The purpose
of the zone is to maintain the Town's older more traditional neighborhoods - many
residents have lived there for 30 - 40 years.
Passed, 5 yes (Mann, Roberts, Sorlin, Macri, DeSantis); 1 abstention (Levandowski).
SITE PLAN NO. 21-86
Donald Sokol, 116 Aviation Road. To construct an addition for limited Banking
facility and Insurance Agency.
Mr. Sokol said that last month the Board tabled his application for a limited
banking facility and requested more information on traffic flow. His solution was
to add a planter on the Aviation Road entrance and exit lane.
Mr. Macri said that the Board had specifically asked for a traffic study which
had yet to be provided.
The Board discussed with Mr. Sokol at length the traffic circulation problem
on the site. Mr. Sokol maintained there was no problem; the Board disagreed. Various
Board members expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Sokols proposed solution.
Mr. Macri MOVED, second by Ms. Mann
--,--
RESOLVED THAT Site Plan No. 21-86 be tabled for the same reasons as in September.
6
d--5
The applicant is requested to provide a traffic flow study and submit a revised plan
on parking and traffic flow with consideration to ingress and egress on Aviation
Road in sufficient time before the next Town Planning Board meeting in November.
Passed Unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 25
Fort Ann Campground, Arthur Petrikas, Route 149, north side approximately
1.5 miles from Route 9.
Arthur Petrikas, owner of the Fort Ann Campground explained that he wished
to maintain an 8 by 12 foot sign on Route 149 which advertises his business some
10 minutes away.
The Board eXplained to Mr. Petrikas that off premises signs were limited to
10 square feet and that he would need a variance to maintain this sign.
Mr. Petrikas agreed to seek a variance.
OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 26A, 26B, 26C
Lake George Ventures, Inc. doing business as Top of the World on the corner
of Bay and Luzerne Roads.
This was a proposal by Top of the World to place three 3 feet by 3 feet
directional signs at locations on Bay Road and 9L leading to the property. Nobody
was there to represent the proposal; however the Board found no problems.
Ms. Mann MOVED, second by Mr. DeSantis
RESOLVED THAT Off Premises Sign No. 26A, 26B, 26C be approved on the conditions
that these three signs meet all aspects of the Queensbury Sign Ordinance.
Passed Unanimously.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 SKETCH PLAN
Herald Park, VanDusen and Luzerne Roads.
'-
Dennis Dickinson, surveyor, outlined this proposal for a subdivision of
approximately 150 lots on 117 acres at the corner of VanDusen and Luzerne Roads.
Zoning is predominantly Suburban Residential 20, with some Suburban Residential
30 west of Clendon Brook. maximum potential development is 225 units; development
is 62 percent of the maximum Portions of Clendon Brook may be classified as a
wetland by the Department of Environmental Conservation; development will comply
with all wetland restrictions. Test pits indicate that soils are sandy and well suited
for septic disposal. Roads have been designed so that there are no long straight
stretchers. Two entrances will be provided. There will be no common areas except
for the stream corridor.
7
;;20
'--
A homeowners association will be responsible for lpaintenance of the corridor. Guido
Passerelli is the owner and will undertake development and construction.
Mr. Mesinger delivered a staff report in which the following points were made.
The application did not contain several important elements required by the subdivision
regulations, especially contours and a sketch drainage plan. Since topography is
important for judging lot and road layout, topography was needed. Mr. Mesinger
conceeded, however that the site was probably very flat and that only near Clendon
Brook would this would be a concern. More important was the lack of a drainage
plan. Since the site was very flat, movement of stormwater drainage could be a
problem. The Board had nothing to assess this.
Second, approximately 30 lots were undersized. They do not meet the 20,000
square feet minimum lot size required in this zone.
Third, Mr. Mesinger recommended that no lots be located within 100 feet of
Clendon Brook. Nine lots are so located now and at least one may be very difficult
to use because it is so close to the stream. Mr. Mesinger said that good planning
would keep all lots at least 100 feet back from a sensitive stream because of various
environmental concerns. This is common practice elsewhere.
Fourth, Mr. Mesinger recommended that the project be staged in four phases.
This is for the protection of both the Town and developer.
Last, Mr. Mesinger recommended that the Board require an environmental
impact statement for a project of this size. Such a statement need not be lengthy
or complex but should focus on the impacts on public services, in particular schools
and roads, and also on traffic. Such a statement should also consider the cumulative
impacts from other developments. Mr. Mesinger noted that impact statements were
commonly required for developments of this size.
Mr. Dickinson responded to Mr. Mesinger as follows:
Contours were not provided because the site is essentially flat.
A sketch drainage plan was not provided because he felt that this work should
be done after the sketch plan phase.
Similarly, lots have not been finalized, but all lots will comply with the zone
size requirements.
All lots are sited so that septic setbacks (100 feet from stream) can be met.
However, if the Board wished to be more restrictive, this could be met.
The developer did not anticipate phasing; approval was desired for the entire
subdivision.
Finally, an E.I.S. was seen as an excessive requirement.
The Board discussed each of these issues at length. The Board made it clear
that the project would have to be phased. A detailed environmental assessment
form shoud be submitted before a decision is made on an impact statement. Mr.
Dickinson will meet with Mr. Mesinger to discuss the contents of this form. The
Board also noted that some idea of site drainage should be provided with the sketch
'-
8
;)-7
plan. Mr. Dickinson said that individual drywells were anticipated.
\....-
Mr. Macri MOVED, second by Ms. Levandowski
RESOLVED THAT Subdivision No. 13-86 be tabled. More information is requested
as follows:
1. Sketch plan needs contours and a sketch drainage plan.
2. Lots should meet the minimum size required by the zone.
3. All lots should be a minimum of 100 feet from Clendon Brook
4. The project must be phased.
5. An E.A.F. long form is required.
Passed Unanimously.
SITE PLAN NO 30-86
Walter Dombek: to continue construction of a mini-warehouse storage building
on the property situated directly north of Midas Muffler on Quaker Road in a Highway
Commercial 15 Zone.
Attorney Bob Stewart explained that this proposal would be to construct a
mini-storage warehouse at the corner of Meadowbrook and Quaker Raods. The
applicant had received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1985. At
that time the Building Inspector informed the applicant that no other approvals
were required. The Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a permit
to construct a stream crossing using a culvert. The D.E.C. had stated that it had
no jurisdiction over fill on any other part of the site. Three buildings were then
erected before a stop work order was issued. The reason for the order was the
promulgation in the fall of 1985 of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requiring
site plan review for any filling within 50 feet of a stream or wetland. Mr. Stewart
said that he and his client were unaware of this requirement. The applicant planned
to put tree buffers along the borders, create a small paved access road leaving the
balance of the site in crushed gravel and would also erect a fence around the site.
The applicant would also agree to erect low, non-glaring lights.
Mr. Roberts said that Mr. Dombek knew of the requirements for site plan review
when filling wet areas because of a similar previous case. Mr. Roberts said that
filling has occurred very close to the stream. An attempt to stabilize the fill banks
with logs was inadequate. The site needed cleaning and screening.
Mr. DeSantis said that a planting plan was needed.
The Board then discussed the requirements for site plan review and agreed
that numerous items were missing. The Board expressed displeasure with the condition
of the site.
Public Hearing Opened:
Tom Russell, Meadowbrook Road, questioned whether a permit was required
from the D.E.C. for filling. Mr. Stewart said that it was not a D.E.C. designated
wetland and introduced a letter from Tom Hall of the D.E.C. to this effect. Mr.
Russell also expressed concern for lighting.
"-
9
)g
"",--
Trudy Russell, Meadowbrook Road, questioned whether the work being done
now was in conformance with the variance.
Mr. Stewart said that it was.
Bernard Healy, Meadowbrook Road, said he lived adjacent to the property.
He questioned whether the buildings were adjacent to his property. After some
discussion it was agreed that they met setback requirements. Mr. Healy further
stated that fill has encroached on his property and that a drainage ditch on his
property line had been filled. Consequently, his yard was considerably wetter than
before. Mr. Healy also said that poor quality fill was being used.
The Board discussed septic disposal. Mr. Stewart said that holding tanks would
be used. Anticipated usage was very light.
The Board discussed site drainage and agreed that corrective work needed
to be done.
Mr. Stewart questioned whether the Board could impose conditions on the
project since the review was triggered only by the filling of a wetland.
Mr. Mesinger said that the Board did indeed have this authority; the requirements
for site plan review remained the same whatever section of the ordinance may have
triggered it.
Edward Oudekirk, Meadowbrook Road, said that the ditches in the area have
become clogged, impeeding drainage and that they should be cleaned.
The Board agreed that a more complete site plan review application was needed.
Mr. DeSantis MOVED, second by Mr. Macri
RESOLVED THAT Site Plan Review No. 30-86 be tabled. The Site Plan needs more
information on screening, planting, stream rip-rap and culverts, lighting, traffic,
septic systems and drainage.
Passed Unanimously.
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 1Z:40 A.M.
~tJ4-~
Richard Roberts, Chairman
~
Minutes prepared by Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Planner
10