1987-04-27
IO~
QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Special Meeting Held: Monday, April 27, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Susan Levandowski
Joseph Dybas
Frank DeSantis
Kenneth Sorlin, Secretary
Victor Macri
Hilda Mann
Mack A. Dean, Building and Codes Enforcement Officer
R. Case Prime, Counsel
Susan E. Davidsen, stenographer/Planning and Zoning Department
Absent:
Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner
Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-86, Final Approval
1-Q1-Jlj
Edgewater Place
Mr. Roberts read the application for 15 single family lots south of Haviland
Avenue. He said the subdivision was partly in the Town of Queensbury and partly
in the City of Glens Falls. Mr. Roberts said that what was needed to be done for
final approval was waiting for the City and the Town Board to "iron out" some details.
David Higgs of Laskin Development of NY, Inc. stated that all details have
been "ironed out" satisfactorily between the Town Board and the City Counsel.
He stated that there should be letters in the file from the Water Department
(Queensbury will be providing water to the Queensbury lots), letter from the Road
Commissioner and from the Fire Department. He said also that a letter from the
reviewing engineer was delivered today.
Mr. Roberts read the memorandum from Nick Sciartelli, project engineer,
which stated the storm drainage outlet into the Glens Falls feeder canal required
approval from NYS Department of Transportation prior to construction. The letter
also stated that all other details were acceptable for final approval.
David Higgs stated that the Department of Transportation is waiting for him
decide how he wants to give them the water.
Mr. Sorlin read the staff report which recommended approval.
Mrs. Levandowski MOVED FINAL APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 11-86,
J-
1
/05
'-
Edgewater Place as the applicant has satisfied all requirements of the Board. In
reference to the engineer letter of April 27, 1987 regarding drainage outlet; this
must be resolved with the Department of Transportation. The City must provide
easement for water over the road not yet approved. This should be no problem.
Second by Mr. Dybas.
Passed Unanimously.
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86, SEQR Determination, Preliminary Approval
Lehland Park '" "i1
~,,~
Mr. Roberts stated that the proposal was for 102 single family lots on the
east side of West Mountain Drive, north of Bonner Drive. He stated a SEQR
determination (there had been one meeting already regarding SEQR) needed to be
made before the Planning Board could address preliminary approval.
Mr. Roberts stated that the public hearing was opened for anyone with
comments.
Mr. Sorlin reviewed the SEQR issues. One major issue was that the construction
on the project would last more than 1 year. Phasing was required by the Board to
mitigate that circumstance. Impact on water was a concern and the question of
whether or not any portion of the project is within 500 feet of Rush Pond. Mr. Sorlin
stated that there might have been one small section that was within 500 feet of
Rush Pond. Mark Bombard stated that septic systems must be kept out of the critical
area.
Mark Bombard stated that the maps showed both septic and houses were out
of the 500 foot buffer zone. Mr. Sorlin stated that the project would require in
excess, 20,000 gallons per day on completion of water. This was mitigated since
it's on the town water system. Another issue was that the project was incompatible
with existing drainage patterns. There was a note in the file stating that slowing
the flow to Rush Pond would be done with holding basins and/or aqua fer recharge
basins.
Mark Bombard stated that in Phase I, all 46 lots seemed to slope in towards
the green area, common area, which would hold retention basins to take care of
any of the storm water for 100 year storms.
Mr. Roberts read a letter from the project engineer Nick Sciartelli. It stated
that submitted plans, storm water calculations and other details are acceptable
for preliminary plan approval.
Mr. Roberts stated that for SEQR purposes, the Planning Board was looking
at the entire project not just Phase I.
Mark Bombard explained that by the amount of ground there is compared to
impervious surface, the two smaller retention basins will be able to handle the culvert
I size of the rest of the lot. He said that anything that happens to go the wrong way
---I
2
1C0
will go into the oversized one which could handle the whole site if it had to.
Mr. Sorlin reviewed the traffic situation. There will obviously be an increase
in traffic flow on West Mountain Road and Aviation Road.
Mr. Bombard stated he was going to have a traffic count done. He said he
had talked to Mr. Mesinger who said it wasn't necessary. Mr. Bombard stated that
a traffic count conducted by Warren County was 875 cars in a day. The count was
taken near Bonner Drive.
Mr. Roberts asked for a more complete traffic study on the area.
Mr. Roberts stated that a moratorium was being addressed by the Town.
Mr. Sorlin read the staff report. It stated that an EIS be required to address
traffic, drainage, and threatened species and other relevant issues.
The critical areas were discussed at length.
Mr. Prime stated that deed restrictions needed to be mapped out. He said
it was public knowledge.
Public Hearing Opened:
A local resident inquired as to how far the property extended to Bonner Drive.
Jim Mills, Bonner Drive resident, was concerned on who would police deed
restrictions.
Public Hearing Closed.
In addressing SEQR review, Mr. DeSantis MOVED to have a NEGATIVE
DECLARA TION prepared for Lehland Park Subdivision No. 15-86 as the applicant
has àgreed to prohibit building within the 500 foot setback from Rush Pond Critical
Environmental Area and cannot even have any lawns or cut any trees or vegitation.
That 500 feet will be clearly delineated on the plat since we felt that this was taking
the ultimate mitigative measure and all other concerns about storm water run off
and traffic were adequately addressed. The Board felt that staff's recommendations
of a full EIS was not necessary.
Mrs. Mann seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
Mrs. Mann MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 15-86 (46
lots). The engineers review is o.k., water retention is designed for 100 year storm.
Traffic will not be seriously impacted. A plat notation on the map showing the area
within 500 feet of the Critical Environmental Area with prohibition on any
development in that area which applies to Phase II.
Mr. DeSantis seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
3
107
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-87, SEQR Determination, Preliminary Approval
W oodmere
Mr. Roberts read the application for 33 single family lots between Sherman
A venue and Peggy Ann Road.
Mr. Roberts stated that SEQR determination needed to be made before
preliminary approval could be granted. It was decided to discuss SEQR issues after
the meeting (workshop session).
Mr. Sorlin read the staff report. It stated that the Board has to go through
the EAF with the applicant. Mr. Mesinger stated in his report that he had no problems
with the project.
It was decided by the Board to discuss the whole project at the end of the
meeting.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-87, Sketch Plan Approval
Donald Kruger I),,\,-t\
~,O'
Mr. Roberts read the application for 8 duplex lots and 1 single family lot south
of Bonner Drive in a Suburban Residential 20 Zone.
Attorney Michael Muller represented Donald Kruger. He stated that Jeff
Anthony of the LA Partnership has prepared the subdivision plan.
Mr. Muller gave a general overview of what was to be proposed. He stated
that it would be compatible to address the issues of what's happening on Bonner
Drive and what will be happening on Bonner Drive. There are all single family
residents of which are of high value on Bonner Drive. He feels that Donald Kruger
would be complementing the area. He pointed out on the map that there are 8 duplex
units. Each are on a smaller parcel than the one single family resident. The reason
for this method of set up is dictated by the contours on the plot plan. There is a
brook located on the parcel of property. The Planning Board has asked Mr. Kruger
to stay back above 170 feet in elevation. A road can be put in there. In the far
corner there would be the single family residence; the preference being the developers
residence. The smallest lot is approximately 11,500 square feet.
The Board expressed their concern about the project on the oddly shaped parcel
which is in the backyard of everything on Bonner Drive. Mr. Roberts clarified the
fact that just because duplexes are a permitted use under site plan review; it doesn't
mean it's a good plan. The Board has a right to say no, provided the reasons are
pretty good.
4
log
'~
Mr. Roberts asked whether the duplex units were going to be owner occupied
or rental units. Mr. Kruger stated that it would be a mix of rental units and owner
occupied.
Mr. Muller compared the sizes of the lots of Kruger's Subdivision to the Queen
Victoria's Grant Subdivision. Mr. Roberts pointed out that in factoring density for
clustering purposes, the land must be buildable. He stated that Queen Victoria's
land is all very buildable and that all of Kruger's land is not. He stated that they
factor density in general terms by looking at what could be built on the property
under a normal grid pattern.
Mr. Muller stated that they were not using the entire parcel for factoring
density. Mr. Roberts stated it's difficult to compare two subdivisions on that basis.
Mr. Muller stated that they have 9.7 gross acres, 2.371 acres of which have
not been included in the computations for density. This amount has been restricted
from development. The amount left is 7.329 acres.
The driveway was discussed for the single family dwelling.
In regards to the concerns raised on the allowable density on the site, Jeff
Anthony, pointed out on the map that the grey colored areas indicate the buildable
areas on the lot after the front, rear, and side setbacks are applied. He stated that
they elected to removed from the equation, all nonbuildable land. He referred to
nonbuildable land as the flood plains, stream area, steep size slopes of the stream
corridor, and any land that is within 100 feet of the stream corridor, and also that
of which would reserve or would not allow for development of septic disposal system.
When that land is removed from the gross acreage of 7 a.cres of land, this leaves
about 17 allowable buildable units on the site.
Mr. Anthony introduced his plan to cluster. Sixteen units have been clustered
on 8 lots on the western section of the site. The reason for this is they don't have
to build a town road to bypass the steeper ravine to get to the eastern section of
the site. All 16 units can be accommodated on the 11,500± square foot lots in the
area. He further explained that in this clustering effect, basically they have taken
a little less than half of the site and concentrated the development of 16 units, or
8 lots on half of the site. The remainder of the site is left with one large lot which
there is nonbuildable land and buildable land, the buildable area being located on
the easternmost part of the parcel which will occupy one single family home. Mr.
Muller stated that Donald Kruger would be the developer of the duplex units and
the single family residence. Mr. Kruger would live on the site in the single family
home.
Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Kruger if he had any typical layouts and sizes of the
units he would be building. Mr. Kruger stated he had held off from sketching any
plans because of being in the preliminary stage of the project.
Mr. DeSantis asked Mr. Anthony if he included the private driveway, lying
along the northern boundary of the property line, to the single family residence
as buildable area in the calculations along the northern boundary of the property
there.
5
IO~
I
. I
'-'
Mrs. Mann expressed her concern that there is "too much jammed into the
piece of land". She pointed out that there is a huge gully in there and the neighborhood
has been basically established for years as a single family residential area. Mrs.
Mann feels strongly that this project will drastically change the character of the
neighborhood. The project is in the middle of the neighborhood. The gully and stream
create incredibly great restraints on the property. Mrs. Mann stated that she didn't
see much merit in the plan. She stated that the Board has a right and responsibility
to review circumstances that will be drastically changing the character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Roberts stated that it makes quit a bit of difference to know whether
or not duplexes are going to be owner occupied or just rental units. He feels that
this will tend to change the character of the neighborhood perhaps more than the
type of structure in itself. He expressed his concern about the quality of the buildings.
Mr. Kruger stated that he had talked to several couples who expressed an
interest in buying one and using the other side so that they could gain some additional
income to defray their expenses.
In terms of how big the buildings are going to be, Mr. Kruger stated he was
targeting for each unit to be 11,000 sq. ft. area per size (22,000 sq. ft. unit). Mr.
Kruger said the buildings have to be well built; the market would dictate this. He
invited anyone to go look at anything he has built in the Town of Queensbury/Glens
Falls area.
Mr. Roberts stated that there is a demand for affordable housing. He said
the Board needed to be assured that there would not be "shanty" homes built.
Mr. Sorlin read the staff report, dated April 24th. It stated that this is a sketch
plan resubmitted after the Board tabled it in February. The proposal is for duplexes.
Note: quite a bit of fill would be required to raise lots to grade. The Board will
have to determine if duplexes are appropriate for this neighborhood. Engineering
comments were not received as of this writing. They should be in the file on Monday.
Mr. Roberts asked for any comments from the engineer. Nothing new was
in the file from Charles Scudder, P.E. since the last meeting.
There was much discussion on how the project would change the character
of the neighborhood. The traffic problem and children playing in the immediate
area was a great concern.
Mr. Muller asked the Board to make findings of fact as to why the project
would be detrimental to the character on Bonner Drive. Mr. Roberts stated that
just being optimistic that Mr. Kruger will have the very best duplexes in the town
is not enough; he hasn't given the Board that assurance. He feels the Board doesn't
have enough to go on. He stated they needed to look at what could happen in a worst
case scenario.
Mrs. Mann stated that Bonner Drive is a quiet residential street; a dead end
street that has been there for about 20 years. Sixteen house built behind 4 or 5
lots is too much.
J
Mrs. Mann expressed her opinion in that the quality of life would be changed
6
I/O
'--
on Bonner Drive. The quality of life is far more valuable than just the consideration
that property values would be increased in the area.
Mark Levak, Savard Reality, licensed realestate broker addressed the issue
of property values. Mr. Roberts said that he couldn't look at a proposed subdivision
until the Board knew whether they were going to be owner occupied or in effect
mini apartment buildings.
There was much discussion regarding the pros and cons of the entire project.
Mr. Muller stated that he would like the opportunity to come back to the
Planning Board with the sketch plan. He suggested to tabled the application so that
a better clustering plan could be introduced.
Mr. Roberts stated that the application was TABLED by CONSENT of BOTH
PARTIES. The Board is concerned with the definition of "buildable area". The Board
believes that no more than 14 duplex units could be built within density allowance
on "buildable" area. The Board is concerned with "rental" units. Ownership mitigates
duplex problem. The Board discussed if "site plan" criteria applies in subdivision
review. The applicant wants to reconsider as duplex vs. single family. Is private
road to single family unit included in buildable area calculations.
Passed Unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 9-87
George Arakelian
Mr. Roberts read the application for rebuilding of a single family home which
is nonconforming as to setbacks on the property situated on Trout Pavillion Road,
Kattskill Bay in a Lakeshore Residential lA Zone.
Mr. DeSantis asked if there was any change in the foundation.
Mr. Roberts asked if they were changing a summer cottage into a year round
home. Mrs. Arakelian stated that it was year round now. She said that they don't
use is as such and it was a year round home when they bought it. The roof is falling
in on it and the floors are rotting out. She stated that the Architect has drawn a
deck onto the plans. She wasn't sure they could do the deck just yet because of
it being close to the lake. The deck would go around the front and the south side
of the house. Mr. Roberts stated that a deck could be built if a variance was approved
by the Zoning Board because of the setbacks; they are not far enough away from
the lake. The house is 50 feet from the lake without the deck.
¡
-..1
Mr. DeSantis asked where the septic system was and how old it was. Mrs.
7
III
I
'----
Arakelian stated that the house is 23 years old. Mr. DeSantis's concern was that
if the applicant was going to upgrade the house that the septic system would also
have to be upgraded.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Warren County Planning Board recommended approval.
Mrs. Mann MOVED APPROV AL of Site Plan No. 9-87 to rebuild the house
on the existing foundation. The Board is of the opinion that such site plan review
does not infer closer encroachment to Lake George. The Board requires as part
of approval that the septic system be brought up to code.
Second by Mr. DeSantis.
Passed 5 yes (Roberts, Mann, Sor1in, Dybas, DeSantis), 2 no (Macri, Levandowski)
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 10-87
John and Martha Schmulbach
Mr. Roberts read the application for rebuilding of a single family home which
is nonconforming as to setbacks on the property situated on Seeley Road, Kattskill
Bay in a Lakeshore Residential lA Zone.
Mr. Schmulbach stated that they had an application for an area variance for
the deck. He stated that the deck would not go out any further that the corner
of the current house. He said the deck is 7 feet wide and would run partially across
the front of the house. The stairwell for it would be facing the access road. He
said the stairwell would be used to get into the house and in case of the need for
a wheelchair a ramp would go where the stairs are. The variance is for a front yard
setback for the open deck.
Mr. Roberts asked if he felt the septic system was adequate at the present
time. Mr. Schmulbach stated it was adequate and was aware of the need for that.
He stated he wouldn't be investing their money into the house if it was not functioning
properly.
Mr. DeSantis asked how many bedrooms were going to be in the new structure
as opposed to how many in the old structure. Mr. Schmulbach stated the same number;
two bedrooms.
Mr. Sorlin read the staff report. It stated that a site plan review is required
for reconstruction of nonconforming structures. The house is virtually the same
as the existing house. Staff recommends approval.
i
.--.J
8
/lJ-
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Warren County Planning Board recommended approval.
Mr. Dybas MOVED for APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 10-87. The Board is of
the opinion that such site plan review covered setbacks and septic concerns of the
Board to satisfaction.
Second by Mrs. Levandowski.
Passed Unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-87
Daniel R. Barber
Mr. Roberts read the application for the construction of 2 duplexes on the
west side of Bay Road in a Suburban Residential 30 Zone.
There was little discussion on the project as Mr. Roberts stated it was a pretty
good plan.
Mr. Barber stated that the houses would be built exactly the same. Mrs. Mann
expressed her feelings that it is gorgeous property and the land left is beautiful.
Mr. Sorlin read the staff report. It stated that adequate lot size has been
made available. Staff's only concern is that if the duplexes are proposed for sale,
who maintains the road? Should this be a town road and technically a subdivision?
Other than this concern, staff has no problems with this proposal.
Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Macri both agreed and stated it was not a subdivision
because Dan Barber owns the land and is putting the buildings on his property. Mr.
DeSantis stated that it has all the attributes of a subdivision; it may meet all the
current subdivision regulations but it is a site plan not a subdivision.
Mr. Barber stated that in the contract if Mrs. Toomey (adjoining property
owner) subdivided her property, he would have to have the road paved and deeded
wi th the Town.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Warren County Planning Board recommended approval.
Mr. Macri MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 12-87 for construction of 2
duplexes on the lot as it meets all the requirements of the site plan review.
9
,-I
J
liS
Mr. DeSantis seconded.
Passed Unanimously.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-87, SEQR Determination, Preliminary Approval
Woodmere
Mr. Sorlin read into the record a memorandum dated April 27, from Nick
Sciartelli stating that he has been in contact with Mr. Frank Walter regarding the
stormwater system for the project.
Mr. Sorlin pointed out that on page 5, question number 1 of the EAF form,
a comment had been made regarding road construction; 200± ft. road through area
with slope> 15%. Mr. Walter stated that road slope is not 15% but that particular
area, the natural topography is greater than 15 %. There are cuts and fills to bring
that slope down to around 8%. He stated it would only affect 200± ft. of roadway.
He stated that the lots are laid out such that there is a buildable area on every lot;
with slopes less than 15%.
Mr. DeSantis MOVED to have staff write a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Second by Mrs. Mann.
Passed Unanimously.
Mr. DeSantis MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL be granted based on Negative
Declaration and engineering input to date.
Second by Mrs. Mann.
Passed Unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
i~/ø-~~
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Minutes prepared by Susan E. Davidsen, Planning and Zoning Department
10