1987-07-21
J13
QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
-',,-
Regular Meeting Held: Tuesday, July 21, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Thomas Martin, Secretary
Susan Levandowski Joseph S. Dybas
Victor Macri Frank DeSantis
R. Case Prime, Counsel
Susan E. Davidsen, Planning and Zoning Department
Absent: Hilda Mann
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Roberts
The May 19, 1987 minutes were approved as written by consensus.
The June 16, 1987 minutes were corrected as follows: page 4, Subdivision No. 9-87,
3rd paragraph, should be Mrs. Levandowski, not Mrs. Goetz. Also, page 4, 1st sentence,
should be Charles Scudder not Richard Morse. The minutes were approved as corrected
by consensus.
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDMSION NO. 16-86, Preliminary Approval
Baybridge, Phase III
Mr. Roberts stated that this is for 44 lots at Walker Lane, 1,000 feet west of Bay
Road (southerly side) in an Urban Residential 5 zone.
Mr. Roberts asked if there was anyone present to represent the project. No one
was present. The Board decided to go onto the next order of business and wait for a
representative to show up.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-87, Preliminary and Final Approval
Donald Kruger
Mr. Roberts stated that this was for 10 single family lots south of Bonner Drive
in a Suburban Residential 20 zone.
Jeff Anthony, Landscape Architect, stated that construction drawings were submitted
to an engineer for review who found them to be acceptable.
Mr. Roberts asked if they had approached the Board of Health. Mr. Anthony said
1
]4-Lf
".0, they didn't realize that was needed. He said they will follow through on what is required
__JY the Board of Health.
Mr. Martin read the report from Charles Scudder, Consulting Engineer, dated July
17, 1987. It stated that Mr. Scudder had reviewed the revised plans for the Kruger
Subdivision off Bonner Drive, Queensbury. The report stated that the project is now in
compliance with Town standards and that layout is greatly improved over the original
plan. The report stated that if there is no objection from either the Queensbury Highway
Superintendent or the Water Superintendent, approval is recommended upon the receipt
of these agency approvals.
Mr. Roberts stated that he had not heard from the Town Water Department or State
Highway Superintendent as of this meeting date.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Mrs. Levandowski MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 4-87,
Donald Kruger as previous concerns of the Board have been met. State Health Department,
Town Water Superintendent, and Town Highway Superintendent Approval is needed for
final approval.
Second by Mr. Dybas.
Passed Unanimously.
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-86, Preliminary Approval
Baybridge, Phase III
Charles Scudder represented Valente Builders, Inc., Daniel J. Valente, President.
Mr. Scudder passed out copies of the consulting engineer's report from Nick Sciartelli,
Morse Engineering to Board Members. The report was dated July 20, 1987. It stated that
Morse Engineering had reviewed the submitted plans for Baybridge, Phase I and found
no exceptions; therefore recommending the project for final approval. Mr. Roberts stated
that there was a mistake in the report. It should be for preliminary approval not final
approval.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Mr. Scudder stated that this project was for 44 units, bringing the total up to 100
units. He said they have a master plan which comprises of some 245-250 units if built
out to its planned extent. The Town Board had reviewed SEQR. Mr. Scudder said that
in their offering plan, after a total of 80 units is built, a swimming pool and tennis courts
would be built. They would be constructed in conjunction with Phase III.
Mr. Scudder said there would be public water. Waste would be pumped onto high
ground into the leach fields. He added that steps have been taken for erosion and storm
'Water drainage.
2
l~j
Mr. Scudder stated they have a permit for stream crossing. There is a wetland
vincursion on the boundary. Approximately 300 sq. ft. of the building area impinges on
the wetlands. A permit had been obtained from DEC for this reason. Mr. Scudder stated
that the permit was given to them in April 1987. Mr. Prime asked if there were copies
in the file. Mr. Scudder stated he had not given a copy to the file but will. Mr. Valenti
stated the file can have the original copy.
Mr. Scudder stated he has a permit for stormwater and SPEDES permit. Mr. Roberts
expressed negative feelings about impinging upon the wetlands. Mr. Scudder said it's a
judgment call from where the boundary really is. He said he is not going into the wetlands
to fill; ground water is marginal.
Mr. Roberts stated that since Queensbury doesn't have their own wetlands ordinance,
the Board has to rely on the state.
Mr. Roberts asked when they might be ready for final approval. Mr. Scudder stated
by the next Planning Board meeting (August 1987).
Mr. DeSantis asked if there are 56 units approved as of this date tonight. He stated
that what is needed is 60% of construction completed in the previous phase for final
approval. Mr. Valente said 60% is completed. Mr. DeSantis stated that this is required
since Baybridge Subdivision is being "grandfathered in" since the new law.
John Caffrey, Queensbury Association, asked if future phases are planned to be
built in the wetlands. Mr. Scudder said no, but with the possible exception that there
would be on the east side of the brook because of a 100 ft. buffer; between the brook
and Bay Road. He said that the Phase III map does not show this but the master plan does.
Mr. Caffrey stated that the Queensbury Association is opposed to any approval of the
subdivision in the wetlands even if it is for the buffer zone. He said they could rearrange
the project site plan to eliminate adverse impact on wildlife. Mr. Caffrey expressed his
feeling that just because ENCON has submitted a permit for approval doesn't mean the
Planning Board has to approve it.
Mr. Scudder responded to Mr. Caffrey's comments. He said no impact on the wetlands
has been demonstrated. There will not be any impact on the flora and fauna. Mr. Scudder
said that it would be a hardship to move the buildings. He reiterated that it's very minimal
impingement on the wetlands; it's really a judgment call.
Mr. DeSantis asked if there were any conditions stated in the ENCON permit. If
there are, the public has right to know these conditions. Board members agreed that they
needed to see the permit before a decision could be made. Mr. Scudder said he would
get the permits and submit them for the file. Mr. Scudder said he had submitted maps
to the State showing the areas disturbed.
Mr. Valenti stated that they had addressed the wetlands issue with DEC. There
was a discrepancy on where the wetland line is. The problem is that when you walk it,
it is not really a wetland. The land is grown out with grass. Mr. Valenti said the 3,000
square feet of fill is being used for grading purposes. Fourteen acres of the wetlands
are not being touched; they will be set aside. Mr. Valenti said there are deer on the land;
we're not out to destroy the wetlands. Mr. Valenti stated that after 2 years of work, it's
J1.ot easy to change the layout of the project.
3
J40
. Mr. Roberts stated that the Public Hearing will be left opened until the Board looks
·~at the permits.
Mr. Scudder stated they will get the permits for tonights meeting. Mr. Roberts
said the Board will move on to the next order of business and will go back to review the
project when the permits have been submitted into the file.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87, Preliminary Approval
1 -021 -87
Cedar Court
Mr. Roberts stated that this application is for 4 duplex lots and 56 townhouse units
on the west side of Bay Road, 1,000 feet north of Blind Rock Road in Suburban Residential
30 and Urban Residential 5 zone.
Mike O'Connor, attorney, represented the Cedar Court project. He stated that this
was for 38 units in Phase I not 56. He said they had received a letter from the Warren
County Department of Public Works dated July 14, 1987. The letter stated that they
have no objections for clearing vegetation between the east line of Cedar Court and the
west boundary of the pavement on Bay Road. Mr. Prime asked whether this was within
the Homeowners Association Agreement or within the Highway boundaries. Mr. Prime
questioned the fact of whether the Homeowner's Association document was viable and
legal. Mr. O'Connor stated that the Homeowner's Association takes on what the individual
homeowner does. Mr. Prime questioned on how he could enforce what the Homeowners
Association will do. Mr. Roberts asked where the brush is going to be cut. Mr. Macri
stated that what needed to be cleared is what is at the entrance.
Raymond Buckley, applicant, said there is no change in the concept. The basic design
of the project was shown at the last meeting.
Mr. Roberts stated that a letter from the consulting engineer, Charles Scudder,
dated July 17, 1987 did not recommend preliminary approval of the plans for Phase I of
Cedar Court. It stated that there were a considerable number of essential planning features
that had not as yet been addressed. They are as follows: complete soils data, basis of
design of the wastewater system, storm water and sanitary sewer profiles, primary elevations
(D.I. Frames, sewage system components, building finished floor elevations), grading
and storm water management plan, road engineering details. The letter also stated that
the office of Mr. Lamy, NYSDEC, who must approve plans for the SPDES Permit, a required
document, has received no submittal on this project to date. The procedure is one requiring
a minimum of 100 days or so.
Mr. Scudder said that he had talked to Leon Steves and Mr. O'Connor since Friday
July 17th. He said the plans are now more complete than what he had reviewed previously.
He said he would now recommend preliminary approval be granted but stated there should
be a rigorous review before final approval is granted.
Mr. Scudder stated his concerns regarding proliferation of tile fields. This is a concern
that Mr. Buckley has to review himself.
'--
4
J 47
Mr. Scudder stated that he was bothered by the absence of detail; grading plan,
-sewer profile, stormwater management.
Mr. Martin stated his concern that if the Board grants preliminary approval then
the project must be okay and they can proceed on. Mr. Martin stated he is not happy
with this; there are so many concerns that need to be addressed.
Public Hearing Continued: no comment
Mr. Buckley said that Friday, July 17th was the first time he knew that the project
was lacking information.
Thomas Martin read the letter from Charles Scudder, consulting engineer.
There was concern among Board members that they had not seen the changes. Nothing
was given to them since July 17th. Mr. Scudder stated he asks applicants for a complete
set of construction plans and saying that he is not the designer but gives his opinion on
the project.
Mr. Macri stated there had been questions regarding the septic system since day
one. Mr. Scudder stated he does not have basic information; data regarding septic system
concerns. He added that the SPEDES permit needs to be submitted before final approval
is granted.
Mr. Roberts moved to table the discussion until later in the meeting this evening.
Mr. Macri expressed his concern regarding the septic system. He wanted to see the finished
grading plans.
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-86, Preliminary Approval
Baybridge, Phase III
Mr. Scudder approached the Board with the project permits. They were read into
the record.
Public Hearing Continued: John Caffrey, Queensbury Association, reiterated on
what he said earlier in the meeting; the Board could be more strict about the wetlands.
Mr. DeSantis stated that the Town does not have anyone in their hire to review
wetlands as does the DEC. Board members stated that they rely on DEC. Mr. Scudder
stated they had been through SEQR review and these issues had been discussed.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Macri MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 16-86, Baybridge.
Plans as submitted reflect the requirements. Approval is also based on consulting engineers
review.
Second by Mr. DeSantis.
',,--
5
III g
lassed Unanimously.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO.3
West Mountain Villages
Mr. Roberts stated this is a mixed planned unit development of 2,785 acres off of
West Mountain Road.
Joseph Krzys introduced himself as planner for West Mountain Villages. He said
that at the last meeting he was required to look at particular issues; traffic and density.
Mr. Krzys stated he has addressed this issue via submittal of the preliminary traffic study.
This report is appended to the minutes. See next following pages.
Mr. Roberts stated that this planned unit development should be treated like the
Hiland Park project. Mr. Krzys stated that he had written a letter dated July 9, 1987
to the Town Board requesting that the Town Board consider a resolution to initiate the
Scoping Process for SEQR review.
Bruce Erikson, engineer JJ Johnson, Sear Brown Associates, stated they have done
a micro site plan (planning within the site) addressing density of 539 units on the Queensbury
side. Traffic, sewer, water would be identified during SEQR process. Mr. Roberts stated
that since the Town Board will hold a Scoping Meeting there should also be a public hearing
(like that of the Hiland Park PUD). Mr. Roberts said that the Planning Board needs to
be previo to that information before they can make a decision. Mr. Prime stated they
need a work session. A broad spectrum of information is needed. A format and review
of technical people is needed.
Mr. Roberts said the Planning Board needs to hear the results from the Town Board
before recommendations can be made by the Planning Board. Mr. Roberts said that time
is a factor. The Town Board needs to hire an engineering reviewing firm and there has
to be time to hold a public hearing. Mr. Erikson and Mr. Krzys both agreed to an extension
of time and workshop sessions. Mr. DeSantis stated they need to make a motion similar
to PUD No.1, Hiland Park and PUD No.2, Earltown.
Mr. Prime requested periodic submission of reports by the developers.
Mr. Prime asked if the Town of Lake Luzerne would be involved with the Town of
Queensbury. Mr. Brennan, developer, stated both municipalities would meet at a date
in the future to cooridinate the plans together.
Mr. Prime asked for an update on the population census. He didn't want them to
use a 1980 census.
In talking about the traffic report, Mr. Roberts asked what superelevation meant.
Mr. Krzys stated that it is the raising of the edge of the outside curve. There was more
discussion regarding the traffic report.
Mr. DeSantis MOVED for RECOMMENDATION that the Planning Board request
--
6
:it:.
SEAR-BROWN
~ SSOClATES, P.C.
-_,filiate of THE SEAR-BROWN GROUP
ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS/SURVEYORS/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
3 COMPUTER DRIVE, ALBANY, NEW YORK 12205/518-458-2387
ROCHESTER, N,Y./CANTON. N,Y,/HORNELL. N.Y.lHORSEHEADS. N,Y,/MIAMI. FLA, 1 PARK CITY. UTAH
June 22, 1987
Town of Queensbury,
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, New York 12801
ATTENTION:
Mr. Richard Roberts
Planning Board Chairman
West Mountain Resort
Conceptual Traffic Analysis
RE:
Dear Mr. Roberts:
14~
¡/;,02.~:; ':it ;.'" .
il~~~!'
"LAN '/fll
. . I!~NG &.., "
1r'\'~1 'Jt ~. ·~OJ;,¡·.,,..
ÃJjJ¡""l-,,¡'~'{(;jt"~';'.:I:': fll~
'- ". '"" J
This report presents the results of a preliminary traffic analysis of the
effects that development of the proposed West Mountain Resort would have on
site/adjacent highway access intersections, The site is located west of the
City of Glens Falls in Warren County, New York.
A further purpose of the report is to initiate the Scoping process with the
Towns of Queensbury and Lake Luzerne as it regards the improvement of an
existing transportation facility, Luzerne Mountain Road in the Town of
Queensbury and its continuation, Glens Falls Mountain Road in the Town of Lake
Luzerne. This road will ultimately provide one of the principal access routes
to the project site.
The conceptual plan for the resort has four access points. Access to the
skiing facility and the ski resort village is provided by two separate access
roads, one to each area, off West Mountain Road (County Route 58). The major
collector for the main resort area intersects with Call Street (County Route
32) to the south and Glens Falls Mountain Road to the north.
Assumption
A review of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip Generation
Manual", Third Edition, found information available to make preliminary
estimates for travel
'-..--
STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE
h4
15'0
SEAR-BROWN
West Mountain
June 22, 1987
page 2
to a multi-use, resort facility. In order to estimate traffic generated by
the site, assumptions were made about the character of each facet of the
planned development, and adjustments were made accordingly.
The five major categories which were used to estimate traffic generated by the
proposed site are the planned areas for Single-Family Housing, Multiple-Family
Housing, Condo/Hotel, Commercial, and Business Park.
The corresponding land uses in "Trip Generation"
IISingle-Family Dwelling," IITownhouses,1I
Center"(50-99.9 Gross Leasable Area), and
Square Feet).
utilized
"Resort
"General
in this study are
Hotel," "Shopping
Officell (100,000 Gross
For Single-Family and Multiple-Family ("Townhousell) land uses, it is assumed
that the majority of these dwellings are second homes or vacation homes and a
20% reduction in the number of trips generated was applied~ This reduction
accounts for those units which may not be occupied on a full time basis, and
the fact that these units are primarily destination type units with fewer
trips originating overall. Trip generation data in "Trip Generation" is
mostly for primary residences. The number of units proposed are 1,498
single-family and 1,287 multi-family.
For the Business Park ("General Office") land use, IITrip Generation" offers an
average of 8,000 square feet of office space for each acre of developed land.
However, because of the nature of the proposed site development, a lesser
density of 4,000 square feet for each acre was used. Therefore, it is assumed
that the 38 acres of proposed business park will contain some 152,000 square
feet of office space.
For the Condo/Hotel (IIResort Hotelll), it is assumed that there will be 150
occupied rooms per location (total of 3 locations).
For the Commercial Areas ("Shopping Center"), it is assumed that 5,000 square
feet of gross leasable area will be developed for each acre of land proposed.
The volumes so generated were then reduced by 50% assuming half of the
generated traffic will be pass-by or "shopperts credit" traffic. Commercial
areas in Queensbury will be split between the upper and lower mountain. A
30,000 SF commercial area is proposed for the upper mountain. 50,000 SF of
commercial area is proposed to serve the lower mountain area, primarily
offering support and service to skiing activities. Commercial development in
Queensbury will not assume a 5,000 SF per acre density, but will be
incorporated with other existiñg and proposed uses such as the ski lodges,
hotels, etc. in addition to some new areas.
West Mountain Ski Area anticipates the number of skiers on the slopes to be
200 during the weekday morning, 300 for weekday afternoon and evening, and
2,000 per day on the weekend. It is assumed that one skier per vehicle will
arrive during the weekdays, and three skiers per vehicle will arrive on the
weekends.
--
bB
15/
SEAR-BROWN
West Mountain
June 22, 1987
Page 3
These assumptions were made in order to adapt preliminary information into a
usable data base. The assumptions are given as a foundation to the analyses
of potential traffic impact resulting from the final plan of development. It
is understood that present land usage is preliminary only and may vary as a
final plan of development is formalized.
Site Access Considerations
There are six major routes to the site that can be utilized. The main
corridor is along Interstate 87 which runs north/south, east of the site.
From Interstate 87, north and southbound travelers can exit onto Corinth Road
(County Route 28). In addition, soUthbound travelers can exit onto West
Mountain Road (County Route 58) five miles northeast of the site. Local
travelers from the Glens Falls area can use Corinth Road from the city to the
site. From the west, local travelers can use East River Drive. Long distance
travelers can utilize state highways to Interstate 87.
Using population data (1980 Census) for the surrounding counties along the
main corridor, a gravity model was created to distribute traffic along the six
approaches. This model resulted in 66% using northbound Interstate 87 to
Corinth Road, 8% using Corinth Road from Glens Falls, 9% using southbound
Interstate 87 to Corinth Road, 5% using Interstate 87 to West Mountain Road,
5% using East River Drive northwest of the site, and 5% using East River Drive
southwest of the site. These approaches consist of the 6-lane interstate
highway and county roads which generally have two 10-foot lanes and 5-foot
shoulders.
To determine the distribution of traffic at each access point, approach routes
and land uses were considered. For the ski facility and the ski village off
West Mountain Road, the traffic distribution was assumed to be 80% from the
south since the majority of traffic arrives from the Interstate. The
remainder will access from local roads out of the north.
For the access drives on the main resort site, three separate distributions
were used. For the single-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling, and the
Condo/Hotel, the traffic was split 50/50 between the two entrances because the
housing is fairly evenly distributed on the site. Also, learned driving
habits will allow travelers to utilize local roads on their approach.
For the Commercial area, the traffic was split based on the proximity of the
area to the access drive. An 55/45 split was used since more than half of the
total commercial property is located adjacent to the south access road.
The Business Park has an 80/20 split because it is located adjacent to the
south entrance. Learned driving habits will allow these daily users to
utilize local roads to access the area from the north.
~
bt
/j;L
SEAR-BROWN
vJest Mountain
June 22, 1987
Page 4
To analyze the four access points, the generated traffic was estimated and
distributed, and added to the existing traffic. Existing traffic was
established using traffic counts obtained from the Warren County Department of
Public Works. Two additional intersections on the existing highway system
were analyzed to determine the effect of the traffic surcharge on their
operation.
Intersection Analysis
Traffic volumes will increase on the local highway network as a result of the
project. The following table shows· what volumes could be expected for the
general growth of the area, with and withòut the project:
Road Name Current In 5 yrs In 5 yrs
w/o Devel w/ Deve 1
Corinth Road 2604 2737 10,200
(E. of CR 58)
West Mt. Road 1031 1085 9, 123
(N. of CR 28)
Call Street 3506 3685 9,894
(E. of Resort Ent)
Glens Falls Mt. Road/
Luzerne Mt. Road 385 405 8,336
(E. of Resort Ent)
Luzerne Mt. Road 1540 1620 8,618
(E. of W. Mt. Road)
Using the traffic volumes generated for the area if the project is
implemented, six intersections were analyzed:
1) Call Street/South Resort Access Road
2) Glens Falls Mountain Road/North Resort Access Road
3) West Mountain Ski Area/West Mountain Road
4) Ski Village Access Road/West Mountain Road.
5) Luzerne Mountain Road/West Mountain Road
6) Corinth Road/West Mountain Road
Call Street is County Route 32 in the Town of Lake Luzerne, which is an
extension of Corinth Road from the Town of Queensbury. Glens Falls Mountain
Road runs between East River Drive and West Mountain Road.
"-
01)
/'
/5"3
SEAR-BROWN
West Mountain
June 22, 1987
Page 5
Each intersection was analyzed using the methodologies for unsigna1ized
intersections outlined in the Transportation Research Board1s "Highway
Capacity Manua1". With the increased traffic volumes which will be using the
intersections after the project has been completed, three of the intersections
will not function satisfactorily without improvement. These intersections
are:
1) Call Street/South Resort Access Road
2) Luzerne Mountain Road/West Mountain Road
3) Corinth Road/West Mountain Road .
A signal and auxiliary lanes may be needed to facilitate the traffic movements
through these intersections. In each instance, howevef, if is felt that
feasible improvements can be made in order to insure satisfactory service to
the public using these facilities.
This analysis of potential traffic impacts has been conducted utilizing a
conceptual land development plan. Re-evaluation of traffic will be conducted
with each phase as it is developed to insure compliance with the traffic plan.
Luzerne Mountain Road
Luzerne Mountain Road is a town road in the Towns of Queensbury and Lake
Luzerne. It will provide one of the principal access routes to the
development. After crossing the Lake Luzerne/Queensbury town line, the road
is known as Glen Falls Mountain Road. The existing road has very steep
grades, sharp curves, limited guiderail, narrow shoulder areas, utility poles
in close proximity to the traveled way, and other undesirable design
characteristics. In general, the road is typical of a Town road found in
mountainous terrain. It has adequate pavement width in both Towns and has a
surface which appears to be hot mix asphalt concrete.
The entire roadway is located within the Adirondack Park boundary. Roadway
reconstruction outside the existing right of way will involve review by that
agency which has published a standard entitled "Guide1ines for Constructing
Local Roads in the Adirondack Park". Generally, Towns which have adopted
these guidelines for use on projects within the park find that Agency
acceptance of their roadway reconstruction proposals is expedited in the
Agency1s review process. The use' of these standards would be appropriate for
the improvement of Luzerne Mountain Road access corridor.
,~
bE
/51-/
SEAR-BROWN
West Mountain
June 22, 1987
Page 6
'~
Full reconstruction of Luzerne Mountain Road to current design standards would
cause major disruption to the mountainside if an attempt were made to limit
the maximum grade on the reconstructed roadway. However, there is a great
deal that can be done to this road to improve its serviceability without
undertaking a massive regrading of a new right of way down the mountainside.
While the existing road has grades as high as 16% over limited distances,
these grades are typical of local roads found in mountainous terrain.
Typically, the type of improvement which could be made to an existing road to
enhance its service capacity and safety include:
o Improvemerit of surface smooth~ess to obtain better rideability, and
enhance safety.
o Extend pavement life and restore skid resistance.
o Stabilize and widen narrow shoulders.
o Improve superelevation.
o Reconstruct short sections which display particularly undesirable
characteristics.
o Upgrade signing and pavement marking.
o Install guiderail, or other appropriate traffic barrier where
required.
These, and similar types of improvement can be made to an existing road
without causing massive environmental disruption (See attached map).
It is suggested that the following standards be used as a guide in the
reconstruction of this roadway:
Pavement width
24 feet
Shoulder width (each side)
3 feet
Design speed
30 mph
e=0.06 ft/ft
300 feet
Maximum superelevation
Minimum curve radius
',--~
IoF
_/
I t:> !J
SEAR-BROWN
West Mountain
June 22, 1987
Page 7
'~
No maximum grade standard is included in the recommended project design
criteria; to do so would dictate that complete reconstruction involving
additional right of way and creating major impact to the effected mountainside
area. To adopt these standards for this project would be in keeping with
accepted design practice as defined in "Geometric Design Guide for
Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (R-R-R) of Highways and Streets -
1977" as published by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. Their use will provide a road which will be
adequate for the increased service demand, while still preserving the
character of the surrounding area.
Reconstruction of ~ short section of the' e~isting roadway, located to the east
of Tuthill Road is recommended. This section of road is characterized by a
series of sharp "switch back" curves, limited or adverse supere1evation, steep
grades, and limited shoulder areas. A sketch plan showing the improvements
which could be made to improve the alignment in this area are shown on the
attached sketch plan. Otherwise, improvement of the existing roadway on its
present alignment will provide an adequate transportation facility which is
appropriate for the area which it will serve.
Very truly yours,
SEAR-BROWN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By~.ß?l. lU
Frederick M. Howard P.E.
"--
bGt
){fo
to the Town Board to require an Environmental Impact Statement. This also includes
l workshop session to keep the Planning Board informed.
Second by Mr. Macri.
Passed Unanimously.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87, Preliminary Approval
Cedar Court
There was more discussion between Board members and Charles Scudder. Mr. Sudder
stated he didn't have any problems with the concept. Mr. Macri, again, expressed his
concern about the concept of the septic, roads, and grading.
Mr. Steves stated that they will be submitting their plans to DEC and the Department
of Health who will review the plans thoroughly and will comment on them. If changes
need to be made (minor modifications) they will have to review these changes also.
Mr. Macri expressed his concern on what the Board is being asked to approve; an
application that is complete tonight or an application that will be complete.
Mr. DeSantis stated, "If the plan that comes before this Board and is labled final,
and is asked by this Board to be approved, it varies substantially from the Board that you're
now asking us to approve for preliminary. I'm saying up front, given what's taken place
this evening and up to this point, that I know, that I would have no problem saying no to
final and also saying that this is not the same plan that was submitted for preliminary
and say you're back to sketch plan. I'm just saying it up front on the recored so that the
applicant knows that and if the final review by the retaining engineer for the Town results
in that having to take place, we all known about it tonight up front and those decisions
will be made on that basis. Now, if it comes back just as it is now with the minor changes
that we see in the normal course of the business of this Board for final approval, I don't
have any problem proceeding on the basis for preliminary approval tonight."
Mr. Sudder stated, "The applicant has no objection to that understanding and that
for final approval we will have this all worked out well before the hearing."
Mr. Buckley said he wanted to clarify one thing, "Charlie has asked that we present
some things in a different fashion, he his not asking that we change any basic perameters
of the design or that we obtain additional information. There is not dispute over the design
concept, it's the presentation that's in question."
Mr. Roberts stated that this was still a public hearing.
There were no comments from the public.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Dybas MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 5-87, Cedar Court,
'-
7
j{7
Phase I, 38 units having meet the initial requirements of the Board and that the plans
'vJe closely scrutinized by both parties prior to submission for this Board for final approval.
Second by Mr. Macri.
Passed Unanimoulsy.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 15-87
Dunham Brothers
Mr. Roberts stated that this was tabled from the previous meeting. The application
is to enlarge its 7,200 sq. ft. building to 14,400 sq. ft. for retail space (footwear and other
leasable retail area) on the property situated on the corner of Routes 9 and 149 in a Highway
Commercial 15 zone.
Mr. Roberts asked if there was anyone present to represent the project. There wasn't
anyone present. Mr. Roberts stated that no new plans had been submitted therefore the
Board would not consider this application tabled again unless a new application was filled
out and submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department.
Board members agreed to drop this application as it will not be tabled again.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 17-87
Viking Enterprises
Mr. Roberts stated that this was for construction of a 35 ft. by 136 ft. apartment
building (8 apartments with total of 14 bedrooms) on the property situated on the west
side of Bay Road, opposite the south end of Adirondack Community College campus.
Mr. Martin read the minutes from the previous meeting of June 16, 1987.
The location of the septic system was discussed. Mr. Montogomery who represent
Mr. Bray, neighbor of Canterbury Woods, said that new plans showed that the septic system
has been moved. Mr. Sudder stated he had done this in recommendation from the Planning
Board and from Mr. Bray's suggestion.
Mr. Scudder stated that Coulter and McCormack, surveyors measured 135 feet from
Building D to Mr. Bray's well; it is indicated on the drawing.
The public hearing had been left opened from the previous meeting.
Public Hearing Continued: Mr. Montogomery said that Mr. Bray's concern is the
significant concentration of development at this corner of the property which is closest
to his adjoing property. He said the property immediately to the west is used to raise
thoroughbred horses. Increased traffic was discussed. Mr. Montgomery said that Mr.
~ray is concerned about traffic head lights and noise at night. Mr. Montogomery expressed
-~--'
8
/5<iS
concern about the increased density on and around the site.
Mr. DeSantis stated, "The density that is allowable on a project site is set by zoning.
If you take that density and put it in an area that meets all of the other constraints and
they are admitting that we know about traffic, drainage, stormwater, waste water disposal
- we meet those constraints, I know, if it's within our jurisdiction to tell somebody where
to put it on his lot, I mean I just have some problem with that! I understand that the
neighbors would like to see it on the other side of the property and the neighbors on the
other side may come to us next month and say, we like to see it on the other side of the
property." Mr. DeSantis said that he understands that maybe no neighbors would like
to see it next to them. But if you meet all the constraints and I agree with you that maybe
this isn't a UR-5 zone, that the amount of density that's there is very high."
Mr. Montogomery discussed at length his objections to the project.
Mr. Montogomery discussed the possibility of buffering on the south side.
Mr. Scudder and Board members discussed how many bedrooms there actually are.
There is a den and a study room. Mr. Sudder stated that there are 12 bedrooms. Board
members discussed the possiblity of overnight guests sleeping in the den and study rooms.
If the possibility exists, then it wilI definitly impact on parking and the septic system.
The parking situation was discussed. Mr. Macri stated that there needs to be room
for visitors to park. Mr. Scudder stated that he is looking for parking with minimum black
topping. Mr. DeSantis said they would need 12 parking spaces paved per building. There
should be auxilIary parking; 3 - 4 unpaved spaces per building.
Mr. Martin went through the checklist.
Mr. Montgomery continued to discuss what he felt is a problem with density. Mr.
DeSantis stated, "I have a problem with the consistent use of the word problem. This
is a UR-5 zone, this property is being built out as zoned. The UR-5 is just what it says,
the definition is up there on the wall map, is the highest density zone allowable in the
Town of Queensbury. It's been zoned that way since the zoning plan was adopted. There's
no problem here in the fact that used as zoned; it generates traffic, traffic at night,
hopefully it's in accordance with the traffic law - has headlights on it. That generates
light at night. I have a problem with asking a person using their property as zoned to
do something special because their neighbor is using the property as allowed under a
variance which is perfectly legitimate, but to do that, is to open up a can of worms that
goes far beyond, I think, would - with this particular one - 100 foot or 80 foot section
of vegetation may solve - and that's what concerns me here because we have this situation
as I think you can appreciate, throughout the community. And if that is what's going to
happen to people who use their property as zoned, believe me, when someone requests
a variance in the future, even though it may be quote IIA Good Idea" in an objectional
use which I think Mr. Bray's use of this property certainly is, in my personal opinion, they
may come out in force later on, somebody is going to find out and object, because they've
got a variance next doot, to there use as zoned."
Mr. Montogomery reiterated Mr. Bray's concern that there should be buffer between
his property and the proposed development. Mr. Macri stated that the Master Plan for
the project was submitted before Mr. Bray moved in next door.
'~
9
/59
'~
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Macri MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 17-87, Viking Enterprises, Canterbury
Woods for construction of an 8 apartment building consisting of a total of 12 bedrooms.
Based on our discussion this evening and our engineers review, there wilI be additional
parking, promised to be provided which would be 12 paved per building plus 4 auxilIary
spaces per building.
Second by Mrs. Levandowski.
Passed Unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 19-87
Adirondack Construction Corporation
Mr. Roberts read the application to construct an office building (103,307 sq. ft.)
with parking on the property situated at Quaker Road in a Plaza Commercial lA zone.
The land is owned by Earltown Corporation.
Richard Jones, Architect and Victor Macri, President of the Adirondack Construction
Corporation represented the project. They said the building would be in a 13 lot commercial
strip owned by the Earltown Corporation.
Parking was discussed. Mr. Jones said there would be a total of 68 spaces for parking.
He said this would be a two story building made of brick veneer. The adjacent vacant
lot was discussed; there is ~ total acres for both lots. Mr. Prime said that the Board
can't address that particulaf\?Jcant lot; it's not part of the site plan application being
addressed this evening. The building permit would be issued just for the lot discussed.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Warren County Planning Board recommended approval.
Mr. Martin went through the checklist.
Mr. Martin MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan Review No. 19-87, Adirondack
Construction Corporation for a building of 20,300 sq. ft.
Second by Mr. Dybas.
Passed 5 yes (Roberts, Martin, Dybas, Levandowski, DeSantis), 1 absent (Mann), Macri
excused himself as he represented the project.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
~ (jLlJ 4 CR/Jr
Richard Roberts, Chairman
10
Minutes prepared by Susan Davidsen