1987-12-15
)0;)
QUEDSBUl.Y TOW PLADlRG lOAD
Regular Meeting Held: Tuesday, December 15, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Susan Levandowski
Joseph Dybas
Victor Macri
Thomas Martin, Secretary
Frank DeSantis
Hilda Mann
Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer
Absent:
R. Case Prime, Counsel
Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Roberts announced that Site Plan No. 33-87(A), Carl E. Kelton, Sr.
and Site Plan No. Ær1-~ Richard Andrus, were tabled.
3'6-'87
There are two sets of minutes which the Board members have not been
able to review. The minutes from a special meeting on Monday, October 26,
1987, stand as written.
OLD BUSlUSS
SUBDIVISlOR RO. 10-86
Stonehurst, Phase II
Mr. Roberts read the application for Preliminary Approval of 15 lots
east off Ridge Road, SR-30, east Sunnyside Road.
Leon Steves, who represented the project, referred to the letters from
Nick Sciare111i and Morse Engineering (Pages 1A/1-2 and 1B respectively).
Mr. Steves said that the letter has been addressed and corrections on the
plan have been made. Plans depict a 14 lot subdivision as Phase II, with
two lots in Phase I being slightly revised because of the cul-de-sac,
which existed at that time. The cul-de-sac will be done away with as it
is only a temporary turn-around, and a regular cul-de-sac will be put at
the end of the road. Drainage will be installed going to the land of the
developer and not onto the adjoining landowners.
Public Hearing Opened: no comment
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Dybas MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL for Subdivision No. 10-86,
Stonehurst, Phase II, since we have discussed the items several times and
it has been approved by our consulting engineer.
~
1
Richard Roberts, Chairman, Queensbury Planning Board
Queensbury Planning Board Members r,f'"
............. ", '\' .
Leon Steves ,,' \""jl i
Î ,'1"~
Richard Morse, Morse Engineering"\~(~~
Subdivision 10-86, Stonehurst, Phase II
lA'
TO:
FROM:
RE:
December 15, 1987
MIE #87-9400
MEMORANDUM
We have reviewed the above referenced subdivision in accordance
with your letter of September 29, 1987.
J&7
The additional material we requested in our memorandum of October
6, 1987, has been submitted on drawings received this month. We
have found that the thirteen items questioned in our memorandum of
October 6th Rave been complied with. We therefore recommend
approva~ o~ the project.
RSM:lag
',' .·'l~
..........
~
u'~~(.~' ~.Y,l\í; <.~( i;~~ (I" .'_~,':'.
__ ,,' J.:)~~): ¡
,"', ":.,'---
'\ t f ~ t. )! -..
i '( J /: ',-. to' . '., j \, :/ l ¡ . . ~ : i
. ¡. 1'1. " Opo''''.r \ 'J f ... ¡.
J i "., .... L 4,. I ;
,",1 lÌ ;..' I 'I :. "19°/-""', .;7/ ,; , ;
, '- J ) U ,: .~, "
"'-....,
, , ,
~.... ¡'..i'~ ~.~ i..f : è·J (t- ~~ ,,'~¡ {:'. /';J ~ .\.; :' ':
D"'IJJ~ ','. '! ',0, . · L,,,
-- "'".\, .'~~;:,y f
il3
. ,
.'..
;;.rI/
-
October 6, 1987
M/E 1187-9400
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Members Of;;Jueens ury Planning Board
Leon Steves
Nick Sciart .'.
Subdivision 1110-86, Stonehurst, Phase II, Preliminary Approval
In accordance with your letter of September 29, 1987, we have reviewed the above
referenced project and have met with Leon Steves on 10/6/87 to discuss the context
of our review. Leon Steves will submit the material and information ,requested.
Project Comments:
1. No roadway typical section shown with location of utilities.
2. No road profiles included.
3. Typical plot plan detail - section 2 indicates 35' setback line, plan measures 50'.
4. Trench section for sanitary distribution (normal) should show pipe as 4"
perforated P.V.C., Class SDR-35. .
5. Indicate which section is normal and which is fill section for sanitary
distribution.
6. At lots 1124 and 1125, 1150 and 1151, show roadway right-of-way as 50 foot wide
and cul-de-sac as temporary.
7. A.T.T. easement not shown on designated lots as commented during sl<etch plan
review.
8. Who will own 60 foot wide drainage easement for lots 1157 and 1159.
9. Drainage: Along the eastern side there are three (3) drainage easements
directing stormwater flows to the adjacent property.
Unless the developer owns this adjacent land, some provisions should be made to
direct the stormwater to a viable drainage course in order to prevent possible
erosion of concentrated flows.
--
/11'
¡.lo 5
A'
October 6, 1987
M/E 1187..9400
Page Two
10. In areas of high groundwater, is th~ roadway profile below this elevation.
Consideration for installation of subsurface drainage system.
11. No Environmental Assessment Form submitted.
12. Detail,s of pump station for sewage disposal should be indicated.
13. The fill used in elevated disposal systems should be specified.
NDS:lag
'-
/ IT a...-
;2.&&
Seconded by Mr. Martin.
Pas.ed uBani_ously.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-84
Court House Estates, Section III
Mr. Roberts read the application for Preliminary Approval of 60 lots
at the north end of Courthouse Drive, SFR-30. In addition, he stated that
this subdivision has been dealt with for some time, and the Board has
asked the applicant for a second entrance into the project. Three months
ago the applicant thought another entrance could be run coming in from a
parcel off Glen Lake Road, but proved too difficult from an engineering
standpoint. Since that time and with the development of the "Miracle Half
Mile," there seems to be another answer to the problem.
Mr. Tom McCormack, developer, stated the subdivision map submitted to
the Board represents a configuration that is the same as those that were
submitted 40 days or so ago, with the exception of the deletion of Lot
141, where we would like to construct a by-pass to the Warren County
Bikeway. This was discussed with Fred Austin and he stated that they
would welcome such a connection, providing the bike path itself was just a
bike path and that vehicles could not enter it.
The other change on the map has to do with the westerly boundary of
the property adjoining the Hi-Way Host Property and Adirondack Factory
Outlet Center property. We are going to make an exchange of properties
with Mr. Kenny (owner). One parcel would be to the rear of the Hi-Way
Host property, which would enable him to shift the parking that was pro-
posed last month in conncection with the Days Inn construction. Parking
would be eliminated along the proposed Court House exit and placed to the
east of the building. The parking that was proposed to be north of the
proposed addition (30 spaces) and the exchange of parcel provides 44
spaces. The parcel under consideration is 105 ft., with a 50 ft. buffer
zone.
The main thrust of the presentation tonight is to indicate where a
second access road out to Route 9 will be. The plan is to construct the
interior road (town road) and terminate it at a turn-around at the north
line of the property. The private road would continue out to Route 9.
The access onto that right-of-way would be Route 9N coming in off Route 9,
an entrance to the north into the Brock property, and a second entrance to
the southern motel property. The east end of the motel property would
have two entrances aside of the parking lot. An additional opening would
be provided at the east end of the Brock property. That would be the only
intrusion into the right-of-way. Mr. Kenny already owns the 30 foot strip
leading back to the 80 acres in the rear. Court House Estates will become
the owner of the strip, as documented by an agreement signed today between
Mr. McCormack and Mr. David Kenny, owner of Hi-Way Host.
--
2
/-.W 7
Mr. McCormack stated he had spoken with the Business Manager of the
Lake George School District. He could not commit the School Board to
anything, but he felt that a properly constructed road would more than
likely meet the School Board's approval.
A
road.
30 ft.
provide
profile drawing was presented showing the 2 1/2% grade of the access
It is proposed that the 24 ft. pavement be constructed within the
right-of-way, landscaping being south of the north line which will
an aesthetic improvement at the entrance.
In answer to Mrs. Levandowski's question regarding the length to where
the road turns south, Mr. McCormack said it was 900 ft. - 600 ft to the
end of the motel property and 300 ft. to where Mr. Kenny has the
right-of-way. Mr. DeSantis asked how wide the portion is of the 30 ft.
strip between the Brock parking lot and the 24 ft. roadway, where the
trees are shown. Answer: Five feet. My son and I will aaintain that
area.
Mr. Macri pointed out that they do not have the required buffer, at
the point where there is a corner. A conversation ensued at the Board's
dais regarding the solution to the buffer.
A preliminary profile of interior roads was then discussed, showing
two locations with an 8% slope. The property is topographically quite
different than Sections I and II, and the roads have been designed to take
advantage of the contour. In terms of drainage, specific detailed plans
have not been developed yet; however, all drainage will stay on the
property. The testing went down to 15 ft. - 16 ft., and the deeper the
test, the more gravel. Initial thinking is to construct, at one point,
an island in the center of the road to be used as a collection point for
the drainage. However, there will be several locations in the subdivision
to take care of the excess drainage and, because of the in-development,
low-drainage collection points, Mr. McCormak felt that there would be no
need for extensive piping or catch basins, etc. However, he emphasized
that these were preliminary thoughts.
Mr. Roberts asked Charles Scudder, engineer, if he had any problems
with the concepts. Answer: No. We have met and talked several times, the
plans have to be developed in more detail. The proposals Mr. McCormack
has made are the best available at this point, particularly to the road
situation.
Mr. Roberts requested information on the Hay property. McCormack
stated that he has an agreement to construct a road up through the
property. However, there are six or seven potential building sites there
tha cannot be reached, and we proposed to still have an agreement with him
whereby we would develop the lots and pay him a sales portion. The total
today is 59 lots.
Mrs. Levandowski requested information on the school bus roads. At
the present rate of development as it has been for the last ten years, we
are looking at another 12 years for completion.
'--
3
?-0~
Mr. McCormack pointed out on the map areas which will be graveled and
which will be paved. Mr. Roberts expressed concern about the town
accepting the road without being connected to the highway system, except
over a private road, and when the houses were going to be built in
relation to the road constuction. Mrs. Mann and Mr. Macri stated that,
before any construction starts, the road must be paved in the subdivision.
However, Mr. Roberts pointed out that there are two schools of thought
regarding gravel versus paved roads. Construction trucks can cause damage
to paved roads, but plows can dig up gravel roads. Mr. Macri felt the
gravel would result in a quagmire in the Spring, but Mr. Roberts said that
if the gravel road were to be built with a proper base, there should be no
problem.
Mr. DeSantis felt that it is necessary to determine a definite trigger
for housing 25 lots in five years. Concern was that the gravel road
would not hold up for that period of time, especially with amount of use
the roads would receive. Phasing was discussed, because the number of
lots are over 50. It was also pointed out that the sections should be
defined, and that 60% of Phase I must be substantially completed before
any continuation to Phase II.
Mr. Martin's concern is that the highway is not going to service just
the lots, but it is going to be an exit point and receive heavy usage.
This leads to the question. of whether or not the road should be paved
immediately. Mrs. Mann suggested that Paul Naylor be contacted for his
opinion regarding paved/gravel roads. Mr. Macri reminded the Board that
the reason for not opening the subdivision was that there was not enough
access. The road should be put in. It is not just an access for the
subdivision, it is also an access for the commercial development along the
way. After much discussion with the Board, it was suggested to pave 600
ft. immediately and the remaining 300 ft. within a year.
Public Hearing Opened:
Bob Leighton - Section I resident
He is speaking for some of the residents and is asking for protection
in this matter. Courthouse I at present has one exit only for 39 lots to
Glen Lake Road. Courthouse II has roughly 47 lots, mostly developed,
using one exit and entrance. Courthouse III is the last plan he is aware
of, basically the same. We are concerned that the 60 homes being built in
Section III, anyone working or shopping in Glens Falls, Quaker Road, etc.
would most likely come up Route 9 and, rather than use the light at the
Municipal Center and the light at the Northway, they will turn right at
Glen Lake Road and come through Courthouse Drive to the new subdivision.
This is a very dangerous intersection. The residents do not want to stop
McCormack from building, but they are concerned that vehicular traffic
going north to Lake George or south to Glens Falls will use this residen-
tial area to avoid the traffic lights.
The
"leave
solution that the Courthouse residents have come up with is to
us alone." Do not connect the divisions. There is a possibility
,-.
4
).(/1
of two entrances to the new section, these would serve the subdivision and
give the residents the safety and double exits. That would leave the
other two divisions with one exit. Mr. Leighton said that the residents
would like the opportunity to form an association and negotiaté with Mr.
Kilmartin for a road. It would be easily done and the expenses could be
afforded by the people in Courthouse, with the manpower in the area. This
would be done if the Board says that there must be two accesses. The only
reason for the McCormacks to have an entrance is to enhance the develop-
ment as a selling point. They have two ways in and two ways out. Why
disturb us and cause a potential of a big problem down here?
Mr. Roberts asked why people would not go through the Municipal
Center. Answer: Because of the lights. A disagreement ensued by some
members of the Board regarding the use of Courthouse Estates versus using
the Municipal Center.
Joseph Geroski - 22 Northwood Drive, Courthouse Estates
Mr.
is he.
traffic
that he
is going
Friday's
traffic
created.
Geroski said he is upset that the Board is making a decision, as
I am not an expert in traffic flow and I cannot say which way the
is going to flow, and the Board cannot either. Mr. Geroski feels
is more of an expert because he lives in the area, and sees what
on in the summertime, when the skiers are going through on
in the wintertime. He felt if the Board has a question, then a
study should be done. Get the answers before a problem is
Mr. DeSantis asked if Mr. Geroski thought it would be beneficial to
have two entrances to where he lives. Answer: No. Question: What if
there were a fire at your house. Answer: You are doing what if's, sir.
Question: Why is the exit not beneficial. Answer: Our development is
different than another situation in Queensbury, because we have this
"Miracle Half Mile" situated next to us. The traffic flow is heavy, not
only shoppers, Northway skiers, summertime, etc. If this road is con-
nected, not only Courthouse would be affected, but Glen Lake, shoppers who
live there. Do a survey.
The Board pointed out that a road survey was done recently.
Ryan Brian - resident Courthouse I
Mr. Brian asked what guarantee can the Board give the residents that
the commercial traffic will not eventually, in a few years or over 50
years, come down the back of the mall over the proposed road, and continue
through Courthouse III, II and I, because Route 9 is getting worse. On
Sunday it takes and average of 20 minutes to get from Courthouse I,
through the Municipal Center, and attempt to go north. To go south there
is a 15 minute wait. Local people who know the shortcut are going to use
it. Mrs. Mann pointed out that local people time their trips and make
them accordingly. Mr. Roberts thought that this would be a good
opportunity for STOP signs. Mr. Brian said that the residents had to
bring in school bus on their own, even though it was presented to the
',,-
5
}--16
Board. Mr. Macri said that, when it
residents did not want school buses going
was disagreement to that. Courthouse
problem.
was first proposed, Courthouse
through the development. There
has a strong concern to the
Mr. Brian asked if we were going to the future with a safe community
in Queensbury, or backwards for more tax dollars and to "hell" with safety
and "damn" with the traffic problem. Mr. DeSantis stated he has a problem
with one entrance with 86 houses and safety. When approached with another
Courthouse resident's statement "Let us get an association and let us
maybe get another road," Mr. Brien said "Give us some time and we will get
back to you." DeSantis: You have an opportunity right here, right now in
a project that we have talked about on this Board for three years. Mr.
Roberts: Safety is our prime concern. Mr. DeSantis stated his offense to
the statement regarding tax dollars. The road could have gone in without
the second entrance and everyone using the same road being complained
about three years ago. If one entrance is blocked by a tree, ice, etc.
and there is an emergency in one of the houses, a major problem exists.
Mr. DeSantis suggested that maybe STOP signs, or curve the roads
around would help the problem. Mr. Brian mentioned speed bumps. Mr.
McCormack reviewed the concerns with the Board.
Bernard McCann - Courthouse Drive
Mr. McCann feels he suffers most from this as he lives in the first
house and has all the traffic that goes in and out. To him the one issue
is privacy. He moved to the Courthouse Estates for privacy and found it
enjoyable and desirable. He asked the Board to let them explore the
possibility of working with Mr. Kilmartin. All the residents want to see
Tom McCormack continue with his construction. When he mentioned that
Courthouse would have two roads and Tom could have their two exits, he was
advised that both of the roads he mentioned were private roads. Building
permits would not be issued because nothing would be fronting on a town
highway. Town vehicles would have a problem getting into the development,
because of the private roads.
Mr. DeSantis asked how close the two roads are on Glen Lake Road that
have been mentioned being built by the Courthouse Association. Answer:
300 ft. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. McCormack to explain further the possibility
of the second entrance going in. Answer was inaudible.
Michael Jones - Courthouse #2
Mr. Jones felt that one of the biggest problems is traffic going
through the development and congestion. Asked if anything was being done
on Route 9 to make the traffic flow better, such as alternating lanes.
Mr. DeSantis mentioned he was at a meeting with the Senior Planning
Engineer from D. o. T., who mentioned that nothing on the agenda. Mr.
Jones stated that he takes Route 9 when he goes north to Lake George
because it is the quickest route. To go the new access road in summertime
is too slow. But, going south people will have to go through the develop
'-
6
~11
ment and
Center.
an agenda.
out, because the traffic alleviates itself at the Municipal
He asked again if there is anyway to get the Route 9 problem on
Mr. Roberts expressed disappointment that no solution was decided upon
that would be agreeable to everyone. Mention was made of Mr. McCann's
suggestion to give the residents enough time to come up with an alter-
native. However, this alternative would not be feasible because of the
highway system setup. The Board again suggested speed bumps, increase the
curve in the road and stop signs. Mr. DeSantis asked for suggestions from
the McCormacks before Final Approval.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Roberts entertained a motion for preliminary approval of Court
House Estates.
Mr. Macri MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 7-84, Court
House Estates, Section III. The final approval would be contingent upon
the fact that we have to develop some way of slowing traffic through the
subdivision; and contingent on the proposed phasing of paving of the
access road be completed by one year from the start of construction. The
developer should submit the plan for storm water management, phasing and
other requirements for final approval.
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
Passed unanimously.
A recess for five minutes was taken.
SIn PLØ 22-87
William E. Threw
Mr. Roberts stated that the application is for a proposed use for
extraction of sand and gravel on Big Bay Road, LI-1A.
Mr. Roberts mentioned that this has come before the Board before, the
project was amended because it was found that a "stump dump" becomes a
Class I land fill, so the application was changed. The Board asked for
more information to help the Board be convinced that the area would not be
polluted or dried up.
Mr. O'Connor represented the applicant. The reclamation program has
been amended in full, so that there will be a re-seeding of the area after
the completion of the excavation of the matter of sand and material to be
withdrawn from the area. Mr. Jeffrey Martin, who has written a reclama-
tion program, was introduced. The buffer zone was changed to 50 feet from
25 feet. The test well is noted on the new map. Necessary measurements
'-
7
?- -¡ ?-
as to ground water were made. The excavation will be no lower than 350
ft. (elevation). Mr. O'Connor stated this is not a large site, which is a
three-year project. It will not be a lasting operation. Initial work
will be on the highest point of the land. The test well shows that the
ground water level is 343 ft., some 16 ft. below the lowest point of the
excavation. Therefore the excavation will not affect the ground water
level (See Page 8A - Letter from Richard Morse).
Mrs. Mann asked how the the elevation is determined, that there will
be no violation. Answer: By supervision by a licensed land surveyor. It
will have to be staked it, controlled, and we will be responsible for
that. Mr. Roberts mentioned that the original submission stated that
there would be 38 ft. soil over ground water, now 16 ft. is mentioned.
Answer: Yes. Mr. O'Connor said that, if the reclamation program is
examined, Mr. Martin estimated at that time that the surface ground water
level was 325 ft. and elevation of 350 ft.; therefore, we were talking
about 25 feet above. By actual measurement it turns out to be 334 ft.,
the ground water level was 9 ft. higher than anticipated.
Mrs. Mann's concern is that, when learning about where the bottom of
the pit will be located, there is an incentive on this type of project for
the bulldozer worker to go further, and she was concerned about the 9 ft.
Answer: The excavation is sand. There is between the level of 350 and
334 ft. material other than sand. It will be an indication of the hard
pan that is visible to the naked eye. Mr. Martin explained that the layer
is of a material known as "Fragipan." It is very similar to hard pan, but
with a chemical difference. In hard pan, the material that holds
everything together is clay; in fragipan the binder is extremely fine
silt. It is just as hard packed and easier to break, but power tools are
still needed. This is a 10 ft. cap layer on top of the water table. It
is not impervious, but very close. Mr. Martin explained that this project
is going out on the outer edges of the town's pit. By the time 350 ft.
elevation is reached (30 - 35 feet below the surface), the floor on the
bottom is so narrow that there is no room for machinery movement. This is
a commercial operation with the excavation of a particular type of
masonry/concrete sand, some of the purest in the area, and requires very,
very little processing and there is very little waste. It will go
quickly, but at a reasonable pace. It is estimated that within one year
the majority of the sand will be gone. There will be a small area against
the town's property that will be used during the second year, and into the
third year.
The D. E. C. requires that reclamation will be completed within one
year of cessation of the mining. If the local building boom goes flat,
this pit will not be supplying 100% of the masonry sand that is being used
by this area. The is is one of the most economical and closest sources,
but not the only source. It will continue to be in demand. Sand further
away from the batch plants will be more expensive. Mrs. Mann asked about
the timing of the reclamation. Mr. O'Connor said the Board can set the
time. If mining is not completed by a certain period of time, reclamation
can be ordered. With D. E. C. the initial time period is three years.
One factor that mayor may not affect this application, is how the town
--
8
)13
A'
',-r"II:"1 '
-~ ~~"'\ .'.H:7QUCEN.f;aUfd
ffl~: :~?1~~(~@
.:.JLANÑi¡\JC,;¡ >. November 18, 1987
DI:"' Co( ,,:,v'VlNC M/E #8 8600
¡;;PAfffi'M:N-r ' 1r7-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Richard Roberts, Chairman
QUeenSbUrYP~annin rLi
Richard Morse \
"\ '
William Threw, Big Bay Road
Site Plan No. 22-87
RE:
We have reviewed the revised drawings prepared for thé above. referenced. project. .
The major revision to the pIa:") is the removal of the proposed filling· operation. This
removal eliminates the majority of concerns that we~e raised with groUndwater
contamina tion.
The developer has not shown the location of the existing septic system. This must be
a minimum of 25 feet away from the proposed top of embankment.
The location of the proposed test well as referred to on page 4 should be shown on
the drawing.
Under the reclamation plan, the developer proposes to waste roots and debris from the
topsoil screening operation of the existing topsoil stockpile. This is 'not permitted if
this operati~n continues for more than one year. If the developer proposes to waste
this material on site, please provide a quantity estimate and a timetable .for removal.
There is reference on pages 5 and 6, which states that clean fill will be used in the
reclamation. Where is this fill to be used? What is this fill composed' of? Will it be
placed below elevation of 350 feet? Will roots and stumps be placed beÌow 350 feet?
If not, will it be placed in the slope; if so, how will it be stablized.·
I feel this Information must be provided before a recommendation may be made on this
facility. . .
RSM:lag
-
" ~;}
7lL/
,~-
proceeds, as this is a-joint venture. It will be necessary to wait for
the town to come along their boundry, which has been discussed with the
town. The town is not exempt from the mining regulations of the D. E. C.
The D. E. C. requires that the town will have to maintain only a 25 ft.
buffer from the adjoining property lines, but the town will have to
maintain the same type sloping. In all, there will be a buffer of 75 ft.,
30 feet in the air that no one will use and is sloped. The buffer area is
not considered part of the sloping. If approval is obtained today, the
application will be continued with D. E. C. and, in turn, the D. E. C.
will not { give this approval based upon the side lines, but only until the
town completes its application.
Mr. Martin explained that it is not the case that on-going reclamation
cannot begin until mining is finished. It does not pay to move dirt
twice. The front area will be excavated first, about 10 to 15 ft. deep,
to have the mechanical screen and load the trucks. In order to move to
the back, the top soil has to be stripped. The top soil will be removed
to cover the front, this is an on-going thing.
Mr. Robert asked Mr. Morse about the protection with the 16 ft.,
instead of the 30 ft. Answer: The top elevation is 384 ft., the fragipan
is hit at 344 ft., and through to the bottom of the well at 329 ft. No
water was encountered until after the fragipan layer, which indicated
imperviousness. Mr. Martin observed that the static water level in the
well rises to approximately one foot above the base of the grade, which
shows: 1) there is an active water lens underneath the fragipan, and 2)
that the fragipan is relatively impervious, because no water was encoun-
tered going to it. This gives an excellent barrier for separating the
ground water from the excavation, in addition to being an excellent
barrier to prevent excavating of the fragipan because it is of no value
when hitting it, and it alleviates all concerns regarding spills, etc.
Mr. Martin explained that the only way fragipan forms is from the bottom
of glacial lakes and it has to be quite still for a long period of months,
sometimes years. It is the only condition under which that type of
material is formed.
Mr. O'Connor mentioned that the "clock" has not started with D. E. C.
because the Town Supervisor did not want to prejudice this Board, by going
ahead. A permit is not on hand that they will issue, however we do have
the proposal. Mr. Robert's said that SEQR will not be involved, because
the Board has done its SEQR. Mr. O'Connor emphasized that this is a Ll-A
zone, a permitted use, not an introduction to a new use. It has been on
the schedule for Site Plan Type 2 review for some time. He believes the
town started their pit in 1973. The existence of the town pit is evidence
that no change or introduction of something foreign will take place.
There are limited natural resources and areas of these resources.
Public Hearing Opened:
Bruce Carr - attorney
Mr. Carr is representing Mr. and Mrs. David Richardson and other
persons around Mr. Threw's property. There is concern about the affects
'-
9
~15
on the people in the area and presented to the Board a petition signed by
50 residents. He understood reclamation meant re-seeding and leaving a
big hold in the ground. That would propose a safety detriment to the
children in the area. It is private property and not fenced off. There
is concern about the condition that the pit will be left in, basically
because of Hr. Threw's reputation of leaving old equipment and appliances
around the property that create an eyesore. The neighbors do oppose this
application.
John Pitzgerald - attorney on behalf of Northern Distributing
There are concerns on how this project will be policed - 3 years, 6
years, 9 years whether there will be intrusion on the 16 foot grade
limit, and overall character of the neighborhood.
Douglas Zayre - summer resident
Hr. Zayre feels there is contradiction regarding the grade limit.
Also, he said that Hr. Threw's business is unsightly. He is concerned
about the length of time the project will take.
Hr. O'Connor feels that the ordinance and the rights of the individual
parties should be looked at. In respect to the names on the petition, he
requested to locate those who are directly affected by the application.
Hr. and Hrs. Richardson came into an Ll zone under a variance, under-
standing at that time that it was Ll, meaning that they knew what was
there. When the earth berm is built, the neighbors will have been further
insulated from the Town of Queensbury's operation, which will be more
lasting. Regarding the hole, the 30% sloping requirements will be
maintained, when the outside boundaries are reached. The property will be
used, not dormant forever. There is access to a remedy, if Hr. Threw is
not complying with what has been submitted, because there will be two
different permits. D. E. C. is very responsive to complaints. An example
of Hr. Threw's work of reclamation is at the Hontgomery Ward Plaza. The
incline is gently sloping and within the next few years will be a total
improvement. The timetable was set and kept by Hr. Threw. Regarding the
confusion between 16 ft. and 25 ft., the applicant originally estimated 25
ft; however, the Board wanted a definite measurement and that was 16 ft.
Hr. Zayre wanted to know what the measurement of the top soil is in
that area, and will the buffer zone eliminate the crossing of bulldozers
across Eagen Road, where tracks have been seen. Hr. O'Connor stated that
Eagen Road is not within the area of this permit, but is on other of
Threw's lands south of this site. Presently, the road that runs through
that is a town road. A road only by prescription, as there are no deeds,
no dedication of the road to the town. It varies in width from 12 ft. to
20 ft. and winds around trees as it goes through. Hr. Threw was passing
through his own property with his equipment. Hr. Threw has offered to to
the Town Board to dedicate a 50 ft. strip along a straight line, that was
approved by Hr. Naylor. Hr. Threw does not like the town equipm.ent on his
land, because of the responsibility involved.
"-
10
J.-Îh
Mr. DeSantis asked how the bonding level with D. E. C. will be estab-
lished. Is there an estimate of what the reclamation will cost? Answer:
No cost study has been made. It was then suggested that the cost be
reviewed with the engineer to see if it is satisfactory, and that there
should be periodic reviews. The Planning Board wants to make sure that
the D. E. C.'s bond is satisfactory. Mr. Martin said that the D. E. C.
does not determine the amount until they have reviewed the project.
However, the general rule of thumb is they take the size of the site times
$2,OOO/acre. That is the average cost of spreading top soil, seeding it
and putting in seedlings.
Mr. Roberts said that Hr. Threw's property should be cleaned up. Mr.
Threw said that he has contacted someone to pick up the machinery, tools,
etc., but that person has not been reliable. Hr. Macri feels that this
will set an example for the town to follow.
Joe Haling:
Mr. Haling is basically interested that the project is done legally,
right, clean and neat. My property does join it. It is up to the
Planning Board to make sure that Mr. Threw follows threw.
Public Hearing Closed.
Mrs. Mann MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan No 22-87 with the following
stipulations. That there be a joint access bond with the D. E. C.
acceptable to our project engineer; that the project have an annual review
commencing one year from date of ground breaking; and that the Planning
Board's permit be conditioned on Bill Threw's property being cleaned up
and all junk and debris removed from his premises and the town's property;
and that all other conditions on the maps and the project reclamation
plans be included.
Seconded by Mr. DeSantis.
Passed unanimously. Absent: Thomas Martin
SITE FLAB BO. 34-87
Carlene J. Poster
Mr. Roberts read the application that this is for a construction of a
school for Performing Arts, Classical Ballet, Modern Dance, Jazz Dance,
and Piano, on Bay road (west side), 1/4 mile north of Quaker Road, UR-S.
This was held over from last month so that further inforaation could be
obtained.
Charles Scudder represented the project. Last month the Ballet Center
was introduced and the principle features of the site plan were discussed.
',,-
11
~lÎ
It has been decided that there will be 24 parking places.
Mr. Morse said he has reviewed this project with Mr. Scudder,
especially the septic system.
Mrs. Levandowski MOVED APPROVAL for Site Plan 34-87, Carlene J.
Poster, as we have the approval of our engineer. In addition, Mr. Scudder
is to present his plan to the Beautification Committee for their approval
and suggestions.
Seconded by Mr. Dybas.
Passed unaRiaously.
ND BVSIDSS
SITB PLAB 50. 39-87
Donald G. Pensel
Mr. Roberts said this application is to subdivide the present vacant
lot into two lots which will be used for single family dwellings. This
site is approximately 200 yards northeast of the Cleverdale Road on Route
9L in the LR-1A and LC-42A zones.
Mr. Donald Pensel represented the project. The lot is adjacent to the
present residence, which was built several years ago. Mr. Pensel said he
has a deposit pending use of the property for two residences. The prop-
erty is on a gradual slope and has been checked for perculation. Plans
have been submitted as to what could be done with the property. Every-
thing has been checked with APA and the Town of Queensbury Building Depart-
ment.
Mr. Roberts confirmed that the septic system is back 165 ft. from the
marsh land. The entrance way would not be prohibitively steep.
Public Hearing Opened:
Public Hearing Closed.
Warren County Planning Board approved without comment.
Mrs. Mann went through the check list. There will be individual wells
for the two properties. Regarding Emergency Access, there is a fire
station nearby. APA was contacted, but signed off on the project.
'-..
12
')7'6
Mr. Dybas MOVED APPROVAL for Site Plan No. 39-87, Donald G. Pensel.
Using the check list, the Board found no discrepancies to preclude an
approval. The Warren County Planning Board has approved the project. The
project has met all the criteria regarding the septic tank and marsh land.
Seconded by Mr. DeSantis.
Passed uaani.ously.
SITE PLØ NO. 40-87
United Auto Service Corp.
Mr. Roberts read the application for construction of a 44 ft. by 44
ft. automobile quick lube (Avis QUick Lube Center) center with paved
parking for 14 cars, renovation of existing fast-food restaurant and
landscape and site improvements. The location is on Glen Street, Route 9,
across from Price Chopper and next to Friendly's Ice Cream, in a PC-1A
zone.
Mr. John Lapper, attorney for Krolick « DeGraff in Glens Falls,
represented the project, along with persons from Walter Mussolini Enter-
prises located in Albany. The applicant, United Auto Service Corp., is a
wholly owned corporation of Walter Mussolini.
When the plan was submitted there was a second building on the site.
Presently, there is Jo-Jo's restaurant, which is a former gas station.
When the application was submitted a few weeks ago, that was going to be
lease space. The applicant was negotiating with some different companies
to fill the space. Subsequently, they have signed a lease which is contin-
gent upon approval by the Board. The building will be used for an auto
windshield replacement company, which has been established company for 35
years in Schenectady and Amsterdam.
Mr. Jim King, V. P. represented the Walter Mussolini United Group in
Albany, which is a full service development company that has been in
business in the Albany area for approximately 15 years. They are com-
mercial developers, currently involved in Albany and Ft. Drum - primarily
large scale residential-type developments and office. The company repre-
sents the largest franchisee of the Avis Lube Corporation, which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Avis Corporation. The company did attend the
Beautification Meeting on December 7, at which time the project was
approved.
Mr. Dick DeBee, owner of the glass company, explained that he has
entered into agreement with Avis to put into the existing building an auto
glass and accessory center, which involves the replacement of auto glass,
windshields, door glass, in addition to sun roofs, luggage carriers.
However, the basic business is auto glass, of which 80% is insurance
'-
13
)11
,,--
work. The operation is clean and neat. A small dumpster would be located
in the back into which the broken glass will be put and will be emptied
when necessary - assuming once or twice a week. No extra parking spaces
or fast turnover. The first branch of this type was just opened in
Amsterdam. The company is family-owned and sells as far as the Canadian
border. There would be no realized inventory and materials would be
delivered from Schenectady everyday.
Mr. Lapper explained that the lot is pre-existing and undersized, .87
of an acre, originally built as a gas station. The tanks have been
removed. The company feels it is an eye sore now, especially the stream
banks. The plans on the application are to dress up the banks, put top
soil down and re-seed the bank and improve the site. 47% of the site will
be covered with grass and open space. The present bUilding will be
renovated.
Mr. Mike Russo, of the United Group Co., stated that, in terms of the
Avis Lube operation, this is not a typical service station. A customer
would drive in, wait in a car queing area, and then in a waiting room
while the car is being serviced (approximately 10 - 15 minutes). After
the service has been completed, an attendant would deliver the customer's
car. This is not the type of operation where the car is left. An average
of approximately 45 - 50 cars/day, about 5 cars/hour. The maximum number
of employees would be five. There are proposed 7 parking spots for the
glass operation, in addition to two spots inside the garage. Proposed are
8 spaces for Avis Lube, which are 3 more than necessary. The applicants
intend to dress up the bank, including the neighbors' banks.
Mr. Roberts confirmed that the zoning is one acre plaza commercial,
and pre-existing non-conforming lot, which pertains to the existing
building. He pointed out that what is proposed is two businesses on the
one lot. Mr. Lapper said that the square footage of the existing building
is 1300 and the additional building would be 1900, for a total of 3200
square feet. Taking in consideration the 20% open space requirement, a
bUilding of approximately 10,000 square feet could be built. Mr. DeSantis
said that a building of 10,000 square feet could not be built, because
there would not be adequate parking. However, having two businesses on a
lot is a real problem. The Planning Board has to operate within the
ordinance. Mr. Lapper suggested that the two businesses could be combined
into one building. He also referred to the Board Section 7.011-B of the
Zoning Ordinance Which discusses the Shoreline Fill/Hard Surfacing
Amendment (Page 14A). Mr. Roberts explained that there is a moratorium
now and that there is incentive now to protect the streams more than
currently.
Mrs. Mann again expressed the concern of a precedent being set with
two businesses in two buildings to solve, two potential different
customers. The lot is being divided. Mr. Lapper stated that they would
conform to the Planning Board's wishes; however, the applicants feel that
the present plan presents a better use. Mr. Russo asked if the Board was
concerned about the runoff. Answer: Yes.
\..-
14
d-CóO
AMENDMENTS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE
EFFECTIVE DATE-JUNE 22, 1985
~-
SECTION 7.011-B Shoreline Fill/Hard Surfacing
No fil1 or hard surfacing shall be permitted within SO feet of any lake, pond, river,
stream or wetland except by Site Plan approval of the Planning Board, except that
no review /approval shall be required for preventative maintenance or repair caused
by erosion or other acts of nature. Private driveways crossing a stream are further
exempted from this section provided, however, such driveways do not exceed 15 feet
in width. The above exceptions shall not be construed to be relief from any other
governmental agency having jurisdiction.
Wetland areas wil1 be determined by New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Wetlands maps, the Queensbury Planning Bo~ and/or any governmental
agency having jurisdiction. t
SECTION 7.012 Construction on Slopes
A. Except for approved existing subdivisions, Site Plan Review shall be required
for the following:
1. Any detached structure proposed to be constructed on any lot, parcel
or site having a slope of 15% or more within a SO foot radius of proposed
location-of said structure. . .
a) Removal or excavation of 100 cu. yards or more from such site.
2. Proposed construction of a privately owned driveway, road or R.O.W.
on a slope of 10% or more.
\
SECTION 7.076 Frontage upon a public street
Change A to "The required frontage shall be 30 feet; the driveway cut on the
public road shall be within said 30 feet."
\......-
I if ¡:r
J-~I
Mr. Percy Cotton, engineer, discussed the banks. In order to prevent
the discharge from the paved areas going into the stream, the pavements
could be banked away from the stream, so that the flow of water could be
discharged into the state system. Mr. DeSantis reiterated 50 ft. is a
minimal setback. He also said that the main concern is not the sewerage,
but the waste discharged by cars waiting to be serviced. He is also not
totally confident that there can be two separate, distinct uses on a
non-conforming lot, with regard to size in the zone. This type use of the
land does not always lend itself to good management of the site, espe-
cially when one of the businesses finds i.tself in hard times. Generally,
if there is one landlord under one roof there is a common interest in
management. The discussion continued emphasizing that approval of this
application would be setting a precedent.
Mr. Roberts said that the Warren County Planning Board voted 5 in
favor, and 4 opposition (Page lSA.
Mr. Prime, counsel, will be contacted regarding an interpretation of
the ordinanace with respect to two separate businesses and buildings on
this lot, which is non-conforming area wise, based upon the fact that it
was in existence at the time of the zoning ordinance, that there is a
change in use and an increase in the number of uses. Is it possible for
this to do be done in this zone without the necessity of a variance?
Mr.
Scudder
Yes.
land?
done on
Lapper was advised by the Board on future steps to take. Mr.
wanted to know if a survey of this land is in existence. Answer:
Question: Has an effort been made to acquire any of the adjoining
Answer: No. Question: Was the computation of the green areas
lands totally within the boundaries of the lot? Answer: Yes.
Mr. Roberts
complete reports
Ordinance. The
the application.
said that Site Plan No. 40-87 was TABLED, pending more
and information, along the guidelines of the Zoning
Board will require 20 days for review, before considering
TIHBIILAKD COBSUL'UBTS INC.
Action was requested from the Town Planning Board that the Land 0
Pine's Subdivision be changed to Tyneswood. The request was approved.
Ten copies, verifying the new name and appropriate maps, are to be for-
warded follows: one to the County Clerk and the remainder to the Building
Department for proper distribution.
Passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87
I d., 1.5-87
Cedar Court
.,,-
Request
Declaration
by Michael O'Connor to approve the form of the Negative
for the Cedar Court Subdiviion located on the west side of Bay
15
i'
{\
~»~,
\ ~:l ,"
~o/~~'\~'\
L
<,,'.:.
;).ß~
WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD
Warren County Municipal Center
Lake George, New York 12845
Telephone 518·761·6410
DATE: December 9, 1987
RE: SPR40-87
TO: Queensbury Planning &
Zoning Office
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12801
United Auto Service Corp.
Glen St.
Gentlemen/Ladies:
At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 9th.
day of December 1987, the above application for a site plan review
to locate an Avis Lube- automobile quick lube center and additional
commercial rental space.
was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to:
( ) Approve ( ) Disapproval ( ) Modify with Conditions (ì<) Return
Comment:
.:) lIofeù /;v ~/9VO/2
'-I U 0 rED /;0/ OJ>'po s~ rioA!
"
SE.e ä-ff/1Ur'Æ¡) CD;-1?vJ1/.::-,N~5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the
procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-M,
with regard to Municipal Zoning ac~ionsthat are referred to and reported
thereon. The-following are procedural requirements that must be adhered.
to:
. ,.
1.) The Warren County Planning Board. shall report its recommendations, ' .....
to the referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement
for such actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days
or agreed upon time, the municipal agency may act without such
report.
2.) If the recommendation is for disapproval of the proposal, or
modification thereof, the municipal agency shall not act contrary
to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the
members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully
s~tting forth the reasons for such contrary actions.
3.) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal
agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications
or disapproval of a referred matter, such municipality agency
shall file a report with the Warren County Planning Board on
the necessary form.
, .
. John McGilvray, Vice Chairman
OJ~-øj1h4V ~
Wyll Mae Bitner, C airman
/õlÎ-,
C_,
L
..
United Auto Service Corp.,
SPR40-87
The Warren County was unable to recommend approval or denial of the
abovementioned application due to the fact that a six vote majority
was not achieved.
The issues that were discussed are as follows:
1) The location along Glen St. was at an extremely'
busy section of the highway and could cause '
additional congestion;
2) The applicant was unable to state any proposed
use for the existing restaurant, in order for
the Board to determine parking needs and traffic
flows;
3) The Board questioned why this proposal did not
require a variance due to the fact that this lot
'"" was a pre-existing nonconforming lot which already
has a structure/use on it. They also questioned
how two principal uses as well as how two principal
buildings could be permitted on a single lot;
4) There was also concern about the over-crowding and
overdevelopment of the lot and questioned why the
existing building was not completely removed and
only one use allowed.
/ S-¡¡ Z
~~3
"
, ....
, ,
,'I
(".""
),
./
c'
À~i
Road, approxiutely 1,000 ft. north of Blind Rock load in a SR-30 and 111-5
zones.
Chairaan Roberts signed the reque.ted fora and the inforaation will be
forwarded to D. B. C..
r__ ..,.i......ly.
The aeeting was adjourned at 12100 Jlidnight.
uW4Þ-~
1l1chard oberts, Chairaan
Minutes prepared by Mary Jane P. Koeller, Stenographer
16