1988-04-19
-
QUBDSBURY TOIOI PLAllBIRG BOARD
Regular Meeting Heldt Tuesday, April 19, 1988 at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman
S. Levandowski
F. DeSantis
Hilde Mann, Secretary
V. Macri
P. Cartier
R. Case Prime, Counsel
Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer
Absent:
J. Dybas
Mr. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The minutes from
the March 15, 1988 meeting stand as written.
OLD BUSIRZSS
SI~ PLAB RO. 39-87
Donald G. Pensel
Mr. Roberts stated the property is northeast of the Cleverdale Road on
Route 9L, LR-1A and LC-42A. Attendance at this meeting is to re-hear the
proposal for a previously approved Site Plan Review on December 15, 1987
(to subdivide the present vacant lot into two lots, which will be used for
single family dwellings). The reason for the re-hearing: notices must be
given to correct property owners within 500 feet of Donald G. pensel's
property: Tax Map Number: 10-1-11.1.
In addition, Mr. Roberts stated that the Board requested to review the
Adirondack Park Agency Permit. The permit has been reviewed and the Board
finds it self-explanatory. Mr. Prime stated that there are no critical or
environmental areas situated on the property and that the only issue is
the subdivision of the property which has been approved. It takes the
environmental issues out of the picture. The permit (APA) has been
approved and filed, so it now comes back to this Board solely on the issue
of the Site Plan Review as a subdivision. Since all the neighbors have
been notified, the Board is clear to go ahead with the decision.
Mr. Frank Munoff, neighbor, said that he and his wife had heard about
the meeting and that they had not been officially notified for the third
time. He feels there is a lack of communication, and that he deserves
some cordiality from the Board and explanation. Mr. Munoff said he does
not know what is going on next door and cannot make a comment. To offer
an explanation, Mr. Roberts said that the Town has hired a Senior Planner
1
~
and an Assistant Planner, and that neither is on line yet which is making
communication difficult. Mrs. Isabelle Munoff expressed her views in that
the Board is already passing approval on a hearing of which they have no
idea what is going on, and they feel in the dark because they were not
there for the first meeting and that is where most of the business was dis-
cussed. Mrs. Munoff said that that knowledge has been something impos-
sible for her and her husband to regain, and when Mr. Roberts mentioned
that the Munoff's have known about the project for a couple of months, she
advised him that, because she and. her husband are both employed fulltime,
it was impossible for them to get to the Town Board to secure the informa-
tion. Mrs. Mann clarified to the Munoff's that the Board did not approve
this Site Plan, but that the APA had approved its permit. No one from the
Planning Board was in attendance at that meeting.
Mr. Desantis explained to all in attendance the procedure of notifying
neighbors, in that the names of persons to be notified are obtained from
the tax maps and are those residents residing within 500 feet. If the tax
maps are in error, the application is in error, or if someone is 600 feet
away, no notification would be received. Hearings are advertised in the
newspaper and posted in the Town Hall and generally given to the press for
notification to cover any situation as previously discussed. Being ·neigh-
bors· may not be subject to statutory limitation by mail. Mr. DeSantis re-
quested that the Building Department review and determine who and why the
immediate neighbors (within 500 feet) did not receive notices. He further
strongly clarified to those present that neither the Chairman or anyone on
the Board is responsible for sending the notices. The Planning Department
is open five days a week, every business day in the Town Hall and that, if
anyone wants his/her address changed, those concerns should be expressed
to the appropriate persons in the Town Hall. Mr. Roberts closed the dis-
cussion to continue with the meeting.
(Note: Due to conversations within the audience, some of Mr. Pensel's
initial presentation has not been transcribed.) Mr. Pensel explained that
one section is divided into two lots along 9L and there are three houses
and a garage. There is 30 foot frontage on the pUblic road at the drive-
way entrance. The lots are of the required sizes in that particular area
in the Town of oueensbury. Mr. Roberts said that the zone is one acre and
the lots are conforming, partially I the back portion (528 feet from the
road) that is not conforming is LC-42. However, Mr. Pensel said that is
in the permit received from the APA. Mrs. Mann questioned if there would
be adequate acreage if that portion would not be included. Answer: Yes.
Mr. Pensel also confirmed that his son is renting the house at the end of
the driveway, and it is the house that the Building Department originally
approved. Mr. pensel's house is sitting on 3/4 of an acre, and the size
of the lot that is not part of this is 150 feet deep x 200 feet, which is
pre-existing.
Mr.
Lot 2,
Macri:
Macri discussed what properties were being subdivided. Lot 1 and
is that a separate lot of record right now? Answer: No. Mr.
Does that include this other piece? Answer: It includes the
2
~
other. Macri: We are subdividing three lots, is there a Lot 3? Mr.
pensel: Mark off the triangle. Mr. Macri: The original presentation we
approved was for subdividing a two-lot subdivision. It is my understand-
ing back in December that -these were the two lots and this was a lot of
record.- That wasn't the case? Answer: No. Mr. Macri: That previous
approval does not exist any more. If we are talking a three-lot subdivi-
sion, the application is incorrect and we start allover. One lot of
record and you want it divided three ways, you have to resubmit your appli-
cation. A conversation ensued at the dais regarding confusion of what has
been subdivided and on what parcels the houses are located. Mr. Pensel
did not understand why there was a conflict of information between the
Town of Queensbury and facts which have been brought out at this meeting.
Mr. DeSantis asked if Mr. Pensel had applied for a two-lot subdivision
to the Town of Queensbury. Answer: Yes, at the directions of Mack Dean.
Mr. DeSantis: Why did you apply for a three-lot subdivision to the Adiron-
dack Park Agency? Answer: I did not. Mr. DeSantis: They gave you a
permit for a three-lot subdivision. Answer: I had the same information
that I sent to the APA and they approved it. They told me the reason they
did that was because of the chunk out of the piece of the property. They
had to include it, so they could issue the permit for that ... Mr.
DeSantis read from the APA Permit which Mr. Pensel gave to the Board on
March 15, 1988: -The subdivision of 5 +/- acres of property into three
parcels, thereby creating 1.49 +/- acre parcel, a 1.69 +/- acre parcel and
a 1.82 +/- acre parcel.- That has nothing to do with the small piece of
land, as they talk about that elsewhere in the permit saying that it can-
not be built upon. The confusion is that APA is talking about a three-lot
subdivision, and the application is for a two-lot subdivision. Mr. Macri
again reiterated that this was one lot of record according to the Town,
and expressed his displeasure of Mr. pensel's map in that it was very
confusing and inaccurate.
George Pensel, Mr. pensel's son, said that originally Mr. Pensel dis-
cussed sub-dividing the property with the Building Department, in addition
to the possibility of constructing a home. He was told there was no prob-
lem; ie: Site plan Review; therefore, he filed the subdivision with the
County Clerk's Office amd was given a Building Permit to put up the home
in which the son lives (the first house). G. Pensel further said that his
father has a purchaser and contractor for the other two lots and that is
why he has been applying. G. Pensel said all three separate lots were
filed with the County Clerk about two years ago. Upon review of the APA
application made in January of this year, Mr. DeSantis revealed that the
application was for three lots, and Mr. pensel's application was for two
lots. Mr. Pensel further confirmed to Mr. DeSantis that there is no deed
for the 1.82 parcel; therefore, the site is one parcel of land under one
deed as of this meeting, and this meant that the application is for a
three-lot subdivision and not two.
Public Hearing Opened:
3
~
David Klein, neighboring land owner, said his duplex house was built
by Mr. Pensel and he bought the property in 1984. When Mr. Klein bought
the property he was told by the property owner that, when the property was
subdivided, the APA advised that there would be no more subdivision. Mr.
Klein has the subdivision permit from 1981 and it says Resource Manage-
ment, and perhaps since then only a portion is Resource Management. The
property behind Mr. Klein was represented as forever wild. He further
stated that, when the regulations came into effect, with Mr. pensel's
house was on 3/4 acre of land and since there was adjoining land to the
non-conforming property, then Mr. Klein feels that G. pensel's house is
illegal. In addition, although the Pensel's call one of the buildings a
garage, boat repair work is done.
Mr. DeSantis explained the merger clause to Mr. Pensel, which is in
the most recent zoning. It says if a person owned adjoining parcels (even
if separate deeds but same ownership), and any of them were non-conforming
in size, in the new zoning ordinance the two parcels would merge into one
piece of land. Therefore the garage on the subject site is fine, but any
further subdivision including the house that is Mr. pensel's house, would
require that a lot be left around the oldest house (built in 1955) that
conforms to the present area requirements in that zone (perhaps an acre).
Then an application will have to be made for however many lots the Pense1s
want that need the zoning on the balance of the property. If Mr. Pensel
alters the 1.82 acre parcel which the APA has given permission to create,
then the applicant would be running contrary to the permit which was
given. He further reminded Mr. Pensel that the parcel of land that goes
with his home (1955 house) does not meet current area requirements. Mr.
Roberts said that picking up the triangle would accomplish that, but there
also has to be APA review because of the subdivision of land within the
blue line.
Mr. Roberts felt that the Board was in receipt of enough new informa-
tion from the December meeting that perhaps the Board has the right to
re-review the application, in addition to new information at this
meeting. Mrs. Mann asked if there was any stipulation in the deed that
the land will not be subdivided further. Answer. No. Just implication is
implied. There was further discussion regarding the question of whether
or not the land should be forever wild or could be subdivided.
Mrs. Munoff discussed the driveway which is going into the subdivi-
sion. She is concerned about the traffic safety in the area of the rise
in the road and how Mr. pense1 is going to build it up.
Mr. Klein wanted to make issue regarding the statement that the APA
has no jurisdiction over most of the property, which means that the Town
of Queensbury takes over. Secondly, he feels that Mr. Pensel needs an
Environmental Impact Statement. To answer Mr. prime, Mr. Klein feels that
the environmental issues are problems of runoff into the wetlands from
both his operations. However, Mr. Roberts said that the Board has
reviewed that and the areas are adequately back from the wetlands. Mr.
4
~
Klein also stated that he would like the application denied and not
postponed.
Mr. Munoff said the main reason he and his wife were at the meeting
was because they are afraid the use of the property will be commercial,
because the building is being used commercial now. G. pensel argued that
the building is being used as hobby repairs for his father. Mr. Munoff
apologized to Mr. Pensel for the accusation, but reiterated to the Board
that they wanted to make sure the property would stay residential.
Public HeariRI Closed,
Mr. Prime commented that the presentation has changed in terms of the
number of lots involved, and now there is an APA permit which shows three
lots. The map that Mr. Pensel presented to the Board should conform to
what he is trying to do and Counsel does not feel that this requirement
has been met. Therefore, there has to be a revision of the map, get cred-
ence to the APA permit because they have reviewed it, and take into consid-
eration the density.
Mr. Macri moved to DENY Site Plan No. 29-87, Donald G. Pensel, because
the major concern brought out in the discussions this evening is that the
Board is not dealing with a two-lot subdivision as the application showed,
but a three-lot subdivision, and an additional division of land for an
accessory structure to an adjacent lot. Therefore, the application is
being denied for proper re-submission.
Seconded by Mr. DeSantis.
pas..d unaniaously
SUBDIVISIOR RO. 5-87
FIlIAL APPROVAL
1-f - I Cf-8B
Cedar Court, Phase I
Mr. Michael O'Connor, lawyer, represented the project and requested
that the application be TABLED, because further information is needed by
Charles Scudder, engineer. Approvals were submitted to the Boards DEC
SPDES Permit, Department of Health Approval and the Water Department
approval. Mr. Scudder and the Board were in agreement that the
application should be tabled, and the applicant has stated that there will
be no change in content.
SUBDIVISIOR RO. 7-84
FIlIAL APPROVAL
5
Court House Estates, Section III
Mr. Roberts briefed the Board on events leading up to this meeting
concerning the property at the north end of Courthouse Drive, 49 lots,
SFR-30. At the last meeting the Board became aware that the Town was not
excited about the proposed private entrance, and suggestions were made
that consideration be given to it being made a Town road. In a meeting of
all the principles last Tuesday, chaired by Supervisor Borgos, it became
apparent that the Town Board did not like the idea of a private road com-
ing out to Route 9 at that point, but the Board also did not like the idea
of a Town road. The Supervisor also was very interested in trying to get
a roadway coming out to the stop light at the County land. Mr. Roberts
read a letter from Mr. Borgos dated April 29, 1988 (Exhibit A).
Because of this new criteria, Mr. Roberts said he is not in favor of
opening up any more lots in Phase III. He praised the McCormack's
patience, especially in light of the new criteria. They are willing to
Table the matter to give the Supervisor more time to hopefully secure the
preferred secondary entrance.
Mr. Andrew McCormack and his son, John, represented the project and
wanted to go on record as submitting to the Board three specific items
which were requested at the March 15, 1988 meetings namely, details of
road cuts on private road with a letter of approval (Exhibit B) by the
three people involved (Messrs. Kenny, Brock and McCormack), also stop
signs and a way to slow down the traffic in the development, and State
Health Department approval. Mr. Roberts said that the number of lots is
33 and not 49. Mrs. Mann thanked Mr. McCormack for complying with her
request for the above items. She also expressed dismay regarding the Town
Board actions that it would not approve this application, after being
actively worked on by all parties for four years. Mr. Roberts felt there
is a severe lack of communication.
Mr. McCormack reviewed the submitted items with the Board and re-
quested final approval. He felt that it was necessary to be on record as
having complied with the request from the Board, and that they (the
McCormack's) would like to hear comments from the Board before the appli-
cants agree to table up front. Mr. Roberts did not know what else he
could do because it has been taken out of the hands of the Planning Board
by the Town Board, and the Planning Board is waiting to see what happens.
Mr. Macri's comment was that the Board gave perceptual approval and
preliminary approval of this subdivision based on a specific traffic
route, and the concerns of the adjoining neighbors and adjoining subdivi-
sion were the amount of traffic that was going to flow through the pro-
perty. It was the feeling on the Board that the alternate exit to Route 9
away from the rest of the subdivision would pull the traffic away from the
subdivision. If the other road goes through, we are changing the original
approval. Some of the Board did not agree with Mr. Macri's feelings be
6
cause they feel it is the Town Board that is saying they would not accept
the alternate exit. Mr. Roberts clarified that a 50 lot subdivision re-
quires two roads.
Mr. McCormack referred to a letter from Paul Naylor that he would
require a 50 foot right of way and that the second access act as a public
highway. Again, the three landowners met and Mr. Brock agreed to give an
additional 20 feet, to reach the 50 foot request; however, that project
will be put on hold pending further notice. Mr. DeSantis was told by Mr.
Roberts that there was nothing in writing from the Town regarding the fact
that they would not accept the Town Road, that it was only verbal. He
felt that if the Town can act on the Board's part, there should be some-
thing in writing.
Mr. Roberts was concerned that, if the Board does not vote on the
application tonight and there is no agreement for tabling by vote between
the applicant and the Board, the application would automatically be
approved by default. Mr. DeSantis felt there would be 45 days in which to
make a decision, and in the 45 days the Board can decide to approve the
application, approve it with conditions or disapprove it. Mr. Prime
commented that there is a problem in whether or not the Board is accepting
what the applicant is filing as being all that the Board needs to make a
decision, and it may be or may not be. One of the conditions might be the
road. Mr. DeSantis said the applicant has a right to ask the Board to
make a decision, but the Board does not have to do so tonight, in light of
the other factors and, if in 45 days the Town Board cannot make a deci-
sion, the Planning Board has to do so. He also felt that the applicant
has submitted everything the Board has asked to submit. Mr. Prime said
this is true except for re-addressing the issue of the road, and there is
no approval in the file from Mr. Naylor on the private road, and he has
asked for 50 feet and that does not exist. That agreement is almost
there, but there may be some issue in terms of the Highway Department on
that road.
D~ring a further discussion between the Board and the McCormacks, John
McCormack reminded the Board that actual conveyance of the fifty feet was
not the contingency of the approval. We (the landowners) have complied as
far as the private road is concerned. He emphasized that they are not
looking for Paul Naylor's acceptance of a Town Road, because it is not a
Town Road. They are looking for acceptance of a road that has been
designed. Mr. Roberts commented that since there is no letter from the
Highway Superintendent giving the go-ahead, and a subdivision is never
approved without a letter, subsequently there can be no vote.
David Kenney, owner of Day's Inn and Adirondack Factory Outlet, stated
for the record that he did deed over the 30 foot roadway to Tom McCormack,
with preliminary approval that this would become a road, for which he has
given up access to his eight acres in the back. At that time it was
relayed to him that, in order for this to happen for any final approval,
the eight acres would have to be conveyed to Tom McCormack, which he did
7
do. Now apparently all of this has possibly gone to the wayside. Mr.
Kenney asked the Board why they asked him to give up the land, which he
did do and now the road may get turned down. He mentioned that they also
asked Mr. Brock to give up 20 feet. Secondly, he stated that he did not
know how the Planning Board could act as an effective body if there are
politics involved, and they (Planning Board) have to listen to the Town
Board. He feels the Planning Board can approve this application. Then it
is Tom McCormack's problem as to whether it becomes a Town road or not.
At this point and time, this is the Planning Board's issue and the Town ~
Board has nothing to do with it. Mr. Desantis suggested that Mr. Kenney
attend the Town Board meeting and let his views be known.
Mr. Prime suggested that the Board request the applicant to supply the
information on the highway that is missing and asked Mr. McCormack if the
proper solution would be to agree to table in order to clarify the issue
of the road. Otherwise, the Board will be put in a situation where they
are not going to be able to table. Mr. McCormack feels that he can supply
the information to Mr. Naylor or the Board, and probably Mr. Naylor would
accept a letter from John Brock that he would give the other 20 feet. On
the other hand, Mr. Roberts said that the Board is waiting to see what the
Supervisor can do with getting a road on the County land. He feels bottom
line is, if Mr. Borgos cannot get the land, then the McCormack's would go
to court.
Mr. Roberts asked the McCormack's again if they were amenable to tabl-
ing the application, and A. McCormack asked what it really means and where
does it put them. Mr. Desantis requested to know that the tabling would
do to the clock (45 days). Mr. Prime felt it would be best to -let the
dust settle- on the Town Board getting involved and see what happens in
the next 30 days. In that length of time get something in writing from
Mr. Naylor as to his acceptance to the private right-of-way or whatever.
Then the Planning Board would have something in its files stating at least
that the Highway Department feels that the road in question is a good
access, and subsequently would be in a position as to having to make a
decision, regardless of what position the Town Board takes.
Mrs. Mann moved to TABLE Subdivision No. 7-84 Final Approval, Court
House Estates, Section III, and the Planning Board requests information
from the Highway Superintendent which would show his approval or disap-
proval of a private road as a public road. The applicant is directed to
supply the Highway Superintendent with the required information to prove
that he will have the extra 20 feet to make the 50 foot road.
Seconded by Mr. DeSantis.
Passed u...imously.
Mr. Roberts raised the question if it would help expedite to give
permission to the applicant to do some site work, at his risk, on a mini-
phase in case things work out. Mr. Desantis felt that if the McCormack's
8
"-'
want to do work outside the current application that are within the Zoning
Code and do not require a Building permit, he can do that.
Mr. Roberts called a five-minute recess.
SUBDIVISIOII BO. 9-81. nRAL APPROVAL
gß
4/\t1/
Westwood, Phase II
Mr. Macri reviewed the reason for the tabling of the application at
the March 16, 1988 meeting because it was felt that there was an initial
agreement that the second phase would not go into construction until the
sewer lines were in on Glenwood Avenue, and Mr. Macri wanted to review the
records. Upon review, it was determined that there was nothing much in
the records.
Mr. Theodore Bigelow represented the applicants, Ralph and Michael
Woodbury, who referred the Board to a letter from Tom Flaherty (Exhibit
C). Mr. Macri reiterated that the crux of the problem is whether or not
the original agreement was that construction would begin on Phase II prior
to the sewers being installed, Mr. Bigelow did not recall the agreement
being that way. He feels that it still gets back to whether or not the
sewers are going through, which are under Contract '4 for Bay Road and
Glenwood Avenue (Exhibit D). Mr. Bigelow says they do not want a septic
in the back, and it would be difficult to design one that would operate
correctly. Only one building has been finished out of four in the First
Phase, and the reason for looking for approval now is so the developers
will not miss a construction season.
Mr. DeSantis emphasized that the basic rule under which the Board oper-
ates is that no projects are approved unless they meet a number of criter-
ia, one of which is sanitary sewerage disposal, and today this project
does not meet that criteria. Mr. Cartier agreed and said he wants to see
the sewers first and then talk about building. Mr. Bigelow confirmed that
there would be no occupancy because the units would not be sold until a
C.O. is received. This means a contract on a unit could be taken, but
there would be no closing. As a result of a lot of marketing, he said
there were people from out of town who have come in and expressed interest
and, if the units can be built, they will be sold when the sewers are in.
There was further discussion regarding an agreement which some members of
the Board recalled was made regarding whether or not the Phase II units
could be built prior to sewer installation. Mr. DeSantis commented that
the Board does not control the sewer situation.
Mrs.
that the
Mann made reference to Gary Bowen's Hiland Park development, in
entire PUD was basically based on the fact that the sewers were
9
going to go up Haviland Road. Therefore, approving before the sewers were
in has happened previously, and this development is much closer in con-
tract time and distance-wise than Hiland Park to the sewer plant. Addi-
tionally she asked if it was safe to say that the sewer pipes would be
going down Bay Road. Mr. Bigelowl They are working on it now. Mrs. Mann
felt that that would be a safe assumption and, if the sewer pipes did not
go on Glenwood Avenue, it would be fair to require the builders to go to
Bay Road to connect at the closest place. That could be part of the
approval.
Mr. Roberts confirmed to Mr. Bigelow that Hiland Park has had three
developments approved and most of the project is sewer, but it is Gary
Bowen's problem to put it in because it is in his hands and control.
Masters Common North, Masters Common South will be municipal sewers, and
Fairway Court will be individual septic systems. Mr. Bigelow pointed out
that the onus is on Mr. Bowen to get sewer to the pUblic lines, and that
is all Westwood is aSking. Mr. Macri said that the Hiland Park SEQR
stated that Masters Commons North and South could not support septic
systems. Mr. Roberts reminded people that Mr. Bowen's development is a
PUD, he has a contract with the Town and the Town agreed to it.
Mr. Bigelow requested that the developers be given control to let them
get the public sewers, ex I Quaker Road, Bay Road, or farther down, just as
has been given to Gary Bowen for a much larger subdivision. Mr. Macri
emphasized again that Mr. Bowen's is not a subdivision, but an entire PUD
development which he controls, whereas Westwood is a small subdivision of
the Town.
Mr. Bigelow asked if it is the Board's wishes that they do not want
construction started on the homes until the sewers are in and operating
or, if it came to a vote and and the vote is negative, do the developers
have a right to come back month after month as the contracts progress and
ask for approval? He emphasized publicly that the developers would be wil-
ling to take a risk and pay for connecting into the public sewer lines
that are operating. Mr. Prime said that if the developers came back to
meetings, they would have to show something new or correct whatever the
problem was for which the application was denied. There is nothing in the
ordinanace that would prevent the developers from re-applying next month
for Final Approval.
Mrs. Levandowsi put Mr. Dybas' March 16, 1988 motion back on the table
and moved FINAL APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 9-87, Westwood, Phase II,
·with the understanding that the Second Phase units will not receive occu-
pancy until they go on public sewers, either Glenwood or Bay, whichever
becomes available, and that Mr. Scudder will have to approve the water
system.·
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
10
~'
pas.ed Votes. 4 Yes (Levandowski, Mann, Roberts, DeSantis)
2 No (Cartier, Macri)
1 Absent (Dybas)
(Notel The water system for which Mr. Scudder would be giving approval
refers to the pumping station. Reference I March 15, 1988 minutes, Page
14. Mention was also made to Mr. Scudder's letter of March 15, Exhibit E
of the same minutes.)
SUBDIVISION RO. 6-87. PRBLIMIRARY APPROVAL
Northern Distributing, Phase II
Mr. Roberts stated that this is a subdivision of land into 11 lots,
construction of road and utilities. The project is situated on the lands
of Northern Distributing, south side of Corinth Road, LI-IA.
Wayne Gannett of Rist Frost represented the applicant, and agreed that
he would submit a copy of Phase I for the file for future reference.
Phase II is a continuation of Phase I that was previously approved by the
Board, and is the southerly part of 87 acres owned by Northern Distribut-
ing, approximately 40 +/- acres. The road that was approved in the first
phase was terminated at a temporary cuI de sac. In Phase II the road
continues around and forms a loop and comes back to the crossroad. There
are an additional 11 lots in the Second Phase and, as in the First Phase,
town water and town roads will be constructed, sewerage will be on-site
septic systems, drainage will be handled with infiltration basins sized on
the particular configuration of building and parking area that are
constructed on each lot, iel warehouse, light industrial type use, which
would show up on the Site Plan approval. The Second Phase opens up larger
lots in the back of the property at the south end, in the order of five
acres. The septic systems are sized on DEC standards for office, addi-
tional perc tests will be done. The site topography is drainage basically
into drywells. Along the road where there are low spots, the site topo-
graphy is flat and there is no real drainage one way or the other except
on-site towards the back of the lots where independent would be located.
Regarding the right-of-way that goes through the middle of the parcel,
in the late 1970's it was conveyed to the Town by Northern Distributing
for a Town Road, with the stipulation that the Town construct the road
within one year and pave within two years, as stated in the deed. The
road was never constructed, and the right of way does not serve any useful
function now because, with the approval of the phase of the subdivision,
Town roads will be present. Mr. Gannet said that the reason the right of
way was not shown on Phase I was due to an omission and there was nothing
else omitted from the map. The deed did not say what would happen if the
road was not constructed.
11
Mr. Prime asked if the land behind was Town property. Answer a The
Town property is west of the subdivision and extends down to the river,
and the right of way that was sold to the Town does not go to the Town
property. The property directly south of Northern Distributing where the
Town right of way goes is not Town property. There is also an existing
dirt trail and there is an old railway right of way through the property,
which is in the process of being cleared up with International paper's
attornies, who have agreed to execute a quick claim. The old railroad is
one that ran across the Northway.
Mr. Roberts asked Bill Threw to clarify the roads going through the
subject property a railroad right of way, Town right of way, and an
additional right of way of which Mr. Gannet was not aware. There was
mention of a Wells Ripple Road or Wells Road in discussion at the dais,
and mention was made of Mrs. Fisher's deed. Mr. Gannet said the issue of
the right of way is being discussed with Mr. Carey's attorney and the Town
attorney, and he does not know what the final solution would be. The
Board emphasized to Mr. Gannet to tread cautiously and not rush to get
building permits because 1) easement problems have come up which affect
Phase II, 2) it was discovered that the problems were not shown in Phase
I, 3) to resolve Phase I, the Board may have to look at Phase II, 4) the
outcome of the rights of way may affect building sites which were approved
previously, because the Board's lack of knowledge.
Public Bearinga
Brenda Stevens a
Wanted to know if the public roads were going to be connected to Eagen
Road. (Eagen was not found on the map. Clarification continued at the
dais.) Regarding the river front property, when the property was sold by
Mrs. Fisher to the owners it was stipulated that they no longer had right
of way on the road. They had to use Eagen Road, it is in the deed. Those
are the property owners along the river.
Mr. Threw stated there are five or six residents there that never had
it changed over to Eagen Road, it was always Wells Ripple Road. Mrs.
Fisher kept the right of way, the same as she did on Eagen Road. She did
sell property to Mr. Carey. Mrs. Mann asked if it was possible she
removed the right of way from his deed, so that if she stipulated it to
the other owners she may have eliminated it from his deed. Mr. Threw
mentioned that there are only two people who have a legal right over Eagen
Road, the rest have to go the other way.
Another resident
The road that was
property, is where
goes from Carey's and
thought that Eagen Road was also called Hill Road.
thought to be Carey Road, that goes passed the Carey
the railroad comes out and breaks into the road that
around (the former railroad property).
Public Hearing Closed.
12
'--'
-~
Mrs. Mann moved to
Phase III, Preliminary
sections are clarified.
TABLE Subdivision 6-87, Northern Distributing,
Approval, until the easement problems in both
Seconded by Mr. Macri
Passed Uaaat.Ðusly.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-831 SKETCH PLAN
Stonecroft, Section III
Mr. Roberts stated that this site is four lots off West Mountain Road,
SR-3A.
Leon Steves represented the project along with William Threw, the
applicant. Mr. Steves stated that basically it is a four-lot subdivision,
which is an extension of Hillside Drive (Phase I) and Woodcrest Drive
(Phase II). There is a modification of Lots 13 and 14 in Phase II regard-
ing the original lot line, and Lot 13 is to be enlarged. No more lots are
being created, but rearranging them. There is a 10' grade. The 550 line
on the map is the water district line and provision has been made for a
well, since the Town Board has gone on record that it did not to go up the
hill with any more water. Mr. Roberts felt that the Town Board should
sign off on that. Mr. Steves said that had been taken care of in Phase
II.
There is no public hearing because this is a Sketch Plan.
Mr. Macri moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 1-83, Stonecroft, Section
III, Sketch Plan. The Board has asked the applicant to get a letter from
the Water Department that municipal water will not be needed for Lot 19.
Seconded by Mr. Cartier.
Passed Uni.øus1y.
RBIf BUSIJ1BSS
SITB PLAR NO. 10-88
Charles Diehl
13
'--'
Mr. Roberts stated that this project was given a Sketch Plan approval
to a couple of duplexes a month ago located on Luzerne Road, 350 feet west
of Western Avenue on the south side, UR-lO. That application was with-
drawn and this is a new application.
Dennis Phillips, attorney, represented the project along with Charles
Diehl, applicant. Mr. Phillips said they are looking for a Site Plan
Review of a four-plex building on a 1.32 acre lot. The location is approx-
imately 850 feet from the Glens Falls/Oueensbury Town Line. Mr. Leaver,
of the LA Group, reviewed that this is a four-unit building entering from
Luzerne Road, there will be a loop drive, each unit is divided with two
cars, 10 x 20 foot spaces, the building is set back some 90 feet, in the
rear there is an occasion for either patios or decks, there are two septic
fields, each field serving two units, two bedroom units, and two-story
buildings. The perk tests was 0 - 5 minute soils, details for water
service are off Luzerne Road. The septic fields meet all the standards.
Mr. Roberts' felt there was an improvement, with the four-plex instead
of two duplexes being more toward the center of the lot and buffered at
the sideyard. Mr. Leaver said that ten feet is the required sideyard buf-
fer, and there will be 55 feet on the east and 35 feet. Mr. Phillips
noted that there is a natural buffering already existing behind the
property - trees, shrubs and brush.
Public Bearing Opened I no comment.
Public Bearing Closedl
It was noted that the West Glens Falls Fire Station is east of the
development, almost across from podnorski's. The individual square
footage is 1000 +/- square feet, and there are eight parking spots.
Mr. Prime asked what the reason was for the change in plan. Answer I
Cheaper to build and financing for two buildings on one lot. Mr. DeSantis
was informed that the 25 feet that was between the first duplex proposal
was added to the sideyards - 12.5 feet farther away from the neighbors.
Mrs. Levandowsi moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 10-88, Charles Diehl,
for the construction of a multi-family four-plex. It appears to be accept-
able to the neighbors and is acceptable to the neighborhood. The multi-
family, four-plex leaves a larger buffer between the neighbors than the
two-plexes .
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
passed Unaniaously.
SITE FLAB 11-88
14
"-"
Century 21 Professional Association
Headwaters Marine, Inc.
Mr. Roberts stated that the present use of the property is a real
estate office on the corner of Quaker Road and Everts Avenue, HC-15. The
proposal is to display motor boats for sale (not more than three boats).
There was no representative for the project.
Mr. Roberts announced DENIAL of Site Plan 11-88, Century 21 Profes-
sional Association, due to the lack of representation.
SIH PLU RO. 12-88
R & M Woodbury partnership
Mr. Roberts stated that this is on the west side of Bay Road, north of
the intersection with Glenwood Avenue, HC-15. It is for the construction
of 30,000 square feet of commercial office space.
Mr. Theodore Bigelow represented the project and informed the Board
that he would like to withdraw the project, in consideration of a vote,
but would like to use the time to get the Board's input. The Town's
engineer's comments were received today. Being proposed is 12,000 square
feet of office space. The court is made so that it meets the Town's
requirements. The builders do not feel that it needs as much parking as
shown, nor does he feel that the Board wants that much parking, but the
builders wanted to make sure if less parking is requested, that no
variance will be necessary.
Mr. Richard Jones explained that they are designing a basic building
which has 1200 to 1500 square feet of office space. The largest office
space is 2400 square feet for Woodbury's. Mr. Bigelow explained that
there will be a general partnership, where persons will buy stock into the
partnership, much the same as Broad Street Plaza. Permission was received
today from the County to tie into their storm water management system.
All of the site water will be run into the county system, and then taken
down to Halfway Brook. Ivan Zdrahal, of Ivan Zdrahal Associates, Civil
Engineering, informed the Board that the development would use some of the
storm water management, and the County was assured that their system would
not be overloaded. Mr. Bigelow said that the Town requires that 20' of
the lot has to be permeable, the development has about 50' that is perme-
able.
Mr. Zdrahal explained the buffering and landscaping for the project.
Mr. Roberts noted a 10 foot buffer zone between a commerical area and
residential use, this is zoned highway commercial. He feels it deserves
15
--
--
50 feet of buffer. Mr. Prime said that the measurement is from the lot
line and calls for a 50 foot buffer zone between commercial/industrial use
and any residential use, regardless of the zone (Zoning Ordinance 7.079).
A variance is needed if there is less than 50 feet. There was further
discussion at the dais regarding the parking areas. Charles Scudder said
that the fundamental problem of the project is the north/south dimension.
Mr. DeSantis expressed concern regarding how the future use of the site is
going to be controlled, which directly affects how much traffic is moving
around for the different needs and the type of parking area that will be
constructed for the 13 modules. He advised the applicant of the follow-
ing: 1) they will have to re-lay the plan because of the 50 foot buffer
and it will be hard to have a loop, and 2) parking spaces can be 10 feet x
18.5 feet. There is 800 feet from Bay Road to the back, and room must be
left for fire trucks.
Public Hearing Opened. no comment
Public Hearing Closed
Mr. Bigelow confirmed that two modules will share one vestibule, and
there will be some back rooms. No filing with the Attorney General is
necessary. Mr. Prime requested that the developers submit information
regarding restricted covenants, etc. so the Board is kept informed.
Mr. Macri moved to TABLE Site Plan No. 12-88, R & M Woodbury Partner
ship, by mutual agreement between the Board and the applicant for more
information.
Seconded by Mr. Cartier.
passed Unant.ously
There was a five-minute recess.
SIft PLAlI NO. 13-8a
Paul and Jennifer Hayes
Mr. Roberts stated that this is for the construction of a duplex home
to match the two existing duplexes on adjoining property at 419 Ridge
Road, 6/10 of a mile north of Quaker Road on the right side, SR-30. It is
the vacant property north of the second duplex. Half of the duplex will
be the residence of the owner.
Mrs.
will be
Sally Hayes represented the project and verified that the duplex
identical to the two existing duplexes except perhaps in color,
16
'-
--
and the layout is exactly the same. There is a small parcel of property
to the rear, Lot 4 on the map, and is owned by Mrs. Hayes. At the time
the deeds were drawn, there was a 15 foot easement with the anticipation
of perhaps giving access to the main road. Earltown was going to deed
some property in the back, however, since then the regulations have
changed as to the amount of roadway that is necessary amd she feels that
that will not take place. Mrs. Hayes said she does not know the size of
Lot 4. The Board was concerned about the parcel being landlocked, and
Mrs. Hayes said the only reason the easement strip is there is because
originally the idea was they would access it for future use perhaps for a
single dwelling and that is no longer contemplated. She noted that the
Kurimsky's own Lot 3 and, if necessary, perhaps an easement could be
worked out with them to make the necessary 30 feet for a road. Mr. and
Mrs. Hayes own the duplex directly to the south of the proposed duplex,
and their younger son owns the one beyond that.
Public Hearing Opened.
Clarence Elms. 420 Ridge Road.
Mr. Elms affirmed that Mrs. Bishop, who lives across the street from
the proposed site, operates a school. Mr. Elms stated that the proposed
project is two separate houses put on separate foundations, with a garage
in between. In his opinion they look like a trailer court, in addition,
there are cars 2, 3 and 4, at a time - with For Sale signs on them.
Mention was made of a pickup truck. Mr. Elms submitted a petition and
said -they are all names signed with all the neighbors around there.-
Mrs. Hayes and Mr. Elms commented on horses, fences and a barn versus
duplexes, and the effect on depreciation. Mrs. Mann stated that the
proposal is the last piece of property on that strip and the area is zoned
for that, ie. Mulcahy used car shop, another duplex, the animal hospital,
Jan Bishop's building, it is a combination of things on a heavy traffic
road.
Mr.
where a
however,
deed.
it was
water.
release
Hayes' .
Elms mentioned that the wetland is directly below the property,
well is located and the owner has a right of way to use that well,
he noted that Mrs. Hayes does not use the water, but it is in her
Mrs. Hayes clarified that she purchased the water rights, because
not in use and therefore purchased it and hooked it up to town
The letter Mrs. Hayes provided for the Board's review is for
of an easement to use this well back on the property owned by the
Mr.
business
is kept
now with
Ann.
Elms verified to Mrs. Mann that he did operate a construction
for years out of his house, no trucks other than a pickup which
in the garage. However, there is a Chevrolet Corvette out there
a sign in the windshield, with a telephone number from maybe Fort
Mrs. Hayes mentioned that orginally she did buy the chunk altogether
17
-'
where the duplexes are now. Mr. Elms said the neighbors were never noti-
fied when the former duplexes were constructed. Mr. Desantis explained
that the ordinance at that time did not require a Site Plan Review, and
that the ordinance was changed so the Board could get the neighbors at the
meeting to express their opinions. In reviewing the number of duplexes in
the area, there are five in the neighborhood. two owned by the Hayes', two
owned by Mulcahy, and one owned by Archino, in addition to a school where
there is also a retail operation at Christmas one month per year.
Mr. Elms again brought up the subject of what he feels is a used car
lot, which is on the Hayes property. Mrs. Hayes said the Corvette does
not belong to anyone she knows, and that there is one tenant leaving at
the end of the month, who may have a pickup. Mrs. Hayes informed the
Board that she is unaware of the situation but would look into it, and was
informed by Mr. Macri that, if the area is consistently used as a used car
lot, then Mrs. Hayes should go to the Town and have them look into the
matter.
Mr. Cartier expressed his concern that the area has mostly been single
family residences. Mr. Macri explained that the reason Mr. Archino was
not permitted to build a duplex was because there were none in that partic-
ular location, and the Board is trying to isolate residential areas. Mr.
Roberts brought up the subject of restrictive covenants, and did not feel
that duplexes were a commercial venture, renting can be carried on in any
neighborhood.
Complaints regarding no notification persisted and Mr. Desantis
explained that when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1983, it allowed
duplexes in that zone. In 1987 the Zoning Ordinance was changed in that
duplexes were still allowed, but were subject to Site Plan Review.
Public ...rias Clos".
Mrs. Mann moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 13-88, Paul and Jennifer
Hayes, as there are three duplexes in the area. The proposed site is the
last available piece of property fronting on Ridge Road. The duplexes are
attractive enough that they are not detrimental to the neighborhood.
Seconded by Mr. Macri.
Pa..... Votes. 4 Yes (Levandowski, Mann, Desantis, Macri)
2 No (Cartier, Roberts)
1 Absent (Dybas)
SI~ PLAR 10. 14-88
Queensbury Factory Outlet Center
18
'---'
The application was witbirawn by Lee York, Senior Planner, because of
the applicant I s inconsistent plans.
SI'Œ PLAN 1«). 15-88
Harold Ruecker
Mr. Roberts said this proposal is for a four-lot subdivision of pro-
perty on the westerly side of Cleverdale Road aM the southerly side of
Gunn Lane, LR-lA.
Robert Stewart, attorney, represented the project. All of Cleverdale
aM Assanbly Point are zoned one acre. This parcel of land is not large
enough to have four, one-acre lots: lxJwever, it is presently :inproved by
four rental CéItp3, aM there is a specific provision in the Zoning Qrdin";'
ance that authorizes a subdivision aM sale of that density, because that
nunber of units is being used alreæy. The proposal would have benefit of
an easement on a separate piece of property across the J:Oad to get dock
space aM sane water on the bay. There is a cœpmion application before
the Zoning Board, so that Mr. Ruecker would be able to build on the beach
lot: he would have a septic system back away fI:an the lake which requires
a variance, due to the footage of the easement. Mr. Roberts expressed
concern that this is a fifth house on this ownership: we are really
talking about five parcels. Mr. stewart disagreed because of the Town
Road aM, as a result, feels it is a separate aM distinct lot which
cannot be enlarged aM is frozen in size aM is not adjacent to or abut
the other property. There are four docks that !J> out in the Spring aM
are brought in in the Fall. Mr. DeSantis said that there has to be 100
feet on the sb:>refront for four people to have contractual access: aM 100
feet for single félDi.ly residential. [Ordinance 1.011 2) 5).]
1iJwever, Mr. Stewart asked about granting saneone an easement aM felt
there is nothing in the law that says an applicant cannot have it. The
Board felt that that would defeat the purpose of the ODiinance. Mr. Pr:ime
disagreed with Mr. Stewart aM referred to the ZolÛllg Ordinance Section
9.020 dealing with conversion of the units. He feels it does not give
authority to subdivide in the lots that are less than one acre, aM that
it deals with the structure aM does mean that there can be increased
density of the use of the land. Reference was made to the Taku:rr:lewide
Cottages in Cleverdale. Mr. Pr.ime felt in that area there was enough land
to accamOO.ate the lots so that there was sufficient acreage for the
density: 00wever, he feels the proposed site is not that way.
Public Hearing Opened.
It>land Fau1Jœr: Lot 13 on the water.
19
~
'-"
He has lived in the area 16 years, and stated it was his understanding
that the lot, from which a house was moved by the former owner, could not
be used in the future as a building lot, and he does not know what has
happened to change that. He referred to a letter that the Board had from
Mrs. Joan Robertson, which questioned the fact that if you do not look at
the lakefront lot, is it correct that there are not four acresl there are
3.74 acres? Mr. Faulkner took this opportunity to mention that none of
the neighbors were advised by mail of the meeting. What he feels the
applicant is doing is tying in the front parcel (.5 acre) to the large
tract to make the four acres I and he feels that the subject site is five
lots and not four.
Mr. Faulkner also felt that the docks have not been there for a number
of years. When Mrs. Phyllis Holtz (former owner) moved the house, there
was one dock leading to the cottage that was bought, now there are five
docks and he said that the Board previously told Mr. Ruecker that they
were illegal. There is another dock in the area for water scooters. He
further said that the applicant has a number of boats, which have to be
moored because of insufficient dock space. People who do not belong to
the camps are using the area including the parking lot. Mr. Faulkner
feels that Mr. Ruecker has not been a good neighbor in that respect and
has been abusive of the neighbors.
Mr. Stewart's feelings were that a subdivision and four permanent
homes owned by owners would be better for the neighborhood than the
continued use as rental camps I people who do not own the property and do
not have an interest in good maintenance. Regarding rental versus owner-
ship of the lots, Mr. Stewart felt that considering the value of Lake
George property as it is today that the highest and best use would be to
sell the lot. The purchaser might use the camps for a year or two and
then sell.
Mr. Macri asked for clarification as to whether this is a subdivision
or future home building, or is it conversion of property for rental camp
sale. If the subject is building lots, then the applicant has to start
over. Mr. Stewart said he is talking about subdivision. The Board dis-
agreed in that they are considering conversion and nothing more. Mr.
Ruecker is being misled if he is attempting to get a subdivision through
this section of the law.
Mr. Faulker noted for the record that he is also speaking for the
neighbors.
Jim Hagena Lives at the end of Gunn Lane.
Said that some of the neighbors received the notice quite late, and he
is also representing the feelings of Jeanne Duncan Paterson and Dr.
William Wells. He did not realize that the applicant vas going to back up
a variance that was approached to the Board last year. The Board has
brought up most of the objections that were listed as a neighborhood.
20
'---
'--'
They are suggesting that Mr. Ruecker's case be gotten together and and a
decision be made as to exactly what he can do with the property. The
marina is illegal, people sleep overnight without occupancy permits,
without facilities, and there is nothing in the request that that will be
discontinued. If the application is granted and the marina continues to
operate, then the people who buy the parcels with bigger houses will have
more guests. The entire arrangement is not in keeping with the neighbor-
hood, and there are some year-round residents. The Board should consider
both applications as one. Mr. Roberts said consideration is being made as
a whole application.
Mr. Stewart said the subject is of concern to Mr. Ruecker and that one
of the reasons they are present is to find out what can and cannot be done
with the property. One interpretation from discussions is that if the pro-
perty is subdivided under the camp conversion article, the camps could be
rebuilt or improved, but could not be torn down and a new house built.
Mr. Roberts advised the residents that policing and enforcement of the
marina laws are a problem. Mr. Stewart said there is one deed that
describes Parcels 1, 2 and 3 - same ownership. Mr. Ruecker said he would
like to build a house on the waterfront lot, but he does not have a road
that goes across and that he does not want to create more of a density.
Mr. DeSantis confirmed that there are 3.74 acres, including the .5 acres
at lakefront.
After considerable discussion regarding the legality of the structures
either as conversions or newly built, the number of acres involved and how
many acres there are, Mr. Macri vehemently stated that applicants should
make their own decisions, it is not the Board's responsibility. Mr.
Stewart was advised that a conversion can be made, but that will neces-
sitate a new application showing where the buildings are, exactly where
the systems are for the buildings and location on the property. The
purpose of that is if something fails or the owner wishes to replace
something, the applicant can prove that he is legal and there would be no
questions asked. Regarding a subdivision for four lots, the applicant can
apply but an Area Variance will be needed. If the parcel is divided into
three lots, the applicant is within his rights because there are over
three acres of land. If the applicant wants four and wants to include the
lakefront lot, the acreage is close but an Area Variance will be needed.
Mr. Robert
WITHDRAWN, so
raised at this
the property.
Stewart requested that Site Plan 15-88, Harold Ruecker, be
that he could consult with his client regarding problems
meeting and make a decision regarding the future actions on
The meeting was adjourned at 12140 a.m.
Q:;/J'/)þ; WM
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Minutes typed ~~~aPher
21
',~ -- --------- '--'-''-
n>-'
Jown 0/ Queenj6uPfj
Ql)EENSBUP-. Y TOWN OFFICE BUILDING
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
TO:
,
Dick Roberts ~. ; n¡
LlY ;/--
Steve Bargas .
FROM:
RE:
Courthouse Estates
DATE:
April 191 1988
As of this moment I I have met with several County Supervisors and have reached
this agreement:
I will appear before the Facilities Committee of the County Board on MondaYI
April 25 at 1: l5pm. I will make an appeal for the road on the basis of
emergency access and egress - a truel valid and reasonable request.
I have asked Paul Naylor to attend, and I'll try form Some other key people.
There I of course I can be no assurance that this will workl but we're only a
few days away I and I think it's worth a strong effort.
This may mean that you should delay action tonight. That is for you to decide.
I did discuss the alternative of adding a short stretch of new road as an
intermediate step. No success in that area.
SB:sa
-
,~
EXHIBIT A
SETTLED 176:1 . . . HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
March 23, 1988
Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Town Office Building
Bay Road at Haviland
Glens Falls, NY 12801
''r~'Ùb'j:l . '
...~."'" =;f:f ():: \)~,~ ,'.
~'11 t, ~ r,:j¡¡.~.-". 4~:';¡¡.. \·.r.1I~1"""t'~r' \"~'..':'; :.' .'.
1i" ,.-, ,~: I, II \ " <.
f'"" ".....'". i ' :., 01"'-" ~" ,
l L--' .~,'". , ' 'e·· ,.'
.' . t. r ;
11 ' { . ~ ~f /
MAI<:J c 1988 '~!) ii'
"':":,-~,tcJ
PLAhr¡WNQ & lo
DEPARTMEN~i"'(~
Re: Roadway connecting Section Three of Court House Estates
with U.S. Rou~e 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dear I1r. Roberts:
We the undersigned, are the owners of the properties adjoining this
proposed roadway and, by deed, we are entitled to certain rights-of-way
over this parcel of land.
Recognizing that for reasons of public safety, limited access between
our parking lots and this proposed roadway is desirable, we agree to limit
our points of access to the following:
1) For the property to the south, owned by David Kenny, access will be
limited to two points. The westerly access point will be about 70' wide
and will begin about 25' east of the Route 9 boundary. The easterly access
point will be about 25' wide and will begin about 535' east of the Route 9
boundary. These are as shown of "Site Plan Alternate 11 - Days Inn Motel
prepared by Hardick Associates, dated October 26, 1987, and last revised on
February 5, 1988.
2) For the property to the north, owned by John Brock, access will be
limited to two points. The westerly access point will be about 25' wide
and will begin about 20' east of the Route 9 boundary. The easterly access
point will be about 25' wide and will begin about 325' east of the Route
9 boundary. The easterly access point will be about 25' east of the exist-
ing building.
All of these access points and the proposed roadway are as shown on a
"Plan & Profile - Proposed Entrance Road to Court House Estates - Section
Three" by Coulter & McCormack, dated March 23, 1988.
1
I
EXHIBIT B
®~
-TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER DEPARTMENT
R.D. 2 CORINTH ROAD · QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12801 · PHONE 793-8866
Ameflcan Waler Works
ASSOciation MEMBER
THOMAS K. FLAHERTY, C.E.T.
Superintendent
RALPH V AN DUSEN
Chief Operator-LabOratory Director
April 19, 1988
Mr. Ted Bigalow
Woodbury LU1ber Canpany
Glen Street
Queensbury, New York 1280]
Re: Westwood - Glemood Avenue
Dear Ted:
In response to your inquiry, please be advised that the Westwood Project is within
the service area of the Central Queensbury District.
Construction contracts for this district are presently underway and we expect
to provide service by years end.
Sincerely,
Th K. Flaherty, C.
Director of Wastewater
1KF/tr
cc: Planning Board
S. Borgos
Q. Kestner
EXHIBIT C'
-bur s
the building store 'I
'-"
April 19, 1988
Richard Roberts
Queensbury Planning Board
Town Hall
Bay Road
Queensbury, NY 12801
RE: Homes at Westwood - Phase II
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This letter is to assure the planning board that before any
Certificates of Occupancy are requested for Phase II units at The
Homes at Westwood, the sanitary sewers from said units will be
connected to operable public sanitary sewers.
If for any reason the public lines are not completed on Bay Road
or Glenwood Avenue (i.e. Contract #4) in a timely fashion, we will
either wait until they are completed or, at our expense, connect to
the nearest operable sewer lines before requesting C.O.'s.
Thank you.
RBW:np
EXHIBIT D
· GLENS FALLS UPPER GLEN ST, GLENS FALLS, NY 12801
· RUTLAND FOREST & WEST ST, RUTLAND, VT 05701
· SARANAC LAKE LAKE COLBY DR, SARANAC LAKE, NY 12983
· TICONDEROGA HAGUE RD" TlCONDEROGA, NY 12863
· MEXICO 5518 SCENIC AVE" MEXICO, NY 13114
· CLIFTON PARK FIRE RD,. CLIFTON PARK, NY 12065
· BURLINGTON FOOT OF KING ST, BURLINGTON, VT 05401
· JOHNSTOWN N, COMRIE AVE" JOHNSTOWN, NY 12095
· SARATOGA RD B, ROUTE 50, SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866