Loading...
1988-05-17 OH'gt;v;JL ~ ~ --' QUKDSBURY 'l'OIOI PLAlllfIRG BOARD Regular Meeting Held. Tuesday, May 17, 1988 at 7.30 p.m. Present. Richard Roberts, Chairman Susan Levandowski Frank DeSantis Hilde Mann, Secretary Joseph Dybas Peter Cartier R. Case Prime, Counsel Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Absent. Victor Macri Mr. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7.30 p.m. The minutes from April 19, 1988 stand as written. Mrs. Hilde Mann was approved unanimously as Secretary of the Queensbury Town Planning Board. OLD BUSIOSS SUBDIVISIQI RO. 7-84. FIRAL APPROVAL Court House Estates, Phase III Mr. Roberts stated this subdivision is at the north end of Courthouse Drive, 49 lots, SFR-30. Mr. A. MCCormack represented the project. Mr. Roberts reviewed past events of the project, especially where the Town Board has been involved in the roadway access to Court House Estates. The Supervisor has been attempting to secure the access through the Warren County property at Exit 20. Correspondence from Mr. Borgos was read regarding the County access and the consensus of the Town Board that the developers should be permit- ted to begin Phase III of the project by constructing one road, Equinox Drive, with a cuI de sac. In addition, the developers have agreed to build no more than four houses per year (Exhibit A). Mr. Roberts emphasized to the Planning Board that it does not necessarily have to agree with the opinion of the Town Board. Mr. McCormack stated that the thrust of the proposal, considering the inability of the Town to make any headway with the County for a road through the County property and in spite of the fact that the developers have complied with previous Board requests, is for a second access of some kind. A reasonable alternative to a startup situation would be to be allowed to build on a certain number of lots that would equal the number of lots that were approved in Sections I and II originally (94 lots). Two of those lots had access onto Glen Lake Road, 92 of the residences would 1 .. ......- use the Court House Drive access road. presently there are 60 homes in Sections I and II, a potential of 11 additional homes could be built in those sections. The 11 lots are not owned by the McCormack's, but by individuals who bought double lots when their respective homes were built. In Section III there are a total of 19 or 20 lots that could be built on, which would bring the total to the original 92. This area is a sharp continuation of Courthouse Drive and along Equinox Drive (15 lots avail- able). The builders preferred to leave Lots 13, 14, 15 and 19 undevel- oped, as they are difficult lots and until such time as permission is received for another roadway. However, as Mr. Roberts pointed out, this is not what was approved by the Town Board. In addition, the Board is encouraged with Mr. Borgos' dealings with the County and that information has been requested from the State (Exhibit B). The problem at hand is that of Final Approval of a reduced Phase I, with no promises of anything in the future without a second entrance. The builders were more in favor of a loop near Lots 8 and 9, instead of a cul de sac to which the Town Board had alluded. Mr. DeSantis spoke out against construction on anymore lots without an additional entrance. Once a plait is signed and if the other road is never approved, the applicant and the person who buys that lot is going to have a right to build a house at that location. His concern was the same when there were 60 homes approved. Regarding the proposed northern road, Mr. Brock said he could not turn his share of the land over, until he knew whether there was financing available to go ahead with his project and Planning Board approval on the project. The road is not a dead issue, however, it is very difficult to put a date on the land without project financing. Mr. Brock does not want to be locked into a time period knowing that his building is going have to be demolished. That is his only objection. Mr. McCormack reiterated that it is the builders' proposal to con- struct only those additional number of lots that would bring the total up that existed by approved maps in 1977. They would be willing to abide by that for what would be probably five years. He did not feel it is an unreasonable bargain to strike. The density is not being increased over what was approved in 1977. The Board did want to reach a compromise with the builders, because they did comply with those items of which the Board requested. After considerable discussion, Mr. A. McCormack and his son, John, did agree to a reduced Phase I, Lots 1 - 15 along Equinox Drive. Mrs. Levandowski moved APPROVAL, 15 lots along Equinox Drive (No's. 1 through 15, including No.9), which was recommended by the Queensbury Town Board as per letter 5/17/88, as REDUCED PHASE I of Section III, Court House Estates. The reduction was made because there is no assured second road available, and the developer agrees to this reduction. This number of lots would not increase the total density that was approved in 1977. 2 -' Seconded by Mr. Dybas. Passed unant.Gusly. SUBDIVISIOR RO. 1-831 PRELIMIRARY APPROVALI Stonecroft. Sec:tion III Mr. Rob.rts stat.d that the location is four lots north off West Mountain Road. SR-30A/KR-3A. Mr. Leon St.."... of Van Dus.n , Steves land surveyors. r.pr.sent.d the proj.ct. stat.d that on. of the lots is an i.prov.d .odification to Phase II of the subdi."ision. The Highway Sup.rint.nd.nt and Wat.r D.parta.nt have approved the subdivi.ion. Th. Wat.r Departaent has .tipulat.d th.r. will be no water provided above the 550 ft. .levation. Ther. i. an option of using a boo.t.r puap in Lot 19. Mr. Desanti. di.cu..ed the intens. grade increase in Lot 19. and that a road profile for the driveway i. n.ce..ary for Pinal Approval. Mr. St.ves said that the t.rrain has to be alt.r.d to .eat the 10' re.triction. and that there is a 70 ft. outside radius and 45 foot inside radius. which i. enough for school bu.... Public Hearing Opened 1 no comaent Mr.. Mann approved PRBLIMIHARY APPROVAL Subdivision Ro. 1-83. Stoaecroft. Section III. with the r.quirem.nt that the dri."eway does com. to Lot 19 and that a road profile will b. .ubmitt.d. This ~tion amends Section II. in which two lots are being combin.d to aake one lot. The back portion of those two lots are being u.ed to .ak. Lot 19 of this .ubdi."ision. Th. density is not b.ing chang.d. Seconded by Mr. Cartier. Passed unanimously. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-871 FINAL APPROVAL êJ ¿;-'- I i--&3 Cedar Court. Pha.e I Mr. Rob.rts state. that this subdivision is for 38 lots for Duplex and Townhous.s. 8Jt-30. Th. prop.rty is situated on the w.st side of Bay Road. approxiaat.ly 1.000 f.et north of Blind Jtock Jtoad. Mr. Roberts read a l.tt.r from Char Ie. Scudder. Consulting Bngin.er. 3 '-- -- stating ~is approval and that the revised plans and technical details have received. the approval of IIYSDBC and NYSDOR. 'lhe SPDBS p.rmi t has been approved. but not r.c.ived. Mr. Leon Steves, of Van BuSeD and steves, r.presented the project. There have be.. .o.e changes made per Mr. Scudder'. reque.t. Sp.cifi- cally, the ....r will be outside the building. Som. additions submitt.d are grading and sew.r profile, also a site plan (s~oving elevation of the plan, driveway, lighting, and planting). Mr. Scudd.r approved. In answer to Steve. said it is that the permit that the budget vill be subaitted Mr. Pria. regarding the Homeowner's Association, Mr. not ia ezi.tence but is being formed. Mr. O'Connor said will b. subaitted to the Attorn.y General's office now d.tails are known. A final approval of the Prospectus for the 'lown file. Mr. Dybas ~ved PIIIAL APPROVAL Su~ivi.ion 110. 5-87, Cedar Court, Phase I, becau.e of m.eting the requirem.nts and input from the Consulting Bngineer. S.co.ded by Mr. Cartier. Passed unanimously. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-86: FINAL APPROVAL Qu.en.bury Forest, Pha.e II Mr. Robert. said this subdivision is for 30 single family hoaes on Peggy Ann Road, SR-20 Mr. Leon St.ves, Van Dusen , Ste...es, r.pres.nted the project. Und.r the pres.nt int.rpretation, 60' of Phase I has 30 lots out of 50 under coastructioD. He confirmed that there are 50 lot. in Phase I and not 52. The Department of Health has approved as has the Paul IIaylor, Superinten- dent of Highways. Field inspection of the site vas made by 'aul Naylor and Rick Sciartelli of Morse Bngiaeering. Mr. Steves sumaarized. that there are 120 lots total, each lot is tvo units. Mrs. Mann mo...ed FIliAL APPROVAL of Subdivision Ifo. 9-86, Queensbury Forest, Phase II, for 30 lots, ,., are uDder construction in Phase I. Seco.ded by Mr. Cartier. "í) T Q..AA,:, J -,) ',";,;¡ w'j '\ {'not' ~ i~ 4 P....4 uaaat.eusly. lIEW BUSIIØSS SITE PLAR NO. 16-88 Queensbury Factory Outlet Center Mr. Roberts stated this is for the expansion of the shopping center on the southeast corner of intersection of Route 9 and Quaker Road, PC-1A. Robert Stewart, Esq., represented the project. To summarize, about 1984 an application was made for permission to expand the shopping center. The extension permit was granted, however, because of internal conflict within the company, the expansion was not built and the permit expired. At the time the original approval was granted, it was granted with the existing roadways and no traffic light, although there was a discussion regarding a light. As a result of discussions since that time, tenants on the east and west side of Route 9 proposed a light to be located where the present existing Queensbury Shopping Center exit is. The County and Town did not favor the location because of its proximity to the light at the Aviation and Quaker Roads intersection, and proposed a light at the southern-most entrance to Grand Union. An agreement has been reached that all parties will contribute and the private group will install the light. The State of New York will make the necessary field change orders to accommodate the light. The shopping center expansion being requested is about 50,000 square feet. A 6,000 square foot building was proposed in the area of the former Kentucky Fried Chicken. The building is not grandfathered and will not be built until a setback variance is received from the Zoning Board, the County Planning Board approved on those conditions. Due to the widening of Route 9, the pylon sign has to be moved back, no variance is being requested. parking and density ratios are being met. The backwall of Building C will encorporate the same facade as is on the front of the building. Dumpsters will be shielded, probably by a chain link fence with woven plastic. Loading spaces will be directly behind the building, the trucks will back up to the back doors of the building. The proposed septic system from Kestner Engineering shows that Town pipes will be run down the northerly side of Bank Street and directly into the shopping center property, the shopping center can tie into the pipes at any location. That plan will eliminate the existing sewer treatment plant which now exists on the property. The underground water system and the location of the runoff after leaving the shopping center does not go in straight pipes to Hovey pond. The pipe dead ends on Niagara Mohawk 5 ~ ~ property and works its way to Quaker Road. This was confirmed by Nick Sciartelli of Morse Engineering. The L. A. Group of Saratoga was hired by the Planning Board to com- plete the traffic layout, and Mr. Stewart introduced Abe Simoff of Simoff Associates of New Jersey, who was responsible for the traffic study and designed the layout. Mr. Simoff said that the southerly Grand Union exit will be the key signalized point. There will be a continuation of the islands, in order to have enough capacity to get back into the Grand Union area. The signal will be a vehicular actuated signal. There is an agree- ment between Grand Union and the Shopping Center to share in the cost, as well as improvement costs. The relocation of the driveway will satisfact- orily separate the parking areas. This has been approved by DOT. There will be two, left hand stacking lanes at the signal and a through lane. The property owners have given up portions of their property, in order to make a wider Route 9 at the proposed signal. Mr. Stewart felt that the signal and lanes will be in place perhaps by late Fall. Mr. Simoff said that the traffic update will provide a more orderly definition of traffic getting into the east and west sides, free up the traffic confusion there now, there will be coordination between the two signals to free up the left turn lanes, as far as getting adequate green time. During the time of less activity, the new signal will pretty much remain green. The State has passed a rule that the installed lights are owned by private parties, who are responsible for the maintenance and repair, however, the State of New York does all maintenance and repair. For this the State is paid a contract sum for that work. Mr. Stewart acknowledged to Mr. DeSantis that very little of the site is unpaved. Mr. DeSantis stated that he would like to see this on the plan, because then other areas can be addressed, ie: parking, there is no more necessity for a sewage disposal field, move from 2' to 10' in unpaved areas, consider modifying the parking requirements (specifically the 45 spaces abutting Route 9). Mr. Simoff said that the State has changed the right of way line, and there will be 20 feet between the right of way line and the curb line, which will be grass area. The right of way line and the curb line will never be one line. Mrs. Mann read the May 13, 1988 letter from Robert Leaver for the LA Group commenting on the subject application (Exhibit C). There was cor- respondence from Lee York, Sr. Planner, requesting clarification in sev- eral areas (on file). Warren County modified with conditions (Exhibit D). Mr. Stewart requested from the Board a list of items which would improve the application: Drainage Plan, Beautification Plan, a plan showing how much of the land is currently black-topped, and how much will be black-topped under the proposal. The Board would review the black-top proposal, review the Zoning Ordinance and see if some parking could be relieved in return for some other things, namely, on-site permeability. Public Bearing Opened: no comment. The public hearing was left 6 - -' opened pending the next appearance of the applicants, after more information has been received. Mrs. Levandowski moved to TABLE Site Plan No. 16-88, Queensbury Factory Outlet, per the Board's request for more information. Seconded by Mr. Cartier. Passed una_iao.sly. SI~ PLAN NO. 17-88 ... .5 J /11 M George A. Ryan Mr. Roberts stated this is a proposal for Farm Class A & B and a green- house 25 feet x 72 feet on Farm to Market Road (Route 149) between Ridge and Bay Roads, SR-1A. Mr. George Ryan represented the project and said he would like to con- struct a greenhouse approximately 160 to 170 feet off the road and sell flowers, shrubs, vegetables, have a walk-in cooler in the greenhouse, in- stall a parking lot. Discussion ensued regarding the zoning of his pro- perty, and he said that about 40 feet of the five acres is Highway Commer- cial. The greenhouse would be made of two coats of plastic with a blower to keep it tight, and is of modern architecture. Since there is already a house on the land, Mr. Prime reminded the applicant that the greenhouse is an accessory use to the main house, and is why there is a need for a build- ing permit for the greenhouse. It was also determined that this is a Farm Class C & D, per Zoning Ordinance Section 7.080. Public Hearing Opened. Cissy Smith. Co-owner Queensbury Country Club. Mrs. Smith questions the appearance to residents living across the street and to her family. She feels the area is a residential pocket and would prefer it to remain that way. Mr. Ryan did not agree with the resi- dential aspect, because there are logging and golf course businesses on either side of his proposed farm. Katherine Welsh. partial owner of land just beyond the Logging Supply. She believes that the area is almost extensively commercial. Mrs. Smith maintained that the golf course is not commercial, however, Mrs. Welsh pointed out that produce is sold at the driving range. The truck 7 '--' ~ traffic makes it seem HC in its entirety. Mrs. Welsh requested a favor- able vote for Mr. Ryan. Mrs. Eleanor Bowmana lives across from the subject property. Her home as been there +30 years and she objects to the commercial business, specifically the 300 sq. ft. greenhouse because it is directly in view of her kitchen window. She believes the area is residential, the dirt blows on a windy day, and there are trucks that have been sitting on the property for quite some time. (Mr. Ryan said they are registered and he drives them.) She questioned that Mr. Ryan might bring in produce from another area. To improve the situation, the Board advised Mr. Ryan that he could put a natural screening of tall evergreens and bushes along the road, move the stand and greenhouse back and make the parking internal, therefore hiding the main structures and major points of criticism from view. The stand (a pole barn) will have poles about 12 feet above ground, the greenhouse will be about 15 feet tall. It would be best if the structures were to be 100 feet from the road. Further, he was advised that it is essential that he maintain a good relationship with his neighbors, not only for the good of the community, but for his upcoming business. Public HeariAg Closeda Mrs. Levandowski moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 17-88, George A. Ryan, with stipulations. The greenhouse is to be perpendicular to Route 149 behind the stand. The parking lot is to be moved to where the green- house was on the proposed diagram, with landscaping across the front up to the driveway. Seconded by Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Ryan agreed to the stipulations. Passed 5 Yes (Levandowski, Dybas, Mann, Roberts, DeSantis) I No (Cartier) I Absent (Macri) HI.OR SUBDIVISIOR MO. 2-88 Harold Ruecker Mr. Roberts said this is approximately 3.8 acres of land to be sub- divided into four lots, LR-lA. The proposal will contain zero feet of new road along Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. 8 Mr. Robert Stewart, Esq., represented the project and said that the neighbors have had an opportunity to review the plan and map. In summary, last month the applicant presented a proposal to take the back land and divide it, on the theory that there were four pre-existing cabins and that they could be converted. The front lot was separate and distinct by a Town road and the proposal included putting a lot there. The application was not received well by either the County or Town Planning Boards. Revi- sions were made to abandon the project of having any buildings on the beachfront lot, and the beachfront lot will be devoted to the benefit of the four lot holders. The owners would be given easements or deeded owner- ship to the beachfront parcel, and would be allowed to have docks for their boats and a beach area in which to swim. No other use would be given to this beachfront area. The back lots would be subdivided into four separate lots, and the actual boundary lines are still being deter- mined and more time for study is needed. The lots would be close to the same size as possible, given the terrain. Mr. Roberts and the Board felt that going for this type of subdivision is the best plan. Most of the temporary camps will probably be torn down and better homes built. A Variance from the Zoning Board will be required for the subdivision, since the acreage is just under four acres. Mr. Stewart advised Mr. Roberts that the best way to handle the ownership of the lakefront property, under the present laws, would probably be a Home Owner's Association. Some neighbors suggested the actual division of the property into four strips and then allocate and deed each parcel. Regard- ing the docks, Mr. Stewart preferred to see a common area dock (large -E- or -F- shape) at one end of the property, which would be large enough for four boats. Public Hearing Openeds Joan Robertsons Mrs. Robertson asked for information regarding the common water system that would serve four houses, in addition to the front parcel. She stated that the 55 feet on the north end was part of the original purchase, that is really one lot and it cannot be considered parcels I and II. Parcel I is 55 feet on the lake and all of the back lot. The other parcel is 100 feet to the south. In answer, Mr. Stewart said that most of the people on the lake pump from the lake, and he expects that each of the subject homes would install its own line and pump. Mr. Ruecker's plan is that he would own Lot '2 and build a new house. Lots NO's 1, 3 and 4 would be offered for sale, and that the water lines would be brought in over the common beachfront area. Mrs. Robertson requested verification if Mr. Ruecker was going to sub- divide and sell the lots or subdivide and run a rental colony. Mr. Stewart said the plan is to subdivide and sell. Because Mr. Ruecker has 9 -' not been a good neighbor, she is further concerned about the illegal num- ber of docks, boats and cars located in the beachfront area. As a matter of record, Mr. stewart agreed that there will be no more marina. Mrs. Robertson advised that she would not like to see this application approved until there is more definite information regarding what Mr. Ruecker is going to do. Mr. Roberts agreed and said this is a two-step process for a minor subdivision. Roland Faulknera Mr. Faulker requested to know what Mr. Ruecker'splan is, so that the neighbors can address themselves to it. 1) Division of the waterfront a Mr. Ruecker wants to keep 55 feet for himself and 100 feet for the other three owners. This is contrary to rulings in the past for the neighbors and prior decisions must be adhered to. If the beachfront is to be devoted to the lots, it should be a common area for all four lots. 2) Mandate that the docks be limited in number. 3) There is only 3.2 acres on the east side of Gunn Lane, the beachfront area should not be added to make the 3.78 acres. Actually it would make more sense to subdivide into three lots. The beachfront area from Gerald J. Hewlett's line to Frank N. parisi's line be made mandatorily dedicated to the service of three or four lots. Another reason Mr. Faulkner would like the subdivision to remain at three parcels is because much of the land is swampy, there will be sewage and drainage problems as it is. 4) Will the two camps that are to be removed be torn down? Mr. Stewart confirmed that he will be going to the Zoning Board meeting on Wednesday, May 18. Myrl Foggl (property owner opposite Lot '1 on the other side of Gunn Lane) He summarized that Mr. Ruecker wants to make a -buck- and that is not the reason the neighbors have purchased their land, he has been running a business enterprise. The neighbors would like to see a proposal in writ- ing stating what Mr. Ruecker really will do and what he intends to do. The bottom line is the neighbors do not want to be -had.- Jim Hagenl Mr. Hagen feels that perhaps the abrupt comments of the neighbors might be discouraging the Board and Mr. Ruecker. He feels that at least this is an attempt to improve the situation. Mr. Hagen would like to see this carried out, but it must be in writing. In response, Mr. Roberts stated that he felt everyone was on the same wave length, the only real question is three or four lots. Mr. Dybas asked why there could not be one dock that would accompany 10 '-.-/ four boats. Mr. Stewart answered by saying that the state of New York has jurisdiction over the docks, it could be any type of configuration. He suggested a proposal that each lot will be limited at the shorefront to the owner's dock and not to exceed two boats, and the boats must be reg- istered to the owner of the lot. Mr. Stewart advised that Mr. Ruecker will have to agree to all of the stipulations up front, and that he (Stewart) will not agree to anything for Mr. Ruecker. The timetable is that Mr. Ruecker would like to build his home this Fall, and perhaps sell some of the parcels at that time. The Planning Board cannot touch the marina situation, except that the approval of the subdivision can be on the condition that the marina will go and never come back. Since many of the neighbors are summer residents, Mr. Fogg requested that the next meeting concerning this application be in late June or early July. Mr. Stewart replied that the earliest would be in two months. Public Heariag will be left opened. Mrs. Mann moved to TABLE Minor Subdivision No. 2-88, Harold Ruecker, because of the need for more information. Seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. pas.ed uaant.ously. HILAltÐ PARI PUB 8I'1'B PLAIt NO. 1-881 PRELIMINARY S'lAGB 5- J1 -88 Overlook Mr. Roberts stated this application is for 34 multi-family townhome sites on the west side of Rockwell Road, 810 feet north of the inter- section with Haviland Road, PUD. Mr. James Bowen, vp/General Manager, represented the project and intro- duced Joseph Sporko of 'lhe LA Group and James E. Hutchins of Morse Engineering. Mr. Bowen summarized what was conceptually approved in July 1987 versus the current proposal. 1) The parcel of land is the same parcel that was approved acreage-wise. 2) The number of units that was conceptually approved was 36, the current, proposed plan is 34. 3) The road system originally proposed was a private road with a double cuI de sac. The current proposal is a through road, which is still private, but attempts to improve the cuI de sac situation, iea highway maintenance, emergency vehicles, vehicular traffic. Conceptually everything else is the same. 11 -/ Originally the double cuI de sac entered the parcel on Rockwell Road approximately 400 to 500 feet north of the present entry, across from the Mr. Roger Brassel's driveway. Some improvement has been attempted in that the entry is now placed farther south of the blind spot and crown of the road, and the exit road will continue north for approximately another 300 feet, going into a stub road which will eventually be a specified Town road and then return to Rockwell Road. The proposed road construction has been discussed with Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent, and will be the same as specified - a wing highway - where the lawn will go to the edge of the pavement, instead of a 10 foot gravel swale or ditch on the outside. The parcel faces a westerly direction and will look over the golf course. The golf course is not in a disturbed condition, and an attempt is being made to open that area this year. South of the subdivision is Fair- way Court, which is an approved, single family subdivision. Improvements will be made on that subdivision in the next month or two, it is under contract presently. On the North side of Overlook is a future subdivi- sion. Renderings of the Overlook buildings were shown to the Board. Attempts were made to design the duplex and fourplex structures, so the architecture is as close to a single family residence as possible. Mr. Bowen felt it is a benefit not only to the owner, but to the viewer as well. The ·Cape·-style duplex is 1 1/2 stories, and the roof lines and structures are oriented towards the single family look, instead of a commercial motel feeling. Lots 'I through '10 will be directly along the golf course. One reason for the ·cape· design is to keep the roof lines as low as possible, this will give the back units a view of the terrain. The fourplex unit also has broken roof lines to give the single family appearance and are tucked on the side of a knoll, giving a unique view across the twelfth fairway. Deviations of these styles for Lots No's. 19 - 34 were shown and are adjacent to Rockwell Road. Mr. Roberts introduced Hr. Dennis MacElroy, of The Environmental Design partnership, who was requested by the Town to review the Overlook subdivision (Exhibits E and F). Regarding the private road, Mr. DeSantis wanted to know about the northern section, even though it is not up for review at this presentation. Mr. MacElroy said the proposed section will be a Town road, it is where the end of Overlook ties in, the road complies with Town standards, there will be a stub at the end until future construc- tion, and will eliminate disturbance of traffic at that time. Mr. DeSantis also asked about the construction time-frame. Mr. Bowen explained that presently three, single-family subdivisions are under con- struction. Interest has been expressed in the multi-family and target for that area is this summer. Hiland will be the builder/developer, and it will be a Homeowner's Association. An attempt to get CO's will be made for the end of the year. Public Hearing Openedl Roger Brassell Rockwell Road 12 ~ Mr. Brassel requested information from the discussion with Paul Naylor regarding the crown of the road. Answer. The crown was not discussed, rather the attempt to move away and not cut the crown of the road. Also of concern was the possible widening of Rockwell Road to handle the traffic. Answer. No widening is foreseen, there has been a traffic study and it has been addressed. Mr. Brassel submitted a reservation with respect to the future improvements that might be required by the develop- ment on Rockwell Road. Insofar as Hiland is the one to benefit from the development primarily, if the right-of-way had to be widened on the crest, Hiland should bear the burden of giving up the land. Property lines start 25 feet from the centerline of the road, the road is 48 feet, there is a 30 foot setback from the existing right-of-way. Mr. Bowen said from the traffic studies and review with Hiland's engineers, the development would not require widening. If it would be required in the future, it would not be because of the development. Hiland has addressed what the built-up population would cause for traffic at that point. Mr. Brassel disagreed and did not feel it was a logical conclusion, especially if the traffic from the development increased the Rockwell Road flow and the Brassells had to give up footage of their front lawn for no benefit. Regarding lighting, there area. Mr. Bowen explained that tics than for lighting per colonial design (carriage-type glass on the side). is a concern of the visual impact on the the street lights will be more for aesthe- se, 75 watts, 12 foot cast aluminum poles, that is covered on the top with diagonal The total acreage of Overlook is 9.36 acreage. For density purposes, Mr. Brassel requested to know the total acreage devoted to the develop- ment, or considered to be contributed to the development for density pur- poses of a PUD. Answer. Originally it was approved at 36 units under the same acreage, 9.36 acres. Mr. Brassel felt that it was dense housing, or three families per acre. Mr. Desantis explained that the entire Hiland Park parcel is taken as one plan, including the golf course. Each section of the development is individually addressed. The overall density is 1,157 units for 713 acres. The new zoning law will not change those numbers. Mr. Gary Mineconzo. Rockwell Road Mr. Mineconzo requested to know about the Homeownerls Association (Exhibit F), specifically in the area of pets. Stipulations are one pet per unit, no outside dog runs or dog houses. With the density, the Asso- ciation is attempting to protect the residents from the other residents. There are no outdoor speakers, poor language, etc. All aspects in this regard are encorporated in the Covenant. Mr. Desantis requested that the final approved copy by the Attorney General of the Homeowner's Association be filed with the Town. Mr. Bowen requested to know if the Preliminary Stage proposal 13 -- presented at this meeting Prime explained that there writing and filed. Enough should not be considered. In that any filings for the before the hearing. could be considered as Final Approval. Mr. were open issues, which have to be put in has been left open, so that Final Approval addition, Mr. Bowen was advised by Mr. Prime next presentation must be completed 21 days (Note, Exhibits H K are letters pertinent to the development of Overlook, however, not specifically mentioned at this presentation.) Public Bearing Closed. Mr. Desantis moved approval of Hiland Park PUD Site Plan No. 1-88, PRELIMINARY STAGE, Overlook, subject to receipt of the items mentioned in the reviewing Engineer's letter. Seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Passed 5 Yes (Levandowski, Dybas, Mann, Cartier, Desantis) 1 Abstain (Roberts) 1 Absent (Macri) PLAlOtIRØ BOARD BUSIJIBSS SITE PLAI RO. 2'-87 Lake George RV Sales - Ed Gardner On October 26, 1987 the above Site Plan was approved, based on the fact that the trees, bushes and shrubs would never come down. Also, con- tained in the file is a map which identifies the existing growth which was to remain on the site. Mrs. Mann advised the Board that the lot has been totally denuded, as there are no trees, bushes, shrubs or grass. She ad- vised Mr. Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor, of the situation and he sug- gests investigating closing Lake George RV Sales and having mature trees planted in the specific areas mentioned. This was in agreement with the Board. SITE PLAR RO. 33-87 Broad Street Car Wash Mr. Roberts the Site Plan sensus of the reviewed that a Variance was received and filed, however, Review was never completed, and that it was Tabled by con- Board for further information and review by the Engineer 14 '- -..../ (October 26, 1987). A few days later a letter was received Withdrawing the application. Presently the site is in the process of being built and also the applicant has negotiated a deal with the City of Glens Falls to tie in the sewer lines with the City. The Town Board had no knowledge of this. Mr. Prime explained that the only reason the Planning Board received the Site Plan was due to the lubrication portion of the business. The Zoning Board approved the Variance because of the split zone. The auto- mobile car wash of the business was satisfactory for the area, however, the problem was a second phase of a quick lube. Mr. Roberts feels that further action should be taken. BAVARIAIf BBBR HALL (GItBA'f ESCAPB) Mrs. Mann advised the Board of this site, which is a portion of Charlie Wood's Great Escape next to the Campground on Round Pond Road. She contacted the Building Department regarding a Building Permit, and the permit issued was for an addition of a kitchen and two bathrooms for a building that did not exist. The building was moved from Canada, after the permit was received for the addition. There has been no Site Plan Review, no permit, or any type of permission for this construction. In addition, the bank has been cut down, including the trees, which is a nega- tive safety factor because vision is impaired and the driveway is on a bad curve. Mrs. Mann requested to Mr. Borgos that a Stop Work Order be issued. Mr. Dybas also mentioned that Mr. Wood has been disturbing the wetlands north of the amusement park. Mr. Roberts stated that an overall plot plan is necessary for The Great Escape, the Planning Board would then be aware of what is presently incorporated within the park. Mr. Wood's enterprise is a valuable outfit, but he should abide within the present rUlings of the Town. Mr. DeSantis felt that another restaurant/bar/entertainment area has been added to the Town without permission. In addition, the Queensbury High School graduation dance is to be held there, and the structure has not been completed nor has it been inspected. The meeting was adjourned at 12130 a.m. ~~~ Richard Roberts, Chairman Minutes transcribe~~ ~a~y ð:~~. F. M~~ller, ~teno~~her f/~r 4'f~ r,/rY 15 .---- the LA group~ Landscape Architecture and Engineering, P.c. /. ,:):Oh'N Os-: ÛU . ! : n rt;v;J~ ~i?íì EENSðUnl it~ !-.I~~~~ ~~'~ï.$. ,.8 ~. ~.~W . t"',J.lllNC" . DepAHTÙEN~Ÿì'l'v G: lQ i68 Broadway Saratoga Springs New York 12866 518/587-8100 , fJcj5J May 13, 1988 Town of Queensbury Planning and Zoning Department Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12801 ATTENTION: LEE YORK Dear Ms. York: In connection with our appointment to review Application No. 16-88, Queensbury Factory Outlet Center, Southeast Corner of Intersection of Route 9 and Quaker Road, we have reviewed the Drawing Titled "Parking and Access Improvement Plan," prepared by Simoff Associates, Pro- fessional Engineer, and dated March 23, 1988, revised April 11 and 12. We understand further revisions and or information may be forth coming. Following are our comments: 1. We obtained a copy of a site survey from Coulter and Me Cormack. and compared the applicant's drawing with it. The applicant's drawing substantially agrees. When one plan overlays the other. 2. We have had several conversations with Robert Stewart who, in further conversations with applicant, answered some of our concerns. Other concerns are not shown on the drawing. .01 Southside of Blocks C& E wil~ receive deliveries from east side, with the delivery vehiçles exiting to the west end one way system. The number of loading areas is unknown at this time. .02 Dumpsters should be appropriately screened in accord with Town Standards. .03 The Architectural Finish on the ends and rear of Blocks "c" and "E" should be of a quality at least equal to the front. .04 A sanitary sewer under design which' will tie into a main running along the northside of Bank Street. Robert H. Leaver 1 S,Jeffrey Anthony I Joseph G, Sporko I Russell G. Pittenger I Jeffrey w. Piro I C. Michael Ingersoll EXHIBIT C ,Ç1'I"'. ..'...1:.', ;.,:" May 13, 1988 Page III Town of Queensbury . " 7. Speed limit signs are not shown on the drawing. 8. We understand that the Beautification Committee has reviewed the Planting Plan without objection. We have not seen the plan. Should you wish us to review any additonal materials, information or drawings please do not hesitate to call on us. Yours truly, M~JI~ Robert Leaver for the LA group, p.c. ...... EXHIBIT C "'t~·r· . ,\ "'J ".,.' .- - / '~ - :'....:..;; :... ': ...~ -: ~ ~.~:: ~: ~ ~~¿t~ ¡~ ~b ll':'·~· I- .05 Water service design is unknown. Since water has previously served the Sears Automotive Building from a main in Route 9, availability should be no problem. .06 Storm Water Disposal Design is unknown. An existing 24" diameter corrugated metal pipe exits the site approximately 120' east of the southeast corner of Block "E". Block "E" will lie directly over the stormline. Prior to construction, the line should be exposed and examined by the applicant's eng- ineer to determine appropriate action. It appears that additional catchbasins may be required near the interior corner formed by Blocks "c" & ~E". We understand that Morse Engineering has been retained by the applicant to provide a Storm Water Management Plan, to mitigate any adverse impacts off site. We will be glad to review the plan when it is complete. .07 Location of fire hydrants will conf6rm to code. .08 In addition to the traffic control signs shown on this drawing there should be additional stop signs at the Bank Street/"D"I"E" intersection. .09 Site lighting exists and may be modified near "C" & "E". 3. The 6000 s.f. out building does not conform to set backs. We understand a variance will be sought. 4. Since the traffic light and related work is D.O.T. Jurisdictional, we have no comment. 5. The parking plan for the interior of the site has re-apportioned the spaces more appropriately for shoppers, however many remote spaces, i.e. Eas~·of Block "E" may never be used. Similarly the 45 spaces butting Route 9 might more appropriately be used for street trees. This action would require relaxing the parking ratio. 6. Circulation seems awkward with many reverse turns especially for delivery vehicles exiting from behind Block "C" to Bank Street. Stop signs are needed at the Bank Street intersection. EXHIBIT C / / #17) 16-88 Queensbury Factory Outlet Center. I- Application was approved with the following conditions: 1) No building permits be allowed by the Town until all contracts and permits are approved by the D.O.T.; 2) the dumpsters be hidden with the required type of fence; 3) the back of Building C be finished in the same way as the rest of the building; 4) the property owner give permission to the Town of Queensbury to allow police agencies to come on the property to enforce rules of the fire lanes, handicapped parking and one-way lanes, etc.; 5) they prepare an engineered storm water management plan and work with the Town's consulting engineer and update and install an acceptable storm water management system; 6) the 6,000 square foot building meet with the requirements of the zoning ordinance; 7) all signage meet the Queensbury Town Sign Ordinance; and 8) no trucks or tenant vehicles be parked on the property along Route 9, advertising the business. - EXHIBIT D ..- 'TOWN OF QUEENSB_~!'I'I . . D D ] -~' ~~ilítJ7f~1 ñ"f, ~ i .~ ~ n . ~.~~. ~~ . cro>~ID May 13, 1988 J\ Mt\V=8' : é~~ ~ ã 5 ~.~ J. t\1. . _ ¡ 0 3 m U) .D C , " t. -..,~t.Q , J C :J Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman pL;\N:~IN(; (,;1 'ÔWN(I 8. Ë -g .!!! Town Of Queensbury Planning Board DEfJARTMfNT ~ ~.!!! Town Offices' ~ '5 Queensbury, New York 12801 .ffi ~ Re: Hiland Park - Overlook Site Plan Review Dear Dick, In response to the Town's request that The Environmental Design Partnership review the Overlook subdivision design plans for site plan approval, we offer the following. STATEMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS : " ' , , It is our understanding that 'this subdivision within the Hiland Park PUD consists of 34 residential units (duplex and fourplex) on approximately 10 acres." The road servicing the units, Overlook Drive, will be private with connections to two Town roads. Water will be provided by the Town of Queensbury municipal system, wastewater will be discharged on-site and the stormwater will be handled through a storm- water management system. ' . . In a conversation detailing our scope of work you suggested that because DEC will be reviewing the on-site wastewater system and issuing a SPDESperrnit we need not review the -wastewater plans. Thus we have completed a cursory review of the sewage plan as it effects other infrastructure. We also understand from a conversation with you that the meeting on Tuesday is for consideration of preliminary site plan approval. With this understanding we have reviewed the plans in consideration of the Town's requirements and standards for layout, streets, storm drainage and water. ". RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVIEW COMMENTS The plans submitted for the Overlook subdivision are of sufficient detail and completeness for preliminary site plan approval. We recommend that preliminary site plan approval be granted. c=J©1 ú@j~ ~Q® @!)~ ~~ ~~ @1S ~@ DC] ©1 ~(S @!)@Jì o c:::J @!)®i) ð@) ~~ ROUTE 146. CLIFTON PARK. N~OO~B'Rk 12065 (518) 371-7621 28 MADISON STREET. RUTLAND. VERMONT 05701 (802) 775-31 00 Principals James E. Mitchell. P.E. Richard A. Eats. L.A. Gordon P. Nicholson. L.A. "'/ l· . .. " ' //' RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVIEW COMMENTS - cont'd Prior to issuing final site plan approval it is recommended that the following items be completed and/or obtained by the applicant. ~. 1. A SPDES permit for the on-site discharge of wastewater must be obtained from DEC. 2. The required permit/approval for the water system must be obtained from the N.Y.S. Dept. of Health. 3. A conflict between the sanitary system and the stormwater system exists in the area of Units 6 & 7. Refer to Plan Sheet L-2 and L-S. The seepage pits and the dry well will not function properly if they are so close together. One of theses structures must be relocated. 4. The Stormwater Management Report should more completely discuss the design capabilities of DW-l. Peak inflow is 2.1 CFS but then what? Estimated recharge, storage and overflow should be discussed. 5. Runoff from subareas 1,5,6,7,8 and9 is all directed along Rockwell Road to a "contolled release basin" which is part of the Fairway Court Bite plan. Refer to Plan Sheet L-3 of the Fairway Court plans., Does this basin need to be re-designed to accommodate this additional flow? If so, the easement within LottI must be enlarged. 6. Runoff from subareas 10,11,12,13,14 and 15 is dischared to a low lying area north of the project site. As this area is part of the PUD and will some day be developed into private lots some provision for accepting the runoff should be made. This is a non-technical issue but some- thing that should be considered. 7. The plans contain several "minor omissions, math errors, labeling errors, etc.. These points will be discussed directly with the LA Group so that the necessary correc- tions can be made. ~ DC) 6 ®ì) [S @) @ G® @b ~ @]V I Sincerely, -~N'~ 'tAAc:..~ ~~ .¡.-. c::::J ij ~ Þ@) ~ ~ rb o~ @) I wil~ be in attendence at Tuesday's meeting should there be any further questions. Dennis MacElroy, P.E. . The Environmental Design Partnership i c.c. Lee York, Town Planner Joe Sporko, LA Group EXHIBIT E ---- STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR OVERLOOK AT HILAND PARK TOWN OF QUEENS BURY, NEW YORK April 29, 1988 Prepared By: the LA group, p.c. 468 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 EXHIBIT Fl -- ------ HILAND OVERLOOK Stormwater computations for the proposed townhouse complex were conducted using the methods prescribed in the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 55 (TR-55). A 25 year/24 hour type 2 event, having a 4.8" rainfall was the design storm used for the calculations. Existinq Conditions The proposed townhouse site is located on the western side of Rockwell Road, along Hiland Park's eastern P.U.D. boundary. The site is primarily covered by meadow grasses with a narrow hedge row along the road frontage. The site is underlain by Plainfield and Oakville fine sandy loams, which have low runoff potential and high infiltration rates. These soils are in the SCS Hydrologic Soil Group A. Existing drainage divides are shown in Figure 1. Subarea 21 drains to the roadside swale on Rockwell Road. Subarea 20, the southern side of the project area, flows overland to the same drainage swale. Total peak predevelopment flow from both sources is 2.2 CFSi total volume is' approximately .2 ac./ft., respectively, for the design event. Subarea 22, the west central portion of the site discharges over a broad 600' front west toward the golf course. Peak flow for the design event is 1.2 CFS, over the aforementioned slope. EXHIBIT F2 ------ Subarea 23, the northern end of the project area discharges 2.1 CFS at peak to an existing swale system on the edges of the golf course. Post DeveloDment The major post development drainage divides (see Figure 2) closely mirror the existing patterns just discussed. Total post development flow to the roadside swale (subareas 1,5,6,7,8 & 9) is 8.4 CFS. The additional runoff will be channeled to a controlled release basin which will be constructed as part of the abutting Fairway Court Subdivision. Peak outflow from this basin will be 4.8 CFS which approximates the total pre-development flow along this segment of Rockland Road. Outflow from the pond is controlled by a 12" Dia. CMP sloping at .007 ft./ft. At peak storage .19 ac.ft. of water will be retained. The inflow/outflow analysis for this pond is provided in the Appendix. Runoff from the west central portion of the site will be handle~ in two ways. Runoff from the rear lawns and roofs of the townhouses (labeled as Subcatchment #4) will be allowed to discharge naturally over a 540' segment of hillside. Runoff will be 1.4 CFS at peak, an increase of only .2 CFS. Runoff from the front of buildings and streets will be collected by 2 drain inlets (subcatchments #3 and #2) and piped (Reach 11) west to a shallow infiltration EXHIBIT F3 basin on the hillside above the golf course. Peak inflow· to this basin will be 2.1 CFS. Runoff from streets and fronts of structures (subcatchments 10, 11, 12 and 14) in the north end of the project will be collected by a series of interconnected drain-inlets and piped (Reach 16) to a shallow swale which will discharge to a drainage ditch which flows west along the golf course. Runoff from Subarea 15 will be collected and discharged to the same drainage channel. EXHIBIT F4 PROJEC'!': OVERLOO~: -, A "'1<' . . ........._.~ -, :~", . ----r; ............... . - -- STORAGE POND # 1 DATA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~IME HR.. INFLOW CFS OUTFLOW CFS ELEVATION STORAGE ACRE-F'!'. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10.0 0.0 0.0 347.6 O.O:!. 10.2 0.1 0.0 347.6 0.01 10.4 0.1 0.0 347.6 0.01 10.6 0.2 0.0 347.6 0.01 10.'8 0.2 0.1 348.1 0.01 11.0 0.3 0.2 348.1 0.01 11. 2 0.3 0.3 348.2 0.02 11.4 0.6 0.5 348.2 0.02 11.6 1.3 0.7 348.4 0.02 . 11. 8 8.9 (20(8 349.4 0.09. . 12.0 8.4 4.4 350.9 0.17 12.2 5.0 4.8 351.3 0.19 12.4 4.2 4.7 351.2 0.18 12.6 1.7 4.4 350.9 0.14 12.8 1.3 3.8 350.2 0.10 13.0 1.1 3.0 349.6 0.07 13.2 1.0 2.3 349.1 0.04 13.4 0.9 1..4 348.7 0.03 13.6 0.7 1.0 348.5 O.O~ 1.3.8 0.7 0.8 348.4 0.02 14.0 0.6 0.7 348.3 0.02 14.2 0.6 0.6 348.3 0.02 14.4 0.5 0.6 348.3 O.O~ 14.6 0.4 0.5 348.3 0.02 14.8 0.4 0.4 348.2 O.O~ 15.0 0.4 0.4 348.2 0.02 15.2 0.4 0.4 348.2 0.0:: 1.5.4 0.3 0.4 348.2 0.02 15.6 o ~ 0..3 348.2 0.02 . 0,) 15.8 0.3 0.3 348.2 0.02 16.0 0.3 0.3 348.2 0.0:: 1.6.2 0.3 0.3 348.2 0.02 16.4 0.3 0.3 348.2 0.0:: . :. 6.6 0.2 0.2 348.2 0.01 16.8 o ~ o r¡ 348.1 O.O~ · - · - ~7.0 0.2 0.2 348.1 0.01 17.2 o r¡ 0.:: 348.1 0.01. · - 0.01 17.4 0.2 0.2 348.1 , - - o r, o r, 348.1 O.O~ _ { . t. · - · - :'7.9 'j.2 'J. ~ 343.1 ').01 18. (: o r, o .', 348.1- 0.01. · - · - :8.2 <L Z 0.2 348.1 'J. 01 18.4 o r, O.~ 348.1 0.0: · - :'8.5 'J. Z 0.2 348.1 0.01 18.6 0.2 0.2 348.: 0.01. :9.0 0.2 0.2 348.1 0.01 EXHIBIT F5 0.0: 19.~ o r, o ", 348.1 · - 0.01 :9.4 0.2 .,).2 348.1 , - ~ o r, ü ", 348.~ 0.0: _~.C · - 0.01 :9.8 0.2 0.2 :=48.1 20.0 o r¡ o r¡ 348.1 0.01- · ... . .. - - .....~-_....-. - - -. . -- " . ~ ~-_... . - . ..- - -".'- ;)ATE:_ I _1_ . PROJECT: OVERLOOK . . '.:': ,-' ~:~ t..:"_, ~ ,1.J¡ r~ ;4 .11 ;~'>-'4 ~~~ '. " , . '~1 . :St...~ . . ~. .t-' ".' ~:~) 'f" ~ ;3HEET:_ OF -------------------------- ~ISTING SUBCATCHMENT DATA -------------------------- ;3UBCAT # 1 SUBCAT # 2 ---------- ---------- AREA= 1.93 ACRES CN= 67.77 TC= 17 MIN PEAK FLOW= 3.4 CFS RAINF ALL= 4 . 8 INCHES VOL= .25 AC.FT. AREA = .65 ACRES CN= 66.2 TC= 22 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .06 AC.FT. , ;3UBCAT ** 3 SUBCAT ** 4 ---------- ---------- AREA = .55 ACRES CN= 71.1 TC= 18 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1. 1 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .06 AC.FT. AREA = .8600001 ACRES CN= 57.3 TC= 6 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1.4 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .05 AC.FT. SUBCAT ** 5 SUBCAT ** 6 ---------- ----------- AREA = .7200001 ACRES CN= 70.6 TC= 8 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1.8 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= . 1 AC. FT . AREA = .55 ACRES CN= 67.1 TC= 9 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1.1 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .05 AC.FT. SUBCAT # 7 SUBCAT # 8 ---------- ---------- AREA = . 3 ACRES CN= 57.3 TC= 8 MIN PEAK FLOW= .4 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .01 AC.FT. AREA = .32 ACRES CN= 7:; TC= 6 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .03 AC. FT. SUBCAT # 9 SUBCAT # 10 ---------- ---------- .~A= .9399999 ACRES CN= 53.4 TC= 19 MIN PEAK FLOW= .7 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= ,.04 AC.FT. AREA = .18 ACRES CN= 73.5 TC= 6 MIN PEAK FLOW= .6 CF3 RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .01 AC.FT. .5UBCAT a 11 SUBCAT ~ 12 ---------- ---------- AREA = .17 ACRES C~:: 80.4 !C= 6 MIN PEAK FLOW= .7 CFS ~~INFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .02 AC.FT. EXHIBIT F6 AP£A= .18 ACRES CN= 7ê TC= 6 :1IN PEAK FLOW= .7 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .02 AC.FT. 'i. . " ), ..., .'~ ;oj ....~1 ...... . ~ I 'i : ..:. .: -::t '.' ~"~ .~ ,,'.' ~.... ~"~ !I.~ -- :3UBCAT # 13 SUBCAT # 14 ---------- ---------- AREA= . 2 ACRES CN= 68.6 TC= 6 MIN PEAK FLOW= .5 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .01 AC.FT. AREA = . 3 ACRES CN= 72 TC= 6 MIN PEAK FLOW= .9 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .03 AC.FT. SUBCAT # 15 SUBCAT # 16 ---------- ---------- AREA = .6600001 ACRES CN= 63.7 . TC= 10 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1.1 CFS RAINFALL=' 4.8 INCHES VOL= .05 AC.FT. ~~ .SUBCAT ** 20 AREA= 1.06 ACRES CN= 57.8 TC= 18 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1.1 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .07 AC.FT. SUBCAT ** 21 ---------- ---------- AREA = 2 . 13 ACRES CN= 49 TC= 17 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1.2 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .08 AC.FT. AREA = 2 . 38 ACRES CN= 49 TC= 31 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= 9.000001E-02 AC.FT. SUBCAT # 22 SUBCAT # 23 ---------- ---------- AREA = 2.35 ACRES CN= 49 TC= 22 MIN PEAK FLOW= 1.2 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= 9.000001E-02 AC.FT. AREA = 3.11 ACRES CN= 49 TC= 12 MIN PEAK FLOW= 2.1 CFS RAINFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .13 AC.F'l'. SUBCAT # 30 ( - 'N~ iO t-?Of4D~ t þt-20M ~lfZVVAY e,olJP-i- ---------- AP£A= 2.17 ACRES CN= 63.6 TC= 1.1 MIN PEAK FLOW= 3.7 CFS ~INFALL= 4.8 INCHES VOL= .23 AC.FT. .EXHIBIT F7 . ~'.. .~". -> -~_._---.._- . - . .' " .~... I .<,,,,.,,--, i ! J¡.¡, :~,i ,.. \ '~'Þ- ' if i '''- .., ~.... " :'.!" ii' 5 or , . ....- ~"~ ..,.~, , . ''t ~ ~ ¡,~ , ~ . ~ 1 -..; 'J ! '. ."-",~""-,~!W:',,,,,,:,.~....,.;,,,,,. --------------------- EXISTING ROUTING DATA --------------------- ---------- REACH # 1 ---------- PEAK FLOW= 3.1 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 3 CFS MAX. WA TER DETAINED= . 03 AC. FT. ---------- REACH *' 3 ----------- PEAK FLOW= 1.1 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 3 CFS MAX. WATER DETAINED= 0 AC.FT. - ..." .... - ~.,.. , -- ---.-. --.- l I ~ ----------- REACH *' 10 ----------- PEAK FLOW= 1 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 3 CFS ~JLX. WATER DETAINED= 0 AC.FT. ----------- REACH # 12 ----------- PEAK FLOW= 2.8 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 2 CFS MAX. WATER DETAINED= .05 AC,.FT. ----------- REACH # 15 ----------- PEAK FLOW= 2.1 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 45 CFS M&X. WATER DETAINED= 0 AC.FT. EXHIBIT F8 --" --------- REACH *' 2 --------- PEAK FLOW= 2.8 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 2 eFS MAX. WATER DETAINED= .05 AC.FT. --------- REACH # 4 --------- PEAK FLOW= 2.8 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 4 CFS MAX. WATER DETAINED= 0 AC.FT. I , i ! , .-¡ ---------- REACH # 11 ---------- PEAKFLOW= 2.1 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 5 eFS MAX. WATER DETAINED= 0 AC.FT. ---------- REACH # 14 ---------- PEAK FLOW: 3.1 CFS MAX. FLOW POSSIBLE= 3 CFS M&{. WATER DETAINED= .05 AC.FT. -------------------- EXISTING MEMORY DATA -------------------- --------- MEMORY 1 , . . --------- , i'.: .~ PEAK FLOW= 3.5 CFS "I .~~. "j' .,.. ~'1 '. . ~ / ¡ " ! --------- MEMORY 3 --------- . PEAK FLOW= 6.3 CFS ".... ... " ::·t .~ --------------------- ......- -~ EXISTING PONDING DATA ~iP~ --------------------- POND # 1 7--------- PEAK OUTFLOW= 4.76 CFS MAX. WATER STORED: .19 AC.FT. . .. , . ..-- --------- MEMORY 2 --------- PEAK FLOW= 10 CFS _._._._ __. __" _. __. .___.._.._._ 4'_ .. :.. ---- -_._~..... .- .-. - - .. -. --- . , EXHIBIT F9 :. -. ·.......i.~ 'r'"."',.-' ~, ~ 1 ---- .-.-/ . .. .. , I I ",.,- / "".",/ / ..// // // , " ~\f ,( I, " ,,~ . , I .: I, , ,: " " ,," ~" , , , , , / ,/ , ,/ , .' ..._...'~ ... I ~ r u \ 10 \./ ~ ... ... , en ~- / .... :.: I, >< !iÞ3 ~ 'I I, I :.7 11, ~ 1- Ii , ~. ", $ -It y' I , '! ii, J. -', .I '( ~t Iq !~. ~ ~ t4\ ~ç..' ~ö ~ t~' ~\t '- . . "-------- , I, ~~/! '," /, :\~ ' I I ,: I, " .. \ f< ... '" ... '" >< '" :t q .~ 1 Ii t ~, ill I, -it, " :, 'i t;; í; ¡' '( Ii !~ !q I ' ' I I I _\_~~c_, \, _,,_.__.___··..u....._ --- ffiland Park INFORMATIONAL DESCRIPTION OVERLOOK AT HILAND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. Hiland Park, ("Sponsor"), is developing approximately 9.34 acres in the Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, New York as the Overlook at Hiland Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Property"). The Property is located on the west side of Rockwell Road. Access to the Property is by way of Rockwell Road. All roads within the Property will be private roads constructed by Sponsor and will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association. The Property will consist of thirty-four Homes in fourteen Buildings, private roadways, site lighting~ septic system and lawns. All of the Homes will have attached garages. Each Owner will acquire fee ownership in the Home purchased, including the land under the foundation of the Home. The interior of the Homes will be delineated by the midpoint of the party walls. The ownership of a Home is similar in many respects to the ownership of a private home. Each OWner of a Home owns title to his Home and is entitled to the exclusive possession of it. An Owner may mortgage his Home or not, as he sees fit, and in such amount as he chooses. Each Home is separate and not sUbject to the mortgages on other Homes. Each OWner will be solely responsible for the maintenance of thé interior of his Home. Each Home will be taxed as a separate tax lot for real estate purposes, just as a private home, and the Owner will incur no tax liability if the OWners of other Homes fail to pay their taxes. Prior to transfer of title to the first Home, all property up to the foundations of the Buildings (the "Common Areas") will be conveyed to the Association by deed, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except for those easements granted to local governments, utility companies, the Sponsor, the cable television franchisee, and those created by, or pursuant to, the Declaration of Easements, Condition, Covenants and Restrictions which is to be recorded. Homes with attached decks, porches or patios will be granted easements to maintain such appurtenances on the Common Areas and to rebuild them to their original condition if damaged or destroyed. EXHIBIT Gl ItIland Park Corporation Haviland Road, R D 1. Box 91. OI"n.. F..II. N~... v__,. ......... r,,"' 'f- -- ~~ All Owners automatically become members of the Overlook at Hiland Homeowners's Association, Inc. (the "Association"), a New York Not- for-Profit Corporation, formed for the purpose of, among other things, insuring the efficient preservation of the values and amenities of the Property and the repair, maintenance and replacement of the private roads, lawns and septic system serving the thirty four (34) Homes. The Declaration and By-Laws will govern the use and ownership of the land and improvements of the Association. The Association shall be responsible for (i) the repair, maintenance and replacement of the septic system; ( ii ) the maintenance and repair of all Property up to the foundations of the Buildings; (iii) the repair, maintenance and replacement of all Common Elements and Limited Common Elements; (iv) repair, maintenance and replacement of the exteriors of all Homes; (v) obtaining and maintaining fire and casualty insurance on Common Areas, liability insurance, directors and officers' liability insurance, fidelity bond and workers' compensation if necessary (the Association may also carry fire and casualty insurance on the Homes for the benefit of the Owners and their mortgagees) ; and (vi) the collection and disbursement of the Special Assessments and Association Charges necessary to perform its functions. Prior to closing on the first Home, Sponsor will grant easements for utilities, telephone and cable television to the companies supplying those services and will grant easements to the Town of Queensbury for water lines installed in the roadways. Each Owner shall have a right and an easement of enjoyment (i) in and to all Common Elements ( except limited Common Elements which may be used only by the owners of the Homes to which the Limited Common Elements are appurtenant) (ii) an easement on the Common Elements to maintain, repair, and rebuild to its' original condition any porch, deck or patio constructed as part, of the original Home or subsequently approved by the Association ,(iii) an easement for ingress and egress across Common Elements for the repair, maintenance and replacement of air conditioning condensers,if any, and (iv) an easement to use and maintain all pipes, wires, conduits, drainage areas, public utility lines and cable television lines servicing such Owner's Home and located on or within other Homes or on Common Elements. These rights and easements, except for (ii) above, shall be in common with all other Owners and are subject to the rights of the Association. The Association shall have an easement to permit maintenance, repair and replacement of Common Elements, including the septic system. There will also be an easement for access to each Home for the maintenance, repair and replacement of any pipes, wires and conduits, utility lines and facilities and cable television lines and facilities located within any Home and servicing any other Home. Additionally, the Sponsor has retained the right to grant such other easements as may be reasonably necessary as provided in Paragraph Second of the Declaration. ' EXHIBIT G2 jl.~ MORSE ENGINEERING . BIl .. 99 LOWER DIX AVENUE . ~ GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 "'-- ---.- ,. May 13, 1988 1 . M/E 1188-020 ..!O\Y_l\I ,9F_QUEENSOur~ \' I.~µ la.·~v:-ì ~ r:'l·:¡lfììr·:~·f""';-.' . ! I ;r\ \ C",. 1\ I I!J ¿ ~ ~I ï Ù il~' ~ M~Y ~1p8. ..... ~.-~.)J.¡ ;"I.J.\'~¡"ir.c J46ri:: ')CI~ ~I '\ ',~. í. ¡;;f"JUrnA~M"!· Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury ßay at Haviland Road Glens Falls, NY 12801 RE: Hiland Park, Overlook Dear Ms. York: Since the submission of plans for Overlook multi-family housing at Hiland Park, the location of the proposed water line has been discussed with Thomas K. Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty suggested that the proposed water line be located 171 from roadway centerline for ease of maintenance. Specifically, this will allow 5' from edge of pavement to water line. I concur with this relocation and the plans will be revised to reflect this. Very truly yours, MORSE ENGINEERING /_~ ..-..1/ /I n ~:.1f2!-~(-' ~'L.~K··"C.. ~James E. Hutchins, P.E. . ~./ Senior Project Engineer JEH:lag CC: ,.-Rtêhard Roberts, Chairman, Queensbury Planning Board . James Bowen, Hiland Park Corporation ßrian Fear, NYS Department of Health Thomas K. Flaherty, Queensbury Water Department Dennis Mac Elroy, Environmental Design Partnership Joe Sporko, LA Group .... ....... EXHIBIT H RICHARD S. MORSE, P. E. Phone' (!S18) 792· !S382 . "'Vv-\ . 1'(\ \ \ \ \ ~. , ·.l' {'I I (\L', .)",J ( ..... ----,----- ()" ~, ,\..., \ ~ ,. e ~ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 5 - Environmental Quality Hudson Street. Warrensburg. NY 12BB5 (51B) 623-3671 or 66B-S~~1 Thomas C. JorJlng Commissioner May 11. 1SBB Town of Queensbury Town Office Building Bay Road Glens Falls. NY 12BOl ..TO~VN Of' aUEENSaU¡¡ý )P)~UW~ l~) iß MAYh1988 l Attn: Ms. Lee York Senior Planner PLA'~i'4tNG t. :t:ONIi\lC DEPARTMfMT Re: SPDES Permit Application Overlook at Hiland Park Queensbury (1), Warren (Co.) Dear Ms. York: I have reviewed the engineering plans and supporting information submitted by Morse Engineering for the subsurface sewage disposal system to serve the proposed proJect, Overlook at Hiland Park. I was also present during soil investigation work during the past year. The concept for sewage disposal is acceptable to me and the project is approvable pending completion of the SPDES permit application process. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely. WEL: lc ~ Wiley W. Lavigne, P.E. Regional Water Engineer ¥~ &. ~ William E. Lamy. P~ Senior Sanitary Engineer by: cc: J. Bowen J. Hutchins R. Roberts EXHIBIT I I!IJw¡¡ f!ltid?e i{tuntee~ §;1te, &., Ýnc. R.D. 1, BOX 366, SUNNYSIDE ROAD QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12801·9762 ~. TOWt~ OF aUEENSBUiT\" il'li' ~. ~. (Ì"} í1i~·J¡f\Wíi~li-~.~' ~- / J.~~Y";;f.o(~) !"i\ \!J l~ t! ~r;"MAY 1 c 1988 ~ . ~L: May 12, 1988 Pl..H;~N'I'iG 2: LONII',lCì DePÞ.RTMfNT Ms. Lee York Town of Queensbury Planning Department Bay and Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12801 Re: Hiland Park, Overlook Sub-division Dear Ms. York: I have reviewed this sub-division with Mr. 3im Bowen on May 11th. This revised road plan will help our fire department and rescue squad cut down our respond time. Two entrances to this sub-division will help us to move emergency equipment in and out of the division quicker and safer. The water supply from the 8 inch water mains and hydrant locations, should give us the supply needed for fire supression. This will also be improved when this system is attached "looped" to the other parts of the development. This change in the road plan will help us in servicing the families that will be living there. I recommend that you approve this sub-division change. . YO? truly,' .' ~~ ÇJ /VAr-f Gary A. West Chief, Bay Ridge Vol. Fire Co. .-- cc: Hiland Park Development Dick Roberts EXHIBIT J '- 'âIoíun of (]@ueenøhuru ~ígqíunu ¿aepnrtment Bay at Haviland Roads Office Phone 518-793-7771 . Queensbury, New York 12801 PAUL H. NAYLOR Superintendent Highways RICHARD A, MISSIT A Deputy Superintendent Highways RE: May 12, 1988 ,_.~O\VN 0;= OU" . /.~)~ r.¡-~·Yí4 rl)rlE~WCf'¡F':~~j,' ~' '.)(J:' ~,,:... '.'...: I.. f...."... "". THE PLANNING BOARD U .... ':. \. ..' . r.. .~~ h~;;'" J'i' Paul H. Naylor ¿" ,it MllY lkl9à8·,:~~il! OVERLOOK - (HILAND PARK SUBDIVISreN~)~h~IiG7;:~' ûP.PftWf/',N·.~!.~¡¡r" . . ,......: ~ TO: FROM: I have personnally reviewed the proposed plans for Overlook site within the Planned Unit Development '.. and if specifications are. foJ.lowed ..Iforesee no problem. ,The' proposed. plan meets. with'. my approval. Sincere1y,o . PHN/jp Suprintendent ..... EXHIBIT K ~.