Loading...
1988-07-19 -/- QUBBRSBOY '1'CIf1I PLAlIIIIBG BOARD Regular Meeting, Tuesday, July 19, 1988 at 7,30 p.m. Present, Richard Roberts, Chairman Joseph Dybas Peter Cartier Frank DeSantis Hilda Mann, Secretary Susan Levandowski Victor Macri Paul Dusek, Counsel Lee York, Planner David Hatin, Building/Codes Daniel Ling, Ass't. Planner Quentin Kestner, Town Designated Consultant Mary Jane Moeller, Stenographer PLAlOIIJIG BOAD BUSIJIBSS Mr. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7.15 p.m., which was requested by Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner, and the purpose was to suggest, 1) that two Town planning Board meetings be scheduled per month, in order to accommodate increased applications, 2) that the Town Planning Board meet after the Zoning Board because, legally, a Variance should be obtained before a Site Plan. Ms. York advised the Board that, if two meetings were to be held per month, one submission date per month would remain. Suggestions from the Board were to limit the following. number of people per month processed, presentation time, which would necessitate better planning on the part of the applicant), number of people per application speaking, especially dur- ing the Public Hearing). If a lengthy discussion is necessary, set up a Workshop. The following decisions were made. 1) two regular meetings per month would not be scheduled, however, if a second monthly meeting is necessary, it would be the Tuesday fOllowing the regular meeting, 2) it would better serve the Board at this time to -streamline- the meet- ings, thus allowing the Board and the applicant to be more efficient. REVISED AGBIIDA Mr. Roberts called the regular monthly meeting to order at 7.45 p.m.. The June 21, 1988 minutes stand as written, the June 23, 1988 minutes for Dixon Heights and the Special Scheduled meetings will be reviewed at the August meeting. 1 --- SIH PLAJI 110. 29-87 Edward T. Gardner Lake George RV Sales This is for the recommendation by the Town Planning Board to the Town Board, as to appropriate measures to remedy the violation of this Site Plan. There were state that most the process of other building, violation of the two Site Plan Reviews from the applicant, and the records all of the trees on the property would be retained. In a second Site Plan, where permission was given to add an- the applicant cut all trees on the property, which is in Site Plan's approval. Edward T. Gardner represented the application and mentioned that this is the first opportunity he has had for input into the problem. Mr. Gardner said he did not cut every tree on the property, there is a tree line on the east side with many trees, the trees on the rear of the pro- perty have not been cut beyond the point of the buildings, the one set of trees cut are approximately five trees which were on the center of the property on Route 9. When the original Site Plan was filed, he wanted to retain the trees on the front of the lot. As recreational vehicles were placed on the front lot under the trees, problems occurred. 1) trees made the terrain uneven which was a detriment to the placement of vehicles, 2) the trees constantly shed sap or broken branches fell onto the recreational vehi- cles. Some of the branches went t~ough the roofs of the vehicles, lights and windows have been damaged. The cost of certain vehicles is approxi- mately $60,000. Because of these problems, Mr. Gardner requested a profes- sional opinion on the status of the trees, at the time that land was being cleared for the second building. The result of the report was that the trees would continue shedding sap and dropping branches, and several of the trees were diseased and damaged and should be removed. Therefore, Mr. Gardner had the trees removed from the center of the lot. Mr. Gardner mentioned that there is no other dealer in the Town of Queensbury, in this area or in the Capital district, that has a display lot which has trees on it, it is not practical. He stated he did not cut the trees in defiance of the Site Plan or in defiance of the Board or in any way so to become defendent in the case. Mrs. Mann mentioned that the site was field-check before the applica- tion was voted on by the Board. She noted minutes from the 10/26/87 meet- ing, Beautification Approval 10/12/87 and Mr. Gardnerls letter dated 10/12/87 stating that the existing trees would remain (Exhibit A). In addition, the original Site Plan mentioned a heavily wooded, two-acre 2 ~ ---- site. Mrs. Mann said the only reason she made the motion to approve was because it was based on information stating that the woods would remain and that a large number of vehicles would not be lined up on Route 9, that is not the appearance the Board wanted to see. The store and campsite area were incidental to the primary use of the campground, a few vehicles were to be displayed upon entrance to the grounds. Mr. Gardner said his original proposal was very clear in that the use of the land would be for recreational vehicle selling/display area. The Board's approval stated a condition that no vehicle was to be parked closer than 50 feet away from Route 9. However, Mrs. Mann again reiter- ated that what was clear was that the existing trees would remain. Mr. Gardner agreed, but explained that it is impossible to put those kinds of vehicles underneath trees and did not realize the consequences of doing so, when the original plan was submitted (1983/84). Mr. Gardner said he did receive a notice of approval signed by Chair- man Roberts and was aware that all existing trees could not be cut, the damage had occurred within the period of his 10/12/87 letter and 5/23/88, when a Order to Remedy Violation was submitted (Exhibit B). He stated that the Building Dept. advised him that another Site Plan would not be necessary to alter the plans from an appended building to one that is not attached. That is the reason why the tree cutting in the rear of the pro- perty appears different from the original plan. Mr. Roberts disagreed and said he remembered the discussion and that the building could be moved ten feet and another ten feet of trees could be cut, not all the trees, how- ever, Mr. Gardner said the building had to be moved a distance of 60 or more feet back, there is nothing in writing, and the business was dis- cussed with Mack Dean. Mr. Desantis emphasized that the applicant made representations to the Board, Mr. Eddy and the Warren County planning Board and, based on the veracity of the representations, approval was received. Mr. Gardner answered that he had not been back before any of the Boards to revise the plans. He had not been back because he had accepted in good faith communi- cation which was made through Mr. Dean, and that Mr. Dean stated the ·whole thing was with the blessings of this Board,· (change in the loca- tion of the second building). When trees were mentioned, Mr. Gardner said ·you have to cut trees in order to build the building.· He did, however, say it was not necessary to cut trees along Route 9 and between the exist- ing buildings, that topic was not discussed with Mr. Dean or anyone. At present, there are approximately 10 vehicles parked along Route 9, approxi- mately five trees were cut. At the immediate time, there are no photo- graphs available of the property showing any of the trees in the front. Damage to the vehicles is in the area of $5,000 to $7,000 over a period of about two years. Mr. Cartier volved in this Beautification, suggested project, even if that the Beautification Committee become in- and that pict~es be provided to the Board and they are poor. Mrs. Mann expressed her feelings 3 ,- -- ~ that the trees should be replaced, with perhaps street trees. The Board did verify to Mr. Gardner that, once a Site Plan is approved stating that the trees are to be retained, damaged trees are replaced and not arbitrar- ily destroyed. The Board verified to Mr. Roberts that the concensus was that ·size- able· trees should be replaced, that is the recommendation to the Town Board. Mr. Macri felt that there should be a re-establishment, in some way, of what was on the site prior to the cutting. Mrs. York suggested requesting a landscaping plan from Mr. Gardner. Mr. Macri made a motion to RECOMMEND to the Town Board that Mr. Gardner, applicant for Site Plan No. 29-87, Lake George RV SAles, is to re-submit a planting plan to the Planning Board and the Beautification Committee for their approval. Also, he is to submit photographs of the original site and elevations prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. pas.ed Unanimously OLD BUSIJŒSS SUBDIVISIOlC RO. 1-87, PRELIMINARY STAGE 1-lq-$ Dixon Heights, Phase III The application is for 58 Townhouse Units on the northeasterly side of Dixon Road, north of Halfway Brook, UR-IO. Mr. Frank Walter represented the application for C and I. Realty Asso- ciates, owners of the property, principles in the group are Carmen and Lou Massulo. Massulo Bros. will develop the roadways and utilities (water and stormwater). The subject Townhouse Units will be in the third and final phase of Dixon Heights. Approval has been received by the Town Water Dept., SPDES permit is on hand. The main problem seems to be discussion over a third entrance from Dixon Road. Originally there were two entran- ces proposed (Phase I southern, and Phase III northern). During the progress of Phase II, a road was connected to Dixon Road, which was the result of poor communications. The entry was not designed or paid for by the developer. The land involved is Town land, and any roads constructed will be on Town property. A meeting was held with the Town Supervisor, Highway Superintendent, and Town Attorney. Mr. Walter felt this was inconclusive, and he prepared designs of what might be done with the Tiffany Lane cut, these have been discussed with the Highway 4 --- Superintendent and, according to Mr. Walter, everyone seems to be non- committal. Mr. Walter affirmed to Mr. Roberts that the present proposal is one with three road cuts, which the Boards and the Highway Superintendent have vehemently said would not be approved. Mr. Walter said if the third road cut is not approved, then Phase III would be left isolated and the tiaffic would be pushed through the entire project, however, he is prepared to pre- sent two alternate designs eliminating what is now the second road cut. Controversy continued among the Board members and Mr. Walter on whether or not to proceed with the Site Plan, as the applicant has been advised prev- iously that three road cuts would not be allowed. Mr. Desantis felt strongly that there was no reason to discuss the application, because Mr. Walter had been advised at two previous meetings that a third road cut would not be acceptable. Mary Beth Sleven, Attorney for Massulo Bros., advised the Board that, since the last meeting, the participants have tried to come to a concensus as to what would be acceptable to the Town planning Board and Highway Supervisor, this was not obtained. The appli- cant is asking the Board to consider other proposals, input from the Board is needed. Mr. Dusek said that an outcome of the meeting was that Mr. Walter was to come to this meeting prepared to present a proposal with two road cuts, one each in Phase I and Phase III, in addition to a proposed remedy for Phase II, consisting of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Walter affirmed to Mr. Dusek that he did have the designs with him. In defense of tonight·s proposal, Mr. Walter reviewed that Phase I was developed entirely in accord with the Conceptual Plan, Phase II was modi- fied in the design process with the approval of the Board, and Phase II was constructed in accord with approved plans. The problem is that plans called for the road to be brought to the Old Dixon Road and be used as a fronting road, however, when the developers reached that point the road was gone. He emphasized that that was not the fault of the developers, there is nothing in writing as to who was responsible for the cut. Fur- ther controversy ensued as to whether to consider the application as filed, or whether to consider alternatives to the application. Mr. Dusek advised the Board that the applicant wants to show them what Phase II looks like, so that the Board can have more facts for their overall consid- eration. Mr. Roberts felt there was nothing wrong with the applicant pre- senting alternatives, therefore, Mr. Walter proceeded with his presentation. 1) Terminate would be in which would be Road. Tiffany Lane at installed and be to turn around. set back 8 ft. a turn-around, where a small hanmer-head large enough for town trucks and for cars, There would be suitable berms, guard rails from the edge of the pavement on new Dixon 2) Tiffany Lane would (restore old Dixon road. swing Road) around and be used as a fronting road and be brought to the northern-most entry 5 ..~ -- --- MJ;. Paul Naylo:r, Highway Supedntendent, said that he felt p:roposal '2 would not wo:rk, too much g:reen, caJ; lights would be dange:rous, and the de- sign would be unsafe fo:r winte:r use. MJ;. Naylo:r felt PJ;oposal '1 would be the p:refeJ;:red alteJ;native and suggested that the:re would be no acceptance of the :road fOJ; Phase III, until the Tiffany Lane hanune:rhead is completed. Even though the alte:rnatives were p:resented to the Boa:rd, M:rs. Yo:rk advised the Boa:rd that they could only vote on what has been submitted and what was stated on the Agenda. If there is to be a Workshop Session, it is usually done afte:r the meeting. PUblic B~in9' Ca:rmen Massulo. C and L Realty Associates (develope:r) MJ;. Massulo said he did not believe that M:r. Naylo:r's judgement to take out Dixon Road was w:rong, he feels that the p:rocedu:re in abandoning the :road was wrong. If a diffe:rent app:roach had been taken p:rio:r to :re- moving old Dixon Road, he feels that this situation would have been :reached last yea:r and it would facilitated changes to be made by the devel- ope:r. presently, changes a:re very difficult because the developer no longer owns the prope:rty (fo:r the p:roposed cul-de-sac), it is Town p:ro- pe:rty. He :requested that the planning Boa:rd vote tonight on Phase III, with the condition that something be done with Tiffany Lane that is ag:ree- able to the Highway Department. M:r. Hassulo affi:rmed that the:re a:re p:ro- pe:rty owne:rs on Tiffany Lane, but they a:re not :rep:resented at this meet- ing. The Michael's G:roup built the buildings, the:re a:re two :residents in the a:rea, mo:re p:rope:rties have been sold. M:r. Massulo advised the Boa:rd that he has spoken to the Michael's Group about the tUJ;D-a:round, he would get that in w:riting. Rega:rding buildings at the cul-de-sac, one is a model and the othe:r is not sold. M:r. DeSantis emphasized that the:re a:re people who a:re affected and who do not have notification of the cul-de-sac, p:ropeJ;ty owne:rs must be notified. Mr. Walte:r stated that the di:recto:r of the Homeowne:r's Association fo:r Dixon Heights said the associa- tion had no p:roblem in te:rminating Tiffany Lane, as long as the:re was a no:rthe:rn ent;ry. He also :requested that the Tiffany Lane ent:ry be left open, until const:ruction on Tiffany Lane was completed, this would allev- iate an ove:rflow of t:raffic in Phase I. PUblic _--.io, Clo.... M:rs. Mann moved DISAPPROVAL of Subdivision No. 1-87, Dixon Heights III prelimina:ry ApPJ;oval, based on totally incomplete information, including the :roadcut and owne:rship of prop:rties involved in Phase II that a:re :rele- vant to this app:roval, including Town of Queensbu:ry prope:rty. Phase III as submitted with the thi:rd roadcut is unacceptable. Seconded by H:r. Dybas. 6 ---- Pa.... Woant.øa.ly SIB PLAII _0. 12..88 R & M Woodbu~y pa~tn.~ship The application is fo~ the const~uction of 30,000 sq. ft. of Comme~- cial Office Space on the west side of Bay Road, no~th of the inte~section with Glenwood Avenue, HC-15. M~. Theodo~e Bigelow ~ep~esented the p~oject. In ~eview, p~eviously the~e was a p~oblem with 1) numbe~ of pa~king spaces and 2) sizing of the spaces. M~. Dusek was to complete an interp~etation of the pa~king situa- tion, the ~eview indicates 1/100 squa~e feet. That would have to apply even to a p~ofessional office building that is sepa~ate and apa~t f~om the home. The Planning Boa~d does have the disc~etion inasMUch as allowing g~een space instead of pa~king space. The Boa~d cannot alte~ the numbe~ of pa~king spaces (that would be a v~iance). M¡¡. Bigelow advised the Boa~d that the pa~king has been ~e-designed, all spaces a~e 10 x 20 ft. and the numbe~ has been inc~eased to 174. The develope~s a~e asking fo~ app~oval to build the f~ont po~tion of the build- ing, 17,280 sq. ft. (8,600 feet/floo~). A pa~king lot was added nea~ Glen- wood Avenue. The f~ont po~tion of the building is 72 x 120 ft. fo~ each f loo~. The develope~s would like to see the southeast pa~king lot (14 spaces) and a po~tion of the ea8te~ly pa~king lot (32 spaces) that f~onts Bay Road ~emain left g~een, thus the~e would be 128 paved pa~king spaces, .76 pa~king spaces/lOO sq. ft.. The~e a~e fou~ handicapped pa~king spaces. twon in f~ont and two in back. Public lI~iDgl Richa~d Jones, A~chitect, ve~ified to the Boa~d that these plans a~e basically ve~y simila~ to the o~iginal plans. The building will be two-sto~y, with dorme~s added, the scale of the building will be kept down because the~e is nothing that big in the neighbo~hood, wood f~ame build- ing, ~esidential in natu~e with pe~haps b~ick o~ stone venee~, an elevato~ located in a vestibule. Public B~iÞl Clo.ed. M~. Dybas moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 12-88, R & M Woodbu~y Pa~t- ne~ship, listed as Building No.1, consisting of 72 x 120 ft., two sto~ies. Pa~king is no longe~ a p~oblem. Building '2 will be delayed until pa~king ~egulations change o~ a Va~iance is ~eceived. The devel- ope~s will remove and leave g~e.n the southeaste~ly and easte~ly parking lots, which have 14 and 32 spaces ~espectively. 7 - -- Seconde4i by ~s. Levar:ulowski SVBDIVISIOII 110. 3-86 Hidden Hills (Note I Mr. DeSantis questioned why Hidden Hills was being conducted unde3< Old Business. He 3<eminded the Boa3<d that, at the June meeting the motion to APPROVE Subdivision No. 3-86 was defeated 413. Ms. Y03<k advised this stenog~aphe~ that, although the applicant was advised at the time to 3<e-apply, no new application was ~equested and no fee was paid.) At this meeting, p~oblems will be discussed concerning the const3<uc- tion of the ~oads on Oak T3<ee Ci3<cle, SFR-10. The~e a~e p~oblems a~e with the design g3<ades. M~. Raymond Buckley, enginee~ ~esponsible fo~ the o~iginal design and wo~king on the p~esent design 3<evision, ~ep3<esented the p3<oject. The develope~s would like to 10we3< the ~oad g3<ades and ~educe the amount of g~ading ~equi3<ed on seve3<al lots in the cente~ a~ea. The sto3<m d3<ainage system had to be ~e-designed, wAich now incotPo~ates 3<ecu~ging of the g~ound wate~, in addition to tying into tAe o3<iginal system that has been mostly constructed. As a ~esult of the change, the p~ofile of the p~o- posed 3<oad would be lowe~ed by about five feet. Pe~fo~ated pipe would be added, which will take ca~e of most of the stOnt wate3<, howeve~, the~e ~e- mains a connection into the o~iginal system. Prope~y lines have not been changed, however, a stOnt wate~ easement us been added. In the Sp~ing the~e is occasionally a wate~ problem, by lowe~ing the drainage system, the easement can be left to pick up the wate3<. Mr. Nick Scia3<telli of Mo~se Enginee3<ing, ~eview enginee~, advised he is in favo3< of the project, because of the elimination of backwate~. Mr. Naylo~, Highway Supe~intendent, stated he ag3<ees with the changes. Mr. Macri exp~essed his concern about the affect on the neighbo3<s, with the new drainage system. He was advised that the neighbo~s were assured that Hidden Hills would accept wate~ f3<om them, but would not di~ect any to tnem. Tnis would help the neighbo~s. Mr. Naylo~ spoke about the easement p3<oblem in the Land of Pines. He requested tut the~e be stipulation on the map that the wate~ will move out and not in. M~. DeSantis suggested it be put on the plat, while M~. Steves suggested making a two-lot ~evision of the subdivision on Oak T~ee Circle, WAich would be c~oss-indexed at the Couty Cle~k's Office and he would clea~ the easement on the lots. 8 -- M~s. Mann moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 3-86, Hidden Hills, as p~e- sented, with the following stipulation. M~. Leon Steves will create a two- lot subdivision to be filed with the map stating the drainage easement location and filed on the plat submitted fo~ approval. The easement will be clea~ed on the lots. Seconded by ~. Dybas. Pa.... uaniaouly SUBDIVISIOII 80. 1-83, FINAL STAGE Stonec~oft, Section III This application is fo~ five lots north of West Mountain Road, SR-30A. M~. Leon Steves represented the project and stated there were no other changes. Mr. Desantis did request that a profile on Lot 19. M~. Steves said that the p~ofile on the driveway showed 8.191, there was an alter- ation to the ~ain. A letter f~om the Wate~ Depa~tment states that no Town wate!{ will be released above the 550 ft. elevation (Exhibit C), the~e- fore, a well has been proposed, and a yield and quality quantity test can be obtained from a neighboring well. There also could be a holding tank with a booste~ pump (this is not being p~oposed because a well is more realistic). Mr. Macri asked that the map include, fo~ Lot 19, a statement to the effect that the lot cannot be built on, unless a well is provided. Mr. Robe~ts ~eminded that the Board is amending the existing plat, as well as app~oving the new fou~-lot subdivision. Mr. app~oval, Robe~ts ~eceipt Steves advised the Board that he has not received permanent health due to employment p~oblems at the Department of Health. M~. advised there could be app~oval from the Planning Board, pending of the health app~oval. M~. Desantis moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 1-83, FINAL STAGE, Stonecroft, Section III, subject to receive of the Department of Health approval, and subject to the plat being submitted to the Chairman, citing that water will not be supplied to Lot 19. Seconded by Mr. Macri. Pas." Uaanï.o..ly SITE PLAII 80. 25-88 10 ~..\~ 9 -- The Langan G~oup Langan Motors The application is fo~ the construction of a car sales/service facility, on the south side of Quake~ Road, approximately 800 feet northwest of the intersection of Quaker Road and Dix Avenue, PC-1A. M~. Roberts ~eviewed f~om the last meeting that the Board requested info~tion ~ega~ding the reduction of entrances f~om three to two, and a sto~ wate~ drainage system that would keep sto~ water on-site. Mr. Cartier requested to know who in the Town had the authority to add items to the Agenda. Ms. York stated that the Town Board can request that items be added, usually Staff prepares the Agenda. Dick Jones, Project Architect, represented the application and stated that the center entry was removed, there is handicap parking on the west side of the building, there is additional planting which was discussed with the Beautification Committee, and a sto~ water drainage plan was designed with a se~ies of dry wells around the back pe~imeter of the p~o- pe~ty, and there a~e some sto~m wate~ control a~eas on the front side of the property. Contact had been made with C. T. Male, who has reviewed the stormwate~ situation fo~ Ea~ltown, and they do ag~ee with the system. Quentin Kestner, Reviewing Bnginee~, stated he submitted a letter dated 7/19/88 (Exhibit D) and reviewed the stormwater plan, which he finds acceptable. Conce~ns ~egarding the runoff have been addressed to his sat- isfaction, and ~eqeusted that the plan approved by C. T. Male become part of the app~oval. PUblic HUI'img. no comment. PUblic Bearing Closed M~. Mac~i moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 25-88, The Langan Group/- Langan Motors, based on the ~eview of the application by Mr. Q. Kestne~, Town Designated Consltant. Seconded by Mrs. Mann. pas.ed Unaaimously RBW BtJSIDSS SITE PLAlI 110. 27-88 10 --- / '-~ ChuJ:ch of OUJ: Lady of the Annunciation The plan is fOJ: a 5,144 sq. ft. addition of fou~ classJ:ooms and Pa~ish Office, UR-5. MJ:. Michael O'COnDOJ:, Esq., stated he was in attendance on behalf of the Chu~ch of Ou~ Lady of the Annunciation, is appeaJ:ing as attoJ:ney fOJ: the ChuJ:ch and a180 as T¡rustee. The pJ:oposal is an intenlal addition to the facilities of the chuJ:ch. To be built is an educational wing and a small addition to the J:ecto~y. The~e is no plan to change to t~affic flow OJ: pa~king fo~ the site. The additions will not incJ:ease the volume of the use of the site, and will be used fop the ppesent activities. MJ:. O'CODDOJ: int~oduced FatheJ: FJ:ench and VictoJ: Cinguino, A~chitect fOJ: the pJ:oject. M~. Cinguino intJ:oduced the plan as Phase II. He J:eviewed that app~oximately 12 yeaJ:s ago a MasteJ: Plan was pJ:esented, and Phase I was a multi-puwose and activity space fOJ: the chuJ:ch. The educa- tional wing was on Phase I, howeveJ:, funds at the time did not pendt con- stJ:uction. This pJ:oposal is to complete the MasteJ: Plan, by p~oviding the classJ:oom spaces fOJ: the ongøing p~og~ams. The educational wing is in- tended to s eJ:V ice the childJ:en fpom tàe QueensbuJ:Y Schools, childJ:en gJ:ades 1 - 4 aJ:e bussed. In addition to tàe classJ:ooms, the~e is faculty space and some expansion of chuJ:cà offices, a small addition to the J:ecto~y (expansion of living space), and one sleeping a~ea fo~ visiting pJ:iests, etc. COJ:J:espondence. WaJ:J:en County apPJ:oved without comment. The Site Plan Checklist was J:eviewed. C. PARltIRG ARD UNLOADING AREAS. Additional sidewalks will be c~eated, whe~e the~e a~e none ppesently. ChildJ:en Gpades 1 - 4 aJ:e bussed, beyond that they a~e not. High school does meet at nigàttime. It was noted theJ:e is one other building on the site located undeJ: some tJ:ees. Public HeQ7iD,. GeoJ:ge Savale, TJ:ustee of the Masonic Hall Association Tàe Masonic Hall owns the pJ:opeJ:ty to tae ~eaJ: of the subject site. M~. Savale is favo~ of the pJ:oject. The Masonic Hall has ~eceived approval for plans which include a joint dJ:iveway that will se~vice the ~eaJ: of the chuJ:ch, as well as the Queensbu~y Methodist Church and the Masonic Hall papking facility. The traffic will apppove, and the Masonic Hall is going aàead with its plans, getting clea~ title and app~ovals have been a ppoblem, but those situations have been ~esolved, the pJ:ope~ty has been sUJ:veyed. 11 "~lic Heari.. Cl.... Mr. Dybas moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 27-88, Church of Our Lady of the Annunciation, as it complies with all ordinances and represents appro- priate use of the property. Seconded by Mr. DeSantis. .as." "aui_sly SIft .LAII HO. 28-88 Stan's Seafood The request is to demolish the existing building and excavate, and to rebuild the restaurant and wholesale business at 278 Bay Road, LI-1A. Curtis Dybas, Cushing, Dybas Assoc., represented the project and con- firmed that this is a new application and a new business. The building size has been reduced from the previously proposed size to 4,900 sq. ft., structure is wood frame, partial basement to be used for storage and mech- anical equipment. parking includes 49 public spaces, 7 employee spaces (14 employees) along the south fence, two handicap spaces near the main entrance, parking space size is 10 x 20 ft., driving lanes are 24 feet. Setback requirements have been meta South - 24 ft, North - 50 ft. Public parking and access is primarily along the north side of the site. Loading area is on south .ide, 12 x 40 ft. long area. South line will be screened by a chain link fence, with webbing, there will be green area in front with plantings. Permeability will be 28.5'. Regarding site drainage, there are no remaining Town hookups into which the project could be connected, there is an existing catch basin on site, which can be used. The footprint of restaurant will meet business, the Health jurisdiction. the building will not change, and all aspects of the the NYS Building Code. Because of the wholesale permit is under Interstate Commerce which is Federal warren County approved with conditions (Exhibit E), the applicant has no problems with the conditions as part of the application. 1) storm- water, 2) no storage of garbage outside the building, 3) parking meet Town standards, 4) landscaping per Beautification COlDIQittee. Mr. Dybas re- quested that the landscaping project be held off until planting season in April. A letter from Mr. Eddy, Beautification COlDIQittee (Exhibit F), gave approval, providing an interest-bearing escrow account be established to guarantee that plantings will be made according to submitted plans. Mr. Dusek said that perhaps the Town could hold it on account. Mr. Dybas confirmed that this would be satisfactory to the applicant. 12 Mr. Dybas advised the Board that a roof leader from the adjacent pro- perty (Brennan's Quik Print) is discharging onto the site. He feels this should be addressed, there is no way that the dry well system could handle the runoff. The adjacent property is a higher elevation. Mr. Macri felt this is a problem for the applicant. Mr. DeSantis asked the Board to consider eliminating four parking spaces on the south side of the building, where there is bi-directional traffic flow, in addition to the traffic in the receiving/wholesale area. The Board agreed that the four spaces should not be paved, primarily because of safety. There was also discussion concerning signage. Quentin Kestner commented on the project in his 7/19/88 letter (Exhibit G). The restaurant will be served by municiple facilities of the Queensbury Water District and Central Queensbury sewer district, the facilities are available today. Mr. size of have to existing, approval. Ling wanted to confirm that this is an expansion from the present 4,200 sq. ft. to 4,900 sq. ft. In addition, the applicant will apply for a Use Variance, because it is an expansion of a pre- non-conforming use, that fact should be a condition of an Public: Heariagl Mrs. Elizabeth Marsicoveterel (formerly Mrs. Stan Kostek, divorced in 1987) Mrs. Marsicovetere advised the Board that presently she is a co-owner of the property and is a shareholder of the Corporation, and that she had not been consulted about this application. Her lawyer will be seeing Judge Dyer and is expecting a restraining order. Mrs. Marsicovetere is requesting that the Board withhold a decision, until the court determines a rUling. Mr. Dusek advised that he is not prepared to offer any decision as to the effect on the application, and that the application and the law will have to be reviewed extensively. Mr. DeSantis requested that a copy of the deed be supplied to Counsel. Mr. Dybas advised the Board that he was notified of this situation earlier in the afternoon by Mrs. Marsicovetere's lawyer, Charles Kris. Mrs. Marsicovetere mentioned that the original property is not the only property owned, property was purchased from Doyle's. Originally, there were three, 50-foot wide x 150 deep lots on Bay Road, and a 100 x 100 ft. lot in the rear. Mr. Dybas does not know if it is contiguous, ultimately it could be four separate lots. Some members of the Board felt that determining identity of the owner(s) was more a matter for the court and that the review should continue. Frank T. Collinsl 14 Dix Avenue. 13 --,' Mr. Collins' concern was the fence between his and Stan's property. If this application is approved, Stan is to erect a chain link fence six inches from the one belonging to Mr. Collins, the fence will go east/west along the property line to within 50 feet of Bay Road. Mr. Collins felt the fence should continue to the road as his does, however, the Board felt this is not practical because of visibility for exiting cars from Stan's driveway. (Mr. Collins stated previously that Stan was to have put up a fence and never did, so Mr. Collins installed one. Mr. Dybas presented proof that Stan had paid for fencing, $625.95, and a letter stating that Stan was suing the fence company for not doing the work.) Mr. Collins questioned the four parking lots that will not be paved. The Board reiterated that there will be 45 spots, plus the four which could be paved at the appropriate time. The location of assured Mr. Collins to be internal. the dumpster was also a concern. However, the Board that in the previous plan the trash system was shown Mr. Collins said that he advised Warren County that his fence would come down, once Stan erected his. Mr. DeSantis requested to know if it would be acceptable to Mr. Collins, assuming site conditions are correc- tion, that the applicant's fence be installed within 25 feet of the side- walk, as opposed to the present 50 fifty currently shown, and that he take down 25 feet of his fence, so that cars leaving the site could look to the south safely. Mr. Collins said he would not take down the first 25 feet, because he has been improving the area, but will take down the rest. Mr. DeSantis suggested that the applicant change the plans and move the fence to within 25 feet of the sidewalk, and that Mr. Collins could leave his up, if desired. It was also stipulated that the second fence (named in this application) would have the slats inserted, not Mr. Collins' fence.. Mr. Kestner pointed out that the applicant should modify and adjust the sidewalk to suit pedestrian traffic, as it will now exist and bear the cost of the modifications in accordance with what the County requires. Mrs. Doyle a Mrs. Doyle asked verification that the trash containers. Answers Yes, there will be facilities for internal trash disposal/storage inside the building. Mr. Roberts was unsure if a dumpster would be involved. The Site Plan Checklist was reviewed (Exhibit I). Mr. Roberts advised the Board that a majority plus one will be neces- sary for an Approval, in order to override the Warren County stipulation of four parking spaces on the south side of the property, making 49 park- ing spaces. PuJtlic Jluri.. Cloa_ 14 --./' Mrs. Levandowski moved APPROVAL of Site Plan 28-88, Stan's Seafood, per the attached stipulationsl Site Plan Review Checklist Warren County Planning Board Stipulations Quentin Kestner's Consulting Engineer report of 7/19/88 Beautification Committee Stipulations. Other than the escrow for the landscaping, these conditions must be completed and in place, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. OWnership of the property(s) will be determined as a judicial matter. Seconded by Mr. Macri. pas.ed 5 Yes (Macri, DeSantis, Mann, Levandowski, Roberts) 1 No (Cartier) 1 Abstain (Dybas) Mr. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 11120 p.m. 1?¿~c/R~ t2- Richard Roberts, Chairman Date ~};¡ ilW/~ Moeller, Stenographer ç. /. err Date 15 '-- {;fiut. fl.'Lr- C<A 1-~1c- z;~ < ¿J'(.r~J.-¿" I /9'87 "'---'T,'1TJ~"~~.TI ~.~..;;c yy,~ ""'._'Y""'.".>;w~_.,,~.. Mr. Martin read a letter dated May 12, 1987 from the Water Department. Mr. Martin read a Jetter from Morse Engineering which gave l1Ïs approval for Phase I. ' Mr. Roberts said that a letter from the fire company has been received. . Mrs. Lcvandowski MOVED FINAL APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 15-86, Lehland Park, Phase I as it meets all new standards of highway and water as set by the Town departments. Second by Mrs. Mann. Pas/red Unanimously. " SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. Z9-87 Lake George RV Sales ..Ii. ".; Mr. Roberts read the application for construction of a garage on the property situated on Houte 9, at intersection of Hidden Farm Road in a Highway Commercial 15 zone. Edward Gardner, owner, representeël the project. He said the building will be of fire proof protection. It will be added to the west side of the building. Mr. Roberts said that they are not dealing with any setback problems. '. WaiTen County Planning Board approved. The Beautification Committee approved. Comments were made by the Beautification Committee. They were as folJows: "Edward T. Gardner, applicant has submitted plans for construction of a garage addition to his existing store building. The addition, as shown in the enclosed letter, will match the Board and Batting siding of the existing building and will be set back in the existing trees. The rustic appeitrance will be retained so there appears no need for screening and no chance of plantings 01· landscaping." CJÅ4-t"t"'Y Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mrs. Mann MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan Review No. 1.9-87, Lake George RV Sales. The applicant' has meet with the Beautification Committee. This seems to be in keeping with what is allowed; appears to not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Second by Mr. Macri. Passed Unanimously. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-87. Final Approval .: Brookfield Estates, Phase I EXH~BIT Al 'Ó"~ . .___::._. .~..___.. .'~. . .'..- - ---~~.. .- -- .. .. ...- .~ t ..-...~._.~.-.~---~_. .,' ..-.- ..---- -.--. .--.--- -.----.- .. ~< . '--- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 TOI (x) Warren County ~a~ng Board Date. ·(x) Queensbury Towñ1fõä~d ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of APpeals (x) Applicant 10/12/87 Re. Site Plan #29-87 Lake George Campsite & RV Sales, Inc. Route 9 We have reviewed the' request for. ( ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval Edward T. Gardner, applicant has submitted plans for construction of a garage addition to his existing store building. The addition, as shown in the enclosed letter, will match the Board and Batting siding of the existing building and will be set back in the existing trees. ' The rustic appearance will be retained so there appears no need for screening and no chance of p1antings or landscaping. '. " In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. . ~ctfull~ sU,bmi tt ~d, r. é d~ Ro ert L. Eddy, C«airman EXHIBIT A2a '-- -:::2\(ÏOV \...1"...... .::....-- ~ ~--~-- _~ ~.-.."-;:;'t <I.'" . o ~ I~ & '11 ? I'! <t \- '1 . III ~~ ~~ - .0 o . . 0: (' I) o . . }- { '"" .:'i~ ~~ c\~ Q~ J .., - ~ CI q D. ---.:: ._ .---- 0 ~__ VV ,øV'i:. (;~ ~ . _ ...~ 0",0,,-2 o~ \ "- ------/ -t--- I'~'pd"_' t . - - () ~ a.;, Q\-: ~ 'I) .'11 ~ ~¡~ "". (\~...J - ¿) o o '1 · 3 EXHIBIT A2b 7 -r.t <:J\{\ . -...\ '1 ~~ \!)~ Û} N ,-:-J ú) ~ \L ~2 -<l Ù \1 1 I t:} I'- () ~-:r ú' "J .J ~ ~) ~ ~'~ 0 () }- \U Ul ø- iI J) \4 8- ð ). ,) -.¡ C'! ~ \) ") ~ t-J P ~ I.L ~) 0 'IJ 7 ~~ <!. ~\ -..1 \I '" \-- ~ -~ ú\~ I -4 )/ / -~ \- ~. '-\ Z ~1 /~' '" I,)~' ~ Q R NC! ~~ 0 ~ u - ~~~I' ~ ~- - _~i~~ \i! ~ ¡he! ùI-~ '; 1(7]. ?.7/1/ .', .)....., ~ ()' C" I J \_ t, f'j dr' .?9r'7~7 I" ~ ~ '~ i -; Q If) UJ \- -.-- --- -.... ------.. - - - Lake Georee Campsite '" RIJ Sales. Inc. Edward T. Gardner President R,D. #2. BOX 4 LAKE GEORGE ROAD GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801 (518) 798·6218 . ~'. October 12, 1987 Robert L. Eddy Chairman, Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification Town Office Building Queensbury, N.Y. 12801 Dear Mr. Eddy: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of today, enclosed is a completed form and copy of the proposed site plan for the garage addition we would like to build. All existing trees on the property will be retained and the exterior of the addition will match the existing building. Please contact me if you or your committee members have any questions or suggestions. Many thanks for your cooperation. EXHIBIT A3 "..- ~Jown 0/ C),¡.eendbuf''j FIHE pnEVEN'rION I BUILDING CODE AND ZONING EtJFORCElw1ENT Order to Remedy Violation DATE May 23 19 88 TO Mr. Edward T. Gardner ImV ~lH 011 AUlI10/uZED'ACEIH OF OWNER) RR5 Box 5 Lake George Rd. (A!JDIi£S$ Queensbury, N.Y. 12801 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THERE EXISTS A VIOLATION OF: N.Y. 5T ATE FIRE PREVo & BLDG. CODE ZONING ORDINANCES xx OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS. ORDINANCES OR REGULATIONS I...T pnEMISES HEREII-JAFTER DESCRIBED IN,THAT cutting of trees at Camp Store -1':rI...lI~ "fI....'.,...: h:t..u' WIIoJ.-.IIUh) and R.V. Sales Location in direct conflict with Queensbury p ann~ng tioara approval of Site Plan Review Type II #29-87 of October 26, 1987. IN VIOLATION OF Art. 4 Sec. 4.040b & Art. 5 Sec. 5.020 Said violation requires reapplication for Site Plan Review by Queensbury I~I~I. ~,,¡;lIùlllJ' ¡¡~rÓlgl~ph 01 ..pph.:..!.¡" 101", C"úl/......;o: ", '''¡J''''oIlIúlIlPlanning Board. YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND TO flEt\-1EDY THE CONDITIONS ABOVE MENTIONED FORTHWITH ON OR BEFORE THE 25th DAY OF Hay 19 ~. rl'HE PREl"lISES ':['0' -~'JHICH 'THIS' ORDER TO REMEDY VIOLATION REFEHS !\fd~ S ITUArrED Arl' Wft. RR5 Box '4 Lake Geor-g;- Rd. S2oooa~/Hoad . IN 'rUE COUN'I'Y OF vJARHEN, SHOWN ON 'l)HE rrOWN 'l'AX NAP' AS ~;ECTION 73 ,BLOCK 1 ,LOT 8.1 FAILURE TO REMEDY THE CONDITIONS AFORESAID AND TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLI· CABLE PROVISIONS OF LAWS MAY CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY FINE. ~ ~ /It;: COLle Enforccllwn t Of f iccr (fJ~ 'l't-'\d¡ or QlI"'C'n,~bul-Y 11.:.:-; <)íI n;,y nOild, QUècn!;bury, N.Y. l~no] - ']'.::1. (Sll1) 70'! ~OJ:? ®~ '--, '--./ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER DEPARTMENT R.D. 2 CORINTH ROAD * QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12801 * PHON E 793-8866 American Waler Works ASSOciation MEMBER THOMAS K. FLAHERTY, C.E.T. Su perintendent RALPH V AN DUSEN Chief Operator-Laboratory Director May 17, 1988 Mr. William Threw Big Bay Road Glens Falls, New York 12801 Dear Bill: It is my understanding that you are preparing plans for Stonecroft Section 3. It appears to me that part of this section (lot 19) will be at an elevation above 550 feet. At 550 feet there is only 30 PSI of water pressure. As you go uphill that pressure would decrease and eventually become O. Therefore I would reccomend that this portion of section 3 not be served by the Queensbury Water Department. I would also note that some of the other lots may need booster pumps as were necessary in section 2. If you have any further questions please contact me. S7J/,lY~. þD(r V;;:y~ Ralph VanDusen Deputy Superintendent RVD/tr cc: Lee York EXHIBIT C '- ESTABLISHED IN 1955 KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. C. CONSULTING EÑGINEERS JOSEPH A. KESTNER. JR.. P.E., loS. MARK lo KESTNER. P.E. QUENTIN T. KESTNER. P.E. ANTHONY M. KESTNER, B.S. ONE KEST'ER L.-\M TROY. NEW YORK 12180 518-273-7446 K. WAYNE BUNN, P.E. JAMES ). SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE. S.E.T. July 19, 1988 Ms. Lee York Town Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Building Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12801 RE: Town of Queensbury site Plan Review No. 25-88 - Langan Group Dear Ms. York: This letter serves as an amendment to my letter of June 16, 1988, which provided guidance to the Planning Board concerning the subject project. On Tuesday, July 12, 1988, 'I received one copy of Drawing No. S3 along with three pages of calculations which describe the architect's storm-water drainage plan. Storm-water control areas have been created in the front of the site, and dry wells have been added along with interconnecting piping in both the storm-water control areas and the perimeter of the site. Dry wells are also shown receiving roof drainage. No specific soil information was provided, but it is assumed that the soils will adequately percolate the collected storm water.. The calculations provided indicate that the storm- water control areas will provide the necessary storage for a 10-year rainfall occurrence. should be of reinforced concrete traffic tops and sufficient pervious the dry wells to allow for adequate The proposed dry wells precast manufacture with material should surround permeability. It is also my understanding that this plan has been reviewed by representatives of Earltown Corporation. MUNICIPAL E;>;GINEERING WATER. SEWAGE. AND DR-tI~~BÉ't6T:fivIS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTION. METERING & SM\"PLI~G CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ·' ''-.- \--.r Ms. Lee York Town Planner -2- . July 19, 1988 Based on the above I would recommend· that the Planning Board accept the storm-water plan and that the calculations and Drawing No. S3 become part of the approved drawings. Sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS, P.C. Quentin T. Kestner, P.E. Vice President QTK/cp cc: Dan Ling, Assistant Planner '. ~. EXHIBIT D ....----' ~ ..... "" ",,,\ 0' ,n~~" 'í - Ii " J,., . ., I:... ¡\ ~ ~ì -1. ; ~ ~-t :~ ::~~ 'f..... ~\.,F,'...· WARREN COUNTY 11 PLANNING BOARD Warren County Municipal Cenler Lake George, New York 12845 T clcphOIl( ~'8·16' ·6~ '0 DATE: Ju1v 13. 1988 RE: SP28/88 TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Office Town Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12801 Cent1emen/Ladies: At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of July , the above application for a site plan review to demolish existing building and rebuild restaurant, retail and wholesale business, on 32,500 sq. ft. parcel. Stan's Seafood 274 Bay Road was reviewed, and the following aceion was taken. Recommendation to: ( ) Approve ( ) Disapproval (X' Modify with Conditions ( Comment: Re turn s- £¿ ðfTl1-c./lé-ò s .#é¿TS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the procedures of the New York State General Municipal Lay, Section 239-M, with regard to Municipal Zoning accions that are referred to and reported thereon. The following are proced~ral requirements that must be adhered to: 1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement for such actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon time, the m~nicipal agency may act without such report. 2.) If the recommendation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification thereof, the eun1cipa1 agency shall not act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after che adoption of å resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. J.) Within seven (7) days afte~ th~·final action by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations. modifications or disapproval of a referrÆtt IL1tter, such municipality agency shall file a report with th.e \ó..rren County Plannin Board on the necessary form. a¡ \ .,' Y / 'JR ViT1c~T1t Spitzer, Vice ChairmAn ,I· hÚ/ ~1('r.1 EXHIBIT Èl .. -- -' \ ,-" - WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518-761-6410 The Warren County Planning Board made a motion for approval of Stan's Seafood with the following conditions: 1) that the existing County storm sewers not be hooked up to or utilized by the applicant's proposed sewer system and that any change of this be approved by the County Highway Superintendent in writing; 2) all trash be contained within the building and that there be no outside storage of any material whatsoever; 3) parking must meet the Towns' parking standards, properly lined and marked spaces, and fire lanes as required shall remain open for emergency vehicles at all times; 4) the landscaping plans be done as per Beautification Committee and all conditions outlined shall be completed and inspected by the Town Zoning Administrator and written certification that these conditions have been met shall be submitted to both Planning Boards prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy. See attached correspondence submitted as part of the record of the July 13, 1988 meeting which also echoes Warren County Planning Board concerns about the applicants' past performance record. EXHIBIT E2 ----_..~ --,.._-- ,-' ~aJlciJ 7. & E¡i!(!eH 7J. e,-~åiú.¡ P .0. Bo;·; 64 Glens ralls, Ne~ York 12801 July 13, 1988 To The Board: Mr. Stanislaw Kostek is scheduled to appear before the Planning Board for the purpose of a site plan review. He is requesting permission to replace his existing restaurant, known as Stan's Seafood, with a new building. ' Enclosed is a letter from the Warren County Planning Board dated April 21, 1982. This letter lists the several concerns the Board had regarding Variance #749. The legitimacy of these concerns is evidenced by the fact that none of the Board's recommendations were carried out by Mr. Kostek. Also, enclosed is a letter from our lawyers to the Queensbury Building Inspector dated April 30, 1986. It details the history of Mr. Kostek's non compliance with the conditions of Variance #749. Mr. Kostek has appeared before various Boards in the past and promised that if he is granted the variance he seeks, it will enable him to correct the problem of the moment. This has not been the case. All conditions of all 4 Variances granted in the past have been violated. Surely this strongly indicates that any conditions attached to any new Variance demanded by this newly proposed building would also be violated. We respectfully request that the Planning Board consider these facts when it reviews the proposed site plan. We wish to go on record as strongly objecting to any proposed changes which would result in the new building under review advancing in any degree toward our property lines. Very ~y~. urs, ~~ uÆ~ F.T. & E.P. Collins /mh Encs. EXHIBIT E3 .-IT J : ~ ~'. "". ~ .... :.... :... . , :.:-. j c r, ...... ;- .i . " ~ . , '-/-..... ... . , I ::" ::: '- !'. ~~ : I C í¡:. "..~::~.'«.... :',) , :. \' . I·~;r! \\ ~'~;~I!'- (~(H!r J!4(;~) ,';",hn C. \~;..nn1)' ,L'T,n C LI'mpn !;"tl/'r\.ì E;¡fin I;, ~,.~;.Ir,¡r. r:. Prilll, .h, .1(..( ph ',j W;.lsh 't~;erh (1 ~·:ìÍ1('hrl(~r· r';IiI,p1"1 L W(JI~f. .Jr." ~.~n~¡r.r; ./'.. \'";;tit··· nixil' .~_, H;¡O.?w;¡\' (t.":'. F;H;~~_:'..L' S1 r-.T:I:.T F'L.!..?~l r.o Box if;;) GL['\~f'·~.LL~,,!~E\'. YOP.E ]~I<(lj (¿,J bJ 7g~~·6(j] J (ok jl:~! I.h!-~U·tfi rJiÎf*('~ L,¡r)l (Ed ¡.;) ,,¡..¿.. F', 4 ~ ZGr!·~r! ~'( ¿'J~ï!-t~j:~!-t:~; Sar-"!,,p~ Orrirl' 4(j;. Broaòwl!\ ~'r.'¡'l"p.. ~priT1l-", ~f'''' Yod; J~¡';(;(; ¡::J~, 5!<4·~ 4 J 2 ," . .,..... .\,"r-'llt_'!, ~:~.._.-tH-II· Þ..pril 30, 1986 .., I... "rot. -:.,.1' ir. T'"., )'....'"':r't(1 .!' r-,,::,...,·,ill. ... "i.. .!.r..,.,:;lf'O("' It ~".'" J-:ÒI!.~: ...hir. ~...?c Dean Building anà Zoning Þ.d.inir.:srratcr To~n of Queensbury Esy at Savilanà Roaà Q~?~~sbury, NY 12801 -, :-,e: Stan's SeafooG :s¡;:o~ :E.',;;¡-2f1t ~, . ""-' ~ V~r~ar ~~ ;;io:~tio~s I:.:õ::,:- !,"r. üë:ë.n: ',' ~';2 Te?re~.ent fr3-!)): ¿~: L:'les" ':::c·lli:-:s '..':-10,2::: YOt; IT,~Y !:TlC.'Ÿ.·, o\.,·n J:)ro~)e.rty ijt~j:-::=.ië:..-=-ly ~.:':'~t.;-: ê.~A¿· ý;·es:. c.<:: ~rJE pro;,erty o~i}ed b}- St~ni£:¿~ TG£~e}: ~n~ ~s~c for ~i~ b~£i:-Jess, S~èn1E Seëfc)(ì¿. ~..r; Ï<,=.rcb 3C, lSS2 ~j~. 'F::J~-t.ej: S1.:::"'fïlitteò an applicõ':ior: Lo tj/2 'L:,.....¡-, oi:: O'..)!.:",:-,'.:::):.".:,)' L.C>Ding Beard of Appeals for a use ~ë.rian2e ~ith r~g2ró ~Q his 284 Bay Street property so as to pe:mit him to cc~s~ruct a sixteen foot by t~enty-iour foot 2õóition to hi~ res~ëuraD~. The application stated that the propcseó use of the ¿õdition would be ~storage, freezer, cooler, prep room, ~3ste èispcsa1, etc. but insteaà of e. !Jl.:'TT.ber of at"-ac~;e¿ e.nà ur.attached builòings anã sr,eàs of ",:ë:rious :':n:>e£, \o,'e propcse to occupy same S?ðCe bu~ ~o put existing an¿ proposed Gnder Gne Ioof.ft In res?onse to the ~u~s~ion on the application form ~hether the propose¿ use would constitut~ an aàverse effect on ttJe n~i9t)t'0rh(~o¿ cha=acter the applicant stated that ft~e feel this propcse6 s'.:.ructure ~ill not only allo~ for better workf)o~ but ~ill also add to the outside .?_~;:) e {~.E.5~_c e _~i_ the bu i 1 à i ; ~.__~-ñ ò --~! e è by Lf= e DIrï'G2.1T-·-- o~eraticns ~naer one roo~...· On ~pril 22, 1982 the Town of CHJS-e¡;SSury -i:On{ng Boã-¡Óûf .2:f,;>~a}s gran:_eà the requested ·,'arianee (Vari,ance No. Î49). ,'Jo-..;e..-er, pursuant to its terms the 30ard granted this variance with the following cDnàitions: 1. ·Screening per Qileenshury Beautification Requirementsft and EXHIBIT E4 ..-.~--_._-_.._,. . ----.-.--- U__""_'__e._ ._ ---~._-_.. .-."-,--~ - "-""'_...~-~- .,~ ··H .. ~__.....__ '- ~ . rN0o'ùtEiò!:. ---.-....... =. L. ,_._ c.. _:: ~ ~ ~'- é;:-," :~~.~. nã., ~ ~ ~~_~_ i rr~é" . 'Jh~ scre:=:.ning \o,hicr, thE: ¡,ar-line:; :Öoë.:rå of }..D¡:·e?-:'s refers to is ~~~~iJe¿ in 2 letter from the Que=~sbury Co~ttt~e for Cc·:-:r.ü:!)ty Beautificé::.ion to the Zonina Board of _~_DDf::als. Thõt letter calls for -2 E~llock heõo~ of sffiall E~~locks two feet apart along the South siõe of the property.- 1-'4". Kostek has been continuously in violation of both of these conditions. As the e~c}ose¿ photogrë.~hs sho~, the a:-eë i2"Tleãiõtely to the r;est anò be:!":inè HI. Kostek's restaurant is useá for the stcraoe cf D~Je:T~US artic]es incJuãing firewooå, packaging rrla~erial, fiÍtY-9allon årums, hoses ènò other materials in short, it is an eyesore. This pC'rt ion of Hr. Kostek's property i s i~üÍleãÌë. ~ely aðjacent to the front entrance of the building O'"meå by the Collinses. If. aòâìtion, and most importantly, the restaurant's åumpster is placed aàjacent to the Collins' Duilding, in violation of th~ express requirements of Variance No.749 which provided tt,a~ the èumpster must be placeè in the extr~e Northwest cO!':-Je:::- of Mr. Kostek's property. The dU!nps:'e!' is constantly filleå ~ith rotting fish he5QS which, ëS yo~ can iffiagine, C~-=E::'-2: _ T,ë\2E--::'ê-c.:rlS, ·c.;-~t)=é..r2.t,~€ ()ÓCY. P-ù:-t.h~rTTiOrE.1 J.'ü. hc)s"t..eJ..: tes rj~-v"e.r plë.rJte¿ the sCI"'=."er1irlS :-J~Ò9é 25· resuireè. Khen ,the Collinses attempted to pl~nt b~she5 in ord~r to c....::-~,~ -E: -, .....nf.to~ ·Döt.' \.":;:.p"", .L~~~,.. '-',r"",~Oí""\~ --rJ.A ).I,"'" -;:cc:~,;:;.'J.... t S oJ. _l. ~ Co iJ__..L. __ __ ...._._.. '_.1..__... !-"_\...,.y__ '-_ C:~1~ ~_. __ _ ___,.. , ne: ë;);:i2!E:ntl}: hõò the'S€; b~.::}-J£.Ë rll!1 0\·-2: ë,nè òes'tIC)'e¿. 'In~ Collir;sss hê.ve ap?rc.õd;eå !-~. "~5te~; on nüZ7.SIOUS oc:cëlsions over the past fe·..· years ir. ar, attelT.pt to pe~süaòe him to r~llisdy the sit~ation but tc no avail. Prank Colli~s' letter to you dated February 14, 1986 òetails his efforts to bring this situation to the attention of the Town and to have the Town enforce the terms of its variances. J.-Íter much proàding, on February 3, 1986 you contacted Mr. Kostek by letter requesting that the pcsition of the du~pster be changeõ so as to comply with the above-referenced variance. Eowever, when Frank met with you ènò vic LefebvrE: on April 5th he left without a clear QnòerstaDòing of what the next s~ep'woulà be in terms of enfOrC2Jii2nt of the variance conòitions by the TO.....TJ of Queer:sbury, ei tber by requesting HI. Kcste~~ to screen his property, by threatening P...r. t\ostek \dth fines for f cn-c:;::1pliance ëJS ejI.j?o...·ereà by the Town z.oning Orãir,ance, or other~is£. Frankly, if this is the official position of the TD~n, 1 finò ·it difficult to unåerstand. The Collins' b~ilãinQ is no~ vacant. þ~ a result of the continuing vio)ati~Ds of the variance, the Co11inses have be~n unable to rent the builàing and it appears unlikely that any prospective tenant would enter into a lease in light of the present situati0n, particula~ly the o50r of rotting fish. EXHIBIT E5 '---' / r-.. ~ J. ~ ! :: ~ ~ - ~" -::- - : -= : f::- ¿;-j :: e ~ ". - .....-:::.... : ; 0: ~ ~ : 2. :--:;: C~C' }. :. ~~. f c- :- ~ ::. l ~ .,. !~~~·~s~::::-¿ ·--h~: the '!"·(')·......rl ~=-.: ;,rc€: all of t:le -\;3:- ërJ.'::E ,::c-:J01'tlC!":!:. On behalf of ::le Collir;ses, - hE:!"€:by s~e=ific21:y request that ~he Town issue a Notice of Vio12ti0~ of all conditio~s im?os~d under the var~~nceE ano require that steps be takeD ~ithin ten (10) days to comply ~ith those conditions. I sincerely hope that the Town ~ill choese t.o act at this time so as to avoià the rlE'cessity to br~ng a~ ~Jticle 78 pr~ceE:diDS i~ ?rèer to cOffipel €:r:¡orC€:...-:_~~ t of the ';arlöDce prov:s)();;s. Ec",.;-:::-.'er, if .....·e ào not have a satisfactory respo;:se within the next ten ¿aYE ~e have b~s~ ~5ked by our clients to institu~e 5u::h a pI CJceeo 1 ng _ VË~Y truly yo~~s, ~ILLER, ~..J..NNIX, . (\ /"-l\.,..__.. '-- John c. :"Ë!T!~ry' LE:~EEï £. !~f..FIN, P.c. ~ j.c./VlU_/'ì / I \ CC: F·Ië.T:::-~E r-,'2- .;. ~!"" c: '----, 'rCI·..;r~ S"W;:'E:r\":: 50~ ... . r : =: :-~ }: ~ Fr me, ~sq., CD~nsel :si} eer-, CoIl ir:s t.o Zoning :='Oêrò of L~'~,,,- - , co ... --.:-'.t" ~- c ...... - P,. C-2 s e EXHIBIT E6 .RREN COUNTY )-~ PLANNING BOARD Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518·761-6410 1@W~ §,. QUCENSBURY ~!ØE'VElDJ Arrr. 2 J 1~82 Idfl. P M 71 ~1~I\Ojl.1)1~ tl ?J? 111 ~j~' i April 21, ) 982 stephen Lynn Building Inspector Town of Oueensbury Bay & Haviland Roads Glens Falls, New York 12801 Dear Mr. Lynn: This letter is being sent to you in conjunction with Variance D749, for Stanislaw Kostek (Stan's Seafood) 284 Bay Road for a use variance to construct a 16' x 241 addition on the rear of the existing structure. The Warren County Planning Board on April 14th, 1982 recommenåed approval with the conditi~n that screening be provided to the sides of the property and that a letter be prepared explaining the screening and other general recommendations. The main concerns of the ~arren County Flanning Board are: (1) the overall traffic generating characteristics of this use in relation to the effect such traffic has on other adjacent land uses, (2) the adequacy of existing parking facilities, and (3) the lack of an oròerly and safe parking scheme for the area. This not only is a problem for the patrons of this business, but this situation could present a problem for emergency and fire protection vehicles. Presently, adequate emergency access to the rear ,and sides of the structure is hampered by the overcrowàeà nature oÎ the lot anò the parking of business trucks, stored equipment, and debris around the building. Mr. Kostek has appeared before our Board three times since 1978, originally to construct a 361 x 46' structure for a retail business with 641 and 10' setbacks to the rear and north side, respectively. In 1980, an addition was requested to enlarge the existing structure with a 15' setback in lieu of 50'. In 1981, he applied for an addition to a structure for a wholesale, retail, and dining ~acility. Since that time there appears to have been 1i ttle done by the applicant concerning the traffic safety around the structure or positive coordination with the Qùeensbury Beautification Committee to address any of the problems mentioned above. EXHIBIT E7 - ---.-/ Stephen Lynn -2- April 21, 1982 The Warren County Planning Board feels that the proposed addition for storage would not have any overriding County impact. Mr. Kostek's. representative assured the Board that the purpose of the addition will be to enclose an existing and presently unsightly storage area; .thus , eliminating outside storage of debris. The Board recommended aòequate' . screening be required to protect and enhance the parcel,as well as to protect the adjoining land uses. It was felt that this letter was necessary, in that a number of these concerns needed to be reviewed by your office and the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to taking any formal action. Sincerely, Æ:::7E~7f~.~ Chairman , JAM:al EXHIBIT E8 -' fILE COpy COMM¡TTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue 'Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 To a (x) Warren County Planning Board Da te I 7/11 /88 '( x) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board or Appeals ( ~ APpli cant (X) Architect - Cushing and Dybas Rea Site Plan #28-88 Stan's Seafood Bay Road We have reviewed the ì"equest ror. ( ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. ( ~ Approval ( ) Disapproval Curt Dybas, architect7esented planting plans which were generally acceptable with the expection of plans to install a stockade fence along the southerly property line. The Committee has had several experiences with this type fencing, especially æ screening of dumpsters, that daœgeeasi1y and have proven most unsatisfacory. In the long run wch fencing must be replaced by chain link fence, so every attempt has been made to save this duplication of expense. On behalf, of the applicant, Mr. Dybas agreed to have chain link fence installed with plastic slats, starting at a point opposite the front of the building and extending along the southwesterly corner of the property where the stockade fence was indicated to be placed on the blueprint. Another concern of the Committee was general maintenance of the entire property, including the fence. Due to the timing of this construction it will not be possible to install the p1antings, by the hoped-for time of opening. The Committee, therefore, asks that an interest-bearing escrow account be established to guarantee plantings will be made according to plans submitted and approved. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting prov~s~ons, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approves 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or, planted, as agreed. pect ully sUb~t~~-4 ¿ ~obe L. Eddy, Chairman~ EXHIBIT F v " ESTABLISHED IN 1955 KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOSEPH A. KESTNER. JR.. P.E., L.S. MARK L. KESTNER, P.E. QUENTIN T. KESTNER. P.E. ANTHONY M. KESTNER, B.S. OM KESTMR LA:"E TROY, NEW YORK 12180 518-273-7446 K. WAYNE BUNN, P.E. JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE, S.E.T. July 19, 1988 Ms. Lee York Town Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Building Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12801 RE: Town of Queensbury Site Plan Review No. 18-88 - Stan's Seafood Dear Ms. York: This letter will provide comment on the revised site plan for the subj ect proj ect. The revised plan reduces the gross square footage of the proposed building from 7,740 to 4,900. Parking for the handicapped is indicated in the back of the Restaurant. Street access from Bay Road is now provided at one location with a travel width of 24'. Individual parking spaces are indicated as 20' long by 10' wide. As indicated in my letter of June 16, 1988; the Restaurant will be served by the municipal facilities of the Queensbury Water District and the Central Queensbury Sewer District. A separate connection with a grease trap will be required for the Restaurant. The plan shows six concrete, precast dry wells which I assume are to be used as part of the storm-water detention facilities. No soil information or calculations are available to substantiate this plan. If the plan is approved, additional information should be furnished to this Office to substantiate the storm-water collection facilities. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING WA HR, SEWAGE. AND DRAI~Ii:~E"GS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS ' PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTIO;\;, METERING & SAMPLING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE /' ~/ .,/// /' ~ Ms. Lee York Town Planner -2- -- July 19, 1988 Generally, this' revised plan shows a number of improvements over the original plan submitted for last month's Planning Board Meeting. QTK/cp cc: Dan Ling, Assistant Planner F EXHIBIT G Sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS, Quentin T. Kestner, P.E. Vice president t'7-".. _..,/, r7"'......? -"¡"L':'r:7J C ~..,.: ,,1 -,,-uJ.t..... _I, ,-,," Gt..l.). , , ,Ol~.I... ~ - P " O. B 0 :': 64 Glens Falls, New York 12801 July 13, 1988 To The Board: Mr. Stanislaw Kostek is scheduled to appear before the Planning Board for the purpose of a site plan review. He is requesting permission to replace his existing restaurant, known as Stan's Seafood, with a new building. Enclosed is a letter from the Warren County Planning Board dated April 21, 1982. This letter lists ,the several concerns the Board had regarding Variance #749. The legitimacy of these concerns is evidenced by the fact that none of the Board's reco~mendations were carried out by Mr. Kostek. Also, enclosed is a letter from our lawyers to the Queensbury Building Inspector dated April 30, 1986. It details the history of Mr. Kostek's non compliance with the conditions of Variance #749. " Mr. Kostek has appeared before various Boards in the past and promised that if he is granted the variance he seeks, it will enable him to correct the problem of the moment. This has not been the case. All conditions of all 4 Variances granted in the past have been violated. Surely this strongly indicates that any conditions attached to any new Variance demanded by this newly proposed building would also be ,violated. We respectfully request that the Planning Board consider these facts when it reviews the proposed site plan. We wish to go on record as strongly objecting to any proposed changes which would result in the new building under review advancing in any degree toward our property lines. Very ~ruly YQurs, ~." " . "', ./. ) ."" ~ . "'./ \, I / ,-,' /' , -, ~./'...'-" '/"/ '~. ----:" l.;;1.-:J:~~"(! ¡ /' . .. " J / I. F.T. & E.P. Collins /mh Encs. EXHIBIT H ....---- --.---.- ~ - ~ ,~~ll£ coplr TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Site Plan Review Checklist The following checklist is to be completed in its entirety by the Planning Board in its review of a Site Plan application. Upon completion this form shall be filed as an attachment to the official decision. DIRECTIONS: All blanks shall be filled in. If an item does not have any impact on the application or if there are no concerns relative to that item, write "none". If the Planning Board feels a problem exists with an item, then those concerns should be noted next to that item. If an item of this checklist is not applicable it should be so stated, it there is insufficient space, a continuation sheet may be attached. APPUCA TION NUMBER: ~\f~ ,ð- 2>- S-g APPUCANTS NAME: DATE REVIEWED: A. STRUCTURE (S): 1. Location 2. Arrangement 3. Size 4. Height 5. Other r ~ L U. ....AA/~~-- B. TRAFFIC ACCESS: 1. Adequacy 2. Arrangement 3. Road Widths 4. 5. Pavement Surfaces ~- Dividers or Medians ~ 0~ d h:4 ' Traffic Controls and Device~ ~-<- .. ...¡::.e~ ~ ~~,;/ ì ,"". .---..., ./11 I-- (f Other ¡j~:_. P,-' ~4 ,.¿-,,- _--L. - . - ÞJ4J:P 6-'-¡- PARKING AND LOADING AREAS: (J- 6. 7. C. 1. Location EXHIBIT Hi 1 D. E. F. G. H. - 2. 3. 4. 5. Arrangement Appearance Sufficiency Other 4 ~~---.:' J?.-<' II (&/ J /'_u--", ~I /---, . ~ ,_ Q~~~r C-A-c-?"~-_ / ~~~-<-t:v~ --' 1'1' (.- yZÁ.-¿~> ¡(,;. "Þ--1_,£.¿ ,5 -"\.- r tJ'-c-L-?--c.:-.) PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC: 1. Circulation Pa'tterns Walkway Structures 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Pedestrian Convenience Pedestrian Access ~~ Vehicular Conflict Other ~~<.." A_e./..-:: ~ct. ~¿ Ä / }\--/'- :-L~-j./';' " ',. tc c ' <"~'l_ .{ c. . \. " .!¥ Ü STORM WATER AND DRAINAG~ CONTROLS: 4-'1l¿/~~ 1. Adequacy 2. Loca tion 3. Design /' 't{.A , ~¿-<-~~. /Ì1- I /0> 0- , . ' , - ',,, ' / -~.~ / );,~) t,;; h~- / ¡/ '" ¡r~~(J.--4-~~ 4. Other )/(' JL-f , ({ .' Ihß-"'~-- 2; ¡{AI.) WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE: 1. Adequacy 2. Separation 3. Design Loca tion Other 0---1J.1./ìV ¿( Á-'/:; 1._ J-.~ '., ,:', .{ /¿L-~ - VISUAL and/or NOISE BUFFERS: 1. Adequacy 2. Type 4. -~ (/'~5 , Ch.-'E'- If 5. ~, ~,-<.. Arrangem~ Other '-'-f-e, ->"~---'--<../' r 1 . \....!.-..·c._..;.L-£ t. I~ ~,. r:( EMERGENCY 'ACCESS: 1. Fire Lanes 2. Fire l!ydrants 3. Adequacy 4. Other ,"'''é' 'f :/" / /'.. ,,/ . -7',: ,_I ,- -. , ,,(., ('.; ,: I· I ,'-' .. '-, \,ß~.... /,\ 7C~-c..e 3. dS-i-·~. ,./. t' (' l t ( ( .' ,. 4. EXHIBIT H2 ----,....t, ---- 1. " I {~ .A-- ,V_, ,---5'------- ,/-;A~(~_ "_ CONFUCT WITH ORDINANCE~N~ LA W~: l{,. l \ J.} ,,2-L-'1 ,',A,', .-J.,- 1. State and County Permits /'(C ¿_,çL-/.) ~,- ,(,( --,;, t*- y-.- 2. Other Provi~ns of the Zoning Ord,inance AJ ___~<-_-{-¡_JZ",- ~/Í~(~ ß.... - 3. Other ~(J.~.--L-,.-'-<--<, -II J. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. Occurrence of Ponding 2. Occurrence of Flooding 3. Occurrence of Erosion 4. Permeability _,", ~ " ' 5. Other - é~--c.'/f--r7---J £-<-C~ y, , 'f -J- . / _\. /t....J¿_ACA.0é-:::¡{..~ I\_Q,,-~v-, ~l.-'71-" ( tz . "-Tì.t..-,.J/ r-~/r-71<-:;-~ AéTIONS TAKEN: U C-l~",- ' K. 1. 2. 3. 4. APA Recommendation WatTen County Planning Board Recommendation '-Z/.A.J...(:/~ Zoning Board of Appeals ~1.1j---:{.~ __/LÆ~c-': -,-,,) Queensbury Planning Board Decision r:? ~'-I=~ :h-/V-; ti-ef!..J-(ACe-.-( 5. Other NOTES OF OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN: ~ r:) Y ',-- , '/ ' ',' ' A I .J ,/' __.f: ,_,/ Ì'I~~ c---:'Y'~ /':f7-¿,/~j'¡ JA.....-c-n_·' ~ '\ /J~...Æ- /- *IA W Section 239m of the General Municipal Law: Any variance application, site plan review or zoning change application within the following thresholds shall be referred to the Warren County Planning Board for their review and comment; 1. Within 500 feet of the Town boundary. 2. Within 500 feet of an existing or proposed County or State, park or recreation area; right of way, parkway, thruway, road or highway; stream or drainage channel or easement; public building or institution. EXHIBIT H3 3