Loading...
1988-09-27 SP '_./ QUBBHSBURY 'l'OWR PLABBIBG BOARD SPECIAL Meeting: Tuesday, September 27 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Joseph Dybas Peter Cartier Frank DeSantis Susan Levandowski Victor Macri Paul Dusek. Counsel Lee York, Town Planner Quentin Kestner, Town Designated Consultant/Engineer Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Absent: Hilda Mann, Secretary Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Minutes of the August l6, 1988 and September 8. 1988 meetings stand as written. PLAHHIBG DEPARTMBBT BUSIBBSS Lee Policies present to speak York, Sr. Planner, requested adoption of the Town Planning Board and Procedures Manual. Mr. Roberts requested that Mrs. Moeller. Stenographer. become Board Secretary, however, she requested time with Ms. York regarding the position. Mr. Cartier moved ADOPTION of the Queensbury Town Planning Board Rules and Procedures be adopted. Seconded by Mr. Macri. Passed Unanimously HEW BUSIBBSS SITE PLAN RO. 40-88 Dr. Kit Burkich & Loretta Burkich, Esq. The application is for the construction of a one, four-unit (multi-- family) dwelling. 129 Aviation Road, UR-5. Charles Scudder, Consulting Engineer, represented the applicants and stated that the apartment dwelling will be located on Farr Lane, which is off Aviation Road near Sokol's Market. The dwellings will occupy the northerly end of the lot. On the middle portion of the lot is an existing house and garage, which have been separated from the larger lot, and a deed has been filed in the County Clerk's Office, August l2, 1988. Three 1 plans tion site. have been prepared for the site, landscaping and grading, in addi- to a storm water management plan and waste water disposal system on The water supply will be taken from the Queensbury Water District. Mr. Kestner verified he reviewed the Site Plan and the following docu- ments: Site Plan Application, Engineering OVerview (8/88), Storm Water Management Report (8/88), and Drawings L-1, L-2, and L-3 (Exhibits B & C). He recommended project approval. Correspondence: Warren County approved. Mr. Scudder presented the Short EAF form. Ms. York read Dan Ling's (Ass't. Town Planner) report (on file). Mr. Scudder confirmed that three lots have been formed, he is un- sure of what will be built on the front lot at Aviation Road - perhaps a small residence with an incidental, professional office. Regarding park- ing, there are eight spaces for four units, handicapped parking spaces are to be 12 feet wide. Public Hearing Opened: Edwin McCullough: l35 Aviation Road Mr. McCullough said he has reviewed the map and was of the impression that there were two units, not one. Mr. Roberts explained that there are two two-family units attached by a common wall. Myron Sweet: Farr Lane Mr. Sweet was under family housing, however. for multi-family housing also informed that the will be changed October l, the impression that the area was zoned for one- he was informed that the correct zoning is UR-5 which continues to Fox Farm Road. Mr. Sweet was zoning laws have been in effect for 10 years and 1988. John Tremblay: l33 Aviation Road Mr. Tremblay realized that it is his fault that he was unaware the area was rezoned to multi-family. He advised the Board that all of the property between Farr Lane and Fox Farm Road is single family dwellings (about 7). Mr. Macri advised Mr. Tremblay that the subject property is on Farr Lane and not Aviation Road. Alice Winters: l3l Aviation Road Ms. Winters remarked that the subject complex will be the entire length of her land. She does not favor having trees part way up the adjoining yards, she would rather have a high fence. Mr. Roberts advised that the owner does have the right to make reasonable use of the land, how- ever. conditions could be placed as far as buffering. Mr. DeSantis explained to the residents that, although the present 2 address for this site is Aviation Road. the multi-dwelling will have a Farr Lane address, it is 500 feet north of Aviation Road. Because of the division of the property, the north end of the lot is subject to this application, the south end is not affected. Public Hearing Closed Regarding the proposed sign designated on Plan L-1. Mr. Scudder con- firmed that it will be used only to indicate the number of the dwelling and the street name, the size to be approximately 8- x lS-. Lighting in the area will be post-mounted lamps, approximately 8 feet in height and lOO watts, no floodlights, no mercury vapor, no neon, no blinking arrows. The applicant and Mr. Scudder confirmed that the dumpster for the trash will be enclosed by a suitable fence and landscaped. and it will not be kept along the westerly boundary, Beautification Committee approval will be necessary. In addition. Mr. Scudder confirmed that buffer plantings could be continued along the entire line bordering the same boundary. Mrs. Levandowski moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 40-88, Dr. Kit Burkich & Loretta Burkich, Esq. due to the recommendation of the Town Engineer, Assistant Town Planner Dan Ling's concerns have been addressed. The sign will be S- x l8-. The applicant is to provide handicap parking, there will be internal storage of trash which will be acceptable to the Beautification Committee. There will be screening of natural plantings along the entire length of the westerly property line. Mr. Dusek requested that Article 5.070 a) through d) of the Town Zoning Ordinance be incorporated into the motion (Exhibit A). Seconded by Mr. Cartier. Passed Unant.ously SITE PLAN HO. 41-88 Adirondack Animal Hospital The application is for the expansion of the existing building at 395 Ridge Road, SR-30. Robert Joy, Architect, represented the applicant, also in attendance were Dr./Mrs. Glendening, owners, and Mr./Mrs. Jameson, neighbors to the south. Mr. Joy reviewed the history of the hospital expansions. Ten years ago a long-range expansion plan, Phase I. was presented. Approvals from the County Board and Zoning Board of Appeals have been received for the present expansion, which follows the master plan established lO years ago. 3 The work will be completed in phases. so as to allow a continual oper- ation of the business; the front portion will be done immediately. The Zoning Board of Appeals has approved a five-year window to complete the remaining items. expansion to the front, including the new entrance, reception area, and patient waiting space. a new surgery room and some grooming areas, enclosing of outdoor runs. Mr. Herb access along would serve site distance Steffens, Resident Engineer of the NYS DOT, which controls Ridge Road, advised and approved a single driveway, which as egress/ingress, 90· to Ridge Road and would have adequate and larger radii and setbacks. The parking now consists of small, independent parking lots, consist- ing of public parking in front along the entrance on the south and exit on the north, Staff in the back which is partially paved and partially grav- eled. There is about l6 feet of grass left in between to preserve one tree. To gain enough parking and eliminate parking in front of the build- ing (elimination of the circular driveway), the two parking lots will be connected and extended. The Zoning Board approved relief as follows. l) Number of parking spaces. Because the patients are animals, the parking of car population is low; therefore, 29 parking spaces will be provided, with enough green area for expansion. In addition, relief was received for the size of the parking spaces. The Ordinance requires 10 ft. x 20 ft. for each car, approved was 9 ft. 6 in. x 18 ft.. so a buffer zone can be maintained along the property line and some trees can be preserved. Parking will be single-loaded all the way back, and double-loaded in areas in the back. All the large trees within the circle will be saved, with the exception of four pine trees at the new entrance location. Added will be a pitched roof. which will be in keeping with the charac- ter of the neighborhood. Also approved was relocation of two existing signs: l) black letters on the building that will be in the same position on the new building, 2) the painted wooden sign will be relocated in the area of the new entrance. Dr. Glendening explained that Mr. Hubert (northern neighbor) is aware of two items: 1) On Ridge Road at the driveway entrance, there is a raised area, leftover from the roadwork, which is higher than the Hubert proper- ty. Permission from the Hubert's has been granted to relandscape the area to lower the ground for improved visibility. 2) The drainage towards the Hubert's land from the blacktop and sloping roof will be kept. unle$s Mr. Hubert objects. Mr. Cartier requested a letter stating approval Of the these two items. Dr. Glendening stated he would prefer not to have to place dry wells in the parking lot, when natural drainage exists. 4 Correspondence: Warren County approved with no conditions. Ms. York noted Dan Ling's written approvals from the Zoning Board Meeting (Exhibit D). Mr. Kestner discussed his review in the areas of water supply. waste- water disposal system and storm water management (Exhibit E). PUblic Bearing: no comment Mr. Cartier moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 41-88. Adirondack Animal Hospital, subject to receipt of a letter from Harold and Alice Hubert, neighbors to the north, assenting to preserving existing drainage pat- terns, and subject to DOT approval. Incorporated into the Resolution is Article 5.070 a) through d) of the Town Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit A). Seconded by Mr. Dybas. Passed Unanimously SITE PLAN BO. 42-88 William E. , Georgianna R. Montgomery. III The proposal is for a professional office building at l6 and lS Main Street, West Glens Falls, HC-15. William E. Montgomery represented the plan and explained that he con- sulted with Mr. Kestner regarding a storm water management plan and also to address the septic requirements of the property. Frank Walter has been retained as his engineer and prepared a topographical map. indicating the landscaping for the parking and entrance. together with the proposed green area. The parking area has been redesigned to leave more green space and trees, thereby reducing future landscaping. Correspondence: variances. Approved. Zoning Board of Appeals granted parking Ms. York asked if the plan submitted tonight was different than orig- inally submitted at the application date. Answer: Ho. The plan calls for the same parking, with the exception of parking spaces no.'s 35 - 40, 45, 46, 4l - 44 and 47 - 50 not set forth in the plan. Mr. Montgomery said he could -live- with either document. There seemed to be some confusion as to when the topography map was to be submitted. Mr. Kestner reviewed his findings in a letter dated 9/27/88 (Exhibit F), indicating the necessity for additional septic design and storm water management system. In terms of water supply. waste water and storm water, the three components have been adequately addressed, although according to the procedure set up by the Planning Department, submissions were late. Ms. York explained that she had no knowledge of what proceeded. other than she had spoken to Mr. Walter a week ago or possibly longer, and that the materials were 5 missing. He (Mr. walter) indicated would contact Mr. Kestner in the immed- iate future and. at the same time, the same documents would be submitted to the Planning Department; this never happened. There was considerable discussion regarding the differences between the topographical map and the map showing the building and parking spaces. Mr. Cartier questioned as to whether a 50 foot setback was required along Main Street, with the assumption that Main Street would be four lànes in the future. Mr. Macri felt some of the confusion at this meeting is be- cause documentation was not made available to Staff by the deadline date. The additional sUbject discussed was the fact that there was going to be a dilapidated garage replaced with an office building. Mr. Montgomery stated he addressed that subject with Mr. Ling and his (Ling's) opinion is that a variance is not required; because it would be an alteration to a pre-existing, nonconforming building. Mr. Cartier had a problem with re- building a garage with an office building three feet from the property line. Mr. Montgomery verified that the neighbors have no problem. Mr. Cartier raised the question if the Planning Board has the ability to contradict a decision made by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Dusek advised that the essential part of the Zoning Board decision has to stand. Certain recommendations may be made to accent the decision, but it cannot be changed. Per Mr. DeSantis' request, Mrs. Moeller read the Reso- lution made by the Zoning Board of Appeals. ·Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 140S, William E. and Georgianna R. Montgomery, allowing 33 parking spaces to be placed as shown on the Plan and as the Planning Board may amend by Site Plan Review. The Variance is necessary as demonstrated by practical difficulty because of the presently-required 50 parking spaces, which are at the expense of open or green areas to enhance the aesthetics of the lot, 33 spaces are ade- quate to service the buildings as proposed. From the safety aspect, there are six required parking spaces that would be in a least attractive area on Main Street, this plan would take an advantage of safer parking. The applicant has been granted the right to keep the parking spaces as close as six feet from the easterly line and as close as five feet to the south- erly line; which is the rear property line. With these varied setbacks. the applicant would not have to comply with the 50 foot required buffer between the residential use.- -Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1409. William E. and Georgianna R. Montgomery, III, for ten (lO) less spaces than the fifty (50) required. because the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty by all of the findings of fact and conclusions that were arrived at in Area Variance No. 1408.- Mr. Montgomery summarized the two Zoning Board motions. 1) Put park- ing in the ·shaded blue spots- to reduce the total number of required park- ing, and 2) consideration was made to the entire project, in relation to 6 the residence and the subject house. Mr. Montgomery pointed many hours with the Planning Department on the application the buildings are existing, no variances would be necessary. firmed that residences at l6 and lS Main Street would remain; addition was to be put at 16 Main Street. out he spent and. because It was con- however, the Mr. DeSantis was concerned about the fact that the buildings can stay because they were pre-existing, but the use is being changed, therefore the same setbacks cannot be considered. Mr. Roberts verified that it is permitted to changed the residences in that area to office space; however, Ms. York stated that is true, as long as the exterior lines are not changed. In this case, expansion is taking place. Curb cut was another issue, changing two curb cuts to one at 16 Main Street. Subsequently, a plan was submitted tying the house into the gar- age. which permitted for a wider driveway. The most westerly driveway would be removed and made green. Mr. Montgomery expressed advantages stated by the neighbors: the pro- ject is preferred over what is presently existing which is a ga~age in poor condition and a garage in worse condition. and the fact that there are transient tenants, who park several cars in the driveway. Regarding the present garages, one is supported by steel beams and the other is a two-car garage on the east side. The easterly and westerly most walls of the two-car garage would not be demolished during renovation and would not be load-bearing. The load-bearing walls would be the north/- south walls, because of the design of the building and location of the rafters. The site is 200 feet on the road and l50 feet deep. Again Mr. Macri disagreed with Mr. Montgomery that the maps shown by the applicant at the meeting and those presented to the Board for review prio~ to the meeting were the same. Mr. Dusek pointed at that, when a Site Plan is reviewed, one of the findings that has to be made is that the Use complies with the Ordinance, including dimensional regulations and the Zoning district. In regards to this plan. he feels that this is a residence which is being conve~ted to an office, which is permissible as far as the use is concerned, but Article 9 -Honconforming Uses and Structures· seems to require that. if a nonconforming use is replaced by another use (and this is a nonconforming use to the extent that it is nonconforming as far as area is concern) and is now being changed to another use, such use shall conform to the Ordin- ance. Conversion of uses cannot be considered under Article 9.020. In this case, there is a nonconforming use being replaced by another use. Mr. Montgomery expressed his disagreement in that there is a conform- ing use and a nonconforming building, the setback is a pre-existing. non- conforming use. Mr. Roberts felt the application deals with conforming use and nonconforming setbacks. Mr. Dusek stated that there is a $etback 7 problem, in that the building is three feet from the property line, so it is nonconforming to the Ordinance. The use of the property is conforming insofar as it relates to the type of use is conforming, but the use as it relates to the type of the building is not conforming. The building is not within the proper setback of the boundary line. The use is changing and the building has to be brought into compliance. Mr. Montgomery again stated he has been told to the contrary by the Planning and Building/Codes Department. Mrs. York stated she has no know- ledge about conversations within the various Town departments and referred to Article 5.070 a) (Exhibit A). The setbacks from the line in the pro- posal do not adhere to the Ordinance. After further discussion regarding change in use. setbacks, nonconforming uses and structures, availability to the handicapped including parking and access to the second floor, Mr. Dusek requested time for research. Mr. Roberts requested that the applicant agree to Table the a~plica- tion, due to map discrepancy and the fact that different material had been received after the 21-day reviewing period. Mr. Montgomery made the deci- sion to WITHDRAW Site Plan No. 42-88, William E. & Georgianna R. Montgomery, III. Public Hearingi no comment SITE PLAN RO. 43-88 McDonald's Corporation The application is for a truck, bus and RV parking lot located at Exit 18, 1-87 Northway at Corinth Road, HC-15. Ken Gilgore. Assistant Real Estate Manager for McDonald's, représented the Corporation and explained that the truck parking lot would be séparate from the existing parking lot. It would entail a second curb cut on Corinth Road, with one-way traffic flow in a counter-clockwise direction through the truck area. Provided are l2. 14 ft. x 55 ft. stalls and 45 ft. wide lines for egress/ingress of the sites. Landscaping on the site and center island would be similar to what presently exists. D~ainage will consist of on-site catch basins, water will be trapped and dispersed into the sand soil, without runoff into the adjoining properties. County Highway Work Permit has been received for the new curb cut; Beautification Committee has approved, Warren County approved the plans. In summary, in the northeast corner parking will be expanded to accom- modate passenger cars, trailers with boats and RV vehicles. It was noted by Mr. DeSantis that the present/proposed access points are approximately 30 ft. apart. He also noted that Dept. of Highway Permit 88-59 statés -re- quests permission to construct driveway entrance lOSt feet west of present 8 entrance for oversized vehicle access.- (Exhibit G). Mr. Gilgore was un- aware of the discrepancy. Mr. Kestner complemented McDonald's Cor90ration on the layout and presentation of its plans, specifically site contours, calculations for storm water detention. He discussed his review of 9/27/88, basically noting Section 7.071, Paragraph D. regarding access points (Exhibit H) being separated by l50 feet; therefore. it was suggest- ed that the new entrance be moved 45 feet towards the westerly portion of the lot. Regarding the l50 feet, the Board arbitrarily uses center line to center line as measuring points. Safety of cars and trucks moving in and out at the same time is a major factor. There was considerable discussion regarding the pro's and con's of whether or not a divider should be installed and, if installed. what type of divider, in addition to concerns raised about the sideyard setback. Be- cause of trucks coming in and out, the entrance should be abnormally wide. Buffering is not required because the entire area is commercial. Mr. Dusek clarified the setback concern by stating that the definition of a setback refers to the -horizontal separation distance from the property line to the building line of the structure.- Mr. Gilgore reviewed all the renovations to take place: existihg curb line. which is dotted in on the plan on the north and east side, will be removed and the parking pushed back to the rear at the north; additional recreation parking at the northeast corner, length of the Drive Thru island behind the building will be increased to improve the green area behind the building surrounding the brick trash enclosure, curb will be removed on the northwest side of the existing parking lot to allow over- sized vehicles to exit through the new truck parking area, up front the curb will be shaved back somewhat to give a better swing to the parking lot for cars with trailers, etc. In order to eliminate the necessity of obtaining a Variance for the proposed curb cut. Mr. Gilgore proposed to the Board that the tru¢k curb cut be moved 4S feet to the west, to conform to the Ordinance; l50 feet center line to center line with the existing egress/ingress. The c~rb cut would be centered with the new parking area, enabling truck turnin9 move- ments for entering/exiting be the same, that might be an improvemertt. He pointed out that the proposed curb cut is wider than normal (40 feet), the normal curb cut is 24 feet wide for one-way traffic and 30 feet for two-way traffic. The present permeability of 21' would remain, if the curb cut is moved. Regarding the barrier, there were three types discussed: painted stripes (which is presently used), solid barrier, or a mountable barrier (at 45°). Mr. Gilgore felt the stripes might be better, because trucks might run over a solid barrier. Mr. Dusek advised that the Planning Board does not have the power to waive the regulation for a barrier. Mr. Gilgore preferred painted stripes to a barrier, because the barriers would erode from truck tire impact, yet stripes could be painted every Spring. Mr. Cartier noted from the Revised Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.071 D.) 9 -There shall be a physical barrier separating the ingress and egress area of the access point. A maximum of two lanes (20') shall be permitted for each. Each lane shall be a maximum of twenty (20) feet wide. Access points shall be separated from adjoining access points by at least one hundred fifty (l50) ft.- The Board felt that trucks would not enter/exit at the same time, one would wait for the other. Mr. Gilgore was ðdvised that requirements for the new curb cut are: 20 feet for each lane, in addi- tion to the width of the barrier. Mr. Kestner recommended no barrier, which would require Variance from the Zoning Board. Regarding necessary permits/approvals, Mr. Gilgore was advised that a Building Permit was not necessary, Beautification Committee approval was necessary as is Site Plan review from the Town Planning Board; and the revised County Permit. Public Hearing* no comment. Mr. Macri moved APPROVAL Site Plan No. 43-88. McDonald's Corporation, with the stipulation that the center to center of the driveway outs be revised to l50 feet, and a four-foot wide mountable barrier be provided in the middle of the truck entrance. Seconded by Mr. DeSantis. Passed Unaniaously SITE PLAN RO. 43-88 The Only Guitar Shop The proposal is for a Music Store. The location is Blind Rock Road to Round Pond Road, left onto Lake George Road to Patti's Homemade Restau- rant, HC-15. The proposed changes include the addition of new counters. new displays, and new show cases and carpeting. David Triller, owner, represented the project and explained his pur- pose before the Board is to request a usage change from a restaurant to a music store. He verified to Mr. DeSantis there were to be no changes to parking, ingress/egress, physical structure of the building. The existing sign posts will be used in the same location and be of the same size; the faces will change. Public Hearing: no comment Mr. DeSantis Shop. There is requirement that moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 44-88, The Only Guitar absolutely no impact on the zone other than a technical the Town Planning Board review all changes of uses. By 10 way of this motion, it was recommended to those involved in the review process that this type of review not occur in the future. Mr. Dusek requested that Article 5.070 be included in the Resolution (Exhibit A). Seconded by Mr. Dybas. Passed Unanimously The owners of The Only Guitar Shop expressed their displeasure at the fact that this type of review was required - financially (engineers, law- yers. etc.) and time-wise (securing permits and waiting to be heard by the Planning Board). However. Mr. Cartier pointed out that there are going to be times when changes in use will occur that the Board will want to re- view. Mr. DeSantis also mentioned that, in the future, Staff will have more -sign-off- authority and these mistakes will not be made. SITE PLAN BO. 45-88 John P. Matthews The application is for the expansion of the existing office at 300 Bay Road, corner of Bay and Glenwood, HC-15. Also proposed is to add one more office. John P. Matthews, owner, represented the application and explained that he would like to add a 1500 square foot addition to the building. Warren County recommended changes at the corner, so vehicular traffic would not cut through. Due to the construction of Town sewers, the exist- ing curb cuts have been demolished; therefore, Mr. Matthews has the oppor- tunity to improve the parking/curb cut situation. He proposes to re-lay the parking on the existing paving to accommodate the number of spaces that are necessary. There is almost an acre of vacant land, $0 more parking is available. The proposal is to block off most of the Bày Road section and utilize the existing curb cut that is north of thé large Niagara Mohawk pole on the Bay Road side. Mr. Matthews wants to utilize basically all of the blacktop and create no more; the existing septic system would be eliminated in lieu of the hookup to the new sewer line, and there will be landscaping in front on the Bay Road side to block cut-through traffic and make the area safer. After discussing some accepted alternatives with the Board, the most reasonable solution to the entrance on Glenwood Avenue was to have a 40-foot curb cut located in the middle of the property line, with land- scaping continuing east to the corner and west to the edge of the existing paving. Regarding the curb cut on Bay Road. there will be a 24-foot entrance on Bay Road. Mr. Matthews felt this will eliminate some of the 11 crosscut traffic, which is presently in existence and hazardous. The existing kitchen will remain, as it is a catering prep area, how- ever, a grease trap will be replaced. Parking meets the new Ordinanøe. Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board and the Beautification Committee approved with conditions (Exhibit I). Mrs. Levandowski moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 45-88, John P. Matthews. This will be for the expansion of an existing office; parking is in accordance with the Town Ordinance. Parking at the Bay Road en- trance will remain the same, the Glenwood Avenue entrance will be forty (40) feet wide, centered, and the landscaped area be brought to the forty (40) foot entrance. Mr. Dusek requested that Article 5.070 of the Town Ordinance be incor- porated into the Resolution (Exhibit A). Seconded by Mr. Dybas. Passed Unanimously SITE PLAN RO. 46-88 Roy and June Blackmer This application is for a new, double-wide mobile home. SR-20. The location is VanDusen Road, Exit l8 of the Northway, turn right on Corinth Road onto VanDusen Road. Roy trailer perty. quired. Blackmer explained that the work to be done is to remove an old and replace with a new, double-wide trailer, to enhance the pro- It will be placed 83 feet back on the property; 50 feet is re- Public Hearing: no comment Mr. DeSantis moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 46-88, Roy and June Blackmer, upon compliance with provisions set forth in Section 5.070 a) through d) of the current Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit A). Seconded by Mr. Macri Passed Unanimously SITB PLAN HO. 48-88 12 Charles and Patricia Mouzalas The proposal is for a house with new siding on the first level and for a new second level. three bedrooms and a full bath, SR-30. The location is Sunnyside North, north on Bay Road, right on Sunnyside Road. left at bend by McDermott's Motorcycles, Sunnyside North Road, approxi~tely ~ mile on the left (Mouzalas sign) parking driveway and walkway leading to green cottage. Wayne Viele represented the applicants and explained that there will be a second story structure on the existing structure. The dimensions will not change, there will be no cantilevers. The problems are tbe side- lines of S feet and 6 feet, and the 37 foot setback from the lake to the nonconforming structure. Two bedrooms will be eliminated and the bathtub in the lower bathroom (sink and toilet to remain); three bedrooms will be installed. The septic system is five to six years old (this was later proven to be incorrect), Mr. Viele is not aware that a permit was received for the sewerage disposal system. The Board was concerned that the new septic system was not large enough to carry a three bedroom hous,e. Mr. Viele stated that there are two lots (17 and lS), Lot lS has the existing house and Lot l7 (42 ft. wide x 105 ft. deep) is strictly for the septic area, with a lOOO gallon tank. The perc rate is 20/minute. It is his understanding that the owners went with the leachfield system strictly for the evaporation rate, instead of the dry well or holding type of arrangement. The residents are there approximately four months out of the year. Mr. Roberts noted that no topo work was submitted and the lot is steep; he does not understand how the water will run uphill. He also feels that a septic system is not legal on that steep a slope. Even though some of the situations pre-exist, it is nonconforming. Mr. Viele explained that the property is fairly level at the house area, approxi- mately 25 feet northeast of the septic system, the grade steepens t~emend- ously. Due to uncertainty of the well and sewerage system, and the fact that the Application stated that upgrading of the well and sewerage was l3 to l4 years ago, not 5 to 6), the Board requested more information. Mr. Viele stated that there will be no construction closer to the lake. Mr. Viele expressed his disappointment regarding the fact that, although the application was submitted on October S, 1985. it was last on the agenda of the second monthly meeting. He knows he was the first com- pleted application in the -box.- Ms. York apologized for the mistake and Mr. Robert's appreciated Mr. Viele's criticism. Site Plan No. 48-8S. Charles & Patricia Mouzalas, was TABLED by the Agent, Wayne Viele, until the November meeting due to the necessity to secure additional information regarding the sewerage disposal system and the well. 13 ----- Chairman Roberts adjourned the meeting at ll:15 p.m. -WP4\9~ Richard Roberts, Chairman JO/;ð'ßcr Da tJi / !õ'3--fP Date 14 -..../ QUEENS BURY ZOHING ORDINANCE SECTIOH 5.070 REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I AND TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW In order to approve any Type I and Type II Site Plan Review use. the Planning Board shall find that: a) The use complied with all other requirements of this Ordinance. in- cluding the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located, and b) The use would be in harmony with the general purpose of intent of this Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location, character. and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed. the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use, and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use, and c) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion, or the parking of automobiles or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neigh- borhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general wel- fare of the Town, and d) The project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic. aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making this determination, the Planning Board shall consider those factors pertinent to the project contained in .the development considerations set forth herein and in so doing. the Planning Board shall make a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in Section 6.040 of this Article. k'ýH/1@1 T /1 ----' 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, 8.5. O~E KESTNER LANE TROY, Nnv YORK 12180 518-273-7446 K. WAYNE 8UNN, P.E. JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE, 5.E.T. September 27, 1988 Ms. Lee York Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Building Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12801 RE: Site Plan No. 40-88 - Burkich Townhouse Apartments Dear Ms. York: I have reviewed the subject site plan information which included the following documents: 1. Site Plan Review Application. 2. Engineering Overview, dated August 1988, by Charles H. Scudder, P.E., Consulting Engineer, Glens Falls, New York. 3. Storm-Water Management Report for Burkich Townhouse Apartments, dated August 1988, by Charles H. Scudder, P.E., Consulting Engineer, Glens Falls, New York. 4. The following drawings: Sheet No. L-l - Conceptual Site Plan, Sheet No. L-2 - Grading and Drainage Plan, and Sheet No. L-3 - Plantings and Amenities Plan. Concerning the above, I would offer the following comments: 1. Water supply will be furnished from the 8" diameter main, owned and .operated by the Queensbury Water Storage and Distribution District. 2. The wastewater disposal system consists of an in-ground septic tank and leach field system for which adequate calculations have been provided and adequate construction materials have been specified. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING WATER, SEWAGE, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS . PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTION, METERING & SAMPLING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE RYfl-I!ß IT It <'---.- ----./ Ms. Lèe York, Senior Planner -2- September 27, 1988 3. The storm-water management plan calls for the construction of two ( 2 ) recharge retention basins sized in accordance with existing regulations for a once in 50-year storm. Based on the above information, I would recommend project approval. Sincerely, ~~ Quentin T. Kestner, P.E. Vice President QTK/cp cc: Dan Ling, Assistant Planner All Planning Board Members ~ Ciwus H. ScUDDER, CONSULTING ENGINEER BOX 792 GLENS FALLS. NEW YORK 12801 (518) 793-1475 August, 1988 BURKICH 'IæNHOUSE APAR'IMENTS Aviation Road and Farr Lane Queensbury ,New York EOOlNEERI:t-(; OVERVIEW 'Ibis project is an apartment cœplex of four, 2-bedrexxn units in a UR-S zone. 'Ihe site is generally level (slight slope north to south), is wooded, and the soils are sandy to a great depth wi th no evidepce of groundwater wi thin twenty feet of the ground surface. Water supply will be drawn fran the 8-inch main in Farr Lane furnished by the _ Q1eensbury Water District. Wastewater, estimated at 1200 GPD for the cœplex, will be discharged to a 2,000-gallon septic tank, then to a leaching system for on-site absorption. provision is made for a 100% expansion of the leaching system (in the unlikely event of failure of the primary system) and the design absorption rate is 1.2 GPD/SF as recanœnded by NYSDOH for soils of the type at this site. Electric power will be . provided by NIMJ via underground service franthe lines on Farr Lane. Telephone and cable service will likewise be underground. A stormwater plan has been prepared detailing the basis for on-site collection and absorption of runoff. 'Ibe runoff study is included with the other exhibits for the project: (1) Conceptual Site Plan (2) Grading and Drainage Plan (3) Planting and Amenities Plan. In our view this project will produce no significant adverse environmental effect. Rather, we think, it will be an asset to the conmunity. Charles H. Scudder, P.E. Consulting Engineer k"XHI6Ir C- I ~ - ,~< CHARLES H. SCUDDER, CONSULTING ENGINEER BOX 792 GLENS FALLS. NEW YORK 12801 (518) 793-1475 August, 1988 S'lORtoIiA'lER MANAGEMENT REPORT for BURKICH ':OOWNHOUSE APAR'IMENTS '!his is an assessment of existing drainage condi tions on the Burkich lot at the northwesterly corner of Aviation Road and Farr Lane, Town of Queensbw:y (Tax Map No. 78-1-6.1). It analyzes the anticipated effect of the proposed develop¡œnt on stonnwater runoff quantified in acre-feet. The analytical procedure is that set out in the June, 1986 Edition of the SCS TR-55. '!he conclusions and hydrographs in this report have been generated on a carputer rodel of TR-55. The design stann is of 24-hour duration, 50-year return, which produces a rainfall depth of 4. 75 inches in the 'lbwn of Queensbury. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS '!he lot area is 0.66 acres and the predaninating soils are of the Plainfield Series characterized as deep, well-drained sands, or sandy-loams, on slopes of 0 to 3%. '!he SCS Hydrologic Group Rating is "A". '!he existing vegetative cover is a mix IOOstly of Pine with sane Poplar, with a m:>derate understory. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Four Two-Bedrocm Townhouse Apartment Units, with associated parking and walks, are proposed for the si te. '!he grading plan will provide for stormwater to '; be directed to retention/recharge basins, and the high absorptive capacity of the soils will allow the natural absorption of runoff on the site. Any fines transported by the storITWdter will be retained in the basins. EXISTING v POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Currently, stormwater tend,s toward thfi! < sQuthern end of the site where any residual is absorbed into the' ground (Hydrograph for subcatchrœnt #l). M1en develq:rt\9nt of the project is carpleted, ÆY#I{JIT{J;¿ - ----.-" S'lúRMWATER MANÞ.GEMEN'l' REPORT (page two of two) storm runoff will be collected in recharge/retention basins on the site. '!he post-develq:rnent Hydrograph for subcatchment #2 shows that the design storm will produce runoff of 0.03 acre-feet. RB #1 has a volume of 0.25 ac-ft, and RB #2 a volume of 0.10 ac-ft for a total storage volume of 0.35 ac-ft, which exceeds the cooputed runoff by 0.005 ac~ft. SUMMARY and CO~LUSIONS All stonrwater generated on the site will be collected and absorbed into the groundwater on the site. '!his will be accooplished by creating recharge/retention basins of sufficient capacity to handle runoff fran a storm expected to occur once in 50 years, though such a storm could happen in two successive years. The grading plan facilitates the lIOVerœnt of surface water to the basins. '!he efficacy of the design depends upon the high absorptive capacity of the soils. '!he stormwater plan is a refinement of what has heretofore taken place. '!here will be no measurable enviroruœntal inpact occasioned by stonnwater runoff upon coopletion of this project. ::ì~ Charles H. Scudder, P.E. Consulting Engineer Attachments -- --, _.....- ..- -.~ .. / '--< , < < TR-55' LAG - Tc Method Project /!;J ç;,¡'IZ/(¡ C, ¡../ \ Sub.,.. Drainage Area: ,CPo Acres Watershed Slope; .1& .. Flow Length: ~ Linear Feet '< Design Storm Fr.~U8ncy:j ~ Years 24-Hour Rainfall Depth:' A:?t? <Inches' Hydrologic S<olt~roup Land Use (SOS' SoUs)' . ; RON: . Area % v-")~ .A ~. ~OO -- iTa' ':~Il:' \LS.·.·· < .( ..-, ¡ ~..-~" --;~, ..,¡".~. 1:'...; :,.:=...... ,. Project .' ~~_; J-~'< ",~ TB7'mll LAt:Ì <;'~T,"':':··"'et. h' d' < n"" < C ._ ,0. < Sub-.rea' 2- ·~4.crea J.t2.. ,,~~,,:'L' t Ji; . ~ ~r,. Flow Length:: "kX;>' .~..,. FMt,\ pe8IgnS*or.rrJ;§~_.~~ '.Y'~r~~¡ 24-Hour RaJnf,(;:Øj~~~~:i;:/""""\~-~'< ; , ... - -..:-",.,:..;.,.:,:;,;<-:~"~\Q;!, ""','," ",,~ «c<"" ' HY~Ø!!~':;; '.< < ...... '.íM~<. . J!.ç;~" '. .' ~fftBr . ~<. .A-:!2 Drainage Area:· '. .'.-.' 'Watershåd 'S~~~:; Land Use· ,« t· >1ç,.~ i./ J. ) t-. ) . (",,';;',} ~t~.:. ':~~' ,~ - .A - ~I)¡ " , . ,., . J "<'."<'" . '·;1QTALS·'" . ," .. " .' .' <. ~\:?;1,P~¡~"~~~; \'Î:. :~~ ~¡.. '<.~ . '. ,- ,,~. - .- . " . . ,-' < " I.· fi~ '. . ..- .'~ "",', ' <, A"'. <.Á"<:;¡'''''':' ,~·;,:"'''L'>i;i ,"",,": ~ì"",'k:'¡¡:¡",,~ t,.;'¡'¿'·;.Ai:W¡ ':';:<¡}'!I~;,.øú~,,; "I,,".;I',.;1."',u.·.,._'f.,~"'i'·'·'·\"·'" '\:,'.,..\,-...'.1.» ,~~.--....,¡...""- ~~.~..". . 1"C-.:Z\ . ì , .')f,¡ 't& - 7~ - w\0 .~ - ~ .' " , , . ,', ' ' ", . ':"'",\'."~{' < .. . .' .,C.:2.< .: .... '~<'(,'~. < :""', ~« ':":: '~':'~1Ì\'~.1I.. · J , -... ".,' T ...' fl t / !Jown 0/ QUBBMbUI''fj aNO'rE TO FILE-' . '~'-' ' n.-' . I" ~lJp; rrn ....-:::.1 < PlaIming aDd Zoaing Departmeøt , DANIEL LING, ASSlSTAN~ PLANNER Application Numher: s,k fføn ~//- 88 'Apj_låcant/Projuct Name: 1dircm.1.;qck. !/YljrYlPtJ du " SO-I' ~ ~s since ~h ~/J~ri'cI ¿"I ct nfwe v It)ðS~ ~~f) "S/J-¡", ctW ~, 3o{ L0/88, . 7;./1 Q ~II 2.'7 ZßA l~im..¡J .r4ìs /;r»;'.} !ðLa~" 'rM1 a ~ itW.I JI {j I . . /. · ~/WJ/ - 'DANIEL LING Assistant Planner BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD 1< QUEfNSBURY. NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPHONE: (518) '792-S832 SETT ..[D 1763,.. HOME OF NATURAL BfAUTY... A COOD PLACE TO LIVe lIP" ,dL ~ _~¥=."'" ~.,~" ....,~~"\oo¡..\;¡:;._~ ¡¿-¡lite-IT Þ l~~ _..,J:~':ac,:-~,.~·~~~{.-..t,".»;''''''''~J:.~,·;~· '-----~' Jown 0/ Queenjbu~'fI FlLt " ~DPJ' ,.~n _ r::>""\ -NOTE TO FILE- Planning awl Zoning Departmènt ~!I y Y3 DANIEL LING, ASSISTANT PLANNER Application Number: Apj)licant/Projcct Name: .s: tIrJ'f'ÌClJ1C¿ /wr. 1&/1 JfZ1V11e.l ~,fIu 20'x 10 / flr~I' >t"cÆ s/Ï-.e Tt"r¡,r"......I- Iø q/Jø.} I / q / /8 X I ,,5 ..5f:J(e~. ., . . BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD QUEENSBURY. NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832 SETTLED 1763 . . . HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE L ..-- .......,.¡.-.,"~~;. :.:..- "".?~~~., -' ~ 4r''IIiÎIí/i<' .",. _~«~' <',..-TL< .. --- 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. ONE KESTNER LANE TROY, NEW YORK 12180 518-273-7446 K. WAYNE BUNN. P.E. JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE. S.E.T. September 27, 1988 Ms. Lee York Senior Planner Town òf Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Building Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12801 RE: Site Plan No. 41-88 - Adirondack Animal Hospital Expansion Dear Ms. York: I have reviewed the following project documents: 1. Site Plan Application 2. The following drawings: Drawing No. S-I, dated 29 June 1988, entitled Site Plan Existing; Drawing No. S-2, dated March 8, 1987, entitled Adirondack Animal Hospital On-Site Sewage Disposal System; Drawing No. SD-l, dated 22 July 1988, (as revised) entitled Site Development Plan; and Drawing No. A-I, dated 29 June 1988, containing floor plan, building sections, and elevations. The above documents were reviewed for conformance in three major areas: 1. Water supply. 2. Wastewater disposa¡ system. 3. Storm-water management. Water supply will be from the facilities of the Queensbury Water Storage and Distribution District through the installation of a new 1 1/2" water service line. The wastewater disposal system is indicated as existing and having been constructed last year in anticipation of the proposed building expansion. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING WATER, SEWAGE, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS ' PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISIO:-.l PIPELINE INSPECTION, METERING & SAMPLING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE /2 'IJlllJ 17 iJ' / Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner -2- September 27, 1988 Because of the nature of the existing site soils, a build-up tile system ( semi - fill) was constructed. Calcula tions provided on Sheet No. S-2 indicate that the system is adequate for the projected flows of 700 gallons per day. I would recommend that prior to the issuance of a Certificate <0 of Occupancy calculations Engineer. The project includes an extension of existing parking facilities from 17 to 26 with an additional three spaces, two of which are in front of the trash bin and one located at the west entrance. No calculations for storm-water management were provided, but two new dry wells are indicated. tha t Sheet No. be stamped by a S-2 NYS and the associated Licensed Professional I would suggest that at a minimum these dry wells be at least 8' in diameter with a 10' effective depth, traffic cover, and heavy duty inlet grate suitable for traffic. The wells should be surrounded with at least l' of No. 3 - Crushed Stone and interconnected by 6" PVC, SDR-35 equalization piping. sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS, Quentin T. Kestner, P.E. Vice President QTK/cp cc: Dan Ling, Assistant Planner All Planning Board Members --- 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. ONE KESTNER LANE TROY, NEW YORK 12180 518-273-7446 K. WAYNE BUNN, P.E. JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE, S.E.T. September 27, 1988 Ms. Lee York Senio~ Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Building Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12801 RE: Site Plan No. 42-88 - Office Building by Montgomery Dear Ms. York: I have examined the subject site drawing by William Montgomery and reviewed his letter of August 19, 1988. In correspondence to Mr. Montgomery on September 1, 1988, I advised Mr. Montgomery that a storm-water management plan and calculations and design for a septic system, both done by a Licensed Professional Engineer, would be required. On Friday, September 23, 1988, I was advised by Consultant, Frank Walter, P.E., that he was designing both a septic system and storm-water management system for the property and that this would be available for my review on Tuesday, September 27, 1988. This afternoon I did review both the storm-water management plan and the septic tank design prepared by Consulting Engineer, Frank Walter, P.E., and find them both acceptable. The subject office building will be served by the facilities of the Queensbury Water Storage and Distribution District, and therefore; adequate water for the intended purpose is available. It is my understanding that variances for location of the building and parking area have been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING WATER, SEWAGE, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS . PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTION, METERING & SAMPLING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE E Yfi/ta IT P Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner -2- September 27, 1988 Accordingly, I would recommend that the subject site plan be approved. Sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS, : ~ ~~~~ Quentin T. Kestner, P.E. Vice President QTK/cp cc: Dan Ling, Assistant Planner All Planning Board Members COUNTY OF WARREN DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS PEIMIT U..der Seetl.. 136 of HI,lIw.y Law,· ~ Road No~ e& 2S Permit N~. < "sa-59 Ins. Policy No. «~"!'~~...".o« Expires < ,,0<"__0< 1136 Jl~;~~:C?~u~.!? 2T~: :i?~S~DbeSTaUCTUU5 IN AND U.PON &o.\DI ON A OOUNTV ROAD SYlTEM any ......on firm. rorporalio" 0' ."."icipali., .ft.. CO""ruelecl IIpGft .IIY portae" ., . ..... _true_ .r ÎIa'~ - . -., ..... .,1I.m. ..r ....11 .round crO;''''~ Ih,r.ol, .r la, or _i.eai" I......;: d~" .r co..truet aa, ~ ill ... .,.. a., _II ...... .r _noel...,. _r...... 01 .lMin· "r.terilwd hy Ih. eOIl.'y ,"peri"lende"l. "I wichaeaÍICÜ ralll&,. _r ... _r .... ~. -~ "'r _h __tÎOIII ..... ....ulatio... .. -y be lown. Any muftiripal corporalÍO" may e"l.r "POft . III,::: _.a :. ...~- 1ft..... '" ...,. -. .r '" !lie _öcipftl ..Uaoritin ., .., will8l. or nl.nI (\. ."ntlrurli", .....1... or 10' ...,. .Ih.. '" COMt,..... UII'~ .. . -.., ..... ayale.. I.. ,... ~ ., wlde"i... ,he ,.w· .llII'din. Ih. IimilOlioft. ift aft, pft.ral or l tOc:ial ~ .lIthor~_':' dill ~. IIu& øIy .,~ _..i.... ,.....;' ." '.....WeII IIoreift. No,.ilh· .uperinl.lId.nl lurh . WIll 01 _Itey .. ma, be l.:.ct...." ...ftae_ _~rallen .....1 haft ..... II hereby ...... ...&I.."ty <10 depooi' wilh ahe cOllnly in Ihi. "clion. Any pe..on, lirm Or corpora,;"" =~Ii ':t. IIae ~·':..u""~··illdeftl .. · .COfIdllion ,nc"ftt Ie ,h. ,ra.11III ef ahe pe...it ,rovicltd "n. Iho....nd dolla.. lor _h alay ., aucII violalion 10" II -- laWa ~ . f... ., ..a. I~ ilia" ... hllllll.... dolla.. IIOr -,. Ihan enunly road lund crealed u"'r .".icla aia of III' . cIIa lie ~a"" ..... &he -..., ....n......a .... paid '" 10 !lie -.., Ire...." 10 the eredil 01 ,h. "'\pm in ac.orcbnrr willi tha ,.....ilion. ., aid :,., I ': ., ilia -.io., _'lUCtÍOll ..... -.i"IeM.a ., -." ... ." !lie COUftlY road 10 Ih. county COllrl 01 ,ha coun., .r eo ,he hi If a ...... -, aIeo lie ..~ &herel_ .. . a"'..._r by the _.., ....ri__.II -.on petilion L. 1951, c. 49. No.2. ell. ...... 26 l;'ï"'.C cOllrl .1 Ih. ..ea~. ~ ._~ .L. Itsl. c. 4~. No: 2, Itll. ,...< 26. Itsl. , , ,. -,...... .......... A., ..oael,.1 CIDf1IOra".... ._rled "., COMlnlCd.. __I...... WHEREAS, a c~rtain highway known as the < <Corinth No. CR 28 ha!' ix'('n improved and is on the Warren County Road System and WHEREAS'McDoD&1Ii. CorporaU,OD <..."..... whose address is 1S Ir1t:1ah AMrtcan Blvd.. A1rpoJ:'t< lark. t.atha.1t 12110 rl'qu/'sts ¡>('nnission to. . .d ~< construct r...veway <tu1trance lOSt feet ve.t of pruent entranc:. for over.ill.d"ehiele ace..... ., ....""..". ................. a~ prr skrtch or map attach~d. NOW, THEREFORE, pennission is h~reby granted to said McDonaldaCorporation 10 do ~aid work upon the following conditir.nsþ ~~i~-~~e-~~~··~;·~ ···~~"~~qUired . payable to the County Treasurer of Warren County is ~a~ 'f'curity that the highway will be restored to its original condition where disturbed at the f'xpcnse of the applicant, as soon as the work has been· completed. and the said County Superintendent of High- ways is h(,Tf'hy authorized to expend all or &I much of such depoait as may br nec:asary for that purpo5C. should thr sa.id applicant neglect or: refus~ to perfonn the work. SPECIAL CONDmONS 1) Applicant w1l1HDd a<cert1ficate..ot"i1uIuI'ADC.-t"gthe"CoüDcy"·öf ·V.na....· - .ddit1onal1n.~r."«"fQ.r. ..eo.u.tnact.1ou< Maiu (1ocU.l,.iajul'J"f500.000aach·· person¡ $1.000.000 each aec1üDt. property cl.&as. tlOO.OOO each acc1cSanc· f5oo,000 fora1l<.cëUäiït.<~·""""""·""·"··"""· <00'" .. « <'''<..0< <,,<.......................... « «.. ... . ..................................................... .., ...,.. .............................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In consid~rt:f<glT:i:.::~~..~~..=~ned accepts it IUbjcct~conditiona described. ðA-' ........ ...,=~..... 8{\\J ôt:::>«....o«o<...<....<.........<.. Ðep. eouftty Su rift.Ment 01 Hirh-YI Date ................. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Carefully read aDd fully comply with dae foUowiD¡ c:aacliti0lll. No work affecting the roots or tops of trees it authorlxd by the permit. ac:cptiac pemaits iMued for tbia purpoIC. GuyiD¡ to trecI requires written pennisaiOD. To avoid cIama¡e to powcr- aDd commwùc:ation 1iDcs ad cabla, pi maiDS, water mains, etc.. permittee shall contact the OWDcn thereof and obtain thcir permilliOD before starting work. It is mandatory to notify the penon or municipality distributiDc pa ÌD that area at leut 72 houn in advance before discharging cxpIœiva. Cooduct operatiOGl ufely. PreveDt acddeD... 8.. Add It I 0 na I Con d I t Ion a on Rev.r... ¡;; 'X HI (J 'T r;., (onl. ) '-.-/ 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. ONE KESTNER LAM TROY. NEW YORK 12180 518-273-7446 K. WAYNE BUNN. P.E. JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE, S.E.T. September 27, 1988 Ms. Lee York Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Building Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12801 RE: Site Plan No. 43-88 - McDonald's Corp. - Extension of Parking Lot Dear Ms. York: I have reviewed the Site Plan Application, Site Drawing Nos. SP-l and SP-IA, and two (2) survey drawings by Hoffman Engineers dated June 14 and 17, 1988, respectively. These drawings were reviewed for conformance to Town Standards, and specifically, the facilities for storm-water management. The storm-water drainage analysis and management report was prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer and adequately presents runoff calculations and recommendations for the installation of storm-water dry wells with interconnecting piping. Subsurface test borings by Empire Soils Investigation, Inc., Nos. B-1 - B-7 indicate a fine to medium < sand subsurface which is sui table for the storm dry wells suggested. It would appear that the new entrance and exit is non-conforming with Section 7.071, Paragraph D, specifically: 1. There is no physical barrier separating the ingress and egress area. 2. Access points should be separated from adjacent access points by at least 150 feet. As measured from the widest point of the apron, the new access point is only 30 feet from the existing. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING WATER, SEWAGE, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS . PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROl TElEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTION. METERING & SAMPLING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ,tÇ}t H-/~/T H / / / /' /'" Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner -2- September 27, 1988 The developer could address these two problems by moving his new access point to the far west corner of the property. Sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. c. ~~ Quentin T. Kestner, P.E. Vice President QTK/cp cc: Dan Ling, Assistant Planner All Planning Board Members " -.... I í , I . : - , I < . - . , ;,. '::- '. . ~ <, -- \ '-... .. -f=;j'.... .. FILE COpy ~ " J :,: ",.< TOWN OF QUEEN$SWW WARREN COUN.'TY \..,..~~./ :i~LÃNíJ¡~" . ~,~ ~1W1f~\)-~r¡ I II . ~ <', e~~:J. r.v:¡ Lt; ~j ~I "'~'<"', " " I- '.', ;',; í Ii! r . '. SfP 2~988 ~ J. U w~rrof)~~unlr Mu~icip~1 Conler . . ~-.;j' LðkcGcorgc.'NcwYork,1264S ¿;r' 'I 'V" <,-, '.¡(L~:r L'>t ";>1 '. <. i'~"; ,I, ï . :.,.....'11. Ii;~'(j...~.;¡ (.:' L¡¡)f\U;\I~"· r c:h:llnOIlC ~ 18·161·6410 <~ t:p;>.. ;¡.:r~ ~1.":~.I" '., , . '" . , .. ... ~.I, ._, '" :" ;¡ <'"Ii i I J" .Jì ,;1 i·;: ;'«'<J<' .... ',< .'......, ".-... y,.;.í·. ''','t'' ~".. ", ,'¡I", " \ . ~, ..J DATE: September 14, 1988,. ~:.: RE:- SPR45:"88"~;~~'~~~<:,J, TO: ," ~ +- ,i, I' « , '. ;. ," I ,'':':.<1<. - . <.' Ae a meeC1nS of the\larren Couney Pl&nn1ns' Board,:,held'on ehe of Septe~ber, 198~< :t~e ~bo;ve 'åppl~~~t'1on"~fóÞ;¡ai:s~te:Pla~ Review an'addition'to: the .SW,corner.of'anÒexistinglbu:f.lding. to' , 14th. day add \' - -r .,.;..": I,; ;:. -:'; '<r:~~:': -~ ¡~. '~t~, ~'~~r~ .,),~,::(.,:,i~ '.." , w~s revt.ewed. and the foU~w1ng aceion :~a~,,\~ake'n:\:;~ecolMI<endat 10n to: ,<..ì:, ' < '''" «<:', '< h·,'<i:'<,,:;< <'<"::¡'W'< .,<,< :,,<,<:< ',<' () Approve (.), D1sapproval'(X )Î'Hod<1fy;~¡~~tJ\~'C~nd,,1t1~~S« ( ) ~c!turn, Commenc: ..',. ..." <" . '·'::.,·,J,<;:<,:~t:'>'::~,:tiì'<I«':¡./;:A·(; /l1'¡Jltr"'l..It/J-6~E.f() "h} ,,9 ¡)~~;'~~'(")/ÎRi¡¿¡;'¡' ~/l~~/f"r'I*/lOIJ¿r,,,, s ;C/l()~ CLI?/<IWQC)~: ;C/ß~¡ By <¿A;V~$C;'~/;;<~'::~~'~H~~~~:::iJp_/¿/£/Jð€S /jt().v& 1);1./ 7 6~£PWO()ð. Zr W"'~ nt..507<dcO'''/tf¡f.NQ,4,...Þ;<~~a.~IftI¡..l#,h~~ ~. ,.c~w ~/NUí !t-_5..P.!!.!:!?__~_~~~£~#"~j~:'1~_~~~_..é./1!~.l.Ji¿:_!fté..~d.'~~.:_~-"_~:~~ t,ot/?;,c;C/c It is the pol1cy of .·t~e :;warren<Co'u~'tY:"Plán~1~g:,,80~;d;tt~': follow. the,f,~¿OW procedures of the 'New,: Yo'rk,Scace Ceneral;:l'b.IR1c 1pab1..â;"~;:Scct10n 2 39-M, ':::., with regard toHu~1cipa1"Z~n1ngact1ons,<ehat;a're<:1ré\'ferr'ed ::toand reporced ' chereon. The fotlow~ng ;-are:{"pr<oc·edura1:tre_qu.«['e!n~r\tsi,thamust be adhered to: . ..... \ ,<!' :>:K,\..·.' ,:,': . r',\::~";.1l,,{::'!t:>:::;1''?(~:<!... . 1.) The Warren" ,County; Plann1ng<'Board"$.ha¡l'r,epo:rc·"it's,,< recoml1lendat 10n5 to the. Ir'e f~rr 1n'g':ID~Ú\ 1cipal::ag'ericY['';'::,.'cco:l1IpaiÙed.::bY ',;a~;full ¡'s ta temen t <, for suc'h<, actions )';;;~Hno, ¡act1o~,.<1$!¡t'àke!\/~Ùh(n·:th1rcy <'( 30 )da y s or agreed,·upon.;~1IDe~:¡: tt\e';mul\~cf"p~:~~(~g~,n.c~Laa~ylà,C:'~":,:,+~h~ut. such re por ~~; <;~:f~';;:;;,( r:¡~~;:;t)¡;-f'i;::i:¡¡;l~::.¡i}{~~!t.f¡!¡~:'~fi:~'.2!t[i¡¡i~;!~¡!'~}::;:,};;j :h~;· ,!'",". ",; . , 2.) If the<rec<oauaendat.10~;·.1.?'f~~;~~~s~PP,~~v~H'?~~'.~'-'e:',~rC)p,~sa.1r"or<,: ¡ '<:,.^ modH1cat1on thereof," th~I.ì.un1cipal·'<agency.~·.,~a<11·!:not I ace contrary to such act1on<excepc' bt'·.::v~t·e,of:'~ "¡~;,jår'1t'yXp.lus ;,oneo£ all <the' meMbers,' the reof> and ,"at Ce r,~ttie~J,&dQPC 1oo>'of':~å':rr¡esolut10n,fully . " . n,' . _I' ':-- ~"~,,' "'~_" :_~ ,ri:,:, I", ,..,'.,' ,,_ ¡ ,'..," ;1.: -,t,,·.-., "",' ,'.' . setting' forch"''the'ireasons' for.:,sÚch~.contrat">:u~c·t~1ons'~ ,';. < ).) Within,. seven·àY\~à)"$'.·ft·ërt~~~~i"(i'~, l'<~:~~~lo~~'bythe mun1dp.t 1 ' agency' hay 1n{'j ÚdsdÚ c 10n' c;nht'~e}'réco¡nmefÙJ¡¡t ions ,: 'mod 1£ lea c 10":; or disapproval' of' a' referred' I114c~'er" 'such :"!unlc1pal cy agency shall fHe & report wlth' the warren:'Cou~cYjf)a:1l' oard on the necusary form. ." Q-J)' r /flY A- .. 1)1( .,-:,"0 .. ,< " ¡:; XII ø I T ::r: .... . . ,-_/ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMM~~TEE 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 Planning Board Datel 9/12/88 (x) Queensbury To~ Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant Rei Site Plan #45-88 - John Ma~thews - corner Bay and Glenwood We have reviewed the reques~ forl( ) Variance, ex) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (X) Approval. ( ) Disapproval Paving will be removed from three areas: Northeast corner - a space 8'x55' South east corner - trianlge 48'< on Bay and 48' on Glenwood Southwest corner of paved are. These areas .will contain andoraJunipers spreading yews. Blue Rug Junipers and Landscape Boulders mulched with shredded bark. The,plants presently used as a foundation planting for the existi~ building wilí be continued for the addition. The exact location of the entrance doors will be determinedand plants installed acco¡-dingly. Planting plans approved as submitted. 't In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Cownittee wishes to go on record tha~ 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. ~~fUll~ë2X' ~~ddY. Chai;ttínan ~ TOWN OF QUEENS BURY ZONING ORDIHAHCE SECTION 5.070 REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I AND TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW In order to approve any Type I and Type II Site Plan Review use, the Planning Board shall find that: A. The use complied with all other requirements of this Ordinance, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located, and B. The use would be in harmony with the general purpose of intent of this Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location, character, and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use, and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use, and C. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion, or the parking of automobiles or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town, and D) The project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making this determination, the Planning Board shall consider those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein and in so doing, the Planning Board shall make a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in Section 6.040 of this Article. E. The Planning Board review of the Site Plan shall include, as appropriate, but not limited to the following general standards: 1. Location arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. 2. Adequacy including controls. and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic 3. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. ... continued ... -- -../ TOWN OF QUEEHSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 5.070 REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I AND TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW PAGE 2 4. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular overall pedestrian convenience. circulation, traffic and 5. Adequacy of storm water drainage facilities. 6. Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. 7. Adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead or deceased plants. 8. Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. 9. Adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Rev.: 8/16/88