1988-11-15
'---
QUEENSBURY TOWN PLAHHIHG BOARD
Regular Meeting: Tuesday, November 15, 1988 at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman
Peter Cartier
Frank DeSantis
Hilda Mann
Joseph Dybas
Victor Macri
Paul Dusek, Counsel
Mary Jane F. Moeller, Secretary Pro Tem
Mr. Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Due to the
upcoming holidays, Monday and Tuesday, December 19 and 20, 1988, are dates
to be held in abeyance for next month's meetings. There was no action
taken on the October 18 and 25, 1988 minutes, they will be covered at the
next regular meeting.
OLD BUSIHESS
SITE PLAN HO. 38-88
Empire Video Superstore
Movin' Movies, Inc.
The
Video
Route
Union.
application is for a
movies on Route 9,
9 towards Glens Falls
Video Store. retail space rentals and sales of
Upper Glen Street, PC-1A. Location: south on
on the right hand side - just beyond the Grand
John
Tabled
green
traffic
Nigro, Owner, represented the application, which was previously
on the recommendation of the Planning Board, so that the issues of
space permeability in relation to the entire shopping center and the
and parking impact of the store could be further studied.
Mack Dean, Morse Engineering Engineer, discussed the project site and
conclusions reached. regarding permeability. Calculations were based on
previous and current permeability requirements of the entire property, 20'
and 30' respectively. After review of Mr. Dean's letter of ll/2,3/88
(Exhibit A), Mr. Roberts stated that the application does qualify as to
permeability. Regarding the landscaping/permeability, Mr. Dean stated
-The total square footage of permeable land immediately adjacent to the
building amounts to 4240 square feet (.097 acres).- -This figure, coupled
with the computed permeable area of the entire Plaza property, amounts to
a total green area of 2.47 acres of a 6.31 acre site which surpasses even
the current zoning requirements for Plaza Commercial of 30 percent
permeability.-
In addition, Mr. Roberts reviewed the fact that the Planning Board was
1
concerned about the parking areas to the south of the building and that
the neighbor to the south took exception to that. There was no review by
a Town Engineer for Site Plan Review 5-85 dated 5/21/85, in addition,
there had been no review for the present application by Quentin Kestner,
Town Designated Consultant/Engineer. George Kurosaka, Jr., Project
Engineer, in his letter dated 5/18/85 primarily addressed the septic
system (Exhibit B). There was considerable discussion regarding proper
drainage, the majority of the flow goes to the east towards Route 9.
After some heavy rains, Mr. Dybas noticed nothing deep or significant; it
is the nature of the land to be flat, with no good pitch (he did not go
behind the Rustler). Mr. Dean informed Mr. DeSantis that the estimated
hookup date with the newly-installed lines will be within the year.
Public Hearing: no comment
Nick Sciartelli, Morse Engineering, discussed parking layout and traf-
fic flow patterns as noted in his summary (Exhibit A2), which used as a
reference the Town of Queensbury's parking standards (Section 7.072).
Parking comparisons were made to two facilities: retail store or bank and
a commercial or shopping center, while traffic comparisons were compared
to a drive-in restaurant, short-term stay of about 20 minutes, during peak
hou~ of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.. Based upon his report, Mr. Sciartelli
recommended that the provided parking spots that are presently at the site
(35) would be on the low end of the anticipated estimate of parking spaces
required for the facility. There is a right-of-way between the subject
site and a beverage store on the south, a traffic area between the subject
site and bank on the north, which leads to other businesses at the east-
erly portion of the site. Cars leaving the Video store would be backing
into both areas. Mr. Sciartelli stated that there are a sufficient number
of designed parking spaces for the facility. One of the benefits on Route
9 is the newly-improved north/south refuge area, where cars heading north
can be out of the way of ongoing traffic before turning left; a traffic
light will be installed at an appropriate exit for the Grand Union, which
will allow for easier and safer movement of traffic.
In
store,
rant,
gested
not in
advice
amount
tion.
summarizing that there are to be an estimated 200 cars/hour for this
Mr. Macri asked if Glen Street can handle that amount, as a restau-
the Rustler had approximately 30 to 40 cars/hour. Mr. Cartier sug-
one way in/one way out; however, it was determined that this was
the jurisdiction of the Town Planning Board. Mr. Macri felt that
in this area is needed, because there must be a concern about the
and safety of traffic that will be generated at the proposed loca-
Mr. Roberts' impression was that the applicant has proven his case and
that greater changes cannot be made, because much of the site is pre-exist-
ing, there can be no tampering of the rights-of-way.
There was a review of the Beautification Committee approval (Exhibit
C). A change in the facade would encorporate removal of certain signage,
2
"--
there would also be removal of a marquis and poster box. The first four
parking spaces would be removed, and the entrance to the store is on the
southern Glen Street side. Review by the Board was on Plot Plan S-l dated
lO/l3/88. In order to avoid any confusion, Mr. DeSantis requested that
elevations be encorporated with the map.
Mr. Dybas moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 38-88, Empire Video Super-
store/Movin' Movies, Inc.. The client has addressed traffic, parking and
the green area. The Board would feel more comfortable with input from the
Town Designated Consultant/Engineer, however, no information was avail-
able. In addition. recommendations from Warren County Planning Board and
the Beautification Committee are to be adopted. The applicant's Submis-
sion No. 3 is the Site Plan revised 10/13/88. Changes such as front/side
elevations, removal of poster box and marquis, etc. will become part of
the file.
Passed 4 Yes (Dybas, Roberts, Cartier, DeSantis)
2 No (Mann.. Macri)
Seconded by Mr. Cartier.
.
Mrs. Mann
feel that
the Town,
something
Mrs. Mann
project of
stated that -even though this is a pre-existing condition, I
this is a major piece of property at a major intersection of
and that a project of this size should be reviewed every time
is done.- There should be professional recommendations.
wished the new tenant good luck, but emphasized again that a
this size should be professionally reviewed.
SITE PLAN HO. 55-88
David P. Eastwood
WITHDRAWN by the applicant.
SITE PLAN RO. 48-88
Charles and Patricia Mouzalas
TABLED by the applicant prior to the meeting.
NEW BUSIBESS
SITE PLAN MO. 59-88
Linda and Victor Gush
3
<-
The application is for a proposed addition of 19 ft. x 41 ft. 6 in.
L-shaped dock, proposed construction of a new 36 ft. x 38 ft. (with skirt)
close-sided boathouse at a Route 9L lakefront, WR-3A. Location: l/4 mile
towards Lake George Village from the Route 9L/Bay Road intersection.
John Mason was representative for the project and stated that the pro-
posal complies with the Town of Queensbury Ordinance covering docks and
boathouses, and is 40 feet from the mean low water mark. Mr. Cartier sug-
gested that this could be termed a -commercial dock,- because he felt that
the design would accommodate four berths (Exhibit D, Article 2, Section
2.020). Mr. Mason stated that. during talks with the Lake George Park
Commission, there was a question as to whether the dock site was an -E- or
a -U- and ·L,- however. if two -U's- were required, then there would be
more construction along the shore. Presently, there is 3 l/2 ft. between
the wall and the outside of the boathouse where, Mr. Cartier felt, another
boat could be tied. Mr. Mason emphasized that the landowner is permitted
two docks, three boats can be tied to the -U--shaped dock and one boat to
the proposed -L--shaped dock, for a total of four.
Mr. Dusek advised that the ordinance refers to ~ dock accommodating
up to three boats, if that is so in this case, there is no problem. There
will be a problem if more than three boats are to be docked. Under the
existing ordinance with l80 feet, Mr. Mason said the landowner would be
allowed to keep the existing -U- and build another -U;- however. the goal
should be to build less dock construction on Lake George and confine the
docks to as small a space as possible. In addition, he continued that the
Ordinance is very stringent in terms of shapes and sizes of docks and
width of piers, shapes in the form of -F,- -L.· -U,- -T,· -1,- and -E.-
The Ordinance covers the length, width, type of construction, in addition,
Queensbury requests a Site Plan Review. This type of application requires
at least eight permits, four public hearings. $2 - $3.000, etc. Mr.
Cartier was still concerned about the number of boats and whether or not
the docks would be rented, he was assured the docks would not be leased.
Mr. DeSantis was also assured that there would be no more dock construc-
tion on the property, there would only be two registrations from the Lake
George Park Commission, if handled properly. Mr. Mason also stated that
he assumed that the Queensbury Dock Ordinance was going to be revised in
the very near future to comply with the current Ordinance of the Lake
George Park Commission. He assumed that Queensbury was keeping records of
this type of Site Plan Review, however, docks could be registered in the
same way as the Lake George Park Commission. To make things more
complicated. Ordinances are written separately: a set of guidelines for a
dock and a set of guidelines for a boathouse, they are separate
structures. Mr. Mason recommended to those persons rewriting the
Ordinance to leave boathouses as they stand ten feet away from the pro-
perty line over existing docks, in contrast to twenty feet from the pro-
perty line. In reference to crib docks, Mr. Roberts felt that owners
4
should be allowed to rebuild the docks 10 feet from the property line, if
they are on a permanent foundation.
Staff comments from Lee York were read (Exhibit E), in addition to
correspondence from the Lake George Park Commission, dated 11/8/8 (Exhibit
F). Mr. Mason verified that the new dock would be in compliance. In
answer to Ms. York's remarks, Mr. Roberts commented that, because of the
curve in the property, the construction would not block any neighboring
views.
Mr. Dusek advised that the applicant is building on an existing, non-
conforming dock. The Zoning Administrator considers it a nonconforming
use and the addition of the boathouse would be in compliance, therefore,
no Variance would be needed. The issue before the Planning Board is
whether there are one or two docks and a Site Plan Review. Mr. DeSantis
recommended to the Board that the Application say this is the second of
two docks and/or the approval has to be on the condition that the appli-
cant agrees that this is the second of two docks. He also recommended to
the Board that this particular type of Site Plan be filed in the County
Clerk's Office, as is done with land structures. It would be a very inex-
pensive way to register docks, without a numbering system.
Mr. Mason noted that a portion of the dock that butts into shore was
omitted from the plan. The back end of the dock is a water area with
trapped debris, the dock still falls within 700 square feet, in order to
comply with the Lake George Park Commission. All of the building permits
have been based upon that fact.
Public Hearing:
Monica Kowalewski: Bartlett Pontiff Stewart, et ale representing Dark
Bay Association.
The Association at this time has no objection to the Site Plan Review,
however, it would like more time to properly review the matter. The
notice was sent on Wednesday, November 9, and, due to the holiday, some
notices were not received until Monday, November 14. Also, the present
feeling is that the lot is in violation of the present Ordinance, basic-
ally that the lot cannot extend more than 40 feet offshore from the Mean
Low Water Mark. Ms. Kowlaewski stated that the present application is 9
1/2 feet past the permitted 40 feet; she stated there is no proof that the
dock is in compliance with the 40 feet.
Mr. Mason stated that the dock has to be in compliance when it is
built, otherwise it will be removed. Each one is measured with a Roger1s
Rock reading on a specific day. To further clarify, Mean High Water is
320.2 feet above sea level, Mean Low Water is 317.74 feet above sea level.
The
impact
other
from
concern of
the building.
the association is that there would be visual
However, Mr. Mason assured that measurements
5
were according to the Ordinance: l8 feet for a peak roof, l4 feet flat.
James Adams: Dark Bay resident
Mr. Adams represented three
application and said there was
Association.
families
never a
who have no objections to the
vote taken at the Dark Bay
Ms. Kowalewski requested that the Board Table the application until all
members were notified, the owners are absentee. It was determined, how-
ever, that any adjoining property owners would have an opportunity to com-
ment at future Lake George pUblic meetings.
Mr. Durante: homeowner on the point.
He had no objections and felt that the application would be a good addi-
tion to the cove.
Public Hearing Closed
Mr. Dusek requested that Section 617.ll Environmental Regulations be
acted upon, to see if there was any significant impact for consideration.
There was no negative impact. Resolution No. 59-88, 1988 attached.
Mr. DeSantis moved APPROVAL
Gush, based upon the findings
that the Town Planning Board
Queensbury Ordinance.
of Site Plan No. 59-88, Linda and Victor
of the Negative Declaration and the fact
had reviewed Section 5.070 of the Town of
Seconded by Mr. Macri.
Passed Unanimously
SITE PLAN NO. 60-88
Margaret E. Bunke
The proposed use of the application is: one (1) bedroom, one (l) bath.
Project description: full cellar (l6 ft. x 24 ft.), water intake to lake,
new windows and siding, studio/loft 8 ft. x l6 ft. on Rockhurst Road,
Cleverdale, WR-1A. Location: Route 9L to Cleverdale, take Rockhurst
turnoff, left at bottom of hill.
John Mason represented the project and stated that originally the pro-
posal was for a full foundation. However, after discussion with the
Planning Department and being informed that a foundation would require a
Site Plan Review, Mrs. Bunke decided to apply for -everything I wanted to
do here.- Included is the installation of a winter water line, which is
6
down four (4) feet. The studio loft is for Mrs. Bunke's artwork.
Warren County referred to the Queensbury Ordinance stating that any
conversion from seasonal use to full-time use requires that the septic
system be brought up to standards. Mr. Mason advised the Board that, at
Rockhurst, it is impossible to bring the septic system up to standards,
unless a system such as a holding tank were to be installed. Mrs. Bunke
has no intention of living at the residence year round. As far as Mr.
Mason can determine, the system was installed in 1955, with no problem
since that time. Mr. DeSantis advised that, since the septic system is 33
years old, it is not up to code, and the Board is requiring that all
applicants verify how the septic systems can be brought up to code. Mr.
Mason offered to submit a written guarantee that the house will be used a
certain amount of days each year. Staff remarks from Lee York were read
into the record (Exhibit G). Continuing discussion on the septic system,
Mr. DeSantis noted that Mrs. Bunke was willing to bring all other areas up
to code, but not the septic system. At that point, Mr. Mason said that
house would not be winterized, and one pipe would be left exposed. How-
ever. it was strongly pointed out to him that the application was in for
Site Plan Review where nothing is -grandfathered- and all septic systems
were being checked. Mr. Dusek stated there is sufficient information in
Article 5.070 of the Town Ordinance to require a review of the septic
system. The SEQR process is vital, due to the to sewage in Lake George.
Regarding
be necessary
location to
engineer.
the
to
be
application process, Mr. Mason was informed that it will
supply to the Board the type, condition, tank size and
determined by inspection by a licensed professional
The Planning Board, with agreement by John Mason, TABLED Site Plan No.
60-88. Margaret E. Bunke, as the application is incomplete, including but
not limited to Item '20 of the Site Plan Review Application.
SITE PLAN HO. 61-88
Roger and Karen Howard
The proposed project is to remodel the existing four (4) bedroom, three
(3) bath house on Rockhurst Road, Cleverdale, WR-1A. Location: Route 9L
to Cleverdale, take Rockhurst turnoff, .4 mile towards the point from
Seelye Road turnoff.
John Mason represented the application.
The Planning Board, with agreement by John Mason. TABLED Site Plan No.
61-88, Roger and Karen Howard, as the application is incomplete, including
but not limited to Item #20 of the Site Plan Review Application.
7
'~
SITE PLAN NO. 62-88
Robert and Linda Wall
The application is for the demolition of the existing boathouse and con-
struction of a new 30 ft. 6 in. x 37 ft. close-sided boathouse. Demoli-
tion of the dock and construction of a new 36 ft. x 40 ft. U-shaped dock.
The location is Assembly Point, east side of Lake George. WR-1A.
Staff
made to
commented
Variances.
comments from Lee York were read (Exhibit H), and reference was
Lake George Park Commission comments (Exhibit F). Mr. DeSantis
that the application is conforming and does not require any
The Board reviewed SEQR Section 617.ll with Mr. Dusek, there were no
negative impacts on the environment. (Resolution 62-88, 1988 attached)
Public Hearing.
Jim Davies: lives to the north
Mr.
Board
view
area.
Davies has no objection to the application, and he informed the
that the elevation is such that it will not be a deterrent to the
and appears to be an attractive addition to the neighborhood and
Mr. Davies requested that a procedure be set up to correct property
owner addresses. when there is a change in ownership. This would facili-
tate notification of pertinent meetings to the correct residents on a
timely basis. Mr. Davies said he could see a problem in the future.
Correspondence: Warren County approved.
Public Hearing Closed
Mr. Macri Moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 62-88, Robert and Linda Wall.
The application meets the criteria of Article 5.070 of the Town of Queens-
bury Zoning Ordinance and there is no significant environmental impact.
Seconded by Mr. Dybas.
Passed Unanimously
SITE PLAN HO. 63-88
Joseph Clemente
8
The application is for the demolition of the existing 16 ft. by 33 ft.
close-sided boathouse, proposed construction of a new l6 ft. x 33 ft. open-
sided boathouse and 3 ft. x 4 ft. storage shed on Mason Road, Cleverdale,
WR-1A. Location: Route 9L to east side of Lake George, take Cleverdale
Road turn off, left hand turn on Lackey Road, right turn on Mason Road,
5th house on left.
John Mason represented the applicant. The 3 ft. x 4 ft. storage shed
would be constructed under a walkway next to the lake. The existing walk-
way and stairs going to the boathouse are going to be identical, where the
walkway comes over the top of the very high retaining wall back towards
shore is where the storage shed will be located. The reason for the stor-
age shed is for the security of personal belongings, and it will interfere
with activities if constructed on the dock.
Correspondence: Staff comments from Lee York were read (Exhibit I), as
well as comments included in a letter from the Lake George Park Commission
(Exhibit F).
Public Hearing: no comment
The Planning Board reviewed with Mr. Dusek the SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FORM. PART II, C. No negative impact to the environment was
determined (Hegative Declaration 63-88, 1988 attached).
Mr. DeSantis
The application
Queensbury Zoning
Declaration.
moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 63-88, Joseph Clemente.
meets the criteria of Article 5.070 of the Town of
Ordinance, as well as the findings of the Negative
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
Passed Unanimously
SITE PLAN HO. 64-88
Richard Rozell, Jr.
Foothill Apartments
Present Use: Phase I, front 2.25 acres developed with two duplexes with
garages and remaining 5.44 acres of vacant land. proposed Use: Phase II,
two additional duplexes with a two-car garage, each one-single family
dwelling with a two-car detached garage.
Correspondence: Comments from Ms. York (Exhibit J) and Mr. Kestner
(Exhibit K). Warren County Planning Board approved with no comments.
Richard Morse, Morse Engineering represented the project and stated
9
'---
that Phase I was before the Board approximately one year ago, which was
the construction of two duplex units and installation of the Utility Build-
ing. Since Phase I, the Town has gone through rezoning and enforcement of
new regulations.
Mr. Morse confirmed that the duplex structures will measure 20 ft. x 25
ft./floor. The cul-de-sac will be at the eastern end of the development,
the water line has been extended with a hydrant at the end, and a buffer
has been retained in the wooded area of 25 feet on both sides of the
project.
Mr. Cartier was advised that the intent is to place the dumpster within
the tree line with fencing.
The road has been designed to Town standards, but presently it is not a
Town road, however, it may be a Town road in the future. Highway Superin-
tendent Paul Naylor was requested to visit the road site in Phase I, how-
ever, this was not done because the private road is a dead end and over
1000 feet. Mr. Morse stated that the developers put the asphalt in and
the grading, and materials are in accordance with the current specifica-
tions, this was completed under the owner's direction. The holding will
continue to be private until Mr. Rozelle wishes to petition the Town to
get it approved.
The Planning Board
MENTAL ASSESSMENT, with
64-88, 1988 attached).
reviewed with Mr. Dusek 617.11 PART II - ENVIRON-
no negative impact shown (Negative Declaration
Public Hearing: no comment.
Mr. Cartier moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 64-88, Richard Rozell, Jr./-
Foothills Apartments. The Board has considered the Negative Declaration
and reviewed Article 5.070. The Approval is with the stipulation that
there must be appropriate screening of trash.
Seconded by Mrs. Mann
Passed Unanimously
PLANHIHG BOARD BUSIHESS
Mr. Dusek stated that the purpose of this portion of the meeting was to
revise and amend the Site Plan Review Application. specifically Paragraph
#20 as follows:
20. Current Sewage Disposal System (condition, type, tank size, loca-
tion).
Condition to be determined by inspection of system by a licensed,
professional engineer.
10
---
-Be it further resolved that the Sr. Planner is hereby authorized to
amend all forms to comply with this directive and also notify the Depart-
ment of Building and Codes of the Amendment.-
Unanimously Approved
Chairman Roberts adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Richard Roberts, Chairman
-7~
Date
Moeller, Pro Tem
1Ô?·'7·¡-P
Date
11
'''"--
'-./
617.11 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
(a) To determine whether a proposed Type I or unlisted action may have a
significant effect on the environment, the impacts which may be reasonably
expected to result from the proposed action must be compared against the
criteria in this section. Agencies may also develop criteria in addition
to those listed in this section to assist them in determining signifi-
cance. Such criteria must be adopted in accordance with the procedures in
Section 617.4 of the Part. The following list is illustrative, not exhaus-
tive. These criteria are considered indicators of significant effects on
the environment.
(l) a sub8tantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or
surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise levels, a substantial
increase in 80lid waste production; a substantial increase in potential
for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems,
(2) the removal of destruction of large quantities of vegetation or
fauna; substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migra-
tory fish or wildlife species, impacts on a significant habitat area, sub-
stantial adverse effects on a threatened or endangered s~ecies of animal
or plant. or the habitat of such a species, or other significant adverse
effects to natural resources,
(3) the encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a
place or places for more than a few days, compared to the number of people
who would come to such place absent the action,
(4) the creation of a material conflict with a community's current
plans or goals as officially approved or adopted;
(5) the impairment of the character or quality of important historical.
archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources or of existing commun-
ity or neighborhood character,
(6) a major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy;
(7) the creation of a hazard to human health,
(S) a substantial change in the use. or intensity of use of land includ-
ing agricultural. open space or recreational resources, or in its capacity
to support existing uses;
(9) the creation of a material demand for other actions which would
result in one of the above consequences,
(lO) changes in two or more elements of the environment. no one of
which has a significant effect on the environment, but when considered
together result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment; or
Page 1 of 2
12
'---
--"
(ll) two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an
agency, non of which has or would have a significant effect on the environ-
ment. but when considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the
criteria in this section.
(b) For the purpose of determining whether an action will cause one of the
foregoing consequences, the lead agency must consider reasonably related
long-term, short-term and cumulative effects. including other simultaneous
or subsequent actions which are:
(1) included in any long-range plan of which the action under consider-
ation is a part;
(2) likely to be undertaken as a result thereof, of
(3) dependent thereon.
(c) The significance of a likely consequence (ie: whether it is material,
substantial, large or important) should be assessed in connection with:
(l) its setting (eg: urban or rural),
(2) its probability
(3) its duration;
(4) its irreversibility;
(5) its geographic scope,
(6) its magnitude, and
(7) the number of people affected.
Page 2 of 2
13
<,--
<---/
SHORT BllVIROBMBll'rAL ASSESSMBR'!' FORM. PAR'!' II, C.
C. COULD ACTIOH RESULT IH ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOW-
ING:
Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity.
noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or
disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?
C2. Aesthetic. agricultural. archeological, historic, or other natural or
cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character?
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish. shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a
change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be
induced by the proposed action?
C6. Long term. short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in
Cl - C5?
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy)?
14
'--
-,,'
RESOLUTIOB WHBII DETERMIBATION OF NO SIGBIFICABCB IS MADE
Resolution No. 59-88
, 1988
Introduced by: Frank DeSantis
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by:
Hilda Mann
WHEREAS. there is presently before the planning Board an application
for: addition of L-shaped dock and close-sided boathouse, and
WHEREAS. this Planning
and Planning Board action
mental Quality Review Act,
Board has determined that the proposed project
is subject to review under the State Environ-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
l. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved: Warren County Planning Board,
Queensbury Planning Board. Department of Environmental Conservation,
Adirondack Park Association, Lake George Park Commission. Corps of
Army Engineers,
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of
the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli-
cant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter-
mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of Hew York, this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of
the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file
as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this
vote:
15
day of November
. 1988. by the following
AYES
6 :
HOES
o :
ABSENT 0 :
15
~.
-./
RBSOLU'fXOB 1IHBII DB'l'ElUUBATXÐR or BO SIGRXrXCAII'l' XS MADE
Resolution No. 62-88 , 1988
Introduced by: Joseph Dybas
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by: Victor Macri
WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application
for: approval of Site Plan for boathouøe and dock. and
WHEREAS, this Planning
and Planning Board action
mental Quality Review Act.
Board has determined that the proposed project
is subject to review under the State Environ-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. The Federal Agency involved is the Corps of Army Engineers.
2. Other agencies that appear to be involved are the Department of
Environmental Conservation, Lake George Park Commission, Town of
Queensbury Planning Board. Warren County Planning Board, and
posøible the Adirondack Park Commission.
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of
the Town of Queensbury
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli-
cant.
5. Having conøidered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter-
mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Complilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of
the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file
as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 15
vote:
day of Hovember
. 1988, by the following
AYES
6 :
NOES 0
ABSENT 0 a
16
--
'-/<
RBSOLU'1'ION WIIBR DftERMIBATION OF HO SIGlfIFICABCE IS MADE
Resolution Ho. 63-88 , 1988
Introduced by: Victor Macri
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by: Frank DeSantis
WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application
for: demolition of boathouse and construction of boathouse and storage
shed and
WHEREAS, this Planning
and Planning Board action
mental Quality Review Act,
Board has determined that the proposed project
is subject to review under the State Environ-
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
l. The federal agency appear to be involved is the Corps of Army
Engineers.
2. The following agencies are involved: Warren County Planning Board.
Lake George Park Commission, Adirondack Park Commission.
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of
the Town of Queensbury
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli-
cant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter-
mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of
the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file
as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this
vote:
15 day of
November . 1988, by the following
AYES
6 :
NOES
o :
ABSENT 0 :
17
<,--,
-.../
RESOLUTION WIlER DBTERMIlIATIOB OF HO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
Resolution No. 64-88 , 1988
Introduced by: Frank DeSantis
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by. Hilda Mann
WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application
for: addition of two duplexes and one simplex, and
WHEREAS. this Planning
and Planning Board action
mental Quality Review Act,
Board has determined that the proposed project
is subject to review under the State Environ-
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
l. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. No other agencies appear to be involved other than the Warren County
Planning Board;
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of
the Town of Queensbury
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appli-
cant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter-
mining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this
Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of
the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file
as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this l5
vote:
day of
Hovember , 1988. by the following
AYES
6 :
NOES
o :
ABSENT 0 :
18
-
--./
November 2, 1988
MEMORANDUM
Richard Roberts, Chairman, Queensbury Planning Board
Members, Queensbury Planning Boa~~~..
Mack A.. Dean - Morse Engineering~~
Empire Video S.P.R.t38-88, Glen Square Plaza
Upper Glen street, Queensbury, New York
In response to the Queensbury Planning Board's request for
further information regarding the above site plan application -
specifically: 1) parking layout and traffic flow patterns;
and 2) landscaping/permeability - Morse Engineering has studied
the project site and our conclusions are offered as follows:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
1. Parking Lavout and Traffic Flow Patterns:
Parking was reviewed by Mr. Nick Sciartelli of Morse
Engineering for location, adequacy, traffic flow impact and
impact 'on adjacent businesses. The 23 proposed spaces
adjacent to the applicant's building were determined to be
sufficient in number for the type of business turnover
expected, which approximates the numbers required and
provided for the previous tenant, Rustler Steakhouse. The
23 spaces provided are not expected to unduly interfere with
traffic flow in the right-of-way at the southerly property
line nor at the northerly side entrance/exit used primarily
by the Chase Lincoln First Bank and Glen Square Plaza store
parking.
Deletion of 13 parking spaces on the south side of the
building will most probably create a shortage of needed
spaces which will undoubtedly ad~ersely impact tpe .
commercial neighbor to the south. As there are no dividing
barriers between the properties, vehicles will undoubtedly
park at the nearest convenient location, that being the Glen
Street Beverage Center.
Further, the right-of-way is part of a large parcel of land
to the rear and south of the Glen Square Plaza, and adjoins
a large unimproved portion of Mr. Abe Rudnick's Queensbury
Gardens~partments,eventhoughtheright-of-way has for
many years been used by the general pUblic, it is not a
current access to the Queensbury Gardens apartments.
eYflr131T /1--'
,'~lIti2,:;;J'>:::<~
-'~j~''''--. ~,'4".
.~
-
-/
November 2, 1988
RE: S.P.R. 138-88
Page Two
2.
~n addition to the specific site parking for Empire Video,
the entire Glen Square Pla~a was considered in determining
traffic flow impact by the re-opening of the now vacant
commercial building. This review included both applicable
flow pattern techniques and personal observations, with the
conclusion that minimal negative impact on the overall flow
of vehicles within the Pla~a would result.
While there is no doubt that the anticipated installation of
a traffic control device on. Route 9 at< the entrance to
QueensburyFactory Outlet Center and the Grand Union/Glen
Square Plaza will change interior traffic patterns, .it will
only enhance an already functional, relatively smooth-
flow ing pattern.
Landscaping/Permeability:
By agreement with the Queensbury Beautification Committee, 3
parking spaces on the north side of the building were
eliminated and additional shrubs,plantings and grass have
been added to the plan (ref. submittal of site plan
application of October, 138-88). The total square footage
of permeable land immediately adjacent to the building
amounts to 4240 square feet ~ acçes). a
~1l:f1 "I<?J/Ý¡'"MIt-o...
This figure, coupled with the compµted permeable area of the
entire Plaza property, amounts toa total green area of
~ acres of a 6.31 acre site which surpasses even the
current zoning requirements for Plaza Commercial of 30
percent permeability.
.:¡ , 1./7
'1~~¡ ~À.
It is, therefore, apparent that the general Plaza site plan as
approved by the Queensbury Planning Boirdin spring of 1985 is a
sound plan and that the very minor impacts resurrected by
reopening of the Rustler steakhouse building do not substantiate
alteration of a relatively good traffic flow into, within, and
out of< the site with adequate, best use parking and excellent
percentage of green area/landscaping/permeability.
Attached are copies of the planning Board findings of Site
Plan No. 5-85'of March and May of 1985 regarding Glen Square
Plaza.
MAD: lag
encls.
',:~"~!:::''''
l.¡t.:";~
JlW _~.u ,~,
~~1;.'J;¡;;.,"'l¡:L:A~"!"'i;'''¡
- -;'''''~''.''tW!!
'P:7.t;~~.-,;,~,IIt<~,.'t,>,~- lI.m..b~
--
-.../
~¡--
;¡-IÛ
PARKING AND TRAFFIC SUf.1MARY
Parking Required By Queensburv Parking Schedule (Section 7.072)
Retail Store or Bank
=
1 Space/lOO S.F.
Therefore, 5000 S.F. Building
Commercial or Shopping Center
Therefore, 5000 S.F. Building
Traffic
=
50 Parking Spaces
5.5 Spaces/lOOO S~F.
=
=
28 Parking Spaces
Based upon Developer's Statement, Video Store averages
100 people per hour.
Therefore, 1.5 Persons/Vehicle
=
66 Vehicles/Hour
1 Person/Vehicle
=
100 Vehicles/Hour
Traffic generated by proposed video store, based upon similar
traffic generators in the Trip Generation Report (Third Edition)
by Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Relating to a drive-in restaurant, short term about 20 minutes -
Peak hour occurring between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and vehicles
per 1000 square feet of floor space.
Average
Entering
Exiting
Total
85 Vehicles per Hour
73 Vehicles per Hour
158 Vehicles per Hour
or
or
1.42 Vehicles/Minute
1.22 Vehicles/Minute
Drive-In Bank - Peak Hour Occuring between 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.
Average
Entering
Exiting
Total
90 Vehicles per Hour
90 Vehicles per Hour
180 Vehicles per Hour
Based upon each customer staying 20 minutes per visit -
if each vehicle has one person,
100 vehicles per hour requires approximately 33 parking
spaces
Based upon estimated average traffic generated for drive-in
restaurant or bank -
158 vehicles per hour requires 53 parking spaces
E ><#11317 ¡; :J,
....,......"'-~, ',_,' '_"''''__''"'''",, _.';. j,'\' '.iI'IJ"~_1'W"",~~."",...,....."..,~~d"",-,.-,',,''f''~,-'-''''~''''_~'1':!t~~,t.~''u'·-·'" "'!::t.....,:\,:~~'::L\·;\·' ',' '-!-"""'" ",~,f" :_:""".: L:,:,YJØ!ë:.';~~iY"": c· '\>:1':':,!"'~!!'!'L:_\j'>';-
,~""''',:,:::~!'::1::'-:, ...:'r~'r;.~~~:~":i,'·~~:'·"'"ift~
'----
--'
q,
GEOKGE KURDS AKA JR.
CONSULTING ENGINEER
POST OFFICE BOX NO. 660
GLENS FALLS. NEW YORK 12601
(518) 702-1522 .
H~ MAT ß5
13 AHOUTUS 0111'/1:
QUEENSBUnV. N. y. 12001
PHONC 51U 792-1,,22
BEL TRONE CONSTRUCT I ON CO., INC.
1? HEMLOCK STREET
RE: GLEN SQUARE - *117)
DHAINAQE (STORM)
LATHAM, NY 12110
ATTN DAN TAGLIENTO
DEAR DAN,
JUST RECIEVED YOUR MEMO 0F'.15 MAy 85 - AND I REPL't HERWITH:
1. I 'HAVE OBSERVED THE EXISTING PARKING LOT DRAINAGE DURING SEVERAL
RECENT RELATIVELy SEVERE STORMS, AND AS THE ORIGINAL DESiGNER OF'
THESTORM DRAINAGE - THAT IT WAS ADEQUATE AT THE TIME IT WAS DESiGNED
FeR ALL aUTeUR M~ST SE~ERE SUMMER "CLOUDBURST" IT JS STILL ADEQUATE.
SOME ~ONDINa IS EX~ERIENCED JUST BEHIND "RUSTLERS" IN "CLOUDBURST"
CONDITIONS, BUT IS DISI~ATED IN A MATTER OF LESS THAN ;0 MINUTES,
AFTER THE ST~RMS END.
2. I BEL I EVE I ANSWERED TH I S QUEST ION I N MY ~REV I OUS LETTER OF 15 Iv1AY ß5
THE SYSTEM WILL EXTEND FROM THE NORTH-WEST END OF' THE ~RESENTLY
~AVED PARKING LOT, 40 TO 50' INTO THE ~AVING Tu 150' NORTH INTO
THE UN~AVED AREA TO THE NORTH OF THE PARKING AREA, To THE WEST EDGE
OF THE CLEARED AREA AS ~RACTICAL, STAYiNG TO THE REAR OF THE ~RO~ERTY
THE SYSTEM WILL BE A "WISCONSIN MOUND" OR MODIFICATION OF THAT TY~E
SYSTEM, I wILL DESIGN IT TO THE STANDARDS & REquiREMENTS AS Is YET
TO BE DETERMINED BY THE NYS DEC, AND ALL 6~ECS & DRAWING MUST BE
BY THE DEC ~ERSONNEL IN WARRENSBURG, ( WM LAMV, ~.SSIBLY), I WiLL
~ROCEED WITH ALL HASTE U~ON MY RETURN FROM VACATION ON THE 24TH.
'\' I
,
r' :
\, \ '
,\, ¡
..ì ~~:
i ..,
. < I. ¡·r.l\ ì! ,'\<~I\' '\::,')
< < < <, , \ \< I ,r } I
I ",,<.t,',' < «', \1
, i I
Ii
MAY 2 ''(If),r:, \ ; \ \
~j,0\
,«, ~,"' ,<,;" \
___.-- ......._ .<..1
k~ZDt-
GEORGE KUROSAKA JR., P.E.
~RO"'ECT ENGINEER
E'f.¡fI(JIT ð
COMMI TTEE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY )f.¡¡ __I C/Ò {¡;
FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION rt COP,'
Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary
8 Queensbury Avenue
Queensbury, N. Y. 12801
"---'
Robert L. Eddy, Chairman
17 Owen Avenue
Queensbury, N. Y. 12801
TOI (X) Warren County Planning Board Date I
(X) Queensbury Town Planning Board
{X) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals
(X) Applicant
10/10/88
Rei
Variance #1496,Site Plan #38-88
Empire Video (former Rustler's Restaurant)
Upper Glen Street
We have reviewed the request for I (X) Variance, (X) 5i te Plan Review,
( ) Other - and have the following recommendations.
(X) Approval ( ) Disapproval
John Nigro, owner of the Plaza presented the plans with conformation
of Charles Menchum, representing the proposed tenant.
Very careful attention was given parking, present plantings and
percent permeable.
The conclusion of the Committee was that the percent permeable was
adequate (5,000 sq. ft. store plus paved parking vs. 50 , xl 00' = 5,000 sq.
ft. plus planted area surrounding building).
The Committee's suggestion for parking was that parking on the
northerly side (toward the bank) have the spaces either perpendicular to
the building or slant toward Upper Glen Street. Parking on the blueprint
had the spaces slanted away from the highway. Also, eliminate the first
four parking spaces so as to provide an uninterupted view of the building
and the green space in front.
Elimination of the parking spaces would
building to 23, but with the spaces across
up for thi~ loss and spaces toward the main
overflow parking.
The 'wishing well' in front will be eliminated shortly when hookups
are completed to the sewer.
Plants surrounding the building and grass in front (which will be
extended into the eliminated parking spaces) are adequate, but, possibly
additional plantings will be made.
The Committee is pleased that this eyesore building will be improved
in appearance, a business will operate in the vacant building and sales
~ax will.be derived from it's. oper:ation.: :. .
In aaô1t10n to ~he above ~anascnp1ng, screen1ng and plant1ng prov1s10ns,
the Committee wishes to go on record tha~ it does not approvel
1. Non-conforming signs, .
2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers.
reduce the spaces around the
the ingress/egress would make
building are available for
In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed
or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees,
shntbs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All
rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be
mulehed and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed.
.ne~\\llY. SU~ tted,
V~~,vr~. Cdd-/
Robert L. Eddy, Chairmant1
~,',1IW!r t._,.......,~~_, U:1JL"':)?(?T?~.t},........._._.,1';,:\,,":;;"'~S1t'(\~~f'S!<;_~"':"'~~:';'
¡¿Y1n/J '1 (I ¿
.:::~""",".!t~·~~!':':'A!;f:~'f:"('~1f:t:".·\;-,:.~:'",~,;:-.~~E";;:~'_j,~'tf~ .!W";;;~~','~~\.i:""·""~~,~,,f~'>-,,";~~.';'
--7 75.
67.
"Contractual Access" means the
or lot to use such parcel or
or resource where said right
membership in an organization
stipulation.
right of a non-resident of a parcel
lot as a means to utilize some'feature
i8 granted to a non-resident through
or club or by legal contract or deed
68. "Convention Center" means a facility offering meeting rooms and
providing support activities to those meeting rooms such as food
preparation and not including lodging.
69. "Crosswalk or Walkway" means an accessway designed for pedestrian
traffic and dedicated to public use.
70. "Cul-De-Sac" means minor streets with one end open for public access
and the other terminating in a vehicular turn-around or also "deadend
street".
71.
"Day Care Center" means a site. building. or place designed and/or
operated to provide day care and/or instruction for four (4) or more
persons and operated on a regular basis for a fee.
72.
"Diner" - See "Restaurant".
73.
"Distribution Plant" means a facility used to disperse products or
articles to another location.
74.
"Dock" means any structure. whether affixed or floating. placed in or
upon a lake. pond. river. stream or brook and which provides a berth
for watercraft and/or a means of pedestrian access to and from the
shoreline. This shall include boathouses, piers, wharfs. crib docks.
stake docks. floating docks and all such similar structures.
"Dock Commercial" meàns a dock or portion of a dock generally
connected to the uplandB which accommodates more than three (3)
vessels. excepting canOes or rowboats and sailboats under eighteen
(18') feet.
~ 76. "Dock Private" means a wharf or portion of a wharf extending along
the shore and generally connected to the uplands which accommodates
up to three (3) vessels, owned by the property owner. excepting
canoes and rowboats and sailboats under eighteen (18') feet.
,
77. "Dockominium Facility" means a multi-boat slip docking facility in
which each boat slip i8 individually owned. Up to a total of three
(3) boats it shall be a private dock.
78. "Dock Repair" means normal maintenance or replacement of up to
seventy-five (75~) percent of the total dock area. See Section 7.011
Shoreline Regulations.
79. "Dock Replacement" meanøreplacement of a dock to the extent greater
than seventy-five (75~) percent. See Section 7.011 Shoreline
Regulations.
9
¡;- '/.11-1 ß I T ì>
Jown 0/ Queenjbup'!J ~
. .s::.{
~.
-NOTE TO FILE-
Planning and Zoning Department
DATE
Application Number: S Or - c¡;c¿-'
Applicant/Project Name: \
.
.An
(LY' ~
\ ) \ 'f ~-"'\'i"'
0\ ()."~! \'\
'-J .
^ I·
¡I: .
,., L
j \. '
t ,.-
\ ~.
V)'\ fl I~\ 0
'<I. P<",
,,~'! r·,
\"". /"'< /'/ I -',{
, ,,0' I· , . J "",
\
i
i \.. f t
\
,
"Y',,) I ,'\ \ --'"II, '..'; ("; f'...~<\ /1,,-'. \.¡
Ú'^
PV " é -\ . (\/""1,,
. ,<' "r /'~---' ''''. 'I '. !¿-
\.~.~ r~'-f\...A ....."
\
~.'\ I, t\
: /'\<[" LeA
r1 ("'I( V ,
~.Q
n O. .~«<\ ':\f) ,) (\ 9-
'-"- ( (. \. \- '""-
T ('O',/Î ~\ Ú C\ -r-r'A ~-1r\,Q
.
. ~. <: " ^
VYì VY\,.,t .~.,:', t () y "
"
r p('1 í. )/'/< /' f / \'.,"'- (
, \
\ <
,,,,--- < \,."J 0.1'\
, ,,\
\? I; W,.
.....-..
«.... <j'
1'1'''< ...."
().J 'v l (ì \11..0 ¡J -\.~ 0
~}.'~ (\ d -',J ; t:'< () ..\
\O*\'-PA
,
, ~
...J f...
\"i!..<
n /'(' r\
-\,
~ '^ 0l) \C(
" C
- (
'-....J
, ~ ',1 ,
,~ l .. ~ Ì: \\ L...·\
.(' rt ')
'LJ
\ I ,') {1 .^' .~ ~ .
~ '" ()\) \ ('J n ,,((;lj
,~!") e~ \'),) XV-
¡ "
" \ '<
\
(\ ()'y"{ (' (!j'" ")
'~
\ C-
,
'1 (lA,I.'
<'(D«¡'
I '¡ /.../Ì "
/ < ,
; I ,~'.l 't I, " '\" J ~
. .
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763... HOME OF NATURAL. BFAUTY ... A GOOD PLAN TO LIVE
/d ýJ/-¡ß.I(' e
,.
~ Jown 0/ Queenjbul'tj
._~
~
-NOTE TO FILE-
Planning and Zoning D~partment
DATE
_1., "
, '
,~
Application Number:
Applicant/Project Name:
\Y!\'f(JJ ~ A \ ~~. -;ùtÎð~"'C\', \J '( ntt, , -'\çk 9
Q(\~:Jî~l":~ ,~\~~~:~A ~~¡ \1)rYI'*~'~ (1,,'
I ,_,~I ,,\ . __ < _ . :<)t", \rl' ('..c't,:"J
'--\ \ \ \_\ ( \ ..\,\~ \I '"' /'\"
, -'0 ,('. -tV\.... V (a It·,,) .t~Q t (¡ f,,/' v" :'1
(I r, w, y,'" '...' '" ; (r (\ ~O-O,\ 1ft ()l! 0 ~, 0 " ~~ \1 ,'¡,.I 0" -
ç,tt .·f' C\ \ ~ (ì () 1\ 0 l. ) \( ,.[ ('/t"'. \:'-ì F) yo 0 (I 6 ~~ ('), \ -r\ (Y. ~. .z.?\
\N's
.\,J \',\\,\
,
'\'. t'~ \_ "J' I,;) '..~" \r. '\ ('1"\ NP (" P g.!C etA,0\. ,
Q\,QþP(V~ -I¡ò ~O'^ ~~ f'{l~. {kA'ÙíY,-
'-' 0"-« -~ . '" ,.-' t
'(\"' ð ~ ~ G) \.... ("-€ \.} \ P. I ~ :) ~iì ec (,,:,~. ::':<. (}A t_ ~ .
<-~
I~
tJ:j)
I . ." '. I'!...'
. , "h' I· .'
; ,
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763. .. HOME OF NATURAL BfAUTY . . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
<'
,;.
\.
>'---
LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION
BOX 749
LAKE GEORGE. NEW YORK 12845
518·668-9347
----
WILLIAM C. HENNESSY
CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL P. WHITE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MS. Lee York
Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
Bay & Haviland Roads
Glens Falls, NY 12801
November 8, 1988
Re: Victor Gush boathouse application 4--" úJ !l--LL t,/ ~LG h1 b N' 16
Dear Ms. York: . ~ .
This is a follow-up to our recent conversation
concerning the construction of boathouses on Lake George
within the Town of Queensbury in general and the referenced
application in particular.
It is my determination that the boathouse in the (; U-S fJ
referenced application would fail to meet the 20' setback
requirement established for wharfs in 6 NYCRR 646-1.1
(c)(11). I have advised the applicant that a request may be
filed with the Commission to have the Project Review
Committee review this determination as there has been no
precedent to this decision since our nêW regulations took
effect in June. Alternatively, or concurrently, the
applicant may file a variance request on the basis of
unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty since the wharf
alre.ady exists and cannot be easily mooved.
You and I also discussed the implications of SEQR and
the new Critical Environmental Area which will take effect
shortly before Thanksgiving. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.12
(b)(12), any Unlisted Action which takes place wholly or
partially within or substantially contiguous to any crticial
environmencal area becomes a Type I Action requiring
coord1nat~d review and the designation of a lead agency.
You will note that in Section 645-3.6 of our
regulations, the Commission established its own Type II list
that is specific to the types of projects the Commission
currently reviews. However, our Type II list cannot be used
by other agencies, though they are free to establish their
1i!!UIf¡-
.£~:,':.:~¡,~.1-,....,1lI.
"~~~'£:i-~".·f~{\~i~,¿;:!I~'''''''!W¡¡~~t;l'~
.--l~
t=-
«<. ·----.',"i_-.....,.,.c.....-.....____.... "
"U 'Î.1.';~,'_·
'~
2.
own Type II list consistent with the procedures established
in 6 NYCRR 617. The upshot of this is that most projects
within the critical Environmental Area become a Type I
Action, even if there is only a single involved agency such
as D.E.C. or a municipality.
If the staff decision to apply setback requirements to
the construction of a boathouse on an existing structure is
not upheld by the Commission, the Gush project would likely
fall within our Type II list and no SEQR review would be
required by the Commission. If the decision is upheld, the
project would likely be an Unlisted< Action and would be one
of those elevated to Type I status< upon the effective date of
the C.E.A. In regard to this particular application, it is
unlikely that any variance would be granted before the C.E.A.
takes effect. For this reason, it may be wise to treat this
application as a potential Type I Action and seek coordinated
review of the project from the start. Please advise me of
the town's position regarding this.
I have also briefly looked at the boathouse applications
of Robert and Linda Wall and of Joseph Clemente. The Wall
application appears at first glance. to conform to our
r¿gulations. The Clemente application may have a problem
with property setback but since it involves replacement of an
existing structure that should reduce visual impacts (a
close-sided boathouse replaced by an open-sided one), I do
not at this time anticipate any problems with this
application.
w!1LL
(! L Ç/T1E1I rG
-
I appreciate your efforts· to coordinate project review
with the Commission, either informally or formally as may be
required or advisable. For my part, I am more than willing
to offer whatever assistance I can. If you have any
questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~~~1~ ..
Karl E. Parker
Environmentàl Analyst
Jown 0/ Queen:5buP'fj
-/
·:·Jo~..C
r.:;:.-'
-NOTE TO FILE-
Planning and Zoning Departmcmt
"{\ 1 ~\) " \ ~, I Q « r
DATE \
_!. ' "\ ~ ~; ~ .,'
Application Number: (¡) () - ~<
Applicant/Project Name: fu~JV' t.t ~. ~\ ) VI t< e
TIU :"> N.f ~ \.. ( {1 \-)(\y\ is \0, ~ II', 0 ,-\~^q, '0 D CtA('Å \oOCc.w.>:l.lL
ì ~ \' <:, CI. '/\ P J{ 'C1)!Y\.n (ny, \~ 0 '('''' r'\ ^ - t1n f. ~ I)-,>((v- \~C\. .
\ - ~ .-...J
l , sQ (~.oc-\," c/)') ~,6\() 'J '
L"\ \,~)\ \("(:'f(¡\-~ -¡-"("II
'\,¡."
I
~-CJ),)
'iì \; ~ t
p
\n I~ /.1" J
(
(~~Q
IJ t"\-' '(')Yì (<:, ç. ñ \:< )
-.....,. \
()t:<J ' \"ù
; ,;.6f..µJ
~, J _ .,
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763 ... HOME OF NATURAL BfAUTY ... A GOOD PL.ACE TO LIVE
::!~",,,,,, "_~~~'2\'~~,,,,,_,~..__~2..~"!.:..!':;;,::,,~,~t~:~~~. """,,_ .__.~..._..,_"11fli~--"".,. ",j>l!J.~·'¡L~"'1':~t'Ý¡~~~'.._"':~~f'~:~'~:~:::'~·1'~";t.,~~.....~,,,'+:1"2;;:"J;3.';;~:·7;:·i~"'D~~ry:"'_"";::\:'~~;:'-~::~·:;;';;~_';_
. .... ¡?"tl-d~:./T"~H
_':~,_,~,,;, .,....~~~,...~,'JI!!.:'..',f:...-'>=- "'"":i,"~~"~',,,__,_. _"~'-f,.".t;C~·..,,.:·,,·
\
'----
Jown 01 QueeniJut'';j -
'.~,C
~.
-NOTE TO FILE-
PlamUng and Zoning DepartmeJlt
j\ r; IT/) i \ r:, i (~{./~ ('-
DATE !
I . . _ ~ ., ~
'''-,
Application Number: (~ ~ ...::y:' ~
Applicant/Project Name: ~()\nO) ~:I t.':t 1"('.;;". "", '(\0\ () LtYJ \ ,
tç
.~~ 'f0 1\ ~M,'("JYî.
. \¡\."- ~~ \/) f"'/f "-). \t. ¡")~ ::, ()
. L:1 \ '\ ^ ")
>< r tì I, r (' .'\. \ t " ,,.
'< \.
~() t\-,/'I/\" ~ \ l)\ ~ \ - ~ -
ki s.. ~,' ·OV\
,\ 1,/\,(
~ \::.
'\n)/\~lé~ {"1'("iJ/
J ..' \ \ () /':~ /
\'-".>.", '. ,- " <\(J' L."
_ to< ',ì \ 'I F-' " i '. <!. <>, ,,' '<
'';':. r-.. Þ
) I ,) :'--
J' ..
,-' "
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY. NEW YORK. 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763... HOME OF NATURAL ßfAUTY... A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
£'IU/ß IT fI
.----
Jown 0/ Queenjbup'fj
,-",'
--
'.~«
r.:>""
-NOTE TO FILE-
i'" ~¡'~ 1:
Planning and Zoning Deprri;:..:.
f\ n [j ~J Y\ ~ c)ì J . \ 6 \ ' q ýð;-
tJui i DATE
,-<
Application Number:
in ::\ - <2' 'r
Applicant/Project Name:
/¡ h ,~;
--"\--'/ ,/ ¿:¡'._.JÎ\
ï
I) ~., ' (L .4-<,
f~_~, r \ î\ , '*'- J.~ ~
" V'Y~I <\ t"l
I \ S Q f -eJo \0 (\ {)^',<¡\ (¡ lÝ\t
\ -
I ~ ' \·V, J' ~-\ \, ~
, -' Ô't/'\~
'S \y-, '( \~UY'·<2.
'-ç:')
.--\ \,~ (1
\ .'\ < _. <¡,,\¡'{)',
.-<', it .~ '\ \ /
J),. ,) J ' :> t."..;7' ''\
ì 1,< ,. < '
, C:.
,. r,,\, / I'"''
L~-~ { " '0 ... .....
\ ~
¡ <) \< \,\
-\., .
\ I" :
l~ .
I '
/,
-"':' ,:;--- "\ ~ç";';'
\:', t¡ ('): '."~
('\.j r
Ú
,Y/J
f1"'4:: ::'.. " .
.., .<. . ' «','
~ ',",' ,: :';:'-,,-,:
«« ,'~:<I"\IiIÌ~:<"« <
'-~" _'.; .'L".: .
~
. ..", .-
" ". , < I ' , 1 <
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763... HOME Of NATURAL BfAUTY ... A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
E '/fft~ t T -1--
f\l t. C~wn 0/ Queen:5bul''fj
'...::::..t'<
r.:>-'
-NOTE TO FILE-
Planning and Zoning Department
~
DATE
, '-,
Application Number: I 0 ~ - 9!: g-.
Applicant/Project Name: ç no+- ~í.\ \ t-, ~\-<..
Ii,;~. \,n\' hn/, ~ 4~^ 0. ~A Oler¡Y:vl,j- y)\ (JO YIJ
~. Ô"'~ ì >/I~ ('p-; \ .eli (,I. ~ (h_ '+1~ () ;$1'. - \ ~ Q!~' S ~:T l ¢' ~
».0 "1 (ð \01> .... ~ CL \'c, ~ iJì ~ d y ~)\.()..y' "" c~ C "i I t.NlÁ +"" ')/
4-0 \.oj) C (Jy\ ~ ~:-r\. \("\ \.- ~ ,J'ý\ 6. U ~ c/\ t!/Q .
~ t '(\ \() J. 1\ f) '(' r\ .~' ,^ (I"VI ~..Æ.. (~:)! (' ~.. >- "1\ """lIt> 5(J' - V\1 J lOt\"
. - -'\) I I ~/ (i() i ,f, (),r '\ ") ^ rì +- ~ r .p (' "
~ ..,-:~
tÅ, -.>:~ \'- , I' \! \ ~ 0 (Í "'\-lV /) (\
- ^/..1 ::(,(l/~~ ~()!):-J "\')¡)\ " .' <' ~,"
\
N,JiJ~, \ 0t / I <t i'l\ 0 I ¡,ì 11 .~;
r 1." I' (". !,,," ()
< I~, ~.-
'ì·"" V\, '.. n . "n. J' · ,,'. 0: 'ç or P~'fec "- L" ~." ", 1<7 ð71-
\ . \ - -. , - ,
"b ') \-\ D tA \,d\ Ie J-" J S, Y"CQ ~ ~... ('S a\,"" (1A.J1 ~
~ r- «) ~ (-:\,- (} \('\ (~-t\r.-t {'()N é\ U )0.1..1\ t So () V'\ -<?~.\\¿,,,^~ \, dY\
, ~'(TWYI ') ~\ Cct..o T :Ç do \'-IC\''- '\'.'?'<" r1 "¡-r< ..,,[ ~"i' .
- J -
~ ì S Q ~() &-" -to \no 0. '<Ì \) Y\ \~ ( -\ p,-{ \ f\ (' -h '(1'(\
(seo~ ~pa~\tt\'rl(ì ') Qy\á +vv ßðQAr~ ,9.\v'\u.ocl
Î'I .0,," \ e '(" \o./t ("d.l 'c,N\ 'i'- ~ ' Lo C \ ~
~a±-\J,C~<, ~DLð '-
.... ','<,; ':-; ,'.:< «« <." -,1':- <
.~.....
,)
t '"...~
BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801
TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832
SETTLED 1763. . . HOME OF NATURAL ßfAUTY . . , A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE
(Çy./-f'¡1ß IT ~'
.' " ,.. '''_i''~::,,-,:¡I¥~t:t''';;_R., ~.......,,~~.'!"'.ri·f!,~~JI,-;~,·, ',. -"I~--JI.1IJfJ: .~R,.\~¡;¡,¡j~""f-'r-,~'.',n-~"'~j"~_~':;>""1(',;~-i¿'i~-~'~;';¡-:,'1Ç'!,$},'_·.;"~:c' I ",,·t,,!f;"',..-...·'!"!I(m:~~~,~ ,~; - ~--
. , ",:.,,,,. .:;.:"..:"...................:.~....:......,.
---'
ESTABLISHED IN 1955
KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
JOSEPH A. KESTNER, JR., P.E., loS.
MARK lo 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.
November 15, 1988
Ms. Lee York
Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
Queensbury Town Office Building
Bay at Haviland Road
Queensbury, NY 12801
RE: Town of Queensbury (TE) Site Plan No. 64-88 -
Rozelle Duplexes
Dear Ms. York:
I have reviewed the subject site plan for the adequacy of
water, sewage-disposal, and stormwater-management facilities.
Water is provided from the facilities of the Queensbury Water
Storage and Distribution District, and available pressure and
flow is adequate to serve the proposed facilities.
Sewage disposal is proposed to be a series of subsurface-
disposal systems. Based on soil borings, percolation tests,
and proposed layouts; the systems, as proposed, meet the
requirements of the Town Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance.
Stormwater management will be addressed by the creation of two
drainage-recharge areas. Calculations were provided by Morse
Engineers on Thursday, November 10', 1988; and the plan, as
proposed, is acceptable.
Sincerely,
KESTNER ENGINEERS, P.C.
- -ß..,;;¡s;~
Quentin T. Kestner, P.E.
Vice President
QTK/cp
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
",,~.<,4\,,#.~;t"',7:>1~. ""'~J"''''''''''''''<''-',
<~"'< .~l¡J~'!~~~"'~'III"!"!"'-'~~ "'/"'.~_"'''~'V<' ".-", ~< ,<",:I"'N;'" .'!J!!I'!I'?"""'«.,..."....'''<;.;"<,~:/~'''';[.,,,/;S::~.:8'..rc, <.":;~<