Loading...
1989-02-21 '-- QUEENS BURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting: Tuesday, February 21, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Joseph Dybas Peter Cartier Frank DeSantis Hilda Mann, Secretary Keith Jablonski Victor Macri John Goralski, Planner Thomas W. Nace, Town Designated Consultant/Engineer Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Absent: Paul Dusek, Counsel Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. Patricia Collard, new Zoning Administrator, was introduced. Minutes from January 17, 1989 stand as written. January 24, 1989: Site Plan No. 4-89: Pg. 2, Para. 2: NFDA sib NFPA. Pg. 5, Para. 5: will be adjacent .. sib .. will be opposite .. Pg. 6, Para. 2: .. 15 ft. diameter .. sib .. l5 ft. x 3 ft. deep. Pg. 8, Para. 4; Pg. 11, Para. 2: A memo dated 2/8/89 from Bob Eddy, Chairman, Queensbury Beautification Committee, questioned the stated elevations in the area of the recharge basin. Mr. Goralski will request verification from Clough, Harbour, Engineers for Site Plan No. 4-89. (Upon review of the tape, the eleva- tions were transcribed correctly.) Mr. Roberts stated that the January 24, 1989 minutes stand as amended, with the exception of Pages 8 and ll. OLD BUSINESS SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1989; PRELIMINARY STAGE Kenneth Ermiger The deed a tion: located proposal is to subdivide into three commercial lots to sell and to triangular parcel to Agway to remedy encroachment, HC-1A. Loca- On the west side of Route 9, 800t feet south of Round Pond Road between Agway and Animal Land. (Tax Map No. 73-1-4, 5). Mark Bombard of D. L. Dickinson Associates, Land Surveyors, represented 1 the project and stated that, due to an encroachment, one of the three lots, which is .65 acre, will exist under Agway's ownership. Lot No. 1 will be sold and Lot No.2 (7.13 acres) will be retained by the applicant for future use. The reason for the subdivision is to make smaller par- cels, which would be more feasible for development. Lot No. 1 drains toward the existing drainage system along Route 9 into the catch basins. Regarding the two 250-gallon fuel oil tanks on-site, Mr. Goralski advised the Board that, according to the Fire Marshal, there is no require- ment to remove or fill the tanks. Mr. Bombard stated that the tanks will be used in the development of the parcel. He did not know the age of the tanks, but did say that there is no evidence of the tanks collapsing. Staff comments noted that the existing septic systems and water serv- ices are not shown on the plan, existing and proposed drainage is not indi- cated and the plan is not stamped or signed. The Board will have to deter- mine if it is satisfactory to subdivide the property and then come back for review of drainage and utilities. Public Hearing: Thomas McDonough: (owns an office across the street from the parcel). Mr. McDonough stated his concern regarding the location of the property with respect to Route 9 and whether or not a traffic hazard will be created. He indicated to the Board that, during the winter season, he has a problem entering Route 9 from his property on the eaøt and has much more difficulty during the summer season. Proceeding south on Route 9 towards the subject parcel, there is a curve to the right and an upgrade making it impossible to see the property until one reaches the end of Animal Land. Mr. Goralski read a letter from Richard Carson, Director of Planning and Development of the Department of Transportation (Exhibit A), which noted DOT's concern about potential traffic impact in the area. Mr. Bombard did not feel there would be more than one curb cut in the future. In addition, DOT will have to be contacted for a road entrance permit, and site work will have to be done to make sure the site distance is adequate. Lot No. 2 presently has a pre-existing driveway; Lot No. 1 does not have a driveway. Mr. DeSantis noted that there is 300 feet of frontage on the large parcel, which is the footage used in the past for m1n1mum site distance. Therefore, he recommended that the driveway on the northern-most parcel of the subdivision be situated at the southern most end of the road frontage; perhaps on Lot No.1. The present, pre-existing roadcut services an existing small building. The future roadcut should be as far away from the crest of the hill as possible, so that the safety factor can be improved and site distances can be increased for people travelling south on Route 9. Mr. Bombard suggested putting both driveways side-by-side at the property line between Lots land 2. Mr. McDonough clarified that there are three curb cuts on the east side of Route 9 across from the subject property. The property line between Lots 1 and 2 2 is across from the Graycourt Motel's curb cut, and Agway's northern most curb cut is across from Sutton's complex. Mr. Nace suggested that DOT be contacted for a preliminary indication regarding the curb cuts prior to sUbdivision; the crest of the hill and curve in the road may dictate where the entrance will be located. The Board agreed that the subdivision itself is not the problem, the access to Route 9 is the problem. Any future development will have to be reviewed by the Planning Board, and Mr. DeSantis was of the opinion that there could be a condition to the subdivision approval stating that there will be one common curb cut for both parcels of the subdivision, which the developer can work out with DOT and the buyer of the land. At this point in time, the uses of the lots are not known. John Carusone, Esq.; represents Agway, Inc. to the south. Mr. Carusone issue, and that be transferred to lem. However, Route 9 along the requested clarification with respect to the encroachment there is no problem regarding the sliver of land that will Agway, Inc. Mr. Roberts confirmed that there is no prob- Mr. DeSantis clarified that there will be no access to frontage of the ·Agway· parcel. Public Hearing Closed Mr. Macri moved APPROVAL Subdivision No. 9-1988, PRELIMINARY STAGE, Kenneth Ermiger, with the stipulation that one road cut will be allowed for the entire parcel/subdivision, which will be determined by the devel- oper and in accordance with Department of Transportation review. Resolu- tion No. 9-1988 is affixed to the Addendum. Seconded by Mr. Dybas. Passed Unanimously SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1988; PRELIMINARY STAGE 0(- ¿ZJ-¿?~ Bedford Close, Section 6 The application is for twenty-three (23) lots on 34± acres of land at the intersection of Corinth Road and West Mountain Road, SR-1A. (Tax Map No. 125-2-20.2, 22.1, 23, 39, 24.1). Mr. Roberts advised that a workshop was held to review the SEQR process. Jeffrey Martin of Coulter & McCormack Land Surveyors represented the applicant, Northern Homes, and stated that the application is for Section 6 of Bedford Close, which adjoins Section 5 and is bounded by West Mountain Road and Corinth Road. He advised that there were discussions with Fred Austin and Roger Gebo of the County Highway Department regarding 3 ---- edited plans for the widening of Corinth Road and West Mountain Road, be- cause of the proposed development growth in the area. The worst case scenario would be to widen Corinth Road to four lanes, realign the inter- section with West Mountain Road and possibly install traffic lights. The maximum amount of land that the Department of Transportation (DOT) would take for the highway would be the road shoulder, the ditch line and the utilities beyond it; all of the taking would be within the buffer zone. Since there was excess land beyond the one-acre requirement at the corner, the lots have been realigned and made larger. In addition, the ownership of the buffer zone, which was an independent 50 foot strip owned by the Homeowner's Association, has been transferred to the three lots along the strip; therefore, the buffer zone becomes an easement on the lot. Lot 155 will still remain a large building lot with suitable buffers around it. Mr. Nace discussed his review of the project (Exhibit B) and requested that erosion control be shown on the plot plan; the basic concept of drain- age appears to be satisfactory; and, a record of percolation tests needs to be submitted. In addition, he noted that the centerline radius of McCrae Road is less than the Town standards;'however, no action may be necessary because McCrae Road is a dead end road and is directly after an intersection, where the speed of cars is not very fast. Mr. Roberts felt it necessary that the Highway Superintendent sign off on the subject road. Regarding percolation tests, Mr. Martin advised that the data is in- cluded in R. Morse's drainage report as a rate of one inch in 20 to 30 seconds; the information will be included on the plot plan. The Depart- ment of Health has been advised of the septic system, but there has been no reply. Nick Sciartelli of Morse Engineering stated that there is a 24 inch culvert underneath West Mountain Road that drains about 9l acres of land. The culvert will not handle the full discharge for a 50 or lO year storm. It will be necessary to have a retention basin in the northern area of the development; the drainage comes from the ski area. This plan is satisfact- ory to Mr. Nace, because of the maintenance of off-site, pre-existing drainage problems. Calculations obtained by Mr. Sciartelli are 3.74 acre feet, and the slopes off the road and the side slopes are one on five, about seven feet deep. Joseph Carusone advised Mr. DeSantis that he assumed that the Homeowner's Association would maintain the basin. Mr. Goralski reviewed Staff's comments (Exhibit C) which noted that the Preliminary Approval submission was modified slightly, due to possible changes at the intersection of West Mountain and Corinth Roads; the High- way Dept. has concern about the road exiting close to the intersection onto West Mountain Road; the name of -Hush Willow Road- should be changed, since a "Willow Road- presently exists in Queensbury; there is concern about the proposed drainage system between Lots 156 and l57. Further discussion ensued regarding the drainage system. After hearing Staff's comments, Mr. Martin stated that there is a major difference of opinion between the Planning Board and the Highway Department regarding 4 the manner in which the developers are to handle the system. The Town Board, the Planning Board, the Zoning and Subdivision requirements are going further towards pure conservation. When drainage comes out of the site, the problem must be solved at that time and not passed on down the line. One further step is the protection of aquifers and the key to that particular protection, besides keeping the water pure, is what goes into the aquifer is to stay in the aquifer. The Planning Board now has plan- ning restrictions with very small amounts of cut keeping the rights-of-way clear to the minimum amount, minimums for driveways, and a difference in absorption rates trying to maximize the amount of water that falls into the aquifer; the drainage has been laid out that way. There are catch basins shown on the drainage plans and there are catch basins to return the water as quickly as possible into the ground, where it can percolate through the sand and eventually clean the recharge into the aquifer. Mr. Macri suggested that the Highway Superintendent be advised of the work and that there is agreement that it is being done correctly. Mr. Roberts acknowledged Mr. Martin's concern that there is a difference of opinion between the Highway Department and the Planning Board, and that the Planning Board is more environmentally sensitive and is more weighted in not allowing anymore runoff from a parcel post-development than pre- development. Mr. Goralski reviewed Quentin Kestner's letter of 12/88 for the Sketch Plan (Exhibit D). Mr. Roberts advised the applicant that he would like the Planning Board's Engineering Consultants to work out the engineering details with the Highway Superintendent and the applicant; Mr. Nace agreed he would do this. Public Hearing: Michael Brandt: lives at West Mountain Mr. Brandt disagreed with Mr. Sciartelli regarding the drainage pipes, as he (Brandt) is of the opinion that the pipes have always taken every amount of water in the area, and that the calculations used are very con- servative in that they show more water runoff than actually happens. In the Summer and Spring when there is no frost in the ground, the water basically percolates into the ground. The problem that has occurred is during a situation that exists in the area today, where there is snow, ice and then rain (about l~ 2 inches) on frozen ground, which causes an accumulation of water in the southeast section of Bedford Close and out onto Corinth Road; this type of situation rarely occurs. When Mr. Brandt was in office, a drain pipe was installed to pick up that water and it seemed to be working well during the existing weather conditions. Mr. Brandt is of the opinion that Bedford Close is one of the nicest subdivisions in the North Country, they are good neighbors, the construc- tion is excellent, and the development is an asset to the entire commun- ity. In addition, Mr. Brandt does not feel that Bedford Close is rural in character, which is good because it is zoned SR-l. He also noted that both sides of West Mountain Road are zoned SR-l, in addition to land 5 ---' running to the east along Sherman Avenue. In the future, the area will become more suburban in character and not rural. West Mountain Road func- tions well as a two-lane road and, as a suburban road, functions at 35 m.p.h.. He emphasized again that the character is changing, growth is continual and is induced by the market. In addition, Mr. Brandt said he hopes that he can do (with his West Mountain Village development) within the zoning law what he has been zoned to do just like the developers of Bedford Close expect to do with the land that is zoned for that area. Mr. Roberts agreed that the word -rural- in a one-acre zone probably is a misnomer, the area is more suburban. Rural refers more to farms and three- and five-acre lots. A letter from Kathy Naatz (Exhibit E), owner of property on Corinth Road which adjoins the Bedford Close property, stated that Joseph Carusone agreed on 2/21/89 to alter the plans for Lot 163 on Willow Street and to bring them into compliance with an agreement made 7/28/87, when land was purchased from Ms. Naatz. The agreement was that no residence or struc- ture shall be within 100 feet of the westerly boundary line. Mr. Carusone confirmed that the lot line will not be altered. The alteration might be the relocation of the house farther away from the property line or there might be an increase in the buffer. The reason for the change is that Ms. Naatz keeps horses in the adjoining lot, and she does not want them to be a nuisance to the new neighbors in Bedford Close. Mr. Carusone stated that Ms. Naatz is satisfied with the remaining lots. Mr. Macri requested Mr. Nace's opinion on the five-minute versus thirty- second percolation rate. Answer. DEC is starting to revise their stand- ards on larger systems to require imported soil for any systems that are put on soils of less than five minutes, this is a good idea if wells are on-site. In the area of the subject subdivision there is Municipal water supply and, from Mr. Nace's knowledge of the general area, the ground water probably is down far enough. Further, he is not of the opinion that there is any requirement to make the developer bring in imported soil; however, the developer can offer to bring in soil. If the soils are too tight, the Dept. of Health (DOH) requires soil to be brought in. In the future, the DOH may have new regulations that would address fast percola- tion as well. Mr. Martin advised that there is one test pit that shows seasonal high ground water at about seven feet, the site is Lot 147, adja- cent to Section 5, the rest of the property tested at 12 feet. Regarding the thirty-second percolation rate, Mr. Martin advised Mr. Macri that a system designed for that rate would be very small; whereas, in a system designed for a five-minute perc rate, the discharge is being spread out over a much larger surface and is being slowed down. The DOH feels that the wider system takes care of the discharge satisfactorily. Mr. Nace advised the Board that the minimum size of system that the Health Department will allow the builder to design for is based on a five-minute soil and increases on five-minute increments; when the rate is up to 30 minutes, then a consideration of imported soil has to be made in order to 6 get good percolation. Mr. Carusone also commented that one of the reasons the developers made the lots large was because of the aquifer recharge. Public Hearing Closed Mr. DeSantis moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 13-1988, PRELIMINARY STAGE, Bedford Close, Section 6, subject to the condition that, prior to Final Approval, Tom Nace, Town Designated Consultant/Engineer, is to meet with the Applicant's engineering consultants and the Town Highway Depart- ment concerning the drainage easement. In addition, Board of Health approval is required. Resolution No. 13-1988 is affixed to the Addendum. Seconded by Mrs. Mann. Passed Unanimously SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1988, SKETCH PLAN Maple Row Farms The application is for a fifteen (15) lot subdivision, one (1) acre minimum lot size, upscale homes on the East side of Country Club Road, opposite Wincrest Drive, SFR-1A. (Tax Map No. 60-7-l6.l). Charles H. Scudder, Consulting Engineer, represented the Applicant and noted that, during a review of the project today with Mr. Goralski, a tech- nical question arose regarding the subdivision of the lot (Exhibit F), which was based on the fact that the present Warren County Clerk's records indicate that the parcel was subdivided ll/3/88 and recorded 12/2/88. Town of Queensbury Planning Department records indicate there was no Plan- ning Board review for the subdivision. Mr. Goralski recommended no fur- ther action until the matter was clarified. Additionally, the plan does not indicate the proposed contours, proposed drainage plan and no location map was presented showing all properties and appropriate tax numbers within 500 feet along a contiguous street. Dennis Phillips, Esq., representing Valente Builders, explained th~ rea- son for the discrepancy with the County Clerk's records. Valente Builders originally entered into a contract for the purchase of the property in 3/87, after which Queensbury had an intervening moratorium which delayed the closing on the Valente property until l2/88. In the intervening time, Mr./Mrs. Brown (owners) conveyed a piece of property to their children (Richard and Cheryl Brown) and the deed was dated 4/28/88 and recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office 5/25/88, Liber 709 of Deeds, Page 206 (Exhibit G). The deed would not have been picked up by the tax mappers at that time, which would indicate the boundary line of the Valente property. Mr. Goralski clarified that Parcel 16.2 was deeded to the Brown children and there is no question about boundaries, if the boundary line to the 7 ---' East of Parcel 16.1 was included when the deed was recorded. However, if the eastern boundary line of Parcel 16.1 was not included when the deed was recorded, the U-shaped piece of land would have been one contiguous parcel. Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Brown the following: ·Mr. Brown, as far as where your home is now, where is your home and what is the extent of your parcel as you understand it to be?· Answer: ·700 feet deep and 425 feet wide; about six (6) acres.· Mr. Phillips: ·To your knowledge when you conveyed the property to your children .... Answer: .... go back to my back line I wanted 700 feet .... Mr. Phillips: ·From a technical point of view, is the back line in your deed?· Answer: ·I would say it wasn't in my deed.· Mrs. Brown: ·When we sold the property in 1987 to the Valente's, we kept 700 feet, so that would have been that line there. In the deed, the Valente's have this part here. We assumed when we gave our son ... that is why we gave him 700 feet, to bring him even with our 700 feet.· Mrs. Brown was of the opinion that the description of the eastern most boundary line description would be in the Valente deed. Since the application is for Sketch Plan approval, Mr. Phillips made the recommendation that, to the extent the eastern most boundary line was missing, he indicated that it is a technical irregularity that could be cured between Sketch Plan approval and Preliminary approval. To the extent it is necessary, the existing lots of the Brown children and the lot of Mr./Mrs. Brown would be shown. Mr. DeSantis advised Mr. Phillips that the adjoining owners have to be shown on the plan for Sketch Plan approval, as that is a Subdivision Regulation and not a special require- ment. For immediate clarification, Mr. Phillips stated that the adjoining owners are: Bray Terminals on the north; Ruth Dorlon on the south; and, Hughes and Leombruno on the east. Country Club Road is situated to the west of the property. He also also stated that the intention at the time of the sale was to have the eastern boundary line drawn in on the deed; however, Mr./Mrs. Brown's deed would have to be inspected for that clarifi- cation. Mr. DeSantis advised Mr. Phillips that future maps are to show all boundary lines. Again, Mr. Phillips stated that the irregularity will be corrected, but he requested to proceed with the Site Plan that is being proposed that shows the property that the Valente's purchased from Mr. Brown in December 1988. Mr. Cartier stated that his major problem is that previously the Site Plan was before the Planning Board and that l,300 feet of roadway to a cul-de-sac was denied; Mr. Valente at that time stated he would redesign the road. He (Cartier) and Mr. Macri did not understand why the applica- tion was before the Board, when the denied application was not revised. Mr. Macri read from the Planning Board Minutes, ll/22/88, Page 5: "At this point, Mr. Macri questioned the Board as to why a review of this applica- tion is taking place, since there is over 1000 ~eet of road to the cul-de- sac; this is not permitted in the new Subdivision Regulations, ARTICLE VIII DESIGN STANDARDS, E.9c. · 'Dead-end streets shall not be longer than one thousand (l,OOO) feet and shall be provided with a turn-around at the 8 ---' closed end having The Application states l,500 feet of new road, which means a Variance would be necessary.· Mr. Scudder strongly dis- agreed with Mr. Macri's justification, because he said there was another Application (not identified) with a 2,400 foot road that ends in a cul-de- sac and was approved by the Planning Board under the same regulations. At this point, Mr. Macri referred to another portion of the above-stated minutes, Page 61 ·Mrs. Valente asked what the purpose was of the 1,000 ft. limit of the dead-end street. Answer: Safety; emergency vehicles. If more than 1000 feet of road is installed, there have to be two entrances, regardless of how many homes are in the site. These specific Ordinance regulations have been in effect in the Town for at least 7 or 8 years.· Mr. Macri vehemently stated that a Zoning Board approval must be received. Mr. Roberts noted that the prior approval was not subsequent to the new Ordinance. Daniel Valente, owner of the subject property, then talked about a dis- cussion he had with Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent, regarding the l,OOO foot regulation for subdivision roads and the fact that Mr. Naylor said: ·Never heard of it (the regulation),· and ·Dan, I have no problem with that road the way it is designed.· Subsequent to that discussion, there was a workshop with Lee York, Quentin Kestner (former Town Consult- ant/Engineer), Tom Flaherty, Ralph Van Dusen, Dan Valente and Charles Scudder. (Mr. Naylor was absent due to heart surgery.) Mr. Valente also confirmed that Ms. York stated: ·If Mr. Naylor has no problem with this road, I have no problems with this road. You can design it according to the way you have it.· Mr. Scudder requested minutes from the workshop; however, none were available. Additionally, Mrs. York was away on busin- ess at the time of today's meeting, and no correspondence was available from either Mr. Naylor or Mrs. York regarding their statements. Mr. Macri suggested two options I ·Wait for Lee to come back and get this thing straightened out or go to the Zoning Board and get a Variance. · At this point, Mr. Phillips referred to the Subdivision Regulations, Article XIV, WAIVERS. In terms of the power of the Planning Board, ·Where the Planning Board finds, due to the special circumstances of a particular Plat, that meeting a certain requirement of these Regulations is not a requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare · Mr. Phillips stated that that has to be the rationale for the length regulation in the first place. Continuing with the regulation I ·...it (the planning Board) may waive such a requirement subject to appropriate conditions · Mr. Phillips contends that this issue is the kind of thing that the Planning Board has the power to do in its Planning func- tion, as opposed to taking the issue to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their concern with area requirements and use requirements, and uses of areas that deviate from the Zoning Ordinance. Further, he is of the opinion that this is a Planning consideration and is a proper matter for consideration by the Planning Board, based on input of the appropriate people. Mr. Macri repeated that he did not want to consider the Applica- tion, if no written documentation could be presented at this meeting from Ms. York and Mr. Naylor. 9 Mrs. Mann requested to know from what angle would the Zoning Board of Appeals look at the issue: hardship? It is true that the 2400 foot road (which Mr. Scudder stated he designed and redesigned) was approved not too long ago. It is her opinion that one of the considerations that should be given is the number of homes that will be serviced by the road; there is legal precedent. The Planning Board does have a right to Waiver the road distance. However, in Mr. Cartier's mind everything changed after lO/l/88, Mrs. Mann disagreed. There was considerable discussion between Messrs. Scudder and Cartier regarding understanding/misunderstanding of statements made at the ll/22/88 presentation in reference to the subdivision road, which was designed longer than regulation standards. At the end of the aforemen- tioned meeting, Mr. Scudder was of the ·distinct impression· that the Planning Board would look favorably upon the l300/l400 foot road, after a discussion was held regarding drainage, sewage, etc. and Q. Kestner's critique and other comments were taken into consideration. On the other hand, Mr. Cartier clarified that he did not want Mr. Scudder to leave the 11/22/88 meeting with that impression, and that was his (Cartier's) dis- tinct impression that Mr. Scudder left the meeting with the understanding that the l300 feet of road was ·not O.K..· Mr. Scudder: ·Absolutely not the case.· Further, he (Scudder) stated that subsequent to the previous meeting there was a workshop session with the Planner and the Planning Board's Consulting Engineer and department heads that included the Highway Department, and they (Planner and Engineer) were persuaded by the Highway Department that they had no problem with the road ending in a cul-de-sac 1300 or l400 feet long. Mr. Scudder realized there was no record of the workshop and ·you (Cartier) were not there.· Mr. Scudder expressed to the Board that it is very difficult for the Applicant to have continuity of review of the project, because there is a different Consultant/Engineer and the Senior Planner is absent from this (2/21/89) meeting. Again, Mr. DeSantis referred to the ll/22/88 minutes, Page 6, where he itemized at that meeting four items needed for Approval: ·l) a Waiver; 2) calculations of buildable/unbuildable land, 3) retention basin study, 4) change the length of the cUl-de-sac, 5) cite specific design limitations on lots identified by Kestner.- To proceed, Mr. Scudder agreed to Mr. DeSantis that those five items could be addressed. Referring to Item #3 above, Mr. DeSantis commented that there is no area on the plan noted for the detention basin, as referred to in Mr. Nace's review (Exhibit H). Although there was a complete runoff study in the Board Members' kits, the location of the pond is not shown on the plot plan. Mr. Scudder: This is a Sketch Plan, the pond is going on the ·lower end of the easement .... There was also a problem that all members of the Board did not have the correct maps. Mr. Scudder itemized the material presented to each member for his/her review: sewage collection/disposal; storm water collection, retention and runoff, indication of how the houses will be spotted on the lots, and determination of the precise boundary of the wetlands. Mr. Scudder was of the opinion that all of the required issues have been addressed for Sketch Plan approval. He also indicated that percolation 10 - tests will be run and there might be on-site systems, which would require some design work. Again, Mr. Scudder emphatically stated to the Board that he was bothered very much that some members of the Board are -hung up- on the length of the road being l,300 feet, when the same Board has approved a 2,400 foot road. He requested an explanation. Mrs. Mann stated that if roads over l,OOO feet are supposed to require a Variance, then she sug- gests that the Planning Department no longer accept any subdivisions for roads over 1,000 feet, because -we are not allowed to review them.- Mr. Roberts suggested that, in this case, the requirement could be waived, depending on the shape of the parcel. He did not know what else could be done with this property, other than to allow a longer road. At this point, Mr. Goralski clarified that the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot grant a Variance to Subdivision Regulations, only the Town Planning Board can waive a requirement on Subdivision Regulations. He then affirmed to Mrs. Mann that the Board does have the right to waive a regulation; ie: if a road is more than 1000 feet. He also advised the Board that an in-house policy can be established that the Planning Board will not see anything over 1,000 feet, if so desired. Because Mr. Dusek is absent, Mr. DeSantis did not want to pursue an in-house policy. Further he stated that the Board is separate from an individual's opinion and has the right to waive certain items. He again strongly emphasized that, if an Applicant is at Variance with the written number, a case must be made for the Waiver, which he does not feel holds up a submission. A topographical map dated January 1988 was presented to the Board. Mr. Scudder discussed how the subdivision will be sewered. The land slopes down into a -gut- on the eastern portion of the property. Because Mr. Leombruno would not permit a gravity sewer easement through his property, a Town lift station is being considered to collect the waste water, which would then proceed off the site by gravity through the Dorlon property. A petition to the Supervisor has been made to include Maple Row Farms in the sewer district; this has been confirmed by Kestner Engineers. The forma- tion of the district may take place in the Summer of 1989, with the possi- bility of sewers on Bay Road a year from this summer (1990). If the sewer district does not go through, Mr. Macri requested to know how much of the subdivision is buildable. Answer: Lots l, 2, 3, 15, l3, 14 would be build- able with on-site systems, with the minimum lot being one acre. Also lots on the southeast corner would be buildable. Most likely Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 would not be buildable without sewers, which were noted in Q. Kestner's report of 11/88. to and into Regarding storm water, a runoff study for a 25 year storm was presented each member. In the same easement, the storm water will be collected will be brought down to the road right-of-way through the easement the brook. A retention basin will be placed, although the precise area has not been decided. There will be a control device to release the storm water to the stream at a predetermined rate. There will probably be 11 ~ a ·trickler· tube to release the storm water from the basin when the basin is full, with an emergency overflow; he does not expect the basin to over- flow. Mr. DeSantis requested clarification of the ponds. Answer: There is an existing pond behind the Brown property; a future pond has been designed on one of the maps; and there will be a retention basin in the eastern portion of the property. The existing pond is not the retention basin and will be bypassed in a storm. Mr. Scudder affirmed to Mr. Nace that he will submit a map showing the drainage areas. Mr. Scudder advised that his client wants to build one house a year for the next few years with an on-site sewer that would eventually be hooked up to the Municipal sewer system; he stated that Lee York agreed to that plan, but there is nothing in writing. Mr. DeSantis noted the necessity to label certain lots as buildable only if connected to a Municipal sewer system; those stipulations can be put on the Plat as a control system. This was satisfactory to Mr. Scudder, who noted that Q. Kestner specifi- cally stated that Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 should be given careful review at Preliminary Stage (Exhibit Ha). Mr. Nace commented that the soils start to change in an easterly direction, and that every lot needs attention when the perc tests are done, to make sure that all of the soils groups are covered. Mr. Cartier asked the Board if Clustering could be waived (Clustering was suggested by Ms. York on ll/22/88). Without the presence of Counsel, Board members found it difficult to address some issues, especially that of the Waiver. Mr. DeSantis noted that Article XIV does not limit what the Planning Board can waive in subdivision regulations. Reference was made to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.020, Page 46: ·Provisions of Section 281 of Town Law for Clustering do not apply in SFR Zones.· Mr. Phillips added that, to have that use in the SFR zone, it would require a Use Variance. Mr. Goralski again reminded the Board that, ·if it is in the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to grant a Variance; if it is stated in the Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Board would have to waiver.· Therefore, Clustering cannot be addressed, because it is in the zoning Ordinance. Regarding the Subdivision Regula- tions, Mr. DeSantis advised the Board that Article XIV WAIVERS states a " in no case shall any of the provisions of Article XI (Regional SUbdivisions) be waived.· The standards are very ambiguous .... public health, safety and general welfare,...· Mr. Dybas adamantly stated that, unless the Town Consulting Engineer advises that the plan is not going to work, there is no reason for not moving on the Sketch Plan; some issues covered at this meeting were most likely discussed at the Workshop Meeting, and Mr. Scudder would not say something that was not true; and the issues to be covered will be taken care of at preliminary Approval. The Engineers will discuss the best use of the land and how to overcome the existing problems. Although the Board tries to be consistent, this application is entirely different than what has been thought about in the past. Referring to Mr. Scudder's statement about this application lacking continuity, Messrs. Macri and DeSantis 12 ~ informed Mr. Scudder that Quentin Kestner advised the Board that he would be available to discuss any applications which he had initially reviewed. In addition, Mr. Macri mentioned that the Planning Board members present at the ll/22/88 meeting are the same ones present at this meeting. Although Mr. DeSantis had no problem with a motion at this time, he still had a great concern about the Waiver process and made a formal re- quest that Counsel advise the Planning Board at what point in the process must the question of any Waivers of any of the items in the Subdivision Regulations be formally addressed; a Waiver process cannot be ignored. After issuing that request, Mr. DeSantis located the following statement in the Subdivision Regulations, Article IV, PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, 6.a. (Page 13), .... When granting approval to a Preliminary Plat, the Planning Board shall state the terms of such approval, if any, with respect to: l) The modifications to the Preliminary Plat, 2) The character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which in its opinion may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and . Mr. DeSantis' opinion is that the above-mentioned statements do clarify when a Waiver is to be reviewed and that there is some guidance. ·When we have waiver processes, we need to distinguish each individual request for our own sanctity and the sanctity of the Board.· Mrs. Mann moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 3-1988, Maple Row Farms, SKETCH PLAN, with the following stipulations: l. the concerns voiced by John Goralski, Planner, concerning the original property line division at the back of the Brown property be addressed at the next presentation; 2. the considerations stated by Quentin Kestner, former Town Consultant/- Engineer, in his letter of ll/22/88 concerning the sewage on Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 be addressed; 3. the comments and recommendations made by the Thomas Nace, Town Consult- ant/Engineer, in his letter of 2/21/89 be addressed; 4. that an Application for Waiver for the length of the road be addressed at the next presentation; 5. that a letter be requested from Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent, regarding the length of the road; and 6. that a letter be requested from Lee York which would state any informa- tion concerning the Workshop Meeting between Lee York, Quentin Kestner, Tom Flaherty, Ralph Van Dusen, Dan Valente and Charles Scudder. 13 Seconded by Mr. Macri. Passed 6 Yes (Jablonski, Dybas, Mann, Macri, DeSantis, Roberts) 1 No (Cartier) NEW BUSINESS SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1988; SKETCH PLAN Herbert Tyrer The proposal is to subdivide the parcel into four (4) lots and to build and sell single family homes on three of the four lots on the northerly side of Ash Drive, WR-1A. The fourth lot has a pre-existing house on it. The proposed homes will be approximately 26 ft. x 50 ft. Zero feet of new road. (Tax Map No. 39-1-45.2, 58.5) Mark Bombard, D. L. Dickinson Associates, represented the application and confirmed that the land is situated across from the former Casino and consists of 5.5 acres. Mr. Bombard confirmed to the Planning Board that Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent, determined that Ash Drive, which runs in an easterly direction off Glen Lake Road, is a Town road up to and including about half of Lot 3; there is a white post at that point. Lot 2 averages l50 feet in width; 139 feet on the road and l89 feet in the back. Mr. Nace stated that the back is not l89 feet because the land is askew; he estimated the back is somewhere around l40 to 150 feet and the middle is about llO feet. Therefore, the width comes nowhere near the average stated by Mr. Bombard. (T. Nace review Exhibit I). Mr. Roberts questioned if there will be a problem in getting the proper width on Lot 2. Answer by Mr. Bombard: No. A reasonable lot has been made, but an unreasonable lot can be made and qualify by readjusting the lot line between Lots 1 and 2. Further, testing is not required for a Sketch Plan; therefore, none was done but will be by preliminary Approval. Mr. Nace advised that the map should reflect two existing houses. Mr. Bombard stated that there is a house on Lot 1 for which there is an exist- ing Building Permit, and there is enough room in Lot 1 for a lot line adjustment, in order to accommodate the necessary width changes for Lot 2. He emphasized that the present layout for Lot 2 is more -honest- looking" and, if the all requirements were met, the layout would be very irregular. Mr. Goralski stated that the lot width is in the Zoning Ordinance and not the Subdivision Regulations; therefore, a Variance would be required, in order to have a lot width less than average, or a redesign of the lot would be necessary. Staff's comments were read (Exhibit J) stating that the application does not meet legal requirements for submission. Mr. 14 Bombard disagreed with Mrs. York regarding the requirements for WR-1A Zone; his opinion is that the Ordinance does not state a requirement of 150 feet. However, the WR-3A requirements state there is a requirement of 150 feet. The present submittal was based on lOO feet, because of the stated Ordinance requirements. Regarding the drainage plan on the exist- ing road, no more impervious layers are being created in the drainage and will not become worse than it is now. In addition to the incorrect lot width, Mrs. Mann noted that other legal requirements for Sketch Plan are missing, such as wells and septics. Mr. Bombard advised that the area is seasonal and the wells could not be found; there are very few wells in the area and some people draw out of Glen Lake. Mrs. Mann suggested written statements from the adjoining pro- perty owners identifying the types of systems used on their respective properties; all existing wells must be shown on the map, and letters from those neighbors who draw from the lake are to be attached to the map. Mr. DeSantis advised that his major problem is Lot 2, in that the appli- cant is trying to get a third lot between two existing houses, and there has been no explanation why the two houses exist. From his perspective, there are two building permits for two primary residences and, unless they are owned by the same person, are not legal because they are on one parcel of land, since there is no approved subdivision. The other item of con- cern is the drainage calculations, because it has been noted that one of the parcels is effectively not permeable; it has been used as a parking lot. Mr. Goralski addressed the Building Permit problem. When the Building Permit was issued, the way the Ordinance was read it stated the necessity for one acre for every principal dwelling; it did not have to be a "separ- ate parcel.- Mr. Macri: "Principal dwelling under the same ownership?" Answer: "No. Building. Mr. Macri: under the same ownership? Mr. Goralski: Does not say that." Mr. Goralski's understanding of the explana- tion from the Building Department is that the Building Permit was granted because the owner had enough acreage to put two principal buildings on the lot; members of the Board still questioned the Building Permit. The fact that the Board is very sensitive to lake front parcels was emphasized by Mr. DeSantis because: 1) the houses and accompanying structures are too close together; and 2) the pollution of the bodies of water. Glen Lake is "the last area- where lots are made with dimensions less than the require- ments of the Ordinance; the 150 foot requirement should not be waived. Mr. Bombard requested the Application be Tabled; however, some of the Board members did not feel this would be appropriate, and Mr. Macri asked of the Board if the Application was incomplete or unacceptable? Mr. Bombard said he would most likely come back with an application for Pre- liminary Approval. When asked for his comments and suggestion, Mr. Goralski noted that Ms. York recommended Denial of the application. He further stated that the Planning Department gets put into a position where the Department has to decide if the application is -a little complete, or 15 a lot complete, or not complete, and we need some kind of direction as to what you would like us to do.· Mr. Dybas stated that Mrs. York made a good decision and the Board should go along with it. Mr. DeSantis returned to the topic of a Waiver, which was discussed during a previous Application, and again requested Mr. Goralski's assist- ance. ·If a matter is waivable, we now know that a guy can make a Sketch Plan Application and John (Goralski) can say you need a waiver for here, here and here. If you need a waiver, you are not going to get through without making a case and being granted a waiver. Preliminary is when they are going to make that decision. But John will let you on at Sketch." When asked his advice as to the best time for the waiver to be presented (Sketch or Preliminary), Mr. Goralski felt it was not that much of a problem, because we (the Planning Department) can identify those things, and there is a difference between a Zoning Ordinance issue and a Subdivision Regulation. The Zoning Ordinance issue should not be in front of the Planning Board. The Board agreed. "In addition, there is another issue which is the list of items in the Ordinance and on the Application that are to be required for Sketch Plan; those are not waived. If one of those items is not there .... Mr. Macri: "You can send them back if they argue the case. What I think we may want to do, and we can talk about this, is that you come to the Planning Board first thing with the package of material advising that this Applicant is on the Agenda, the Planning Department does not think they are complete. Mr. Goralski: · O.K..· Mr. Macri expressed his feelings that it is unfair to all participants to have ·half-hour discussions,· especially when Mrs. York decided in the first place what was right and that better matters can be concentrated on by the Board. Mrs. Mann: ·Correct, but things that have to be there and are not there, it's not ... (complete)." Mr. Cartier moved DENIAL of Subdivision No. 10-1988, SKETCH PLAN, Herbert Tyrer, because the Application is incomplete. Seconded by Mrs. Mann. Passed Unanimously SITE PLAN NO. 6-89 Gary Zibro Due to an incomplete application, presentation of Site Plan No. 6-89, Gary Zibro, was postponed until a future date. SITE PLAN NO. 8-89 16 '- Alma R. Hurwitz The proposal is to reinforce and stabilize registered, pre-existing stake dock with crib supports, using approximately fifteen (l5) cubic yards of clean stone to fill three (3) cribs spaced eleven (ll) feet apart, in a location determined by Deed specifications and conforming diagrams recorded as part of Dock Agreement and Queensbury Dock Permit No. 6987 in Year 1981. Location: East side of Harris Bay, Lake George, approx- imately one (l) mile North of Route 9L on Cleverdale Peninsula, WR-lA. Lot size: .54 acres. (Tax Map No. 12-3-26.22, Section 7.012D). Prior to this meeting before the Town Planning Board, the applicant was reviewed by the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Lake George Park Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers. The submitted Applica- tion and documents indicated that there were no adverse effects on the pro- perty, and there were no further questions to be asked of the applicant. Mrs. Mann moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 8-89, Alma R. Hurwitz, since all of the requirements of the respective Ordinances have been met. Resolution 8-89 is affixed to the Addendum. Seconded by Mr. DeSantis. Passed Unanimously Chairman Roberts adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Richard Roberts, Chairman Date #-~~ cJ· r:1P·rf 1 Date / . Moeller, Stenographer 17 RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE Resolution No. 9-1988 February 21 , 1988 Introduced by: Victor Macri Who Moved Its Adoption Seconded by: Peter Cartier WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application for: Subdivision No. 9-1988, PRELIMINARY STAGE, Kenneth Ermiger, for the subdivision of three commercial lots; 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: Department of Transportation, which has been listed, notified and has responded; 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 21st day of February, 1988, by the following vote: AYES 7 NOES 0: ABSENT 0 : 1B '--- RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE Resolution No. 13-1988 February 21 , 1988 Introduced by: Frank DeSantis Who Moved Its Adoption Seconded by: Hilde Mann WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application for: Subdivision No. l3-1988, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, Bedford Close, Section 6; 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. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: New York State Department of Health Town of Queensbury Highway Department Warren County Highway Department; 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. A full Environmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment Form reviewed and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for deter- m1n1ng 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. 19 -- Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1988, by the following vote: AYES 7 NOES 0: ABSENT 0 20 -' RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE Resolution No. 8-89 February 21 , 1988 Introduced by: Hilda Mann Who Moved Its Adoption Seconded by: Peter Cartier WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application for: Site Plan No. 8-89, Alma R. Hurwitz1 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 Army Corps of Engineers. 2. The following agencies are involved: Lake George Park Commission, Adirondack Park Agency, and Department of Environmental Conservation 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 21st day of February, 1988, by the following vote: AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 21 '---' ~ûJd((¡1~lÒ(\ Nð. 9 _/9t3 '" " STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 84 HOLLAND AVENUE ALBANY, N.Y. 1220S (;)\.;V" OF nUi:¿NS8Um' J i')' ~¡JW[~ .. .. ¡II J fi 1\ ~'9I~Ö~ ¡~ Thomas C. Werner, P.E. REGIONAL DIRECTOR ..L........nll'tl\:Ï & ZONIN( rn:P4RTMENT January 19, 1989 Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Planning Department Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 ~.. t,,") Re: DICKINSON ASSOCIATES SUBDIVISION - ROUTE 9 Dear Mrs. York: In response to your recent letter regarding the proposed Dickinson Associates subdivision on Route 9, the Department concurs with the designation of Queensbury Planning Board as Lead Agency for the SEQR process. No Department permits are required for this type of action; however, consideration should be given to the potential for traffic impacts when the land in question is proposed for development. Route 9 in the vicinity of this property is a heavily used facility, particularly in the summer months. The recent opening of a restaurant, and the proposed water-oriented amusement park nearby, strongly suggest that traffic growth, and the need to mitigate its impacts, will become a matter of increasing importance. For your information I am enclosing some general guidelines developed by the Department for the preparation of traffic impact studies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. We look forward to working with you on future transportation matters. Very truly yours, ~ t-). ú- - - RICHARD W. CARLSON, P.E. Director, Planning & Development Region One RWC:JFD:dah cc: J. W. Kelly, Regional Traffic Engineer, Region 1 H. F. Steffens, Warren County Resident Engineer EXH-I!J IT A- ,~ Page 1 of 2 "----' GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES SUBMITTED TO NYSDOT DURING THE SEQR PROCESS -- Prepared by: NYSDOT-Region 1 Planning & Development (July 1988) - The Traffic Impact Study should be prepared by a qualified individual or firm using the most current methods set forth by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (for trip generation), the Transportation Research Board (TRB) (for highway capacity analysis) and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control D~vices (MUTCD). - The Study should include a site plan showing site access points in relation to the area's transportation facilities, internal street system and parking layouts, a schedule of implementation (project phasing), a detailed description of the development (number, size, type and usage of structures, etc.) and any other information deemed pertinent to the analysis. - The study should include a description of the existing transportation system within the project area including roadway widths, shoulders, speed limits, estimated actual speeds, horizontal and vertical characteristics, sight distance limitations (if any), etc. - The study should include a list of critical locations included in the study. The impact analysis area should extend as far as the site generated traffic has a significant impact. - The study should include all necessary machine traffic counts and turning movement counts to properly analyze both daily and peak hour traffic. In addition to typical weekday counts, consideration should be given to acquiring weekend data if the nature and location of the development warrants it. - The study should include figures presenting current trip distributions, trips generated by the project, and projected trip distributions as well as an explanation of the rationale used in developing them. - The study should include figures illustrating the future combined traffic volumes. Ef'tH-1 ø 17 ,4 .....""/ ...;-~ -./ GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT-STUDIES Page 2 of 2 - The study should include background (i.e. non-project related) traffic growth and analysis of levels of service at aIr-critical locations for existing, background without development and future with development conditions for the end of each project phase and for ten years after completion of the project. - The study should include a copy of all LOS computer analysis sheets and raw count data as an appendix to the study. - The study should include a warrant check at key unsignalized intersectionR to determine if the installation of a traffic signal is required. - The study should identify existing and projected problem areas (from both safety and capacity standpoints) and should develop and evaluate solutions to them. - The study should include the name, address and telephone number of a contact person to whom questions regarding the Study may be directed. Note: Traffic impact studies submitted for review by NYSDOT will be checked for both completeness and accuracy. Omissions may cause the review to be delayed or the submittal to be rejected. Questions regarding these guidelines may be directed to Joe Doherty, Regional Planning and Development, 84 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York 12208 (Phone: (518)474-6215). ~ -' February 13, 1989 RFA #89-5000 DRAFT Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Bedford Close - Section 6 Subdivision No. 13-88 - Preliminary Plans Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the subject project and have the following comments: 1. We understand the Town is coordinating with Warren County regarding proposed improvements to the intersection of Corinth and West Mountain Road. If the County requires additional right-of-way it may affect the entrance of Hush Willow Road onto West Mountain Road and the size of Lot 155. 2. Landscape plan, clearing plan, and erosion control plan have not been provided. 3. The drainage report should be revised. While we concur with the general concept of dry wells and perforated trenches for absorption, the methodology does not fully address developed conditions. The developed area runoffs should take into account the area of houses, driveways and lawns which will increase the runoff coefficient "(11. Drainage basins should be clearly sketched on a site plan for cross reference to the report. A time of concentration of 3.16 hours is unrealistically low since shallow concentrated flow will occur in established flow channels. 4. Soil test pits are shown but there is no record of percola- tion tests and the date they were taken. 5. Road alignment is generally adequate, but the 1251 center- line radius at McCrea Road is tighter than the minimum 250' that Town Standards require. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Planning Board Members EXff/1J I ï ð ~ ..- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road. Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518·792-5832 F~LE COpy Feb. 13. 1989 NOTE TO FILE LEE A. YORK. SENIOR PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 13-1988, PRELIMINARY ApplicantjProject Name: Bedford Close,Section 6 This submission for Preliminary Approval has been modified slightly because of the changes being considered at the intersection of West Mountain Road and Corinth Road. At a meeting with the developers and Fred Austin the incorporated modifications were agreed upon. It is my understanding that the Highway Department still has some concerns about the road exiting onto West Mountain Road close to the intersection. r have requested a letter detailing their thinking. A further concern which the developer should address as soon as possible is the name Hush Willow Road. Since street signs go up prior to road construction a consensus on road names must be reached prior to road acceptance which has been the traditional time for name designation. The Fire Chief and the Highway Department have commented that there is already a Willow Road in Town. Their preference is not to have duplication. LA Y /sed "HOME OF NA TURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 £YHIIJ /7 ~ ~ -:or r'"'-~''' /../' / ,-J '(!tofun of ot>u££nsburg ~igqfuug ~£purtm£nt Bay at Haviland Roads Office Phone 518-793-7771 Queensbury, New York 12801 PAUL H. NAYLOR Superintendent Highways RICHARD A. MISSIT A Deputy Superintendent Highways DATE: February 13, 1989 TO: PLANNING BOARD FROM: QUEENS BURY HIGmvAY DEPT. RE: BEDFORD CLOSE SECTION 6 In regards to the road cut being made out onto West Mountain Road, if the County has no objections and is willing to give a permit to attach the road to vJest Mountain Road then we have no PFoblem with it. Regarding' the proposed drainage system between lots 156 and 157, they are not acceptable. We want the drainage to be all worked out to converge with the proposed lot 169, and tying into t.he towns I drainage system on the Corinth Road, creating a second exit onto Corintþ Road in Section 6. Regarding the name Hush-Willow Road - the Willow has to be changed due to the fact that we already have a Willow Road in the Town of Queensbury. Respectfully, ,~4~ Richard Missita, Deputy Highway Superintendent --- ',,--, 'êl!uÍtIu uf <@uccu£ihurt! ~ig~fuat! ¿Bcpartmcut Bay at Haviland Roads Office Phone 518-793-7771 Queensbury, New York 12801 DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1988 "OWN Of üU':éN$&Ua- \- 1W~ro." ~ DEC14198~ PAUL H. NAYLOR Superintendent Highways TO: QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOAft~NNING' ZONING DEPARTMENT FROM: PAUL H. NAYLOR QUEENS BURY HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT RE: ROAD LENGTHS AND DRAINAGE l ì :, L \ , ;, \ L SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 Hickory Acres The Highway Department has no problem with the road length...24' of pavement with 2' swales both sides. Also a letter is needed from Nimo stating OK to dump water on their property. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1988 Timberland Consultants, Inc. The Highway Department has no problem with the road length...as stated above with 5' gravel shoulders. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1988 John M. Hughes, West side of Bay Road...The Highway Department has no problem with the length of road as stated 24' of pavement with 5' gravel shoulder. The Highway Deparment will need a letter from John stating that County will let him dump water on Bay Road and attach to their road. 13-1988(B;dford Clos~ Section 6 A drainage work up is needed...also a letter from the County stating that they agree with the exit they are proposing out onto West Mountain Road. SUBDIVISION NO. Respectifully, c¿:z: æ~ -=~ ,(/.,u£~/. . ~/?27 R~chard M~Bs~ta, Deputy Highway Superintendent i' E "ill-IS J 7 C!. J/ ~ ~- 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, ONE KESTNER LANE \ , TROY. NEW YORK I 2180 , . -'\/ 518-273-7446 Dec~:r ï@!ij3_7583 PlANNINQ & ZOHIHG DIPARTMENT JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE, S.E. T. Ms. Lee York' Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804 RE: Town of Queensbury Site Plan· No. 13 - 1988 Bedford Close - Section 6 Build,ing Dear Ms. York: I have reviewed the sketch plan for the subject site plan, and I would comment as follows: 1. The si te is wi thin the boundary of the Queensbury Water District, and service is available. 2. Soil borings indicate that on-site disposal systems should be adequate. individual 3. No storm-water management plan is indicated. Site drainage should be carefully addressed preliminary phase. On-site percolation feasible, but an Engineer's Report and layout is needed. in the appears facility I would recommend approval of this sketch plan. Sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS, P.C. ~..,~ 7¿~ Quentin T. Kestner, P.E. Vice President QTK/cp cc: Planning Board Members 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 ¡;: Y. H-I-B I r ]) :J:¡ -MJ)~PJÆ.¡¡¡)jJrw !?f~~ _________~-~~~ 'rt~'~j{,{3 ~ ~~~_lj.~&._~\u-~ Q]V ~~ Q~~~q.. -m.f\..~ ~ ±tr ~o<;à ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~40~~~~~ ~, . . . an ~-R~~'b1. ~~è ~-Cöb11.n.uJJ_-1_--- . \ .. ~ - .& - ¡-IJ . f\rt\~ l"-º . . ~ ~o. 10 , -(~~7(~ ~ ~4 ~~-- ---- .------~----_. --------- ---------,-------,-----_._~~_.---.__._-~.- .._---~ --_._-,,"---- ,E>lHIIJ II G ~ I~WJìiiIIi ' ~ - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 ~. FilE COpy ~~., FEB 2 1 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 3-1988 Sketch Plan Applicant/Project Name: Maple Row Farms The tax map number indicated on this application is Section 60, Block 7, Lot 16.1. The County Clerk's records indicate that this parcel was subdivided into two lots (4.82 acres and 19.88 acres) by a Deed dated November 3, 1988 and recorded on. December 2, 1988. The records of the Town of Queensbury Planning Department indicate that this did not receive Planning Board Review. Under the Subdivision Regulations dated October 1, 1988, any subdivision of land requires Planning Board approval. I would suggest that the Board not take any action on this project until this matter is clarified. The plans submitted show the profile of the proposed road and the existing topography. It does not appear to indicate the proposed contours or the proposed drainage plan. Also, a location map showing all properties within 500 feet along a contiguous street and identifying said properties by tax map number is not provided. JG/sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLE'11763 £01- /!J,lí P --- '- BAV STREET ABSTRACT CORP. sa 8A V ROAD CILDI5. FALLS. NY 1280. .'.7P-0557 e,m 7ti-Of22 ---' FILE COPY OWN 0; LllH <;',", M(, ".ï ;;'aw¡~ ..\ ,~~~ 1~~~~~ ; ITEM NO. 35 '....~.¡~a'JG 8. ZONIN( ''''''. f> TI\ 1= NT WARRANTY DEED WITH LIEN COVENANT Clarence Brown Dated April 28, 1988 & Mary Brown Ack. May 5, 1988 to Rec. May 25, 1988 Book 709 of Deeds Richard Brown & Cheryl Brown, his Page 206 wife, as tenants by the entirety CONVEYS: See copy of Deed attached. RECITES: Being a portion of the premises set forth at Item No. 30 (648/615). 88-158 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-16.1 -.-~ ........- '>.-' . - "-_h~""--,¡,,,~~.......-.__/),. I ~L_ EXHI(8IT G- IØUI -H .. Y. .............., ... .......... ... .,.. .... ~ ......- .. . ... .... ~ """".--..-..-........--- ~ ~~ InWt!!.~~..~ght'.. ~~~h "0/ .... CLARENCE IROWN . MARY IROWN, 0' Country Club Ro.d, 81ens fills, N.w Yort. ' ~ i ~ ,...c I e f1f . JI'" ,...c. ...., RICHARD IROWN . CHERYL I.OWN, his wl'e, 0' 14 Linden A,.nu.. 81ens Fills, .ew Yort, IS t.nlnts by the .ntlr.ty, """ I e s .1 1M Iff:OfId """, .1III...rd IMIIM """ I IS.I 1M /lrol ""rt. In COfUIdmrI"'n.{¡ _ eo... _.... -1i;~rmøñ;;õ.7j~tPn~~Š;;';;,·-;ftd·õih;~·gõõd·iñd Y~~U~;le ~~"~Yderiij~n ",,~hw 1M """ Je, '1 1M I«IM ""rt. dl1 Iontbu",nl øntl rrI(dlun'" 1M """ I u '1 l/of 'tCØntl ""rt, thel r øntl øarllCIII lø~. III THAT PIECE OR PARCEL Of LAND, sltulte, 1,lng Ind beln, on the elsterl, side 0' the Country Club ROld, In the Town 0' Qu..nSbury. New Yort, aore plrtlcullrl, descrIbed IS 'ollows: COMMENCING It I poInt. which point Is 10clteO 400' north 5' 55' 24' elst 'roM the southiest corn.r 0' I p'ece or plrcel 0' Ilnd con,e,ed to Cllrence Ind Miry Irown by deed dlted August 24, 1'82, Ind recorded 'n the Wlrren County Clert's O"lce on Septtlllber 7. 1982, In boot 648 0' dnd, 1\ pl,e 615, wh'rth plrc.1 IS ",or. plrtlcullrl, descrIbed on "'.p 0' the I.nds 0' Ethyl Chesebro Estlte. dlted July 28, 1982, Ind.lde by Coulter' Mc Cor.lct, to I poInt In the tlsttrl, sIde 0' the Country Club ROld; Ind runnln, thence north OS' SS' 24· elst 120' to In Iron pipe set In the ,round 'or I corner; runnln, thence south 82' 34' 21' elst' 700' to In Iron p'pe set In tht ,round 'or I corner; runnln, thence south 5" 55' 24" west 120' to In Iron pIpe ,et In the ,round 'or I corner; runnln, thence'north 82' 34' 21" west 700' to the point or pllce 0' be,lnn'n,. 8EING I portion of the pre.'aes d.scrlb.d In I "'.p 0' Ilnds 0' Ethyl Chesebro Estlte dlt.d Jul, 28, 1982, Ind ..de b, Coult.r end McCor.lck. ALSO IEIN6 I portion 0' th. pre.lse, dlscrlbed In I deed 'rOM the Glens Fills Nltlonll lint Ind Trust Co.plny, to Cllrence A. Irown Ind Miry Irown. dlt.d Au,ust 24, 1982, Ind recorded In the Wlrr.n County CI.rt's O"lce on Sept..ber 7th. 1982, In boot '48 of de.ds .t pI,. 615. The conslderltlon hereIn IS less thin SIOO.OO. \ BAY STREET ABSTRA~· ~ kJ ~é- By ~ , wilson s. Math1as, President E'/..II- ðrr (;.; BAY snŒET ABSTRACT CORP, 5ZS SA V ROAD GlENS. FALLS. NY 12801 fJtl!l193-OS!7 Sf.79.J-O'722 . . -- --- -- ,-_._. ..-.:---,'---.. -~. .-- ---'------ -- ......-- .~~~-} . ":p;; ..,,,,,., U>f'~ 'M .1'''''''_ """ "" IIw _tø """ ""10 oJ IIw"." . e s oJ IIw JIm "." ,. ..d '0 ...Itl pre....... . .. _....... II _.11 1M 1'"",.... Ann. .....,., ".'" IIw"." . IS oJ'M -..I".", the'r he'rs """.......jOIÓwI. ~ : I ~~i,· H' .;~ ....i.";'. ..<'~ '~~.i :; .'. r. ~ N hi ...Itl "." IS oJ 'M JIm P/I" .-...., "'1""""'-, ho,. TMIIM P/I" 'e s oJ 'M -..I P/I" ""'0 qvfeIIr ...,,,,, IIw ",Itl ,.........; ....... TMI...1tl "." . e pf 1M JIm pII" """ Jøreon ......, 1M "". 10 ",Itl """,""'. 1!r1.1. TMI, I. CO"1"14.u "''''' 5..,. 13 oJ I~'l.""l.itw. 'M /I".'or s ",m """'w 1M eo..."....,,"" for '''II """W //I.u."" ",UI fu.ltIlM ....", 10 ,...,.,... lilt" corvId....,Ion '" ° /nul fu"" '0 ",.o"pIW JI", for 'M p"""", oJ P!I!II.,'M _ oJ IIw'..1'''''''''''''' ."" ",UI /IPPlJ/ 1M ...... /1m 101M P'!Y....., 01 'M _ oJ 1M 101"-' bejor. ......."',..,., oJ IIw "'1111 oJ IIv "'01' for .., ollin PUIJ*Ø. .. .!III... "-mot."" """'es oJ IIw/lm pII" Mye """" s ."" -' s ",. å, ."" ,...r JIm __ "'r/I,.... rw-.", ., their Jø.llma1tt øf M¿(7 d ~ . ~...,û dß~~ hit ofll.. ,... I 0" '''11 S'1f- '-11 of IIARREN ., MM.... H,,"""'."" be - 1M. IIv ""''''''''.... ~n, ."".."., CLARENCE BROliN . MARY BROliN '" 1M "......n, i.""",."" ill/JlDII '" 01"0 ".",. "'01' perIOII s daerib., III."" ",110 :::::Bt ::~~ '''''",......, """ tile 1 d"I, .c"'"",""," '" III. IIw, tJw 1 ",oJ ))..,~ EIGHTY_EIGHT (h......~ -- N.." Mile "IT is "011 JI! 'PI ,..~. 1:, ..~ .--.... ..) '...'., CU~\ ~:U_ . .. . . UAL l^"E . . MAY U "' 4 1tANSFr:- ", WAAr,.' . COUNI ... ... ~ ,~I . ~! ,¡¡ ~~ ~.-.. a .. ... N I ¡I Û!~ I . ,~ . -fi'i~ hlq ~~c !r . :a o . . :a ... 0 . IAI ... uO .... lAIC. = if ... u · :a . e: ¡ ... o · ... CO.. "'.. UCIAI - '" · u ¡ A C J ;- .~.... BAY ST~ET ABSTRA~. By C.- Jd ~c::- Wilson S. Mathias, President 88-158 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-16.1 ~ -- RIST·FAOST ASSOCIATES, ~C. ',,- CONSULTING ENGINEERS l ~.: ~,~ :,' "",""¡ .:: (" - " ,. ~11 ~.... .!i (r'"' )" .,;i;~ /::' ".~,~. L > Jl.ti, ' i""", ~ ïI, :.~ I'r t!~," "',', ' J..... " J ,I f.j· "I -- ,"...If:;, ,.' . 'llV0 J'; ji ,¡ 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518·793-4141 ,n,r¥Ti' l' . j '::O,J \\~r, r;~~1' I' , ,".',- i.'r>f1 ·....1 :,: ". i ,'~ 'Ill l,' ~' j .' ,Jt)~} "... ;'>,.j'..:. ;t;~ ;tON¡v ". ,.."",~ .~, ~:·'''''· A;1¡~~r.,-1'';· February 21, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Maple Row Farms - Subdivision No. 3-88 - Sketch Plan Dear Ms. York: The following are review comments on the above-referenced project: 1. The applicant states that on-site septic will be used or possibly Town sewer. If on-site systems are proposed then percolation tests should be done to verify soils capacity and the lot layout based on that data. Soils in that part of Town may have high groundwater. 2. A 0.4 acre detention basin is called for in the drainage calculations but there is no area reserved in the sub- division for a detention basin. Preliminary submission will require a drainage report with design rationale and support- ing calculations. 3. Town regulations prohibit a cul-de-sac longer than 1,000 feet; the proposed road is more than 1,300 feet long. We recommend the sketch plan be revised to address these issues and be resubmitted. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. J~ LJ 'f~"- Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Planning Board Members $ GlENS FALLS, NY· LACONIA. NH E'X# /ßJT 1-1- f -- 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 FAX: 518-273-7583 JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY, P.E. JEROME THORNE, S.E.T. November 22, 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) Subdivision No. 3 - 88 Maple Row Farm's Sketch Plan Dear Ms. York: I have reviewed the subject subdivision and would comment as follows: 1. As indicated on Planning Soils Maps and in consideration of the topography of the site, it would be desirable to serve this subdivision with municipal sewers. If subsurface systems are used, they must be carefully designed to address the soil type and slopes. 2. It will probably be necessary to create detention basins to hold stormwater. No lands have been set aside for this purpose. 3. Municipal water facilities are located in the area and should be available to serve the site. If sketch-plan approval is granted, careful review at preliminary stage will be necessary especially for Lot Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7. Sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS, P.C. ~~I~Z~ 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 ¡; X#181T II«- ~ RIST-FAOST ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FAU.S. NY 12801 518'793-4141 '---' - '.'o '<," ~ .::',""...~ It.. It . tf· ~,tf II ii ¡.; 3/ ,:. - . .....:.! ...-~ . ,.'. .... I "j .; to;'"}) j'¡i. t:.:,.. '",&,; , ,I' ,iì,/i r¡ ',:r ~. ", ',' : ' ...., \ ......' ,..) ,.¡ ,:I J ;¡ ':?Wl~ i I~O~ . ii, ~,~;:J¡'¡(;.¡ i.i'i ;(:ONjN' . " . f',,~ r:'~rMf:'M~ . February 21, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Herbert Tyrer - Subdivision No. 10-88 - Sketch Plan Dear Ms. York: Our comments on this project are as follows: 1. Is the east end of Ash Drive presently a Town Road? The map shows it as a separate parcel within the subdivision. If not a Town road, will it be turned over to the Town? 2. Perc tests results must be provided, included the time of year the tests were taken. Septic system design must be based on the actual test results. 3. Lot 2 does not meet the 150 foot minimum width requirements. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~C~ W _~c_ Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Planning Board Members e GLENS FALLS, NY·LACONIA, NH EX H 1/3 I T ..I:.. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 February 17, 1989 ·'·,'..','l'. E·...,,· ; \ E'': , 0/ U! ' ,: 1 fJ . C~PV NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 10-1988, Sketch Plan Applicant/Project Name: Herbert Tyrer This application for Sketch Plan approval is for a four lot subdivision on the north side of Ash Drive. The subdivision is 5.5 acres in a WR-l acre zone. Lot 3 has an existing home on it and there is a building permit for construction of a house on lot 1. Access to lots 1, 2, and 3 will be from Ash Drive and lot 4 will be accessed from Birch Road. All lots do have the necessary 40 feet of frontage on a Town Road. The topography is rolling to steep and the soils are sandy. A sketch drainage and grading plan as per Article III of the Subdivision Regulations and letter F of the sketch plan requirements was not submitted. The application does have a drawing of a typical eave drain and shows these attached to the proposed houses. This does not meet the requirements of a sketch drainage plan. A sketch grading plan is also required to show how the natural features will be modified. We need to be aware of how the water is draining now and what the anticipated drainage will be. The topography across the street from the proposed subdivision is sloping down to Glen Lake. The old Casino property has very little permeable area as it was used as a parking lot. The map presented does not identify the contiguous properties by lot and parcel number as required in Article III and letter C of the submission requirements. This application was removed from an agenda formerly because lot number 2 did not have 150 feet average lot width required in the WR-IA zone. The application was resubmitted for this agenda and lot number 2 still does not have the required 150 ft. lot width. Lot number 2 does not have a minimum of twenty feet between the lot line and house. The requirements for submission also state that the wells and septic tanks and fields of adjoining property owners should be located on the survey. Due to the fact that this application does not meet the legal requirements for subdivision approval it should be denied. LA Y /sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 7763 - EX/ltJ/r ..J