1989-02-28
~
QUEENS BURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting: Tuesday, February 28, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman
Joseph Dybas
Peter Cartier
Frank DeSantis
Hildagarde E. Mann, Secretary
Keith Jablonski
Victor Macri
Paul Dusek, Counsel
Lee York, Sr. Planner John Goralski, Planner
Thomas W. Nace, Town Consultant/Engineer
Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer
Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 89-1
Mrs. York discussed with the Planning Board the purposé of the Resolu-
tion (Exhibit A), which is to give the Planning Department Staff direction
regarding the review of all submissions, and the placement on an Agenda
those submissions which are deemed complete.
Mr. Cartier moved APPROVAL of Resolution Number 89-1: -The Planning
Department Staff is directed by the Planning Board to review all submis-
sions as to completeness as outlined in the Ordinances. The Staff is
instructed to place on an Agenda those submissions which are deemed com-
plete."
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
Passed 6 Yes (Roberts, Mann, DeSantis, Jablonski, Dybas, Cartier)
1 Absent (Macri)
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-87; FINAL STAGE
Dixon Heights, Phase III
C and L Realty Associates
Carmin L. Masullo, Partner
The
UR-10.
application is for 58 lots located to the north of Halfway Brook,
(Tax Map No. 95-1-1, 4 / 96-1-6).
There were no Staff comments, and Mr. Roberts advised that the Board of
1
·
. ....
TOW? OF QUEENC)BURY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -'r»~UWf~~
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804.9725-518-792~ MAR 131989~
~LANNING a. ZONING
DEPARTMENT
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
.
fiLE COpy
RESOLUTION NUMBER 89-1
The Planning Department Staff is dir'ected by the Planning Board to review all
submissions as to completeness as outlined in the Ordinances. The staff is instructed
to place on an agenda those submissions which are deemed complete:
Motion By: 0 ~ (I ~
Second B~/LLr.J.1- 1. ~
Vote: ~ Richard Roberts, Chairman
JHildagarde E. Mann, Secretary
Frank DeSantis
, Victor Macri, Jr.
'r":' Keith Jablonski
~ ~ oseph S. Dybas
reter Cartier
Dated this Z8thU..y of ~1989 /
~. --i.~
/
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
P 'f.fl/ß J T It-
Health Approval was received. Frank Walter, Agent, advised that Old Mill
Lane had been made one way in; this had been a requirement of the Prelimin-
ary Approval and was accomplished by a Resolution of the Town Board. The
Applicant did agree to buy the signs for Old Mill Lane; this has been com-
pleted. All necessary permits have been received.
Mr. Dybas moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 1-87, FINAL STAGE, Dixon
Heights, Phase III. The application has met all requirements and has
received all necessary permits.
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988; PRELIMINARY STAGE
Hickory Acres
Sidney H. Timms
The proposal is for a ten (lO) lot subdivision of l3 acres, SFR-1A.
Location: 200 feet south of Sweet Road and 1,000 feet west of County Club
Road. (Tax Map No. 64-1-5.l).
Mr. Roberts reviewed that the Application was previously Tabled, due to
a problem with the average width of the lots in the SFR-lA zone. Leon
Steves, VanDusen & Steves Land Surveyors, represented the application and
verified that thirty (30) letters were sent to landowners within 500 feet
of the site. The subdivision has been reduced to nine (9) lots from ten
(10) lots; each of the lots has been enlarged. The road, drainage and
engineering were left as previously submitted.
Mr. Goralski advised the Board that the Site Plan was compared to the
requirements for Preliminary Approval and a list of items was made, which
were not addressed on the Plan (Exhibit B). Mr. Roberts questioned if the
application should be on the Agenda, because of the several items not in
compliance; the Application was submitted prior to Resolution l-89, which
was passed at this meeting.
Mr. Nace reviewed his letters of February 2l and 28, 1989 (Exhibits
Cl/C2) which included comments on: landscaping and grading/erosion control
plans; the necessity for lot alterations to meet the 150 foot width mini-
mum; lack of sufficient drainage information; soil tests, specifically
that fill would be required for all systems or the applicant should have
the option of digging test pits during the Spring; and, drawing notes and
details on the plans that are not legible or of a size to be readable for
the Owner, Contractor, Town Officials, etc.. Regarding soil tests, they
are a requirement of the Department of Health (DOH) and will be done prior
to Final Approval. In addition, DOH would want evidence of the tests, and
the presence of either the Town or DOH would be necessary.
2
Mr. Steves noted that he would have no problem with having test pits
dug in the Spring of the year. He also discussed the problem of reading
the submitted Plan and stated that Brian Fear, N.Y.S. Department of
Health, requires all information (water, septic, etc.) to be on the front
cover sheet, when the plan is submitted for his signature. Mr. Jablonski,
an engineer who is familiar with construction drawings, also expressed
concern about the legibility of the drawings, because a builder would
either have to ·guess· what is stated or refer the plans to someone for
interpretation. Mr. Steves stated that he would have no problem attaching
sheets in a detailed fashion, but the top sheet has to stay as is. Mr.
Roberts suggested that a Committee be set up to look into the matter, be-
cause the drawings have been an on-going problem. Mrs. York advised that
she would contact the Warren County Clerk, in order to secure information
on the correct procedures for submitting drawings to Mr. Fear.
Referring to Mr. Nace's letter of 2/28/89, Messrs. Dybas and DeSantis
were of the opinion that Items 1 & 3 (grading/erosion control plan and
drainage information) had to be submitted prior to Preliminary Approval.
In addition, Mr. Roberts noted SEQR will have to be addressed at a pUblic
meeting.
Of concern to Mr. Cartier was the strip of land between Lots 8 and 9,
which was 35 feet wide and is now 50 feet wide, and eventually could be-
come a road. Mr. Steves explained that the purpose of the strip is to
provide an access to the Applicant's additional parcel of land (approxi-
mately l2 acres). Mrs. York advised that it is necessary to show the
total landholdings on the topographical map and then subdivide out the
personal property not used for the project; Mr. Steves stated he was
unaware of that restriction.
Public Hearing: Left open for more information.
Leon Steves, Agent, and Sidney H. Timms, Applicant, agreed with the
Queensbury Town Planning Board that Subdivision No. 14-1988, PRELIMINARY
STAGE, Hickory Acres, is to be TABLED for more information as discussed in
the meeting.
SITE PLAN NO. 5-89,
r~~
.~'~
Genesee Refrigeration
David Dyminski
The application is for the construction of a steel building to house
office wholesale refrigeration supply distribution/warehouse on the south
side of the Boulevard, LI-1A. Lot size: 1.604 acres. Cross Reference:
Area Variance 9-1989. (Tax Map No. 112-1-15.3)
Mr. Roberts reviewed that this project previously was Tabled because it
3
needed a Variance, which was not received; the plan was redesigned. Mack
Dean, Morse Engineering, explained that the building now measures 54 ft. x
110 ft., which would meet setback requirements at the proposed location.
An additional revision was the elimination of stormwater drainage into the
Feeder Canal; it will be handled by a subsurface disposal system consist-
ing of approximately 30 feet of tile field.
In review, the building is proposed at the present location because of
a major transmission line that crosses the property from east to west and
cuts the property in half. Relocating the building elsewhere on the pro-
perty would require a 50 foot setback from the northern property line,
which leaves a distance of 40 to 45 feet from the power lines. This would
require a building of about 150 feet x 45 feet, which would have to be
located almost mid-point in the property and would render the property
about 50% useful. Radius for truck turns would be affected and there
would be a limitation on future expansion.
Mr. Goralski noted Staff's comments, specifically ARTICLE 5, Section
5.070 Requirements for Type I and Type II Site Plan Review and Section
5.071 Development Consideration (Exhibit D1/D2). In addition~ Mr. Nace
reviewed his letter of 2/21/89. If the road is going to serve more pro-
perty than the one site and most of the traffic being truck traffic, then
a 20-foot width drive is not adequate for future use. If there will be
Town ownership, then the ownership should be transferred. Facilities
should be constructed to Town standards. Information as to whether or not
ground water was encountered is to be submitted.
Mr. Roberts requested information regarding the probability of a storm
water drainage system that was blocked when the road was paved. Mr.
Goralski: Evidently it was a County drain; there was no easement when it
was installed. The County's concern is the possibility of water backing
up onto the Boulevard, which is 8 feet higher than the existing paved
area. A Dept. of Public Works foreman suggested to Mr. Goralski that a
pipe be placed under the road instead of a French drain (ditch with
crushed stone), which goes under the Canal into the river and drains both
catch basins on the Boulevard and the opposite side of the Boulevard;
there was some uncertainty as to whether or not the French drain is
presently functioning. The reason the water is backing up into the pri-
vate properties is because French drains get clogged and freeze; therefore
no water would flow through. To some degree, water has always "pooled- in
the area. The French drain is all that is presently visible.
Mr. Dean feels that some of the items suggested at this meeting have
been mitigated. The site is a single piece of property under one owner-
ship, David Dyminski. The reason the proposed building is located at the
southerly portion of the lot is to provide as much distance as possible
from existing residences. There are residences on the other side of
Feeder Canal, but there are not as many nor are they as close to the canal
as those residences to the north would be to the private road. All water
lines were installed to accepted Town standards and are privately owned.
4
As long as the property owners own and maintain the road, the water will
be owned by the property owners or those using the provided water mains.
Mr. DeSantisz Does Mr. Dyminski understand that the road does not meet
Town standards and could not be offered for Town ownership? How wide is
the possibility of a road - 40 feet if they go outside the paved area?
How wide is the right-of-way - 20 feet paved? Mr. Deanz Actually there
are two parcels of land involved, and a Variance was obtained from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for joint use of the existing paved driveway. The
property owners, Dale Granger and David Dyminski, have agreed that they
will widen the existing driveway to 24 feet - the required width. Fur-
ther, the only hard surface on the lot will be the building. Mr.
DeSantisz The Town has no control over his private property, if the deci-
sion is made to pave the entire parking lot. Mr. Dean confirmed that the
road cannot be made 50 feet, unless some adjoining property is acquired.
Without a Variance, the Town cannot accept the highway and Town waterlines
cannot be placed inside a private right-of-way. Mr. Dusek stated that a
solution would be to have the waterlines within the Town's highway right-
of-way or obtain an easement from the applicant with the right to go in
and maintain the lines.
Dale Granger; landowner to the west.
The Town of Queensbury currently owns a waterline that goes down on the
property. Thomas Flaherty suggested that the landowners own the water-
line; the line servicing Stanley Granger's property to the east is old and
has to be replaced. This was agreed and the only part of the waterline
that the Town would own would be at the location of the Boulevard. Mr.
Dusek noted that option is a possibility, but would have to be discussed
with Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Granger stated that the owners intend to put in a
six-inch water main to meet Town specifications.
Because of the cul-de-sac, Mr. Naylor does not want to make this road a
Town road; Mr. Granger firmly stated that the owners plan to keep it a
private road and will maintain it 24 feet wide. Historically, the pro-
perty has been used for light industrial use. Previous heavy truck usage
on the property to the east of the subject site includes Stanley Granger
(l7 trucks); Monarch Motor Freight (30t trucks); everyone used the same
right-of-way. Mr. Granger stated he has no reason to believe that there
would be such heavy use in the future. In addition, there was never a
problem with accidents; this usage took place from the 1950's through 1984
or 1985. However, Mr. Roberts' concern is that -those trucks are coming
in partly on the easement and partly across the 'green strip' to your
father's other property."
Explanation by Mr.
from Joe McPhillips
property and over to
McPhillips sold the
Alexy, Jr.. At the
Granger: In 1952, his father purchased the property
and received an easement that goes down Dyminski's
his property; it was a left hand curve. In 1983/84,
property in front (Old Hot/Cold Warehouse) to Fred
time, no one ever followed the right-of-way but went
5
'-_/
on a bias; a right angle. When the property was sold to Alexy, a provi-
sion was put in the deed that Stanley Granger could use the right-of-way
the way he had been using it, instead of the way it was before. Technic-
ally, even though everyone uses the small entranceway, there are two separ-
ate rights-of-way. (Deed/Agreement Exhibit F). Messrs. Granger and
Dean agreed with Mrs. Mann that this was "reverse possession.-
Mr. Roberts noted that Mr. Granger's right-of-way is down the -green
strip- and the right-of-way to the subject parcel is not in the green
strip, it is west of the green strip. Mr. Deans The green strip is owned
by the applicant as a matter of meeting Town codes prior to the adoption
of the current Ordinance and, because it does not meet current standards,
the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a Variance that made the actual
access to be within the piece of property.
There was a discussion regarding the drainage problem. Mr. Granger:
There is an l8 inch clay culvert that does originate in the vicinity of
the Boulevard; he does not know which catch basins are affected. He empha-
sized that no water has ever gone as far as the Feeder Canal; the land is
o to 5 minute test. Even in the winter, the culvert does not produce that
much water. The pipe does not go into the river, it ends on the property.
Mr. Goralski disagreed; the information he was given by Warren County is
that there is a pipe that goes under the canal to the river. Mr. Granger:
-After being on the property for 35 years, there is no such thing.- Fur-
ther, he stated that the piece of pipe dead heads on somebody else's piece
of property, and if that person causes water to enter the Granger proper-
ty, then recourse can be taken. "We did not put a French drain in there,
we put crushed stone and pipe underneath the driveway.- It (pipe) was
covered with crushed stone because of construction at the time and to
avoid damage to the pipes. Mr. Granger offered to uncover the pipes for
inspection, and affirmed to Mr. Roberts that the drainage will stay on the
piece of property; the amount of water from the pipe is "very, very mini-
mal.- Regarding standing water in the area, Mr. Granger is of the opinion
that someone has their gray water hooked up to the pipe. He verified
that, on a beautiful sunny day, "not a cloud in the sky," water would
appear; -it does have a certain odor to it.-
Mr. DeSantis requested that the following be shown on the map: 1) the
location of the 24 foot paved area; 2) drainage calculations so a determin-
ation can be made as to whether or not the present gravel area is capable
of being paved in the future; 3) drainage pattern for the area, as more of
the area will be paved than has been done in the past. The only calcula-
tions presently shown are for the loading dock area. Mr. Dean: The calcu-
lations encompass the entire parking lot. Mr. Nace: The calculations
encompass a 22 feet x 105 feet area and the parking area is at least 104
feet wide x 120 feet.
Mr. DeSantis' concerns about the drainage pattern into the Feeder Canal
are: future paving without review by the Town that will create a paved
area that comes from the Boulevard to within 30 feet of the Feeder Canal;
6
discrepancies regarding the efficiency of the present drains and the types
of drains; and the possibility that someone is pumping gray water into the
system. Mrs. Mann suggested that a berm might help alleviate the problem.
Mr. Dean explained that the major drainage pattern is to the west and
east, which is primarily grassed area, with the exception of the drop in
elevation around the loading dock. Mr. Nace: Any improvements around the
Feeder Canal will need to be approved by the Dept. of Transportation. Mr.
Goralski: DOT's basic feeling is that there is no problem with developing
the property, as long as there is no increased stormwater runoff into the
canal. The problem is that DOT drains the canal during the winter for
repairs and any increased runoff into the canal will make the repairs more
difficult. Mr. Dean disagreed and noted that, in his conversations with
DOT, they had no problem in dumping all stormwater drainage into the
canal.
Public Hearing:
Thomas Clements, Esq.; Representing the Feeder Canal Alliance.
Regarding drainage and pumping stormwater into the canal, sediment
builds up so that every other year the Canal has to be dredged. According
to the Professional Canal Planners in Pennsylvania, stormwater being
pumped into a canal is very detrimental; the preferred method is to go
over or under the waterway.
The Feeder Canal Alliance is promoting a seven-mile park along the
length of the canal. A $20,000 grant from New York State is available for
a Master Plan, which will address stormwater runoff, bridges, towpaths.
The Master Plan will be distributed to the Town of Queensbury. The forma-
tion of an appropriate park requires that adjacent land users have respect
for the park; impact on the Canal has to be minimized. The Alliance pre-
fers to see the building sited as far away from the canal as possible to
maximize green space. However, it is acknowledged that there is a problem
with the power line. The Planning Board has the power to insist that the
building be set back; this application will be an adjacent use. In addi-
tion, the Alliance feels that the building could be set north of the power
lines and within zoning regulations.
Other concerns include: the drainage should not flow into the Canal;
screening is not adequate in height and does not include both sides of the
building; tones and colors should be specified, so the construction blends
in with the natural colors; screening around the dumpsters; and equipment
and debris should not be visible from the outside.
Mr. Cartier reviewed
Beautification Committee
ings should be more than
seen from the towpath.
a letter from Bob Eddy, Chairman of the Queensbury
(ð1\~'íb~~). Mr. Clements felt that the plant-
four feet high, so that the building would not be
Mr. Clements confirmed that the $20,000 grant has been received from
7
New York State, and the Feeder Canal Alliance is currently raising funds
to meet the match.
Regarding the power lines, Mr. Granger informed the Board that a 1928
easement states that the landowner has the right to ask for removal of the
power lines. However, during a recent conversation with Niagara Mohawk,
he was informed that moving the lines would be an impossibility, because
there are five, 7200 Volt power lines. If the lines are moved closer to
the Canal and a line drops into the Canal, there is a problem; if the
lines are moved closer to the adjoining property owners, there is also a
problem. Therefore, the decision has been made to leave the lines in the
middle of the property.
Mr. Granger requested that he be advised of Staff's concerns prior to
the next meeting with the Planning Board; Ms. York said documentation from
this meeting would be available. In addition, three letters submitted by
Mr. Granger from Jack Balfour, Dale Granger and Stanley Granger have been
entered into the record (Exhibit Hl/H2/H3).
Gaynelle Moore: Resident of Queensbury and Chairperson of Feeder Canal
Alliance.
Ms. Moore pointed out that the entire seven mile length of the Canal is
in the State's National Register. She is of the opinion that there are
specifications for buildings to be constructed next to the Historic site
and requested that the Board consider the specifications. The result of a
panel that was presented to the Legislature and to Governor Cuomo has
called for increased support in use of the Canals - 524 miles in New York
State as a recreational resource for the State. The Erie and Champlain
Canals were constructed at the same time as the Feeder Dam Canal; however,
the larger canals have deteriorated over the years by progress. The
Feeder Canal is an important part of the barge system and restoration
would be relatively easy. Ms. Moore affirmed that she would provide docu-
mentation to the Planning Department Staff regarding the Historic Register
and sources of information regarding requirements for developments, etc.
Mack Dean, respectfully
Board TABLE Site Plan No.
until the April 1989 meeting.
requested that the Queensbury Town Planning
5-89, Genesee Refrigeration/David Dyminski,
Chairman Roberts and the Board agreed.
SITE PLAN NO. 3-89
, D. Brooks Teele
The proposal is to remodel the single family home and build a 28 foot x
22 foot addition on Kattskill Bay Road, WR-1A. Lot size: .87 acres.
Cross Reference: Area Variance 1456. (Tax Map No. 19-1-32.1)
8
D. Brooks Teele represented the application. Ms. York reviewed Staff's
comments noting that appropriate Variances have been received, so the
Applicant is able to expand and encroach upon the lake1 the Long Environ-
mental Assessment Form was submitted for Board review. She advised the
Board that Quentin Kestner did approve the holding tank design.
Mr. Nace stated that he is presently working with David Hatin, Director
of Code and Building Enforcement, in the development of standards for hold-
ing tanks1 this information should be available within the next couple of
months. Mr. Teele confirmed that he will conform to the new tank design,
with appropriate alarms.
Public Hearing: no comment
Mr. Cartier reviewed with the Planning Board the Full Environmental
Assessment Form, Part 2 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE. There were
no negative impacts.
Mr. Cartier moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 3-89, D. Brooks Teele, as
the applicant has met all the rules and regulations of the Town of Queens-
bury and all other Agencies involved. Resolution 3-89 is affixed to the
Addendum.
Seconded by Mr. Jablonski.
Passed Unanimously
NEW BUSINESS
SITE PLAN NO. 9-89
Terry Brown
The application is for the construction of a two-story duplex residen-
tial building on the north side of Luzerne Road, ~ mile east of VanDusen
Road, SR-1A. Lot size: 4.59 acres. (Tax Map No. 121-4-l2).
Terry Brown represented the application and noted that this is not a
subdivision; it is his personal property. Further, the reason there is a
faint dotted line shown on the plan in the middle of the five acres is to
prove that there are two acres of property for the proposed duplex. Mr.
DeSantis questioned the legality of adding a duplex to the same parcel of
land on which a single-family residence presently exists. Mrs. York:
Presently, there is nothing in the Ordinance limiting an owner to one prin-
cipal building on a lot, as long as there is sufficient acreage; this has
been determined by the zoning Administrator. Mr. Brown noted that he has
9
the required l50 feet on the Town road, in order to construct a building,
there is 300 feet to accommodate two residences.
Mr. Goralski emphasized to Mr. Brown that if the landholdings are not
put together properly at this time, any changes would be severely restrict-
ed in the future. Mrs. York reviewed Staff comments (Exhibit I). The
road frontage on a collector road, as stated in Zoning Ordinance, Section
4.052 Designated Streets, would not be sufficient to allow construction,
unless the property is held under one ownership. Section 4.053 Regula-
tions states -all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial
street or any new collector or arterial streets shall have two (2)
times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located.-
The applicant has a total of 375 feet; this property could not be subdi-
vided into two legal lots because, according to the Ordinance, 600 feet of
frontage would be required. The purpose of the ruling is to reduce road-
cuts and driveway cuts onto major roadways. Ms. York advised the applicant
that, in the future, if he intends to sell either his present residence or
the proposed duplex, a Variance would be required because of the lack of
road frontage on an arterial roadway. In addition it would be necessary
to have subdivision review to subdivide the property; it would be a three-
stage process. There is a large amount of property, to which the appli-
cant is not leaving himself access to the back. There is a potential for
four other lots.
Mr. Roberts clarified to Mr. Brown that the zoning Ordinance promotes
internalization of roads and, if this is not done, then a builder gets
penalized by having to meet the requirements of the above-noted rule. A
reasonable plan could be made with a single road cut, for the applicant's
land and that of his neighboring family. Various suggestions were made
regarding the property and the access: one entrance into the property with
the road built to Town specifications, but not offered to the Town; one
entrance into the property located between the duplex and the present resi-
dence, front the duplex away from Luzerne Road, this would not foreclose
the future use of the property; and build the duplex far enough back from
the driveway to allocate a fifty-foot right-of-way, should the applicant
need the wider road for future use. Mr. Macri felt the building is satis-
factory as planned.
At this point, Mr. Brown was advised of his options regarding the
status of the application, he informed the Board he would like a vote at
this meeting, since he could return before the Board in the future to sub-
divide the land.
Public Hearing: Mrs. York read a letter from George and Carol
Bosley, neighbors, stating no objection (letter on file).
Public Hearing Closed.
Mr. Macri reviewed with the Town planning Board the Environmental
Assessment Form, Part II, A - D, there was no negative impact.
10
'--'
Mr. Macri moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 9-89, Terry Brown, as the
Application has been submitted, which is in accordance with the Town of
Queensbury Zoning rules and regulations. Resolution 9-89 has been affixed
to the Addendum.
Seconded by Mr. DeSantis.
Passed 6 Yes (Jablonski, Dybas, Mann, DeSantis, Macri)
1 No (Cartier)
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1989
PRELIMINARY STAGE FOR MODIFICATION
d-a3-aq
Edward P. Carr
The request is to change the boundary lines to eliminate Deeded Right
of Way, RR-5A/LC-10A. Location: East side of Stone Schoolhouse Road;
north on Bay Road; left onto Stone Schoolhouse Road; Woodchuck Hill Road;
approximately 800 feet on the right. (Tax Map No. 23-l-39.221).
Mr. Roberts noted that the subdivision was approved by the Adirondack
Park Agency and not by the Town of Queensbury, as it was not necessary at
the time. The applicant is attempting to turn an access right-of-way into
a deeded ownership, which requires subdivision approval.
Mrs. York reviewed Staff IS comments (Exhibit J) and recommended to the
Board that this be a Final Approval on the project, if it is determined
that there is no significant environmental impact.
Public Hearing: no comment.
Mr. DeSantis reviewed with the Town Planning Board the Environmental
Assessment Form, Part II A - D; there were no negative impacts.
Mr. DeSantis moved APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 4-1989, PRELIMINARY
STAGE FOR MODIFICATION and FINAL APPROVAL, Edward P. Carr, based Staff IS
recommendation, the Negative Declaration of SEQR and the fact that the
subdivision will be brought more into compliance with the current rules
and regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
Seconded by Mr. Cartier
Passed Unanimously
SITE PLAN NO. 10-89
Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc.
11
I
/
The applicant proposes to construct a new bridge with a vehicular lane
and a conveyor belt to replace an existing bridge, immediately downstream
of the existing bridge, HI-3A. Location: Parcel borders and includes the
Hudson River shoreline immediately adjacent to the Cement Plant. Lot
size: 44.70 acres. (Tax Map No. 113-2-4).
Mrs. York reviewed Staff's comments (Exhibit K), which discussed the
conveyor belt, Site Plan Review, Variance from Article 7, approvals yet to
be received and future construction of the existing bridge. Sandra
Hutchinson, Esq., LaPann, Reardon, Morris, et. al., confirmed that no
agency, including the Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC), assumed
Lead Agency status, the project will be treated as a coordinated review.
However, DEC did issue a Negative Declaration, but an Assessment Form has
to be filled out. Ms. Hutchinson also presented to the Board an updated
status of all required County, State, Federal permits, and approvals
(Exhibit L). Additional governmental approvals include the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers authorizing the dredge and fill of the riverbed; Prelim-
inary Approval from the State Department of Transportation; and approval
from the Saratoga and Warren County Board of Supervisors authorizing the
construction and location of the bridge.
Ms. Hutchinson reviewed the history of the bridge, which originally was
built in 1906 and was a narrow gauge railroad bridge. The railroad was
replaced with a conveyor belt and conveyor system in 1964. The entire
amount of raw material is transported from the quarry to the plant on a
conveyor built, approximately 750,000 tons/year of crushed limestone. The
bridge is critical to the manufacturing operation, as it is the only
access from the quarry to the plant.
Don Macke, Engineer, advised Mr. Cartier that, after all of the approv-
als are received, it is expected that construction will be completed by
-next winter.-
Because of the coordinated review, there was concern that no agency was
taking a -hard look- at the application, however, Ms. Hutchinson stated
that this was being done by DEC. A Permit under Article 15 will impose
conditions to protect the water resource and the erosion. Mr. Nace also
advised the Planning Board that DEC is addressing all of the environmental
concerns. Rist Frost did the engineering work and the Town has been in
contact with that firm during the review process to discuss additional
measures which will be imposed and additional conditions to the Permit,
under which the contractor would have to work.
Again Mr. DeSantis strongly emphasized his concern about the SEQR re-
view, because of the lack of a Lead Agency. -It is like there is no other
Agency looking at this.- He is uncomfortable with a project of this dimen-
sion which submitted a Short Environmental Impact Statement, with no back-
up data, and which required a decision regarding whether or not there was
adverse affect. From the smallest to the largest project, addressing SEQR
is a two-part process. Mr. Dusek also was of the opinion that it is
12
unfortunate that DEC did not assume Lead Agency status, because each of
the involved agencies is on its own as far as the review process is con-
cerned for this application.
Mrs. York asked if DEC had submitted the Negative Declaration stating
that there would be no significant environmental impact. Ms. Hutchinson
stated that there was a Public Notice and Public Commentary; a Negative
Declaration is on file. Mr. DeSantis requested a copy of the Negative Dec-
laration for the Town of Queensbury file, which will be cross-referenced
to a DEC file proving that there had been a review based on the informa-
tion submitted by the applicant. However, Mr. Dusek was of the opinion
that a Permit was a better document, because it will show the conditions
to which the applicant must adhere. Further, if the Planning Board does
proceed with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form and finds that
not enough information has been submitted, then the Applicant would have
to submit additional information. Mr. Roberts pointed out that no
Engineer has been assigned to the project. Although the Board was trying
to expedite the application, there was still concern that not enough
information had been submitted, and the Board did not have the expertise
to make a sound judgement.
Ms. Hutchinson requested an Approval from the Planning Board, contin-
gent on DEC issuance of a Permit. Mr. Roberts advised her that that type
of approval is not the normal procedure for the Planning Board; however,
due to the unusual circumstances, it may be the most sensible answer be-
cause the Board will have to rely on the DEC review. A decision was made
to proceed with the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part II, A-D.
The review was completed with the Planning Board as well as with Mr. Nace,
who is familiar with the project and could provide the technical data.
Mr. Nace is an employee of Rist Frost, the company responsible for the
engineering on the project. Mr. DeSantis conducted the review. Comments
of note are as follows.
A. The action DOES NOT exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part
617.12.
B. The action WILL NOT receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted
actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6.
Cl. Mitigative measures proposed for erosion control are:
preconstruction: A silt fence will be constructed prior to earth work
and will be in place throughout the construction;
postconstruction: There will be an area of heavy riprap, which is an
erosion control, soil stabilization measure that protects the abut-
ments. Downstream from the riprap, which will be exposed during
construction, the area will be top soiled and seeded.
Existing traffic patterns will not be affected, since it is a private
roadway.
13
'--
C2. There are no known sites stated in the National Register.
C3.
Natural growth
been located in
Classification.
and water/wildlife species and habitats: None have
this area; it is not a protected stream and has a C
C4. Plans/Goals: The area is zoned industrial; it is an effort to con-
tinue the use of the area in that manner.
C5. Results from proposed action: Hopefully, the Cement Plant will grow
and prosper.
C6. Effects not identified as above: no comment.
C7. Other impacts (including energy): A conveyor belt has been in exist-
ence and is proposed at this time; most likely the belt will be more
efficient and less energy may be used.
D. There is likely to be NO controversy related to potential adverse envir-
onmental impacts. Ms. Hutchinson stated that there were no pUblic com-
ments filed during the comment period.
Public Hearing: no comment.
Mr. DeSantis moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 10-89, Glens Falls Cement
Co., Inc., based upon the Negative Declaration in regard to SEQR and that
the application appears to be in accordance with the existing Town of
Queensbury rules and regulations. Resolution 10-89 is affixed to the
Addendum.
Seconded by Mrs. Mann.
Passed Unanimously
SITE PLAN NO. 11-89
BeBout Ford Tractor
Mr. Roberts announced that Site Plan No. 11-89 was WITHDRAWN, per the
request of the applicant.
QUEENSBURY PLANKIRG BOARD BUSIRESS
SEQR WORKSHOPS
Lee York, Sr. Planner
Ref: Memo of February 21, 1989
14
Once
(EAF)
that
for
ment
Board
ing.
the SEQR workshops are held and the Environmental Assessment Forms
are reviewed at the special meeting, applicants do not understand
a new plan cannot be submitted, because the application is scheduled
the next meeting. Ms. York has maintained that the Planning Depart-
will accept no new applications or information, because the Planning
would not have time for a proper review prior to the scheduled meet-
The following are some of the items that were discussed.
Add one month to the process, this would enable the applicant to fix
any problems and return with a correct application.
A Short EAF can be reviewed at a regular meeting, however, a Long EAF
should be reviewed at a Workshop.
Even though applicants might correct items that were discussed at the
Workshop, applicants must be made aware that the Board may find addi-
tional items during a review at the regular meeting.
Complete the Long EAF at the Preliminary hearing, however, this would
limit the items to four or five/meeting as it takes approximately one
hour/form. Presently, every application has to submit a Long EAF.
For applications requiring a Workshop Meeting, the applicant would be
advised that the Planning Board would review the application at the
Regular Meetings held during the two months following the Workshop
Meeting, this does not include the meeting immediately following the
Workshop Meeting.
Each plan has to be considered individually.
Prohibit applicants from changing the plans between the end of the
previous month and the Planning Board Meeting.
The Planning Board did agree on Mr. Macri's suggestion. The following
statement will appear on the Subdivision Application and must be signed by
the Applicant:
-If there are any major changes to the Subdivision Application deemed
significant by the Queensbury Planning Board at the Workshop Meeting, I
automatically give permission to have the project automatically Tabled.-
STAFF COMMENTS
Lee York, Sr. Planner
Hereafter, all Staff comments will go directly to the Planning Board,
developers will not receive the correspondence before the meeting nor will
the correspondence be discussed with the applicants or their representa-
tives prior to the regularly scheduled meeting.
15
Highlights of the discussion are as follows.
Presently, developers call the Planning Department requesting to know
about comments that Staff has made; this has led to confusion not only
with the Planning Department, but confusion and disruption in other
departments as well.
The Planning Board's responsibility is not to design an applicant's
project.
Staff comments will be handed to the applicants, when they come before
the Planning Board at the Regular Meeting; the issues noted by Staff
can be discussed during the Applicant's presentation.
Subdivision Regulations provide for a preapplication conference.
The Planning Board does want to move applications as quickly as pos-
sible, and not releasing Staff's comments prior to the regular meeting
might prohibit the presentation of an item easily secured (ie: deed,
picture, realtor's statement, etc.).
No definite decision was reached; therefore, Mrs. York stated she would
consider the matter further.
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
Richard Roberts
16
Mr.
ning
more
Scheduled during the month of April are 10 Subdivision applications and
Site Plans. Because Resolution 1-89 was passed by the Planning Board,
Goralski was of the opinion that, after a thorough review by the Plan-
Department, the number of remaining applications would necessitate no
than two regular meetings in April.
Chairman Roberts adjourned the meeting at ll:OO p.m.
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Date
J. 1~·J1
Date /
16
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
Resolution No. 3-89
February 28, 1989
Introduced by: Peter Cartier
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by:
Hildagarde E. Mann
WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application
for: Site Plan No. 3-89, D. Brooks Teele, for the purpose of remodeling
the home and building an addition; 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;
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 28th day of February, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES 7
NOES 0
ABSENT 0 :
17
'---
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
Resolution No. 9-89
February 28, 1989
Introduced by: Victor Macri
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by:
Hildagarde E. Mann
WHEREAS, there is
for: Site Plan No.
building, and
presently before the planning Board an application
9-89, Terry Brown, for the construction of a duplex
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,
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 28th day of February, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES 7
NOES 0
ABSENT 0 :
18
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
Resolution No. 4-1989
February 28, 1989
Introduced by: Frank DeSantis
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by:
Peter Cartier
WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application
for: Site Plan No. 4-1989, Edward P. Carr, to change the boundary lines to
eliminate Deeded Right of Way; 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:
Adirondack Park Agency, which will review modification of the lot
line;
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 28th day of February 28, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES 7
NOES 0
ABSENT 0
19
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
Resolution No. 10-89
February 28, 1989
Introduced by: Victor Macri
Who Moved Its Adoption
Seconded by:
Frank DeSantis
WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application
for: Site Plan No. 10-89, Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc. for the construc-
tion of a new bridge with a vehicular land and a conveyor belt, 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:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. The following agencies are involved:
Town of Queensbury
Town of Moreau
Warren County Planning Board
Saratoga County Board of Supervisors
Warren County Board of Supervisors
New York State Department of Transportation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Office of General Services.
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
20
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 28th day of February, 1988, by the following vote:
AYES 7:
NOES 0:
ABSENT 0 :
21
--'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 89-1
The Planning Department Staff is dir't:;cted by the Planning Board to review all
submissions as to completeness as outlined in the Ordinances. The staff is instructed
to place on an agenda those submissions which are deemed complete:
Motion By: 0 ~ (I~~
. ,
secondB~.JdLF"-" AI. i~
Vote: £,JM' Richard Roberts, Chairman
y.c,..o Hildagarde E. Mann, Secretary
_ . O~Frank DeSantis
~Victor Macri, Jr.
~ Keith Jablonski
r ~ oseph S. Dybas
reter Cartier
Dated this 28th Da.y of February, 1989
~~/>P<~--:J ..~
ul "
/L~~'-d-~
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
IEXfllßJr IJ
FEB 2 8 1989
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
FilE COpy
NOTE TO FILE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 14-1988
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Applicant/Project Name: Hickory Acres
This plan has been changed to meet the requirement for an average lot width of
150 feet. To accomplish this one lot has been eliminated. Also, the strip of land accessing
Mr. Timms property has been enlarged to 50 feet.
* side and rearyard setbacks are not indicated (If)
* tie-in to the center line distance of Sweet Road is not indicated (2a)
* if underground power, cable TV and telephone lines are not indicated (3d)
* location and elevation of proposed monuments is not indicated (3g)
* no clearing plan is indicated (5)
* no erosion control plan is indicated (6)
* no statement of intent has been included
srfot"'rn
The question of post-construction .. b.2StC water runoff should be addressed by the
Towds Consultant. Also, the question of fill systems on each lot still remains to be settled.
JG/sed
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
IE' '/lrlßlí
8
~
RISHROST ASSOCIATES. Poc.
OONSULTING ENGINEERS
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GlENS FALLS. NY
12801
518' 793-4141
.. L_~
./ -
ç~V 1'\ -r:,~
C~ V~
~ _.Of....---q..; "1/\" tö February 21,
.,,~ \ v L-' RF A #89-5000
7 gO-
1989
Ms. Lee York, Senior' Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Hickory Acres Subdivision No. 14-88
Preliminary Plans
Dear Ms. York:
Our comments regarding this project are as follows:
1. A landscaping plan and grading/erosion control plan has not
been provided.
2. Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 are not the minimum 150 foot width
for Zone SFR-IA.
3. The drainage calculations do recognize the increase in run-
off from development but appear to mix the SCS and rational
methods. A retention basin is proposed but the sizing is
not well documented. No details are provided for ditches to
convey runoff from the street to the retention basin.
4. With the presence of mottling in the the soil tests, fill
systems may be required on all lots, and not just Lots 1-4.
5. Drawing notes and details should be at a size that is read-
able for the Owner, Contractor and Town Officials.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
-.j4 "- w . Jc. -
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc; Planning Board Members
e GLENS FALLS. NY·I.ACONIA. NH
E YfI/ß/T (71
~.-
RIST·FROST AS9XIATES, P.C,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FAlLS, NY
12801
518· 793·4141
.....
February 28, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Hickory Acres Subdivision No. 14-88
Preliminary Plans - Revised
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the revised plans dated February 18, 1989 and
offer the following comments:
1. A grading/erosion control plan has not been provided.
2. By eliminating one (1) lot the developer has provided lots
which are at least 150 feet wide on the average.
3. No additional drainage information has been provided
addressing our previous comments.
4. A review of Charles Main's test pit observations show that
mottling, which indicates seasonal groundwater, varies from
23 to 38 inches below grade at lots 5 through 9. New York
State Department of Heath requirements call for at least 2
feet from the bottom of trench to high groundwater which
woul d requi re groundwater to be no higher than 42 inches
below grade for conventional systems. We believe fill
systems will be required on all lots.
However, the developer shoul d have the option of di ggi ng
test pits during the spring high groundwater season. If
these show that groundwater is not as high as the mottling
indicates, and that conventional systems will satisfy the
Health Department, we would concur.
@ GLENS FAlLS. NY·lACONIA, NH
¡Ç '/.#1141 r {!. :z..,
~,.~
---
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
Ref: Hickory Acres
February 28, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Page 2
5. Drawing notes and details should be at a size that is read-
able for the Owner, Contractor and Town Officials.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
-fn .
~:-Lj '~0-
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Planning Board Members
~
~
.
...
...../
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
February 27, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
filE COpy
Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 5-89
Applicant/Project Name: .GeÍìeseé Refrigeration
Section 5.071 lists specific development considerations which the Board should use
as a guideline for site plan review. Several of these considerations are directly applicable
to this project.
Section 5.071 A(l)d exis~ing drainage and runoff patterns:
It appears from site inspection that the existing driveway (indicated as paved area)
is blocking a preexisting drainage pattern. Without a culvert under this driveway there
is a potential for flooding on the residential properties to the north of the site. There
is also a possibility of storm water running across the driveway and freeZing.
Section 5.071 A(2) a,h existing topography and vegetative cover:
Prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance the lot was clearcut and leveled.
The site is now relatively flat and barTen.
Section 5.071 A(7)b, Section 5.071 B, Section 5.071 C(2)a. Natural man-made travel,
historic size considerations, adjoining and nearby land uses:
All of these refer to the Feeder Canal. This project will have a significant impact
on the character of the canal. The Feeder Canal Alliance has recently received a Grant
to develop a Master Plan for the canal. The Alliance intends to develop the recreational
and historic potential of the canal to its fullest. Adequate screening between the canal
and the industrial use should be provided along the entire property line.
Section 5.070 (e) states "The Planning Board review of the site plan shall include,
as appropriate, but not limited to the following general standards:" (5) Adequacy of
storm water drainage facilities. There is concern about runoff into the canal increasing
after construction. It appears that the drainage calculations only consider the area of
the loading dock.
7. Adequacy, type and arTangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings
landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between
the applicants and adjoining lands including the maximum retention of existing
vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The preexisting residences to the north as well as the Canal should be considered.
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . ,A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
¡ç 'K/l-I.dIT Þ I
"--
.--../
8. Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire
hydrants.
The South. Queensbury Fire Chief had some concern about the adequacy of the
"driveway to·.nro~ttdè1access for fire equipment.
>~ t.':~ ,):
"" ., ",.il· N-h~ ~.. .~
Section 5.071 c(2)9 mentions adjoining and nearby uses. Mr. Stanley Granger owns
the property to the east of the site. He has indicated that two businesses on his property
have easements to use the driveway proposed for this site. This driveway will also be
used for any future development on the property to the west owned by Dale Granger.
This property has the potential to have two buildings constructed and meet the area
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In effect this area ~ec:õmes a mini-industrial park.
This use is encouraged by the Zoning Ordinance. The problem that arises is access to
the site. The potential use of this driveway seems to indicate that a road built to Town
standards would be appropriate.
JG/sed
----....
-../
E. Unless otherwise specified or extended by the Planning Board, a decision
on any Site Plan Review shall expire if the applicant fail8 to undertake-
·the proposed action or project, to obtain any necessary building permits
to construct any proposed new building(s) or change any existing
building(s), or to comply with the conditions of said authorization
within one (1) year from the filing date of such decision thereof.
Section 6.060 Criteria for Review of Type I and Type II Site Plan Review.
A. All Type 1 proposals, uses or projects located within the Adirondack Park
shall be referred to the' Adirondack Park Agency for Class A Regional
Project Review simultaneously to the Site Plan Review process. This
identical process will be followed for any Type I or SEQR project.
B. The Planning Board shall not approve a use unless it first determines
that such site plan review use meets the site plan review standards and
requirements of Sectionß.070 and that such site plan review use meets
any additional standards and requirements of Article 7 applicable to that
use.
Section 6.070 Requirements for Type I and Type II Site Plan Review.
In order to approve any Type I and Type II Site Plan Review use the Planning
ßoard shall find that:
A.
The use complied with all other requirements of this Ordinance, including
the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is
proposed to be located: and
B.
The use would be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this
Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location. character, and
size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district
in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities
to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use, and
the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public
services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed
use: and
C.
The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not
create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion. or the parking of
vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health.
safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town: and
,
66
EXH/&IT D ~
-/
~
D. The project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural,
scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open
space resources ,of the Town of the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of
the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary
by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial,
residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from
the project. In making this determination, hereunder the Planning Board
shall consider those factors pertinent to the project contained in the
development considerations set forth herein under Section 5.071 of this
Ordipance and in so doing. the Planning Board shall make a net overall
evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and
general guidelines set forth in Section 6.040 of this Article.
E. The Planning Board review of the Site Plan shall include, as appropriate,
but not limited to the following general standards:
1. Location arrangement, size, design and gen~ral site compatibility of
buildings, lighting and signs.
2. Adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation,
Including intersections, road widths. pavement surfaces, dividers and
traffic controls.
3. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street park-
ing and loading.
4. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation,
walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic
and over all pedestrian convenience.
5. Adequacy of storm water drainage facilities.
6. Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
7. Adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable
plantings landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise
buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands including the
maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including
replacement of dead or deceased plants.
,
8~ Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of
fire hydrants.
9. Adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas
with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
~__ 67
--
Section 6.071 Development Consideration.
The following are those factors which relate to potential for adverse impact
upon the natural. scenic. aesthetic, ecological, wildlife. historic,
recreational or open space resources of the Town of Queensbury. These
factors, listed below shall be considered, as provided in this Ordinance,
before any site plan review project is undertaken in the Town. Any burden on
the public in providing facilities and services made necessary by such land
use and development or subdivisions of land shall also be taken into account,
a9 well as any commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other
benefits which might be derived therefrom.
A. Natural Resource Considerations
1. Water
a) Existing Surface and Ground Water Quality
b) Natural Sediment of Siltation
c) Eutrophicati~n
d) Existing Drainage and Runoff Patterns
e) Existing Flow Characteristics
f) Existing Water Table and Rates of Recharge
2 . Land
a) Existing Topography
b) Erosion and Slippage
c) Floodplain and Flood Hazard
d) Mineral Resources
e) Viable Agricultural Soils
f) Forest Resources
g) Open Space Resources
h) Vegetative Cover
i) The Quality and Availability of Land for Outdoor Recreational
Purposes.
3. Air
a) Air Quality
4. Noise
,
a) Noise Levels
5. Critical Resource Areas
a) Rivers and corridors of rivers designated to be studied as wild,
scenic or recreational in accordance with the environmental
conservation law
b) Waterbodies. streams and their flood plains and corridors
c) Rare plant communities
d) Habitats of rare and endangered species and key wildlife
habitats
&8
.&" XII-/ß / T ò.z..
~^
'-
---.../ '
e) Alpine and sub-alpine life zones
f ) Wetlands
g) Elevations of twenty-five hundred (2,600) feet or more
h) Unique features, including gorges, waterfalls, and geologic
formations
6. Wildlife
a) Fish and Wildlife
7. Aesthetics
,) Scenic Vistas
b) Natural and Man-made Travel
B. Historic Site Considerations
1. Historic Factors
a) Historic Sites or Structures
C. Site Development Considerations
1. Natural Site Factors
a) Geology
b) Slopes
c) Soil Characteristics
d) Depth to ground water and other hydrological factors
2. Other Site Factors
a) Adjoining and nearby land uses
b) Adequacy of site facilities
D. Governmental Considerations
1. Governmental Service and Finance Factors
,
a) Ability of government to provide faeilitie. and services
b) Municipal school or special district taxes or special district
user charges
E. Governmental Review Considerations
1. Governmental Control Factors
a) Conformance with other governmental controls
End of Article 6
69
~
---
~
-.-"". .~-
RIS1'.fROST AS9OCIATES. p.c.
OONSUlTING ENGINEERS
21 ~y STÆET
POST OFFICe BOX 838
GlENS FALLS. NY
12801
518·793-4141
February 21. 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. lee York, Senior Planner
. Town of Queensbury Office Bui lding
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Genesee Refrigeration - Site Plan No. 5-89
Dear Ms. York:
Our comment on the above project are as follows:
1. There is a dri veway from Boul evard to just north of the
property line of Genesee Refrigeration. This driveway
appears to be existing. Is this a private driveway or a
Town road? The same question of ownership occurs with
regard to the 6-inch water main and fire hydrant. Is this a
private tap or a Town water main? Who will own or maintain
the entrance drive and water main located off the site?
2. Parking appears adequate.
3. The test pit should note the date that it was taken.
4. The drainage calculations only cover the loading dock area.
The drainage should be addressed for the entire site.
5. Paved parking area cross-section should be shown.
Very truly yours.
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C.
-Ý- W.r--.J~
Thomas W. Nace. P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Planning Board Members
liD 0lENS mLS. NY.1.ÞOJtM. NH
k'//!/I$lí ~
~
CI)
......
,-
~
~
(
"-
3
"
(~
6
v
\}
/v
J....~. ~aJ~ N. Y. ÐEED-WAllRANTY wit/¡ Licit Cavellnll'
i}~;;¡ TUTØLANIC n'I1 'JttnEf) u. . .....T. o,nc,;
tjJJ 1UIIU\.4YW",~I,PUUI.'\io"""!L"\ rV····· .,'0$101
m~h3
~uà£utur.e
----/
Made the
Nineteen Ilundred and
lJ¡lelfueclI
day of
Eighty-Eight
23rd
September
DALE T. GRANGER, 43 West Notre Dame S~reet, Glens Falls, New
York,
",
part y of tile first part, and
DAVID DYMINSKI, 27 LaPere Drive, Pit~sford, New York
~B'I II part Y of the second part,
....1 neøøe I that tile part y of the first part, in consideration of ---------------
ONE and 00/100------------------------------------------- DoUar ($1.00
la,,!ful money of the United States, and other good and valuable consideration
pØld by the/art y of the second part, do es hereby grant and release unto the
party . 0 the second part, his' heirs .
and aSllllns Ioreoer, aU THAT PARCEL 01' LAND located in the Town ·of Queensbury,
Warren County, New York, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point in the southern line being the southern right of way
known as the "Boulevard" also being the northwest corner of lands now or formerly
of Fred Alexy, Jr.,·and running S. 3 degrees 05 minutes W, 324.75 feet to a point
in tile line being the nor therly boundary line of Glens Falls Feeder Canal (N. Y. S.
Lnnd); thence along said line approximately S 85 degrees 40 minutes W 287 feet;
thence continuing along the canal boundary I1pproximately N 66 degrees 17 minutea I~
109 feet; thence N 2 degrees 13 minutes I" 191.50 feet; thence S 87 degrees 47
minutes E. 357 feet on a line 30 feet distant and parallel to the southern boundary
of lands now or formerly ofJ.F. Sullivan recorded dead found in book 181, page 58;
thence N 1 degrees 43 minutes E, 163.10 feet on a lina 35 feet distant and parallel
to the eastarn boundary of lands now or formarly. of J .~'. Sullivan; thence S 87
degrees 47 minutes E, 35.0 feet to the place of beginning. '
8earings are magnetic meridian 1948.
'1oo;:'limR WI'iII an easarent for ingress anù egress fran the public highway \cncINn as
tŠ1e Boulevard, 20 feet in width, over lands lying Í!lIrediately adjacent 1:0 the above
described parcel, and extcndÍ!1g in a southerly direction fran the Boulevard tD the
above œscribed parcel and extending thence in a westerly direction and along the
northerly boundary line .of the above described parcel, along lands retained by
Dale T. Granger, for foot and vehicular traffic.
'1he above described easaœnt is intended 1:0 be used by Dale T. Granger and other
tenants on premises being retained by Dale T. Granger to the \o/est of the subject
premises. Dale '1'. Granger shall cxxnply with all requirenents of the General
Business Law of the State of ~ York and rules and reg1.1lations of the office of
the Attorney G:meral of. the State of New Yorlt so that David Djnù.nski shall not
be iJrepded in the use of his prar.ises. Seller shall unœrtake to obtain any
approvals necessary therefor, upon notification by the AttDrney Q¡neral of the
state of New York. Dâle '1'. Granger shall be responsible for all costs and expenses
including penalties and shall hold David Dyminski hannless fran any such costs.
'1ms representation shall survive transfer of title and shall bind Dale T. Granger':
successors and assigns.
~Y;/l-18Ir p
7 m"'''I'' wi'" "', ',,,'''''M''' ,m/ ,/I "" ,,'," ,m/ righ" " "', ",",
/ h-- .he {irst part in and to said premises.
'/lIø 1¡II\Jc 111111 t;1 110111 the premises herein granted unto the part Y of the seCòñcÍ
part. his heirs and assigns forever.
J\lIb said party of the first part
¿¡rirol, That the part y
cnvenan/S as follows:
of Ihe see,!nd part shall quietly elljoy the said premises;
~ccollb, That said party of the first part
will forever ¡marrullt Ihe litle la said premises.
'/lIllirb, Tlml. ill Compliallce with Sec. 1.1 of the 1.ien 1.aw: Ihe grqnlor will receive the
consideration for tMs conveymlce ant/will hold the right In receive sucl¡ eonsideratia,¡ as a trust
{und tn be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost n{ the improvement and will apply
the same {ir.t tn the payment of the cast 01 the improvement before using any part of the total
of the I'ame for any olher purpose,
/
I
;3I1t ]!]!IitltCOS ;¡MIll'rco£, the parI y of the {irst par ha s
and seal the day and year first above writte,¡. .
c3JlI 1!1rcsl'lIcc o£
his hand
/
:
~
~
~tutc of ~du 1.!orlt } 00.
(¡fount\! uf WARREN
be{are me. the subscriber. persOl¡ally appeared
On this 23rd day of I~-/;¡¡; ¿V\.
Niueleen [{undred and EIK~;~~t
JAI.E T. GRANGER
to me personally !mown and kuown In _!'¡e In be the same person described ill and who
execuled the wlllun Instrument. a'lvhe ackllo/II/edged to me that he ex-
,,~ "" _. '~~~ [~~-;J~;'
111'1' {'1 "I
%<Ç?
ì¥
I:,
17:' PI' 'n~
.~ REð!2 ED
$·....I.,:?.I.I,-
/(LJo"L r:':;fA~~'
SEP 2 ::¡ 19.'19
ï:¡"\·.'-!Sf-L:iR TAX
W A/,lIH::N
.. __CQU_t-fli...J1 ~.
~
N
r··
f'"
.....
...
î.ii
t~
~
I\:)
en
i1!
~
C)t
---
-..../
MAINTENANCE AGREENENT
Dale T. Granger, Seller, herê1n referred to sa Granßcr. and David
Dyminski f Buyer, herein referred to aa Dyminsl<i, s8ree as follows:
1. Gran~er shall construct and vaVe a roadwny 20 fAAt in wi~~h
\.
£1:0111 the public h1Shw&lY kll.~1I ~t) Th~ r:UU1~Vllrd in th.e Town ot Queensbury,
~¥- '() I l:ì':> CC( l :)") c; I
Warren Couney t 1~ew York, bC1~ ß ,purL.:h.tl. ~d by Dyrninoki from Granßer, and
,- tÙ~C6. 'i !ë:."$¿'t;r;t
ahall continue the pav~ment to the northerly boundary of premises serving
tho bul1din~ of D~nincki, and ahall proceed in a westerly di~ection with
pav.ment for 100 feet, and uh~11 continu~ in A wcctcrly direction ølooS"
the rcmninder of the northerly boundary of lands of Dyminsk1 to retained
lands of Granger to the wasto! lando of Dyminakl.
2. Tho parc1cs hereto shall equally share in the eXpcnReR of mÀ1nrA1nine
OA 1d roadwav ine ludin a anohn.l r: 11I''II'! ~"IIf.lh..,ñ ... tonn.. .,....n" of,. ........ .....,..1.. ........."'..
when neçesBl.\ry f¢l" l1\Jlïudl tJ.'d! r 1\.:, tlUVW slid l.c~ removal t normal removal Of
d~'I;.1·1ø 111. o:.:de1: co keep &:11<:: óø,lI.l ",vcl.ùw~l CLtH:: vC .1.lt:\JL.l.1:I ~UI.I tiCCtH:lIHbJ.e, Q)Di(()~c¡-)).-n
ao.,."" p, I1.TI';.5.. c:.J'
and any other repalr and maintenance determined neccssary by ,~'pa.l"ot-y ~ ~) 7(~U./j
for the nOT!'Jsl passage of vehicles lmd pcdcstr1o.nEi to the premises bêing
sold to Dym1nsk1 and the premises being retained by Grangcr.
À
, , Gj\t(;)¡
*" :;:::;; r....~»q '1-:) ~
(:10/ 073
I q,.z 5 - ~
~,-~,,-~~C{J~~~fl~ -
( ~J I~ . Uavid Ð minskl
9- 22-83
~J4)
Dale T. Granger
E"XHI/JJ'T ¡::
~
G
GRANGER GROUP
167 Ridge Street
Glens Falls, New York 12801
February 27, 1989
Queensbury Town Planning Board
Queensbury Office Building
Bay Road
Queensbury, N Y 12804
Gentlemen,
I am writing with regard to David Diminski's proposed
Genesee Refrigeration project to be located on the
Boulevard in the Town of Queensbury. It is scheduled
for site plan review on Tuesday, February 28th.
I join in the support of the Diminski project because
of its potential as an added source of tax base and as
a permanent employer in the Town of Queensbury.
Genesee Refrigeration, Inc. is a reliable corporation
with several outlets in New York state, The company
has excellent financial backing and would be an asset
to the neighborhood and to our community.
~}1fer_el~
/¿j/~I\
Dale T / Gran r
DTG:klg
I? XfI //)1 íH
',,--
STANLEY T. GRANGER
Permanent Concrete Products
P. O. Box No. 2
Hudson Falls, New York 12839
February 22, 1989
The Queensbury Town Planning Board
Queensbury Town Office Building
Bay Road
Queensbury, N. Y. 12804
Gentlemen;
It has been called to my attention that the property
adjacent to mine on the Boulevard is being considered
for a site plan review. I have owned commercial prop-
erty, namely Yellow Freight Terminal and the Arrowhead
Equipment Co. as tenants, for the past thirty years and
have always been treated fairly by the Town Planning
Board.
In recent months a portion of the adjacent property,
originally owned by Gerald McPhillips, was purchased
by David Diminski, DBA Genesee Refrigeration Co. He
proposes a new building on this property, zoned for
light industrial use. I feel that his proposed commercial
property would benefit the Town of Queensbury.
Realizing the recent demise of the Ciba Geigy plant and
its ultimate tax loss to Queensbury, I would suggest
that you review his applîcation with its potential of
more employment and additional tax revenue to the town.
The original plot has been cleared of all brush and
debris and would certainly enhance the appearance of
that section of the Boulevard.
..
If I can further the congenial relationship between the
Planning Board and Mr. Diminski I would be happy to
appear before the same and answer any queries pertaining
to the validity of his request.
Respectfully Young,
An ~ntereste~ax Payer
~ (~4 C¡:~;4.~~
S~~nley( T. Grangé1:'
and Neighbor,
R XH¡l$ì T fI'
"'--~
Føburary 28, IDe8
Town o£ Queonsbury:
I am writin8 this letter in regard to a parcel o£ land
} oedted on the Boulevard located in Queensbury. I per:'",onally
own 2 p.i(~CeÐ of property on the Boulovdrd in the vaci oi t y o£
tha parcel i.n question. I understand that Genesee Ref'rigoration
lH interested in constructing a building on that site,
I support any kind o£ impròve in tha,t ar~,kL There are many
older homes and very poor houses in the araa that are much more
objectional than a brand new building that will create jobs and
ôddi tio/)al töx revenue for the town. It is too my understanding
1~hat the ar'Cd is zoned light comrf/ereial and that-s Qre already
numerous busi nesses on the Boulevard.
I v,,,,ry o£ten tr'avel the street and although it is a busy
st r'eet I have never' seen an acciedent. nor have I seen a t ra££ ic
problem. I porsondll y see no problem wi th the canst l~uct ion o£
this proposed new building.
Cordially,
~\ n ;-cQl
,~w::....~ \,þ ~ \G\/-I_____-
Jack Balfour
K Xl+jl!JJí H'
----/
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
NOTE TO FILE
February 13. 1989
rrlt ~~~V
LEE A. YORK. SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 9-89
Applicant/Project Name: Terry Brown
The application is for approval to put a duplex on Luzerne Road. This is a unique
situation. The owner currently has a principal use on the prbperty - his home. His intent
is to put a duplex on the property for rental purposes. The zone is SR-l acre and the tax
map shows 4.59 acres on the property. The recent survey of the property puts the acreage
at over 5 acres. The Zoning Administrator has determined that there is nothing in the
Ordinance which prohibits the owner from putting two more dwelling units on the property
since there is sufficient acreage.
The road frontage on a collector road (Sections 4.05Z and 4.053) would not be
sufficient to allow construction if the property was not to be held in single ownership.
Section 4.053 states "all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial street... shall
have two times the lot width permitted in the zone..." The lot.width in the SR-l acre
zone is 150 ft., therefore 300 ft. would normally be required. The applicant has a total
of 375 ± ft. on Luzerne which will include his house plus the duplex. This property could
not be subdivided and make two legal lots under our Ordinance. The reasoning for twice
the road frontage requirement was to reduce road cuts and driveway traffic on major
roadways. Unfortunately for the Town what may happen in the future is that the owner
may decide to sell the duplex. At that point in order to subdivide he will have to obtain
a Variance because there is not sufficient road frontage. He will have a hardship because
of the preexistance of the dwelling units. This will definitely be a self-created hardship,
but it would be difficult for the Zoning Board of Appeals not to grant the request. At
that point there is a substandard subdivision which never received subdivision review prior
to construction.
Although the Master Plan is in draft form, I feel it is important to state that this
type of development along a major roadway is in opposition to the goals stated in the
Section on Transportation (Draft Master Plan, pages 26-29).
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. , . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
RYfI¡91í I-
-
~,
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
February 13, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
fiLE COP V
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 4-1989
PRELIMIN AR Y STAGE FOR MODIFICATION
.
Applicant/Project Name: Edward P. CaIT, Jr.
This application is for a modification to an existing subdivision. The intent is to
eliminate a deeded Right of Access and to transfer ownership of this property to the
adjacent property owners.
This project is unique in that the subdivision has never received Town of Queensbury
approval but now seeks a modification. The subdivision was approved by the Adirondack
Park Agency in the year 1979. At that time Town approval was not required for minor
subdivisions.
The Planning Board in a discussion of this matter decided to waive the requirements
for submission because of the unique circumstances of this application.
The revision to the subdivision which the applicant seeks will improve the project
by increasing the lot sizes bringing them into closer compliance with the current zoning.
There will be no creation of new lots. If the Board determines that there is no significant
environmental impact I would recommend that this be a final approval.
L7Þ(fJ;
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . ,A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
£'111//3/ I ...j-"
~
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
Febroary 13, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 10-89
I
Applicant/Project Name: Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc.
The application is for approval to construct a new (replacement) bridge on private
property across the Hudson River. A new conveyor belt is also planned to transport the
quarried materials from the Moreau Quan-y to the Cement Company facility. The proposed
construction requires Site Plan Review because of the fact that there will be shoreline
filling and alteration (Section 1.012) and construction on slopes (Section 1.061). The
applicant has received a Variance from the cutting restrictions outlined in Article 1.
The applicant must receive approvals and permits from .the following agencies:
Town of Moreau, Warren County Board of Supervisors, Saratoga County Board of
Supervisors, NY DOT, DEC, OGS, and the Corp. of Engineers.
The Cement Company owns all the property in the immediate vicinity of the project.
To the east is the Ciba-Geigy Plant, west is the Glens Falls Waste Water Treatment Plant.
The Company is diligently approaching this project. They intend to modify the Hudson
River shoreline and have to do construction along the slopes. They also intend to have
a maintenance roadway near the bridge along the shore. The large number of jurisdictional
agencies and permits needed preclude that the construction will be done in accordance
with New York State standards with minimal environmental disturbance.
L~~ß~
rYJiif
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, , . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
,.e '1#1,(;3' /T 1<
---'
.----
---
LAPANN, REARDON, MORRIS, FITZGERALD 8 FIRTH, p, C,
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
JOHN W, REAROON
J, RO.3ERT LAPANN
PETEr. 0, F'ITZGERALO
ROBEÑT C, MORRIS
PETER A, F'IRTH
JOHN H, RICHARDS
CARL T, BAKER
JOHN 6, POHL
BARRY J. JONES
KARLA M, CORPUS
BRUCE G, CARR
VERONICA CARROZZA O'CELL
NEIL H, LEBOWITZ
LAURA v. NIELD
SANCRA J, HUTCHINSON
ONE BROAD STREET PLAZA
P,O. IIOX 2069
GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801
FRANCIS W. McCINLEY 1906-1982
CLENS fALLS (518) 792-5894
(518) 792-6557
SAR.ATOGA (5J8) 587-74 ¡ 5
February 28, 1989
FAX (518) 792-3525
TELEX 709420
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Town of Queensbury Offices
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY ¡2804-9725
Re: site Plan Review Application #10-89
Glens Falls Cement. Co., Inc.
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This letter is submitted as a supplement to the
application of the Glens Falls Cement Co., Inc. for site plan
approva¡ of its proposal to construct a replacement bridge
across the Hudson River between the Towns of Queensbury and
Moreau. Specifically, the purpose of this letter is to
provide some background information on the history of the
bridge/to update you on the status of other approvals, and to
describe why site plan approval will be consistent with the
goals and requirements of the zoning ordinance.
I. HISTORY OF BRIDGE/NEED FOR REPLACEMENT
The existing bridge connects the Company's quarry in the
Town of Moreau with its cement plant in Queensbury. It has
been in continuous use since 1906 and was originally a'narrow
gauge railroad bridge. A major reconstruction of the bridge
piers was completed in 1958. In 1964, the railroad was
replaced with a conveyor and conveyor support system to
transport stone from the quarry to the plant.
Approximately 750,000 tons per year of crushed limestone
is taken from the quarry and moved to the plant. The
conveyor system provides the sole means of transport of this
material and the bridge can no longer adequately support the
system. It is therefore critical that construction of the
new bridge commence as soon as possible to assure a
continuous supply of raw material to the plant.
¡;'I/~/&/ï L
i
-----
Richard Roberts
2
February 28, 1989
...
II. STATUS OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The site Plan Review application includes a list of all
governmental approvals and permits required for construction
of the bridge and the status of the approvals as of the date
of application, January 25, 1989. Since that date we have
obtained the following additional approvals:
1. The Warren County Planning Board approved the
Queensbury Site Plan Review Application on February
8,1989;
2. The Saratoga County Board of Supervisors approved
the location and construction of the bridge on
February 14, 1989;
3. The Warren County Board of Supervisors approved the
location and construction of the bridge on February
17, 1989;
4. The New York state Department of Transportation has
advised us that approval of the bridge structure
will be granted provided we submit additional
information, primarily final engineering drawings
and specifications;
5. The US Army Corps of Engineers issued, on February
6, 1989, a permit authorizing dredge ànd fill
activities in the river for construction of the
bridge.
III. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
site Plan approval for this project is required by the
Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Article 7, Supplementary
Regulations, sections 7.012(C), 7.012(D) and 7.061,
pertaining to Alteration to the Shoreline, Shoreline
Fill/Hard Surfacing, and Construction on Slopes,
respectively.
The project will meet the standards set forth for site
Plan Review in section 5.070:
A. The replacement bridge will comply with all other
requirements of the ordinance including the dimensional
regulations of the HI-3A Zoning District. On January 18,
1989 the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approved a
variance from the Article 7 cutting restrictions and the
shoreline setback requirements. The bridge itself is a
permitted accessory use in the heavy industry zone.
.
--
--'
Richard Roberts
3
February 28, 1989
B. Approval of the replacement bridge is in harmony
with the general purpose of the heavy industry zone, to give
heavy industry "the maximum opportunity to flourish without
undue interference." The bridge is a replacement of an
existing structure and is surrounded by large tracts of land
on both sides of the river owned by the company. Neighboring
property is also heavy industrial. In Queensbury, the Cement
Company is bordered by the Glens Falls Waste Water Treatment
Plant on the west, and on the east, the Ciba-Geigy property.
Because the bridge is to be constructed for purely private
purposes there is no impact on public serviçes or facilities.
C. The project does not raise any traffic issues
because the only access to the bridge is on private roadways
and the bridge is solely for private use.
D. The New York state Department of Environmental
Conservation has issued a IInegative declarationll stating that
the proposed project will not result in an adverse impact on
the environment. The Department of Environmental
Conservation, in its review of the application for a permit
under Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law
concerning Protection of Waters, will impose conditions upon
its issuance of the permit to protect the water resource, the
wildlife, the river bed, and the shoreline area. The US Army
Corps of Engineers, as a condition of the permit issued under
the Rivers and Harbors Act, requires observance of certain
management practices to assure that construction materials do
not enter the waterway or cause pollution.
We therefore respectfully request that the Planning
Board approve the Site Plan application under Article 7 to
allow construction to proceed on the bridge which is of
critical importance to the continuing operations of the
Company.
Very truly yours,
6~~"'~
Sandra J. Hutchinson
SJH/kf