Loading...
1989-04-18 "' .~ --.-.....-'" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD APRIL 18,1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Scoping Session The Great Escape l. Positive Declaration The Great Escape 2. Site Plan No. 5-89 Genessee Refrigeration 3. Subdivision No. 3-1989 Cranberry Lane 5. Subdivision No. 13-1988 Bedford Close, Section 6 6. Subdivision No. 1-1989 Hughes Subdivision 9. Subdivision No. 6-87 Northern Distributing 14. Site Plan No. 21-89 Blind Rock B & D 16. Construction Subdivision No. 5-87 Cedar Court, Phase I 17. Freshwater Wetlands Law 19. '-- -----' .I. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18,1989 7:30 P. M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN HILDA MANN, SECRETARY JOSEPH DYBASS PETER CAR TIER FRANK DESANTIS VICTOR MACRI KEITH JABLONSKI LEE YORK, SENIOR PLANNER JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER THOMAS W. NACE, TOWN CONSULTANT/ENGINEER TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 21, 1989: Page 6 Para. 3, lst sentence sib Woodbury's selling lots, not buildings. Page 6, Para. 3, delete last sentence. Page 9, Para. 4, sentence 2, sib west to east and 4th sentence from bottom sib stacking at the entrance, and could ultimately be blocked with traffic. Page 10, top of page, line 2, would be sib would not, Bottom of second Para. last sentence fall, sib flow. Page 16, Para. 2, last sentence, sib in a light industrial zone the value of the land becomes more valuable than the home itself. RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 21,1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS AMENDED BUSINESS NOT ON AGENDA STORYTOWN U.S.A. INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE: TAHITIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK, ROUTE 9, DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR SEQRA PROCESS, DATE TO BE SET FOR SCOPING SESSION. (FILE NUMBER: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 4-89) PETER CONWA Y CLOUGH HARBOUR ASSOCIATES PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked Consulting Engineer Cough Harbour to bring Board up to date on the completeness of the file. PETER CONWAY-Submitted letter to Board on April 4th, 1989, which determined the application to be complete as part of the application a draft resolution was submitted to the Board along with a long environmental assessments form. The opinion is that the project should be determined a positive declaration that the applicant should be made to prepare an environmental impact statement for the reasons that were included in part three of the long form environmental assessment. It included the impacts on land, development on slopes, impact on water, the adjoining wetlands, the impact on important animal habitat, impact on aesthetics resources, potential impact on historical and architectural resources, impact on traffic, transportation, the traffic that would be generated from this particular project, impact on growth and character in the community and neighborhood. Recommending that the Board issue a positive declaration and that the scoping session be set as soon as possible. PAUL DUSEK-Believes the resolution acknowledging the fact that the site plan application as is normally required by the applicant's to start the process is in order the the first instance. RESOLUTION APPROVING COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION REGARDING STORYTOWN U.S.A. INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE: TAIDTIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK RESOLUTION NO. 4-89, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, states that File Number: Site Plan Review No. 4-89 Story town U.S.A. Inc., D/B/A/ The Great Escape: Tahitian Water Park is complete enough by the checklists of the application and by the Town. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts ., ., ~ ---"""~-' NOES: None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD MR. DESANTIS-Asked if application was complete enough as far as the Board is concerned? JOHN GORALSKI-Clough Harbour has stated in the letter they feel it is complete enough as we have explained to him what we consider a complete site plan application. MRS. MANN-Asked if it has not basically changed from the presentation of the engineering that was sent in on the R. V. Park, its basically the same? JOHN GORALSKI-In your most recent packet you received a set of additional plans that addresses all of the concerns that were brought up by Clough Harbour at the first meeting. PAUL DUSEK-Asked Peter Conway to explain the nature and extent of changes that were made to complete the application. PETER CONWA Y-Refers to letter dated March 14th, 1989 letter. (On file) MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Law firm of Little and O'Connor, speaking on behalf on Ralph Mancini and Mark Calabrino, Attorney's. I'm also here as a individual and as a representative of the Glen Lake Protective Association. Questions the completeness of the application in that their is no showing of what as been submitted as to the lands of the applicant which are to the west of Route 9 and which is a interracial part of the application because their is significant parking on the west of Route 9 which as I understand their is no showing in the plans from the engineering that has been submitted. Has a question to the completeness of the application as to who is the applicant, from his understanding there are at least four different corporations that own the parcel that is under consideration. Their is only a showing of one owner in the application. Differ with consultant opinions as to whether or not the setbacks from the wetlands are shown, he didn't see them on the specific plans. Also had a question as to the procedure the Board appears to be following. He has raised this to preserve his rights, as he understands the April 4, 1989, letter from the consultants is the first indication that you have a complete application before you, you appear to be relying on the SEQRA Notices that went out sometime before that based upon a incomplete application at a time you would be indeed not to have a application even pending before this Board. Would like to know if proper notice was given to other parties that might have had an interest in being lead agency of your position that you wish to be lead agency. Does not want to appear as an obstructionist, specifically brought forth to the Board's attention each of the defects that I as simply an interested party have discovered in the filings as -I have seen them. We're not trying to be here as obstructor we're here simply to observe our right. PAUL DUSEK-Made" recommendation to the Board if applicants Attorney is present that he address the question that have been made. ROBERT STEWART-My understanding that this is not a Public Hearing I didn't come prepared to address it, its my understanding that the application is complete, its complete as far as I know, I have been advised that the Board's advisor's have found it complete, and I really have nothing further to add to that. PETER CARTIER-Made statement that when people hear the application is complete that does not mean we're happy with the answers. RICHARD ROBERTS-It complete enough to get the process started. PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION POSmVE DECLARATION, STORYTOWN U.S.A. INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE WATER PARK RESOLUTION NO. 4-89,lntroduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Mann: WHEREAS, the Great Escape Water Park is a Type I Action according to Section 617.12, (6), of SEQRA; and WHEREAS, a coordinated review was conducted and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board was designated lead agency on February 25, 1989; and WHEREAS, Parts 2 and 3 of the Long EAF were completed for the project and potentially significant impacts were identified; ',,\ '----- -- NO~ !I:IEREF.ORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed Great Escape Water Park may have a sIgmfIc.ant Impact on the environment and an environmental impact statement should be prepared In confermance with the provisions of Part 617, SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a positive declaration be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Section 617.10, (6) of SEQRA. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one DISCUSSION HELD PETER CARTIER-On the Positive Declaration where is says Contact Person it should be changed. This should read John Goralski, Planner. MIKE O'CONNOR-Asked that the Glen Lake Protective Association be named on the your list of interested parties in care of my offices for notices of any meetings that are going to be held in regard to the application. RICHARD ROBERTS-Your already on that list as a interested party. Of your group, we will treat you as there leader. RESOLUTION TO SET SCOPING SESSION FOR STORYTOWN U.S.A. INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE: TAHITIAN WATER PARK RESOLUTION NO. 4-89,lntroduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: RESOL VED, that the Queensbury Planning Board of The Town of Queensbury states that the scoping session for Stroytown U.S.A. Inc., The Great Escape: Tahitian Park will be set for May 2, 1989. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr., Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:None OLD BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 5-89 TYPE 0, GENESEE REFRIGERATION/DAVID DYMINSKI SOUTH SIDE BOULEVARD (LI-lA) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STEEL BUILDING TO HOUSE OFFICE AND WHOLESALE REF RIG ERA TION SUPPLY DISTRIBUTION/WAREHOUSE./(W ARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 112-1-15.3 SECTION 4.020 N LOT SIZE: 1.604 ACRES MACK DEAN AND NICK SARTELLI/MORSE ENGINEERING REPRESENTING DAVID DYMINSKI/ DALE GRANGER ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER RICHARD ROBERTS -This application was tabled at previous meeting. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, See Attached. MACK DEAN-Questioned if this particular situation could be easily remedied without holding up the application? THOMAS NACE-At previous meeting it was mentioned it could be cleaned out around the two culverts that were underneath the new road. At that time no one was aware that these were two four inch plastic pipes. Those aren't adequate. Something else has to be done. I have no doubt that this can be remedied. .~---- ---:r-- NICK SARTELLI-One of the concerns the Town has was the 18 inch pipe. When we contacted the County they indicated that the pipe only ended at about 120 feet south west of the Boulevard. We tmve made subsequent investigations on that. We did investigate the southside of the canal and there is an outlet pipe that discharges in line with that head wall and along the Route. We have determined that the 18 inch pipe would take the water on the southside of the canal. It discharges into a ditch that goes on to the Hudson River. RICHARD ROBERT-Asked if the pipe did go under the canal? NICK SARTELLI-Yes. PETER CARTIER-Asked, what is the pipe shown on the site plan outleting just on the north of the property? NICK SARTELLI-That was what was given to us by the State Engineer on his plans. PETER CARTIER-You did not find that in the field at all? NICK SARTELLI-No. MACK DEAN-We did intend to show a 4 foot wide road there, that is the intent of the applicant and Mr. Granger. RICHARD ROBERTS-That can be changed on the map by us. JOHN GORALSKI-The concern that was brought up, was the access to Stanley Grangers property which is to the east of the site. Currently what happens is trucks pull off the Boulevard and go in a diagonal from his driveway on to the property in a southwesterly way. What I am suggesting is that a defined driveway be built so that trucks pull in and stay on the road and then on to the property so that trucks are not going across at an angle. Then they won't ripe up this propose grass area, it will make for a better appearance and a safer intersection. MACK DEAN-In our intent to actually defer traffic into the proper right away there are two that Mr. Granger has. The intent is to segregate these private parcels to a point where it will reduce some truck traffic using the privately owned road of the parties involved being Dale Granger and Mr. Dyminski. RICHARD ROBERTS-Your saying that the Granger truck traffic will go east of the grass area and on their own road their will be another entrance? That would solve the problem if they didn't use this road at all. JOHN GORALSI-If they didn't use the road at all it would solve the problem, but the way the road is built nothing is stopping them from going in where their going in. If the intention is that they are not going to use the road at all maybe something should be put there to force them to continue on to the Boulevard and directly on to Stanley Granger's. MACK DEAN-We're not looking at a road cut in its normal sense of being 50 feet wide, we're looking at an open drive. We may have some concerns in terms of liability the private road would be used by other property owners. DALE GRANGER-All of the people involved would much rather use a paved road than a road that is now corrugated and rough. I think there will be no problem my father or myself, using the paved as outlined on the plan. RICHARD ROBERTS-The way John is suggesting it? DALE GRANGER-Yes. PETER CARTIER-Asked about the permeability test if he subtracted out just the square footage of the building from the total site, noticed a 1,000 feet missing, the last number should read 62326. MACK DEAN-Said it will be amended. PETER CARTIER-Asked if it was just a gravel parking lot? MACK DEAN-Correct. PETER CARTIER-Asked how handicapped parking was going to be signed? " ''''-----.- - ----- MACK DEAN-They will be signed as should be by law. PETER CARTIER-My concern is that we have a high power line by a steel building. MACK DEAN-Two things (I) the building will be grounded (2) Niagara Mohawk's concern is as far as the canal, it is being used more as a public use situation rather than private property. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, See Attached. CORRESPONDENCE Read letter from Fred Austin dated April 17, 1989, regarding the drainage ditch across from Boulevard, (on file) Beautification Committee had some recommendation, (on file) Warren County Approval comment to incorporate Beautification recommendations as well as storm water plan and changes. DISCUSSION HELD JOHN GORALSKI-If changes that I suggested on the entrance are to made, I think it would be in our best interest to have them on the plan that on file with this Department. FRANK DESANTIS-Listed changes to be made on site plan. (1) numbers should be right, (2) the roadway, it should be 24 feet and should read 24 feet, (3) the culvert that isn't there shouldn't been shown, (4) Mr. Granger stood up and said he wanted to use a pave road but that was in response to a comment by John Goralski that there ought to be a private access to the east. I don't know if Mr. Granger meant he was willing to put a private access to the east? JOHN GORALSKI-When that private driveway comes down right now it comes down and makes a L going to the west, I'm suggesting that it now be a T going to the east and the west. FRANK DESANTIS-Asked if Mr. Granger understood what John Goralski stated? DALE GRANGER-That means we would have to go back over Mr. Dyminski's property for a period of about 30 feet which I'm sure is find with Mr. Dyminski and its fine with us. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DISCUSSION HELD MRS. MANN-Asked if this would eliminate them using the other strip? RICHARD ROBER,¡S-I don't know if were eliminating it, but it will give better access. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-89, TYPE 0, GENESEE REFRIGERA TION,lntroduced Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Subject to the modifications set forth in Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee. The site plan should read 24 foot in width on the roadway paved drive, and that the paved drive continue to the east to the boundary line of Mr. Granger's property approximately 30 feet so as to create a T with the eastwest roadway and the roadway that goes to the Boulevard, and the culvert that the State said is there that truly isn't there will be removed from the site plan, and that the permeability calculation numbers be corrected to reflect the actually situation. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. ], Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1989, FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED, SR-lA CRANBERRY LANE SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN A VENUE, APPROX. . 0.20 MILES EAST OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD, FOR AN 8 LOT SUBDMSION ON 10.41 ACRES OF LAND. FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. 1,100:t FT. OF NEW ROAD. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-19.1,21.2 -- '-- / '--"-........... ---~ MICHAEL CRAYFORD/HIGGS & CRAYFORD, INC. PRESENT/CHARLES NACY/COULTER AND MCCORMACK RICHARD ROBERTS-Previous meeting we were primarly interested in some drainage calcula ti ons. MICHAEL CRA YFORD-Major points at last meeting were the catch basin, previously meet with Lee York and Paul Naylor, and I think some of those things are worked out. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, See attached. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, See Attached. NO PUBLIC HEARING HELD CHARLES NACY-We have Department of Health approval for this subdivision, submitted copy of approval letter, and certificate of approval to Board. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked where Highway Superintendent stands on this? LEE YORK-Mr. Naylor had no concerns with this, he choose to wave it. He told me verbally other than the wing section, once this was addressed he had no concerns with it. RICHARD ROBERTS-I won't be willing to sign the map until we get a letter in the file. LEE YORK-Asked if we will be presented with a letter that does address Mr. Nacy's concerns about the precast concrete? CHARLES NACY-Yes. LEE YORK-I will ask Mr. Naylor for the letter. PETER CARTIER-Mr. Naylor is going to have to address two issues. (1) These gentlemen make reference to that they accept the road, they accept the dedication of the road, water and drainage; (2) more than a 1,000 feet. He has two issue to address in that letter. LEE YORK-The Town Board accepts the road on the recommendation of the Highway Superintendent, he does not accept the road. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1989, CRANBERRY LANE, FINAL STAGE, Introduced by Joseph Dybass who moved for its adoption, seconded by Victor Macri: To approve this pending two items; (1) Item Number 5; (2) and a letter from the Highway Superintendent. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1988 BEDFORD CLOSE, SECTION 6 INTERSECTION OF CORINTH ROAD AND WEST MT. ROAD, FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A, FOR 23 LOTS ON 34± ACRES OF LAND. TAX MAP NO. 125-2-20.2,22.1,23,39,24.1 ANDREW T. MCCORMACK/COULTER AND MCCORMACK/NICK SARTELLI/MORSE ENGINEERING/MICHAEL CARUSONE/PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN HOMES MAP SHOWN TO BOARD RICHARD ROBERTS-Since the previous meeting questions were raised by the Highway Superintendent, as to drainage design preliminary, which I understand has been corrected, I guess a secondary access onto Corinth Road. ANDREW MCCORMACK-Having just read the comments by Rist Frost there appears to be ., -- '-,~ 7 no problems on their part. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, See Attached. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See Attached. LEE YORK-Read Staff Notes, I am going to refer to the Town Attorney on the matter and let him discuss actually in what part of the process they are with in this water district. PAUL DUSEK-In order to create a water district there would be few things that would have to be done. (1) a public hearing would have to be held on the map, plan, and report; (2) it will be subject to a 30 day permissive referendum; (3) following that there will have to be a permit filed with the Water Department in a request to draw the extra water. Quite a number of steps would have to be completed before the water district would go before this project. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if any of this has been started yet? PAUL DUSEK-No. LEE YORK-It is my understanding that the applicant has really attempted to get this process moving and has dealt with the Town in earnest. RICHARD ROBERTS-That is my understanding as well. MICHAEL CARUSONE-We were told at that time that the fact this was not in the water district this was more of an error than anything else. Its surrounded by water on both sides which was done inadvertently. We had in the past two months eleven meetings with different people in the Town and primarly the process was tangible because we were given assurances that this work was well in hand. I understand that tonight that they knew absolutely nothing as far as you know has been done on this. PAUL DUSEK-The first phase was to authorize the map, plan, and report, they did authorize the map, plan and report, by resolution that ':Vas completed. For the next phases it would be to hold the public hearing and go through the rest of the process. This process will probably be completed in a month to two months. MICHAEL CARUSONE-Asked if this means no work can progress at all on the subdivision during that period? PAUL DUSEK-That's not the case. There can still be work that progresses on the subdivision provided that this Board would grant contingent approval. In this particular case I don't think it would cause any particular legal problems. RICHARD ROBERTS-Obviously any improvements you made would be at your risk. LEE YORK-My concern is that, the reason I brought this to your attention was, I realize it is the policy of this Board to have all districts, and all approvals in hand before you get final approval, and that has always been your policy. JOSEPH DYBASS-I think what you got is a policy where the applicant has been diligent, but the Town Government is sort of behind a little bit. You can't hold the applicant responsible for something like that, I wouldn't think. VICTOR MACRI-I think that your breaking dangerous ground in that the precendent that we're setting is we're saying that if an applicants negotiate certain things with the Town and the Town hasn't been able to meet their obligations that we should go ahead and approve a plan. FRANK DESANTIS-How many lots are involved? MICHAEL MCCORMACK-This situation is a oversight. We have this on going project where we already have water, the water mains for the Town of Queensbury are on both sides on this triangle (refers to map), this particular piece of property was inadvertently left out of the water district. The main goes down one side, it goes down the other side, the main goes down the top that already in place at Bedford Close. So there was no question that water may at some future date not be available, like the sewer, the water is there. This is a technical oversight. JOSEPH DYBASS-What your basically saying is that the Water Department has said fine, the ., '--- ---' --""'...-'c Town has said fine, its a matter of procedures going through. HILDA MANN-Asked how long have we been doing this? MICHAEL CARUSONE-A year. HILDA MANN-Asked if the water district pressure was started a year ago, and the Town has not responded in a year? MICHAEL CARUSONE-Yes. LEE YORK-I told Mr. Carusone when he came in for sketch plan approval that five lots in that area had been excluded from the water district, the very next day he presented a letter requesting to be incorporated into a water district and he would bear all costs. PAUL DUSEK-Would like to clarify to the Board when this water district got started. The first communications that I have in our Town file in regard to this matter is in December. A meeting was set up in early January, to discuss the water district, thereafter, it wasn't until sometime in February, that it was ultimately decided upon who would be the engineer, which was Kestner Engineers. I have correspondence dated February 27, from Kestner Engineer's indicating that they are still working on the map, plan, and report. The map, plan, and report, obviously came out sometime during the month of March, so I don't think were that far behind on the water district. HILDA MANN-That's good to know, this is what I asked. MICHAEL CARSUONE-It was not brought to our attention or anyone's attention that it was outside of the water district until the date that he make comment about. FRANK DESANTIS-As long as we have a clear policy that were not going to hook up people that aren't in these utility areas. LEE YORK-Asked if Michael Carusone, had made application to Fred Autsin's office, to tie into Corinth Road? MICHAEL CARUSONE-They help us design it, if you look at it you will see comments about making sure their is some adequate right-away for some future widening of the road. We also have a buffer area of 50 feet (refers to map) this is for their future possible expansion. RICHARD ROBER TS- W e will need a letter from the County D.P. W. about road cuts. NOT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION HELD VICTOR MACRI-I have a general concern that some modification to the septic system should be made, not sure we can legally do this. THOMAS NACE-I would say two things, (1) first their are new Department of Health regulations on the way. These will be probably be adopted in the next month or two, those, I believe, call for modifications of any soils under a minute, which would be in compliance with D.E.C. standards; (2) the reasonable engineer practice at this point would say that this particular subdivision the density is pretty low, there is municipal water available, so there is probably not that much of an impact for this particular subdivision. RICHARD ROBER TS-I think the County wouldn't hold up my signature until we are in receipt of the Department of Health letter. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDMSION NO. 13-1988, BEDFORD CLOSE, SECTION 6" FINAL STAGE, Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Victor Macri: To approve based on the considerations that they have complied with all the subdivision requirements and SEQRA requirements and have only the following stipulations that; (1) for the plat sign that the County D.P. W. roadcut permit would be in hand for Corinth Road; (2) that those lots as identified as not being in the water districts would not receive building permits until they were included in the water district; (3) and that Department of Health approval is at hand; (4) a permit to tie into the drainage system is also required. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts - " '-- -~._' 9 NOES: None ABSENT:None SUBDMSION NO. 1-1989 HUGHES SUBDMSION PRELIMINARY STAGE, FINAL STAGE WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, OPPOSITE BAYBERRY DRIVE TYPE UNLISTED FOR 12 LOTS FOR MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON 8.31 ACRES OF LAND. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-10,11.1 CHARLES NACY/COULTER AND MCCORMACK REPRESENTING JOHN HUGHES/DR. BRASSEL/NICK SARTELLI MORSE ENGINEERING PLANS SHOWN TO BOARD CHARLES NACY-John Hughes is proposing a 12 lot subdivision off the west side of Bay Road, to be served by a loop road with a single access point. All lots will be conveyed for development by professionals and site plan review was neither required for the development of each individual lot. The plans show a typical arrangement for each lot showing the building location of a particular size, the relative parking for a building of that size, sewage disposal and access. Neither the Department of Health or The Department of Environmental Conservation, wish to take jurisdiction for this project, because of the nature of the soils, the professional type office, and the fact that no given site would exceed a 1,000 gallons of sewage per day, neither felt that is was in their jurisdiction to make this review. The site and road drainage plan has been developed by Morse Engineering. The applicant has requested a wavier from the grading plan for the entire site due to the fact that individual site plans would be presented at that time and addressed more appropriately on a individual basis. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, See Attached. THOMAS NACE-Refers to attached letter, on 1st comment, this is something that would have to be waived. 3rd comment, this would have to be required before we can approve it, especially since the Department of Health and D.E.C. have said they don't want to be involved. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD HILDA MANN-Asked why the developer was permitted to submit preliminary and final approval? LEE YORK-Their is nothing in the regulation that prohibits this. What is says is that preliminary approval is the first step in a two phase approval process, and that it says that final approval would be final stage in a two step approval process, it does not say that these steps cannot occur at the same meeting. HILDA MANN-Asked why the road was already in? RICHARD ROBERTS-This project was partially in the works for a very long time. VICTOR MACRI-I think that we have a problem with the present Zoning Regulations as they are, the fact that the developer has decided to go ahead and clear the lot without the proper approvals based on what I have read. RICHARD ROBERTS-I think that most of the site work was done prior to that regulations. LEE YORK-It is my understanding that this property was clear cut prior to October 1, 1988 when this new ordinance went to into effect. VICTOR MACRI-Asked if a ruling was gotten of that? PAUL DUSEK-I think we addressed this at one point. Anybody who took action prior to the time that these regulations went into effect, such as the clear cutting situation. Its my opinion, and I would not recommend to the Board that you enforce that provision against that type of individual. VICTOR MACRI-Asked if their was a clear cutting provision in the Ordinance prior to the new Ordinance? " -- - "'r:'rf ~ PAUL DUSEK-I don't believe it was of the same nature as this one. HILDA MANN-Asked if anything has been done about that being expanded to include commercial in other zones? _ LEE YORK-I ,had a meeting with the Zoning Administrator, The Director of Building and Codes, John GoralskI, and myself today, we finished our amendment to the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations that was incorporated, it will now go to the Town Attorney once its completed for his review, and then it will go to Public Hearing, and the amendments will become law. VICTOR MACRI-It is my understanding that in previous regulations anything over a acre of land that needed to be clear cut required a building permit? PETER CARTIER-I think we are wrestling with a issue we can't do anything about. The other issue is the fact that apparenÜy work has been done on this project prior to preliminary approval based purely on sketch. FRANK DESANTIS-We have to get a plan that meets the regulations or else their has to be a request for a wavier from the regulations, the applicant has to make a case for the wavier, and you have to make a decision on the wavier, and if you grant the waiver then you don't have to change the plan, if you don't grant the wavier he has to change the plan. That doesn't get to the other question, that you have a loop of water that is in existence, I don't know when the water went in, I don't think their was a final subdivision approval. Their is a provision in the ordinance not relating to clear cutting but says no approval can be undertaken until final approval is given. Asked if their was a final subdivision approval for a prior subdivision even though it may have been residential and changed over under the new zoning. I know that their was some prior history to this parcel. L", "'" LEE YORK-When I first started this job, Mr. Hughes, contacted me and indicated he had been in the review process for a subdivision of duplex's on his property. He had possibly obtained preliminary approval but had not obtained final approval, the moratorium came into effect and he had been unable to pursue it any farther and the time had elapsed on his approval. At that time he contacted me and I suggested that what he would have to do would be to start over with a subdivision, at that point in time he modified his concept. '-- JOHN HUGHES-I did have site plan review that was going back four or five years ago. I came before the Board and asked at the time the moratorium went into effect if I could continue :t... or did that mean I had to stop. I was told that it didn't do anything until after the moratorium \::) was over with. Prior to that we had approval for the lots along Bay Road, in order to service those lots on Bay Road, we had to put the street in going across the back, the reason for the water being in, is because the Water Department did not want to make a boor under Bay Road. Mr. Flaherty said you have to put water mains in to service. . . take in down through the back and he would not let me just tap into it. I had to make a loop so that they could flush that, this is the reason for the water being in. HILDA MANN-Asked what was the new work that was being done in there? JOHN HUGHES-Their has been nothing done since last fall. All we did was get the rough paving in to service the lots there going across Bay Road. FRANK DESANTIS-How did you decide where to put the loop in so he could flush the water main? TAPED TURNED FRANK DESANTIS-Here you have more of a basic question. Mr. Hughes, felt he had sketch plan approval, Mr. Flaherty said you have to flush the water main to service the approve lots, so for whatever reason, he put in this loop. The subdivision now nears the loop that he put in for that reason. We have some other questions raised by the engineers, as to whether or not the roadway needs a waiver. If these waivers aren't granted this roadway doesn't fit this subdivision, neither does this water line loop. What do you do if you move the road, this is the question were faced with, without even getting to the technical questions about whether or not their was a violation under a amendment to the prior ordinance, whether the prior ordinance itself, or whether or not any work been done since October 1, 1988. One thing I have a hard time with is why do you need this numt:>er of hydrants to flush the loop? JOHN HUGHES-I was just doing as I was told to do by the Water Department. FRANK DESANTIS-Mr. Flaherty gives a letter every time, I don't know what he did back then, but now we require a letter from the Water Department that they approve what we're doing. HILDA MANN-Asked if Mr. Flaherty gave John Hughes a letter, saying that this is what you "- -r::: --- have to do? Nothing matches with what the engineer requirements are. CHARLES NACY-When this road was left in this was before the new ordinance was established that their was a-c?mplication with the Highway Superintendent at that time to some degree; not to ask for a reVIew, but at least consultation on the road loop itself. VICTOR MACRI-Asked for what, a residential subdivision? HILDA MANN-I would assume that the first thing that they would have to do is the engineering would have to meet with the approval of our consulting engineers, is the density, asked if this was the actual density for this piece of land? LEE YORK-Yes. What we requested when the applicant came in is that he show us a building on the lot that could maintain the setbacks as he has them shown on the map, and could provide the allowable parking, and he could put a well or septic and that the property could handle it. He has done this. However, he is going to be subdividing this and selling them individually so those lots would come back for site plan approval. HILDA MANN-Asked if he would meet the density or the density as he has it here if the road dimension what is required for this type of piece and with the width and the swales that are required is it still going to meet this kind of density? LEE YORK-If the roadway was modified we would have to look at modifying the lots. PETER CARTIER-I think the applicant has to convince me that what has been done here has been done legally up to this point. PAUL DUSEK-This project seems to have quit a history to it, my recommendation would be that if this wanted to be legally explored as far as the Zoning Ordinance are concerned that the Zoning Administrator, take a look at this project and examine it in connection with what the Ordinances require, and then he can consult with me and I could render advise in particular questions concerning what particular parts of the Ordinance apply to what parts of the project. VICTOR MACRI-Asked if it was feasible to construct the roads and do everything required now to Town standards? THOMAS NACE-As far as the roadway, I don't see anyway of developing the lot in the fashion that it has been shown and still meeting the radius requirements. VICTOR MACRI-Asked about the drainage swales? THOMAS NACE-I think that this has been fairly well addressed. VICTOR MACRI-Asked about the wing swales in the final plan? HILDA MANN-Refers to engineer report, asked about comment number four? THOMAS NACE-Their are some separation difficulties, I'm not saying that can't be surmounted from changing the building configuration or size, in some way providing the actual separation distances. HILDA MANN-Asked if they need a erosion control plan? THOMAS NACE-The erosion control plan, I believe, is OK except for the fact that we suggest the berm they show down along the stream have some temporary stream protection installed on the outside of it. NICK SARTELLI-When we started the drainage design on this project due to the north side there near the Psychological Associates, their was some D.I.'s that were already constructed in there for roadway drainage. VICTOR MACRI-Asked if Tom Flaherty required those catch basins also? NICK SARTELLI-No. I contacted Paul Nalyor's office, and asked him what typical roadway section that they were going to institute on this site, and he said to utilize the one with the ditch sections, not the wing section, because the drainage structures are set back along that ditch line as per the old roadway section, that's why the new design of the roadway for the drainage was entailed. You will notice a~l of the propose drainage structures are set back which would be ditch line about 23 foot of the. . . '- .- 1¿--./ VICTOR MACRI-You tried to deal with existing conditions in order to come up with the drainage plan? NICK SARTELIk-1 asked Paul, which particular section he wanted, he said to go along with what was out there at the present time. VICTOR MACRI-I think it is the Town's policy to first design the drainage pattern and then we put in the drainage, if we're dealing with existing D.I.'s than maybe as existing D. I's. should be condemned and move drainage inverts should be put in the proper locations. FRANK DESANTIS-The applicant has asked for a wavier of the over all drainage plan of the site based upon the fact that the drainage is going to be looked in each site plan review. This is an indication that maybe we need to look at the drainage on the overall site. I know you can design for the drainage off the roadway but if you don't know the drainage of the whole site, how can you design where you want the drainage in the roadway to be? NICK SARTETTI-What it does is because of the sheet flow in the water shed itself. The storm water runs at the boundaries of the lines and then discharges them into the close drainage system. We treated each of these lots as a separate site and designing a retention basin to retain that storm water on its site and then discharge to the propose drainage system, which discharges to the culvert underneath Bay Road. That was approved by Fred Austin, on January 23rd, 1989. HILDA MANN-Your saying that the individual lots, when there built upon, are going to not have an awful lot of effect on the overall drainage and design? NICK SARTELLI-We took into consideration the building, the pavement, and the grassed area, as far as our run off factor to determine what the retention basin would do. ROGER BRASSEI-co-owner of this land. I would like to clear up one procedure historical matter here. It relates directly to our request for preliminary and final approval at this meeting. Their is specific serious reasons that we asked for that. We attempted to get this on the agenda twice in the last year before us as soon as the moratorium was over, for various reasons we we're rejected. We had sketch approval in January, and submitted plans at considerable expense to be put on the March agenda for) preliminary hearing. We were rejected from your agenda in March, approximately five working days before the deadline, because of the misinterpretation of the plans that we had submitted in the Town Planner's office. Their were three items, the first is the placement of the underground utilities, Mr. Goralski simply overlooked, a human error, the second was minuscule and insubstantial detail relating to the extension of the entry roads to the center line of Bay Road, which is no way substantial, the third was arguable important the extension of the contour lines 200 feet beyond the property which easily could of been remedied by phone call. We felt that we had been unfairly rejected from your agenda from last month at which time all of these issues that are quite a surprise to us they would of been aired. Sinc.e we thought we had a good project and had been unreasonably restricted from your agenda we asked for preliminary and final approval. I am the person that argued very forcefully for preliminary and final approval, I did it because we were unreasonably refused a position on the March Agenda. PETER CARTIER-We have people coming in frequently who say to us, I got tossed off the agenda for what I consider to be a minor item. What we try to do is to avoid that whole kind of thing by saying, if an application is not complete its not acceptable, because it is debatable what is a minor item and what is not a minor item. ROGER BRASSEL-We thought we had very reasonable objections as to being refused a position on your agenda, once you're refused a position you're set back two months, as you know. Thank you. VICTOR MACRI-Is it the policy of the Sewer Commission that is enforcing the sewer districts policy not to take anybody involved within the sewer district? LEE YORK-If the sewer district were approved they would have to make application requesting that they be considered as far as tying in. VICTOR MACRI-Your saying that they don't have to tie in they would be accessed for the sewer district? LEE YORK-As I understand it, the Department Superintendent could then, if the property was within a 1,000 feet but say the elevation was to high or whatever he would reject it. This property would be likely tied into the sewer 9istrict. HILDA MANN-If these lots are sold off to other builders and if the Town accepts this road, who then is going to be responsible for digging up the road the second time, The Town of Queensbury? '- .;#' '- T~ VICTOR MACRI-The Town would then be required to put the sewer line in? THOMAS N ACE=ï\ssuming that the area were inside the sewer district, the Sewer Ordinance would require anybody in there to hook up. Assuming that this road were accepted first then it would be part of the district cost to put in sewers, it would be the Town's responsibility. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TOM MCCORMACK-As far as the drainage items you mentioned those are easily taken care of. The only item of significance that has to do with the radius of the roadway even from the very beginning four years ago, even if it were to have been a duplex type structure that this complex, the idea of not having a sweeping 250 radius curbs around such a little complex of office buildings, in our opinion is a great design and thought for this particular type, very different type of subdivision. JEFF FRIEDLAND-Attorney in Glens Falls, with Miller, Mannix, and Pratt. We represent the adjacent property owner, Mr. Leombruno, he owns the property on the immediate northern side of the propose project. We are here to represent his opposition to the subdivision. Their are several reasons for opposing this subdivision; (1) he owns 32 apartments immediately adjacent to to the project of the north side he has 42, 43 tenants in there, elderly and or retired. This project will adversely impact the privacy, the well being, etc., their are several reasons for that; (1) the construction period according the E.A.F. is suppose to be over three years, three years construction, heavy machinery, dusk, noise, etc., this type of activity can take place at any time of day, early in the morning, late in the evening, weekends, it obviously going to intrude on the next property owner. These are going to be medical and professional offices obviously there is going to be night time activity, cars coming in and out. We understand there is already some nights in the existing Doctor's office, so it will make it that much worst. Traffic is going to get much worst, we took an informal on site survey, right now on the existing use there can be anywhere from 40 to 60 cars in that area right now. Their is going to be spaces for 145 more cars parking. It also says, the survey, they did indicates their will be 50 vehicles per hour, this is a lot more traffic, increase in noise, pollution, next to an existing residential use. In addition the plans indicated that their won't be full buffer along that property line only a partial buffer. As it exists right now the septic tanks will be going along that property line and go to the side and evidently some are going to have . . . clearing brush and trees in perforation to septic, that seems to fall in the same category as the road going in before, this would further impact on the lack of buffer. The plans seem to indicate that some of these buildings will be as close as 25 feet to the property line and that, of course, is going to further impact and intrude on the tenants privacy. The same reasons as the tenants again, both of these elderly and retired and the same reasons. . .that would be the lack of buffer, traffic, the night time activity, construction, all of that for same reasons our clients property will obviously be devalued. One' final point I would like to make, the developments appears to be the first development on Bay Road, that goes off Bay Road, it is an off road development, we feel for policy reasons that uses at this time professional, medical building offices, should be on the road and that would preserve as much open space as possible, especially when its preexisting residential use. For all of these reasons my client is opposed to the project and urges this Board not accept this for approval. If the Board should grant final approval at some point in the future I asked that reasonable conditions be proposed to project our clients property and his privacy; (1) no building be closer than 50 feet from the adjacent property line (2) with the full buffer trees and shrubs along that property line. . . it would provide year round privacy (3) during construction phase the construction activity be limited or be restricted from early morning, late night, and on weekends to maintain the tenants privacy. Thank You. JOSEPH DYBASS-I disagree with you on many points; (1) the Masterplan calls for that type of redevelopment and all future Masterplan projects hopefully will be off the Bay Road, that's one of the plans we had submitted; (2) as far as making the applicant move further away than the zoning calls for we have no right to do that. Your points are not very strong. JEFF FREID LAND-All I like to add is that you have the instruction to the right of discretion. JOSEPH DYBASS-The Board doesn't have that kind of authority. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN DISCUSSION HELD FRANK DESANTIS-I want to find out how the road got in, if you got told by someone to put the road in. I would ask Staff to do this. LEE YORK-Asked if he would like a letter regarding the water lines and how the roads got in from Mr. Flaherty? -- ------" FRANK DESANTIS-Yes. VICTOR MACRI-I think if we are going to deviate from the subdivision regulations and requirements of them then a waiver should be presented by the applicant for whatever we need to address to be waived. After those waivers are accepted I think then we can then accept a preliminary application. LEE YORK-You would like the Zoning Administrator to look at what happened on this project in the past to present you with a report? VICTOR MACRI-I think we need to clarify whether or not the site was legally cleared. THOMAS NACE-I would think the first thing that the applicant can sit down with us and with Paul Naylor, and discuss whether or not the wavier should be granted. HILDA MANN-Obviously the radius is not anywhere near accurate. THOMAS N ACE-Those radius requirements are necessary and applicable engineering wise to the site, I've just said that it doesn't meet the standards and it will require a wavier. I would suggest that between now and re-submission that a pert test be done on the site. HILDA MANN-Did you apply for a County Permit for the drainage on Bay Road? CHARLES NACY-Other than the letter from Fred Austin, there been no application. HILDA MANN-Suggested that you might want to check into the dry sewer business, you should talk it over with the Town Board as to the ramifications of their taking a project with a road that they then have to dig up again. PAUL DUSEK-For the Board's information that is one of the areas of discussion in connection with the proposed sewer district for the entire Bay Road area. ~ ~ MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1989, HUGHES SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY STAGE, AND FINAL STAGE,lntroduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: ,-,,-.) ~) ¡--."j c\ '~ (-..) ',-) Tabled for further information as listed with Staff, including letter to be submitted from the Water Department Superintendent on water line. Letter from Zoning Administrator on the legal issues. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one SUBDIVISION NO. 6-87 NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING, PHASE 0, SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD, PRELIMINARY STAGE, TYPE I, LI-lA, TO SUBDIVIDE 60 ACRES INTO 13 LOTS FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION, CONSTRUCT 2,600 L.F. OF ROADS, WATER MAINT, AND UTILITIES. TAX MAP NO. 136-1-1,2,3,21 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1 WAYNE GANNETT/RIST FROST ASSOCIATES/PETER CONWAY/CLOUGH HARBOUR AND ASSOCIA TES MAP SHOWN TO BOARD WA YNE GANNETT-The proposal that Northern is discussing with the Town Board is for the Town to vacate any interest they may have in this old right-away from 1968, in return in which Northern would grant to the Town a 50 foot right-away from Kerry Road which will be a public road once its constructed and accepted, extending southwest to the Town's property. This is actually better for the Town than what the Town had presently, because this right-away (refers to map) dead ends at property that is not the Town's. This proposed right-away which Northern would be exchanging for the old right-away goes to Town property. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if all of the easements problems have been solved? WAYNE GANNETT-That's correct. HILDA MANN-Asked what is the 20 acre parcel? WAYNE GANNETT-It starts at this right-away (refers to map) and it takes all of this part .......... ,. .,-- ~ of the parcel. This is one lot. HILDA MANN-Asked if this would have to come for site plan review? WAYNE GANNETT-Yes. All of this parcel is in the light industrial one acre mImmum zone so that every development will be subject to individual site plan review. We have indicated several typical site plans to show how the properties can be develop in accordance with the subdivision regulations and the zoning standards. We have shown actually the smallest and narrowest lots to show that even on those they can be adequately developed. PAUL DUSEK-Relative to the Town's right-away and easement, that is not cleared up yet, this is still in negotiation between the applicant and the Town. PETER CONWAY-We submitted a letter in March 8th, 1989, which addressed several items that needed to be shown on the plan with respect to preliminary approval. We believe that those items have been adequately addressed. The long form environmental assessment has been corrected to indicate several items which we felt were necessary; depth of the water table, total number of off street parking requirements, maximum legal trips generated by the project, natural material removed, length of construction anticipated at the phase end of the project, salvage waste generation, anticipated water usage requirements. We followed this up with another letter dated, April 7, 1989, saying that those comments had been addressed. A few items that we consider minor that are the Town's requirements which we believe are reasonable to be waived. The first one, would be to show the location of all septic tanks, and fields that are adjoining the property, since they are putting in a public water supply we feel that is a reasonable request and it can be waived. The second one is, that the Town requirements of 4 feet to inch vertical and 40 feet to the inch horizontal were road profiles, that the Town require's the applicant shows one inch of this 50 and one inch equals 5 feet vertical which we feel is acceptable. The third comment, is that the long environmental assessment form indicates that 29 acres of the area will be for nonresidential purposes which clarifies the project is a type one under SEQRA, this requires designation of lead agency and coordinated review. We would strongly suggest that any correspondence with various departments signing off on particular areas that letters be submitted in writing so that they can be included as part of the file. Our comments are based on the preliminary plans. LEE YORK-Asked if they requested a wavier on these things that Peter indicated? WA YNE GANNETT-Our letter of transmittal to the Chairman was a request for wavier. LEE YORK-We did mail out Type I action letters to the Department of Health and to the Warren County D.P. W. we have not received a response from them. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, John Goralski, Planner, See Attached. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if preliminary approval can be given before SEQRA can be satisfied? PAUL DUSEK-That's correct. PETER CARTIER-Asked about the pert tests, test hole #4, the numbers don't seem to go with the other data they are very slow pert rates compared to the others. WAYNE GANNETT-I don't have an explanation for that, their will be more pert test taken for each lot. Maybe its a local variation. PETER CARTIER-Wanted to point this out. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TOM JOHNSON-Corinth Road, Wanted to take a look at the map. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN MOTION TO TABLE SUBDMSION NO. 6-87, PRELIMINARY STAGE, NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING, PHASE, 0, Tabled because SEQRA cannot be addressed because of the thirty day time limitation. NO VOTE NEW BUSINESS -- '-- -- "-... SITE PLAN NO. 21-89 TYPE 0, HC-1A, THE BLIND ROCK B &: D CONSTRUCTION CORNER OF ROUTE 9 AND MONTRAY ROAD, 19 MILLER IDLL FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, OFFICE BUILDING, RETAIL. MODIFICATION/ALTERATION OF EXISTING BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 71-2-2,14.2 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE: 3± ACRES THOMAS D'ANGELO REPRESENTING EMILY D'ANGELO/MOTHER MAP SHOW ON BOARD TOM D'ANGELO-What has been done here is that vinyl siding was put on the house last July when the project was started, now all we want to do is rewire the inside of the house, insulated, and sheetrock inside of the house. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if then the use of the building is going to become a professional office building and some retail? TOM D'ANGELO-What she plans to do after the inside of the house gets done is to lease the house out. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked about the parking situation if there was going to be any substantial retail ? TOM D'ANGELO-Their is a lot of parking in the rear of the building. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas N ace, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD TOM D'ANGELO-I went before the County Board originally, I conceded to them that we can put aU the parking in the back and we would only use it for simple offices, so you only have maybe four or five cars at the most they would come out on a secondary road. There is an existing drainage ditch that runs along Montray Road. My mother has owned the property since 1953 he we have had no drainage or water problems ever. RICHARD ROBERTS-We require more information on the site plans than what you have provided. LEE YORK-This has come in for three months as an incomplete submission. STAFF INPUT Notes on file from John Goralski, Planner, See Attached. CORRESPONDENCE Warren County did modify this with conditions, site plan application was approved with the stipulation that the property be used for professional offices only and that the parking be only in the rear of the building off of Montray Road with no access from Route 9. Their concerns are the impacts on County services which would be Route 9. DISCUSSION HELD HILDA MANN-Asked if we required a engineer stamp drawings on application? LEE YORK-Not on site plan, for a subdivision we do. HILDA MANN-Asked about commercial subdivision? LEE YORK-No not for a commercial site plan. I would like to request to the Board is that, we have a check list attached to each application it says that items A through J must be included on the site plan drawing, items K through Z shall be included on the site plan if applicable. What we're having is a situation like this, where people continue to insist in a commercial site plan that these are not applicable. I would like to make a policy that all commercial site plans have to go through the entire checklist and addressed every item before it gets to you. HILDA MANN-All commercial site plans should be stamped by a licensed professional engineer. LEE YORK-We can make that a policy. VICTOR MACRI-The applicant, by not accepting these items on the checklists, is risking this '- --" '- --r'._ Board not accepting the application. TOM D'ANGELO-The only thing that is in question is the drainage problem, the storm water problem. VICTOR MACRI-No one looking at the property can address the issue of drainage without the information and the technical research, and engineering. HILDA MANN-You need proper drawings. TOM D'ANGELO-We'reonly remodeling the house. HILDA MANN-This is no longer a house, your not talking about a house. Your talking about turning this into a business, its worth your investment that its done properly and its worth the Town's investment. FRANK DESANTIS-Asked how many square feet was in the house? TOM D'ANGELO-Possibly 1,600, 1,700 square feet. FRANK DESANTIS-Their are a couple of things in your application question #2, asked if its 960 feet or is that 2880 feet, what is the use going to be? TOM D'ANGELO-Probably professional offices. FRANK DESANTIS-Whatever you choose it impacts on the parking. You have six parking spots shown, this is what I was dividing. If you have 960 feet and it was professional offices which the County says your limited to, you can't use it for commercial or else you have to go to the County and get a revision of their review. Six is not enough, if you have 1,700 your going to need one for every 150 square feet and you have you show the parking on the plan. HILDA MANN-You need this done professionally, you need a professional engineer, you need someone who knows traffic, to present proper plans and what your going to do. FRANK DESANTIS-We need to know what the contours are, you need to tell us what your going to use the property for. You can't sit there and ask us to approve a parking plan for a use that we don't know what it is. RICHARD ROBERTS-You have a valuable piece of highway commercial property. For you not not to be willing to spend a few dollars we have no sympathy for you. When you're telling your engineer about the storm water, the policy of the Town is; when you pave half of that lot your going to generate more run off and we don't want to see anymore run off go on to the neighbors property, in the future, than goes off the property now. UNKNOWN-The neighbor's property is Ponderosa, he is up higher than we are, where they zoned it they had the fill the fill is all the way around us, the runoff could not go south or can not go to the Ponderosa. RICHARD ROBERTS-You have to identify where its going. MOTION TO NOT ACCEPT SITE PLAN NO. 21-89, TYPE 0, THE BLIND ROCK B &: D CONSTRUCTION,lntroduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Motion to not accept this application because of the information contained within the application is incomplete in accordance with the Town's Zoning requirements. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 CEDAR COURT, PHASE I, WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD APPROX. 1,000 FT. NORTH OF BLIND ROCK ROAD FINAL, AMENDMENT TO APPROVAL OF MAY 17, 1988. TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A,(OLD ZONING SR-30, UR-5) PHASE ONE WAS APPROVED WITH TOWN WATER SUPPLY, A MIX OF INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND A COLLECTOR SYSTEM. SINCE APPROVAL, TmS AREA IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM.TmS BEING A POSSIBILITY, IT IS THE WISH OF THE DEVELOPER TO CREATE A LARGER SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND HAVE DUPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES PREDOMINATELY. ./ '" '-- -r~" LEON STEVES PRESENT/RA Y BUCKLEY MAP SHOWN TO_BOARD LEON STEVES-I believe the application is self explanatory. FRANK DESANTIS-Asked if he saw Mr. Nace's letter of April 17, 1989, it says that you don't have sufficient separation distance when you move him back. I think that this is the only question here. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD THOMAS NACE-With the plan that we have obviously is OK. If you have municipal sewers. With the septic systems the way they were shown on the original Phase 1 plans, some of them don't have adequate setbacks. LEON STEVES-We understand that. THOMAS NACE-I think that there may be a couple of places you may have trouble adjusting them. You may be ending up relocating some buildings or something to be able to get the separation distance plus the provision replacement existence that were required during the review of Phase 1. RA Y BUCKLEY-We have been asked to revise this and go to the four unit, six unit buildings rather than the larger buildings. At the time that they suggested that to us, we said we would like to move the buildings back wherever possible because a lot of these houses may not be built if the sewer construction goes through on schedule. We would like approval to do this but if any variances are needed then we would leave the building as proposed, were not asking for any variances from the existing regulations. THOMAS NACE-Asked that they identify what units won't work, I don't have the plans that were submitted to the Health Department and D.E.C., regarding replacement location of replacement fields? RA Y BUCKLEY-These systems are larger than codes required. We agreed that we would provide space for a replacement system that could comply with the code but it wouldn't be the same size as what we have here. LEON STEVES-In addition the replacement system that is shown on the plan is for the buildings that you Ok'ed for that, so that the replacement system itself could be built and not the septic system as planned THOMAS NACE-Show me something that shows me that acceptance. FRANK DESANTIS-Asked where the real road was that was put in the subdivision? LEON STEVES-Pointed out on map where the road was. FRANK DESANTIS-If were going to move the locations of the buildings which is what your asking us to do, I'm interested in knowing where the road is. LEON STEVES-I would have to go back out on the road to check it out. We have staked out the two man holes and they go exactly where they belong. FRANK DESANTIS-The manhole is 215 feet from that manhole to that wire fence. THOMAS NACE-This can be accommodated, I would recommend that approval that is given be contingent upon a final plan being submitted. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, See Attached. NO PUBLIC HEARING MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5.,..87, CEDAR COURT, PHASE I, FINAL AMENDMENT TO APPROVAL OF MAY 17, 1988,lntroduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, -- -' ----' seconded by Mr. Macri: This is going to require a new map to reflect proper setbacks and proper spacing for continued on site septic sys.!ems and the location of the dry sewers. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one FURTHER BUSINESS MEMO/FRESHW A TER WETLANDS PROTECTION LAW PAUL DUSEK-This is a proposed format for the application. The Freshwater Wetlands Law, has been in existence for sometime in the Town of Queensbury, since the 1970's, but due to the fact that D.E.C. never formulated wetland maps until a couple of years ago for most communities, most communities have been in the same type of problem. Part of the problem was that the law says that the applicants shall submit an application as prescribed by the agency, the Planning Board is the agency involved in the Freshwater Wetlands Act. The first thing on this is the application format, the other one is the notice of application, which is required to be put into the paper by that act. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROTECTION LAW,lntroduced by Mr. DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one AGENDA CONTROL PAUL DUSEK-Two issues here; (1) Whether the Board can adopt its own policy (2) Where are we with the Local Law. The Local Law Public Hearing has been set for April 24, 1989, their is a multi-phase process in connection with adopting this Local Law; the first phase is with holding the Public Hearing, the second phase is to adopt the Local Law, their also may be a requirement for a quit SEQRA Review on this, the third phase is after the Local Law has been adopted for this Board to adopt the rules and regulations that are attached to that Local Law package that you should have got. The Board would have to set forth how many items that it wants to hear on the agenda, once that had been adopted by this Board, it then goes to the Town Board for there approval they adopt it and then we have the entire package in place. FRANK DESANTIS-Then we won't get any help for the May Agenda, but we may get some help for the June Agenda. PAUL DUSEK-Even if we don't follow that exact time schedule I gave you, I don't see any reason why this would not be in effect for the May cut off date, which means it will be in effect for the June scheduling. One comment I have is that, I don't know what will happen at the Public Hearing about the unknown as to whether the Board will even adopt it. On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman '- FILE C( ./ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 -",--" April 17, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan No. 5-89 Applicant/Project Name: Genesee Refrigeration It appears that most of the concerns brought up at the previous meeting have been addressed in this submission. The four foot berm with three to four foot shrubs appears to provide both audio and visual separation between the industrial and recreational uses. Rist-Frost Assoc. is reviewing the stormwater drainage provisions. The private road has been widened to 22 ft. The minutes of the February 28th meeting show that Mr. DeSantis requested a 24 ft. wide paved area and Mr. Dale Granger stated that he would provide a 24 ft. wide private road. Although Mr. Dyminski cannot address future development to the east he can provide a more defined access way to the property than what cUlTently exists. By providing a 24 ft. wide paved strip across Mr. Dyminski's property, opposite the existing paved road that goes to the west, the access to the property to the east would be more controlled, safer, and would not destroy r,¡r. Dyminski's grassed area or sign. JG/sed - ( - ~ - , , ~ 1" ~---- L"~ ,. Pt;.::'.'·,~·>" 'J,.. ,.' 1-'---"" r=-- ' :" _. . ..:... ~- ~_ ":. ~ '.. -., _ r ' '. ,- ;- "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 .. f''' ~ F ,SSCX::IATES. PC "'-,'- ~nNG ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 , ''''''ITW~(- - I' I ' \'1A'~;' ¡!i; - -.... ~ 't.~ f \.... -'. ' " '198~ v fiLE CDPY ----/.-.....-/ 518,793-4141 <';;'d.C & ZON;;, ......" · ,...._~.~~'T' April 14,1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Genesee Refrigeration Site Plan No. 5-89 Dear Ms. York: Our comments on the above-referenced project are as follows: 1. The app1 icant has c1 arified that the driveway, water main and fire hydrant will be privately owned and maintained in accordance with Town standards. 2. The percolation test pit has been dated. 3. Drainage calculations have been revised to include the entire site, and on-site storm water detention has been provided. The drainage design is adeauate for this site with the exception of the existing 4-inch pipes installed under the "paved private drive" just north of the site. These 4-inch pipes are inadequate to handle existing drain- age from the 18-inch culvert which outlets just upstream of the pipes. Since the recent construction of this private drive has altered the existing drainage across the site, this situation should be corrected before the site is developed. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST A?SOCIATES, P.C. Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town Planning Board Members :$ GLENS FALLS, NY· LACONIA. NH FILE ( . /' , TOWN OF QUEENSBVRY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 ---",..~ April 17, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 3-1989 Applicant/Project Name: Cranberry Lane FINAL STAGE It appears that all of the Boards concerns at preliminary review have been addressed in this submission. Drainage calculations were not submitted with this application. It is the Planning Departments understanding that the applicants engineer submitted this information to Rist-Frost Associates prior to the submission deadline date. This is not standard practice and the applicant and their engineer have been contacted. If the Boards engineer feels the drainage calculations are sufficient, I would recommend final approval of Subdivision No. 3-1989. JG/sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 : II" ~ "- '--- 35QCIATES PC ING ENGINEERS (J~UW~I t ! 198~~!: , ,r-,: F!L E r'nnu ..~ , -~ ~ ;-- ~. ¡'. . - ( ~ , 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518, 793-4141 ··¡·"'.¡"é~.?' & ZONIN~ .... ,-" -. '··--'I>JFNT' April 14,1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Cranberry Lane Subdivision 3-1989 - Final Stage Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments on the above-referenced project: 1. The revi sed road cross-sect i on does ca 11 for paved wi ng swales in accordance with Town policy. 2. The center part of the cul-de-sac can be drai ned vi a the catch basin at the inside wing swale and is satisfactory. 3. The revised drainage report provides the requested informa- tion and is acceptable. 4. Erosion control measures are provided. 5. Storm sewer catch basins and dry wells should be precast concrete capable of supporting highway wheel loading in lieu of the CMP structures shown. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. .' ' " Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town Planning Board Members .* GLENS FALLS, NY, LAGONIA. NH : ,..' - --" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 fILE b~ April 18, 1989 NOTE TO FILE LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 13-1988 Applicant/Project Name: Bedford Close, Section 6 FINAL STAGE This project has changed since Preliminary approval. The development now has an access point from Corinth Road and the drainage now enters the County system. This would require a permit from the WalTen County DPW. At this date no information has been submitted on this. All the other requirements for final submission have been satisfied. One outstanding problem is that the entire phase is not in a water district. Since sketch plan approval the developer has made every attempt to have the Town incorporate the excluded lots in a district. At this date this has not been done, although, it is my understanding that a map plan and report has been submitted to the Town by Kestner Engineers. ~ ¡ Any final approval would have to be contingent upon formalization of an agreement and the Town of the water district. LA Y /sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY .. A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 .. ~ .- .. (, ..' ~r y · ·~il· W\f-t t. ¡ ~J I 11._" ¡ ::.k;:\ ~I ~ l (198~ /_: , .... ~ ': ~ b .~. ¡ ~~ I ¡..- t~·)"1: ~ ~-.. "',"! ~ ¡ '. ' :: ,,' '~--" ~ ~. "- ~. ASSOCIATES, PC 'taNSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 ";~.;·~j;i.C & ZONIN' ~. ¡-:r' c'," -~~ lE'NT A~ril 14,1989 R¡'A #89-5000 518, 793·4141 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bav/Haviland Roads Qu~ensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Bedford Close - Section 6 Subdivision 13-1988 - Final Stage Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments on the above-referenced project: 1. The appl icant has provided reserve right-of-way for Warren County at the intersection of Corinth and West Mountain Ro ad s. 2. Clearing and erosion control plans have been provided. 3. The drai nage report has been revi sed and is for the most part satisfactory. However, the impact of connecting the proposed storm system to the existing 24-inch pipe on Corinth Road has not been addressed. I have discussed this issue with the design engineer and it appears that the existing drainage for the area tributary to the proposed 24-inch storm line ends up at the same location where the proposed 24-inch line discharges. Therefore, the existing drainage pattern should not be significantly altered and the impact of connecting to the existing 24-inch pipe on Corinth Road should be minimal. 4. Perc tests provided but no date indicated. 5. The revised road alignment of McCrea Road meets the Town's standards. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. / . : ( \ " ) Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS, NY'LACONIA, NH ¡ FILE ~ '1 ---/- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road. Queensbury. NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 April 17, 1989 NOTE TO FILE LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 1-1989 ~ Applicant/Project Name: Hughes Subdivision PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE The developer has submitted for Preliminary and Final approvals for the same meeting. This seems to be in opposition to the intent of the Ordinance. Final approval is reserved as an opportunity for the Board to review plans before the Chairman signs them and determine that the development is what should be legally filed. I have advised one of the project developers that if the Board modified his preliminary submission that his final submission would be unacceptable. I would like to request that the Board make a policy on reviewing more than one phase of a submission on a project at a meeting. My concern is that if modifications are made to the preliminary plat then the developer will want contingent approval on the final plat, if the changes are made prior to the plat being filed. This puts a great deal of pressure on the Board and it negates the intent of the Ordinance. A t Staff Review the Sewer Department Superintendent suggested that if the developer intends to tie into the sewer district in the future he may want to put a dry sewer system in now so that the roadway will not have to be dug up in the future. This is, of course, the developers option. At Staff Review the Town Engineer expressed concerns about the percolation tests, the unsigned engineering stamp on page 4 of the map, and the storm water management plan (page 4). He will address these issues with you. At Sketch Plan the ,staff report indicated that a County Permit would be needed to tie into the drainage· system on Bay Road. The applicant has not supplied approvals from the County D.P. W. The plan has changed from Sketch in that there are now berms on the east and south sides of the property to prohibit drainage from going on the adjacent property. The drainage now ties into the County system. LA Y /sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 , f ~ ~, -' ASSOCIATES, PC êõÑSULTING ENGINEERS FI'([ COpy ....-' .--' 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 , ~ r:-; '~¡ ,\--, II \ '?"'I ..~j.;j ,V i ~ I. ..' ~ ~-,;: 198~ - , 518·793·4141 ":~(; & ZON .- ;O:."!' "·-·''' :foJT April 14,1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Hughes Subdivision - Subdivision No. 1-1989 Preliminary and Final Stages Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments on the above-referenced project: 1. The centerline radius of the subdivision street is less than 75 feet. The required minimum radius is 250 feet for mar- ginal access roads. 2. In keeping with recent Town pol icy, wing type paved swales should be provided on both sides of the roadway. The Pre- liminary Plans show a wing swale on one side and the Final Plans show no wing swale. Drainage catchment should be provided in the winq swales. 3. Fill systems are proposed for all subsurface disposal fields. Fina1 design will be based on percolation tests performed in the settled fill. However, percolation tests must also be done on the native soil to assure that it has the capability of percolating effluent from the bottom of the fill. 4. On lots 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10 the layouts shown may have to be modified to provide minimum separation distance between the fill systems and on-site storm water detention areas in accordance with applicable design standards. 5. A storm water management plan has been submitted and does provide for satisfactory on-site detention of storm water. The designer proposes to use the slope of the catch basin outlets as control for peak outflow rates. The catch basins (details not shown) should provide space below the pipe invert for sediment storage. The dry well detail shown does not appear to relate to any of the proposed storm drainage facilities. @ GLENS FALLS. NY'lACONIA, NH ", ~~ ''-. -. ---- - Ms. Lee York Town of Queensbury Ref: Hughes Subdivision April 14, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Page ( 6. Erosion control is shown ln the Final Plans but not the Preliminary Plans. The plan appears consistent with good engineering practice: we would also recommend placing ero- siòn control between the westerly berm and the stream for stream protection until the berm is stabilized. 7. The long form EAF notes June 1989 as the commencement of Phase I, however, a site visit shows the road has already been roughed in and portions of the drainage system install- ed. It should be noted that no erosion control measures were visible. We strongly suggest that appropriate measures to control erosion be taken immediately. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town Planning Board Members : '-. .. .-. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Oueensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 fiLE Cln-.~ April 17, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 6-87 Applicant/Project Name: Northern Distributing, Phase II PRELIMINARY STAGE This submission has changed slightly since Sketch Plan review. Forest Road, the cross road, has been eliminated and the easement to the Town property has been added. Also, the cross section of the roadway has been changed to include paved drainage swales. The Subdivision appears to be layed out in accordance with good planning practice and the proposed use is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and Draft Master Plan. Each lot is significantly larger than the allowed density and typical lot layouts are provided. The Development Suitabiltiy Maps indicate that this is an aquifer recharge area with limited development suitability. The Town Attorney will aprise the Board as to the status of the right of way to the Town owned property. JG/sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 FILE k~' April 17, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 21-89 Applicant/Project Name: The Blind Rock/B&D Construction This application has been placed on the agenda at the insistence of the applicant. There are serious concerns about the stormwater runoff on this site. There is no indication of existing or proposed contours, drainage patterns, or erosion control measures. The Board cannot assess the impacts of this proposal without addressing these issues. JG/sed "HOME OF NA TURAL BEAUTY A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 .. r- ~ AssociATES PC ',- '____.SÚLTlNG ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518· 793·4141 -- vw.... '" .......... .wW ' · ~~!J~] r:n r r~~" : < ' Apri 1 17, 1989 RFA #89-5000 PLANNING . ZONINC: DEPARTMENT ~5. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Quepnsbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: The Blind Rock - Site Plan No. 21-89 Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments on the above-referenced project: 1. No dimensions are provided for parking or driveway areas. The park i ng off Rout e 9 does not seem we 11 thought out for traffic flow. There appears to be no space for cars to turn around; other than backing out onto Route 9. Any driveways should be 20-feet wide. 2. There is no topography or grading plan. We note that a retaining wall is called for on the north side of the lot. Details of the proposed wall should be shown. 3. Two existing septic systems are shown: the adequacy of these existing systems for the proposed use is not stated. 4. No stormwater calculations have been provided to account for increased runoff from new parking areas. 5. Type of landscaping is not identified. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. I 1 ,'. Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town Planning Board Members @ GLENS FALLS. NY' LACON!A. NH < WARREN COUNTY fiLE C~ / -- '-. ',-- Telephone 518·761·6410 PLANNING BOARD ""'·1'y/X- . , '.,.' '.' \. II i " ;""1 - '":J,t' ~!a. .' ~ .,. , I ' ¿ '198ú L .., ,.... Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 DATE: April 13, 1989 RE: The Blind Rock Pro;ect & ZON~~'" .., "''''T TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Office Town Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Que7ensbury, NY 12804 Gentlemen Ladies: Corner of Rt. 9 & Montray Road SPR II 21-89 At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of April , the above application for a site plan review for professional office, office building and retail stores. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: ) Approve ( ) Disapproval ¡>c) Modify with Conditions ( Return Comments: Application was approved with the stipulation that the property be used for professional offices only and that parking be only in thp. rear of the building off Montray Rd. and no access from Route 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-M, with regard to Municipal Zoning ~ctions that are referred to and reported thereon. The following are procedural requirements that must be adhered to: 1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement for such actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon time, the municipal agency may act without such report. 2.) If the recommendation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification thereof, th~-municipal agency shall not act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. 3.) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications or disapproval of a referred matter, such municipality a~ency shall file a report with the Warren County Planning Board on the n~c~ssar.Y1.I,.f?rï-. ' i . .// ¡" OR t, Vincent Spitzer, Vice Chairman . FILE t 4 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 --- April 17. 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 5-87 Applicant/Project Name: Cedar Court FIN AL STAGE: Amendment to approval of May 17, 1988 The applicant is seeking a modification of the previous subdivision approval. The applicant proposes to increase the building setbacks from the road and split buildings "E" and "F" into two buildings each. This change is in anticipation of the proposed sewer district. At this point in time, the proposed sewer district is only in the conceptual phase. No public hearing has been scheduled and there have been no approvals to date. Furthermore anyone wishing to tie-in to a municipal sewer system must first receive approval from D.E.C. The applicants agent has stated that the required preliminary on-site septic system will be installed as the units are constructed until such time as the sewer district is established and D.E.C. approves the sewer extension permit. I have asked Tom Nace to look into the affect of the new building locations on the proposed septic systems. If on-site septic systems can be provided this modification has merit. By moving the buildings back from the road and splitting the 8 unit buildings the project will take on a more rural character. JG/sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 . ~ ..... ~ t: I,J'" k ~ ........ Ù ~~ltWI~1 I ~ APR 18 191!':I~~ , SSOCIATES. PC .:rING ENGINEERS '- '-~ 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518, 793·4141 -- FilE COPT~ pLANNING . ZON'N~ DEPARTMENT April 17,1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Cedar Court - Phase One Subdivision No. 5-87 - Amendment to Final Plans Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above-referenced project only for the increase in setback proposed by the applicant. The increased setbacks wi 11 be acceptable provided that it is done with con- struction of a municipal sewer system. However, the existing layout of on-site sewage disposal fiplds does not allow suffi- cient separation distances (20 feet from sewage disposal field to house foundation) with the proposed building setbacks. We suggest that the applicant revise the layout to show adequate separation distances and to show locations of replacement sewage disposal fields. Revised plans should also be filed with the NYS Department of Health and Department of Environmental Conservation. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town Planning Board Members * GLENS FAllS. NY, LACONIA NH ¡