1989-05-16
"--
'----./
,/
~"-----
....-."..../
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
MAY 16th, 1989
INDEX
APPUCANT
PAGE
Adoption of Local Law /
Agenda Control
I.
Resolution Adopting
Determination of NonSignificance of Amendment
To Rules And Regulations
Of Planning Board
3.
Resolution Adopting Amendment
To Rules and Regulations Of
Planning Board
4.
Adoption of Scoping Document
The Great Escape
4.
Subdivision No. 1-1989
Hughes Subdivision
5.
Subdivision No. 6-87
Northern Distributing
7.
Subdivision No. 9-1989
Cline Meadow Development
9.
Site Plan No. 29-89
Worclo Management Services
II.
Subdivision No. 13-1988
Bedford Close, Section 6
12.
¡.
·~
. "--"
./
',,-
"---
- .---./
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
MA Y 16, 1989
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
FRANK DESANTIS
HILDA MANN, SECRET AR Y
PETER CARTIER
JOSEPH DYBASS
KEITH JABLONSKI
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
TOWN ENGINEER-THOMAS NACE
MEMBERS ABSENT
RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
VICTOR MACRI
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
RESOLVED THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD HEREBY APPROVES THE MARCH
28, 1989 MINUTES AS CORRECTED
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
ADOPTION OF LOCAL LAW ON AGENDA CONTROL
PUBLIC HEARING
FRANK DESANTIS-The general idea is to set up a set of categories in numerical numbers
for the number of items that will be considered at anyone meeting. To schedule the number
of regular meetings per month, and to limit the number of type of new items of business that
will be considered each month. The general plan is to hold two regular meeting per month,
to limit the number of items on each agenda to eight, to limit the number of items of new
business to eight, to set up essentially five categories one of which being old business, and
the four categories of new business being broken down into two subcategories, one being
subdivisions, the other one being site plans. Within each subcategory their would be residential
subdivisions and commercial subdivisions; being the two subcategories and within site plan
it would be likewise a residential site plan and a commercial site plan category. Therefore,
their would be four total categories of new business. The resolution in summary says; that
their will be two items accepted within each category at a maximum. If their are not two
items whose applications have been considered complete by the staff and therefore, placed
on a ready agenda from which the meeting agenda will be compiled with each category you
would move within the category to the next area. For instance, if their were no commercial
subdivisions that month yet their were four residential subdivisions on the ready agenda their
would be four residential subdivisions on the accepted new business. These would be accepted
in the order of the time that they were determined by the staff to be complete obviously the
oldest being taken out of the meeting agenda first. Once something went on to the old business
agenda it would again be taken in the order of its age. The primary reason for this is to simply
allow the Planning Board to address new business and old business in an more orderly fashion.
The resolution is temporary in nature, it has a sum set provision within it were it automatically
expires I believe at a maximum of two years after its adoption or in total prior resolution of
the Board. We have attempted to address every category in equal fashion and not give bias
to any type of application that we see. The new Town Zoning Ordinance which was adopted
on October 1st, 1988, essentially makes a great many more applications that are filed with
the Town Department and reviewed over by this Board.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR-I do practice before the Board and I do sympathize greatly with the
Board members burden that they have had in the last couple of years. I really don't look upon
it as getting less in the future. What we simply are going to do is hold down perhaps the
~
'--
'--
./
- . ~.....,¿
applications coming in. I think the number of applications out there are still going to be the
same numbers. I took a quick look and I think last year their were 106 commercial building
permits issued for either new projects or additions. If you limit your commercial site plan
review to three a month, three a meeting, six a month, that would bring you back to 72 that
would mean about 1/3rd less than what was handled last year is going to be able to come before
you. Under the new Ordinance that we have I believe everyone of those applications would
have to come before you. I understand what your trying to do, I sympathize with you, I would
ask if this is going to be followed through, and at the same time maybe you could take a look
at the procedure that you have set up under the Ordinance. We now have a very extensive
set of regulations as to what applicant's must do or what their project must comply with.
I would think that some of those applications could be reviewed in total by staff and this Board
not be burden with it. Particularly if you are talking about applications for projects in areas
where they are permitted to help. . . this Board may not have to get into the review process
on those. I think your likewise going to have a very heavy act upon two lot subdivisions. Before
we didn't have review of two lot subdivisions, we now have a new set of regulations which
provide in what manner the subdivision is suppose to conform to such as access, road width,
and what not, even more than what the regulations were before. You are still requiring everyone
of those two lot subdivisions to come before you even if an act shows that he is within his
zone, he has a permitted configuration, permitted frontage, those applications I think might
also be delegated to staff. My experience with staff is that they have been probably more
conservative than the Board, I think that is reflected in the reports that they submit to you.
I can understand where your coming from, you can't be here four or five nights a month, to
1:00 p.m., or 2:00 p.m., every night it is just not reasonable to expect that you are going to
do that you have a thankless job as it is, but I think we now have the regulations in place what
we might do is go back and take a look at the procedures that we also put in place and maybe
lessen your burden a little bit by lessening these requirements to come before the Board. The
Town has come to a point that where maybe they need more. . .than what they presently have.
We have a pledging staff as it is we've had turn over problems with our staff, but the Town
maybe. . .more support to the staff that might lessen your burden. I have also suggested and
maybe following perhaps two Planning Board's, one for site plan review, one for subdivisions,
this would split the burden up. I don't think your rules and regulations are going to lessen the
number of applications all their going to do is make the time table for the applicant's much
greater. I respect what your trying to do, I respect the job that you've done, but I think that
even if you do this, I think it is necessary to give yourself a little breather from the first of
the year, you ought to have the Town Board at the same time take a look at permanently
relieving some of the burden upon yourself without putting holes into the ordinances and
regulations that they've already adopted.
PETER CARTIER-The intent is to give Staff and Board time to deal with the applications.
Your points are well taken.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Mr. Cartier, I'm just a single practitioner. I practice in a two man firm,
I probably did more two lot subdivisions last year than your going to permit in total.
TAPE ILLEGIBLE
MICHAEL O'CONNOR-I understand that argument, but I think at the same time you did those
rules and regulations you put in provisions which would not allow for the type of subdivision
that did create problems. You now have limited access, you doubled the width of the lots
on most of the major highways in the Town. You don't allow the lollipop lot, the flag lot,
whatever you want to call it you have taken care of a lot of those things. You now have said
that the developer has to come in and show you that you have topographical features that
your not creating a drainage problem. With that, I think that with adequate staff they could
review and they wouldn't have to come before you. Their are some that are going to have
to come before you because staff is going to recommend it that could also be worked into
the regulations. I think that you are going to come to a point in time where their is a lot of
those applications that are going to be check list type reviews if they are engineered correctly,
they have to be engineered correctly to pass the test. The drainage calculations are subject
to greater review and you now have regular consultants on every application. I'm not saying
I don't understand what your doing, but I hope that it is not long term and I think two years
is long term.
DR. ROGER BRASSEL-resident of Queensbury, property owner in the Town of Queensbury.
We all understand that your under a lot of pressure and its difficult. Will the net effect be
to slow and retard the development in the Town and is that in fact what your seeking to do,
or is the only way to get relief from the burden?
FRANK DESANTIS-(l) Our intent is not to slow down you termed it progress, growth,
development, or whatever, we certainly can't effect the number of applications and this
amendment does not do that. This is not our intent. All of the items that Mr. O'Connor,
mentioned this Board cannot effect the Town Board, is the Board that passes legislation in
f
I
~/
"
"'-'
~
"'-..-'
this community we do not. We adopt regulations as to how this Board works within the scope
of our jurisdiction. What we are attempting to do is attempting to avoid the situation in which
we're faced with upwards of 30 or 40 applications a month that even though the applicant may
think that 21 days prior is a incredible long period of time some months we're allocating 1/2
day and this isn't all we do to review each application. This is all prior to engineer and staff
seeing them and our seeing their comments. One of the things I think that I would like to say
individually, and I also practiced before the Zoning Board, is that this still remains one of the
few communities certainly I think one of the rare communities given the number of applications
that it faces that at least does the applicant the courtesy of giving them decision on the night
that they appear. A great many communities and its legal within the law and has been listen
to the applicant's and then pass decision later at another subsequent meeting and take the
next 30 days to make that decision. We attempt to do the courtesy of the applicant of giving
them a response at the time that their here, maybe that's a mistake on our part because that
drastically shortens up the period in which we can consider the information that is presented
to us. I am talking about that as a possibile way of alleviating effectively what is a very short
period to make a decision on the Town's regulations, and increase in the Town's applications.
It is not our attempt to shorten up, or to forestall development, growth, or progress. What
our attempt to do is to get an orderly manner of the meetings, if we take eight items a night
and allocate the minimum of 30 minutes per item it is very easy to see that you go from 7:30
p.m., to 11:30 p.m., and any item of any significance it takes approximately a half and hour
by the time you go through SEQRA, the public hearing, vote, and the comment. Anything
of any great significance you may considered it taking an I hour or lÍ hour, that's what leads
up to the time frame of how many hours you can put into a meeting, and how many items that
you can effectively considered. This is essentially our goal as a Board in our own regulation.
HILDA MANN-I would like to comment, however, in answer to one of your questions, why
don't we have two board's or three board's, and split the board's, whatever, now we could have
a meeting every week. I think as planner's and certainly as a citizen of this Town for thirty
years if slowing down is the result of this which maybe a little unfortunate for some people.
I would like to see the effects of some of these projects as their approved. I can see
accommodating projects in an orderly manner, I'm speaking for myself, not for him. I don't
think we have to have two or three board's, meeting two or three nights a week for a month
to accommodate explosive growth which has cumulative effects that we can't even begin to
foresee. I don't think that we have to sit here and approve 100 projects a month just so that
everybody can be happy and then all of a sudden find that we've desecrated this Town and
have no idea of what we've done. I think we are taking these things in an orderly manner and
we're trying to reduce the size of the agenda so we can spend a lot of time on the ones that
we are. I would certainly would not as a citizen whether I'm on this Board or not want to see
two or three board's working over time just so we can have a 100 projects a month get off the
ground. This is my opinion.
JOSEPH DYBASS-I agree with you. What we're going to have is an explosive growth and we're
going to have a Clifton Park, and then everyone is going to bale out.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT
TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO.2, 1989,lntroduced by Joseph Dybass who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Peter Cartier:
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering an Amendment to
the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency
with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions
undertaken by local governments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BElT
RESOL VED, that the Planning Board of The Town of Queensbury adopts the annexed notice
of determination of non-significance and directs that copies of this resolution and notice of
determination be filed as required by law.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989 by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
\.
/
'-
.'----
---- -..-/
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF PLANNINNG
BOARD
RESOLUTION NO.3, 1989,lntroduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Peter Cartier:
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of adopting an amendment
to its rules and regulations entitled "Special Temporary Rules Applicable to Applications for
Site Plan Approval or Preliminary or Final Plat Approval," and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 272 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Planning
Board may adopt rules and regulations in respect to procedure before it and in respect to any
subject matter over which it has jurisdiction under Article 16 of the Town Law of the State
of New York or any other statute after public hearing by the Planning Board and subject to
the approval of the Town Board, and
WHEREAS, John Goralski, Town Planner, prepared an environmental assessment form with
respect to the proposed amendment and the Planning Board has considered same and determined
that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 1989, a public hearing with regard to the proposed amendment was
conducted, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed amendment has been presented to this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BElT
RESOL VED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the proposed
amendment to its rules and regulations entitled, "Special Temporary Rules Applicable to
Applications for Site Plan Approval or Preliminary or Final Approval," the same being presented
to this meeting, subject to Town Board approval.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
ADOPTION OF SCOPING DOCUMENT FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 4-89, STORYTOWN
USA, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE, TAHITIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK AS PREPARED
BY CLOUGH HARBOUR ASSOCIATES
PETER CONWAY-The scoping document that is prepared is seven pages long and outlines what
would be required in the draft environmental impact statement. We believe that this addresses
all the key issues that were identified at the May 2nd, 1989, meeting.
HIDA MANN-The only concern I have is that I don't know what the limitations are, but a piece
of this property along Route 9, opposite the Red Coach, and what's behind the Trading Post
this land has been worked on and worked on, ask if this work is now seized? Doesn't understand
how we can be reviewing a project and expecting a environmental impact statement with the
depth that this is going to have.
JOHN GORALSKI-The work that is current that was being done last week around the area
that is designated the parking on site plan, is work that D.E.C. requested to be done in order
to protect the wetlands from run off. Lee York, Dave Hatin, and myself, had a meeting with
Robert Stewart, and Charles Wood, and at that time it was instructed to them to do any work
that was in the letter from D.E.C. and that no other work should be done on the site until after
the site plan review is completed. To my knowledge, no other work except the work that was
requested by D.E.C. has been done since that meeting.
PETER CARTIER-The only problem that I have is on Page 4, four pages from the cover sheet
page, paragraph above E. It says petroleum of chemical products (deicing agents), I don't want
the applicant to assume that chemical products are only to the deicing agents. I have a concern
about the storage use for these, I think it needs to be addressed here.
PETER CONWAY-We can change that to all chemical products.
PETER CARTIER-Including deicing agents.
\,
/
'--
''-..-. "--
-.-../
MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Speaking on behalf of the Glen Lake Protective Association, also speaking
on behalf of Mark Calabrino, and Ralph Manci. We were pleased with extent of the scoping
. document. We have some concerns though that may have been impudent by reference which
we would like to include as a addition this is to show and outline any cumulative effect to
existing facilities as well as planned facilities. This seems to be clear in the document except
for in the area of parking. The applicant claims part of the parking work that he is planning
for this new facility will be used as over flow parking to the existing facility. He claims that
the new facility will make this old facility more attractive and perhaps increase the traffic
to it. The applicant we believe, recently obtained some variance's for parking for another
project on the site. It would seem that the applicant at the park already in his peak operation
probably has some parking problems particularly if he limits this area from being an over flow
area as he claimed it would be in some of his documentation. I think the parking should be
quantified for the existing facilities with actual customer counts, and actual parking spaces
shown and show whether their on the east or west side of the highway. I think that this is
the only way the Board is going to actually know what the total parking is to the site, what
the total parking use is to the site.
PAUL DUSEK-Recommended to Planning Board to instruct the Zoning Board of Appeals, to
table Site Plan No. 4-89, until the SEQRA process is complete.
MOTION FROM PLANNING BOARD TO RECOMMEND THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 4-89, STORYTOWN USA, INC. D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE,
TAHITIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK UNTIL SEQRA IS SATlSFŒD,lntroduced by Hilda Mann
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybass:
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
MOTION TO APPROVE THE SCOPING DOCUMENT OF SITE PLAN NO. 4-89, STORYTOWN,
USA, INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE, TAHITIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK, PREPARED
BY CLOUGH HARBOUR ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Hilda Mann:
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDMSION NO. 1-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE, TYPE: UNLISTED, MR-5 HUGHES
SUBDMSION WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, OPPOSITE BAYBERRY DRIVE FOR 12 LOTS FOR
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON 8.31 ACRES OF LAND. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-10,
1l.1
ROGER BRASSEL PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See attached.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to Lee A. York, Senior Planner, from Pat Collard, Zoning Administrator, Letter to
John Hughes from Thomas Flaherty. (on file)
HILDA MANN-Asked John Goralski, has anyone from staff or the town called Tom Flaherty,or
had any contact with him regarding why he gave permission for any applicant to install a water
line in an unapproved subdivision?
JOHN GORALSKI-Doesn't know if anyone has asked him this.
HILDA MANN-From a telephone conversation with the State their is a basis for installing,
\.
""-.
'--~
,
--- ...../
but it doesn't say whether its the legal right to install. Our concern initially was who gave
him the permission to have him install water lines and cut down all the trees, put in a road
in a subdivision that only had the minimum of review? This is what we asked John Hughes.
FRANK DESANTIS-This letter really doesn't answer that question.
ROGER BRASSEL-Not sure as to the answer to all those questions. In respect to the water,
at least part of it involves the fact that Dr. Bannon's building, and Dr. Homenick building had
been approved, they needed to get water to them, beyond that I don't know.
HILDA MANN-Asked if it was possible that he refused to let them get the water unless the
total loop was installed? .
ROGER BRASSEL-The water had to be brought to the two offices that had been approved,
we did what we we're told.
HILDA MANN-This is what we want to know. The law is clear that a subdivider cannot go
ahead and do this until he has final approval.
FRANK DESANTIS-Would like to know if their is a way of looping it that doesn't result in
what we have today, this is an engineering question, if their is then why did we end up with
the configuration that we have. What I'm very concerned with is not necessarily the looping
of the water main to the two pre-approved lots, I am concerned with the fact that it was looped
and we may not end up with t mile of new road and hydrants that is already in there in new
approved subdivision. If this is the only way it could be done then I would like him to tell us
that or maybe we got into an area of very grey misunderstanding.
ROGER BRASSEL-I know that John felt that the sketch plan approval allowed what was done.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas N ace, See attached.
DISCUSSION HELD
ANDREW MCCORMACK-Refers to comments from Staff. In 1983 when approval was given
for the same subdivision the same lot layout is now one or two lots less than previously. He
proceeded to extend the water main to serve the lots that he had prior approval for. Refers
to septic system, separations distances should be in requirements with designed standards.
This took a while to find out what the standards were.
TOM NACE-Corrects statement, it took two hours.
ANDREW MCCORMACK-These particular lots rather than revise the map shown, we would
like to hold the other five or six lots into conveyance until the sewer comes down the road.
With the suggestion we would agree to phasing the project until sewer are on Bay Road, we
would live with a Phase lapproval. Addressed Tom Nace's letter of May 14, 1989, in regard
to the radius.
PETER CARTIER-The question to Paul Naylor was do you have the radius.
JOHN GORALSKI-The letter from Paul Naylor dated April 25, 1989, only addresses the layout
of the road, the radius. (on file)
PETER CARTIER-Feels that their is a lack of communication on this project.
FRANK DESANTIS-Doesn't have an answer to why the road is there, why the water line is
there. Has a problem with the septic distance, also has a problem with phasing those lots
because they have to be on both sides of the subdivision loop. If we approve this we are
approving a phase that starts at the southeast corner and ends up in the northwest corner.
The second phase is in the southwest corner and goes up to the northeast corner, because lot
six is now in this corner and the other four are in the northeast corner. Also has a problem
with approving subdivisions on the basis of when the sewer comes through.
ANDREW MCCORMACK-With this particular project the each individual lot has to go through
site plan review. You have a protection in this.
FRANK DESANTIS-Feels that they need to get a clear line of communication to the Water
~
.,
\''--\'\c
--
./
-----
Department, Highway Department.
FRANK DESANTIS-Asked if he could not make these five lots 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10, comply without
awaiting the sewer hookup to be utilized?
ANDREW MCCORMACK-In their present configuration. Technically the adjoining lots might
have to be joined together to provide that separation. We would prefer to phase those until
the sewers are in rather than join together at this point.
ROGER BRASSEL-We don't mean to say that they necessarily couldn't be brought in to
compliance if a smaller office develop on the site the arrangement of the building and the
parking, probably would bring it into compliance. We might have, probably will have
professionals who would want to buy two lots and combined them.
FRANK DESANTIS-Feels that they need generic footprints to show the maximum size building
on these lots. What you show on everyone of the lots that we have a problem with are 1,800
square foot buildings, this is a little to large for the conditions.
ROGER BRASSEL-Also note that the lots are much larger than the minimum lot size.
The drainage as of now is going to Old Maid Brook we are not changing this.
FRANK DESANTIS-Asked if they are going to have any problem with storm water?
TOM NACE-No. Their provisions for storm water are okay., it is the separation distances
from the septic system that is a concern because of the brook.
JOHN GORALSKI-Clarified Lee York's letter. A double A.A.T., stream would regulate as
Department of Conservation, therefore, it would be in the applicant's best interest to check
with D.E.C., to make sure that they don't have a problem with the run off from the new road
to the development being directed into the stream. One half of the project goes across Bay
Road, the other half goes back into the brook. This is in regard to Fred Austin's letter dated
January 23, 1989.
KEITH JABLONSKI-The Highway Department is saying that they don't have a problem with
the radius, which means they are going to have to request a wavier from the Board for us to
vary from the requirement.
PETER CARTIER-Gave list of what the applicant has to come back with. (1) Waiver request
regarding radius need to be in writing. What he is looking at is items 2, 3, and 4, of Mr. Nace's,
letter dated May llth, 1989.
FRANK DESANTIS-Would ask Mr. Flaherty, why he approved the water hookup in 1986?
HILDA MANN-You have to come back with a design for Lots 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10, showing the
buildings that they could survive on those lots if the sewer never came up the road.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1989, HUGHES SUBDIVISION,lntroduced by Peter
Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
Tabled for further information mentioned in Lee A. York, Senior Planner's letter, and Town
Engineer, Thomas Nace's letter, dated May llth, 1989.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-87, TYPE I, LI-lA, PRELIMINARY STAGE, NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING
PHASE n, SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD TO SUBDMDE 60 ACRES INTO 13 LOTS FOR
INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION, CONSTRUCT 2,6000 L.F. OF ROADS, WATER MAINT.
AND UTILmES. TAX MAP NO. 136-1-1, 2, 3, 21 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1
WAYNE GANNETT PRESENT/PETER CONWAY/ CLOUGH HARBOUR ENGINEER'S ON THE
PROJECT
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
WAYNE GANNETT-This project was discussed at the April 18th, 1989, meeting. This is Phase
n, of the industrial subdivision. It is approximately 60 acres, the balance of the project, the
------
~
.,---- '---- .-'
'1
-"
-"",-".-.."
...
total project being approximately 80 acres, 20 Lots total of which 13 lots are in Phase II.
We reviewed the engineering issues at the April 18th, 1989 meeting and the project was tabled
at that point to allow the SEQRA process to be completed. Since then we have received some
additional engineering comments from Clough Harbour, which we have responded to in the
May 5th, 1989, letter. We have requested specific waivers from; (1) pertaining to run off for
storm water calculations based on our judgement the nature of the sandy solid require a lesser
. . .than what was applied. (2) Request that the storm sewers follow the alignment of the curve
roads rather than following a straight line so that we can maintain a constants separation
between the mobilities and the storm sewers. It is my understanding that their is an agreement
that has been reached with the Town Board, pertaining to the exchange of rights-of-ways
between Northern and the Town. Understands that it has been verbally agreed to.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See attached.
DISCUSSION HELD
JOHN GORALSKI-The right-of-way question, I spoke with Paul Dusek, and he said that the
Board and Northern Distributing, have come to a verbal agreement. Now it is just a matter
of getting the paper work done on that.
PETER CONWAY-Would like to make a clarification. At the April 18th, 1989 meeting, Rist
Frost had asked if we addressed all of our comments for preliminary submission, we have revised
the plans and submitted the revised plans. From the revised plans with our additional comments
they were mean't to satisfy final approval. We went ahead and submitted final comments
in no way should it affect our preliminary approval.
FRANK DESANTIS-Asked if they have submitted answers to your final comments?
PETER CONWAY-Correct.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BRENDA STEVENS-29 Third Street, South Glens Falls, owns property near this project. My
concern is that your looking at the overall project right now dividing it into lots means nothing
its what were going to put on the lots that's going to count. When they start selling off these
lots or whatever, is it going to be looked at as a total project again, so that the impact on
the air, noise, water. . .
FRANK DESANTIS-The process is that each lot at this stage essentially is what they tell us
is that it can hold a maximum size building, with maximum parking, for that size lot in
accordance with whatever ordinance. Then when someone buys a lot they have to get site
plan approval, for their specific lot, their specific plan, their specific building.
BRENDA STEVENS-Does it ever include the lots as total?
FRANK DESANTIS-No. We don't know when the building are coming in.
HILDA MANN-These things that are being addressed right now are in the sense of the overall
drainage pattern, the maximum number of cars that each one of those lots can hold, they are
all being figured in right now. We don't know some may hold less, but they have to come up
with a design that has the maximum number of cars that will go onto this property.
BRENDA STEVENS-I'm more concerned with the type of industry that is going to go in there,
and the pollution that is going to be involved.
HILDA MANN-Each one of those buildings will be reviewed, from that standpoint absolutely.
FRANK DESANTiS-It is zoned light industrial, so you have various uses that aren't permitted
in the zone even if we create the subdivision. Its just not allowable in the zone without a
variance which is another Board, which is another public hearing.
BRENDA STEVENS-Thank you.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-87,1989 Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Hilda Mann:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning board an application for: Subdivision No.
6-87, Northern Distributing, Phase II, Preliminary Stage, and
--...--'
"-- -"
"---
f
--/.)
"
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BElT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
None. Everyone was notified and no one steps forward.
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a listed action, Type I action, under 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 applicant. A full
Environmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment
Form reviewed and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed thed relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the critera for determining whether a project has a significnant
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 Boards 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 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
DISCUSSION HELD
PETER CONWAY-Based on what is proposed the traffic numbers were generated recently,
however, as the project progresses I would suggest to the Board that they may want to monitor
to insure that the traffic generation as it increases at some point in time their may have to
be certain types of improvements made.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-87, NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING, PHASE 0,
Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
To approve on the basis that it has satisfied our requirement to date concerning the subdivision
along the property.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
SUBDMSION NO. 9-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED, SFR-20, SKETCH PLAN, CLINE MEADOW
DEVELOPMENT WEST OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD, NORTH OF CLINE DRIVE, EAST OF
EVERTS A VENUE TO SUBDIVIDE INTO 5 HALF ACRE LOTS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER
OF PROPERTY AND TWO LARGER 6TH AND 7TH LOTS ENCOMPASSING 17 ACRES OF
LAND IN AND OUT OF THE WETLANDS AREA TO SELL AS PRIVATE ESTATES. THE 5
HALF ACRE LOTS WILL BE SOLD FOR SINGLE F AMIL Y CONSTRUCTION SITES, 2 LOTS
OF WmCH WILL BE PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANTS SUBDIVIDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THmR PERSONAL RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS:
7 LOT SIZE: 20 ACRES
'-'
--.../
'-\......-.--'
'I
-J
"
LEON STEVES VANDUSEN AND STEVES REPRESENTING KERRY GIRARD
LEON STEVES-Last month several issues were raised being; (1) D.E.C., I think Staff has
addressed those issues. We have talked with D.E.C., who has reviewed the project. (2) The
entrances to Lot 6, we have addressed that by putting in an easement. I talked with the Zoning
Administrator, who has no problems. We have demonstrated Lot 10 being that it has a 40 ft.
. . .from the Town Road by having a 50 ft. by 75 ft. easement as you enter that road for the
purpose of ingress and egress, she has no problem with that.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, See attached.
DISCUSSION HELD
JOHN GORALSKI-Refers to staff notes regarding water and sewer services. Spoke with Tom
Flaherty, he said as long as it has the required separation distances he has no problem with
the way the service is being brought into the site. Spoke with Al Koechlein of D.E.C. today,
it was stated that as far as he could tell it appears that the survey map does represent the
flagging that he did on the site.
LEON STEVES-Familiar with the Wetland Protection form, under the Ordinance I believe it
is a matter of applying to the Town Board, for this permit. Asked if their were changes under
the regulations to apply to this Board?
PAUL DUSEK-The regulation has been adopted by the Town. The Town Ordinance actually
indicates that the application for permit should be completed to the Town first who in turn
would submit it to the Planning Board. Their is no Town Board involvement in this.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Town Engineer, See attached.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent, dated May 9, 1989, (on file) Letter from
Thomas Hall, Environmental Analyst, dated May 11th, 1989, (on file).
DISCUSSION HELD
LEON STEVES-Refers to Paul Naylor's letter. Agreed that their is no intent of the Highway
Department to obtain that easement.
FRANK DESANTIS-Made suggestion that on the 75 foot easement of the south of the property.
Asked if he could come up with a better way of labeling it, instead of undeveloped street on
his approved map?
LEON STEVES-Has no problem with this.
PETER CARTIER-Asked if on Lot #6 if the wedge that was left in there was it for the access
to the roadway?
LEON STEVES-Yes, for two reasons; (1) To demonstrate that we do have that access to the
road, (2) To show that we have the frontage. We have 300 feet of frontage on Everts Avenue,
but that is not the access to the lot.
PETER CARTIER-Asked that now that he has access to Lot 6, which is what the wedge is
designed to do, do you need that wedge?
JOHN GORALSKI-In the Zoning Ordinance, it says that you need 40 feet of frontage on a public
road. They have to maintain that wedge to meet the Zoning requirements.
LEON STEVES-We don't mind putting a restriction in there that no fences could be allowed
in that area. We could make it appear to be a separate ownership. The Queensbury Sewer
District Regulations exempt properties in wetlands greater than five acres, taking this into
consideration we are splitting the wetland into two and not having five acres on anyone lot.
Thinks that on the preliminary application we would modify the plan at least to the area of
Lot 6 and put all the wetlands on one lot as much as possible. We would allow that individual
to have that exemption.
FRANK DESANTIS-Asked if he was talking about moving the line between Lot #7 and Lot
# 6, to lessen the size of Lot #7, and increase the size of Lot #6?
'--
~--
/1
--......r'
"
LEON STEVES-Correct.
FRANK DESANTIS-Doesn't have a problem with the specific lot layout of that boundary line
between those two lots in that area.
KEITH JABLONSKI-On Lot #6 on the wetland, their is nothing that says the owner couldn't
fill in i of an acre to create i acre more of backyard.
LEON STEVES-We will address this on the permanent application to the Town, and D.E.C.
FRANK DESANTIS-Asked that on the final plat that is filed we like to see the wetland
restrictions in reference to a file permit so any purchaser would be on a record as to the
restrictions to that land.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1989, CLINE MEADOW DEVELOPMENT,lntroduced
by Joseph Dybass who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann:
To approve having meet the requirements and to note the restrictions as mentioned.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
SITE PLAN NO. 29-89, TYPE ß, MR-5, WORCLO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. NW CORNER
OF BAY ROAD AND WALKER LANE, FROM QUAKER ROAD, NORTH ON BAY ROAD,
APPROX. I MILE TO WALKER LANE, PROPERTY IS AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF
INTERSECTION. FOR ADDmONAL OFFICE SPACE (GENERAL AND PRIVATE) GENERAL:
1,881 SQ FT., OTHER/RESTROOM AND COFFEE ROOM: 112 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING) SECTION 4.020 F LOT SIZE: .771 ACRES
MICHAEL O'CONNOR/ LEO BOYLE PRESIDENT OF WORLCO MANAGEMENT/ED EPIC/NICK
SARTELLI PRESENT
MIKE O'CONNOR-We addressed the questions that were raised on April 24th, 1989. At that
time your consultants had a question as to the number of persons using the septic facilities,
and the designed detail of the perc test of the facility. We submitted the old building permit
that was issued for the original septic system, felt that the designed information on this would
be sufficient to establish what the capacities of the existing facilities were. We had a perc
test performed by Morse Engineering. Mr. Sartelli, did some calculations as to the septic design
and capacity we are talking about a building that has eight employees, planning on nine
employees. The calculations came back some place in the area of twenty. As to the capacity
of the present existing sewage facility that is on site it is not their intention to disturb this.
As to the other question pertaining to the water main easement allowed for gravel parking
over the water main, we supplied the Planning Department with a copy of that easement.
You asked for a revised grade plan with drainage calculations and storm water management.
We did revise the site plan as having it show the present grades and the proposed grades on
one map showing cross cuts of the hard surface parking lot that we're going to put in, the gravel
parking lot that we're going to install upon it. We had the calculations as to what the 1,6093
square foot addition plus the addition to the parking space would reduce in the way of run
off and would it be contained on site. We've supplemented that by a second set of calculations
their was some conversation between Morse Engineering, and Rist Frost, where they seem
to be in agreement.
ENGINEER REPORT
THOMAS NACE-Letter was written before some of the additional correspondence took place.
Since he has received the perc test that was requested plus a letter detailing the actual capacity
of the tile fields. Also received storm water calculations that provide the detail that he was
looking for.
FRANK DESANTIS-Asked Tom Nace, if he was satisfied with the information?
THOMAS NACE-Yes.
STAFF INPUT
JOHN GORALSKI-The problems that the Board had at the last meeting were engineering
---.../
"
~--
. ___/;2
problems, the things that we brought up have been addressed.
DISCUSSION HELD
FRANK DESANTIS-Asked if there was going to be additional exterior lighting on the addition?
MIKE O'CONNOR-Mr. Boyle, indicated that he does not plan to add any additional lighting
then what's there.
MOTION TO APPROVE . SITE PLAN NO. 29-89, WORLCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC.,Introduced by Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybass:
To approve the addition of office space, previous issues have been addressed.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1988, BEDFORD CLOSE, SECTION 6, CHANGE IN MAP APPROVAL
OF APRIL 18, 1989.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See attached.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to Donald Wood, from Roger Gebo, dated May ll, 1989, (See attached) Letter to Richard
Roberts, from Paul Naylor (See attached)
DISCUSSION HELD
FRANK DESANTIS-Asked Tom Nace, if he looked at this?
TOM NACE-What their asking for is some additional dry wells out along Corinth Road. This
does not significantly alter the way in which the drainage system functions.
MOTION TO APPROVE TO AMEND THE FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1988,
BEDFORD CLOSE, SECTION 6, Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Joseph Dybass:
To amend the final plat to incorporate the stipulations incorporated in the permit issued by
the Warren County Department of Public Works.
Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. DeSantis
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Macri, Mr. Roberts
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Richard Roberts, Chari man
--.
--
FILE COP
..,I
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
--......,/
May 15, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE YORK, PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision 1-1989
Applicant/Project Name: Hughes Subdivision
This subdivision was tabled at the preliminary stage for
further information as listed by staff.
We have received the following correspondence; a letter
from the Zoning Administration regarding work being done on a
subdivision prior to approval, a letter from Tom Flaherty re-
garding installation of the water line into an unapproved
subdivision, a letter from Paul Naylor stating he has no prob-
lems to the curve radius on the road.
The Planning Board in April tabled the application until
the staff comments were satisfied. In comparing the Engineering
notes from April 14 and May II, the following issues remain
unaddressed:
I) Paved wing swales are not provided for in the
cross section (#2)
2) There are remaining questions on the septic
systems (113)
3) There remains a question on the separation dis-
tances between the septic systems and storm water detention
areas. This could affect the layout of 5 of the lots. (#4)
A further continuing staff concern is that the storm water
will be carried via a drainage ditch to Old Maid's Brook (letter
from Fred Austin attached). Old MaW's Brook is a AAT stream
and I would recommend that the developer get some indication
from DEC that there is no problem with this.
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
'-
~
-----
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804·972S-S18~192-S832
FILE cor
..I
- -...-'
I have attached the April 14th notes from Mr. Nace and
his May 11th notes for your review. The applicant received the
notes and has not satisfied the staff concerns as instructed
in the motion by the Board. Under these circumstances, I
would have to recommend an extension of the Tabling action
until they can provide the necessary information.
LY/pw
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
"-
F ìSOCIATES, PC
"'-,.. NG ENGINEERS
rid 'COpy
P'~
J'
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS, NY
12801
518, 793,4141
--'0/..- ,
- :r:~' \ IF'
"-'¡,}.~ t( \. ! i:. ! ~
~ ~,
198~ ...,
--.....,.,;
'--- ~
-, ."c.,~: & ZON
- ;-." J'. "'-~' :'f¡J""
Apri 1 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.
([)j 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 swa1e on one side and the Final
Plans show no wing swa1e. Drainage catchment should be
provided in the wing swales.
ß) Fi 11 systems are proposed for all subsurface di sposa1
.- fields. Final 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.
ø
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 p1 an has been submitted and does
provide for satisfactory on-site detention of storm water.
The des i gner 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 re1 ate to any of the proposed storm drainage
facil ities.
* GLENS FALLS. NY, LACONIA. NH
pt~
\
P'
'-
'5QCIATES, PC.
~G ENGINEERS
.,/
'...........-
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS. NY
12801
518'793-4141
--..~~'
May 11, 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 Stage
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above project and have the following
comments:
1. We understand that the Town Highway Department has reviewed
the street layout and has no objection to the curve radius.
O"paved wing swales have not been provided on the road cross-
j sect ion.
~ NYS Health Department regulations require that the slower of
-,.' the average percol at ion rates for nat ive soil s or fill
material shall be used for design in a fill system. Based
on the perc rates provided, the systems are somewhat
undersized.
~
Based on NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
standards, a minimum horizontal separation of 50 feet is
recommended between sept ic fill systems and storm water
drainage ways and detention areas. This requirement will
affect the final layout of lots 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10.
We have no further comments on the storm water management
pl an.
Very truly yours,
5.
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~~__ W"~<-
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Town Planning Board Members
@ GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH
PØ'~
F
îQCIATES, P.C.
,.3 ENGINEERS
\
'-
"-.--
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS, NY
12801
518, 793·4141
_ ,'" v· ai. __:.::..;URY
{!~;~~!J~]
~~~,
-'LANNING It ZONINC
OEPARTMENT
.~ FILE COpy
./
-..-' - -....-'
May 11, 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 Stage
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above project and have the following
comments:
1. We understand that the Town Highway Department has reviewed
the street layout and has no objection to the curve radius.
2. Paved wing swales have not been provided on the road cross-
section.
3. NYS Health Department regulations require that the slower of
the average percolation rates for native soils or fill
material shall be used for design in a fill system. Based
on the perc rates provided, the systems are somewhat
undersized.
4. Based on NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
standardst a minimum horizontal separation of 50 feet is
recommended between sept ic fill systems and storm water
drainage ways and detention areas. This requirement will
affect the final layout of lots 2, 3, 6, 9 and 10.
5. We have no further comments on the storm water management
plan.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
\ ~ -~( l ',-.-
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Town Planning Board Members
$ GLENS FALLS. NY, LACONIA, NH
",,-
"---..- --;-
'-
~
..,.
---
TO: W. Levandowski
T. Paolicelli
W. Gannett
JOB NUMBER: 89-5000 89-501
flU oC/"i ': 0:
MEMO OF TELECON :i ~~~~lfP~
11: 30 AM TELEPHONE NUMBER: 9 ¿
-L.
T. & ZON'Nr.
"TìvlENT
RFA
DATE: April 26, 1989 TIME:
PERSON CALLING: Jim Hutchins
REPRESENTING: Morse Engineering
PERSON CALLED:
REPRESENT! NG:
TEXT OF TELECON:
RE: Hughes Subdivision~ /v'O. ¡-/9k9 ~'
".. --.^ .------
Jim called requesting clarification of our comment on separation distances
between drainage ways and leach fields. Jim was under the impression that we
were talking about vertical clearances. I explained that our concern was the
horizontal distance between the leach fields and the storm drain system including
the bermed drainage ways which are being used for storm water detention. Jim
noted that the Town's sanitary ordinance does not specifically address drainage
ways but requires 100' clearance between leach fields and "a stream, lake or
water course". Jim questioned whether this should apply to intermittent drainage
channels and noted that the 100' appeared to be excessive for this application.
I promised to research the matter and call him back.
At approximately 12:00 p.m. I called Jim back and informed him that we would
apply the DEC sewage regulations which specifically address intermittent drainage
courses and storm water collection systems. This will require a separation
distance of 50' between the leach field and any open drainage ways or catch
basins. I told Jim that from a first glance, this would probably require a major
revision of their layout. Jim acknowledged that and stated that they would not
be able to accomplish this by the deadline for submission for the May planning
board meetings.
SIG~- LJ -~'-
DATE: CS/3/ó1
,
TWN/ma i
cr.: Ms. Lee York - Town of Queensbury Planning Department
FILE COP~.
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ,-
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
'"
-'- -.-'"
May 15, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE YORK, PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 6-87
Applicant/Project Name: Northern Distributing, Phase II
This application was tabled pending response of other
agencies on lead agency status and a request in writing
regarding waivers from Article IV B.I.C. and Article IV B.B.F.
At this time both of these have been satisfied. We have re-
ceived no requests for lead agency status from any other in-
volved agency so the Board may act in that cqpacity. A request
for the waivers is attached.
The SEQR review should take place at this meeting.
LY/pw
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
~-- ~
"'\ JClATES. PC
G ENGINEERS
.,--
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FAllS, NY
12801
518' 793·4141
FILE coPt ~-~/
i l(l~ãwr~Yì
.~ MAY t 19~!:i ~L
~
~LANN'NG & ZON'NC:
DEPARTMENT
May 5, 1989
RFA #86-1993
Town of Queensbury
Planning Board
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Att: Mr. Richard Roberts
Ref: Northern Distributing Subdivision - Phase 2
Subdivision No. 6-87 - Preliminary Plans
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This letter is in response to the Clough-Harbor and Associates
letter of April 25, 1989 which was the second letter conwnenting
on the revised preliminary plans submitted March 29.
Our project was cons idered at the April 18 Pl ann ing Board
Meet ing; no act ion was taken to allow the SEQR rev iew to be
completed for the May agenda. The April 25 letter was not
received until April 26, which is the submission deadline for
May; therefore it would not have been possible for our office to
provide updated plans for consideration at the May meeting.
The technical comments are relatively minor in nature and the
plans submitted for final approval will reflect these comments.
The following is a discussion of the points raised in the
Clough-Harbor letter:
1. In 1 ine water val ves were shown at Stat ion 24 + 30 and
Station 34 + 80. One (1) additional valve will be added.
2. Additional catch basins will be shown.
3. The dry well detail will be modified.
4. Invert and frame elevations were specified on the details
in reference to the invert of the wing swale; however
additional data will be shown.
5. Hydrant locations are within the right-of-way and will be
clarified.
" GLENS FALLS, NY ·lACONlA. NH
tt.
J~
'-
FILE Qpy
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Att: Mr. Richard Roberts
May 5, 1989
RFA #86-1993
Page 2
6, 7, 8 and 9. An amended drainage report has been prepared
which addresses these questions and is attached to this letter.
10. No response required.
Storm Water Management
A rev i sed Storm Water Management report is i nc 1 uded and the
modifications discussed therein will be shown on the final
plans. Additional catch basins and storm sewers have been added
to ma inta in a 300-foot spac ing for catch bas ins. The storm
water retention concept is essentially unchanged: A combination
of absorption through the dry well and perforated pipe
connecting the catch basins, along with storage volume within
the system is used to manage developed runoff. In fact, the
method of sizing the facilities is conservative since all runoff
and not just the increased runoff from development is dissipated
into the sandy soils on site.
Upon review of the Town drainage Standards, an evaluation was
made of the "C" factor for runoff. Based on references attached
to the drainage report (V.T. Chow; Hydraulic Determination of
Waterway Areas for the Design of Drainage Structures in Small
Drainage Basins and Baltimore County Design Standards as well as
engineering judgement) we propose a "C" value of .15 for the
existing conditions in the sandy soil. This is still somewhat
conservative in that the cited references use "C" values ranging
from .05 to .12 for sandy soils at flat slopes for lawn areas.
Furthermore, the bulk of this site is wooded with substantial
undergrowth and forest liter which would have a lower "C" value
than lawn.
To sUll1llarize, the drainage report provides for on-site storm
water management of all runoff resulting from subdivision
construction by means of dry wells, catch basins and perforated
pipe in trenches; a concept which has been used throughout the
western portion of Town. As noted before, each individual site
will be responsible for storm water management associated with
development for that lot. The proposed drainage system will
adequately manage on-site storm water and conform to the intent
of the Town Standards and good engineering practice.
--.../
---
,
~
.'~
-,
-.....-/'------"
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Att: Mr. Richard Roberts
May 5, 1989
RFA #86-1993
Page 3
In keeping with Planning Board policy, we formally request
waivers from the following parts of the subdivision regulations:
Article VIII I.2.b. A runoff co-efficient less than 0.35
is justified for the sandy soils based on engineering judgement
and actual percolation tests.
Article VIII I.3.e. The storm sewers connecting catch
basins are perforated, corrugated polyethylene pipe which can be
laid in smooth curves. The polyethylene pipe meets the
requirements for H-20 1 ive load and is approved by the NYS
Department of Transportat ion. The advantage of match ing the
road curve with the storm sewer is that a constant separation
can be maintained between storm sewer and water main.
We will be happy to discuss these items if you have any further
questions. We believe that all the pertinent comments have been
addressed and, on behalf of Northern Distributing, request the
Board's approval of this project.
Very truly yours,
~/'/~.'
/' ,./
;' //
ayn~n.tt. P.E.
Manag ng Project Engineer
P.C.
WG:mg
Enclosures: Clough-Harbor Letter dated 4/25/89 (14)
Storm Water Management Report (14)
cc: Mr. John Carey - Northern Distributing (w/encs.)
"
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
- --,,' --
FILE COpy
May 10, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision 9-1989
Applicant/Project Name: Cline Meadow Development
This application was tabled at the April meeting because
of these issues. Access to lot 6, water and sewer service to
lot 6, and a Lead Agency determination by D.E.C.
The access to lot 6 has been amended on the new submittal.
The applicant proposes to construct a driveway across a 50' x
75' easement. This easement will be across privately owned
property indicated as undeveloped street. The Planning Board
should require a copy of the signed easement before granting
final approval.
Tom Flaherty, Queensbury Water Superintendent, is reviewing
the water and sewer services.
D.E.C. has determined that a Wetlands report will be required.
They also concur with the Queensbury Planning Board acting as
Lead Agency.
It should be noted that a permit is required under the
Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Protection Law. An
application has been submitted.
JG/pw
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, ' . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
'r:
..~
p
"
3OCIATES, pc.
NG ENGINEERS
-'-:-
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS. NY
12801
518· 793-4141
.... í;~", .j( \J'-'.....:1'!~8URY
¡~ lM]W ç-"
.~ MAY12fJl~
~
;)LANNING & v INC"
OEPARTMENT
FILE COpy
- -- --'
May 11, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Cline Meadow Development - Subdivision No. 9-1989
Sketch Plan
Dear Ms. York:
We have the following comments on the above-referenced project:
1. The current layout shows the Lot 6 driveway crossing the
sewer easement which makes for a better layout in relation
to adjacent Lot 5. We assume the developer will obtain an
easement to use this water and sewer easement for driveway
purposes.
2. If flood plain information is available this should be noted
on the drawing.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOÇIATES, P.C.
¡
,~l( .
-_.~._-,....
. '\'. ~.-
'- - . -..
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Town Planning Board Members
$ GLENS FALLS. NY, LAOONIA. NH
'-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
FILE C~
- ----
,.~,.,
~\:,-.
MAY 1 6 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 13-1988
Applicant/Project Name: Bedford Close, Section 6
This subdivision has been added to the agenda because of the changes in the map
approved by the Planning Board on April 18, 1989. The approval of the Planning Board
was contingent on a permit from WatTen County DPW. The permit from WatTen County
catTied with it conditions which modified the approved plat. I have attached the
modifications. We have letters from Roger Gebo and Paul Naylor regarding the changes.
I have also asked Tom Nace to respond to the changes made.
LA Y /sed
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
WARREI" ~OUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ~UeLJC WORKS
('$BURG OFFICES
'- "ain Street
'- Jurg, N.Y. 12885
,-",í.S 18·623·4141
518·761·6556
Superintendent's Office
Highway Division
Parks and Recreation
Airport Administration
Equipment Maintenance
Engineering
Hatchery Administration
MUNICIPAL CENTER
Lake George. N.Y. _
./
- ......,,---"
Civil Defense and Natural Disaster Tel. 518.761.6490
Buildings and Grounds Tel. 518.761.6494
County Energy Office Tel. 518.761.6490
FRED AUSTIN, P.E.
Supt. Public Works
ROGER GEBO
PETER BROWN
Dept. Supts., Public Works
WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT
County Line Road
Glens Falls, N.Y. 12801
Tel. 518·792·5995
..,d v~ ,"",' --":~3UFW
) jãCèJ~aWr~íjì
. \~ MAY 1 ' ~!j~~
fILE COpy 'LA~~~~~~~INc; ,
"'" i \X it 'c,-i '-1..---... /0 C
, J-',~-- ./ll..'
May 11, 1989
Starburst Development Corp.
12 Washington St.
Glens Falls, NY 12801
Attn: Donald C. Wood
RE: Permit Nos. 88-37, 88-38,
88-39, 88-40 and 88-41
-::> I .
.-) - ::"'i\ '".
- ('-' :J
Dear Mr. Wood:
This department reviewed the amended storm drainage and erosion control
plan for Section 6, Bedford Close (sheet r2 of 9) and we found that the
revisions meet the requirements of the above referred-to permits.
Please notify this office two days prior to starting construction.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
n.-<~ ~Lo
Roger Gebo
Dep. Superintendent
Warren County DPW
RG:lb
"
Say at Haviland Roads
ijJøfun of «)ul!l!nøbnr¡¡ ~igl¡fun¡¡ ¿II1! lnrtment
Office Phone 518-793-7771
Queenlbury, New York 12801
-- ~'--'
"-
'----
PAUL H, NAYLOR
Superintendent Highways
DATE:
i)~ilw~ft\
'~ MAY 1~89~¡
;)LANNING~ ZONIN~
DEPARTMENT
May 11, 1989
RICHARD A. MISSITA
Deputy Superintendent Highways
FROM:
RICHARD ROBERTS,
CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING BOARD
fILE COpy
£Wli.A ð1L~
{~ -/9yg
TO:
RE:
PAUL H. NAYLOR
HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT
BEDFORD CLOSE
ThE> drain;¡ge system on Corinth Road belongs to the Town of
Queensbury, We maintain that system and the new section of
hook up to OUr system, except for the stipulations set forth
close to a reality. So for your record it will be allowed to
Bedford Close due to numerous discussions with many people is
by the County D.P.W.
R~ctfully, '.
// ~~
.. ~~. '.--.
/;fc:Jp ~ -.
~
" Paul H. Naylor,
( Queensbury Highway Superintendent