1989-06-20
"
~.-
--"
,.¡
-../~
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20TH, 1989
INDEX
Site Plan No. 3-1989 Brooks Teele 1.
Subdivision No. 5-1989 Cross Road Park, Phase I 3.
Subdivision No. 10-1989 Clarence and Cara Beames 10.
Subdivision No. 6-87 Northern Distributing, Phase II II.
Final Stage
Subdivision No. 6-87 Northern Distributing, Phase I 12.
Modification
Site Plan No. 27-89 Pro-Craft Excavating, Inc. 13.
Site Plan No. 24-89 Adirondack Industrial Park 14.
Site Plan No. 30-89 Dr. Shimon Shalit 15.
Subdivision No. 9-1989 Cline Meadow Development 19.
Freshwater Wetlands Permit Daniel and Emma Johnson 23.
~"
"-
----
'-./-,/
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20TH, 1989
7:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
HILDA MANNt SECRETARY
FRANK DESANTIS
VICTOR MACRI
PETER CARTIER
JOSEPH DYBAS
KEITH JABLONSKI
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
TOWN ENGINEER-THOMAS NACE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
DAVE HATIN, DIRECTOR BUILDING AND CODES ENFORCEMENT
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 25, 1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD AS SUBMITTED
RESOLVED TQ APPROVE THE MAY 2ND, 1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD AS SUBMITTED
RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 16, 1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD AS SUBMITTED
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
May 23rd, 1989 Regular Meeting: Page 3, Mr. Roberts, traffic that now parks on Western Avenue
backs into a more adequate parking area sib parking in a more adequate paring area. Page
5, middle of page Graham Roberts, sib Graham Franks, Page 8, Joseph Dybas, good convenient
store sib couldn't of picked a better one.
RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 23RD, 1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD AS CORRECTED
RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 23RD, 1989 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY
PLANNING BoARD AS SUBMITTED
ZONING CHANGES
MR. DESANTIS...Asked if this means that the Planning Board's recommendation is in front of
the Town Board now on these matters?
MR. DUSEK-Stated it may come back to the Planning Board as one of the technical
requirements, but you have reviewed each one of these the Board has acknowledge the opinions
that were rendered on these.
MOTION TO ACCEPT RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOWN BOARD TO ASSUME LEAD
AGENCY STATUS WITH REGARD TO PETITIONS FOR CHANGE OF ZONE REGARDING
PETITION NO. PI-89, DUNHAM'S BAY FISH AND GAME CLUB, PETITION NO. 2-89,
GARFIELD RAYMOND, PETITION NO. 4-89, WALTER C. AND MARIE J. FISHER.
SITE PLAN NO. 3-1989 D. BROOKS TEELE
DA VE HA TIN-Requested that the Board review the site plan because of a question that has
been raised by one of the neighbors about a second story that is on this dwelling. In the
application that was before the Board and the minutes that he read there is no mention of
a second story on this dwelling, however, if you look in the long environmental assessment
form there is a building height that is 28 feet. On the building permit that he sent to the Board
is was listed as two stories. The neighbors have objections to the two stories. Asked the Board
to review this.
MR. DUSEK-Stated that to clarify the legal issues to the Board on the building permit that
has been issued the record upon which it was issued has not reflected the second story of the
1
----
",
,,--.~
~. J
--./
building. It is his OpInIOn that the Board should be asked first for a clarification of whether
or not they intended to approve a second story as well as the addition on the building that
~s presently going up on the site. If it is not possible for the Board to give a clarification then
It would be my recommendation that a new notice of public hearing be done and the Board
deal with the matter at the next meeting.
MRS. YORK-Stated that the application never said that it was going to be a separate story,
but Mr. Teele, did address the board a couple times. We asked the Board if they would like
to look at his plans.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that the application did say 28 feet high.
MRS. YORK-Right, on the environmental assessment form it indicated that.
JEFF FRIEDLAND-With the law firm of Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, representing the Boyd's
who own the property to the south of this property, their residence is 23 feet away from Mr.
Teele's. We have a building permit for a addition and remodeling and what the applicant has
done is torn down the building and is building a new two story structure. The notice of the
public hearing of the Planning Board only spoke in terms of remodeling and adding a 28 ft.
by 22 ft. addition, it said nothing about demolishing the building. The notice published had
correctly represented what the applicant wanted to do. The notice for the Zoning Board for
the variance was written exactly the same way. The minutes of the Planning Board also spoke
only in terms of remodeling and adding a 28 ft. by 22 ft. addition. There is no discussion at
all in the minutes about demolishing the existing building, no discussion about adding the second
story. Also have looked at the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals they are the same.
The building permit itself only says "for an addition and interior renovations for the building
per the plot plan in the application", the permit says nothing about tearing down the existing
building or adding a second story. It seems that you have an applicant constructing something
that he has no approval for. It is our opinion that he should be made to go back and do it
correctly.
MRS. MANN-Asked if his client came to the meetings when Mr. Teele appeared before the
Board?
MR. FRIELAND-No.
MR. FRIELAND-Stated that the notice only spoke in terms of the addition it never said anything
about the second story.
MRS. MANN-Asked when final approval was given?
MR. HA TIN-February 28, 1989.
MR. DUSEK-Read Notice of Public Hearing. (On file)
MR. DESANTIS-Asked if what he built were the plans that were presented to this Board.
MR. HATIN-No. The building permit plans are here they are the ones that Mr. Teele had with
him that he asked the Board if they wanted to see.
MR. DUSEK-Stated all we need is if the Board feels that they took the consideration in total
height of the building then that's what we need to know.
MR. HA TIN-Read motion of approval of D. Brooks Teele, February 28, 1989.
MOTION TO CLARIFY SITE PLAN NO. 3-89, D. BROOKS TEELE ,Introduced by Joseph Dybas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier:
When the site plan was considered by the Planning Board we also considered the height of the
building and that it met with our approval.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
OLD BUSINESS
2
~
-..../
"
~
",--".-
- J
-./
SUBDMSION NO. 5-1989, MR-5 RR-3A, PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED, CROSS
ROADS PARK, PHASE 1 INTERSECTION OF BAY ROAD AND HAVILAND ROAD ACROSS
FROM THE TOWN HALL FOR A 6 ACRE OFFICE PARK, REMAINDER OF PARCEL WILL
REMAIN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34 LOT SIZE: 36± ACRES
FRANK DESANTIS REPRESENTING BAY ASSOCIATES/ROBERT LEAVER ENGINEER
ENGINNER REPORT
Thomas Nace, (See attached)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, (On file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. DESANTIS-Stated that the Board has a wavier request in front of them, it covers the
cuI da sac question that has been raised not being able to use a scale to the same degree of
efficiency. Stated that it is their intention to use it as it is currently zoned as MR-5 which
is a multifamily residential zone allowing the density of one dwelling unit per 5,000 sq. ft.
However, along Bay Road this particular zone for the Town of Queensbury for a depth of 1,000
feet on either side of Bay Road, according to the Zoning Ordinance allows professional offices.
Explained what they proposed to do in Phase I. They intend to develop 5 lots as professional
offices lots. The intention is to bring a road in which commences 300 feet west of the
intersection of Bay and Blind Rock Roads, which would proceed in a semi-circle around the
property should future phases be developed. The current depth of this road is link with this
450 feet pavement, there will be a temporary cuI da sac. The current ordinance requires that
this cuI da sac be of a certain width, they also require that this cuI da sac be paved. We hope
to develop the property in the near future, we have asked for a wavier from that requirement
and ask that we just be allowed to gravel that area. The lots vary in size from the largest
lot being 1.45 acres, to the smallest lot being .588 acres, the usage will be regulated by deeded
restrictions upon the property. There will be no off premises signs allowed, if someone was
to purchase a lot from Bay Associates, they would have to come back with their specific plans
for site plan approval. Stated that they are showing the typical size of the buildings as maximum
that could be built on the lots. Currently there are no set plans as to how to use the rest of
the property. The lots will be serviced by inground septic with hope that at some point the
sewer district will extend to this point this property is in the current water district and is
in the proposed mapping of the sewer district extension. In general it takes storm water drainage
from the site as built out to the maximum proposal and directs it in a northwesterly direction
through a catch basin and brought along a pipe to this point (refers to map), and then in a wide
swale that brings it towards the existing wet area just northeast of the existing pond with
the intention the swale will contain up to a 50 year storm for the ordinance and allow the storm
water runoff to percolate into the soil and undertake its existing drainage pattern and eventually
go back up into the pond into the existing drainage pattern. The plans involve some screening
and planting particularly with attention to the one existing dwelling which is bound to Mr.
West, we agreed to plant trees on both sides of him. A 100 foot buffer is designed all the way
around the pond.
MR. LEAVER-Stated that the trip generation should be 85. Comment #l of the engineer report,
believes at the time of construction this will be at field position it will have to be addressed
at that time.
MR. N ACE-Stated that he could show this at final to give some idea of the extent of that.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if the applicant has to come back with four items?
MR. NACE-Hasn't had a chance to review the request. He doesn't think the design in any of
the four areas are unreasonable at this point. Hasn't reviewed the wavier request itself.
MRS. MANN-Feels that a traffic light at this intersection is very important before any
development goes in there.
MR. DUSEK-Stated that the light is definitely scheduled to be put in.
MR. NACE-Stated that it may be in sometime in the winter.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JERRY THORNE-32 Blind Rock Road. What was your interpretation on the review of this
project?
3
~
"
'--
-~
MR. DUSEK-Long form review.
MR. THORNE-Long form review is that a review of the overall concept here?
MR. DUSEK-The overall concept.
MR. THORNE-Your going to review everything they propose to do including. . .Phase I?
MR. ROBERTS-That's correct under the SEQRA, the New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
MR. THORNE-On the traffic, the traffic count I heard the number, but I don't understand.
MRS. YORK-The traffic is listed here in the environmental assessment form the maximum
vehicular trips generated per hour is 85.
MR. THORNE-That would be for Phase I or is that for the overall dwelling. . .01' what?
MR. DESANTIS-The proposal is not for a housing development it never has been. I have
somewhat of a problem because to ask, and I'll refer this to you Paul, to ask for a SEQRA on
something that's not proposed is pretty difficult to answer. We did not list on the first drawings
any housing units that you now see here. This is directly in response to a request that was
made by staff to show something that we did not propose and what is resulted if we continue
on the line of thought is, well now its on the map, now we need to address it in SEQRA and
it isn't addressed, your absolutely correct it has not been addressed. I've discussed with the
people, I've sent letters to everybody within 500 feet, I've invited everybody to contact me
and I know I've talked to several of you. I have stressed with all of them that this was a
requirement to be placed on the map by the staff and the Planning Board, its not part of the
proposal. For me to say to you what the traffic is going to be as a result of these 80 units
to me is a ludicrous request because I don't propose to build any of these. That's why the
information that you see only addresses what's proposed. I can understand the Board saying
what could you possible do with the rest of the property and that's what we attested to do,
so your going to fail to evaluate the information on the rest of the project because you don't
have any. . . I'm not saying you do, and I'm asking you to accept something that isn't there
because it was wasn't prepared because it wasn't proposed.
MR. ROBERTS-What's the acreage of the entire parcel?
MR. DESANTIS-The entire parcel that we own is 36 acres. If we were proposing to do something
with the balance it may be something else.
MR. ROBERTS-You're an unlisted action I don't think you would probably need any. . .
MR. DESANTIS-That's what I feel. The acreage included in the proposal before you that you
have the design for is 6 acres. That's where the confusion comes in quit honestly.
MR. DUSEK-Basically this is an age old problem between the planners and developers and
somewhere is this happy ground here. The question is whether or not the Board can go for
full extent requiring a full blown sketch plan of the entire proposed use of the property whatever
the potential maybe. There is some authority under SEQRA to do that. On the other hand
the developer is going to say, well I only propose to use this much I may never develop. .if
you review the project later again, of course, you have the perrogative in the second and third
Phases whatever you can hit me with SEQRA at that point. My recommendation to the Board
would be that I find that the medium ground is that the entire project is reviewed under SEQRA,
but only those aspects of the project that are currently or immediately affected by Phase
1, or could be affected by Phase I, and things that are looking like a potential development
immediately in the future. For instance, certainly anything in Phase I would be affected which
you would also want to I think look at the remainder of the parcel as far as drainage is concerned
and the impact of Phase I on the remaining part of the parcel and just generally let this thing
outline before you. I think this is left up to the discretion of the Board, however, whatever
degree that you do decide to get into this area I would want some sort of understanding or
agreement on the record by the developer that he understands that this whole process will
have to be revised at the time of any areas that are not covered in Phase II and III.
MR. DESANTIS-I have absolutely no problem with that. This has been my understanding from
the start. What I do have a problem with is what you propose should necessarily be reviewed
and as the record will show and as staff, and as the planners do despite the fact that we're
just dealing with this 6 acres these are on 2 foot contours on the entire 36 acres. Now when
you talk about how far you can stretch it, I think you need to know what the drainage is back
here to evaluate the development out here is stretching, but that's been provided. If you notice
the drainage plan that has been submitted which was on that first sheet that we showed, I
4
~
'-"
\..
/
\.....----
--~
think three of the plans that are submitted does show TAPE TURNED here is another drawing
that I know the engineers have seen where it shows the sub-catchments that Tom required,
and. they encompass an area far greater than this 6 acres that we're planning the drainage
for In a 50 year storm. So ~es, we have addressed concerns that extend beyond these six acres,
but I guess when you get mto manual or book counts of hypothetical traffic this particular
design shows ten this doesn't go all the way to the zone line. If you want to try to squeeze
in twelve maybe you could under certain designs. I don't know what you could squeeze in here
we really haven't addressed it. I think your traffic counts are going to fail, the other things
that go on the development and this other 10 acres of necessity you just don't have numbers
for. I don't have any problem on the record if we come in here for development beyond this
Phase line that we again start from scratch as the Planning Board notes, and I'll say for public
we go back to sketch plan cause its not a phased project that you object to that term that
was used. We say Phase I because obviously the Ordinance requires that we show all our
adjoining properties and we're not about to go on the record and say we will never ever during
these times develop the rest of the property, its been labeled Phase I. In terms of phases it
gives the impression that we already have a plan for Phase II, III, IV, V . .otherwise we would
have to submit it or I would be here tonight believe me after going through this I'd like to submit
five phases to you and have you give me a sketch plan on all five so I can skip that process
the next time around. I am well aware that I come back in and start at ground zero anything
beyond this line which includes sketch plan, and another public hearing for everybody whose
in the audience and all the notification procedures and another SEQRA review, so I don't have
any objection to that.
MR. ROBERTS-Certainly this is listed as unlisted because its less than 10 acres, we all know
its not an environmentally sensitive area. I think we could use the short form noting that when
we get into more of the project will look at SEQRA much more closely obviously.
MR. DUSEK-The only concern that I have is that all of your applications are geared towards
long form. I would recommend that be continued.
MR. MACRI-The short form doesn't require as much information since we have that information.
MR. DESANTIS-The application itself on this kind of thing calls for a long form. If I had
submitted a short form application which I think would have been more appropriate I would
have never had a complete application which means we would never have been on the agenda
to review the information that you have before you.
MRS. MANN-I think there is a danger here too, that we give great discussion about what is
the potential propose thing on the property while we all want to know what the potential for
the property is and what is the potential buildout maybe that the next time there is a meeting
somebody is going to come in and say, but he said he is going to put in this many townhouses
and now you've changed it, and. . .
MR. ROBERTS-The SEQRA is only for Phase I.
MR. DUSEK-To clarify that you want to also. . .take a look at what Phase I is doing to the
rest of the parcel from that extent SEQRA review comes in. The second thing that I want
to emphasize to the Board is that the long form EAF to do that form certainly you can't do
anything wrong by doing that form, to do less than that I suppose a lot of the Planning Board's
might mention that half of the Planning Board's in the area are not using the short form they
are going directly because of the wealth of information it has for you, and because of the ease
of which you could review it. It takes a little longer, but you certainly can't. . .in using it.
MR. ROBERTS-Council says we will use the long form.
MR. THORNE-Having reviewed this with Mr. DeSantis, from yesterday one of the things that
I took a hard look at is the drainage, storm water runoff from this development and any propose
. .. He is actually utilizing the whole 30 some odd acres to get over into what we call wetland
area. . .drains into a pond. . .a number of years and also come out a brook.
MR. ROBERTS-All of this is in future phases.
MR. THORNE-Right now he is proposing to have built this drainage swale you're talking about.
What I'm concerned about is how much water is this going to generate and what effect is that
going to have as it comes down the tributary to me. Down stream to that the other side of
it is my property the brook out of that pond is going to cross me within 80 feet of that brook
Jocation I have two wells, spring wells, I'm concerned about if this is going to impact on me.
What kind of effect, has anybody calculated what kind of a runoff this is going to have.
MR. ROBERTS-I'm confused as to where the drainage is going to go?
5
-.....-
-----~
'-
/
'--
-~.
MR. THORNE-Its brought up into the wetland area and then in drains down into the pond and
then from the pond it goes. In a 50 year storm based on how much of the area is covered
what kind of water is that can somebody tell me what kind of effect will that have on m;
property. When I look out at my brook next spring when the spring runoff will I not see any
change or am I going to see a flood in my backyard?
MR. DESANTIS-This is the drainage plan, I went over this with Mr. Thorne, as I said. Addressing
the drainage what we intend to do is there is a low point on the property which is about here
in the propose highway. (refers to map) The low point is right here, if you have a sub-catchment
plan that shows their is one sub-catchment that encompasses half of the corner lot that goes
to a dry well in this corner, that is addressed by this dry well. The balance of the phase and
almost the balance of the rest of the property as I look at that map including all of Mr. West's
property, part of the property to the north all drains and we will essentially catch it in this
drop inlet which is planned to be placed in the center of the road right here. Then the design
is that there will be a pipe that takes it between Lots 4 and 5, to the phase line then the. .
.that Tom addressed begins. Their is a swale design that essentially that swale will take the
water in a continuation of this northeast line and then take it farther northeast. Ineffectively
what it is I'm not going to use the correct engineering term, but a retention basin as opposed
to a detention basin, doesn't have an inlet and outlet structure its just a swale. Its quite wide
its about 1000 feet wide, its over 100 feet wide back here. It is graded out so that in a 50 year
storm the water from this whole area will be caught rather than just let it come down onto
Blind Rock Road, and cause the intended problems its going to be caught and directed up in
this direction. There is a marshy area right here shown on the drawing, there is a brook that
comes into this pond that I don't have a name for and then the culverts that Mr. Thorne, is
referring to are down here as a outlet and they outlet on the otherside. As he described the
current culvert in this pond are two, one is 12 inch and I think the other one is 12 inches also.
The other one is 24 inches. On the other side of the road when the County improved this road,
Mr. Thorne gave me a date in the 60's, they raised the level of the road they put a 36 inch
culvert on the other side that drains onto Mr. Thorne's property, so they've intended that it
would obviously convey X amount of water. It doesn't convey it you just can't come out that
fast from the pond. The design, of course, is to leave the storm water on the property. This
retention basin is to allow the water to sit and percolate into the soil it is of such a size its
quite large that it will catch and then it will go to this area here, and then join the natural
drainage flow that it occurs in the area. It is not directed to the pond by a pipe, its not directed
to the pond, the scale on this map is I inch is 50 feet, so at this point and time at least Tom
Nace reviewed this, I know he has I would like to have him address as to whether or not he
feels its accurate.
MR. NACE-The storm water report we have we agree with it, according to the report the
outflow of that retention basin when that Phase I is completely developed the outflow of that
retention basin will not exceed what presently exists.
MR. THORNE-Presently 90% of the water percolates into the ground the brook that comes
down is spring fed it has been for years. If you're re-directing down into the northern end
of the swamp and the wetlands which is. . .this will generate a lot more water directing into
that area than it normally would.
MR. N ACE-Their is no question that there's more runoff from the developed area because
this dissipates through. The storm water calculations take into account the soil type and how
much runoff percolates in, how much of it runs off, those calculations show that the developed
runoff will not exceed present. There will be excess runoff that will be held in the retention
basin and from there either it will flow out. . .01' percolate into the ground.
MR. THORNE-How many gallons per minute is that going to increase into that pond?
MR. N ACE-It won't increase any into the pond.
MR. ROBERTS-It will be sunk into the ground water.
MRS. MANN-That's why its in a retention basin.
MR. THORNE-You have to look at the area in order to appreciate the fact. In April where
the water flows it can't percolate into the ground it does come down across the pond, I lived
there for 41 years I know what it does. The area that he is proposing right now is for Phase
I is that correct, this drainage swale, or is that going to be the drainage swale for the whole
future development of that area? If anything else is done additional runoff we have a chance
to come back and question that?
MR. MACRI-Storm water management will have to be done for any additional phases, SEQRA
will have to be reviewed for any additional phases in respect to storm water.
MR. THORNE-I have Mrs. Mann's, assurance that it will not be affected we can go on record
6
"
,/
"---~
--- ~~
as that?
MRS. MANN-Yes.
MR. MACRI-We hired a consultant the consultant did review it. If he feels that its a good
engineering plan we have to rely on that consultant to review the applicants plan.
MR. THORNE-I still have a problem. I want to go on record that I still have a problem with
that. I think there's going to be some adverse affects from this. The runoff going to be a
lot worse than what's anticipated. Its a small brook, quiet little stream it has trout in it and
stuff if their is any problem with that at all I'm coming back.
MR. CARTIER-If in fact after the development of Phase I you do have a problem with this
we do need to hear about that when they come in for Phase II.
MR. THORNE-What happens if their is a problem with Phase I, who corrects that?
MR. MACRI-All I can suggest to you sir, if you don't believe our consultant. . .
MR. THORNE-I'm not saying I don't agree.
MR. MACRI-That's what it amounts to. We have to believe the technical facts okay, if you
don't believe those technical facts get your own engineer have him review it and have his report.
MR. THORNE-I didn't come for a fight sir, I'm just asking questions.
MR. MACRI-No, I'm just saying that's the only thing that we can rely on is our consultant and
their engineer. We're not going to hire another consultant to second guess our consultant.
Its your perrogative to do so.
MR. ROBERTS-The bottom line is that we're concerned about the same things, I think we're
addressing your concerns.
MR. DYBAS-You still hold the cards because on Phase II we go back to square one. If their
.'s any problems with Phase I we don't want to even talk about Phase II. Phase II is a whole
new ball game for all of you people like it is for him.
MR. THORNE-So if anything develops out of this if there is a problem. . .
MR. DYBAS-If there is a problem he is in a world of hurting as far as I'm concerned.
MR. DESANTIS-Can we go on record is Mr. Thorne saying that it is his experience that. . .water
runs across the road currently?
MR. THORNE-The flow increases.
MR. DESANTIS-In April, right now does it, you live there I'm going to ask you?
MR. THORNE-The flow increases at that time of year.
MR. DESANTIS-In the time that you lived there has it ever occurred where the water has
actually comes over the top of the road?
MR. THORNE-You can't get over the top of that road.
MR. DESANTIS-The water has never come above the pond across the top of the road?
MR. THORNE-It can't cross the road. It get up to the top of it.
MR. DESANTIS-I'm just asking you from your experience, I'm not an engineer?
MR. THORNE-No its never done that, it has flown a full 12 inch pipe.
MR. DESANTIS-Done what?
MR. THORNE-It has flown a full 12 inch pipe that old 12 inch pipe you see where the old
drainage level was. Right up full, I had to get in there and pull the debris away from it to
keep it from getting up on the road. That new road itself. . .what I'm concerned about if
downstream if you put additional. . .then that creek on the other side on from that if you put
more in you fill up that larger diameter pipe you flood me out.
7
------
\"
./
'''-----
'-~
MR. DESANTIS-I understand. I just want to say for the record that certainly that is my concern
also. The last thing that I want to do is go through all this and hire consultants and provide
an evening out for everybody and pay the Town consultants to review this, and have all of
them be wrong, and have it rain next spring and flood out Mr. Thorne, so he can come back
here when I look for the next approval and tell everybody that these designs did not work.
I didn't make these designs the Ordinances are very clear they say, that the run off after
development off my property can not exceed the current run off before development. They're
not very gray in that they calculate the water that flows on the property now and they have
to come up with a design that keeps the water on the property and not one drop can leave
that isn't leaving that property today. My engineer's tell me that this plan will do that. They
submitted that plan to the independent consulting engineer's of the Town Planning Board, he's
reviewing it he has the right to say that the plan doesn't meet that standard. If their both
wrong I want to know about it Mr. Thorne, because like I said I'm not doing this to flood you
out.
ED HORRIGAN-Licensed professional engineer, I have a couple questions. I'm a little short
on communication, what is your cuI da sac that's temporary that you don't want paved?
MR. DESANTIS-Its the only one shown on the plan, their is only one cuI da sac. I'm not saying
I don't want the cuI da sac. What I don't want to do is pave it, the reason I don't want to pave
it is because I propose the pavement end right here at the lot line. Their are two reasons for
that; (1) There are 5 lots these are not housing lots these aren't going to go up in the next four
months, these are professional office lots. I don't want to pave an area when you talk about
this is 150 feet in diameter whatever the standard is this is really quit a large circle of paving
that your talking about that will just sit there and aggravate all the drainage runoff problems
that Mr. Thorne talked about and be an impervious surface that if we ever do put the road
in we're going to have to tear up. I asked for a wavier just on the cuI da sac not on the paving
of the road itself so all entrances of the lot will be off the paved highway.
MR. HORRIGAN-What are you proposing your going to come right back and ask for the right
away. . .
MR. DESANTIS-Did I say that?
MR. HORRIGAN-Yes.
MR. DESANTIS-When did I say I'm coming right back with the. . .
MR. ROBERTS-He made no commitments as to seeking future Phases being as a general concept
of what could be done in that zone and that's all he may never come back.
MR. DESANTIS-If I don't sell these lots I won't be back I can promise you that.
MR. HORRIGAN-Would it be possible to get a copy of the hydraulics report on that calculations
and a copy of the calculations.
MR. DESANTIS-I think I can get that to him. Your talking about the storm water run off report
right?
MR. HORRIGAN-Yes. What do you propose for the height of your commercial building?
MR. DESANTIS-I'm not proposing to build any.
MR. ROBERTS-Regulated by our Town Ordinance, 35 to 40 feet I can't remember what it is.
MR. HORRIGAN-Three or four stories?
MR. ROBERTS-Two stories I think is probably the maximum.
MR. HORRIGAN-Are you proposing completing your road so you have two entrances in and
off of Blind Rock Road this year or next year, or just one entrance right now?
MR. DESANTIS-I'm not proposing at this time to complete that road at anytime in the future.
If I come in and extend the proposed development and I extend the paved road beyond 1,000
feet in length the Town Ordinance says, that I can't do that I have to have a second entrance.
Current length of this highway is 450 feet.
MR. HORRIGAN-Is it open for a comment on the second entrance or wait until that comes?
MR. DESANTIS-I don't have any problem with it.
MR. ROBERTS-I guess if you care to its kind of pie in the sky stuff now.
8
\....
~--
".
- -../....../
MR. MACRI-I think the entrance was located where he felt was the best location?
MR. DESANTI8-1 don't have any problem with addressing it the only difference I take in what
your saying sir, is that when you use the word propose does that imply this is my plan, the
second entrance I don't plan at this time? What I've shown is given the various constraints
of how much property I own here on Blind Rock, and separation distances from the other
entrance and the hill that occur. What the engineer's tell me is the best possible location for
a second entrance and that's what we tried to show there.
MR. HORRIGAN-This is usually where the cars end up that can't make that curve into that
bank. I think if you check the bank there are all kinds of indentations where the poison ivy
is.
MR. DESANTIS-Which bank proceeding east or west?
MR. HORRIGAN-East on Blind Rock that's where they usually. . .several times a year it is
a blind entrance. I think you can tell by my questions I am concerned about the wetlands and
I think it is a important area not only for D.E.C. sake, but also there is a problem with the
water level. I've ice skated out here for over 10 years, 15 years and that pond where the entrance
where the culvert is going to be is sometimes 3 to four feet deep at various stages during the
winter and also violent storms it will permeate out. The next question is where was the test
boring done for that permeability test?
MR. DESANTIS-On the pond are you referring to the pond?
MR. HORRIGAN-I'm referring to the. . .right where the entrance to the culvert is?
MR. DESANTiS-it is shown on these plans you have a set of them I gave them to you at the
meeting they show right on the plans where the boring's. .. It shows on the plans there was
a test pit dug on each of the five lots.
MR. HORRIGAN-As long as its on the plans. I've done a few calculations and I am concerned
about it. Your taking and putting water where it never has been your breaking the actual dam
and your causing the excess flow whether you say it is or isn't there is a lot of flow of various
stages and putting it into that. That pond does grow and the pond beyond it. . .that's pretty
much the water level. I'm concerned about the septic interfering with our water system in
the area. Thank you.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Speaking individually and as a representative of the BRB Group which
owns lands immediately south of Blind Rock Road, along the corner of Blind Rock Road and
Bay Road. We own about 37 acres which would be the opposite corner of this particular parcel
on that side of Blind Rock Road. This is a proposed use that is permitted by our Zoning
Ordinance, its part of the Master Plan of the Town todevelop this area in this fashion. I think
what he is presenting is reasonable and as a adjoining adjancet landowner we have no objections.
Thank you.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-1989,lntroduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Hilda Mann:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Subdivision No.
5-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE, Cross Roads Park, Phase I, for Professional Offices, and
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
RESOL VED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved.
Warren County Department of Transportation
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. A full
Environmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment
Form reviewed
9
'~
--.--'
'-
. ',,---,
,¡
-~
and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 6l7.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may
be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required
by law.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSTAIN:Mr. DeSantis
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. DESANTIS-Stated that their were three items that Mr. Nace requested; (1) cuI da sac,
made a written request for a wavier from that distance, (2) road radius, on this access road
it needs to be 250 feet, it calculates out a 235 feet.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that he would have to get this wavier from the Town Highway
Superintendent.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated that they will request this, wasn't aware of this. (3) The other one
is how far the water swims over the ground until it gets into the catch basin. Tom Nace's
calculations show it to be 400 feet at the one location, the Town Ordinance say 350 feet.
MR. NACE-Suggested that they adjust that, suggest they request for a wavier.
MRS. MANN-Asked if the Board was satisfied with the trip generation?
MR. DESANTIS-Stated that the trip generation shows 85 in the long form assessment.
This is based on the maximum build out of the five lots.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDMSION NO. 5-1989, CROSS ROADS PARK, PHASE I,
PRELIMINARY STAGE,lntroduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Peter Cartier:
The applicant will request a wavier on three items having meet the initial requirements of
the Town Ordinance.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSTAIN:Mr. DeSantis
ABSENT None
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1989 RR-5A, TYPE: UNLISTED FINAL STAGE, CLARENCE J. AND CARA
D. BEAMES 1,600± FT. NORTH OF LUZERNE ROAD ON EAST SIDE OF TUTHILL ROAD TO
SELL EXISTING HOUSE AND BUILD A SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME FOR SELF. TO SUBDMDE
THE 12.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 123-1-40.3 LOT SIZE: 12.6 ACRES
DENNIS DICKINSON REPRESENTING CLARENCE AND CARA BEAMES
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (See attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Town Engineer, (See attached)
10
'~
.......
"
---
'"
_..~
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
MR. DICKINSON-Stated that they have shown some calculations on the tile field that appears
on t~e se~ond sheet, a~ked. Mr. Nace if it w.as on his map? It shows the size, the layout, the
confIguration of the tIle fIeld for the septIc system which is the second half of Mr. Nace
comment in his letter.
MR. N ACE-Doesn't have this on his map.
MR. DICKINSON-As to the second item they did two things; (1) Did calculations on the culvert
side it came out less than the 18 inches, but they preferred to us 18 inches as the minimum
for maintenance purposes.
MR. N ACE-Stated that he hasn't seen these calculations, they aren't part of the report that
was submitted.
MR. DICKINSON-Second thing they did was to go up and down stream and measure the culverts.
MR. NACE-Hasn't seen these calculations to review them.
MR. DICKINSON-Stated that the culvert that crosses the road is only 18 inches. The erosion
control is incorrect. Asked Mr. Nace if he used 2t to I on the erosion control?
MR. NACE-Stated that he rather see 3 to 1.
MR. DICKINSON-Noticed on the plan the contours, the new contour lines that are proposed
are pretty close together and do indicate about a 30 percent slope. The overall slope of the
entire road is about 8 percent. Will rectify this we can get under 10 to 12 percent.
MR. NACE-Feels that the set of plans that are on file should reflect what you're approving.
MR. DICKINSON-Want to make it clear that we are going to table this so that I can rectify
the two contour lines and indicate more than 10%, change the 2 to a 3.
MR. DESANTIS-Also to submit the percolation and septic information.
MR. CARTIER-Stated four things that he has to come back with. (1) Item in number one of
engineer report, you said that they have this?
MR. DICKINSON-Stated that he has it now he didn't when we came here. We submitted to
the Town.
MR. NACE-Explained what happened. Their were two sets that were submitted, looking at
them the set I was given at the Planning Board staff meeting was May 26, 1989, that had two
drawings in it. The previous set that I was just given tonight was May 18th, 19th, which was
obviously something that was superseded by your May 26th.
MR. MACRI-Stated that May 19th was the first submission. He did not revise the third drawing
therefore he did not resubmit it.
MR. CARTIER-Talking about four items including the one that we now have. Their are two
items listed in item #2, and one issued in item #3.
TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1989, CLARENCE J. AND CARA D. BEAMES, WITH THE
CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-81 LI-lA, NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING, PHASE ll, FINAL STAGE TYPE
I, SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD TO SUBDIVIDE 60 ACRES INTO 13 LOTS FOR
INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION, CONSTRUCT 2,600 L.F. OF ROADS, WATER MAINT.
AND UTILmES. TAX MAP NO. 136-1-1, 2, 3, 21 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-1, LOT SIZE: 60 ACRES
WA YNE GANNETT REPRESENTING NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
MRS. YORK-Read letter from Clough Harbour Associates, Engineers on the project. Stated
they reviewed the revised final plans prepared by Rist Frost Associates, they have no additional
comments, previous comments on the project have been adequately addressed. (On file)
STAFF INPUT
11
"----'
-.../
'-.
/'
'-
---
---- ...---
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. DUSEK-Stated that a tentative agreement concerning the right-of-way has been reached.
A verbal agreement concerns land, that's not binding it has to be cemented paper work. Have
not yet finalized the conversation I have had with the Town Board plus the conservations I've
had with the applicant's Attorney, it would appear to be no problem.
MO'nON TO APPROVE SUBDMSION NO. 6-87 NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING, PHASE n, FINAL
STAGE,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
To approve subject to receipt of the right-of-way agreement between Northern Distributing
and Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-87 MODIFICATION FINAL STAGE: APPROVED ll/19/87 NORTHERN
DISTRIBUTING, PHASE I, SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD, 7 LOTS TAX MAP NO. 137,
136, 146 LOT SIZE: 27.4 ACRES
WAYNE GANNETT REPRESENTING NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
MR. GANNETT-Explained to the Board the changes. Made two minor changes in Phase I which
was approved in 87 for final approval. In the course of modifying the lot line we've created
a right-of-way to be committed to the Town. Changed the lot line along #3, the other change
made is when Phase I was originally given final approval the Town standard was roadside ditches.
Since then the Town has adopted the new standard of paved wind swales, catch basin, and storm
sewers. We have changed the drainage configuration of Phase I to reflect wing swales, the
catch basins so that the entire project looks like it was all part of the same standard cross
section.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (On file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. DESANTIS-Didn't understand, if he is not modifying the catch basin.
MRS. YORK-Stated that he is just adding the wing swales and the lot line, not sure what John
was commenting about.
MR. GANNETT-Explained because of the wing swale with the roadside ditch cross section
there were no catch basins. Catch basins means collecting the water and taking it out into
the highway. Have met the same standards in Phase I with the modifications that we did in
Phase II.
MR. DESANTIS-Asked that when he puts the wing swales in isn't he doing what everybody
else is doing. Your accelerating the runoff in some other point and adding to it some place
else instead of letting in percolate in the ditches. Asked if this is going to be increasing the
water that is going to be where the catch basin is?
MR. MACRI-Stated that he was basically revising the drainage, this means that our engineer
should look at the revise drainage pattern.
MR. GANNETT-This is why we provided the full drainage report, assumed Clough Harbour
looked at it.
MR. DESANTIS-Asked if he was saying that those changes in the drainage flow caused by the
wing swales were part of your submission?
MR. GANNETT-Correct.
12
'------
~
"-
\,..
--
./
-~.
MRS. YORK-Stated that she has no comment from Clough Harbour.
TABLE WITH CONCURRANCE OF THE APPLICANT SUBDIVISION NO. 6-87, NORTHERN
DISTRIBUTING, PHASE I,
SITE PLAN NO. 27-89 TYPE n, LI-lA, PRO-CRAFT EXCA VA TING, INC. SOUTH ON BIG BAY
ROAD, APPROX. 1/3 MILE TO PRO-CRAFT, INC. OFFICE. PRESENT USE: CONSTRUCTION
YARD FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT, TOPSOIL, STORAGE AND VACANT. PROPOSED USE:
SAME, BUT IN ADDmON, TEMPORARY STORAGE OF WOOD DEBRIS (LE., STUMPS, TREES)
TO BE "CHIPPED" AND CARRIED OFF SITE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP
NO. 137-2-3.4 SECTION 4.020 N LOT SIZE: 5.14 ACRES
TED BIGELOW REPRESENTING PRO-CRAFT/LOU PALMER
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Town Engineer, (See attached)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Mr. Nace, in comment #2 was he requiring this a hard hat area?
MR. NACE-Thinking more of a temporary snow fence in order to keep people away from this
area.
MR. BIGELOW-Stated that from the drainage plans that were submitted there is going to be
a burm around it. The area is supervised at all times their is always a ground man there. There
is a ground man that sits above the machine who has a 360 degree view of the site.
MR. NACE-Stated that their attention most of the time is focus on what their doing. Would
like something temporary that would guard that area maybe 25 to 50 feet around that edge
of that machine off to the side of the chipper itself.
MR. PALMER-Stated that if he put a fence up within 50 feet or 100 feet of the machine his
loaders can't get to the machine. This is why there is a hard hat area. Will put up where the
large topsoil pile is will put a fence up there.
MR. N ACE-Stated that this would serve the same purpose it would be fine.
MRS. MANN-Asked about the wrecked vehicles that were on the property?
MR. PALMER-Uses these for parts. Only one vehicle that is considered a wreck will be removed
from site.
MRS. MANN-Asked if he normally had this many?
MR. PALMER-Has one more than he should have.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (See attached)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. ROBERTS-Asked what has been done about the drainage up in the front part of the
property?
MR. NACE-Stated that he looked at the additional grade in the area it looks like the drainage
did go on the adjancet property originally. Their has been some increase runoff from the roofs
and parking lots in the front portion, now that drainage goes across the parking lots and the
sheet flow goes onto the adjancet property. Suggested that this might be amended by putting
a curve along the property line that could be done, however, if you do that you have to make
sure you get that water back into the ground with the dry well not let it go onto the adjancet
property. Not sure how much of a problem it really is the soil are coarse right now. It looks
like once it gets onto the adjancet land it percolates in very quickly. Their is a little bit of
a bank, thinks if the bank were stabilized I think it would probably be the best solution to let
it continue to percolate in and flow across that property.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the bank was on his property or the neighbors?
MR. PALMER-The toe of it is on his, the high side is on ours. Would like to topsoil this and
seed it if my neighbor would let me do it. I cannot get cooperation from my neighbor.
13
~
-..-/
'-
'--- -
"'"
--.-'.
MR. BIGELOW-Stated that original complaint was from when Pro-Craft built their buildings
they raised their sites. The drainage has always been in that direction from Pro-Craft to the
man's site, but he raised his site 2 to 3 feet above the other one.
MR. MACRI-Feels that Mr. Nace addressed this in his June 1st, 1989. Read the June 1st, 1989
comments from Tom Nace. Doesn't feel that the comments from Mr. Cooks letter are justified,
asked if Tom agreed with that?
MR. NACE-Thinks that what is there is in the way of erosion runoff is very easily to handle
by stabilizing the bank.
MR. BIGELOW-Brought in new decibel readings the machine that you previewed is different
from the one that we talked about before this one is qaieter. (Submitted reading to Board)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-89 PRO-CRAFT EXCAVATING, INC.,lntroduced
by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann:
Based upon the applicants compliance with the recommendation of Staff and our Engineer,
and the applicant's willingness to comply with the drainage control measures that are actually
off his property as soon as he can get the cooperation of his neighbor.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SITE PLAN NO. 24-89 TYPE ß, LI-3A, ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. LOT 60,
COUNTY LINE ROAD, NEXT TO ORKIN PEST CONTROL ON THE SOUTH SIDE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 20,000 SQ. FT. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON
WARREN/WASHINGTON COUNTY L.D.A. LAND. 10% OFFICE SPACE, 90% WAREHOUSE
SPACE. 10,000 SQ. FT. WILL BE LEASED OUT AS TENANTS BECOME AVAILABLE (WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 55-2-20 SECTION 4.020 N LOT SIZE: 4.021 ACRES
WALT VANDULEW REPRESENTING ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, (See attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Town Engineer, (See attached)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. DESANTIS-Stated that in his experience industrial vehicles are on balance much smaller
than other vehicles. Should have narrow parking spaces.
MR. JABLONSKI-That wasn't the reason. The reason was that unbalanced industrial spaces
were built to go in and out of their parking. Make it larger so there is less damage to the
parking lot. In an industrial site the cars do not move. . .
MR. DESANTIS-Said that this is a parking spot not a drive in lane.
MR. N ACE-Stated that he feels that the layout could be revised very simply to meet the code.
According to the New York State Codes three handicapped spaces should be provided.
MRS. MANN-Asked if he was saying that the only real concern he has is on the burm?
MR. NACE-Just to provide some erosion control during construction. Change the size of the
14
'-
----
"
'-
,
'-- -
-~
parking lot and provide handicapped parking.
MRS. YORK-Suggested to the Board that if the applicant makes any changes she would like
the applicant to bring in a revise map with the changes on it and the date of the changes to
her office to be filed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-89, ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK INC.,
Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier:
The concerns of the Board and consultant engineer have been answered. A revised map with
the engineers requirements concerning the size of the parking areas and the erosion control
measures to be filed in the Planner's Office.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. MACRI-Stated that their was a problem with the grades in that the grades are higher
towards the front of the property more than the back of the property.
MR. V ANDERLEW-Stated that it is not our clients intention to put the building down in the
ground.
MR. MACRI-Asked how do you handle the grade from 358 at the western end of the building
to 365?
MR. V ANDERLEW-The front of the building as it faces on County Line Road, is slightly. .
.the grading plan. The rear entrance to the building the revised grades indicate that its 356.
SITE PLAN NO. TYPE IT, HC-lA, 30-89 DR. SHIMON SHALIT MALKA SHALIT ROUTE 9,
NORTH OF WARREN COUNTY MUNICIPAL CENTER, OPPOSITE MONTCALM SOUTH
RESTAURANT, NOW LAKE GEORGE PLAZA AND EXIT 20) MOTEL FOR RETAIL STORES:
59,200 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-1-27.2,26 SECTION 4.020
K LOT SIZE: 5.3 ± ACRES
MICHAEL O'CONNOR REPRESENTING DR. SHIMON SHALIT MALKA SHALIT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (See attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Town Engineer, (See attached)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that part of the parcel 308 ft. by 100 ft. would give them an additional
30,000 square feet of space on site left forever wild. This would qualify as green space.
MR. NACE-If this is considered part of the parcel he has no problem with it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Stated he has a copy of the contract. It has restrictive covenants in it that
says it will be forever wild. (Submitted this to the Board) The piece of land are now lands
of McCormack, which is 100 ft. by 200 ft. it was not on the original site plan that was submitted
to the Board in an idea to improve the grading and to improve the buffer zone that we were
leaving between us and residential behind it we entered into a contract. As part of the contract
we have stipulated by inforcible restrictive covenant which was filed in the County Clerk's
Office, that no buildings or structures shall be erected on said premises. Existing trees and
15
"--
~
"
'-
,i
"--
~----<~
vegetation shall not be removed from subject premises and shall be permitted to remain thereon.
This restriction does not permit the removal of dead and decayed trees. (Read contract to
Board). What they've done is added an extra 30,000 square feet. TAPED TURNED Stated
that part of the contract with McCormack's provides that we are consideration of paying an
additional $5,000, he will have the obligation to plant on his property avorbitus hedge would
estimate about 4 feet in height. Thinks that this should be considered part of the green space,
the percentages on the lower map are shown as being green space its rounded off at 30% a
difference of 458 square feet. It does not include the back parking area which is going to be
left gravel the Board in the past has considered this as part of the green space.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that he thinks its in small site plans.
MR. O'CONNOR-Submitted this to the Town Board as part of the application for the variance
for the site plan, the variance for the sewer restriction which allows us to put the sewer system
that is proposed underneath this gravel parking area in the back. The Board comments were
that we really don't need all that parking back there which is what I lead them to believe,
I think we're planning a 5.5 per thousand square feet. We're kind of over designing that use,
said why don't you leave it grass, we said we would. Asked if they had a right to waive this?
MR. CARTIER-Have done that in the past we have just holded in abeyance.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can show you on paper that we have the ability to meet the requirement,
would asked you if you could allow us to construct as needed to whatever definition that you
want to put on that.
MR. MACRI-Asked that with all of the green area do you really need to put the septic in the
proposed parking?
MR. O'CONNOR-Thinks that they have to keep it out of the buffer because when you put in
back into the area that is called the green area you have to move all the trees and vegetation
from that in order to do the grading. Thinks it will be a seldom used parking area.
MR. NACE-Stated that if the back parcel is included as part of the project he has no problem.
MR. O'CONNOR-Refers to John Goralski's, first comment. Stated that this is the way the
computer puts out the parking spots if you measure the scale goes off we have the required
distance. This is a 60 foot isle way we have 18 foot lines. We can amend that if that's the
suggestion of the Board.
MR. DESANTIS-Its in the Ordinance, its not our suggestion.
MR. CARTIER-Handicapped parking needs to be expanded to 12 ft. by 20 ft.
MR. O'CONNOR-We can do that. As to the loading area on the north side of the property
John has scaled it out as being 14 feet, we believe it to be 15 feet. In regard to parcel behind
that were in the process of purchasing from McCormack, I think that the document that we've
submitted shows that we intend to combine it as part of this site as a boundary line adjustment.
We're not creating an additional building lot. The retaining walls that were proposed in the
original submission have been omitted from this plan this is because when we down scaled
this we were talking 58,200 feet, now 55,500 feet. We did that in order to accommodate the
greater width of the drives that were required along the side, and also to get more green space
to move some of the parking underneath the structure. Believes they have addressed earlier
comments from Rist Frost, and also appeared before the Beautification Committee in regard
to the landscaping they do intend to maintain it. Their was a comment by John they he would
like to include placing planters under the canopy to separate the parking from pedestrian traffic.
If this is a requirement from the Board we would accommodate that.
MR. DESANTIS-Will there be curbing?
MR. O'CONNOR-(Refers to map) The canopy would be over the factory walkway.
JIM HUNT-On the site plan it does show curbing. There is an 8 foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the front of both buildings and along the side and that widens to 24 feet along this phase.
Along the the other sides there is an 8 foot canopy that runs 22 feet. The store entrances
are more less centered between the columns, could put a planter arrangement in there.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that the point is to keep vehicle parts out of pedestrian walkways.
MR. HUNT-A planter in the middle of the columns we could work it out so that the front bumper
of a car can't go onto that without hitting a column or planter.
MRS. MANN-Asked about wheel stops?
16
'-
---,,'
',-
,/
'----'
-----~---/
NANCY O'HERN-Curb stops cause problems with plowing. Planters can provided a separation,
however, an 8 foot walk typical would say about an 2t foot overhang on the bumper of a car
if they happened to pull all the way up and their tires hit that walk it still provides a 5 foot
walkway which is acceptable to any codes. I'm a little hesitant to place planters out there
just because I think your going to wind up with more pedestrian traffic problems if their were
planters placed along here and if people get out of their car and walk directly up onto a sidewalk
their going to be forces out more into the lane of traffic to find a walkway. We're not talking
high speed so that it would probably not be a great problem, but that's another factor that
I would like you to weigh in requesting the planters that people will not be able to walk right
up onto the sidewalks. The eight foot walkway was designed to be at that width to prevent
bumpers overhang of 1 to 2 feet without impacting the pedestrian walkway.
MR. CARTIER-You can place planters in such a way that people can walk. . .
MR. O'HERN-We can put some small planters in without impacting. . .
MR. O'CONNOR-We will be willing to stipulate then that we will comply with that suggestion
or request Mr. Goralski. As to Mr. Nace's comments, he has commented that he doesn't believe
that the turning radius is sufficient for tractor trailers to exist as I understand it along the
southerly side of the site back around to the north of the site. We can change this radius so
that it will accommodate it, I don't know what radius you would need to put on there.
NANCY O'HERN-I don't know off hand what, I will check into it.
MR. O'CONNOR-We can submit that to Mr. Nace, however, you want to handle that. your
talking about handling the planting on this corner. I think we have just. . . comment #2, as
to the area in the rear, comment #3, is a request by Mr. Nace, that you condition your approval
on the basis that the septic system as the design is not sufficient to handle a food service and
that we will be so willing to stipulate that there will be no food service provided on the premises.
MR. DESANTIS-Any type sort or description?
MR. O'CONNOR-That would require use of the septic system.
MR. DESANTIS-How about carts with hot dogs?
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe what your talking about is a kitchen Mr. Nace?
MR. MACRI-How about something dispensing soda?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think were able to do that.
MR. MACRI-How about anything that requires Health Department approval for servicing food?
MR. NACE-That's fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have no problem with that. As to the site specific erosion control measures,
I would believe that we would be required as any other builder to provide on site erosion control
during construction. I spoke strictly with C.T. Male, the first part of what their going to do
is to build the area that is going to be the eventual retention area that would be used a runoff
area during the staging of the construction. The last part of construction it would be cleaned
if you will and set up for permanent use on site, but it would hold retention of any type of
drainage during the period of construction. If anything else is required by code or by practice
we are willing to provide whatever the Board suggest.
MR. NACE-I would recommend the details would have to be submitted because this is the
type of thing that once your into construction their is very little control over it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can we submit those to the Building Department as far as our request for
a building permit?
MR. NACE-I think that we ought to review those.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask that maybe you make your approval if your willing to make approval
subject to that submittal? Typical sections are required for paved and gravel surfaces we
have those with us I believe that are in compliance with the submittal. If their is any problem
with what has been submitted we would be glad to change it to have them come into compliance.
MR. ROBERTS-You haven't seen those reports Tom?
MR. NACE-I have not.
17
----
,
".
'-
""---'--
--...,...- ---.,,1:.....-/
MR. DESANTIS-Asked how do they intend to address signage, I'm not talking about permanent
signs that meet the Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury, I'm talking about the sales signs
that are large banner type that are tied up for a week at a time, the grand opening signs because
you have a number of stores and because store tenants change on occasion. You have multiple
grand openings that are a continuance it seems at times. The other kinds of signs when you
have the big sale or the new line comes out these are not regulated effectively and I'm not
saying their not addressed by our sign ordinance, but they certainly are not effectively regulated
because if anyone makes a compliant and Dave Hatin, gets out there the sale is over and the
next sale come on. I have a concern because now we have a proliferation of these type of
stores and everybody starts to do it, and you get the look of a flea market.
MALKA SHALlT-The tenants cannot put signage without my approval. Does not allow any
big signs on windows. We do not intend to have any temporary signs only ones that are allowed
by the Ordinance.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated that what they're looking for in these kinds of situation is a person
that if there is a problem we can go to one person.
MRS. SHALIT-I'm responsible for the signs.
.
MR. DESANTIS-Doesn't have any problem with that.
MR. MACRI-Asked Paul Dusek, about the underground parking whether or not what we are
doing is setting a precedence in allowing somebody to take their property and shove all the
parking underneath when the Ordinance as I see it was set up so that we wouldn't have an overuse
of the parcel?
MR. DUSEK-Stated that their are three parts of the Ordinance as far as the parking criteria.
Definitions of parking are in the Ordinance concerning parking facilities, public parking garages,
parking areas, and then also Article 4, which deals with a variety of accessory uses permitted
in the Zone. When I reviewed the entire Ordinance it would appear that a lot of consideration
study was given to a parking garage type concept as they proposed these particular applications.
As you go through the Ordinance if you try to identify these in particular as to how does this
fit into the Ordinance I would have to say that the SEQRA addresses it, however, when you
look at what is allowed in the Ordinance and you consider the basic rules of construction that
a Court would apply and that is basically the Ordinance will be construed against the
municipality because the municipality wrote it. I have to come to the conclusion that this
type of parking arrangement is allowed under the Ordinance. One of my primary points of
addressing this argument would have to be based upon the definition of parking facility, and
parking area as it is describe in the definitions and also compared to what is allowed under
the use category or accessory's category for this district. Whatever word is used their is a
word that could mean also the parking garage concept, therefore I think that a Court would
most likely find that it would be a permissible use under the Ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Tom if he was satisfied with the engineering details?
MR. MACRI-Feels that they still need to get the erosion control plan review it.
MR. NACE-Would like sometime to look through the erosion control plan to make sure its
adequate.
MR. O'CONNOR-Asked if they could address on record what you are proposal. . .erosion plan
and see if that satisfies Mr. Nace's idea as to the concept to make something subject to his
approval per your condition?
TAPED TURNED
MR. O'CONNOR-Asked if their was any possibility about stage approval to begin the demolition
of the existing building that is on the site we are talking about technical details?
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Tom if this was something he could do in a week's time?
18
--
----
,/
."
'---'
MR. NACE-Could review it in a day.
-~
MRS. MANN-Asked if they could get a demolition permit while this is being reviewed?
MRS. YORK-Not sure about that.
MR. NACE-Asked for them to show how their going to stage the retention pond.
MR. O'CONNOR-Asked if the two items that the Board would like are; (1) To look at the cross
section of the paved and gravel surfaces, (2) To submit an erosion control plan?
MR. CARTIER-To show a 12 ft. by 20 ft. handicap parking.
MR. DESANTIS-Have the site plan show 15 feet right on the plan.
MRS. MANN-To show the turn around for the tractor trailer.
MR. CARTIER-Explained that they are also going to be responsible for the suggestion from
the Beautification Committee and planter that has already be discussed.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 30-89, DR. SHIMON SHALIT FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1989 SFR-20, TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE CLINE MEADOW
DEVELOPMENT WEST OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD, NORTH OF CLINE DRIVE, EAST OF
EVERTS AVENUE 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 FAMILY CONSTRUCTION SITES, 2 LOTS OF WHICH
WILL BE PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANTS SUBDMERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR
PERSONAL RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 7 LOT SIZE:
20 ACRES
LEON STEVES REPRESENTING KERRY GIRARD
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (See attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Town Engineer, (see attached)
CORRESPONDENCE
Telephone conversation Susan Davidsen, Planning Department, and Elizabeth Mc Kinley and
Rita Tobin, Alice Cooke, stating that they are in favor of the project.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STEVES-I think it would be appropriate to ask the public comment. I will try to explain
to them the tentative proposal and how we address their concerns. One individual who lives
along Meadowbrook Road is concerned about a buffer placed along this rear yard. We have
agreed to put a 25 foot buffer along those lots that border the road. Other people have concerns
they have wet basements they want to know what this development is going to do to that.
I don't think its going to help them, but I don't think its going to hurt them any.
JOHN HODGKINS-18 Wilson Street. I do have questions on what the changes of the water
table line have and the storm water runoff. The drainage in the area is fair, we do have problems
in that most of the houses in the community right there with basements that do fill during
times of wet seasons. I guess what I want to look at is that the area throughout there is our
watershed everything is draining down to that watershed. Where the proposed houses go I
know they are going to allow a 3 foot culvert I guess go through that area that's on the easement,
but my concern is that with the basements and impermeable surfaces such as concrete walls
and all that might hold some of that water back up our hill and cause some severe damage
into some of our houses possible, that's the question that I think needs to be looked into a little
bit further. We are all very close, the houses are within 250 feet of where these houses are
and a lot of the people that were here to discuss that same problem have left because they
are elderly and retired they wanted to voice some opinion or find out what was going on about
19
.~
~
/
'-
.----- -
-~
that.
MRS. MANN-Are you living on the Meadowbrook Road area?
MR. HODGKINS-I am right down, if you take this area here (refers to map), these houses that
come down here this is Wilson Street, this is Sargent, that come up this grade goes up here
I think its 322 feet and the grade goes down to 316 in the middle.
MRS. MANN-So otherwords your area is draining into that.
MR. HODGKINS-Are area is draining into here. This road right here we're draining underneath
this road right now and obviously these houses will be put up against this. . .and with the
basements in there that's a concern that were looking at. I know they've taken care of some
of the drainage from their own area draining out back, but I'm wondering if this is going to
stop our drainage.
MRS. MANN-Do you know how your drainage goes now is it going into drywalls or running
on top of the road?
MR. HODGKINS-We do have a storm sewer out to the road area and it takes part of it down,
but mostly the drainage is going down right through the yards its going into the soil and coming
through. Our basic difficulty is in the early spring or late fall we have heavy rains the water
table will rise it will come up through the basement floors most of us have sump pumps going
on a regular basis, and we can on occasion where the actual basements do flood during the
season and as the water. . .it drains back out and it would clear up. If that's not allowed to
drain through that soil I'm concerned that we're going to have some problems we might get
stuck with wet basements year round.
MR. ROBERTS-Leon do you think you've address them obviously we can't stop the natural
drainage.
MR. STEVES-I was trying to explain to this gentlemen that the intent here is to place good
clean fill in the areas of the proposed houses which is more permeable soil than what existed
on site which would stop any portion of that to go down that hill. The houses itself hopefully
if the water draining down through won't run. .. Earlier somebody asked where this easement.
. .Patton Drive.
EMMA JOHNSON-I just want to say about that drain, I've been there for 37 years I don't even
have a sump pump if you build your house right you don't have water problems. These people
that's an old house its been there along time you can't dig down to deep, but he has a drain
in back of his house and one in front of it. . .put culverts in, and that all drains on me and I
don't like it.
MRS. MANN-Where are you?
MRS. JOHNSON-On the corner of Meadowbrook and Cline Avenue. I've never had water. .
. .if you build right you don't have water if you want to cheat okay, but there is enough drains
in that ground now that's draining on me and I don't like it. They ruined 8.5 acres of my land.
MRS. MANN-I think Quaker Road probably has a lot to do with it.
MRS. JOHNSON-That's right.
MR. ROBERTS-Wouldn't that be the natural drainage course?
MR.DE MEO-18 Sargent Street. I can appreciate everyone's concern about the drainage, but
if goes without saying because of the natural flow of the terrain when you consider Ridge Street
being at its higher level as it is and. . .down towards Cline Avenue. Actually being what these
drains of the Town. . .we find that in a heavy rain storm there is still a rush of water down
to Cline A venue, therefore it just accumulates there until it gradually sinks into the ground.
I also share John's concern about the fact their is no way that this new development which
I'm inclined to welcome rather than turn my back on it, I rather see houses there than see
wildwoods that's there now this development is not going to help that, but I don't how we can
blame them by having lands at a lower level than what we have on both Wilson Street and Sargent
Street. Its the nature of the beast.
MRS. MANN-You don't have any water in the basement?
MR. DE MEO-I'm not concerned about the water in my basement, I'm concerned about the
water that comes rushes down the street when we have a heavy down pour and the debris that
comes along with it which is all right that's natural. The only way that I can see of getting
rid of that excess water that comes down both of those streets it just to have a whole stretch
of drainage pipe there on Cline A venue.
20
"
.....
..,---,. --
------
MR. ROBERTS-I guess what's missing now is that SEQRA review.
MRS. YORK-I discussed this with Paul earlier if you want to use your SEQRA review as part
of your application for the Freshwater Wetland Permit you can certainly do that as part of
the documentation.
MR. DESANTIS-Does it have to be a long form?
MR. DUSEK-It seems that the Wetland Permit is actually only a part of the entire project,
in light of that my recommendation to the Board you do the wetland application first, if you
don't get by that barrel then you don't go on to the whole project.
MR. ROBERTS-Does D.E.C. have review over this wetland or are they assuming any review?
MR. DUSEK-I think they do.
MR. ROBERTS-We never revoked our wetland act ordinance yet, and I assume that one of
our alternatives there is perhaps to waive our review in favor of D.E.C., no never mind.
MR. MACRI-We can't declare D.E.C. lead agency?
MR. DUSEK-Its a possibility.
MR. STEVES-I had a problem two months ago with the SEQRA. I talked to them about it and
I said that I did not think we should make an application for a wetland permit from D.E.C.
with an SEQRA application and let them be lead agent. We made the application to D.E.C.,
but D.E.C. has since said you take lead agency.
MR. ROBERTS-We've already acted as far as lead agency status.
MRS. YORK-On the project itself, not the permit.
MR. ROBERTS-This happens to be a D.E.C. wetland.
MR. DUSEK-I think what is adding to the confusion here is the Local Law that was adopted
back in 1976, many of the communities adopted the same Local Law throughout New York
State, on the recommendation of the State. At the time it was adopted it was said, well
everybody adopt this law and someday when we come out with a wetlands map you can
implement it. Well it took a good number of years before they finally came out with a wetlands
map, and a lot of communities probably forget they even adopted the Local Law.
MRS. MANN-If we give a permit what good is the law?
MR. DUSEK-The set up for the community its own permitting arrangement in addition to D.E.C.
MR. MACRI-We sent out a letter requesting D.E.C. to take lead agency status on the wetland.
MR. DUSEK-You can't have two lead agents that's the only problem.
MR. MACRI-When the project came before us we were not dealing with the wetland. I think
that we have to re-Iook at the project.
MR. ROBERTS-I don't think. . .lead agency dealing with this wetland your just saying that
we will waive our permitting powers here.
MR. MACRI-For purposes of SEQRA on the wetland you want them to be lead agency.
MR. DUSEK-You may find that D.E.C. in the past has been very hesitate to want to take lead
agency status in any kind of situation where you have a project like this before the Board.
MRS. MANN-Why won't they let us give the permit, I don't understand. If their going to review
a permit and can hold up a permit on our reviewing the project and we can give final approval.
MR. DUSEK-You could give final approval subject to them getting a D.E.C. permit. There
is actually three permits that they have to get; (1) Permit from D.E.C. and have you go through
SEQRA process to get that permit. (2) Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the Town of Queensbury
they have to go through the SEQRA process to get that. (3) They have to get a subdivision
approval from the Town of Queensbury they have to go through the SEQRA process for that.
Their looking for two approvals from this Board and one approval from D.E.C. My
recommendation would be that you do a SEQRA review to start off with determining whether
or not your going
21
'--
---
'-
/
-..-
-----
to have a negative or positive declaration as to both issues that are before this Board, the
wetland permit and the project.
MR. STEVES-This is not my recollection of what D.E.C. has said. On 9/11/89 received from
the Planning Board on 5/15/89 on the SEQRA indication of lead agency. April 12, 1989 I sent
you a letter requesting lead agency distinction, since that time our office has received additional
information with respect to the project. The project will require a Wetlands Protection Permit,
from the Department of Environmental Conservation. Our department now has sufficient
information. . .as a result this will confirm that the department. . .with your recommendation
that, Queensbury Town Planning Board took lead agent for purposes of complying with SEQRA.
I think that this would mean the Wetland Permit.
MR. DUSEK-No. What that means is that would go through the SEQRA review process with
the project in mind as a whole, permits as well as the subdivision. Once you get through that
considering the wetlands aspects, subdivision aspects, either negative or positive declaration,
if its a negative declaration that we would simply file with D.E.C. in advisement of our findings.
MR. MACRI-My question is should we be looking at this application until the Wetlands Permit
has been received?
MR. STEVES-I don't think they will issue a permit without giving direction.
MR. DUSEK-You have to go through SEQRA before they will do anything.
MR. MACRI-Should we sit on the application until we see whether or not the permit is granted?
MR. DUSEK-I think you can actually do SEQRA with the fact that the Wetland Permit is in
mind with the subdivision, then you can basically forget about D.E.C. after that and do your
own thing. At the very end of the process before you get approval it will be up to the Board
to decided whether they would like to give final approval subject to the D.E.C. permit or maybe
it will have already been obtained and then its not an issue. The Board could say you will hold
the final approval until they get aU of the permits.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-1989,lntroduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Hilda Mann:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SUBDIVISION NO.
9-1989, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, Cline Meadow Development, and
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
RESOL VED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Health
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the 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 the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 6l7.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may
be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required
by law.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
22
'-
,--'
\.
.,I
,--.-
-~
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FWl-89 SFR-20, DANŒL J. AND EMMA JOHNSON
MEADOWBROOK ROAD AND CLINE DRIVE TO SUBDIVIDE INTO 7 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
SITES THAT WILL ENCOMPASS 2 LARGE PRIVATE ESTATES AND FIVE i ACRE LOTS.
SOME FILLS AND GRADING WILL BE DONE FOR INSTALLATIONS OF LAWNS USING CLEAN
SANDY FILL AND TOPSOIL. TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.1 TOTAL AREA OF WETLAND: 6 ACRES
MRS. MANN-Read Section No.9, Standards for permit decisions, and Section 10, Conditions
to a permit, from Local Law Number 1, 1976, Freshwater Wetlands Protection Law. (On file)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO ISSUE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT, FWl-89,DANŒL AND EMMA
JOHNSON,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
To complete what is spelled out in the application regarding Lots 1 through 7, with the stipulation
that a buffer zone be left for Lots 1 through 5, setting from the rear or northern property
lines, and that a 35 foot buffer from the wetlands for Lots 6 and 7.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
DISCUSSION HELD ON CLINE MEADOW DEVELOPMENT
MR. STEVES-Stated lots 3, and 4, extending back 125 feet, they will provide a deed through
the Town extending that through. . .
MRS. MANN-Asked about the homes on the street are they going to be affected.
MR. STEVES-Not changing the drainage.
MR. N ACE-Stated that the surfa,ce water will remain through that culvert.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE, CLINE MEADOW
DEVELOPMENT,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph
Dybas:
To approved provided that they incorporated the engineer's recommendations for the calculations
and the buffer.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Richard Roberts, Chairman
23
Rì ~
~ .-.;&A1e), P,C.
~ENGlNEERS
/'
-.-/' ~'
21 BAY S'mEET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS. NY
12801
518' 793-4141
June 16, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Clarence and Cara Beames - Subdivision No. 10-1989
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above-referenceå project and have the
following comments:
1. Perc test has been provided. Calculations and details of the
septic tank and absorption field, however, have not been
provided.
2. 18- inch cu 1 verts are shown underneath the dr i veway.
Calculations should be included to verify the size of
culverts selected. An erosion control plan has been shown,
however, the 1 on 2 slope for the soil stabilization detail
is too steep.
3. Contours have been added to the driveway, showing a
longitudinal slope of up to 30%. We strongly suggest the
driveway sìope be flattened to no more than 10-12%.
Very trul y yours"
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~ - W --0---
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Planning Board Members
~ GLENS FALLS. NY ·l.ACONIA,.NH··
fiLE CO~
,./
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
-../ ~
. ....PJ ~~. ,tJUN 1 5 .
NOTE TO FILE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision 10-1989
Applicant/Project Name: Clarence & Car a Beames
It appears that the concerns raised at Preliminary Stage
have been addressed in the Final submission.
The applicant proposes to use 18" CMP to channel the
existing water course under the proposed driveway. The Board's
engineer should confirm that these pipes are large enough to
handle the flow.
Erosion control measures have been indicated on the down-
stream side of the 18" pipe. It may be advisable to provide
erosion control on the upstream side of the driveway. This is
particularly important prior to the establishment of soil stabil-
ization methods.
The limit and size of the cleared area have been shown and
the existing septic location has been indicated. Septic details
have been provided.
If final approval is granted the applicant should be ad-
vised that they must meet the requirements of Article VI of the
Subdivision regulations, present the original mylars to the
Planning Department for signatures, and provide ten copies of
the signed mylar to the Planning Department.
JG/pw
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
..
~
RlST-P...~ ~TES, P.C.
CON~ ENGINEERS
21 BAY smEET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FA1.lS, NY
12801
518·793-4141
----...
-.--'
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Pro-Craft Excavating - Site Plan No. 27-89
Dear Ms. York:
J
(
---' "----'
June 16, 1989
RFA #89-5000
We offer the following comments on the above-referenced project:
1. The drainage plan submitted is acceptable, providing for on-
site storm water retention. Drainage for the previously
developed portion of the site is addressed in my memorandum
of June 1, 1989.
2. After observing the Chipper in operation, I suggest that a
fence be required to keep people out of the area along the
s ides of the actual ch ipper. A 1 though the ch ipper has
integral guards they are not totally effective and the
flying chunks of wood pose a hazard for anyone in this area.
Very truly yours.
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~(j- W-~'-
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Planning Board Members
~ GLENS FALLS, NY, LACONIA, NH
.~
TOWN OF QVEENSBVRY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
NOTE TO FILE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
..,..
y . .!
Application Number: Site Plan 27-89
Applicant/Project Name: Pro-Craft Excavating, Inc.
The applicant has provided a sectional
machine location and noise level readings.
tion of the machine, I found the machine to
any other piece of construction equipment.
the operation of this machine will increase
on this site.
drawing of the
At a demonstra-
be no louder than
I do not believe
the noise levels
Tom Nace has submitted a letter concerning the drainage
on the adjoining property. Also, the Water Department has
confirmed that the hydrant in front of the site is working.
JG/pw
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . , A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
,/
-......,/
JUN1S.
\
"--'
---'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY fILE ~
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
June 19, 1989
NOTE TO FILE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 24-89
Applicant/Project Name: Adirondack Industrial Park
The application is for construction of a 20,000 square foot light industrial building
on 4 acres in the Wan-en Washington Industrial Park.
The application was tabled last month (May) for further information. The concerns
of the staff have been substantially addressed with this submission.
They have submitted a parking schedule (attached) which describes how the number
of parking spaces was anived at. The schedule in our Ordinance ties parking to the number
of employees. The applicant has submitted documentation which indicates they will be
providing the necessary parking spots for their use.
The remaining concerns were:
identification of the building use on the plan,
to show an access easement on the driveway; these have been done on the site plan
submission. .
The other concern was an incomplete drainage report.
LA Y /sed
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
-- ~
RIST '\ ..,..1ATES. p,c.
~ENGlNEERS
~
"-""
-------
21 BAysmeET
POST OFFICE aox 838
GLENS FAU.S, NY
12801
518' 793-4141
June 16, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Adirondack Industrial Park - Site Plan No. 24-89
Dear Ms. York:
Our comments on the above-referenced project are as follows:
1. The applicant's drainage design has been amended to include
on-site retention. The retention facilities shown appear to
be adequate, however, care should be taken to assure that
the top of the berm is constructed level and erosion control
matting should be placed on the berm until permanent grass
cover is established.
2. A note has been added to the drawing that the access
easement will be provided from the adjoining parcel to the
north.
3. The number of parking spaces seems reasonable for industrial
uses including provision for future tenants. The size of
each parking space is 180 sq. ft. as specified in the zoning
ordinance, however, the dimensions are 18'xlO' rather than
9'x20' as required by the Town Zoning Ordinance. According
to NYS Codes, three handicapped places should be provided
for parking "areas of 51-75 spaces. It appears this could be
readily done with the layout shown.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
J-c-.- W -W ~
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Planning Board Members
* GLENS FAU.S. NY' LACONIA. NH
If ~
RI~ --£lATES, PC
~G ENGINEERS
--~
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS, NY
12801
518·793-4141
June 19, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Dr. Shimon Shalit - Site Plan No. 30-89
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above-referenced project and have the
following comments:
1. The applicant has stated that tractor trailers will infre-
quently use the site but has provided more room at the
loading area. The turning radius of a tractor trailer
requires more clearance at the entrance and exit to the rear
parking lot east of the building to avoid intruding into
parking spaces or planted islands.
2. The applicant has reduced the building area and provided a
green area of 68,802 S.F. Our check of green area agrees
within 300 S.F., which is close for measuring irregular
areas. However, an additional 458 S.F. green area is needed
to reach 30% of the 230,868 S.F. site area.
3. The size of the septic tanks have been reduced to meet the
manufacturers recommendations for the aerobic sewage
treatment system. The engineer's report states that no food
services are proposed or are scheduled to be incorporated
into the new facil ity, which should be a condition of
approval.
4. Site specific erosion control measures must be provided.
5. Typical sections are still required for paved and gravel
surfaces.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
$<- w "~c-
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Town Planning Board Members
~ GLENS FALLS, NY·LACONIA, NH
,~'
'-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
----..-/
~",··'JUN 1 5 1.
NOTE TO FILE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number: Site Plan No. 30-89
Applicant/Project Name: Dr. Shimon Shalit
Malka Shalit
At the April 25, 1989 Planning Board Meeting several concerns
were brought up by the Board. Of major concern was the adequacy
of parking facilities.
The new Submission shows a
increased underground parking.
ber of parking spaces required,
for the entire building.
slightly smaller building with
This scenario provides the num-
under the current Zoning Ordinance,
The typical length of a parking space is indicated as 18'-0"
on the plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires 20'. It appears that
there is sufficient room to provide for 20' long spaces with the
required 20' wide access way on this layout.
The accessways along the north and south sides of the build-
ing are now 20' wide. The loading area along the north side ap-
pears to be 14 '-0". 15' is required.
An 808' + x 100~ parcel to the west of the site is now
indicated on the plan. The plans indicate that this parcel is
being purchased by the applicant. The applicant's intention for
this lot have to be explained. If this parcel is to be combined
with the original site,' this would be a property line adjustment.
If this is to remain a separate and independent lot a Subdivision
approval would be required.
The retaining wall proposed in the original submission has
been omitted from this plan. It appears (from the grading plan)
that the additional parcel will now drain to the recharge basin.
Rist-Frost should determine the adequacy of the basin to handle
the new conditions.
I would also suggest that Rist-Frost comment on whether their
comments of 4/24/89 have been addressed.
"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
-----'
I would like to stress once again the importance of land-
scape maintenance. The proposed landscape plan will go a long
way in minimizing any negative visual impact. However, if the
landscaping is not maintained properly the opposite will be true.
Finally, I would recommend that the Board include the QCCB
comments in any approval. This would include placing planters
under the canopy to separate parking from pedestrian traffic.
JG/pw
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
[\ ~
R~ SòOCIATES, PC.
\:>-.3t,,:rING ENGINEERS
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALlS, NY
12801
518· 793-4141
-----
.-/
- ..........-
June 19, 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
Preliminary Stage
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above project and have the following
comments:
1. The drainage report submitted with the application
discusses storm water management in narrative form. It is
reasonable that the increase in runoff will be minimal
and that runoff will continue to flow to the wetlands. We
suggest that calculations be provided which relate dry
well capacity to the increase in runoff from the house and
driveway area.
Storm water calculations have subsequently been provided.
Our comments on these calculations are as follows and can
be corrected for the Final Submission:
a. When sizing a detention basin storage volume by SCS
TR55, the use of peak discharges from other methods (i.e.
rational method) should not be used.
b. In computation of VR (runoff volume) by SCS TR55,
Chapter 6; VR = QA 53.33 where Q - runoff in inches, not
peak discharge as shown in the Storm Water Report.
c. The detention area called for in the report should be
shown on the grading plan.
2. The first 75 feet of the sewer easement south of Lot 6 is
to be used for a driveway. The drawings note that the
easement will be maintained by the owner of Lot 6. There
should be some formal agreement between the Town and
applicant on joint use of the easement.
3. Flood plain information indicates the area is not subject
to flooding.
4. A clearing, grading and erosion control plan has been
provided.
~ GLENS FALLS. NY· LACONIA NH
I,
~
-...../
"
../
'----
- -..--"
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
June 19, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Page 2
5. The long form EAF discusses full build-out of the project
in accordance with Town policy.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSQCIATES, P.C.
-If', '
~ - \.--
(.,'-.1C"..._
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Planning Board Members
'----'
~
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
FILE ~~
'......
JUN 1 5 .
NOTE TO FILE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 9-1989
Applicant/Project Name: Cline Meadow Development
The preliminary plan presented has been modified slightly from the sketch plan.
The lot lines on lots 6 and 7 have been amended so that lot 7 can receive an exemption
under the sewer tax regulations.
There are no new roads proposed and the only utilities to be installed are the service
laterals to the individual houses.
The application indicates that the drainage easement will be maintained on lot 3
and extended to the rear of that lot.
The most significant physical factor on the site is the DEC wetland GFl. The
Subdivision, as proposed, appears to be sensitive to the limitations imposed by the presence
of this wetland. No building or filling will take place within the wetland. At the present
time all of the storm water runs to the wetland. The drainage report submitted indicates
that this condition will not change. Runoff from the roof and driveways will be directed
to drywells.
If the engineer report indicates no serious problems I would recommend approval
of this application.
JG/sed
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . ,A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
II
.~
RI~ .oATES, P.c.
cd.....--ø ENGINEERS
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS, NY
12801
518· 793-4141
'---"'
~
June 19, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Ref: Cross Roads Park - Subdivision No. 5-1989
Preliminary Plans
Dear Ms. York:
The following are review comments on the above-referenced
project:
1. The drawings state that Bay Associates will be responsible
for maintenance of the detention basin. Drainage calcula-
tions are included and provide adequate storm water
retent ion for Phase 1. A dry well with storage has been
provided for the portion of the site which drains to the
southeast.
Details of a rip-rap outlet from the retention basin are
shown on the drawings and referred to in the Storm Water
Report, however, the location and extent of the channel is
not shown on the drainage plans.
The detention basin as shown interferes with the Phase 2
development. The developer's engineer is aware of this and
plans to design other storm water detention facilities to
replace this basin during future phases.
2. Percolation tests and septic system design have been
provided. The applicant calls for fill in areas where
existing percolation rates are less than one minute which
would provide material with an acceptable percolation rate.
3. Waivers will be required for several items noted on the road
plan and profile: A 140 foot radius right-of-way and paved
surface on the cul-de-sac is not provided. The road's
centerline radius is 235 feet, not 250 feet for a marginal
access road. There is approximately 400 feet of surface
flow prior to interception by catch basins as opposed to 350
.feet in the Town Standards.
4. Lots 4 and 5 - the septic systems should be relocated to
provide 50-foot separation from the open drainage swale
along the lot line.
~ GLENS FALLS, NY, LAOONIA. NH
"......
....
.../
--.~
R ~~
~/
r
"'-"
.-.......,,/
Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner
Town of Queensbury
June 19, 1989
RFA #89-5000
Page 2
5. The long form Env ironment Assessment prov ides informat ion
for full build-out for Phase 1 but does not address future
phases. 0
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
( ~
-r/~ \ \. ¡
,,~ - .......J'....J. "\,-/ C=---
Thomas W. Nace, P.E.
Project Manager
TWN:mg
cc: Town Planning Board Members
..)
'- --.-/
.............
J
.....
,/
-'-~
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832
NOTE TO FILE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Application Number: Subdivision No. 5-1989
Applicant/Project Name: Cross Roads Park, Phase I
PRELIMINARY STAGE
The application is for a phased subdivision of approximately 36 acres off of Bay
Road. The property is split zoned with the eastern portion being MR-5 and the western
portion being RR-3A.
The proposal is for a phased development. The first phase of which will be a 5 lot
commercial subdivision off of Bay Road. The plans indicate that the remainder of the
parcel will be held for future development.
The "concept plan" for the future phases has addressed the Boards concern that
the applicant show what could potentially happen on the site. This was done to show the
potential impacts from the site and how the land uses would inten-elate.
The applicant requests a waiver from Article 8E (9)(c), meeting the 140 foot width
for cul-de-sac's. The reason for this is the temporary use of the cul-de-sac until Phase
II development and the unnecessary paving of an area to be later removed. The applicant
should also clarify whether he is also requesting a waiver from Article 8, (9) (Street Design)
which requires a minimum of 2.50 feet center line radius for a marginal access road. The
submission does meet this requirement.
The applicant's EAF indicates on page 3g (Project Description) that the maximum
vehicular trips generated per hour would be 8.5. Could the applicant identify whether
the Trip Generation Manual or some, other source was used to determine this figure.
LA Y /sed
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763