Loading...
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