Loading...
1989-06-22 ---- -.-/ ., -\....-..- """', ". -.....~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22ND, 1989 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-1989 Hughes Subdivision 1. Preliminary Stage Site Plan No. 35-89 Stewarts Ice Cream Co. Inc. 6. Site Plan No. 16-88 Queensbury Factory Outlet 8. Site Plan No. 38-89 Greater Glens Falls Warren 9. County Board of Realtors, Inc. Site Plan No. 39-89 Douglas and Debra Petroski 10. P8-89 Petition Change of George and Rita Dunphy 11. Zone P7-89 Petition Change of Charles O. Sicard 13. Zone Site Plan No. 40-89 Thomas and Carolyn Clary 13. Subdivision No. 6-87 Northern Distributing, 16. Phase I Agenda Control 17. .~ ---- .... "'-- - /' -.-""'-.......-'..-.-'" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 1989 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN FRANK DESANTIS VICTOR MACRI PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS KEITH JABLONSKI TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-THOMAS NACE LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER MEMBERS ABSENT HILDA MANN, SECRETARY OLD BUSINESS SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1989, MR-5, PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HUGHES SUBDIVISION WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, OPPOSITE BAYBERRY DRIVE FOR 12 LOTS FOR MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON 8.31 ACRES OF LAND. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-10, ll.l LOT SIZE: 8.31 ACRES ANDREW MCCORMACK/COULTER AND MCCORMACK/JOHN HUGHES PRESENT ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, Engineer (On file) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee York, Senior Planner (On file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. YORK-Stated that on the environmental assessment form it says that a 12 lot subdivision is proposed, asked if this is still the case? MR. MCCORMACK-Stated that its reduced to eight now. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-By way of clarification there is a letter dated February 1, 1989, regarding statement of intent of the subdivision, it also list a 12 Lot subdivision, suggest you should change that to 8 Lot subdivision. MR. DESANTIS-I have the same question I had back in April, and May, I will refer this to Lee. In the April 14th, meeting we had a discussion this relates to the placing of the water line and the clearing of the place we got the package of letters from everybody, I still don't have a letter from either Mr. Flaherty, or anybody else concerning how this happened. We've asked Mr. Hughes this question several times, but at the last meeting he wasn't here, Dr. Brassel was here and I asked him that question and at that time at least the minutes reflect that Lee asked me should we get a letter from Mr. Flaherty I said yes, you said you would asked him. Tom, you said at one time Mr. Macri asked the question, I think we have to clarify whether or not the site was legally cleared, Tom said I think the first thing that the applicant should do is sit down with us and Paul Naylor, and discuss whether or not a wavier should be granted. What has happened from April, to May, to June, with regard to that question. To me that's separate from the application itself. As I said in May, which was a sparsely attended meeting, I said at that time that I think that we needed to know what happened so that we can set up some kind of communication with people such as Mr. Flaherty, if it was him I'm only using his name because its a water line and he is in charge of the water line to make sure that these people are informed when they go to these Department heads that they need the approval of the Planning Board before they can do anything. MRS. YORK-He did summit a letter to the Board. 1 -- \. ."'- ~ -' ./ --',~-...-'" MR. DESANTIS-Did he submit the letter at the May meeting, which said if I para phrase it the situation as built was approvable, it was about a 1 t sentence letter? ' MRS. YORK-I have requested that Mr. Flaherty address this matter with the Board. MR. ROBERTS-I did happen to catch up with Tom and his assistant, and discussed this at some length. They said they would come up with a letter, I guess maybe they didn't do it. MRS. YORK-I can request one more time that Mr. Flaherty. . . MR. DESANTIS-I don't mean to be a pain in the neck about this, but to me its very disturbing. Its more disturbing than an applicant going out and doing it on his own, because the applicant goes in and. whether he mislead or misunderstood his intentions talks to somebody who apparently to the applIcant represents the Town, and he goes and does something. If this is the case here I'm not saying it is because I can't get an answer from anybody as to what the case is here: It does bother me tremendously because if you can go out and get anybody in the Town Administration that gives you approval to do something and you do it you have a situation that is after the fact. We've had this come up in a highly publicized situation I would like to avoid that in the future. I would like to be very plan to Mr. Flaherty, we can pass the minutes on the him, I haven't called him personally because I knew staff was trying to talked to him. I think we need a answer to this question the only reason that I'm picking on him is because its a water line. I think we do need to make it very plain to the public and to the department heads that you just don't go talk to a department head and he gives approval to do something. He is the one that should see it for the first time I guess when the engineer's submit to him after preliminary or something such as that not before hand. I still want to know how this happened, it still bothers me that all this time has gone by without an explanation. MR. CARTIER-My own feeling is for the applicant's own sake, its up to the applicant to bird dog this thing and provide us with the explanation. MR. DESANTlS-1 don't mean to attribute anything here, but we have gotten no response to this question. I have asked this consistently its been the same question since day one and I'll repeat it to you John, you were here two meetings ago, Dr. Brassel sat there, and I said please get me an answer. I know you told me Tom Flaherty said I could do it, I told you Tom Flaherty was wrong because its sketch plan you can't do that. I still think Tom Flaherty is wrong if he told you we've asked Tom Flaherty he won't answer us. MRS. YORK-It may have been a misunderstanding under the old Ordinance prior to my being here that this was not. . . to our department. MR. DESANTIS-I understand that we have a letter in the file from Pat Collard, that says that under the old Ordinance you still couldn't do this without sketch plan. This came out at the last meeting because we asked her that very specific question, could you do this under the old Ordinance to try and clarify whether or not we were not clear. I would asked John, or Tom, to talk to Tom Flaherty, we're not talking sometime I want an answer to that and I don't care what the answer is, but it happened I want to know how it happened. I don't think you can put in gravel roads, fire hydrants, loops, without somebody giving some authority to somebody. I don't want a situation where we're approving things after they're built. MR. ROBERTS-I think you make a good point we need to make that clear to department heads. I wonder that if in this case we don't have some extenuating circumstances. MR. DESANTIS-I want to find out do we have extenuating circumstances, did Tom Flaherty say go and put it in there, then I have a problem with Tom Flaherty, if he says I didn't give him authority to put in there, then I have a problem with John Hughes. I'm not saying who I have a problem with right now because I don't have an answer. I know we've gone through every step of the phase where they put in without approval or with approval. If it was with the wrong approval by Tom Flaherty its not John Hughes fault. I know the last time the meeting Dr. Brassel accused us of fuzzy communication, I think that's pretty plain. MR. CARTIER-My feeling is that this application isn't going to move along until that's cleared up. MR. DESANTIS-My feeling is that I'm not trying to hang up preliminary approval last time we had questions that were related to engineering, I think the engineer has told us tonight that those are cleared up, I don't have any problem with that. I still have the same question I had in sketch plan, to me that has not been cleared up and I know time has passed and we have gotten the other approvals, but that question is outstanding. I have asked staff to talk to Mr. Flaherty, obviously they have and he has not responded. I have asked the applicant to talk to Mr. Flaherty, I persume they have and he has not responded. To me we have a situation here where something was done, I need an explanation I'm not deciding who was wrong until 2 '--' --../ \. "- '-~ ,/ ~ ------' I get that explanation. MR. MCCORMACK-It was mentioned that Mr. Flaherty did write a letter, but its short I guess he is basically saying that the water main was installed in accordance with the Water Department standards. MR. ROBERTS-We've seen that letter we are looking for more clarification. MR. MCCORMACK-I guess if John or I were to pursue that further I guess we need for you to tell us what you want to see in that letter other than construction. MR. MACRI-The point that was brought up in April, I believe was are we building a subdivision to fit the mistakes that were there, or are we building a subdivision according to the Town standards. Since then you have propose waivers that take care of the turning radius I don't remember all the details. The fact of the matter is if we are going to grant you a wavier release, I feel if I'm going to grant you a wavier its got to be because you have good reason for us to grant you a wavier, not because you went ahead and did something without permission. This is where I'm coming from. We are wasting everyone's time if this is not going to be constructed according to these plans. I won't accept a wavier for changing turning radius on the road that was constructed illegally. This is the point I was making back in April. MR. ROBERTS-Are we trying to invoke new Ordinances on an old project here that had conceptual approval years ago? MR. MACRI-It had conceptual approval, it had sketch plan approval all that does it say, gee we like the concept go out and get your engineering work come back and be approved then go do your work. If you had done that nobody would be sitting here with complaints. MR. DESANTIS-At the May 16th, meeting when Dr. Brassel was here, I asked Dr. Brassel the same question I just asked right now. His answer to me was and its in the minutes that when John Hughes, had sketch plan approval he thought he had approval to do what he did. I think that was an honest answer by Dr. Brassel. We've asked Pat Collard could we have done, under the old Ordinance at sketch plan approval, what John Hughes did, I think she gave us an honest answer which was no. I don't think we're invoking a new Ordinance on this situation at all. I'm just trying to figure out what happened. MR. ROBERTS-We're a lot more sophisticated than we were when we first sketched this plan. MR. DESANTIS-I don't have any problem with that because its not years ago when he is asking to do this today. I'm just trying to figure out what happened. Its like a question nobody wants to answer. I don't know what's wrong with saying either I told him and I made a mistake or I didn't tell him he made the mistake. MR. HUGHES-I answered that question for you several times. Every meeting that I've been at I answered that question. MR. DESANTIS-You said Tom told you to go ahead. MR. HUGHES-I told you why we went ahead. MR. DESANTIS-To finish the loop. MR. HUGHES-No. The fact was that they didn't want to bore under Bay Road. MR. DESANTIS-Can you get him to tell us that? MR. HUGHES-It was my understanding that it was put in the letter. MR. DESANTIS-This letter is about 10 words long John, and it says as built its approvable this is essentially what is says. MR. HUGHES-When I got the building permits for the office buildings out front I came before this Board and at that point they didn't want any more road cuts coming into that project, so how was I suppose to get to those lots if we didn't put the road in to start with. MR. DESANTIS-Which road are you talking about? MR. HUGHES-All those buildings are serviced from that road from the rear. We've got one entrance coming off of Bay Road. MR. DESANTIS-I understand that. You needed to build 1/2 mile of road to service those two lots. That's what you've got according to your plan. 3 .,,---, ~ \. ~. '-. ,--- -~--' MR. HUGHES-I didn't have to build 1/2 mile of road, what I told you before is that the fact that he did not want the water hydrants down at that corner he wanted it up farther where we put the water hydrants, and he wanted to continued so he could flush those hydrants. MR. DESANTIS-If you put that into a letter than we'll find out why it was built. MR. HUGHES-That's my understanding. You don't want to believe what somebody tells you. MR. DESANTIS-I want it from Tom Flaherty. MR. DYBAS-I think we ought to pin Tom Flaherty down and get things moving myself. MR. ROBERTS-What are we saying that its not a good project? MR. DESANTIS-We are trying to find out whether he built the road and the water line legally or illegally. If someone were to build a road in this Town, put in water lines and hydrants out in the middle of any field tomorrow and then come back in with a great idea, and a great plan, would that be a legal undertaking on his part. MR. ROBERTS-No. Not under today's standards. MR. MCCORMACK-This is not an ordinary situation. I agree with you that nobody should be allowed to go out in a middle of a field and put in a water main. We have a project where as far as I know all the requirements regarding engineering and staff comments have been addressed. We have a road that happens to exist which meets Town's standards. If that has been done. . .supposedly legal than we would be at the same point we are tonight. Its there its been done properly and it meets with the Highway and the Water Department Rules and Regulations, I think that's the most important part. MR. ROBERTS-It is to me and I frankly don't have a lot of patience with what's going on here. MR. CARTIER-I still have some problems with this. All of the issues have been met with one glaring exception and that is things have been done prior to the approval of those things having been done. I still have some problems with this too. MR. MACRI-Read letter to John Hughes from Thomas Flaherty dated April 24th, 1989. (On file) Mr. Flaherty says basically that because of this water main installation it prevented us from a lot of additional costs. MR. ROBERTS-By the Town? MR. MACRI-Yes. It doesn't say that he gave permission. MR. DYBAS-Who are we looking to get the clarification from? MR. DESANTIS-I would ask Mr. Flaherty a question, were you advised prior to the installation of the water main, did you give permission for the installation of the water main prior to its installation in its current location? Did you plan for the installation of the loop? I'm not an engineer or a plumber, but a 1/2 mile loop is a large loop. If he looked at the plans and saw a 1/2 mile loop and said go ahead and put this in we have a situation that I think we need to address in a certain manner. Another question that came up do we have a written application for wavier from the road radius? I know we can address that at final, but its something that we need to file. Tom brought this up in April, and we've just advised the applicant now that you need the wavier technically. I know its been an application that's been on the Board for a long time, but if we're going to follow that waiver procedure correctly you need to have a written request if you have road radius equal to what's there now rather the Ordinance. MR. ROBERTS-Didn't we get Paul to agree to that Tom? MR. DESANTIS-Paul said in the letter that he had no problem with it. I'm saying I don't have any problem with that either, but we ought to have a letter in the file saying we want a road radius wavier. MR. MCCORMACK-We weren't aware of the Town wanting such a wavier. We delayed in asking for that waiver because at that point in time it looked like we might have 5een also asking for a wavier to put in the paved wing swales, that didn't get resolved until the middle of last week now we know what kind of a wavier to ask for. By the way that's one of the reason why we couldn't get anything done any quicker than we did because the decision wasn't made by a particular Town official as to what he wanted. MR. DESANTIS-I don't have any problem with having that at final what I'm saying is that technically 4 ----" \. / "- '--- ---../ to complete the file you need a written request from the road radius wavier in the file. MR. MC~ORMACK-Regarding what we might obtain from Mr. Flaherty, I recall being out on the sIte at least once and Mr. Hughes probably most of the time when I observed either Mr. Flaherty or his Deputy there inspecting the progress in the works, is that true? MR. HUGHES-Yes it is. MR. MCCORMACK-That's one thing we'd like to have Mr. Flaherty to tell us in our letter that he was inspecting the structure in the works, I guess that amounts to some kind of permission. MR. CARTIER-Does Mr. Flaherty, have the authority to grant permission to do that? MR. DESANTIS-I just want to know what he did then I think we can decided whether or not if what he did is appropriate and what we should do after that. MR. MCCORMACK-I think we're going to find out all of the things that were involved the two basic things in order to loop the water main you had to build a road of sorts to put the water main in. As far as the road and the water main were put in true, there is full knowledge of the Highway and Water Department. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-1989,lntroduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Subdivision No. 1-1989, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, Hughes Subdivision. 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: None 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 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartièr, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MR. MCCORMACK-The project originally consisted of 12 lots we've eliminated what was called Lot #3, we've eliminated two of the lots in the circle, and eliminated a 3rd lot all as a result of trying to address a separation requirement between the raised fill system and any 5 '---' '---" \, "'- "---" - ./ - .--",~ drainage way. We tried to meet all of the environmental concerns that both the Town's consultant and my office sought. This resulted in an eight lot subdivision which for those of you in the public is intended to be a subdivision of professional doctor's or medical offices not residences. The project will be served by an existing water main supplied by water from the Town of Queensbury we hope, on site sewage disposal raised filled systems. I think this is about the size of it. There is a brook down the westerly side of the property that is being protected by various erosion control measures that bit of water coming throughout the roadways in the subdivision will pass through an existing pipe through Bay Road, cross Bay Road through other lands of Mr. Hughes, and eventually into the brook that flows north and south and eventually winds up in Halfway Brook. So we have water supplies, sewage disposal, and storm water issues addressed on these plans. LISA ATKINSON-How much property does that encompass in that project? MR. MCCORMACK-The total area about 7i acres. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1989, HUGHES SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY STAGE,lntroduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: Approve having met the requirements of the Town Ordinance. Several issues that remain will be addressed in the final stage of the application. DISCUSSION HELD MR. MCCORMACK-Asked if they were asking for the formal waiver that I'm going to get from the Town. MR. MACRI-Stated that the request for the wavier has to be in writing. MRS. YORK-Read letter from Paul Naylor, dated April 25, 1989. MR. DESANTIS-Stated that this was prior to his decision that they had to have paved swales. MRS. YORK-Will request that as soon as she gets a request for waiver, at Staff Review I will ask Mr. Naylor. . . MR. NACE-Stated that they're still looking for the letter from D.E.C. stating that they don't have any problem with the plan. MR. DESANTIS-Stated that he would like a letter from Mr. Flaherty. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann SITE PLAN NO. 35-89 TYPE n HC-lA, STEWARTS ICE CREAM CO., INC. NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROUTE 149 ROUTE 9L FOR A RETAIL CONVENIENCE SHOP WITH ONE RETAIL RENTAL AND SELF SERVICE GASOLINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.27-1-28.22 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE: RETAIL SALES: 3,800 SQ. FT. AREA OF PARCEL: 1.81 ACRES HERB BOYTON VICE PRI?SIDENT OF STEWARTS ICE CREAM CO. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that he saw the house was gone. Asked if they we're able to move it or was it destroyed? MR. BOYTON-Stated the owner of the house found that they were not able to save the house they had to have it torn down. Stewart's advanced them money so they could move the house hoping to save it. MRS. YORK-Asked Mr. Boy ton if he acquired a demolition permit? MR. BOYTON-Stated he didn't tear it down. MADELINE DRISCOLL-Owner of the house. Explained that she did obtain a demolition permit for that. As Mr. Boy ton, did state every effort was made to save the house. As of Memorial 6 '--' -. \. / '.............---- -~ Day weekend plans were .be~n~ made to move it, but the conditions of the land, zoning, and the other means of the IndIVIduals that were involved. . .would have to be demolished. At that time or when advertisement was made at that time came forward to ask anything about the house. MRS. YORK-Read article in the Zoning Ordinance, page 63 Article 5.020. MR. DESANTIS-Stated that the question is, could you build a Stew arts Store as planned in this application on this site without removing this house. If you can answer this in a negative then the removal of the house can be as undertaking the project. MR. BOYTON-Stated that as far as the building going down on condition of us doing anything the only place we could place out store was where the building was so we had no use for the house. MR. DESANTIS-Stated that if they never got approval to put a store there. . . MR. BOYTON-Doesn't know what they would do with the house. MR. DESANTIS-Stated that once an application is filed they move into the process and you can't proceed with the project as filed until you have approval. MR. BOYTON-Stated that he doesn't have control over what the owner wants to do with their property until he owns it. MR. MACRI-Stated as the application was presented to the Board your the owner. MR. CARTIER-Asked about the money that Stewart's advanced to the owners for the property to be moved, asked if this money was used to demolish the house? MRS. DRISCOLL-Yes. MR. DYBAS-Stated that at the last meeting it was addressed that every step would be taken to save the house conceivable it may not be saved, asked if this was correct. MRS. DRISCOLL-Stated that the house is old. It has been reviewed by a gentlemen in Schuylerville and also another individual in Saratoga, they both made a number of different visits up here to see about the house moving. They had some conflict of interest, but once the house was actually inspected to see about being lifted in the steel beames the sills underneath it were to deteriorated to have the house moved, also the land proposals there was one piece of property down by North Forty, another piece on Pickle Hill involved with the Harris family that did not materialize because of certain land requirements that they had. This house was able to be moved structurally or zoning because of the land requirements. MR. DYBAS-Stated that he was saying that she did not commit herself either way that she would prefer to save it, but there was a possibility you couldn't save it. MRS. DRISCOLL-Absolutely. MR. MACRI-Stated that he believes the applicant represented the last time that every effort was going to made to preserve the house. We were proceeding along with the approval process under that assumption. The fact is that they went ahead and did things in accordance with their purchase agreement that said that the house had to be removed before closing date. This shouldn't be done with the application under site plan review. MR. BOYTON-Explained that the Building Department gave them a permit. MR. MACRI-Asked if the Building Department was aware that this project was presently under site plan review? MR. BOYTON-Assumes so. MR. DESANTIS-Asked how long was the demolition permit good for? MRS. DRISCOLL-Doesn't know. MR. DESANTIS-Thinks that the demolition permit would give you the authority to take down at some point in the future. MR. BOYTON-Stated that the problem that they ran into with the seller on this project was that they needed money to find another location. They were trying to save the house to be their new location so they got into a position financially that they had to have more money. 7 0,-- ----" " , We were prepared to leave the house there buy the property as is sits. MRS.. YORK-Stated that in Section 5.020, that no building permit (assumes that a demolition permIt would be the same thing) for a use requiring site plan review shall be valid without a site plan review. - .......,/..../ '--- MR. ROBERTS-Doesn't know if you can assume that a building permit and a demolition permit are the same thing, feels this should be clarified. MRS. DRISCOLL-Feels that if there was some type of a waiting period or if the demolition had to come before this review Board prior to the actual work being done someone should have instructed her. MR. DESANITS-Asked how many Stewarts Store do you have, how many places to you purchase and construct stores at? MR. BOYTON-Has 168 stores. MR. DESANTIS-Feels they know what their doing. MR. BOYTON-Stated that he has never been before a Board like this one that has questioned a demolition of a building. MR. DYBAS-Feels that there should be some communication with the Department Heads of the Town when someone does come in for a permit. MRS. DRISCOLL-Stated that when the property was torn down at the time it was torn down that was my personal property, it didn't belong to Stewarts. MR. CARTIER-Asked if they would of been able to tear the house done and remove it without the payment of Stewarts? MRS. DRISCOLL-No. MR. CARTIER-Feels that this is a connection because money changed hands. MR. BOYTON-Stated that when they did advance money it was strictly for the house, had no idea what she was going to do. MRS. YORK-Asked that on the demolition permit did it ask anywhere on that application if your property was under site plan review? MRS. DRISCOLL-No. MRS. YORK-Stated that maybe this is a change that will be made. AWAITING COUNCIL'S DIRECTION ON THIS MATTER SITE PLAN NO. 16-88 PC-lA QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION ON TIME FRAME FOR APPROVAL THA T WAS GRANTED ON JUNE 21, 1988 BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A SHOPPING CENTER. TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1 SECTION 5.050 E ROBERT STEWART PRESENT MR. STEWART-Stated that Queensbury Factory Outlet Center, just a year ago you reviewed a site plan review in connection with it the Zoning Board of Appeals also approved a variance. There has been intense litigation between members of the family going on for over a couple of years on who owns and has various rights, because of this litigation there is no one person who has the authority to go ahead and get the job done. Its in litigation, but it is critical that we also get this extension. I have filed an application on behalf of Saul Birnbaum one of the owners because I have taken it through the beginning. I didn't realize that Mr. LappeI' who is here tonight representing the referee whose been appointed and has some authority over the shopping center, not knowing that I was filling application he did the same thing which shows we were both unanimous on this question. Dick Barlett is also here because he has signed an affidavit. MR. ROBERTS-Read the letter from Robert Eddy dated June 21st, 1989. (On file) MR. STEW AR T-Stated that if you want the report will go back to his file to find out what happened. 8 \" ''-...../ ,-- '- " ---~ -~ MR. DESANTIS-Stated that just to complete the file, that there is a question about this bond for the planting if you could find out what has happened to it. MR. STEWART-Stated that he will get a written report and give it to Lee York. JOHN LAPPER-Represent Howard Carr who appointed by the Surrogate Court as the receiver of this property. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-88, QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER,Introduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Approve based upon the applications and affidavits that are before us. Given the history of the matter at least as publish in the local press grant extension for another year. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann NEW BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 38-89 TYPE n LI-lA GREATER GLENS FALLS WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS, INC. 269 BAY ROAD TO CONVERT THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING 962 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-1-29 SECTION: 4.020 N LOT SIZE: 12,920 SQ. FT. P AT BOYLE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD PRESENT MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MRS. BOYLE-Stated that they are proposing to purchase the property that was previously Shananagan's Deli, and turn it into office space. There is currently a 24 ft. by 30 ft. detached garage on the property. Would like to tear this down and they would like to put a addition on the back of the building which would be 24 ft. by 36 ft. maximum. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they shared a common driveway for the property? MRS. BOYLE-No. Stated that if you follow the line down there is a tree, there is a tree on the south side of our building that if we needed to we could continue using that driveway or if you take out the garage on the other side. . . MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they were going to continue to tear the driveway which has been at that point? MRS. BOYLE-Stated at this time they are going too. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, Town Engineer, (On file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. BOYLE-Stated that she believes that there are a couple of things going to be taken care of when the garage is taken down. When this comes down the plan is at this point to. . .the same distance as using the back parking lot to gravel that and that would be the driveway. Their is already a curb cut there and an existing driveway in. MR. NACE-Stated that it would take care of the driveway, but it will increase the problem of permeable area. MR. MACRI-Feels that their isn't enough information present. MRS. BOYLE-Stated that we're talking about taking down a structure that is 24 ft. by 30 ft. and putting up a structure that is 24 ft. by 36 ft, and then turn around and beautify the property. MR. DESANTIS-Asked if when she got her application did it have a checklist with it? 9 " -.../ \. ,/ -~ -~ M~S. BO~L~-Stated that the .only items that she understood to be a problem was the sign, WhICh we mdIcated that was gomg to be put on the building and remarks about the storm water which we attempted to address. ' MR. CARTIER-Asked if she owned the entire eight feet to the driveway? M~S. BOYLE-Yes. We have from the side of the building it goes over most of the way in that drI vew ay. MR. CARTIER-Stated that they were trying to get some permeable area if she got rid of the eight foot driveway. MR. DESANTIS-Stated that the poliéy in the Town is that when your talking about additions that any water that falls on a piece of property you don't want the storm water run off from that site traveling on to neighbors property. Stated that its impossible for the engineer or anybody else to evaluate from the map so we know which way the property slopes. On the map you can't tell whether or not when you put on the addition the water is going to run off onto the neighbors property. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (On file) Warren County Planning Board approved. (On file» DISCUSSION HELD MR. DESANTIS-Stated that she has to designate on the plan a space for handicapped parking. Referred to letter from Independent Living Center. (On file) MR. NACE-Stated that the applicant should be aware of that the permeability is impacted by the parking requirement and additional space. The requirement of a wider driveway it may be possible that the parking sets back in the lot. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that the property doesn't seem to be big enough to do what you want to do. MRS. BOYLE-Asked if she chooses to close on this building as it stands without putting an addition on the back can we go ahead and use the building as it stands now? MRS. YORK-Stated that she still has to have site plan review. TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-89, GREATER GLENS FALLS WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS, INC, FOR MORE INFORMATION WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT. SITE PLAN NO. 39-89 TYPE TIt WR-lA DOUGLAS AND DEBRA PETROSKI FITZGERALDS ROAD, GLEN LAKE TO REPLACE EXISTING DECAYING STAIRS AND STONE DECK LEADING TO LAKE LEVEL WITH CASCADING PRESSURE TREATED DECKS AND STAIRS. TmS AREA WILL ALSO BE LANDSCAPED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-14 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: .604 ACRES DOUG PETROSKI PRESENT MR. PETROSKI-Stated that the stairs are dangerous as they exist presently. MR. ROBERTS-Asked where the additional decking is going to be? MR. PETROSKI-Stated that it was located even with the house, located on the northside of the house not close to the lake. The deck that is shown close to the lake is already there its just in bad shape. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) Warren County Planning Board approved. (On file) DISCUSSION HELD 10 '--' --./ " ./ -- ~.-' MR. CARTIER-Asked if he was going to be moving any fill? MR. PETROSKI-No. Just going to be doing decks over. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 39-89, DOUGLAS AND DEBRA PETROSKI,lntroduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Victor Macri: WHEREAS, there is presently before this Planning Board an application for: Site Plan No. 39-89 replacement of existing decaying stairs under constructed of a treated deck. ' WH.ER~AS, !his Planni.ng Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board actIon IS subject to reVIew under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 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 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-S9, DOUGLAS AND DEBRA PETROSKI,lntroduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Frank DeSantis: To approve in that it meets with all the current Zoning Regulations. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann RECOMMENDATION FOR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE: PS-S9 GEORGE AND RITA DUNPHY LUZERNE ROAD PRESENT ZONING: SR-lA 2 TIMES THE LOT WIDTH/300 FT. LOT WIDTH PROPOSED ZONING: SR-lA 150 FT. LOT WIDTH TAX MAP NO. 125-1-2 GEORGE AND RITA DUNPHY PRESENT LISA ATKINSON-Manor Homes representing Dunphy's. 11 " '---'~ '-' --- .; - .------. MR. DUNPHY-Stated that they applied for a variance for their piece of property we we're turned down by the Zoning Board of Appeals. We own approximately 5 acres of property that has 300 feet of road frontage, approximately 800 feet deep. We had it surveyed we kept one acre for ourselves and we want to sell off the other three. The Town said we couldn't do it, its an illegal subdivision and we don't have enough frontage to subdivide. We came up with a plan for a single driveway. The County approved it the Town disapproved it because they said to us, if they did it for us they would have to do it for everybody in the Town. Explained to the County what we we're doing and what we wanted to do and why the Town turned us down for a variance. MRS. YORK-Stated that the request is to. . .Section 4.053 which requires double the lot width on a arterial roadway. MS. ATKINSON-Stated that the Zoning Ordinance is saying that you need double the lot width in order to get anything on it. He has 300 feet of road frontage he just wants to be able to subdivide. He would keep 150 feet, sell off 150 feet. The Town is saying that now he needs 300 feet, I know that had something to do originally with traffic flow. We've eliminated this concern it was eliminated also according to the Warren County Planning Board, by just having the one drive go into that property. MRS. YORK-Stated that Warren County approved the variance because it did not impact upon the services. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they understand the reason why we did what we did. This all goes back to our attempt of internalization of subdivisions. MS. ATKINSON-Stated that she understands, but we're only talking about a residential use, we're not talking about a subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Stated that the reason why this was done on collector and arterial streets was to reduce the number of road cuts into those streets because collector and arterial streets carry a great deal of traffic. Has a serious problem with their request simply because it sounds like we're trying to get hassled to change the entire Ordinance of the entire Town the effects on one particular piece of property. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they realized that they could subdivide that property and make four lots out of it and have a single roadway? MS. ATKINSON-Yes. MR. DUNPHY-Stated that he doesn't understand that you won't let me put a driveway in, but you'll let me build a road in there, what difference does it make whether its a driveway or a road. I be building the road and selling the property to pay for the building. MRS. YORK-Stated that they went before the Zoning Board of Appeals to explain their hardship and were denied. MR. DUNPHY-Stated he was told by someone if they went in there and complained about a hardship we would be automatically denied if they sensed that at the meeting. MRS. YORK-Stated this was if it was a personal hardship. It has to be a hardship incurred by the Ordinance. MR. DUNPHY -Asked what qualifies as a hardship? MRS. ROBERTS-That you can't make reasonable use of your property. MR. DUNPHY-Said that they can't. MR. ROBERTS-Stated they could have a subdivision in there with a single entrance. MR. DUNPHY-Asked why does he have to build a road, why can't it be a private owned driveway? MR. ROBERTS-Stated that to get a building permit the property has to front a public highway. MR. DESANTIS-Asked when they went to the Zoning Board of Appeals? MR. DUNPHY-April. MR. DESANTIS-Asked if they went back after that time? 12 ~ "---'- _.-..--r--- MR. DUNPHY-Yes. MR. DESANTIS-Asked if it was on the question of the two lots and the one driveway? MR. DUNPHY-Stated on the question of changing the part of the zoning? MR. DESANTIS-Asked if he was saying they went to the County Planning Board on the plan that you've shown on this map with one driveway two lots, the County said okay? MR. DUNPHY-Yes. They couldn't understand why it wasn't passed. MR. DESANTIS-Feels a proper solution of the Zoning Board of Appeals would have been to grant you a variance on the condition that you only put only one road cut on the road, and that you not put any more than two houses on the property. MR. DUNPHY-Stated they had to go in front of the County Board for their approval before we can come to the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Stated that the County has to look at things in the County to see if there are any effects on the County concerns. MR. DUNPHY-Stated that they would have to deny it because if they didn't deny it it would mean approval. If the County approved it, it would force the Town to change their zoning. MRS. YORK-Stated that the County makes only recommendations they do not make any regulations. MR. ROBERTS-Feels that they should recommend to the Town Board, to give the Zoning Board of Appeals some direction in these kinds of matter. MOTION OF RECOMMENDATION PETITION NO. P-8-89 GEORGE AND RITA DUNPHY, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Prank DeSantis: Move that the recommendation of this Board to the Town Board be that no change be made in the Zoning Ordinance. That the Town Board should give some consideration to providing the Zoning Board of Appeals with some guidance with individual situations. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann P7-89 CHARLES O. SICARD SOUTH SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD LAKE SHORE ACRES PRESENT ZONING: 3 ACRES PROPOSED ZONING: I ACRE TAX MAP NO. 43-1-24.1 MOTION OF RECOMMENDATION PETITION NO. P-7-89, CHARLES O. SICARD,lntroduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: To make recommendation to the Town Board that the portion of land on the south side of Glen Lake Road be rezoned from RR-3A and WR-IA, based on the reasons described in Lee York's notes to file. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann SITE PLAN NO. 40-89 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA, THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY REARDON ROAD TO ENCLOSE THE PRESENT DECK AND INSTALL WINDOWS AND SCREENS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-3-15 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: 9,800 SQ. FT. MRS. YORK-Read letter from Thomas and Carolyn Clary, dated June 21st, 1989, requesting to table application for reasons that they need a variance. (On file) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-89, THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY,lntroduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: 13 ,-,,' , ./ ~ -- ......".,,---'/ To accept the applicant's request to table Site Plan No. 40-1989 due to the facts set forth in the letter concerning the necessity for the variance. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann STEWARTS ICE CREAM COMPANY INC. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that the question is here how much site work is permitted to be done before final approval? MR. DUSEK-Stated that looking at the Ordinance provision their are a couple of points. The first thing is that a demolition permit was issued by the Building Inspector to alter a property. I also see that the demolition permit could have been issued under any circumstance to that owner of property under any circumstance if the application hadn't been here before the Board. There is no need to come before the Board to get a demolition permit. The question is that because a proposed development is before the Board are they precluded from going to a separate agency. . .because they could separately do it on their own it is my opinion I don't think they should be. . .going ahead and demolishing it. There are reasons for my opinion. First of all I think if something on the property is demolished we now have vacant land. The Board is not put in any awkward position because their not being presented with something that their asked to approve, in fact they still have full control of the plans. I don't think the Town has been harmed by a demolition occurring especially when it occurs through a permit. The second thing is, when I look at the language of the Ordinance as I read 5.020, it says a land use or development involving a use or expansion of use listed as a site plan review shall not be undertaken. You can certainly interpret this to include demolition. I think if you read through land use or development that its really referring to that type of land use or development in which this Board would have approval over and control over. The Zoning Administrator, is the party that would be responsible for interpreting the Ordinance. I think that the end of it all is that the applicant succeeded in getting the premises demolished, he's gotten his permit and if this Board now feels that this is not permissive with the Ordinance, I think your. . .strange as it may sound where you have to take the Zoning Administrator to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that they will proceed with their review. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas N ace, Town Engineer (See attached) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Asked if this culvert situation could be solved? MR. NACE-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. BOYTON-Stated that they have their permit from the New York State Department of Health for the sewer system. Also have a permit from the State of New York, for the new entrance, and have filed an application with ECON. BRANDON MEYERS-Stated that the 12 inch culvert running through the site (refers to drainage area A), in the front is 1.25 CFS that runs through catch Area B. That pipe with 112 of per cent slope will carry 2.3 CFS. MR.NACE-Stated that there is no drawing showing what the tributaries area are in the drainage report. Has no idea of what is coming on to the site. Stated that he can't decided whether the culvert's are adequate or not. MR. MEYERS-Stated that they were going to maintain the drainage swale along Ridge Road as it is existing. 14 ---- --' .... ~ - --.-"..- MR. N ACE-Asked how could they maintain the drainage swale when your putting in a road without the drainage swale? MR. MEYERS-Stated they were going to conform to the swale where that is. The original contours show the existing swales, we would conform to alter that. MR. NACE-Understands what their intent is verbally, but doesn't see it in the drainage plan. MR. MEYERS-Stated that the state slope on their shoulder. What happens is the State reviews it on the site. MR. N ACE-Asked if the State has agreed to allow for road side drainage to continue along there? MR. MEYERS-Yes. Stated that the other culvert along Route 149, they are picking up water from the west property. MR. NACE-Stated that the drainage report should show of all this, would like to see the culvert's addressed before approval. MR. DYBAS-Stated that they still have some problems with items #2, 5, 6. MR. NACE-Stated that he believes item #6 could be resolved, doesn't know what their intent is for traffic. MR. BOY TON-Stated there are not going to be any deliveries once we get Phase II, which is the second building. We aren't going to have any trucks delivering or coming around this part of the building. MR. CARTIER-Stated that 24 parking spots for a Stew arts of this size is to much. Asked about holding some of these in conveyance? MR. ROBERTS-Stated that it might be a good idea. MR. CARTIER-Stated that at a previous meeting a gentlemen was concerned about the hours of operation as I recall it was stated it would be from 6:00 a.m. to 1l:00 p.m., asked if this was right? MR. BOYTON-6:00 a.m. to 1l:30 p.m. these are our basic hours. In the winter it goes down to 1l:00 p.m. because you don't have the customers. MR. CARTIER-Stated that the deliveries would be made in the daylight hours with the understanding that daylight runs from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. MR. CARTIER-Asked Mr. Walker if he was satisfied with the tree line where his property is? MR. WALKER-Yes. MR. BOYTON-Would like to commit to the 1l:30 p.m. BOARD-Has no problem with this. MR. DYBAS-Asked Tom if was satisfied with these things. MR. NACE-Stated that he would like to see the 12 inch culvert increased to a minimum of 16. MR. MEYERS-Asked Tom if they could agree to burm that area so that we won't have to worry about other flow from our property? MR. NACE-Stated that they are changing the drainage pattern. MR. DESANTIS-Asked if a 18 inch culvert be sufficient. MR. NACE-Stated he would like to see some justification for whatever size they put in there. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 35-89 ,Introduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Frank DeSantis: 15 .~ ~ -,' ------ WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Site Plan No. 35-89, Stewarts Ice Cream Company Inc., and WH.ER~AS, !his Plann~ng 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: Department of Environmental Conservation Department of Transportation 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 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-89, STEWARTS ICE CREAM COMPANY,lntroduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: Approve all of the changes have been made. The parking has been reduced, items 11 through 24 will be held in conveyance. The culvert will be upsized from 12 to a minimum of 15 feet or to a size acceptable to our engineer. The planters will be put in place and the sidewalk will be widen to no less than 8 feet. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann SUBDIVISION NO. 6-8'1 NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING, PHASE I MODIFICATION OF FINAL PLAN WAYNE GANNETT PRESENT MR. GANNETT-Stated that you were awaiting comments from Clough Harbour regarding Phase I. Talked with John this afternoon and he has indicated that he had talked with Clough Harbour and they have no comments on the Phase I plans. 16 -- ~ ~ / ---- M~S. YORK-Sta~ed that she ~as talked with John Goralski, he indicated that Clough Harbour saId that the draInage calculatIons for Phase I showed that they should have 8'diameter drywells and that this was a notation on the plan. . .it does show 6 feet. MR. GANNETT-Stated that the detail sheet shows 6 foot. The profile drawing for Phase I. . .you superseded the detail. MRS. YORK-Stated that they have no problems with this. MOTION TO APRROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-87, NORTHERN DISTRIBUTING PHASE I, MODIFICATION OF FINAL PLAN,lntroduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: To approve based on the fact that our engineer has now reviewed the revised drainage calculations caused by the revised highway soil requirements. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann FURTHER BUSINESS AGENDA CONTROL MR. CARTIER-Asked if there was anyway to reword what they had? MR. DUSEK-Stated that the Town Board understood it, they didn't like it. They objected to the system itself. MR. CARTIER-Stated eight items a meeting, four old business and four new business. MR. MACRI-Asked what's considered old, what's considered new? MR. CARTIER-Stated whichever is decided by the Planning Department. MR. DUSEK-Stated that he thinks if the proposal was eight matters, two meetings, four and four with an explanation of old business by Lee, I think they would go for that. MRS. MACRI-Feels that a commercial application that could have a sufficient impact on the economy of the area should be given special consideration. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that the Planning Board, obtains the right and authority to vary the terms and applications of these rules when an applicant can demonstrate with the satisfaction of the Planning Board and Staff, that practical difficulties of unnecessary hardship which results in a strict application. MR. DESANTIS-Asked Paul to draft up something for special circumstances. MRS. YORK-Asked if the decision was eight items per meeting, two meeting per month? BOARD-Yes. On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Richard Roberts, Chairman 17 r ~ Rlf \, ;IATES, P,C, ',ENGINEERS .---.. 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518'793·4141 " "--"" ---- ; w f'iN üF C";&:.I..NGBURY ~~Uw'~r" ,~ JUN 2Þ1!1~ :;)LANNINti ZONING J')EPARTMENT Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner _ Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: St -. __ . .. lee- £reaw - Sfte PTån ffo. 3'õ':' 89" FILE CC - ------ June 20, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Dear Ms. York: Our comments on the above-referenced project are as follows: 1. The 50-foot buffer zone is noted. 2. The applicant proposes a total water use of 500 gallons per day (350 gpd from Stewart's and 150 from rental un it) . Documentation is not provided for the 350 gpd flow. NYSDEC Standards call for 400 gpd per toilet for service stations. The septic system leach field is appropriately sized for a 500 gpd flow based on the percolation test. 3. Access drives have been relocated and the parking area moved away from the existing well. 4. Adequate parking spaces are provided. 5. Storm water detention is shown with supporting calculations based on the rational method. The size of the retention basin appears adequate. A culvert is still needed at the Ridge Road entrance. The 12-inch culvert under the other entrance is small enough to be easily subject to plugging. The size of this culvert should be increased for maintenance. Engineering calcula- tions should be provided to support size of proposed culverts. 6. There is no discussion of the turning radius issue at the westerly delivery area. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~_wJ~- Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town Planning Board Members e GlENS FALLS, NY·LAOONIA. NH