Loading...
1989-07-18 ---, \ \ '"--' -" -" l '~ ~ __"..l QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING JULY 18TH, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Site Plan No. 73-88 John Ellis 1. Subdivision No. 5-1989 Cross Roads Park, Phase I 9. Final Stage Subdivision No. 14-1988 Hickory Acres 12. Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 9-1989 Cline Meadow Development 13. Final Stage Subdivision No. 10-1989 Clarance and Cara Beames 13. Final Stage Subdivision No. 3-1988 Maple Row Farms 15. Subdivision No. 12-1989 Fritsch Subdivision 16. Site Plan No. 38-89 Greater Glens Falls Warren 16. Board of Realtors, Inc. Resolution Regarding Proposed 18. Comprehensive Land Use Plan '" ~ ,--,' " "--' -~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD JULY 18th, 1989 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN HILDA MANN, SECRETARY FRANK DESANTIS VICTOR MACRI PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS KEITH JABLONSKI TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-WA YNE GANNETT, PROJECT ENGINEER LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER OLD BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 73-88 WR-lA JOHN ELLIS SUNNYSIDE NORTH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. TillS WOULD BE REBUILDING THE CAMP IN THE FOOT PRINT OF THE OLD CAMP. TAX MAP NO. 49-2-21 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: .09 ACRES JOHN ELLIS PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Stated that one of the reason why this was tabled was that the placement of the holding tank is going to be in what used to be the Town's right-of-way. Asked Paul Dusek, where they stood on this. MR. DUSEK-Stated the Town's specification on the matter was a concern that we still had an interest in the property that is located just south of the Ellis property and what you have described as the former Town right-of-way. It appears that the Town Highway may in fact have gone through there, but it was not pursuant to any permanent deeded right-of-way that we had. The record's seem to indicate that it was acquired by use in the Town, the record further indicates that once the road was shifted over to its new area we no longer use that portion for highway purposes and as a result of failure to use it for a significant period of time the Town lost its interest in that parcel. It still leaves unanswered, of course, as to who owns that parcel, but I believe Mr. Ellis's Attorney has resolved that problem. As far as the Town is concerned our interest has been clarified which is none. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Not sure as to the Ordinance with the process being changed to 3,000 gallons capacity, thinks that they have approved 2,000 gallons in the past. Assume that since that we have been at this application for several months that we would be grandfathering that to that extent. Asked who is doing the new updating of our Sanitary Code? MR. GANNETT-Stated that this is something that has been requested for us to prepare for the Town Board, Tom Nace has been handling this. Not sure exactly who specifically generated the request. These are in draft form have not as yet been adopted by the Town Board. MRS. YORK-Daved Hatin, has been working on this with Mr. Nace. MR. ROBERTS-Asked what gallon usage should they be looking at in this project? MR. DUSEK-To clarify the record the new regulations were adopted by the Town Board last Town Board meeting, they have to be published if they haven't been published presumably they will be very shortly. Within 10 days after publication they will effective as the Ordinance per Town. At the moment then I guess we're in kind of a unique situation that we are about to adopt regulations although their not in effect yet. I think that the Board has some flexibility in how it handles the matter. 1 \ '- -' '\.... ~ MRS. YORK-It is her understanding that Mr. Ellis received a building permit. MR. DUSEK-Stated that if he gets the building permit before the Ordinance takes effect I don't see how we can make him comply with that. -- -..-/' MR. MACRI-Thinks that we should understand that the reason for the gallon increase; was based on the number of lavatories. . .maybe in this particular case its advisable. The only thing that it can do for the applicant it can prevent him from having to have his tank pumped out sooner. MR. JABLONSKI-Thinks that the cost of construction and put putting a fence. . .is going to be minimal. MR. DUSEK-Asked if the applicant would be willing to put in a 2,000 gallon tank this would resolve the problem at this point? MR. ELLIS-If he gets a building permit he would agree to it. MR. MACRI-Feels its a wise investment. MR. DESANTIS-Stated he has to meet code at the time he gets a building permit. If we give a site plan as a matter of course obviously we are aware of this particular change in the works, but if we grant a site plan to someone and they decide to wait 60 days before they start construction and file a building permit, and in the meantime separate apart from this Board the Building Ordinance or State Code changes he is expected to meet state code at the time he files for a building permit. This is outside our purvey. Asked if Paul agreed with this? We don't dictate code, I guess that is what I'm saying. MR. DUSEK-I agree with Frank, we're in an unusual situation here whereby this Board is. . .to approve a site plan based upon the 2,000 gallon tank, and then it the applicant not be able to get a building permit because it doesn't meet the codes, but I think if the applicant is willing to agree to the 2,000 gallon tank to by pass this which I think he indicated some interest in doing that would be the easiest way to solve the problem. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. MANN-Asked Lee, if she was saying that he has met all the requirements by her staff notes at this time? MRS. YORK-At this time. MRS. MANN-Asked if the neighbors have been notified? MRS. YORK-Stated this was advertised previously this has been tabled for quite some time we did attempt to get in contact with the neighbors on each side, but legally we do not have to do that because this has been already been previously advertised. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JUDY DUFOUR-West Mountain Road, and Sunnyside North. What is going to take place as far as water supply goes? MRS. YORK-There is an existing well on the property. MRS. DUFOUR-There is an existing well? MR. JABLONSKI-For water supply. MRS. DUFOUR-I was under the impression that was only a point? MR. ROBERTS-Is there anything wrong with just using a point? MR. DESANTIS-It gives enough water. MRS. DUFOUR-That's my problem that's what 1m questioning. If the point has not been supplied the proper amount of water, I don't think its ever been tested. MR. ROBERTS-I don't know about the water supply, the fact of the matter is. . . 2 '''---" -- ""- "--' /' -~ MRS. MANN-What is your water supply? MR. ELLIS-I have a ~ell point that was put in by the same gentlemen. . .the well that is existing has been tested and It was approved by the Board of Health, sometime ago back in 1953 I do have that piece of paper. ' MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sure if we have a requirement that it needs to be retested at this time. MRS. DUFOUR-At that time it was only used for a summer residence. My point is that if a person has to drill a well to increase the water supply what is that going to do as far as the existing septic's and so on? Its going to affect seepage into the well. The septic tank surrounding the property there on both sides of the property are going to seep into the well. MR. DYBAS-Where are they from this point? MRS. DUFOUR-I'm very very close sir, within about 50 feet from either side. MR. ROBERTS-Is this a question that was asked the last time. Has this been answered, the location of the neighboring. . . MRS. YORK-We did locate the neighboring wells the concern at that point was that. . . MRS. MANN-The septic systems going into there wells? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. ROBERTS-Have we located the well. Is his well adequately separated from the neighborhood? MR. DESANTIS-If your septic system is following his water because its an existing system and you have an existing system he can't drink his water. MRS. DUFOUR-That's true. MR. DESANTIS-That's his problem at that point he's aware that he's 50 feet away or less whatever the distance is under the existing septic system we can't dictate whether he has 8. preexisting well. Today you couldn't put a well that distance away from the septic system or put a septic that distance away from the well. I don't know who came first and I don't want to get into that, but he's aware that he's 50 feet away and making this investment it's his property and if his water becomes foul by the proximity to these other septic systems he obviously has a very serious problem. MRS. DUFOUR-Most of them are about 40 feet they can't get down very far because of a ledge. Mr. Colotti, has a building that's sitting practically on a ledge. MR. JABLONSKI-I think he'll have the same problem. . . MRS. DUFOUR-His has never been tested. MR. ROBERTS-It does raise an interesting point, that we can make people change their septic ßystems, but we can't make them change the wells at this point is that correct? We are looking at site plans, now they can't say to us that their septic system is adequate and we are going to extreme measures and yet we have wells that are on 40 foot lots that may very well be f.: bigger problem, yet we have no control. MR. DESANTIS-The question falls in that they are investing all this money in a piece of property that they know is X feet away from existing septic. I don't think that falls in our purvey I'm not saying it does at this time. I don't know whether or not our standard is appropriate the engineer's say it is or a stricter one ought to be in place. MRS. MANN-One of the processes is that we don't contaminate someone else's water and that they don't contaminate their own. MRS. DUFOUR-I just don't want mine contaminated that's my concern. MR. CARTIER-My guess is that the wells are upland from the septic system and my guess in that area is that the ground tends to be from well towards the septic system rather than the other way around, so it may not be a problem. MR. ROBERTS-We're taking extreme measure here to protect your well water. 3 " -- ""- '~ -' I -~ MRS. DUFOUR-If the holding tank fails? MR. DYBAS-Its not likely I'm not saying it will never fall, but its not likely it takes several measures before it can fail. MR. CARTIER-First of all, if its half full an . . .a light goes on, if its 2/3rds full there is an automatic water shut off built in the system so no more water can go into the home from the well until that tank. . . MR. DYBAS-What that does if you don't fix it your house becomes a septic tank and you don't stay there very long. MRS. MANN-Have you seen the plans for the building? MRS. DUFOUR-Yes. We have objected to those right off the bat we said fine one story. On the first meeting we objected to that building. There is no building on the whole lake that side that could devalue our property. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Ellis, correct me if I'm wrong, I recall having a conversation with you that you would be willing to reduce one story off this to keep people in the neighborhood happy am I correct? MR. ELLIS-I don't think so, no. This is just about the right size for two bedrooms. MRS. DUFOUR-It comes out to be about a three story building. MR. ROBERTS-At the lake side. MRS. DUFOUR-He is going to build a basement out and then there is going to be two stories [,bout that. MR. ROBERTS-Couldn't that basement be used for living accommodations or an apartment? To me its gross miss over use of the property it doesn't seem to fit compared to the neighborhood. I don't know if we have jurisdiction on the size of buildings depending on the foot print. What changes the character of the neighborhood. MR. DYBAS-How are you going to slide a boat in that door there? MR. ELLIS-Sliding glass door. Its a canoe and a small sail boat, I own them already. MR. CARTIER-We are talking about a three story building three story so that we can provide indoor storage for a canoe and sail boat. I'm not convinced that's justification for a three [;tory building in this area. MR. DYBAS-When would that be stored in the winter months? MR. ELLIS-Pretty much. MR. DYBAS-What's going to be there the rest of the year? MR. ELLIS-Nothing. MR. DYBAS-Your going to spend an expensive amount of money to store a canoe and sail boat for only four or five months in the winter time. MR. ELLIS-Its nice to put your furnace in and your hot water, pumps. MRS. MANN-You can do that and still live there. MR. ELLIS-Your only talking 20 feet across and 40 feet deep that's not a lot of space especially when the living room is a cathedral ceiling right up through on the second floor I have no floor in that spot. Its like a L shape of living space for the second story. MR. CARTIER-You have a basement floor, above that we have a floor normally the first floor, above that we have a floor. MR. ELLIS-But part of that floor is missing like a quarter of it. MR. DYBAS-Maybe you have a design problem. MR. CARTIER-From the first floor up you have a section that goes all the way to the roof? 4 ~ '-' \ '-- :/ MR. ELLIS-To the rafters, that's correct. -- ---/ MR. ROBERTS-Like Joe says maybe that's a luxurious use of cubic footage on a 40 foot lot. MRS. DUFOUR-There is no building on that whole lake that has this structural impact. I'm not limiting it to one person to something like these, but those lots on that particular parcel 8S they go around they get a little larger, but right there they are pie shape. MR. ELLIS-I want to have a fireplace in the living room of which the stone will be exposed all the way up and like a loft bedroom to look down into that area. MRS. MANN-You can do that. MR. ELLIS-By utilizing the basement as living space and I can't put windows in the basements. MR. CARTIER-I have a tough time with three stories here. MR. JABLONSKI-Its two stories. Actually its a basement and two stories above it. I agree with Dick, that the character of the neighborhood is such that it only accepts the two story, but it is a three story building. MR. ROBERTS-The basements comes out at ground level. MR. JABLONSKI-Its a 1,200 square foot house with a basement. If you cut the second floor cut your going to find that your leaving 800 square feet on the first and the basement. MR. ELLIS-You couldn't put windows in it other than just where it comes out. In order to live in there you have to have a certain amount of natural light and ventilation. MR. DYBAS-I presume this is grade line? (refers to map) MR. ELLIS-I say about three feet. MR. DYBAS-So you have room for a small window on each side. MR. ELLIS-You have to be about eight inches from the grade line. The other side you can't ~¡ee from. MR. DYBAS-I've done it on both sides at that grade level and I'm about 10 inches above grade level. If you do your cellar right there is no reason why you can't have living accommodations down there even if your sitting on springs with today's technology you can do it. FRANK COLOTTI-School Street, Glens Falls, and Sunnyside. My main objection is the third story look of this building. Anyway you want to slice it, its three stories I don't care what he says its a three story height building. It going to detract from my property, its going to detract from Mrs. Dufour's property, its going to make the place look like a shambles. We fife going to be overwhelmed by this. . .looking structure. I know he wants all his space and he wants to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but he is not going to do it to easily. He thinks em Lake George, I guess with the sail boats and everything else instead of a little puddle, but anyhow I think the main problem is here the three story structure is definitely going to demean (Iur properties, I think its about high time he takes a story off of it and live in that basement. There was a previous structure a one single story building that had windows all around it, it was on ground floor and I can't see why he can't duplicate the same thing and put another story en it. I don't understand his problem at all. MR. JABLONSKI-Mr. Ellis, are you using this for a residence? MR. ELLIS-Yes, that's correct. MRS. MANN-Is it going to be just two bedrooms anyway? MR. ELLIS-Two bedrooms upstairs maybe three. MR. DYBAS-Three bedrooms roughly? MR. ELLIS-That's correct. MR. DYBAS-How many people are going to be living in there for curiosity sake? MR. ELLIS-Two of us. MR. DYBAS-I sympathize with you, but I think your going to have to start to break it down, [) '''--' -./ \. ,/ ~ --.-' ih either that or your going to have to go back to square one and try some better planning as far as the building itself as far as I'm concerned. I think that maybe you better regroup to see what you can do with the top story off. MR. JABLONSKI-Is 20 ft. by 40 ft. the existing floor plan? MR. ELLIS-I believe its 20 ft. by 46 ft. MR. JABLONSKI-He can still be allowed a H story. MR. ELLIS-If I start all over with the plan how does that set me with you? How much time frame are you talking about if I turn in a set of plans. MR. JABLONSKI-Try to come down to some kind. . .to get the height down. MRS. YORK-Wednesday is the deadline. MR. ELLIS-I have to have a plan right away then. MR. CARTIER-That's the best case scenario the other alternative is going to mean another month to go after that. I understand what your saying, but its not like the world ends if you don't get them in by next Wednesday. MR. ELLIS-You have to understand that I don't want to get hit with something new if I take Ð little bit more time. MR. CARTIER-What I'm hearing from the Board if you come in with a 1 i story. . . MR. JABLONSKI-We're looking at three stories here what you call three stories, the problem is that it was a one story camp or something if it was a one story camp it had to have a certain ~ itch to it I m just saying that there may be a design to fit that lot based on the slope and what your trying to do as far as the amount of space. MRS. MANN-What would allow height wise in a 1 i story being realistic? MR. JABLONSKI-Eight feet. MR. ELLIS-So if I come up with a plan that has six feet from the ground to the peak less than what it is now that would be. . . MR. ROBERTS-The whole that was dug is that concrete floor footage perhaps? MR. ELLIS-I put that plastic there so their is no erosion. MR. ROBERTS-The building. . .are already filed on site to do anything on the neighbors property. MR. ELLIS-That's not true, my stakes are clearly mark down at the end of the lake and I have E: stake up above. My construction material is on my property. MR. DESANTIS-As I understand the Ordinance you can dig a hole, right Paul? MR. DUSEK-I believe that is the case. MR. DESANTIS-We've asked this question before. A little fill with a little grading, no that's not a problem. I think the problem is the character of the neighborhood. I personally feel you're within code that what bothers me about saying character of neighborhood the site plan Article 5, says that we can address character of the neighborhood. You have a plan that even though its with code unfortunately is the first one of that type on the lake. I have a hard time if your within code saying no, but the Board does have the authority under Article 5, to say that it affects the character of the neighborhood and that's a thing that they cannot approved. MR. JABLONSKI-Personally I think you should think of what you can put on that lot. MR. ELLIS-If you give me a specific height to the peak I will design something. MR. DYBAS-I can see what you're trying to do, but maybe if you have here let's take in this ease your cellar finished there is no reason why if you want to you couldn't put your boat in there to one corner or something. . .if you want that luxury to keep your boat inside if you want to put up a dummy wall or large opening to slide it through that's up to you. You can't tave everything that you want for a lot that small. 6 ~ \ '--- ./ - ---' MR. ELLIS-If I draw up another set of plans and go through that expense it could be something that you don't like, I want to pin it down a little bit. MRS. MANN-Bascially its that you lower the building he said by 1 t stories what are you saying around 24, 26 ft. give the guy something to go with. MR. MACRI-I don't see any reason why we should hold up the applicant on approval as long as we stipulate that the height of the building doesn't exceed the height of the adjancet properties. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think we have to be that objectionable, your building is not very high. MRS. MANN-They are using this for a summer camp and have other homes. MRS. DUFOUR-This is not a summer camp this is a year round home. MRS. MANN-You don't use it as a year round home do you? MRS. DUFOUR-We have two homes we live in one in the winter and one in the summer so it is a year round piece of property. It doesn't come under the classification of a camp it has a furnace and everything is there. MR. MACRI-The point is that his property in particular is only properly t story above street level I can see by the cross section. Maybe you want to talk about reducing the height of the building by 4 feet and still be lower than the adjancet. . . MRS. DUFOUR-Four feet and be lower? MR. MACRI-I don't know I'm just looking at the section here. I think its up to the applicant if he agrees. MRS. DUFOUR-I'm only five feet tall so if you lower a building only my height. . . MR. JABLONSKI-Maybe you need someone who has some training in putting a house on a lot. MR. ELLIS-I agree with you, I can see some possibilities but I don't know exactly what you want. MR. MACRI-We don't want to go any taller than the adjancet buildings, is that true? MRS. MANN-I think that is a horrendous precedent to establish here if we're going to start measuring people houses by the houses next door or the commercial buildings by the guy next door then we're in big trouble. We're not going to sit here and divide the height of people's building and have somebody come up with something that corresponds with what everybody wants. I am absolutely opposed to that. MRS. DUFOUR-No one is turning around and dictating to him that he has to have it by this eode, or that code, or that measure. We're simply saying there was an existing camp there that follows the wall of it. We simply do not want a three story building between us, it is not an unreasonable request. MRS. MANN-To be perfectly technically correct he is meeting the code as it is and if that was the logic that prevailed in this Town every place that has changed in character over the years here would still be a rural community because everybody could come in here and then nay to these Board's, gee we never had a shopping mall there before we don't want one now. MR. JABLONSKI-When you build this I'm going to see the first floor right about here. (refers to map) MR. MACRI-If you look in the package their is a cross section and all you see is the height of the first floor. MR. ELLIS-That's correct because that's only property line elevation. MR. JABLONSKI-If I were to say that a It story building would only be 8 feet higher than the street level that really isn't going to be a great height above street level. MR. MACRI-We're not building a structure that much higher than the street level. 7 '---- " '----- .,i - ---' MR. JABLONSKI-Its going to be 14 feet higher from the street. MRS. DUFOUR-14 feet higher. . . MR. JABLONSKI-14 feet off the street. MRS. DUFOUR-Has anybody been up there to see where 14 feet would go from the road? You've got 14 feet from the road up what about from your road down your still going back to the existing piece of property? MR. CARTIER-Did I hear the applicant saysomeplace that he is willing to come in with some new plans? MRS. DUFOUR-Right. MR. CARTIER-He wanted a number from us. MRS. DUFOUR-Now everybody has boosted the thing backup. MR. CARTIER-Are you willing to talk about coming in with plans for a Ii story? MR. ELLIS-What does that mean in terms of height? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. We are talking about a present 2 story house excluding the basement. MR. JABLONSKI-We can go a It story with a 9/12 pitch it would be 9 feet above the first ~tory. MR. ELLIS-How much lower I have to have some idea. MR. CARTIER-Giving you a number doesn't mean we're setting you up for the next time. What your hearing is a 1 i story you could gain some indoor space by playing with the pitch c.f the roof. There are some guideline for you to work with. It seems to me if you come in with a It story and we say you missed it by 2 feet. . .we are not giving numbers we're trying to give you some lee-way to play around, and also to address concerns throughout the neighborhood. All I'm saying is, that we're talking about a story that has an 8 foot height interior, now I look at something that somebody comes in with a 12 foot height interior that is now It story. MR. ELLIS-The basement will be a 8 foot height ceiling because if 1m to make living space out of that I should go a little bit higher with the ceiling to cover up any duck work for heating. MR. CARTIER-You have to go at least 10 feet for the basement level. MR. DYBAS-You have to go 10 feet anyways for the beam in the ceiling. MR. ELLIS-Okay. Then a 8 foot up stairs and then cut something for the. . . MR. DYBAS-It might be worthwhile for your investment if you consult a good architect or designer and tell him what you really want and then he'll put your house on the lot and hopefully come up with a happy medium that's what I'm suggesting. You're going to be there for a long time and so are your neighbors and we have to look at what the neighbors want. If its going to affect the quality of the neighborhood or hurt the neighborhood those are things that we have to look at. If your going to be neighbors I would think that you would want to live in t.armony. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 73-88 JOHN ELLIS,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Table for clarification of issues that still need to be addressed. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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 8 \ "--' - \. ----- ./ --./ SUBDMSION NO. 5-1989 MR-5 RR-3A FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CROSS ROADS PARK, PHASE I 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 MICHAEL O'CONNOR FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR REPRESENTING CROSS ROADS PARK MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that he is coming in a little bit after the fact of the application on the application. Understands that a preliminary and technical matters and engineering details that we're requested the June 28th, submission answered those questions which were outstanding since that time perhaps a couple of other questions have come up. Letter that was sent in by the Warren County DPW Department, that has also been answered. There is a file with a letter from the Highway Department saying that they are satisfied with the submittal that has been submitted to them. There was also a letter from the Water Department, dated July 10th, 1989 (on file) which was after our filing date of June 28th, 1989 that letter has also been answered. The documentation on record my understanding is that everyone at this point is satisfied with the proposal as it has been submitted. MRS. YORK-Stated that she begs to differ with that opinion. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that he understands that staff as taken objection to the fact that perhaps we have communicated with some consultants answering questions that they have raised, but we've done that as we maybe done in other instances prior to application where they have raised technical questions or engineering questions if they could satisfy those we Elttempted to do so in advance to the meeting as opposed to coming here and receiving consultants reports and simply then adjourning the meeting or coming back a month later with the submission. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. YORK-Stated that Mr. O'Connor, was in her office today to go through the notes and ~hen she received some information later in the day indicating that Roger Gebo, felt that the :nformation was addressed on some submission that we gave him. Also Tom Flaherty, told us that he would be coming over to our office with a letter saying that he has no problems with the submission because the problems have been rectified, (doesn't have a letter). No new information was submitted to my Department so I cannot do anything, and it is the policy of the Board not to allow to accept any other information. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. MANN-Stated that since the meeting the Warren County DPW had dug a second canal slong the side of the road. A 4 foot ditch that is carved directly down hill into what looks Jike that pond after we spent all this time reviewing this piece of property and retention basins Hnd making sure the water goes down into the wetlands they dig this massive ditch straight down into that area. I like to know what effect that is going to have on this whole project. MR. DYBAS-Stated that this will defect everything we tried to do because the gentleman who owned that property was very concerned about the water flow into that pond. MRS. MANN-Stated that the ditch is going straight downhill parallel to this piece of property. Even if some of this gets developed on here is properly diverted north what calculations or where is the engineering that has been done to say what water is going to sheet off that road right down into that pond? MR. MACRI-Stated that they are also going to have to know erosion control measures. MR. GANNETT-Stated that based on the drawing that they've seen in their. . . the detail built cn the site shows basically just there side the portion on Bay Road. It appears that a very small portion of their site drains into this newly deepen ditch that the County has dug. We don't have a map, not sure if they got one to show the full extent of the area that drains into this ditch. MRS. MANN-Stated that now they don't know what other property now drains into that ditch which may have been absorbed by nature along the way. Thinks that this changes the whole £' '---- '-' \ '--'- ./ _J complexion and unless the County is going to come up with some projected figures on what they've done with the water in that drainage as far as I'm concerned I don't have an idea of what is going in .there.. I don't questioned what's going in from their property or what was calculated by theIr engmeers and ours, but I don't know what is going off the road sheeting down the County ditch into that pond or what effect is going to have. MRS. YORK-Stated that she could request a letter from the Warren County. MRS. MANN-Thinks this would be a good idea. MR. MACRI-Thinks that if a County has affected the drainage patterns that which we're establishing in the Town as a Planning Board, they would have to consult with the Town and that we could attest to. Just because they own a right-of-way doesn't mean they can do whatever they want to. MRS. MANN-Stated that the ultimate end result is going to be affected. MR. MACRI-Thinks that we all agree that the culvert was over taxed as it was and we were trying to prevent any additional flow into that culvert. Water that is going to flow in that direction is going right towards that culvert. MR. ROBERTS-Asked what culvert are they referring to? MR. MACRI-The one that goes under the road. Feels that they ought to address the fact that they gave preliminary approval on something that they thought was the conditions. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that they have been lessened as far as the applicant's property is concerned. MR. MACRI-Stated that the conditions that we're concerned with are the adjoining properties, they've just worsened the conditions of the adjoining properties. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that the culvert does not affect our on site drainage. MRS. MANN-Stated that on one side we're making you go through all this elaborate stuff so that it will gently seep into this pond and on the other side the County is shooting it right down there with no calculations. I'm saying that the overall effect of which we gave approval to fs nullified by the fact that there is a whole new source of water being put in there. MR. DYBAS-Stated it won't effect the applicant's property, but now the County come along and everything we tried to do for the people downstream is all gone. MRS. MANN-Feels the County has an obligation to come up with some statistics of what their èumping in that pond so that we know what we approved is not going to disturb that whole [lfea. MR. MACRI-Stated that the question to the applicant is whether or not based on there review of the situation there is an acceptable alternative to what's been created. Its not his fault. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that the ditch if Phase II ever goes forward you would definitely have to take into consideration that the runoff in Phase I is really not affected by that ditch except by the fact that we are going to put a culvert in. Understands that the applicant filed the necessary copies from it with the engineering details on June 28th. The applicant then on his own went to the County Highway Department, and started talking about a necessary curb cut and that's what brought about the County's review of what we are proposing here. The County then under letter of July 5th, after the bonding make a comment by letter to the L.A. Group, who is the group who addressed it on behalf of the applicant as to concerns that it had raised. On July 14th, they revised the plans to take in to account the comments of the Town. As I understand it since this has been filed a revised plan of July 14th, they were told they couldn't file because they were beyond the June 28th, meeting. Since I became involved as of yesterday I spoke with Roger Gebo, to ask him if he had a chance to review the submission, Þe said yes, does it answer your concerns and that's what brought about the letter dated today's date. The letter to the L.A. Group form Roger Gebo, saying that he was satisfied with the revised plans as far as meeting the technical requirements or engineering questions that he has on his letter of July 5th. MR. MACRI-Stated that his letter of July 5th, is the fact that he is admitting that they exist to store the new drainage ditch that prevents you from doing what we planned to have you do in the beginning. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that has a definite affect on it. We also revised the property line 10 '--- '\ \.-- ../ __J tû show that was a. . .survey its not a large taking, but there is a taking along Bay Road, we ftddressed the boundary line. Mrs. York, is incorrect when she says that the County has an un-disclosed easement. The property line as shown now is correct. Subsequent to the filing of the June 28th, engineering details question did come up we attempted as best as possible to answer them, I think we have answered them. Likewise after the June 28th meeting there was a memo written by Tom Flaherty, dated July 10th, as to some technical requirements of the water distribution and principal saying there should be a 12 inch main instead of a 8 inch main, there should be 3 valves at the intersection of Blind Rock Road, there should be a hydrant at that intersection. I spoke with Tom Flaherty, I received those comments when I was here this morning registering my representation. I spoke with Tom by phone, and obtained from him a letter which I understood the original of which was going to filed here with the Town. (Letter on file) Basically what we said that in view of the letter of July 10th, we would be happy to comply with his request and have the construction drawings show exactly what he has requested. We didn't have any problems though he said he could build in that manner and show plans and that meant he had no problems with our submittal. As to Mr. Gannet's comments J spoke to him we did submit a copy to his office of the July 14th plans which were meant to satisfy the County requirements I understand he asked if he could review those and he did review those and found those to be in order. In his comments of July 18th, he says that waivers ftre still requested for the 140 foot radius right-of-way; the waivers for the road center line radius difference of surface flow between catch basins, thinks he is just simply bringing this to your intention. The applicant by letter of June 22nd, requested this Board to grant those waivers this should be part of the package. As to the second comment, they have been incorporated to the final plans. Basically I think we have satisfied all those people who have :nput before the Board. MRS. MANN-Has a problem not supporting the staff as far as the time frame of applications, and I have a big problem relative to what was said with not seeing some kind of calculations that our engineer is going to review on the ditch and what its draining and what effect its going to have on it. MR. O'CONNOR-Doesn't understand that way into the preliminary submission which included full detail of the water layout there was no comment at all as to the technical requirements or the contents of that layout even at the preliminary stage or before July 10th. This is the first comment by the Water Department as to the plan. My conversations with Mr. Flaherty, he did not believe that he received any plans until a staff meeting of July 4th. MRS. YORK-Stated that the week after every submission deadline date we have a staff review Mr. Flaherty, has always been present the plans are always reviewed. This was the first time he chose to make any comments that is his choice. Prior to that his indication was that there was no serious problems with it. MR. O'CONNOR-As to the calculations I've submitted those. The change of the drainage because of the County comment was the elimination of a catch basin at the south easterly corner of Lot #1, its a minimum height difference. MRS. MANN-Stated that this has to do with the end result of what we're flowing into here. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that they are going to flow into that ditch. MRS. MANN-Stated that she knows this. Asked Wayne Gannett, if this will have no effect on the overall end result here? MR. GANNETT-Stated that they don't have enough information to determine if there is going to be an effect, but thinks from the drainage reports that have been provided by the applicant that we can safely say that the applicant is meeting the storm water management policy of the Town by dealing with their on site run off. The County deepening the ditch ~ay or I?ay not increase the amount of runoff we don't know because we don't have enough mformatIOn. Once the County has increased its tributaries by somehow connecting different drainage sources into it they will probably not increase the drainage are, but they may have increased the speed in which water flows in the ditch. MR. MACRI-Feels that the condition that they should be dealing with is that the applicant has to change his water line. The only question that he feels is outstanding is that the applicant has based on the drawings that we're reviewing met all the site conditions. Thinks that the issue right now is the water not the ditch. MR. DYBAS-Feels that the applicant shouldn't be penalized because of the County. MR. MACRI-Asked Wayne, if he could solve this issue? MR. GANNETT-Based on our review of the drawings which are the July 14th, drawings which we have referred to have addressed our engineering concerns. 11 '---.-' \... '--..- -" __J MR. CARTIER-Stated that this should be treated as they normally treat applications. BOARD-Agreed. MRS. YORK-Stated that she hasn't seen any plans that address Mr. Cleary's concerns, to show the. . .of Warren County I haven't seen that. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that outside the boundary line of the July 14th, revision which was attempted to be submitted to your office. As I understand the feeling of this Board that at the. . . meeting we were told to submit details as compliance with Tom Flaherty, request I asked the Board to act upon the waiver of the request of the letter of June 22nd. MOTION TO GRANT THE WAVIER REQUEST FROM SUBDMSlON NO. 5-1989, CROSS ROADS, PARK, PHASE I,Introduced by Mrs. Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Victor Macri: To grant the waivers concerning the cui da sac and the distance of surface flow between catch basins. Duly adopted this 18th 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 MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1989, CROSS ROADS PARK, PHASE I, Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Since its mutually agreed upon between the applicant and the members of this Board to table for one month. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. DeSantis DISCUSSION HELD MR. O'CONNOR-Asked what the Board was asking for? MR. GORALSKI-Stated the previous letter from Rist Frost, the discrepancy in the survey between what Warren County says they own, and what the applicant says they own. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 SFR-lA PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED illCKORY ACRES 200 FT. SOUTH OF SWEET ROAD, 1,000 FT. WEST OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. FOR A 8 LOT SUBDMSION OF THE PRESENT 13 ACRES OF VACANT LAND. LOTS WILL BE SOLD. TAX MAP NO. 64-1-5.1 LOT SIZE: 13 ACRES LEON STEVES REPRESENTING HICKORY ACRES STAFF INPUT Notes from John A. Goralski, Planner (on file) ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Asked about comment #6 the peripheral strip what is this? MR. GANNETT-Stated that this is a Health Department requirement that where a fill system is provided whereas the area occupied by the absorption fringes itself the distance of at least 20 feet beyond that should be tapered back to existing braille. The idea beyond this is to prevent short circuiting or any seepage of septic put from the edge of the fill system. 12 '--, -,' " \.-- -' -- __J MR. STEVES-Stated that on comment #8 at least six feet is shown on the plan. MR. GANNETT-Stands correct. MR. STEVE~-Stated that if preliminary approval is granted they would like to go in there and plac~ the fIll ~yste,,?s th.emselves for the purpose of settling so that they settle for a period of SIX months m WhICh tIme they could be monitored and then the Department of Health can go back in and reexamine. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the drainage is going to sheet out on the Niagara Mohawk's property, asked if this is satisfactory with Rist Frost? MR. GANNETT-Has no problem with the concept of the drainage there are a couple of issues that would require additional calculations. M0110N TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988, HICKORY ACRES, Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Victor Macri: The applicant must meet the recommendations of Rist Frost Associates. To allow the fill systems in for the septic tanks. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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. DESANTIS-Asked if staff had the Statement of Intent? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that as far as he could tell in their files they do not have the Statement of Intent at this time. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-20 CLINE MEADOW DEVELOPMENT WEST OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD, NORTH OF CLINE DRIVE, EAST OF EVERTS A VENUE TO SUBDIVIDE INTO 5 HALF ACRE LOTS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF PROPERTY AND TWO LARGER 6TH AND 7TH LOTS ENCOMPASSING 17 ACRES OF LAND IN AND OUT OF THE WETLANDS AREA TO SELL AS PRIVATE ESTATES. THE 5 HALF ACRE LOTS WILL BE SOLD FOR SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION SITES, 2 LOTS OF WHICH WILL BE PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANTS SUBDIVIDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR PERSONAL RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 7 LOT SIZE: 20 ACRES MRS. YORK-Stated that she has a letter addressed to the Queensbury Planning Board, requesting to be tabled. (on file) MR. CARTIER-Stated that there is no buffer zone shown for Lots 6 and 7 on the plans. MR. STEVES-Thought that there was a statement made to have a 35 foot buffer on all the lots. Will make sure that this is shown. SUBDMSlON NO. 10-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A, CLARENCE J. AND CARA BEAMES 1,600 FT. NORTH OF LUZERNE ROAD ON EAST SIDE OF TUTillLL ROAD TO SELL EXISTING HOUSE AND BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY 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 MARK BOMBARD D. L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) 13 ---- \.. ~- ../ __J DISCUSSION HELD MR. GANNETT-Stated that the information that's missing from their calculations based on the two 18 inch culverts does not make a 36 inch culvert. Its possible that two 18 inch culverts may be adequate , but there are no numbers to support this. MR. BOMBARD-Stated that the drainage calculations for the whole are were submitted, but the peak flow was denied. I didn't re-submit it because I had noted the change and everyone should have copies of it. MRS. YORK-Stated that_. at the last meeting when Mr. Dickinson was present, we talked about the fact that we would like a complete submission of all the information. MR. BOMBARD-Stated that Mr. Gannett, must have the drainage calculations somewhere. MR. DESANITS-Asked if this was filed? Mr. Bombard stated that he filed the papers back m April. MR. GANNETT-Stated that the calculations that came in with these plans it basically says, that this only applies to the 36 inches. A 36 inch culvert may be large enough for the situation or it may be to small depending on the head water, the slope of the culvert etc.. Its not an unreasonable request for a drainage report. MR. BOMBARD-Stated that the peak flows were shown on the drainage report submitted back ìn April. MR. MACRI-Read the engineer comments from June 16, 1989, it says that 18 inch culverts 8.re shown on each right-of-way calculations should be entered to verify the size of culverts selected. MR. BOMBARD-Stated that he submitted the additional calculations for the piping they already had the peak flow. Asked if this is something that could be work out given with approval, will resummit it. MR. GANNETT-Stated that there were some calculations provided back in the first submittal that has some SCS computations listing the peak runoff. There is no drainage map that indicates how large the drainage area is and to identify the drainage area. It is not identified as to whether this is the lot themselves or tributary into the culvert. There are some calculations dated back in March, and there is a catchment size shown. On the current submission the 18 inch culverts may be adequate, but there isn't a flow size specifically for the 18 inch culverts. MR. BOMBARD-Stated that we're saying that it should be larger its just a simple area calculation that can be shown on the final plat to change. MRS. MANN-Stated that we have to know the area that this water is flowing from. MR. BOMBARD-Mr. Gannett, has that information and its calculated at a 36 inch pipe. MR. GANNETT-Mark has said that he needs a 36 inch pipe under this driveway your going to need something more than two eighteen's. If one 36 will do it you'll need two of something else, but the two has to be larger than the 18 inch. MRS. MANN-Asked if this was the only thing left on this project? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1989, CLARENCE J. AND CARA BEAMES,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: To approve with the following stipulation that Wayne Gannett, from Rist Frost Associates be supplied with the correct culvert sizes. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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 14 " ---.-' '\....-. -' ./ --.-' SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1988 SFR-lA PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MAPLE ROW FARMS EAST SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, OPPOSITE OF WINCREST DRIVE FOR 20 ACRES INTO 15 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-16.1 LOT SIZE: 20 ACRES DENNIS PHILLIPS REPRESENTING MAPLE ENGINEER/COUNCILMAN RONALD MONTESI STAFF INPUT ROW FARMS/CHARLES SCUDDER Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. PHILLIPS-Would like to comment on the Public Hearing. For some reason when this preliminary plat application was filed it was put under Old Business instead of under Public Hearing. We found out yesterday that it had not been noticed for a Public Hearing. It is my understanding of the law that whatever we did tonight we could not obtain because it has not been properly notice as a Public Hearing. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that it is the applicant's responsibility to mail out the notification for the hearing. MR. PHILLIPS-Would be interested to hear how that works because looking at the Subdivision Regulations, the first thing that comes to mind is that the Planning Board or Staff was suppose to provide the applicant with a form. . .for posting on the property and also the hearing has to be advertised in the paper and I don't think this was advertised in the paper. The application has not done anything pursuant to a Public Hearing, thinking that it would be a coordinating thing between the applicant and the staff. MR. SCUDDER-Stated that the Planning Staff inadvertently put under Old Business. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that they have been instructed by the Board that once a subdivision is in the "hopper" so to speak, it is continued to be old business until it gets final approval, asked if this was correct? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MRS. MANN-Asked who responsibility is it to advertise? MRS. YORK-Stated they do the legal advertising in the paper it is the subdividers responsibility to display on their property a sign ledger indicating that there's a public hearing and also to provided notice to all the landowners as provided in the sections through certified mail and give us the receipt. MRS. MANN-Asked if it was advertised? MRS. YORK-Not sure, will check into this. MR. PHILLIPS-Stated that if they had advertised we still could have had a defected hearing if both parties had not advertised. Would like to make a couple of comments about how they have responded to the. . . MR. DESANTIS-Asked Paul, if the Board could consider this, can we talk about before we address SEQRA? MR. DUSEK-Thinks that you could take a look at it preliminary you can't give approval, you can't go through SEQRA process until we hold the public hearing. You can certainly take a look at the application. Thinks that you can discuss it, just don't take any votes and reach any decisions concerning the project also I think it would be important to note that your positions may change you may have public comment. MR. ROBERTS-We may want comment on why we're doing the sewers the way its being done here. MR. PHILLIPS-Stated that if they can't address SEQRA review because of no notice and if we can't move ahead on the wavier issue tonight relative to the road and probably the subdivider Gn his own motion would move to table this proceeding until it can be properly noticed for a public hearing. 15 '" '-' ~ ""-.,"'-- ~ ./ ---/ COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Comments to the Planning Board, at some point of justification why the Valente's from my recommendation, and I said mine in terms of being Chairman of the Sewer Commission, had suggested that they go inground not to supersede or to take any . . .away from the Planning Board, I was just looking at it realistically. We have a Map Plan and Report for a certain district up Bay Road, and one of the proposal is that the Valente's had thought was that perhaps they could tie in at Walker Lane, part of that tying in meant that they had to cross a couple of other adjancet properties and get easements one of which they realized recently they could not get. Bay Road Sewer District Extension, maybe two or three years away, one of the problems that we've encountered is that is not just a simple 50,000 gallon a day project, but it appears that in all of the vacant if you took 780 acres along Bay Road, being that propose sewer district and it was built out as zoned we would probably end up with 700,000 gallons of flow a day which would mean that we need a new pump station Et the bottom of Bay Road, and we also need an alternative route not down Bay Street, but perhaps down Quaker Road to get into the city sewer treatment plant. Its thought with some real technical engineering problems that aren't going to be resolved within the next 6 months. My concern was asking Mr. Valente, to go with an inground with sewers, and then not be able to have those sewers available until two or three years, and that seemed like a good justification. J felt that he would probably have to live with some numbers in terms of lots in order to go inground, but that was for your decision. I'm only here at least justifying the position that I took in talking with the Valente's, that we're quite a few years away from actual sewers into the ground on Bay Road. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1988 MAPLE ROW F ARMS,Introduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: Tabled for a public hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, to be noticed for a public hearing at that time. No new filing is needed, but that by the filing date of next week Mr. SChudder, will provide the requested additional engineering information. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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. 12-1989 WR-lA FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED FRITSCH SUBDIVISION SOUTH SIDE OF EAGAN ROAD, ADJOINING HUDSON RIVER OWNERS/APPLICANTS WISH TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS, EACH OWNING ONE LOT INDIVIDUALLY AND CONSTRUCT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE PLATEAU ADJOINING EAGAN ROAD. TAX MAP NO. 137-2-9.7 LOT SIZE: 4.75± ACRES MR. DESANTIS-Stated that the staff comments all say the same thing, to approve it. Asked if everyone on the Board agreed? BOARD-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1989, FRITSCH SUBDIVISlON,Introduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Based upon the fact that they met all the rules and regulations required by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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. 38-89 LI-lA TYPE: n GREATER GLENS FALLS WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS, INC. 269 BAY ROAD TO CONVERT THE SINGLE F A MIL Y RESIDENCES 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. MICHAEL O'CONNOR FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR REPRESENTING APPLICANT STAFF INPUT 16 \. "---" ---/ "'--- r'" ---.I Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. CARTIER-Stated that the new submission doesn't have any numbers as to the permeability. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that the Board cannot grant a wavier on permeability unless the Zoning Ordinance requires. . .you either have to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. O'CONNOR-As he understands this you had a preexisting structure what is before the Board now is an application to use the existing structure except for the fact the applicant wishes to tear down the existing garage. They do not wish to add any non-permeable structure of any nature to the site. MR. MACRI-Stated that their changing uses. MR. CARTIER-Stated that at the last meeting what was proposed would have not been an improvement on this piece of property. The fact that we're doing site plan approval on this ~s that were going to end up with a better piece of property then what was originally there. MR. O'CONNOR-The comments that staff made that they have a concern that there are no calculations submitted for drainage. We would request a wavier of the requirement of submittal of those calculations because we are not creating any additional nonpermeable surface on the site. We are talking about tearing down an existing garage which would be permeable Bpace where it is not non-permeable. Staff and Engineering have asked a questions as to the black topped driveway that is in front of the garage, I think the concern is that if that were left there after the structure was removed it might tempt people to back in and out. We would stipulate that as part of the demolition of the garage that paving would also be removed that's Em addition to the green space that's existing on the site. We are not increasing runoff from the site by the proposed activity. MR. DESANTIS-Questions he would asked, (1) Is there any existing water problems in the area. (2) Then what is he doing. These are absent calculations, I don't know the answer to that. MR. GANNETT-Stated that if there is no new building and the garage is being removed we have no problem with the concept of the request of a wavier of the drainage report. MR. O'CONNOR-Understands that what you're asking is to show that there is no more runoff after the site is developed than what presently exists. We're not developing the site in this nature. The other comment by staff is that the plan as submitted does not show access to the back of the property by the 20 foot driveway. The plans are not complete yet as to whether or not the best place to put the driveway will be to the north side of the building or the south side of the building. That will depend as we develop the plans as to the addition, I would ask the Board's discretion with regard to that. Marion Marcy, is the adjoining owner to the south of us and historically the owner to the south and the owner and operator of this property had used informally a common driveway next to that. We asked her to give us the two year written license that would allow us to do that, she has and as part of the stipulation and request for the wavier I have submitted to your record our acknowledgment that if you do approve this its approved with a condition our occupancy is upon establishing a 20 foot access. Thinks that they can demonstrate on a plan that they can do this. We can show you that we have the ability to do it, we acknowledge that we must have it, and we can show you we can do it for the next two years. The Board of Realtors, did apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to construct the addition that was requested. I told them that before that variance request expires they must submit the site plan review. We're not talking about a long period of time, but we're talking about a ability to get in and get operating and get some understanding as to what we can do and not do. (Submitted a letter from Mrs. Marcy) This indicates that we can continue to use the common driveway that is presently there. Basically we're talking about fj recycling of the property now with no external changes. As part of the stipulation that I have submitted asking for the wavier we acknowledge the fact that we must have the 20 foot access, and we also acknowledge the fact and stipulated the fact that we would remove the pavement which is in front of the garage. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 17 \.. '-' '-...., - '-' '- -" ---/ MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-89 GREATER GLENS FALLS WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS, INC.,Introduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption seconded by Joseph Dybas: ' To 8;pprove con~ingent upon the applicant's complying with the stipulations he offered this evenmg ~oncermng the removal of the blacktop and getting the two year license to use the area for mgress and egress as presented to us. The fact that were ending up with a situation t~at after the demolishing of the garage and the removal of the blacktop that is a improvement wIth regard to permeability over the existing situation. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 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 RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN DISCUSSION HELD MR. DUSEK-Stated that the Town is interested in adoption a Master Plan, the Town Board has developed a Master Plan for some time now which was ultimately completed and submitted to the Town Board for their review. They in turn pursuant to Section 272 of the Town Law, now turn this over to the Planning Board to hold the necessary hearings, listen to the people, review the document, and pass upon whether or not it should become the Master Plan of the Town of Queensbury. The resolution is designed to set a Public Hearing, with the propose notice to go to the newspaper. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they have to make a determination as to SEQRA? MR. DUSEK-Stated that under SEQRA it would require that you do a long environmental 8ssessment form and determine whether or not in the first insist you feel that there are insignificant impact. If you feels there is significant impact then you would have to go a E.I.S. MR. DUSEK-SEQRA under the regulation, says that if you adopt the Master Plan then it is subject to SEQRA Review because it is a Type I action. MRS. YORK-Stated what would happen here is that we would advertise, have public hearing, go through the long form to determine if we need a E.I.S. MR. DUSEK-Stated that one of the things that you may want to consider is that the long E.A.F could help you identify the issues that you would want to address in the E.I.S. If you go under strict SEQRA interpretation SEQRA says, that whenever possible you should try to join the two actions, the legislative action of going through the Master Plan and having a public hearing together with the public hearings of the SEQRA process. You have some control here to what you think would be best. My thought is that a public hearing might give you an idea as to how to proceed after you get the input of the public. The usual way that the Zoning Ordinance is handled is that the Master Plan is developed first, then the Zoning Ordinance is passed based upon the Master Plan this, of course, did not happen in our particular instance there is no formal Master Plan of record. The Court decisions in the State of New York have :ndicated when you adopt a Zoning Ordinance it is not necessary that you do have a formal Master Plan of record, but rather as long as there was a plan of some sort of a foundation for your Zoning Ordinance. In our particular case we had the Advisory Committee which laid E: considerable amount of the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance, and it was adopted pursuant to that overall plan that they had reviewed all the various aspects of the Town, I think the Ordinance itself is based upon that. Now, what effect is this Master Plan going to have on (,ur Zoning Ordinance, I think what it does it stands as a document indicating where the Town believes it should go and if we have to make changes in our Zoning Ordinance after that to comply with what we have set forth in the Master Plan I think that's what will do. MR. ROBERTS-Asked doesn't it help to legitimatize our Zoning Ordinance as to why we do this? MR. DUSEK-Stated that to the extent of the Master Plan is consistent with the Advisory Committee findings and that there under in overall thinking, yes I agree with you there. RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN 18 --/ "- '--' '~~ -" --.../ RESOLUTION NO.2, 1989, Introduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Victor Macri: WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering the adoption of a Comprehensive Land Plan for the Town of Queensbury, a copy of which has been presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of said proposed Land Use Plan, it is necessary to hold a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOL VED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby finds that the adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan constitutes a Type 1 action as the same is defined in the Rules and Regulations adopted by the Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that a public hearing to be held on August 17th, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., at the Queensbury Center, Bay at Haviland Roads, Queensbury, New York, concerning the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan presented at this meeting by the Planning Board whereat all parties in interest and citizens will be given an opportunity to be heard in respect to said proposed application. Persons may appear in person or by agent, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Department for the Town of Queensbury shall arrange for publication in the official Town newspaper of notice of the public hearing concerning the 6.doption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and that such notice shall be published a minimum of 10 days prior to the date set for the public hearing and contain the information and be in the form of the notice presented to this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Town Clerk and the Town Planning Department maintain copied of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan on file in the event that any interested party desires to review the same. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mrs. Mann On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 19