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