1989-08-15
\,
'-
'",,---- -
-J
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 15th, 1989
7:35 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
HILDA MANN, SECRETARY
FRANK DESANTIS
VICTOR MACRI
JOSEPH DYBAS
KEITH JABLONSKI
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
TOWN ENGINEER-THOMAS NACE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
MEMBERS ABSENT
PETER CARTIER
OLD BUSINESS
SITE PLAN NO. 40-89 WR-lA TYPE: UNLISTED THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY REARDON
ROAD TO ENCLOSE THE PRESENT DECK AND INSTALL WINDOWS AND SCREENS. (WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-3-15 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: 9,800 SQ. FT.
Letter requesting to be tabled. (on file)
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1988 SFR-lA PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MAPLE ROW
F ARMS EAST SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, OPPOSITE WINCREST DRIVE FOR 20 ACRES
INTO 15 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-16.1 LOT SIZE: 20 ACRES
CHARLES SCUDDER REPRESENTING MAPLE ROW FARMS
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. SCUDDER-Stated the Brown's who own Lot #6 have sold a parcel to a member of their
family this has happened during the planning process and was picked up until very recently.
When we submit the plans for filing the correction will be made so proper filing can be down
with the Warren County Clerk's Office.
MR. NACE-Stated they have reviewed the plans and previous comments have been corrected.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 3-1988,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Joseph Dybas:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Subdivision No.
3-1988, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, MAPLE ROW FARMS, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BElT
RESOL VED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
1
,
~
. .-../"'"
2. The following agencies are involved.
None
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act
and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. A full
Environmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment
Form reviewed and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.ll of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may
be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required
by law.
Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Macri, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Cartier
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. ROBERTS-Read letter from Peter Ratsep, in favor of Subdivision No. 3-1988. (on file)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDMSlON NO. 3-1988, PRELIMINARY STAGE, MAPLE ROW
FARMS,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann:
All measures have been met by our consulting engineers and the Town Ordinance.
Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SITE PLAN NO. 73-88 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA JOHN ELLIS SUNNYSIDE NORTH FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THIS 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
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if Mr. Ellis would still like to stick with the first drawing or would he
be willing to go along with the second drawing?
MR. ELLIS-Would like to go with the first drawing because it would be cheaper construction
and less time consuming to build. Has trusses for the first set of plans already.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked the Board if they are comfortable with the original drawing?
BOARD-Yes.
2
---.-' '
\
'-----
\ /'
""--
-J
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 73-88, JOHN ELLIS,Introduced by Hilda Mann who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Victor Macri:
To approve in it's original presentation. Since the applicant has proved that his house technically
is not that much higher or different than the other houses in the area.
Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Cartier
SUBDMSION NO. 5-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 RR-3A 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 REPRESENTING CROSS ROADS PARK PHASE I
MR. NACE-Stated engineering details were taken care of at the last submission. There was
one engineering issue that came up in a request by the County for a small change in the drainage.
We have reviewed that and find it to be adequate.
MR. MANN-Stated that at the previous meeting neighbors were present and were furious about
this whole thing that one of the neighbors to the west has since cut out all the road and the
grass and whatever bank that was there and now has a stone wall along his front yard. The
bottom is now flat so the water can now come down towards the east from Blind Rock Road,
to the pond that we were all concerned with. Whatever drainage or natural return to the ground
that was being conducted to the west of this pond is now going to eliminate it to the west.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MACRI-Read the following letter:
July 26, 1989
Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Queensbury Planning Dept.
Queensbury Town Hall
Bay at Haviland Rd.
Queensbury, New York 12804
RE: Blind Rock Road Roadside Ditch
Dear Lee,
The roadside ditch on Blind Rock Road is standards roadside maintenance. It will remove
surface water from the roadway, to some degree help keep sub-surface water from collecting
under the roadway, and provide some limited snow storage capacity. I understand our drainage
ditch was incorporated by the developers design engineers apparently with no adverse effects.
I concur with our comments being incorporated as early as possible. We generally don't
see the plans until the developer asks for an entrance permit. If there is a way to get into
the review flow earlier we would be happy to do whatever is necessary.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Fred Austin, P.E.
Warren County Supt.
Public Works
MR. ROBERTS-It's not totally satisfactory when the County can come in and make a large
ditch like that and provide erosion control measures that we require of private developers.
MR. MACRI-Obviously it's an open cut there is no erosion control. The comments in his letters
3
'---'
',-
'--
./
'~
states the ditch is incorporated into the developers design engineers program, I don't believe
that is true. I think that this should be noted.
MR. NACE-There is another letter from Warren County to the L.A. Group. In essence it states
what the County wants the developer to do in the way of the property in that drainage ditch.
MRS. MANN-I'm sure that's true, but I still say not to penalize the applicant that is not my
intent here. My intent is the fact that we had neighbors here who were almost abusive in my
opinion who are going to maybe benefit from this additional water and I want them to know
up front that it was not the result of this particular project. It's interesting to say that they
have no qualms about doing the very same thing on the other side of this hill coming down
that we were all so concerned with not having done on this side.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1989, FINAL STAGE, CROSS ROADS PARK, PHASE
.!z.Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
Since they have met all our engineering requirements and have complied with the Zoning.
With the stipulation that our above comments as part of the record to the County situation
become part of the minutes.
Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Cartier
SUBDMSION NO. 9-1989 FINAL STAGE SFR-20 TYPE: UNLISTED 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 F AMIL Y CONSTRUCTION SITES, 2 LOTS
OF WillCH 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
Request to be tabled.
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1989, TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 FINAL STAGE HUGHES SUBDIVISION WEST
SIDE OF BAY ROAD, OPPOSITE BAYBERRY DRIVE FOR 8 LOTS FOR MEDICAL
PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON 8.31 ACRES OF LAND. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-10, 11.1 LOT SIZE:
8.31 ACRES
MR. MCCORMACK REPRESENTING HUGHES SUBDIVISION/MR. HUGHES PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Letter from Thomas Flaherty, dated July 17th,
1989
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DISCUSSION HELD
MRS. MANN-Read the following letter:
TO: Lee York, Senior Planner
FROM: Thomas K. Flaherty, Director Water/Wastewater
DATE: 7/18/89
RE: John Hughes
Subdivision-Bay Road
4
',-----
~
------
"
.~
../
~'
No.I-1989-MR-5
Tax Map #60-7-10 11.1
I have reviewed the rough draft of the Planning Board minutes of the June 22, 1989 meeting
which I received Wednesday, July 12th.
I must take exception to repeated inferences contained therein that I or this office has been
unresponsive to the Planning Board or your office in this matter.
1. In April of this year I received a call from Mr. Hughes requesting that I write a letter
explaining the circumstances relating to the installation of water mains and appurtenances
within the above project.
During these discussions it was determined that there were two ways to provided service to
these projects:
1. Provide individual services under Bay Road for each building and at a later date provide
a 6 inch water main under Bay Road for the entire subdivision.
2. Extend a 6 inch water main along a easement from Walker Lane to the subdivision and
provide individual services off of this main to each building.
It was determined that due to underlying ledge conditions of Bay Road it would make more
sense to go with alternative 2 thus eliminating 3 open cuts thru rock conditions on Bay Road.
A letter was written on April 24, 1989, (copy attached).
Subsequently I became aware that this letter apparently did not satisfy member of the Planning
Board.
I then had conversations with Chairman Roberts, yourself, and John during which I asked for
the specific areas of concern in order that I might address them. I was unable to ascertain
this information.
The following are the facts as I know them.
1. In 1983-84 Mr. Hughes came into this office and spoke to Mr. VanDusen and myself to
discuss obtaining water service for 2 buildings facing Bay Road.
It was also determined that under our construction standards that upon completion this
should be a looped system.
In accordance with our standard procedure this office approved the plans for the water
system and appurtenances ONLY.
Once Mr. Hughes started construction of the water main this office did make periodic
inspections to insure compliance with our standards.
I did not advise Mr. Hughes to start not did I tell him to stop.
I did not ask for proof of Planning Board approval as this is not in the scope of my duties
or concern.
Mr. Hughes proceeded with his work over a extended period of time in full view of the
public and various Departments and Boards apparently without inquiry during this time.
DISCUSSION HELD
MRS. MANN-Stated she understands that from Mr. Flaherty standpoint he just gives out
technical information, he apparently did not give anyone approval to do anything. Asked if
this is what he is basically saying? In otherwords he is saying I didn't tell him to go ahead
and you apparently thoughtthat you had some kind of approval. Asked if there is someway
to make sure that this doesn't happened again?
MR. ROBERTS-Thinks Staff has probably notified or discussed this with Department Heads
that they need to be careful not to give the indication that they are in a position to give
approvals.
MRS. YORK-Asked Paul to send a letter to all Department Heads. Once a month at staff
review all department heads sit down and go through everything that you see. They are more
aware then they have been in the past of what you are reviewing and what is in what phase.
Hopefully this will curtail anything like this occurring again.
5
"~
,~
'....
'--
-"
-~
MR. ROBERTS-Asked why not attach something on to the application explaining to them what
degree of site work is permissible?
MRS. MANN-Stated when a Water Department Head reviews a plan, assumes he was looking
at plans this doesn't mean that anybody else has approval to go beyond that.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated the developer can get an indication that he has approval. John is out
there with a backhoe digging a ditch and putting in a water line and we have a representative
of the Town okaying it as he goes along you might get the indication that what he is doing
is okay.
MR. MACRI-Feels if this was John's first time he may agree that maybe this is the case. What
we are dealing with here is a seasoned developer who supposably knows the regulations within
the Town. Finds it hard to believe that something like this got as far as it did.
MR. ROBERTS-Thinks John is somebody that we, the Planning Board since 1972 have used
as a good example. He always did a better job than we knew how to ask him it almost puts
him in a disadvantage. We've been changing the rules and regulations in the last few years
that maybe it's a little harder for the old timers who are used to doing things than it would
for somebody coming in from out of town.
MR. DYBAS-Feels this is part of the problem. We're changing rules so fast that we can hardly
keep up with and some of the developers particularly the older ones are having more of a
problem.
MR. ROBERTS-Feels that this hasn't been administered in the proper fashion.
MR. MACRI-Feels that the installation of water lines was never a question. Thinks the question
was if a applicant was allowed to do clearing before he gets an approved application.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated this was true.
MR. DESANTIS-Asked if it is still within the scope of Department Heads to review plans without
knowing whether or not there has been an application to the Planning Board. Also to give
indication to somebody who submits those plans as to whether or not their okay? Mr. Flaherty's
next to last paragraph says, this is not. It doesn't say it was not within the scope of his duties
or concerns as for proof of Planning Board approval when he went over these plans and reviewed
installation of the water line. Wondered if this has changed as of October 1st?
MRS. YORK-Asked if the question is, can a department head review plans prior to any Planning
Board approval without acknowledging anything is in review and give an opinion on it?
MRS. MANN-Stated he not only gave an opinion he reviewed this installation of water and
never once said, did you get an approvals from anyone for this. He says further that this was
not his domain to even asked.
MR. DESANTIS-Trying to find out what the procedure is. This goes to the basis of what the
problem is. If an applicant can either approach either the Highway Superintendent or Water
Department Superintendent, and submit a set of plans, and have that superintendent review
that set of plans and say, they meet all town standards without asking the question have you
filed an application with the Planning Department. You've said that you now meet and review
with these Department Heads applications that are in front of the Planning Board. If an
applicant has not filed an application that question does not come up in that meeting for review
by these Department Heads. What if an applicant approachs the Department Heads
independently before they file an application and then ask for a review of the plans?
MRS. YORK-Stated obviously I would like to say that this never happens, but it is really the
domain of the Department Head to decided if they want to review plans at the request of any
citizens. Certain Department Heads have decided they will not be reviewing plans except
those that are reviewed at our monthly meetings. Their are other Department Heads who
feel that if something is presented to them and they have the time and the capacity to do
it they will do the public a service and read their plans.
MR. DESANTIS-Asked that during that service doesn't this opened us up to an applicant coming
to us and saying, that a Department Head has approved my plans, I have taken certain steps
in accordance with that approval. Doesn't feel this leaves the Board is a very good position.
MRS. MANN-Feels that there is a hole in the system.
MR. DYBAS-Stated this might be a decision by the Town Board whether they want to tell the
Department Heads.
6
----
\ /
"---
./
- -..-J
MR. ROBERTS-Feels that there are steps they can take.
MR. MACRI-Has a problem with the way it was presented. It was presented that the loop
was necessary and that's what Mr. Flaherty wanted. This is why we were told the water line
was put in.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that they have to try to prevent this from happening again with what
we've been talking about and go on from there.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated he thinks that there are two issues; (1) The current application which
we have more history now at this meeting that we've ever had before. (2) What we will do?
Thinks that the Department Heads should not approve plans from which a application has not
been filed.
MRS. MANN-Stated that they are interfering in a procedure that is a legal staff procedure.
ANDREW MCCORMACK-Stated he has already been at a preconstruction conference in
connection with subdivisions. Having attended that meeting with various Department Heads,
it was a meeting to get together to decide what's going to happen and when. It was my
impression that some where in your regulations that having that preconstruction conference
was an absolute must before anyone turned a shovel of dirt. Thinks that mechanism is in place.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the preconstruction conference was after final approval?
MR. MCCORMACK-Stated you can't begin any kind of construction before having the
preconstruction conference.
MR. MACRI-Thinks a recommendation should be given to the Town Board that they should
advise all Department Heads that they should stick to procedure.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Lee to draft a letter concerning these matters.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1989, HUGHES SUBDIVISION, FINAL STAGE,by
Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
To approve since the applicant has met all the requirements set forth in the Subdivision
Regulations and our engineering requirements.
Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: Mr. Macri
ABSTAIN:Mr. DeSantis
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier
SUBDMSION NO. 13-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA FINAL STAGE HERBERT TYRER ASH
DRIVE TO SUBDIVIDE 5 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS. THERE ARE PRESENTLY TWO EXISTING
HOUSES. ON THE TillRD LOT;A HOUSE WILL BE BUILT APPROX. 52 FT. BY 28 FT. TAX
MAP NO. 39-1-45.2, 58.5 LOT SIZE: 5 ACRES
MARK BOMBARD D. L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING HERBERT TYRER
DISCUSSION HELD
MRS. YORK-Stated that the last time the Board requested that the plan incorporate all the
concerns of the Planning Department and the Engineers. Basically we have been looking at
a plan on this property since February. Requested that the Board explain to Mr. Bombard
that this is an incomplete submission until all items on the checklist that reflect the regulations
are addressed. Request that the Board table this.
STAFF INPUT
Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Engineer (on file) Plans have been satisfactorily addressed.
TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1989, HERBERT TYRER, FINAL STAGE FOR MORE
7
,-----
''"--'
"---
'---
-'
--,'
INFORMATION
SITE PLAN NO. 48-89 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON ROUTE 9,
-l MILE SOUTH OF THE GREAT ESCAPE, ACROSS FROM AGWAY BETWEEN EXITS 19 AND
20 OF 1-87 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARDEN CENTER, FLORIST PLUS FURNITURE
SALES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE:
7 ACRES
MARK BOMBARD D. L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES, STEVEN SUTTON PRESENT
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Engineer
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. NACE-Stated that the grading is difficult to tell how it is going to drain around the building.
Erosion control measures should be a requirement of anyone developing a site.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MRS. YORK-Referred to comment #6 of notes. Asked if it is now a 18" drain not a 4"?
MR. NACE-Stated it is now a 18" drain.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated that when applicant's come before the Board when specific items are
identified at a meeting and they come back again and don't to this. They certainly have adequate
noticed at that time.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated if the application is incomplete that they shouldn't be reviewing this.
MR. SUTTON-Stated that it is very hard to do things with the green houses in place. We took
a lot of dimensions that were on the original plans for the retaining wall they were put on
by measures made by snow banks that explains the discrepancy between the engineers plans
and the architect plans. Took the measurements back in January.
MRS. MANN-Asked if it's the 24 feet.
MR. SUTTON-No 14 feet. Stated that as they get the site ready we have plenty of room.
We're taking the slope out. The way it was before everything used to run down the hill and
everything ended up in the parking lot.
MR. BOMBARD-Stated that the physical dimension of the site there is no erosion that can
travel any distance because it's in a big basin. Your going to be building the site in the low
area so it won't go anywhere. Didn't feel it would be a problem.
MR. NACE-Stated that if it ends up in your catch basins. . . this is a type of thing where if
a building inspector goes out there and looks at it during construction if he doesn't have
something on the plans that show what your going to do to show what the Planning Board has
approved, he doesn't know what to look for. Feels the right way to do this is to build your
recharge basin and use that a gestation basin during construction. Needs to provide some erosion
control and sedimentation measures around this so it doesn't get that far.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated this should be tabled since Mr. Nace is not comfortable with the plans.
MR. NACE-Stated the plans are not complete the way they are now.
MRS. MANN-Asked Mr. Bombard, if he understood what he has to come back with?
MR. BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. DYBAS-Stated septic systems and erosion control are very important items for the Planning
Board.
MR. MANN-Stated the things to be identified are the, bathroom situation on the map, and
to show that the curb cut is gone.
TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-89 STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON, WITH CONCURRENCE OF
8
" ------
----'
'-----
../
--",'
THE APPLICANT FOR MORE INFORMATION. TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT REGULAR
PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
NEW BUSINESS
SITE PLAN NO. 49-89 TYPE n HC-lA ANTHONY RUSSO ROUTE 9, ! MILE NORTH OF ROUTE
149 ON EAST SIDE OF ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A BILLARD PARLOR IN A HIGHWAY
COMMERCIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-2-L2 SECTION
7.071,4.020 K LOT SIZE: 1,331 ACRES
MR. RUSSO PRESENT/ ENGINEER DENNIS FRANKLIN, ARCHITECT DENNIS HALL
MR. GORALSKI-Read the following paragraph:
Because no parking requirement is listed for this particular use, it is left to the Board's
discretion to determine if adequate parking has been provided.
The applicant is requesting that the Board determine whether they've provided adequate parking.
He feels that it's not in his best interest to invest any further money if he cannot get the
approval for the parking on site. They would like to get an approval on the parking that has
been provided and then come back next month with all the engineering details, drainage
concerns, etc.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Warren County Planning Board, no action until
all of the engineering and other requirements have been provided for this building. (on file)
Beautification Committee, stating that there are no major changes in the planting plans
submitted June 12, 1989. Submitting a parking variance, and once this is resolved, he will appear
before the Committee with the revised plans. (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. GORALSKI-Stated that they indicate staff parking behind the building the Zoning Ordinance
requires a 20 foot wide clear throughway to the parking spaces. Hasn't included these in the
total number of parking spaces.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Engineer (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. GORALSKI-Suggested Mr. Nace, stated that according to Section 4.030 that they do need
a 75 foot setback on Route 9. What you may want to do is to make a determination as to
whether the parking is adequate then it would be up to the applicant to decided what he would
like to do with the 75 foot setback.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if parking would be allowed in the setback?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. GORALSKI-Feels their only option at this point is to seek a variance. Thinks if you just
discuss the parking and make a determination as to whether their parking is adequate then
it would be up to the applicant to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked for a variance
on the 75 foot setback.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they would need a variance for the 25 foot setback?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated they already have that.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the road behind the project is part of Niagara Mohawk's right-of-way?
MR. FRANKLIN-Stated that the property line goes to the center of that dirt road.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they have any verification from other sources?
MR. RUSSO-Stated that he presently has a billard parlor on Long Island. Stated that it contains
20 tables and has approximately 60 parking spaces. Dennis and myself, have gone and looked
at several other billard parlors, they really don't have much more than one parking space per
9
------
---
----
"
""'---.. .-
- -./
table.
MR. FRANKLIN-Figures this would be the minimum requirement.
MR. DESANTIS-Asked what he is going to do when he has an attraction and you draw a 100
people?
MR. RUSSO-Stated that tournaments and exhibitions will be held on the off season. When
you have the pros come up and put on an exhibition they will be here for three days so we will
have three exhibitions per day. Tickets will be sold before hand and only those tickets holders
will be allowed to park.
MR. DESANTIS-Asked if he plans on having some kind of valet system?
MR. RUSSO-Yes. It will be advertise as such that tickets holders must have a parking stub
to get onto the parking lot.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated if you have a valet system it's about the only thing that works.
MR. RUSSO-Stated they will have to have someone collecting the tickets to make sure that
only those with a ticket stub can park.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GEORGE STARK-I have no concern with Mr. Russo and his overflow coming across the street
to my parking lot or the property right across the street, I own that property also. I think
it will be a nice added addition to the area. We all know what was there before and I don't
want that there again. I think that this will be a great addition to the area, super. Now he
has to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals again to get a variance for the front, I don't
know why they didn't say that when we were there the first time. They just discussed it for
a couple minutes gave us approval, bang that was it now we have to go back again and get
another one for the front. I'm all in favor of the project.
PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPENED
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. DESANTIS-Asked how does he anticipate signing the place?
MR. RUSSO-Stated they were going to reuse the current sign in the front. The metal pole
there we will probably have a small neon sign we have plans on calling the billard parlor the
Lake George Cue Club. We plan on putting a wooden sign right on the building also.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-89, ANTHONY RUSSO,Introduced by Keith Jablonski
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann:
To approve the recommended parking spaces based on the planner notes of 61 parking spaces
and the 3 handicapped spaces. To recommend that they acquire a variance for the 75 foot
setback.
Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mr. Cartier
SITE PLAN NO. 25-89 WR-lA TYPE: UNLISTED SUSAN C. POPOWSKI NORTHERN SHORE
OF GLEN LAKE BEFORE GLENMOORE HOTEL REMOVING A PORTION OF THE BUILDING
AND ADDING IN ITS PLACE A LARGER AREA FOR LIVING. TillS IS TO UPDATE THE CAMP
FOR F AMIL Y USE. FAMILY SUMMER CAMP USED JULY 4 THROUGH LABOR DAY .(WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-8,9 TAX MAP NO. 38-2-23 SECTION 9.010 LOT
SIZE: 1/3 ACRE LAKE SIDE TOTAL: 2/3 ACRE
SUSAN POPOWSKI PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
10
',--------
~
\
"--/
../
~
MRS. POPOWSKI-Asked what the requirement is for the holding tank?
MRS. YORK-Not sure. Thinks that she might have to go substantially larger for the holding
tank.
MRS. POPOWSKI-Asked has this changed since she started this?
MRS. YORK-Stated that it has changed since you started.
MR. DESANTIS-Stated this dictates the type of holding tank and types of alarms, and other
things.
MRS. YORK-Stated that we haven't ever had a holding tank allowable in the code before.
Wanted her to be aware that she may have to make some modification when you get a building
permit.
MRS. POPOWSKI-Stated this was no problem.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-89 SUSAN CAROLAN POPOWSKI,Introduced by
Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
To approve having met the criteria of the Town Ordinance.
Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Richard Roberts, Chairman
11