Loading...
1989-08-22 '-/' " ~ --.,/ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22nd, 1989 INDEX Site Plan No. 48-89 Steven and Donna Sutton 1- Subdivision No. 9-1989 Cline Meadow Development 2. Final Stage Subdivision No. 13-1989 Herbert Tyrer 2. Final Stage Site Plan No. 51-89 Peter Zack 3. Subdivision No. 14-1989 Partridge Run 4. Sketch Plan Site Plan No. 52-89 Robert Mason 6. Site Plan No. 54-89 Lucile Lucas 7. Site Plan No. 54-89 Jane Mason 7. Subdivision No. 13-1989 Herbert Tyrer 8. (motion) Site Plan No. 55-89 Thomas Moynihan 9. Site Plan No. 58-89 Takundewide Homeowners 9. Association Site Plan No. 57-89 Bay Road Reality Corp. 10. Petition For Change of Zone P9-89 14. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IN ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "-- -' "- "--- -- /' ----../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22ND, 1989 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN HILDA MANN, SECRETARY VICTOR MACRI JOSEPH DYBAS KEITH JABLONSKI TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER MEMBERS ABSENT FRANK DESANTIS PETER CARTIER APPROVAL OF MINUTES APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JUNE 22ND, 1989 AS SUBMITTED APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JULY 25TH, 1989 AS SUBMITTED CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 27th, 1989: Page 5, 5th para. Mr. Gannett, fill system sib dual system. APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JUNE 27TH, 1989 AS CORRECTED OLD BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 48-89 STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON/MARK BOMBARD PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Stated that primarily this was held up for lack of engineering details. Stated that the employee bathroom facilities had to be identified. Stated the concern was with the 1,000 gallon septic system. MR. BOMBARD-Stated the thought was this was going to require a spedes application because it was a propose use and then it was stated that it was only for private use of the employees which would not require a larger system. I think all that was needed was a note that was down in the lower right hand corner. This has been resolved. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the erosion control measures were properly identified? MR. NACE-Stated this has been all resolved. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the sheeting and amount of runoff was that going to be part of the drainage plan? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that the grading contours of the building are not there and their are major inconsistencies between the drainage and the layout of the design grading. The site plan shows the corner of the new building at 25 feet from the existing retaining wall the drainage plan shows this distance to be 14 feet. MR. BOMBARD-Stated that when Jim started this plat he had an old system which the. . .wall was done in the winter and they could not accurately locate it, it has been changed since. The grading plan did not show the recharge basin on each end which would make a difference in the grading. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-89, STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON,Introduced 1 '--' '---" '-, .~ - .,/ -..../ by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: Approve having met the previous requirements and the satisfaction of our consulting engineer. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Cartier OLD BUSINESS SUBDMSION 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 SUBDMDE 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 A MIL Y CONSTRUCTION SITES, 2 LOTS OF WillCH WILL BE PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANTS SUBDMDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIDR PERSONAL RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 7 LOT SIZE: 20 ACRES LEON STEVES VANDUSEN AND STEVES PRESENT MR. STEVES-Stated that they have the permit from the Department of Health and the Permit from D.E.C. MR. ROBERTS-Asked Lee if she had studied these? MRS. YORK-Stated she has read them. Most of the conditions are already shown on the plans. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (see attached) ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, All previous comments have been addressed satisfactorily. One remaining issue was the methodology used for stormwater management calculations by the applicant provides adequate storm water retention. (on file) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDMSlON NO. 9-1989, CLINE MEADOW DEVELOPMENT, FINAL STAGE,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Approve since the applicant has met all the requirements of the Town of Queensbury including the Wetlands Permit which he has. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Macri, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Cartier SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1989, HERBERT TYRER FINAL STAGE TO SUBDMDE 5 ACRE INTO 32 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 TAX MAP NO. 39-1-58.5 MARK BOMBARD D. L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING MR. TYRER MAP SHOWN TO BOARD 2 -- '", ---- -- ./ -.../ MRS. YORK-Expla~ned t~at M.r. Ty~er, has had a .subdivision before the Board for many months. The!,e was some dISCUSS!O~ wIth hIS representatIve at the last meeting regarding the lack of havmg a complete submIssIon. Mr. Tyrer came to me with his plans today and they are totally complete. HIS request to you and to me, was that you review this tonight. He has a critically ill wife and he would like to get her into her home. He has talked to Mr. Roberts about his situation. MR. ROBERTS-Asked Board if they would be willing to review this? MRS. MANN-Stated that she has no problem with this. MRS. YORK-Stated previously it was tabled for tax map information this has been submitted. There was an easement situation onto the Clark property which there is now a note on the map. MR. MACRI-Asked if this is a different drawing? MRS. YORK-Stated that one of the concerns was that there was an existing easement that was not identified on the Clark property. It has been rectified in the form of a note on the plans. The other problem was the lack of tax map numbers on adjancet properties we do have a list for that now. MR. MACRI-Asked if a question was still existing with the right-of-way? MRS. YORK-Thinks that Mr. Bombard did answer this. MR. BOMBARD-Stated that there were two easements that were written in the deed that were very hard to understand, one of them was an easement for the Clark's to the undersize lot they have. The other is a easement to Mr. Tyrer over lands of the Leford's down across the casino for water rights and beach rights through their parking lot to their beach. MR. JABLONSKI-Stated that the question at the time was who is the easement going to be related to, all the parcels? MR. BOMBARD-Stated to all three parcels this is the way that Mr. Tyrer perfers it. The easement is for beach rights and water rights for each parcel from the entire parcel. MRS. MANN-Stated that this should have been identified on the map. MR. ROBERTS-Thinks that this may be a civil matter. MR. MACRI-Thinks the concern was that it was a single parcel being subdivided and had single easement rights. By subdividing this single parcel do the easement rights pertain to all subdivision parties and is it going to be individualized to all parcels? Thinks this is what the discussion was. MR. DYBAS-Stated that the authority of the Board does not extend over lands. MR. MACRI-Stated that the concern is that if you're going to allow the subdivision do you allow the subdivision of the easement rights. MR. DYBAS-Feels this is up to the property owner to decided that. AWAITING COUNCIL'S DIRECTION ON THIS MATTER SITE PLAN NO. 51-89 WR-IA TYPE: UNLISTED PETER ZACK 87 FITZGERALD ROAD TO ADD ATTIC SPACE TO THE TOP OF THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING GARAGE. ADDmON WILL BE A MAXIMUM OF 6 FT. illGHER THAN EXISTING GARAGE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 42-1-2 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: 7,800 SQ. PETER ZACK PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Warren County Planning Board approved. (on file) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-89 PETER ZACK,Introduced by Joseph Dybas 3 "'---' '- '- '--- -.~ who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 22nd 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 SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1989 SFR-lA SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED PARTRIDGE RUN POTTER ROAD, APPROX. 320 FT. SOUTH OF A VIA TION ROAD, BEFORE BEND TO SUBDIVIDE 9.39 ACRES INTO 8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF APPROX.l ACRE EACH. TAX MAP NO. 90-2-2.4 LOT SIZE: 9.39 ACRES KEITH MANZ C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING PARTRIDGE RUN STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. GORALSKI-Read the following letter: DATE: August 21,1989 TO: Planning Board FROM: Paul H. Naylor, Queensbury Highway Supt. RE: Partridge Run The Highway Department is concerned with the site distance and ask that if, it is at all possible to have this redesigned, to take into consideration the curve in the Potter Road. We would also like to see the sediment in the C. B. taken into consideration to get maximum usage out of drywells and seepage pits. It is also the suggestion of the Highway Department that the developer be responsible for the signs approaching the intersection if a better site distance cannot be given. Respectfully, /s/ Paul H. Naylor, Queensbury, Highway Supt. MR. MANZ-Stated what is proposed is a 8 lot subdivision on 9.39 acres on Potter Road. Proposing a water tie in from the existing 12 inch water main along Potter Road. For sewage disposal we plan on utilizing septic systems. For storm drainage we are planning on utilizing drywells to effectively discharge the storm water back into the ground. There is about 400 feet between the intersection and the curve. We would be willing to look at redesigning the location of the tie in of Potter Road. In response to Mr. Gannett's question, we are proposing tile fields for the septic disposal the seepage pit detail is just for the stormwater disposal. Asked if he was saying that we have to put in mound systems of some sort because of the high perc rate? MR. GANNETT-Stated that what they are referring to is the fill system for rapidly permeable soils. This is not yet a requirement under Department of Health Department Regulations, but is a requirement under the new D.E.C. standards. We are recommending this for the Planning Board to consider. MR. MANZ-Referred to Paul Naylor's comments, that he would like to see the sediment and catch basin taken into consideration. Believes that he is referring to having a sump in each catch basin. 4 .-..... ---- .~ ,---. -- ~ MR. GORALSKI-Stated if you look at the detail the invert out of the catch basins he is concerned that what is going to happen is your going to get sedimentation in the bottom of that which will eventually clog up the pipes and clog up your seepage pit. He would perfer to see you have that invert towards the top of the catch basin therefore, you have your storage for the catch basin you're also utilizing the entire seepage pit. MR. MANZ-Asked about putting in the standard one foot sump type catch basin which would allow for sedimentation? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that he couldn't speak for Mr. Naylor, but thinks that would be fine. MR. MANZ-In agreement with that for the next stage. MR. ROBERTS-Stating there is some possibility of changing Lot #8 possibly to the extent of moving the entrance a little farther away from the curve. MR. MANZ-Stated that they will look at this. Thinks it is best to keep it up towards existing A viation Road. MR. MACRI-As he understands that he will note the fill system as well as investigate the location of the entrance? MR. MANZ-Stated they are going to investigate the location of this propose access road. If it meets D.O.T. criteria we are going to gain nominal additional footage we may propose keeping it the same. As far as the fill system I agree with Mr. Gannett, if this is the requirement of the Town then we will do that. MR. MACRI-Stated that the regulations if they haven't been up dated they will be shortly. Any new subdivision in a high perc rate area that fill systems be used. Asked if he agreed? MR. MANZ-Stated technically speaking D.E.C. isn't an involved agency, the Department of Health is. MR. MACRI-Stated the concern of this Board would be public health, and contaminated ground. For the Board to grant final approval this issued would have to be addressed. MR. MANZ-Stated there were three perc tests done. We may want to go out and do some more perc test. Can't say right now that we are going to go with the recommendation of the fill system. MR. DYBAS-Asked if he was saying that the perc test might change by more than one minute? MR. MANZ-Stated he would like to go out and verify that the perc test that were done are actually as shown. We only did testing from 6 feet 8 inches approximately. If it turns out that we have a situation where it is fast perc maybe we want to re-verify it that it turns out it is a fast perc and we do find water tables at average levels then we will go that route. Right now I don't have enough information to say which way we can go. MR. DYBAS-Stated that the perc test should be taken in the spring. MR. MANZ-Stated that the perc test was done July 27th, 1988. I'm in agreement with the philosophy with what Mr. Gannett has come up with. At this time I don't actually want to state that we are going to go with a fill system. If further investigation dictates that's the best way then that's the way we will do it. MR. MACRI-Stated that they could make it a condition of sketch plan approval that the soil situation be looked into for next month. MR. MANZ-Stated that they will come back next month and tell you what we are proposing would guess that it would be fill systems. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that maybe it should be tabled until that condition is cleared up. MR. MANZ-Stated they will go with a fill system. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1989, SKETCH PLAN, PARTRIDGE RUN,Introduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: Approve on the condition of the investigation of the road cut in accordance with D.O.T. standards. All septic system within the subdivision be constructed with fill systems in accordance with the Town Engineer recommendation. 5 ~ '- -----. ~ Duly adopted this 22nd 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 SITE PLAN NO. 52-89 TYPE: ß WR-lA ROBERT MASON ROUTE 9L TO CLEVERDALE ROAD , LEFT ONTO illLLMAN ROAD, NEXT TO TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO REMOVE AN 8 FT. BY 36 FT. STAKE DOCK. CONSTRUCT A 24 FT. BY 40 FT. U-8HAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK: 16 FT. BY 32 FT. (W /SKIRT OPEN SIDED BOAT HOUSE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. ll-I-L9 SECTION 4.020 D, 7.012 D LOT SIZE: 63 BY 84 SQ. FT. JOHN MASON REPRESENTING ROBERT MASON MAP SHOWN TO BOARD STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Warren County Planning Board approved. (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. MASON-Stated that as the property originally included property to the south which is currently owned by Ornstein. There is a 100 foot lot there with a cottage that is almost the same size as each one of these, also Helman was originally part of the property. These were subdivided off probably in the 60's. The Ornstein property might have been done in the 50's. In 1983 this was broken up into a Homeowners Association, and at that time four more parcel were broken up from Takundewide. The first one is Lot #1, and the other three are Lot #6, 7, and 8. They have varying numbers of frontage Lot #1 has 55 feet, Lot #6 has 66 feet, Lot #7 has 78 feet, I don't know if Lot #8 has ever been surveyed. Each one of the four parcels are separate from Takundewide they are separate deeds. In 1988 the Park Commission rewrote their Ordinance as to the number of docks that could be built on a parcel. Now it has been rewritten to the point where less than 45 feet you can't have any dock, from 45 feet to 65 feet you can have a single pier, from 66 feet to 100 feet you can have a U-shape dock. Each one of these parcels 1, 6, 7, and 8 are entitled to they're own docking according to the Park Commission rules some of these parcels already have docks. Your going to be seeing a site plan review application tonight for Lot #1, which already has a single pier going out to the lake and we're proposing to put a crib underneath it which would be Jane Mason. We are also proposing Lucile Lucas, to put a U shape dock and boathouse in front of Lot #6. What you will be seeing tonight is a U shape dock on Lot #7. Lot #7 already has a dock we are proposing to tear this down. We are proposing to leave this dock out permanently move the dock farther over from the property line and put a U shape dock. There is also another site plan application for Takeundewide Homeowners Association to add cribs to they're docks. The Lake George Park Commission has determined that stabilizing existing docks does not require a permit so we're in a unique situation here for the application for Lot #1, and for Takundewide Homeowners Association. I'm in front of you for site plan review, and I was told by the Park Commission that it doesn't require a permit. In 1983 Lot # 7 had a storage shed built along the shore and also had a stake dock going out to the lake. The stake dock was approximately 10 feet away from the property line. What we are proposing to do is to remove that stake dock and build a U-shaped dock that is about 8 or 9 feet further north so the new crib dock will be centrally located and then put a boathouse on it along the same crib. MR. DYBAS-Asked how many feet from the property line will the new dock start? MR. MASON-Stated it will start 34.4 feet from one property line 20 feet from the other. MR. DYBAS-Asked about the straight line from the property line? MR. MASON-Stated probably about 17 or 18 feet away from the property line on that side. Sent all of the information to the Park Commission. Their comment on this one is that they we're concerned about the distance from the property line. They're considering that we're moving the dock away from the property line and every foot we give them their happy with. Even though no permit is required, I'm here asking to move the dock two feet so that we bring it into compliance with the current Park Commission Law. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 6 '---- "-- ,--,- ../ ----" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-89 ROBERT MASON, Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Approve noting the lack of controversy by neighbors or the public while taking into consideration the aesthetics. They have met all the regulations required. Duly adopted this 22nd 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 SITE PLAN NO. 53-89 TYPE: n WR-lA LUCILE LUCAS ROUTE 9L TO CLEVERDALE ROAD; LEFT ONTO illLLMAN ROAD; PROPERTY IS NEXT TO TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 36 FT. U-SHAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 32 FT. (W/SKIRT) OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.ll-I-L8 SECTION 4.020 D, 7.012 D JOHN MASON REPRESENTING LUCILE LUCAS MR. MASON-Stated that there are only two difference here. First, is that it's on Lot #6 the shore front footage in this case is 66 feet and there is no removal of an existing dock. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Warren County Planning approved. (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-89 LUCILE LUCAS,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Victor Macri: Approve having met the requirements of the Board and the Town Ordinance. No public controversy to construct a U-shaped dock and open sided boathouse. It does not block any views. DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Asked if this had Park Commission approval? MR. MASON-Stated the comments by the Park Commission on this one were pertained to the extension of the property line on the south side, but that property line has been resolved. The two parties have entered into a property line agreement and part of this has also been resolved. At this point the Park Commission considered all of these complete applications. Duly adopted this 22nd 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 SITE PLAN NO. 54-89 JANE MASON TYPE: n WR-lA ROUTE 9L TO CLEVERDALE ROAD; TAKE LEFT ONTO BRAYTON ROAD; PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT TAKUNDEWIDE PROPOSAL IS TO REINFORCE AND STABILIZE A REGISTERED, PREEXISTING DOCK WITH CRIB SUPPORTS.(WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. ll-l-L3 SECTION 4.020 D, 7.012 D LOT SIZE: 76 BY 72 SQ. FT. JOHN MASON REPRESENTING JANE MASON MR. MASON-Stated he has a letter from the Park Commission that says, that typically the Park Commission does not require a permit fo()r any change in size, shape, or orientation that's 7 '.......- ""' / ~-" ----',/ been given or if your just putting crib supports underneath it not changing any of those things they do not require a permit. However, in light of the new Ordinance of 1988 the sideline setback has been increased to 20 feet. They have asked me to move the dock over two feet at the time the crib supports are placed under it. Warren County Planning Board made a motion to approve the dock either in this location or in a location two feet north. Concerned with one of the agencies that we deal with will not allow us to move the dock. Perfers to move the dock two feet to bring it into compliance with the Park Commission rules. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that it is a existing dock we could probably agree to leave it where it is. MR. MASON-Stated if they get approval from everyone each step along the way we will move the dock the two feet. MR. MACRI-Stated the Board's concern would be what we file is what you build. MR. GORALSKI-Suggested if the Board would consider approving either one when you have all of your approvals give us the revised plan that your going to use with the correct setback. MR. MASON-Stated he is willing to do this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-89 JANE MASON,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: To approve either the 18 feet or 20 feet from the shoreline whatever the approval turns out to be, and that the proper map be filed. Duly adopted this 22nd 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 SUBDMSlON NO. 13-1989 HERBERT TYRER MRS. YORK-Stated there was a question as to a piece of property about an easement right. . . it the property across the road mainly the casino they are providing these rights with the new owner. The question was whether this Board has the power over this. MR. DUSEK-Stated he has taken a look at the map for the subdivision. Notes that the easement is definitely on the other side of the road. It is my opinion as long as the easement does not affect the development of those three lots from a planning prospective for instance, if you had a easement that you had and you needed it because you had to access your lot. As long as it doesn't effect it in that fashion, I don't think the Board has to consider it, in fact I would recommend to the Board that you don't consider it because there are a lot of legal ramifications of whether this property can in fact legally do it. An easement would have to be studied a legal interpretation would have to be made I'm not saying you can't, but I don't think you should get into it. I would recommend to the Board to make a statement that you are not giving any kind of representation your not deciding that very issue. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDMSlON NO. 13-1989, HERBERT TYRER, Introduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: To approve and stipulate in this approval that this Board makes no action in respect to the subdivision or the rights of conveyance of easements which may be part of this parcel. Duly adopted this 22nd 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 8 "--' '--' ... --' ~. ~ SITE PLAN NO. 55-89 WR-lA TYPE: ß G. THOMAS MOYNIHAN, JR. TAKE ROUTE 9L TO CLEVERDALE ROADS; FOLLOW CLEVERDALE TO illLLMAN ON LEFT, BEAR RIGHT ON illLLMAN, HOUSE IN ON LAKESIDE REMOVAL OF 4 FT. BY 24 FT. STAKE DOCK: 32 FT. BY 36.5 FT. F-8HAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK; 25 FT. 2. IN. FT. BY 30 FT. CLOSE SIDED BOATHOUSE. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF 39 FT. BY 26 FT. U-8HAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK; 39 FT. BY 20 FT. L-SHAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK; 34 FT. 39 FT. (W /SKIRT CLOSE SIDED BOATHOUSE) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-29 SECTION 4.020 D, '1.012 D LOT SIZE: .'15 ACRES JOHN MASON REPRESENTING G. THOMAS MOYNIHAN MR. MASON-Stated that this one is different from the other ones. The existing dock that is currently on the site is this F-shaped dock, we are proposing to remove that entire dock. The other dock that is on the site is a small 4 foot by 24 foot stake dock that we are also planning to remove. We are also planning to demolish an existing 25 ft. 2 in. by 30 ft. close sided boathouse that is on the site. In the place of all of this we are planning on constructing two docks, one is a 39 ft. 26 ft. U-shaped dock, and one is a 20 ft. by 39 ft. L-shaped dock to create a E-shape. Over the top of this we are planning on constructing a 34 ft. by 39 ft. with skirt close sided boathouse. The Park Commission is currently planning preventing the construction of close sided boathouses in locations where not existed before. It is still a little different in that it is a close sided boathouse currently in it's place. There is one major difference between this type of boathouse and most close sided boathouse. If you look at the side view of this the only side of the whole wall is the back wall the wall towards the shore each of the other sides are opened up. This present less of a close sided appearance than what is there now. MR. ROBERTS-Asked what the frontage is? MR. MASON-Stated that it's 151 t feet of frontage. He is not building the most dockage or boathouse that he could build. Stated that you would not see another dock going up on the structure. MR. GORALSKI-Stated in the Ordinance it states that it limits the size of all shape docks except E-shape docks. MR. MASON-Asked the Board to consider this two docks because the owner of record at 151.6 feet is allowed to build two docks in the Ordinance. If you call this something else you run the risk that at some point another dock could be built. Would like this to be consistent with what's being approved. MR. ROBERTS-Stated they could stipulate this in the motion. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55- '89 G. THOMAS MOYNIHAN, JR.Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, sèconded by Keith Jablonski: Approve having met the requirements of the Town Ordinance. Stipulating this is a two dock structure as a matter of record. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. DeSantis, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier SITE PLAN NO. 58-89 WR-lA TYPE: n TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ROUTE 9L TO CLEVERDALE ROAD, LEFT ONTO BRAYTON ROAD, PROPERTY LOCATED AT END OF BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT WISHES TO REINFORCE AND STABILIZE REGISTERED, PREEXISTING STAKE DOCKS WITH CRIB SUPPORTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. ll-I-U SECTION 7.012 D LOT SIZE: 18.6'1 ACRES JOHN MASON REPRESENTING TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MR. MASON-Stated that a permit is not required for this. Stated that the way the Park 9 '"'-'" '--" '" .-/ '-- ' ,---,-' ~ Commission approved this there is no change in the shape, size, or configuration than there is here. There is a difference in size we have reduced the size of the piers from three feet to two feet we don't need the three feet. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if cribbing is going to be put under this? MR. MASON-Stated a leg is going to be put at the bottom. All of this is preexisting, there are eight fingers on the south side and eight fingers on the north side. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-89, TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,Introduced by Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Approve it meets all the requirements that have been discussed. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Macri, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Cartier SITE PLAN NO. 57-89 TYPE: n MR-5 BAY ROAD REALITY CORP. LOT NUMBER ONE OF CROSS ROADS PARK, PHASE I, SUBDIVISION; NORTHWEST CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND BLIND ROCK ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES A ONE STORY STRUCTURE TO HOUSE GENERAL OFFICES FOR PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34 SECTION 4.020 F LOT SIZE: L45 ACRES CURT DYBAS FIRM OF CUSHING DYBAS AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING BAY ROAD REALITY CORP. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Letter from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement dated August 22, 1989. (on file) Warren County Planning approved. Beautification Committee letter stating that the Holland Patent Office of Bay Road Reality did not inform Mr. Dybas of the Committee meeting of August 7, but he has agreed to meet with us on this project at out next meeting September ll, 1989. DISCUSSION HELD MR. GORALSKI-Recommend that the applicant get a temporary driveway on to Blind Rock Road. Stated that the developer of the subdivision can grant a temporary deed to the owner of a portion of the property where the road is being developed so that the lot does have frontage on the public road. MR. DYBAS-Asked if he was saying temporary access off what would be the road? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Stated this is something that Dave Hatin would have to be satisfied with. MR. DYBAS-Stated that in the proximity of Bay Road which the easement for this would seem to be. . .a temporary access of what would be the right-of-way. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that he does think it's something that can't be worked out. MR. ROBERTS-Feels this could be worked out. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. DYBAS-Stated that the first question of the engineer's comments they did address. It 10 '-' --./ '-"---" -' .-/ --- is correct the grB:te .elevation is 38~.74: Believes what is being read is the existing contours. The last contour mdIcated on the sIte IS 384 because 382 is the wing swale that comes up the road. MR. GANNETT-Stated there is also a 380 contour that is inside the northwest corner. MR. DYBAS-Stated that the 380, 382, the dotted ones are existing contours this is something that is required by the checklist. MR. GANNETT-Stated the grading for the site plan needs to show the grading on the right-of-way the way it's going to be. DISCUSSION AMONG MR. DYBAS AND MR. GANNETT REGARDING CONTOURS MR. ROBERTS-Asked for council's opinion of the easement. MR. DUSEK-Asked if he had anything developed now? MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. DUSEK-Stated this is essentially a driveway off the main roadway. MR. GORALSKI-Stated this is something that has been worked out in residential subdivision that they get a temporary easement from their driveway across the developers property. MR. DUSEK-Stated as long as the entire parcel is only servicing one building. MR. DYBAS-Stated this is something that his client and the owners of the subdivision have to workout. Stated that the office structure is 6,000 sq. ft. Bay Road Reality is the developer and it will be leased to Prudential Insurance. They are projecting 47 employees. The Ordinance calls for 40 parking spaces we're proposing 55 parking spaces. There are 3 handicapped parking spaces provided. All the setbacks have been met. MR. ROBERTS-Asked John if he was satisfied with the parking? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILSON MATHIAS-lawyer representing the owner of 525 Bay Road, Mr. Hinman. We are the owners of the property across the street basically. Our concern is primarily with the traffic aspect of this particular subdivision or this particular site plan. As you know Bay Road, Blind Rock, Haviland intersection is pretty busy. I don't think that I have to be accused of being an ambulance chaser because I can put my cards along the side of the road and hope they pick them up, the Sheriff's Department can be spokesman for that. It is clearly a real problem with the intersection, and it's a dangerous spot in the Town. I understand that the Town is in the process of placing some type of traffic signal at that intersection, I certainly think that this is a step in the right direction. My concern at this point is that your going to have 47 employees that are going to be coming in to that property in the morning and leaving at night. I suspect a majority of those people will be traveling north south on Bay Road. I think this is a lot of cars at a time when that intersection is also being arrived at by students of Adirondack Community College all trying to make their 8:00 classes, I wonder what plans have been made to take into account the increase in traffic which is pretty obvious particularly if their saying they have spaces for people that they expect to come customers and clients. I think that you're going to be putting more people through an intersection that is a real difficult place to make a turn. I see even with the light up there it present a problem with someone traveling north on Bay who wants to make a left onto Blind Rock Road, even with the light there is still traffic obviously. . .from Bay Road. I wonder if anything has been done to deal with this? All I can say in reviewing the site plan application it seems to be the answer is nothing. MR. DYBAS-I think that your basic argument is that years ago when we envisioned what we like to see happen on Bay Road actually what we thought would happen. As far as traffic and it's probably going to be, and I hate to say this is a problem of reacting to what has happened. That's the way normally these solutions are made if we have a traffic problem and we go ahead to the Town Board and decide well, we need a light there, and I think basically and I hate to say it, but I think basically that's what is going to happen afterwards. MR. MATHIAS-You have a light on order, but I would disagree with you in terms of why you go through one of these site plan review things one of the specific items that you're authorized to think about in one of these things is there ought to be something taken into account. I'm real supportive of this project in terms I think it does come within actually what the Master Plan envisioned for' this area, I think frankly it's going to improve the value of our property 11 -' " --,' ~./ ---'" those are all positive things, but I'm also concerned for the safety of me and my employees as were venturing out there as well as thinking of some of the other 57 folks who are going to be coming in and out of that place on a daily basis it seems to me that now is. . .first couple accidents to think about this. MR. ROBERTS-I just wonder if our timing is a little off here whether we should have had the discussion before granting of the subdivision. MRS. MANN-We did have the discussion because I asked Paul, and he said that the bids had gone out on this light. I asked this because my neighbors had almost gotten killed the week before. I think Tom Nace, said the bids were out and it should take about six months is this correct? MR. DUSEK-My recollection is the question relative to the traffic light did come up and since that time the bids have been rejected by the Town, but there is now parts of the traffic light on order for this intersection and should be in in a short period of time. The traffic light itself is something that was talked about and it is still going to happen. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder if that includes anything. . . MR. MATHIAS-That's the kind of thing that I think planning would make sense. MR. DYBAS-In response to this we don't know what kind of a time they put into it. John, maybe you should point that out to somebody whoever is responsible to ask if they did have. . .are they going to have an impact on traffic. MR. MATHIAS-Obviously the problem was going to only increase in the sense once these 55 folks are going in and out there is going to be somebody else within the subdivision. I'm certainly not suggesting this particular applicant take care of the problem he can't define or bare the brunt of it or anything else, but I think some kind of planning process has to be taken into account. This is a pretty busy intersection and now we're making it more busy, now we're encouraging people to you know Bay Road is an arterial we're encouraging people to turn against the traffic I think maybe more than just a simple four-way traffic signal is going to be required and someone has to do some thinking. MR. ROBERTS-That's a county road, I wonder if we could asked some question to the County D.O. T. of just how much thought has been given to that. MR. DUSEK-Paul Naylor is the person I think you should talk too, to discuss this late aspect of it because he is the one who is making all the arrangements. MR. MA THIAS-I would point out to the Board that one of the conditions of Hiland Park's Plan Unit Development. . . that had to deal with traffic control devices at various intersection with the Town. I think that the developers concern in that case would it sure that any type of traffic device that really had to be installed whether it be a traffic light, turn light, or something like that, that was generated by that particular developer. I'm not suggesting that even if you propose a condition on this particular applicant, but at some point we're going to have a real problem. As a practical point even when you have a light there, how are these folks coming out of there with 47 employees who I'm sure are not going to utilize the Greater Glens Falls Transit System, how are they all going to get out of there at 5:00 p.m. at night. MRS. MANN-Local knowledge has been very beneficial. . . MR. MA THIAS-I just see it as something as real problem to begin with. MRS. MANN-I come out of there every night so I know exactly what your talking about which is why I ask for information about the light and I was told it was on order. MR. MATHIAS-It would certainly seem to me that if the light is the key here as far as you folks are concerned that all things being equal in town government, sometimes things don't happen as fast as anybody with. . .and it's conceivable that we may here a year from now and still not have a traffic light. I think that really does concern me that if that seems to be the traffic control device that the Board is looking for I would ask to include that as a condition of approval for this particular site plan. If this takes care of the problem great, I really hope it does. MR. ROBERTS-Are you suggesting that the condition of approval before any more lots are built on that the light be installed first? MR. MATHIAS-Yeah. What happens if their isn't a light there and the 47 folks all show up for work, I see some real real problems. 12 "-- ---' '- '-...-, ~ "'--- ,.i -_./ MR. DYBAS-We have light on Bay and Quaker, and Supermarkets there and everything else and we still have accidents. (Tape turned) MR. ROBERTS-I think it might be reasonable for us to question to see just how much thought has been given to this. MR. DYBAS-If Paul is the one to be responsible for this and apparently he has been then I think Paul ought to be questioned as to what his plans are and how far in the future that light inspected and put up. As a added urgency and maybe we can exercise it, I don't know how the wheels of government turn, but sometimes they turn a little faster, but most of the time slower. MR. ROBERTS-I still think that's a county highway. MRS. YORK-I will request information from Mr. Naylor before the next meeting on this, and I will forward it to you also. MR. MATHIAS-Again, I'm not here to try to submarine this particular application or make him pay for more than what his far share is, but there isn't any question as a result of the site plan approval of this that your going to dramatically increase the amount of traffic in that particular intersection. Basically we're saying will just kind of hope for the best that's kind of scary. MR. DYBAS-I think the Town is aware of the urgency of this major. . .that the Board will have to rectify it. MR. DUSEK-As I mentioned somebody had indicated to me the actual part that are necessary for the light are on order as a matter of fact that was just a few weeks ago. MRS. MANN-How many cars are generated out of this facility, would you say 50 cars a day or more? MRS. YORK-I would estimate more than that at times. MRS. MANN-You would say probably the average is about? MRS. YORK-I think it would be close to 100. MRS. MANN-So your talking about a 33% increase that we know of. I think we should ask Mr. Naylor what his plans are. MRS. YORK-I will also request information on the intersections and the number of cars passing through. We might have some information from C.T. Male study that was done for the Master Plan on this. MR. MATHIAS-At some point down the line it's going to trigger a disaster. If the intersection is fine and can accommodate this particular applicant, but it seems to me from a practical point of view there is going to come a point that it can't because of the number of folks. It seems to be this is the Board to come to in terms of planning. I know that you can't make the Town Board do anything in terms of decisions, but it seems to me that you have to be dealing with this question and it's only to get worse. MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sure if there is going to be a dramatic change created on this type of plan as maybe your indicting. MR. MA THIAS-I hope I don't notice it that would be great, but I know the little bit with the five or six employees in my office and people coming in and out that's putting a burden depending on the time of day that they try to make the left from Bay into my driveway. MR. ROBERTS-I think maybe we should do what we suggested not only with the Highway Superintendent, but perhaps a letter to the Town Board expressing some urgency here. MIKE GALLUCCI-I'm a representative of Prudential. I don't know if you realize it there are 47 agents, but at one time only on Tuesdays, and Fridays, there are probably 25. MR. ROBERTS-Their in the field part of the time. MR. GALLUCCI-They're in the field, about 10 of them are 15 miles away. They're not all going to be there at the same time. At the same token I think that should have been corrected with the subdivision not the site itself. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 13 - --' " "------ /' '~ M.OTION TO APPROVE ~ PL~N NO. 57-89, BAY ROAD REALITY CORP,Introduced by HIlda Mann who moved for Its adoptIon, seconded by Keith Jablonski: To approve with the stipulation that they can legally work out a proper access to Blind Rock Road from this particular site plan with the Town and Highway Superintendent. That the Town Highway Superintendent and the Town Board be made aware of our serious concerns in relation to the traffic conjestion related to Blind Rock Road, Bay Road, Haviland Road intersection. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 57-89, 1989,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Site PJan No. 57-89, BAY ROAD REALITY CORP., 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,BEIT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. A full Environmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment Form reviewed and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.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 22nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE-P9-89 WALT BURNHAM-NORTHEASTERN ELECTRIC MOTORS FRANK CATTONE-TRI COUNTY KITCHEN CENTER VITO CALALLARI-WEST MOUNTAIN DELI &: PIZZA SHOP LORETTA BAIRD HUDSON-MIKE BAIRD SIGNS GARY BALL-GARY BALL COUNTERTOPS ROY BALL-RESIDENCE SALLIE BRANDT AND LORAINE BRANDT-WEST MT. SALES, INC. THE ENTIRE AREA IN QUESTION IS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD. THROUGH VARIANCES OR PRIOR EXISTING USES THE AREA IS NOW PRIMARILY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE. THIS APPLICATION REQUESTS THAT THE ZONING FOR THIS AREA BE AMENDED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI-lA). 14 --- ,--.-/ " "----' . -/ ~' BETH RODIE REPRESENTING APPLICANT MAP SHOWN TO BOARD STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) MS. RODIE-Stated that they prepared what we thought we would be helpful. The request was for those specific properties we are well aware that spot zoning isn't the policy we wouldn't encourage the Board to do that. We would be pleased if the entire area was rezoned to include those residential areas. One of the industries on the road isn't representative on the petition, but the rest of the industries on the map are all petitioners. MR. DYBAS-Asked if the junkyard on the road was represented on the map? Stated that Corinth Road is shown, but he doesn't see any of the other properties on VanDusen Road shown on the map. MS. RODIE-Stated the map basically represents the petitioners and the properties that are in between them. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that there could be some alternatives such as better mapping. MRS. MANN-Stated she agrees this should be light industrial zoned. MRS. YORK-Stated that she would be glad to meet with the petitioners or the representative at their convenience to come back to the Board with a plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE BAIRD-resides at Cornith Road right in the middle of the industrial. .. I have a business Mike Baird Signs, which is under a new name now. I understand that the Board would like to see a better map, but I realize we have to come back with an actual map. This whole area right here (refers to map) there are one or two residence besides myself, which I'm one of about three who own a business actually which it doesn't refer to any others except maybe two other residences who don't have a business which I have talked tofrom VanDusen Road right to West Mountain Deli, and Tri County Kitchens is the only area right here. As I understand it up until last October of 1988 this whole area had been zoned highway commercial residential forever, until I can remember. MRS. MANN-In the past. MR. BAIRD-As it was just pointed out, of course, maybe my mistake for not reading the paper. . .no one had the potential and come in and speak up for the industrial change. MR. MACRI-Everybody did have the chance to go to the community meetings, neighborhood meetings were held in all the neighborhoods. MR. BAIRD-Hopefully speaking for everyone else my mistake maybe for missing it or whatever that's probably why we're here today. The point is that it has always been commercial. All I would like to know before I leave here tonight as I understand you need to see a map before you can actually go any farther. MR. MACRI-I don't think the map is the problem. I think the fact that what you are requesting us to do is spot zoning. Spot zoning is not allowed you can't just say, you guys got a bunch of businesses and your all in one area and surrounded by this other zone we're going to change it. MR. BAIRD-Okay. Is spot zoning from here including. . . MRS. YORK-The petitioners on this petition a change of zone for them I know this Board is well aware of what we're talking about. Their request is for their properties to be changed in zone. What we need to do is to develop a area that is a reasonable approach that's what we want to do we want to help you do that. Could we make a appointment tomorrow to sit down with you and do that so we can come back to this Board in September? MR. BAIRD-Certainly. MRS. MANN-What was the area that was changed to what it is? MRS. YORK-I don't know. We just need to look at this to see what is the best way to go about this. We aren't arguing with the reasoning behind. 15 '~ '------- ~ MR. ROBERTS-I think you'll find quite a lot of sympathy for something of this nature. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PETITION NO. P8-89 WALT BURNHAM, FRANK CATTONE, VITO CALALLARI, LORETTA BAIRD, GARY BALL, ROY BALL, SALLIE BRANDT AND LORAINE BRANDT, TO HOLD IN CONVEYANCE FURTHER BUSINESS AGENDA CONTROL MR. DUSEK-Stated what developed last time was a system whereby there were four categories eight items, two new matters per category, and then we had a category in the event if one of the categories were empty. Basically what the new proposal does is eliminates that one and puts in a system of eight items per agenda with just two categories. MR. ROBERTS-Asked the Board if they were all in agreement to set the public hearing for this? BOARD-Yes. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO.4, 1989,Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has adopted Local Law No.3 for the year 1989, which Local Law provides for the suspension, on a temporary basis and for the period that the said Local Law is in effect, of the requirements of New York State Town Law, which requires the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to hold a public hearing within 45 days of the receipt of an application for site plan approval or an application for subdivision plat approval and which further requires that the Planning Board file its decision within 45 days of said public hearing, and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Local Law No.3, 1989, the Planning Board must adopt such rules and regulations after a public hearing by the Planning Board and subject to the approval of the Town Board, regarding the procedures applicable upon receipt of applications for site plan approval and applications for preliminary or final plat approval regarding the time within which a public hearing is to be schedules, if at all, and further, regarding the time within which the Planning Board is to make its decision, and WHEREAS, pursuant to said Local Law No.3, 1989, the said rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Planning Board shall be consistent with the intent of Town Law Sections 274 (a) and 276 to the extent that a clear and consistent time frame shall be established to review said applications and make decisions thereon, and WHEREAS, a proposed draft of an amendment to the rules and procedures of the Planning Board titled "Special Temporary Rules Applicable to Applications for Site Plan Approval or Preliminary or Final Plat Approval" has been presented to this meeting, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 272 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Planning Board may adopt rules and regulations in respect to procedure before it and in respect to any subject matter over which it has jurisdiction under Article 16 of the Town Law of the State of New York or any other statute after public hearing by the Planning Board and subject to the approval of the Town Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOL VED, that a public hearing be held on the proposed amendment to the rules and procedures of the Planning Board presented to this meeting and titled "Special Temporary Rules Applicable to Applications for Site Plan Approval or Preliminary or Final Plat Approval" on September 19th, 1989 at 7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center Meeting Room, Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that Susan Davidson of the Planning Department, is hereby authorized and directed to arrange for publication in the official newspaper of the Town of Queensbury of notice of the aforesaid meeting and proposed rules and regulations as set forth in the proposed notice 16 "---' '--\...- ~ ~/ of public hearing presented at this meeting. Duly adopted this 22nd 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 On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 17