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