1989-09-26
\.,.
'----
.,/
--.-/
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26TH, 1989
INDEX
APPLICANT ,PAGE
Subdivision No. 15-1989 James & Pamela Martin 1.
Preliminary Stage
Site Plan No. 62-89 Douglas Mabey 3.
Site Plan No. 41-88 Adirondack Animal Hospital 4.
Site Plan No. 63-89 Floyd Glenn Batease 5.
Subdivision No. 16-1989 Niagara Mohawk Sherman 7.
Island Cluster Dev.
Sketch Plan
Site Plan No. 64-89 John M. Hughes 10.
Subdivision No. 17-1989 Robert Lent 12.
Site Plan No. 65-89 Adirondack Industrial Park 14.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
'~
"-
--'
.~,/
'-
../
~-./
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26TH, 1989
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
HILDA MANN, SECRETARY
PETER CARTIER
JOSEPH DYBAS
KEITH JABLONSKI
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
TOWN ENGINEER-THOMAS NACE
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
August 22nd, 1989: Page 2 bottom of page, site plan no. 13-1989 sib 3 lots not 32 lots.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 22ND, 1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD AS CORRECTED
July 18th, 1989: Cross Roads Park, motion vote sib Mr. DeSantis absent.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE JULY 18TH, 1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBUR Y PLANNING
BOARD AS CORRECTED
NEW BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1989 JAMES AND PAMELA MARTIN PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED RR-3A FLOYD MARTINDALE, SR. NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 149 FOR A 2 LOT
SUBDMSION OF 31.5 ACRES. JAMES AND PAMELA MARTIN INTEND TO PURCHASE THE
PARCEL WITH THE INTENTION OF BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. TAX MAP
NO. 30-1-10.1 LOT SIZE: 31.5 ACRES
JAMES MARTIN AGENT FOR FLOYD MARTINDALE, SR.
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
MR. MARTIN-Stated the existing parcel size is 35.6 acres (referred to map). The existing
soils found on the property are oak. . .find sand and I have indicated that the soil is suited
for most recreation and urban uses the surface layer is dark brown fine sand about 8 inches
thick, bedrock more than 60 inches deep. There is a seasonally high water table not a depth
of more than 6 feet the permeability and surface runoff is slow. Stated a percolation test
was done on the site in late July, the drainage was fast. A percolation test was done on a
2 foot deep hole one foot square wide. As to the existing trees on the site a survey was done
by Adirondack Forestry Inc., and they found hard maple, white pine, black oak, approximately
57% of the wood found was white pine. Stated the lot would be 3 acres and the average minimum
lot width as shown on the plat is 520 feet. The propose use is a single family dwelling
approximately in the center of the property and there would be an accessory use of a garage.
The setbacks will be 30 feet on the side and rear lots and 50 feet on the front yards. Obtained
from New York State a driveway permit which goes through to April 30th, 1990. Construction
on the property is indicated on Plat B of the application and it shows the drainage report.
Stated they plan to build approximately in 5 years, but when construction did occur we will
do all we can to prevent any drainage during construction to protect the other properties.
The driveway will be constructed in a shorter time period somewhere between now and next
spring. It will be approximately 350 feet long and it will be 12 feet wide with a 3 foot wide
drainage ditch along the side. It will be a crush stone driveway with no pavement and there
will also be a 12 inch 20 foot long culvert running parallel to Route 149. After construction
the property will be seeded and mulched to prevent any permanent damage from any drainage.
The house to be constructed will be a 3 to 4 bedroom house of approximately 1,500 sq. ft.
The septic system and well is illustrated on Plat B of the application. The septic system will
be 1,000 gallon precast tank located approximately 10 feet from the outer wall of the house,
it will be 1,000 gallon capacity connected with a 4 inch PVC pipe in and out of the tank. Out
of the tank it will continue on to a distribution box anù out of that will be four 4 inch perverted
PVC pipes of approximately 47 feet in length which will be installed with the approval of the
New York State Department of Health. Stated there will probably be a . . . well pump on the
property
1
,
,
.~-
/'
- -.-/
the pump capacity will be in the area of 350 gallons per hour. Stated he has proof of service
to the neighboring property owners (submitted copy to the Board). There are 16 properties
owned by II people, II were sent out and 10 received. Referred to the second recommendation
of Rist Frost on the driveway. Believes this isn't correct due to the nature of the traffic that
will be going in and out of the driveway. At least 95% of our travel happens west of the site
so in 95% of the cases we are going to be coming out of the driveway and making a right hand
turn. The site lines here (refers to map) are good the engineer for D.O. T. went out to make
a site visit to the property before the permit was issued and made note of this. The site views
are better making a right hand turn out of here then they are coming out of this driveway
because there is a peak in the road. The second consideration is that, in the subdivision that
is proposed the property is to remain the property of Floyd Martindale, and it will not be a
part of this new lot. If this is the case then we would like to have our own individual access
without sharing use of the driveway.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas N ace, Managing Project Engineer
DISCUSSION HELD
,
MR. NACE-Stated that D.O.T. has the last say in the driveway. Thought that you have to
consider both site distances even though you will be using it, but sometime in the future the
property will be sold possible.
MRS. MANN-Feels that this is a reasonable request.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if the 100 feet between the well is it between the well and the tile field
or well and septic tank?
MR. NACE-Stated it is between the well and the tile field.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 15-1989, OF 1989,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Hilda Mann:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SUBDMSlON NO.
15-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE, JAMES AND PAMELA MARTIN, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BElT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
State Department of Transportation
New York State Department of Health
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 this 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
2
'--/
---'
'--
.-/
'-
--
---'
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 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDMSION NO. 15-1989 JAMES AN PAMELA MARTIN,PRELIMINARY
STAGE,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann:
Suggest that the wavier from the 2 foot contour be granted and that on the final subdivision
submission the test pit log be included.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SITE PLAN NO. 62-89 TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS MABEY LI-lA BIG BOOM ROAD I MILE
SOUTH OF BROAD STREET FOR A 8,000 SQ. FT. STORAGE AND WAREHOUSE ADDITION
TO AN EXISTING 12,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP
NO. 137-2-4.1 SECTION 4.02o-N LOT SIZE: ll.066 ACRES
CHARLES FOSS AGENT FOR DOUGLAS MABEY PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) Warren County Planning Board approved,
no comment. (on file)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Managing Project Engineer ( on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. FOSS-Stated he thinks it's obvious that no conclusion could be made tonight. When we
first came here we were discussing the project on the entire II acres it became apparent at
that time that it was not feasible for Mr. Mabey or the town to know what we could do with
the project for over five years. At the suggest of the planners and the Board it was decided
to take it by steps. Feels that we have addressed many of the questions that came up the
8,000 feet is for an existing tenant to use t of it and for Mabey's moving and storage to use
the other half. The existing tenant is a catheter tenant and there is no increase in traffic
of any kind. The septic system that we are attempting to put in on one side is not necessary.
The percolation test is less than a minute. We do have the calculations on the detail to indicate
how we plan to handle it on the site. The increase of 8,000 sq. ft. and the increase that will
occur with the driving with the blacktop that we plan to put in our engineer feels that we can
accommodate it with the calculations that we have. However, if your engineer feels we can't
do it this way then we will with the percolation that we have we won't have a problem with
this.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that SEQRA could be addressed.
MRS. YORK-Stated that the Board may want to discuss the layout and design.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated the perc rate is to fast and needs to be addressed, asked if Mr. Foss
understood this?
MR. FOSS-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that there are some inaccuracies in the SEQRA form such as traffic.
3
---.-'
--.../
./
~
--
MRS. YORK-Stated they may not have been aware that they were over an aquifer.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 62-89 of 1989,Introduced by Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Peter Cartier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for SITE PLAN NO.
62-89 DOUGLAS MABEY, FOR A 8,000 SQ. FT. STORAGE AND WAREHOUSE ADDITION,
and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BElT
RESOL VED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
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-significant or a negative declaration that may be required
by law.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. CARTIER-Stated that at some point they are going to have to address the cumulative
impact on Exit 18 that is going to be generated.
MR. FOSS-Agreed. Stated it is economically sound for Mr. Mabey to use the approach he
is using, and it's obvious we are going to reach that point. We will be back addressing the issues
your engineer and planning development have and satisfy them.
PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPEN
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-89, DOUGLAS MABEY UNTIL NOVEMBER
SITE PLAN NO. 41-88 ADIRONDACK ANIMAL HOSPITAL TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA 395 RIDGE
ROAD REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SEPTEMBER
27, 1989) TAX MAP NO. 57-1-10 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: 1.56 ACRES
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
BONNIE GLENDENING PRESENT
4
'"-,,,
-.-/
"
'''-,--
--
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MRS. GLENDENING-Stated that remodeled the inside of the building.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Tom Nace if he has reviewed this?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it seems like there wouldn't be a stormwater management problem
with this.
MR. NACE-Stated it will probably be less than what it was originally.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked the Board if they had a problem with this?
BOARD-No.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-88 ADIRONDACK ANIMAL HOSPITAL,Introduced
by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier:
To approve the proposal is actually environmentally better and has less negative impact than
the original one.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SITE PLAN NO. 63-89 FLOYD GLENN BATEASE TYPE: DREAM LAKE, ENTER FROM
SUNNYSIDE NORTH WR-lA FOR EXCAVATION OF MUCK IN DREAM LAKE, 105 FT. BY
10 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 51-3-12 SECTION 7.012 B LOT SIZE
3/4 ACRE
GLENN BA TEASE PRESENT
MR. BA TEASE-Stated that his home in on Dream Lake, and the property is in his father's name.
Would like to clear out the water to be able to swim in it. Obtained permit from D.E.C. and
approval from Warren County Planning.
MRS. YORK-Stated her comments were made directly to D.E.C. when they went through the
SEQRA process with us and requested if we had any concerns about this. At that time my
comments were that; I didn't feel we had much of a problem with removal of the muck, however,
we would have some problems if there were to be any filling in that area to create a beach.
Since he had received the permit from D.E.C. I didn't feel that it was necessary for me to
further comment on this application.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Managing Project Engineer (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. CARTIER-Stated he was concerned about the banking from the house to the lake, asked
if this was going to be seeded?
MR. BA TEASE-Yes. Stated there is some seeded now.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
EDWARD LOCKHART-I have property that is located east of Glenn, and west of Glenn. My
only concern would be that any sedimentation coming downstream, I say downstream because
it is moving water. I do have property up by the dam; I own the dam of Dream Lake and I
am responsible for any up keep of the dam. There is shallow water there now and I'm concerned
that whatever sedimentation that may come downstream I will have to accept responsibility
for.
5
'--"'
-'
"
~
'--
--
MR. ROBERTS-Is there someway you could address this issue?
MR. BA TEASE-That's all going to be staked off with filter fabric.
MRS. YORK-I believe this is part of the condition from his D.E.C. permit.
MR. ROBERTS-This issue has been addressed and hopefully will be taken care of.
MR. LOCKHART-I wonder if this situation will be monitored by anybody other than the existing
people that are there, will there be somebody on site?
MRS. YORK-D.E.C. is required to check on the permit and the conditions of the permit being
met.
MR. LOCKHART-I understand, I just want to make sure that if anything did happen and if
I have a problem with my property that I will know who to turn to if I had a sedimentation
problem.
MR. CARTIER-In reality your going to monitor it.
MRS. MANN-Neighbors monitor pretty well.
MR. LOCKHART-I have had a problem with erosion in the past. We have subdivision regulations
in that particular area that states that, we can't even have a fence three feet high, but I
accepted a wall of dirt about 5 feet high that is directly on the property line and I really have
no protection against rocks, sedimentation that have come down into my property since then.
I like to address the fact that with the present problem that I have had I don't want to increase
any more problems.
MRS. YORK-If you had these type of problems you should be calling Mr. David Hatin, Director
of Building and Codes, he handles all zoning violations and problems like that and he is the
gentlemen who it would be best for you to talk to rather than the Planning Board.
MR. ROBERTS-Unless these are restrictive. It seems to me you indicated there are restrictive
convenant in deeds in the local subdivisions now that perhaps needs to be administered by the
neighbors that's a civil matter not necessarily the town in that case.
MR. LOCKHART-That's all I have to add. Thank you.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 63-89 OF 1989,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joseph Dybas:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SITE PLAN NO.
63-89 FLOYD GLENN BATEASE FOR REMOVAL OF MUCK IN DREAM LAKE, 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
RESOL VED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
Department of Environmental Conservation
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
6
',----"
-../
\.
-----.
,/
--J
of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-89, FLOYD GLENN BA TEASE,Introduced by Peter
Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
To approve with the provision that excavated material be placed upland in such a way to avoid
sedimentation from Dream Lake.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1989 NIAGARA MOHAWK SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SHERMAN
ISLAND CLUSTER DEV. WR-3A WARREN COUNTY, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY BETWEEN
CORINTH ROAD AND HUDSON RIVER, APPROX. 1 MILE WEST OF THE QUEENSBURY
WATER TREATMENT BUILDING PROPOSAL IS FOR A 17 LOT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION.
AT TillS TIME INTENTIONS ARE TO PRIMARILY FOLLOW THE EXISTING PRIVATE ROAD
AND TERMINATE WITH A CUL-DE-SAC. TAX MAP NO. 151-17.1 LOT SIZE: 60 ACRES
DAN SITLER SARATOGA ASSOCIATES/KURT FOREBACK NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER
CORPORA TION PRESENT
MAP SHOWN TO BOARD
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
MRS. YORK-Read the following letter:
TO: Lee York, Senior Planner
FROM: Thomas K. Flaherty, Superintendent
DATE: 9/25/89
RE: Proposed Cluster Development by Niagara Mohawk
Recently, I have learned of the proposed Cluster Development by Niagara Mohawk upstream
of our treatment plant. I have two concerns about this project:
1. Have they considered using the Queensbury Water District as a source for a water supply?
2. I am concerned about the proposed discharge of sewage into the Hudson River upstream
of our treatment plant. Before any project like this is approved, I would appreciate
more detailed information about their plans for both design and operation of sewage
treatment. Obviously I am very concerned about any possible contamination of
Queensbury's drinking water supply.
I look forward to obtaining more information so that everyone's best interest is taken into
account.
TKF /tr
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas N ace, Managing Project Engineer (attached
7
"
.,-,-- /
/
-- --../
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. CARTIER-Asked if they had a copy of the Queensbury Subdivision Regulations?
MR. SITLER-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if they had them went they put this proposal together?
MR. SITLER-Yes.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked for them to clarify the sewage handling mechanism?
MR. FOREBACK-Stated he has been assigned to find the feasible solution to relocate tenants
located along the Sherman Island pond which was brought about by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission requirement. Stated that Niagara owns and operates hydro power plants
and associated water retaining structures upstream which is Spier Falls, and downstream which
is Sherman Island are several lease camps along the Sherman Island pond. These facilities
are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which has jurisdiction over the
operation and safety of these project. The firm has ordered Niagara Mohawk to evaluate and
reduce the risk to downstream areas should the facilities fail under extreme flood occurrences
which is a one and 10,000 year flood. Seven camps situated on the property owned by Niagara
Mohawk are within the risk zone which is the 375 ft. contour. Eliminated this risk by modifying
the Spier Falls facility is impractical and very expensive. Therefore, Niagara Mohawk is forced
to eliminate this risk to life caused by the present of these camps and thus cancel the existing
leases and have the camps removed. The removal date has been extended to September 30th,
1995. Niagara Mohawk recognizes the fact that the effected tenants and their families have
been utilizing and enjoying these for many years even though the leases are 30 day revocable
agreements we believe that simply terminating the leases and destroying the camps would
not be in the best interest of all the parties involved. Therefore, after exploring several
alternatives we decided to acquire site plan approval for a seasonal home development and
also the affected tenants the opportunity to purchase and construct a camp at the approved
site therefore, we are proposing this project and hope to get tenants support.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated he assumes what they mean by the Sherman Island pond that supports
the Hudson River damned up by the Sherman Island dam.
MR. SITLER-Correct. Stated the proposal is to take this land that is currently zoned WR-3
and take the allowable use in that district and to retain the balance of the land in a green
state. Seventeen lots are proposed for this area (refers to map). Coupled with the proposal
the corporation proposes to develop a cartop boat "public access way" east of the development.
The proposal is for the facility to be built by the corporation and then turned over to the town
for ownership and operation, it is proposed to be a recreational management property to serve
the town. Also included in the package is a drainage plan that is submitted only at the sketch
plan review stage, but the intention would be to retain runoff from the site measuring close
construction rates. Indicated in the plan are the streams that will remain where we cross
them at the road crossing and there would also be a culvert. The town comments indicate
a significant portion of the site is 25 % grade. We recognize the planning process we found
an area that average 15 to 20% grades which we felt would accommodate. . .between the houses.
We have provided for significant green space along Corinth Road. There is 600 feet between
the water line to the roadway. If you proceed down along the shoreline there is an area that
is noted on the plans as the 10,000 year flood plan. This is a flood plan in reference that link
back to the perc findings which Niagara Mohawk has responded to. All cabins which are
indicated in orange along the shoreline fall within this flood plan. The corporation has been
asked to relocate all these structures outside of the 10,000 year flood plan. Coupled with this
are the town requirements for building setbacks along the Hudson River which is 75 feet, we
located the building so we do not violate that setback in addition there is a town requirement
for a 35 foot front yard setback for all structures along Corinth Road. The circulation system
is such that we have suggested a similar access 17 seasonal homes, minimal traffic, adequate
site lines with the existing curb cut to Corinth Road. The inter structure is designed as such
we have asked our engineer to look at it. In the application the affluent discharging directly
to the Hudson River was identified we have gone back and are now considering a leaching system
to pick up the affluent out of the individual. . .and pipe it to two different collection fields
in effect breaking the subdivision in half. Regarding water it is the applicants intent to use
on site well water. We arrived at the 17 unit count recognizing that there is 60 total acres
in a WR-3 district which requires 3 acres per one unit.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked what was the grade of the road?
MR. SITLER-Stated it is 15% grade. At the moment the applicant is proposing to dedicate
to the town the road a 24 foot pave section.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated he doesn't think the town would ever accept a 15% slope on the road.
8
'----'
\
¡I
'---- -
~---'
MR. CARTIER-Stated there are a number of things in the application that are consistent with
the current Ordinance. In terms of getting a variance which is what you have to do next, they
are required to grant minimual relief. Secondly, in the area your are talking about relocation
of river side camps we are talking about relocating 7 camps and adding 10 more so we are beyond
relocation. Recommend that you sit down with the planning staff to work out a feasible plan.
HOWARD ROGERS-a tenant of Niagara Mohawk for 25 years. Referred to map to show where
his camp is located. Stated he isn't familiar with what Niagara Mohawk's plans are. Stated
it depends on what this development will cost if they will be able to take part in this.
Asked if they were going to be using the existing road?
MR. SITLER-Yes.
MR. ROGERS-Stated the entrance to the existing road is down over a steep ditch and we've
had a lot of problems with water coming down Hartman Hill and going into our road and washing
it out. Unless we get some cooperation from the highway department we are still going to
have that problem.
MR. SITLER-Stated that in designing the project the storm water management plan will address
the washout of the road. The issue of the displacement of people is not something we have
control over.
SHERIDAN USHER-Stated at this time he will not make any comment because the facts are
not clear. Stated the next time he would like to see some people orientation of the residents
of Queensbury rather than what I see as more business oriented.
MR. SITLER-Stated the next step would be to go to the ZBA for the variance request for the
minimum lot size.
MRS. MANN-Asked if these are going to be year round camps.
MR. SITLER-Stated the housing in a WR-3 district allows for cabins as well as single family
homes.
MRS. MANN-Asked if at this time are they seasonal?
MR. SITLER-Correct.
MR. NACE-Stated that the 500 foot setback is a subdivision regulation so this would be a wavier
and not a variance.
MR. SITLER-Stated the only issue before the ZBA would be the one acre minimum.
MRS. YORK-Stated that they would need also a variance from the 75 stream corridor setback
from the two intermittent streams that you have shown on the property.
MR. CARTIER-Stated he doesn't think that the clustering is working to their advantage because
of the topography of the land.
MR. SITLER-Stated the two primary concerns would be erosion and the next major issue is
sewage disposal. The SEQRA review addressed these two topics.
MR. N ACE-Stated you might want to consider the visual impacts from the river this is one
of the primary reasons for the 500 foot setback for a cluster development.
MR. CARTIER-Stated the question is are we willing to grant the wavier from the 500 foot
setback.
MR. SITLER-Stated the 3 key issues are the septic, sanitary disposal, and the visual impact
of the shoreline.
MR. JABLONSKI-Asked if the lots are to be sold?
MR. SITLER-Stated they are going to sell the lots and the balance of green space will be turned
over to a homeowners association.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that there is more than just 3 items that need to be addressed. There
are items in the engineer report and Lee York's letter that needs to be addressed.
MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SUBDMSlON NO. 16-1989, NIAGARA MOHAWK SHERMAN ISLAND
9
'---'
'--,
'>
/'
"-- ..
- --../
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Peter Cartier:
Disapproved for the various obvious reasons from our engineer and planning staff.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SITE PLAN NO. 64-89 JOHN M. HUGHES TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 SOUTH SIDE OF BA YWOOD
DRIVE, LOT 15 ON MAP OF SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF JOHN M. HUGHES SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 15, 1989 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
BUILDING AND PARKING AREA. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 60-8-5
SECTION 4.020-F LOT SIZE: 7.45 ACRES
JOHN HUGHES PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that Warren County Planning disapproved because John did not attend.
MRS. YORK-Stated due to the change of mail addresses in the Town of Queensbury the mail
was not delivered until the day after the Warren County meeting.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked about the comments from Warren County the relationship of parking
use of office space appeared insufficient.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated that Warren County did not vote on the revised plan.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if it was required that see and vote on the revise plan?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated after they make a decision the Board has the right to revise a plan
and vote on it.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if the revised plan addressed the comment made by Warren County with
the regard to parking.
MR. NACE-Stated there has been additional parking spaces added.
MR. CARTIER-Stated the Beautification Committee disapproved.
MR. HUGHES-Stated he didn't make the meeting of the Beautification Committee. Spoke
with Mr. Eddy, to ask why it was denied and he stated it was denied because I didn't make
the meeting.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas N ace, Managing Project Engineer
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if there would be a problem with the fill area getting in back that far?
MR. NACE-Stated it's a technicality as far as the front property line because of the road out
front.
MR. NACE-Asked if there was a ditch line along this section of road?
MR. HUGHES-No, that's the wing swale.
MR. NACE-Stated he would not have a severe problem with that. Stated the stormwater
management and the grading is well shown on the overall subdivision plan. Doesn't see any
reason why the applicant couldn't put enough information on this before he submits the final
copy.
10
'~
'-./
"
"
""- ~
- --.../
MR. ROBERTS-Read letter from Glens Falls Independent Living Center dated September 20th,
1989. (on file)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 64-89, OF 1989,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joseph Dybas:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: i SITE PLAN NO.
64089 JOHN HUGHES, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND
PARKING AREAS, LOT t 5 and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BElT
RESOL VED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
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 this 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 617.11 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 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. GORALSKI-Stated that Baywood Drive has not been accepted by the town as a town road.
Mr. Hughes will have to work out something with David Hatin, as far as temporarily deeding
that portion of the road that would access onto a town road until Baywood Drive is accepted
by the town.
MR. HUGHES-Agreed.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-89 JOHN M. HUGHES ,Introduced by Joseph Dybas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann:
Approve with the recommendations suggested by our engineer and to consult with the
Beautification Committee. To include John Goralski's comments with regard to the road.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
11
---.-'
"
"
'---""
--
SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1989 ROBERT LENT RR-3A SKETCH PLAN MOON illLL ROAD FOR
A SUBDIVISION OF 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 44-1-3,4.1 LOT SIZE: 27.56 ±
ACRES
KEITH MANZ C. T. MALE ASSOCIATES PRESENT
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Managing Project Engineer (on file)
STAFF INPUT
John Goralski, Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. MANZ-Stated he agrees with all the comments made and will address each one at the
preliminary stage. In regard to storm water runoff we intend to utilized the solid pipe with
stone trenches. We will bring the stormwater down to the existing drainage ditch along Moonhill
Road. This is something that is not submitted at this time, but it is our intent. The perc on
the whole site is sandy soil it's about 1 minute so it will go well with this soil utilizing infiltration
from the pipes.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked how they are going to address the existing stump dump area with the
number of steep slopes?
MR. MANZ-Stated the steep slopes are on Lots # 5 and 6. We would propose a erosion control
plan during construction. The rear of Lot #5 and 6 will be re-vegetated and any slopes that
are unstable made stable at the time of construction.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated the slopes are to steep to leave for safety factors. Feels they have
to be sloped back.
MR. MANZ-Stated they will look at this in more detail and we will address this.
MR. CARTIER-Asked about the grading plan?
MR. MANZ-Stated they had re-submitted the plan with the revise property lines. Lots A and
B are existing lots and what we plan on doing is adding Lots 8 and 9 to Lots A and B, to create
larger lots. The subdivision property line as shown is correct.
HAROLD RATHBUN-Stated at the Zoning Board of Appeals the resolution passed stated this
Board is to take no action until Robert Lent had satisfied several boundary discrepancies that
exist. Stated they have punched into his driveway and now say I'm encroaching on it. I sold
the property to Robert Lent. The driveway was there when I sold it to him. Contacted Mr.
Smeed to try to agree where the line should be; they said they would have to check it with
their Albany Office. I made every effort since June to straighten out the boundary
discrepancies. Asked the Board to honor the resolution as passed by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. MANZ-Stated they did submit their response on the question that arose at the last meeting
that John Goralski itemized.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated on his staff notes to the ZBA mentioned all of the property line disputes
that had come to my attention. C.T. Male project manager Sam Smeed, addresses each one
of them in a letter. (on file)
MR. CARTIER-Asked who responsibility these are?
MR. GORALSKI-Assumes it's C.T. Male's surveyor's responsibility.
MR. MANZ-Stated there are 3 properties in question; Hanna, Rathbun and Whiting. Hanna
is taken care of and agreements have been signed with Hanna and Lent which involve Lot B.
We made a determination on the Whiting property and stated it in a memo to Mr. Goralski.
He personally hasn't come to us about this. The third one involves existing Lot C. It involves
this driveway (refers to map) which were saying it encroaches on existing Lot C, it's an adjoining
lot that exist and is not part of the subdivision. We're stating now that his driveway encroaches
on existing Lot C. Mr. Lent is willing to either give him an easement or deed the triangular
piece to Mr. Rathbun to resolve this issue.
MR. CARTIER-Stated some drainage issues have been brought up about this property, asked
12
~
-'
\
,/
'-
"---'
- .--",
how they're going to deal with that?
MR. MANZ-Stated the lots where they're developing the driveways the areas developed will
not be tributary to the west. The area is going to be re-vegetated as best as possible so we
are going to be improving this.
MR. DUSEK-Stated the first thing is to identify each one of the boundary disputes.
MR. MANZ-Explained to Mr. Dusek the properties in disputes. (referred to map). The first
dispute is on the Rathbun property. The dispute is where the two existing driveways come
in off of Moonhill Road to his property. Mr. Hanna has stated, a easement by prescription
the two driveways are in this. We stated, there can't be an easement by prescription because
the Court has to rule on this and there hasn't been a ruling. The agreement that has been worked
out is an easement that runs closer to his property line. Mr. Lent will construct a new driveway
up to the new easement so that Mr. Hanna can have access to his property. The Rathbun piece
goes to the existing pave drive heading south off of Moonhill Road. We show a triangular piece
of existing Lot C is encroaching on. The result of this is once an agreement can be made
between the two surveyors as to where the property line falls if it still turns out there is an
encroachment Mr. Lent, will provide an easement over the small triangular piece or deed the
triangular piece over to Mr. Rathbun. If it turns out there is no encroachment and he owns
this the property line for existing Lot C will be amended to show that.
MR. DUSEK-Stated as far as the Rathbun property, asked if these are actual determinations
that his firm has made that this is where the line is based upon your review of the deeds?
MR. MANZ- Yes. Stated the idea is that we have made a property line determination for existing
Lot C, which shows Mr. Rathbun's driveway encroaching upon it. At this particular point he
has his surveyors reviewing the deeds and determining if he agrees with our property line
determination.
MR. DUSEK-Stated with respect to existing Lot C, this is not part of the subdivision?
MR. MANZ-Correct.
MR. DUSEK-Stated his recommendation to the Board is to be very careful and not become
a decider of fact of the boundary line dispute between the parties. First with regard to the
subdivision approval process, if this subdivision should in some fashion be changed because
of what happens over here (refers to map) the applicant in my opinion will then have taken
his chances of getting his approval. Ultimately if this line has to be changed because of either
an inability to agree with the parties if will have to come back to this Board and get an
amendment. If the surveyors and engineer feel that they feel comfortable with this line, I
think the Board has to go with that. If at some point in time litigation or whatever else changes
then they've taken a chance and will have to come back to the Board and get it changed on
their approved map. Down in these areas (refers to map) since these parcels are not part of
the subdivision review process, I would encourage the Board to stay out of the dispute between
the neighbors and let them resolve it themselves.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if Mr. Rathbun disputes the border of the boundary line?
MR. RATHBUN-Stated in two places on his property.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked why isn't it justified for the Board to ask that the boundary disputes
be settled before we address this issue?
MR. DUSEK-Stated that when he went through the Ordinance he could not find anything that
looks at it in your perrogative. The Ordinance says that they will provide a survey map, and
what your job is once you looked at the map that their offering is to either approve or disapprove
that configuration.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated he has other concerns, would like to see what your going to do after
you establish the 30% grades out of those steep slopes.
MR. MANZ-Stated this is something under the preliminary stage.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if there was a possibility of resolving the boundary issues before the
final stage?
MR. MANZ-Thinks they will be resolved by the final stage.
MRS. MANN-Stated that there are a couple of lots that need to be identified and rectified
Lots 4 and 7 are not meeting standards. Asked if they are going to be able to meet the
requirements?
13
'-'
--/
',,-
."-.--
,/
--
MR. MANZ-Yes.
MRS. MANN-Stated the road that is over a 1,000 feet your going to have to request a wavier.
MR. MANZ-Stated they will cut back the road.
MRS. MANN-Stated if he does this then he wouldn't need a waiver. you have to address the
steepness of the slope and address the requirements from Rist Frost.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if the soils in the area are high perc soils?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MRS. MANN-Stated he may need a fill system.
MOTJON TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1989 ROBERT LENT, SKETCH PLAN,Introduced
by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
Approve with the recommendation that this Board has made including the consulting engineer
be incorporated in the next presentation this includes the various lot sizes, fill system, the
steepness of the western part of the lots, and that the road be cut down to the proper size
of 1,000 feet.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SITE PLAN NO. 65-89 ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. LI-3A TYPE: UNLISTED
LOT 58, COUNTY LINE ROAD, NEXT TO ORKIN PEST CONTROL TO CONSTRUCT A 20,000
SQ. FT. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 3.81 ACRES OF WARREN
WASHINGTON I.D.A. LAND. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 55-2-20 SECTION
4.020-N LOT SIZE: 3.81 ACRES
WALTER VANDERLEW REPRESENTING ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC/ JOE CLARK
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
MR. ROBERTS-Stated Warren County Planning Board approved with no comment.
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Managing Project Engineer (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if he was saying the stormwater retention will work?
MR. NACE-Stated it will work. They don't agree with the calculations, but the end result
will work.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated some changes have to be made on the map regarding parking.
MR. V ANDERLEW-Stated there must have been a error in the calculations for parking spaces.
There is adequate space the width requirement is 9 feet and there is adequate space on the
site to provide the additional two foot length for the two rows. Doesn't see a problem for
accommodating the requirement for a 20 foot space.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Mr. Nace if this would work?
MR. NACE-Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
14
"---"
-.--'
/'
~
"--'
--../
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. ROBERTS-Referred to letter from the Glens Falls Independent Living Center, dated
September 21, 1989. (on file) Letter stating that the light industrial warehouse facility proposed,
needs to be accessible to the disabled.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 65-89 ,OF 1989,Introduced by Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Peter Cartier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SITE PLAN NO.
65-89 ADmONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK INC., TO CONSTRUCT A 20,000 SQ. FT. LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE FACILITY, 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 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. JABLONSKI-Asked what the parking requirement is for industrial off street parking, asked
if is 12 ft. by 20 ft.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated that it was it is for industrial.
MR. JABLONSKI-Asked what is proposed for this?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated 9ft. by 18 ft.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-89 ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC, LOT
NO. 58,Introduced by Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier:
Approve as long as the notes discussed are addressed. Stipulate that the parking spaces by
shown as 9 ft. by 20 ft. and that the handicapped spaces be 12 ft. by 20 ft.
15
"--'
-'
/
'-"-..
"-
---
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Richard Roberts, Chairman
16