1989-11-21
"'-- '-.
---.~
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21st, 1989
INDEX
Subdivision No. 19-1989
Brian O'Connor
PRELIMINARY STAGE
1
Site Plan No. 32-89
Debbie and Steven Scheibel
1
Site Plan No. 68-89
Martin Johnson
2
Subdivision No. 5-65
Rolling Ridge, Section 3 and 4
FINAL STAGE
3
Site Plan No. 70-89
Daniel Harris-Sunset Motel
11
Petition for a
Change of Zone PlO-89
Bay Meadows Corp./Garth Allen
12
Site Plan No. 71-89
Kubricky Construction Corp.
13
Subdivision No. 20-1989
Queensbury Economic Dev. Corp.
PRELIMINARY STAGE
15
Site Plan No. 72-89
Charles M. Coffin
20
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
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21ST, 1989
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
NICHOLAS CAIMANO
JAMES HAGAN
PETER CARTIER
JOSEPH DYBAS
KEITH JABLONSKI
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT
LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
September 26th, 1989: Page 9, top
of consistent; Page 10, middle of
see and vote on the revised plan.
were, sib too not two.
of page, 1st sentence sib inconsistent instead
page, sib asked if it was required that they
Page 12, Mr. Roberts-stated that the slopes
APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1989
AS CORRECTED
October 17th, 1989: Page 16, Mr. Pelak, 4th sentence from bottom, part sib part,
not park, of that submission; Page 13, bottom of page, under Mr. Richards comments,
2nd line, sib asked the same question as Mr. Roberts, not Richards. Page 14, all
areas, Dr. Robert Reid's name sib R-E-I-D.
APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 1989 AS
CORRECTED
OLD BUSINESS
SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1989 BRIAN O'CONNOR/LEON STEVES-VAN DUSEN AND STEVES PRESENT
MR. STEVES-Stated project was tabled last month. He received a call from John
Goralski. Wetlands were located. Mr. Steves doesn't want to get into a wetland
permit. He has revised the subdivision. Asked to table project for one week.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated he has no problem with this.
MR. GANNETT-Agreed.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1989, BRIAN O'CONNOR" Introduced by Peter Cartier
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
Table in its preliminary stage to allow our consultants further time to study the
revisions. We are doing this on the basis of the fact the DEC was unable to find
the wetlands until the day prior to the meeting.
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 32-89 TYPE: N/A WR-3A DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL DARK BAY ASSOCIATION
DRIVE, APPROX. 0.80 OF A MILE WEST OF BAY ROAD ON ROUTE 9L, DRIVE IS ACROSS THE
ROAD FROM BOAT COVER BUSINESS. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY YEAR-ROUND
RESIDENCE. AT PRESENT, IT IS VACANT WITH AN EXISTING DOCK AND STORAGE SHED. (WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-6.8 SECTION: N/A CROSS REFERENCE: AREA VARIANCE
NO. 1442; SEE THE OCTOBER 18, 1989 ZONING BOARD AGENDA.
TABLED BY APPLICANT
1
'"
'-
~
~ '--'
---' .~
MRS. YORK-Read letter from Robert Stewart, representing Steven and Debbie Scheibel,
to Lee York. (on file)
MR. CARTIER-Stated applicant and the attorney focusing only on septic issues.
There are other issues they need to address besides just the septic issue. Requested
Mrs. York call Mr. Stewart and the Scheibel's and tell them this.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAB NO. 32-89, DEBBIE AlID STEVEN SCHEIBEL, Introduced by
Mr. Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Dybas:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAB NO. 68-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A MARTIN JOBRSON 1730 GLEN
SECOND HOUSE EAST OF GLERMOORE LODGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 180 SQ. FT.
(WARREN COUNTY PLARRING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-13 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE:
FT.
LAIŒ ROAD,
ADDITION.
7,000 SQ.
TOM BURKE, CONTRACTOR, REPRESENTING MR. JOHNSON
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker (attached) Warren County Planning Board approved (on file)
MR. CARTIER-Asked if Mr. Burke were adding a bathroom?
MR. BURKE-Stated no, it was an existing bath.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if Mr. Burke were adding a bedroom?
MR. BURKE-No.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if this would still be seasonal use?
MR. BURKE-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Asked what period it is in use?
MR. BURKE-Stated it was summer use.
MRS. YORK-Stated the application does address septic tank and drywell.
MR. CARTIER-Stated his only concern was the edge of the pole.
undercut. Asked when work will be done on this?
It is severely
MR. BURKE-Stated it would be done within the next week or two.
MR. HAGAN-Asked if it will be a heated area?
MR. BURKE-No.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WIlER DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 68-1989, 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. 86-89, MARTIN JOBRSEN, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 180 SQ. FT. 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,
2
'-,,-- --
~---'" .-----
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
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.
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 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-1989, MARTIN JOHNSEN, Introduced by Peter Cartier
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
All significant issues have been dealt with and it is satisfied the appropriate
ordinances of the town.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-65 FINAL STAGE AMENDMENT FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TYPE:
SR-lA ROLLING RIDGE, SECTION 3 AND 4 LYNDON ROAD FOR MODIFICATION OF AN
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. REQUEST IS FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OF LOTS
AND 54 TAX HAP NO. 55-1-24.1, 24.2 TAX MAP NO. 56-1-1 LOT SIZE NIA
UNLISTED
EXISTING
43 , 44,
ROBERT REID, DEVELOPER PRESENT
MR. REID-Stated last month he asked if a decision could be made then. He was told
there would be a public hearing and everyone would be notified. Today, he found
out by accident the hearing was to take place and nobody was notified. He called
to verify this. He also called six people in Rolling Ridge. Three were in
opposition to the suggested move by the Valequettes, but aren I t able to attend.
Asked for another postponement?
MR. ROBERTS-Stated they did notice that Mr. Reid had other people with him the
previous time, but hesitates to table.
MR. DYBAS-Agrees it should not be tabled.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it was being reviewed as a minor lot line adjustment to a filed
subdivision.. .
JOHN RICHARDS, LAPANN AND REARDON REPRESENTING THE VALEQUETTES
MR. RICHARDS-Stated they actually withdrew application.
3
',----,
~
'",-"",,--, ',,---
----.....--
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's why this is
old business.
new business and was postponed and put on
MR. RICHARDS-Overview of situation given. Stated it was a lot line adjustment
involving property in Rolling Ridge owned by the Valequettes. Whole lot line
adjustment was completed in 1988 to address a problem caused by the original
construction of the house. There was an encroachment on one of the lot lines.
Valequettes have moved the line for 43 over 50 ft. and 44 over 50 ft. resulting
in no more lots than the original three lots.
MR. DYBAS-Read from the zoning ordinance of October '88: 'Provided, however, that
this shall not apply to small amounts of land to correct a boundary lot so long
as such conveyance does not create additional lots. Agreed that additional lots
were not being created.
MR. RICHARDS-Stated that this was his point. Believes there is no planning impact.
Submitted a letter from George Hagerty of Rolling Ridge, in support.
PUBLIC BEARING OPENED
IRENE FITZGERALD, OWNER, FITZGERALD REALTY, PRESENT
MRS. FITZGERALD-I really feel that this would not devaluate in any way a Rolling
Ridge lot,....there's three lots as I think it really is.
MR. CARTIER-On the old submission, November 20, 1981, it shows an existing septic
system with the existing house. My only question is, with this lot line being
moved, how far does that septic system field now come from the new lot line?
MR. RICHARDS-How far does the field approach the revised lot line?
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MR. RICHARDS-I don't have an exact figure on that other than scaling it off.
MR. CARTIER-Give me a ballpark. What's the allowance? How far away from the lot
line?
MRS. FITZGERALD-Twenty feet.
MR. RICHARDS-I'm just trying to eyeball the scale on that map that you mentioned
Mr. Cartier. It looks like, if it goes over, it goes over maybe 10 to 20 feet
at the most and you're going over at least 50 feet.
MR. ROBERTS-You indicated that there was a problem with the construction of the
house a little close to the original lot line?
MR. RICHARDS-It encroaches just a tiny bit.
MR. ROBERTS-In fact, wasn't that problem self-imposed? Didn't you buy two lots
and planning on building in the middle and keeping one house in the middle of two
lots?
MR. RICHARDS-I think it was listed as two separate lots, or at least that's the
way the Valequettes interpreted it when they bought it. They didn't build the
house. It was built by Levy. It certainly wasn't self-imposed by them or their
knowledge by Levy.
MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sure that can be proven here at this stage of the game.
MR. RICHARDS-No one really knows for sure and I don't really know that that's
entirely relevant to this situation.
MR. ROBERTS- It seems to me that it's rather obvious. They bought two lots and
built in the middle of two lots and planned on having it that way. I don't think
you have any way to refute that particularly.
MR. RICHARDS- I can't comment one way or the other, we didn't build the house.
Actually, again, I think that's irrelevant to the decision tonight.
MR.
lots.
CAIMANO- It's not irrelevant to your thought that they're on three separate
If it be the original nature that they be two lots. If that's the case.
4
"--'
~
',----- ',~
------'--------"
MR. RICHARDS-If that were the case, then following this Board's logic, I guess
either Dr. Reid or the purchaser Levy should have come up here for modification
to combine it into one lot back when that occurred and that wasn't the intent.
To my knowledge, no .... of any nature before this Board combine those lots into
one.
MR. ROBERTS-I don't think there's ever a problem if somebody wants to buy two lots
and build in the middle of them. You don't need to go back to the developer or
the Planning Board to be concerned about that.
MR. RICHARDS-I submit that that's amending the development just as much as anything
else. I think we're getting off the track.
MR. ROBERTS-Maybe that's something we should put on our list, but I don't think
we've ever considered that as needing to amend a map.
MR. RICHARDS- It doesn't say amending to combine lots or amending to move lots,
it just says amending. What I'm trying to say is I don't think this Board has
any jurisdiction in any case. I do think we're getting off the track with the
question at hand which is really a planning one and that is, is this a bad planning
move to have these map lots....
MR. ROBERTS-I don't think we're off the track at all, Mr. Richards. I think this
gets down to being a little bit philosophical here. First of all, establishing
whether or not that house was built purposely in the middle of two lots and at
that time it was pretty much the way that particular neighborhood was going. Dr.
Day built in the middle of several lots. Mr. Yaffe built in the middle of several
lots. These folks did the same thing and that, we're changing, in effect, the
character of that neighborhood into something really more Dr. Reid had ever
envisioned I guess initially and then that having been established and the
Valequettes themselves being the party to having changed the character of this
neighborhood, the developer went on to its final phase and carried that theme farther
and had rather large lots and very elaborate homes and attempted to in fact maintain
that kind of character and that kind of density. Now Mr. Valequette has bought
one of the lots in the next phase and he would like to use a minor lot line change,
which I still take exception to and in fact the density over what the neighbors
had a reason to believe was going to happen and what the developer designed and
what the planning board approved.
MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, I really find it hard to imagine how you're aware of
the intent of the developer and how you can say that his intent is not reflected,
that he's saying that their violating the subdivision map as filed and now you're
saying well all these other people did differently then is shown on the subdivision
map and that was actually his intent. I don't see the logic behind that at all.
I really think the question comes down to this adjustment is to does it or does
it not meet sound planning principles. That's really the only question and I don't
think there's any question that it does not have any adverse impact or bad planning
aspects. If anything, it's only beneficial to the neighborhood.
MR. ROBERTS-Well, you're trying to zero us into a finer detail and I think there's
a philosophy here that can be looked at. We're trying to honor the integrity of
filed subdivision plats which we feel rather jealous about. I think this is what
this boils down to. Perhaps its time for someone else to speak besides you and
1.
MR. RICHARDS-We've got three lots and we still have three lots. I don't see how
that affects the integrity of the map.
MR. ROBERTS-it didn't have three lots when the final phase was developed. The
lots had been used up by a house built in the middle.
MR. RICHARDS-They're separately numbered lots throughout. On the filed subdivision
map they're separate lots.
MR. HAGAN-How does the original permit request read for the original structure.
I think that would settle a thing.
MR. RICHARDS-My guess is, and I don't have a copy of that building permit Mr.
Hagan, I don't imagine any variance was applied for at the time.
MR. CARTIER-How does this show up in the tax records?
5
'-..--
""---, "---
-.-/ --'
An unidentified lady said two separate deeds.
MR. RICHARDS-There's two deeds, I don't have a tax representative, two deeds, three
separate lot designations.
MR. HAGAN-But there's only two deeds.
MR. RICHARDS-The fact that there's only one deed for multiply lots and one ownership
does not mean that they're combined.
MR. CARTIER-As far as taxes are concerned, they are listed as three separate lots?
DAVID VALEQUETTE PRESENT
MR. VALEQUETTE-I just not too long ago paid the taxes and they are separately
identified.
MR. JABLONSKI-Refering to map, I see what's happening on this corner. First of
all, I guess I agree with Mr. Valequette, strictly as a planning function, the
lot size is increased, the lot lines adjusted, appear to make the development look
better. I guess my concern would be, what's happening on the other four corners.
For instance, a person owns five or six lots that Dick is referring to the could
in essence come in and change lot lines, go from six lots to making three lots
and change the character of the neighborhood by building some other houses in some
other locations that maybe the original plan didn't show. I don't know where this
is leading to other than the fact that I'm looking at this corner today and what
may happen to this corner or this corner next month or next year. Essentially,
it could happen to all four corners. The argument would be we're goi,ng from six
lots to three lots. Size won't increase.
MR. CARTIER-Two issues for me here. One is, I was not aware of this prior to this,
maybe I should have been, that the Va1equettes bought this situation the way it
is. That's number one, they did not build the house on this spot. Secondly, what
I'm seeing here, to me, is an improvement of the situation, in that we I re going
from two smaller lots to two larger lots. In other words, this thing is being
brought more into conformance than what was there prior to.
PEGGY BARRETT, RESIDENT OF ROLLING RIDGE, PRESENT
MRS. BARRETT-I have lived for 12 years. I know both Dr. Reid and the Valequettes
equally as well. 1'm not here favor, but I do not disagree with this. In fact,
years ago, I was interested in buying the house that they live in now, unbeknownst
to them. In fact, when they were talking about the building, they told me it was
two lots, my husband and I, and if we wanted to build on the other lot, but they
did tell us, I don't know if you people have a map, but that house is over the
boundary line of one of the lots and it just, I mean I live right in the beginning
of that street on Sherman Lane South. There is a lot behind me that McCaffrey
bought years ago right across the road from them because they never wanted anybody
to build on that land. When Jane left Rolling Ridge and sold her house, she offered
my husband and I the lot and at that time my husband said no, let's not buy it,
she wants too much. Now, the people that she sold the house to and the lot across
the road have sold the lot behind me. So now someone will build on that little
lot which is smaller than those lots right there (referring to the map). So if
you just take a ride through Rolling Ridge you'll see that they're just doing an
improvement on the land and I've had no objections and half the neighbors I've
talked to have no objections. It's their land, let them do it. I know that one
Board member here is personal friends with Dr. Reid and I don't think that should
sway anybody. I think you should look at the material in front of you. Thank
you.
Dr. REID-My wife and I are truly the only ones who know what happened. What happened
was Mr. Levy wanted to put a bouse in that area and decided the individual lots
were too small and built his house somewhere near center of the two lots. How
do you think he ever got a building permit with the house built over the center
of the lot? Of course it was planned. Why do you think the septic system is on
the empty lot. Because it was planned that way. This was to be one lot. Now
the fact that we didn't go through the formality of saying ok eradicate one number,
doesn't change the original intent. To my mind, it is more than a minor lot line
adjustment. You're subdividing in the true sense of the word. You're taking a
piece off 43, 44 and their taking a pretty good piece out of the big
6
'---
-'
~---
/~
lot on the corner 54 and putting them together and making an extra lot over what
it is. True the numbers, there are three numbers, but in truth, the two numbers
belong together and always have and never had any different concept. The
restrictions in Rolling Ridge which are part of the approval, I think they're part
of what you approved, call for no subdivision and that's the way it is. So, in
my mind, this is an attempt at subdivision. It will squeeze some houses closer
together. The house the Valequettes will build and probably move into will be
pushed around the corner if they have a lot in between they're going to sell.
And of course they're going to sell it, that's why they're doing it. I don't object
to the selling of the house. There's nothing wrong with that, but I do feel there's
something wrong with trying to make an extra lot where it wasn't intended.
MR. HAGAN-Unfortunately, I didn't bring my sketch tonight, but I drove up last
week and I sketched every house on Lyndon Road and they're all beautiful homes.
That entire neighborhood, but, if that lot was sold, if 44 was sold for example,
certainly that lot with the house on it would certainly match all the homes on
Lyndon Road and the rest of the area. So, it's not going to take anything away
from the area.
DR. REID-Well, it's changing the fact that I wanted a big lot on the corner. One
single lot.
MR. HAGAN-Well, I can agree with your point to a point, but that point, as she
mentioned, does look sort of like a sore thumb out there and I don't mean to be
nasty, but I'm just saying I can't find any reason for that job.
DR. REID-The question is whether you're subdividing or not and whether you're
changing what was approved by this Board.
MR.
for
four
it.
HAGAN-I think our intent in all past practices, and I've been on the Board
12 years, our intent of subdivision was you take, for example, two acres or
acres and you break them in half and then that's subdividing as I interpret
DR. REID-That's not Webster's definition of subdivision.
MR. HAGAN-The dictionary also tells the following paragraphs I have read that we
have to interpret the book and should interpret in the book this according to the
book is a lot line adjustment and has been deemed so by the Town already. We didn't
establish the policy that it's a lot line adjustment, that was established before
that agenda item reached us.
DR. REID-I don't know where the term "minor lot line" came from when there's two
lot lines involved not one.
MR. ROBERTS-I think we've already indicated that earlier.
this as a minor lot line adjustment.
MR. HAGAN-Then we have to appeal it don't we?
We do have to review
MR. ROBERTS-I didn't agree with that interpretation last month and I got shot down.
I'm going to have to address this as a minor lot line adjustment. What I'm saying
is, we don't have to agree to that minor lot adjustment. I'm not trying to argue
with the Code Enforcement Officer.
MR. HAGAN-We have to agree with the Code Enforcement Officer. That's what I'm
saying. If we don't agree with him then we have to drop everything and we have
to appeal it to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. ROBERTS-We're looking at this tonight as a minor lot line adjustment.
MR. REID-You can look at it any way you want, but I have told you the background,
that that should be considered one lot, and I'm one who knows. Mr. Richards said
nobody knows, but that's not so, I know. It was a single lot.
SUREENDRA NEVATIA, RESIDENT OF ROLLING RIDGE, PRESENT
MR. NEVATIA-When I bought this lot,
MR. ROBERTS-Excuse me, Number 53 you said?
MR. NEVATIA-Yes. The reason I bought that lot was because I thought the new
development
7
-
"-
"---- --
- ..-/ ~
would be ... I have seen other lots in the area which were smaller and some were
larger and I did not like the other lots. The reason I moved to this area was
because his intention was to have bigger lots and bigger houses. That's why I
bought my bigger lot. I was told that that's the only other lot which was sold
to the Va1equettes and that's the way the lot will be. And now my objection is
that by building another lot and putting another house, it will become a crowded
area and then Dr. Day has a lot across from there. He can subdivide and then he
can sell the lots and then other people can put other houses too and then my property
value goes down. And that's not the reason I bought the lot and put my expensive
house there. And that's the objection I have that by creating another lot and
other people create other lots and they will put other houses there and they just
want to change the character of that neighborhood which was specially made just
for that land. And that's what my objection is.
MR. CAIMANO-Your acreage is approximately 1.220?
MR. NEVATIA-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-This acreage was 1.467. Taking off that amount, and I had it calculated
out,
MR. NEVATIA-No. You cannot just go with .2 acre or .1 acre. My question is the
reason I bought this lot was because the size of the lots was bigger and the houses
were bigger. I wanted to buy this lot, but it was already sold and it was told
he was going to put a house there. Now I what I hear that not just one house,
but there will be one more house there.
MR. HAGAN-The only problem is the big, beautiful home on lot 51 and that lot is
only a little over 1 acre.
MR. NEVATIA-But that's the way it was made for.
MR. HAGAN-So you can't say that the acreage is going to effect them because the
lot
MR. NEVATIA-What I'm saying is that by creating one more lot and one more house
MR. HAGAN-You're not gaining another lot, the lot's always been there.
MR. NEVATIA-Yes, but there wasn't meant to be another house put there.
MR. ROBERTS-I don't understand, you own 53?
MR. NEVATIA-Yes.
MR. ROBERTS-Fifty-four stays exactly as it is. What other house can you put on
there? Somebody could come in tomorrow and buy 54 from Mr. Va1equette and put
a house on there as it stands.
MR. NEVATIA-Yes. I don't have any problem with that. What I'm saying is that
by changing the lot line, then that lot will be sold and somebody else is going
to put one more house which was not meant to be there.
MR. CARTIER-Sir, there could have been a house built on 44 anyway. The way this
could have happened is that, whoever owned the existing house could have come in
to the Zoning Board of Appeals, correct me if I'm wrong here Mr. Dusek, but somebody
who owns the existing house on 43 could have come in to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for a variance on the sideline setback because the house was built by the State,
gotten that, and somebody could still have built on lot 44. My point is, that
we're not increasing the number of houses that can be built here. The old situation
still could include three houses built in this area we're talking about. So, we're
not adding another house.
MR. NEVATIA-We11, what I was told was that the house was on the lot that was already
there. So, the new lot which was the empty lot there that's the way the structures
are.
MR. ROBERTS-Peter, you're saying that was a mistake.
developer that was not a mistake.
We've been told by the
MR. NEVATIA- I think you're saying there's only one way to prove it. That's not
the way the lot was sold to me and I was told that's the way the structure will
8
'-'
,¡/
\,
~'-'
-'--'" .-----
be and that's the way the structure should be. And now, if this lot is created
and another house is built there, then my property value goes down and then other
people can break down their lots and sell them and have other houses too.
MR. HAGAN-I have to disagree with you. We heard from a professional real estate
broker who said it will not effect the prices in the neighborhood at all.
MR. NEVATIA-They may have some personal interest in the lots.
MR. HAGAN-Why should they?
MR. NEVATIA-Because they are in the business of selling the lots.
MR. HAGAN-This person has been in the real estate business for years and has
implanted integrity.
MR. NEVATIA-That doesn't mean anything.
MR. CARTIER-I beg to differ. Everybody in here talking about this has a personal
interest in this issue.
MR. NEVATIA-Sure everybody has, that's why you cannot take what that person is
saying as authority because they may have personal interest in that land.
MR. HAGAN-It's to everybody's benefit to have the values up. The Valequettes would
not be planning on building a new home in the area if the prices were going to
drop would they? I wouldn't expect to be building a new home in an area if I knew
prices were going to drop. So they have confidence in the area they're at.
MR. NEVATIA-I think we are now shifting from the price and the other things. The
idea of the development was that that's the way the lot's supposed to be and that's
the way the lot should be left. I don't think the lot should be changed, but that's
the way that whole development was geared when the new development came into the
area.
MR. HAGAN-The only barometer you have since you've built your house, how long have
you lived in your house?
MR. NEVATIA-About more than two years now.
MR. HAGAN-Have prices gone up in the area or have they dropped depreciably?
MR. NEVATIA-I don't know right now.
MR. HAGAN-I can tell you, they've increased tremendously.
MR. NEVATIA-My objection is, the reason I bought that lot and put that expensive
house there is because that's the way the structure would be and I don't think
we should change the structure. I was told before that that's the way the structure
would be and later on and later on somebody changed and said no this is not the
way we are going to leave it we are going to change it and I don't think this is
fair for the people who are in back of the house.
MR. HAGAN-As the gentleman pointed out, they could've still built as many homes
as they wanted prior or after before whether you lived there or not.
MR. NEVATIA- I don't think they could've because they would have had to go to the
Zoning Board and have some arguments there.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
Letter from George Hagerty RD134A Linden Rd., to Lee York (on file)
MR. DUSEK-I think the first thing to keep in mind is this project is backed before
the Board because it involves an alteration of a previously filed subdivision map.
This Board decided in its wisdom that there would be three lots in a given fashion
in this particular area of the subdivision. Now, the people have come before the
Board wanting to rearrange those lines and that's what's happened here. It is
not a new subdivision. Pursuant to the ordinance, therefore, it is my opinion
that they should come back to this Board because you made that
9
"---'
"-
~."---'
- -- .-.-/
decision, there may be drainage concerns, there may have been road concerns, there
may have been character of the neighborhood concerns which have been addressed
here tonight which you would want to consider and make a determination as to whether
you feel these lines should be changed. I think what is important to note in your
decision is that your decision should not be keyed in to any kind of criteria that
would be normally used for a variance. For instance, I have heard some conversation
with regards to that somebody else was at fault or were they at fault, do they
know what they were trying to do. That is all irrelevant. When somebody comes
in before this Board for a subdivision plat, normally instance, their coming in
from a planning perspective with the obvious intent of perhaps creating making
money on a subdivision or perhaps create something that the like out there. So,
whether they bought it as a single lot, not knowing whether they convert it or
whether they bought it in anticipation of that or whether they bought it knowing
there were some problems, that I s not really relevant to this Board. This Board
is confined to planning type of function and you should utilize the same concepts
that you'd normally utilize in any subdivision approval process. I just wanted
to indicate that to you. I think if you cross that line over my own concern is
that you're then jumping into the Zoning Board area.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-65 ROLLING RIDGE, SECTION 3 MID 4, Introduced
by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
It has no adverse effect on the neighborhood and will meet all the requirements
of the present building.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-65, 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: Final
Stage Amendment for Lot Line Adjustment ROLLING RIDGE SECTION 3 MID 4 OF LINDEN
ROAD BY MR. MID MRS. VALBQUETTE, 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, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
None
3. The proposed action considered by the 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.
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.
10
./
\.
'------
-.--./
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano
SITE PLAN NO. 70-89 TYPE II DANIEL BARRIS SUNSET MOTEL 120 LAKE GEORGE ROAD, ROUTE
9 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND CONCRETE SLAB DECK AROUND
THE POOL (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 70-1-8 LOT SIZE: 2.79 ACRES SECTION:
4.020 K
DANIEL HARRIS, OWNER OF SUNSET MOTEL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
Warren County Planning Board Approved (attached)
MR. HARRIS-Stated he used to own the Mt. Royal Motel. They shared Mt. Royal's
pool. The Mt. Royal was sold to a third party, so the Sunset doesn't have a pool
and wouldn't be a profitable motel without one. Proposes to put the pool out back,
there is about 2.8 acres, and the pool is going to sit in the back of the property
somewhat in the center. New York State has a requirement that a person has to
be near a pool. He wants to put it as close as possible to the office without
being visible from the road. He won't lose any of his trees.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked about the undeveloped, pine drive?
MR. HARRIS-Stated that was the back of Roberts Gardens. He (Roberts Gardens) closed
it in and did it away forever.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-Asked about the hours of operation?
MR. HARRIS-Stated the hours will be the same as the neighboring motels from 9 a.m.
until 7 or 8 p.m.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 70-1989, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joseph Dybas:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THE
INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND CONCRETE SLAB DECK AROUND THE POOL
BY MR. DANIEL HARRIS OF SUNSET MOTEL, 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, BE IT
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.
11
"--'
---'
,/
"-
\,----,,",,--" -~'-/
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 21st, day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-89, DANIEL BARRIS, Introduced by Joseph Dybas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
Installation of inground swimming pool and concrete slab deck around the pool of
Daniel Harris, Sunset Motel, be approved.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE PI0-89 BAY MEADOWS CORP. C/O GARTH ALLEN SUNSET SHEET
METAL CO., INC. BAY MEADOWS GOLF COURSE BAY AND CRONIN ROAD. FOR A recommendation
ONLY. CURRENT ZONING: SFR-IA PROPOSED ZONING: MR-5 TAX MAP NO. 60-1-5, 10
MARK SCHACKNER FROM MILLER & MADDOX AND ATTORNEY FOR BAY MEADOWS PRESENT
GARTH ALLEN, A PRINCIPLE OF BAY MEADOWS, PRESENT
MR. SCHACKNER-Stated, it was their understanding that this matter was before the
Planning Board for the Board's recommendation on their petition of request for
a zone change for the Bay Meadows Corp., basically Bay Meadows golf property at
Cronin and Bay. The mapping is lacking. He didn't have multiply copies of the
map they have been using. Seemed when the Town went through the rezoning process,
that particular property was singled out for the sing1e- family, residential, one
acre designation. It is immediately bounded by property zoned multi family
residential, MR-5, especially 20 acres to immediate north which they are most
similarly situated to, also highway commercial. Believed, some concern over the
water resources might have been an influence over the rezoning. Found that some
of the designated wetlands that are near the property are actually situated mostly
on the immediately adjacent parcels that are less restrictively zoned. Bay Meadows
has owned the property for four years and at the time of purchase it was zoned
UR-5. They bought on the assumption that it was zoned that way, which it was at
the time. They did not participate as actively as they should have during the
rezoning and map...process.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
No action by Warren County Planning Board
MR. CARTIER-Agreed that it seemed unusual that this SFR-1A zone stuck in the middle
of all the other zones. Seemed as though Mr. Schackner was trying to find a way
to cluster and looking for a change in zoning to MR-5, allowing Mr. Schackner
to cluster, bothers him. After some calculating, not clustering, and separating
out 10 percent of land, Mr. Schackner would be allowed to build (roughly) 672
dwelling units on 94 acres. Stated he has a hard time visualizing a lot of open
space with this many dwelling units. It would be more appropriate for them to
request a waiver from the no clustering provision of the SFR-1A zone, allowing
them to build more houses by clustering than without clustering.
MR. SCHACKNER-Agreed that the problem was the no clustering aspect. They were
aware of the waiver provision, but he believed that this would enable clustering,
but would still limit the overall number of units to 94. Asked if this were correct?
12
~
/
\.
"----' "--
---
MRS. YOR}"-Stated he couldn't exceed the density of that zone, but in a traditional
subdivision layout, he has to reduce the density by his unbuildable land. In a
cluster design this doesn't have to be done.
MR. SCHACKNER-Stated that the intention of the Bay Meadows Corp. was to just develop
the back nine area, believing the front nine is the more aesthetically beautiful,
open spaced, golf course area, developing the back nine area for lower middle income
housing, especially senior citizens.
MR. ALLEN-Stated they would like to preserve the front nine and keep the golf course
as it is. The wetlands are in the front nine.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if 90 units were unreasonable?
MR. SCHACKNER-Stated that the answer was based on economic viability. Believed
their position shouldn't be characterized as solely economic. There doesn't seem
to be a lot of middle ground in the possible zoning classifications.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked what kind of numbers in density they were hoping for?
MR. ALLEN-Stated they were looking for town house concept, small square footage
for retirement homes, 1200 sq. ft., 1500 sq. ft. Ninety-four at that size would
be small buildings. Looking at maybe 150-200.
MR. JABLONSKI-Stated, it sounded as though they had a plan in mind that they
visualize on the property. They should try to present to the Board a plan so the
Board knows what they are talking about.
MRS. YORK-Stated that all of the resource maps were available in our office. Also,
many of the properties around their property do have some of the same characteristics
she has observed in the staff report, but many don't have all of the same criteria.
When you get the total impact of all the criteria on one property, it does mean
lower density is necessary.
MR. JABLONSKI-Asked if they could put 200 units on the back nine without spending
a lot of money?
MR. ALLEN-Stated he met with Town Planners in the building four years ago, before
he purchased the property, and spelled out his intent and had an engineer do some
rough work. He asked them, at the time, if it was feasible. They said they had
no problem with that. At other meetings, they had a realtor who was at all the
meetings. They were at the meeting at the school when they had the big meeting
with Round Pond. At that time Steve Borgos asked that it not be brought up because
there was too much to talk about.
MOTION TO DENY PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PI0-89, BAY MEADOWS CORP. clO GARTH
ALLEN, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Hagan:
Reasons spelled out in Lee A. York's notes (attached) dated November 20, 1989 and
said copy of such notes was attached to this recommendation. The applicant has
two alternatives, one presented in the last paragraph in Mrs. York's notes and
also the possibility of requesting a change to SR-lA. A portion of the Planning
Board Meeting dealing with this issue be attached also and forwarded to the Town
Board for their consideration.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES:
SITE PLAN NO. 71-89 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. 265 BAY ROAD
FOR RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. (WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. 107-1-25 & 27 LOT SIZE: 2.56 ACRES SECTION:
4.020 N
GREG DUSWICK, REPRESENTING KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION
13
~
./
.,,---- '--
-------".~
STAFF NOTES
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Asked what was Iaeant by "to the south" or did you mean to the east.?
There is a lot of property to the east. Was easement to the south what was referred
to?
MRS. YORK-Stated she believed John, in his notes, was referring to the easterly
portion.
Warren County approved
ENGINEER REPORT
Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (attached)
MR. DUSWICK-Stated they have no intention of utilizing the parcel to the east.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that he believed John was talking about the Kubricky parcel
to the south. Asked if this were contiguous with the piece of property being talked
about?
MR. DUSWICK-Yes. Stated they do not propose to store construction vehicles on
that piece of property.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they were talking about a subdivision?
MR. DUSWICK-Stated the parcel was bought as a separate piece from the remaining
Kubricky property.
MRS. YORK-Asked if the parcel were under separate ownership?
MR. DUSWICK-Stated the parcel, as well as the parcel to the south, was presently
owned by Kubricky. They are separate parcels under the same ownership.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if there will be customers since it will be used for a professional
office?
MR. DUSWICK-Stated there would be customers, but it would be rare.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if handicapped parking would be involved?
MR. DUSEK-Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE
RESOLUTION NO. 71-89, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joseph Dybas
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RENOVATION
OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AT 265 BAY ROAD BY THE KUBRICKY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
None
14
---
"
"---....-. "--- - - -./
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.
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 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 71-89 KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP., Introduced by
Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
Approval of site plan with provisions that they provide handicapped parking and
show it on the plan, construction vehicles should ingress and egress from the
southerly parcel and that we meet part 1100 of New York State Codes and Rules and
subject to the County driveway permit which appears to be required.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1989 PRELIKINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LI-LA QUEENS BURY ECONOMIC
DEV. CORP. DIX AVENUE FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 35.2 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS. TAX MAP NO.
110-1-24.33 LOT SIZE: 35.2 ACRES
JIM LAPANN, REPRESENTING QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEV. CORP., PRESENT
MR. LAPANN-Disp1ayed map. Explained that Queensbury Economic Development Corp.
is a non-profit corporation organized pursuant to the State of New York laws.
Stated that the corporation looks, throughout the U. S. and the east coast, for
businesses to come into the area with the basic thrust of trying to improve the
economic picture and trying to increase the number of jobs. Stated in the year
and a half that he has represented the Corporation, there have been negotiations
for parcels of land as small as 1.23 acres which was sold and is no longer owned
by the corporation to as big as approximately 20 acres.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
ENGINEERING REPORT
Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (attached)
FRANK WALTER, CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR QUEENS BURY ECONOMIC DEV. CORP. PRESENT
MR. LAPANN-Pointed out that the parcel that on the eastern side of Progress Boulevard
has its own runoff and drainage flow.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they could piece off the three acre parcel?
MR. CARTIER-Stated that if this were a for profit organization, they wou1dn 1 t be
looking at this, wouldn't be able to chop parcels. Asked what the different about
the Queensbury Economic Dev. Corp. (QEDC) that suggests they waive those
15
'----
.;'
~"-
kinds of regulations?
Data Processing.
___ ---'. ~i
Recalled that something similar came up with North East
MR. DUSEK-Answered Mr. Cartier's question by stating that Mr. Lapann made a cogent
point, that it is difficult to subdivide a parcel ahead of time, not knowing the
needs of the industrial park. This is different than the residential subdivisions.
Stated the Board has the flexibility under the subdivision regulations to handle
the matter on a piecemeal basis if it is thought that an industrial park is somewhat
different than a subdivision. QEDC is different than for profit industrial parks.
It is not being done for profit and the Town of Queensbury has very close ties
with the industrial park, so some latitude should be granted.
MR. DYBAS-Asked, if it was done as suggested, what would Northern Distributing
say? This is a private outfit with a large light industrial zone laid out in lots.
If we've asked them to do this, we can't all of a sudden change.
MR. HAGAN-Stated he has viewed many industrial parks and every industrial park
had a definite plan for the entire park so the buyer coming in would know what
he was going to be adjacent to or looking at in the future.
MR. DUSEK-Stated the Board has the flexibility to allow a partial development with
the idea that a full plan for the rest of the parcel does come back to the Board.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that, in looking at the road pattern, they must have had some
general idea what they were going to do because of the way the road is laid out.
MR. LAPANN-Stated the Landscape Architects did a rendering of the entire parcel
and they did include a roadway, the cu1 de sac.
MR. CARTIER-Stated it was unfair others who are already in this area to be lopping
off pieces of land because they have no idea how property is going to be subdivided
up around them. Stated he would like to see some conceptual subdivision that might
later on be subject to minor lot line adjustments.
LEON STEVES PRESENT
MR. STEVES-Stated, in 1987, a plan was submitted in a conceptual form.
MRS. YORK-Stated she couldn't find any concept plan for this site.
MR. WALTER-Stated when the QEDC first started they entertained a number of designs
for a park. QEDC selected the Landscape Architects to prepare a conceptual layout.
Then, at some point, the question came up should this go to the planning board.
As he understood, a decision was made, back in 1986 or 87, that the planning board
approval was not necessary for the project. As a matter of courtesy, Bob Leaver
came up in February 1987 and presented this conceptual plan to the Board for
information. QEDC then went ahead and constructed Progress Boulevard.
MR. CARTIER-Stated it sounded like they were doing the same thing they did the
first time with Northeast Data. Northeast Data was asked to come in with some
conceptual plan for the whole thing.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that the QEDC has its own rules and regulations.
MR. LAPANN-Stated there are filed restrictions that go with the land that require
the approval of any business that applies to have the....of any refuse areas, to
have certain requirements as to the appearance of the buildings.
LYNN POTENZA, MEMBER OF THE QEDC, PRESENT
MRS. POTENZA-Stated one of the concerns is subdivision of the land. It's a sensitive
issue and they cannot open up to the Board. They do have a tenant willing to come
into the industrial park that will bring jobs and tax space into the community.
What he needs is this particular land.
MR. GANNETT-Stated the reason the Board has a procedure for storm water management
on a preliminary subdivision is to look at the drainage for an entire subdivision
as a unit and manage the storm water as a whole. This particular case where the
subdivision intends to address one lot there is a situation where the lot
16
'-'
'--.-/
,;
'---
'-- '-'
- '--". ~
is not providing any storm management on site s but is instead is conveying the
increase in runoff to the existing pond. Faced with the situation where the existing
pond's capacity has not been verified that it can handle the increased runoff.
Although each individual lot s if it were developed one at a time s may have a
relatively small increase in runoffs the cumulative runoff of the entire subdivision
can be fairly substantial. A1sos although they realize that the developers did
not know who the tenants are going to bes but in terms of addressing the
Environmental Assessment that is usually done in terms of the general capacity
of the land that the zoning will allow. In termss of generic traffics drainages
groundwaters and other development considerations. These general order of magnitude
impacts can be generated on the basis of the zoning information even if a specific
development plan is not available.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if these figures for the three acre parcel could be available
quickly?
MR. WALTER-Asked if he were referring to drainage?
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
MR. WALTER-Stated the initial roadway into the park straddles a drainageway. There
is a limited drainage area in this area of the park. There are a few lots between
the city line and the roadways one of which was being discussed currently.. To
the east of the roadway the land generally drains almost directly south. It is
not contributory to the drainage system that's in there leading to the pond. There
are deeded rights to the drainageway.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that it still should have runoff.
MR. WALTER-Correct.
MR. GANNETT-Stated that almost all the lands that are south of the parcel sold
to Frank Caviello and to the west of this is tributary to the pond.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Joe Su1livans City of Glens Falls
MR. SULLIVAN-To give you a little more history and may be concur with what Frank
has to say. I've got some pictures that were taken in 1987 which will show the
impact of the drainage in this area. At that time Kaymr was pumping out of this
swamp into Quaker Road into the new development. (Referring to pictures) this
is the result of a heavy rainstorm on Warren Street. One of the problems was the
fact that there was a backup of water down through this area here. There's a road
that existed there. The problem's corrected to a point where there's a burr that
attracts the water down to its natural flow. The thing iss you've got all of this
water here coming down through that development from Quaker Road s you've got your
triangle of Dix and Quaker and that comes right down through this drainage into
here. You get a big backflow that's gonna go on to Warren Street below this
property. The thing is s what's happening to the people below the development.
You've got flooding conditions. If you get a heavy rainfall. They speak of
easements, but are they defined easements? Is there a defined drainage easement
through the subdivision from where it hits the power company and from there down
through your other private properties. Looking at the situations a defined easement
has got to be made through these properties to control this situation. As this
develops more and more s obvious ly you're going to get more runoff. Frank has
indicated that a portion of the flow does go over this ways but it all still goes
through the same place and that's where Olsen's Gas Station was. If you've ever
been down there s there's a fairly large drainage structure that does drain into
the Feeder Canal. You've probably got further development of the triangle area
and more hard surfaces coming in so your going to get a larger flow coming through
there. The city's concerneds obviously s because you can see what the end result
is down on lower Warren Street and the only drainage that we have is on the southerly
side of the street and that's a crack in the rock and the water goes in there.
That's all we've got.
MR. ROBERTS-When we get into further development of this neighboring parcel s that
maybe something we want to address. It's a pretty general area and maybe this
isn't the time to start.
Board asked if these pictures were taken in October 1987 during a pumping situation?
17
"----"
"
""---- -....-
-~.--.,.;I
MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. We were pumping at that time. Last winter we had a situation
where we had a light snowfall, but you had a hard ground freeze and we had a lot
of surface water and if we got into a situation like this where you're going to
get a higher percentage of flooding in these areas. Once you get into a situation
like this, you've got a lot of things to take into consideration. TAPE TURNED
MR. LAPANN-What you're talking about is, really not having anything to do with
this right here. It has to do with drainage coming down through the QEDC property
down below and then down here (referring to map) is where the problems come and
there's really no obstruction or problem as it goes down through the QEDC property
and nothing from this parcel that's effecting that.
MR. GANNETT-If the runoff is increased, it will have an impact on that drainage
downstream. Peak runoff will increase with development.
MR. LAPANN-I don't think that 3 acre parcel is going to cause the flooding down
on Warren Street that he has pictures of.
MR. GANNETT-But the 3 acre parcel is part of the tributary area.
MR. CARTIER-I'm beginning to have a philosophical problem with this. It's very
simply this: The QEDC is a semi-governmental body, maybe that's the wrong term
and I wish Mr. Dusek would come up with another term for it, but what I'm hearing
is that because we are a semi-governmental body and we're doing good, that we should
be given a great deal more flexibility than this Planning Board has been willing
to give a private subdivider and I would like to hold a semi-governmental body
to the same standards that we hold private developers in this town. I think we
do ourselves a disservice when we create inconsistencies.
MR. ROBERTS-I think we all feel somewhat that way.
MR. CARTIER-I can live with going ahead on this triangular thing, but the only
way I could do that is if it were a very clear understanding that before any other
site plan review comes in on this industrial park, that we look at a conceptual
overall package that there might be some flexibility in it, but not a whole lot.
I'm going to do what works for me on this Board up here, I'm going to hold whoever
comes before me to the same standards that I hold everybody else.
MR. HAGAN-I think that was my feeling before the start of this. We could probably
live with that small parcel, but next time you come in, I want to see something
of what's happening besides what's happening in those pictures.
MR. ROBERTS-That may include some downstream work.
MR. JABLONSKI-I agree with Peter. I am looking for something substantial.
MR. DUSEK-I believe, if the Board wants to throw the larger part, so to speak,
back at them for some redevelopment, I've got no problem with that certainly.
Technically, I think that there's an application before the Board for a subdivision
off of that small parcel, which I gather from the intents of the Board you're in
agreement to. So, I think what you technically would like to do would be to
preliminarily approve the subdivision so far as it approves just that one parcel
rather than table it or anything. Then what would happen is it would come back
again next week for a final approval on that small piece. Then you would move
on to a site plan approval. The only other catch here is too, would be of course
you want to make sure before you grant your preliminary approval that you do your
SEQRA process as well.
PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 20-1989, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joseph Dybas:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: approval
of preliminary stage of the QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEV. CORP. Dix Avenue for the
subdivision of 35.2 acres into 2 lots the smaller of which being 2.94 acres, 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,
18
--,,'
.,/
~-
----
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
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. A Long Form Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
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 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIHINARY STAGE OF SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1989, QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC
DEV. CORP., Introduced by Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Peter Cartier:
We are looking at just the 2.94 acre parcel of land. Before any site plan approval
is given on the remaining portion we must require that the applicant provide us
with informal subdivision application process and complete the formal subdivision
process for the remainder. Also need to be concerned with traffic on the future
site. This will be addressed through the EAF. Only other concern is the drainage.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano
MR. CAIMANO-Stated he abstained because he thinks they put the Board in a very
bad position. On the one hand, if the Board disapproves this, it appears they
are trying to block progress in Town. On the other hand, by approving it, it puts
the Board at odds with all of the Board's trying to do concerning the total
environment of the Town. He finds this unconscionable especially by people who
otherwise castigate us for it. He thinks they put the Board in a very bad position.
MRS. POTENZA-Stated she believes that all the Board's that work for government
in this Town should work together, should work jointly. She believes that's the
motivation of all department heads and Town Board and Planning Board and she believes
if we are willing to work together and she believes they worked together tonight
and they compromised. They had no other recourse. They are going by what is
required by them to go before the Board and ask for the Board's approval or
disapproval and it doesn't make any difference what Board you sit on, when a proposal
is brought to them for development in the Town, they follow the chains they should
follow like anyone else. If she were of the private sector and came to the Board
and was voted down and was bringing jobs to the community, there would be
repercussions on it. She believes that its our responsibility as citizens of this
community all to work together and come to a decision.
19
~
~ ~
',- ~ -./
SITE PLAN NO. 72-89 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A LC-42A CHARLES H. COFFIN, WEST SIDE OF
RIDGE ROAD, 2 HILES NORTH OF ROUTE 149 FOR A 20 FT. BY 24 FT. ADDITION TO THE
HOUSE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 22-1-7 LOT SIZE: 3o± ACRES
SECTION: 4.020 A, C
CHARLES M. COFFIN PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached)
MR. COFFIN-Stated the area has already been mulched.
MR. HAGAN-Asked when the project will be completed?
MR. COFFIN-Stated he would have most of it done by the end of the week.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE
RESOLUTION NO. 72-89, 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 for CHARLES H. COFFIN for 20 ft. by 24 ft. 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, BE IT
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.
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 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 72-89, CHARLES H. COFFIN, Introduced by Keith
Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan:
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Richard Roberts, Chairman
20
~
\--
',,--, ~
LOCATION MAPS
November 21, 1989 Planning Meeting
OLD BUSINESS
Subdivision No. 19-1989
Preliminary Stage Brian O'Connor
(Staff Notes attached)
- --./'-
IZD.
Rtb e ~t>.
~ Z
Site Plan No. 32-89 Debbie and Steven Scheibel(see attached letter)
Subdivision No. 5-65 Rolling Ridge, Section 3 and 4
Site Plan No. 68-89 Martin Johnsen
~
~
r
).
1i.
III
JJ
c
~
',-
'-"
--
--'
--
-----
LOCATION MAP~ Meetiug
21, 1989 Plann1ng
November
Su ÞI1 SET
MOTEL
~
N
I
NEW BUSINESS
Site Plan No. 70-89
(Staff Notes attached)
Daniel Harris
Petition for a Change of Zone PIO-89
Bay Meadows Corp. (Staff Notes and Map attached)
Site Plan No. 71-89 Kubricky Construction (Staff Notes and Map attached)
SubdiviSion No. 20-1989 Preliminary Stage Queensbury Economic Dev. Corp.
(Staff notes and Map attached)
Site Plan No. 72-89 Charles M. Coffin (Staff NOtes attached)
'.:ii '",.
.\\.,}o ~
(I'> ~~ ¡),?!
er c\'
ff#IV
..~. .
V~fRtI¡.£
ST1tJJ()
Q. 0 "~___, J..... :
'"\ J. <:tJ:._.__ ____A E
~ 1W\'~5 (;:1; .
//
.:.111
___J W N 0 F QUE ENS BUR Y ~.
P1~ftfti~ Department
-~
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. J OM S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: October 11, 1989
By: Stuart G. Baker
Area VariaDce
U. VariaDce
== Sip VariaDce
_ IaterpretatiOD
x SubdrriåOD: Sket~ X Preüm'
- Site P1aa Reriew - - mary,
:= PetitiOD for a Chaøøe of ZODe
_ Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit
FiDa1
Other:
AppJicatiaa Number:
Subdivision No. 19-1989
AppJicaat'. Name:
Brian O'Connor
Meetblø Date:
October 2.4, 1989
............................................................................................
Mr. O'Connor wishes to subdivide his current 2..5 acre lot into two 1.2.5 acre lots.
The current zoning is SR-IA, which allows for a minimum lot size of 1 acre.
During a site visit, John Goralski and I noted that the lot to be created is adjacent
to a wetlands area. Checking this location on the Master Plan Resource Maps, I noted
the following:
Water Re8OUI"CM Map: Location adjacent to aquifer recharge area with a current
AA Water Quality classification.
SoiJa Analysia/Perc:. Rate: 6-2.0 in./hr.; limited to unsuitable development potential.
SoiJa Analysia/Depth to High Water: 0-18 in.; low development suitability.
lat:ri1udc Døe1øpmeDt Suitability: Low, major planning changes needed.
Wetluda Ctu.ificatiœ: (from NYS DOT Map): Class II Wetlands
The Board should take careful note of the high percolation rate for this soil type,
and that the drainage plan shows a 10 percent slope from the location of the proposed
septic area, southwest towards the existing wetlands.
Also, Mr. O'Connor should include the location of his existing septic system on any
future plans submitted.
SGB/sed
"
4
.-----
R,C:HA..D J, BA..TI.CTT
FlAUI. E. FlONTI"
RO.C"T S, STCWA,"
ALAN R. RHOOD
H, WAYNC JUDGC
RO.C"T S, Mc:MII,I.CN
FlHII.I~ C, Mc:INTI"C
MA"K A, LC.OWITZ
J, LAW"CNC:C FlAI.T..OWITZ
MAI.C:OI.M B. O'HA"A
BC"T"AM ,J, Du.c
THOMA. A. Uu.aCWIC:Z
FlAT"ICIA E. WATKIN.
JOHN W, CA'''''Y
GA"Y C, HO...
MA"K E. CC.........NO
MONICA A. KO_I.CW8KI
e..UC:C 0, U~IN.KI
T,MOTHY S. SHUI.C..
LAW"CNC:C H. WCINTIUl.U.
MA..TIN D. AU""..CDOU
BARTLETT, PONTIFF. STEWART, RHOOES & J UOGE. P. cf It f
ATTO"N EYS AT LAW
ONC WASHINGTON ST"CCT
( t:--../--"
'-
\,---~
FI, O. Box 2 I ea
GLENS FALLS. NEW YO"K 12801-001 a
HUDSON F'AI.L.S O,.,.,c:c
le7 MAIN ST"CCT
HUDSON F'AI.L.S, Ncw YO"K 12838
(!Sla) 747-3224
TCI.C~HONC 'SI.' 7..-.117
Tcl.cc:o~'c" ISI.' 7..-330.
LAKC FlLAC:ID O,.,.,c:c
e"CWSTC" FlLACC
!S3 MAtN ST"CCT
LAKC FlLAC:ID. Ncw YO"K 1284e
(!S18) 523"8772
RIC:HA"D A, Flc"slC:o
COUNSCI.
November 17, 1989
Lee York
Town of Queensbury
Planning Department
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Re: Scheibel
-..
. ~~' :t;iI., f~'i1'J\/~{'r\'.!
( \ \..~ '~'. ,~.
\' ,.", '. '.'
" ~'-.;
., )Z :
l.""N - ~iN~
~ UENT
Dear Lee:
SITE PlNI R£VIEW III :f 2 - 8' .9
I have advised you that the applicant was prepared to appear
before the Planning Board (acting in an advisory capacity to the
Zoning Board) to advise that the applicant would concede to the wishes
of the Planning Board by abandoning any request to utilize "Lot #8"
for septic disposal and that the applicant would install a holding
tank on Lot #4 in compliance with the Queensbury septic regulations.
You have advised me that, even though we are exceeding to the
Board's request, the Board will not hear us in the month of November
because we have not so advised them in writing.
As a result I have no alternative but to request that my client's
application be tabled to the next Board meeting which I understand
will be December 19, 1989.
I will not pretend to find the treatment which my clients are
receiving to be acceptable. It does seem that after a year waiting
they could have been afforded more courteous treatment than this.
RSS:cjd
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Scheibel
RSS:11.17.1
žfu~s t~u;.;,
~. s:hun4j¡)
Robert S. stewart
"---
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
-~
p'jlnning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: November 9. 1989
By: Stuart Baker
Area Variance
Uøe Variance
- Sip Variance
:::: Interpretation
Other:
Subdi9'Ülioa: Sketch. Prelimin__
- - -I'
X Site Plan ReYiew
:::: Petition for a Change of Zoae
Freshwater Wet.1aDd.s Permit
Final
Application Number:
Site Plan No. 70-89
Applicant'. Name:
Daniel Harris - Sunset Motel
Meeting Date:
November 21. 1989
............................................................................................
Mr. Harris is planning to construct an inground swimming pool with a
concrete slab deck behind the Sunset Motel. He received a use variance for
this project at the October 18. 1989 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
There are no major planning concerns with this project.
SB/pw
"
ç
',---,
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
'- .....-" .--",
pbnning Department
"NOTE TO FILE·
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
November 20, 1989
By:
Lee A. York
Area Variaøce
Use Variance
== Sign Variance
_ Interpretation
SubdiYision: Sketch. Prelim·
- mary,
Site Plan Renew
,-- Petition for a Change of Zone
Freshwater Wet:la.Dds Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Petition For Change of Zone - P10-89
Appücant'. Name:
Bay Meadows Corp.
MeetiDg Date:
November 2 I, 1989
**..........................................................................................
The petition Eor rezoning is a request to go fro~ a density of SFR-IA to
MR-S. The exhibits submitted with the petition indicate that the MR-S zoning
would then be the same as the properties to the north.
The zoning Eor the Town was based on physical criteria or the carrying
capacity of the land. I have reviewed the resource maps utilized in the zoning.
The inEorrnatidn is detailed below.
The Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Map reveals - Regionally significant
Animals, Fish and Insects.
The Water Resources Map shows -
I) A HUD designated flood prone area.
2) A DEC designated AAT stream (Halfway Creek)
The DEC Wetlands Maps show a portion oE G.F. 23 in the ~orthwest corner of
the property. This is a Class II wetland.
The Slope Analysis shows 0-307. slopes which are considered to be moderately
suitable for development.
..
4
--~~-~
'---"
--,,'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
- --'"' -.-/
Pl~nning Department
ftNOTE TO FILEft
\lrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
\1r. John S. Goralski, Planner
~1r. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: ~ovember 20. 1989
By: Lee A. York
Area Variance
Use Variance
Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdirision: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site Plan Review
X Petition for a Change of Zone
Freshwater Wetlands Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Petition For Change of Zone - P10-89
Applicant's Name:
Bay Meadows Corp.
Meeting Date:
November 21, 1989
*...........................................................................................
The Percolation Rate Map shows a portion of the property as having a rate
of .06-6" per hour or low development suitability. The remainder of the property
is 6-20" per hour or I imít ed to unsu i t ab Ie for deve lop:nent .
The Depth to High Water Table map shows the majority of the property being
at 0-8" which is low suitability. There are pockets of 18-72" which is moderate
suitability.
The Intrinsic Development Suitability shows limited to low suitability on
this property. The criteria which was used in the zoning illustrates why the
property was designated SFR-lA.
An alternative for the applicant mi8ht be to review the subdivision regula-
tions and request a waiver from the Planning Board to be allowed to cluster the
units. CArticle IX) This would allow the natural and open space qualities
of the property to be retained. In a cluster design the applicant does not have
to reduce the density by calculating out unbuildable lands, which is required for
a traditional subdivision. This may be a more appropriate solution for develop-
ment of the parcel.
LAY/pw
4
.- ------ ------
/1
\.
~
-~
'"'
, '"'<
'-'
~
'"",
~
-~
, C:..
-.
-
'~
\
~
\
'Ç;)
~
~
~
~
000::::::..
.><.-
~
EX 3IT C
'----'"
-'~f
....
f.-'
u.I
~
-_.J
::
o
~
"
~
--~--
r
a:l3)yno
-
00
oot
u
c
0 ..
N
~,
...
00
-
.. , ."..---
~
u
4(
- In
- CI)
~
...
<0
<t
~
8
L SN31!)
-' - ~INr¡--'
.-.-
~AJ.IJ
, ~ISN~
£"JO
---'.'
u
c
...
c.ø~
...
.. ~
",,- \
-
(/)
-
u
0(
.~
I.'" .
ø.
ë..S.'~
N
...
o
\
~.
~...
"--..~
--
'"
ã
Il31u
'\
ø
z
~
%
!
~
I
·1
I c¡;
v
I ~ ..~ )
.~ CI)
"~" J,'~',-,
, I '"'-- ..
/
~
\
~
...
'..
r.
~
~--_._.__. - ^
. . :: '- ":-"" Ie 1~·¡~·V . ." :./ l~ ., : f ~ ~R ~Ì\~ ',~ ": JI.< . : · ,':': ¡. ,. . .~ 'Tee-' '"11'
· . '.'! . ',! ~'~' . "..:i... ~~- I~/'~ '~J. '\: ,', ~, I, l .rcç.;¡ ~. J J . \ I, E
e' ,>';~' fl., I I -.c::: . _ ~$J 1þ" .' ..,'~"""" , I ,E
RR 3A MR i'\' . ~PR 1A.l ¡' ':. ~-}.. 'S~R . ~ ,> ~ :~ ' . ; L!,3N I. L :.'. If,
,- '. " . , tJR1í ¡....,.;..... \ " I "t!! f I' 1 . t· )... '~,.-( "
~ ...w. .Ial·~ ~ ! \ \ 1ft " . =:-1. .~~~, .A'~' ~ ,~i, ~\... :
L.~. ... - ¡"þ:¡E!l~ ~....... . , ~/#.c;·· I.~~ I ¡-"'\" -
~'~~~-l'I~' ·;...~~(~U~'5:,(~~~~,.1~.~,r.:I::IF/~..., .. ~¡__~ti~'~LJ~ ¡;
· ~ !'~..,.. ,,"'~ .J~":rI , U ~ . , ..e ~ ì' . ".
,~ ' .--.' , r- ' ~...... h, ". ~, ('... . '~:....._~-. . ~ .
,~., , ", . ~ ~c.,¡¡;~"" ' · ." .' t e~ .: ::!o~~':'.r.. ";1:".,
í Ut· ,'IQJ ~n"'~Þ'~~_'FRJ 'A'~ lïï)' - / '1 . ~ " - ··:"ií.é~1d"~' . ,'- ' ~
. ....,.'" . ~MR.· "'J=ale ,.I~:~~ . . \ .7-.-. .....:..;¡.... 1- . ~.-.
,'. ... , '.' \Q., ,'; ..~..-.".:1¡'_.:-'.:'.' I!,!
. ',. '. '~ '-""""' ~. SFR 1A ,- ~...:--. · I
...... J ....r¡.acr;(tß·· JI~j > ' : ,J .'_....T. '.I~~'~' .1~, ~',I~~" .. f, .
, .... ' . , LI1A .
: '. FA 1A' __I T ""-' : I" . ~ ¡... / :.' ,
· .,' ~~ I ,. 1- i' "j \ , ,tc ,.'00 CR.....:
i.i::. . . ~~. s. ,,, IT· . - , . 1
' " . r. I' - -' . :' ;'.: " " I LI1A ~~ - · .
... : tt1A · ' t¡¡t;"\' . \j '. . .~.: ~.. ; ~ __~:'
· . '..' ."; \. " ~.~~'J'1:Lt1~ !.' ,
lr't~"11'-"" "'I 1"·~· ·~/.'
:'1 ,"'. \. ~~I ~ ,. -- ""E"" . ~ 'f' ,
.:. ~ t' , - ~,I
.' . r:'~J.:~ .1 ! .'
.. .' ~Ir- ~.",~ 1A - ~ ,'~\ IJ !
I 'A: ~ ~ t :""4.:/ " . ~I' :.' ~
~-.~ Vll ~.:......., .~·I . I. .Ihk
.\. ~ ~ 1 ] ~ · ~ ! ' , "., +! ; ~ '~,:
, \ \ .~ i I:¡ :
'\ ~.:h.\(. I'WR1A'", ' " j I _ J ~!,:. f":
.\ \. ~ . r , }:, f
:It 1 .~, ~ L~ " '.'" I ". . I ' " ,(f 1
. :~ j{ '.'~ '.' " n-...... '\ I
. 11I·!~·l~'~~Á~. ~~~.:~~; · ,/. '~~ ~~j)'\~':;I'~~'
'~.J~~ ~' ,;- ". ·v '.. ; ,~°CJI.ooo~,_._ ' '~f:'"
., ': '~.._:,;. --
., .. \ å. ..,. . . , ... ..
.~. , '~""I...__.. ' """ SCALI: "
......7-....... : I' , .- .!. .. .,,/'t ·
I ' ',-._ at.: Auguat 18. 1988. . \ I . ! . '.
II. . Î
~ ' ¡
WImn.Count, Depert....or ¡I.........."
I ' . , , ......... ... c:on...unø, Dt'\. .Iap....... I
.... ' " '
'. ßA"Mf*1,öW~-' ;.' :; -: ': ,~aI,~"" , 'r
·
, '.
)
'\ , 'j
'\ I~ I
I
,
I '
J
, .
,~. .
~_. +
'"---, ~
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
----.-"--'
pI¡,nni"B Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
November 15, 1989
John Goralski
Area VariaDce
U. VariaDce
- Sip VariaDce
== IDterpretatioø
Subdirisåoa: Sketch, PreJimma_
- - - -I'
X Site PIaD Rmew
== Petitioø for a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDal
Other:
Applicatioø Number:
Site Plan No. 71-89
Applicant'. Name:
Kubricky Construction Corp.
MeetiDg Date:
November 21, 1989
............................................................................................
The applicant has received a variance to maintain this 1264 sq. ft. office
in a Light Industrial Zone. This use should have minimal impact on traffic flow
on Bay Road. However, it does appear that a County Driveway Permit is required.
The plan does not indicate what if anything is to be done with the easterly
portion of the lot. If this area is to be used in conjunction with the Kubricky
parcel to the south, I would recommend that all construction vehicles ingress and
egress from the southerly parcel.
JG/pw
."
/
..... -
"- --..-
-~.~
-- - -- n - - ~.1. \__
- - . ..-~~~
'..1
...
.. .:.l ",'.:"r·~:¡: _;~.-.: ~~.~ "~",
, '.... :......;;,~~·~~~:i:..::{~:y·~-.:;~".~ ':~'''~ ~-~";':·.ú~ -'~~:'~"
'..;' .~, -
L/"vc.+ ~ D,J
LD Y}5 TV
\ (v (1¡ri t I<..¡ , !) ,:. ~fv ,:~,! "J
1/ ". ". . . ".,....,
"\ '. ;1,~:'~~,~<~~~t:~:~,""~/::·/~!~'i.:.~<~:;.7;r'L:"
~ -
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
-----. .--.--
PI.ftfti~g Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: November 17, 1989
By: Lee A. York
Area Variance
U. Variance
- Sip Variance
== Interpretation
x Subdi~ Sketch. X Prelim·
- - mary,
Site Plan Reriew
== Petition far a Change of ZcJDe
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
Final
Other:
AppJication Number:
Subdivision # 20-1989
AppJicant'. Name:
Queensbury Economic Dev. Corp.
MeetiDg Date:
November 21, 1989
............................................................................................
The Queensbury Economic Development Corporation has submitted a Preliminary
Subdivision application for Planning Board review on November 21. They have
further submitted a Final application for review on November 28. A Site Plan
for the lot which is to be subdivided out has also been submitted on November 28.
I have explained to the Agent that should the preliminary review be modified that
the other reviews would automatically be removed from the a~endas.
Before I begin to critique the preliminary application, there are two issues
which I think the Board has to consider. The first is can the Board review a
site plan for which there is, no filed subdivision, and furthermore, can the
Plannin~ Department accept a'site plan for which there is no legal subdivision.
I realize that there has been one case in the past for which this has been done.
At this point, however, I believe we need a legal determination on this.
The second issue is, the Board has never reviewed the QEDC Industrial Park
as a total concept. The applicant has previously carved out one lot and appears
to be continuing this process with no overall plan, which would appear to be in
violation of the intent of the subdivision regulations. My primary concern in
this matter is that there has been no review of drainage on this total parcel
and there may be problems in the future because of this. There is drainage
provided for in the roadway but we have no way of ascertaining if the capacity
is sufficient to handle the entire development. This is critical as the Rozell
site plan proposes to utilize the roadway system for part of the site drainage.
..
4
"----
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
--'._~~
planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: November 17. 1989
By: Lee A. York
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sip Variance
== løterpretation
Other:
x Subcl.Øiåoa: S1tet-" X Prelim'
- ...., - mary,
Site Plan Rerie.
- Petition for a CbaDge of Zone
- Fresh.ater WetlaDda Permit
FiJLa1
Application Number:
Subdivision # 20-1989
Applicant'. Name:
Queensburv Economic Dev. CorD.
MeetiDg Date:
November 21. 1989
............................................................................................
The QEDC Technical Park has requested to subdivide out a parcel of 2.98 acres
for sale to Mr. Rozell. The remaining 32.21 acres will be retained by the Corpora-
tion for subdivision of a later date. The Stormwater Report submitted does state
that the existing storm sewers in the roadway will handle the piped drainage from
the impervious surfaces on the new lot. The plan does not indicate how the storm-
water will enter the roadway. The Stormwater Plan also states that the drainage
on the balance of the lot will continue by sheet flow to the pond. The presented
information does not address whether the pond can handle the increase.
The drainage from the on-site pond ultimately goes into a drainage way on to
Niagara Mohawk property. The Corporation does have an agreement to the effect.
There is, however, no indication where the drainage goes from this point. The
subdivision regulations require:
"An environmental assessment describing the potential environmental impact
of the proposed subdivision on the adjoining area and the Town of Queensbury,
including the EA short form, and proposed actions to minimize potentially
adverse environmental impacts. Additional environmental information may be
required in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act."
The Environmental Assessment form submitted indicates on page 3 that the
drainage way permitted by easement enters a tributary to the Feeder Canal. I have
discussed this with the Highway Department. They stated that the City of Glens
Falls had done dye tests a few years ago because of stormwater problems. The
tests revealed that the water from this site and others ultimately comes out on
Page 2
..
~
.---------
'-
,--,'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
--
pw..nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
November 17, 1989
Lee A. York
Area Variance
U. Variance
- Sip Variance
- InterpretatiOD
x SubdiYiåoa: Sketch, X Prelim·
- - - mary,
Site Plan Reriew
== PetitiOD for a ChaDøe of ZODe
Fresh.ater WetJaDds Permit
Final
Other:
ApplicatiOD Number:
Subdivision # 20-1989
Applicant'. Name:
Oueensburv Economic Dev. Corn.
Meeting Date:
November 21. 1989
*............................................*..............................................
Lower Warren Street. The Planning Department has sent a letter to the City D.P.W.
on the project as they are an interested party as detailed under SEQRA. In order
for the Board to fully address potential environmental impacts and for them to be
minimized we need to have input from the City on this proposal.
I would recommend to the Board that a traffic study be requested for each
future site plan in this subdivision so that traffic impacts from the site can
be assessed.
LAY/pw
Page 3
i·
.
~._---
~
RI~ ~IATES. PC,
\.... J ENGINEERS
,~_.--
21 BAY STÆET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALlS. NY
12801
518· 793·4141
..
"--'
-/~.
November 14, 1989
RFA #89-5000.520
Town of Queensbury
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York
Re: Queensbury Economic Development Corp.
Subdivision 20-1989, Preliminary Stage
Dear ~'s. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
comments:
1. The increased peak discharge for developed conditions for the entire
subdivision area must be considered, and runoff must not exceed
historic conditions. The Stormwater Report submitted only addresses
3 acres out of the 35 acre total.
2. If the existing pond within the subdivision is to be used as a
retention area to contain the increase in peak runoff, for the sub-
division, then calculations must be done to verify that this pond
has enough storage capacity. Improvements to the outflow structure
should be made if necessary, determined by the Stormwater Management
Report.
3. The long form EAF must address development of the entire subdivision
and not just the 3 acre parcel.
Very truly yours,
;øST ASS
~~~ett, P.E.
Mana~~~n~roject Engineer
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
* GlENS FAlLS. NY'lACONlA, NH
q
"-------
,r_
\ ,
--. \ --' "-
"
,
" ì- ~-
'--'.:::::r ..........
<:::r ...... '.
/'! ., "
r$t 1,/ q,
I
I
I c\ " 1~p
I \:- " /(
I
í
/
I~ '""'--
-..... !
j\
I
"" I "---:;
I \.L ; / --.,
I~~.~
'-L ~
O~r-
...
.3)
~ 0/
.-'-/
¡-'f-
J.+
V
-...._--~,
I
t¡
;;.
-.......,¡
.........
QUC£A/5I2Uf2:.'j t:CC'NC',vf;rC DIEtl, (ofP, ,vl A P *' . (//1
¡:.. 'v 'J _ 0 C I ',- I q 31
I J.. () - \ ~ Sq þA í to.- . .
S J b \.)t: v:l: S:Ç 0 f\I
?..~- N :l\~{J\ cnc'~~K ¡?¡;...;e.í CO/po
\ ¡~- ~ I~N~)í ()1~ 1\:12- T ph,lo-,f' ~ò~'ìth
, . J.. '5 - D\¡ f\ 1\ \p ßI\ K¿ (Z.
I. '1....\- .EA.V'l t \..:¡ìI"\DI=\ ~cS (t"'¡~~i::
.
\ . ).. 'ð -- G,1:..... ~ \ ~ to c..,\ t'\ """." N v D\ C.
. Á9 -- ¥3rCf1 () ')m¡:~í tf\ï¡...if\~\ì :¡:'N(,
l.}. ì - VAl tl:J ~-,-. ~ $ Or.: Aft'l '-:'~' (A
c.... \ ç 0\ S",,' i <. t- Cm ),,,, <.. tr J N, 'I.
Corps o'¡;. E'/'\)\/\~c.r)
t,J.~- K ,
t.i 0 c K ) M~,,', - 5;-o.~J<-
I ,'1J..- G
) ~{'A \ D t \~ \)'1~ \-\ ~~ \(..~t
L'l \ - G~V" ~ \ f') -r ýt~ ~ V' \~ ~ \'t.. tt-
¡l{ , ^).. - f ,z.~t'J r, c.. <:v I ~ \\Q
.2'-1,) - \-\'A(('ón lc,V\("11\.it"'lr\,\-:t.hS Coíf·
\ ",v - f~+-<'~ ~~~N Ir (Y\A~V\. CP¡ïV-et
-/ .-/
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
---.-/
pJ:lnfting Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
November 16. 1989
John Goralski
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sip Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
Subdi~oa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary.
--X Site P1aD Remew -
- Petition for a CbaDge of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDal
Application Number:
Site Plan No. 72-89
Applicant's Name:
Charles M. Coffin
Meeting Date:
November 21. 1989
............................................................................................
The applicant received a variance from the stream corridor setback
requirement on 11/15/89.
The foundation for the addition was constructed under a building permit
issued in 1978. It does not appear that any additional earthwork will be
necessary to complete construction.
The question of increased runoff and erosion into the stream areas of
concern. I would recommend that the Board require that the area between the
addition and the stream be revegetated as soon as possible. Prior to
revegetation hay or mulch shòuld be spread over the area to prevent erosion
into the stream.
JG/pw
..
~
- ------ -..- -.---"