Loading...
1989-12-26 '-- ---' -" \... ---- -" -- -.../ QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 26TH, 1989 INDEX Subdivision No. 22-1989 SKETCH PLAN Shultz Subdivision; Arzelia H. Shultz 1 Site Plan No. 49-89 Anthony Russo; Ottavio Estate 3 Petition for a Change of Zone: Pll-89 Site Plan No. 83-89 Site Plan No. 84-89 Site Plan No. 85-89 Site Plan No. 86-89 Ethel Balcom Trust 5 Higgs and Crayford, Inc. 8 Gary and Mary Trello 10 Anne Parrott 14 Thomas D'Angelo; Dave Kipp 18 Subdivision No. 23-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE Nancy S. Dingman; Marie S. Mason; Betty S. Duell 26 Site Plan No. 87-89 Woodbury Development Group, Ltd. 28 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. ',-, '-/ " ",-- -' -" _.....,I QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 26TH, 1989 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN JAMES HAGAN PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS NICHOLAS CAIMANO MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER KEITH JABLONSKI TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT LEE YORK, SENIOR PLANNER CORRECTION OF MINUTES, October 24th, 1989: Page 6, silky clay sib silty clay; Page 9 half way down the page comment by Mr. Goralski, Mr. Koechlein's name sib spelled correctly STAND AS AMENDED November 21st, 1989: Page 9 everything that says Dybas sib Hagan; Page 10 where it says motion to approve subdivision, after the sentence of the present building sib of the present building codes; Page 2 toward the bottom of the page, three lines above Public Hearing Opened, hold sib had; Page 8, fourth comment from the bottom, Mr. Cartier sir there, fifth line down, last word sIb by the date rather than state; Page 19, half way down the page, motion to approve preliminary stage 120-1989, third line down, it says with informal subdivision application, sib with a formal subdivision application STAND AS AMENDED November 28th, 1989: Tom Nates sib Tom Nace all the way through; Page 5 neglects anything about the petitioner agreeing to put the sprinkler system in, further down on the same page where they talk about the drywells and Mr. Nace, again the petitioner has stated they will comply and the minutes do not reflect this. Page 5 half way down the page, Motion to Address Site Plan No. 74-89 by Roger LaFontaine, below that it says Resolution number 74-89 Introduced by Carol Pulver and seconded by Nicholas Caimano, on the next page it says Motion to Approve Site Plan No. 74-89 by Roger LaFontaine, introduced by Nicholas Caimano and seconded by Carol Pulver, those three things didn't happen. They approved the SEQRA and the we approved the 74-89, but there was never any motion to address site plan. It was found that there was a motion to address. STAND AS AMENDED MR. ROBERTS-Stated we have personnel problems trying to get a quorum tonight, so I'm going to take the liberty of adjusting the agenda moving the Shultz Subdivision Sketch Plan to the head of the agenda because we may lose some voting members. SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1989 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA SHULTZ SUBDIVISION ARZELIA H. SHULTZ NORTHERLY SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD 1,000 FT. SOUTH OF HICKS ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. PLAN TO RETAIN EXISTING RESIDENCE PARCEL AND TO CONVEY TWO BUILDING LOTS. TAX HAP NO. 55-1-8 LOT SIZE: 9.5 ACRES DAVID SHULTZ 1 -- "--'- ..;' -......,/ STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. SHULTZ-Stated the date the test hole was taken was November 25th. MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is something to be added to the plan to preliminary approval. MR. GANNETT-Stated yes. No problem. MR. SHULTZ-Stated we do plan to on using a 1200 gallon septic tank on both dwellings. We have three bedrooms. We do plan on using a fill system anyway on both. MR. ROBERTS-Stated (referring to Mr. Gannett) that would address most of your concerns. MR. GANNETT-Stated ok. You'll be shown the appropriate details on your preliminary plans. MR. SHULTZ-Stated alright. Another thing is, as far as the wildlife in the area, I don't think that the construction of two homes in that property is going to endanger any wildlife whatsoever. I was sitting just the other day in my kitchen eating breakfast and we had a deer right in the green portion of our backyard also enjoying some bushes and breakfast and we've been very compatible with them. We have them going allover the place. We don't cause them any problems and they don't cause us any problems. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the obvious concern might be the driveway duct onto Ridge Road, but you've taken steps to get them as far away from Deadman's Curve as possible. I don't know what more you can do. MR. SHULTZ-Stated yes sir. The only thing on that I'd like to do is make a variation on that if I could. I would like to shoot two separate driveways straight into the building instead of having it loop through the property like it's depicted there (referring to plan). My driveway's going to be on the most western lot there. The garage is going to be as you face the house on the left hand side. I'd like to have a small entry way from Ridge Road to the front of my garage on the left hand side. MR. HAGAN-Asked, how far apart would those driveways be? MR. ROBERTS-Stated in other words, your driveway would be sort of in the middle of your lot, then. MR. SHULTZ-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that would bring it closer to this other curve, but probably no closer to that curve than the other one. MR. SHULTZ-Stated the distance between them would be depicted as on scale. The other one would probably pretty well go right into the front of that home also. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I don't really have any reason to be concerned about the change in driveway or the preliminary.... Also stated since we are talking Sketch Plan, we will see you again for preliminary and address the SEQRA at that time. MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1989, SHULTZ SUBDIVISION, ARZELIA SHULTZ, Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Apparently Items 1 and 2 of our Consulting Engineers information will be met before the next date required. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE 2 ------ --./ '" ~- ./ , -- ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Jablonski OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 49-89 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA ANTHONY RUSSO OTTAVIO ESTATE ROUTE 9, ~ MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 149. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BILLIARD PARLOR 00,000 SQ. FT. ); FORMERLY A VACANT EXISTING TAVERN. (THE BUILDING BURNED IN NOVEMBER 1989.) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES SECTION 4.020-K HOWARD KRANTZ, ATTORNEY FOR MR. AND MRS. RUSSO, PRESENT; DENNIS FRANKLIN, ENGINEER FOR THE PROJEC1, PRESENT; ROGER KINGPOLD, ARCHITECT FOR PROJECT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Stated it confuses me. You say the entrance has been laid out as requested and then you say it has been moved. I'm not too sure where we stand here. MRS. YORK-Stated the entrance was originally in a different location and staff did request on a former plan that they put in a median and that there be a double-wide entrance way and that has been done. I believe what John is saying here is, that the access, as you go north, there is an incline. The topography of that location would cause anyone coming in here, from the northern entrance, it would be much shorter and steeper than the other entrance way, and that might be a concern that the Board wants to address. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. KRANTZ-Stated I would like to have Mr. Franklin, the Engineer, address the entranceway. I know that was an item that was raised. Then we can discuss some of the engineering points raised by the engineer for the Town of Queensbury. MR. FRANKLIN-Stated as far as we know we maintain the same pitch of the driveway that was there originally. We don't have a problem with that. Going to Number 1 of Rist-Frost's letter, we don't have a problem with that. I don't know where the 5 minute percolation came from. We had 6 minutes and 20 seconds and 7 minutes and 45 seconds, however, taking items 2 and 3 together, we realize we've got to go down deeper. Our test pit only went to 14 feet in first design and it's ... feet now. We've got to go in deeper. We have no problem with that at all. MR. ROBERTS-Stated unless you run into bedrock or ground water. MR. FRANKLIN-Stated except that we've been down further in the basement and we don't feel we have a problem with that. (TAPE TURNED) Number 5 is slightly overdesigned in your favor and we didn't have to consider recharge anyway because of the site. We're doing it because we feel it's necessary to prevent runoff over that steep bank and the power line. Number 6, Mr. Krantz, I think you want to address that. MR. KRANTZ-Stated yes. The item by the engineer, and if I could just back up for a moment and indicate what I, you just got these engineering, technical comments tonight and so did we. It's really difficult for Mr. Franklin to address technical items like this and I'm not chastising the Board at all, but just to explain. If we had had it at least a few days in advance, we could have addressed them a little more intelligently than we can here in our feet tonight. MR. ROBERTS-Stated we understand that and it's probably easier for you to understand yourself now that site plan reviews are very seldom a one stop deal because of this type of thing. MR. KRANTZ-Stated this isn't our first stop. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's true. MR. KRANTZ-We've been here many times. We thought we were heading into the final stretch, but I'd like to jump to Number 6. We are aware of the grading beyond the northern property line. We have been in discussion with Mrs. Film, she is the property owner to the north. The only thing to the north of that property 3 -- --../ "'-- ,;/ ~J is two double-faced billboards that's there. There are some topographical constraints to that property where it might be he could build a building on there. It goes out maybe 70 or 80 feet and then drops off. So we have been in discussion with Mrs. Film and I with her attorney, Mr. Insley in Maryland and I sent to him a proposed agreement which would allow us in effect to route the natural drainage through her property. It would enhance, frankly, not only this property, but Mrs. Film's as well. It has not been finalized to the point where I can stand here and say we have an agreement, but we are in the process of negotiating that with her and as I understand the technical aspects of many of these engineering comments, whether or not we can work out something with Mrs. Film to the north will change the whole complexion of these comments. If we can use the property to the north, we can address these in an entirely different light than if we don't and we have to deal with this right on site. So, with that in mind, maybe it would be best for all concerned if we got back to you at the next meeting with what progress, if any, we're making with his... MR. ROBERTS-Stated it would sound like we are talking about a tabling here for more information. MR. KRANTZ-Stated if we can't work out something with Mrs. Film, Mr. Franklin can be in touch with the Town's engineer's and see if something satisfactory can be worked out. MR. CARTIER-Stated you say through her property. Do you mean to her property or through her property because when I hear that term I mean that going through her property to some other property. Do I assume you're saying that's going on to her property, but not off her property. Is that a fair statement? I want to be very clear about that. MR. FRANKLIN-Stated what we have is a property line that runs approximately east/west and we have an existing drainage ditch that runs across both property lines. The culvert is on our property. Totally. We want to fill that in. In other words, we would have to construct a wall on the property line about 12 ft. high. As opposed to using 3/100ths of an acre of that property next door and just leveling that and getting rid of the whole ditch. MR. CARTIER-Stated I think you're giving me a very complicated answer. I guess what I need to know is the water that comes from your property on to her property is not from that point going on to someone elses property. Is that correct? MR. FRANKLIN-Stated all the water will be going to an existing culvert and that's about 104 feet long. It runs from our property through the NiMo right-of-way. MR. HAGAN-Stated I have a question concerning the driveway. Your engineer says he has no problem with it, but I don't see how he's addressed it and satisfying the problem with the Town and also the County had with your driveway. MR. KRANTZ-Asked, the County? MR. HAGAN-Stated they questioned the way you had your driveway laid out as being a very dangerous entrance and exit, particularly exit. I don't know how you satisfy their qualms about that. MR. KRANTZ-Stated we've been asked to redesign the driveway and I thought we had done so. MR. HAGAN-Stated I'm not clear that you have according to the notes of staff. MR. ROBERTS-Asked your basically using the same roadcut, but you're widening that existing roadcut. Isn't that what you're doing? MR. FRANKLIN-Stated we were going to use the existing roadcut and the staff suggested that it be wider. Having to do that, we moved it slightly further north. My understanding here is they're concerned about grades. We changed the grades. This is a new issue that's never been mentioned to us before. We had never heard any negative comments from the County. We received nothing from the County. We've been to a couple of meetings. MR. HAGAN-Stated I was on that Board when we questioned it. satisfied it. I wondered how you MR. KRANTZ-Asked, are you talking about the Planning Board? 4 ------ "~ ...- _-.-I MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Stated the Warren County Planning Board my recollection is requested that the combined entrance and exit be widened. It's my understanding that we've done so and they have recommended approval of the Project, but if there's still an issue about it we'd be glad to look at it. My understanding is that we widen it, but it may be further north. Is that the issue? MRS. YORK-Stated it's my understanding at this time that I believe that the driveway, it looks to me from what I'm recollecting here from the original plans was that the driveway was moved north. That maybe for you to have the area necessary for your seepage pits. That might be why that was done. I'm not sure about it, but may be we could talk about it. MR. KRANTZ-Stated in any event we'd have to come back next month anyway. MR. GANNETT-Stated there's no sense coming back facing an issue that we all know exists before you leave here. MR. KRANTZ-Asked you'd prefer to have the entrance further south, MRS. YORK-Stated the topography is such that the entrance would certainly be less dangerous the further south it was. MR. CARTIER-Stated I don't have any concerns here. Usually we do 12 ft. by 20 ft. on handicapped. These are shown as 10 ft. wide with a 5 foot strip in between. Three handicaps would add up to 36 ft. wide total and this shows 40 this is better than our minimum. Is that a non issue. MR. KRANTZ-Stated what we thought was the most If you'll recall this is one where the intended under any of the schedules for parking and you and said this is how much we want and we went that. We think the parking issue is put to rest. thorny problem was the parking. use of this property did not fit more or less used your judgement back and designed it to satisfy I appreciate your comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KRANTZ-Stated I just want to make sure I understand that what we have received here tonight, December 26, I I d be glad to address the concerns that you have, I just want to make sure that this is what we I re dealing with and should Mr. Franklin work directly with the Town's engineer? Is that the proper procedure? MR. GANNETT-Stated I would be happy to discuss with Mr. Franklin and the concerns anything formal that happens to the plans as a result of that needs to be resubmitted to the Planning Department. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-89 ANTHONY ROSSO, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Roberts: So that they can address the concerns by the staff as listed on the notes. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Jablonski HEW BUSINESS PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE: Pll-89 ETHEL M. BALCOM TRUST AGENT: HOWARD I. KRANTZ ROBERT C. MORRIS, TRUSTEE FOR ETHEL M. BALCOM TROST AVIATION ROAD TAX MAP NO. 73-1-16 CURRENT ZONING: RR-3A PROPOSED ZONING: HC-IA 3.42 ACRES OF VACANT LAND HOWARD KRANTZ, AGENT, PRESENT 5 '- - -'-'-- ./ ---- -../ STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MRS. YORK-Stated I believe there were some omissions to my notes. Basically, I went on to discuss the topography on this particular lot and it's rapid slope toward the Northway and also the fact that the applicant would not have enough frontage on a public roadway to be utilized in the manner that they want to utilize it. It doesn't have double the lot width on an arterial road. Neither does it have 40 feet which is required on any road for construction in Queensbury. Looking at this application, since we didn't have any documentation really submitted with it, it's very difficult to scale out and address what may be major concerns in putting a commercial use on this particular lot. Also, I think I did mention that there may have been, it would appear from the tax map that this was part of a taking when the Northway went through and perhaps in the past, the owner was compensated for this taking and for the lack of use of this property. I'm not sure about that, but that may have been the case. I believe those were the remainder of my notes that were left off. Warren County did approve this Zoning change. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, we didn't have any engineering comments? MRS. YORK-No. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I was rather disappointed that there was no map with this application. I think several times with rezonings. Show us a map. Show us what you're talking about. All seven of us need to go to the zoning map and so forth and be able to be pointed in the right direction, know what parcels are contiguous. I think this is an inadequate submission. Lee is taking steps now to make some application forms to correct this in the future. I would like to see this tabled for more information, but maybe there's some other discuss we could make in the mean time. MR. CARTIER-Asked Lee, do you recall what this was zoned prior to the October change? It was not RR-3. It was some other zone. MRS. YORK-Stated it was some other zone. MR. KRANTZ-Stated I think it was Urban Residential. MR. CARTIER-Asked UR-? MR. KRANTZ-Stated I think it was UR-5. MRS. YORK-Asked, Mr. Krantz, could you use the microphone and identify yourself. MR. KRANTZ-Stated I'm Howard Krantz. Indirectly, I represent the owner, very indirectly. I represent Contract ND whose under contract to buy the property contingent upon the zoning change occurring. I agree with Mrs. York. We completed the application you have as best we can. I understand there's a lot more information you want, but perhaps another revision of the application form would be in order. MR. ROBERTS-Stated they're working on that. MR. KRANTZ-Stated before I leave this evening I'd like to have a copy of those comments. MRS. YORK-Stated very certainly. MR. CARTIER-Stated the reason I raise the question is, in referring to your original petition to the Town Board, Item 5. Do you know what I'm referring to? Did you fill this out or did someone else? MR. KRANTZ-Stated Robert Morris filled it out. MR. CARTIER-Stated my comment refers to Item classification, RR3A, is totally inappropriate. for over 20 years and particularly marketed for that is that the property was not sold because now we are looking at, over the last 20 years, and it has not sold 5. It says the present Zoning The property has been for sale over 3. What I'm implying from of the zoning that's on it, but 2 or 3 different zoning changes 6 ~ ~-- "" .-- ~-.-/~ in any of those. I'm not sure the zoning is the problem. I'm giving you my personal impression of this. I'm not convinced that the zoning, whatever it is, is the problem. I think the problem is the piece of property itself. Secondly, changing that to highway commercial as has pointed out, in my view, spot zoning and we've been very reluctant to spot zone. We've worked very diligently at getting away from spot zoning in this Town. My personal preference as to this piece of property is that this is a very difficult piece of property to develop. I know, I was one of the people who served on the Landuse Advisory Committee, we wrestled with that down there and if I recall our impression was that someday the State is going to come along and take that property or something is going to have to be done at that intersection and I think that's one of the reasons we included it to be contiguous with the remaining RR3 zoning. That's really the only point I'm trying to make. The zoning is not the issue. I think it's the location of the property. MR. ROBERTS-Stated perhaps it's highest and best use is going to be highway improvement at some point in the future. MR. CARTIER-Stated I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be and I don't want to be, but it seems to me in this case this is a case where, in reference to the taking, we may have the defacto taking by the State and maybe the client, the owner, needs to be compensated by the if they have not already been compensated. MR. KRANTZ-Stated I don't represent the owner. Mr. Morris does. I'd like to correct any misunderstanding. I prepared the application. Mr. Morris signed it. I submitted it to him for his signature as trustee for the Trust. We will get back to you with the additional information required and I appreciate your comments about the lay of the land if I could call it that. We do believe that zoning is very much definitely a part of the problem. There is a buyer ready, willing and able to buy that piece if it's zoned for commercial use. Mr. Santisara's here from Morton Real Estate. He's had it for the last 2 or 3 years. The only increase they have had has been for a commercial use as opposed to the residential use for which it's zoned. To the west is the Queensbury School. They're not interested in the property. I served on the Board of Education when this came up for discussion. I think Nick was on the Board too at the same time. You've got the Northway on the other side and you've got Aviation Road and Elaina's Boutique. No one is going to build residential housing, but there is someone who is willing to make a commercial use of that property. As far as the constraints of the property are concerned, should the Town Board rezone it or should it or should a variance be granted. Either way, whoever is the owner of that property has to come here and get your consent for whatever is proposed at which point all the issues of the shape, the topography, and so on, are perfectly legitimate. The central issue that we say is no way is someone going to live in any kind of a residence at that property location. If we get over that hurdle, that's the Town Boards final decision, then all the other issues that you are raising, perfectly legitimate, have to be met also. MR. CARTIER-Stated I'm speaking for myself personally. I would have a lot of trouble approving a site plan for a motel at that location right now. I don't want to lead your client astray by thinking, ok he gets the rezoning and all of a sudden have him hit a stone wall in the site plan. MR. HAGAN-Stated I would agree one hundred percent with Peter. MR. CARTIER-Stated I don't want your client to get the impression that if he gets the rezoning that your leading him down the path of approval for a motel. MR. KRANTZ-Stated I don't think he is under that impression at all. I think he knows all the hurdles, as I recall, that he has to meet in order to attain what he desires. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, there's a cut out on that triangle. I assume that the Elaina's Beauty Boutique property is not a part of this, that she's not leasing from the... or anything like that. That is a separate piece of property. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MOTION TO TABLE PETITION FOR A CHARGE OF ZOHE: Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its Caimano: Pll-89 ETHEL M. BALCOM TRUST, adoption, seconded by Nicholas To provide the applicant with time to address issues raised by staff and to incorporate a more detailed map. 7 '"---,, '- '--- ./ -...-',J MR. KRANTZ-Stated we have located a full sized map. We're now contacting the surveyor to get sufficient prints of the map which we'll submit in mass with all the other information that's been requested. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Jablonski SITE PLAN NO. 83-89 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA HIGGS AND CRAYFORD, INC. 131 RIVER STREET, HUDSON FALLS ACROSS FROM WATKINS GARDEN CENTER ON RIVER STREET. FORMERLY THE SAGER SPUCK DISTRIBUTION CENTER FOR A CHANGE OF USE IN THE EXISTING BUILDING. NO SITE WORK TO BE DONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 112-1-67 LOT SIZE: .4 ACRES SECTION: 4.020-N DAVID HIGGS STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MRS. YORK-Stated what Stuart was alluding to was, in the past we have had agreements that were made between applicants and the Board as to limitation of retail sales on property and down the road we have had some problems enforcing those agreements because they were not part of the motion. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. HIGGS-Stated we're taking an existing building and using it essentially as it was being used with the exception, as Lee has pointed out, we don't have any intention of operating counter sales. It was a distribution center, but we do need office space and the warehouse space, to us, is a bonus. We would expect to improve the building to the extent of it I S appearance, but not change it in any significant way. The neighborhood that the building is in is not especially one of the more attractive neighborhood's of commercial in goods, I don't think. Other's may differ with that. I don't think that anything we do there would be a detriment and I think we can do something towards making that a little better image. Obviously, we are a construction company and we can't live in a place that doesn't represent the kind of work we do and we'd like to make some improvements in terms of siding and facade perhaps, but nothing in terms of general layout of the building or changes in the property. MR. ROBERTS-Asked this is going to headquarters for a construction company? MR. HIGGS-Yes. This is a building we would use ourselves. We're the contract Vendee on this parcel and we have as a contingency in our contract that we would be able to receive Planning Board approval to use the property. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, will you be storing any building materials? MR. HIGGS-Stated we will be storing equipment. We don't have an inventory of building materials, however, we would expect to use the warehouse space if not by ourselves than under a lease from someone else and I can I t say what might be stored there. MR. CAIMANO-Stated my concern is oil solvents, anything that might involve the neighborhood, residential area. Should a 55 gallon drum of a solvent you're using to clean machinery fall over and then we're in trouble. MR. HIGGS-Stated I would be able to abide by whatever protection is ordinarily afforded in that kind of situation. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that piece of property to the west, really you need a bigger lot. MR. HIGGS-Stated our understanding, and we have not talked to the owner to the west, we really aren't in a position to do that, we don't own that property and 8 ',,-, ',- '--- / --"-.-./ aren I t really in a position to negotiate for that. We would be interested in that. The piece of property to the west currently had a building which was partially constructed but not finished and it appears to me that what was there is being removed a little at a time. There is also perhaps an agricultural use. There's a pony kept in a stable in the back property and some gardening. It's not currently being used as a commercial piece I don't believe. We would have an interest, perhaps, in discussing that with the seller. We agreed that the parcel obviously doesn't .. .except for the fact that your zoning ordinance says that if it existed at the time the ordinance was passed then we could resume with the zone. One concern that I have is that we not blacktop any additional parking and we are calling for more parking in order to fit the ordinance that is currently provided. We would like to obtain any additional parking spaces as gravel spaces not as blacktop spaces. I think the one driveway that goes down the length of the parcel there is sufficient blacktop and I would like to do anything additional by we do by way of gravel. We do not currently have and would not anticipate, very much traffic. The staff requires about five parking spaces. It's very rare that we have more than one person calling on our organization at a time. MR. CARTIER-Asked, but you might have customers coming off the street, retail customers? MR. HIGGS-Stated no. We don't ordinarily have customers who come to us. We are called on by sales people or other contractors who are subcontracting for us and may come in for a meeting. MR. CARTIER-Asked, we could in no way construe this as a retail operation of any kind? MR. HIGGS-No. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. YORK-Asked, could I make a suggestion regarding Mr. Caimano' s concern about chemical storage on site? Most industries who do store chemicals on site or use them, are required to have a chemical data sheet inhouse and we could request that Mr. Higgs and anyone he leases any space to, forward that information to either the Planning Department or the Fire Marshall's office and he can evaluate that and if he feels there are any concerns, get back to the Board with those concerns on this particular property. MR. HIGGS-Stated yes. I'm sure there must be a procedure by which you can store hazardous materials. We'd be very happy to comply with whatever it is. MRS. YORK-Stated it would really help the Town as well as the fire companies to be aware of what chemicals were stored on site, if any, down the road. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 83-89, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is AND CRAYFORD, INC. River Street, and presently before the Planning Board an application by HIGGS for a change in use in the existing building located at 131 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 9 '---' ---'" ' "--'- /' -.J 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 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Jablonski MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 83-89 HIGGS AND CRAYFORD, INC., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following stipulations that anyone using the facility submit a chemical data sheet and that counter sales and distribution not be a part of it. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Jablonski SITE PLAN NO. 84-89 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-IA GARY AND MARY TRELLO ASSEMBLY POINT, SECOND LOT PAST KNOX ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 20 FT. DECK ON THE ROOF OF THE RESIDENCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX HAP NO. ]-1-22 LOT SIZE: .552 SECTION 9.010 MARK KENYON, AGENT FOR GARY AND MARY TRELLO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MRS. YORK-Stated it was approved by Warren County. Read letter received by Paul Knox, adjacent to, abutting, this property. Dear Mrs. York, I received your notice of public hearing today and I would like to respond in writing since I will not be able to attend the December 26th hearing. It is my opinion that the Trello' s should be denied a permit to build a roof deck. The Trello property is approximately 100 ft. by 200 ft. Years ago, when they bought the property, there was one cottages on the property. Over the years the Trello I s have built the following: 1. A detached garage which they later converted into a rental apartment. 2. Another garage which they later converted into a rental apartment. 3. Added on to there house to include a second kitchen and second story. 4. Expanded their dock beyond the minimum 10 foot side boundary setback requirement. In addition, I found, through a survey conducted at my expense, that they actually had built on to my property at one spot and had installed the two septic systems to the two rental houses on my property as well. We have since come to an agreement regarding these infringements. In summary, I believe the Trel1o's have been allowed to over build on their half acre lot, also, since I own the land directly behind the Trel10 house and must look over their house to see Lake George, construction of a roof deck would further impair any view of the Lake. For these reasons, I believe no further building should be allowed. Respectfully yours, Paul Knox, III MR. KENYON-Stated I have been hired to do the construction on the deck itself. MR. HAGAN-Stated I have a problem with the application. It states that the present use of property is a resident, where, in effect, according to what we're hearing, is that this has been anything but just a residence. 10 '-----' ---' ""--- - .-/ -J MR. KENYON-Stated she does have the two rental buildings in back of the main cottage. MR. ROBERTS-Stated it would appear there must be more rental units in the upstairs of that as well. MR. KENYON-Stated no. The main cottage is strictly for their own use. MR. HAGAN-Stated residence, as I understand it, is a dwelling for a family. It doesn't even say multi-residence. MR. DYBAS-Asked, when where the other buildings built, besides the main house? How many years ago? MRS. YORK-Stated it I have no indication of that. Our Zoning Administrator, at the receipt of this letter, is looking into it. MRS. DYBAS-Stated I question that usually allow the main structure of... .which is normally a garage or something like that. How you put on two more buildings on besides the main house. It kind of bewilders me where this approval came from and how it got to be there to start with. MRS. YORK-Stated as I said, Mrs. Collard is investigating this at this moment. MR. DYBAS-Stated it appears like it's not residential. To me it certainly appears like commercial, period. MR. ROBERTS-Stated, I agree. not be in favor of any kind could eliminate some of what's I think it's a gross misuse of the lot. I would of addition. I would like to find some way where there, but that's probably not possibly. MR. HAGAN-Stated I think the building inspector could be requested to inspect. MR. DYBAS-Stated certainly a wrong is not going to be made a right if it's been wrong to start with. MR. ROBERTS-Stated it IS a residential neighborhood and this is kind of commercial use ....the character of the neighborhood to some extent. MR. CARTIER-Stated in looking at the site, it seemed like the two big buildings in the back had been renovated relatively recently. They looked like fairly new buildings and I hope one of the things the Zoning Administrator looks into is the permitting process. There maybe grounds here for, as Mr. Roberts pointed out, removal of some of these units. MR. DYBAS-Stated I wonder if any permits were issued. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARDNER HARRIS, OPPOSED, PRESENT MR. HARRIS-I live on Assembly Point about six doors from the Trello's. I go along with with everything Mr. Knox says. The Trello's have been very, I don't know how to put it, but they always build and then get a permit and a variance after. The garage in back was turned into a residence. The one they are building now onto the other little rental property. They're putting a room on there now, but I was told by the Board if it was only 8 ft. by 10 ft. they could do it without a permit. They added on to the apartment on the back and my neighbor who is with me here tonight, her husband came down here two years ago to voice objection to putting on that room on the back and Mrs. Trello said I need that for my husband who has a heart attack. So they built a room on the back, upstairs, for a husband who has a heart attack. Now, they are renting that out. There's people living there year round, upstairs there. I talked to somebody named Pat, I don't know her last name. She said well if they have their own kitchen up there, they're illegal having that, but I don't know. There's two cars parked there. They have people living upstairs there. They have people living in the rear, on the left hand side. Like Mr. Knox says, they always build on, then they get a variance, build on a second...and get a variance. I and my neighbors are very much against anything more added on. They rent out more boats stock than they I re supposed to. live gone to Mr. Mike White on this and that's a different subject entirely, but they don't seem to take into consideration that this is a residential area. We are in a residential area and I hope you will take that into consideration 11 '-- ----' '~~ " - -.-/ as we do not feel that they should have anymore bUildin&s added on and also there should be some checking to see if they are violating this residential by renting out three pieces of property and they do not use that piece of property as a year round residence themselves. They're not even there during the winter. They come up once in a while. They live, I think, in Hudson Falls, and I'd like you to take that into consideration in regards to this ...tonight. Thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-Do you know if the units in back are rented year round or are they strictly seasonal rentals? MR. HARRIS-One of them is year round I know. In fact, he works over at Comstock Prison. I don't know his name. I just know he IS year round. Somebody said there was a moving van there, he might have moved out. I don't know. The apartment upstairs, pardon me, I don't know what is upstairs there, there's somebody there because there's lights there all winter long. As I say, I hope, another thing to consider please, don't let anything go by while I'm on my three months vacation. MR. KENYON-If I could make lights on all the while. keep on all the while. a comment. The upstairs is not rented out. He sees They have certain lights in the building which they MR. CARTIER-Is it capable of being rented out? there? Is it a self sufficient unit up MR. KENYON-There is a bathroom, there is a kitchen up there. It's not rented out. It's possible. MR. CARTIER-At present, but it is capable of being rented out and that is the issue here. MR. KENYON-It also is there year round and they do live there full time. MR. CARTIER-11m hearing, here's what I'm hearing. Two people, two families, whatever you want to call them, two groups living in the main house. We have four, families isn't the right word but you understand what I'm saying, we have four different rental units on that property. Three different rental units in a prime residence on a half acre on Lake George. Something has gone incredibly wrong here. MR. KENYON-That is their permanent residence. They are the only ones living in the main building. As far as the two buildings in the back, what the situation is on those I can not comment. MR. CARTIER-I would like to state in the strongest possible terms, whatever the outcome of this application for a deck, that the Zoning Administrator and whoever else is necessary in the Building Department, vigorously pursue this issue. MR. DYBAS-He says this back apartment upstairs isn I t rented. There I s lights up there every night, and there I s two cars parked in the lot in front. Now where are they living if they have two cars there? Where are those people living? MR. KENYON-One car is there's. of the back buildings. The other one is the person that I s renting one JANE SHYERS, OPPOSED, PRESENT MRS. SHYERS-My husband was here a year and a half ago when they were building this upstairs. They're lawyer represented and really made my husband feel terrible. They said it was a hardship case. Mr. Trello had to be up there. He needed this convenience because of his heart condition. They had the whole downstairs which my husband questioned, and yet they got around it, got this building, they have outside entrances to this building. They have a small deck where they have a door coming from this apartment out onto a small area and another separate entrance downstairs and there are lights there constantly and there are cars that do not belong to the Trello' s and why they would have it lighted. There I s draperies and that obviously is being used and we feel it's being rented and yet how do you prove it. It I S beginning to look like a commercial motel. If they had a deck, I'm sure they'd put a roof over it and probably make three units across the front next. I mean that's our feeling. You just have to drive down there. They have parking space right in the front. You're looking at parking space from the Lake and they have signs there about no one to be parking there but them and they used up so much space that they can't even park their car anyplace else except off the road and really it looks like a motel. 12 "'--' "'-/ --- -- MR. CARTIER-Yes. I was there. MRS. SHYER-Well then you know what it looks like. It doesn't look like anything else. It's changing the whole flavor of the ... MR. CARTIER-Major concern I have with that many residential properties is what kind of septic system is there. MRS. SHYER-One of those buildingss I understands was to be a tool shed and they got a permit for a tool shed and now its a motel room they rent to somebody and one has been lived in and I saw a moving van. They must have moved out today. MR. HAGAN-If it's being illegally useds why don't you file a complaint with the Building Department formally? MRS. SHYER-Well I thought that's what we were doing when we made an appearances when my husband made an appearances to complain. He really felt that it was going to be a rental and we really feel that's what it turned out to bes but everybody denies it. MR. CARTIER-Well we now have evidence to the contrary s that it is a rental s but again continue to pursue it by the Building Department. MR. HAGAN-It requiress I believes a formal written complaint. MRS. YORK-I have made a complaint. I believe you talked to Mrs. Collard today? MRS. SHYER-Not Is but Mr. Harris has. MR. HARRIS-I did a couple of days ago. MRS. YORK-She is pursuing this and she spoke with me today about this and wanted the Board to know that she was going to be working on this. MR. ROBERTS-I think we're getting the picture and as you've heard we're taking steps to hopefully correct the problem. MR. HAGAN-I would suggest you ask to see the occupancy permits and see how many occupancy permits they have. MRS. SHYERS-We can do that? MR. HAGAN-Yes. That's just a suggestion. MRS. YORK-I think you should pursue this with Mrs. Collard. CLOSED PUBLIC BEARING MOTION TO DENY SIm PLAN NO. 84-89 GARY AND MARY TULLOs Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoptions seconded by Nicholas Caimano: It is not in the character of the neighborhood. What it presently there be examined as to it's legality and appropriate use. MR. KENYON-Asked could I recommend that that not be made part of the motion? MR. CARTIER-Stated certainly. MR. KENYON-It wouldn't be appropriate. It's consideration. Whether it's rented or not to give an issue as regards to the application that's in front of you for a deck. Duly adopted this 26th day of Decembers 1989s by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagans Mr. Cartiers Mr. Dybass Mr. Caimanos Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulvers Mr. Jablonski 13 '-----' ',"--- --.-/ MR. ROBERTS-Stated this in effect will overturn the County's approval. We are saying a majority plus one giving us the right to override the County's approval. SITE PLAN NO. 85-89 TYPE II WR-IA ANNE PARROTT TURN ONTO BIG BAY ROAD, GO 2.2 HILES, TURN LEFT ONTO DIRT ROAD, BEAR RIGHT AT THE SECOND TORN, GO 50 FT. AND THE PROPERTY IS BLUE CAMP IN FRONT. TO REMOVE THE SEASONAL DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN BASICALLY THE SAME LOCATION. WILL NOT ENCROACH ON ANY OTHER SETBACKS. WILL NOT INCREASE THE NONCONFORMITY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO. 144-1-36 & 37 LOT SIZE: .25 ACRES SECTION 9.010 APPLICANT PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. CAlMANO-Ques t ion the notes. Asked, says "all the necessary variances have to indicate that we don't have these.. going back to the first paragraph, it been received". Third paragraph seems MRS. YORK-Stated Anne has received variances for setbacks, but should her system not be adequate, should her system fail, she would need a variance because of the size of her lot because she could not put on a standard size septic system what is a required septic system. MR. CAlMANO-Thank you. MRS. YORK-Stated she would need a variance at that point also. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MISS. PARROTT-Stated I purchased the property in 1986. In 1987 I considered building a house after looking for property because the site is so pretty down there that I decided it would be much nicer to build there as opposed to buying land someplace else. I came and spoke with Mac Dean who was at that time here. He told me at that point I did not need site plan review. It was something that he could handle and it would be no problem and I submitted for a variance at that point and then withdrew it. The following year, 1988, I submitted a variance Number 1416 for a zoning and was approved for that. It ran for one year and ran out in September of this year. At which time I called Pat Collard in the beginning of September, right after Labor Day as a matter of fact, and said I need to get an extension on this because I've had trouble with contractors as far as settling on a price what he came in with for plans I couldn't afford and we'd have to go back through. I also ended up with did I need a septic variance or not depending on and it turned out I did not with the existing system as it exists now. I spoke with Pat and she said she didn't know what the procedures were for getting an extension on it. It was determined that because the Board for Zoning didn't meet before my variance ran out, I had to restart the procedure over again because of that and those change of rules in the pas t year, I also needed to come here, which I didn't know until the day after it got approved for zoning and I came back and said is there anything else I need to do and they said no you're all set. I said are you sure and it was like......they said no you need to come here. Unfortunately, I had missed closing for here by two days so it held me another month. I did have the water tested in anticipation that the zoning people might want to know, in relation to the water, was there enough water runoff. Actually, I had that done for my own use, just to be sure the water was ... .high. I have attempted, through Morse Engineering, to have this test done. We borrowed a pump from the neighbors down there. Due to the cold weather the day we did the test, the pump was frozen. The next day when we tried it again, a couple of places we had, the water underneath was frozen. The third day when we tried it, the water was so cold coming out of the Hudson, that even though it was running water it froze in the pipes, in the hose. So the attempt has been there. They did run it for half an hour so they estimated they ran 90 gallons into the system. There was no failing on that. It's just with cold weather, it's been impossible. The septic system has functioned for the few years I have owned it. There have been no problems with it at all. It is an existing system unless it fails and I don't really anticipate it. I'm going to be the only person living there. It's not going to get heavy use like with five or six people. MR. ROBERTS-Stated but you are going from seasonal usage to year round. 14 '-........- - /' '--' -- MISS PARROTT-Stated granted. I thought it would be advisable for you to know where I've been to get here. My other concern is I ended up waiting a year because of the contractor. By the time I got done a year ago, he didn't have building time left in his schedule. He now has building time and is able to start building time and is able to start building on the house in January if I can the variance here. MR. CARTIER-Stated in spite of the fact that it may sound very unsympathetic to what you have been through, and I'm not at all. I understand what you have been through here, but what we have to consider is the fact that we're looking at a septic system that's less than 200 ft. from the river which is the normal requirement. We are going from seasonal to year round use and we need to be very, very careful as to the ability of the septic system to function the way it should function because this is a very sensitive area. MISS PARROTT-Stated I understand. Asked are there any alternatives I have at this point for suggestions. I'm open to suggestions, but I don't know what is out there. MR. ROBERTS-Stated a hold tank might be an option if your system does fail. Since we're going from seasonal to year round use this doesn't automatically trigger a requirement to come up to code at the present time. MRS. YORK-Stated our septic ordinance at this time does not require a compliance with code unless the system has failed. MISS PARROTT-Stated there's a letter from Dave Hatin attached to the back of the application. MR. CARTIER-Read letter from Dave Hatin, dated November 22, 1989, to Miss Parrott. We still are not 200 feet back from the river which is what is required. Correct? MRS. YORK-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Stated in effect, we have a nonconforming system. MR. CAlMANO-Stated rather than hashing it out here, maybe we could ask Miss Parrott to table this thing and have her talk to the Planning Board and address more correctly and see if there is a way to do this. MR. CARTIER-Stated we're not saying you can't go from seasonal to year round. I think what we're saying here is that we have to know that the septic system designed is going to be able to handle what it's supposedly to handle. Granted you are going to be living there all alone perhaps, but at some point down the road ... you may have somebody that moves in there and we won't be able to do anything then. This is our only chance to do something about it. MR. ROBERTS-Stated she's asking what her options are. That's a small option. If the system fails, in order to come up with any kind of code we would have to get a holding tank. Does that make sense? MR. GANNETT-Stated I'd like to make a couple of comments if I may. Number one, have you talked with any engineers that would be willing to investigate the system to if it could be certified? MISS PARROTT-Stated that's why I say it was Morse Engineering that I hired the three days that we went through there. MR. GANNETT-Stated I had the impression that was talking about the well. MISS PARROTT-Stated no, that was in relation to the septic system and that was from Morse Engineering and they came out and tested it for three days and then unfortunately, the water just froze up. I don't know if, in the near future the temperature goes up enough so that it would not freeze. My other concern is that the frost is five feet into the ground and I don't what happens with a septic system when it's non operational and it's five feet into the ground. I don't know if it freezes. MR. GANNETT-Stated when it was seasonal, that was not an issue. MISS PARROTT-Stated right. I'm in a catch 22 as far as that's concerned. 15 '-" ~- /' --/ -./ MR. GANNETT-Stated in terms of a replacement system, there certainly could be an adequate system designed for that lot that, however, would require one or more variances from the standards. It would require a variance from the setbacks for instance, but certainly a properly engineered system could be designed for this lot. It would require some variances, but it could be located on the lot if it was not able to obtain a certification for the existing system is adequate. There are some other options besides a holding tank. MR. ROBERTS-Asked how can we move forward without the licensed engineer certification as to the adequacy of the septic system which we haven't been able to do because of the weather. MISS PARROTT-Asked is there any way, due to the weather, that it can be a proof contingent on that being done and if it isn't, then I go through the route of having the engineer modify it. I don't know, I'm asking? MR. ROBERTS-Stated I hesitate to do that MISS PARROTT-Stated I understand your concern. MR. CARTIER-Stated I don't know how much time you're going to gain out of that, maybe a month if we give you a contingent approval. MISS PARROTT-Stated I think what I'm going to gain is my contractor being able to commence building and my catching him in a building season, instead of waiting another year and coming back and seeing you again another year. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, are you going to build a cellar? MISS PARROTT-Stated a cellar, crawl space. MR. ROBERTS-Asked he's already lost this season with so much frost on the ground? MISS PARROTT-Stated he's not of that opinion. before. He said they've dug in January MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is a little different January than normal. MISS PARROTT-Stated it's a possibility that exists. he told me earlier and he still has it on his plan. ago. I don't know. That was what I talked to him three weeks MR. CARTIER-Stated I understand what you are asking, but we are very reluctant to grant this. MISS PARROTT-Stated I understand that. I would rather see that you be concerned with something from a person going to be living in that area. I would rather see you have those concerns, than not have those concerns for the Town. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Stated we are in the arms of a dilemma. MR. DYBAS-Stated 1'm speaking for myself. I'm opposed to granting anything, to be honest with you. I think that it's an issue that's very wavy. If we do that we're going to break the precedent we've established in the past. Here we go again. We've set precedents time and time and time again and I would hate to do it because now we open up a new Pandora's Box for somebody else coming in and saying you've done it for ten years and all of a sudden you broke the precedent, why can't you do it for me. It just doesn't really work. MR. HAGAN-Stated if it was a minor problem, I wouldn I t hesitate, but it's not a minor problem. That was my issue. I'd like to ask the applicant if we could table this based on her receiving certification from a licensed engineer on that present system. Would you be willing? 16 '--' -' /' '--' - - -.-/ MISS PARROTT-Stated the question I have is the licensed engineer is telling me what his intent to do is to run 300 gallons of water into that septic system and write you a letter that says that. My question to you is is that what you consider what you're just asking? MR. GANNETT-Stated your engineer would be required to certify not that it takes so many gallons of water, but that the system is suitable for year round use for septic purposes and he may, in fact, have to dig up some of the trenches in the lines to satisfy himself as to the condition and the lengths of lines in the leachfield and some of the other things that effect the system. Whatever he needs to do to satisfy himself that the system is adequate for year round use. MISS PARROTT-Asked have you received letters from engineers that are certified because when I've been talking with this engineer and others, it's like this is the impression I have of what they do, but they don't actually send you a letter that says, hello, I certify that this will function for year round use because they can't. From what I understand, they can't say what's going to happen. MR. GANNETT-Stated it's one thing to say you can run so many gallons of water through a system. It I S another thing to say, based on investigations and taking a look at the system which may involve digging up the lines to say that it is suitable for year round use for a septic system. Those are two very different things. MISS PARROTT-Stated I had the impression from the engineer that no matter what they do, what they're going to say is, we put 300 gallons. They can say what the system exists as it exists today. They can I t say it's going to be good for year round use because how can they guarantee something that's in the future and they don't know. MR. CARTIER-Stated I understand what you are saying, but what this Board needs to hear is, from whoever is going to say it, that that system, as presently constructed, it suitable for year round use. They have to commit themselves. How they test that is up to them. MISS PARROTT-Asked have you received, in other situations, have you received letters? MR. CARTIER-Stated sure. We've required this before. MISS PARROTT-Stated I understand, but what I'm being told back from the engineering firms is that normally this is what they do is run 300 gallons through and if it works then they write a letter that says ...and attached functions. MR. CARTIER-Stated what we're telling you is we need something from a certified engineer saying that that system will function. You may have to get engineer. MISS PARROTT-Stated I have no problem doing that. MR. HAGAN-Stated if you would agree to that, if you would allow us to table this, it would be my opinion that she'd be in a better position to come back, but if she doesn't agree to this, we would have to deny her. MISS PARROTT-Stated here's my question to you, and I understand what you're saying. If I have an engineer certify it, does that mean that this plan is then going to be approved? At this point, I have quite a bit of money into this and 1'm beginning to wonder if I'm barking up a tree that I'm never going to see a house on. MR. HAGAN-Asked, do you see a problem counselor? MR. DUSEK-Stated I think the question is really directed to the Board as far as whether you have any other objections to the site other than the .... MR. CARTIER-Stated the only issue we have before us is from staff MR. HAGAN-Stated I see that's our only problem. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the only problem is the frost. MISS PARROTT-Stated yes. It may be a matter of it has to wait for Spring to be able to do the test properly. 17 """"------ ./ MR. CARTIER-Stated speaking for me personally, I don't have any problems with this at all. -- once this certification is there, MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess we'll have to get you to agree with us to table this. MISS PARROTT-I agree. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 85-89 ARNE PARROTT, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Tabled until she can satisfy the staff's questions regarding year round septic. The applicant obtain a certification from a licensed engineer. MISS PARROTT-Asked, what happens if the licensed engineer, if I can't get a certification? Then does that mean that I go through asking for? MR. CARTIER-Stated then you're going to go to Plan B which is a new system. What kind of system can be designed and support year round use of that. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Jablonski SITE PLAN NO. 86-89 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A THOMAS D'ANGELO; DAVE KIPP CORNER OF NY US ROUTE 9 AND MONTRAY ROAD, ACROSS FROM AMES DEPT. STORE CHANGING USE OF OCCUPANCY FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING AREA FOR 8 CARS IN THE REAR. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 71-2-10 LOT SIZE: 3,200 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 K NICK SCARTELLI, MORSE ENGINEERING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) Warren County approved ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer, (attached) MR. SCARTELLI-Stated regarding the percolation test, I don't know where it says it in the report that it's 1 inch per 2 square feet because the percolation tests on .....data sheet shows that it's 1 inch per 1 minute and 20 seconds and that's 1 inch per square foot for 1.23 minutes. MR. GANNETT-Stated the reason is, Nick, on the perc test, it's done in a hole that's 1 foot square and water's filled up 6 inches deep. So, there's a total of 3 sq. ft. that that percolation is happening over. So that one 1 minute and 20 seconds it's dropping 1 inch but it's being absorbed by a 3 sq. ft. area. It's a relatively minor difference in terms of the length of the trench. It's not going to effect the length of the trench all that much. MR. SCARTELLI-Stated you're only talking about possibly putting probably around 2 or 3 feet through the perforated pipe system. MR. GANNETT-Stated exactly. trench. It's not a major difference in the length of the MR. SCARTELLI-Stated the comparison between the peak values for undeveloped and developed, what I did there was I calculated a 10 year undeveloped and a 10 year developed and also a 50 year developed because the 50 year undeveloped doesn't mean anything as far as your computations are concerned because I have to take the differential between a 50 year developed condition and a 10 year undeveloped condition to make sure that that percolates into the soil. So the only thing I left off was a Q 50 undeveloped which doesn't really enter into the problem. MR. GANNETT-Stated so what you're saying is you're comparing the 10 year. 18 -- '-../ "'-- / -.....-.'---"," MR. SCARTELLI-Stated no, I'm taking care of, as far as storage is concerned, the percolation of the soil. The difference between a 10 year undeveloped condition and a 50 year developed condition. MR. GANNETT-Stated I see what you're doing. I think the intent of the ordinance requires. It's just more conservative than MR. SCARTELLI-Stated no, the ordinance says that you have to take care of the differential between a 50 year developed condition and a 10 year undeveloped condition. MR. GANNETT-Stated I don't believe that says that in the ordinance. MR. SCARTELLI-Stated they do that in storage, you know, on retention... MR. GANNETT-Stated what you normally do is you compare the increase in runoff at the same occurrence interval. MR. SCARTELLI-Stated yes, but what I'm doing is I've bypassed that one step and I'm actually taking care of a larger percentage of water by doing it the way I've done it. MR. GANNETT-Stated I agree, you've made it more conservative. It's not something that's required by the ordinance. MR. SCARTELLI-Stated the system should work better by taking into consideration a larger quantity of water since the whole site is not being developed, it's only a very small portion. MR. GANNETT-Stated right. I agree. MR. ROBERTS-Stated what about the concerns of the highway superintendent? Is this something you addressed as well, Wayne? MR. GANNETT-Asked what question was that? MRS. YORK-Stated the drainage onto Montray Road in the back and then to the runoff from the parking lot. MR. GANNETT-Stated so far as the drainage on Montray Road, I think that the drainage plan as proposed with the drywe1l, there may be some minor modifications, but that will take care of the increase in developed area for the site. MR. SCARTELLI-Stated the existing pipe on the Montray Roadway down on the curve is only a 15 inch pipe. That size I think is inadequate for the amount of runoff that comes off the adjacent sites, but as far as our system is concerned, I thought that I took everything in consideration. In fact, it should be a little bit more conservative and take more runoff than is generally anticipated. MR. ROBERTS-Stated if it doesn't satisfy the highway superintendent, little uncomfortable going ahead with this with him being comfortable Asked, you haven't actually talked to him specifically about this? I feel a with this. MR. GANNETT-Stated no, I haven't talked with the highway superintendent. It appears as though his comment is about the catch basin which would the be the catch basin on site next to the retaining wall and all I can say is, based on a review of the engineering calculations, with a few minor differences which can be easily resolved, it appears as though that will adequately address the on site contribution. It may be that the highway superintendent has some other concerns about other portions draining into that culvert down at the bottom of Montray Road which could very well be an undersized culvert there. MR. ROBERTS-Stated he's just saying that it can handle run off from the parking lot. That sounds like it's just the on site concern. MR. GANNETT-Stated according to the calculations, that should not be a concern. The increase should be adequately dealt with with that catch basin and perforated pipe. MR. HAGAN-Asked, from a practical point of view, presently, ignoring the proposed changes to the property, what is the situation for the drainage now? MR. SCARTELLI-Stated it runs over land in sheet flow for the most part on into the culvert that goes under Montray Road and then it goes into, more like a swale, that follows along behind the shopping center into the graveyard. 19 "---" -../ /' ~- -..../ ---' MR. HAGAN-Stated what I'm getting at, is that currently satisfying the highway department because you're only making a change here of, roughly, 6 percent less natural drainage with your proposed changes and I'm wondering what changes you've made to take care of this minor addition in run off? MR. SCARTELLI-Asked what changes were? MR. HAGAN-Stated yes, I'm ignoring the engineers arguments. this out on a practical level so we can all understand it. I'm trying to put MR. SCARTELLI-Stated the thing that we're installing is a drywall which is 4 feet in diameter and it has 2 feet of crushed stone around the perimeter of the drywall and, of course, on to that we put about 11 feet perforated pipe in a crushed stone trench in order to dissipate the storm water into the soil. MR. HAGAN-Stated again, my question was, currently, does the drainage situation satisfy the highway department, right now? MR. SCARTELLI-Asked on the existing provision? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I don't think so. MR. SCARTELLI-No. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I know we had particular problems up around the curb on the other side of the road that washes out with every major storm. MR. HAGAN-St~ted I'm trying to give you an opportunity to prove that you're making a decided improvement to the place. MR. SCARTELLI-Stated we're taking care of all of the water that's coming off the proposed changes that are going to occur on the site. The existing run off beyond the perimeter of the improvements will still take place as per say it presently discharges. In other words, we're not changing the back half at all as far as improvements, it's only directly behind the building. We've made some changes in change of the character of the front of the building where the handicapped parking was in the front, that of course has been eliminated. MR. CARTIER-Stated I want to complicate the issue here. I have a very major concern too with the parking up on the front of the site. MR. SCARTELLI-Stated there's no parking on the front of the site. MR. CARTIER-Asked there's no parking in the front of the site? MR. ROBERTS-Asked, this map is not up to date then? MRS. YORK-Stated it still shows handicapped in the front. MR. CARTIER-Stated two handicapped parking sites. DAVID KIPP, PRESENT MR. KIPP-Stated those are ramps for the handicapped to get up to the building. MR. CARTIER-Stated handicapped ramps. Asked, there is no parking in the front, correct? MR. KIPP-Stated there is no parking in the front, those are ramps going up to doors, both doors in front of the building. MR. CARTIER-Asked, how does a handicapped person get to those ramps? MR. KIPP-Stated parking in the rear. Ramps on the side of the house, or will be ramps on the side of the house from the rear to the front or there are existing now two entrances to the front of the property, as far as the existing driveways, where somebody could be let off in a northerly direction and then pull right back out in a northerly direction. There wouldn't be any backing out at all and plus, on the northern side of the house, there's approximately 66 feet on the north 20 "---" ~ ~ ./ -../ -- side of the house that also has a retaining wall as far as anybody turning around as far as letting off handicapped people. The house itself is 34 feet and there's 35 feet 6 inches from the curb of the highway to the front of the house. MR. CARTIER~Stated you're making an assumption here that a handicapped person is dropped off. I'm talking about a person with handicaps who drives their own vehicle. Asked, what do they do? MR. KIPP-Stated then there's a ramp on the side of the house. MR. CARTIER-Stated they park down in back? MR. KIPP-Stated down in back. MR. CARTIER-Asked, what's the vertical lift they have to go through to get from the parking lot in the rear to the front of the building. I'm assuming the enter the front of the building? MR. KIPP-Stated they'll enter in the front of the building, yes. MR. CARTIER-Asked, how much of a vertical rise do they have to go through? MR. KIPP-Stated from the front to the back, you're probably talking a total of 4 and a half feet which will be built in 3 stages, 4 foot intervals to go up to the front of the building. So you're talking, if they had to get out of a car and they were in a wheelchair, they'd have to go 4 feet on an incline of 2 inches. MR. CARTIER-Asked, a total of 4 feet? MR. KIPP-Right. MR. CARTIER-Asked vertical height? MR. KIPP-Right. MR. CARTIER-Asked, 2 inches per foot? MR. KIPP-Stated between ramps, they're still going to be going(Mr. Cartier asked question) MR. CARTIER-Asked, are we talking tri-1eve1 ramps or something here? MR. KIPP-Stated basically yes. MR. CARTIER-Asked, up a ramp flat spot, up a ramp flat spot? MR. KIPP-Stated it won't be exactly a flat spot. That's going to also have to come up, the raise between the back and the front. The level of the parking lot to the front of the house, everything is going to be on an uphill grade. So that somebody in a wheelchair will be able to wheel their self up there if they're in a wheelchair or if they're with walkers or crutches or whatever. No problem. MR. GANNETT-Stated, according to your conunent, the grade in the parking lot is 442 near the building and at the front of the house it's 450, the existing grade, which makes an elevation difference of 8 feet. MR. KIPP-Stated when the parking lot's finished and the front has been graded, there's not going to be any 8 foot difference in height between the new elevation in the back and the existing in the front. MR. GANNETT-Stated no, I'm talking about the new elevation in the back. It's 442, the new elevation and the existing elevation at the front of the house is 450 and I aSSume you're not changing the elevation in the front of the building. MR. KIPP-Stated the elevation in the front on the south side of the building will be changed directly in front of the house. That has to come down all of at least 3 feet to be able to make a ramp so somebody that was handicapped could get up it. MR. GANNETT-Asked, have you looked to see whether you're going to be able to do that without going steeper than the 1 on 12 sloping part of the ramp? 21 -- '---" "--- / --' -../ MR. KIPP-Stated that's what we're trying to keep it as less as we can do to enable someone in a wheelchair to get up it, but then again we can't that steep anyway because you figure somebody coming out it, if they ever lost their handle bars, they're going to be rolling down that thing. MR. GANNETT-Right. Well that's why it has to be 1 on 12 or flatter. MR. KIPP-Stated when the parking lot's done and the front has been graded down, that's what we're trying to eliminate. That's why I'm saying we're only going a 2 inch interval every 4 feet. MR. CARTIER-Stated I have a real tough time with a parking lot where someone with a handicapped can come out of that and the ramp to get into the building on the front of the building. It seems to me, as far as I'm concerned, personally, you've either got to come up with handicapped parking in front and whatever difficulties that entails or an entrance at the rear of the building in association with handicapped parking in the back lot. The Independent Living Center can give you some information on how to go about arranging this and they do if, as far as I know, for nothing. MRS. YORK-Stated they actually, usually, review all the plans, but being it was the Christmas season, I don't think they got in. MR. CARTIER-Stated I'm not even talking about them reviewing. I'm saying that here's an organization that deals with this on a daily basis and they may be able to help you come up with something in relation to a much better design. MR. ROBERTS-Stated there's two different maps and the smaller one still has handicapped parking. MR. KIPP-Stated yes, I don't even know why that's in there. That's not even supposed to be in there. The map you've got in front of you, this was a revised map. What I want to do, at that 35 foot cross from the front of the building to the highway. Then I've got another 30 foot here which I believe is 60 foot and a half you're supposed to be fol' now, from the highway back. I've got 45 foot going across. This is where I want to put handicapped parking and they didn't want it the last time, but what I think they were going for is, we only had 35 feet 6 inches, but I've also got a retaining wall back here that is another 30 feet back. This is where I want to put 3 handicapped parking spaces on the side of the building of the existing building. MR. ROBERTS-Stated of what's similar to what's shown here. MR. KIPP-Stated I don't know if I showed a retaining wall back on that one, that far back. On the new map, is a retaining wall, it goes back along through the building. That would put us approximately 36 feet 2 inches or 66 feet 2 inches from the highway and 45 feet to the line and this is where I originally wanted to put 3 handicapped parking areas for people that were handicapped to park. MR. ROBERTS-Stated you probably don't need 3 handicapped parking spaces would you. Probably 2, put 2 back up in here in such a fashion that they'd be able to back out and turn around and drive out. MR. KIPP-Stated, referring to map, right here, in the middle of this drawing here, is where there's a curb. This is an entrance or exit and over here there's also the same thing that's approximately 14 feet wide. What I'd like to be able to do is have 2 or 3, whatever it is, in here. They could back out here and go out in a northerly direction in the flow of traffic. They wouldn't be going out against it. Either way, they've got 66 feet to do it in, as far as between the highway curb and the back end where the parking lot would be. MR. ROBERTS-Stated isn't that a better place for two handicapped parking spaces. MR. CARTIER-Stated as far as I'm concerned it is. As long as they don't have people backing out into Route 9. MR.'KIPP-Stated no, definitely not. MR. CARTIER-Stated in effect, what we're saying is, find a way to put two handicapped parking slots at the top of the building in such a way that anybody using those spots does not have to back out onto Route 9. 22 '--" ~ "'- "-- - -'" ---' .-.-/ MR. ROBERTS-Stated use the existing road cuts, the existing driveway cuts and be able to go up, the retaining wall is going to be in line with the rear easterly corner of the house so that you could have them a little more easterly than what they show here so...turn around and drive out on to Route 9 and then be basically on the level with the front stoop. MR. GANNETT-Stated that certainly would be preferable to backing out onto the highway and having a very long ramp coming up from the lower level parking lot. Another option, I don't know how feasible it is, I don't know what the extent of the renovations in the house are, but there can be small lifts put in. Keep the handicapped entrance at the lower level and have a small lift to serve the purpose of giving access to first floor of the house. MR. CARTIER-Stated that would eliminate any parking in the front. MR. GANNETT-Exactly. I don't know how feasible that is with the development plans, but it's and option for providing handicap access. MR. ROBERTS-Asked is this something we need to see a revised map on or can we move this along. Perhaps in the mean time we could work with the highway superintendent. Probably he's looking for an opportunity to try to improve the existing conditions on Montray Road which is not a bad idea and come up with some feasible way to do it. MRS. YORK-Stated I would also like to suggest that the applicant provide us with some erosion control plans and a plan showing the proposed berm in the grading and vegetative cover in that area. As you say, he might want to resubmit to the Queensbury Beautification Committee. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, did you go before the Beautification Committee? MR. KIPP-Stated yes we did. We got approved there twice. MR. ROBERTS-Asked the Board, how do you feel about this. MR. CARTIER-Stated I think we need to table this and get all this other information in here. If Queensbury Beautification has looked at this again, they ought to look at the revised..(TAPED TURNED) OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ELIZABETH SAUNDERS, PRESENT MRS. SAUNDERS-I've been talking with Tom D'Angelo and Dave Kipp for the last 3 months about renting half of the upstairs of the building. I want to open up a State Farm Insurance agency and the Company needed a deadline. So a month ago, when I talked to Pat Collard, she assured me that all the paperwork had been in and from what she could see everything had been completed and the only thing that needed to be done was to go in front of the Board. Tom and Dave did not get the paperwork in time for the November meeting, so we were slated for tonight. Now, I've already talked to the phone company and I've already written a contract with State Farm. I already have business cards printed up and I have a PO box with the Miller Hill address. Is there any way that the Board can assure me that, I'm supposed to open February 1st. MR. CARTIER-The Board cannot assure you of that, mame. MRS. SAUNDERS-All this has to be done and brought in front of you again which will be another month, right. Then it's another month after that before, we have up to a month, or you would approve it that night. MR. CARTIER-Well, usually, we don't postpone approvals. We usually make them the night thðt they're here. You've committed yourself to some things and you're putting the onous on the Board to bail you out of those things. MRS. SAUNDERS-No I'm not. I'm not asking you to bail me out of anything. I'm just asking if there's any way. I was not aware that these things had not been approved. So I came tonight just to see if anything was going to be approved or not. Also, to answer any questions that you may have as far as my business and the amount of parking that would be there. I would assume that I would have no more than four cars there at a time and no more than one handicapped person. I was under the impression, after talking to Pat Collard, that there would be no problem having two handicapped parking spaces in the front of the building. 23 "---, ,----' '- -" -'~~ --/ MRS. YORK-But, you see, the problem here is, if I may interject; I'm very sorry, but the plan, first of all, indicates that there are handicapped spots. Then we were told, no, there were no handicapped spots and this is a ramp and that the handicapped spots were at the back. This plan does not accurately portray what is on the site and what's anticipated and that's the concern of the Board as well as the Staff and that's where we're at. MR. ROBERTS-You raised an interesting question though. You say that you are renting the upstairs or hope to. MRS. SAUNDERS-Part of the upstairs. MR. ROBERTS-Part of the upstairs and you might need as many as one handicapped parking and four regular parking spaces and yet, how many parking spaces are there, totally, listed here. MR. KIPP-Eight. MR. ROBERTS-Doesn't sound like, if the whole building is rented, you're talking about enough parking spaces. Is the downstairs going to be rented for businesses too? MR. KIPP-No. Right now there's eight parking spaces that are proposed for the back. I had, originally, planned on four in the front, which was strictly all handicapped parking, alright. They didn't want us parking in the front. I don't know if it was misunderstood or what, but we got a 44 ft. by 66 ft. area in the front and as far as trying to build a ramp from the rear to the front, as everybody agreed, is going to be somewhat of a problem as far as people with a wheelchair, alright. So, if we can get the parking in the front for the handicapped, then there would be more than eight spaces. There's still going to be eight spaces in the back for the rear of the building and whatever the Board agrees to on the front. I did not put that on the front because of the fact that they didn't want the parking in the front the last time we were here. That's why I left that off the front, or off this revised drawing, alright. If the Board agrees to being able to park two cars in the front of the building with the amount of room we've got, then there's no problem with that. It'd be a lot easier than building a ramp or more feasible than putting an elevator in the rear. MR. ROBERTS-What are you going to use the whole building for? MR. KIPP-It's strictly professional office or insurance, that's professional. MR. ROBERTS-She's renting just part of the upstairs and needs over half of your availab Ie parking spaces, I don't think you've got enough parking spaces for the whole building. MR. HAGAN-Another words, how many tenants are you going to have in there? MR. KIPP-At the very most, if there was anything else rented, it'd be two people, two separate businesses, but that's max right there. MR. CARTIER-Does the square footage of the building, we're getting into square footage. MR. ROBERTS-May be you've been through this, Lee. MR. KIPP-The parking in the rear, the first quarter foot takes care of the whole building, not counting any parking that would be accepted in the front. MR. ROBERTS-It's just one floor in this building. MR. KIPP-One and a half floors. Upstairs was always used for storage. MR. CARTIER-Another words, based on the square footage of the building we're talking about, you need eight parking spaces? MR. KIPP-Eight parking spaces. MR. ROBERTS-This is a reasonable recycling of an existing building and I think it's all going to be an improvement. We're talking about some details here, but I guess there's still no way we can, are willing to go forward with this without more mapping? 24 "---" " ---- - ./ - ---' MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think we're looking at a.....I department....redesign this handicapped up on top and so on. think the highway MR. KIPP-A1right, as far as, up on top, the handicapped ones on top, with 45 by 65 foot, that's feasible as far as the Board is concerned? MR. CARTIER-The engineer is really going to tell us that, not us. Our engineer's going to say, yes, it'll work from the traffic perspective or yes it will or no it won't work. MR. ROBERTS-You've got two entrances, two road cuts. MR. KIPP-Yes sir. MR. ROBERTS-.one of those might even be able to be closed. The northern one's where you'd have to drive.... and then you'd surely have to go up here and turn around, you know, eliminate the idea of backing out. If the parking spaces were over here and you come in here. I think it can be. MR. CARTIER-You know, you've got a piece of land, a chunk of space here with a lot of parking spaces in it and get people into and out of that area safely off Route 9. Off Route 9 and back out of Route 9 safely. You've got site distancing to be concerned about. You have copies of staff notes. You have copies of engineering staff. So those are the kinds of things that need to be addressed. MR. ROBERTS-With your agreement, we're going to have to have you do some more mapping, solve that parking area and satisfy the engineers to storm water drainage and the highway superintendent, I think, as well. We don't normally approve things where the highway superintendent is uncomfortable. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Asked, do you agree to do that? MR. KIPP-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 86-89 THOMAS DIANGELO; DAVE KIPP, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Table to allow the applicant time to address concerns from Planning Staff in its December 26th, 1989 letter and Engineering Staff from December 15th, 1989 letter. Plus with the further stipulation that erosion control plans be submitted. Plans showing further grading and vegetative cover and that the applicant submit a revised plan to the Queensbury Committee on Beautification. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski MR. KIPP-Asked, when will be the soonest we'll be able to get this, provided we get the engineering part of it done, and get this approved. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think if you can get it back in in a weeks time, we can get you on next month's meeting, the second meeting of the month? MRS. YORK-Stated if you want to do that. It's at your discretion, certainly. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I don't think we want to hold this up. MR. KIPP-Stated I'm just concerned. The young lady's got a business going there. MR. ROBERTS-Stated we're concerned too. That's why I'm taking the next step hoping to speed it up. MRS. YORK-Asked, could you have the plans in by next Monday, revised plans in to my office? MR. KIPP-Yes ma'am. 25 '---.-' '- \... '--' -- '--' -../ SUBDIVISION NO. 23-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A LI-IA NANCY D. DINGMAN; MARIE S. MASON; BETTY S. DUELL NORTH AND SOUTH OF DIX AVENUE NORTHEAST OF QUAKER ROAD, NORTHWEST OF HIGHLAND AVENUE FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.1 LOT SIZE: 18 ACRES CHARLES NACEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. NACEY-Stated I think we're probably headed into a discussion on semantics here. I'm looking at the SEQRA information, some of which regards the earlier...of the total premises which is being retained by the applicants and not ...developed at all. I did look at these specific points, Mrs. York, that you refer to in here and apparently I guessed wrong in trying to answer them. In regard to the agricultural area, I know that you haven't walked the site, haven't driven by in years past, but at one time, whether it was this year or several years past, it might have been... In walking the site in late November, you can still see some evidence of what had been there earlier. So that's the reason a portion of it may not be currently agricultural, but at one time it was. As far as the unvegetated area, there is a large area of approximately 1.8 acres of land almost to the back side of the northerly portion of the part that's north of Dix Avenue which is in the woods. It has a lot of fractured rock. There's some exposed, what appears to be ...rock, but it's all covered with brush. It's in the woods itself. I guess that the term vegetative meant that ... .was completely devoid of all growth of any kind. Since it was in the woods, essentially was covered with brush. To clearly show it on our map, there was an area of potential tower on that side of the road. As far as the urban designation goes, since I felt that a portion of it was agricultural, that was the reason for saying that. Basically that's it. In regards to Mrs. York's comment about part B description saying that there was not going to be development and stating that there was going to be 3.42 acres developed. I did question that in the SEQRA and I put an asterick next to it on the form, noting that the 3.42 acres is already developed. I wasn't really sure I answered this and maybe you can clarify it so in the future we won,' t have a problem with it. The intent is to state that the area is already developed. There's two residences on it which are in disuse at the present time. The overall intention of this application is to be able to, for the applicants to convey all their holdings south of Dix Avenue. That's simply it because of the subdivision law, the road being the division line between the northerly and southerly property. We just felt that it was necessary, that we had to comply and all we want to do is, they want to sell south of the road. Anyone who builds, who wants to do something with it other than its current use, of course, would be back in front of this Board for site plan. MR. CARTIER-Stated I am under the impression that King's Services is purchasing this. Correct? MR. NACEY-Stated I don't know whether it's being purchased under a corporate name. It's being purchased by two individuals who are connected with King's Services. MR. CARTIER-Asked, is that King Fuels, the company that owns the remainder of the property? Are we talking about the same corporation? MR. NACEY-Stated the names of the purchasers are Edwin King and Charles Pigotis and I do not know what other corporations they may be involved with or if they are in any way connected with King Fuels. Since the intent was merely to apply to this Board for your review and approval of the subdivision per say, the dividing of this property by Dix Avenue, in effect, and conveying of that portion southerly ton another owner and retaining the portion ... We've also asked for variances from, actually, all the engineering involved because this would be certainly covered in site plan review and in greater detail. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think this is a fairly simple division of the land. There are some potential drainage problems in that area. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 26 -- '- "- ~ -" -- NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Stated we can't tell you very much right now as to what's going to happen at this stage of the game. Subdividing this parcel off from the other parcel doesn r t tell us a great deal about what the future holds. I think we do need to do the SEQRA and probably the long form Part II for subdivision given a two lot subdivision. MR. DUSEK-Stated I don't know of any requirement to use a long form. Perhaps if the Board wanted to save some time they ~ould use the short form. MRS. YORK-Stated the long form was filled out by the applicant. We just naturally attach it to all preliminary applications. So, in the case I've already reviewed it. MR. ROBERTS-Stated staff has already gone over this. MRS. YORK-Stated there's no real substantial problems and I do thank Mr. Nacey for clarifying those items that I defined. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION BO. 23-1989, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Preliminary Stage subdivision for a two lot subdivision by NANCY S. DIBGMAN; MARIE s. MASON; BETTY S. DUELL north and south of Dix Avenue northeast of Quaker Road northwest of Highland Avenue, 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 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISIOB NO. 23-1989 NANCY S. DINGMAN; MARIE S. MASOB; BETTY S. DUELL, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: 27 ----' "- ',,-"- .-/ All of the concerns that have been raised have been satisfactorily addressed. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski MR. CARTIER-Stated the Board does not take kindly to a road cut on Quaker Road at that point where that borders Quaker Road. That's something that's going to have to be looked at very carefully at site plan. That's why I was hoping someone from Human Services would be here to hear that. SITE PLAN NO. 87-89 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA WOODBURY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LTD. BAY ROAD, 100 FT. NORTH OF BAY AND GLENWooD INTERSECTION ON WESTERN SIDE FOR AN ADDITION OF 12,300 SQ. FT. TO THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING (PLUS PARKING). THIS IS PHASE II. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 61-1-37.3 LOT SIZE: 4.05 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K RICHARD JONES, RICHARD JONES ASSOCIATES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Stated, referring to Engineers notes, these have not been done? MR. GANNETT-Stated there's no indications on the plans of specific erosion control measures for the parking lot and the building. MR. JONES-Stated, in response to Rist-Frost's comments, we have shown four handicapped parking spaces on the site plan. At the present time, approximately 90% of the site is developed. The only thing that has not been developed is the parking that would be required for Phase II. We have a building permit for Phase 1. We have not started the building yet. The erosion control measures, at this point, we would not dictate to the contractor what he would be doing. He would be making recommendations to us for approval. MR. HAGAN-Asked, you said you had four handicapped spaces? MR. JONES-Stated yes, there are presently four on the site. MR. HAGAN-Asked, and it's required you have six? MR. JONES-Stated I was not aware of that. I thought we only needed four. That's why we only have four. MR. HAGAN-Asked Mr. Gannett, isn't that what you're saying? MR. GANNETT-Stated yes. The recommendations are that whole parking areas up to 200 spaces, there should be six handicapped spaces provided. I don't have the reference in front of me. MR. JONES-Asked, is that in the Zoning Ordinance or the Building? MR. GANNETT-Stated I believe that's in the State Building Codes recommendations. I don't believe that's a part of the Town Zoning Ordinance. MR. JONES-Stated they've adopted it, but I'm not certain...I know that they were there. I thought that there was four, but we could easily add to additional spaces. At this point, we have not developed the parking that sits on the south side of the building. It sits adjacent to Phase II that has not been developed. We could easily put two additional handicapped spaces in that area. We presently have two at the front and I believe there's two at the rear of the building. This is the parking that we're doing as part of the second phase (referred to map). 28 ~ '- "-- - ...,/ - ---' We're also doing this and this part up here which will allow to ... The handicapped parking spaces presently occur here at the front and at the back. This section has not been developed at this time. This section of curbing has not been installed yet to provide access into this area. We could easily develop two handicapped spaces in that general location. MR. ROBERTS-Stated initially for Phase I, we said we didn't really want to pave over any more than necessary. We could have some parking areas unpaved in obeyance the parking would be there in case it was needed. It would appear to me that now we're using up all of those spaces and there's nothing left to fall back on. Lee, is staff comfortable that we show adequate. I guess we are because Pat Collard, after a false start, decided we do, in fact, have adequate parking spaces for this entire building. MRS. YORK-Stated it is my understanding that in former discussions of the Board in reviewing this particular site, they were very concerned about the size of the building and the impact it would have in that vicinity. MR. ROBERTS-Asked hasn't the zoning changed in the interim, allowing this to happen, to go to this density? MRS. YORK-Stated yes. MR. ROBERTS-Stated so protection for buffer the west? it I S an allowable density. How do we stand as far as zones protecting residential usage both to the south and MR. JONES-Stated the only area that needs the buffer is to the west side. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that may be your opinion. the present existing residential use to the zone. I think we need the buffer too from south as well. It's all the same MR. JONES-Stated the Zoning Ordinance does indicate that a buffer is required between different zones, but not different uses in the same zone. I think that's a change that's been made in the zoning from the first go around. MRS. YORK-Stated the Board can modify that to the extent they choose. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, as a practical matter, what protection are we giving the residential zone to the west? Fifty feet, I see here, to the nearest parking lot and that's going to keep all the vegetation that's there. MR. JONES-Stated yes, that's correct. MR. ROBERTS-Stated you need at least m~n~mum relief and in most cases here, it's going to be more like 70 feet before you get to any blacktop and then another couple of...feet before it actually hits the building. MR. JONES-Stated yes, that's correct. MR. ROBERTS-Stated on the south side, it's mandatory that we are providing a fair amount of ...as well. We have almost 50 feet before we get to the proposed parking area and leaving the existing vegetation that's there. MR. JONES-Stated yes, leaving everything on the south side. MR. ROBERTS-Stated with the understanding that nothing can be done in the buffer areas, including parking cars. That needs to be kept green and we'd like to think that trees, maybe even additional trees. MR. JONES-Stated yes, we are adding additional trees on the south side. MR. CARTIER-Asked this is not significantly different looked at, is it? When we first looked at this thing. in two phases. We looked at both phases. from what we originally I know we looked at it MR. JONES-Stated we originally had come in with a concept which had a cluster of small buildings. With the Zoning Ordinance at that point, you did require the 50 foot buffer and we pulled it off of the property, condensed it into one building, which could be built in two phases. Basically Phase I is the same. Phase II is what we were talking about at that point. 29 --- --,' -" "- "--- - MR. CARTIER-Asked these are two story? - -.-/ MR. JONES-Stated yes, they are two story. They have step shed roofs on the front side to give it a look of a story and a half. We have roofs on the ends. We tried to the bring the scale of the building down to meet the scale of what is in the general area. I don't have any elevations of the area. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ROBERTS-It would appear to me that the Woodbury's have done their homework in order to maximize the use of the property, but I'm not sure that they haven't complied with what they have complied with all of our rules and regulations and the aesthetics of trying to protect the neighbors. JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT MR. MATTHEWS-My only concern was the 50 foot buffer to the adjacent residences. I know that is something that I've been up against in the past. Now, evidently, there's a change and I'm just, could that be clarified for my benefit? MRS. YORK-The former ordinance said that there would be a 50 foot buffer zone maintained between uses. For example, if there was a residential use next to a couunercial use, there would have to be a 50 foot buffer. The change has been that the buffer is required between zones, not uses because if you zone something, for example, couunercia1 or industrial, you don't want to encourage a residential use in there. You don't want to encourage someone buying a lot and putting in a residence and then a couunercial use coming in beside them and having to maintain a buffer zone. That isn't fair to the couunercial uses either or the industrial. So that was the reasoning behind the change in the ordinance. The Board, at its discretion, can require a buffer zone, at it's discretion can require that an applicant maintain a larger buffer zone if there are existing uses in an area and that's at their discretion. MR. CARTIER-It seems to me, I recall a discussion when this first came before the Board that that's what we did along that southern property. MR. JONES-At that point, there was a requirement for the buffer for the different uses within that zone. MR. ROBERTS-And that did cause the applicant some problems when we threw that 50 feet at him. MR. JONES-Yes it did. He had to consolidate it into one building. MR. ROBERTS-And now they're, partially, using up some of that. I guess we're still going to have 30-40 feet before the nearest paving and in some areas it will be much more than that. As you can see, we aren't providing as strict as we could all the way across. The properties to the south are now zoned couunercial too, but it's all in the same zone? MR. JONES-Yes. They have been for quite some time. It's just that 50 foot buffer was strictly enforced between residence, existing residence. MR. HAGAN-Are you voicing an objection to this particular? MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. CARTIER-Some of those properties along there are in fact, even though they're houses, they're being used by businesses, as a real estate office. MR. ROBERTS-It seems to be the trend. MR. JONES-I believe there are only two residences that are actually residential uses. MR. ROBERTS-Of course, there is a change in zone to the west and we are honoring 50 feet in that area. DOUGLAS WRIGLEY, PRESENT MR. WRIGLEY-Mr. Chairman, my name is Douglas Wrigley. My wife and I live at 29 Marcy Lane which is adjacent to this property. 30 --- '-" ',--, -- ./ -.--./ MR. CARTIER-Is that in the townhouse area? MR. WRIGLEY-Yes. We have two concerns. First is the screening. I don't know how specific the Board gets on the screening conditions, but we are concerned about screening. We are aware of the trees and so forth that were there at the time.. .especially in the southwest corner of the property which is the property adjoining the townhouses. We would deem that considerable additional screening should be placed in that corner as well as along the westerly side of this property in addition to the trees that do exist. Secondly, our concern would be the trash and the garbage containers and so forth. I see here, this is the first time I've seen a detailed plan of this, that there is, what appears to be a dumpster area here on the west side of the property, proposed six foot high wood, screen fence. MR. ROBERTS-Normally the dumpsters are required now by the Town to be screened in. MR. WRIGLEY-We would prefer that that location be changed to either the southerly side, which appears to be the only available space, without making any recommendation which I don't think I could make having just seen this thing. We would prefer that that not be on the westerly side which is immediately adjoining and abutting the Townhouses that that be relocated because there is going to be traffic in and out of there and these things, although they are fenced, never are properly, or adequately, or continuously maintained and kept up. So, that would be a definite downgrading, if you would. MR. ROBERTS-I'm too sure where else that could go. farther away from the dense residential section? Are there any other places MR. JONES-We could look at moving it to the south side. it to somewhere along that south side in the area parking. We could look at relocating where we're adding the new MR. CARTIER-To the right of lot 26? MR. JONES-Something in that generally area. I don I t know if we want to get it too forward of the building so that it's actually visible from the street even though there's a fence enclosure. I I d like to keep a happy medium there if we could. Somewhere between the back side of the property. Somewhere that would be accessible for people bringing trash and debris out of the back of the building. MR. WRIGLEY-The home that is immediately to the west of this would look right out on the dumpster. That is not our home. MR. ROBERTS-Unless it's pretty well screened. As you say, I think we might recommend or require here some pretty substantial plantations there. MR. CARTIER-It seems we've dealt with all this. I'm getting a sense of dejavu here on this thing because I thought we had talked about screening when we first looked at this thing. MR. JONES-We have located the dumpster in the existing tree line that's there. MR. CARTIER-Ok, but I thought we had talked about adding more screens. MR. ROBERTS-This isn't really very dense. MR. WRIGLEY-No it isn't and some of those trees have been removed in the course of construction. They have access to the site where we are from this property so that some of those trees have been damaged. MR. CARTIER-Did this thing ever go to the Queensbury Beautification Committee. MR. WRIGLEY-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Not a permanent access. MR. WRIGLEY-No. MR. ROBERTS-No because that would never be able to go through. MR. WRIGLEY-That's my next point. Alright, why don't I just raised that. There is no permanent access from this property, it is our understanding from the Woodbury's but I wanted to clear this up with the Board, to the townhouse property which is Marcy Lane. 31 -- "--, ','"-- ...- '--' .-../ MR. ROBERTS-That's always been the plan that there would be no connection here and certainly we should stipulate that. MR. CARTIER-There was, however, now that I recall, some concern about leaving a temporary path for emergency vehicles because the other end is blocked, there's no way for emergency vehicles. I don't think we I re talking about a paved road or anything like that, but, in a sense, a hole in the screening that you could drive fire trucks through. MR. JONES-Where the waterline is shown coming down through is the drive between those buildings and it was our intent to keep slot in that area. There is a white, board, fence across the property which will ultimately become a Homeowners Association property. MR. ROBERTS-We thought, from a safety standpoint, to get through there in case your single entrance G1enwood Avenue, that it might be worthwhile even or something of that nature. you I d have an emergency way was blocked off over here on if you had a breakaway fence MR. JONES-A fire truck could go through that fence very easily and the hydrant is at the end of the fence next to the property. MR. ROBERTS-That may not be such a bad idea to still keep one hole in the screening there for that purpose. MR. CARTIER-Are you talking about ATV's getting through there, riding around or people walking through there or what precisely is your concern? MR. WRIGLEY-That it not a roadway and there is a fence there now. MR. JONES-I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that the contractor who was doing work on the townhouses also did the site work for Woodbury's and he was driving equipment through from the north side of this townhouse in this general area. MR. ROBERTS-I guess the question is, whether we want an emergency opening in the screening there for emergency vehicles or if emergency vehicles could get this far and run hoses and so forth over here and tie in the hydrants. MR. CARTIER-I seem to remember some having to leave an area through that trucks could drive through because this is a two-way deal here. He may want to get emergency access into this. He also may want to get emergency access into the townhouse area. MR. JONES-Since these are going to be, ostensibly are going to be, professional offices, it's my understanding, then, with 174 parking places I understand, there's going to be a lot of traffic in there. Screening, especially from the standpoint of lights, it's going to be professional so there's going to be late night traffic there. MR. CARTIER-And it's somewhat of a noise buffer too. MR. JONES-And the noise. Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Other than, perhaps, that one emergency spot, I think we would like to demand substantial plantation in there and not just call it a buffer zone. MR. WRIGLEY-The trees do end about at the present roadway. that run north and south. That is the trees MR. ROBERTS-Which way, going north or going south? MR. WRIGLEY-They end about at Marcy Lane and then the southwest corner where there's no plants. as going up past the second building. from there to the southern corner, So it's that entire area as well MR. ROBERTS-I don't think it's unreasonable that you'd like to see some rather substantial trees planted in that area and Lee made the counnent too, I think she wanted to see some street trees as their called, substantial, a minimum of, what's a street tree, a minimum of three inch diameter or something? Something of substance. 32 -' -- '- " '~-- MR. YORK-Six inch diameter. MR. JONES-The trees on Bay Road entrance have already been planted at this time. We could add additional trees in this general area, but the only landscaping that was being changed from the original was along the south side of the property. We were moving some trees toward the property to facilitate parking. MR. ROBERTS-I think you were thinking the street trees, so to speak, were not quite adequate in your opinion. MRS. YORK-Yes. Some of the sizes listed here when you're talking about a two story building are certainly not going to attain the rural character of the area that people speak about so much and you may want to encourage the usage of larger trees rather than bushes. MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sure we can hide a two story building. MRS. YORK-No, I don't think you can. MR. CARTIER-Ras the Beautification Committee looked at this? MR. WRIGLEY-Yes they have. MR. CARTIER-Did they have any recommendations because I don't have a copy. Did they have any recommendations or just that was it. MR. WRIGLEY-That was it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is a site plan.. finished business tonight. 11m not sure that we have anything on our list that precludes us from moving forward. Providing erosion control measures during construction is standard operating procedure and adding two more handicapped spots, if that's the rule, I think could be done. MR. CARTIER-Asked about storm water drainage? MR. ROBERTS-Stated erosion control drainage is pretty well planned for. measures during construction, You're talking about Lee's notes? storm water MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Stated we're on Town water and Town sewage as well. This storm water management plan isn't going to be that much different from what we approved before is it? MR. GANNETT-Stated this storm drainage system ties into the existing Phase I drainage system which, based on our review of previous information, appears to be adequate and it ties into the existing County system in Bay Road. MR. ROBERTS-Asked about the County? MRS. YORK-Stated the County approved. MOT lOB TO APPROVE SITE PLAB BO. 87-89 WOODBURY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LTD., Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: The two items that are mentioned by our Consulting Engineer will be rectified and have no problems. Additional screening will be provided in the southwest corner of the building. Access by emergency vehicles be provided for within the screening. The three existing Sugar Maples on the Bay Street side will be replaced with street type, a minimum of 3 inch, diameter trees, plantings along with the new Queensbury law. The movement and location of the dumpster, just east, slot 26, and proper screening for it. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski 33 ~ .~ .....'- "- '--' - ./ --" '-' MRS. YORK-Asked, Mr. Jones, would you submit a revised copy with the changes indicated, that the Board has requested, to my office? MR. JONES-Yes. Do you want us to go back to Beautification for the plans? MR. ROBERTS-Stated I don't know that that's necessary. MR. CARTIER·Stated provided that when we talk about screening, we do have a definition of screening and use that. MR. JONES-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 87-89, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: WHEREAS, there is present ly before the Planning Board and application for: Site Plan review of Phase II of WOODBURY DEVELOPMENT GROUP Bay Road 100 ft. north of the intersection of Bay and Glenwood, 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 26th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 34 -- - ~-.' ,-/ ---' J LOCATION MAPS December 26, 1989 Planning Meeting OLD BUSINES Site Plan N . 49-89 Anthony Russo; Ottavio Estate (Staff Notes + 'TDW":> ~. ~,~6u,¥ 1 ~\oQ.:m I NEW BUSlIlES~' Petition for a Change of Zone: PII-89 attached) Ethel Balcom Trust (Staff notes and Map Site Plan No. 83-89 Higgs and Crayford, Inc. (Staff Notes attached) t N Site Plan No 84-89 Gary and Mary Trello (Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No 85-89 Anne Parrott (Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No 86-89 Thomas D'Angelo; Dave Kipp (Staff Notes attached) Subdivision o. 22-1989 Shultz Subdivision (Staff Notes attached} SKETCH PLAN .sITE LOO~T/tJN MAP' ( ""', ,. ~C"'. ) '",- - NEW BUSINES ~ "'----" LOCATION MAPS December 26, 1989 Planning Meeting "r'" -.-/ -./ (Cont'd) Subdivision No. 23-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE Nancy S. Dingman; Marie S. Mason; Betty S. Duell (Staff notes attached) ~-_. RIVPN . N.... SprinK' ¡ --- AUIIII£HLO SIAUh _'.:.. L ".....AV{... 2. PilI' LIPS AVE. ), PAM I Avt. 4. CAMHOL H. !I. "'''t( Ave. b. Lf,LLL AV[. ,. ....'IIL.,. $T. Pl N! 87 89 W db D Group Ltd (Staff notes attached) Site an o. - 00 ury ev. " , . '-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY --- ---,' ---' Planni111 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 20, 1989 John Goralski By: Area VariaDce U. Variance - Sip Variance == mtesopretatiœ Other: SubcIØiaica: Sketch. _ Pre1imillary, X Site P1aa Rerie. - := Petiticm for a ChaDge of Zoae _ Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit FiDaI AppUcatiGD Number: Site Plan No. 49-89 AppUamt'. Name: Anthony Russo MeetiDø Date: December 26, /989 ............................................................................................ The applicant received approval for 6/ parking spaces plus three handicapped spaces to serve a /0,500 sq. ft. billiard hall. The applicant has also received all of the necessary variances to bring this proposal into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. The new proposal has addressed two minor concerns I voiced in my previous notes. The entrance is also layed out the way I requested. My concern now is that the entrance has been relocated to the north. The existing entrance is very steep. As you move north Route 9 rises. This will cause the access drive to be steeper and sho'rter. The entrance should be located so that the slope of the access drive is as gradual as possible. This will provide increased safety in icy conditions and will also provide easier access to Route 9 when exiting the site. The Engineer's report indicates several areas of concern. One of wh ich is the septic system. No approval whatsoever should be given until this is resolved. It may be that the engineering constraints of the site may not allow this size building. JG/pw . -...,.- ~ RIST·FAè' :s. PC. COt\... ÍlNEERS "--' ~ 21 BAY STÆET POST OFFICE BOX 838 Gl£NS FALLS. NY 12801 518·793....141 -- -/ f II E ( 0 f~ ~' December 15, i989 RFA #89-5000.049 .,... V. "'UCl:ft~Ch. !~~~, Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Anthony Russo, Site Plan 49-89 Dear Ms. York: 1. Since the wastewater flow is greater than 1000gpd, a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit will be required. PLANNING I ZONING DEPARTMENT 2. Since the percolat ion rate is faster than 5 min/in seepage pits will not be allowed unless extensive pretreatment is provided. Further the plan proposes (2) 20 feet deep seepage pits. According to NYSDEC, when using eight inch curved block, the bottom of the seepage pit should not be more than 15' below ground surface; with 8 inch rectangular block, not more than 10 feet below ground. 3. The percolation test results should include a test pit log indicating the test date, depth and if groundwater or mottling was encountered. Further, the site evaluation must show that it is possible to maintain the required depths to seasonally high groundwater, porous or creviced bedrock, and/or an impermeable layer beneath the proposed system. The bottom of the seepagè pit should be at least four feet above bedrock or at least 3 feet above groundwater. 4. The slope of the new 24" diameter pipe is stated to be \" per foot on the detail and 14% in the calculations. The drop within the manhole should not be counted in the slope of the pipe. The capacity of this pipe should be computed using the actual slope. Inverts of pipe given in the details and calculations should be coordinated. 5. The absorptive capacity of each drywell may be used along with the storage volume of each drywell. 6. The grading extends beyond the northern property line. @ OLENS FALLS. NY, LAOONIA. NH . . ._.__._.~--- ...,. ~ I "- '--' - ; '- .-/ __J Town of Queensbury Attn: Ms. Lee York Page 2 December 15, 1989 RFA #89-5000.049 7. The design of the gab ion wall is incorrect. The wall should be designed as a gravity wall structure. 8. Erosion protection, in the form of rip-rap, should be provided at the entrance to the proposed 24" diameter pipe. Very truly yours, ~OST ASDC' Wayn~nett, P.E. Managing Project Engineer WG/c~ cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures -.-------... -"- '--' --' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PJanni. Department _J -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 18, 1989 By: løa A Vnrk Area Variance UIIe Variance == Sip Variance _ IDterpretatioa Other: SubcIi.udoa: Sketch. Pre1imÍft_- - - -I' Site P1aD Rmew X PetitiOD for a ChaDøe of ZAJae Freshwater Wet.l.aDda Permit FiDaI Applicatioa Number: Petition P 11-89 Applicant'. Name: Ethel M. Balcom Trust MeetiDg Date: December 26, 1989 ............................................................................................ The applicant should be apprised of the fact that a 50 foot buffer area is required between commercial and residential zones. Any rezoning of this 3.42 acre parcel would appear to be spot zoning on a map. A variance request may be more applicable. If the Board wishes to further consider this I would suggest that the following information be submitted: I) Hap of property at a scale of I" .. 40 feet or less with scale and north arrow and topography. 2) Boundaries of property with dimensions in feet, including zoning boundary. 3) Identification of wetlands or watercourses or waterbodies on site. 4) Location of any current structures on site, their exterior dimensions, use, and setbacks. 5) Location of any proposed easements and driveways. 6) Location of existing public or private water and sewer facilities. 7) Location of existing and proposed parking and loading facilities. 8) Identification of uses (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial) on properties within 500 feet. i _.~--.--_.- "" i"t'r :') ..... Q ;:: CQ ..... - --- .. ~ -of ',--- -- ~ - Q ~ " ...-/ -- -..../ co ~' . ~~- " "" ..... ~ - , <::: ... - ~ q. ....~ "B- ~ '=t - < .. c;:; ~ -" r r~ -- ("" "':0( , \Þ ¡Vi ~:-. ~ ;,¡ ,..., ~ ..... \ Q ;¡: .~ '", Q ~ ..... - E-th d yvt. ß¡) { c"", if US" TOWN OF QUEENSBURy-J '-' Plj nni~g DepartlDent ..-/ __J -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Deceober 20, 1989 By: Stuart Baker Area VariaDce U. Variance - Sip Variance - InterpretatiOD SubdiWdOD: Sketch. PreJimiDary X Site Plan Re't"iew - - ' == Petition' for a ChaDge of Zoae Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDat Other: AppJicatiOD Number: Site Plan Review No. 83-89 AppJic:aDt'. Name: Higgs and Crayford, Inc. MeedDg Date: December 26, 1989 ............................................................................................ The applicant needs Site Plan Review for a change of use of a commercial building" No change in the current site conditions is proposed. Counter sales and distribution are uses which will no longer occur at the site. The Planning Board may wish to state this in the motion. SB/pw ," ._._-~ ~ ~ , 21 BAY STReET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518· 793-41.1 ~ ~)i©fwth ~ OEClò 198~ '.~: PLANNING. ZON'.K DEPARTMINT ,r:-.. - ~ . . "---" r.RœT, / CONSULTING ~__ -' ---/ December 15, 1989 RFA #89-5000.083 Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Htggs _ Crayfonf, Inc.. Site Plaa 83-89 < , , Dear Ms. York: Since the use of the above referenced project is not changing, and no modifications are being done to the site, we have no COMents. Very truly yours, RlST-FROST ASS lATES, P.C. U"'1t.ett. P.L Mana~g"project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures . e CUN6 FH..LS. NY.LJ(X)NIA. NH : TO W N 0 F QUE ENS BUR Y -- Pbnning Department ..../ _-/ -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: December 21. 1989 Stuart Baker Area VuiaDce Uee VuiaDce - Sip VuiaDce == Jøterpretation Other: SubcliYÏliaa: Sketch, PreJ.imnuI_ _ _ -I' -L Site PIaD Rmew _ Petition for a CbaDge of ZoDe Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDa1 Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 84-89 Applicant'. Name: Guv & Marv Trello MeetiDg Date: December 26. 1989 ............................................................................................ The applicants are proposing construction of a 16' x 20' deck on the roof of their residence. The applicant current ly has a total of 3 bui Idings on the property and have done expansions/renovations on the main dwelling in the past. The proposed deck will be extremely visible from the lake. The usual impact of such expansion projects needs to be addressed. not only on an individual site by site basis but on the cumulative effects of such expansion on all of Queensbury's Lake George water frontage. It should also be stated that the site plan submitted contradicts the front elevation profile submitted. The Board may wish to table the application for need of complete and accurate information. SB/pw .. ...----.---.- '-' " ~' , I 'V ;-¡ ~ 1,1 Io¡ I¡ \ -" ~' ,~I ,.' ;1 \~ ''---- -../ / ." ~Î.4.1',/1..'1 {.' I ' ,(/. (/t?l' C' }/6' Né'/- ~-/~ / /;1 /.:r ,("[.-1/ /")' ("~-'~e/J(/,e ..I T/t' ,v' /.)~ /NI 7 " " 1i~ , . .....~ ~._,-:~/ , 1 W' .. .~~" ;: "]i~~~~' , ',. t ' .... :I~~i~.:- ,.' .".:h" "~: ~ _~ __ A.' . ,~;j~;:" :,;--:" ,/(.) .--~ /' / .' /' ./ ~/ C) '\ ~ tv I / I I \ "------ 'f-:""'".ty.J-<I." "'4' ___ ,. ..... J'",.. -~?5:J . ~ ..."'.yO"..... --,-~- '- -:-- ~"'" .~ ...._-:::~~...~~~._,. """"', ":''!........~ .";.e~~- ',. "" ',~""""''\:~:''''!..~ð-~.-:-~ ,'" "'-~~">~:~'.~=.:.~:~~~{~~~ ,j.¡D,Ø 'PV¡~ Co :.:, A$ ¡j,/) . ,Ot'..", ,"'" ;f[0u..r ~¡;..1!' ·:!Ïi . .,(".J"",;},\ . .¡r", . ,,~.. "./ no , ". f tiN 1.1 "'\'.ø ..t".f/~·I". ,,-" " 'V-/Q. '''8 a ,-C'" ,.,I·~·'" ....' , 'vc .~r".~,, ' , ~.u:."'tf"'(""'.(I'?cJ.o' . I .J~"'..'J. ",",'I}. . 4.'..lI?--'~' "1·....(. .."" I~. r :; ·:~~;~/:""i~¿:,t:~;~:1.~}ï:··· .'/ " / "" ': " ~ / .......:,._-,' J t\) '\ . . .. ,/ . n..c..o(~ ~ 'I ~. ~'t'. " ,: .... _.... . ,;,' ,:ì I)¡ . / ,- -, , I\) 1.,', f-, " '" t \) \)' 'V ~ ,I H~ t ~;/¿{.'. '...- r~."; "":~ . ~;:~,: , ." .\c: () ~ ~ .;: t ; ~, ;;;~: " ;}~ \, , .:;,\., ,~ --v ç' Q( i I ,.~~t . .. ,1 '1:),4'i " I\j. " IJ~;' ~ ;'J 'i . ,.' /,1/0./ ""< ....., ) ~ " . H:' t",.<', ,,,.,104' J ,,' , "'.".( .."'~.. "~, . ë R)~: ('.¡'A:'1I:;IJ //).r I(/'S'r /1t1!.1: P~OPIJ$£D ¿- I /6 I x.;"O OG~t:..' I ~ ... \ . '. ,I,j ~~ ,,::'.\;'~' c\J \' " ", ~ . ,.:.;~. ' ,: f:·.~ ..".~. " , '1') r ï. r ,:'n.o.¡ " T¿ E ¿ ¿ 0 · :.1/CRt 1_'AlI:. . \ . - 'ì~. ""',) '-~" " ~.' ~'I.'I:' ~ ."t:'f'·) ~...~- .~~.,,'.....)/,..,....\ -: ·,í - - --,.;; ~~Z;r.--,~:-.: ~..~I>#:""f~ --.."':1 . .i'.',,, ..!,.,' f" .;1:1::. .." (:,,JIC".g-.II<tI.C'tS·...cJ :.I()-(,.¡...-._----.. /#1...." -'J ".. '-~ _~ ~ A~tI.y.. --.~ ';.#I~ .' . .~::;--~ ,JÑ,,'''''~ . 1""',."" .; .~t~hoo~~~~" .,...~ ðlJ.r...l. ,. \ . -.". .__. " ' , _. ,."....r::,r-~;,;~?~ i': -"--....::~ -,,_, I' ~::..~::--:~~~..~;~.~~...-.... - 1t~, ~~ .~. :---~~"'*'"~ "'.....¿4'.... ..-.__._.~. i --~:', '. . -'~~t- "', '-~~~,~~)~!:..::::.:.~),..¿ . " J,~ '.' . ~ .J "'v,.J·.....,,~,~-..~_._--:----._ ,-y.." ~ '. J L/ll<c GSO~G;·...' · i;$'::~~;"i~.r.~~:.r-; ~7::~- ~!W~~ ' s¡¡PPL.t/ - AI >-, . O£éCJ -<?e¡:¿.e¿;-,vCE.r .. . ' C' V6" N' é T -<? E //L T Y C'0Æ' ,oO.(?A T/o /\/ ,ro .' EL/z.....ltJr/y,· Þ/O./?,fJA y II /?é'//:JofI~ . ;: 32/511 To , .,~';- ';", ..' I.(?//,4A./ ,1.1. ¿; ..t1/,¥A//E L. V //7/ /.!l4ð ¿ ,p ¡/,t/...V .L/. "I."".(-'¿''-Oé-,pIC.t'' J .2;- .9/.?.yf 7 /RéOE4/Ck./ '. JÁ"wéJ é' 7/'?7//.9~O ro ¿; ,,14.4.(!}.... A-/. IV4 ¿./ ;1-/ ...to~/.?!J ~ ;~;.~. ,.- . i ?"? t;..,! To 6'tlj/' ..J": ¿ ,WARY If', TRéL¿O oro: 6/.J'Ý/..."'~Z £("/;).' 7/~//.!l~~ 4.?//t!'Sê ai/Y'¡" ¡1JAI<Y r~EL1.-0 8"~ /J1///ltl ST "Ñ,Q.súN .,I:'III.::-¿S ì:' .. ~". ~ô,õ.,. ~\' .,;. .'.... ~. II. '; . ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ,--",' PlAnning Department ,./ - -.-' -NOTE TO FILE- By: December 26, 1989 John S. Goralski Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Area VariaDce U.. Variance == Sip VariaDce _ IDterpretatioa Subdi.uioa: Sketch, Prelim' X Site PlaIa Reriew - - mary, == Petition fa:' a ChaDøe of Zaae _ Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: Applicatioa Number: Site Plan Review No. 85-89 Applicaat'. Name: Anne Parrott MeetiDø Date: December 26, 1989 ............................................................................................ Mrs. Pan-ott wishes to replace her existing seasonal camp with a year-round single family residence. This is a very sensitive area which abuts the Hudson River. All of the necessary variances have been received. The portion of the lot where the construction will take place, slopes away from the river. Because of the sandy soils it does not appear that storm water will be a problem. The Zoning Ordinance requires that any change from seasonal to year-round use be accompanied by a licensed engineer's certification as to the adequacy of the septic system. To date this has not been provided. The application states that the system will be replaced if it fails. In this case it would be impossible to place a septic system on this lot without a Septic Variance. The Board should consider this situation carefully. It would appear that a policy decision should be made. The Board must decide how they are going to deal with existing septic systems that do not meet current requirements, especially in sensitive areas. JG/sed . , .......IJ ...~... AI&(·FRœT " 'U Pc. CONSIJ.. ëRS -' ......., MET "'--- POST ey:¡:a BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518· 793-4141 J~f~l\ fILL ~ OECh 1~" ., PLANNING' ION'"' DlPARTM."T ---" '" .J ./ - -../ December 15, 1989 RFA #89-5000.085 Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Anne Parrott, Site Plan 85-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOlllllents: 1. According to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the conversion to year-round occupancy of any seasonal dwelling requires certification of the suitabil ity of the sanitary septic system by a licensed engineer to accommodate year-round use. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST A~ES. P.C. ~~ett. P.E.~ Manag 6i~"Project Eng i neer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures _ CUNI~ NY.L.G)NIA. NH -_.--- - ~ -. -. - '-- ''"---' ( I ¡ ( I I "-' r "r ~f;ee / yovnD ^' ,a.~ Äf IS ~'6 31' fs ~·,(Ur\.ç.{.~ ",.l . ~,.,..- f t\Y c.e-l [ 7k91 -j;tz-()~frz. FovNl- .~ ~re,\·e -.../ .... ---' .--- \ \ t ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ \ \ ~! \ t.\ \ ~ \.11 .-,. ~ \ ~ \ " ¡ --tJ \ -- 6'", \ J:ll.pn '\ Tô C7J: ~ P'~f ~ GJ;) cv!'ù Tty "'" "'" (loA p' ~ ~ ............ ~l ~\ -- :1-~0l'I /" - (7'1 ~ .r-... 0- . (oJv'! jJ ~ -:;- I t¡>- fMte( ,- -- t : ...-r h(e~\p.<.,e I~ _.: \, N p..o 1& N I:(2..ÒI'\ f\fe {-OJ(\\) ~o¡ _ fJ7 / 8 L ""'0 ~ f'1()C~ oR \(j~e. r 11 D f:. ~ (2..0 8~it..\ ¡e. . , "301 l r t\\N ~ 'Q.L ~oJ\"\ ~f- ~\ j'Ý ... lfl III 177 ,v( {~ o. ~O('fV'.e..r!--j of- f:, -'<-< 'P< \ ~ R . ~ (. ( -r,s-},'Øt('\<:.eL . ~<...\A.s.o....... \C' t\~ ç 0<2. °0 m ,.. t^. M J2\2-C (>I.....0'Ç r' , l \0' \' .... ~o çec.~ oJ t A "- C r /\ c,.... ,.. OA'ît:'. ~v¡;;,v0oç L-\ ¡\Cl.b ì ..........----.... --....... ............... ~/ ~ .~ t-\ ~ -......... 0e// ç (2..Cf' f~re . ~ fQvC'lí> (' ,,""flFl> r,i'oJ ~ Of i.. çf' ;{ "",fl.:>'" V t(' '" l' f- '\ ì ......- fVV ./ ~l v... _ ~iP \\\11" i ~~\. ~b~\ WN OF QUEENSBURY -- ---' pw,.nni"'g Department ./ -NOTE TO FILE- --- -.-/ Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 2.6, 1989 By: John S. Goralski Area V..-iaace U. V..-iaace == Sip V..-iaace _ Interpretatioa Other: SubdiYiaioa: ~-t-" n....-u_· ~ -. _ ~marr, --X Site PIaD Rerie. - == Petition for a CbaDge of ZoIIe _ Freshwater Wet.1aDdl Permit FiDal AppUcaticm Namber: Site Plan Review No. 86-89 AppUc:aøt'. Hamel Thomas D'An2elo. Dave KiDD MeetiDø Date: December 26. 1989 ............................................................................................ Historically, the Highway Department has had drainage problems on Montray Road. The Highway Superintendent has reviewed the plans, and feels that the proposed catch basin will not handle the runoff from the parking lot. It appears that the required handicapped parking space will be in the front of the building. This is extremely unsafe. There is no turning area and cars would have to back out onto Route 9. Because of the steep slope, erosion control both during and after construction will be very important. The applicant should provide a detailed plan of the proposed berm showing the grading and vegetative cover. I would also recommend that the applicant be required to stabilize any exposed soil between the berm and the easterly property line. This plan has changed since it was first seen by the QCCB. The Board may wish to require the applicant to present the revised plan to the QCCB. JG/sed I IS1UV ~ iT·FfQ;T ~ CONSulT!".. " '-- 21 a,t.y sn.EET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518·793-4141 ~)~~r~,~ n L E ~ DECl&1989~ pLANNING' ZONING DIPARTMENT COpy -- -' -- December IS, 1989 RFA #89-5000.086 Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. lee York Re: ThoMIs D'Angelo, Site Plan 86-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following coments: 1. The drainage report states that the existing driveway in front of the building will be topsoiled and seeded. The site plan, however, shows this area as handicapped parking. If this is to be handicapped parking, it is not recommended, since cars would have to back out onto Route 9. 2. A pavement section is required. 3. Proposed water usage is low, however, it will not impact on the project. 4. The peak runoff values for undeveloped and developed conditions should compare the same occurrence interval. 5. The sizing of the drywell and trench for stormwater control are incorrect. The percolation rate should be 1"/3sf/l.33 minutes not I"/sf/l.33 minutes. This error causes the drywell and trench system to be undersized. 6. The site plan states that there is 0% runoff from the site. This ;s incorrect, according to the drainage calculations. Very truly yours, ~STA ~~nett, P.E. Mana~g' Project Engineer P.C. WG/CDl cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures _ CJ.ENI MUS. NY.I.ÞOJNIA. NH " .~---_._--~ 'rOWN OF QUEENSBURY,---, P1~nning Department ./ - -..../. -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J OM S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 26, 1989 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Vuiaace U_ VariaDce - Sip VariaDce _ IDterpretatioa x Subdi..uïoa: X Sketch. Pre1imift..- - - -I' Site Plan ReYiew - PetitiOD for a ChaDle of Zoae - Freshwater Wet1a.ada Permit FiDaI Other: AppUcatioa Number: Subdivision No. 22-1989 AppUamt'. Name: lbultz Subdivision - Arzelia Shultz MeetiDg Date: December 26, 1989 ............................................................................................ The applicant proposes creating three lots from her existing 9.5 acre lot. The Board should request that the items addressed by the Town Engineer be addressed in the Preliminary Plan submission. In this submission, the applicant should include the number of bedrooms in each house, as well as the appropriate septic tank sizes. The Board may also wish to require a fill system be installed in the westernmost lot, considering the existing soil conditions and high water table. During a site visit, I noted that there were numerous paths on the northern half of the property being utilized by deer. The paths generally indicated that the deer traveled south and southwest toward Route, 9L (Ridge Road). This may indicate a travel corridor for deer to use to and from the fields and wetlands adjacent to the Wan-en County Airport. This area around the Airport is a known locally significant animal habitat. In order to ensure that this travel corridor remains open, the Board may want to suggest that the northernmost 1/3 of the property be maintained in a natural state upon completion of the development. SB/sed j .~............................"" RIST·FRO' '.6""ES. PC. 00, 'INEERS '-. _! STREET Pœ't-oFFICE BOX 838 GlENS FALLS. NY 1280t 518· 793-4141 ~ ",.. V. ,",,,,,,, '"'- ~)~UíV[5') ~ DEC 1 ð 198!¡ ~.t j~ ¡ L E --'r r' '- - -" - --" December 15, 1989 RFA #89-5000.522 PLANNING a zo"U~~ DEPARTMENT Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. lee York Re: Arzelia H. Shultz, Subdivision 22-1989 - Sketch Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following conwnents: 1. The date the test hole was taken should be given. The 3.5' depth of soil found to be above the groundwater or mottling is the bare minimum required before a fill-type system is required. 2. The NYS Dept of Health recommends a 1200 gallon septic tank capacity for 4 bedrooms and requires a 1250 gallon septic tank capacity for 5 bedrooms. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASS~CIATES, P.C. !hnet~ Managi~"prOject Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures @ GLENS FALLS. NY·I.ÞOONIA, NH ---- "-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -- ptJlnning Department -' -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: December 2.6, 1989 By: Lee A. York Area VariaDce u. VUÜDce == Sip VUÜDce _ IDterpntatioa Other: ..-L SubdiYiåoIa: _ Sketch, . --L Prelim..." Site PIaa Reriew == PetitiOD far a C1umae of ZaDe _ Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Applicatioa Number: Subdivision No. 2. 3-19 8 9 MeetiDø Date: Nancy S. Dingman, Marie S. Mason, Betty S. Duell December 2.6, 1989 AppUcmat'. Name: ............................................................................................ The request is to subdivide 18 acres into two lots. The parcel is divided by Dix Avenue and the applicants wish to separate the divided pieces into two separate lots. One lot will be 3.42. acres and the other will be 14.58 acres. The zoning on the small lot is Highway Commercial 1 Acre. The larger lot is split zoned Light Industrial 1 Acre and Highway Commercial 1 Acre. Both lots would meet all the zoning criteria. The application indicates that the purpose of this subdivision is to convey the lands south of Dix Avenue, and that the applicants do not intend to develop any of the property. Any future development on either lot would be subject to site plan review. The review of the SEQRA form revealed some en-ors in the site description. It states there are 4.6 acres of agricultural land. I do not believe any of the acreage is in agricultural use. This should probably be part óf the meadow classification. The site description also states there are zero acres of unvegetated or rock area. The plan reveals a large area of exposed ledge and surface rock. I also question the site description designation as "rural". "Urban" may be more appropriate given the location and adjacent land uses. Under part B, the description (b) indicates that 3.42. acres are to be developed. The subdivision application states that no development is to take place. This needs to be clarified. I have filled out tentative answers to part 2. - Project Impacts on the basis of a two lot subdivision with no development. Since there is a discrepancy between the application and the environmental assessment form, the Board may want the applicant to show a plan for development as per the zoning. LA Y /sed " -------- II FIIST·FR06T . ~TES. Pc. OON..~ 3INEERIS . 'S1ÆET ~"- -sox 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12101 518' 793~'.' .~,. "'t ~C...~c:. ~ i~~!J~~ ç \. \ t , - l - ..,/ December 15. 1989 RFA #89-5000.523 -- ---' ~NING . ZONIN'- DEPARTMENT Town of Queensbury BaY/Hav;land Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. lee York Re: Nancy S. D1ng..n, Marie S. Mason, 8&tty S. Duel, Subdtvision23-1989 - Preli.inary Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following conwnents: 1. No drainage calculations have been provided, however, they are not necessary since drainage will be considered in site plan approval. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST AS CIATES, P.C. ~n.tt. P.E. Mana ng Project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures e C3LEN81W.1.S. NY'I.ACONIA. NH . . ----,--- II "-' WN OF QUEENSBURY J Pl~nning Department ;/ ---,.--,,' -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: December 22. 1989 John Goralski Area V..taace u. VU'iaDce - Sip VuiaDce == IDterpntatba Other: SubcIi'riåoa: Sketch. X Site PlaIa ReYiew - == Petition for a CJw:Iøe of ZcJDe _ Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Pt-e1im--- _ -7' FiDal AppUcation Number: Site Plan Review No. 87-89 AppUcaat'. Name: Woodburv Develonment Groun MeetiDg Date: December 26. 1989 ............................................................................................ Thw Woodbury Development Group received approval for a 17,700 sq. ft. office building on this site in July of 1988. At that time there was considerable discussion about the size of the building and the adequacy of parking. This proposal is for an additional 12,300 sq. ft. of building and necessary parking. The Zoning Administrator has reviewed this plan and has determined that it meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Intrinsic Development Suitability map indicates limited development suitability. This is mainly due to the high water table in the area. The stormwater drainage system should be designed with this in mind. This will be a relatively large building compared to other buildings in the vicinity. There is aho a large expanse of paved area. Although an extensive landscape plan has been provided, the size of the plant material may not be in scale with the building and parking area. The goal of the landscape plan should be to help blend the building and parking into the existing neighborhood. The landscaping should also help to preserve the rural character of the Town. I would recommend that larger more mature trees be provided, especially at the entrance to the site, to achieve these goals. JG/pw II RISf·FfII06'" ''IIOCIATES. PC, CON GNEERS ~ « STREET "'-'\.-......::BOX838 GlENS FALLS. NY 12101 518'~141 l ~.. V.~tQ·" ~~~~ '--' cnp\/ u, 1 PLANNING' ION'Nt; DIPARTMINT Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Woodbury Developlent Group ltd., Phase 11 Site Plan 87-89 Dear Ms. York: --.. / --I December 15, 1989 RFA ~89-5000.087 We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following connents: 1. It is required that 6 handicapped accessible spaces be provided for parking lots with 15-200 spaces. 2. Provide erosion control measures, as necessary, during construction. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST AS CIATES, P.C. 'fi['"7:.;.ett, P. Eo Mana~~;"project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures Ii OLENBIW.LS. NY.I.Þ(X)NIA, fiIi .' II --.-----------