1990-01-16
~........"
.~
/
'-
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 16TH, 1990
INDEX
Site Plan No. 86-89
Thomas D'Angelo; Dave Kipp
1
Subdivision No. 11-87
FINAL STAGE
Brookfield Estates Phase II
3
Subdivision No. 14-1989
FINAL STAGE
Partridge Run; Scrimshaw
Ventures, Inc.
3
Petition for a Change
of Zone: Pl-90
Petition for a Change
of Zone: P2-90
Site Plan No. 2-90
Site Plan No. 3-90
Frank and Marie Brenneison 5
Robert and Shirley Sanders 6
Herbert and Margaret Kane 9
John Doty d/b/a U-Rent All 10
Site Plan No. 4-90
Robert Joy & Assoc. Silverstein, 17
Loftus, & Russ, CPA's P.C.
Site Plan No. 5-90
Peter Lewin 22
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.
\
\
"--'
--.../
QUEENS BURY PLADING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 16TH, 1990
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
JAMES HAGAN
PETER CARTIER
JOSEPH DYBAS
NICHOLAS CAIMANO
KEITH JABLONSKI
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
TOWN ENGINEER-JOHN FERGUSON
LEE YORK, SENIOR PLANNER
Election of Officers for 1990 took placed. Richard Roberts was elected Chairman,
Peter Cartier, Vice Chairman, Carol Pulver, Secretary.
OLD BUSINESS:
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
MR. ROBERTS-Stated, if you'll recall, the last we saw this, the big question had
to do with.. .handicapped parking. I guess we can all agree we'd rather not see
that long, rather steep, handicapped ramp coming up the south side of the building.
We'd rather see a couple of places up front and close off one of the entrances
and give them room to turn around and drive back out onto Route 9. I guess that's
what the new map, although it's not overly clear, shows us.
MR. SCARTELLI-Stated there was two handicapped parking stalls shown on the north
side of the building which faces east. The stalls are roughly around 13 feet wide
and about 20 feet long and it has a distance of about 40 feet from there to the
Route 9 curb line. So there is a sufficient amount of distance for a vehicle to
back up, turn around, and go out the exit from Route 9. The other question was,
of course, the installation of a drywell on the rear of the property adjacent to
the parking lot which will accept the runoff from the parking area and the disturbed
areas of the project itself. The drywell also has as a 12 inch perforated pipe
connected with it so in order to disperse the water and have it percolated to the
soil. In addition to that we've shown on there (the map) which was submitted with
the last plan, some silt fence along the back rear of the area near the parking
facility in order to catch any silt that would be discharged from the back of the
property onto the culvert that goes underneath Montray Road. Those I think were
about the major issues that were raised the last time.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I believe we were hoping to get some input from the Highway
Superintendent on this.
MRS. YORK-Read letter from Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent stating his
approval of Project, to Planning Board, Dated January 4, 1990 (on file)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MRS. YORK-Read Letter from Queensbury Beautification Committee, disapproving of
Project, to Planning Board Stated, as I understand it, the applicant has had contact
with Mr. Eddy and they are in agreement that they will do it together, but you
may want to make that part of your motion. Stated Warren County approved this.
All of the projects before them were approved basically because there was no quorum
present.
1
--
..-'
MR. ROBERTS-Asked do we have any additional engineering comments?
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by John Ferguson, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess the one thing that bothers me, on your large map here,
it doesn't seem to show the roadcut. It shows it on our small map and shows where
there now is only one rather than two. It will work fine, I just think it should
appear on the large map.
MR. SCARTELLI-Stated yes, I didn't do the plans.
(referring to map)
It's someplace in this area
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's why, I think we're suggesting you close off the northerly
entrance and keep the southerly entrance open.
MR. SCARTELLI-Stated I think that any movement on the vehicle will either go this
way, in and out or this way and then exit from the openings that are presently
there.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I don't think that's satisfactory, to me at least. I want one
of them closed and I think the northern one so that you aren't tempted to do
anything, but drive in and drive out. Isn't that what we talked about? That,
I think it does show on the small map and isn't reflected on the large map.
MR. SCARTELLI-Stated that could be reflected.
MR. CARTIER-Stated the only concèrn I have is that this is a very unusual situation
in that the handicapped parking is the only parking permitted up in the front of
the building and all other parking is down behind. Somehow the signage is going
to have to be more than adequate to indicate that that is just handicapped parking
only in the front of the building and other parking is going to have to be directed
to the rear of the building.
MR. SCARTELLI-Stated that could probably be done with signs.
MR. CARTIER-Stated it's going to be very tempting for people to come in and use
those handicapped spots.
MR. SCARTELLI-Stated right next to the driveway could be a sign that says handicapped
parking only.
MR. CARTIER-Stated with some indication to parking in the rear.
MR. SCARTELLI-Yes.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I believe we satisfied SEQRA last time didn't we?
MRS. YORK-Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 86-89 THOMAS D'ANGELO; DAVE KIPP, Introduced by
Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
With the following stipulations: With the approval of the Queensbury Beautification
Committee. That the northern most road cut on Route 9 be eliminated and appropriate
signage for handicapped parking and parking in the rear be indicated.
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
2
"---
-_/
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-87 FINAL STAGE BROOKFIELD ESTATES, PHASE II 15 LOTS AT THE
SOUTH END OF SUNNYSIDE ROAD, 3,000 FT. EAST OF RIDGE ROAD REQUESTING TO REAFFIRM
APPROVAL FROM JANUARY 19, 1988.
RICHARD MCLENITHAN, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD DENISON
MR. MCLENITHAN-Stated Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard McLenithan and I'm here
on behalf of and with Howard Denison. He's the owner of the subdivision, Brookfield
Estates and quite frankly, I think it was January of 1988, appropriate approvals
were obtained from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board and the appropriate
signatures were obtained, but it was not filed in the Warren County Clerks Office
consistent with the requirements and regulations. So we're here back tonight to
indicate that we want to come back and on your agenda because this seems to be
the only consistent way that we can meet the requirement of filing within 60 days
since they made their approval. So we're really asking for you to reaffirm your
approval of January 1988.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated, for those of you who weren't here then, I guess Joe might have
been the only one, It's my recollection at that time we asked for the new type
of road construction and putting in swale, putting highway in, storm drainage,
everything equivalent with Phase II of a two phase Project. I would not believe
there is anything we have to change today.
MR. DYBAS-Stated I've been thinking about that and I can't think of anything that
might...that wouldn't be included in there.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I might ask Karla if we're hung up with SEQRA in any way on
this. Obviously we satisfied SEQRA earlier.
MS. CORPUS-Stated I think you're fine.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated perhaps some of the other Board members are somewhat familiar
with that piece of property. There's already a large house built in the middle
of it.
MR. CARTIER-Asked, there's been absolutely no change in the plans since that time?
They're the same?
MR. MCLENITHAN-Stated there has been no change. It's just an absolute oversight.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-87 BROOKFIELD ESTATES, PHASE
II, Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier:
For Final Stage of Subdivision.
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA PARTRIDGE RUN
SCRIMSHAW VENTURES, INC. POTTER ROAD, APPROX. 320 FT. SOUTH OF AVIATION ROAD,
BEFORE BEND. TO SUBDIVIDE 9.39 ACRES INTO 8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF APPROX. 1 ACRE
EACH. TAX MAP NO. 90-2-2.4 LOT SIZE: 9.39 ACRES
KEITH MANZ, C.T. MALE, AGENT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Asked, referring to Staff Notes, do you mind explaining, Lee, what
Number 7 means?
MRS. YORK-Stated what it says is basically engineering talk. It says you have
to start your 90 degree angle at an intersection 100 feet from that intersection
and the Highway Department did not have any problem with that.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from John Ferguson, Town Engineer (attached)
3
-.../
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Mr. Manz, do you have anything further to add to this?
MR. MANZ-Stated no I don't. I'm Keith Manz with C.T. Male and I do have a copy
of the map if you'd like me to put it up so you can look at it once again. Although
we've done all of our homework and all of the comments, apparently, have been
addressed. At least Rist-Frost is satisfied and Staff is unless you have any other
questions?
MR. CARTIER-Asked in the B Covenance under Part 3 Cutting Restrictions.
have a copy of that in front of you?
Do you
MR. MANZ-Stated I've got one.
MR. CARTIER-Asked do you recall that we were going to put in cutting restrictions
for for numbers to the effect of 60/40. We would allow 60 percent to be cut more
clear. In your Part 3, Cutting Restrictions, under Item 16, Cutting Exceptions,
it says "These Restrictions shall not apply to A. Clearing for approved buildings,
improvements and driveways" It was my understanding, perhaps we didn't make
ourselves clear on this, that 60 percent included what was cleared for buildings
and driveways and improvements. In other words, that's part of the 60 percent
which you are excluding in l6A. It is in fact part of the 60 percent that you
are allowed.
MR. MANZ-Stated correct. Apparently this has been misworded or left in
inadvertently. We can take A out.
MR. CARTIER-Asked, you agree that this is wrong?
MR. MANZ-Stated correct.
correct.
If we take A out under the exceptions then the map is
MR. CARTIER-Asked, how does that also show up with subdivision plan?
MR. MANZ-Stated we have a note that says 60 percent right on the subdivision map.
MR. CARTIER-Asked, that 60 does not show up on the subdivision plan?
MR. MANZ-Stated correct. We can amend the covenants and restrictions accordingly.
Make that a condition of the approval.
MR. HAGAN-Asked, who determines what trees are to be removed for safety hazards?
MR. MANZ-Asked safety hazards such as dead trees or what are you referring to?
MR. HAGAN-Stated no. You say here (referring to Covenant) "These restrictions
shall not apply to removal of diseased vegetation, rotten or damage trees, or other
vegetation presenting safety or health hazards". We can determine that the tree
is diseased be we can't determine, uniformly, whether trees are being removed for
safety or health hazards. That does not apply only to diseased vegetation it applies
to any tree determined to be(TAPE TURNED) I'd like that tied down a little more.
MR. MANZ-Stated well since we're revising A for B we can add a phrase in there
that with Town approval. Basically meaning someone with the Town saying yes, it's
unsafe and then they'll take it down.
MR. HAGAN-Stated I'm not knit-picking.
MR. MANZ-Stated that's a valid point. Weill just add something to the effect that
the Town would review it along with the developer.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated to carryon with what Peter was saying, donlt we want that somehow
noted on the plat about the cutting restrictions.
MR. MANZ-Stated percentages are noted. I'm not so sure all the detailed verbiage
in this is in there. I donlt think it's on the map, but the jist of it, I think,
is, on the percentages.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated ok, that's probably it.
MR. JABLONSKI-Stated you could add a note saying "See Covenant".
4
--./
MR. MANZ-Stated I think we should. Put a reference to tie it to these.
MR. JABLONSKI-Stated put a reference to tie it together and that way it's on your
file.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked, how does that work because restrictive
our bailiwick, unless we expressly incorporate them into our
we just have. In this case, it probably would carry water.
from the Board? Our concerns have pretty well been addressed.
covenants are not in
motion which, I guess,
Any further questions
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1989 PARTRIDGE RUN;SCRlMSHAW
VENTURES, INC., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded
by James Hagan:
That the waiver submitted be accepted with the following stipulations: That in
Part 3, Cutting Restrictions, of DC Item l6A under "Cutting Restrictions" be
eliminated. Add to l6B the phrase "with Town approval" and that a revised copy
make reference on the plat to cutting restrictions in the B Covenant and that a
revised version of that B Covenant and plat be submitted within 30 days of the
filing.
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MR. MANZ-Asked we have to file this within 60 days of tonight, is that correct?
MR. ROBERTS-Stated right.
MR. MANZ-Asked, if the Health Department hasn't formally reviewed it, let's say
it takes them over 60 days to review it, you won't sign it until they sign it,
is that correct?
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's correct.
MR. MANZ-Stated I know they donlt have a problem with it, but it's just the formal
submission wasn't made until, I think, a few weeks ago. So, it's tied up in their
review cycle.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I suggest you come back to us for the review and reapproval.
MR. MANZ-Stated ok, if we have to we will, just like the previous case. Thanks.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think Peter made a comment that we apparently have been reading
Lee's notes and I guess we've already started to help out on this one note. I've
got your letter. It's from Lee York, Senior Planner, I've been requesting that
any plans which are final approvals that you have made modifications to be submitted
to the Department with the changes identified.
They had problems in the past identifying exactly what the final approval entails
because of a lack of a modified plan. Unfortunately, applicants have been agreeing
to bring in the modifications and have not done this. We currently have four
applications in this position. What I would like to suggest is that we place a
statement in the ordinance which indicates that if a revised plan is not submitted
by the deadline date of the following month, the approval lapses. This gives the
applicant 30 days to circle any changes on the plan with a magic marker, date it,
and submit it as the final copy. Stated I guess we have taken one step beyond
that tonight, perhaps, and we probably still all agree that maybe a change in the
ordinance is indicated. I have no problem with that.
MRS. YORK-Stated thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE Pl-90 FRANK AND MARIE BRENNEISON WEST SIDE OF GLEN
LAKE ROAD TAX MAP NO. 36-1-4 CURRENT ZONING: RR-3A PROPOSED ZONING: RR-1A
LOT SIZE: 3.33 ACRES
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
5
--..-/
'--"
MRS. YORK-Stated I've just been asked what the surrounding zoning is and it's 3
acres.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked, is there anyone here to appear for the applicant tonight? (there
was none) Lee, you said the surrounding land was 3 acres, you don't mean across
the road?
MRS. YORK-Stated no, on the lake shore side of the Glen Lake Road it is a one acre
zone. This is on the other side.
MR. CARTIER-Asked, but it's WR-l on that side of the road, correct?
MRS. YORK-Stated yes. It's Waterfront Residential.
MR. CARTIER-Asked, and it's RR-3 on the other side of the road?
MRS. YORK-Stated yes.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I seem to recall, I'm trying to remember when we rezoned this,
....the master plan. I think we gave it the one acre designation simply to reflect
in reality what was there.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked you mean on the waterfront side?
MR. CARTIER-Stated on the waterfront side.
protecting the rest of that simply because
it's also valid that I think the Glen Lake
as sewer, isn't that what we recommended?
While we were very concerned about
of the extremely high perced soil and
area is the number one priority as far
MRS. YORK-Stated yes, as far as sewer and water. In fact, about 2 months ago,
the Glen Lake Association, in mass, appeared before the Town Board and requested
that they designate the Lake and within 250 feet of it, a critical environmental
area, but the Town Board went with a 100 foot designation.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated this lot has some topography problems as well. It's pretty
up and down. . . . . there's a lot of through drainage. It doesn't look all that
easily developable.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I don't know how you cut three driveways without running into
some kind of sideline problem on the road anyway.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I have a negative feeling about this. This does not call for
a public hearing. The Town Board will hold that.
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE Pl-90 FRANK AND MARIE BRENNEISON,
Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
Staff notes be attached to the recommendation and the minutes of this portion of
the meeting to be typed and forwarded along with this.
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P2-90 ROBERT AND SHIRLEY SANDERS
SANDERS ROAD EAST SIDE OF VANDUSEN ROAD TAX MAP NO. 126-1-71.1
SR-lA PROPOSED ZONING: LI-lA LOT SIZE: 3.33 ACRES
NORTH SIDE OF
CURRENT ZONING:
SHIRLEY SANDERS PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
Note: Mrs. York
"This is an error.
later modified her staff notes to delete the lines which read
The property was zoned SR-30 prior to October 1988."
MRS. YORK-Stated I'd just like to explain to the Board that, at this point in time,
I've talked to another property owner on Corinth Road who also wants to make
6
,rr --.~
'~
application to be zoned light industrial and is currently generating a petition
amongst the neighbors there to do that. I don't know if your recommendation should
be to the Town Board to look at these all at the same time and see if they are
appropriate for that entire area rather than going lot by lot or petition by
petition. Look at them as one corporate body.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated I'm Mrs. Sanders and I live on VanDusen Road. Why I'm here
tonight, as she said, in petition with Michael Baird to change zoning on the Corinth
Road to light industrial, then the property all the way from that side of me would
be light industrial and I have a junkyard right behind me which is in a residential
area which will be a residential area if the zoning is approved for Baird. What
11m suggesting when I went to the Planning Board was to have them see if that whole
area on the east side, including my property, might be, you might consider changing
it to light industrial out as far as the Luzerne Road, back as far as the pole
line which encompass all that property ... and why it couldn't be done, that's what
I'm saying. I tried to sell my property. I had it all sold, all ready for the
downpayment and the zoning changed and I lost my buyer last year. We were in a
light industrial area at that time and at that time he didn't want to have it as
a residence. So that's why I went to the Board to see if I could get it changed.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I think in the interest of saving you and a lot of other people
time out there, rather than individual property owners coming to the Town Board,
it gets kicked to us, we kick it back to the Town Board which takes up a lot of
your time. I think what needs to happen is I think the people out in that
neighborhood need to, and some of them already have, I think these people all need
to get together and come in to the Town Board with, in effect, a finished idea.
Here's the entire area that you want to have rezoned.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated well I've made an application. I don't know if anyone else
on the north side of the Sanders Road and on the east side of VanDusen Road have
made requests. I don't know if they have or not.
MR. CARTIER-Asked, are you familiar with this map? In the dark, is that property
owners who have already indicated there willingness to rezone?
MRS. SANDERS-Stated yes, that's the one- Michael Baird.
MR. CARTIER-Stated among others.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated yes. This is where I am right here (referring to map)
MR. CARTIER-Asked, there's a junkyard here?
MRS. SANDERS-Stated right here. North of me.
MR. CARTIER-Stated there's property up here, those people need to be contacted.
Whoever is on the outer fringes of this, this mayor may not inc lude you, needs
to be aware that because they will eventually border residential property, that
there will be a 50 foot buffer.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated that's why I suggested to Mr. Goralski why, see the pole line,
Niagra Mohawk, runs this way, goes off to the Luzerne Road and the firehouse on
the corner here in between Morris Combs has a tractor trailer place where you store
trailers and on the other side of him, coming toward me, is Bob Clark has a used
car lot.
MR. CARTIER-Stated those probably all should be included and what we're saying,
and I suspect we're going to get more of these petitions like this, I think we
can save you, as I said, time. All these people need to get together and come
up with a finished product.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated I'll have to go to them and I'll have to see if I can get them
to.
MR. CARTIER-Stated here's a list of names of people we are already aware of. You
can have that.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked do we want to make this sort of a
I feel obligated to say something to the Town Board.
saying to the Town Board is that we probably have no
as Sander's plans, but should only be part of it.
two-pronged attack though.
I would think what we're
problem with rezoning this
7
MRS. SANDERS-Stated my idea, it should include the whole area.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated a number of us have thought that for some time and we got shot
down.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated the zoning changed before we made the master plan. Everybody
kept say well we're not going to change that area in there, we're not going to
change that area in there and then as soon as it went through, the area was changed.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I donlt want to slap you on the wrist, but I wish you had attended
the public hearing because we heard from the opposition and we didn't hear from
the neighbors who wanted the change.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated my husband had been sick and I want to see if I can sell the
property. As I say I have a letter from my real estate agent, Mr. Sehlmeyer, that's
been included in there and he said that you definitely cannot sell it as a residence
with the other properties the way they are.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked, aren't we in some agreement that we should tell the Town Board
we think we should not just look at this individual property, but there are probably
more parcels in the area heading out to Luzerne Road and perhaps back to the power
line that should be considered.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated yes, they should be.
MR. JABLONSKI-Stated when we went through this in the first petition with these
people, we've been through the same scenerio and I think the counsel recommended
that we could only address what was before us. We could ask what happened to 46,
42.3, 47 and not include those and we were told at that time that would address...
and I think that's what we did. We recommended a light industrial, but to look
at these....parcels. I agree with you.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated you could use the pole line as a buffer line is what I'm trying
to say. The pole line could be a buffer line at Luzerne Road and the rest of Van
Dusen Road.
MRS. YORK-Stated but the thing is, I think, what Mr. Cartier is saying is that
Mrs. Sanders should go and contact her neighbors and come in and have them join
her in her petition.
MR. JABLONSKI-Stated we asked that that happen for lots 46, 42, and 47 at the same
time and that didn't happen.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated I can't understand that because Bobby Clark owns the piece
of property on the other side of the pole line.
MR. CARTIER-Stated they may be in the process of talking right now. I think, if
I hear everybody right, I think what we I re going to end up doing with your piece
of property is recommending to the Town Board is that it be incorporated into another
a position. It's already in the works.
MRS. SANDERS-Asked will I have to go ahead and have a map drawn up and have to
go all through this process of what Michael Baird had to go through?
MR. CARTIER-Stated I don't think so. I think as a group you could do that, correct?
MRS. YORK-Stated Mrs. Sanders, I would be happy to help you.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated alright. Will I have to wait for the Board meeting now for
the Town Board?
MRS. YORK-Stated why don't you come on into my office tomorrow and we'll discuss
what has to be done.
MRS. SANDERS-Stated alright. Thank you.
MOTION IN REGARDS TO PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE P2-90 ROBERT AND SHIRLEY SANDERS,
Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
I suggest this Board recommend to the Town Board that this petition be incorporated
into a second Petition for a Change of Zone known as P9-89 and that the Town Board
consider other presently non-industrial property in the area for rezoning as light
industrial.
8
'---
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 2-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A HERBERT AND MARGAR:lT KANE 45 FITZGERALD
ROAD, GLEN LAKE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FT. BY 19 FT. SCREEN PORCH. (WAR.RElf
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-13 LOT SIZE: 24,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 9.010
DAN KANE, REPRESENTING THE KANES, PRESENT
STAFF NOTES
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MRS. YORK-Stated at Staff Review the engineer did not feel that any engineering
review was necessary.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I'd like to know why it's here.
MR. KANE-Stated it's here because supposedly an alteration of a nonconforming
structure. The structure received a variance in 1985, 84 somewhere around there.
It was an opinion of the Zoning Enforcement Officer that the structure continued
to be nonconforming thus requiring the site plan review.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated the spokesman is Dan Kane for the record.
MR. KANE-Stated yes, I'm here on behalf of my parents Herbert and Margaret Kane.
MR. CARTIER-Asked isn't that also here because it's waterfront.
MR. KANE-Stated this application was applied ..... environmental area although we
did submit a long environmental assessment form, just in case there was any question.
MRS. YORK-Stated yes, they received a variance for that.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked do we have any questions? Does this mean, Dan, you're going
to make us go through the Long Environmental Assessment Form?
MR. KANE-Stated yes, I'd like you to read that for the record.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess it I S true we do need to address SEQRA on this in the
Long Form.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WIlEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE
RESOLUTION NO. 2-90, Introduced by Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joseph Dybas:
WHEREAS, there is presently before this Planning Board and application for:
construction of a 14 ft. by 19 ft. screen porch by HERBERT AND MARGARET KANE, 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
9
~.
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 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-90 HERBERT AND MARG~B¡¡;T KANE, Introduced by
Keith Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
For a 14 ft. by 19 ft. screen porch.
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 3-90 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA JOHN DOTY D/B/A U-RENT ALL 684 UPPER
GLEN STREET TO REMOVE THREE STORAGE BUILDINGS AND REPLACE THEM WITH ONE 60 FT.
BY 60 FT. POLE BARN. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 102-1-9.2 LOT SIZE:
l± ACRE SECTION: 4.020
TOM ALBRECHT, SR., HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION, AGENT, PRESENT;JOHN DOTY PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Referring to the Staff Notes, what was the nature of this variance?
MRS. YORK-Stated it was from shoreline setbacks.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked, from the little stream?
MRS. YORK-Asked on both sides?
MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes.
MRS. YORK-Stated yes.
MR. DOTY-Stated no, it was nonconforming use.
MRS. YORK-Stated I'm sorry, Mr. Doty. Right.
MR. DOTY-Stated it was nonconforming use because it I S a Plaza Commercial and it
doesn't say anything about rental businesses in a Plaza Commercial zone.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated ok. Thank you.
MRS. YORK-Stated we do have a letter here from the Wynns. Would you like me to
read it at this time?
MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes, I think we should.
10
~
MR. HAGAN-Asked is this part of a public hearing, this letter?
MRS. YORK-Stated we could wait until the public hearing portion if you prefer.
MR. HAGAN-Stated personally, I'd prefer that.
MRS. YORK-Stated ok.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from John Ferguson, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. ALBRECHT-Stated (referring to Engineer Report, specifically the line "The detail
shows an 18 inch diameter pipe while the plan and stormwater runoff calculations
indicate a 24 inch diameter pipe.") That's an error in the paperwork.
MR. FERGUSON-Stated it's a minor thing.
MR. ALBRECHT-Stated it requires a 24".
to the building and the construction
from C.T. Male representing us also.
I'm Tom Albrecht from Hilltop in relationship
of the drainage. We have Keith Manz here
MR. FERGUSON-Stated all we just need
that.
is some clarification so the plans reflect
MR. ALBRECHT-Stated yes. It shows it two different ways on the plan. Twenty-four
inch will be required and will be installed.
MR. DOTY-Stated actually if you get under the ice and snow you find there is a
gravel strip about 20 feet wide.
MR. FERGUSON-Stated (referring to notes) that was just a recommendation and when
I went out there there was snow. So I'm not digging through the snow.
MR. CARTIER-Asked you're saying there is no pavement at the edge of the snow.
MR. DOTY-Stated there's a 20 foot strip of gravel there.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated when I look at that again, I thought that there was a spot where
the pavement was closer to that.
MR. DOTY-Stated (referring to map) down on the Dunkin' Doughnuts end, where you
see the notch in the property there, that's Dunkin' Doughnuts property.
MR. ALBRECHT-Asked did someone ask a question about the depth of that gravel?
MR. HAGAN-Stated yes.
MR. ALBRECHT-Stated I would say around 6 inches.
MR. HAGAN-Stated you say gravel.
MR. DOTY-Stated it's stone.
MR. CARTIER-Stated we've been working on the idea that that stuff turns impermeable
with time. We may want to incorporate the engineers second comment preferably
the vegetative strip.
MR. ALBRECHT-Stated I'd like to start the process.
it. . . .
We're going to incorporate
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I was surprised, I guess I haven't been back there in quite
awhile, how much cutting and how much it's opened up in the back rather close to
the apartments to the rear. How close are you to the property line of the
apartments?
MR. DOTY-Stated we abut properties.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think this is a case where we would normally expect a 50 foot
buffer zone in between residential and commercial use. What's the property zoned
for back to the apartments.
11
"--'
-.-/
MR. DOTY-Stated I believe it's also Plaza Commercial.
PUBLIC HEARING
MR. LEIBOWITZ-Good evening my name's Neil Leibowitz and I'm an associate attorney
of LaPann/Reardon of Glens Falls we represent Ethel and Raymond Wynn. The Wynn's
are owners of property which would border the eastern portion of the applicant I s
property. The Wynn's are not opposed to the application, per se, but believe it
should be conditional in nature. There is concern over runoff from the property
and how it effects the Wynn's land. The best way to explain the problem is with
a picture. I've taken several photographs of the applicant's property from the
Wynn's property. If Glen Street was to your back and you were facing the western
portion of the Wynn's property, this is what you Id be confronted with panning from
left to right(referring to pictures) as your facing their property. The problem
arises from the substantial volume of fill which was brought into the applicant's
property. It builds it up almost 3 feet, if not more. As a matter of fact, in
each of these photographs either in the center or slightly off center, you'll see
a yardstick that I put standing up and that'll give you some perspective on the
height. For example, if I was standing on the table and you were standing on ground
level, you would see a 3 feet difference. If you take a look at the site plan
map that was modified by the engineer from C.T. Male.
MR. CARTIER-In these photos, how high above the ground was the camera, approximately?
MR. LEIBOWITZ-I tried to kneel down and get as even with the yardstick looking
straight up. So it's not going to be precise. My range from the yardstick varied
from, I would say, anywhere from 8 to 15 feet. The Wynn's land itself is relatively
level. There are bumps, but on the whole it's relatively level as is the applicant's
property. If you take a look at the modified site plan map that the applicant
submitted, the one prepared by the engineer. You'll even see that at least they
contemplate a drainage problem going through both streams. In one case to the
north of the break in the property near the incline and then to the south to the
southerly stream. If you take a look at, we'll call it watershed number one which
is the northern portion of the property, you'll even see that they contemplate
to some degree.. .water towards the Wynn's land. That would be along the 117 foot
property line. That's the longest flow path. You can see that that projects across
the Wynn's property which means, assuming that there is an incline from the breakline
on the applicant's property, as water flows to the north it will also flow down
this embankment onto the Wynn's land. Assuming the relatively level nature of
. . . property there, it is to some degree going to lead to puddling, pools and
eventually moving the water into the stream. What we would like to see a condition
attached to the approval which would ensure that any surface waters that do come
from the applicant's land are channeled to the stream either because they would
go down the incline to the north or else there's some type of collecting drain
system that would remove it from the property as it comes down that embankment
towards the stream. That would also improve some landscaping too. That's something
that applicant could address in perhaps a supplemental report from their engineer.
MR. HAGAN-Are you aware of what the topography was of that area before the applicant
brought in the fill? My question really is getting at why the applicant brought
the fill in in the first place?
MR. LEIBOWITZ-My knowledge of it would be what I've been informed by my client
which was that the applicant's property was on the same level as my client's.
MR. HAGAN-Usually you bring in fill to fill in a wet area or swamp. That's what
I'm trying to get at. What was the topography there before. It's the same level.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-Roughly the same level.
MR. HAGAN-I misused the word topography. What was the drainage situation there.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-The drainage situation was probably pretty messy.
low land and even the streams are not that clear.
It's all very
MR. HAGAN-As I visualize this from the map and from those pictures, before the
fill was brought in, the people you represent were probably suffering from more
moisture there then they are now.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-I don't think that there's any question that there would be moisture
on their site. The fact is that by building up the land behind it, the.. .made
a...become worse.
12
--../
MR. HAGAN-It sounds to me though like they made it better. I'm just asking.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-Who made it better?
MR. HAGAN-Our applicant.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-The applicant on their property, but not as it effects our property.
MR. HAGAN-That's what I'm questioning. I think they did.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-How so.
MR. HAGAN-I think they reduced a swamp area by 50 percent. It existed there.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-On their property.
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-But they have to be concerned with the flow of water off their property
onto adjoining properties which again, I think they have reduced by 50 percent
from its original well.
MR. DYBAS-The Town states that you cannot put your drainage on somebody elses
property. You have to take care of it on your own property.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-We're not suggesting that any changes they make on their plans would
be on our property.
MR. DYBAS-11m saying that the responsibility is there's that they have to take
care of the drainage without effecting you. In other words they can't dump dirt
and runoff on your property.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-Oh agreed entirely. We wouldn't want them to. As a matter of fact,
thatls our position. (TAPE TURNED) I'm not an engineer, I'm an assumption that,
again, .... incline would deposit the drainage on this northern water shed would
carry at least the surface water on the northern portion towards the northern stream,
but that it also as it does go north down that, that it also does not flow onto
the Wynnls property because of the shape of the embankment on that eastern portion
of their property and also as it flows toward the northern stream.
MR. ROBERTS-You're saying there's another stream to the north as well as the one
...to the south located on this map.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-I want you to take a look at the site plan as been modified by the
engineer from C. T. Male. (Referring to map) As I pointed out, this area right
here is 117 foot long property line between the property owned by the Wynn's and
the property owned by the applicant. In the engineers modified map, he shows the
break, surface waters going in two directions. Watershed number one on the northern
portion of the break, it shows the water as going towards the minor stream towards
the north. Watershed two the flow of surface waters would go towards the stream
towards the south. On the property line between the Wynn's property and the
applicant IS, there is essentially about a 3 foot drop from all the fill that's
been brought into here. If you look at the C.T. Male prepared site plan, the
applicant's engineer, your seeing that they're projecting water going this way
and even their lines showing the longest distance would be bringing that surface
water over the Wynn's property. What we want to do is ensure that any approval
issued by the Board would condition it such so that cautions would be taken so
that surface waters, in draining towards the northern stream, do not come on to
the Wynn's property which would come out by going north or by rolling down the
embankment to the east if your looking from the applicant's property. In addition
to that, to a minor degree, you're going to have some flow of sediment too as that
bank on the property line caves from the erosion caused by flow of water and we
want to ensure, basically, that those are safegaurded against.
MR. ROBERTS- I must say that I was not impressed with the original map that I've
worked with and ..there is a better one.
MR. LEIBOWITZ-If you read the report from the engineer from C.T. Male, you'll also
see that they don't have any topographic information in their report.
MR. JABLONSKI-Is there a scale on this?
13
---'
'---
MRS. YORK-On my copy is says 1 to 30.
MR. ALBRECHT-One inch equals 30 feet. If I might comment. The drainage was a
preexisting drainage situation as far as the site with fill. The fill has been
in there approximately 2 years. It I S a preexisting situation and now that we're
going to the Board to ask for the approval of this pole building, now the issue
has become an issue. The drainage has been in a prexisting situation.
MR. ROBERTS-Sometimes we get the opportunity to make improvements along the way.
Mr. Leibowitz, would you like this letter of yours read into the record or have
covered this letter adequately?
MR. LEIBOWITZ-I believe I've covered the substance of the letter. I would assume
that because I have submitted it to the Board, it would be made part of the
administrative record. If you require to read it in to do that, that's fine with
me.
MR. JABLONSKI-I have a question for Mr. Doty. Because drainage appears to be an
issue when we're looking at two streams, you have a lot of construction equipment
and such... . where does that drainage go? How do you handle that? There's got
to be fluids and fuel oils and stuff on the equipment. Is it handled in a certain
area?
MR. DOTY-It is handled in the vicinity of the building on the blacktop where it's
cleaned up. We have drains in that area.
MR. JABLONSKI-I'm just concerned about drainage from the...to the stream.
MR. DYBAS-Those drains go where?
MR. DOTY-Right now, my septic field.
that area.
I'm hoping that in the future....do about
MR. ROBERTS-Am I the only one who feels some of this mapping was inadequate? In
regards to, we normally see more topo work and we've got two streams involved and
I think, historically, some fringing on those streams, and though the neighbors
have complained in the past, never got very much accomplished. We've worried about
on the other side of the stream here recently.
MR. DYBAS-I think that in some of our past practices we have been very concerned
about the stream to start with and I would like to see more emphasis placed on
it.
MR. CARTIER-I believe that there's enough changes that need to be done here that
you may want to look at this again.
MR. ROBERTS-Right.
MR. JABLONSKI-I'd like to bring up something. I've been to the site. There's
also traffic congestion in the entranceway which I think we might handle by dealing
with .... There's been other applications before us that tends to try to do that.
We may have an opportunity to see how this traffic will come in and out of here
besides these little arrows. The corner of your entrance tends to get very cluttered
with cars.
MR. DOTY-That' s very difficult to solve without moving that to Dunkin' Doughnuts
ourselves.
MR. ROBERTS-Maybe this would have to be voluntary. I'm concerned about a buffer
zone. This use and the uses to the west, the snow seems to be covering up a
multitude of sins out there. Probably a lot of improvements that could be rendered
on the site. Maybe now is the time when that could be done.
MR. DOTY-Mr. Roberts, that's what we're trying to do.
MR. ROBERTS-If somehow we could get a little farther back from this southern stream,
we'd all feel more comfortable as well. As Mr. Cartier mention, we recently
considered gravel parking as paved parking because basically because it packs down
after a while and gets impervious.
MR. DYBAS-Gravel is just temporary anyway.
14
'-
'-----
MR. DOTY-I think if you look at the diagram, we are removing a good deal of the
parking that we...have and putting a grassy area in there in that diagram.
MR. ROBERTS-Where it says grassy area, that is presently blacktop parking?
MR. DOTY-That is presently gravel.
MR. ROBERTS-Presently gravel and used for parking.
MR. DOTY-Yes.
MR. JABLONSKI-You're pushing the parking, further west?
MR. DOTY-Further west and actually behind the, we hope some of it will go in behind
the buildings in the locations of the buildings that we're moving.
MR. ROBERTS-Where it says parking, that's going to be blacktop not packed gravel.
MR. DOTY-I was not intending to blacktop it, no.
MR. CARTIER-I think maybe we can incorporate the engineers suggestions that once
those old buildings are out of there, that parking can be moved slightly to the
north. Possibly to the west and the north and incorporate a vegetative strip in
there.
MR. ALBRECHT-Can we safely pursue a grading of this water flow on the site to the
north so the natural runoff would be to the north? Would that be acceptable to
this Board?
MR. CARTIER-I'm not sure I understand what youlre asking.
MR. ALBRECHT-Regrading of the site conditions as they are for the natural runoff
to flow towards the north stream.
MR. HAGAN-And only the north stream.
MR. ALBRECHT-And only the north stream.
MR. ROBERTS-I'm not that familiar with that north stream, but that sounds like
basically
MR. ALBRECHT-It's a very minor stream.
MR. ROBERTS-Does that come around here and come back to the same stream?
MR. ALBRECHT-I'm not sure if it's all connected or not. Maybe John could answer
that.
MR. DOTY-This is a minor stream running through here (referring to map). Basically
it's all swampy area. As I understand it goes through upper Glen and to a culvert
pipe or something and this one is going the same way. They both come this way
and they come together down this way, but this is apparently a minor drain.
MR. CARTIER-I think what we're saying to you is, come in with a drainage plan that
takes care of the Wynn's problem. The water is no longer going on to their property.
Take care of a drainage plan that, however you work it out, that somehow is buffered
before it gets to the stream on both north and south. I don't know that we can
go much beyond that in terms of specifics can we?
MR. ROBERTS-Probably not. We donlt want to design the project. While you're adding
those things up though, can we talk about some kind of a buffer to the west? It
might help the aesthetics of your property as well.
MRS. PULVER-My question is should Mr. Doty be totally responsible for the water
on the Wynn's property because it wasn't the existing condition. Maybe they should
also do something to keep the water off their property.
MR. CAIMANO-The Wynn's aren't trying to change their property, the Doty' s are.
Why should the Wynn's be forced to do anything.
MR. HAGAN-The point is, the Wynn's maybe better off now then they were 10 years
ago. That's the point we haven't established. I'm not trying to take sides.
15
-.../
MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sure I can see your logic there, but it's possible I suppose.
MR. ALBRECHT-I think his logic is, you're asking for improvements to be made on
the west side that are not related to this project only because we're here and
welre saying, ok, we're discussing this whole situation so let's address the Wynnls
problem now. Let's possibly, let's do something with their problem and they do
have a high water table. The problem is the high water table in that area which
has caused the problem.
MR. CARTIER-Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think it's that
complicated. I think it's been the general policy of this Board, that when somebody
comes in for a site plan review that the drainage on their property does not leave
problems for somebody else on an adjacent property. What we're saying is you need
to handle the drainage on your property to such an extent that it does not interfere
with or cause problems for adjacent property owners.
MR. ALBRECHT-The proposal that we put in front of you was to build a building on
this building. The water that we were going to develop from this building was
going to be put in gutter in drains and let into a stream, the displacement of
it. There would be no natural runoff into anyones property other than what's already
been there.
MR. CARTIER-I understand what you're saying, but, again, it's been the policy of
this Board when we've had a chance to improve what may not be a building good
situation, we try to improve it. What you're saying, if I'm hearing you right,
is the building itself is not aggravating the drainage.
MR. ALBRECHT-Absolutely not.
MR. CARTIER-I agree with that, but understand that this Board has a policy of what
we're attempting to do tonight.
MR. ROBERTS-Looking at the entire site and making what improvements are reasonable.
MR. DOTY-I don't see a problem with putting a berm or whatever's required. We
intend to plant that with grass and that indicates more to the side of the property
which the Wynn's are on. We have lawnmower' s we have to test all the time. We
need someplace to do it.
MR. ROBERTS- I guess we're zeroing in on the fact that we think perhaps this needs
to be tabled for additional information and I guess we all understand what we're
talking about.
MR. HAGAN-In the same breath though, will the recommendations that this Board has
made tonight, satisfy the Wynn's?
MR. JABLONSKI-I think Peter said that if they show us that they've dealt with their
drainage appropriately and with the new building, then it's up to the engineers
to review it and this Board to agree that that site has been properly designed
and engineered.
MR. ALBRECHT-Based on the information we have, could we ask for an approval on
this?
MR. CARTIER-That's not possible.
MR. ALBRECHT-Could this Board give me some on what they would like me to do?
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Do we have agreement from you, however, that you are agreeable to table
this?
MR. ALBRECHT-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-90 JOHN DOTY, Introduced by Peter Cartier who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Roberts wants to put a buffer at the western end between this
property line and Queensbury Gardens and it just seems to me that that really
clarification for us in general, that really isn't what this is all about. Do
we have a right to go back.
16
--'
MRS. YORK-This Board can ask for a screening if they so choose or a buffer zone
if they so choose, but I would like to point out that Queensbury Garden requested
that zoning (UR-10). During the rezoning issue.
MS. CORPUS-All I would recommend is whatever you decide to recommend that you back
it up with your reasoning on the record.
MR. CAIMANO-But we would, as a Board, have a right to go back and look at other
things.
MR. ROBERTS- I certainly know we can't get carried away on this and demand a 50
foot but it's something that would improve the looks of the...property and perhaps
the applicant would be willing to do some of this.
MR. DOTY-It is so wet back there now, no coniferous trees would grow. You cannot
walk back there without sinking in to your shins. Most of the trees that are in
there that are dying is because of the water that's.. and has killed the trees out
there. (TAPE TURNED)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-90 JOHN DOTY, Introduced by Peter Cartier who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
With the following recommendations: That the drainage concerns by the Wynn property
be addressed, that vegetative screening buffers be provided between the screen
on both the north and south end of the property and that a traffic flow pattern
be established. The Chairman has left the public portion of the meeting open.
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 4-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A ROBERT JOY & ASSOC. SILVERSTEIN, LOFTUS,
& RUSS, CPA'S, P.C. 50 EVERTS AVENUE FOR A 30 FT. BY 36 FT. ADDITION. (WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-1-2.1, 2.6, 3 LOT SIZE: 2.19 ACRES SECTION
4.020
BOB JOY, ARCHITECT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from John Ferguson, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. CAIMANO-Stated there has been a letter handed to all of us that raises a legal
question. Before we carried away with this, I think we should ask.. whether or
not this has any merit because if it does, there's no sense in going on with this.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I haven I t read this.
letter.
Has counsel had a chance to read this
MS. CORPUS-Stated yes. Did you want to read that into the public hearing portion?
MR. CAIMANO-Stated I do think
very...presentation, but if it has
it's silly to waste all of our time.
we should because otherwise. This is a
no merit and we can't go on with this thing,
MR. HAGAN-Stated I don't think that concerns us though.
MS. CORPUS-Stated I think Mr. Hagan has a point. The Board is obligated to review
the application before it as it I S presented today and make your recommendations
from there.
MR. CAIMANO-Stated that's all I want to know. Thank you.
MS. CORPUS-Stated it could still stand as part of the public hearing.
17
~
'--'
MR. JOY-Stated I'm Bob Joy and architect with Robert Joy & Associates. We're working
with Silverstein, Loftus, & Russ in what is minor addition to, I think, a fairly
modest budget that you can see by the site plan here which is simply a color version
of what you have. The building area on the site gives it a proposed addition of
about aI, 000 sq. ft., 30 ft. by 36 ft. and a proposed storage building for the
back of the property. It would only be about 6.24 percent of the site. Paving,
even when it's standard, would only be a little over 12 percent of the site. Leaving
approximately a little bit over 80 percent of the site as undeveloped space, much
of which is wooded and shown by the existing tree line which runs around a ...that
would not be disturbed. The existing building, if you know it, has pitched roofs
and to collect the water from those roofs it uses gutters as well as a french drain,
if you will, cribbing with cobbles and crushed stone, which I've shown in brown
around the building designed in with that are a series of green planting beds which
are formal landscaping. The site itself is relatively flat and..as part of a
proposed parking expansion which was shown back in here. It will extend a little
bit of the pavement. .adjacent to the proposed storage building as noted by the
engineer. Retention basin would be provided in that area. We are proposing dividing
29 parking spaces at present in terms of paved parking including 2 handicapped
spaces which do not exist now, but we would really strive to accommodate that.
We have six designated in the future which would bring us to 35 alone required.
At present, however, there are only 15 employees within the building. Expansion
within the building does 2 things. One, it takes dead storage from within the
building which is in this back area right now and places it in the proposed storage
building. Lee, to answer your question specifically, what they are attempting
to do with the storage building is simply bring old records to the site that are
now stored in warehouses that are rented because we do have a need for occasional
access to that if not frequent access. Basically it would be paper storage, no
chemicals or other flammable or incendiary materials that would cause any significant
hazard.. in the building. The other purpose of the addition to the building is
more or les s to expand the s taf f areas they have now. We're only providing, in
our plans, for a maximum of five additional staff members. There will only be
20 people working there. Therefore if you have 29 parking spaces... As a practical
matter, any of the times I've visited the site or driven by, there doesn't seem
to be any parking out in the parking lot here. Most of the staff is easily
accommodated in the back. It seems that in terms of expansion of... and in terms
of site plan review, we will have a modest addition on the site and it should not
result in additional runoff and adequate space has all been handled on the site
and we have supported that drainage calculations and all our calculations prepared
by the LA group that we sent in with the application.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it seems pretty straight forward to me.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HENRY J. WARD JR.
MR. WARD-My name is Henry J. Ward, Jr. and I'm the successor/trustee to the Edward
S. Grey Estate. This property, at the time, I have the letter here. I think
perhaps I should read it into the record. If you could bear with me and understand
my southern accent. Actually, I don't think I should read anything other than
the notice on the bottom is that correct? This is directed to Mr. Richard Roberts
as Chairman and Board members. Be it hereby known that this date, the 16th day
of January, 1990, that I, Henry J. Ward, Jr., successor/trustee to the estate of
Edward S. Grey of Glens Falls, New York, do hereby objected to Site Plan Review
No. 4-90, being accepted and approved on the grounds that the above mentioned
property located at 50 Everts Avenue, Queensbury, New York, formerly belonging
to the Edward S. Grey estate and sold by the then executor of the Grey Estate,
Saul Silverstein, to his wife Ellen Silverstein, and, in my opinion, being one
and the same. On the grounds that this, our objection, being hereby and herein
stated that the estate of Edward S. Grey has not been judicially settled because
of an impending appeal in the appellate court of appeals in Albany, New York and
further that the estate objects to Saul Silverstein, in essence, selling the above
described real property to himself or to his wife, his partner, whicht in my opinion,
is one and the same as stated above. I do not wish, nor does the widow of Edward
S. Grey, that this property in the above mentioned property until such time as
this objection has been resolved by the court of appeals in the forthcoming trial
or by other court decisions necessary to facilitate the state settlement insofaras
Mr. Silverstein's actions are concerned as past executor. And I added a little
bit here, an afterthought that I might make too. Now, this particular. Ok, Ilm
sorry. Let me do this: "As Mr. Silverstein's actions are concerned as past executor
concerning this transaction as above. I don't want to get into any other
transactions, we're only talking about one at this time. I might add too, also
18
I might add that this is my expressed op1.n1.on since the estate has not been, as
of yet, settled in court. It has been in the process of closing out or selling
this estate since December of 1972. Also, one further thing. I noticed that not
only are they attempting to put a building on this site attached to the building
that's there now, but also they're planning, now this property that they're
attempting to put this storage building is also in the property that Mr. Silverstein
sold to his wife or his partner or himself, as far as I'm concerned. Not only
this, but I also mention that the estate still has a right-of-way coming off of
Quaker Road and running between the liquor store and the Century 21 Realtor office
and behind the dental lab, intersecting with right-of-way that goes past the 50
Everts property. This would cause an additional flow of traffic on this property
and if you I ve ever been out that way, you can look and see how this property has
been maintained by Mr. Silverstein over the past 16 or 17 years. You almost turn
your vehicle over going over it and it hasn't been corrected, even though I asked
that they correct it before it was turned over to me and, by the way, I have the
documentation as to my position, in 1987, September the 25th, I was appointed by
the Warren County Service Court as successor/trustee. If I might add further.
The reason we're upset about this is that the widow, Mrs. Edward S. Grey, has
received a sum total, since 1972 of $4,150 in income from an estate that was valued
at a liquidity of from between 5-600,000 dollars that Mr. Grey held.
MR. HAGAN-Counsel, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very sympathetic to your plight,
but I don't see this Board as a judicial group. This is not a court of law. The
question before this Board is not, who own's this property, but as a tax payer
to this property, can we allow them to build an addition to this building or not.
Anything beyond that is not within this Board's jurisdiction. Am I correct or
incorrect?
MS. CORPUS-Correct.
MR. HAGAN-And I'm very sympathetic to your plight, however, I don't believe this
is the place for you to bring this up. I think the court of law is the place.
MR. WARD-I understand that, that would happen in the Court of Appeals in Albany,
New York. The reason I'm making the point is, we have objected to Mr. Silverstein's
selling the property to himself initially and this would be covered in the court
procedures.
MR. ROBERTS-Sir, I think we've gotten this information from you and I think we're
not going to allow you to involve the Town in a neighborhood, judicial matter here.
I don I t believe it's our purview. We appreciate your position and your letter
is a matter of record.
MR. WARD-One more thing I would like to say in reference to the right-of-way that's
still in the estate. It hasn't been taken care of and this is going to cause much
more traffic on this area and it hasn't been maintained, like I say, since 1972
and I'm concerned that this will cause more of a problem than already exists.
MR. HAGAN-We can entertain this complaint. Just this part and we will direct it
to the applicant.
MR. JOY-Before you sit down, could you identify on the map what it is you're talking
about.
MR. WARD-(Referring to map) This is the right-of-way right here. Like I say this
is the liquor store and this is the Century 21 office and this is the dental lab
here and this is the right-of-way going past the 50 Everts property from Everts
Road.
MR. JOY-Which is the one that is the problem there?
MR. WARD-This is the problem here. The one coming from Quaker Road intersecting
with the right-of-way going up past this property to the Cablevision Company.
MR. HAGAN-Can you describe in detail, what that problem is, sir.
MR. WARD-The problem is, that's a lot of traffic on there and it hasn't been
maintained and I'm afraid that it's going to cause more of a problem for this
property, the estate because of excess travel because of this, actually enlarging
this business and also putting the storage shed back there. This is going to cause
more traffic a~d, therefore, problems with the estate.
19
'~
----"
MR. CARTIER-Ok, I'm still confused about this.
I see two different right-of-way's here.
This goes into another right-of-way.
MR. WARD-That's exactly right. There's another right of way between the Milbrook,
to the north, wait a minute.
MR. CAIMANO-This one right here, who's is that? Is that part of the estate?
MR. WARD-It was part of the estate.
MR. CAIMANO-It's not now?
MR. WARD-It was sold to Mr. Silverstein for $100. The other right-of-way is up
by the Milbrook Bread Company and also goes back and intersects. It's not shown
on this map.
MR. CARTIER-But this is specifically a right-of-way back to the property that you
represent Mr. Joy, is that correct or you don't know?
MR. JOY-I haven't seen the deeds that would confirm that.
MR. JABLONSKI-The reasoning behind the storage building that he has, I don't
understand.
MR. JOY-Well, It was built as part of facility initially then when the found that
they .. that space because they wanted to expand and it was in the way. Secondly,
they are not records that are needed on a day to day basis. Thirdly as a simple
matter it is probably more logical in terms of safety of records versus safety
of the building. We separate the two so you don't put all your eggs in one basket.
MR. ROBERTS-Do you have any more questions for this applicant?
MR. CARTIER-A very minor concern. Itls a problem, possibly with our ordinance.
I'm trying to find, in the ordinance, where it says about handicapped parking.
Does it specify, specifically, in our ordinance, 12 ft. by 20 ft.?
MRS. YORK-Stated no. What we have, in the new, updated version it does, but
currently it is not listed under our parking schedule.
MR. CARTIER-The handicapped parking that is shown on the applicant's blueprint
here is actually better than what we normally call for in our ordinance. Can we
accept that?
MRS. YORK-Go for it.
MR. JOY-Pete, thatls a clarification. The new ANSEY Code of New York State Building
Codes recognizes this as an improvement.
MR. CARTIER-It's better than what we presently asked for and we wanted to make
sure we could do it.
MR. HAGAN-My question would be, how do you respond to the complaint on this
right-of-way?
MR. JOY-Good question. I'm not a lawyer.
asking a couple of questions. Are there
right-of-way. One would presume that there
11m an architect. I would respond by
other parties that are involved in the
are.
MR. WARD-I don't think that there is.
that I'm addressing.
If you're talking about the right-of-way
MR. JOY-This one or this one.
MR. WARD-No that one.
MR. JOY-This one.
MR. WARD-Right. In the middle.
MR. JOY-And that is a right-of-way given from Quaker Road to this right-of-way
or to this property?
20
-../'
MR. WARD-No, to that right-of-way.
MR. JOY-Who is the owner of the title of the right-of-way? Who are the parties
of interest?
MR. WARD-The Edward S. Grey estate.
MR. JOY-Which consists of just Silverstein property that we're talking about or
does it involve other properties in this vicinity?
MR. WARD-There were some 32 properties in all.
MR. JOY-I donlt know that this Board wants, I don't know that the petitioner here
knows, exactly who's responsibility this right-of-way is and I suspect that that
issue is entirely apart from the particular property. It does not border this
property. The right-of-way bordering this property borders the right-of-way~ but
it also borders Quaker Road and some other properties. I'm not sure, in terms
of site plan review, that there's any relevant issue here.
MR. HAGAN-Specifically, let's address your application. In your op~n~on, how will
this addition or these additions to this property increase the volume of traffic?
Will it in fact do so?
MR. JOY-They anticipate that there maybe, over the years, and addition of 5 staff
members to the 15 that were here in this building. I suspect that that would not
increase the amount of traffic on Everts Avenue or on the right-of-way adjacent
to their property which is the paved driveway. Is this paved over here? The one
that you're talking about?
MR. WARD-I presume it was back before 1972. It's in such a bad state of affairs.
MR. JOY-It's not regularly used as access to this property at this point?
MR. WARD-Not
the clients
frequently.
necessarily. The customers,
come into this business and
I've stood out there and I've watched
they do use this right-of-way quite
MR. JOY-The one from Quaker Road?
MR. WARD-Yes.
MR. JOY-Ilm unfamiliar with that. In fact, with the exception of the map, I didn't
realize there was any paved area there. Was that just part of a parking lot on
the edge of that or is it a separate driveway?
MR. WARD-It's a separate driveway. Itls a separate right-of-way all together.
MR. JOY-So, physically, it's something you've seen as apart from say the office
buildings or the dental lab or something like that.
MR. WARD-Well, not completely so and yet, if you look at the dental lab, it would
be hard to decide as to whether or not that was a right-of-way, but they still
use it quite frequently. I'm not sure about the employees, per se.
MR. JOY-So it IS likely that this is used by a number of the properties around here
as is was intended as a right-of-way.
MR. WARD-That's possible, but I think probably by increasing this business and
the volume of the clients that you're probably going to have a great deal more
traffic. Maybe not so much by the employees, but by the customers.
MR. JOY-I think as I attempted to present in our application that this is really
not an expansion of volume or a dramatic expansion in employees or expansion in
the number of customers. It has very light traffic by comparison to most businesses
of this type. A lot of it is conducted in the clients office as opposed to this
particular office as is obvious by the limited amount of parking that actually
happens in the front lot there.
MR. ROBERTS-I would agree. I think the additional traffic is going to be very
minimal and as far as addressing the right-of-way's, they have been very heavily
maintained over the years and may have been by design to slow things down. 11m
not sure and I'm not sure that's anything we really want to get into. I think
that's another neighborhood squabble we should leave alone.
21
.-/
~
MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any further questions?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WIlEN DETEBMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 4-90, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Joseph Dybas:
WHEREAS, there is presently before this Planning Board an application for: Site
Plan No. 4-90 ROBERT JOY & ASSOC. SILVERSTEIN, LOFTUS, & RUSS, CPA'S P.C. for
a 30 ft. by 36 ft. addition, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
None
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department
of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project
has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the
State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman
of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as
may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration
that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-90 ROBERT JOY & ASSOC. SILVERSTEIN, LOFTUS,
& RUSS, CPA'S P.C., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Carol Pulver:
For the addition of a 30 ft. by 36 ft. addition and for a 24 ft. by 24 ft. storage
building addition and that the applicant needs to provide answers to the January
12, 1990 letter from Rist-Frost.
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 5-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A PETER LEWIN MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE
TO ELIMINATE ONE BEDROOM AND CONSTRUCT A RECREATION ROOM OVER THE GARAGE. (WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 13-1-21 LOT SIZE: 16,920
SQ. FT. SECTION 9.010
PETER LEWIN, PRESENT
22
...../
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from John Ferguson, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. ROBERTS-Asked, do you want to add anything to your presentation so far?
MR. LEWIN-Stated I believe I have covered the presentation in the form of the letter
I've submitted to you. What we're trying to do, I have a problem with the garage.
If you've been out there to see it, alright, the angle of the garage is like this
and if we get 2 feet of snow we're going to loose the roof. So we figured since
our main house down the lake. We have two children and we have very, very small
bedrooms. What we're trying to do is to get them up into the cottage, alright,
for some play area or recreational area. We absolutely have no basement in the
house except a wet basement. We Ire trying to kill two birds with one stone since
we have to fix the roof on the garage, regarding the angle, we would like to make
it all one roof line. So, there's two bedrooms up there now which are existing.
We just want to eliminate one, make that one room, and then, which would be one
bedroom theoretically, and then a recreation room for the children which would
be over the garage, all under one roof line.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I misunderstood. You live in the main house. You're not living
in an apartment above the garage?
MR. LEWIN-Stated no.
MR. CARTIER-Asked that is not presently used as living space?
MR. LEWIN-Stated no.
MR. CARTIER-Asked therels no kitchen in there, therels no bathroom in there?
MR. LEWIN-Stated well, downstairs there is. In other words, downstairs there IS
a small area that has a small kitchen and one bathroom, a shower.
MR. CARTIER-Stated I misunderstood.
house.
I was assuming that you lived in this main
MR. LEWIN-Stated no.
MR. CARTIER-Stated but both of those are on one septic system. Is that correct?
MR. LEWIN-Stated yes.
MR. HAGAN-Asked Peter, for the full extent of the truth, do you intend to continue
the previous use of renting that place?
MR. LEWIN-Stated when we bought the house 3 years ago, the cottage was linked back
to the owner, that was part of the deal. As of August last year, he has failed
to renew the lease and that's given us an opportunity to branch out with our children
because we really don't have a lot of room. The answer is we I re not renting to
anybody. That's why we're here now, since that took place in August.
MR. HAGAN-Stated I have no objection to your addition.
to make clear is that as a rental unit that would be
that had been grandfathered. So, if you discontinued
make it another use, you can no longer go back to renting.
The only thing I wanted
a nonconforming situation
that and you're going to
MR. LEWIN-Stated I understand that. We live here and I've got two daughters in
Lake George school. I've got enough problems with the leasing the way it was.
I did that as a part of the purchase. When we purchased the property that was
in the deed.
MR. HAGAN-Stated I'm only pointing that out for your benefit because now you're
going to change the use. It no longer will be a rental after this.
MR. LEWIN-Stated no problem.
MRS. PULVER-Asked how old are your children?
23
--/
MR. LEWIN-Stated 7 and 12 in Lake George School.
MRS. PULVER-Asked, and you trust them there by themselves?
MR. LEWIN-Stated I own the own the Clock Center in Lake George and my children
go home on the bus to Lake George probab ly everyday. We've brought the children
up on a boat on Lake George for over 15 years. They know the water. We trust
them 100 percent. The way you bring them up. I've had no problem with them.
What happens later on when they get teenagers, that's something else. Our bedrooms
in the main house are very small. You can just fit a bed in there and that's it.
So, with all the Barbie dolls and everything else, forget about it. It's like
World War II in that house. So, since we have no more lease, this will give us
an opportunity to get all the toys and everything out of the house and put them
under the garage and that's what we're trying to do.
MR. HAGAN-Stated I just want to reiterate again, as Joan Robertson points out,
if this continues, renting it, you're shot.
MR. LEWIN-Stated no problem.
MR. HAGAN-Read Joan Robertson's letter (on file)
MR. LEWIS-Stated the rental I have no problem with.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated I wonder if this is enforceable. We have an obvious rental
unit here now, it has been. Can we really enforce this?
MR. HAGAN-Stated if he changes it's use, yes, because it's grandfathered.
MS. CORPUS-Stated apparently it's a preexisting, nonconforming use and the way
I understand it if it's out of existence for 18 months or more that it can no longer
revert back to the use as it was, although you've still got the facilities there
obviously. You can't force him to change that, but as long as Mr. Lewin understands
that, that would be his decision and basically the Board should address the issues
it has before it and take that into consideration, but it's not really an issue.
MR. HAGAN-Stated it could become kind of.... well those people out there aren't
renting, they're my friends. Here we go again.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated... docks and boats as well. I wonder if somehow there aren't
more docks and boats on that lot than would be allowed today as well.
MR. HAGAN-Asked do you have two or more boats there not registered?
MR. LEWIN-Stated no, there's a deeded boat slip into the water...
MR. HAGAN-Asked and then the rest are yours?
MR. LEWIN-Stated no, I've only got one boat. There's only one boat there. A 1950
Woody. That's all that will be there this year.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked the big cruiser's gone?
MR. LEWIN-Stated that's sold. That was sold last year.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated that has been there for a number of years.
MR. LEWIN-Stated yes, but that was our home on the Lake originally before we came
up on board, but we didn't use it, we sold it, it's gone. There will only be one
boat down there besides the deeded dock between..
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-90, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Peter Cartier:
24
---
WHEREAS there is presently before this Planning Board an application for: PETER
LEWIN, to eliminate one bedroom and construct a recreation room over tbe garage,
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 the 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 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-90 PETER LEWIN, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano
who moved for its adoption seconded by James Hagan:
To eliminate one bedroom and construct a recreation room over the garage.
very specific as to the elimination of the one bedroom and construction
recreation room and it is not to be used as a rental unit.
It's
of a
Duly adopted this 16th day of January, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Jablonski,
Mr. Roberts
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Richard Roberts, Chairman
25
~
~
LOCATION MAPS
January 16, 1990 Planning Meeting
OLD BUSINESS:
Site Plan No. 86-89 Thomas D'Angelo; Dave Kipp (Staff notes attached)
Subdivision No. 11-87 Brookfield Estates, Phase II (See attached letters)
Subdivision No. 14-1989 Partridge Run (Staff notes attached)
NEW BUSINESS:
Petition for a Change of Zone Pl-90 Frank and Marie Brenneison (Staff notes and
map attached)
Petition for a Change of Zone P2-90 Robert and Shirley Sanders (Staff notes and
map attached)
Site Plan No. 2-90 Herbert & Margaret Kane (Staff notes attached)
t
H
~Lf~ L flK€..
- .------~_.'" ~ .... -.----.-- .--
-l ~#I~-
--, -'- rl" fl.&llli'Hð n.~
'" ,..,
--""""
/'JIJ,()';;--, ,
""'i 'r-
I
(
1
-,
~~
;I
¡"N' J
_ /R~l K
tLl"I)
-~--'--,
PCL N ,)
Site Plan No. 3-90 John Doty d/b/a U-Rent All (Staff notes attached)
Site Plan No. 4-90 Robert Joy & Assoc. Silverstein, Loftus, & Russ, CPA's P.C.
(Staff notes attached)
Site Plan No. 5-90 Peter Lewin (Staff notes attached)
--_.._ ~- s-Jíl!kre-oJ
\
~ ¡tJ1t5~PtJ .¿;;.I"MrtÛl1'M,
N""'-e øP ~ .
~ """'
~ ~
~
f
0 ¡fJ~~
1
\.., "
~
..
/'
-.../
~ofun of (@u~~nøburu ~igltfuau ;!Bepartm~nt
Bay at Haviland Aoada
Office Phone 518-793-7771
Queenabury, New York 12801
PAUL H. NAYLOR
Superintendent Highw.ys
RICHARD A, MISSITA
Deputy Superintendent Highways
PLANNING
DEP
Mft..a.D~!¡¡'~:\f.t'I~
,"110 r""" r.,~ A
....LJf"t~"
r: , r J= r " : "
, ~'
DATE:
JANUARY 4, 1990
TO:
PLANNING BOARD
FROM:
PAUL H. NAYLOR
Highway Supt.
DRAINAGE - Corner of NY US. Rts&..,g.-,
and Montray Road
"-
RE
I have reviewed the proposed drainage plan for this projeet
with Nick Scartelli who represents Morse Engineering, and it
now meets with my approval.
R.e~tfu11Y, _ _
/~///' -'" ,-'
~< -, ~ ¿
I"
I Paul H. Naylor
.' Highway Superintendent
,.
~
RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
,--'
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFIΠBOX 838
GLENS FALLS. NY
12801
518· 793-4141
January 12, 1990
RFA #89-5000.086
Town of Queensbury
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York
Re: Thomas D'Angelo, Site Plan 86-89
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
comments:
1. The drywell capacity provided will be satisfactory for stormwater
control.
2. The handicapped parking area has been relocated and it appears that
cars exiting the site would no longer would have to back out onto
Route 9.
Very truly yours,
4?!~ST A
Æ'~.'Gannett, P.E.
Mana~ing Project Engineer
P.C.
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
w/enclosures
:--
@ GLENS FALLS. NY, L.ACX>NIA. NH
F:tE COpy
SUBDIVISION NO.1 1- ~ '1
---
Richard E. MCLenithan
Attorney-at-Law
At the Bank of Kingsbury
P.O. Box 31-Route 4
Hudson Falls, NY 12839-0031
Phone: 747-8236
Fax: 747-8239
~~!\
1LANNING .~NINC
DEPARTMENT
Associate
Jeffrey E. MCMorris
December 28, 1989
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Bay and Haviland Road
Box 98
Queensbury, New York 12804
Attention: Lee York
RE: Brookfield Estates, Phase II
Dear Leea
I am writing a letter just to verify that we had filed the
Brookfield Estates documents with the Town of Queensbury. I had
erroneously referred in my cover letter to the fact that the
original approval date for this was June 1988 and it was actually
January 19, 1988.
Also it is my understanding that the matter was gOing to be
placed on the January agenda for consideration by the Planning
Board and I would appreciate your so advising me of that fact.
Very truly yours,
~ Þt'l'l~
Richard E. McLenithan
REM/mk
.
.
FJLt
l U,
'~
At the Bank of Kingsbury
P.O. Box 31-Route 4
1...t'\·\~jC'lnu
Hudson Falls, NY 12839-0031~l~\:! ;:,)~.J11
Phone: 747-8236
Fax: 747-8239
J/ -~1
NO. -
I W,. Ur\iU~t."~D~
~>~~mwr~~,
.l\\ DE('A~~
PLANNI~~Vfãe:l~Gris
DEPARTMENT
Richard E. MCLenithan
Attorney-at-Law
December 14, 1989
Lee York, Senior Planner
Queensbury Planning Department
Bay & Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
RE: Brookfield Estates Subdivision
Dear Lee:
On behalf of our clients, Howard and Eileen Denison, the
owners and sponsors of Brookfield Estates Phase II, I deliver
herewith a mylar subdivision map which has been signed and
stamped by Leon Steves and the New York State Department of
Health.
As you are aware, this subdivision was originally approved
by the Queensbury Planning Board on June 24, 1988, and the mylar
map associated with the Planning Board approval was,
unfortunately, not filed with the Warren County Clerk. On behalf
of Mr. and Mrs. Denison, we respectfully ask that this matter be
placed on the agenda for the Planning Board at the earliest
opportunity and that the approval originally granted on June 24,
1988, be reaffirmed so that Richard Roberts, Chairman of the
Planning Board, can be authorized to sign the documents again.
Richard Morse, the engineer and representative of the
Denisons, has supplied me with his statement associated with
Brookfield Estates Phase II and I enclose the same herewith.
There have been no changes in the subdivision since June 24,
1988, the original date of approval.
We thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
oJ4~rtJ¿.
Richard E. McLenithan
REM:we
Encs.
cc: Richard Roberts
Paul Dusek
.
.
---
-'1tORSE ENGINEERING
---,'
II LOWER DIX AVENUE
'LENS FALLS, NY 12101
December 12, 1989
M/E 87-039
Town of Queensbury
Bay at Haviland Road, Box 98
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Dick Roberts
RE: Brookfield Estates, Phase II
Gentlemen:
Please note that the accompanying plans for Brookfield Estates
have been approved by the Town Planning Board and have been
approved by the New York state Department of Health without
change of any engineering from those approvals.
We respectfully request the Town resign the reproducible drawings
for filing.
Very truly yours,
ERING
Morse, P.E.
RSM:pl
Enc.
cc: Richard McLenithan
Howard Denison
Paul Duseck
RICHARD S. MORSE. P. E.
PIto".'(511) 792· &312
"
._._._--~
-
~,
-
---/
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
p1:.1nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: January 8, 1990
By: John S. Goralski
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
X Subdi.uïon: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, ~ Final
Site Plan Reflew -
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
Apptication Number:
Subdivision No. 14-1989
Appticant'. Name:
Partridge Run
MeetiDg Date:
January 16, 1990
...............***..........................................................................
This application is for final approval of the Par1ridge Run Subdivision. At the
preliminary stage, the Board asked that several items be addressed on the final submission.
These have been addressed as follows: -
1. Cutting restrictions have been indicated on the subdivision plan and are included
in the Deed Restrictions.
2. The watermain size on Potter Road has been cOlTected.
3. The hydrant has been moved to the center of the cul-de-sac, as per the Water
Department request. The Fire Department does not object to this location.
4. The location and depth of the proposed watermain has been c01Tected.
5. The hydrant installation detail has been cOlTected to reflect the installation
which is approved by the Town of Queensbury Water Department.
6. The required septic tank size for a five bedroom house has been cOlTected.
7. A written request for a waiver from Article VIII E2 of the Subdivision
Regulations has been received. The Board should include this waiver in any
approval.
8. The utility right-of-way has been located completely outside of the Town's
right-of-way as per the Highway Department request.
JG/sed
l'
~
RIST·FRQST ASSOCIATES. P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
''--
----'
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FAU.S. NY
12801
518·793"'4'
January 12, 1990
RFA #89-5000.514
Town of Queensbury
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York
Re: Partridge Run Subdivision, 14-1989
Final Plan
Dear Ms. York:
All engineering coments on the above referenced project have been
satisfactorily addressed.
Very truly yours,
!!b0ST
Way~nnett, P.E.
Ma~~i~~ Project Engineer
P.C.
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
w/enclosures
e GLENS FALLS. NY·l.ACONlA, NH
.
,
.-----
..
..
-
.~
"--.-/"
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
P1~nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
By:
January 10, 1990
Lee A. York
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Suhdi.œoø: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary,
Site Plan Rmew -
== Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone
Fret$hwater WetlaDda Permit
Final
X Other: Petition for a Change of Zone P1-90
Appücation Number:
Petition for a Change of Zone P1-90
Applicant's Name:
Frank and Marie Brenneison
MeetiDg Date:
January 16, 1990
............................................................................................
This Petition contains what I am assuming to be inaccuracies, (i.e., What the
application is for, location of lot, actual and proposed zoning.). On December 4, 1989,
John Goralski, Planner, requested a map from the applicant listing items which would
allow the Board to adequately review the Petition (letter attached). The map we received
is attached to the application.
The Brenneison property is located on the north side of the Glen Lake Road. The
parcel is 3.33 acres. The request is to be changed from RR-3A to an undisclosed 1 acre
zone.
The reason for this area to be zoned 3 acres is because of the limitations of the
soils. The Intrinsic Development Suitability Map indicates that there is low suitability
for development with major planning changes needed. The Soil Analysis - Percolation
Rate Map shows this area as percolating greater than 20 inches per hour which makes
it unsuitable for development. The property is located near GF-18 a DEC designated
Class II Wetland, and Glen Lake which is the drinking water source for a number of families.
The Lake and within 100 feet has recently been declared a Critical Environmental Area
by the Town Board. The property is located on a dangerous curve. Adding two more units
with septic systems and two more driveway cuts in this location does not seem appropriate.
Further, it would appear to be a spot zoning situation.
LA Y /sed
~-~----~._~"
1'-
L Þ,,¡:J:' '/~w ~I! ~('.)e""Æ¡f'¿V t:Jr
¿or
NO,
~~
.r7Jfl/:ç IAI Jr.-s
"'-0
<,/'- ~/' ·I()'.~
7"#1'; ¿ INI 1kA~IÞ ..... ,.Mh..
¿or
NO,
-II
.eDlrN.r H£IA¿D
.,.."
W,.,. 4t1;ÇllUl"AlI"Þ, HtI.,.,~."J'"
-'II", I~ I'" 31'/4'"
-,..
'l'a....c. ... .....t.......... "Ir ......, "1""104
..., II., ,q e 5 Co"To ! l't 'S
A84A
3, II A-ee..s
I
I '
A' f
I q. I
, ¡y 1
, ¡ ,
J $ "
~
I
I
,'"\
, I
I
,
P,Ii
J 1'"
.....,
J,7.
C/;
-
----'
.$ n~r:;.:5
~,J" 14'
/,1/",,'
fþll MtV
_li."\ ,~
~ t.
~ Of,
~
~
.... ~
..
"! ~
" "
~ ~
..
..
ì
~
_ lIi¥lJJ fÖl'I'1EI'LY .~ ~
Hd,!!A.t'O ~
"
~
,
~
~
i
Q
..
~
,
~
'" to
~
, .
.. "-
~ ~
~
I
42
..1
'J ':
~1
\
,
~\'
~
"
,
, "
", t,'
I
I
!
fRA.W" t1
0""
''''''4'' "-.~T 0,,"
\'O\l\lW O'F QUI
'SC: Ä\. 'Eo: ,It · ~
CO
\. \<:.e.
G
·
-
~
-
t , L E
(O(Y
'----
,--",'
TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY
PlAnning Department
RNOTE TO FILER
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: January 10, 1990
By: Lee A. York
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdi.œOD: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary,
Site Plan Rmew
X Petition fer a Change of Zone
Freshwater Wet1aDds Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Petition for a Change of Zone P2.-90
Applicant's Name:
Robert and Shirley Sanders
Meeting Date:
January 16, 1990
..........**...........*.............***********.*******************************************
There is cUlTently a petition for rezoning in this area pending (P9-89). I have attached
the map outlining this change and have indicated with an "X" the Sanders' property.
The Petition from the Sanders' indicates that the property was formerly Light
Industrial and was changed during the 1988 rezoning to Residential. !i1.:_ '-
1'1-[ [111-17 ~-- !Ir 1_ n '^UOiF
This Petition is similar to the existing Petition along the Corinth Road area (P9-89),
and therefore, I have attached the documentation prepared for that Petition.
The Board should consider if this Petition should be incorporated in the requested
change for Corinth Road or whetber the boundaries designed in the original request should
stand.
The Sanders' property is cUlTently designated SR-1A. Across Sanders Road is Clark's
Used Auto Parts. There appears to be another junkyard sUlTounding the Sanders' property
which the application identifies as owned by Diane Carpenter. Further up VanDusen Road
are a number of other Light Industrial uses. The Board may wish to review the uses along
VanDusen Road north of Sanders Road for incorporation into a Light Industrial zone.
It would be more appropriate than rezoning lot by lot.
The Sanders do indicate that they have been unable to sell their property as zoned.
It would appear that this may be able to substantiate a variance request.
LA Y /sed
. ¡ I /tJt L \i h Çb\
I ¡j I '1 '--'
I
: (
1
,
-.J
5 . 7~· .
2.'25· O'
--'
\,)
"
I
¡
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
¡
BIN
r<t' Ill)
ðl~
1[511;/
I -. I
I \
I \~ __ .~
I -------
, ¡
I ,.. --_
I ( --- ----
¡Ell! ø~i~"= F
I I ¡J ~ "A" f r-'
ItJ,. Œ- ,.2..... H l N
I ~I:'~~~ ,~~l~2oc' ~
J tJ I~ ... \-~' I Gara~~ ")
¡ 8 I . '0. '-./\ · ~. ----=--.~
~ . ' r- 'r-, : .
I: ,~ ~~' "
¡ Z2 2 ~,' " .{ J ~I
: K!.~J ~ ~ ~ I , 0;
:~io'~' ~ ,,~tJ. ~;
1_ ~ ~ N
. ...... \ J
Ie ~ l' ~
I ' ~,(b.
1 ~ ~
f ~ {
, ~ - 2170 -
" øJ'ø'~ n· eo-· 5!)' . 10" W ø Fbte. -- 5~~ . G
........_---------------~ --- -- --- - -- _.-
~fÃ. 0 CD IT. Œ 55
~~~---~---------~---~--------
,;'
, ~ T \ 'r~n I!) &r~e. fòund
~
~5hed G~
1
\aJ
~
~
t'&
b
c
- - - --",
Total ðrea -=-7,-
'Reðlde.nce
-- - ---- - ----
---l
I \
I
1--'- -,'
I \...
I
I
----.--....--'"
...0
C'iJ....
~
~
(D \ Lot·
" ~~
~ ~,
); >- ~ cp \.,
...
~'
"")
~
0~
~
E'
"'>.>(
...
~
..
~
~
-,
c
.._----.- ,-----..-
-
~
-
'--'
--/
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
P1~nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: Januarv 8. 1990
By: Stuart G. Baker
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdi'risioa: Sketch, Pre1imÎft~-
_ _ -",
X Site Plan Rmew
- Petition fer a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlanda Permit
FiDal
Other:
Appücation Number:
AppHcant's Name:
Site Plan Review No. 2-90
Herbert & Mar~aret Kane
Meeting Date:
January 16. 1990
*......................................................**...................................
The applicants are proposing enclosing the existing porch with screens
and a roof. A variance was granted for this construction in December 1989.
The addition of a roof above the existing porch should not create any
significant changes in the drainage pattern on this property.
SB/pw
-
"
-
''"--
,'-"""
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
"NOTE TO FILE"
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
January 16, 1990
By:
Stuart G. Baker
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdi~OD: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
-r Site Plan Rmew -
Petition for a Change of Zone
Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
Final
Other:
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 3-90
Applicant's Name:
John Doty dba/U-Rent All
MeetiDg Date:
January 16, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant proposes removing the three existing storage buildings, and
replacing them with a 60' x 60' pole barn. The Zoning Board granted a
variance for this project on November ]5, 1989.
The new storage facility wi 11 improve the appearance of the property, as
well as improve the flow of vehicles behind the office. Run-off from the new
building will be handled by a 18" diameter perforated pipe directing drainage
toward the northern property line.
It has been brought to the Planning Department's attention that there is
an existing drainage problem on the adjacent property of Raymond & Ethel Wynn.
This problem has apparently worsened since the applicant added fill to the
northerly corner of his lot. The submitted drainage report does show an
existing drainage flow path from the applicant's lot onto the Wynn property.
The Planning Board should request the applicant to regrade the northerly
corner of his lot so that the exist ing and developed drainage flow path no
longer crosses the Wynn property.
SB/pw
-.- '.-.-.,.
~
RIST·FRQST ASSOCIATES, P,C.
OONSULTlNG ENGINEERS
'-../
21 BAY smEET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FALLS, NY
12801
518, 793-41.1
January 12, 1990
RFA #89-5000.003
Town of Queensbury
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. lee York
Re: John Doty, Site Plan, 3-90
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
comments:
1. Clarification of the drain pipe size is needed. The detail shows
an 18" diameter pipe whil e the p1 an and stormwater runoff
calculations indicate a 24" diameter pipe.
2. Since the south edge of pavement appears to be at the edge of the
stream, a gravel or vegetative strip as a buffer between the
pavement and stream would be desirable to aid in erosion and
sedimentation control. With the removal of the existing buildings,
it may be feasible to move the parking sl ightly to the north to
provide this buffer.
Very truly yours,
~ROST
wa~~annett, P.E.
Ma~i~g Project Engineer
P.C.
WG/CIIM
cc: Town Planning Board Members
w/enc1osures
e GLENS FALLS. NY' LACÓNIA. NH
,
-
..
-
"--- '-.--'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
P1~nni"g Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: January 9, 1990
By: Stuart G. Baker
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdiftsioa: Sketch. Prelim .
- - mary.
--L Site Plan Rmew
Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
Final
Other:
Appücation Number:
Site Plan Review No. 4-90
AppUcant's Name:
Robert Joy & Associates
Meeting Date:
January 16, ]990
............................................................................................
The owners of the property would like to expand the existing building by
) ,065 sq. ft., and add a 576 sq. ft. storage building. Parking will also be
expanded to conform with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
There are two items the Board may wish to address:
I) What will be kept in the proposed storage building? Could stored
materials cause a potential fire hazard?
2) The new parking ar~a is not connected to the exist ing parking lot.
The Board may want the owners to consider a short connecting walkway here.
SB/pw
.----------
~
RIST·FR)ST ASSOCIATES. P.C.
OONSULTlNG ENGINEERS
--./
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FAU..S. NY
12801
518· 793...141
January 12, 1990
RFA #89-5000.004
Town of Queensbury
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York
Re: Robert Joy & Associates
Site Plan, 4-90
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
comments:
1. A pavement section detail should be provided.
2. Erosion control measures should be provided as necessary to contain
runoff in the disturbed areas.
3. The appl icant has provided stormwater retent ion and infil trat ion
which is reasonable for the size of the additional building and
pavement.
Very truly yours,
mROST A
~~nnett, P.E.
Man~~~g' Project Engineer
P.C.
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
w/enclosures
@ GLENS FAU..S. NY, LACONIA, NH
"
Aa
..
-
~
--
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
P1anning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: January 11, 1990
By: John Goralski
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Subdinsion: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary.
-2L Site Plan Rmew
_ Petition for a Change of Zone
Freshwater Wet1auds Permit
FiDal
Other:
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 5-90
Applicant's Name:
Peter Lewin
MeetiDg Date:
January 16, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant wishes to add a second floor recreation room over the existing garage.
The applicant states that one bedroom will be eliminated and replaced by the recreation
room.
The increased height of the building will not obstruct anyone's view ,and will not
impact the appearance of the shoreline. Furthermore, no new nonpermeable surfaces
would be created by this proposal.
The application does not indicate whether there are cooking or bathroom facilities
in the cottage. Because one bedroom is being eliminated there should not be any impact
on the septic system. The Board should consider whether this proposal will cause an increase
in use; possibly as a rental unit.
The agenda indicates that this is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. I would recommend
that the Board consider this a Type II Action as per Section 617.13 (d)(8) of the SEQRA
Regulations.
"(8) construction or placement of minor structures accessory or appurtenant to
existing facilities, including garages, carports, patios, home swimming pools, fences,
barns or other buildings not changing land use or density, including upgrading of
buildings to meet building or fire codes;"
JG/sed
._---~_._.
~
FIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C,
OONSULTlNG ENGINEERS
21 BAY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 838
GLENS FAU.S. NY
12801
518·793-4141
January 12, 1990
RFA #89-5000.005
Town of Queensbury
Bay/Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Ms. Lee York
Re: Peter Lewin, Site Plan, 5-90
Dear Ms. York:
We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following
comments:
1. Although there is no increase in water usage at this time, if
add it i ona 1 bedrooms are added in the future, adequacy of the
existing sewage disposal system would need to be considered.
2. Since the addition is above the existing garage, impact on drainage
is minimal.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSO IATES, P.C.
~~.tt, ;.E.
Managi~IIP~Oject Engineer
WG/cmw
cc: Town Planning Board Members
w/enclosures
e GLENS FAU.S. NY·lAOONlA, NH
. ----.--. --~ --