Loading...
1990-04-24 Subdivision No. 11-89 FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION Subdivision No. 4-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 2-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 5-87 AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLANS Sit~ Plan No. 24-90 Site Plan No. 25-90 Sit~ Plan No. 26-90 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24TH, 1990 INDEX Lak~ Sunnyside Estates, Inc. 1. Own~r: Carole Cacioppi Sh~rman Acres, Section 2 2. Own~r: Walt~r o. and Elizab~th A. R~hm Adirondack Plantations 11. Owner: Charl~s Di~hl Cedar Court, Phase I 17. Own~r: Rit Abbatiello Kar~n Sommer 19. Edward G. Whit~ 22. Mead's Nursery 26. Own~r: Richard O. M~ad THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER CONRAD KUPILLAS JAMES HAGAN MEMBERS ABSENT NICHOLAS CAlMANO TOWN ENGINEER-THOMAS PALO CELLI DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 11-89 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION LAKE SUNNYSIDE ESTATES, INC. OWNER: CAROLE CACIOPPI SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE SUNNYSIDE, NORTH OF SUNNYSIDE ROAD MODIFICATION OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 10. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED A CONDITIONAL VARIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 10 ON MARCH 22, 1989. PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL: MARCH 7, 1913 JUNE 27, 1989 TAX MAP NO. 46-3-4 SCOTT HATZ, REPRESENTING CAROLE CACIOPPI, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-First, tonight, is Subdivision No. for a Final Stag~ Modification. This, again, is forgot to fil~ som~thing with th~ County Cl~rks alon~ in this. It's happen~d b~for~. 11-89, Sunnyside Estat~s, Inc., on~ of those d~als where somebody Office, which is not, you'r~ not MR. HATZ-My nam~ is Scott Hatz. I 1m h~r~ on b~half of Carole Cacioppi. Mrs. Cacioppi owns 5 lots in Lak~ Sunnysid~ Estates and has own~d th~m since 1973. Sinc~ th~n, th~ Zoning has changed s~v~ral times and they w~r~ all undersiz~d lots. Last March, w~ went befor~ th~ Zoning BOard of Appeals and obtain~d ar~a variances on th~s~ lots, on th~ condition that Lots 4, 5, and 10, as th~y th~n ~xist~d, b~ modified to cr~at~ two n~w, approximately, thr~e quart~r acr~ lots, still nonconforming, but somewhat b~tt~r than what was ther~. W~ came b~for~ this Board in Jun~ of 189. This Board grant~d our modification and, as stated, th~ map did not g~t filed. W~ wer~ befor~ th~ Zoning Board of App~als in March of this y~ar. Th~y grant~d ~xt~nsions on all th~s~ ar~a varianc~s for an additional p~riod of on~ y~ar and now, in ord~r to compl~t~ this.. .w~ would ne~d to g~t Planning Board approval for the modification..so we can fil~ th~ map. MR. ROBERTS-I think, to mak~ it clear for sOm~ of th~ m~mbers that, mayb~, w~r~n't h~re b~fore, this was a. situation wher~ we're making thr~e lots into two lots. It would be hard to think w~ would hav~ any problem with this...significant chang~ in th~ filed subdivision plats, so that th~y could hav~.. Do~s anybody hav~ any quarr~l with renewing our pr~vious agreem~nt? This was not a public h~aring, so, if nobody has any problem with this, I'll ~ntertain a motion. MOTION TO REAFFIRM APPROVAL FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION SUBDIVISION NO. 11-89 LAKE SUNNYSIDE ESTATES, INC. AS ORIGINALLY GRANTED BY THIS BOARD ON JUNE 27, 1989, Introduc~d by Peter Carti~r who moved for its adoption, second~d by Carol Pulv~r: R~ason for th~ n~ed for reaffirmation for approval is that the modifi~d subdivision map was n~v~r filed with the Warren County Clerk. Duly adopt~d this 24th day of April, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano 1 SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE SR-1A SHERMAN ACRES, SECTION 2 OWNER: WALTER O. AND ELIZABETH A. REHM ±1.8 MILES ALONG SHERMAN AVENUE FROM NORTHWAY CROSSING TO MICHAEL I S DRIVE, SOUTHERLY ALONG MICHAEL I S DRIVE TO SOUTH END THEREOF. FOR A 6 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 121-7-999 LOT SIZE: 31.15 ACRES CHUCK NACEY, COULTER & MCCORMACK, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-We saw this, not too long ago. on this project? Do we hav~ any COmments from Staff STAFF INPUT Not~s from Stuart Bak~r, Assistant Plann~r (attach~d) MR. GORALSKI- (Reff~ring to Staff Not~s) I can also add that w~ hav~ r~c~ived th~ r~ceipts for the notice of public hearing. ENGINEER REPORT Not~s by Wayn~ Gann~tt, Town Engin~~r (attach~d) MR. How two HAGAN- (Ref~rring to Engineer Report) I hav~ can it vary from 2 minutes to 7 minut~s p~r diff~r~nt areas? a qu~stion on that p~rc test. inch, unl~ss it was tak~n from MR. PALOCELLI-W~ll, the r~su1ts that wer~ shown on the plans of different t~st hol~s, show~d a variation betw~en those two, but th~ actual perc t~st us~d for infiltration and the drainag~ report Was an inch in 30 s~conds. MR. HAGAN-Becaus~ that's a wide variation and wh~n the layman runs a p~rc t~st, h~ doesn I t realiz~ he's got to k~ep doing it until he gets the same absorption rat~, continuously and I wondered if mayb~ that might have b~~n a misconception on thos~. MR. PALOCELLI-It may b~. I beli~ve, though, that they wer~ diff~r~nt test hol~s. Non~ the l~ss, the p~rcolation used in th~ drainage report is substantially l~ss than the ones given from the p~rc hol~s for the s~ptic system and it would r~sult in a larg~r required ar~a for the drainag~ pipe us~d for infiltration. MR. CARTIER-This is the p lace where we' v~ got som~ groundwater at th~ surfac~ somewh~re, too. MR. GORALSKI-That's corr~ct. MR. CARTIER-That may hav~ something to do with that, too. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, does the applicant car~ to sh~d any light on this and any other parts. MR. NACEY-I'm Chuck Nac~y from Coulter & McCormack's Office, h~r~ On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Walt~r Rehm. Th~ Rehm's, basically, us~d to..th~ concept on th~ subdivision and th~ R~hm's are approximately 31 acr~s, locat~d off east and south of Micha~l's Drive and th~y're proposing to subdivid~ that 31 acres into six lots. The small~st of which would be slightly over an acr~. The largest of which would b~ slightly ov~r 10 acr~s. Utilizing the limitations on the portion of th~ land, particularly th~ use of the south ~ast~rly portions of th~ land.. the possibility of saturating the ar~a with lots to the zoning, which is on~ acre, and, in ord~r to provid~ acc~ss to the six lots, it was decid~d to try to utiliz~ th~ ext~nsion of Amy Lan~, which is now still own~d by th~ Town, but undeveloped, at present, put a Town turn around at the ~nd of it and improve th~ existing turn around which is at the south ~asterly, south~rly ~nd of Micha~l' s Drive, having drive ways come off of those two approach~s. W~ r~aliz~ th~re ar~ limitations on the land. W~'v~ added them tog~th~r. Last y~ar, last April, soil tests, p~rcolation t~sts, indicate that th~r~ is d~v~lopabl~ land.. the existing portion in th~ subdivision and it's that ar~a that w~ would propos~ to use. If w~' re talking about th~ percolation t~sts that Mr. Hagan questioned, th~ soil tests w~re don~ in April of last year and th~y w~r~ don~ at th~ ~nd of a thr~e day, rainy p~riod typ~, the soil t~st was don~ in th~ rain, th~ p~rcolation tests w~r~ done soon after that. Th~ natur~ 2 of th~ soils is such that, if you mov~ around, within the subdivision, it chang~s radically. The more you go to the ~ast and to the south, you g~t into th~ w~tt~r ar~as. So, p~rcolation rat~s chang~ appreciably. The ground was thoroughly saturat~d. ... and th~ p~rcolation tests w~r~ p~rformed. So, th~y w~re probably max~d out pretty w~ll. Th~ on~ with th~ 7 minutes was probably in soil that was a littl~ bit fin~r, perhaps a littl~ w~tt~r, and if you run it six or s~v~n times, you get quit~ a slow rat~. MR. HAGAN-A p~rc with 7 minut~s p~r inch isn't going to giv~ you much drainage, though, for a l~achfi~ld. MR. ROBERTS-It's within th~ paramet~rs of a good septic syst~m, isn't it? MR. NACEY-I would say it would b~ pr~ferable to l~ss than 2 or 3 minut~s. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that's not all bad. It's not too fast. MR. HAGAN-S~v~n minut~s per inch? I was r~stricted to 2 minut~s p~r inch. MR. ROBERTS-You g~t l~ss than 1 minut~, th~n, that's too fast and th~y' re not happy with that. So, I think, you get up to 20 minutes, and that's kind of a no-no, but somewhere in th~ rang~ of 2 to 10, it s~ems to me that's an acc~ptable rang~, isn't it? P~t~r, you'r~ more familiar with this. MR. CARTIER-W~ll, I g~t confus~d on this b~caus~ when I worked with this, we did it..minutes p~r inch... MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, mayb~ I'm confused, th~n, too. MR. GORALSKI-Are you talking about the drainag~ or the s~ptic syst~m, now? MR. ROBERTS-Th~ perc rate, in relation to the s~ptic syst~m. MR. HAGAN-The perc rat~ in th~ s~ptic area, in th~ l~ach ar~a, is what I'm conc~rn~d about. MR. GORALSKI-I think Tom can address what's ad~quate and what's not. MR. PALOCELLI-For a s~ptic syst~m, you don't want to g~t l~ss than 1 minute p~r inch and you don't want to b~ mor~ than 30 minut~s p~r inch. So, I would say 7 minut~s is in th~ range of acc~ptability. MR. NACEY-It just means a larger absorption field. MR. PALOCELLI-A smaller application rate, which r~sults in a larg~r fi~ld, would b~ r~quired. Some mor~ square footag~ of field would b~ requir~d with a slow~r rat~. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, we'r~ in the ballpark, her~. MR. NACEY-I think th~ common thought, r~c~ntly, has be~n to try and slow down the p~rcolation rate rather than have the type of conditions we've had in.. . and plac~s like that, wh~r~ w~'r~ working with sands. MR. ROBERTS-That's true. to slow it down. Wh~r~ w~'r~ r~quiring som~. .put in some h~avier soils MR. NACEY - As you this subdivision, out into th~ muck move out into th~ less developabl~ or non-dev~lopable of course, you now hav~ a n~gativ~ p~rcolation rate, and th~ v~ry wet areas. ar~a on you g~ t MR. ROBERTS-So, that's why you'v~ got the geographic, th~ layout of your lots the way you do. MR. NACEY-If I could just addr~ss some of the comments that were mad~ by th~ Staff on th~ EAF. I think, John, mayb~ what we n~ed h~re is a littl~ class in t~rminology so that we're speaking the same languages that your staff is. In regard to (A)(10), that was simply not checked off on that EAF. That had to do with fishing or hunting opportuniti~s on th~ property. Obviously, ther~ ar~ no fishing opportuniti~s and I would hope that th~re would not b~ any hunting opportunities, given the proximity of th~ resid~ntial ar~a n~arby. (B) (1 n Wh~r~ Stuart disagr~~d with the applicant' s r~spons~ in regard to solid waste, I think th~ int~nt her~ was 3 more in lin~ with th~ subdivision after it had b~en constructed, whether th~r~ was going to be continual solid waste g~nerated by this project, rather than initially, through construction. The answer, of course, would be, yes, during construction, other than some minor solid wastes, I would say that you're talking about r~fug~ disposal, garbag~ and that sort of thing and I think that's address~d in another portion of th~ EAF, ther~. MR. CARTIER-Okay, it won't be disposed of on-sit~? MR. NACEY-No. MR. ROBERTS-Does that make you any mOre comfortabl~, John? MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. MR. NACEY-And (C) (11) Resid~ntial dev~lopment will create an increas~d d~mand on community s~rvic~s. Again, I think th~ intend~d answer. .was that w~ w~ren't going to b~ nec~ssitating a n~~d for additional s~rvic~s that wer~n' t alr~ady available, such as polic~ and school bus, fire protection, wat~r supply, that sort of thing. MR. GORALSKI-Just, in the futur~, subdivision, would b~ y~s and th~n to handl~ th~ proj~cted demand answ~r on (C)(ll), th~ answ~r, typically, in a Part A, is th~ ~xisting capacity suffici~nt would b~ yes. MR. ROBERTS-Th~ incr~ase is small to moderat~, not significant. MR. NACEY-Rist-Frost' s comm~nts, I'd like Frank Walt~r, who is her~, to addr~ss any qu~stions that ther~ may be on the stormwat~r managem~nt plan. If I could just g~t down to It~m 2, which deals with the possibility of a fill syst~m on Lot 2, I rememb~r, back in F~bruary, when w~ w~r~ h~re for Sk~tch Plan, we discuss~d this it~m specifically and at that I tim~ I thought w~ had discuss~d, and com~ to th~ r~alization that, b~cause of the ~l~vation of th~ various w~ll t~sts in th~ ar~a and th~ location of mottling and/or surface groundwater it was consid~r~d that, in thos~ particular holes, that w~ r~ach~d an agr~~m~nt that th~ chances w~r~ slim that th~r~ was going to be groundwat~r at this particular absorption fi~ld location and I rem~mb~r asking th~ staff from Rist-Frost, at that time, if w~ had settl~d that question, becaus~ if we hav~n' t, it's news to m~ becaus~ at that particular tim~, I thought it had b~en. We could have had this t~st additional test done within the last coupl~ of months, of cours~, and probably b~~n off guard.. t~st now. So, if you want to discuss this or go back to what w~ discussed in F~bruary, that's fin~. MR. ROBERTS-Anybody have any recollection about that? MR. CARTIER-I think that' s som~thing that can be addressed b~for~ final, anyway. It's going to show up at final. MR. ROBERTS-That's a good point. MR. NACEY-I noticed th~re was a third sh~~t, h~re, in th~ handout, a third sh~~t from the N~w York State Departm~nt of H~alth, noting that th~y had r~c~ntly r~c~iv~d an Environm~ntal Assessment Form, ~tc. and it go~s on to say, pl~ase b~ advis~d that the Sherman Acr~s II Subdivision would b~ jurisdictional for any lots which ar~ fiv~ acres or less in siz~. Now, does this mean jurisdictional to th~ H~alth D~partm~nt Revi~w, is that th~ way you'r~ r~ading it? MR. GORALSKI-I can address that. MR. NACEY-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that's corr~ct. Brian F~ar has indicated that these ar~ jurisdictional to th~ H~alth D~partm~nt Revi~w and h~ would also r~quest that in any N~gativ~ D~claration, that it be condition~d on th~ Health D~partment giving approval for thos~ syst~ms. MR. NACEY-That's inter~sting b~caus~, as w~ discussed at Sk~tch Plan, I had talk~d to Brian th~ day b~for~ w~ began th~ Sk~tch Plan and he said that th~y would not b~ jurisdictional, simp ly b~cause we had mOre lots that w~r~ ov~r 5 acr~s and the r~maining number of lots didn't trigger, didn't reach th~ 5 lot trigg~r point and w~ discussed this at som~ length. I'll get back to Brian tomorrow and ask him that qu~stion, but it's in contradiction to what h~ had told me on th~ phon~ th~ day b~for~. 4 MR. ROBERTS-Well, we can c~rtainly..r~f~rence back thos~ comm~nts, let me op~n the public h~aring. who car~s to comment on this proj~ct? to them. Whil~ Frank is r~ading Is th~r~ anybody in the audi~nc~ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DONALD WHITMAN MR. WHITMAN-Donald Whitman, 23 Michaels Driv~. I don' t quit~ und~rstand this t~sting that you w~r~ doing down in the ground. All I know right now is, I'v~ got a lot of water in my c~llar. The guy that liv~s across th~ street from m~ has got a lot of wat~r in his c~llar and we 'v~ b~~n pumping it out for a month and w~ still can't get it out. So, I don't know what this low that you guys ar~ talking about. I know you're talking about leachfields and s~w~rs and you' r~ going to run into som~ probl~ms. You'r~ d~finit~ly going to run into SOm~ probl~ms. MR. ROBERTS-So, I gu~ss w~ can assume your c~llar would b~ d~ep~r than th~ nec~ssity for a l~achfi~ld. MR. WHITMAN-Y~s. I'm not sur~ what the water level is th~re, okay, but wh~n th~y originally dug my cellar, they dug down and hit wat~r and had to bring the cellar back up, okay. Now, I've lived there for 5 years and never had a problem. This year, I've got water. I've got a lot of problems, so hasn't th~ guy across th~ street. MR. CARTIER-Has ther~ b~en any chang~ in the roadway? no water running off th~ road that do~sn't run that way? In other words, there's MR. WHITMAN-No, none what so ~v~r. It hasn't been changed in 5 years. MR. PULVER-You n~ver had any water for 5 y~ars? MR. WHITMAN-No. I just..one pump out and it continues to MR. CARTIER-This has b~en a year of high ground wat~r. MR. ROBERTS-Y~s, but sO was last y~ar. MR. WHITMAN-So wasn't last y~ar, right. MR. CARTIER- Is your hous~ on that lot? MR. WHITMAN-On the last outline, on the right hand side, I don't know, I beli~v~ th~re's two mor~ lots down below m~. MR. ROBERTS-Could you point to it, for us. MR. WHITMAN-It's down in h~r~, som~wh~r~. The turnaround is right h~r~, right? MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. WHITMAN-Okay, I think th~r~'s two lots, ~mpty lots, on~ right on th~ corn~r, it COm~s around, on a b~nd. I think th~r~'s a house across the str~~t which is th~ last hous~ on th~ l~ft hand, I think th~re' s a coup l~ of lots. Th~r~' s a fir~ hydrant right h~re. MR. ROBERTS-L~t th~ record stat~, since it's not on tap~, that his house is on th~ west sid~ of Micha~ls Drive. MR. CARTIER-Is th~ gen~ral drainag~, I don't r~member now,...his way, toward thes~ prop~rti~s or away from th~s~ properti~s? MR. NACEY-W~ll, it's gen~rally running south~ast~rly, ~ast~rly and southeasterly. MR. CARTIER-East~rly and south~ast~rly. MR. NACEY-Right. ..right hand corn~r, is gen~rally the catch all. MR. CARTIER-So, w~' r~ not talking about incr~asing drainag~ off this prop~rty onto thes~ other houses? MR. NACEY-That's right, we'r~ not. 5 MR. HAGAN-In addition to th~ wat~r in your basem~nt, have you had any problems with your l~achfi~ld? MR. WHITMAN-Not yet, but I ~xpect to. MR. HAGAN-Is th~ wat~r in your bas~ment odoriferous? MR. WHITMAN-All th~ tim~, w~ll, not, it's b~~n in th~r~ so long right now that it's mild~w. MR. HAGAN-But it doesn't smell? MR. WHITMAN-Not y~t, no. MR. HAGAN-Odors or s~wag~? MR. WHITMAN-Not y~t, no. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, w~ll, thank's for your input. who Car~s to comm~nt on this project? Anybody ~ls~ in th~ audi~nc~ DOTTY WHITMAN MRS. WHITMAN-I'm Dotty Whitman, also of 23 Micha~ls Drive. With the..that you'r~ proposing, th~ two lin~s, b~yond them, on th~ south sid~, with the ~ntry road there, . . is that also going to ~liminate, now, some of th~ trails w~ hav~ that ar~ h~avily us~d by th~ thre~ wh~elers and th~ motorcycl~s? Is that going to b~ part of this privat~, b~caus~ I can't t~ll from back th~r~? MR. ROBERTS-If you'd lik~ to, go up to th~ map with him and satisfy yours~lf. MR. NACEY-Th~ trails will b~ located out to th~ rear portion of..and I know th~r~'s som~ oth~r ones that..I gu~ss th~ answ~r to your qu~stion is, yes. MRS. WHITMAN-This is the curr~nt cul-d~-sac? MR. NACEY-Th~ curr~nt cul-d~-sac is right h~r~. MRS. WHITMAN-Okay, which m~ans our hous~ is going to be back in h~r~. MR. NACEY-Okay. MRS. WHITMAN-Okay, we hav~ trails that go h~r~. W~ hav~ trails that go across h~r~ and I won' t b~ abl~ to distinguish which building lots you' re r~f~rring to. W~ hav~ One right next to it that is vacant, is that the first on~..? MR. NACEY-That's this on~. Well, ther~'s a lot right her~ and th~n th~ property b~gins. So, everything from this way south is going to b~ utiliz~d for private.. MRS. WHITMAN-Okay, so it will be around this cul-d~-sac, with four empty lots, is that corr~ct? MR. NACEY-That's correct. MR. WHITMAN-And th~se two would th~n b~.. MR. NACEY-That's corr~ct. MR. ROBERTS-Anyon~ ~lse who cares to comment on th~ project? Well, for now, w~'ll l~ave the public h~aring op~n. Board members, anymor~ qu~stions? MR. CARTIER-Well, just a qu~stion about th~ waiv~r r~qu~sts, th~ r~ason why you'r~ making th~ waiv~r r~quest with r~gard to MR. NACEY-Well, ther~'s public wat~r in Amy Lan~ and, in th~ past, in other projects that we've submitted wh~re th~r~ is public wat~r, it se~m~d to b~com~ a qu~stion to be answ~r, as far as determining wh~r~ septic syst~ms w~lls w~re going to b~ becaus~ all of your lots would b~... MR. CARTIER-Alright, did w~ talk about cutting restrictions at Sk~tch Plan, I don't r~m~mber if w~ did or not? 6 MR. NACEY-I don't b~li~ve w~ did. There ar~ some, on the cutting plan, there's a cl~aring plan that was submitt~d with th~se. I can put this.. MR. ROBERTS-Why don't you. MR. CARTIER-This is an aquif~r recharge ar~a, again, and...som~ cutting and consid~ring th~ siz~ of the lots. MR. NACEY-I can qu~stion. What you s~e in th~..d~velopment ar~a is, ~ssentially, what will b~ clear~d on this proj~ct. Ev~rything ~ls~ is now,...in whit~, towards the up right-hand corn~r. It's woods, it's fairly heavily wood~d now and that will r~main as is. MR. CARTIER-It is going to remain that way? MR. NACEY-That' s corr~ct. It's not the type of area wh~r~ you want to go out and cut a lot of tr~es and do a lot of d~v~lopm~nt. It's simply too w~t. You have good d~v~lopment area at around the sit~ wh~re th~ hous~s are going to b~, based on th~ data w~ accumulat~d, that once you g~t b~yond that, the ~ast~rly and southeasterly 50 perc~nt of it, it's good walking, for strolling in th~ woods, that sort of thing. MR. CARTIER-Okay and itls primarily soft woods, too, if I r~call. MR. NACEY-Ther~'s a lot of pin~, a lot of large pine. MR. CARTIER-It's not a source of fir~wood, hardwood fir~wood or anything lik~ that? MR. NACEY-No, th~r~' s not a lot of mature hardwoods. out th~r~, but th~y'r~ around thre~ and four inch~s. There's som~ nice Birch MR. ROBERTS-it would mak~ you wonder if we would ev~n need to put any kind of restrictions on this particular.. MR. CARTIER-I don't think so. MR. ROBERTS-It would take care of itself, I would think. MR. CARTIER-That would mak~ a nic~ sound barri~r. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, let's jump into th~ SEQRA R~vi~w. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I guess, first, if I'm wrong, her~, I would mak~ Qu~stion 10, Section B, Question satisfactorily address~d. I'd mak~ a not~ that, and, John, correct me a not~ in the SEQRA R~vi~w that, S~ction A, 17, and S~ction C, Qu~stion 11, has been MR. GORALSKI-That's corr~ct. MR. CARTIER- (Referring to SEQRA) Item 6, will propos~d action alter drainag~ flows or patterns or surfac~ or wat~r runoff? Yes, when~v~r you do construction, th~r~'s some change in flow, but it's small to moderate. MR. ROBERTS-Actually, they're not changing any existing drainag~ patt~rns, though, ar~ you? MR. NACEY-No. MR. ROBERTS-Is that what w~'re asking h~re? MR. NACEY-The only patterns that'll be chang~d would be around the n~wly construct~d houses, now, to a. provid~ positive drainag~ way for th~m. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-1990, Introduc~d by P~ter Carti~r who moved for its adoption, s~cond~d by Carol Pulv~r: WHEREAS, ther~ is pr~s~ntly b~for~ this Planning Board Preliminary Stage Subdivision approval on SHERMAN ACRES, Wa.lter O. and Elizabeth A. Rehm and an applica.tion for: SECTION II, owned by 7 WHEREAS, this Planning Board has d~t~rmined that th~ propos~d proj~ct and Planning Board action is subj~ct to r~vi~w und~r th~ Stat~ Environmental Quality Revi~w Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No f~d~ral agency appears to b~ involv~d. 2. Th~ following ag~nci~s ar~ involv~d: The D~partm~nt of H~alth 3. Th~ propos~d action consid~red by this Board is unlist~d in th~ D~partm~nt of Environmental Cons~rvation R~gulations implementing the Stat~ Environm~ntal Quality R~view Act and th~ r~gulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Ass~ssment Form has been complet~d by th~ applicant. 5. Having consider~d and thoroughly analyz~d th~ r~levant ar~as of environm~ntal conc~rn and having considered th~ crit~ria for det~rmining wheth~r a proj~ct has a. significant ~nvironm~ntal impact as th~ sam~ is s~t forth in S~ction 617.11 of th~ Official Compilation of Cod~s, Rul~s and R~gulations for th~ Stat~ of N~w York, this Board finds that th~ action about to b~ und~rtak~n by this Board will hav~ no significant ~nvironm~ntal ~ff~ct and th~ Chairman of th~ Planning Board is h~r~by authoriz~d to ~x~cut~ and sign and fil~ as may b~ n~cessary a stat~ment of non-significanc~ or a n~gativ~ d~claration that may b~ r~quir~d by law. Duly adopt~d this 24th day of April, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. ROBERTS-Ar~ th~r~ any furth~r comm~nts from th~ audi~nc~ about th~ proj~ct b~fore I clos~ the public h~aring? MRS. WHITMAN-I'm Dotty Whitman. On behalf of our location, th~ on~ thing we w~r~ conc~rn~d about was th~ water, primarily, and ~liminating som~ of thos~ recr~ational v~hicl~s, which I was hoping this would do. W~ hav~ no obj~ction to th~ housing going in. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Any furth~r comm~nts? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Does th~ applicant hav~ any further comm~nts? MR. NACEY-W~ll, if w~ could just st~p back to th~ qu~stion of th~ soil types on Lot 2, hav~ w~ r~solved that, or hav~ w~ not r~solv~d it? MR. CARTIER-What you can do is come in at final with a resolution, that would satisfy ~ngin~~ring, that do~sn't hav~ to b~ r~solv~d tonight. MR. NACEY-I'm curious us to go ah~ad and do wh~r~ you'r~ going. wh~ther, in a soil test. spite of what Tha t 's f in~ , w~ discuss~d b~for~, you want I just want mak~ sure you know MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, w~ got som~ n~w...from Staff..satisfy the n~w consulting ~ngin~ers. MR. PALOCELLI-Y~s, just to, on that Lot 2, just b~caus~ it was marginal from th~ diff~r~nt tests on that Lot, becaus~ it seem~d marginal, that the s~paration distance to high ground water might not b~ m~t, you could just, that a fill syst~m may hav~ to b~ put in on that Lot, d~p~nding on th~ p~rcolation t~sts at th~ actual sit~. 8 MR. ROBERTS-I gu~ss we'r~ asking for another p~rc test, ar~n't we? MR. NACEY-W~ll, you'r~ asking for a p~rc t~st and a t~st pit. way we can determine the groundwat~r l~v~l. That's the only MR. CARTIER-For Lot 2. MR. NACEY-For Lot 2. MR. GORALSKI-Has Comment One b~en addressed? FRANK WALTER MR. WALTER-W~' re going to hav~ to go back to putting in the swimming pool, w~ did som~ drainag~ on this subdivision. Itls kind of hard to d~scrib~ this without doing a lot of arm waiving. Each cul-de-sac has a very small, limited drainage ar~a, a littl~ mor~ than one acr~ up on Amy Lan~ and a coupl~ of acr~s at th~ ~nd of Micha~ls Drive. Th~ gen~ral drainag~ pattern is through those cul-de-sacs in the r~ar of th~ prop~rty. All we did, simply, was to collect th~ stormwat~r in catch basins in th~ cul-de-sacs, to provid~ a.. with a pip~ along prop~rty lin~s to the rear of what would b~ the building lots wher~ it would discharg~. Ess~ntially, that does not change any drainage patterns or alt~r anything, that's wh~r~ th~ wat~r was going anyway. W~ simply brought it tog~ther in th~ pip~, took it som~wh~r~ and th~n turned it loos~ again, with v~ry little incr~as~ in runoff. While we w~r~ doing this, we could hav~ done that with hard pip~, simply drop inl~ts and install pip~. W~ thought mayb~ w~' d take advantage of some of th~ sands th~r~ and..some stormwater into the ground, such that, und~r most ordinary storms, nothing, th~r~ would be no discharg~ off th~ ~nd of that pip~ and I still f~~l that that fact would be th~ situation. W~ crunch~d som~ numb~rs to show that som~ wat~r could go into th~ ground and I think Rist-Frost said that th~ conc~pt was okay. I guess that w~ might get down to th~ point, now, of arguing how much wat~r w~lre going to get in th~ ground and then how much might come out of the end of th~ pipe, but that's, I guess that's, basically, the disagr~ement at this point. Our computations neglected any storag~ benefits from th~ road sid~ ditch~s. They also neglect~d th~ leaching capabilities of th~ catch basins thems~lv~s, that only took into account th~ leaching capability of th~ pip~ lin~. In any ~v~nt, ev~n with a good l~aching syst~m, in a s~v~r storm, 50 year storm or som~thing, you expect to s~~ a discharge off th~ ~nd of that p ip~. . low w~t ar~as as the water flows th~re now. I think that's, I probably confused you, but that's about the.. th~ drainage. MR. ROBERTS-Are those drainage areas going to requir~ any easements, Frank? MR. WALTER-Ther~ is an eas~ment along th~ back line, low..ar~as. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Well, it s~~ms lik~ it's a sensibl~ plan to m~. Do you have any quarr~l with this, up front? MR. PALOCELLI-We hav~ no probl~m with the concept that he's pr~s~nting. Th~ probl~m was in calculations with backup concept. There wer~ som~ problems with th~ p~rcolation assumed for infiltration. If. .which result in long~r tr~nch~s that might b~ ne~ded. How~v~r, as h~ has stated, that he didn't figur~ in any storag~. If h~ would lik~ to figur~ in storage within th~ pip~, if h~ would just show us calculations backing that up, w~ hav~ no problem. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I gu~ss w~lr~ not far off th~ track. MR. NACEY-No, I don't think so. W~'re just quibbling over som~ numb~rs, h~re. MR. ROBERTS-That's why we have th~s~ li t t l~ things. Okay, if r~ady for a motion. our final d~termination, to take care of sOm~ of th~re's no further questions, h~r~, I think w~'r~ MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990 SHERMAN ACRES, SECTION ~, Introduced by P~t~r Cartier who moved for its adoption, s~cond~d by James Hagan: With th~ following stipulations: That th~ waiver requ~st for r~lief from th~ r~quirement to show w~lls, septic tanks, absorption fields, on adjac~nt properti~s b~ grant~d. That th~ comm~nts by Rist-Frost in the lett~r dated April 19, 1990 be addr~ssed. 9 Duly adopt~d this 24th day of April, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Do~s that(DOH Approval) have to come through b~for~ final? MR. GORALSKI-No, I don't think it will come through befor~ final. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I think what DOH is asking is simply that th~y b~ involved in th~ proc~ss and that th~ir approval be part of th~ SEQRA n~gative d~claration. MR. NACEY-Thank you, on~ mor~ thing. Sinc~ tomorrow' s th~ magic hour, would it b~ appropriate to ask for an extension so w~ can plan to gath~r some of this information and get it in quickly? MR. CARTIER-What time's th~ d~adlin~? MR. NACEY-Two 0 I clock tomorrow afternoon. I don't think w~ can have a backho~ out there and run th~ perc test by tomorrow. MR. ROBERTS-What's the agenda look lik~, sO far, for n~xt month? MR. GORALSKI-Oh, it's full. MR. ROBERTS-it's full, sO that's a moot point. anyway. I gu~ss it can't do you any good MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's not necessarily true. applications. MR. ROBERTS-So, at this point, we don't really know. They ar~ always incomplete MR. GORALSKI-I don't know that th~ agendas ar~ full. We have enough applications, if ~v~rything is compl~te, at this point. MR. ROBERTS-So that, even giving you an ext~nsion of tim~, her~, might not g~t you on th~ agenda. MR. NACEY-It might not. We're just asking for th~ opportunity to turn it in within a week, thr~~ days, four days, or whatever and if we don't mak~ th~ agenda, w~ll then that's just th~. .of th~ sch~duling. I'd hate to think w~ might miss th~ opportunity. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, we're not talking about anything we're too hung up on, h~r~. How do~s th~ Board feel about this. Give them a f~w days and let them tak~ their chances or what? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. by doing this. It seems like we get into mor~ probl~ms than w~ solv~ MR. CARTIER-Staff comm~nts, do you have anything you want to say? MR. GORALSKI-I think you all hav~ heard all th~ comments that we car~ to mak~ about ext~nding the submission d~adline dat~. MR. CARTIER-Is this something that's got to go to a vot~? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I would think so. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Why do~s it r~quire a motion? MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we hav~ to tell Staff to b~ willing to acc~pt it. W~ have to get Staff off the hook on this. 10 MR. GORALSKI-In ord~r for us to acc~pt information aft~r th~ submission deadlin~ date, you would hav~ to grant a waiver from your rul~s and proc~dur~s. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. HAGAN-Which you don't gre~t with open arms, is what you'r~ t~lling us. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, on~ more time. Th~r~ is a submission deadline dat~ b~cause we hav~ Staff R~view. W~ hav~ to distribut~ th~ information to various d~partments. W~ have to review th~ information. We also have an average of 50 applications betw~~n the two Boards to revi~w in the first w~ek that w~ have them, for compl~t~n~ss. Having diff~rent applicants bring information in at diff~r~nt tim~s mak~s it v~ry difficult to ke~p tract of all of th~ different applications and th~ information. That is why w~ have th~ submission d~adline dat~. MR. CARTIER-And that' s th~ probl~m it creat~s for Staff. I think th~ problem it cr~at~s for th~ Board, also, in addition to that, is that I think we op~n a door, h~r~, that w~ don't want to open. If w~ say yes, it becom~s more and mor~ difficult to say no b~caus~ we ~stablish a pattern of granting submission d~adlin~ waivers and, consid~ring what this BOard has be~n through in the last month that had to do with submission d~adlines not ev~n b~ing establish~d, that's a door, I'm talking for me, her~, that's a door I'd lik~ to se~ l~ft clos~d. In spit~ of the fact that this is a r~latively minor item, I understand that, but th~re's a Planning Board proc~dure involv~d, here. MR. ROBERTS-Y~s, I think, p~rhaps, that is th~ g~n~ral t~nure. W~ hav~ been going round and round, r~c~ntly, trying to find some way to change th~ proc~dur~ to wh~r~ you would get som~ of th~se comm~nts ahead of tim~ and b~ abl~ to make th~ chang~s. It sounds like a simple id~a, but th~ tim~ just doesn't se~m to b~ ther~ and w~ haven't figur~d out a b~tt~r way to do it, although w~'re working on it. It com~s down to the fact that a subdivision revi~w, now, is not a thr~~ month proc~ss, it's a six month process, for som~, it can b~ and I gu~ss w~ still probably n~~d to have some kind of a motion to b~ sur~ w~'r~ all on th~ sam~ wave l~ngth here. MOTION TO DENY REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION DEADLINE DATE WITH REGARD TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1990, Introduc~d by P~ter Carti~r who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Conrad Kupillas: Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS CHARLES DIEHL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE, APPROX. 4,000 FT. EAST OF INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. ROAD AND SHERMAN AVENUE FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 4 EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE PURCHASED AS INDIVIDUAL UNITS. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-22 LOT SIZE: 58.264 ACRES WILSON MATHIAS, AGENT FOR APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Not~s from John S. Goralski, Plann~r (attach~d) MR. GORALSKI-(Ref~rring to Staff Not~s) I have discuss~d that with the applicant's ag~nt and h~ agre~d that that was th~ way to go. MR. ROBERTS-And your r~c~ipt of MR. GORALSKI-Right, when you get to that EAF, you should consider th~ ~ntir~ 58 acr~s. ENGINEER REPORT Not~s by Wayn~ Gann~tt, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Okay, what ar~ we having from Mors~ Engine~ring, h~re. 11 MR. CARTIER-I think that was submitted to Engin~~ring, Rist-Frost, wasn't it, March 27th? MR. MATHIAS-W~ll, we made it part of our submission, her~, as part of the application proc~ss. MR. ROBERTS-Let me turn it ov~r to the applicant. MR. MATHIAS-Sure. My nam~ is Wilson Mathias. I'm h~re on behalf of Charli~ Di~hl. I'm a lawy~r with offic~s at 525 Bay Road in Qu~ensbury. I think that th~ additional information that Morse Engineering provided was our effort to assure the Planning Board and provide some engin~ering input and basis for s~tting forth a preliminary plan that is what's in front of you, rath~r than showing additional information that would be r~quir~d if w~ w~r~ going to construct this pro j~ct. Th~ fact of the matter is that ~verything you s~~ b~for~ you has, in fact, com~ b~for~ th~ Board already and b~en taken a look at and, in fact, actually, th~ Board's really revi~wed more than what's in front of you right now, as you know, th~ proj~ct, actually, has been down sized in t~rms of the d~nsity of th~ units and a lot of th~ engine~ring data that was done, in terms of drainag~ was us~d to address two units that w~r~ to b~ construct~d and impervious surfaces as a r~sult of.. construction. Since those units hav~n' t be~n construct~d, th~r~ just simp ly was no s~ns~ to addr~ss issues that w~ren' t ther~ and, again, th~s~ units are up there. Th~ area isn't on~ that's prone to having drainage probl~ms. I think th~ main concern has be~n how w~ addr~ss the issu~ of s~ptic replac~ment for th~ two small~r lots and I think that's exactly what Morse Engineering did for us and all of that comes within a SPDES Permit that the, that this pro j~ct, actually, has alr~ady r~c~iv~d. So, that's the basis for th~ detail. You know, as I say, I think this is something that's be~n in front of you b~for~ and you'v~ taken a look at it and, obviously, hav~ a right to look at it again, but, what's ther~ is th~re. Ther~' s nothing new. It se~ms to work right now and w~ I re not proposing any changes. Th~ on~ comment I would like to mak~ with r~sp~ct to th~ Environmental Ass~ssment Form, is that w~ did submit, on this particular proj~ct, an EAF for th~ 9. 9 acr~s and th~ 4, fourp lex~s a.nd that came along with our submissions, at th~ Sk~tch Plan l~v~l. As you might r~call from last w~~k, w~ also did an EAF on the 46 unit residential structur~s that he propos~s on th~ r~maining prop~rty which was ther~. What in ~ff~ct, obviously, what we'v~ don~, is combine th~ two. I think that, in your revi~w, what's important, I think from our standpoint, anyway, or from the applicant's standpoint, is that this particular four unit situation, again, ~xists and has been tak~n a look at. We'r~ not adding to anything. W~'r~ not adding traffic, sewer, water, ~tc. As to the 48 units that's adjac~nt, what we'r~ proposing to d~v~lop falls within th~ density guid~lin~s of th~ Qu~ensbury Zoning Ordinance and, obviously, in your Environm~ntal Impact Stat~m~nt, a lot of th~ conc~rns about traffic, solid waste, ~tc. g~nerat~d from r~sid~ntial subdivisions was addr~ss~d. .So, w~'r~ simply proposing something that fits within th~ zoning and I don't think it exce~ds any l~v~l by th~ n~~d for th~ project n~xt door to requir~, at l~ast in our opinion, an Environm~ntal Impact Stat~m~nt. MR. CARTIER-I've got a b~for~ and get tabled? h~aring list~d here. quick qu~stion, h~re. Did w~ look at this for Pr~liminary B~caus~ w~' r~ at Preliminary and I don' t s~e any public MR. GORALSKI-No, you look~d at if for Sk~tch, last tim~. MR. CARTIER-But, h~r~ w~ are at Pr~lim, and w~ should be conducting a public h~aring. MR. GORALSKI-Public h~aring. MR. CARTIER-Was it adv~rtised? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Oh, Okay. MR. MATHIAS-Y~s, I'm assuming, you give m~ the first shot, and th~n th~ folks, if th~y'r~ h~r~, can speak. MR. ROBERTS-I'm assuming it was adv~rtis~d, too, but it wasn't so list~d on our notes. MR. GORALSKI-Do you have th~ r~ceipts? MR. MATHIAS-I do. 12 MR. GORALSKI-I know ther~'ve been p~opl~ that hav~ come in with th~ l~tt~r, so I know th~y hav~ gotten them. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Tell me though, on~ other thing. Pleas~ t~ll me, that if we do this EAF for th~ whol~ thing that that would also tak~ car~ of th~ n~xt proj~ct, the n~xt time w~ s~~ it. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct, SEQRA will have been addr~ss~d for Phase II. MR. MATHIAS-I mean, it s~ems to me that, obviously, what we'r~ doing, ev~n though we' r~ furth~r along in th~ approval process on this proj~ct h~re, obviously what w~'r~ doing n~xt door impacts, although we may want it to be address~d as a s~parat~ issu~ for taxing and that kind of thing, it's all part of th~ same ball of wax. MR. CARTIER-As long as anybody who's h~r~ from the public, who may care to address this, und~rstands that w~ are talking, not just about what is up th~re on th~ map, but an additional 58 acres with 46 more dw~lling units on it. MR. ROBERTS-I'm also wond~ring, though, if w~..preliminary revi~w, or for th~ oth~r one, n~xt tim~. MR. CARTIER-Pr~liminary next time, we did Sketch.. MR. ROBERTS-That's the time when the public would b~ notifi~d for th~ next.. MR. GORALSKI-Th~ public will be notifi~d for a public h~aring for Phase II. Th~y shall b~ notifi~d for a public h~aring for Phas~ 1. How~ver, SEQRA will hav~ already b~~n addressed. MR. ROBERTS-I'm just wondering wh~th~r w~ might not, if th~re's some controversy, w~ might want to go through the SEQRA again. MR. CARTIER-You s~~ what I'm saying? Th~ only map we hav~ up here, John, is for th~ quadrapl~x. You're saying we n~ed to addr~ss SEQRA on the whol~ thing. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-I don't hav~ a probl~m with that, but anybody who's her~ from th~ public to addr~ss this ne~ds to understand w~' r~ talking about an additional 58 acr~s h~r~. MR. MATHIAS-I ha.ve no, c~rtainly, no probl~m to hang up th~ oth~r. MR. ROBERTS-...public show~d up, the n~xt time, w~ might v~ry w~ll fe~l it prud~nt to go through the SEQRA again or talk some about it, not just sw~ep it under th~ rug. MR. GORALSKI-You can amend your SEQRA approva.l. MS. CORPUS-You could amend it. You could vot~ to MR. CARTIER-Pending? MS. CORPUS-No, you' d hav~ to actually retract One motion and pass another on~. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. That may not be a probl~m. Do w~ have qu~stions from th~ Board for th~ applicant, befor~ we turn it ov~r to th~ public, or ar~ you finish~d? MR. MATHIAS-Not r~ally, I m~an, this particular project, I don't think th~re's any magic to it. MR. ROBERTS-If the Board do~sn't hav~ any app~al, let m~ op~n th~ public h~aring. Is th~re anybody in th~ audienc~ who cares to comment about this proj~ct? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GOLDMAN MR. GOLDMAN-My name is Goldman. I liv~ at 34 Amy Lan~. The apartm~nts ar~ b~hind my property. I couldn't und~rstand Dan Austin about th~re b~ing no furth~r construction. Now I can s~~ that som~thing ~ls~ is amiss h~r~. As I und~rstand it, I w~nt to the Town Board m~eting wh~n th~y okayed thos~ apartm~nts. Is that what w~'r~ talking about, thos~ apartments behind Amy Lan~? 13 MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. GOLDMAN-Th~y made a commitment to the people that they would set aside a buff~r zone and wildlife habitat. Now, has that be~n considered in this new d~v~lopment, h~re? MR. ROBERTS-Significant area has be~n set aside on something that would not b~ built on. (TAPE TURNED) MR. MATHIAS-Y~s, sir, if you looked at our original p Ian and actually what was approv~d by the Town Board, what th~y had was a lot, such as, basically, th~ lot line ran lik~ this, okay? MR. GOLDMAN-Yes. MR. MATHIAS-It consisted of, approximately, 5 acres that was to remain gr~~n spac~, op~n, that's th~ term that I find in the r~cord, having not had..th~ meeting. What th~ Planning Board, in allowing the four ~xisting units to b~ divided, had required the developer to, basically, includ~ that reserved, op~n land, but split it up b~twe~n th~ two lots and impos~ th~ condition that, no further construction will tak~ p lace and, although, if this is th~ ~ngin~~ring drawing that w~ hav~ on our surv~y plat that has b~en submitt~d, th~ notation is no building will ~v~ry take plac~ within h~r~. So, that th~ concept of keeping this 5 acr~s free, gr~~n, and forev~r wild, is going to b~ pres~rved, numb~r on~, by our final plan, and numb~r two, by cov~nants and restrictions which prohibit anybody who owns on~ of th~s~ lots, from any furth~r residential construction on that lot. So, not only ar~..doing it by th~ Planning Board, but th~y'v~ got cov~nants and restrictions which do that as well. MR. GOLDMAN-My only concern was, my lot, my line, back line, has b~~n surv~yed thr~~ tim~s sinc~ th~ apartments hav~ gon~ in and th~y'v~ got red ribbons going, zapping through the woodland back ther~, as though ther~ is going to be construction ther~ and I don' t und~rstand why anybody would spend the amount of mon~y n~~d~d to surv~y three diff~r~nt tim~s, without th~ir int~ntion of building som~thing. MR. MATHIAS-I can I t address th~ issue of the surv~ying. I can tell you that I know that there have be~n s~veral contracts to purchase th~ entire 58 acres own~d by Dr. Karp and other p~ople may have had other plans for it, but, actually, my clients used the existing surv~y that was done wh~n Karp bought th~ property and, as I say, th~re ' s, you know, ther~ mayb~ lin~s out th~r~, but, under our plans, you know, the 5 acres is preserved, it just happens to be, you know, apportion~d to two ~xisting lots. MR. GOLDMAN-Yes. MR. MATHIAS-But on our map, w~ not~ that ther~ MR. GORALSKI-I have th~ map, right here. MR. MATHIAS-It says you can't build on it, and our cov~nants and restrictions ..construction as well. MR. GOLDMAN-Okay, w~ll, thank you v~ry much for allowing me to ask the question. I'm just n~rvous about what's going on b~hind me. MR. ROBERTS-That's why w~ hold public hearings. No probl~m. Anybody ~ls~? MR. CARTIER-I don't m~an to belabor this, but I want to be sure we're doing this thing correctly. We are doing a long form EAF on th~ basis of looking at only part of this, in t~rms of Sketch Plan, does Staff hav~ any problem with that? MR. GORALSKI-No, you'r~ reviewing th~ Environm~ntal Assessment Form and any oth~r information that you hav~ availabl~. If you feel that you don I t have ~nough information to address th~ ~ntire project, you may want to wait. MS. CORPUS-Also, if you do make a subdivision, you do hav~ th~ right information was brought forth. determination at Pr~liminary for the oth~r to rescind th~ pr~vious motion because n~w MR. CARTIER-Okay. 14 MR. ROBERTS-Okay, th~n, any furth~r comm~nts from th~ audience at this tim~? BILL WILSON MR. WILSON-Yes, my nam~ is Bill Wilson. I live on Michaels Driv~. I'm just curious to know how far down or how far behind that comes down on th~ Micha~ls Driv~ subdivision that we had up th~re..b~fore? MR. MATHIAS-I would have to look at the map. On the surv~y from the right-of-way ~dge, it's outside of the mOst southerly, south ~asterly corner on this map on the board, surv~y shows it's 589.37 f~et, so it's almost 600 fe~t down th~..Micha~ls Driv~. MR. WILSON-But it do~sn' t have anything to do with the roads that ar~ behind Michaels Drive and Amy Lane. MR. MATHIAS-No. MR. ROBERTS-No. No relation to th~se two projects. MR. WILSON-No, b~hind, towards West Mountain, b~hind Michaels Driv~, there, th~re's another subdivision or some kind of division back there that COmes off Luz~rn~ Road. There's a couple of other roads back ther~. MR. GORALSKI-Laur~l Drive, I believe it is. Lauren Lane. MR. ROBERTS-Laur~n Lane, there's no conn~ction, it do~sn' t go through and it's not intended that it should. I don't think we would want it to. MR. WILSON-Okay. MR. MATHIAS-No, nothing's going to go through. up, th~ larg~r tax map, I think,..is what you're running west-south here and h~re's Micha~ls Drive that's in front of th~ BOard this ~v~ning, are ov~r h~re. You can, actually, talking about. This running..south west. th~ apartments that if you step is Amy Lan~, Th~ project are directly MR. ROBERTS-..with that parc~l six? MR. MATHIAS-No, it's no, it touch~s parcel six, but MR. WILSON-Okay, thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Is th~r~ anyon~ else? Are we r~ady then, I think, to jump into SEQRA, ar~n't w~? MR. CARTIER-Yes. This is with r~gards to the long form EAF with the und~rstanding that w~ are looking at th~ ~ntire project including the proposed 58 acr~s with 46 dw~lling units. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. HAGAN-(R~ferring EAF) Th~ applicant r~cr~ational land to on that? to Item 13 Impact on Open Spac~ and R~creation, says y~s, that it has pot~ntial to provid~ th~ Town of Qu~ensbury. Does the applicant car~ long form additional to expand MR. MATHIAS-I gu~ss that's what w~ put in our Sk~tch Plan approval to hav~ ev~rybody say, what a wonderful proj~ct. MR. HAGAN-You m~an that's just gingerbread? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think it's a good question, but I also think that, what th~ probl~m here is that th~ subdivision regulations, particularly when you look at .. . and how you comput~ it. .penalize an applicant for making an offer of.. If, for instance, I think, at one point, I guess the answ~r is no. MR. HAGAN-W~ll then, let's g~t rid of it. MR. MATHIAS-We' r~ not going to. We I r~ going to ke~p it open and th~ cov~nants and r~strictions will prohibit any future d~velopment. MR. CARTIER-So, the answ~r's no. 15 MR. MATHIAS-Th~ answ~r's to brevity. MR. HAGAN-It~m 6, will proposed action alter drainage flow or patt~rns or surface water runoff. W~ said no, however, it should b~ pointed out that the drainage will conform to plans contain~d in Sit~ Plan 54-88. It's part of the application and I think it should be contained. MR. CARTIER-You're right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1990, Introduc~d by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulv~r: WHEREAS, th~re is pres~ntly before th~ Planning Board an application for: Preliminary Stage approval of ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS both Phase I and Phase II, Charles Diehl owner, for a subdivision of 4 existing structures to be purchased as individual units and for the construction of 46 additional dwelling units on 58 acres and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has d~t~rmin~d that th~ propos~d project and Planning Board action is subject to review und~r th~ State Environm~ntal Quality Revi~w Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No f~d~ral agency app~ars to be involv~d. 2. The following agencies appear to b~ involv~d: DEC 3. Th~ proposed action considered by this Board is unlist~d in the Departm~nt of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act and the r~gulations of the Town of Qu~~nsbury. 4. An Environm~ntal Assessment Form has been complet~d by th~ applicant. 5. Having consid~r~d and thoroughly analyzed the relevant ar~as of environmental conc~rn and having considered th~ criteria for d~termining wh~th~r a proj~ct has a significant environmental impact as the same is s~t forth in S~ction 617.11 of th~ Official Compilation of Cod~s, Rules and R~gulations for th~ State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be und~rtaken by this Board will have no significant environmental eff~ct and th~ Chairman of th~ Planning Board is hereby authorized to ex~cute and sign and fil~ as may be necessary a stat~ment of non-significance or a negative d~claration that may b~ required by law. We do this with th~ und~rstanding that this may be r~-op~ned when we look at Pr~liminarY Stage for Phase III, or may b~ r~considered. Duly adopt~d this 24th day of April, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. ROBERTS-Are th~re any furth~r comments from th~ audienc~, at this tim~? If not w~'ll clos~ the public h~aring and entertain a motion as to Pr~liminary Stag~ of th~ subdivision. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Just a quick qu~stion, Wilson, hand deliver~d l~tt~r, March 28th, 1990, with th~ de~ds and cov~nants. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-That is going into th~ d~eds for thes~ four units that we'r~ talking about? 16 MR. MATHIAS-Right. The covenants and r~strictions will be a lot more ~xt~nsiv~ in conn~ction with th~ oth~r units. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1990 ADIRONDACK PLANTATION, Introduc~d by Peter Carti~r who moved for its adoption, s~cond~d by Carol Pulver: For a subdivision of 4 ~xisting structures to b~ purchased as individual units with the und~rstanding that d~~d and cov~nant r~strictions, as outlined in th~ l~tt~r of March 28, 1990 from Wilson Mathias, b~ incorporated into said d~eds. Duly adopt~d this 24th day of April, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLANS OLD ZONING: SR-30, UR-5 SFR-1A CEDAR COURT, PHASE I OWNER: RIT ABBATIELLO WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, APPROX. 1,000 FT. NORTH OF BLIND ROCK ROAD REVIEW 38 LOTS FOR DUPLEX AND TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-36 LOT SIZE: ±17 ACRES LEON STEVES, VAN DUSEN AND STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Bak~r, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-If I could just open a can of worms, her~. This proj~ct did com~ up for discussion last week. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. GORALSKI-And th~re is a l~tter from Dave Hatin, whos~ departm~nt, w~nt out to look at the sit~ and I b~li~v~ th~re's a l~tter, also, from Rist-Frost, addr~ssing addressing the sam~ issu~. If you'd like, we can get into thos~ l~tt~rs, or if you'd like to wait, it's up to th~ Board. MR. ROBERTS-First of all, clarify for m~, why this was tabled befor~. MR. GORALSKI-I think L~on could probably explain that to you. t~ll you how h~ solved th~ probl~m. W~ll, h~ could MR. ROBERTS-Alright, l~t's hold off on the lett~rs, for now and I'll turn it over to, well, mayb~ w~ should list~n to our consulting engin~~r in th~ mann~r that w~ normally do. ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayn~ Gannett, Town Engin~er (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Alright. into it. Why don't we r~ad Dav~ Hatin's lett~r, now, whil~ we'r~ MR. GORALSKI-Okay. R~ad Dave Hatin's letter, to Planning Board, dat~d April 23, 1990 (on file) MR. STEVES-For the r~cord, I would lik~ to not~ that the l~tt~r itself should b~ part of the record and not, necessarily, what John has r~ad b~caus~, if I heard John corr~ctly, he said, siltation was being "carri~d" by ~ith~r on~, but it says her~, "cr~at~d". MR. ROBERTS-True. MR. ROBERTS-Th~r~ is one more..in the file here from John Goralski. MR. GORALSKI-That's my original notes, wh~n this was tabled back in 1989. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, fine. Do you want to take us back in time, Leon and t~ll us how we got to wh~re w~ are. 17 MR. STEVES-I'm afraid I did not bring, I did not post th~.. .map outlining.. in Phas~ I that ar~ b~ing consid~red in chang~ from what was th~re is th~ dup l~x. . and.. . two four plexes, a six pl~x and two eight plexes. As th~ plans you hav~ before you indicate, th~se will all b~ four plex~s as well as in Phas~ II, when~v~r that day com~s. Th~ purpos~ of it is to separat~ th~ buildings th~mselves and push th~m back wh~re you can.. in anticipation of som~day having a c~ntral s~w~r on sit~. A provision has be~n made for a dry s~w~r line to run across th~ road so that th~ roads would not hav~ to be dug up at a futur~ dat~ to accommodat~ any of that connection. Last y~ar, I pres~nt~d to the Board this rendition of th~ plan of Phas~ 1. .proposed location without getting into the grading or th~ s~ptic. W~ have addr~ssed both th~ draining and the s~ptic on th~ plan that's b~for~. So, ther~'s no chang~ on th~ six pl~x up there..two units on ~ither side. MR. ROBERTS-Okay do w~ have any questions for L~on? MR. STEVES-Oh, I talk~d with one of the own~rs, th~re' s thre~ of them, and the one I talked to isn' t h~r~ tonight, his name is Bob Winon and I talked to him, I think it was last Friday, about this problem that you addr~ss~d with the drainage, th~ possibl~ erosion, and he had no probl~m, whatsoev~r, with putting up hay bal~s to hold that, whatev~r anyon~ ~ls~ was doing. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think, as a group, r~gardl~ss of Dav~ Hatin says, we'r~ going to r~quir~ that, som~where along the line, I would lik~ to suggest that, I'v~ ~y~ball~d this situation, too, and th~re' s just too many piec~s of ~rosion th~r~ that could c~rtainly g~t into this little pond or somewher~ where it do~sn't b~long. MR. STEVES-H~ had no probl~ms with that, whatso~v~r, in fact, he's the on~ that brought it to my att~ntion, that Dave had inspect~d th~ prop~rty and found.. MR. ROBERTS-Our normal approval, ~v~n prior to this, hav~ stipulated kind of proc~dur~ be done during construction and, I think, frankly, applicant has been negligent, sO far, in this construction project and be r~ctifi~d. that this that th~ it should MR. STEVES-It will b~. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, any other quarrel with this? MR. CARTIER- I' v~ just got a question. I' m confus~d her~, about this thing. In your lett~r of March 28th, 1990, last paragraph says, wh~n th~ Board is comfortabl~ with thes~ am~ndm~nts w~ shall proce~d to obtain both th~ D~partm~nt of Environm~ntal Conservation and th~ D~partment of H~alth I s approval b~fore final board approval. MR. STEVES-Yes, we wer~ hoping for th~ Board approval tonight, but not th~ signatur~ of th~.. th~ reasons for that are many. I'd hav~ to go back to Brian and g~t his signatur~. lid hav~ to go back to DEC and g~t th~irs becaus~ it is..as w~ll as ~liminat~ anything that pertained to Phase 11. I want~d to show you th~ entire pictur~, but I don't want to pr~sent it for an approval. MRS. PULVER-How long do they estimat~ this project to b~... RICHARD ABBATIELLO MR. ABBATIELLO-Richard Abbatiello, Sch~nectady, New York. Th~r~'s no way of knowing. It dep~nds on mark~t..th~re's It certainly would have b~~n b~tt~r a coupl~ of y~ars do..th~ first 38 in two to three years. It dep~nds on th~ mark~t. simply no way of t~lling. ago and we're hop ing to MR. CARTIER-Is that first unit sold or is that being built? MR. ABBATIELLO-No, that's just a model. MR. CARTIER-A model hom~, okay. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, if you don't hav~ any further qu~stions, I gu~ss we'll ~nt~rtain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLANS SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 CEDAR COURT, PHASE I, Introduc~d by Carol Pulver who mov~d for its adoption, second~d by Conrad Kupillas: 18 R~view 38 lots for duplex and townhouse development. All engine~ring COmments have been satisfied. Construct and r~build fences, wh~re r~quir~d. Duly adopt~d this 24th day of April, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. STEVES-Mr. Rob~rts, do you have any problems with th~ map b~ing brought to you at a future dat~ with the changes described tonight? MR. ROBERTS-Don't bring them directly to m~, run th~m through th~ Planning D~partm~nt . MR. STEVES-That's fine because th~re will be changes on it. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A KAREN SOMMER OWNER: DAVE GOODALL, SHELDON CHASE GLEN LAKE ROAD, ROUTE 149 TO OXBOW HILL ROAD, MAKE RIGHT AT END OF OXBOW, PROCEED ON GLEN LAKE ROAD TO FIREHOUSE ON RIGHT, SITE IS ACROSS THE ROAD. TAVERN WILL BE CHANGED TO A GENERAL STORE; THIS REQUIRES INTERIOR RENOVATIONS ONLY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 44-1-1.22 LOT SIZE: 0.866 ACRES SECTION 4.020 KAREN SOMMER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attach~d) MR. ROBERTS-Isn't it fair to say, if we'r~ switching from a tavern to a stor~, we'd be using l~ss water. MR. PALOCELLI-Yes, it is. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, and Warr~n County approv~d without comment and th~ Citiz~ns Advisory Committe~ on Acc~ss for the Handicapped: "Wh~re th~r~' s a change of classification from C5-Ass~mbly to C2-Mercantile, th~ business must be made acc~ssible to the disabled. II Perhaps you'r~ familiar with this, but th~ building, appar~ntly, should b~ made handicapped acc~ssibl~ and d~signat~ a handicapp~d parking ar~a. MS. SOMMER-Y~s. MR. ROBERTS-Do you hav~ anything more you' d lik~ to tell us about the proj~ct and what ar~ you intending to s~ll th~re? MS. SOMMER-Kar~n Sommer. The int~ntion is to run a general store, selling general milk, food, soda, cigarett~s, what~ver you might find at any grocery stor~, in a small~r quantity. MR. ROBERTS-Kind of a neighborhood store. MS. SOMMER-I hope so, that's th~ goal. MR. ROBERTS-Doesn't sound like a bad place. MR. CARTIER-No, gr~at. MR. ROBERTS-L~t me open the public hearing. Anybody in th~ audience who cares to comm~nt on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 19 MR. ROBERTS-Any m~mb~rs have any furth~r questions? MR. CARTIER-Y~s, when we wer~ out th~re, att~mpting to pullout from what, I guess would be the south~rn entranc~, th~ southerly ~ntranc~, the site distance down the road. MR. GORALSKI-Th~ Nac~y Road entranc~ or the entrance onto Glen Lake Road? MR. CARTIER-The ~ntrance onto GI~n Lake Road. way MR. ROBERTS-Which one, th~r~ are two? Wh~n w~ tri~d to pullout that MR. CARTIER-The one on the right. MR. KUPILLAS-Th~ small~r one, her~. MR. CARTIER-The Gl~n Lake Road entrance. The site distance is inadequate to pull out from that direction. Th~r~ must have been some hairy moments when people came out of ther~ from the tav~rn. What I' d lik~ to sugg~st is, p~rhaps, one way ~ntrance/exit situation, her~, to avoid that. If you wer~ to mak~ that south~rly, Glen Lak~ Road an ~ntranc~ only, so that p~op l~ would not be pulling out, onto Gl~n Road and hav~ a sit~ distanc~ probl~m. It's hard to se~ if anybody's coming. What's the requirem~nt? What is it, like, 250 f~~t? MR. GORALSKI-Four hundred feet. MR. ROBERTS-Four hundred or six hundred or something. MR. GORALSKI-Four hundr~d. MR. CARTIER-For sit~ distance, that much? MR. GORALSKI-Right. For a road traveling 50 to 55 miles an hour. MR. CARTIER-Well, we nev~r ev~n look~d at it, but it's in t~rms of, like, thr~~ car lengths site distanc~ that you have, if that and I think, what w~ thought of was, if you made that Glen Lak~ Road ~ntrance and entrance only and then th~ Nacey Road entranc~ an ~xit only, that would avoid that problem. MS. SOMMER-I hav~ no objection to doing that. MR. CARTIER-And that can be done with signs. MS. SOMMER-That was my n~xt qu~stion, would that simply be done with signs. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MS. SOMMER-I hav~ no obj~ction to that. prop~rty that I will be purchasing. Part of th~ obstruction is not on th~ MR. CARTIER-Y~s. MS. SOMMER-So, in order to avoid that, I'd be more than willing to do that. MR. CARTIER-Right and, as a matter of fact, it may g~t worse as time goes on b~caus~ in th~ summ~rtim~, with foliage, it might be ev~n worse. I gu~ss th~ oth~r thing is, th~ doorway is not handicapped acc~ss and I think, to addr~ss thos~ concerns, that door has to b~ made acc~ssibl~ to handicapped with a ramp. MR. ROBERTS-Do~s it hav~ to be the front door? I wond~r, could there be anoth~r door? I don't know that it would make any diff~renc~. MR. CARTIER- I don't know ~ith~r, because I don I t know what th~ standards, but it do~s have to be handicapp~d access. MR. ROBERTS-It s~~ms to b~ it would not necessarily hav~ to b~ that door. MR. CARTIER-I know the Gl~ns Falls Indep~ndent Living has offered to provid~ advic~ to anybody who wants on how to make plac~s accessibl~ to.. MS. SOMMER-Th~ Independent Living Cent~r? 20 MR. CARTIER-Yes. MS. SOMMER- I b~lieve that the front ~ntranc~ was, that's considered to be th~ main access, if they can help me. MR. CARTIER-Y~s. MS. SOMMER-There ar~ others ~xits, how~v~r, in th~ building itself. I would not want th~m to be designated handicapped, but th~r~ are existing ~xits. I think th~r~' s a door about 7 fe~t off this corn~r. This curv~s, sliding glass doors on th~ back and then there's another rear ~ntry door. Would th~n, this b~ th~ only one that should b~? MR. GORALSKI-You only ne~d on~. MS. SOMMER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-And, actually, the Building and Codes Departm~nt could also tell you what would me~t th~ requirements. MR. HAGAN-How did th~ handicapped COme out of there, anyway? MS. SOMMER-I don't know. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, any oth~r comm~nts, th~ short form EAF for this on~? MR. GORALSKI-You should review th~ short EAF, yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 24-90, Introduced by Peter Carti~r who moved for its adoption, s~cond~d by Carol Pulv~r: WHEREAS, th~re is pr~sently befor~ th~ Planning Board an application for: the alteration of a ta.vern into a general store, potential owner, KAREN SOMMER and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has det~rmined that th~ proposed proj~ct and Planning Board action is subj~ct to r~vi~w under the Stat~ Environm~ntal Quality Revi~w Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No f~d~ral agency appears to be involved. 2. The following ag~nci~s are involv~d: The State D~partment of Health 3. Th~ proposed action consid~red by this Board is unlist~d in the Departm~nt of Environm~ntal Cons~rvation R~gulations implem~nting th~ State Environm~ntal Quality Review Act and the regulations of th~ Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Ass~ssment Form has b~~n complet~d by th~ applicant. 5. Having consid~red and thoroughly analyz~d the r~levant areas of environmental concern and having consid~r~d the criteria for determining wheth~r a project has a significant ~nvironmental impact as th~ same is set forth in S~ction 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rul~s and regulations for th~ Stat~ of N~w York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertak~n by this Board will hav~ no significant ~nvironmental ~ff~ct and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authoriz~d to execute and sign and fil~ as may b~ n~cessary a stat~ment of non-significance or a n~gativ~ d~claration that may b~ r~quired by law. Duly adopt~d this 24th day of April, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano 21 MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-90 KAREN SOMMER, Introduc~d by Peter Carti~r who mov~d for its adoption, second~d by Carol Pulv~r: For conversion of the tavern into a g~n~ral stor~ with the following stipulations: That th~ access from Glen Lak~ Road be used for entranc~ only and no exit be allowed directly to Glen Lak~ Road and that appropriate signs b~ establish~d indicating that on~ way flow to th~ parking lot, handicapped signs be provided and handicapp~d access to th~ building b~ provided. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Rob~rts, can I mak~ a comment her~? You indicat~d that the acc~ss to Nacey Road be ~xit only. That would mean that someon~ who lives on Nacey Road along th~ Lak~, would hav~ to come out and make a left hand turn on Glen Lak~ Road to get into th~ parking lot. MR. CARTIER-Okay, good point. MR. GORALSKI-I agr~e that th~ entranc~ from GI~n Lake Road should b~ ~ntrance only, but I, p~rsonally, don't se~ why you can't have ~ntrance and exit from Nacey Road. MR. ROBERTS-Good point. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I' II revis~ th~ motion to limit ~ntry only from Glen Lak~ Road and ~xit and entrance from Nac~y Road and appropriat~ signag~ be provided. MR. ROBERTS-I think we just ~liminated any way to g~t in th~re at all. Wait a minute. If we just r~f~r to th~ on~ way and forget th~ oth~r, we'r~ alright. MR. CARTIER-If w~ go one way, then they can't COme in on Nacey Road, eith~r. MR. GORALSKI-I would suggest that your motion simply stat~ that th~ access from Glen Lake Road be used for ~ntrance only and no ~xit be allow~d directly to GI~n Lake Road. SITE PLAN NO. 25-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A EDWARD G. WHITE OWNER: JOHN AND GAIL DIGREGORIO ON ROUTE 9, APPROX. 200 FT. NORTH OF KENDRICK ROAD (FORMERLY BEDTIME PLUS) OUTLET FOR LAWN AND RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE. OUTLET FOR LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT, MOTORCYCLES, SNOWMOBILES, RECREATION VEHICLES, AND POWER PRODUCTS. NO EXTERIOR CHANGES TO THE BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 69-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 4.020 EDWARD WHITE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attach~d) MR. GORALSKI-And, becaus~ there were no ext~rior chang~s, th~r~ was no engin~ering revi~w request~d. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, can you f~llows say anymore about your project? MR. WHITE-My name is Ed White and I am the t~nant and Mr. DiGregorio is the landlord. W~'r~ here this evening to discuss a proj~ct that was formerly known as Bedtime Plus. It was a retail sales and s~rvic~ operation for bedroom furnitur~. My int~ntion as a tenant would be, not to change th~ ~xt~rior, but to us~ th~ building the sam~ as it was b~fore. I s~ll lawn and gard~n ~quipment, motorcycl~s, snowmobiles, small pow~r products, chainsaws and sO on. I would lik~ to use this facility as a retail and service outlet for thos~ products. MR. ROBERTS-You have another stor~ som~wher~ ~ls~? MR. WHITE-Yes, I do. 22 MR. ROBERTS-Can you tell us wh~r~ that is? MR. WHITE-I own Black Mountain.. MR. ROBERTS-I guess w~ all know where that is. That's not local. MR. WHITE-Yes, it is. It's on Dix Avenue, towards Hudson Falls. MR. KUPILLAS-Used to be Yamaha.., right? MR. WHITE-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Do you have people bringing in things on trail~rs very often, snowmobiles, motorcycl~s? MR. WHITE-Occasionally, a snowmobile trailer, yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. MRS. PULVER-For r~pairs? MR. WHITE-Y~s. MR. CARTIER-What we ran into up ther~ was kind of this parking flow kind of thing, too. The sign that's th~re now, that's going to b~ mov~d, is that corr~ct? MR. WHITE-What we' d lik~ to do with the sign is that, the way it's positioned right now, it is in betw~~n a proposed parking spot. MR. CARTIER-Y~s. MR. WHITE-We would like to mOve it a few inch~s, or a foot, approximately, or so, to get it so it's not in between a parking spot, kind of below a parking spot, but actually in b~tween a parking spot and then, if you saw that sign, there's a littl~ plant~r in it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. WHITE-So, I'll use that as a landscaping tool. MR. CARTIER-Okay, b~cause, what we was getting off and onto th~ road. to mak~ this a.. for p~ople coming to make things go a lot better. got into, if I could show you on a map her~, It would se~m to make a lot of sens~ to us, in because that is narrow and that would s~~m MR. WHITE-With th~ use of signs? MR. CARTIER-Yes, signage too. MR. ROBERTS-Incid~ntally, Warren County approved this without comm~nt. MR. CARTIER-Do you..deal with handicapped access on that, too? MR. ROBERTS- I parking spot. to b~ MR. WHITE-That would imagine so. W~ll, h~ ha.s handicapped marked, h~re, for th~ It I S not d~signated as to the size of it, would those spots have particular parking spot is larger and do~s meet the requirem~nts. MR. ROBERTS-Can they g~t into th~ building? Is your building handicap access~d? MR. WHITE-Yes, th~re are s~veral ways to get into the building, but ther~'s also a six foot wid~, double door in the building, also. MR. CARTIER-But you ne~d to have access..near handicapped parking, som~how. MR. WHITE-That front door is right wher~ th~ handicapped parking spot is. MR. CARTIER-Near a curbing or something? Isn't th~re a curbing th~r~? 23 MR. WHITE-Th~r~'s this curb in the front of the building, yes. We're also going to hav~, in the back of the building, actually, it's more toward the sid~ of the building, th~r~ is a double, six foot wide door, with no curb, which w~ will hav~ additional parking for handicapp~d. MR. CARTIER-Okay, sO I guess that r~ally, it mak~s s~ns~ to put your handicapped parking slots n~ar the door for handicapped access, is what I'm saying. MR. WHITE-Well, l~t me ask, how wid~ does the door have to be? MR. CARTIER-Well, if you've got a six foot wide door, that's plenty wid~ ~nough, but what I I m saying is, we' r~ showing handicapped parking, her~, up front, and then they've got to go around the side of th~ building to get in the door. .park in front wh~r~ you put the sid~ door. If you can hav~ handicapped parking near that access door, then that tak~s care of that. MR. WHITE-That's fine. MR. ROBERTS-Is this an operation where people, you know, tryout the motorcycl~s or thes~ kind of machines? I'm just thinking about the n~ighbors, p~rhaps, in th~ rear..want a lot of machines. MR. WHITE-W~ll, no, because of the insurance r~strictions in the State, now, it's v~ry dang~rous to allow anybody test drive..so we do not. MR. CARTIER-Okay, sO ~nd of th~ building? building is not going the handicapped acc~ss door, where is that, on the south I think what you're saying h~re is, the front door of th~ to b~ used for handicapped access, corr~ct? MR. WHITE-It would actually be th~ ~ast. MR. CARTIER-Back of th~ building. MR. ROBERTS-Wh~re would he park to get into that door? MR. WHITE-Th~r~'s an access MR. ROBERTS-Okay, well, th~re ar~ som~ parking spots back th~r~. MR. KUPILLAS-Ar~ you going to do away with the f~nce on the north sid~, th~r~' s that sheet m~tal fenc~? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. KUPILLAS-So you can drive all the way around th~ building? MR. WHITE-That fenc~ is coming out. MR. KUPILLAS-So those handicap peopl~ want to get to the back, th~y could ke~p, continu~ going around and out the end.. MR. WHITE-Right. MR. KUPILLAS-You know, there's that fence. MR. ROBERTS-Y~s. MR. KUPILLAS-If you tak~ that out, you could go right around there. MR. ROBERTS-It's probably easily solv~d, I guess. I think we could just stipulat~ that we have to.. MR. CARTIER-Yes, right, but I think w~' ve got to spell it out for Dav~ Hatin. MR. ROBERTS-I guess he has indicated that. We have a SEQRA r~quirem~nt, here. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 25-90, Introduc~d by Carol Pulv~r who moved for its adoption, second~d by James Hagan: WHEREAS, there is pres~ntly before the Planning Board an application for: a change of use outlet for lawn and retail sales and service and 24 WHEREAS, this Planning Board has d~termined that th~ proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to r~view under th~ State Environm~ntal Quality R~vi~w Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No fed~ral ag~ncy appears to b~ involv~d. 2. Th~ following ag~nci~s are involved: Non~ 3. Th~ propos~d action considered by this Board is unlisted in th~ D~partm~nt of Environmental Cons~rvation Regulations implem~nting the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Qu~ensbury. 4. An Environmental Ass~ssm~nt Form has b~~n compl~ted by th~ applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed th~ r~levant ar~as of environmental concern and having consider~d the crit~ria for determining wh~th~r a proj~ct has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in S~ction 617.11 of th~ Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for th~ State of New York, this Board finds that th~ action about to be und~rtak~n by this Board will hav~ no significant environmental eff~ct and th~ Chairman of th~ Planning Board is her~by authorized to execut~ and sign and fil~ as may b~ nec~ssary a statement of non-significanc~ or a n~gativ~ d~claration that may be r~quired by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-90 EDWARD G. WHITE, Introduc~d by P~ter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulv~r: For outlet for lawn and retail sales and servic~ with the following stipulations: That on~ way ~ntrance b~ provided from the southern curb cut and ~xit only from the north~rn curb cut and appropriate signs be provid~d and appropriate angl~d parking be provid~d to facilitate that on~ way flow; that th~ metal f~nc~ at th~ north end be remov~d to provide one way traffic around the building and that handicapp~d access and parking be provid~d to th~ rear of the building and that signs b~ provided to direct handicapp~d parking and access to th~ r~ar of th~ building. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-I'm just wond~ring if angl~d parking might be bett~r th~re. MR. ROBERTS-It might b~, if we'r~ going to do that. MR. CARTIER- It might b~ easi~r, b~cause that I s a tough spot to g~t in and out of. Any problems with that? MR. WHITE-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS- In order to get around back, th~y' re going to have to take down some fence on that south side, too, as w~ll as on the north side. MR. CARTIER-Isn't th~r~ a gate on the south side? 25 MR. WHITE-That's a gat~ that was th~r~. That will be left open. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 26-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA MEAD'S NURSERY OWNER: RICHARD O. MEAD SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RIDGE STREET QUAKER ROAD INTERSECTION FOR THE ADDITION OF A 30 FT. BY 96 FT. GREENHOUSE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-5-10 LOT SIZE: 9.54 ACRES APPLICANT NOT PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Is th~r~ any reason we can't go ahead and address Dick M~ad's Greenhouse? MR. GORALSKI-That's up to you. MR. ROBERTS-Looking it ov~r, I didn't find a big probl~m with it, mys~lf. Let's se~, comments from Staff. STAFF INPUT Not~s from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attach~d) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engin~~r (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. ROBERTS-I hav~ a f~eling that this would probably not caus~ too much erosion. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I think that's safe to assume. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-I guess this calls for the short ~nvironm~ntal review. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 26-90, Introduc~d by James Hagan who mov~d for its adoption, s~conded by P~ter Carti~r: WHEREAS, there is pr~sently before th~ Planning Board an application for: the addition of a 30 ft. by 96 ft. greenhouse on MEAD'S NURSERY 10cated southwest corner of Ridge Street-Quaker Road Intersection and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has d~t~rmin~d that the propos~d project and Planning Board action is subj~ct to review und~r the Stat~ Environmental Quality Revi~w Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No fed~ral agency app~ars to be involved. 2. The following agencies ar~ involved: Non~ 3. Th~ proposed action consid~red by this Board is unlisted in th~ D~partm~nt of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality R~view act and th~ regulations of th~ Town of Qu~~nsbury. 4. An Environm~ntal Ass~ssment Form has be~n compl~ted by the applicant. 26 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the r~l~vant areas of environmental concern and having consider~d the crit~ria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of th~ Official Compilation of Codes, Rul~s and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertak~n by this Board will have no significant environm~ntal effect and the Chairman of th~ Planning Board is h~r~by authorized to ex~cut~ and sign and file as may b~ n~cessary a statement of non-significance Or a n~gative d~claration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-90 MEAD I S NURSERY, Introduced by Jam~s Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For th~ addition of a 30 ft. by 96 ft. gr~enhous~ with th~ stipulation that soils around the new gre~nhouse should be stabilized, in oth~r words, se~d~d or mulched, as soon as possibl~, after construction, in order to pr~vent possibl~ topsoil erosion. Duly adopt~d this 24th day of April, 1990, by th~ following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano On motion me~ting was adjourn~d. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 27 LOCATION MAPS April 24th, 1990 Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Subdivision No. 11-1989 FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION Own~r: Carole Cacioppi Lake Sunnysid~ Estat~s, Inc. (See Staff Not~s and Map attach~d) Subdivision No. 4-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Sh~rman Acres, S~ction 2 Own~r: Walter O. and Elizabeth A. R~hm (S~~ Staff Notes attach~d) Subdivision No. 2-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Adirondack Plantations Own~r: Charles Diehl (S~e Staff Notes attached) Subdivision No. 5-87 Am~ndment to FINAL PLANS C~dar Court, Phase I Own~r: Rit Abbatiello (S~e Staff Notes and Map attach~d) NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 24-90 Kar~n Somm~r (See Staff Not~s attached) ,,--- . /þ/ / / / 4--------.r..::....:."2'__ ---- ---.-- /--~/---Gk.o I--.c~k¿ ------ ~\ I :J,~ c., -----.... Site Plan No. 25-90 Edward G. White (See Staff Notes attached) w' £ ,,' X- Lo.::t\tl()N ~'r IJlOperty Site Plan No. 26~90 Mead's Nurs~ry Own~r: Richard O. M~ad (S~~ Staff Notes attached) - . t. . ~ ___....'o_sc.a.1p.·,·1'>.I·.t¡~e.y~ , 6'1 ""...n'C) . ~. \. ,'-, '.', ,',.' l~' I l / 0 P-~ C~ (>~.J '..,., ¡, , t IV' I . (.1)(\ ! rÎ fì' <: / f;'~l(;\' . r¡ /'\:),~I(or ¡¿..II \" \ H'f~\ -' I~-, -··i:----~ r.i' Cv"'~.t"(t.AJi) ¡'V""~ __---- r It..,..(, r~('\" N\,(l..A-f) 's LJt,rt;t2,-'j 11' N hf't'-b " i(~ (" ,. . /2. I ~ f.l! (( '-~ ' 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 By: April 23, 1990 John S. Goralski Date: Area Variance Use Variance Sign Variance == Interpretation X Subdivision: Sketch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Review Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit X Final X Other: Final Stage Modification Application Number: Subdivision No. 11-1989 Applicant's Name: Lake Sunnyside Estates, Inc., Owner: Carole Cacioppi Meeting Date: April 24, 1990 ******************************************************************************************** This application is in front of the Board because the mylar was not filed within the proper time period. None of the conditions on the site have changed since the last approval. Briefly, this proposal is to modify the Lake Sunnyside Estates Subdivision of 1973. At the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the applicant proposes to combine two adjoining lots into one large lot. This is consistent with the current Zoning Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. JSG/sed ~<ô .......-:f.-- '-.." .......I>¡"" " \~ )~\~o ,.,lv ~ o / ,~, <~~ ' ~ . ';f-<, Þ ~.. -', /<'1£; -.1'. ~;2¿ 0, <:)~ " ~" .~>, <;7.9' ~/v ~ ~- '''o~ /~Yl~ 1<' ......... .... c, '\ .............. 0 0 . ,,0 ....... " 0~'~ , 0" , l /~ y:/¡/" t ~'-"\" .-.., 31, 10'" -¡ IV. 54'. 5.'5" .$0", .v'\ ~ o -, ~ì . ;';:0 , .. r·r ~h" .... _Ph.. ~ (!..33J049.4 SF): (r 29) /6/,2 SF) ~ " ~I '- . )~' :~ ~~" ~ :' 1'1) ~ ,I II,) '" , , ~ IY) I L, ~"...... I ,/' "", "- ......... ~/ ("!iP Ie '", '", """'.../ /' ;;:";'" ---r ...... .';:--;..... '" ,:~~::-.:=...:_. . ;:-.,-'----=.~~..: o . 'lS .) . 0.v: ~\ /~ \\ 'lS" ./-0 "'" '. ",- ~"" '. () ~ @ ~,.>.;:.,"......... "-..,'" .. ". '. ". " ..., . ----'l1 ~ .-( @ -~.- / II' G () ~ . " . ~ I\) 0'1 " ~ ~. ~ ! _ _s..~--" __ __ __ _ ~ ~~ 3ò II -- .. #j;;;;;;f¡7 D;1000 ~ ~ ~ ? .> . DI[D [Jlf£PlNCf . , . ~ ---- \RO/lD . --, ~ \ ,~ ,.~ ~,:: MO 6~ ~, v- //5 . A/AP ¡¿£F£RfNCL LAKE JI/NNJlJ"IOE EJT~TE.sIINC, m -'P....... -......, ._"',_.,_._-~-~",_._.._.,.,,,....,¡¡r,- ,.?' "AlI1P Or .fECTION ONE OF L/I,KE JtJAJ,<J-Y.f'/¿ O/lTEO /"EB~tI¡t?Á!JI ¿II /~7..3) M-'1.lJE ðJl .""JA_~"'¡Â ~"'~-_..J:'¿' ~.£"4.JA/ ,T~£...J,LI..4.Ã!z~ ~"'~~¡-~l¡~"'~"I~~ 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: ADril ] I. 1990 By: Stuart Baker Area Variance Use Variance Sign Variance Interpretation x Subdivision: Sketch, -L- Preliminary, Site PIan Review Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Subdivision No. 4-1990 Applicant's Name: Sherman Acres - Section II Meeting Date: April 24, 1990 ******************************************************************************************** This subdivision was granted Sketch Plan approval by the Board on February 27, ]990. The Preliminary plat submitted only shows one change as a result of the Sketch Plan approval. '[he location of the fire hydrant at Lot tiS has been moved easterly, as per the recommendatio~ of the Water Department. The applicants' agent has submitted a ,.;aiver request for relief frol.'1 the requirement to show wells, septic tanks, and absorption fields on adjacent properties. This waiver request should be addressed by the Board In any motion made. In reviewing the Long EAF submitted, I have made the following observations: Part the (A)(]O) hearing. (B)( In This question should be a~dressed by the applicant at construction lalidfilled. (C)(ll) Residential development will create an increased demand on community serVIces. Existing capacity is currently sufficient to handle the small increase in demand created by this subdivision. I disagree with the applicant's response. Residential will generate construction debris which will be SB/pw ~--_.__.~_. ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. PC CO' .SUl ¡-iNG"ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793·4146 518.793·4141 ~:K"I\J!(' NO ,L,. /((y;o ,; :..! '___d¡- 1":' , .! ~ 1 I ) ~ :/ f.(..H /. OJì It:' t....C J-) Sc/_-,i[ .';--(,.... ,;2 I ApriJ 19, 1990 RFA #89-5000.504 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Sherman Acres.... Section 2 Subdivision 4-1990 .... Prel iminary Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. The stormwater management methodology is satisfactory. If the stormwater management is based on a perco 1 at i on rate, then it should be documented by actual tests taken at the site. The drainage report uses a percolation rate of 1 inch/30 sec., yet the septic system perc tests show a rate of between 2 min. and 7 min. per inch. Also, the percolation rate for drainage design should be 1/3 the stated rate, since 3 s.f. of absorption area is available in a percolation test hole. This modification may increase the amount of absorptive area required, but should not affect the basic concept. 2. The previous comment regarding the possibility of a fill system (lot #2) (shallow absorption trench) due to high ground water is still applicable and should be confirmed by a percolation test and test pit at the actual location of the absorption field. Very truly yours, wSTr;;/ ~~~nett, P.E. Man~¡I;~~"project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members ~ GLENS FALLS, NY·LACONIA, NH ~·.t,,· . Itell STATE OF NEW YORK . ".., ..VC~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH j~~~ilW~" District Office 282 Glen Street Glens ralls, N.Y. 12801 (51£1 ~~~ U \) APR 1 ~:n . 'LANNING ~ONIN'" OEPAR¡¡:;NT ') ( , (. (J SUßOIVISION No.~:LJ ~+~ / V )(c"'c I i P~E~~~;~~~~ ~~.~'NP;~' FlY E (0 P Y SUBDIVISION NO. 'I ~(L)7~ >l"0.!2~Æc.'-eJ PRELIMlNARYðPliAN ;?- David Axelrod, M.D. Commissioner OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH Linda A. nandolph, M.D., MP.If. Director Brian S. rear, r.E. /Jistrict Director Mrs. Lee A. York Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Dear Mrs. York: We recently received an Environmental Assessment Form, Part I for two projects with a request as to determination of Lead Agency. Please be advised that the Sherman Acres II Subdivision would be jurisdictional for any lots which are five acres or less in size. Further the Crossroads commercial subdivision would be jurisdictional with respect to approval of the water main extension. We would concur with the request that the Town Planning Board be designated as Lead Agency for both projects and would ask that as a conditional approval be required the projects obtain the requisite Department approval. Very truly yours, / .....---. .\"~J . --- I,~f ____.-/ Brian S. Fear, P.E. District Director BSF:ns ---_.~ TOWN O .~ t' QUEENSBURY Planning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: April 24, 1990 John S. Goralski Area Variance Use Variance Sign Variance Interpreta tion X Subdivision: Sketch, ~ Preliminary, Site Plan Review Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Otber: Application Number: Subdivision No. 2-1990 Applicant's Name: Adirondack Plantations, Charles Diehl Meeting Date: April 24, 1990 ******************************************************************************************** It appears that all of the concerns raised at Sketch Plan h8ve been addressed either on the plans or in the supplemental material. I have asked the applicant to provide a revised long EAF which addresses the entire 58.264 acre parcel. Under Section 617.3 (k), thE: Board must consider the entire set of activities. I would recomrr:end that the Board review the EAF and make a determination of significance based on the potential impacts of both Phases I and II. JSG/sed ~-~_.. -- ;h / '--:, 'q:,~~..,;;.o._.-~-,..~,_._..""," "/+'. 11: i.9 , 'Õ"S 1 ~) -7~~(i -414r.3 fe' 1 ~':¡- - 1-TO': ;' . "._'~~'''4.".''2.:~~ I t- - . :_, .,u.Jc:.~ì~v_·· !~{~~1!~ ,'LANNING &ZONIN'_ "¡:;PARTMEN"" , .~ / AACHITECTS 9UIWE'r'OflS .:~ f 1 t E COpy 'pOST OFFiCfBOX S~8 2' BAY STREH 31.ENS FAllS NY 11001 fAX 616. 7~~·4146 Ma. 7~~'4141 April 24 ~ 19$0 RFA '89~~O~O~$62 ..; . ~\ ..i " Mrs. lee York, Senior Pl!nner Town of Que\:'ÏlsbuY'j Offiç'ð 8ulldin9 Bay and Haviìand Roads ,n" . Queansbury, NY 12804 f) " ,!: I' ":,, P.ef: Ad i rondacK ?Ì:ìn t a ti on:3 ." , Subdivision 2--1990 - Fre1imi¡,,~rj P1,;:,il " J·:\~F:~:?~~-!:·~::·,~t· .: i . c',)_;< Dear Mrs. York:. ; '..')j '~,~; 'H. We have revi~wed iik above-ref0rtJnf.:¿d pr:.:.ject. and note that our t,.;'~·:· .~,¡",; ¡¡rev i ous commf;nts ha'it: been ,).ddr,z;s:;ed. S i ;"Ice there ~ s no new t¡i.. . tOlistructi{:(r il.$ p.::rL of t.l'(\s application, th'.:(2' ilre no outstanding }:, ,;;;~A9ineering hSI..¡f'$ to ÌJe f;i;?süìved. , p ',f4.~'. -c, . Very truly yours, RIST-F 0 T At::~ ~ e~ettJ P.E. Mana~~t'~~Oject Engineer :~' :-. r ~. ....,... :...):' .~:<: ( '2; ¥ ~ 'J' ,- :\ ,~ i- Ii ¡if 1" .~ .1.'> ~., it 'i WG : rng r ~ .. cc: Town Plðnnin'J Board Members -¡ . ¡() , ~ I \ . " t .> t 1). ;$ "Gl:NS fAI.I.S, NY'L"ÇONIA, IIH ------ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- By: April 18, ]990 Stuart G. Baker Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Area VariaDce Uøe Variance - Sign Variance == IDterpretatiOD Other: x SubdØiIioB: Sketch, Preu.' X - - Jaary, Site Plan Rmew - Petition for a Change of Zaoe - Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit FiDa1 Appücation Number: Subdivision No. 5-87 AppHcant's Name: Cedar Court, Phase I Amendment to Final Plan April 24, 1990 MeetiDg Date: ............................................................................................ This amendment to the final plat was last reviewed and tabled by this Board on April 18, 1989. The Planning and Engineering staff reports, as well as the minutes from the last review by the Board are attached. I would recommend approval if all engineering concerns have been addressed. SB/pw ~ RIST-FP.OST ASSOCIATES, PC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518, 793·4141 . I... .\,¡',-n,w I)EI' T FiLE (opy April 20, 1990 RFA #89-5000.505 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Cedar Court - Phase I Subdivision 5-87 - Amendment to Final Plans Dear Mrs. York: We have rev iewed the above referenced project and find that the appl icant has relocated sept ic systems to conform to the increased building front setback proposed. During the April 17 discussion of Crossroads Park, Rist-Frost was requested to look at Cedar Court to see if there could be an impact on the pond on the west side of Crossroads Park. A site visit on April 19 showed several drainage channels leading from the southwest corner of the Cedar Court loop road to the low area which includes the stream tributary to the pond. Sediment could be carried into the pond from this source. We recommend that the Board require the applicant to construct and maintain silt fences and hay bales as necessary to prevent soil from being carried off site. Very truly yours, cc: Town Planning Board Members 6) GLENS FALLS, NY· LACONIA. NH ~-_.__._._. -- - ~ - TO: FROM: Planning Board TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Hav1land Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518- 792-!';A.1? , . . ~ .. ï..IQ~.,.,~ ~)PUW~H MEMORANDUM ~ APR201990~ UNNING Ie ZONINe I)ÞARTJJ!NT David Hatin, Director Building I Code Enforcement DATE: RE: April 23, 1990 Cedar Court Subdivision F1lE copy Dear Planning Board Members: At a recent Board meeting, it was discussed that there are drainage problems which are causing siltation in the pond adjacent to the Heatherbrooke Subdivision. This letter is to let the Board know that an investigation was done approximately three (3) weeks ago by Whitney Russell along the Cedar Court Subdivision property as well as the Heatherbrooke Subdivision property and upon his investigation could find no evidence where siltation was being created by either one of these subdivisions into the pond. However, he did notice that upstream the stream did appear to be murky and this situation has only occurred during heavy rainstorms. At the time Whitney was doing his investigation, it was raining heavily. Therefore, we have concl uded that it is due to heavy run-off from the adjacent properties through the woods and not caused by recent development in these two (2) subdivisions. I trust this will answer any concerns the Board has about this problems and for a note, we are also meeting with Frank DeSantis to address the ponding at the intersection of Blind Rock Road and Country Club Road on April 23, 1990 to remedy this situation also. We feel that all drainage problems related to this area will be resolved. Thank you for your attention in this matter. V:J~ DAVID HATIN, DIRECTOR Bldg. & Code Enforcement DH/jjd "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 .-----~- -- ~ ~ - riLE C ./ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at HavIland Road. Oueensbury, NY 12804-9725-518· 792-5832 April 17, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI. PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 5-87 Applicant/Project Name: Cedar Court FIN AL STAGE: Amendment to approval of May 17, 1988 The applicant is seeking a modification of the previous subdivision approval. The applicant proposes to increase the building setbacks from the road and split buildings "E" and "F" into two buildings each. This change is in anticipation of the proposed sewer district. At this point in time, the proposed sewer district is only in the conceptual phase. No public hearing has been scheduled and there have been no approvals to date. Furthermore anyone wishing to tie-in to a municipal sewer system must first receive approval from D.E.C. The applicants agent has stated that the required preliminary on-site septic system wí1l be installed as the units are constructed until such time as the sewer district is established and D.E.C. approves the sewer extension permit. I have asked Tom Nace to look into the affect of the new building locations on the proposed septic systems. If on-site septic systems can be provided this modification has merit. By moving the buildings back from the road and splitting the 8 unit buildings the project wí1l take on a more rural character. J G I sed "HOME OF NA TURAL BEAUTY A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 -------- 21 BAY STI1EET POST OFFICE SOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 ...,tWN .. ......... --:~. V ~~llW~ I ~ APR 18 1911\:1 ~ , .- .u~u SSOCIArëS pc ,fiNe; ENGINEERS FILE COPt pLANNING . ZO"'"'- DEPARTMENT 518·793·4141 April 17,1989 RFA ./t89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Cedar Court - Phase One Subdivision No. 5-87 - Amendment to Final Plans Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above-referenced project only for the increase in setback proposed by the applicant. The increased setback s wi 11 be accept ab 1 e pro v i ded that it is done with con- struction of a municipal sewer system. However, the existing 1 ayout of on-s i te sewage di sposa 1 fi ~ 1 ds does not allow suffi- cient separation distances (20 feet from sewage disposal field to house foundation) with the proposed building setbacks. We suggest that the applicant revise the layout to show adeauate separation distances and to show locations of replacement sewage disposal fields. Revised plans should also be filed with the NYS Department of Health and Department of Environmental Conservation. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town Planning Board Members CD GLeNS FALLS. NY·~IA. NH ,. -. , ~ Board not accepting the application. TOM D'ANGELO-The only thing that is in question is the drainage problem, the storm water problem. VICTOR MACRI-No one looking at the property can address the issue of drainage without the information and the technical research, and engineering. HILDA MANN-You need proper drawings. TOM D'ANGELO-We'reonly remodeling the house. HILDA MANN-This is no longer a house, your not talking about a house. Your talking about turning this into a business, its worth your investment that its done properly and its worth the Town's investment. FRANK DESANTIS-Asked how many square feet was in the house? TOM D'ANGELO-Possibly 1,600, 1,700 square feet. FRANK DESANTIS-Their are a couple of things in your application question #2, asked if its 960 feet or is that 2880 feet, what is the use going to be? TOM D'ANGELO-Probably professional offices. FRANK DESANTIS-Whatever you choose it impacts on the parking. You have six parking spots shown, this is what I was dividing. If you have 960 feet and it was professional offices which the County says your limited to, you can't use it for commercial or else you have to go to the County and get a revision of their review. Six is not enough, if you have 1,700 your going to need one for every 150 square feet and you have you show the parking on the plan. HILDA MANN-You need this done professionally, you need a professional engineer, you need someone who knows traffic, to present proper plans and what your going to do. FRANK DESANTIS-We need to know what the contours are, you need to tell us what your going to use the property for. You can't sit there and ask us to approve a parking plan for a use that we don't know what it is. RICHARD ROBERTS-You have a valuable piece of highway commercial property. For you not not to be willing to spend a few dollars we have no sympathy for you. When you're telling your engineer about the storm water, the policy of the Town is; when you pave half of that lot your going to generate more run off and we don't want to see anymore run off go on to the neighbors property, in the future, than goes off the property now. UNKNOWN-The neighbor's property is Ponderosa, he is up higher than we are, where they zoned it they had the fill the fill is all the way around us, the runoff could not go south or can not go to the Ponderosa. RICHARD ROBERTS-You have to identify where its going. M0'I10N '1'0 NOT ACCEPT SITE PLAN NO. 21-89, TYPE D, THE BLIND ROCK B &: D CONSTRUC'l10N,Introduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Motion to not accept this application because of the information contained within the application is incomplete in accordance with the Town's Zoning requirements. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:None SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 CEDAR COURT, PHASE I, WEST SIDE OP BAY ROAD APPROX. 1,000 PT. NORTH OP BLDfD ROCK ROAD PDfAL, AMENDMENT TO APPROVAL OP MAY 11, 1988. TYPE: UNLISTED SPR-IA,(OLD ZONUlG S8-30, UR-5) PRASE ONB WAS APPROVED WITH TOWN WATER SUPPLY, A MIX OP DfDIVIDUAL SEFnC SYSTEMS AND A COLLECTOR SYSTEM. SllfCE APPROVAL, TlDS AREA IS BEING CONSIDERED POR AN EXTENSION OP THE MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM. TlDS BEING A POSSIBILITY, IT IS THE WISH OF THE DEVELOPER TO CREATE A LARGER SETBACK POR THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND HAVE DUPLEXES AND POURPLEXES PREDOMINATELY. LEON STEVES PRESENT/RA Y BUCKLEY MAP SHOWN TO_BOARD LEON STEVES-I believe the application is self explanatory. FRANK DESANTIS-Asked if he saw Mr. Nace's letter of April 17, 1989, it says that you don't have sufficient separation distance when you move him back. I think that this is the only question here. ENGINEER REPORT Thomas Nace, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD THOMAS NACE-With the plan that we have obviously is OK. If you have municipal sewers. With the septic systems the way they were shown on the original Phase 1 plans, some of them don't have adequate setbacks. LEON STEVES-We understand that. THOMAS NACE-I think that there may be a couple of places you may have trouble adjusting them. You may be ending up relocating some buildings or something to be able to get the separation distance plus the provision replacement existence that were required during the review of Phase 1. RA Y BUCKLEY-We have been asked to revise this and go to the four unit, six unit buildings rather than the larger buildings. At the time that they suggested that to us, we said we would like to move the buildings back wherever possible because a lot of these houses may not be built if the sewer construction goes through on schedule. We would like approval to do this but if any variances are needed then we would leave the building as proposed, were not asking for any variances from the existing regulations. THOMAS NACE-Asked that they identify what units won't work, I don't have the plans that were submitted to the Health Department and D.E.C., regarding replacement location of replacement fields? RA Y BUCKLEY-These systems are larger than codes required. We agreed that we would provide space for a replacement system that could comply with the code but it wouldn't be the same size as what we have here. LEON STEVES-In addition the replacement system that is shown on the plan is for the buildings that you Ok'ed for that, so that the replacement system itself could be built and not the septic system as planned THOMAS NACE-Show me something that shows me that acceptance. FRANK DESANTIS-Asked where the real road was that was put in the subdivision? LEON STEVES-Pointed out on map where the road was. FRANK DESANTIS-If were going to move the locations of the buildings which is what your asking us to do, I'm interested in knowing where the road is. LEON STEVES-I would have to go back out on the road to check it out. We have staked out the two man holes and they go exactly where they belong. FRANK DESANTIS-The manhole is 215 feet from that manhole to that wire fence. THOMAS NACE-This can be accommodated, I would recommend that approval that is given be contingent upon a final plan being submitted. STAPP IHPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, See Attached. NO PUBLIC HEARING MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-8'1 CEDAR COURT PHASE PINAL AMENDMENT TO A PROVAL OP M 1 1988,Introduced by Frank DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Macri: This is going to require a new map to reflect proper setbacks and proper spacing for continued on site septic sys..!.ems and the location of the dry sewers. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:None FURTHER BUSINESS MEMO/FRESHW A TER WETLANDS PROTECTION LA W PAUL DUSEK-This is a proposed format for the application. The Freshwater Wetlands Law, has been in existence for sometime in the Town of Queensbury, since the 1970's, but due to the fact that D.E.C. never formulated wetland maps until a couple of years ago for most communities, most communities have been in the same type of problem. Part of the problem was that the law says that the applicants shall submit an application as prescribed by the agency, the Planning Board is the agency involved in the Freshwater Wetlands Act. The first thing on this is the application format, the other one is the notice of application, which is required to be put into the paper by that act. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROTECTION LAW,Introduced by Mr. DeSantis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:None AGENDA CONTROL PAUL DUSEK-Two issues here; (1) Whether the Board can adopt its own policy (2) Where are we with the Local Law. The Local Law Public Hearing has been set for April 24, 1989, their is a multi-phase process in connection with adopting this Local Law; the first phase is with holding the Public Hearing, the second phase is to adopt the Local Law, their also may be a requirement for a quit SEQRA Review on this, the third phase is after the Local Law has been adopted for this Board to adopt the rules and regulations that are attached to that Local Law package that you should have got. The Board would have to set forth how many items that it wants to hear on the agenda, once that had been adopted by this Board, it then goes to the Town Board for there approval they adopt it and then we have the entire package in place. FRANK DESANTIS-Then we won't get any help for the May Agenda, but we may get some help for the June Agenda. PAUL DUSEK-Even if we don't follow that exact time schedule I gave you, I don't see any reason why this would not be in effect for the May cut off date, which means it will be in effect for the June scheduling. One comment I have is that, I don't know what will happen at the Public Hearing about the unknown as to whether the Board will even adopt it. On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 7"---h_______ __ /__ _ I -_ I I ~-' I/''- ---ll I V " f " " --- I ì -f - - _..--- -.. , I 'h ' ! ! ~ 1:1 l " : /I I I " L-___ -- ____ --------I:jr - 1 \\ // (0; I ' --(--~ ' '.. 'I \ ( 1/ :. \o~ \ \ I l_J \7:\/¡~ , I'" \ \ i '" \ \1 I "- \ ~ L -'\..--'-----4 " , \ , " , " ,,'" , " '" ,," \ ........~---.,. \ \ ~ \" ~ / '-_/ I I I I I I I J , { ;' : ,/ I ~ .(-------__-1 .jJ '" ~ / ).> ,/ / /'':_~'' /<;;~... /'/1 ,/ " " ,"'" ,. /J ')/ ./ ./ " ,,'" ./ '\....."'" "",' ",/,,'/ ../ ..... - -. ..... .'" '" "" )(."./""" /" '" / '~"'" ..-- \" . '"' "" -- "'" I... " \ /" '" . /" '" <.. "" ,,"" ""-::~~y/ " ~ \ ./ ~ II "''' ".,,""'" I' "'!~ ,. ... '" '/,/...' /' '1,\ \ ;' ...... '< ././ "" /J.j ./ """ "" -" "" "J I /',ø'.,,)¡ '// , ""./Y...... -" .;",/ <././ I ./ '" -" ...... \"" ...... ... "" /~ /" /~'" &. \ /\J \ \ '- " ) " . ' . '" ' '....., ...... - ... ", ' , '~ ... "'-. .............:--...... ' "<:;"""'" -- - --. -- ~ '" ~ ~~9~:' //4~/ ~'jl i,i:; / ( ~ ~. / ~'1~ / ,/ i i I I " O ~-~'----- o~~, ______ / v".: / / /,',' I ,/ / ~or..p . / / /-:<. /./. ; / / / / / I _ // I I I / I / v- , / I nì ""- ""- /// ,--;' / / /' , i g '" :- ~. './~-'~:,Ot// /.. / / / >'1/' """" ~ ," , <!. =' "" / I I /'-' , I.... I n "'\ ~'. ./ / \ ... ': t / I ~1 'e ~~~:~~~ ~~ \' '\ I " "'þ~ ", \ /~\\2~ '--' -.... -Y.() .~>" \ ~ \::) '0> "',.!'d \ \ +- ("~"'" ~ I \ \ \ " ' ;:¡> ~ ... " ùJ)', , \ '- I. ' >I Ln ~- .... "- ')G/' ',\ \ -......tl" ~)¡ M\ \ ____ ~ " "'~ '-'" \ \ -cr , '\" ~) \ " ~~' -j ..c:~,.\ \ ''"'' , ',... ~ N " I ~' . ~, .¡:::.. ~ ~ ~ "" ~ '--------.. '. I I 1> .JJ Z. --t ':J \J\ '" V\ \' t- J> r: ------- r ~ \\ i1ì ~ \ -L. L '" .J:..---- fT\ :: ~ \1' II . --1 t '\J \r-, ~ 0 ~ ~ -¡ ~ () ~ -- , "'\ o ' :;\ '" \ \' " \Þ) '-0, ~ " \ \ " / " ./ '-- V\ m ~ ¡-' o. <., nr .. r-~ (f. ""~ ',,-- ~ I ~' ,,- ",-", - , ......-..- ....- "'- ( " \. " \ \ \ \ÞJ -- .c:. " '- -- " '-, " , , 0'~ C ~"Z. Q~ fl í 8 ~ 2- "2. -0 r- -;Þ 2. c:::;. Ilt\ \ \ cJ:: -l /",----..................... / ....... / ~......., / ..... -- < '-, , ,/ ~~ / ~--,.-, ,..- ¡ \\ I \. i \ f I "" ...." I -~ -~,-J "- "- " " ----- ------¡ I I --- -- -.. , '\ \, \ '- "" ~--" '- ' \. \ '- <', \ ;..-.:// , ~,'i I ¥~\"'. ~~ , . \.' ! I I Ii, \ I: i,\ Ii r I: ,¡ ì I ¡ II; i I \11:11\1 ¡¡Ii ~~'II, ,III I \i ; I ¡ i ¡ I r II ~ 1\1 : ì I I\. ¡I (I. V I! 1\.1 I I I .., I ,: J ! I '\: ' : \. 'i r N I I i\~, '¡: i: i : ", I I I~ I I; I I '1 I I, '\11¡:i""¡ ¡,~:; I i;'I~. " ...... , " '" " "" - - ""------<" ......... ----"------\" "- - - - - '- - - ~',\...... ...... - - _ _ ~ _ _ -..::u. '- "- "f1 '.~",,, "'" -- - - -- ~1/i ·,t., " ' , ~~:= ::.::. =:J' '-....,~ , '- " r____ _ ""'~ " ~ ~ ~ , "- " " '\. " \ "\ U " ...... '- '- .............. -- -- ........ " -- -- '-../- - \j / // /.: Y¡' ~ 1'11/ i ..../ I ~, I ' ,. -' I .... / ", - ~, - 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: April 23. 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdivision: Sketch, _ Preliminary, X Site Plan Review Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlanda Permit Final Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 24-90 Applicant's Name: Karen Sommer, Owner: Dave Goodall. Sheldon Chase Meeting Date: April 24, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application is for a change of use from a tavern to a general store. The only change to the physical features of the property is the increase of green area and decrease of gravel area. It does not appear that this proposal will have a negative impact on any of the development considerations set forth in Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. It is my opinion that no drainage calculations or contour lines are necessary for this proposal. There are no new non-permeable areas being created, and " in fact some non-permeable area is being removed. JSG/sed ~ H-FROST As.soCIATES. PC ONSUL TING ENGINë'ERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS ~ITf PLAN REVIEW NO. ;}1-90 ~OST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 April 19, 1990 RFA #89-5000.024 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Karen Sommer - Glen Lake Site Plan 24-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. The water supply source should be shown and any change in water use should be indicated. If more water will be used at the site, the adequacy of the existing septic system will need to be shown. 2. The areas where the existing pavement will be removed to increase the green area should be shown on the site plan. Very truly yours, ~ A~IATES, P.C. ¢¡~~-~ - annett, P. E. ng Project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members e GLENS FALLS. NY-I.ACONIA. NH ._---~~.._.. / ...UCo.;,lh.. ~ (~,~ '~f)\.)v.'';-)C;-..;::}' ,-:,¿ - " 11'- '!" 1.-1 ~ ~ .- ); ,', ,,~ ';', i, f .' ,~ )~. \ f I ! "'11 ¡ ~ " ;,é'" ~,'- ~~ ~ L~, ~: !\,.)K'- 0¡i ~,.,,~C' Jt,' fi, I f,¡':t :jj.l ~,. t~!ens ~~'{,;".. ~I " Wt:!::~ Indepen{j ~ h 1; ""'" ,1'"'0] :f'~fl'<;. ''!'"'' ~~ ~ "7/ ;- i .. 'J:'-.,J '~;".,y ~r;:;:" ,:',' , ,__ - w:kj ..-:' ...~ >.. ";{' ~- ,I 'LAf',¡NlNG & ZON/N' '1¡:PAP'''TMENT Citizens Advisory Comm~ttee on Access for the Handicapped April lì, 1990 ReccmíT1er.cati o(~s Present: Nancy Calano Margo Burrell Joseph Den-¡ 9 Ludwig Weber Sue Heìffrich Re: Site Pian No. 24-90 Karen Sommer Dear Chairpersor.: When there is a change of classification fr0m C5-Assembly to C2-Mercantile, the business must be made accessible to the disabled. cc: S. Borgos, Town Supervisor D. Hatin, Code Enforcement L. York, Planning Board Planning Board Members /lø;~ ê~ .l6~ Quai<er Bay Center Cx¡,er o~ ;'.;'á:;'-?, 87/ ;1~) ,:c,:) nfl, FC!iS ~~y 12801, VOiCP' (:¡L;<) 7::''2·3537 Trv . '-'¡ ~."~ 7<';:-'·'),13 ----.----, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Pl:lnn1-ng Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: April ]8, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Variance Use Variance Sign Variance Interpretation Subdivision: Sketch. _ Preliminary. -L Site Plan Review Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 25-90 Applicant's Name: Edward G. White Meeting Date: April 25, 1990 ******************************************************************************************** The applicant IS proposIng a change of use for the former "Bedtime Plus" furniture showroom. The proposed use is a retail sales and service outlet for recreational vehicles and power products. No exterior changes to the building are proposed. The applicant proposes using the two norther~most parking spaces in front of the building for a display area. The Roard may wish to limit the display of products to these two spaces only in order to insure an adequate amount of parking spaces remain for customer use. SB/pw TOWN OF QUEENS3DRY PJ;o...minß Department nNOTE TO FiLER Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: i\pril 19, 1990 By: S,-uart G. Baker Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance - Interpretation Subdivision: Sketch, _ Preliminary, X Site Plan Re'riew Petitio?- for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 2~-qO Applicant's Name: Mead's Nu:-sery In" . Meeting Date: April 24. 199CJ ******************************************************************************************** The applicant IS proposIng the add',tiol1 of a J()' hy 96' plastic covered greenhouse. In reviewing the Development Co,lsi:1eréitlOI1 crÍlel-ia In SECtion 5.071 of the Zoning Ordinance, it wouLd 3ppear ti¡;lt ston;1\vater runoff from the greenhouse should be looked at closely. SoiLs around the ne\" greenhouse should be stabilized (seeded 01 mulched) as soon as possible after construction in order to prevent possible topsoil erosion. SB/p," -.-------------. ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, PC CONSULTING ENGiNEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYO"S POST OFFICE SOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518·793-4141 ~I-" '."" ,.. p~\f''''U; \ìo :.)¡ t r'U-\~ ,íU t~v I' , /)l i'../.~ ;'::7 -- ----- ..",.t~..J Î-.....,. 'II .,..i ~ ç-:;;;;}¡ í':::11 ,..:1 r-¡¡ n r:¡) ,-- -. ) 'ª'i,rf. ¡(-".',1~\1~¡')~ \t, i \ \-,.J ~ ) '" \ It I a." I ~ ", > ¿ "_" . ) 9"f " .., '), , . I' ~\\ '- ]I . ,-""'" r- 'tl 5 i \\ !i;"¡U,jil~ocr, 'V \...-I~ H! 1\ I.J I,' I. I 11 I __ )lANN¡NG & ZÜNH'Ý.' 1"1 ¡: P A fr"" r:: NT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Mead's Nursery - Ridge St, Site Plan 26-90 Dear Mrs. York: Apri I 19, 1990 RFA #89-5000.026 We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. The increase in impermeable area due to the greenhouse construc- tion is minimal. It appears that stormwater runoff will not be significantly increased. We have no further engineering comments. Very truly yours, WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members :m GLENS FALLS, NY-LACONIA, NH 'If~i;~