Loading...
1990-09-25 Site Plan No. 66-90 Site Plan No. 68-90 Petition for a P8-90 Change of Zone Subdivision No. 10-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 73-90 Subdivision No. 11-1990 SKETCH PLAN Site Plan No. 74-90 Site Plan No. 75-90 Subdivision No. 12-1990 QUEEIISBURY PLANNIIIG BOARD MEETING. SEmND REGULAR MEETIIIG SEPTEMBER 25TH, 1990 INDEX John and Barbara Lynch 73 Quaker Road Assoc. clo Tiernan, Bernstein, and Pinchuk WJT Realty Kelly Subdivision Owners: John C. and Nancy A. Kelly David E. Williams Owners: David and Joan Williams Whipple Subdivision Owner: Robert W. Whipple Ronald N. Jeckel U-Haul Co. of N.E. New York Alene M. Brown 2. 15. 40. 41. 41. 45. 47. 61. 64. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUIES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUIES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUIES. QUEEIISBURY PLANNIIIG BOARD MEETIIIG SECOND REGULAR MEETIIIG SEPTEMBER 25TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN NICHOLAS CAlMANO JAMES MARTIN MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER CONRAD KUPILLAS TOWN EBGlBEER-RIST FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH DEPUTY TOWN ATTORBEY-KARLA CORPUS PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ROBERTS-Nick Caimano has asked to have the floor for a minute. MR. CAlMANO-Yes. If the audience would bear with us for just a few minutes. This is rather an historic evening for the Planning Board in the Town of Queensbury. It is the final meeting for our Chairman, Dick Roberts, and it marks the end of a long and distinguished career, voluntary though it may be. Dick, you and I have had our differences, in the relatively short time that I've served with you, but that, I believe, is as it should be. For a public board to come to responsible conclusions for the public good, I think it is necessary for that board to bring as many points of view as possible to the table. Regardless of that, any differences we may have had in no way diminishes my respect for your knowledge or, certainly, for what youlve accomplished. You know, what's interesting is the fact that, over the years, you may have been the subject of more vilification than congratulations. Generally comes before the Board for a very important matter concerning their well being in the Town. Once finished, individual people, generally, do not come back and, depending on the result, think that you and the Board are great people or jerks. Having known this properly human scenario, it is amazing that you served as long as you did, but you did serve, for 18 plus years, where you have seen tremendous growth and great changes in philosophy. Finally, let me say this, in contrast to the majority of us who would rather jaw at cocktail parties or across the proverbial back fence, you stood in the arena and you did so for a long time. This Town owes you a debt of gratitude that it cannot pay, no matter how long it tries and, as for me, I thank you for the things that you've taught me during our year to ~ther, but, most importantly, I feel very fortunate to be able to, not only publicly, but officially say thanks for your long, valuable, and valued service. Peter. MR. CARTIER-Dick, on behalf of present and former Board and Staff members, we'd like to present you with a gift commemorating your over 18 years of service on the Planning Board. May October 1st mark the beginning of the return of sanity to your life. We extend our very best wishes to both you and Grace as you start cleaning 18 years worth of applications out of the barn. Again, congratulations and many thanks. MR. CAlMANO-Dick, from us. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you very much. It's very, very nice. liTo Richard Roberts, Chairman, Queensbury Planning Board, for 18 years of dedicated service to the people of Queensbury from the Staff and Fellow Board members. II I appreciate that. MR. CAlMANO-I think Mr. Montesi would like to say a few words, too, Ron. RON MONTESI MR. MONTESI-Thank you. Dick, as a member of the Town Board and a member who served with you for eight years on the Planning Board, seven years as your Secretary, 1 '----' I certainly admired your persistence. We also disagreed on many points and agreed on others and, for the good of the Town. I'm sure that there isn't anyone in thiB room or that has dealt with you, Who can quibble about the quality of time that you've put in and the quantity of time. I, for one, thank you. I think the quality of life in our community iB better because of people, like you, \\ho serve with little or no compensation. Thank you. MR. CAlMANO-Thank you, Ron. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you, Ron. MR. CAlMANO-One last comment, Dick, is from Lee York, our Town Senior Planner. LEE YORK MRS. YORK-Dick, I and the entire Planning Staff want to thank you for your many years of service to Queensbury. This ÍB also my rare opportunity to publicly say thank you to all those who have freely given of their time to make our community a better place. Their decisions have not always been popular, but they have been made with a great deal of forethought and in good conscience. These individuals, the volunteers, have been our neighbors and friends. They are those among us who have give of their lives to make our lives better. The rewards of a volunteer are not often measured in financial terms. They are measured in the satisfaction gained in having served one's community. I am privileged to have worked with many volunteers since becoming the Senior Planner and I want to publicly say thank you to the many people who have worked to make Queensbury a good place to live. Chairman Roberts is to be commended for taking on a charge when others in this community were unable or tmwilling to do so. His eighteen years of serve speak for themselves. There is little else those of us Who have worked with you, Dick, can say, except thank you and best wishes. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you, Lee. That was a rather htunbling experience, but I think maybe it's time to get down to work now. Thanks, again, everyone. MR. CAlMANO-Thank you, Dick. One more thing, before we get started, I guess, this is business, nOw. In the minutes, and we're not going to discuss the minutes, in the minutes of the August 21st meeting, on Page 7, Wiere we were diBcussing the, and, Karla, I think this is for you, also, ~ were discussing the Darius project, up on Aviation Road, and there was some concern as to where Mr. Darius should be, at this point. It seems clear to me, from Mr. Cartier's comments and your comments, that Mr. Darius was to revert to the original motion, until such time as it was amended. In that original motion, it clearly calls for 8 cars. So, I guess I would request, Mr. Chairman, that, somehow, Mrs. Collard send Mr. Darius a letter indicating that 8 cars, and not the current 17 to 20. MR. ROBERTS-Is this the feeling of the group? Okay. will John or somebody sO inform Mrs. Collard? MR. GORALSKI-I will. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 66-90 TYPE: UNLISTED VR-1A .JCIIB AND BARBARA L 1NCB OatER: SAME AS ABOVE 1272 BA~ PARKWA~, ASSEMBLY POINT LAKE GEORGE FOR THE ADDITIGt Œ A NEW MASTER BEDao<If AND DEOt TO BE USED AS A 1'EAR-R01JNÐ IŒSIDEBŒ. (WARREN (X)UNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 9-1-22 Lar SIZE: O.35± AaŒS SECrIØf 7..076 BILL SHEEHAN, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Then the page from the Master Plan ÍB attached and there's a letter from David Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, to Planning Board members, dated August 29th, 1990 (attached) Then there's the letter from Clough, Harbour, Wiich addresses the stormwater concerns. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder whether Dave Hatinls letter doesnlt muddy the waters a little bit, here. The last paragraph, that confuses me a little. MR. GORALSKI-The last paragraph? 2 MR. ROBERTS-Well, the next to last paragraph, I guess. MR. GORALSKI-About the replacement? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, I think the point Dave is trying to make, and this happened on another project. I believe it was MR. CARTIER-Pilot Knob Road? MR. GORALSKI-Right, on Pilot Knob Road, where, and the thing Dave's trying to point out is that this existing camp will be completely demolished, okay, and the new structure will be built in that same footprint, except for the master bedroom addition, which will be in excess of the existing camp. MR. HAGAN-We have an Engineering Report, Dick. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, right. Well, letls go on to the Consulting Engineer's Report, then. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a question? Do you have a copy of the letter from Clough Harbour? MR. SHEEHAN-Yes, we do. MR. CARTIER-In their first paragraph, this didn I t get read into the record. In the first paragraph, it talks about a !Q. year storm event, and you're saying they should look at a 50 year storm, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-The Queensbury Ordinances dealing with stormwater management, require retention and detention facilities to be designed for a 50 year storm. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-And we have a rather lengthy letter from Kevin Daily. Am I looking at Kevin Daily? MR. SHEEHAN-No. Kevin Daily's my partner. My namels Bill Sheehan. He couldn't be here, tonight. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe I should turn it over to you, then, as the applicant and give us your name and respond to SOMe of these points. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay. We'd like the opportunity to do that. My name is Bill Sheehan. 11m the attorney for the applicant and the applicant, John Lynch, is here tonight, also and, also, Jim Hut, \\ho is the designer of the house and the addition and he will, if helll bear with me for a few moments, have an opportunity to explain, with the plans, what he's going to do and what the intention is and I think that, at the end of the presentation, you're going to see that, not only does this proposal not negatively effect the visual impact on Lake George, but that it enhances it and I think, from my understanding at the last meeting, we didn't really get into too much of the background. I'd just like to take a couple of minutes, if I could, to explain the application in a little detail and I will do that, in light of the Site Plan considerations that are set forth in your Zoning Ordinance, which, it seems to me, we're required to meet, and that's what we have addressed our application to, to try and answer all the questions you've got. As you know, we're in a Waterfront Residential District and, first and foremost, this is a Residential facility only. It IS a home. MR. CARTIER-One Acre Waterfront Residential, just for the record, okay. Let's be very specific, here, if we're going to talk that way. It's a One Acre Waterfront Residential. MR. SHEEHAN-That's right, but we got our variance already. meet the cri teri a for Site Plan Review and the first thing I that, contrary to what it says in this report, here, itls not to five. There are five bedrooms, currently. There is no So, we're hear to want to mention is four bedrooms going expansion intended 3 '~ in the number of bedrooms. It would be a master bedroom, as opposed to what is now a more modest bedroom, but we Ire not increasing the number of bedrooms. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, I have the, I think this is the floor plan, here. Do you want to just show them where the five bedrooms are? MR. SHEEHAN-Sure. Yes, 1111 put it up on the board. MR. HAGAN-While you're on the subject of the present structure, I would like to clarify, for the record. Is that 2,159 square feet, the original building site? The original structure was that large? MR. SHEEHAN-Yes. It IS whatls there nOw. MR. HAGAN-Okay, but I said originally. What did the building consist of? When the original structure was built, MR. SHEEHAN-Well, it was in 1925. MR. HAGAN-Okay, I don't care when. I asked the question. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay. I don't know the answer to that. John, do you know? JOHN LYNCH MR. LYNCH-Yes. It consisted of exactly what it consists of today. MR. HAGAN-Exactly the way it is now, okay. MR. LYNCH-With the exception that, at some point, after 1925, there was a bathroom and a back porch added on. When it was originally constructed in 1925, there must have been an outhouse. MR. HAGAN-That's the problem, at least I have, with additions being built on nonconforming lots. We start in with a structure that's say, for the sake of argument, 1500 square feet. Then we add 1,000 square feet and then we add on, in other words, if you took away the square feet thatls represented in that porch and the last addition that was built, you would have something less than 1794 square feet, which would make this addition unacceptable. MR. LYNCH-I think the addition that was made from the original house, and I don't know when this was done, I'm just assuming that it was. In 1925, I'm not sure that they had indoor plumbing. If they did, then the bathroom facilities that are currently there were added when the original building was constructed, but, in any event, the bathroom, as it stands now, has an old fashioned toilet with an old fashioned bath tub with legs. I don't know whether it was part of the original construction. I'm assuming that at some point, when indoor facilities were in use MR. HAGAN-You understand my concern, though? MR. LYNCH-Well, I understand your concern, except I can't answer your question. MR. HAGAN-Because I live on the Lake and I can appreciate what you're trying to do. I also do not enjoy what I see happening on the rest of the Lake. On the same basis that people start in and say, I have a 2,000 square foot structure, I'm only going to add 800 square feet more. Then, two years later, they come back with, I'm only going to add 1200 feet more and each time they keep increasing a situation on what was originally a nonconforming situation and they keep making it worse and worse and worse and that's one of the reasons I'm on this Board, to try to prevent that type of action. MR. LYNCH-I understand your concern, Mr. Hagan. MR. ROBERTS-And, Jim, for the record, I think you're responding to John Lynch. I don't think you gave your name for the record. MR. LYNCH-Right. I'm the applicant. I understand your concern, Mr. Hagan, but, in any event, this addition is to an existing structure that has existed at least, to my knowledge, since 1925. I don't know if or when that bathroom and back porch were added. I don't know if it was part of the original construction. I have know way of knowing. 4 '---' "-,,. MR. SHEEHAN-If I could, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that I think is important to this application is that, even with the addition, this is not going to be anything which is other than absolutely consistent with the surrounding properties, in terms of size and I think, more importantly, in terms of the year round use and, especially, in terms of the aesthetics. Now, we made a list of the, I think we counted eleven properties which are most close to this particular camp on Assembly Point and what has occurred, over the years, gradually, is that many of the camps and, in this particular area, most of the camps have become year round residences and I think that reflects, to a certain extent, societal changes. People used to have camps on the Lake. Now, there are more residences, but in the immediate, surrounding area, and I'm going to name the names of the owners, there are the following homes which are year round residences: The Ross home is a year round residence. The Stewart home is a year round residence. Polanski is not. The O'Keefe home is not. The Morris home is. Path is. Bodner is. Gridly is not and Nemith is yes and the two other homes which are immediately contiguous to Mr. Lynch's house are both year round homes. His house, with this addition, will not be bigger, in terms of square footage, in any way, than those other two homes. He's not asking for a side line variance. It's not going to cause a need for a variance between his neighbors. If you look at the house on the one side, it's at least three stories. Maybe, depending on how you look at it a little bit more. So, this is not going to be inconsistent with whatls already there and, it seems to me, all he is asking to do is what most of the other people that live there have done, is to be able to convert his, what is now a camp, and unsuitable most of the year, into a place where he can use it year round. Now, it I S true that there is going to be an addition, which will give him a reasonably sized house, in terms of square footage, but not extravagant and not lavish. Yes, it's a home and he can live in it year round, but it IS not garish and itls not going to be out of place and I think that's important to know that none of the neighbors have objected to it. It's not opposed by any people that live there and it's his desire to be able to use it consistently with its original character. You can I t get away from the fact that it's in the Adirondacks and it's in the Adirondack style and, what he didn't want to do is put in an addition and replace it with something which is modern, but had lost all it's character. So, he went out and he did one very important thing. He went to a very respected designer, Jim Hut, \\ho's here and will explain to you, in a minute, what he did, Who is out of Blue Mountain Lake. He is a life long Adirondack resident, and he asked him to prepare and design a house consistent with it's original character, inside and out. He's got the plans, here. He's done that and he's going to show you what he did. The second thing we did is get an engineer name Jim Hutchins, out of Weavertown, to design a replacement septic system. It's a state of the art, Wisconsin Mound System which, I think you'll see, will do everything that it's required to do. Welre not increasing the number of bedrooms. There's no intended increase in the number of people that are going to use this house in any way and the Wisconsin Mound System has been approved and we have a permit, from the Town, in order to build that System. So, it's seems to me that that issue's been resolved and whatever accommodations the Town Engineer wants us to do in the development of that System, of course, we're willing to do. Our engineering firm, Clough Harbour, has designed the drywell system and, really, I haven't had a chance to, in any depth, review the comments that the engineer made, since they're dated today, but I'm sure that we can incorporate his comments into the drywell. There is no existing stormwater drainage system on site. So, this is going to be a substantial improvement. So, I think, in all ways, there is going to be a substantial improvement. The character of the original home, in terms of it's siting, its fireplace of natural stone, its exterior work is all going to be preserved. Asethetically, it 111 be a substantial asset. There is no increase, as I said, in the number of bedrooms. Basically, they're increasing the living space, somewhat, and the deck. No sideline variances are needed and the landscaping, Which is intended to be done, will preserve all of the original plantings on the site, which are intended to be, which are rhododendrons and some other nice plants which could not easily be replaced. When the construction is occurring, the plants will be re-planted until they can be reset, after the construction is completed. Theylre only going to lose four trees on the site, out of 48, Which can be replaced, when the construction is done, with new trees and a new landscaping plan. Itls intended to be natural vegetation, so that there be no need to pollute the Lake in any way, shape, or form, with pesticides or fertilizer. At the last meeting, When Kevin was here, Mr. Chairman, a number of specific issues were raised, and I think that we've addressed them all, I believe, satisfactorily. Number One, the question was raised as to whether the expansion was more than 50 percent. I think you can see, from the comments, that this is not the case. It's less than 50 percent and Mr. Hatin has agreed with that. The required setback for the replacement Mound System is 100 feet. I think we're all agreed on that and we meet all of those setback requir.ements. In terms of the stormwater runoff, we'll put in a drywell system and I'm sure 5 --- that we can incorporate the comments of the Town Engineer into that System, to alleviate any concerns you have about that. MR. ROBERTS-How do we do that, with a five foot drywell, with a four foot high groundwater? Is there a resolution to this problem? MR. YARMOWICH-The particular stormwater management system, perhaps, could be adapted to a different groundwater condition. The information that we cite is not relevant to the specific location and that is one of the concern areas. The test hole was taken at a somewhat different location than the drywell is proposed. Nonetheless, understanding that high groundwater is typical of a lake side situation, we feel that therels enough discrepancy in the information to warrant a change in that stormwater management design, not necessarily the concept. As well, the actual amount of stormwater runoff generated for the design situation is not fully addressed. It may be possible, through multiple drywell installations, to achieve the necessary retention and infiltration. Yes, the answer to your question is, it could possibly be, depending on site constraints. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say this. We submitted that plan about a month ago and I haven't seen the engineer's comment s unti I toni ght . I 'm no t an engineer, myself. It's extremely difficult for me to respond to the technical issues that he raises. All I can tell you is that, from what we understand about our engineers, there is nothing particularly unique about our site and we ought to be able to come up with a drywell system that would satisfy the Town's engineer and weill work with you to do that, What.ever we have to do. It I S impossible for me to have an engineer to comment on it, tonight, because the letter's only dated today. So, there I s no way I could do that, but we're willing to do it. We're willing to go to the trouble and expense to do it and I'm sure, between our engineer and the Town's engineer, there can be a satisfactory resolution of that. I would not think that that would have to hold up an approval, however, since there's a consideration about getting into the ground. MR. HAGAN-Now, hold it, before you go any further. That happens to be a very, very serious condition and one of the things that's creating havoc with the Lake. I live directly across the Lake from your site and I am on higher ground than this site and I was not permitted to put in a drywell, because during this past year, May, June, July, up until three weeks ago, the level of the Lake was higher than it's ever been in the last 12 years and, during that period, the water level is within two feet of my ground level and my property is higher than your site. So, I don It know how you can justify a drywell in this site, When I can't on mine, becaus.e when the water is that high and youl re putting your refuse into this drywell, you're creating a leacp in and out of the Lake. That water thatls under the ground is coming from the Lake and when it recedes, it goes back into the Lake. So much for the lecture, but I think it I S something you're going to have to change, in order to get me to vote in approval. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, Mr. Hagan, we're willing to do that. MR. HAGAN-Okay, but you make it sound so simple, that you see no reason why. You, evidently, don't live in this area. MR. SHEEHAN-No, no. Here's what I'm trying to tell you. The issue was raised, the last time, and, within two days, we had submitted to you, this plan, from our engineers. Now, it's been a month since then and, tonight, at 7:30, I walk in and I've got your engineer's comments. I mean, there's nothing I can do. How can I address it? MR. HAGAN-Alright, well, I just don't want you to think it's something welre going to allow you to fluff off, that's all. MR. SHEEHAN-We don't expect to. All I'm asking you to do is, you tell us what the problems are and we'll try and solve them. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I guess that's what wel re in the process of doing as far as that's concerned. MR. SHEEHAN-Right. Alright. As far as the other issue that was raised the last time, about the Lake George Park Commission. Kevin Daily met and went to the Commission's offices and, from everything we understand, the Commission has not yet adopted final regulations that would govern this, so, at least at this point, they don I t have any jurisdiction over it. We went through the permit process with the Town's Building Department and they gave us a permit, so, as far as we know, we are in compliance with all existing regulations. 6 MR. YARMOWICH-Excuse me. The septic system design has several elements to it that are not necessarily in complete agreement with the criteria for Mound Systems and theylre pointed out in my letter and I think that the applicant should clarify the methods in which theyl re going to revise the system to make it work on the lot. In the absence of being able to do that, in order to implement the system, a variance may be required, in order to modify certain separation distances that are required. MR. ROBERTS-So, you see some fairly serious problems, here, that need to be, design problems? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, to be very specific, anybody that would understand the situation, the basal area of the Mound, or the absorptive area for which the percolate must infiltrate into the ground, should be designed based on the native soil percolation rate. In this case, which is one inch in nine minutes, Wiich would allow you an application rate in the range of .8 to .7 gallons per day per square foot. The Mound System is designed for 1. 2 gallons per day per square foot. Now, the basal area is defined as that area which is the limit of the fill, not necessarily the absorptive bed and the separation distances are measured from the perimeter of that fill. I'm not convinced that this particular septic design meets all those requirements for a Mound System. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, my response, Mr. Chairman, is, ~ submitted the plari months ago and got permit, months ago and, again, you can see I'm not an engineer. MR. ROBERTS -From whom did you get the permit? MR. SHEEHAN-From the Town. MR. ROBERTS-From the Town? MR. SHEEHAN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Do you have a copy of that, itls from the Building Department? MR. LYNCH-Yes, I have it, from the Building Department. MR. CARTIER-But, nevertheless, ~ are here tonight because this thing is subject to Site Plan Review and part of the Site Plan Review is an examination by our Consulting Engineer who, as far as I'm concerned, also has to be satisfied, regardless of whether there's a permit in existence or not. MR. SHEEHAN-I don't disagree with you. I'm just telling you, it's very difficult, at this time, having heard these comments 15 minutes ago to be in a position to respond. All I can tell you is that I'm sure that, between our engineer and the Town's engineer, ~ can find a solution, but we've had a permit for three months and this is the first thing I knew about there being any problem. MR. CARTIER-Okay, ~ll, I just want to be sure that we understand that that permit, in hand, does not override what our Consulting Engineer's gPing to tell this Board, okay. They're two separate things. MR. SHEEHAN-I understand that, but MR. CARTIER-In other words, that permit does not negate any comments that he has about this application. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay, granted. I mean, welre willing to try and resolve this concern, but I'm in a difficult position trying to do that right now because I'm not an engineer. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay and it's the first live seen it. MR. ROBERTS-And, of course, ~ just see these comments tonight, as you have. We haven't seen them before, ourselves. MR. SHEEHAN-At this point, What I think I'd like to do is ask MR. CAlMANO-Mr. Sheehan, just before you turn this over, just a point of clarification. You mentioned there would not be any increase in the number of bedrooms and, yet, it comes in conflict with Mrs. York's comments which clearly state it was a four 7 '-- ~ bedroom with two baths. Now, it's going to be a five bedroom with and three baths. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, Mr. Lynch is here. It's his house. 11m sure he can point out where the bedrooms are. John, Why don't you answer that. MR. LYNCH-There's one bedroom downstairs and four up, currently. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. JIM HUT MR. HUT-My name is Jim Hut. I run a company called The Ideas Company, which is based in Blue Mountain Lake. Just to be specific about the question, in the existing camp, this is not the floor plan of the existing camp, but the existing camp comprises, roughly, this area, there now exists a bedroom, downstairs. In the upstairs area, there are one, two, three, four bedrooms with a hallway area that accesses all four. We've kept, essentially, the same shape. In fact, the bedroom that used to exist, up in this area, has been turned into a bathllinen closet area and, in fact, the fifth bedroom is now moved over into this area. So, welve gone from five to five, with an increase in actual square footage. MR. SHEEHAN-Jim, \\hy don't we have the plans up there . I'm just going to ask him if he would, go, take a minute to explain his background and experience and the kind of work he does, generally. MR. HUT-I should say in advance, I'm not an engineer either, but, as I indicated before, we run a design company that's based in Blue Mountain Lake. One of our specialties, over the last 20 years has been to work with existing Adirondack camps. In terms of renovation, but also to design new Adirondack camps. Most of our clients come to us because they want to have, or maintain, or to create structures that maintain an architectural style that relates very directly to the Adirondack surroundings. When the Lynchs came to us, in fact, they were very critical, in terms of what our background was and we took them on a tour of several camps that we have done work on, both renovations and some new structures and, after we passed the test, we were hired to do some work on their cottage. One of the primary objectives that we had in mind, when we approached the structure, was to retain, as much as possible, the existing cottage shape and the design of that cottage, which is a structure that you see, often, through the Adirondack, Where the eaves of the roof are front and back, rather than side to side, Where there are a system of dormers that it maintains a relatively low structure, while still allowing upstairs bedrooms to occur. What we tried to do, in updating the structure, both in terms of insulation and in terms of function and in terms of structure, the existing cottage is really quite understructured and would never pass a conscientious engineering test. So, What we tried to do is to restructure the cottage, but still maintain exactly the shape that exists there. The floor levels remain the same. The roof shapes remain the same, well, almost the same. The existing pitches were something that would give carpenters nightmares, 8.2 over 12 and 8.4 over 12, but, anyway, we tried to make them make a little more sense. In the process, we were asked to come up with, since the Lynchs will try to use this cottage as much as they can, we were asked to come up with a reasonable sized master bedroom area, for their own comfort. They, now, use the bedroom that is located in this area, Wiich is really quite a small bedroom, but it is on the first floor and being on the first floor was one of the major criteria that was required of us, so that stairs would not become a factor, later on. In designing this additional structure, what we tried to do, in order to integrate it into the existing structure, as conveniently as possible, was to actually align the roofs so that we didn't have a real disparity of roof situations happening. We also tried to keep the master bedroom toward the back of the property so that there would not be an infringement or a mass that infringed on the Lake, itself. We wanted the visual appearance from the Lake to be that of the existing cottage, and that is the existing width of the cottage and that I s exactly what you will read, where the master bedroom area will now be secondary to that. MR. CARTIER-Is there any increase in height? MR. HUT-No, the height remains exactly the s.ame, as a matter of fact. Well, actually, I lied a little bit. The height is a little bit taller because we've added same insulation. So, we've added a couple of inches. MR. SHEEHAN-Jim, what about the materials and siding, inside and out. 8 '---"' MR. ROBERTS-For the Bake of brevity, here, I think we can applaud your effortB, here, at trying to make thiB camp Adirondack in nature and BO forth. I don It think the Board'B hung up on the aeBtheticB of thiB. I don't think you're blocking peoplelB viewB. I don't think that'B the nub of the problem. Apparently, the nub iB conforming to the engineering reBultB and make Bure we're not going to be polluting groundwater, here, and BO forth, aB I read it. MR. CARTIER-YeB, that, pluB I have a philoBophical problem, here, with thiB. We are in a Critical Environmental Area. We are in a one acre zone. We're talking about a one third of an acre lot that already haB intenBive UBè on it, in termB of five bedroomB and three bathB, and I have Btrong, philoBophical reBervationB about approving Bomething like thiB becauBe the intenBity of UBe iB going to increaBe aB we convert thiB to year round use. 11m in great Bympathy with Mr. Lynch. I recall we had a conversation, in terms of the tax situation out there, and I can underBtand what he's talking about, but we have to conBider the Bensitivity of Lake George to expansion of this type and I'm afraid that if we approve Bomething like thiB, ~'re going to see a great deal more of thoBe kindB of things happening, aB we have Been on Glen Lake and the problemB on Glen Lake, as far as I'm concerned, are directly attributable to the conversion of seaBonal camps. MR. ROBERTS-You may be right, but I'm having a little problem with drawing the line at thiB particular application for something that we have, routinely, in the paBt, approved. It makeB it somewhat difficult to Bay that thiB gentleman cannot do what mOBt everybody elBe has been allowed to do. MR. CARTIER-I don It know that we've looked at one third of an acre with five bedrooms, at leaBt I can't recall. MR. HAGAN-Well, that's my perBonal problem with thiB type of construction. Nothing againBt this particular one, and the fact that he doeB have a variance allowing him to come cloBer to the shoreline makeB it legal. It I B imposBib le for US to BtOp him becauBe he haB that variance. On the other hand, Bomewhere along the line, thiB Town haB got to take a stand about thiB kind of expansion. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that may very well be true, Jim, but I wonder if that Bhouldn't be something of a Town wide philoBophy rather than to jump on an individual applicant. MR. HAGAN-11m jUBt trying to explain my apparent attitude, that'B nothing against thiB applicant. MR. CARTIER-I don It mean to BUg~St that we are going to Bolve all of Lake George's potential problems with this one site. 11m looking at thiB purely in terms of this specific site and my commentB are addreBsed to that. I cited Glen Lake as an example. Maybe I shouldn't have becauBe I'm not suggesting this one Bite is going to create horrendous problemB for Lake George, but I think itlB going to create some problemB. MR. SHEEHAN-Actually, if I may, Mr. Cartier, the lots on either side of the Lynch property are somewhat smaller, not a lot, but Bomewhat Bmaller, without being Bmaller homes, really. So, in termBof what you have... MR. HAGAN-That was before our time, though. We're talking about now and to keep using examples of what' B happened in the paBt iB not helping our future and it's the future that this Board is concerned with. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, but what you've got iB, all of those homes on ASBembly Point, or the majority of them, in. fact, probably all of them, are conBtructed after the Lynch house and, mOBt of them, wi thin the laBt 10 years and they're all reaBonably sized houseB and he's asking for a reaBonably Bized house, but he's not aBking for bigger than a reaBonably sized house. He'B not asking to be bigger than his neighbors. He's not aBking to be cloBer than hiB neighbors to the Lake. MR. HAGAN-I have nothing againBt the Bize of this building. It's going to be almost the Bame. MR. SHEEHAN-Right, okay. We agree on that. MR. HAGAN-But, it'B the infringement on the LakeBhore and it's always by the nonconforming unitB that keep seeking this infringement. I know you have a variance, but it still doeBn't make it palatable. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, let me jUBt addreBB that. I don't mean to quarrel with you, but, in termB of the infringement on the Lake, basically, Wtat he 'B doing iB, 9 ----. extending the existing line to add a deck, but he's not coming any closer to the Lake than where the existing line is. I mean, the visual character isn't going to look any different. It isn't going to look, from the Lake, like the house got closer to the Lake, because that's not what happened. MR. HAGAN-You're telling me black is white. He had to get a variance to get closer to the Lake. MR. SHEEHAN-No, but the reason he needed a variance, Mr. Hagan, is because of the 75 foot setback. He doesn't meet the 75 foot setback. I would venture to say no one in that area meets the 75 foot setback. MR. HAGAN-That's right. Okay, continue with this point, to the full extent of his application. MR. SHEEHAN-Right. MR. HAGAN-You're telling me he didn't go closer to the Lakeshore? Read to me what his variance states. MR. SHEEHAN-His variance says that, along with the rest of the house, which is already there, he can continue the existing front line, which we all know is not 75 feet from the Lake and neither is the rest of his house. MR. HAGAN-But it comes closer to the Lakefront. have it here, but I'm asking you to cite it. I read the variance. I don't MR. SHEEHAN-Well, let me just show you the plan. As you can see, here, we're looking at the first floor. This is the back of the house and this is the Lakefront, here, and, in the pink is the existing structure, right along this line, here. The addition, in terms of the infringement on the Lake, is just this small deck area, here. It doesn't go out farther. It just continues that front line. MR. HAGAN-No, but the shoreline comes in closer. What is the difference? MR. SHEEHAN-Well, but, aesthetically, it's the only thing that makes sense, is to continue the existing line, that's What the designers tell us. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but here, again, it I S nonconforming, again, further imposing on that nonconformance, that's the problem I have with it. If the structure wasn't going to become closer to the shoreline, as it bends and turns, I couldn't object. MR. ROBERTS-Here, again, Jim, that is a ZBA problem and they have gotten that variance for that. MR. SHEEHAN-We got our variance. MR. ROBERTS-And that's not an uncommon variance, since when we made the 75 foot setback, ~ recognized that, ~ hoped that would work for new construction and it's a very COmmon variance. I think all of your concerns are somewhat legitimate, to the extent that, certainly, ~ should flag these things, perhaps, to ourselves and, perhaps, to the Town Board for going back and looking at the Ordinance a little more closely. If you want to shut down some of this kind of development on the Lakes. MR. MARTIN-The other point to be made, though, as a positive aspect, is we have, now, a case where you have a summer camp with an existing sewage system that is certainly not in conformance with the standards of the Town and we nOw have an opportunity to correct that situation. If you leave the existing' situation as it is, the rather poor sewer system that is there will remain and continue to be a detriment to the Lake. So, therels that to bear in mind. MR. ROBERTS-I think it's a good point. MR. MARTIN-Not to say that the comments from the Consulting Engineer are well taken and should definitely be considered in any action the Board takes. MR. SHEEHAN-l guess what I'd ask, there, Mr. Chairman, is that we be given an opportunity to take the comments that the engineer has made back to our engineers, and ask them to get together and to solve the problems. 10 ~ - MR. ROBERTS-It would appear to me that there are enough Engineering Staff that this should be tabled for just that be my feeling. questions purpose. from the I t would MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. I still have philosophical problems and I'm not sure I could get philosophical problems resolved with technical answers, but I have no objection to it being tabled. MR. SHEEHAN-Mr. Cartier, is there anything, other than what you haven I t seen, that you want us to look at, address, or propose? MR. CARTIER-Well, I can tell you this, I don't think the application is in compliance with Article 5.070 b. MR. SHEEHAN-To what extent? Which part? MR. HAGAN-Did you say B or D? MR. CARTIER-B. MR. SHEEHAN-D? MR. CARTIER-B. Do you want me to read the relevant Section, here? "In order to approve any Type I or Type II Site Plan Review use, the Planning Board shall find that: B. The use would be in harmony with general purpose or intent of this Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location, character, and size of the proposed use", and so on. When I go back, in Article 4, and read the description of the purpose of Waterfront Residential it says, liTo protect the delicate ecological balance of all Lakes and the Hudson River, while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline", and that's What I find it to be in conflict with. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, I don't want to belabor the argument, but it seems to me, if we're going to improve the septic system and improve, or at least create, some kind of a stormwater drainage system and take a 1925 camp and make it into a 1990 residence, but preserving all of the flavor and the Adirondack character of it and, at the same time, not be out of size with our neighbors, you know, we Ire doing the best we can to accommodate the concerns. MR. CARTIER-The only reason I bring it up is, apparently, we're going to table this thing and I just want to let you know what my concerns are, so that you can address them. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And that does not necessarily have to be tonight. MR. SHEEHAN-I understand. MR. CAlMANO-Peter, one thing we did not consider is the second paragraph of Lee's letter, and I think that that certainly enters into everything that you and Jim have said, regarding the moratorium, Number One, more importantly, one that's quoted here all the time is the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and if you read that page out of the DEC, \\hich is in the Land Use Plan, it says, "Inadequately controlled land development on sites with environmental and other limitations", in this case, size. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think you're right. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, let's talk about the moratorium issue. As I understand it, the moratorium does not apply to this particular situation. MR. ROBERTS-No, it does not. MR. CAlMANO-Thatls right. MR. SHEEHAN-Alright. MR. CAlMANO-I'm more concerned with what gees on after that. MR. ROBERTS-And this Comprehensive Land Use Plan that you're referring to is the task force for Lake George and not necessarily Queensbury's Land Use Plan. 11 --' MR. CAlMANO-Well, I just want to call that fact to attention, that's all. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we do have some engineering concerns. I asked the question, early, that I'm still a little puzzled how you can have a drywell five feet deep and groundwater four feet deep and I don't see an easy resolution to that, but I think that and some other things need to go back to the drawing board. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, wa'd like to talk to our engineers and relay to them the comments that the Town Engineer has made and we'll do that immediately. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, then, if we can table this with your permission, I believe, this is Where we're heading, here. MR. SHEEHAN-Could I just ask you, Mr. Chairman, specifically, there's the issue of the Mound System, Wiich is raised in the engineerls letter. There's the question about the drywell. MR. MARTIN-He has the comments, right? He can have a copy of the written comments, if that would be MR. ROBERTS-You must have those? MR. SHEEHAN-Theylre in the package, here. MR. MARTIN-Those are much more clear than we could MR. SHEEHAN-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I wouldn't think we'd need to go over them. They're engineering problems, not things that we've raised, except for the philosophic problems that some of the members have. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay. Is there anything else, specifically, that you want us to consider or address? MR. ROBERTS-Not I. MR. CARTIER-In a generic sense, here, I think what you've got to do is take all of the comments that you've gotten, concerns that have been raised, and address those, not just engineering concerns, but Planning Staff concerns, some of the concerns that have been expressed by Board members and so on. This is not a shopping list where you just pick and choose a few things. I think you need to address all of the concerns that have been raised. If there's something you're still not clear on, I guess we can answer that. MR. MARTIN-Especially given the fact that this is an Environmentally Sensitive Area. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, okay, I mean, What we tried to do, last time, ~s address specific comment that was made and 4eal with it and I think we did that. you've got some other ones. We'll do the same thing. I'm just trying to this happening, again, at the next meeting. every Now, avoid MR. CARTIER-Speaking for me, you have to convince me that what is proposed, here, is not going to have an adverse effect on Lake George or, if it is, that you can mitigate that, somehow. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay, but do you mean, an effect on what, on what resource, on the quality of the water, on the quality of the air, on the aesthetics? I'm not sure what you're getting at, Mr. Cartier, quite honestly. MR. CARTIER-I guess the best thing I can do is direct you to the Ordinance and take a look at Article 5.070, Section B, okay. I'm not sure I'm answering your question. MR. SHEEHAN-I'm not sure you are, either, quite honestly. MR. CARTIER-I don't know how to answer it, then. Let me state my problem. I have some philosophical problems with allowing expansion in a Critical Environmental Area on a one third of an acre piece of property, both expansion, in terms of size and in terms of use, both of which are going to occur, here. Now, I understand your frustration. Philosophical questions are hard to deal with. Technical ones are a lot easier to answer. I don't know how to tell you how to answer my question, or my problems or to address my concerns. 12 ',-" MR. SHEEHAN-I understand that, but, I guess, say to you is, ~ll, that's the character essentially, those are year round residences Why can't I have one, too. from our point of view, \\hat I'd of that area, right now, that's, and what Mr. Lynch is saying is, MR. MARTIN-I think, to address the one philosophical concern, maybe you could give some consideration to re-working the design to a smaller, is there things that could be done to get by with less space? I donlt know. I'm not saying that's necessarily a requirement that I'd be looking for, but you're asking. 11m responding, that maybe you can consider a smaller square footage, if that might be acceptable, as a compromising situation. I don It know, but that might be something you could consider. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, I mean, my first comment would be, the square footage, I don't, quite honestly, just in terms of what's around there, I don't the square footage is excessive. It adds a deck and the master bedroom gets bigger, but, beyond that, it's the same place and not inconsistent with what other people have and I, again, from the standpoint of being a lawyer, I look at everyone else and they've got them and, basically, you're saying to us, ~ll, you don't like that anymore, but if it's not inconsistent with the character, maybe you want to draw the line, here. I don't know. MR. HAGAN-Do you want to go back and live the way our ancestors did and live to be 45 or 50, instead of 65 and 70. Now, there's a philosophical point, here, and I can read, and I think it covers it all, liThe major findings of a DEC Task Force as presented in the final plan to the Lake George Park Commission in March, 1987 show: Inadequately controlled land development on sites with environmental and other limitations", and what I'm saying to you, a third of an acre has natural limitations which I think this plan is exceeding. This is not just my opinion . This is the basis of a study made by the Department of Environmental Conservation. MR. MARTIN-And I also think that that was a basis for, the re-zoning which was done in 1988 was much more strict and some of that was due to the situations that you cite, as to what exists next door. MR. HAGAN-You know, \\here are you going to stop? Just keep adding and adding and that's Why the zone was made one acre and it's nonconforming situations around the Lake and in the Town of Queensbury seem to be wanting to expand upon those nonconforming situations. and adding always the that always MR. SHEEHAN-Well, I guess the reason for that, really, is that MR. CARTIER-Can I interrupt, here? MR. SHEEHAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I think you ought to save your arguments for the next time around and you'll have more ammunition, frankly, okay. You will have a chance to have addressed engineering concerns that have come up with the design and that might give you an opportunity, I'm more than willing to listen with an open mind, but we're not going to resolve anything more, here, tonight. I don't think. MR. SHEEHAN-Well ~ I understand that and I appreciate the time. What we'll do is we will relay these cOmments to our engineers and they will communicate with the Town's Engineer and, hopefully come up with a MR. CARTIER-Through the Planning Department, please. This does not go directly from your engineer to our engineer. This goes through the Planning Department. Please understand that, okay. In other words, anything your engineer submits, he submits !.£ the Planning Department Staff who will, in turn, submit it to the Town Engineer. MR. SHEEHAN-Alright. I understand that, but it seems to me, in terms of telephone contact, if our engineers want to understand, I've got a question about what he's getting MR. MARTIN-Yes, that would be a wise step, but Pete's point is well taken. MR. CARTIER-Anything you submit, in terms of paperwork, for him to look at, goes through Planning Staff, first. MR. SHEEHAN-We'll do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 13 --- MR. SHEEHAN-Alright. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Do you need a motion? MR. ROBERTS-I'm just wondering, the public hearing was probably left open. We didnlt open it, tonight. I wonder if anybody's come out. Is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project tonight? I guess weill continue to leave the public hearing open, then, I guess, okay, and we'll entertain a motion. PUBLIC BEARING OPIIII MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 66-90 JOHN AND BAHBARA LDCII, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To allow the applicant to respond to comments as raised by the Town Planning Staff, the Town Consulting Engineer, and the Board. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Just one thing, do we want a time deadline on that? John, do you need a date deadline or anything like that on that, or do you want to leave that to the applicant? I'm not talking about changing submission dates, here. I'm just saying to you, do you want, within 30 days or within 60 days or anything like that? MR. GORALSKI-No, I mean, that's up to you. MR. CARTIER-Alright. We'll just leave it without a date, then. MR. GORALSKI-I would assume that, since you want them to resolve the engineering comments, that however long it takes to resolve the engineering comments is when you want to see this back in front of you. MR. CARTIER-But this is subject to submission deadline dates, is it not? MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, that's all I was trying to establish. Thank you. MR. SHEEHAN-Alright, we'll address them immediately, but is there a, well, I can give you a call, John. MR. ROBERTS-Tomorrow is the submission deadline date for next month, is the point that's trying to be made, here, I think. MR. SHEEHAN-Alright. Since this is an existing application, I guess \\hat I I d ask the Board is, if we can put something together in fairly expeditious fashion and submit it, can we get on the next meeting? MR. CARTIER-If you can do that by tomorrow, sure. MR. MARTIN-At 2 o'clock. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, obviously, we're not gPing to be able to do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then you're subject to whatever the next submission deadline date, Wiich is, What? MR. GORALSKI-The last day in October, for November's meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-The last Wednesday in October, excuse me. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, quite honestly, there's no way that we can something to you by tomorrow afternoon. 14 -..-/ MR. CARTIER-Well, we understand that. SITE PLAN NO. 68-90 "rIPE: UNLISTED BC-lA PC-lA 73 QUAKD II>AD ASSOC.. C/O TIDNAN, BElIIRSTEIN AND PINOIUK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTIlllEST oo_D OF Q1IIAKD lOAD AND GLENWOOD AV:DfUE PIOPOSAL FOR A NEW SHOPPING ŒBTER INCLUHIIG A BSTAURANT AND DnVE THROUGH BANK.. (WARREN ooœn PLABIIING) 'lAX MAP 110.. 101-1-4.31-4.4 Lar SIZE: 4.40 ACRES TO BE DEVIILOPED SECI'ICII 4.020K MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-This is a project that we started to deal with, a month ago, and ran out of steam around midnight and decided we better continue the discussion, I think, is basically where we're going. Since that time, we're in receipt of, somewhat, new information, that I would suggest puts us back to looking at this, pretty much, from Ground Zero, with the long hard look as SEQRA says. We have some comments from Staff. STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-There are a couple of other letters which I can read, if you'd like. One is from New York State Department of Transportation, to Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner, dated September 17th, 1990 (attached) There was also a letter from the Warren County Traffic Safety Board, to John Goralski, Planner, dated September, 12th, 1990 (attached) and the Warren County Planning Board has not acted on this, yet. MR. ROBERTS-But theylve determined, if they make some changes, they want to see it again? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. They approved the plan that's labeled Plan A, there. They said, if a new plan is considered, they would like to see it. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. HAGAN-Was that as of September 12th? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Do we have some engineering comments, at this time? DfGINEER. REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Can I ask you a question? Can I go back to Item 3b. (referring to Engineer Report) your last line. Are you, in effect there, saying that you don't have a problem with the fact that they're going to have post runoff thatls higher than pre runoff and that, if they request a waiver, you can sign off on that? MR. YARMOWICH-If they can adequately justify to the Board that a waiver is deserving. What I'm saying is that the drainage response of Halfway Brook is such that the flooding conditions that are going to occur are not a part of the proposed project and theyl re not caused by the proposed project. The proposed project stormwater management approach does not meet the design standards and, therefore, they should request a waiver. As long as they can justify that, in terms of showing you, as cited by C., that in fact, if they do use a detention scheme, it will not, that won't aggravate the situation further. MR. CARTIER-Not being an engineer, 11m going to want them to satisfy you, as far as that's concerned. I have to hear from you, that you're satisfied, for me to be satisfied. I don't know enough about stormwater drainage. MR. YARMOWICH-To be satisfied whether or not it's justified is the question, I think, the Board has to answer. As far as the response of the System and the related flooding effects, Wiat I'm saying, here, is that I don't have any problem with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 15 .,-, --' MR. ROBERTS-You I re saying the flooding would just occur in some parking areas, at best, anyway. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Currently, the situation is such that it floods an undeveloped or vegetated area, W:1ich, apparently, isn't a nuisance because of it's existing character, that will change, in the future, if this proposed project is developed in accordance with the plans submitted. It will flood part of the parking area. MR. CARTIER-Do you have any idea, at this point, maybe this is an unfair question, do you have any idea, at this point, how much flooding we're talking about, in terms of depth or area covered? MR. YARMOWICH-That's not revealed by the analysis provided. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Mr. Schachner, ~uld you care to comment on some of these points? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and, initially, 1'11 try to be brief, Mr. Roberts. For your record, I'm Mark Schachner, representing the applicant, 73 Quaker Road Associates. At the outset, I'd like to just take a minute to do something I didn I t plan on doing. 11m not an official designee of the Warren COtmty Bar Association or of the local Bar or of my colleagues at the Bar, but I know that I've been a resident of the Town of Queensbury for a scant dozen or so years and during that time, the Queensbury Planning Board has been through many, many projects and many, many changes and many, many things and one constant that's always been there is Chairman Roberts and I think, in addition to being commended for all the reasons that those more eloquent than I commended Chairman Roberts, I think I should add one, at least unofficially, on behalf of all the lawyers that Chairman Roberts and his colleagues have had to deal with. I think he should really deserve a special commendation for that and for dealing with the likes of me and some of my colleagues and I think the Town of Queensbury really does owe him a debt of gratitude. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-I wanted to start off, first, just clearing the air a little bit. I apologize for my own unavailability at the last meeting. It came upon on short notice, through nobodyl s fault and I had a previous engagement that could not be broken. I understand that, in addition to things flaring up a little bit at the last meeting that I ~ present at, Wtich we can attribute to the lateness of the hour, I hope, that things got a little sticky, also, at the September 4th meeting and I think we should, from the applicant I s standpoint, ~ just want to clear the air. We want to apologize for any transgressions that we've made, unintentionally. We want to just, everybody calm down and deal with this project rationally and fairly and wel re sure that you will. We think there have been some misperceptions, basically. We have had some misperceptions and we feel we've gotten conflicting signals, unintentionally, from some of the relevant players. As John Goralski mentioned in his Staff Notes, that's one of the reasons that we convened the meeting that he referred to, at which we tried to get all the players available. We can't drag you folks into a meeting, but we tried to get your Staff in and they were nice enough to accommodate us and to come to this meeting, as was Mr. Austin and Mr. Gebo of the Warren County DPW. Basically, Wten last we were here, ~ were talking about different options on the proj ect. I made reference to some memoranda that Fred Austin had written. I have, subsequently, submitted them to you. So, I assume youlve seen them and I don't think anybody misrepresented anything, but there clearly was a misunderstanding. We've met, as John Goralski has just mentioned in his Staff Notes, and the "good news", if that's how it's perceived is, ~'ve narrowed down what we perceived to be the reasonable options. When last we were here, ~ were talking about the possibility of signalization at the Quaker Country Club intersection and, in fact, some of the Board members, for a first blush, off the cuff review, thought that might not be a bad idea and might even be preferable to signalization at Glenwood. From the applicant's standpoint, we also think there's a lot to be said for that issue, but, frankly, it's a dead issue. MR. CARTIER-So, we're not going to talk about it anymore? MR. SCHACHNER-COrrect. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Moving on, that's really all I wanted to say, initially. We can present this, as far as further information, any way you folks want. The way 16 ~ we have it outlined, in our minds, is to discuss why the Glenwood signalization option makes the most sense, from the Planning and Community Impact standpoint, not only from the Project standpoint, but from the traffic in the community. We can address, we've got our Project Team, here, with several engineers, to address the engineering points and the Staff Comments that Mr. Goralski refers to, after the traffic issue, Wien he says at the bottom of his Staff Notes, "Items 3-9 of my August 28th, 1990 notes (attached) should be reviewed by the Board", if you look at those, those, conveniently appear on Page Two of his August 28th Staff Notes and I think most of those say things are adequate. On site circulation is adequate. Landscaping is adequate, and I think most of those really don It present issues. From our standpoint, we assume traffic is the key issue. We have reviewed a number of possible alternatives and reached the conclusion, from our standpoint, that aCcess from Quaker Road is critical, that the Country Club option is dead and gone, so we're not gQing to discuss it anymore, that, therefore, the proposal is what we've Labeled Plan A and Plan A is nothing more than what was before you. It's the first set of plans that we formally submitted to you, prior to last month I s meeting. Subsequently, we've submi tted what I may refer to, as Plan B, but that's the Country Club signalization, so forget about it. MR. MARTIN-Just for a point of clarification in my mind, is Plan A the plan or the proposal that was referenced in the July 20th, 1990, Traffic Impact Study? MR. SCHACHNER-Cbrrect, that's exactly right and, therefore, thatls the one referred to in the recent, in the letter's that Mr. Goralski just mentioned, \\hen they said the initial traffic study of that date, thatls the plan. MR. MARTIN-Right, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. MR. CARTIER-Let me clear up what seems to still be a misunderstanding of the process, here. I'm frightened by all of these engineers and all of these lawyers sitting out here. It sounds to me like what you are asking us to go through, tonight, is a workshop session where we, informally, hammer out all of these alternatives. Understand that the only thing we're gQing to look at tonight is this. MR. SCHACHNER-Amen. That's not what we're expecting. We're expecting only to look at this plan and to address the comments that you folks and your Staff have. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAlMANO-Let me try something simple. Is the traffic problem, the only major stumbling block, as Mark has said, for all of the Board members? MR. CARTIER-I still have some problems with internal traffic flow, same issues I raised before. I have problems with 20 foot wide travel lanes. I think 20 foot, the Ordinance says at least 20 feet wide. If you go 20 feet wide, I think you can get away with that, if you have angled parking and one way flow. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, so there are other? MR. CARTIER-There are other issues, as far as 11m concerned. I think there are. MR. CAlMANO-Let me try something else. There are two options on John Goralski's memo of August 28th. There are two traffic options. Let me see if I can get rid of some of these things. Is everybody in accordance with the fact that if there is a Quaker Road cut that it would be right turn, right turn? Would everybody be satisfied with that, or would we have to look at the Glenwood side, too? MR. CARTIER-I'm hearing, somewhere in here, from, and I've lost track of who, now, saying they don't want any cuts on Quaker Road at all and I would tend to agree with that. I think we could allow, I'm speaking for me, here. MR. CAlMANO-I know. 11m just trying to narrow this down. MR. CARTIER-I have a problem with cuts on Quaker Road. If these were farther away, if there was a lot of space between intersections, I might not have a problem. MR. CAlMANO-Even if it was right turn, right turn, that is, right turn from Quaker Road into the project and only right turn out of the project? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I have problems with that. I think the light at Glenwood, with an entrance off and exit off Glenwood is the scenario that I like the best. 17 '--/ --' MR. CAlMANO-With an alternate, as John has suggested, back through your property on LaFayette, to get a LaFayette light, too? MR. CARTIER-That's a possibility. MR. CAlMANO-Is that a potential possibility? MR. SCHACHNER-From our standpoint, it I S not. It's one of the things we looked at and let me give the two reasons why. I'll give you the short version, if you don't find that satisfactory, there are other design professionals, here, Wio can give you the long version, okay. Two points, the first point, as to eliminating, let me just say that, Mr. Caimano, in posturing right turn, right in, right out only, on Quaker, that I s precisely what this plan does currently have and we're no longer talking about anything more on Quaker, okay, the two points. First, as to eliminating those, and restricting access to and from Glenwood, if we do that, there are two things that suffer, right off the bat, and neither one, frankly, is our project. They're both from a Community Planning standpoint, and they are traffic flow on Glenwood and, perhaps more importantly, traffic flow on Quaker. If you've got those right in, right outls, you're going to take the heat off of that intersection, in a nonthreatening, nondangerous way, because you don't have people making the left turns, Wiich is where accidents occur. If you take those curb cuts out, you're going to dtunp 100 plus, maybe more, cars onto Glenwood, you're going to have, signal or no, you're going to have significant traffic problems, both backing up on Glenwood and in terms of the flow on Quaker. The reason you'd have problems with the flow on Quaker is because, unless you want to make the people wait, on Glenwood, really, really long time, then you're going to have to stop the traffic on Quaker, presumably, with that signal, for long enough to allow significant emptying of traffic from Glenwood onto Quaker. So, that's, as to the first sug~stion, that's why we believe it's not advantageous, from any perspective and, especially, the Community Planning perspective, to eliminate just the right in, right out only's on Quaker and stick it all to Glenwood. MR. MARTIN-Just to clarify a point. Is the Quaker Road access point, there, going to accommodate, is it meant to accommodate left hand turns of west bound traffic on Quaker Ro ad ? MR. SCHACHNER-The short answerls no. It's going to be right in, right out. MR. MARTIN-Alright. I just wanted to clarify that, that's all. MR. CAlMANO-Let me bring up something else, here, while we're talking about this in and out. John, your letter of the 28th, and this is Wiy I'm kind of leaning toward the Quaker Road thing, your second paragraph says, "A second option is to eliminate the exit to Quaker Road near the center of the lot. This would minimize impact on the QuakerlGlenwood intersection and would eliminate the danger of a stacking problem if a light is installed at this intersection. II I think thatls presumptive. It's presumptive that the traffic would, somehow disperse better if it goes on Glenwood. I'm seeing two problems. Number One, the light, again, presumptively, will be shorter in duration coming out of Glenwood then the Quaker light, maybe. Quaker would be the main thoroughfare and would have a longer light. LARRY LEVINE MR. LEVINE-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-So, therefore, there would be a stacking problem because most people would want to get back on the arterial type route. Alternatively, they go the other way, and now they've got a problem at Glen and Glenwood. MR. LEVINE-Exactly. MR. GORALSKI-I think, after reviewing the information and speaking, at length, with the applicant's design professionals, I would have to agree with you. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, so my recommendation, Peter, and, well, I leaned with you, the last time, my personal recommendation is that we, if we're going to do this, if the project is a gO, then the traf fic goes in and out, Wiere it can be dispersed the easiest, and that's Quaker Road. MR. CARTIER-We're not going to have any backing up and hold up on Quaker Road, by people wanting to turn in? 18 .---- MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but think about the back up that's going to happen on the shorter light at Glenwood, Wlen people are coming out of there, going to Glenwood and Quaker, now we've got a back up, there. MR. CARTIER-But also compare the speed limit on Quaker, to the speed limit on Glenwood. MR. CAlMANO-I understand that. I'm just talking about stacking. MR. ROBERTS-But we do have a stacking lane. The edge that is now not used, I think, can be used as a turn off or stacking lane or whatever you call it, in order to get in. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. MR. CARTIER-I would remind everybody of the Shop N' Save scenario. Are we not creating the same kind of scenario, here. Do you understand what I'm referring to, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Unfortunately, I do. I, actually, this is my commute. MR. CARTIER-We have a turn in, going into this plaza, a short distance from a light and we had the same sort of thing. I don't know. I don't have an answer to that. I'm asking the question. Are we recreating MR. CAlMANO-We could plan it into it. That, obviously, wasn I t planned into it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, the design would be different, as Mr. Caimano is saying. I mean, the design would be different in a number of respects. One of my personal observations, at the Shop N' Save intersection, that I think contributes to the problem, is just improper timing of the signalization and then, another issue is, you do have people making left turns and it's not right in, right out, only. I think thatls the biggest thing. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's a major difference. MR. SCHACHNER-And the other thing that we will do, and this is one of Mr. Goralskils comments, also. He mentions, I believe, in today's memorandum, that the right in, right out only, has to really do, physically, somehow, assure, as best we can, he mentions this right in today's memo, that it really can't be abused and we've discussed some ways, physically, of doing that, in terms of making the angles so sharp that you can't, you know, it's all well and good to Bay right turn only, but we all know, human nature being Wiat it is, if it's physically practical to stand there and shoot across and make the left, people will do it. With the widening of Quaker Road, \12' re talking a substantial distance, and we don't feel that's appropriate and we're sure ~ don I t feel that's appropriate. So, that IS Wiy I think Mr. Goralski has been fairly adamant on that point and said, let's do whatever is possible to, physically, not only with signage and stripes and pretty signs, but to physically make that as guaranteed as we can that it's right in and right out only. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's Wiy I was asking, before and my feeling, again, speaking for me, that, as we do with technical issues of drainage and so on, or more engineering inclined issues, \12 tend to defer to the experts and I, on this, given the magnitude of this project and the implications, and finally have some guidance, here, from experts and I'm encouraged to see the letter from the State Department of Transportation. A Senior Transportation Analyst has gone through this, someone who is much more versed in this than I could ever be, especially in the time frame of this review, and I would defer to those comments and the comments of our Highway Supervisor and Mr. Austin, as well. Those are the people I'm going to look for, for ans\l2rs on this. MR. cARTIER-I agree. MR. ROBERTS-That's Wiy I asked Paul tonight. Anytime you're ready to jump in, Paul. We I d like to hear from you. I asked Mr. Austin if he could be here, too, but, in lieu of that, he was at the meeting this morning and so I think that Mr. Goralski could tell us What transpired there. PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-You know the indebtedness you're putting on the Town, Or whoever, for that intersection, if you put lights, $60,000 or $70,000 for traffic lights. 19 c"-' ~ Who I s buying? $200 a month for the light bill, that's forever, that I s what the meter cost. Every time you pay the monthly bill to NiMo for those traffic lights. So, think real careful on traffic lights. As far as Shop N' Save, that wasn't a disaster. Too many people didn't know what was gping on. What they don't know, in this Township, is that traffic lights are owned, on County highways, by the Town of Queensbury. The Town has to maintain them and the Town has to put them up by Town Board order. So, \\hat happened is, the County gave the okay for Shop NI Save and they forgpt to ask the Town to hook it up to their system. We hooked it up to our system. We had the best engineers money could buy, not lawyers, engineers, and they timed it with Bay and Quaker. So, what you see on Bay and Quaker is what you see at Shop N' Save. It's for a left hand turn. If there's nobody coming out of Shop N' Save, then it won't change, but it can't be changed any different than what it is. It's the best it can be. The only thing we can do, now, as Mr. Austin has put lights on LaFayette and Quaker. Country Club, no way, it's too close, as you know. Glenwood, yes, maybe, but you're going to have to do the same thing. The trouble is with all the lights on Quaker Road, they all do a different thing. Bay and Quaker, you've got too many turn lanes and the signaling there is tough, to get as many cars through there as we can, right now. So, I just wanted you to know my feelings. MR. MARTIN-I just have a question for you. Is there any chance, if the ultimate outcome was that a light was put at Glenwood, that LaFayette would remain blinking, except in the cases of a fire and then, is that a MR. NAYLOR-Basically, \\hy they, I think they talked LaFayette is for the fire trucks. MR. MARTIN-Right, that's Why I say. MR. NAYLOR-But the fire trucks have been coming out of LaFayette for 20 years or 25 years for fires. You know that and I know that. I think it's better, now, than it IS ever been on Quaker Road. I did an interview in the paper, a few years ago, When Fred said he wanted five lights and I said two is all we needed, LaFayette and Meadowbrook, that IS Wiere they're going, to my knowledge. They had a team come in and they agreed, not with me, they just agreed that that's the way it should go down. I don't know. LaFayette I s not that bad, right now. People are getting in and out, great. MR. MARTIN-That's Wiat I'm saying. MR. NAYLOR-I don't know if somebody, you I ve got to talk to the fire company. They're planning on synchronizing their fire trucks, so when they come out, they can change the light to there. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's Wiat I mean. cases Where they have a call. If it was left blinking, except in those MR. NAYLOR-It's a possibility. We could do that. MR. MARTIN-Who has the jurisdiction over, if that was to be left blinking or? MR. NAYLOR-Well, I guess we do. The Town will own the lights and the contract is signed by the County with our Town Board. In fact, right now, I don't think all the wording's been signed, sealed, and delivered. That's Wiy you don't see the lights on. Somebody doesn't want the liability. They want the Town to have the liability and the liability is mine, to gp out there, in the middle of the night, and fix them. MR. CAlMANO-Paul, just as an opinion of yours, regardless of this project, the A part of this question is, isn't Glenwood and Quaker a dangerous intersection, anyway, and aren't we adding to that burden Wien you approve something like this, which, in the long run it's gPing to MR. NAYLOR-I really wouldn't want to answer it that way, Nick. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, answer it whatever way you want. MR. ROBERTS-Then, again, you don't have to answer it. MR. NAYLOR-I don't know if Glenwood is that way, personally. Mo st of the kids, college kids, are cutting across Glenwood to come over to the college. Nobody likes traffic lights. They'll go five miles around to get past them. They'll go anyway they've got to gp, for a short cut. You go up to McDonald's, tomorrow morning, and you sit in McDonald I s parking lot and watch five hundred cars cut 20 through there because they don't want to go down to 9 and 254 to make a left hand turn. If I could get 10 cents for everybody that illegally goes through that parking lot to go up to Zayres and I don't own any interest in Zayres, either. I could make a lot of money just sitting there collecting. They do it. Everybody does it, until the cops ticket them, then theyl re going to stop. Glenwood is changed. Quakerls changed. Nobody visualized what would happen after it got as wide as it did. The Balloon Festival didn't show any big deal over there and there was a lot of cars. We've got to look at it a whole new, different way. It IS a whole new idea. This summer it looked like nobody was in Town when you went on Quaker Road. MR. ROBERTS-So, you're, basically saying, it's working pretty well. Yes, I have that feeling. MR. NAYLOR-It's working great. Better than What we dreamed it would. MR. CARTIER-Paul, did you have a chance to go through this Traffic Impact Study from Quaker Plaza? MR. NAYLOR-No. I'll tell you what happened. Late yesterday morning, Mr. Roberts asked me if I'd come down because of the traffic light situation and, here I am. I thought Fred was going to be here, tonight. It must be he couldn't make it. MR. CARTIER-Well, in terms of what Jim was saying, Jim Martin, was saying about, let's get the experts out here. I I d really like to hear from you, in terms of what you think of what's suggested in here. MR. NAYLOR-No, I haven I t had a chance to go over it, just the connnents I made tonight, with reference to the indebtedness of the light. MR. CARTIER-Could I assume that sometime you will have a chance to look at it? MR. NAYLOR-Sure. MR. CAlMANO-Do you have one? MR. NAYLOR-No. MR. CAlMANO-You do now. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you do. MR. NAYLOR-Did you send me one over? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-I think Jim's idea of the possibility of a blinking light is kind of intriguing. MR. CAlMANO-At LaFayette. MR. ROBERTS-There's another option. I'm assuming that, in lieu of that, we can synchronize LaFayette and Glenwood. MR. NAYLOR-We could. MR. ROBERTS-I mean, we were promised that at Shop NI Save and it didn't happen very well, for aWhile, but I'd like better assurances. MR. MARTIN-My only comment for the blinking was, and I assume that, Quaker being a four lane highway, now, you're looking to make that the place where you want traffic to go. MR. NAYLOR-Right. MR. MARTIN-And you don't want to discourage people from traveling on that, with all these lights every several hundred feet. MR. NAYLOR-I think what everybody did is looked at the firehouse and said, we ought to have lights to get the fire trucks out. I think that's ~at they did. MR. MARTIN-So, there is a possibility that could be left as a blinker? 21 ----- MR. NAYLOR-Maybe it out and say, come out. it's hey, the Town Engineers or electrical engineers could figure let's just flash it, turn it on red when the fire trucks MR. ROBERTS-Before this is over, we 111 address the finances of this, that you have raised. MR. NAYLOR-Yes, make sure you keep track of the money. That's all. MR. MARTIN-Thank you, Paul. MR. NAYLOR-Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-I guess we can state for the record, you have, the applicant has agreed to pay for putting in ~ light. MR. SCHACHNER-You're correct. MR. ROBERTS-I guess the next question, will you pay for the $200 a month light bill? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think that's appropriate and I don't think there's precedent for that. I think, my understanding of how it works is exactly as Mr. Naylorls, which is that, although you can require the applicant or ask the applicant to pay for the construction, installation, etc., that then it becomes the property of the Town and I don't believe there's precedent, once it's turned over to the Town, for having a private applicant pay the monthly maintenance cOsts. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think we're opposed to setting precedent, however. MR. CAlMANO-No, precedent's part of legal MR. HAGAN-Which makes me want to ask another question. It may be over simplified and possibly too basic, but since you relate to the expense of the operation of the traffic lights becoming the responsibility of the Town, \\hat makes you think, Or what has made you think that this Town needs or requires this large development on such a small parcel of property? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Mr. Hagan, I don't want to belabor what we've been through at the Zoning Board of Appeals already, twice, and with favorable results both times, but we've already demonstrated, graphically, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that, in fact, this is the minimum lot coverage on this particular lot, that can be profitable for this type of use. As to What requires this project, I don't believe that therels anything that requires this project and I donlt believe therels anything that requires any project. Obviously, we can lock those doors. MR. HAGAN-Demand usually requires. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, with all due respect, I guess I don't feel that way. I think demand may be a reason to do that, but the people that are subject to the demand can always have that demand go unanswered. The parcel is zoned Highway Commerciall Plaza Commercial. MR. HAGAN-I know, and you're gping to tell me it's a permitted use, but I'm thinking about six banks in an area less than half a mile apart, six banks. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess, I didn I t realize there were that many and, thinking about it in my o~ mind, I know I bank at one that's not too far away, but I'm not aware of which other ones you're referring to, but let's assume you're right. I don't believe, again, I don't believe it's appropriate to suggest that there has to be a formal requirement or a peti tion or a ci tizens out cry that they need a particular project. I believe, and I think that this is common land use planning knowledge or perspective, that an applicant owns some property, that they're entitled to use it, in some fashion, as permitted. If they can't use it as permitted, they may need a Use Variance to do something else. MR. HAGAN-Without requiring additional legal Or financial responsibility on the Township. MR. SCHACHNER-I agree with that, but I guess the point we like MR. HAGAN-And that's What you're doing. 22 '---' '-'" MR. SCHACHNER-W~ll, I think, frankly, What this proj~ct is doing is a hug~ b~n~fit to the Town of Qu~~nsbury and th~ County of Warren and I'll t~ll you why. It's int~r~sting to h~ar the diff~r~nt persp~ctiv~s from p~ople who d~al with the traffic issu~s on a daily basis. Mr. Austin is of th~ firm b~li~f, and Mr. Goralski, I'm sur~, will confirm this. I just want to mak~ r~f~r~nc~ to som~thing Mr. Austin said this morning. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Austin is of th~ firm b~li~f, int~r~stingly ~nough aft~r h~aring Mr. Naylor's comm~nts, that peopl~ will do anything th~y can to g~t ~ wh~r~ th~r~'s a traffic light, instead of avoiding it and, Mr. Austin hims~lf, used a graphic example, just this morning, of that concept and, again, it's just different perspectiv~s. I happen to be the sort of person Mr. Naylor's referring to and I use this very inters~ction for that reason, but, in any event, I guess the point 11m making is, that ther~ are existing traffic studies, four, to be exact, and wi thout meaning to sound like an advertisement for a dental toothpaste, three out of four traffic studies specifically find that there's already, it's the truth, itl s thr~e out of four. Three out of four traffic studi~s specifically find that therels already a ne~d for signalization at this intersection. Th~ fourth traffic study did not take into account accident history, was done at the lowest tim~ of th~ y~ar, and seems to be an ab~rration, and thatls studi~s that were not don~ by this applicant or anybody having anything to do wi th this applicant. So, I guess, with all due resp~ct, it's our position that, if this applicant funds the very ~xpensive traffic signal that the Town is looking at and that Fred Austin b~lieves is the best option available, not n~cessarily the option that has to be approved, but, with respect to the signalization, he, obviously, thinks that this is th~ place to put the signal, as opposed to Country Club. We think we' r~ doing som~thing for the community, here. MR. MARTIN-Now, and I believe this was an issu~ you had addressed last meeting. If the signalization does occur at Glenwood, is that som~thing that can be hooked up via, What was the term you used, hardwire, to the LaFayette signal? LAWRENCE LEVINE MR. LEVINE-Yes. My name is Lawrence Levine. I'm the traffic consultant on the project. I had some discussions with Mr. Gebo about this, r~garding Wiat type of interconnection would b~ appropriate and there ar~ various options. Th~ most appropriate may be a time based coordination based syst~m, wh~re, it works off of the power lin~s. As long as the power lines ar~ all th~ sam~ on that road and they' r~ all new, the cycling of th~ power can be used as a base to tim~ them all and they don' t hav~ to hav~ a hardwire connection and it works very well and that might work very well for all these becaus~ th~re's a lot of s~paration b~twe~n som~ of th~ signals on Quaker. Ther~for~, the hardwir~ might not be th~ b~st way to go, okay, \\hen youlre thinking about the whole syst~m, okay, b~caus~ w~ want to WOrk all th~ signals, if w~ can, but they would b~ int~rconnect~d. MR. MARTIN-You would defer to consultation with the Town Highway Supervisor and so on, for that typ~ of design. MR. LEVINE-Yes, I think that you would hav~ to b~cause yould want ev~rything to be consist~nt, from one end to the other. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LEVINE-Rath~r than, you know, if w~ hardwire ours and then, would they hav~ to use a different type of interconnection for the other signals, we' re d~feating a purpos~. MR. CAIMANO-Well, around this Town, or a closing. cOrrect me if I'm wrong, Paul, but the ones that wo rk b~st, are the demand sensors, Wi~re there's a demand for an opening MR. LEVINE-Now, that's separate from the interconnection, thatls a local MR. CAlMANO-I know that, but it s~ems to work the b~st, h~re, at th~ major int~rsections . MR. LEVINE-Sur~. Well, \\hat happ~ns is that it's basically doing th~ sam~ thing ov~r time. MR. CAlMANO-You and I had this argum~nt, the last time, and th~ only thing you forget in your system, maybe you don't know, is that also is th~ main throughway, 23 ~ '-' especially at 8 0 I clock and 4: 30 in the afternoon, for every modular home in the world and all of your systems go to hell when one of those modular home trailers starts up, okay. MR. LEVINE-Because of the slow start up. MR. CAlMANO-Because of the slowness, right. MR. LEVINE-Well, that's something that MR. CAlMANO-Right. We can't control that. MR. LEVINE-You can only do so much. MR. CAlMANO-Tha t' s Wiy the demand system seems to wo rk the best, but, anyway, thatls a technicality. MR. LEVINE-Part of that, the reason that that's working so well is the large separation of the signals, right now. Between, if LaFayette is to remain a regular signal, the distance between LaFayette and Glenwood is very good for interconnection. Once it goes over 2500 feet or even less, then any interconnection breaks down because, just for that reason, the traffic breaks down. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, so you're saying hardwiring is not the best. I mean, we were told that it was. MR. LEVINE-There's many different systems available for interconnecting these signals, including hardwiring, that's one option. There are some newer techniques Wiich work very well for longer distances and that maybe mOre appropriate, that's all I'm saying. It would be an engineering detail question. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the main concern is that we get a light there that is compatible with the existing system and it would be best to defer to the Highway Supervisor to make sure that that happens. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. LEVINE-Right, that would be a detailed engineering decision when the final design is done, of the signal, but, one way Or the other, it's going to be interconnected or an interconnection will be available. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, so the Number One plan, \\hich is the plan before us, seems to be becoming, this plan, a signalization at Glenwood and Quaker, and, perhaps, the no left hand turns out of there, but maybe some entrances and some right hand turns out of there. MR. CAlMANO-Short of killing somebody, how do we stop left hand turns from this project? MR. ROBERTS-Very sharp curves. Actually, they're already shown on the map, pretty much. MR. LEVINE-Maybe I can address that question, a little bit. That came up at the meeting this morning and an example was brought up, regarding, I think it was Burger King on Route 9. MR. cAlMANO-That' sWiat I'm trying to avoid. MR. LEVINE-Exactly. MR. SCHACHNER-Not on Route 9, on Aviation Road. MR. LEVINE-On Aviation Road. New YOrk State has a Driveway Design Standards book, Which is based on Asho and Federal Policy and so forth and that policy designs islands and channelization, including trucks. Trucks have an overhang, okay, and when they make a right turn, it's much wider than a car and, because of that, they cut the islands back and, as a result, cars can make left turns out of them, okay, that's the way it happens with New YOrk State driveways, and because they put in a standards book, you've got to do it that way, on a State highway. This is not a State highway and that's Wiat I talked to Mr. Austin about. The right turn in, right turn out, is solely for cars and small pick ups. MR. MARTIN-So, therefore, you're designing a turning radius that will be very tight. 24 '-" ---- MR. LEVINE-Exactly, and I can actually channelize it, York State telling me that I have to do it a certain the Highway Department on this, we can do a lot more and that's what we're going to work on. as long I don I t have New way, and I can work with to really channelize it, MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you a question associated with that. I'm going east on Quaker Road and I want to make that right hand turn in there, how much do I have to slow down? If I'm going to go from 45 miles an hour to what, to get through that? MR. LEVINE-To turn around this radius? MR. CARTIER-To turn in there, yes. MR. LEVINE-It I 11 be a 30 foot radius Wien it's and this is, well, it's shown as not a 30, but MR. CARTIER-Do I almost have to come, well, less than 10 miles an hour to get through that, to make that turn, Or less than 20, Or what are we talking about, he re ? MR. LEVINE-I would say less than 20. You're going to have to come to a stop. The way we've got it designed is, we want them to stop when they come in. MR. CARTIER-Alright. Stop where? Where would the stop sign be? MR. LEVINE-They'd be stopping inside the center. MR. CARTIER-Okay, how many cars will that turning lane hold? MR. LEVINE-The right turning lane? MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry, the turn in, the bend right there, right above your finger? MR. LEVINE-Right here, about two, at anyone time. MR. CARTIER-Two cars, alright. If we have four cars that want to turn there, we now have two cars out on Quaker Road, is that a turning lane out there? Is there going to be a turning lane only? MR. LEVINE-The shoulder, along here, is, right now, used, at the signal, as a right turning lane, so to speak, a deceleration lane. MR. CARTIER-It goes all the way to Glenwood? MR. LEVINE-Yes. MR. CAlMANO -No, it's not. MR. LEVINE-Well, the shoulder. MR. CAlMANO-Itls being used that way, but it's not MR. LEVINE-Right, itls being used that way and that's MR. MARTIN-Yes, itls a 10 foot wide shoulder, now, right? MR. LEVINE-Right. MR. ROBERTS-But that can be used as a turning lane. MR. LEVINE-Well, that's how it is being used. MR. CARTIER-So, we can stack cars there, to get into there? MR. LEVINE-Sure, yes. The idea is, there is only a stop sign, here. Itls internal circulation and it would be very, very rare that they would have to stop there for any length of time. MR. CARTIER-In other words, we're not impeding the flow of traffic eastward on Quaker Road, if we stack four, five or six cars out there? MR. LEVINE-No, even if they stack onto the street they wouldn't. 25 ~ 4 ,;tJ- tfO MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. LEVINE-And we'll be laying that out with Mr. Gebo. We already discussed that with him. MR. CARTIER-Let me just finish that thought, okay, just to satisfy me. How wide is that, 20 feet? Is that 20 feet wide, that little? MR. LEVINE-No. MR. CARTIER-How wide is it? Is it more than that? MR. LEVINE-I don I t know. 14. It's shown on this plan. It's probably about 12 to MR. CARTIER-What happens in the winter time? MR. LEVINE-This New York State ends up being about 18, and that's a big difference. MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't know the answer to this, but what happens, in the winter time, When we've got snow that narrows that down, even more? MR. LEVINE-It would have to be removed and that would be the site people, they would have to remove it. That would be on any entrance to this Center. The developer's going to have to be, or the owner of the Center is going to have to be responsible to open up any entrance. MR. CARTIER-I'm not trying to give you a hard time, here. I'm not a traffic engineer, but don't we have something in the Ordinance that says, ingress, egress has to be a minimum of 20 feet wide or 25 or, don't we have a statutory minimum some place? MR. ROBERTS-That's for doubles, in and out. MR. LEVINE-Yes, thatls for straight in and out, not for a control. MR. GORALSKI-There has to be a 20 foot wide access to all parking spaces, minimum of 20 foot wide. MR. LEVINE-Right. MR. CARTIER-I thought we had something on ingress and egress from a parking lot, too. We don't? MR. GORALSKI-Not from a parking lot. MR. CARTIER-Okay, that takes care of that. MR. LEVINE-Yes, I'd like to addres!3 that 20 foot, your concern with that. Right now, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and other groups have reduced the standard. The standard of the Town, I believe, is 20 foot wide isle and 20 foot long spaces. The current standard is less than that, for a perpendicular parking elsewhere. It's 20 foot and it IS 18 length. MR. CARTIER-Not in the Town of Queensbury. You're talking some other standards. MR. LEVINE-No, but I'm just saying, that is the nationally recognized standard, because cars have been downsized, unless there are, there is a specif ic reason not to do it and then they try to allocate specific spaces for trucks and so forth. MR. CARTIER-Well, I look at that site, just let me finish my concern because I guess 11m one of the ones who brought it up and it seems like, with a bunch of cars in there, it's going to be awfully crowded and awfully difficult to get around, in there and, I hope, I'm wrong, frankly, because if this becomes a place that's difficult to get into and out of and park and turn and so on, there's not going to be a lot of business generated. MR. LEVINE-Itls not going to work. No, I agree. We've done the best that we could, with the site, as far as the parking. All the turning radi have been checked and so forth, as far as being able to get around it with a single unit truck. 26 ~ ----" MR. ROBERTS-Well, we could downsize the buildings and get some more parking space, here. MR. LEVINE-I don't know that that would help so much. You're still talking the same module of parking width and so forth, that's a standard parking lot in the Town, that's not any different. MR. CAlMANO-Let me just make a comment, here, because I was one of the ones who brought up this, is it going to fly, Who needs it kind of talk and some cooler heads have talked to me, since then, Who have said, everyone's allowed to make a profit, andlor go bankrupt, once, absent the Town having to rescue it and, frankly, I think what wel re doing, now, is getting involved in what you said you didnlt want to do and that's to re-engineer the wheel. We have a proposed project in front of us, \\hich is or is not good, and I think that's Wiat we need to find out. If we feel it's good, then letls get on with it. If we don't feel it's good, W1y isn't it, and let them correct it. I think that's the way we should go, otherwise, you're going to talk this thing until midnight again. 1'11 hold another special meeting and get my hand slapped, and then I'll be in real trouble. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to move on, if we could, maybe, address the concerns in the Engineering letter. I guess the bulk of those will start with, concerns stormwater management. What were your intentions on those comments? DAVE KLEIN MR. KLEIN-Hi. I'm Dave Klein with North Country Engineering. If you don't mind, I'd like to go through all the Engineering cOmments, in order, if that's alright, and we'll get to the stormwater, since they're last. MR. MARTIN-Fine. MR. KLEIN-Item Number One, they're addressing the bank that's gping to have employee parking. MR. ROBERTS-That's an interesting solution to that problem, I guess, you brought up. Is that satisfactory to US, I wonder? MR. CARTIER-It makes employees second class citizens. MR. ROBERTS-It keeps them in the bank, because they can't ~t out. MR. CAlMANO-But they don't care. MR. KLEIN-So, this is traffic's in the drive from MR. CARTIER-How are you gping to be designated for employee parking and, if any through thatls blocking that, it won't hinder customers going to enforce that? MR. LEVINE-We're going to label it, employee parking and we're going to make it part of the lease, that employees will use that parking lot. Item Number Two is a comment about a silt fence. It says the northwest corner of the property. I thought they were talking about this area, here, Tom. Were you talking about silt fence around this area? MR. YARMOWICH-Right where your finger's pointing, that particular corner, both to the north and west of that. MR. LEVINE-This area, right here? MR. YARMOWICH-That corner. of there. That interior corner, right there, north and west MR. KLEIN-North and west of there? MR. YARMOWICH-COrrect. MR. KLEIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-That's the Northway Floors property, right? MR. LEVINE-Yes. 27 -.../ MR. KLEIN-No problem. We can add that. I thought they were talking about over here and it didn't seem like there was much need for it in this area. MR. ROBERTS-Is this something permanent, or during construction? MR. YARMOWICH-That's a temporary measure. MR. GORALSKI-During construction. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. KLEIN-Item Number 3a., there's a concern about the size of the existing 60 inch culvert that goes underneath the site, right now. We did a complete hydraulic analysis of the Halfway Brook watershed, to justify our stormwater approach, and that culvert is currently undersized. This whole project is built in a, well, it's out of the flood zone. There's a flood zone line that goes right down, here, kept all the structures out of the flood zone. If we get a 100 year storm, whatever, the parking lot probably will flood. Allthe buildings are above the flood elevation, known to us. We donlt see it as a detriment to the project. MR. CAlMANO-The problem is that our engineer does, so how are we going to resolve that? MR. KLEIN-I think Tom was bringing up to your attention that the 60 inch culvert's undersized. It's not a fact or it I S not part of the project. The project has not caused that undersizing. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, he says, lithe flooding anticipated is not caused by the proposed development of the property, however". MR. YARMOWICH-What I'm trying to point out is, that the floodway, as opposed to now being and undeveloped area, will be a parking lot and there are some impacts associated with changing an undeveloped floodway into a parking lot. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-If, you know, this is a private property. Private property owners have the responsibility to maintain the course and current of existing water courses. This particular proposal does not appear to aggravate that, is the point that I was making in my letter. Because this project is before the Board, to consider all associated impacts, the applican t may have avenues in which they can elect to minimize certain impacts, if theyl re unacceptable to the Board, and one of the impacts that I'm pointing to the Board is, in fact, flooding of the parking lot. If the Board is not concerned that this particular piece of private property will flood, and I don't know enough about the history of the area. I presume that it has flooded, in the past, and when floods occur, they likely cascade across Glenwood Avenue and also encumber Quaker Road wi th stormwater. These will not be frequent events, but, in fact, with the traffic light being there and all the associated construction that will take place and other developments, it should be poin ted out that t here will be flooding on this particular pi ece of property. MR. KLEIN-Curren tly, the water goes along, here. The 100 year flood elevation is at 321, that's a given and everything on this side of the site is below 321. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. KLEIN-Item Number b., as I said earlier, this is a very difficult site. Taking that into consideration, with Halfway Brook going through the site, Hovey's Pond going through the site, having the flood zone to con tend wi th, having poor percolation, we have a clay soil that doesn't percolate, and we have a very high groundwater. We had some very difficult conditions to deal with, so we thought the best way to approach this problem was to avoid detention and retention, which I know is part of your stormwater, or concerns in your Subdivision Regulations. We did an analysis on the site, using the TR-55 Stormwater Program, to determine how much water and what the time the water was going to take to get off the site. We're installing and oil water separator to treat the pavemen t. I don't think anybody in the Town of Queensbury has used an oil water separator for stormwater, before. I'm not familiar with any in the area. It's kind of a State of the Art approach to handling the problem, and then we did a hydraulic analysis of the Halfway Brook watershed to find out how long it's going to take the water from coming up off West Mountain, around the Northway, to get down here. The results of all that indicate that, if we get rid of our water off our site, right away, 28 before the water from upstream, West Mountain, that area, gets down here, we're going to improve the downstream flooding conditions, and that's why we took that approach. We think it's the most prudent approach to take. MR. ROBERTS-Or is that just self serving? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. KLEIN-We have no mechanism, on site, with the high groundwater and the impermeable soil, to put detention, retention basins. MR. CARTIER-So, \\here's the water going to go? MR. KLEIN-The water's going to be collected in a series of culverts through an oil water separator and into the Warren County structure that's located on the corner, here, under Quaker Road, from there to Halfway Brook. MR. ROBERTS-To Halfway Brook. MR. CARTIER-What's involved in maintaining an oil water separator? MR. KLEIN-It's going to have to be cleaned out. Therels a silt basin in it, thatls going to have to be cleaned out. All the man holes are deeper than necessary. They're going to all have to be cleaned out and the oil and grease will have to be taken care of. MR. CARTIER-How often? MR. KLEIN-Twice a year. If needed, more often, but we're planning on cleaning them out twice a year. MR. YARMOWICH-The oil water separator will provide the same, Or similar siltation of real heavy material, silt removal that a detention basin or infiltration system would. As far as modifying the release rates, it doesn't provide the same benefits. MR. MARTIN-Was there any analysis done on the effect of the stormwater drainage into the Halfway Brook from the approach that that's a trout stream and that type of thing? Is there any thought given to that? MR. KLEIN-Yes. Detention is a negative for trout. 11m a member of Trout Unlimited. I was very active with the Hovey Pond proposal. We talked about putting the culvert by the Pond. There's three culvert s, over here. There's going to be a bypass, by the Pond, at some time, so that will help the 60 inch culvert. Trout like cold water. They can't live, Brook Trout, can't live in water much more than 60 degrees for an extended period of time. If we have a detention, retention type basin, it's just a pool to heat up the water and this pool would be full of water all the time, collecting solar gain, and dumping it into the Halfway Brook watershed. So, that's another advantage of not going with the retention, detention. MR. MARTIN-In other words, you're keeping the temperature of the water low because itls not sitting anywhere and it continues on? MR. KLEIN-COrrect. It's underground. It's not picking up any solar gain. MR. MARTIN-Well, I was just asking from the standpoint of any, you're saying that the pollutants involved in the collection of a parking lot are going to be taken out near MR. KLEIN-They're going to be treated. MR. MARTIN-Treated. MR. KLEIN-Yes, a lot of the silt's going to be taken out and the oils and the grease from the parking lot's going to be taken out. MR. cAlMANO-Is there a filtration, after that? again? Is the clean effluent filtered MR. KLEIN-No. There's two chambers in the oil water separator and there's treatment before it ~ts to the oil water separator via deepened catch basins. MR. cAlMANO-How big is the exit line from the clean water effluent? 29 '-' MR. KLEIN-Twelve inch? MR. CAlMANO-Twelve inch? MR. KLEIN-Twelve inch. It's designed to take the first flush and your lower storms. Itls not feasible to design something to take a 25 year storm. MR. CAlMANO-No, I'm thinking about, though, putting a basket or a polyester sock type filter, beyond that, as further protection. MR. KLEIN-11m not sure how that would effect the flow. MR. CAlMANO-I'm not sure how it would effect the flow, either. sure how it would effect Halfway Brook, however. I'm partially MR. MARTIN-Well, that was my concern, actually. MR. KLEIN-This oil water separator is not a cheap investment. MR. CAlMANO-No, I know it isn't. MR. KLEIN-It's a pretty substantial, financial impact on the applicant. MR. CARTIER-What happens if it's plugged? It's filled with silt, it's filled with oil, it's filled with greased, filled with whatever, is that culvert, then, blocked, so no water goes down through it? In other words, do contaminants start getting into Halfway Brook if that thingls filled? MR. KLEIN-I don't think the contaminants will come out of the oil water separator. MR. CARTIER-That doesn't answer my question. MR. KLEIN-But, Jim Houston is with me, tonight. He's with the LA Group. They did the hydraulic analysis and the actual design of the oil water separator. Let me defer comments to him. JIM HOUSTON MR. HOUSTON-Just for the record, I'm Jim Houston with the LA Group, a Consulting Engineering Group out of Saratoga Springs and I was involved, quite a bit, or, primarily, with the stormwater design and the particular issue that's up, right now, I guess, is how water would get by, in the event of the oil and water separator being fill or full of sediment. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. HOUSTON-And the particular design, for that structure is, basically, a bypass so that, during low flows, flows are diverted out ~ that and also for the first flush, \\here most of the pollutants are contained and that gets diverted to the separator and then, in higher flows, above that, there's a bypass right past the oil water separator, right directly into the Warren County structure. In the event that structure was ever filled with sediment andlor oil and grease, then, also, that bypass would also be working at that time. MR. CAlMANO-Going directly to Halfway Brook? MR. HOUSTON-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-All the more reason for, like, a 25 micron basket type filter or a sock type filter downstream of this oil water separator. MR. HOUSTON-My only concern about that is, matever small silt that would not settle out in there, in the first chamber of the separator, ~uld go and get clogged on that filter or that sock and would very rapidly lead to the malfunctioning or the MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what you're saying, if I understand this, is that lack of maintenance on that system can lead to oil and grease contamination of Halfway Brook, is that correct? MR. HOUSTON-That's correct and that same philosophy goes with conventional detention basins. If they're not dredged and the outlets of those properly maintained, 30 '------ -./ the same goes for those type of facilities, also, and it definitely will require maintenance attention, as will any detention basin. MR. CAlMANO-Is it alarmed? MR. HOUSTON-No, it's not. MR. CAlMANO-My concern, Mark, is that we have a very sensitive Brook, here, and if you I ve got a bypass system which has Wiat we have up on Route 9, then we're going to appraise and approve something thatls not gpod. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and we all have to be sensitive, especially to Halfway Brook. I think that's a good concern. My very much more limited understanding is that the oil water separator unit is, actually, deeper than most conventional units and would minimize the chance of that happening and my other limited understanding is that your idea is a great one, if it doesn't detain the water for any length of time, so as to lead to increased temperatures and, as near as I can tell, thatls not an idea that anyone's heard of or considered because they haven't heard of it. We've got people, here, who are very experienced in the area and don't know of that use. If that would work, 11m sure there wouldn't be a problem in doing it. MR. CAlMANO-Well, my idea is the bypass would have the filter on it and that would be alarmed so that someone would be alerted to the fact therels a problem. MR. MARTIN-My only concern is the bypass water going, untreated, directly into the Brook. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, which is exactly ~at Mr. Caimano's saying. MR. ROBERTS-But your greatest pollutants are gping to be in the first flush, which would probably be taken care of and, after that, then the water flushing the parking lot is, relatively, clean. MR. YARMOWICH-There are many systems in use, large and small, throughout the United States, that endorse the first flush as the best management practice. The particular methods that you allude to, the filtration, active filtration, as opposed to a passive separation type facility, are largely impractical, due to the variable nature. I'd like to make a remark about temperature. One has to keep in mind that Halfway Brook, yes, is sensitive to temperature. It's current regimes are not necessarily controlled by the input of water from man made effects. However, regardless of whether a detention or immediate release structure is a part of the Stormwater Management Program, the bulk of heat gain and runoff will occur from the surface that the incident precipitation strikes. In this case, pavement, on a hot day, When a thunderstorm comes by, will add more heat to the water, regardless of a detention or a direct release, than is significant difference between detention and a nondetention system, that's an uncontrollable factor. YOu relate that to a forest canopy will add the least amount of heat, a vegetated field would add an intermediate amount of heat and, of cOurse, a dark, paved area will add the most amount of heat. The detention of water in the Halfway Brook System, during most periods of the year, is such that it reaches the average daily temperature very quickly, in the spring, and maintains average daily temperatures throughout the year, once it leaves the mountainous areas of West Mountain. So, itls of limited value and DEC has recognized that in their response to various Stormwater Management approaches in the Quaker Road corridor and not issued significant comment about temperature management. (END OF FIRST DISK) 31 '--' ~ MR. CAlMANO-Just one last point on this is the fact that I know that what I said was impract ical. I'm not us ing it to be a pract ical thing. I'm us ing it to be an alarm, so that somebody knows that something is wrong. So, it I S not supposed to be practical. It's supposed to be a protective measure. I'm talking about just a bypass, \\here it does get bypassed. So, I wasn't meaning to be practical. I was meaning to be very impractical and have an alarm system to say, hey, excuse me, there's something going on in the Brook. MR. YARMOWICH-It would be possible, it's technically feasible, to provide an alarm system which is deployed in holding tank systems, W:1ere, at the two thirds level, an alarm is created. Here, you don't have the luxury of just shutting off Mother Nature and stopping the rain, that would be the responsibility of the owner to maintain the system, if that condition were to occur. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I have a major concern about that, for one very simple reasOn. We have, correct me if I'm wrong, an out of town owner, here, correct? We don't have somebody, local, W:10 is going to own this plaza. I would like, somehow, to be assured that whoever is going to be responsible for maintaining this place, is also going to be very sensitive to concerns about these traps and the fact that they are kept clean. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess the response to that is that, regardless of where the actual owner resides, in this State, in this Country, in this Continent, obviously, there will be significant local presence, by way of local property management and just to try, once, just for one minute, to playa lawyer, as a matter of law, I don't think you're allowed to actually impose different requirements, based on the location of the owner of the property. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-But my first response, perhaps, is the more significant one and that is, there's, obviously, ~'re not talking about an absentee owner, in the sense that some project goes on and the owners don't have a presence. This is a property that will require significant owner presence, by way of the management, ~ether it's the physical, actual owners or someone else. MR. CARTIER-I just want somebody local that can be contacted in the event of a problem. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. MARTIN-My same, along the lines of the stormwater, W:1at is the intention of snow management on the lot? The reason why I ask, is there going to be huge mounds of snow present on the lot that are going to drain through this system, in the spring, with heavy amounts of salt and all that? MR. KLEIN-There's not a lot of storage area in the front of the lot, to be plowing snOw. The snow's going to have to be either taken off site or disposed of in the back of the lot or over in here. MR. CARTIER-Well, \lll.it a minute. In terms of the salt content of that snow, or coming off the parking lot, if it's stacked up back there, isn't it, ultimately, still going to end up in Halfway? MR. KLEIN-There's not that much salt, as I understand, in maintenance of parking lots? MR. CAlMANO-Calcium Chloride. MR. KLEIN-Is there much salt involved in the maintenance? MR. CAlMANO-You use Calcium Chloride, don't you, but this is their own property, though. MR. KLEIN-Yes. Highways use salt very heavily. In a parking lot, I don't think the salt content is that much. MR. MARTIN-Well, I was just thinking of the salt picked up from cars and deposited in the parking lot. 32 ~ MR. LEVINE-As I understood it, most of the snow would, initially, be piled in the back lot. MR. CARTIER-Where you have parking places, is that correct? MR. LEVINE-Where you have some parking places. MR. CARTIER-So, in the winter time you're going to lose parking places? MR. LEVINE-You may lose some parking places. MR. CAlMANO-So does every shopping center in the world. MR. LEVINE-I don't believe there would be that much salt used, but, of course, there is going to be some. MR. MARTIN-So, then the snow would melt through and drain through the stormwater system. MR. LEVINE-The oil water separators, yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Which, maybe, is good. MR. MARTIN-Right, and it goes through the grease trap. MR. LEVINE-It would be the best available, that I know of. MR. KLEIN-This System is very State of the Art. It's not a cheap system. MR. MARTIN-Well, it would have to be, given the fact that you're draining into a Brook like that. MR. KLEIN-The Bite demanded us to do something a little special and we've done quite a bit. We think. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, that is unique. MR. LEVINE-Mark just reminded me of something I, on many projects that I've been involved with, also, in a shopping center such as this, provisions are made or requirements made to use specific chemicals, not to use the salt. There are other chemicals available for this purpose or to use sand without the salt. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just wanted to know what your approach was going to be. I'm not saying it should be one way or the other. MR. LEVINE-I don It know exactly how they handle, maybe Mark can MR. SCHACHNER-No, I can't add anything. MR. LEVINE-But you can specify, or the owner can specify what's to be used. MR. CARTIER-Well, ~ aren I t going to specify anything. specify nothing be used, okay. I think you'd want to MR. LEVINE-Well, that's an alternative. MR. ROBERTS-The best available technology, W:1atever that means. MR. LEVINE-It would probably end up being sand, in that case. MR. CAlMANO-Well, in all fairness to the applicant, all the plowing from Quaker Road goes off into Halfway Brook, also. Paul, you use sand and Calcium Chloride? MR. NAYLOR-Yes, salt. So does the County. SOt those cars that use Quaker Glenwood Avenue will carry salt to the parking lot, unless you wash it before you put it in the parking lot. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, if I could just add two short points to that, one is, I think, Wiat Mr. Caimano was just saying which is, obviously, ~ 've got that up and down the length of Quaker Road, and many places Where Hal fway Brook winds and turns you've got both the County and the Town using de-icing salts. The other thing 33 --../ that Mr. Houston of the LA Group just reminded me of is that, we've met with the Department of Environmental Conservation, talking about Halfway Brook, and ran this whole scenario by them and my understanding is that they have had no trouble with it at all, correct? MR. MARTIN-Well, the Engineer's comments were enlightening, in that regard. MR. ROBERTS-Well, it begins to look as though we're looking at a State of the Art situation for stormwater management. MR. KLEIN-One other comment, at the end of Tom's comments, Mannings "n" value looked low. We were planning on using ADS Pipe which has got a lower "n" value than the corrugated metal pipe, to address that final co~nt. MR. CARTIER-For those of us, I'm but, what are we talking about? or what, here, on the pipe? probably the only one here who doesn't know this, Are we talking about laminar flow kind of stuff MR. YARMOWICH-It' s a different pipe material, which is smoother. It allows flow to move through it more easily, creating less back up and sediment and everything else. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any other engineering comments? This is a public hearing. I guess we left it open from before. Is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. ROBERTS-Have we been addressing most of your concerns, Tom, here? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. The two things that remain is the acknowledgment, by the Board, that there I s going to be some localized effects of flooding, under very severe and transient conditions and that the applicant should, if this project is approved, be granted a waiver, which is within the Board's power, from stormwater management requirements, so as to make sure that they strictly conform with things they would normally be expected to do. I think that what they've offered, here, is an adequate resolution to the stormwater issues and I feel it's justified. You ought to grant them a waiver. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder if we aren I t at the point of going through SEQRA, since we have addressed most of the major stumbling blocks, I guess we can say are being mitigated, perhaps. MR. CAlMANO-Long Form? MR. ROBERTS-I think this must be a Long Form. MR. GORALSKI-It doesn't have to be. MR. ROBERTS-It doesn't have to be? MR. SCHACHNER-But it is. MR. GORALSKI-It is, but it doesn't have to be. the Long Form, I believe. That's Wiat they submitted, was MR. CAlMANO-Are we going to do the Long Form or Short Form? MR. GORALSKI-They submitted a Long Form, is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. PUBLIC HEARIIIG CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 68-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: 34 -- WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a new shopping center, including a restaurant and drive through bank on the southwest corner of Quaker Road and Glenwood Avenue and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: Warren County DPW 3. The proposed action considered by t his Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by tha applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. HAGAN-John, didn't we answer one of the questions incorrectly? Arenlt they required to go back before the County Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-If you're asking, are other involved agencies? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County Planning Board is not a permitting agency. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-They are recommendation only and, therefore, thay are not an involved agency. Also, my understanding is, because we are using what is labeled, Plan A, on the board, Warren County Planning Board has already approved that plan. MR. CAlMANO-Is this a final approval, on this? MR. ROBERTS-It can be. MS. CORPUS-If I might just bring one thing up before the Board. Just to reiterate my letter to the Board of August 28th and, again, Paul has asked me to bring up the fact, regarding the easement that the Town of Queensbury is negotiating with the applicant around that particular area, that if the Board does reach the stage of approval, that the items listed in my letter be made conditions of that approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you know what she's talking about? MS. CORPUS-Would you like a new copy of my letter? MR. CARTIER-I don't think we have a copy in the file, do we? 35 "--' MS. CORPUS-I dispersed it at the last meeting, but I have extras. MR. ROBERTS-Well , I think we went over that, at the last meeting. MS. CORPUS-We did go over it . MR. CARTIER-In order to save time, here, John, your August 28th item, Item 3, has that been satisfactorily addressed, as far as you're concerned? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I believe so. I believe what theyl ve stated is that there will be employee parking only at the bank, near the drive through. I'd suggest that that be part of your motion, that be placed on the actual plan. MR. CAlMANO-Which one? MR. GORALSKI-Employee parking, in MR. CARTIER-How about It em 4? the parking spaces adjacent to the drive through. MR. GORALSKI-Theylve shown, I believe, on their landscaping plan, they've shown planters similar to what was done at Lake George Plaza. So, I think that's been addressed. The only other things that I would recommend is that there are some changes that were discussed today, such as actually showing the proposed signalization of Glenwood and Quaker, the change in the geometry of the entrance and exit onto Quaker Road should be shown on the plan. MR. CARTIER-Thatls not on this? MR. GORALSKI-Thatls not on that plan. MR. CAlMANO-No, it's not on this. MR. SCHACHNER-Just so we're clear, I am assuming that I am correct in understanding that we're talking about, in other words, the angles, to try to guarantee that you can I t make the left turn? MR. GORALSKI-Right, the angles, the deceleration and acceleration, the stuff that was discussed. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, good. MR. GORALSKI-And that should be, any decision should be with the understanding that Warren County DPW will have to approve those road cuts. So, that should be changed on the plan. As Karla mentioned, the easement should changed on the plan. MS. CORPUS-It's not on there. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not on any plan. MS. CORPUS-It was on your revised plan that you're no longer using. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, the applicant stated that the parking spaces next to the drive through will be controlled by signage and by a portion of the lease, that should be stated somewhere on the plan or in some kind of documentation and the erosion control measures that were asked for by the engineer should be shown on the plan and I believe if a certain type of piping is to be specified, that that should also be shown on the plan. MR. CAlMANO-Let me ask a question. Are we going to pass this thing, in everybody I s opinion, if I put a motion on the floor, contingent upon the light being there? If there's no light, there's no plan? MR. CARTIER-We've got a whole lot of other changes, here, that have to be made and filed. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but, to me, Pete, this is a situation where these changes are already well known by everyone and they are drawing changes and, again, if we can specify, correct me if I'm wrong, everybody, if we can specify these changes with a deadline date in which they have to be submitted, I don't think there are major changes in the project, but, correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm off base on this thing, let me know. 36 MR. HAGAN-Illl go along with you. MR. ROBERTS-But it certainly is contingent on the light. MR. CAlMANO-It is contingent on the light, though . MR. MARTIN-And, again, I agree, because any changes are the result of our comments and not anything that the applicantls done, since the submission date. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but I want them to approve the changes, and so does Mr. Cartier. MR. GORALSKI-What you're saying is, youlre considering approving this with the changes, the drafting changes that I just listed and, if the applicant submits that and Planning Staff and the Engineering Staff finds that all of those things are on the plan, then they won't come back to the Board. Is that what you're saying to me? MR. CAlMANO-I don't see it. MR. HAGAN-That's what he's saying, basically. MR. GORALSKI-If that's the case, I would suggest that you put some type of time limi t on this. MR. CAlMANO-I'm going to put a time limit on it. MR. GORALSKI-And the other thing is that, although you are calling for a light, I have to defer to Karla, here, they can show that light on the plan, but it's my understanding that the Town Board has to approve that light. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but what Nick is asking, if they don't, and they can't get the light, this washes the whole motion down the drain. MS. CORPUS-It can be conditioned upon t ha t. MR. GORALSKI -Well, that's ~at I want to make clear. MR. CAlMANO-That's Wiat I'm trying to get clear, too. MS. CORPUS-It's also conditioned upon the Town Board approving the easement, W:1ich is another thing that also has to be done. MR. CARTIER-The stipulation is that a light be installed at Glenwood and Quaker, that's one of the stipulations. MR. GORALSKI-Right, W:iat 11m saying is, they will not be able to have all their approvals for that in place within, say, a 30 day period. It's going to take them awhile to get all the MR. CAlMANO-All their approvals for What? MR. GORALSKI-For a light at the corner of Glenwood and Quaker. MR. CARTIER-We can stipulate all this stuff within 30 days, except the light. MR. CAlMANO-That' s correct. We have no control over the light. The only control over the light is that we Ire making this motion contingent that the light gets installed. MR. GORALSKI-The point I'm trying to make is, your Site plan Review is contingent on them put ting a light at Quaker Road and Glenwood Avenue. MR. CAlMANO-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And they cannot get you're, by saying that, you're saying they cannot get a Building Permit unless that light is installed. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Well, Or approved. I don't know if it has to be installed. 37 '----' MR. HAGAN-Or approved. It doesn't have to be installed. MR. CAlMANO-Approved. Approved. We don't control whether it's installed or not, right? MR. GORALSKI-No. I think youl re saying, you are making the Site Plan contingent on there being a light at the corner of Glenwood and Quaker. MR. ROBERTS-At some time. MR. CAlMANO-I understand what youlre saying, now. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, are you saying they can get a Building Permit and build that building and put the light up three years from now? MR. ROBERTS-No, but they could build the building and not get a, be contingent on the Certificate of Occupancy. They couldn't get a Certificate of Occupancy. MR. GORALSKI-We had a problem with Mr. Hatin holding up a Certificate of Occupancy, before. He said that Certificate of Occupancy applies to the Building Code and does not apply to these Site Plans. MS. CORPUS-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-What's your pleasure? MR. CARTIER-We can still stipulate. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, I think so. MR. CARTIER-This thing doesn I t fly until there's a light at Glenwood and, at that point, it's up to the applicant to lean on the Town Board. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, that's what we'll do. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think you can say, I think you could condition no occupancy without a traffic light or are you guys saying they can't do that? MR. GORALSKI-We've been through that before, and MR. CAlMANO-Let us worry about this. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-It seems like a reasonable way to do it. MR. CAlMANO-Letls try it and see what happens. We can always say no. NOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-90 73 QUAKER ROAD ASSOC. C/O TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN, AND PINCHUK, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For a new shopping center including a restaurant and drive through bank. A. This Site plan approval is contingent upon the installation and operation of a traffic light at the corner of Glenwood and Quaker, prior to any occupants opening for business, at the applicant's expense. B. We have the following stipulations: 1. Employee parking is to be handled as per the discussion held at the Board meeting this evening, September 25th, and the new employee parking is to be shown on drawing along with appropriate signage. 2. The ingress and egress geometry as discussed at this meeting is to be shown on the drawing from Quaker Road. These changes in the road cuts must be approved by Warren County DPW. 3. The easement letter from Karla Corpus on August 28th must be accepted by the applicant "- and the Town Board and be added to the plan. 4. Erosion control measures taken as per the Town Engineer's instructions and shown on the plan. 6. Specific piping discussed at this meeting must be shown on the plan. 7. All comments from Mr. Goralski and Mr. Yarmowich in their correspondence to the Board must be satisfactorily addressed and entered on the plan as needed. All of this must be accomplished by November 21st, 1990. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Roberts 38 ~ NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-You have a question? MR. SCHACHNER-The very first condition, or \\hichever one is about the traffic signal. There were a couple of points of it that I was just hoping we could clarify for our understanding. The two points, in particular, are, the way I understand it, the way this would work, and Mr. Levine has just talked to Mr. Naylor about this, is the applicant will contract to do the work and get the work done. I'm not sure, maybe I misunderstood, but the applicant will be able to get itls Building Permit for the whole project before the signal is built and completed. There's nothing in the condition that the requires that the signal work be done before the building commences, am I correct? MR. CAlMANO-Well, there is in this one. MR. HAGAN-But that wouldn't seem appropriate, in that you're making the applicant, you're forcing the applicant MR. MARTIN-You don't need the signal before the center is built. The purpOse for the signal is the center. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Well, partially, at least. In terms of cart and horse, it doesn't seem appropriate to require the applicant to go and layout all that money and put the signal in, prior to constructing the center. The idea of occupancy seemed reasonable, although I understand there was some reservation there, but that seems more logical. MR. GORALSKI-I can make a sug~stion. Maybe another condition of your approval would be that no tenants can open for business within this plaza until the traffic light is operational. MR. HAGAN-I have something, here, that would be a little more binding. I'm not trying to be tough on them, but how would the applicant feel to the conditions that the traffic light be installed, they agreed to have it installed, wlthin six months after start of construction? MR. CAlMANO-You can't guarantee that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Thatls likely to happen, but it seems like that subject to a lot of different vagaries. MR. MARTIN-I don't understand why, and, Karla, maybe you can shed some light on this. Making the traffic signal to be operational by the point of occupancy is not a condition of occupancy, but, merely, wa are citing a date that we want it to be operable by. MS. CORPUS-I think that John Goralski's sug~stion of the tenants open for business would be easier, from an enforcement standpoint. It would take the issue, apparently, Mr. Hatinls concern, out from underneath there. In other words, not to say that it's conditioned upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. That would not be something I would recommend. MR. MARTIN-NO, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that we I re saying, in our resolution, that the light has to be installed and operable on the date that the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. It's not a condition of it. It's just citing a date, that guarantees the light is operational when the center's operational. MR. GORALSKI-By doing that, all youl re saying is, it's got to be operational. What happens if it's not? MS. CORPUS-What happens if it isn't? MR. GORALSKI-Whereas, if you say, no tenant can open for business until that light is operational, then there's something that the Enforcement Officer can go out and say, I'm sorry, you cannot open today because your light is not operational. MR. CAlMANO-I think that IS reasonable. MR. GORALSKI-Alright. I mean, it sounds like it's a matter of semantics, but- 39 MR. MARTIN-Alright, but it seems to me, then that is making ita condition of occupancy. MS. CORPUS-No, the Certificate of Occupancy could be issued. It's just a matter of opening and operating the business. MR. CARTIER-A guy could be moving his stuff into the store, even though the light is not functioning. MR. HAGAN-Do you have a problem with that? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That was my other question, I think. What was the point you were just making? MR. ROBERTS-Installation and operation of the light. MR. CARTIER-The light will be functioning. It will be working for MR. ROBERTS-When you open for business. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. CAlMANO-Do you guys see anything ~ong with this? MR. GORALSKI-Do ~ see anything ~ong with this? MR. CAlMANO-The light. MR. GORALSKI-The light? No, not that I know of. I'm hoping that, within the time it takes to construct the building, that the light will be up and operating and this wonlt even be a concern. MR. YARMOWICH-The making of the light operational would be something the Town of Queensbury will be involved with and it will require cooperation and the applicant will have every reason to assist the Town of Queensbury in getting it operational. MR. CAlMANO-Right. NEW BUSINESS: PETITIŒ FOR A œANa: fIF ZœE P8-90 1iJ.JT IEALTY O1iHER: SAME AS ABCWE CURRENT: SR-1A PROPOSED: LI-1A OOINER OF BUI{S ROAD AND cotINn LINE ROAD TAX MAP NO. 55-2-18..1, 18..2 BRUcE LIPINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-Just by way of clarification, Item B. (referring to Staff Notes), I don't think that's correct. Itls not a big issue, but high water Table is a lot less than 72 inches down in that area, but that's neither here nor there, okay, as far as this application is concerned, I think, anyway. MR. ROBERTS-Probably not. We do have a letter from Fred Austin, maybe we should read this. Letter from Fred Austin, Warren County Superintendent, DPW, to Bruce Lipinski, attorney at law, dated April 6th, 1990 (attached) Is there someone here for the client, to make the case? MR. LIPINSKI-My name is Bruce Lipinski. I'm with the Glens Falls Law Firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes & Judge and I'm here on behalf of WJT Realty. We have various reasons, in our application, for, in support of re-zoning this property. I think they, basically, speak for themselves. In addition, we have the recommendation by the Planning Board, which is favorable. MR. cARTIER-Planning Staff, I think you mean. 40 --.-/ MR. LIPINSKI-By the Planning Staff. This addresses all the facets of the Town C~mprehen~ive L~nd Use Plan, with respect to Light Industrial areas, except for, W1.thout d1.sturb1.ng residential neighborhoods and I can assure you that there are no residential neighborhoods up there. I can point it out to you on the map if you'd like. ' MR. CARTIER-We've been there. MR. LIPINSKI-And for all these reasons, I would ask that you recommend to the Town Board to approve this re-zoning. MR. ROBERTS-How do we feel about this? MR. HAGAN-I have no problem. MR. CAlMANO-Let' s gp. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I'll entertain a motion. )lOTION TO APPROVE PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P8-90 WJT JŒALTY, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: From current zoning, Suburban Residential 1 acre, to proposed zoning of Light Industry 1 acre, at the corner of Hicks Road and County Line Road. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SUBDIVISldf NO. 10-1990 SUBDIVISIdf OIIRER: JœB C.. AND CORINTH ROAD FOR A 2 1.13 ACRES MR. ROBERTS-The next order of business is withdrawn, tonight. is off. P1ŒLIMlNARY STAGE & NANCY A. KELL'W Lax SUBDIVISIdf. TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20 KELLY SOUTHEAST OOINER OF STEPB\BIE LANE TAX MAP 110. 126-1-20..15 Lax SIZE: The Kelly Subdivision MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. It's not withdrawn. They've requested to be tabled. MR. ROBERTS-So, we need to address that. MR. GORALSKI-Apparently, they did not get the public hearing notices out and they have requested to be tabled. I would suggest that you table them to the next available agenda. HOlTON TO TABLE P1ŒLlIfiNARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1990 KELLY SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For the next available position on an agenda. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN NO. 73-90 TYPE: UNLISTED BC-IA DAVID E. WILLIAMS, SR.. O1iRER: DAVID & J(JäN WILLIAMS OOINER OF BAY ROAD AND ROUTE 149 FOR COBSTaucTlœ æ A RETAIL STORE TO SELL HEATING AND COOLING PRODUCTS AND PART AND a\.BJ>1IIARE.. (ADIRONDAQ{ PARK AGENCY) (UARBEB OOUBTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. 51-1-40 Lax SIZE: b ..85 ACDS SEClldf 4.020 (K) ELON CHAIRNEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUt Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) 41 MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved and the Queensbury Committee for Beautification approved. (Beautification Notes attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is someone here to represent this applicant? MR. CHAIRNEY-My name is Elon Chairney, Mr. Chairman. I am here with Mr. Williams and we also have somebody here from Engineering, Mr. Gasper, Dave Gasper who can answer any of the concerns that were just brought up. MR. ROBERTS-I guess the only concerns are of an engineering nature. DAVE GASPER MR. GASPER-The only concern that I could see is the test pit. You prefer another test pit in the actual location. One pit, he has fill over that second pit, so mottling, throughout the site, is 24 inches, that 113 why I didn't dig a pit further back. There's existing fill, the first 24 inches on Pit Number Two. MR. YARMOWICH-I may not have caught that. Let me quick look and see if that's, in fact, the nature of the remark. MR. ROBERTS-While you're looking for that, let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project? PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO roMMENT PUBLI C BEARING cLOSED MR. HAGAN-How much fill did you bring in on this fill, before you started? MR. GASPER-Before we even got involved, he already had four to five feet of gravel brought in to a depth of, like, 200 feet back from the street. It started out at nothing, at the st reet, and got back to about, up to about, four or five feet. On the left hand side of the lot MR. HAGAN-Yes, I know. I go by it all the time. I was wondering, Wien he was doing it, W:1y we hadn't seen the Site plan for it. MR. GASPER-We got involved when, 90 percent of the gravel was already in place when we got involved. MR. GORALSKI-Just one thing that I think Mr. Baker brought up is that it would improve the Site plan if part of that expanse of gravel would be converted to green area. I don't think the applicant would have any objection to that. It would just be grass instead of gravel. MR. GASPER-Where, in particular? I mean, most of it, right now, \\here we proposed- MR. GORALSKI-It's the area between the existing residence and the parking area, right in here. MR. GASPER-Okay, this, yes. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. GASPER-I think that was one of the conditions you just suggested in there. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. GASPER-Okay. I don't think he has a problem with doing that. The remaining, if you look at the outline of the gravel parking, as it's shown on our plan, that is, basically, the outline of the gravel, as it now exists, at the site. MR. ROBERTS-Did we get any resolution, Tom, to that test pit? 42 MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Recognizing that the test pit was taken in a fill area, the grotmdwater seems to be consistent with the response given and the septic system, as proposed, appears satisfactory. MR. HAGAN-Even with the fill that's there? MR. YARMOWICH-The fill thatls there, let me ask. The septic system's not proposed in a fill area, is that correct? MR. GASPER-No. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay, then it will be a fill system in an undisturbed area. MR. GASPER-The fill that, it I s going to be a separate fill system because he's not going to use the gravel that's currently there. Where I propose the septic system is probably 30 to 40 feet beyond the total, where he I s got his fill right now. MR. YARMOWICH-Satisfactorily addressed. MR. ROBERTS-There doesn't seem to be any real big problems, here. MR. CARTIER-I've got just a couple of quick questions. How many parking slots are required? MR. GASPER-I provided, for the retail store, one for every hundred square foot and it's 1536, so I rounded that off to 16 for the retail store and 1880 square foot of wholesale or storage and office space is one per 1,000, so that would be two and then therels four for the four employee vehicles and one for handicapped, so I think we're two over the required. MR. CARTIER-Two over. I'm glad to hear that because the problem I have with this thing is the width of the entrance, the 22 foot width, up here and you've got fences right here. Again, it's going to be a snow problem in the winter time. I'm looking for getting people off the road and in there very quickly. MR. GASPER-Okay. Would you prefer that the fences be moved back or the entrance widened? MR. CARTIER-Well, you've got to do both, in a sense, essentially, right, which is going to louse you up on these two slots, parking. MR. GASPER-Okay. Well, the only thing is, 22 is the, we designed it up to State standards. They don I t like to see wider entrances because then you get people coming in and going out and all different lanes of traffic. MR. CARTIER-Is 22 wide enough? Do you think so, even with snow? MR. GASPER-That's the State standard. MR. CARTIER-I'm happy. MR. ROBERTS-How about SEQRA. We need a Short Form SEQRA on this project? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that's right a Short Form. JŒSOLUTION WIlEN DEI'EIDHNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE JŒSOLUTION NO. 73-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application construction of a retail .tore to sell heating and cooling produu8 and and hardware for DAVID AND JOMf WILLIAMS, at the corner of Bay Road and 149, and for: part ø Route WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 43 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: The Adirondack Park Agency 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas HOrION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 73-90 DAVID E. WILLIAIIS, SR., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For construction of a retail store to sell heating and cooling products and hardware on property owned by David and Joan Williams. With the following stipulations: Gravel area between residential driveway and proposed parking be seeded with grass. 2. Planters be placed in front of the building. 3. Erosion control measures be provided in accordance wi th NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 4. The applicant submit to the Planning Department calculations to verify statements made by the applicant by Friday, October 12th. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. YARMOWICH-I'd like to ask that the, we feel that the stormwater management technique is adequate. The calculations offered were not traceable to relate to the plan, overall, and the various forms in which the calculations were given. Weld like to ask that the Board require the applicant to submit us those calculations to verify that, in a more organized format, to verify that they, that the calculations prove the particular sizing, and that a 14 day time frame, or something along those lines, be given the applicant to give me this information through the Planning Board, that will allow me to let you know by next meeting, if, in fact, the applicant hasn't been able to resolve this. MR. HAGAN-Wait a minute. The applicant also agreed to investigate a new pit, didn't you, in the actual area? MR. GASPER-I think, Tom, you're happy with the two pits that were done? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, subsurface conditions are uniform, based on the response given. MR. HAGAN-Alright. MR. GASPER-Can I ask a question. Tom, on those calculations, did you get the TR-55 or do you want something a little more? MR. YARMOWICH-I just cOuldn't put together your ground cover composition. Read the letter. Look at your calculations and call me. 44 --- MR. GASPER-Okay. SUBDIVISIŒ NO. 11-1990 SKETaI PLAII TYPE: UNLISTED Ma-5 1IIIPPLE S1IIBDIVISIOII OIiRER: IÐBERI' 1fl. WBIPPLE NORTH SIDE Œ' \iàLKER LAIIE, IlIrAR TŒ Œ' BILL FeR A SUBDIVISIœ Œ LAND IlftO 4 LCJIlS.. TAX MAP NO.. 60-7-13.5 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPID'I' Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) IINGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-What do you mean by multiple family dwelling lots (referring to Engineer Report)? We're talking single family lots, here, aren't we? MR. GORALSKI-Itls an MR-5 zone, so you can put one unit for every 5,000 square feet. MR. NACE-If I may address the Board. I could probably clear that up. For the record t my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering, representing Bob Whipple, the owner. The placement of the one building on the lot that Tom has referred to in the Engineering Comments, is not indicative of a single family dwelling. It I S indicative of trying to show, for the Planning Board, a concept phase that a unit can be placed on the lot, meeting the zoning requirements of the Town, okay. It will be a multiple family dwelling and what I had done was, I had chosen what I felt to be the most restrictive lot, as far as meeting the Zoning and Planning requirements and was trying to show you that a layout for a duplex, in this case, would fit that lot. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Doesn't the owner of these four lots also own land to the west and north of this, Where the blacktop driveway is listed? Is this part of a lar~r parcel under his ownership? MR. NACE-It was previously subdivided. I believe youl re referring to what would be Lot 13.1, okay, that's still listed in your name, Bob? BOB WHIPPLE MR. WHIPPLE-It was sold last year. MR. NACE-lt was sold last year. It, evidently, at sometime in the past, has, obviously, been subdivided because that's the way the tax map records show it and I was not aware, we just pulled the records out of the County to show the ownership. Evidently, the County's not up to date. So, that Lot 13.1, on the ownership table, there, should not be Bob Whipple. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, Wiere it shows the blacktop driveway and that other home to the west is not part of this project? MR. NACE-That is not part of this project. MR. CARTIER-Tom, itls late and my math's going to heck on me. A third of an acre, how many square feet in a third of an acre, 12,000, 13,000? MR. NACE-About 14, almost 15,000, I guess. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, 14,388. MR. NACE-Okay, and that would support a duplex. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NACE-It's 5,000 square feet per dwelling acre in the zone. MR. CARTIER-Plus, or 10,000 for a duplex. 45 --,' MR. NACE-For a duplex. Maybe I can clear something else up, also. The intent of showing a duplex on Lot One is not meant to imply that there will be duplexes on all the lots. The lots will be subject to Site Plan Review when they are developed and I canl t speak for, either the present owner or, maybe, future owner of those lots, as to what they would build. MR. CARTIER-Well, they're going to be subject to Site Plan Review, if somebody COmes in with a duplex application. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, not for single fæmily. MR. CARTIER-If they're a single fæmily, we won't see them again. MR. NACE-Okay, right, but I'm not implying that it might only be a duplex. It maybe a three plex or a four plex if the lot will support it and those, obviously, w:>uld be reviewed by the Board. MR. MARTIN-Well, Wien I was up there, I noticed that it sort of slopes down into what appeared to be a low point, at what would be the southeastern corner of the property and I'm not Øure that that low point may be off. MR. NACE-I believe that low point, the swamp area that you're referring to iø actually off the site. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. MR. NACE-As you can see thiø topo, the topo here is a relatively decent slope. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. NACE-And you're on up that. When it gets swampy, it's fairly flat down on the bottom, there, that's beyond the property. If I might, maybe I can addresø some of the other comments. The Planning Department commentø, regarding øtormwater runoff. It will be handled by drywells. The recommendation, regarding øpecific layouts and clearing planø. It is the present owner'ø intent that if he maintains ownership of all the lots, that they would be developed as multiple fæmily units. Therefore, I would not intend to show development planø, at thiø Subdivision Stage, for each lot. It would be preøumptuous, on my part, and even on the owner'ø part, at this point, to say, exactly, What he' ø going to be developing in the future. For instance, if øewers becæme available before he developed some of the larger lotø, they might support the maximum number of units that zoning would permit, but if sewers aren't available at that øtage of the gæme, he may have to reduce the m.unber of units to what on øite sewage will support. So, I really can't say. What I've tried to do iø take the moøt reøtrictive lot and show you that, for that lot, a development plan is feasible. The other commentø, from engineering, the subsurface disposal suitability would, of courøe, be demonstrated at Preliminary Stage. We'll have to have perc tests and deøign for the on site øystems. Comment Two is really not applicable becauøe it's not intended to show that that lot is going to be developed at Subdivision Stage. That will be coming back before you, at Site Plan Review, and the culvert sizing calculations, I can provide preliminary øizing calculationø, but it would, again, depend upon the actual development of the siteø. In fact, along the rOad, moøt of the runoff will be coming from off site. So, I can give you calculations that would be relative to that, here. MR. ROBERTS-Well, we do not have a public hearing on this and it's a little early for SEQRA. Do you have any further questions at this Sketch Plan Stage or does this look feasible? MR. CARTIER-I don't have any questions. MR. ROBERTS-Apparently, Staff thinks itls feasible and it looks like we can go on to Preliminary, after we make a motion for this one. !lOTION TO APPROVE Introduced by Peter Caimano: SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. Cartier Wio moved for its 11-1990 adoption, WHIPPLE seconded SUBDIVISION, by Nicholas Any concernØ raiøed by Staff appear to have been addresøed or will be addressed at Preliminary application. Duly adopted thiø 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts 46 '-- -..-/ NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Just one comment. You I ve got the SEQRA application in with Sketch. You're not ~ing to change that, are you, at Preliminary? MR. NACE-No, that's the Short Form. MR. CARTIER-So, we're ~ing to hang on to it, okay. SITE PLAN 110. 74-90 nPE: UNLISTED BC-1A IIONALD N. JEQŒL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9 s LAKE GEO~ ROAD AT JECKEL AND SONS HONDA FOR OOIlSTRUCTION OF AN AUTOMarIVE BOOW REPAIR AND PAINT BUSINESS. (WADER OOUHTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 73-1-11.3 Lar SIZE: 14,420 ACRES SECTIQR 4.020 (K) DAVE KLEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved and the DOT concurs with the Planning Board being lead agency and the Fire Marshal request that, "For proper review by this office, the applicant must completely fill out the Hazardous Materials Report Form per the printed instructions", and the Committee for Community Beautification approved (Report attached). MR. ROBERTS-Well, in your first paragraph, you say he intends to subdivide this property into four lots. We're dealing with just the Site Plan, now, and a portion of this Subdivision is coming later, or? MR. GORALSKI-We have an application in our office, currently, for a Sketch Plan for October's meeting. MR. CAlMANO-Putting the chicken before the egg or the horse before the cart or something, here? MR. KLEIN-I'm Dave Klein, North Country Engineering. The applicant, Ron Jecke1, Mark David, and Tom Stimpson are ~ing to be the owners of this commercial property and we have John Oakley, here, from Crandall Associates, Who's going to be the architect on the project. We plan on, we'd like to break ground as soon as possible, that's Wiy we're coming forward, right now, with the commercial Site Plan Review, and following up. MR. CAlMANO-Let' s go back to the original que stion. Do we have the cart before the horse? MR. KLEIN-No. MR. YARMOWICH-I think the issues of water supply from a public main would have to be addressed and the status of any right-of-way, Wherein, a Town water extension would have to be provided. The green area requirements may be drastically effected by a subdivision of this property because of the large green area in the back, Which is part of this current Site Plan Review application. I think that, in answer to your question, Nick, unless there's some real tight answers, right now, \\(I uld say, ye s. MR. CARTIER-Yes, we just had this last week. We need to see a subdivision process gone through and up to final, then we can start looking at site plans for this site. MR. KLEIN-We discussed this, intensely, with Pat Collard and Lee YOrk and it was upon their recommendations we came forward with the site plan review. We told them we wanted to break the ground. The only reason we're subdividing this property, at this time, is for the bank. The bank wants a separate deeded MR. CARTIER-Mr. Klein, it's bad planning process for a Planning Board to look at a site plan review on a piece of property that's about to be subdivided. I understand your concerns. I understand the fact that you've had conversations with Staff, but I don't, I think Nick and I are on the same wavelength, here. I'm not about to approve a site plan that, as Tom points out, might lock in or lock out some decisions, with regard to the subdivision. 47 "---' ~ MR. CAlMANO-I don't see how he can do that. MR. CARTIER-I think we need to look at a subdivision before we do this. MR. CAlMANO-John, do you have any comments regarding the Planning Department? MR. GORALSKI-I have not considered this Site Plan based on the Subdivision. To be honest with you, I haven't had a chance to really look at the Subdivision. Tom mentions that the green area may be a problem. Certainly, by approving another building on this site, it's going to limit your options, as far as the Subdivision is concerned. MR. CARTIER-We can't do what we did last week, at the last meeting, and then turn around and reverse that at this meeting. I don't think. I think we're crazy if we do something like that. It would be establishing incredible problems for ourselves because if we do that, we're going to see that over and over again. MR. KLEIN-If we cancel the subdivision, withdraw our application for the subdivision? MR. CARTIER-Let's not play games here. The fact of the matter is, it has been made known to this Board that a subdivision is in the process of making it's way through the approval thing. I'm not going to play those kinds of games with you, Mr. Klein. As far as I'm concerned, this thing is subject to, it's in the hopper, it's subject to subdivision review. I'm not going to look at this, in terms of site plan, so let's not play games with each other about withdrawing a subdivision and then turning around and re-submitting it. MR. KLEIN-Well, the application, as it sits right now, meets all your zoning requirements, as I understand. MS. CORPUS-Excuse me. If I might address the Board for a moment. I believe that, in this particular instance, because the site plan is before the Board, the Board will have to consider it, in one manner or another, and impose any conditions the Board may see fit, but if the Board does not consider this site plan wi thin the time frame set wi thin the Zoning Ordinance, and no action is taken by the Board, the plan is automatically approved. MR. CARTIER-I hear what you're saying. What we're talking about is, either the applicant withdraws this application or, in terms of what we're talking about, we disapprove it, simply because we haven I t looked at it in terms of subdivision, yet, or we table it. Can we table it, subject to subdivision approval? Then welve got a time clock problem, donlt we. RON JECKEL MR. JECKEL-May I address this issue? I'm Ron Jeckel, the owner of the property. At the onset of this project, I had no desire or interest to subdivide, so I had an ulterior motive to subdivide. I was told that we had to subdivide to get approval of the site plan and that's how that went through. MR. cARTIER-That's correct. MR. JECKEL-I don't know why I had to even subdivide. MR. ROBERTS-Why is that correct? He was just building another MR. JECKEL-I don't know, to answer the question about what comes first, the cart or the horse, here. MR. ROBERTS-He didnlt need to subdivide to add a body shop to his operation. MS. CORPUS -Mr. Jeckel, required to subdivide. can I ask a question. I think I might know why you're Are you mortgaging only a parcel, a piece of this parcel? MR. JECKEL-That is correct. MS. CORPUS-Okay. I have been made aware of, there are one or two bank attorneys in Town, Who will not allow the bank to take out a mortgage on a part of a parcel wi thout it going through subdivision approval and that is a determination of the bank attorney. In the past, having worked wi th several banks, they d idn' t have a problem with that, but, apparently, there's been some problem, in the event therels a foreclosure, the bank has a problem. The bank cannot sell that property, as it has not been legally subdivided, in case it's foreclosed. 48 --. -. MR. HAGAN-Who said the bank is financing it, though? MR. JECKEL-A bank is financing it. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MS. CORPUS-I have some familiarity with this. I didn't realize it was this application. Pat Collard did come before me with a question. I didn't know it had anything to do with this. MR. CAlMANO-And the answer to her question was, ~at? MS. CORPUS-She had asked me a question, with regard to a letter from a bank attorney, stating that the bank attorney would not be able to approve a mortgage unless, on a part of a parcel, unless it was legally subdivided because they had a problem and I deduced the problem was because, in a foreclosure proceeding, the bank is stuck. It canlt sell the property, without it being legally subdivided. It's stuck with a property that it can't use. MR. JECKEL-I think you're correct there. MS. CORPUS-I don't know the applicant. MR. CARTIER-I understand everything you Ive said, we're getting financial connections among banks planning process. I think. The problem and cl ients tied up is, into now the MS. CORPUS-The applicant does have the option to mortgage the whole parcel. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-I mean, ~ don't have to get involved with that, but I think that that is the background to why he's MR. CARTIER-I don't mean to suggest that anything shady's going on, here, but, from a planning perspective, this drives me crazy. MR. CAlMANO-No. I have two concerns. One, Ron, to be very honest with you, is the concern that we addressed. Normally, the normal way is, the subdivision comes first, then the parcel. We don't do it any other way. We can't do it any other way, but the second thing is, has the applicant been misled, somehow, by either erroneous or cross information and, if so, then I think that we should, I'm not saying that we're going to take this up, tonight, and approve it without subdivision, that's not the case. 11m saying that's a mitigation, to me, to get this back out here, as quickly as possible, for approval, if, in fact, the people in the Town, with no malice or forethought, have misled the applicant. MR. JECKEL-Well, that was the only reason that it was being planned as a subdivision, because I'm not looking to subdivide the back, anyway. MR. CAlMANO-You understand the banks are making us do it? MR. JECKEL-I understand that, yes. MR. KLEIN-We've been up front with the Planning people. MR. CARTIER-I understand all that, Mr. Klein, and I sympathize with the situation youlre in. The problem is, if we do it for you, how do we turn around and say no to somebody else and we just went through that last week. We said no to somebody. It seems like a very minor point, to you, that we're talking Planning Board procedure, here, but it's very important, to me, because we have to establish and maintain some kind of consistency, ignoring the hobgoblins and all that kind of stuff, in terms of how we do things. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, now, ~at can we do? John, you had something to say? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I just want to step back, you know, it's been said that the Planning Department said yes, you can do it this way. In fact, there is nothing in the Ordinance that says you can't do it this way, okay. Now, if the Planning Board wants to, you know, I understand your concerns and they're valid concerns and they make sense and if you want to establish the policy that you're speaking of, that's up to you. 49 '-- ---'" MR. CARTIER-John, as far as I 1m concerned, we established the policy last week. This is an old issue. This has come up alréady. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I know, but what I'm saying is, this item was already on the agenda. I couldnlt take it off the agenda, simply because of the way you MR. CARTIER-I understand that and I'm not suggesting anything. I think the policy's already there. We established that last week. We don't look at a site plan and something that's about to undergo subdivision approval. MR. HAGAN-Okay, but, here, Peter, I'm just looking at an application, and it says a site plan review for construction of an automotive body repair and paint business. Thatls all, I think, we're being asked to concern ourselves with. MR. CARTIER-You're correct. MR. HAGAN-Okay, now, if we approve that, fine. He has the approval to build that, but if he runs into trouble in financing or with the bank Or with the legal departments to the bank, Wiere they don't want to take it, that's his problem. Then he's gpt to come back and get the site plan for the subdivision. MR. JECKEL-That's correct. MR. HAGAN-So, I don't see why we just don't act on this and this alone. The rest is the applicant's problem, not ours. We have enough problems. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it is our problem, Jim. MR. HAGAN-Not if we only take it that far. MR. CARTIER-It is our problem because we are doing something backwards. We're approving an individual site plan on something that is gping, and is known to us, thatls gping to become part of a subdivision. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but I don't see any subdivision before us. Now, he's gping to have a problem when he gets this approval. MR. CARTIER-Alright. Let me ask you this. Why didn't we do this last week, for Tom Nace down in the Industrial Park? How does this differ from the Industrial Park. We went through the same routine down there. They were in with two site plans. We said no because this is part of the subdivision and we said youl re- MR. HAGAN-That's right, but he's only gpt one. MR. CAlMANO-Well, let me answer your question, specifically. What happens, in that case, correct me if I'm wrong, you w.erenlt there, but Karla was. The two site plans, the individual site plans, were demonstratively changed by a change in the subdivision, that's Why we had to back off of it. MS. CORPUS-Right. The site plans that were presented before the Board were no longer valid and that's What happened. MR. cAlMANO-They weren't valid. MR. ROBERTS-And he actually withdrew them because they were going to be altered. MS. CORPUS-They -were contingent upon those lots being subdivided into smaller lots and finding that those lots were nonconforming. MR. CARTIER-Is this Board prepared to go through a site plan approval process for anybody who comes in, from this point on, knowing that that individual site plan is also going to be subject, at some future time, to a subdivision approval process? MR. cAlMANO-No. MR. ROBERTS-Aren I t we making hard work out of this. I mean, we thought this would be simple. Ron was just going to add a body shop to his operation back there. MR. cARTIER-It's not the body shop, Dick, that 11m concerned about. MR. HAGAN-And, as far as I'm concerned, that's all he's going to do because, before he can change anything on the tax map and change it to an individual site, he's got to cOme back and get an approval. 50 -.-' MR. CARTIER-It has nothing to do with whether he's building a body shop or the Taj Maha1. What it has to do with is planning procedure and my question still stands. If we do this for this applicant, are we prepared to do this for every single other applicant? MR. HAGAN-You show me where we're doing it. You're reading between lines, Peter. Show me where it calls for a subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Show you where it calls for, what? MR. HAGAN-Where this site plan calls for a subdivision. I don't see it. MR. CARTIER-I am aware of the fact that you and I don't see it on there, but, as far as I'm concerned, it is Board knowledge, now, that this thing is going to be subject to a subdivision. MR. HAGAN-Okay, let me take a di~ferent scenario, to prove a point. The only reason he'd have to get a subdivision is if he had to mortgage this through the bank. Supposing I go up to him and say, hey, to hell with the bank, I'll mortgage it for you. I don't care, because I know youlre going to be good for the payments. 11m just supposing and he says, okay. He gets the approval to build and he builds it. He doesnlt have to subdivide. MR. CARTIER-What is the Planning Board doing getting tangled up in the financial arrangements of an applicant? MR. HAGAN-Now you said it. You I re getting involved in the financial things, not me. 11m just bringing up a scenario and you fell into my trap. MR. CARTIER-l don't understand that. MR. ROBERTS-Well, it seems like this is nit picking, to me. It seems to me we ought to address it as a site plan. Let the chips fall where they may, later. MR. HAGAN-I'm looking at a site plan for a building, not a subdivision. MR. CARTIER-I'm looking at Planning Board procedure. MR. HAGAN-But it IS not there, yet. MR. KLEIN-If we have problems with the subdivision, later on, that's got to be our responsibility. MR. JECKEL-We just need an okay that we can go ahead and the subdivision wouldn It be a problem and the bank would give us the money. MR. KLEIN-Well, they can't commit to that, tonight, that's not in front of them. MR. CARTIER-That's right. MR. JECKEL-I know, that's what I'm saying, that's the only reason this is happening. MR. YARMOWICH-Have you no idea, from the comments that were made about green space and water line, that the subdivision would or would not be a problem? MR. KLEIN-Green space, there's plenty of green space on the property on the property. We checked the permeability of all four lots. We checked the setbacks on all four lots. We've got almost 15 acres, there, we're going to put into four lots. We're providing room for a road, now. We 1 re using the road, the Town standards. We're proposing they use the winged, I've got the subdivision plans, here, if you want to look at them, but I know itls not in front of you. MR. HAGAN-You're crazy if you bring them up, because then you are going to be turned down. MR. CARTIER-Well, I've said my peace. this thing. I won I t say anymore. Letl s get on with MR. MARTIN-I'm very sympathetic to Peter's appreciation for Planning practice and procedure and a lot of that is true, but the fact still remains that you cannot bring into playa future event on a current action. You just, technically, cannot 51 ~ do it. You have no basis to make that determination, although it is, technically, hearsay. MS. CORPUS-I think that Mr. Martin has a point, in that, the last time we did have before us, all three. The Board had before it all three at once. There was no conjecture. In essence, I think the Board is sort of in the reverse position, this time, w.herein the subdivision will be contingent upon whatever approvals the site plan has and that subdivision will have to contend with, if the Board approves, Wtatever the Board approves, at this point, rather than the other way around, Wierein, the site plans were contingent upon the subdivisions because it was changing the perimeter and diameter of lots, but, in any case, it was before the Board. The Board had to deal with it at that time. I see a legal problem, in that, if every time someone comes before the Board with a large lot and the Board sets a precedent and the Board will have to ask each applicant, in the future, sometime, will you be prepared to subdivide this lot. MR. CARTIER-No, this is different, Karla. MR. CAlMANO-We know they're going to go. MR. CARTIER-Yes, wa know this is coming in next month and I understand what you're saying, but, as far as I'm concerned, wall, live said my peace. MR. CAlMANO -Let's go on with it and see where we go. MR. GORALSKI-I guess, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to make one point. I think therels a valid concern, in that, you don't want to have your hands tied, w.hen it comes to the subdivision. You don't want to have the applicant say, wall, you approved that building, there, now you have to approve this subdivision based on that building. MR. ROBERTS-We donlt have to do any such thing. MR. GORALSKI-Right. What I want to say is, just because he comes in with a four lot subdivision, based on the location of that building, doesn't mean you have to approve that, okay. You can say, look, you wanted that building there, wa just approved it. Now, maybe you can only have three lots, because of where you put that building. MR. MARTIN-Once we approve the location of that, if we were to approve the location of this building, according to a site plan, it's on his, the responsibility is then his. If he wants to subdivide, he has to do it as if that building was there, bricks and mortar. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MARTIN-If he can't do it, then, like you say, he's limited, then, to a three or two lot subdivision. MR. ROBERTS-The question is, w.hat subdivision? We don't have a subdivision before us. Let's look at the site plan. MR. MARTIN-Right. It's, technically, engineering comments on this? Tom, wa we? hearsay. Letls see. Did didnlt read your comments we g.e t on this, the did MR. YARMOWlCH-No, that's correct. ENGINEER BEPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Dave can you, I guess some of these comments I don't understand, maybe you do. MR. KLEIN-I'm going to start wi th John's comment. Item Number Four is the handicapped pedestrian access. We'll be happy to move that closer to the building. rill have to do something with the relocating of the ramp, getting the wheelchairs into the building. Also, the Fire Marshal indicated that no building can start until he receives the Material Data Sheet. I think we submitted one. Mark may be able to add to that. MARK DAVID 52 '---' MR. DAVID-My name is Mark David. I called Fire Marshal Bodenwiser up and he came up and I spoke to him at length and he told me, because the building was not a finished entity yet, that I could fill out the Data Sheet as much as possible and then, once the building was done, I could re-submit where the hazardous waste materials were going to be, if any at all. He told me that would be okay. MR. ROBERTS-Whatever Bodie says, I guess. MR. YARMOWICH-How can you do SEQRA without it? MR. CAlMANO-We couldn't get through the SEQRA. MR. GORALSKI-I think we should at least have a list of what materials are going to be stored. You must have some idea of what materials are going to be stored and what the amounts are. MR. JECKEL-We don't have an exact list, but I'm sure Tom Stimpson could elaborate. MR. CAlMANO-Wait a minute. Youl re going to go into the autobody business and you, and the autobody business has been around forever and you don't know what articles are going in there? Why do I feel like this project has been done on a hodge podge basis, here, all the way around. What's gPing on, here? MR. KLEIN-I don't know what, I've never been in the autobody business. Mr. Stimpson's been in the autobody business for many years. He'll be able to give you a good idea of what's going to be stored there. What kind of materials are going to be used. TOM STIMPSON MR. STIMPSON-Tom Stimpson. What will be stored is lacquer thinner, only in a 55 gallon drtml, \\hich Mr. Bodenwiser said is not a big quantity and that's about the only thing that will be stored, except for paint with a gallon can that is used on each job. Hazardous waste is drawn away by a company. MR. JECKEL-We're going to have them dry clean up in the shop, itself. MR. CAlMANO-No styrene, no, \\hat? MR. JECKEL-Oils, things like that. MR. CAlMANO-What do you use for lay up, with? What's the chemicals for laying up? MR. YARMOWICH-Fiber glass resins, polyesters. MR. STIMPSON-Body fill, yes. MR. CAlMANO-Youlre the chemist. You ask him what should be in there. MR. CARTIER-I got lost. What are we talking about? MR. CAlMANO-The stuff that's going to be in this building. MR. CARTIER-Are we talking about the letter from Mr. Bodenwiser? MR. ROBERTS- Yes. MR. CARTIER-He wants a Hazardous Materials Report Form and you're saying we don't need one? Is that the essence of the thing? MR. KLEIN-No, 11m saying welre going to provide one, but not tonight. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. KLEIN-We I re going to provide it before we occupy the building. reasonable? Is that MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would prefer that it at least be submitted before you get a building permit. MR. KLEIN-That's no problem. 53 "-" '-./ MR. GORALSKI-I mean, the point of getting that is that it can be reviewed by the Fire Marshal, by the fire department and that any concerns that they have can be addressed before you build the building. MR. JECKEL-That' s what Mark David was trying to explain, that Bill Bodenwiser wanted and we were going to fill it out to the best of our ability, now, because paints will not be stored in large volume. They'll be purchased on the job, because you never know what paint you're going to be using. So, a quantity is used and the balance remaining, left in a small can, is disposed of. So, there won't be new paints stored in large volume. There'll be the solvents that are used to thin, clean up solvents in small quantities and, When they're used, they're collected in a container and theyl re taken away by an approved, State disposal group, as they are in all body shops and are required to be so. They will not be dumped in any of our drains because that's illegal, but, by name, wa just don't know. We can give you brand names and we can give you rough amounts, but we don't know the volume of the business, at this time, so we could label, identify, the actual materials that would be used, but not in exact quantities. That's what we would be doing, once we got up and started to run. MR. ROBERTS-I guess we just need some kind of narrative to that effect, or fill out MR. MARTIN-Report to the best of their ability, at this point. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. KLEIN-(brrect me if I'm wrong, John. That takes care of all your comments, except for the engineering comments? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I believe so. MR. KLEIN-Okay. Item Number One of Rist-Frost I s comments, "Detailed calculations should be provided to back up the stormwater management report", wa provided a report with a narrative calculation. I have, tonight, available, numerical calculations that coincide with the narrative calculations that were already provided. One thing that I was curious, Tom. You're saying that the infiltration rates are different than those identified. We had two perc tests run one. One Was in the shallow layer, Where we were in a sandy loam, Which has got a percolation of about nine minutes, as I recall and then we had a deeper percolation test run, Which is in a sandy gravel, Wiich has got a minute percolation, somewhere in there. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me stop you, Dave, for just a minute. One minute per inch, equates to 300 gallons per day, per square foot. You're presumptions are 2,000 to 5,000. MR. KLEIN-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And nine minutes per inch equates to 33 gallons per day, per square foot. These are irreconcilable by just saying, wa did the test. Therel s a major discrepancy, here, and you're going to have to take a look at it, reserve comment, you know, before we make any further comment. Do you understand, thatls the nature of the problem and the calculation? MR. KLEIN-Well, that's why I was asking the question. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. KLEIN-So, you're saying that if we use the one minute per inch, you're looking at an infiltration rate of 2,000? MR. YARMOWICH-No, if you do the calculations and convert one minute per inch, it gives you the equivalent of loading 300 gallons per day per square foot and youlre finding an upper stratum percolation rate which is one ninth that per about 33 gallons per minute per square foot. MR. KLEIN-Right. We're going to be disposing in the better soil. MR. YARMOWICH-It's still a mile away. MR. KLEIN-Okay. inch? So, What is the application rate you're looking for, with one 54 '-- ~ MR. YARMOWICH-Why don't you take your perc test data and design a stormwater system that meets that application rate, Dave. MR. KLEIN-Well, I thought we did. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, you didn't. MR. KLEIN-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Well, we know we've got good soils to work with up there. This can be accomplished I'm sure. MR. YARMOWICH-It may be. The magnitude and the type of stormwater system may be entirely different. We're looking at a lot of parking lot. It's not a small area that's being dealt with. MR. KLEIN-We're only dealing with the autobody shop. MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. It's still quite a bit of area, close to an acre. MR. KLEIN-Close to an acre? I don't know. I don't the number, off hand. MR. YARMOWICH-Youlre stating .878 acres, in your calculations. MR. JECKEL-.878 acres? I'm sure that includes the roof area, also, which we're taking to the drywell. I was under the impression that the drywells were very conservatively designed. We'll take another look at that. Item Number Two, we should identify the location of perc test, I realize we have both perc tests labeled Number Two and the same thing with the test pits. We can correct that on the drawings. Item Number Three regards the disposal system. We designed it in accord ance with DEC stand ards, assuming an application rate of 15 gallons per person per day, loading. We took that out of office space. We were planning on having 10 employees, maximum, and thatl s where we got the 150 gallons per day. You say that looks light. We have several alternatives. We have the room to add another, well, first off, we've got, actually, the capacity for 180, with the two lines we've got. We could add another line which could increase the capacity to 271 gallons per day. We could use the area we left in reserve, and that would increase it up to 542 gallons per day. We just want to know some criteria that, what you would like to see. MR. YARMOWICH-I' d like to see some information relating to a previous business that this particular proprietor has got that, maybe, was a metered service that you could use to really justify what it is youl re going to design for. Is that possible? MR. KLEIN-No, they had a septic system, also. MR. YARMOWICH-Was that metered water service? I mean, I think that's a definitive way and 11m giving you that suggestion, to make it very clear what you can use. MR. JECKEL-The main building, do you mean? MR. YARMOWICH-No, I'm talking about an autobody, solely, an autobody operation. MR. KLEIN-I don't think that's a possibility, but what we could do is increase the usage to 25 gallons a day, which is the usage for a factory type situation, 25 gallons per day, per employee, that, at least, gives us some criteria to go by. MR. ROBERTS-Youlre saying there aren't any normal standards for body shops? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, What I'm alluding to is the fact that these employees are constantly working with materials and their hands. They're changing materials, constantly, at which time they'll often go and use the facilities between use of different materials. To me, that indicates that it's going to be a relatively high use per employee, in contrast to what our typical stand ards, which may be for an office or a retail establishment. MR. KLEIN-Can we double the standards for an office? Is that something reasonable? MR. YARMOWICH-An office? 55 0,---, - MR. KLEIN- Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-No. I don't think this parallels an office, that was the point. I think it seems low, in view of the nature of the business being conducted, here. MR. KLEIN-But if we cri teria to go by. gallons per day was to give you whatever doubled them, or tripled them, at least it would give us some We can give you whatever youl d like to see. We thought 150 going to be adequate. Obviously, you don't, so we're willing you'd like to see. MR. YARMOWICH-It I S my preference, as I stated, that the best method is to obtain actual consumption data for a particular establishment of this type. If the applicant doesn't have that to offer, I think they ought to indicate what they feel is appropriate. I mean, I don't know what gPes on in the autobody establishment. MR. KLEIN-What's appropriate? than adequate. I would think 25 gallons per day would be more MR. YARMOWICH-Maybe the proprietor would like to stand up and characterize what an employee goes through, in a typical day, and you can assess that for us, and give us a sug~stion. MR. JECKEL-I think we could, possibly, use the operating garage, now, \\here we have, approximately, eight men back there working on cars, \\hich is a dirty business, and they do wash their hands. We do have a technician lounge there, for that purpose and our water is metered. MR. YARMOWICH-That's a good idea, Ron. We'd like to see that information. MR. JECKEL-Would that be snmething that you could parallel? MR. yARMOWICH-I think it helps a lot in this situation, yes. MR. JECKEL-I did have a body shop, before, anticipating, here and, from my experience, of water consumption on a per person basis. Wiich was smaller than what we're it's certainly not more, in terms MR. YARMOWICH-More than the mechanics? MR. JECKEL-Than the technician situation that we operate with, now, as far as mechanics are concerned. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Thank you. That's an opinion based on experience and I find that valuable in evaluating this. MR. JECKEL-Okay. MR. KLEIN-Item Number 4, they're asking for an erosion control plan. We have a fairly flat site with very gPod permeability, right now. We will be happy to put a silt screen around it, if that's what Rist-Frost is looking for. weld much prefer to handle any erosion problems that come up during construction, on site. MR. ROBERTS-I can't imagine many erosion problems on that site. that's gPing to be terribly applicable. I don't think MR. KLEIN-And, again, itls a different title block than we're normally use to using and it didn't have a spot for scales. So, weill put the scale on the drawing. We'd be happy to. Is there anything else that the Board has a question on? MR. ROBERTS-Let me open the public hearing? Is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project? P1IIBLIC BEARING OPINED NO CX>MMINT PUBLIC BEARING (1.0SEÐ MR. ROBERTS-Do we find irreconcilable differences, here, that can't be cleared up, or shall we gO through the SEQRA? I guess we do need to look at SEQRA, on this . 56 '- --- MR. CAlMANO-Short Form? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Before you go too much further, I just want to check one more, this is just my opinion, that these engineering comments appear to be significant. MR. CAlMANO-That's what I think, too. MR. GORALSKI-And I don't want you to get into a position where you're going to be answering questions to SEQRA, When the design of this stormwater system and the sewage disposal system may change, based on this new information. MR. ROBERTS-Well, is it the feeling of the Board we need to table this for additional information? MR. cAlMANO-Yes, because the problem is, if we give the SEQRA, it might get positive, because the answers arenlt there, and then he's in worse trouble then if we just put it off and he answers the questions. MR. ROBERTS-True. We seem to have come up short with too many unanswered questions, I guess, as far as some of this engineering design is concerned. MR. KLEIN-It looks like there's two calculations, Item Number One, and the We'll be happy to adjust the design to as a solution, if they're happy with it. major things. There's the stormwater Item Number Three, the disposal system. whatever Rist-Frost and we come up with, MR. HAGAN-And, again, we can't do that. MR. ROBERTS-11m sure you would be happy to make those adjustments, but we're supposed to be responding to your design, and not designing your project and where the engineering falls short, weld really like to see it done properly, up front. We don't very often approve things" subject to a whole lot of changes. I guess it's the feeling of most of the people and Staff, that we're talking about possible substantive changes in redesign of some systems that could effect our SEQRA Review, as Nick has said. MR. JECKEL-Is it design or is it the capacity welre talking about? MR. KLEIN-I think it's the capacity. My thoughts were that the stormwater was adequate. It was well oversized, even if the application rate was wrong, and the capacity of the septic system, we can add a line, tonight, if thatls, you know, subject to cOming up, Ron can check his water bills, tomorrow and find out if that's adequate. MR. ROBERTS-Well, \\hen our Engineer is not comfortable and Staff is not comfortable, we rely on recommendations from these folks. MR. JECKEL-Well, one thing, let I s get to definition, here. Are we talking about design, per se, or are we talking about capacity.£f the design, in which case, if we I re talking about capacity of the design, ~'re asking for your numbers. What do we want? Design is not bad, I don't believe. I think we can agree on that, but if the numbers are not meeting your criteria, we can get the water check. The design of the system is there. I don't think you're going to argue over the design because it's going by approved standards for the State. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me stop you. I can answer your question. Yes, your remarks are characteristic of what the situation is, at hand. It's not a design. Itls conditions that you have out there, from the day that you're presented, indicate that there are design methods that you can use and I'm satisfied that, with the site that you have there, you can develop a design. I think the Board should understand that. It's important that the Board be comfortable for the purposes of their SEQRA Review, that, in fact, you've demonstrated it adequately and satisfied them. I know that it's not a difficult site. I'm not comfortable with the way in which youl ve presented the design criteria which you're designing the system. So, the underlying information about the site and the types of use, suggest that the site can support that. MR. KLEIN-It's a capacity problem. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. It's a capacity issue. 57 ~ '-' MR. JECKEL-Okay, well, thatls not the design. MR. YARMOWICH-The question is, does it require a re-sizing of the project and, if it does require a re-sizing of the project, it constitutes a change. MR. ROBERTS-And you don't have those answers? MR. YARMOWICH-At this point, I don't see, you know, those answers have not been given, here, precisely, because I thought that the comments were descriptive of the concerns. MR. JECKEL-Well, could that become an engineering contingency? MR. GORALSKI-The problem is the SEQRA Review, State Environmental Quality Review Act, in that, the Board has to make a determination, that, based on what they approve, there will be no environmental impact. I just want the Board to be clear on that because, as you know, there are other applications that there were engineering comments that were made and there was negative declarations that were made and then the engineering comments came back to haunt us and that's why I'm concerned. MR. KLEIN-This is not a difficult site. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that's the thing about it. Unfortunately, apparently, you didn't do it. We know this site, it can be done. It puts US on the horns of a dilemma. MR. HAGAN-Plus, you have some additions to make to your drawings. MR. MARTIN-To take that one step further, When those engineering concerns were a problem, WilS it a concern with the design itself, or was it a concern with, the design was adequate, but the capacities were the issue? MR. YARMOWICH-The capacity is the issue and whether or not the systems proposed are suitable for the project as proposed, not for the site that exists. MR. MARTIN-Right, I'm talking about the other ones, we had problems, before, it seemed to be the design was not. MR. cAlMANO-No, he was talking about the other projects that we MR. MARTIN-It seems like the design's been the sticking issue, not the MR. YARMOWICH-It was both, in the case of previous experience. MR. ROBERTS-Well, this, we know the design will work. We're just arguing flows. MR. MARTIN-Numbers, yes. MR. ROBERTS-Numbers., Wiich we seem to already have a solution for. Well, as you know, I would probably tend to be more lenient on this kind of a thing then some of the rest of you, so we've gOt to see which way you're willing to go. MR. cAlMANO-Well, we can try the SEQRA Review. MR. ROBERTS-We know itls not a difficult site to work with. It certainly can be accomplished. MR. KLEIN-There's no water around, to be effected, no streams, no low land. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, maybe, possibly, too good would be your problem. I don't know. Do you want to give these a try? Is there a chance or what? MR. HAGAN-Before you start, because if we start and we get hung up in the middle of it, we're shot. We're wasting out time, and one of the things that I didn't hear anything about is air pollution. You mentioned all the items that are going to be used in the paint shop. Now, I didn't hear anything about adequate ventilation, any of that. MR. cAlMANO-Yes, Stimpson said he was going to draw it all off and I assume he has air cleaners. Didn't you say that, Tom? MR. STIMPSON-Yes. MR. JECKEL-Yes, well there's a paint booth that will be purchased that has an air system, an air infiltration system and an air exhalation system. 58 ~ 0-"'; MR. HAGAN-Have you reviewed that to see if it's adequate? MR. YARMOWICH-We' ve not seen any information about the design of the building and it's area, in terms of it being a negative pressure environment. MR. HAGAN-Well, okay, then you canlt hold a SEQRA Review, then. MR. ROBERTS-Well, these are kind of standard, I think. We I ve seen one of them just recently. MR. HAGAN-Not unless you want to come up with a positive impact and then you'll have to go through the whole course for an idiotic review. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's a point that Nick made. MS. CORPUS-If I might make a recommendation. In this case, going through the SEQRA Review, the Board certainly has that, can do that. I would say that the Board should do that, if you determine that there are no tmknowns for Which you still need information, that impact on the SEQRA Review because the SEQRA Review is not only, yes, it will have an impact. It is to determine what is tmknown and what needs more information, Wiich is the purpose of the Draft EIS, providing that additional information. If the Board feels it can get the additional information, rather than from a Draft EIS, but from some of the engineering comments, regarding the site plan review, then it shouldn't go through the SEQRA. MR. CAlMANO-I don't think we should go through the SEQRA. I think the information that you need to have can be got ten in time to get on the agendas for one of the next two meetings, that's my opinion. MR. HAGAN-I'm sympathetic, but I really think this Board needs more information. You spoke about the substances you're going to use in this operation. You do need air control, air filtration. I see nothing about that. MR. KLEIN-We're going to have a very sophisticated air filtrAtion system. MR. HAGAN-Yes, I know, but I see nothing on your submittal. MR. KLEIN-I didn't know that was part of the site plan review. The site plan is, normally, the size of the building. You, normally, don't get into the MR. HAGAN-Well, how are we gOing to go through the SEQRA? Well, you've gone through the SEQRA, at least you should have, and how did you answer about the air pollution, that there wasn't going to be any? MR. KLEIN-No ,there's going to be some air pollution, but we're doing our best job to mitigate it. MR. HAGAN-Okay, show us. MR. JECKEL-Well, ~s this, let me ask a question to answer your question. You must have approved PSM, the body shop down on Quaker Road, just, less than two years ago. Do you have any recollection of that? MR. HAGAN-I was not involved. I don't know. MR. CAlMANO-I wasn't here. MR. HAGAN-I wasn't on the Board, then. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, and most of them have the sophisticated paint booths and this is standard operating procedure. I'm assuning you're going to have one and that would take care of it, but MR. JECKEL-Yes, correct. These are Federally approved systems that we're going to use, as an installed item. MR. ROBERTS-Well, maybe if we ask him that question and he says that's what they're going to have, maybe that I s the answer we need. MR. HAGAN-I know you're going to do it, but I'm just saying, how can we, legally, look at this submittal and answer the questions from SEQRA properly? MR. CAlMANO-We can't. The answer is, if you want to do it, WE';'11 do it. We can't. 59 '--" '-"" MR. HAGAN-This should have been in the plan, as part of your submittal, opinion. in my MR. JECKEL-Do you do this for a site review, that's, again, I don't know the answers to that. MR. CAlMANO - Ye s, we do. MR. GORALSKI-It has been asked for, in other site plans. MR. CAlMANO-The truck maintenance. We just went through that with the truck maintenance over, wi. th the Barrett. They had what they were going to do, how they were going to dispose of things. Dick, I think the Board has been put, I think we're trying, mOst all of us, are trying to bend over backwards to get this thing done, but the fact of the matter is, I think we have been put in a really bad position. We're trying to do things, starting from, right from, as the saying goes, the get go, ~ have a notification, here, from our Staff, that there's an intention to get into a subdivision. The Staff knows there's an intention to get into a subdivision. Therefore, we're hit with the first .embarrassing thing of having to approve something before subdivision. Okay, we fight over that. We have a submittal, here, that's not complete. I think it's ridiculous to go on with this thing, for another hour, \\hen it's not complete. Welre going to get into this SEQRA R.eview and we're going to go into a Draft EIS and then he's not going to open this place for six months because I don't know how we can answer the questions. MR. HAGAN-We can't. MR. CAlMANO-And I think we're being put in the position, I mention.ed it in my little speech, earlier, about, we're good guys or jerks. These guys are going to go away thinking we're jerks when, as a matter, we don't have the information, here, in front of us, to make a decision and this is the second time this has happened, and I don't like being put here and have to go and face you and say, look, we canlt do this today. We can't do it today because we can't, honestly, answer the questions and if we don't honestly answer the questions, we might as well not sit here. MR. ROBERTS-Is that the general feeling, Jim? MR. HAGAN-Yes. I sympathize with the applicant. MR. MARTIN-And I sympathize, also. MR. HAGAN-But, in all honesty, I cannot answer the SEQRA questions that we're required to answer, truthfully and honestly, to approve this, as a negative impact. MR. KLEIN-Can I ask a couple of questions, before you table this? MR. ROBERTS-Well, let's make it fast. The hour's late, here. MR. KLEIN-If we submit by 2 0' clock tomorrow we're going to be on the same agenda a sour going to have any negative impact on us? afternoon and get on the subdivision application. agenda, Is that MR. cARTIER-It will for me. MR. cAlMANO-It will for me, too. MR. HAGAN-I wish you hadn't said that. MR. CAlMANO-I guess what's wrong, here, is, and maybe what you should do, tomorrow, Dave, is to sit over there, with those guys, and find out what goes on, here, because I don't, for two submissions of yours, we have gone through this and we have looked bad and I don't like looking bad. I want to get things done. I know these guys. I want to get things done and I don't like looking bad and you ask a question like that, after the argtmlent we went through, here, 15 minutes ago, you've got to be nuts. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think you're looking at an awkward situation. I don't know how you are going to deal with it. MR. HAGAN-My advice to the applicant would be to ask us to table your application. 60 --- MR. ROBERTS-I think we have to table with the agreement of the applicant. MR. HAGAN-Yes, it's easier. MR. ROBERTS-Or, if you want us to bring this to a vote, I guess it would be obvious how it would come out, at this point, and it would appear they've got bigger problems, down the road. MR. JECKEL-Well, I request that the Board, then, table the request. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, somebody make a motion to table it. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAR RO. 74-90 RORALD II. JECXEL, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Due to lack of adequate docmnentation to properly go through the SEQRA process and inadequate docmnentation of the Engineering cOncerns as outlined in the letter from Rist-Frost of September 24th and also the concerns as expressed by the Planning Staff in their notes. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN 110. 75-90 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 U-HAUL CO. OF N .K. NEW YORK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 112 BAIN STREET FOR CONSTRUCTlœ OF A SELF STORAGE METAL BUILDING. (WARJŒB COUNTY PLANNING) TAX 1fAP NO. 135-1-4 LOT SIZE: 2.43 ACRES SECTION 4.020 (L) JAMES TOWNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF NarES Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County Planning Board approved and the Fire Marshall's Of fice letter, from Kip Grant, Deputy Fire Marshall: liTo reduce vehicular congestion that could slow fire department access, this office recommends a one-way traffic pattern around the buildiBg. II ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is there someone to respond to these, for the applicant? MR. TOWNE-Yes, James Towne from Kingsley and Towne. On behalf of the applicant, I'd like to say good morning to all of you. If I could go through the comments. Nmnber One, the Rist-Frost comments, I don It see, indicate that the building maybe too big for the site. That may reflect the fact that Rist-Frost has incorrectly computed the green space. My math is terrible, but if my calculations are correct, if the Engineering Department gentleman, do you have your calculator in front of you? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, 11m looking at the application, in this case. MR. TOWNE-Yes, it's 32,570 square feet of green space. MR. YARMOWICH-There' s a discrepancy between the application and the plan. Can you resolve that for me? MR. TOWNE-Yes , we, during our process through the various Town Boards, we have revised the plan. We had, initially, indicated that there might be some development in this area, and that's been dropped, at the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. YARMOWICH-Is the correct information on the plan or the application? 61 ',-, ''"-' MR. TOWNE-The plan. MR. YARMOWICH-Thank you. MR. TOWNE-Okay, so I believe that the amount of green space is 30.85 percent, which is within the Town requirements. Sorry for that confusion. MR. ROBERTS-How about the property lines not being correct? MR. TOWNE-The property lines are correct. What the reference is, is the fact that the change of zone does not occur at our property line, but, in fact, Occurs at the midpoint of the Niagra Mohawk property line, which, in fact, is to our advantage. I believe that, with respect to our zone, our setback requirements, if we abut an SR-1A, it's 25 feét. If we're abutting our own CR-15, it IS 20 feet. Is that correct, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Thatls right. MR. TOWNE-So, in fact, our mistake is to our advantage, but we intend to continue with the 25 foot buffer. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Isn't it, SR-1A, that's a Suburban Residential zone. Isn't it 50 foot? MR. GORALSKI-Thatls labeled incorrectly. MR. CARTIER-It's not an SR? MR. GORALSKI-No, well, that IS correct, back there. The CR-15 zone, this property is zoned CR-15, okay. There is a Light Industrial zone adjacent to it and an SR-1A MR. TOWNE-Is not adjacent to it. MR. GORALSKI-Is not adjacent to it, right. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. TOWNE-The SR-1A zone is, here. MR. CARTIER-On the other side of the buffer. MR. TOWNE-Well, in the middle of the Niagra Mohawk. MR. GORALSKI-Right, is on the other side of the Niagra Mohawk right-of-way. MR. TOWNE-We're, approximately, 75 feet from that zone. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. TOWNE-And I do apologize. We would have had the engineer, here, if we had known of these engineering conunents, the extent of them, because he can answer them, 11m sure, much better than I can. The driveway indicated in Point Number Two, is actually a 30 foot driveway. It's a 30 foot expanse over the back portion, but, as there's parking set aside, we can agree with the concerns. We will be more than willing to make that a one-way directional for traffic circulation. MR. CARTIER-I think it would probably be appropriate to make it one-way, coming in at the bottom and going out at the top, because that will be compatible with the way people park cars. MR. TOWNE-That would be fine. The 10 mile per hour speed limit is fine. We have no objection to that, at all. The buffer plantings, I think, are adequate. I don't know if you want to pass us on that, since the Beautification Committee passed on it, as well, but, we've provided, we believe, more than adequate planting, buffering. This area, if youlre familiar with it, is Sherwood Forest, virtually, back here, and we intend to keep that intact. Itls this area, where we're going to provide some new planting. The lawn areas, will be designed, as you can see, with respect to the design. The fencing, although we could have fenced the interior portion, we've fenced the property line, so that we can maintain mowing and debris removal in the area of the retention basin. Going on to the engineering, Rist-Frost comments, Number One, I think we I ve discussed. Number Two appears to be an engineering mistake, which, apparently, we still comply with the required parking. The grading 62 '--" '-" plan is incomplete. I looked at it and, believe me, I'm not an engi neer, but the 99 grade footage, to me, does appear to go through and be continuous, with respect to the 97 and 98 contours. They say t hey need to be adjusted. I don't know what that means. lid like some clarification so I could inform the engineer as to what you need. MR. YARMOWICH-What 11m referring to is this contour, in here, and this contour, in here, there appears to be a discrepancy. MR. TOWNE-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And then the other contours, in the back, by the retention area, where there doesn't show any grading necessary and the clearing plan would have to be slightly adjusted to accomplish that. MR. TOWNE-Okay, we'll clarify those issues and I don It, do you perceive that to be a show stopper, Tom, if we clarify those? MR. YARMOWICH-No. We'd like to see that, at some point. MR. TOWNE-The stormwater calculations, I'm sorry, I can't provide any illumination on those. The only thing I ~ say is that the retention area on Number 6, youlre requiring, is a 31,400 square foot retention area, that's the entire green space for the entire parcel. We're at 32,000. To hit our 30.85 percent, our green space is 32,570 feet and you're requiring the entire green space to be used for retention? MR. YARMOWICH-No, we Ire not. We're requiring that the detention design, first of all, be based on a 50 year storm and be based on the rainfall intensity curves for Albany, New York, as published by the United States Weather Bureau. Those are the design criteria for the Town of Queensbury. Your retention basin design ought to be based on real site information, such as a perc test at the location of where the retention is to occur. Your grading plan should divert all the necessary stormwater to a retention basin, so that predevelopment runoff conditions are not exceeded. You have to divert enough stormwater into your retention basin and infiltrate it sO that no more runoff leaves the site, than prior to development, as a result of the proposed project. MR. CARTIER-It might help you, in the next day or two, if, I don't know how fast the minutes of these meetings get turned out, but it might help you to get a copy of the minutes of the meeting to turn over to your engineer. MR. TOWNE-Okay. We'll get those. My only concern was the number 31,400. I assume that you arrived at that from some calculations. MR. YARMOWICH-That's in the calculations. MR. TOWNE-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-That' s not supported by the plan because what runs off across an area, if the flow rate exceeds the infiltration capacity, it will not be retained. It will be released from the site. MR. TOWNE-With respect to Number Seven, we'll comply, obviously, with the erosion control measures of New York State, and I don't know what other information I can supply you with. MR. CAlMANO-Well, another tabling. MR. CARTIER-Yes, let's not dance around t his one and chew t his one out. There are some engineering concerns that need to be addressed. That's going to take some more time and I think we need a tabling, here. MR. TOWNE-I would ask, on bended knee, we have a problem with respect to, if we can get this pad down before the frost, we can put up the building. It's a metal construction building that goes up with wrenches. Is it possible to get this moved, on your calendar, so that we could be at the next available MR. CARTIER-Can your engineer get this stuff in by 2 o'clock tomorrow? MR. TOWNE-I doubt it. Is it possible that we have a waiver of that for a day or two, to submit? Otherwise, we're held up until November and there's no way we can go ahead with this project. 63 .~ - MR. ROBERTS-How many times have we heard that? MR. CAlMANO-Twice, tonight. Actually, Tom, if the engineer gets a hold of this, he probably could get that done by 2 olclock. MR. YARMOWICH-Maybe and maybe not because there's quite a bit of work involved in developing a stormwater management plan for this particular site and, being at this late hour, I wouldn't try it. MR. CARTIER-I would say, get a hold of your engineer, first thing, I was going to say tomorrow morning, but this morning, whenever he's available, and give him a shot at it. If he can get it in to the Planning Department by 2, you've got a shot. MR. YARMOWICH-The concept, here, doesn't meet the intent. There I s a big between the intent of getting stormwater into a retention area and the grading plan that's provided. MR. TOWNE-I understand what you're saying, believe me. saying youlre nit picking, at all. I'm not standing here MR. YARMOWICH-No, it I S not. It's a substantiative issue, here, and I think it really would be an impediment to the Board, acting, so I wouldn't even suggest they try doing it. MR. TOWNE-lid just rather see you gentleman during the fall foliage, than the snow of November. Alright, thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-Do you agree to table this? MR. TOWNE-We agree to table. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 75-90 U-BAUL OF N.E. NEW YORK, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: In order to allow applicant time to address concerns raised by Engineering Staff and to make changes suggested by Planning Staff. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-I guess we didn I t open the public hearing, or maybe there's no need to, anyway, nobody's here. MR. GORALSKI-You better open it. MR. ROBERTS-Alright. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project? MR. CARTIER-Then we can leave it open until it comes back. MR. ROBERTS-We better leave it open, alright. MR. CARTIER-To cover ourselves. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1990 SKETCH PLAN TYPE a UNLISTED SR-IA ALENE K. BROWN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE INTERSECTIOII (SOUTHEAST CORNER) OF RIDGE ROAD AND CLEHEBTS ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISIOII. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP 110. 27-3-1.2 LOT SIZEa 11.02 ACRES ANDREW MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 64 -- -- Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is there someone here to represent the applicant? MR. MCCORMACK-For your record, Andrew McCormack from the office of Coulter and McCormack, representing Mr. and Mrs. Brown, who are also here. A clarification, Tom, on the test hole on Lot 3, you mentioned an ,intermittent stream. I assume you're looking at the arrow just to the upper, the right of Test Hole 3, where we show a drainage flow. MR. YARMOWICH-No, I'm not. At the bottom of Lot Number 2, there's a, note seasonal stream and the standards topographic symbol for a stream, which is a line with three dots, is there. It IS, perhaps, within 200 feet of that proposed septic system location. MR. CAlMANO-See it, just off the property? MR. YARMOWICH-Just to the south of the Lot Number 2. There's a small seasonal stream there, or intermittent stream. MR. MCCORMACK-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-And, if the perc rate at Test Hole Number 1, which there was no perc rate done, excuse me, it was not done in that area. If that's a fast perc rate, you're going to have to keep that system 200 feet away from that intermittent stream. MR. MCCORMACK-I think thatls easily accomplished, given the size of the lot. MR. YARMOWICH-I believe so, because itls Sketch Plan Stage. You'll have the opportunity to verify that information to a pretty substantial degree. Perc tests you can take at any time. Groundwater you're supposed to do in the spring. MR. MCCORMACK-So, we'd at a test hole in the be looking, more spring. Perhaps, importantly, at an actual water level aside from the evidence of mottling. MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. MR. CAlMANO-I don't see, since this is a Sketch Plan, where we can do anything but pass on it. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I don't believe we have any serious problems, here. MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1990 ALENE M. BROWN, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano ~o moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Subject to the applicants review and answaring the September 24th Rist-Frost letter. Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MS. CORPUS-I have one more piece of business for the Board. I have brought before the Board, here, this Zoning Ordinance, proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The Board has already seen it. On the first page, I've outlined in red, the old part that the Board has already approved. However, after the Board approved that, the APA came back and said, well, we really don't want to lose any of our jurisdiction, so we want you to put in, if you flip the page, the new language added on to that, so that they lose no jurisdiction over their Class A or B Regional Projects. So, that, no matter What happens, we still have to ~t some APA approval and this is at their request and I brought this before the Board, for resolution, hopefully, to recommend approval and so that this can go back before the Town Board. MR. CAlMANO-What do you want us to do? MS. CORPUS-Well, if the Board so chooses to recommend approval of the additional language to the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Section 8.030. 65 '--" MR. CARTIER-So recommended. MOTION TO RECOHØEND APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO THE PROPOSED AlŒNDlŒNT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 8.030, Introduced by Peter Cartier Who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-We talked about changing the date of our October 23rd meeting to October 25th. MOTION TO CHANGE THE OCTOBER 23RD MEETING TO OCTOBER 25TH, Introduced by Peter Cartier Who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 66 '-' LOCATION MAPS September 25th, 1990 Queenøbury Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 66-90 John and Barbara Lynch (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 68-90 73 Quaker Road Assoc. clo Tiernan, Bernstein and Pinchuk (See Staff Notes and Map attached) NEW BUSINESS: Petition for a Change of Zone P8-90 WJT Rãalty (See Staff Notes arid Map attached) Subdivision No. 10-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE & Nancy A. Kelly Kelly Subdivision Owner: John C. (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 73-90 David E. Williams, Sr. (See Staff Notes attached) ~'~ ~ ;: . S'·' u1~ \\i~ p.J1'.. ..\ ~~o~. .. \ Subdivision No. 11-90 SKETCH PLAN Whipple Subdivision Owner: Robert W. Whipple (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 74-90 Ronald N. Jeckel (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 75-90 U-Haul Co. of N.E. New York (See Staff Notes attached) Subdivision No. 12-1990 SKETCH PLAN Alene M. Brown (See Staff Notes attaçhe~~_____ 27· z·/C - "'" 27- Z·/$, Z':'~ " ,,~ ~ 27-/2- rr - 27- ~-/5.3 '7- Z-14 27-/-20 E- " /' / ~' ;1',' ,/, ;,' / ~ ,,' /' 1,',',',' / ~',¡'; / ,',, " ./ /, 1./ , ¡I ,'" , / / ./ ~ ",' , ,/,' ,I / / / / / / /' ÓI " / /,' ,~/'/ I /' 11// 1/1/ ,I), / , / ,,/ ,./ / / . / / / /, ././,' \\I """.7 '3 ~ I.'l.·', , ~ I " " I·' - . ; . I " ," ~ / I " I / / / / / /' I .- <;;j,///I//I/ "/ ~ " / I I I /. / / I' " / ~ V ,,/ // / /, ~ / I' /", " /' /', /: ./' . '1/ '//1/11,/ 11/"/;'/1' I.. / /1 * , I ,/ " I " " , ~ ./ " , , / ./ ~ , " .:. --..., './ I , , 'V I , " I , "" 27-) 27-.1.13./ '/ :". -If ~ I I (1 27-3-/1 \ I I 27-1-21 ?7- /- Z 7. " 27- 3-1t. ,if I / . ..rCflL£ . -~ /'~ 400' ! :t7-,3-8 , -~ ............-. >~ ~, - '---" -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI_nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 25. 1990 By: Lee A. York Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Jnt~tation Other: SubdWiaion: Sketch, Prelim· - - - mary, X Site PlaD Rerie. := Petition far a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 66-90 Applicant'. Name: John and Barbara Lvnch September 25, 1990 MeetiDg Date: ............................................................................................ 'T'hiq :':·:·~:.:->tion was tabled on August 28 for clarification of planning and engineering concerns. The Director of Building and Codes has submitted a letter as requested by the Board. I want the Board to be aware that I have amended the file copy application to reflect the documentation submitted by David Hatin. Clough Harbour Associates has submitted a letter on the site drainage. Lake George and its environs was declared a Critical Environmental Area. There was concern over stormwater and wastewater entering the lake and a moratorium on new home construction is cUlTently in force. The Board may want to consider this fact. A ttached is a page from the Comprehensive Land U Be Plan which has the findings of the DEC Task Force about Lake Geor.ge. I have reviewed this application with regard to Section 5.070E: 1. The lot is one third of an acre (15,235 sq. ft.) in a WR-IA zone. The plan shows an expansion of a master bedroom and bath which equals 481% sq. ft. and a screened porch and deck which equal 416 sq. ft. bringing the total to 897% sq. ft. The existing living area is 2,159 sq. ft. The floor plans show that the home cUlTently has 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, kitchen, dining room, and living area (floor plans in file). The plans reveal that the addition will bring the house up to 5 bedrooms and 3 baths. The purpose of the zoning in the WR-IA zone is "to protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline". An expansion of this size on a small lot would impact the visual character of the lake. 2. Traffic circulation is not an issue. page 1 of 2 +~---- ._-- >~ Site Plan No. 66-90 Lynch -- 3. The proposed driveway is sufficient for parking. 4. Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. Stormwater concerns have been addressed in a letter submitted from Clough Harbour Association. Our engineer will respond to the adequacy of this. 6. Sewage disposal is addressed in David Hatin's letter. 7. Adequacy of plantings is not an issue. 8. Emergency access is not an issue. 9. The Board should stipulate that appropriate erosion control measures are provided during construction. This is an unlisted action which become a Type I Action because of the status of Lake George as a Critical Environmental Area. LA Y Ised page 2. of 2. ! .0 ; "--' ---" The Hudson River has not experienced the development activities as extenslvely as in other s.ctions ot Queen.bury. but it is an important scenic river corrldo~. It i. ....nt1al to pre.erve and enhance the appearance and character or ~he ~:ve~ corridor. Th. vee.tat.d areas alon& streams and rivers are important to mainta1ninc .table banks and clean vaters. They act to filter secl~en~ c~r~~6 sprine runott and at time. ot floodine· ,. Lakes and Ponds The major lake. and ponds vithin the Town ot Queensbury include: Lake Oeorge. Olen Lake. Rush Pond. Lake Sunnyside. Dream Lake. Round Pond, Hovey's Pond. ~~C Pond (near the Queensbury Landtill), Mud Pond (betveen Olen Lake and Round Pond) and Bear Pond. Lake Ceoree Nearly one-third ot the Town ot Queensbury lie. within the Lake Oeoree Park. ~he park i. a spectacularly scenic and internationally renowned 300 square mlle a~ea or mountain.. pure waters and islands. Approximately 14 miles ot shorellne lS within the Town ot Queensbury. The major tind1ne' ot a DEC Ta.k Force a. pre.ented in the tinal plan to the Lake Ceoree Park Commission in March, 1987 show: · Inadequately controlled land development on site. with environmental and other l1mi taUon.. · World renowned scenic qualities or the .horeline and mountainside. are beine diminished by prominence or .tructurel on the natural landscape. · The quality at the Lake's renowned pure waters is deterioratine at an alarmine rate. · Intra.tructure capaeitie. (e.pecially waste water treatment tacilities) are not adequately considered in the development process. · Althouch Lake Olor,e i. a public re.ource. opportunities tor public use throuch the development ot watertront park.. beaches and publiC open space alon, shorelands hat not been actualized a. a result ot inadequate plannine. · The quality ot the recreational experience tor boatine and other vater activ1t1e. 1. creatly threatened by overcrowdine and increasinely unsate condition. on the surtace ot the lake. · Land ute plann1nc re,ulations are exercised unevenly by state &Cencies and local covernaent. and are inadequate with respect to meetine present needs. 1 1 --- .--~ :; SITE PLAN REVŒW NO. ::- ; .""":" r n D ~~:-qr) '- ', ~ ¡/~aWll~11" ~~ AUG 2 91990 ~.!J¡ Otf¿· '-' ..,..... I.. TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS , DAVID HATIN, DIRECTOR BLDG. I CODE ENFORCEMENT DATE: AUGUST 29, 1990 '.ANNING & ZONIN' "ePARTMEN'9' RE: JOHN I BARBARA LYNCH SITE PLAN I: 66-90 Dear Planning Board Members: The following are answers to questions which were asked of the lynch addition and I hope this will clear up any misconceptions or concerns still before the Board: The first question that was asked was the square footage of the proposed addi t ion: the square footage of the 1 i vi ng space is 481~ square feet with a screened porch and deck consi sting of 416 more square feet for a total of 897~ square feet. The existing living area is 2,159 square feet; therefore, there is not a 50% expansion of this property and no variance is necessary. The proposed fill system is a replacement of an existing system which is to tOday's standards and contrary to what the Town engineer has told you, this system is allowed to be constructed within 100 feet of Lake George per Section 3.030(b) which states as follows: no sewage disposal fill or mound . . system may be located within 200 feet of the shores of Lake George except for repair or replacement of existing systems the distance may be a minimum of 100 feet. -f . J I would also like to advise the Board that ~ does appear that this will be a total replacement of the existing structure and the addition of the additional living space so the Board should not have in their minds that they are going to add onto the existing camp and maintain the old camp. From the drawings that I have looked at, it does appear that there will be a total reconstruction of the old camp along with the additional living space and porch and deck area. I trust this will answer any concerns you have. Very truly yours, QJ~ DAVID HATIN, DIRECTOR BLDG. I CODE ENFORCEMENT DH/jjd 4 AUG 29 '9Ø øl:4er CLOUGH, HARBOUR & ASSOC P.2 "-- -../ ,'.MO _.... I' ' .. .'.. ..-._-- CLClUIIWL.HAJ:lBaUPl a AIIsaCIATES !!NGlINE!E~e & PLANNI!~e FILE (opy '. ,'~ ALIANV. NIW YO" I( · ..OCK v fo41U. CQ~~leTIC:VT 'A..T...··· &1.ðela"l~ WI\'IoI...M A. "A"IOU". t... "I;H""O I. 10VII. P.'. \...1111'1' V. 'A'"CHII.O. ,... "WOII I"I ~. "11"011. ,... JU'''IV II. HO\.T. '.1.. c.,.... WII.I.!AM I. LYCA"II.I.I. p.I.... "AVMONO ~. IIIUMANOweltt. p.I. J...M" O. "v..... '.1. .:::::':,::'~:~:,.. :l~~\ÿJ~~ Town of Queensbury Planning Oepart~t ~UG '2, ~ 'S90 -- Town Hall . N\N Bay at Havil and Road I\MM\NG · ~c:..,. Queensbury, New York 12804"'9725 . ",\I;Ct"t\1'tI~ August 29, 1990 CII......... 10. 1"'"11'. p.I. 'lUll 101, CONWAV. I..". WAV"'I \,. OIVI"TI, '.1..1. tlTlII ,....TH. P.'. ~QH!iC M. ""UIOLI". '.1, ..ICH....O M. ~OIWII\l.T. N. ".. ..tI.TON ... MITÇHILL. '.'. """MONO 1..III\lOOLPH, J".. ,... 'HAWN H. \/ILTM"N. ,... CtI'-. '''-0.. ðl"ILO'. "",VMONO J. It 11\1 1.1'1' . Jill. .'''VIC. a..ou.. MANAiL" O...VIO O. 1(11...'1' RE: LYNCH RESIDENCE Dear Sirs: At the request of Kevin Dailey. Esq., we have reviewed the stormwater runoff from the roof of the Lynch Residence currently under review by the Town in an effort to determine the capacity required to store a 10 year storm event assuming no infiltration. We have determined that an a foot diameter, 4 foot deep drywell surrounded by stone and filter fabric per the attached detail. will be adequate to provide the required storage of 550 cubic feet. It is further recommended that the drywell be constructed with I gravity overflow outlet to reduce the potential for property damage in the event of sever. storms or malfunction. Should you have any questions or require anything further. please do not hesitate to contact us. . Very truly yours, MJB:cjn cc: Kevin Dailey, Esq. III WINNERS CIRCLE- P.O. BOX ð269 -ALBANY. NEW YORK 122015 ";' 5269 Tel: 618.. 463.. 4600 FAX: 518.. 458 -1735 ---'- . ..-.- 1 ,.; AUG 29 '90 01:49r :LOUGH,HARBOUR & ASSOC '----' P.3 ~ COM--. ev______î.i~_... FHAl CL~~=~~~: 8HE.T__~/___o~_~_____ C~I!CI< eY_n___I!1~~____ 1 .NO~&" Ii:. FLA""NI!F1. CAT. --Bj./,!I..J!l.-_____u_ PD"'~. NAMI! S L.OC.__P_\! _~ll_~º~y_tCUiQ~.___________________ :JRO,,¡. NO.______________ ... -. S!.J '- . " I _. L. .:...__ " _"u.'" _.J. : , :-,.. :.--: 'Iu,~,_:__ _.'.-. t"--r-'-i-"-:" r _.~. -~._--:--~-_.~ "ur ¡.. .':.... I_u__,__u~,_" 'H t-· . l : 'I ; I I :.., _ : I , , , I : ¡ . ! : -- -- .~ji.3FC~ft~~.~:i~.p-..!. ·.¡.~~~~~~ìi:.1;:;~'f. ~~~S:~.O.~~.~+~c.¡··~·-P.'~~:·.·;V~I'~~~-~_.~,~ ; ~. :! i ; i j\J I I j : ,: .: ; 1 . I ~.j .~ " - ~r·ç···~_·_~_·\-~..:·:··, ¡.\..C._ , ,__;.I~lj:·-"··i·~ ,,- ~t. j ... ¡-. I "'¡'L'''' 0:1- ,,¡_IoJ.:\)'<lL.. ¡" . ¡. "r-"-!r:J. V.O, \..1 ~ ~'~',~ ,,!. _. :.,=.,:,.-.J:5..~.. "--_.._,.."1 .........,..,....__..__.. í ;--~---.... i I ·--'·_..r-~---r-· ,.¡ .:.. -~d"'··i-···;----!·---t·,-·l.·; ¡ !._--~'_.:-_.;----t--:..~....__. =~__1 rq:---- - - -I' -: - - -- -y- -.-- ;~--~- -~T"I.=F -or - -- --;- -~7. ~~ ir- - -:= ~~-J : i- _ I '" ..~'. .. .. ... ... .._,~ I . I ..~..--.~.- ,.'.' I I ' ""I ,L. - '-- .'''' -----"-. -- , 1 L ...' _......:. """" ,..___:,____;._..._¡,__.._. L__....:_.__1-" __..',,1_ 1 LI; L ¡ I.:! L' . ~'---....-.'" r . ,- . - r J: "-r-"-'''--) "-·~-r·"'-·""--"'" ....J....__:........:... ~,....- _"n_.'_'_'''__'_ f.~.·r~~-¡~~·-,,-=~~:_·-'~·--"I --:.L- ______~ij~'_+ ~T~=±~ I _,r~T.· -l,~';.~:-::: i---Ll------ :' I' !: ~ ~.-. -,..: .¡. -·-----·--;..·1· 1- .-.--..+--.'- -- - L. "- ~ ~'-','-- -----;-.----- ......----.. -.. .. '. ."...L. ....~ ...', ,!... ...', .'" f i i ; I ; : ¡ ;: ~ . .'. v__..,,_,__._ _,_.. . I; -I- . ' ..: I , J, . _ __ _ _ '. I, . I' I ; , . : . ,,·¡·'ï--·¡··-----···--T--¡---r--¡-·r-·;-·: ' : ·--t---i---·:'-:-·l---¡---;---..;....-~~ ,.__...._..,--..~. ri .~ ,--":'---4;'1]' - ~'--l cî+;·-··:\--7-ï--r--t-·__.. -'~-"._;"'+" f- --~.--'-',--' 1._. ~_ .'" n .'V_.:_11\- ,1\. .IL·~ I,~: '\':--"__+__~ 'p...}.I.....J__.:--_.!,_ L..___~ _.L..._ò_ --:-..J __ :....__ _..'_ ~.. ..., .. ~ .. T _..-.:-..-~ .3- ,..j ,. - - .:. !, .L--1---~--,_--l._._J.,,:..- .L.-~-~i.--.~--L-1-~_-..~---;__ . : . ,; ¡ I' . 'I / I' I r:u:i.~?tt~(5)lCU, ~ti.~~¡~~fSJ.i:_~~('~i:~)}~~~· '1, ~·.·~·~~.~~~.r~:J_~;~;.:.~_j ~~~~~~~~~_..i :.:.. : l;\ , " ! ¡}j , I :, I', I , ~. I ' ,I . J_ '1 I L:' 'I I . ........_....-.._.~ -.- ."." .,~..".. ._..~._-,..----r - _. ~ ;~"" .. -....t -.... T--~-+···-r·-- -.--.:....--. .... ....i - - ..". - - ... - '- -.- -.... . - ~ ._1.._.. 1"'-·-~------_· } --~-.:..-:--~! . 3·· L ..-\ i--)~ ~-"t'" ;. ~.dc+--:. - - f i--h- '---:-- -: - '-r- ! _L+_L;u__~~ : ..~....~-+..~. ,I. .iT~... .l- '~, :-.Li. ~-)-- .;. -¡--.:..-+ ---;.---;.--:. --!···--~·-·-,.--..I!' . .j' . - ., __I.. ·r,',·" ',..,.,-:.....-. · ., , .. I . . " "., ' I :--~--.¡ : i ~!. ';"·-r· .,.:+.-t'-, ..:._,-.....r." ,L--~--,--f-·-)I--t-_L-·1'·· - ,[-,u·-1'·----'-- ,. 1·' ..+_..~--t--,_.:__. ~ .':". : ,.'!' I I I I ! ! I, ~ '. :: I . I: ;. I:; I . ~ ; ; . : . ~ ' : ¡ . ¡ , :. --:·__..l--T:.--1-iin·-'!..··I:f : Ii',' ..,.~" -¡--OO---·,·--t--r"'-r "·'''1-' T'-T" ,,,..., :- ""';-"-¡...."'"1- '., ~--"~".,,,.-'-~..hl7~·A-~t.-+--1· : . ¡ ¡ : ; I ! ' ; i : ¡ , ; i ",;..,,!........,: : 'I' I ' I' 't·· I : · . , ! í I : . I I I I: :---t--~-T¡··--~-....:-...;·_-t- -+..i---;-,- :¡~--'~ '-~-·ÿ;·d -+--;'\01'5 -~-l~'~-·r---:·---!~_,_-L--:.__'_-_. ~ ¡__..VOlÙ~:~lSJº.~ .1---J1.k--I-C?-_:l. _.Ll.,.,J..,A)._::.'..__.:-_..:._~t::._¡_-..__._~.___:._.__;.,_. .! . .~ h-h~ ... -~-l~-L¡. :--j-+-LL~1i~-ÀL. :.. . .', '-¢ij---:- ¡TJ_:-+-·~ ¡___,--..:..V-Q.T¡Ljf_~,~..~~4_<ntt_\~Ct~~~$~_.U2"J 5~L~£. =-~.,-9.-l-..-'-...,---I" __:....._.........,. _,,'....'," '.d, .,., l......, : . I ":1· I .~-. I I -..It . I ~: I ~ I ", : ;, :: :, I I ' . I I : ! . I '. '¡,' , ___1._.._;.._ _;__.____~_-:__~.'Þ_ ~ ._.¡ _,_;.... .........:.....__..__-+_~---L...-.~....... ...i___':"_._...L.. - .,.:.._..)... _ _~_... ....i...._..l...._.t"._~_..~- ..___~-__ ~_~-.5l~.tv.~ -~ _J:þL~ \(._.~._¡O,~J_____~__.!__L__J___~..i .-.-~.~___!-_L_~__...._.J.... !__..~.._ · : i ¡ : ;~! i II I ; : ¡ ¡ : : :.j I: .'; 1 ! : Ad i ! : .-.-:~~·.-1 þ-+~\-~--L~tk~i-¡*i\j~.~~.jJ)~·4~--1~~O~:.~·~··~G.~\i.·~i~==i~.~~5r¡~:r.~~~;.._~-.~· · :! ,~.~ ~~-: Iii . J : ! . ' ' .' . .-;--- -;. -_..--~--j-_..< " ..'" '- --'~-,.,-~.' --;.._.. :_._J_ . '~._"'·I'·_·L_..~_.._. -~ - --t- --!--"rl .....',' .--~- _..__..:...__L":"___..-_'__: . . I I : ¡ I' ... ~ I ~ :':' í '--r-' .. ." ..~.. ..1-------;--.. ¡' -...'... (····--¡---11..--1- ..___..L_..¡ --. ...(--.......----.----- ~..j_..l._. L....L. ..:. ...,. ....;.-.. '; ~. I ¡I I ¡ 1 : I , I l I : i i : 1 ' ¡ I : . . I 1 i :,' I : i l ! ~ : : r I . I ! I , :_.----____...., _. ._.......J.'" ..."',.._..,..".______J~.... __I__._L.._ ..1.___1_ -- --..... OI'---+--~_...--.-.........-.....-----~.--~..-~...,...-r;_tt"..: -...--. - . ... '--. --- ,.-- c.,' - \:, AUG CO:> I~~ Cll Cf'....·, CL'~GII, IIARDOUR Oc A:J:JOC r.~ . , . ~'JRYW~ '--'0 ~ N . N .... .. - -< ~~ :z.'Ft- ð e / m w ~ en ·z I/f LU d ~ ..J J: ...J ~ s! ~ u < ex¡:=: >- 9 ~(.) ~~ 0:: &:t: C 'L.t.I go. ~--J . cø ....,.., w- 0 0::< 0 uf- . ZW . 0° ,.., I , u.... 10 . I I I ~I 01 . - . 0 0 /¡q 00. ( N ëø- , Ww c 0 , (,Jø . I '0 0:::< 0 0 00- e:> I.L..LLJ ~ ~UJ WC/J m c::Þ a:: ~ ~ < ~ c: Q Z , ð f3 :. ..~ '.~ . ..J.....' Of'·..¡; . ~. ~. '. .... ~ '-I ð I ÿ, ., ~ 1.1. I- ~ ..... = ,i'I' I:," ' ., :o' . .-.:.......,., G"~. · , . '.P G:.IIÞ;·· . .' '.,,,,, ' Oa ·0 I- c::: W.I ... d ... . . ........ ..' - " . .:" ~ . . .... , .';,;1.",- ~_..~. , . .1 "" ", "I'!"~ l:...., I..............' ., ~'" .~) ~ III ~ .~ uJ -' b ~. II,,¡J ¡~ I _ ...¡" " ""'- ~ z- '~:'5(f)' öi~ .' c: I .'" . :.,) ....... '- <-0 ~-I.W' 2 I.W 8~æ ) ~ æ 8 "'" cc I.r.I .. Š ill N ~ j ~ 3T -FROST ASIIOCIA TEl. p .C. ONSUL TINa ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 '-' -- September 25, 1990 RFA #89-5000.066 . Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: John and Barbara Lynch Site Plan 66-90 Dear Mrs. York: '.. We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering coments: 1. With regard to the proposed sewage disposal system: a) Separation distances from the mound system should be measured from the edge of the system backfill. A 10' minimum separation distance from the system to the property 1 ine is required. Al so a 100' separation distance from the system to the shores of Lake George is required by the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance Section 3.030 B, for . a repair or replacement system. b) A minimum of two (2) percolation tests within the basal area of a mound is required. c) The infiltration rate of the natural soil must be used to determine the basal area of the mound. d) Specific design information is needed addressing pressure distribution for the mound system and should include dosing volumes and frequency. e) Flotation of underground structures should be addressed due to the high ground water condition. 2. With regard to stormwater management: a) Groundwater was encountered at 42" at test hol e #1. The drywell used to manage roof runoff however utilizes a depth of 5'. The stormwater management plan should address the high groundwater condition. Groundwater depth should be verified at the drywell location, since the presence of * GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH . -... ,._~- ~ ~ '---' -' Town of Queensbury Page 2 September 25, 1990 RFA #89-5000.066 high groundwater will effect the storage and infiltration capacity of the drywell. b) A 50 year storm return interval is typically required for retention and detention facilities. c) The outlet end of the gravity overflow pipe should be stabil ized. 3. Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. .. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ?-- ~~ ~. f'-A- .c...t.L.' "-_ -"' T"....,. ~ Y A tC.Jt#Io hi. c. " Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E. Project Engineer TMY/cam '- SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. fdp.:J JrfJ~ ...., s. CONQST"EET ~ ,J. VANQCIllt.'I"T STIIIAUe AI...CIlltT A. MANNINO ,JO.I:~H .000"'1:"1:'- JOHN ,J. l..y....CH H.IIIOI..O C. HANSON .TE~H&N M. OLEAIlltV eAIlltTL.EY oJ. COST&L.LO, ItI IIIETC" L. "U...CllltT IIHH..I II T. CJUNNII:· WI"',-'''''''' fI', SHEItHAN ......U... M. COI"...IN. OAVIO J. OAKl..lty S..uCC N. QVollty EVAN C. "COA... IEILEEN M. CONSICINC THO"".... Q. ""'TIN KIEVIN M. OAILIEY HINMAN, STRAUB, PIGORS & MANNING, R C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 121 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207-1622 CHIlltISTOIIHCIllt C. .OOTH SEAN M. OOOLAN TE:L..518-438-0751 F,A.X: 518-438-4751 F II [ WI!..!".'.."", III. QOI.,OC"MA.... .&\/11l1li1."1' COHa.... ......UI..A "ITZ ....TTISTE.. 1It0SIN LYNCH SISC ,JOHN III. ....CCOCIO .....T..tCK ,J. HIGOINS .&""""''''0 T. McCANN IIIO.CM....., L. WEAVE"·" r f"! K~N"'J CONNELLY KI'MSIE""'Y C. I..AWIllIENCE 71 ~Y STREET GLENS 'ALLS. NEW YORK 12801-0018 TEL. 518-792-0598 F"AX: 518-792-1517 ~ September 14, 1990 ANNING It ZONIN' ",r;PARTMEN"r Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman Queensbury Town Planning Board Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 RE: Site Plan No. 66-90; John and Barbara Lynch Dear Chairman Roberts: We are appreciative of the time afforded us at the August 28th Planning Board Meeting to discuss the above-referenced application. At that time, the Planning Department in its comments raised several questions, a copy of the comments being attached herewith. The Planning Board felt that these questions must be answered before any action could be taken on this application. Mr. Lynch was in a position to respond, which we did immediately, and we believe that those issues raised have now been ~ddressed conclusively. The issues raised and the resolution of these issues are set forth below: 1.) There was a question raised as to the total square footage respectively· of the existing structure and the proposed new addition and whether the new addition's square footage would exceed 50\ of that of the existing structure. A scale drawing of the building plans was presented to David Hatin, the Director of the Building and Code Enforcement Department, who scaled out the square footages and who determined that the proposed addition consisted of 481.25 sq. ft. of new living space and a porch-deck of 416 sq. ft., totalling 897.25 sq. ft. This is measured against the square footage of the existing structure, which measures 2,159 sq. ft. Mr. Hatin in his memorandum to the Planning Board dated 8/29/90, states that "therefore, there is not a 50\ expansion of this property and no variance is necessary". We believe that this point is resolved. .1 --- HINMAN. STRAUB. PIGORS & MANNING. P. C. DATE September 14, 1990 2 PAGE 2.) The second question raised by the Planning Board dealt with the plans for the septic system. The proposed system is a replacement of the existing system and plans have been filed with Mr. Hatin's office and a permit has been previously issued. Such replacement system "is allowed to be constructed within 100 ft. of Lake George per Section 3.030(b)" of the Zoning Law, as per Mr. Hatin's memo of 8/29/90. Please be advised that the applicant and the Code Enforcement Department have both agreed that this is not an expansion of the existing use, but is a replacement of the current system. Please note that the existing five bedroom residence will be converted, with the addition, to a five bedroom residence. Hence, there is no expansion. 3.) The third question raised by the Planning Department was in the form of an expression of concern relative to storm water management. In that regard, the applicant has submitted a plan for storm water run off management to the Planning Department, which will be undertaken in the construction process. A copy of the plan is attached for your reference. We know of no requirement of the Town of Queensbury, or of any other regulating body mandating such a plan, but we share with the Planning Board its concern on this issue. Mr. and Mrs. Lynch are quite intent on seeing to it that no excess storm water finds its way to Lake George and in fact, this plan will actually decrease storm water run off, as it incorporates storm water run off from the existing structure, which is not now so controlled. 4.) Also, Dave Hatin raised a question concerning the set back of the septic system mound from the real property line, at the Bay Parkway boundary, informing us that there must be a 10' set back, in addition to a minimum of 100 ft. from Lake George. I am attaching a portion of tha plan submitted as part of the application showing the set back lines complied with. 5.) At the August 25th meeting, the Planning Board suggested that the applicant should comply with the regulations promulgated by the Lake George Park Commission in regard to waste water management and storm water management. I have visited the office of the Lake George Park Commission and have been informed that the proposed regulations in these areas are not now in effect and that it was undetermined when they would become effective. There is at this time no jurisdiction by the LGPC in this area. I would also point out, as previously stated, that a permit for replacement waste water system has already been issued by the Town of Queensbury and that a plan for storm water management has been submitted to the Planning Department. 6.) A concern regarding the "visual impact" of the proposed addition on the Lake George shoreline was also raised in the Planning Department comments. Mr. Lynch will have -_._-,-~.- ...-- '" - ---- HINMAN, STRAUB. PIGORS & MANNING. P. C. DATe: September 14, 1990 3 PAGe: available his building plans at the 9/25/90 Planning Board Meeting and we feel quite strongly that the plan will in fact be an enhancement of the visual character of this shoreline. In fact, the plans that have been prepared for the main part, retain the architectural characteristics of the existing structure. 7.) Mr. Hatin in his 8/29/90 memo, also raised an issue regarding the proposed construction of the new addition and the reconstruction of the existing structure. I have been told that this is for "information only" purposes of the Planning Board and is of no significance to the application for site plan approval. The applicant, as the property owner, would of course be happy to answer any questions regarding his plans for such renovation or of his family's plans to "quietly enjoy" the use of their home. I would hope that this letter has sufficiently answered all of the concerns of the Town Planning Board and we look forward to seeing you on September 25th. 07941 f j . ~ ; .. ~jø - ',,--, -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI--ü,ø Departmeat -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 2.5, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area Vmaac:. u. Vlll'iaDce - Sip VIll'iaDc:e == IDterpretatiaD Other: s~ Sketch. _ Prelim...." ~ Site PlaIa Reriew - - PetitiOD for a Chuge of Zoae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppUcatiaD Namber: Site Plan No. 68-90 AppUcant'. Nam. 73 Quaker Road Assoc. Meetiaø Date! Se'Ptember 1.5. 1990 ............11.............................................................................. A meeting took place this morning at the offices of Miller, Mannix at Pratt to discuss the Quaker Plaza project. At that meeting, Fred Austin stated that the WalTen County D.P.W. would not issue permits for the "Country Club Road scenario". Mr. Austin also stated that he would issue the necessary permits for a traffic signal at the corner of Glenwood Avenue and Quaker Road and would issue a Driveway Permit for a right turn inlright out onto Quak.er Road. Mr. Austin did not say that this is the only scenario he would approve. The applicant should address the feasibility of other alternatives for egress and ingress to the site. If the Board approves the "Glenwood Avenue scenario" with right turn in and right turn out onto Quaker Road, the:.plan should be revised to show the signal at Quaker and Glenwood and appropriate geometry to guarantee, as much as possible, the access to and from Quaker will in fact be a right turn only. Items 3 - 9 of my Auøust 2.8, 1990 notes (attached) should be reviewed by the Board. JSG/sed .; . - '-' -~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI.ftft~ Ðepu-tmeat -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: August 28, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Ana V...... U.VariaDc:e == Sip VariaDc:e IDt_..-.tatiaD - SubcIi9iIiœa Sketcla. _ Pl'elimiDarJ, X Site PlaIa Rerie" - == Petitiœ far a CbaDt¡e of Zaae Freshwat.. Wet1aDda Permit FiDal 0tbwI AppltcatiaD NamMn Site Plan Review No. 68-90 AppH-t'. H.... 73 Quaker Road Assoc. August 28, 1990 u..tbIø Datea .....................................................'..1.................1.....1.....1..... This proposal has received three variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. One allows the proposed bank to be 41 feet from the front property line. The others allow the proposed retail building to be 50 feet from the front line and 2.0 feet from the westerly property line. I have reviewed this proposal with reference to Section 5.070 (E). 1. The proximity to Hovey Pond, Halfway Brook, and. the fact that this property fronta 011 two roads severely limits the design options on this site. The variances have helped to alleviate this problem. Given theconatraints of the site, and. the applicants desire far maximi~ed exposure on Quaker Road, the location of the retail buildiDø is probably the optimum location. The proposed bank is set back far enough from the intenection so that it will not interfere with the site distance along Quaker Road. If the buk were moved back eight to ten feet, the right hand tUI'D into the exit lane could be made a 90 degree tUI'D, and therefore, easier to negotiate. Th. applicant proposes to construct a guard rail and fence within the Town easement 'arouDd the Hovey Pond spillway. This would make it impossible to get heavy machinery to the spillway to perform maintenance and repain. Nothing should be constructed within the easement. The Board should require the applicant to fUe a new deed with the County Clerk's Office refiecting the relocated property line to the west. A copy of the new deed should be. made part of the PI.I'nil\g Board record. z. Even after the recently completed improvements to Quaker Road, traffic remains a concern. Letters from the W8I'I'eI1 County D.P.W. and NYS D.O.T. areaon fUe. There are several ingre.. and egre.. scenarios that would minimize the impact on Quaker Road to varying degree.. 1 --.-- ~ --- One option is to prohibit any road cuts onto Quaker Road. All traffic could be funneled to Glenwood Avenue and aera.. the applicant's adjoining property to Lafayette Street. This would disperse the traffic and minimize the number of vehicles in the intenectiou of Quaker/Country Club and Quaker/Glenwood. A turning lane should be coutI'Ucted on Glenwood Avenue between Quaker and the northern entrance. This would allow. free now of traffic down Glenwood Avenue. A second option is to eliminate the exit to Quaker Road near the center of the lot. This would minimize impact on the Quaker/Glenwood intersection and would eliminate the danger of a stacking problem if a light is installed at this intersection. Turning lanes should be constructed at both entrances. Finally, if the Board chooses to allow the roadcuts as cUlTently proposed, I would recommend several modifications in an effort to mitigate some of the traffic impacts. First and foremost, a traffic light should be installed at the intersection of Quaker and Glenwood. Perhaps all of the businesses located at this intersection could share in this cost. Turning lanes should be constructed at both the entrance and exit on Quaker Road and at the northern entrance on Glenwood. 3. The ouite vehicular circulation is adequate. The loading areas are separated from the main parking area and employee parking is in the rear. The drive-thru at the bank may be a problem. There is stacking distance for approximately 10 cars. On a busy Friday afternoon, the adjoining parking spaces will be inaccessible. As stated above, the exit onto Quaker Road after leaving the drive-tbru is difficult. If the bank cannot be moved, the exit from the drive-tbru should be a left turn only. 4. Pedestrian circulation is also adequate. Some separation between the parkiDl spaces and the walkway along the front of the building should be provided. A note on the landscape plan notes that movable planters will be provided. Planters should be approximately 10 feet on center as has been done at other shopping centers to provide this separation. 5. Adequacy of stormwater drainage facUities will be addressed by the engineer. 6. This facility will be connected to the Quaker Road sewer. 7. The landacapm, plan is well thought out and will be attractive if it is maintained properly. 8. There is adequate emergenc:;y vehicle accesa to all sides of the building.. 9. No buildiDp will be coutructed within the flood zone of Halfway Brook. JSG/aed ~ : ~ ST-FRO¡¡:" ~~SOCIATeS. P.C. ;ONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 ""-'" ~rr,-~qQ'::l~-4' ¡ ! ~~',:--'¿ ~~ ¡ J I,. '!,'!, ';~',; !~-- . ,\ "t,¡ .~.' 199G September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.068 ..NNING & ZO;'''~f --r.:I)APT!\,U::I.'·' Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: 73 Quaker Plaza, Site Plan 68-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering cOlllllents: 1. Parking adjacent to the bank drive-thru area will be specifically designated as employee parking to avoid blocked-in customer automobiles. 2. Erosion control silt fence should be provided at the northwest corner of the property to protect the adjacent property. 3. Regarding stormwater management: a) The hydrologic analysis of Halfway Brook provided by the appl icant indicates that the 60 inch culvert crossing beneath the site does not have adequate capacity to handle a 25 year storm event and would cause partial flooding of the proposed project. The flood i ngant i c i pated is not caused by the proposed development of the property however. The project as proposed may be adversely affected by the flooding which is anticipated. The adverse affects are limited to proposed parking areas. b) The proposed stormwater management plan does not maintain site run off at the pre-development condition as generally required by drainage design standards, Section VIII 1.1 of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant should request and justify a stormwater management waiver to increase pre- development run off rates. c) The hydrological analysis submitted as part of the application, demonstrates that the project storm drainage as proposed does not aggravate flooding caused by upstream areas of Halfway Brook. The hydrological analysis does not however, fully demonstrate that a detention approach for $ GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH N5~ Town of Queensbury Page 2 September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.068 the project is incompatible with the modelled response of Halfway Brook to extreme design rainfall events. d) Mannings "n" value of 0.015 used in the stormwater management calculations is low for corrugated metal pipe. A value of n = 0.022 would be more appropriate, unless otherwise justified. All other engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~L Thomas M. Ya Managing Proj TMY/cam ~ .""..-.. - fiLE"' COpy SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. Øi- q rJ 73 Çw1ct~ R~ kÇ1)i!.. September 6, 1990 RFA #89-5000.068 RC 90 ~{~át' . .ANNING & ZONINf "EPARTMEN"r' M E M 0 RAN 0 U M TO: w. Levandowski T. Paolicelli FROM: T. Yarmowich SUBJECT: Quaker Plaza -~--------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 8/30/90 review meeting notes prepared by Dave Klein of North County Engineering have been received. For clarification, I add the following remarks: Item 1: The comprehensive erosion control plan requested by RFA need only address perimeter conditions (i.e. silt fencQ, stabilized construction entrance). Internal site activity sediment controls can be addressed in a general fashion (i.e. dewatering), such that all discharges from site are filtered/settled and that perimeter controls are maintained throughout construction for all up slope disturbed areas. Item 3: The applicant need only submit for RFA any correspondence from D.E.C. indicating that concerns regarding Halfway Brook are adequately addressed. Item 4: Rist-Frost accepts in concept the conclusions drawn from the applicant's study of the relationship between the Halfway Brook drainage area upstream of the project site and the project's revised internal storm drain system. Rist-Frost will reserve detailed review of the study until formal resubmission data is received through the Planning Department. The preliminary and informal drainage study was provided to Rist-Frost. Revised internal site drainage plans were not provided to Rist-Frost. SIGNED: ~ DATE: j¿/fO I cc: D. Klein J. Goral ski ...;¡..Ðø.J\V"\ <Mi- f 1 .r ---./ 4 t' t..... \511) 66&..&5 ~ fa '~II) 66WS ,tf -S-ÓO 6_ tô - O{¿,,f - ¿,u..:Tt- 7/J1 Y Tc,,~ (J,ß5 North Countrg brgineeriDg P. o. eo. .187 G\eM f'" N. Y. I2ICW DAVID II. ILDI. ,oL PrIndpCII 90-15 MEETING NOTES DATE / TIME: 8/30/90 / 9:00 A.M. PRESENT: Tom Yarmowicb, P.E.- Rist Frost Associates Tom Paolicelli - Rist Frost Associates Jim Houston, P.E. - LA Group ~Dave Klein, P.E. - North country Engineering RE: Quaker Plaza 1. Erosion control plan shall locate all erosion control devices and construction entrances. Construction entrances shall be detailed. Well points or pumps with siltation basins will be used for·dewaterinq excavations. 2. Complete construction details alonq with calculations on the oil water separator shall be provided. 3. All correspondence with DEC will be submitted. 4. Rist Frost Associates will review preliminary hydraulic analysis of Halfway Brook watershed to assure it is complete prior to submission. cc: Attendees 73 Quaker Road Associates Mark Schachner a___-- \ \ l filE COpy ·.J~Wf~)I, \~ S EP 2 II 1990 ~.~ John C. MalUÛs Benjamin B. PraU, Jr. Jo.ph M. WaIIh Mark J. Schuhn.... John C. Mannis. Jr." Thoma G. Clem.n.··· Jeffrey J. Friedland .... Sandra L AII.n· Jo.ph M. Kowalczyk. Jr.· . A_ A........ Ja ........... ··A_ Ad...... N_ a_..... ... AI.- AdmItMII J. DIIIrId., ColumbIa .... AlIta Ad8IIIMd I. CellMelleIá MILLER. MANNIX & PRATI. P.c. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE BROAD STREET PLAZA P.O. Box 765 GLENS FALLS. NEW YORK 12801 (518) 793-6611 ~NNING . ZONI~ ~I:DARTMFN" John W. Miller (1908-1968) ToO Free In N.Y. State 800-421-6166 FAù[(618)798~80 September 19, 1990 WarI e!' C('l1)nty Planning Department Warren County Municipal Center Lak~ George, New York 12845 ¡Town of QueensDury Planning Department Town Hall Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, New York 12804 Re: Quaker Plazá Dear Lee, John, Pat and Uayne: As you are all undoubtedly awa~e, a certain amount of controversy has arisen regaräing the Quaker Plaza project and specifically traffic flow and ~:he possibility of signalization at the intersections of Country Club Road and/or Glenwood Avenue and Quaker Road. . We have discussed this issue several times with Fred Austin and Roger Gebo of. the Warren County Dspartment of Public Works. Qlle next meeting on th~s.t~pic will occur on Tu~sday, Septemb~r 25th at 9: 30 Þu~ "in our' office. We balieve that this meeting' would be most: meaningful and producti'\1t! if representatives of both Town and. County Planning St.aff could also attend. Fred ~ustin share8 this beliet and hopes that the appropriate member or JRembers of each Staff will attend. Please do not he&it.ate to contact me in advance of the IReeting with any questions or comments. Thank you. Very truly yours, MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, P.C. ~~ \to vk~~ MarK J. sähachn~c ~ MJS/kmr cc: Fred Austin, P.E. Roger Gebo PIUNTBDON @ UCYCLBD ~APD ~ ·,'1 '1 :. f . I','I~I^.. ~i~!' .. I .... .~ .... .u~- - kiti o!i:·~'. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 84 HOLLAND AVENUE ALBANY, N.Y. 12208 JOHN E. TAYLOR, PE. REGIONAL DIRECTOR September 17, 1990 Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Town of Queensbury Planning commission Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 FRANKLIN E. WHITE COMMISSIONER Re:Quaker Plaza Dear Mr. Baker: We have received the revised traffic impact study for the Quaker Plaza proposal you transmitted in your letter of September 5, and we offer the following preliminary comments to facilitate your September 25, Planning Board review. The recent widening of NYS Touring Route 254 represents a. public investment in vehicle moving capacity. In order to preserve that capacity, both new access and new signalization should be kept to a minimum. At the same time, adequate access for adjacent development, and local traffic circulation must also be accommodated. We believe that the' firct proposal, ~s outlined in the July 20,1990 traffic impact study, is the better concept from the standpoint of serving the sometimes conflicting goals of preserving capacity while providing for development access and local traffic. Signalizing the Glenwood Road/ Rt. 254 intersec~ion would tend to consolidate north-south traffic at tha~ location thereby reducing the probability that an additional signal would be needed at the Country Club/Rt.254 intersection. Signalizing at the Country Club Road inter- section (as proposed in the revised traffic study) would provide no such benefit and the future need for an additional signal (at Glenwood Road) would remain a more likely possibility. . AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 'ì Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, 7~C~ Ken Carlson Senior Transportation Analyst cc: R. Carlson, Director, Plann. & proq. Manaq., Req. 1 H. Steffins, Warren County Resident Enqineer F. Austin, Warren County Hiqhway Superintendent W ABBBN COUNTY f1~~·RJ~. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. {;; <¡." ~ 0 MUNICIPAL CENTER September II~îiWl~~ ~\ S£.Pl~ 1990 ~ ,,""\"G .. 1.0"'" , "E'ARTME..... 12, 1990 Telephone 518-761-6490 TRAFFIC SAFETY BOARD Mr. John Goralski Planning Department Town of Queensbury Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, New York 12804 Dear Mr. Goralski: The Warren County Traffic safety Board reviewed the proposed Quaker Plaza Neighborhood Shopping Center at its September lOth meeting, with special regard to the traffic signal suggested at the intersection of Quaker and Country Club Roads. It was the unanimous opinion of the Board members present that they did not want a signal at this location, and further, that they were opposed to any access to the Shopping Center from Quaker Road. It was felt that the entrances from Glenwood Avenue would be much more appropriate and would be as convenient for patrons. Thank you for soliciting the Traffic safety Board's· opinion on this proposal. . Yours truly, . ¡,~:' . I' " ¡ ./ Thomas D. Jenkins Executive Secretary TDJ: j d CC: Queensbury Planning Board Warren County Planning Board Roger Gebo, Warren County Dept. of Public Works Mark Schachner, Esq. .; -I /~r (.J;T .# ~Wt.... ")YJ 0ò F I L --' (0 P '! SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. ~~ - -/1 WARREN CouNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS '-' WARRENSSURG a=FICES 261 Main Street Warrensburg. NY 12885 Tel. 518-623·4141 518-761-6556 FAX 518-623-2772 IlfV¡f~ ..-.... MUNICIPAL CENTER OFFICES ) J!;~~ . Lake George, NY 12845 ~ ( S£ W~' r Lfense and Natural Disaster P·~90 []!eL 518-761-6490 Buildings and Grounds ANNIN Tel. 518·761·6494 ".p ON'N· - ~RTMEN. WARREN COONTY AIRPORT Tel. 518-792·5995 200 R Queensbury Ave. Queensbury. NY , 2804 Superintendent's Office Highway Division Parks and Recreation Airport Administration Equipment Maintenance Engineering Hatchery Administration FRED AUSTIN. P.E. Supt. Public Works ROGER GEBO Dep. Supt. Public Works MEMO TO Pat Tatich, Director Warren County Planning FROM: Fred Austin, P.E., superintendent of Public Works DATE: September 11, 1990 RE QUAKER PLAZA - QUAKER ROAD ***************************************************************** I have discussed the matter with Mark Schachner. I noted this office has not received a copy of the proposed plan for review that is before the County Planning Board. Until we do I suggest the matter be tabled. Mr. Schachner and I both feel a meeting with all parties involved should be sçhedµled at an early date. He has agreed to, set this up. .~- / I '.\ ,rvJ' A~stin, Fred FA:rl xc: Steve Borgos, Supv. T/O/Queensbury John S. Goralski, Planner T/O/Queensbury~ Lee York, Sr. Planner T/O/Queensbury Roger Gebo, Dep. Supt., DPW John Mannix, Sr., Esq. Mark Schachner, Esq. Larry Levine, P.E. David Klein, P.E. I FILE (Opy 7~løP WARREN CouNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS '- WARRENSBURGa:FJCES 261 Main Street Warrensburg, NY 12885 Tel. 518-623·4141 518-761-6558 FAX 518-623·2172 MUNICIPAL. CENTER OFFICES Lake George, NY 12845 t'(iìJ ~ilW1lï~ I Civil Defense and Natural Disaster ~~-~ . \~/l J" Tel. 518-761-6490 , - P 1 . " . Buildings and Grounds FREDAUSTIN,P.E. St "1990 .~.. Tel. 518-761-6494 Supt. Public Works ANNINO II ZONI... WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT ROGER GEBO ~cPARTMF.N" Tel. 518-792-5995 Dep. Supt. Public Works ~/¡ 200 R Queensbury Ave. SITE PLAN REVIEW N U Queensbury, NY 12804 3uperintendent's Office ~ghway Division ;'arks and Recreation ~irport Administration :quipment Maintenance :ngineering ~atchery Administration September 14, 1990 Mr. Mark J. Schachner, Esq. Miller, Mannix & Pratt, P.C. One Broad Street Plaza P.O. Box 765 Glens Falls, New York 12801 RE: QUAKER PLAZA - QUAKER RD Dear Mark, I In order to bring everyone up to da te , I thought I could reiterate the position of this office. We have supported and continue to support the traffic, ingress, egress, signals, etc., as shown on the submission dated July 23, 1990. We will however, review the August 29th, traffic data of Mr Levine and the plans dated August 29th, which we just received today. As we review it we will pass our thoughts along. If all other crit~~ia is acceptable to the Planning Board and if conditional approval were granted by the Planning Board to both alternatives we would be amenable to meeting later to see which alternative would be acceptable to this office. FA:rl Very truly yours, - /()j 1~~ Au~~(A.) -- Fred Austin, P.E. Warren County Supt. Public Works xc: Steve Borgos, Supv. T/O/Queensbury John S. Goralski, Planner T/O/Queensbu5Y Lee York, Sr. Planner T/O/Queensbury~ Roger Gebo, Dep. supt., DPW John Mannix, Sr., Esq. Larry Levine, P.E. David Klein, P.E. ,¡¡: ~..~. ,- -= ~' , Apdon of bow to find th r e property: I!. Glen~ Avenue I southWest corner Of Quaker Road I ,' , ..- NOS NOW OR fl)nþ,4~RLY OF LA JOSEPH A. :ï^VITA a F'R£O~RICK A. H(,¡~ARO aOOK 520 PAGE 432 ) ;.f- ;¡ t ,,' ."., - -----. :... .":' / I ,~ .;¿; .' c::::C> ~ _ _ ..--~ "'" """: " ~~<~ '-: -," - - ~ ~ ~,~~ ," '-, " , " ,,", ',,- \', , . . ' . '""',"'::'. "'<' "'--"',;,', ,.,'.'\/ ,'... . ,'," ".......' 1<.... ,<".,.,.,' ", .'. . " " LOADING AR .. ., . 11;6' I I 1/ I I I I I :aUt" "'GI:a (IINO ~Ut" cwo :D0(ll ~:,,"' 2:...CJ .... GI" ell :D....:D ",UtO "'(1)" ~øO ;:. (II "I'" ...CJ ...¡ ... . / " '\ ~/o ..~ " ., , . ~of,. " ,~, "- " 50' " 'i ~..... ,~ ;, '\ q 140· ~~..~ I I 11 ^ ~1¿~~ -~i--i:'T-'~-f-1- l~'~"ì~1 1'1 I I I J , ~.r' 'r!" ..,. 'J....; ~ (ò) ~~ "l ,.' ~ ct\_ 11:11', _!..---, L<>:9= ~ ~ - 'C~f~ I c=.= _I ~ = = t -_ -_ _ _, !JI r .jj'T.,.yr;- _~~ '1"'-'- "'~:r -!: 1_ h - ---.,. ~~o, 1_ _ -- ¡~,-- I __ I;~ r 1..-- .~ '- ... "'" :D"'» ",°0 ...0" ~.O -ø(l) ..... '" "ICJ ... . . ~-- , , 1--1- ,I I - -- Ii -.L. . - (Ii J_ - -:,' I' - _ L- '. .4 '\ j L__ . . t--- L__ I -'- ~ - -~. , . "r .............-., , .......; ....C'14 -__ -- --- '" --,A"I2s _ ...s::"tJ 1""" ~" :,.. "'-- ...-f.-:"';' - -¿ .".... ............ -- -- -- <>= -..........., " .» ,,0 .' " "'110 .... _... fit ~ Zu. "- ----a - " =D-~;=ff "') ",h '. ~ i/~" ---- ~:t :1 !&~~ - - , I I 1/1 "....1 -~ I I.. , .-. " ( ; 11 '- _:'-.~j A' I I 11.....1.,.)..... ·r I 1\' I I , ~ .... ,I ....... . . ......-- - j þ ,.~~ t ."-~-......... ~....... ~ .--- I ...- .. I· ". " .... '.....1'() " . ------ . ~"...... .--.....---.. -.....---...... ---'''' .. ) .... J .. '''- / ...'....... ,73 qUAke¡( r..jtJ t ì(?~NAN) ~"",.."...~,.,. ". '''¡'''~''':-' ... '.' ,:.,',;'''. ~ ""-'" ,'~~-~~. o c Þ Ã rr¡ -'n ::0 ;;; ¿; ::0 ~Qo ;;:~þ ;:O'zO ....0 r;j.." ~£ '~ i\. " o} }."' 'DIh. I~i . ,¡ . ¡ ,i / \ ¡ j Ii I ,! ¡ i ¡ , \ \, '" I.OlJNr/ly CWIJ "'04 -.. --'-"" -- /- I I '. "". I I I , \ \.. , ì \ I , \ I \ ~ I I i I I I I ( ._~\ [2òl-)D l\S'50C \ f>r:~ fJ S\e., :1) ~ I) fJ : V\cf.. v K ~ ~1 - ---- ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pt_nn¡__g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 19. 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Variaace U. Variance - Sip Variance == mterpl'etatioD Other: SubcIiYiIiGu Sketch, _ Prelimiury, Site PIaa Reriew - -X Petition fÐr a ChaDge of Zœe - Freshwater WetJaDda Permit Filial ApplicatioD Number: Petition for a ChanRe of Zone P8-90 Applicant's Name: WJT Realty September 20, 1990 MeetiDg Date: ............................................................................................ , The Town Board has requested that the Planning Board make a recommendation regarding this application for a change of zone. The two involved are on the northeast corner of the Hicks RoadlCounty Line Road intersection. The total. area involved is 23.19 acres. The applicant is requesting that the zoning be changed from Suburban Residential 1 Acre to Light Industrial 1 Acre. I have reviewed the application, and I have the following comments: A policy developed in the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to "identify areas for light industrial development which are easily developable, accessible to major highway arterials without disturbing residential neighborhoods and do not endanger or compromise the natural resources of the Town.". . The property has ready access to two arterial streets (Ridge Road and County Line Road) which are cun-ently utilized by traffic from the Wan-en-Washington Industrial Park. The conditions on the property are such that the property has a good development potential. The ,PlAnning Department resource maps show the following conditions: A) Ten-estrial and Aquatic Ecology - nearest significant ecological community is over 1,000 ft. away B) Depth to High Water Table - greater than 72 inches, high development potential page 1 of 2 _.~ .~-- P8-90 -./ C) Percolation Rate: - .6 to Z inches per hour, moderate suitability for development D) Depth to Bedrock - greater than 60 inches, high development potential E) Slopes - 0 to 3 percent, moderate development potential F) Water Resources - nearest DEC classified streams are Class D (Agricultural and Industrial Use), not located in an aquifer recharge area SGB/sed page Z of Z ----- -'.--. <; LAND) Dç:. {I., fÇ r-! . «J vJ A P- t OJfV 1 "-- '.-' LPrtifDS of ~Ë~P:P- M, LEE D~ '"2~ a: J V"cJ. ~~ <:::> ~ ----"1$ ~ ~ ",- >::{> o ..... r- ...!!f) \..J'\ ..¡Ø o (J 3- E~ ~ ::¿ t;:) ~~ ~ ::r 0'0. "< V"'J-f -J >-... 1- ~< '- ~ -- '=> C) ~\..J '::.C ~ (Jó/þ S fð{l e I ' ~~*r,d'l! ,,- /~/ \ ,- I \_,........ )' \~ ~ '^ I l ! -" - ~ ~t H --- HL( k5 «.ðAO WS1 ¡¿rALlY ~ . - '--' ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI.nni~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: September 24. 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area Variance Use Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: -x SubdiYisioo: Sketch, X Prelim· - - mary, Site P1aD Røiew - Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Subdivision No. 10-1990 Applicant'. Name: John and Nancy Kelly Meeting Date: Senternber 25. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicants are proposing a two lot residential subdivision of their property on Stephanie Lane. I have reviewed the application, and I have the following comments: A) The applicants have requested a waiver from the drainage calculations and stormwater management plan. In considering this request, the Board should consider if the potential stormwater runoff could adversely affect neighboring properties or facilities. B) A utility easement should be provided giving cable access to lot A across property in lot B. c) The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the proposed subdivision layout, and has submitted comments. The necessary changes in the layout can be made at the Final Stage submission. SGB/pw ·,-" FILE (opy -- ". \1)!S' - . ."..-. .... TOWN OF QUEENSBURY )~aW1~ Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-í~ . ~ U . ~.).. S£P 101990 '.ANNINO 1& ZONINf "EPARTMEN"" MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTJDT FROM: PATRICIA M. COLLARD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 RE: KELLY SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY STAGE As shown on the preliminary site plan, the setback from the front property line on Corinth Road to the principal structure is 42.811. The required setback is 75'. The zoning in that district requires a side yard setback of 101 minimum, total of 30'. The area opposite the proposed front door of the house is the rear yard. Therefore, the area of the yard to the north would be the side yard. There is ample room for this proposed house to meet the 75' setback as well as the 10' setback to the north. I would hope that the applicant is able to meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance for his final site plan presentation to the Planning Board. jjd "HOME OF NA TURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 f ~ ----- ---.. ."." ~ ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 .-.....- "---' ,r':'V~' Ç";,,?t ;) <) \-/ .. ~ . ", I .~ I'" {"" , :/,.' ,. ",." . Ii .' , ~ J;'.~~"'-~" .-~"'~-,' .l rr,,\ '.~,:.- '. . : - .J " 199r September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.510 'NN;NG & ¡C;..,: ~ P.'l)ðþTMe'-'I- Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Kelly Subdivision Subdivision 10-90 - Preliminary Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following conments: 1. A request for a waiver from a stormwater management plan has been made. We agree that the stormwater runoff will be minimal and should not significantly impact the site. We reconmend that the Board waive the stormwater management requirement. 2. Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with NYS Guideline for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Very truly yours, ~~SSOCIATES' Thomas M. "fa Managing Proj P.C. ~ THY/cam $ GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH . , --- ..._- }/ '---- -/ 1 i~1 I ' if!: C11!':" i; "7 I I! --j ,,', I.. I .1 ~+,~: ~ 1J'; .." ~.' f4. ¡"f.. I hlj i I :.>/ t'.~. W , ,.'lfl t I I ..... I' .f~ . I V\ L '.,' - - -~ - -1--- --~ -~~.~~~;1. --::- -_..·t--- -1 f'.,., ., ......; ~ . . .. '''''0 2 I . ~o ,$) 4w ~. 8 Ct (, 1?5 '9 J5 I' ',:,; C'~. ~~ .... 10 ::: 2S ·..i - 20.15 I 13AC1s) ,., Li . . .. 26 I :s C I' ,':e , . j ~ g ~ - 1;' . . <"\ 146.16 ',C 1~ f, 8·1..1 . 0> I . .. 1< ~ I I ~ '- t"Z. , } S .ec:::r fo~ t 4,. " s / / OK 2016 Falls 12fj-3- 1 S......y, " 1 <: he rd 2 DeWitt, 'rank . ,...la . a.ehaw, Orl1 ~ SMran ten ". H01( '>;. S\ephftn1e Lan., QQ..hebury Stephenle Lane Glene 'alle P.O. BoK 326( «ilene 'aUe \¡(¿lti <; tJ h d ; \I ,~Sio N . - '--' ,-",' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Ph"u,i"B Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: September 25, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area VariaDc:e U.., Variance == Sip Variance _lDtð&.-.dation SubcIi'risioa: Sketch, Pre1imiwua_ - - - -I' --..!.. Site Plan ReYiew _ Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit FiDal Other: ApplicatiOD Number: Site Plan Review No. 73-90 Applicant'. Name: David E. Williams, Sr. MeetiDg Date: September 25, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing the construction of a retail store to sell heating and cooling parts, ?roducts, and hardware. The ?roperty in question was rezoned from RR-3A to HC-IA by the Town Board in June 1990. I have reviewed the application in accordance with Section 5.070 of the Ordinance, and I have the following comments: I) The proposed structure will be well set back from Bay Road, and the size of the building should fit in well with both the commercial and residential properties in this area. 2) Traffic circulation on site should not create any problems. The long site distances to the north and south on Bay Road should help provide for safe entrance and exit from this lot. 3) The off street parking provided is suffic ient. To improve the appearance of the parking area, the graveled area between the residential driveway and the proposed parking should be seeded and mulched. This lawn area will also help insure that parking for the retail building does not encroach on the residence. 4) Pedestrian access should not be a problem. Handicapped access will be provided throu~h the front entrance at grade level. 5) The only new plantings proposed for the lot are the areas to be seeded for lawn. According to the Beautification Committee approval, the applicant intends to place 1)lanters in front of the proposed retail building. SB/pw .j 'f} ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.073 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: David E. Williams, Sr. Site Plan 73-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering cOßl1lents: 1. The increase in stormwater runoff is shown to be minimal and the applicant is providing eave drains to manage part of the runoff from the roof area. However, ground cover descriptions given throughout the stormwater calculations and application informa- tion should be coordinated and calculations revised as necessary. 2. Test pit data shows mottled soil between 26"-48" indicating seasonal high groundwater at locations somewhat distant from the proposed subsurface disposal area. Pipe inverts should be shown if gravity flow will be used. It is suggested that the actual location of the proposed sewage disposal area be test pit for evidence of seasonal high groundwater and perc tested. If conditions permit, a conventional subsurface absorption field should be used. 3. Erosion control measures should bè provided in accordance with NYS Guideline' for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Very truly yours, P.C. Thomas M. Yarm w ch, P.E. Managing Projec ngineer TMY/cam $ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH ''- ..¡ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OOMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION ---- fILE COpy Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbu17, R. Y. 12801 To. (x> Warren County Planning Board (x> Queensbu1"1 Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x> APplicant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. lZ80J Date. 9/10/90 Re. Site Plan #73-90 - David E. Wiflia~s, sr. Bay Road south of Rte. #149 We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (¡{) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. ( Jð Approval ( ) Disapproval This business property is next north of their home which will be handy for the maintenance of both properties.. For the most part the properties will be left as natural as possible, although there will be vast areas of lawn. Existing hardwoods and pines will be retained as a buffer to surrounding properties and as specimen trees. The driveway and parking areas will have gravel, rather than be paved. The blueprint does not show the planters which will be placed in front of both the store and warehouse portion of the building. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to fo on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming s gns, Z. Plastic òr artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. e;;!?Y~72"Zd. Robert L. £ray, Chá~ f -4 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FILE COpy Supplemental application for Special Permits and Use Variances: (to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for: Landscaping, Plantings and Screening) 1. Applicant I s name: Mr. "D(;Ã\I,d W ¡ II ia ms Street address :~.,c ~ '50 "t ða.Þ);:¡ Þ\oCld City, State, zi"LQ~ Georq~, " Z~t/5" Telephone number: ïCf'2.- è:J L/ i 3 Location of Planned Construction :~ fl~ad iO'" ~ot.Jth i2'¡d4~t, 2. Plot plan: (to a comprehensive scale) Zoning Board application plot plan may be used (or a separate sheet). Sªow location of driveways; ramps, walks, buildings, signs, parking areas, storage and refuse areas, existing trees (of six inch caliper (diameter)or greater) and existing tree or shrub border.. '5.t(. P \~V'\ 3. Landscaping. Planting or Screening plans: (show on plot plan) Trees and shrubs? Variety and numbers e.~I"!a-+ InC) Grass or other ground cover? í~StZ<1d dlsfv"'~tJ ~s Flower beds. planters or window boxes? none Mulching? (material to retain moisture and inhibit weed growth) Marble chips Stone Redwood chips Bark Pine nèedles N/A Screening? Storage or refuse areas or unsightly areas? Buffer zone? (required by ordinance abutting residential zone) Sa.. p\A~ Maintenance? Give plans for care of all plants, shrubs, trees, lawn, flowers, etc., watering, pråning, weeding, f ./ feeding and necessary periodical care. . LÞJL ~S V\w1ed. "" M4tV1haí~ A. \'(C411hh," I ~(..\\ tn,'1 "f.incJ y \&"t,(, vf- ~tJç~ . Removal or trash and snow? Indicate plans for litter removal from parking and public areas. Show location on plot plan of trash receptacles and snow storage. 5t(... ybV\ 4. Exterior building finish? Clapboard? Other? Brick or stone? Painted blocks? S+-\JeGC, 6r~c.~, 6t:c.\v. ~-,dÙv~ Your customers and the community will be attracted to a beautified, ~ ., \ well maintained place of business and you and your ~mpieyeésbwšlie'ake~ ..' pride in the appearance of your place of business and better serve your customers. Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification. ( ---- - ...- . -" - .....,.., '<~ . !.¡ '-' -- . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI=n'ning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: SeDtember 21. 1990 By: John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance - Interpretation X SubdiYisioD: X Sketch, _ PreUmiDary, Site Plan Reriew - == Petition far a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Subdivision No. 11-1990 Applicant's Name: Robert W. Whipple - WhiDnle Subdivision MeetiDg Date: September 25. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant wishes to subdivide approximately 2 acres in an MR-S zone into four lots. No roads will be constructed and houses will be built by the purchasers of the lots. Stormwater runoff created by the additional non-permeable areas wi 11 be handled by on-site drywe11s. I recommend that a specific layout and clearing plan be provided for each lot at preliminary stage. In reviewing this application with respect to the purpose of Sketch Plan (Act III A), I have the fo1¡owing comments: I) This is an unlisted action in SEQRA. 2) Because this project is only four lots, 17 wi 11 not be reviewed by D.O.H. 3) It is my opinion that clustering would not be appropriate for this site. 4) There are no other involved agencies. 5) The proposal seemed to be consistent with the Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivision Regulations. JGlpw ~ ~IST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS '-" '-' POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 '. ....&'. . ~~~~~. ))~f:\ 1 > 'It,,"'! I~ I~ ,II· I· .i . [3 \. ~T ~,_" .' ~ !.~ it ~. ~"'....,." "L....-:i" ..--' ·.;f .' t 'a, '¿;'. . ~'-ì! 1 ¡ .\ ~fP i~J 199(1 :~; \NNING & ZONiì """I:D6PTNlc:t.I- September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.511 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Whipple Subdivision Subdivision 11-90 - Sketch Plan Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering conrnents: 1. Suitability of the proposed lots for subsurface sewage disposal must be demonstrated. 2. It appears that lot 1 will have a single family dwell ing constructed on it. If this is the case, a soil erosion and sediment control plan should be provided in accordance with NYS guide1 ines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Multiple family dwelling lots will be subject to site plan review at which time erosion control and stormwater management will be addressed. 3. Culvert sizing calculations should be provided for lot 1 at preliminary stage. Very truly yours, P.C. TMY/cam @ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH f , ; . - '-..- ...- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pw.ftfti"IJ Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 24, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area V8I'iaace Uae VariaDce - Sip. VariaDce == IDterpretatioa. SubdiYisioa: _ Sketch. _ PrelimiDary, X Site Plan Rniew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppJicatioD Number: Site Plan Review No. 74-90 AppJicant'. Name: Ronald N. J eckel MeetiDg Date: September 25, 1990 ............................................................................................ This applicant wishes to add an auto body shop to a 14.42 acre parcel that clUTently contains a car dealer and a recreation vehicle dealer. If approved, the site will contain three separate uses. The applicant intends to subdivide this property into four lots. 1. The building is setback 458 feef from Route 9. The proposed location will facilitate access to the rear of the parcel for future subdivisions. 2. Because the building is setback a significant distance from the road, there is no need to change the access ways. 3. Although a parking layout ,is provided for the new use only, several site inspections have shown the existing parking is more than adequate for the existing uses. It does not appear that any existing parking will be eliminated by this proposal. Damaged vehicles will be stored within a fence so that they will not be seen from the road or from the slUTOunding uses. 4. Pedestrian access does not conflict with vehicular traffic. I recommend the handicapped parking space be moved closer to the building. This would comply with the requirement that the handicapped parking space be located so that there is the shortest possible distance from the parking space to the accessible entrance. 5. Storm water drainage facilities will be addressed by the Board's consulting engineer. 6. Water supply will be from the municipal water main in Route 9. The Board's consulting engineer will review the sewage disposal system. 7. The proposed fencing, landscape, and setbacks combine to provide sufficient screening for this use. 8. Emergency vehicle access is sufficient. The Material Data Safety Sheet should be completed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. ;< Tc:r..I.....rI ~ 'IST.FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. ::ONSUL TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 . 793-4146 518.793-4141 '-' -- September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.074 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Ronald N. Jeckel, Site Plan 74-90 Dear Mrs. York: ... We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Detailed calculations should be provided to backup the stormwater management report and plan. Perc test data reveals substantially lower infiltration rates than those identified as design criteria. 2. The drawings should correctly identify the locations of test pits and perc tests. 3. The applicant is designing the subsurface disposal system using 150 gpd. This value seems low in view of the nature of autobody work as a trade requiring extensive direct contact with various materials and should be further justified if used. 4. Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 5. Drawing scale should be indicated. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E. Managing Project Engineer TMY/cam ~ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA NH ~ . f '"NNING & ZONI"j ....I:DARTM~N... STATE OF NEW YORK. .'~ :¿ l.f 3.{J DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATÍ¡6r..{LrU' REVIEWNfJ. ~- 84 HOLLAND AVENUE .J ~c../( eL ALBANY. N.Y. 12208 . i ~~j1\1í1f1~- I .\~~~:.~(J \~ U . . .) t ¡.; 2 ' . 1990 ¥O" "---- JOHN E. TAYLOR. PE. REGIONAL DIRECTOR FRANKLIN E. WHITE COMMISSIONER September 19, 1990 Mrs. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Planning Commission Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 Re:Jeckel Auto Body Shop Dear Mrs. York: We concur with your letter designating the town of Queensbury Planning Board as the SEQR Lead Agency for the Jeckel Auto Body Shop review. If the applicant desires to do any work in the right of way of NYS Route 9, a NYSDOT permit will be needed. For further information on the permit process, the applicantshould contact Herbert F. Steffins, NYSDOT Warren County Resident Engineer at 623-3511~ Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. ~. nc~~~y, . ."" te-. en Carlson Senior Transportation Analyst cc:R.carlson,Director Reg 1 Planning and Program Management H.Steffins,Warren county Resident Engineer AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER j. '-- FilE COPy-' TOWN OF QUEENSBfE,9BHYEvIEWNO. 14-~ Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 J~~ . - N. W. Bodenweiser, Fire Marshal \(l~~Wf.Ell ' St~~OJ) ~NNI~ZONI~ "'CD4ATMI=N'9" TO: FROM: Town of Queensbury Planning Dept. DATE: September 24, 1990 SUB: Formula 1 Auto Body For proper review by this office, the applicant must completely fill out the Hazardous Materials Report Form per the printed instructions. ~w f~~~\ N. W. Bodenweiser Fire Marshal "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 .j ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ~ OOMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION FilE COpy Robert L. Eddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue QUeensbur,r, K. Y. 1280J Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ To. ex) Warren County Planning Board Date. 9/10/90 (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant Re. Site Plan #74-90 - Ronald N. Jeckel Lake George Road We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variancé, (x) Site Plan Review, ( ) other - and have the following recommendations. (x) APproval ( ) Disapproval This building is to be so far from the highway - about 500 feet that normally the Committee would not be concerned, but the applicant intends to build a road, to Queensbury Highway's specifications, so that, eventually, it may be deeded to the Town as access to the acreage to the rear of this property and behind adjoining properties. Five red oaks are to be planted, four in front of the building out by the roadway and a fifth before the entrance driveway. Along the driveway, away from the building, 28 pfitzer junipers and 12 winged euonymus will be planted four junipers then four euonymus. This should be attractive as the burning bush will provide color in the fall of the year. Plantings will be mulched with shredded wood (or, as an alternative, weed barrier will be placed covered with mulch for appearance and preservation of the material). A fenced area to the sou~h of the building will be provided to protect the cars from vandals. This will be chainlink with plastic slats. The dumpster will be enclosed in the back corner of the building. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~~;fUl,~y .J!Ubm~. t d, ~~£? Robert L. Eddy, Cha an I . -..... ~-. .- <'f- ~ VÞs1 - ""-' '..- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ptSl"";"g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 25, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Variaace U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == Interpretation Subdmåoa: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, --y Site Plan Reriew - == Petition fer a ChaDge of ZoDe Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Site Plan No. 75-90 Applicant'. Name: U-Haul Co. of N.E. New York MeetiDg Date: September 25, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing the construction of a 19,450 sq. ft. self-storage building behind the existing U-Haul Rental facility. A use variance for this project was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 31, 1990. The location of the zoning boundaries on the site plan, along both the southern and westerly property lines are shown incolTectly. The actual location, as shown on the tax maps, is in the middle of the Niagara Mohawk property. I have reviewed the application in accordance with Sedion 7.070' of the Zoning Ordinance, and I have the followi~g çomments. 1. The proposed self-storage building will be set back over 230 ft. from Main Street, and will be well buffered from adjacent properties. As the Rist-Frost comments indicate, the proposed building may be too big for this site. The proposed exterior building lighting will not affect adjacent properties. 2. A 20 ft. 'wide driveway is provided around the building. Considering the potential size of trucks that will be arriving at this facility, a one-way traffic circulation pattern is recommended. 3. Parking provided should be adequate. 4. A 10 mph speed limit (at most) should be posted at the access gate to insure pedestrian safety. page 1 of 2 ,.; "'--" -- Site Plan No. 75-90 5. Buffer plantings should sufficiently shield the building from surrounding properties. The Planning Department did not receive any comments on this project from the Beautification Committee. Lawn areas should be designed so as to insure ease of maintenance and protection from vehicular traffic. The proposed ±ISO sq. ft. area of grass extending from the wooded area on the eastern side of the lot may be difficult to maintain. 6. The Fire Marshall's office has submitted a letter regarding emergency access. SGB/sed page Z of Z ~o ~...ï~U ÀISToFROST·ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOx 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 '-' -- September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.075 Town of Queensbury Office BUilding Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: U-Haul Co. of N.E. New York Site Plan 75-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Green space provided is less than 30%. 2. Parking provided is based on 1 space per 1000 sf, not 1 space per 100 sf as stated in part "l" of app1 icants response to the Planning Board Checklist. Adequate parking is provided. However, one (I) handicapped accessible space should be designat- ed. 3. The grading plan is incomplete. At the west part of the site, the 97 and 98 contours in the buffer area need to be adjusted. In the south part of the site, the 99 contour is not complete. 4. The grading should direct all stormwater to the proposed retention area. 5. The stormwater calculations are incorrect. Retention should be designed to manage the 50 year storm per Subdivision Regulation VIII I.2.d: . Intensity duration curves for rainfall shall be used as required by the above regulation. The developed peak runoff should be managed on site, and will probably occur at a duration less than 60 min. The infiltration of water into the soil should be based on actual percolation tests taken in a 3 sf standard test hole. Use of other methods are acceptable however. 6. The retention area shown is substantially less than 31,400 sf. Calculations for infiltration should reflect only the area where stormwater will be retained and infiltrated. A storage release hydrograph should be provided to show the basin operation. Retent ion bas in maintenance notes shoul d be added st ipu1 at ing that the Owner be responsible for mowing, removal of debris and sediment, and that snow not be deposited in the retention area during snow removal operations. * GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH j' ~ '--" ~ Town of Queensbury Page 2 September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.075 7. Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Sediment and Erosion Control. Very truly yours, ~~i:::::'AS OCIATES~ P.C. ~s M. Ya wich, P. . Managing Pro t Engineer ,. ---. '--' . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 (518) 792-5832 TO: Planning Board FROM: Kip Grant, Deputy Fire Marshall RE: Site Plan Review No. 75-90 U-Haul Co. of N.E. New York DATE: September 2.5, 1990 To reduce vehicú1ar congestion that could slow fire department access, this office recommends a one-way traffic pattern around the building. KGlsed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . ; A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ~ ~ '.; ~ . - "--" - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P'I:n'ft;ftg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 2.5, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area VariaDc:e Use Variance - Sign Variance :::: IDterpretatioD X SubdiYisioa: X Sketch, PreJ.imin-- - -I' Site Plan Reriew - - Petition far a ChaDge of ZoDe - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppUcatioD Number: Subdivision No. 12.-1990 AppUcant'. Name: Alene M. Brown MeetiDg Date: September 2.5, 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is for Sketch Plan approval for a three lot subdivision at the southeast corner of Ridge Road and Clements Road. The zoning is SR-IA and the lot size is 11.02. acres. The lots are all greater than two acres. The Board usually tries to encourage an interior road way, but in this case where only one driveway will access Route 9L, it does not seem appropriate. The applicant has provided substantial frontage along the roadways and exceed the requirement. There are no planning concerns regarding this subdivision at this stage of review. LA Y Ised ~ J I ~ AlST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4148 518 ~ 793-4141 --- \(i$~uwr~¡! I \ S EP ~ ~ 1990'il' iLL \NNING & ZONI" ~I:DAFlT~t:..- Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: ATene M. Brown Subdivision Subd;v;s;on 12-90 - Sketch Plan Dear Mrs. York: -- - ,~ - "r ¡ '" ......¡ . September 24, 1990 RFA #89-5000.512 We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering conwnents: 1. Test hole #1 on lot 2 indicates soil mottl ing at 4.3', the potent ia1 seasonal high groundwater. It is reconwnended that prior to actual sewage disposal system construction, test holes be conducted in the spring as required by Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance sect ion 5.030 B.7). Perc test should be conducted at the actual sites of proposed sewage disposal systems prior to construction. 2. The sewage disposal system on lot 2 should be at least 200 feet from the intermittent stream if testing prior to construction reveals a perc rate of 3 minutes per inch or less, as required by Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance section 3.030 c. 3. Stormwater runoff will 1 ike1y be minimal and will follow the existing natu~a1 drainage course traversing the proposed lots. Stormwater management therefore is not necessary. Very truly yours, ~csoc ATES, ~ Thomas M. Ya w'ch, P.E. Managing Proje t Engineer TMY/cam e GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH f