1990-10-16
,
--
-/
QUEENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16TH. 1990
INDEX
Site Plan No. 55-90
Guido Passarelli
1.
Site Plan No. 28-90
Dunham's Bay Boat Co, Inc.
15.
Site Plan No. 43-90
Leo Lomba rdo
Leo's Lobster House
17.
Subdivision No. 8-1990
Adirondack Industrial Park, Inc.
19.
Site Plan No. 76-90
Michael and Martha Hogan
22.
Site Plan No. 77-90
Mary D. Scuderi; Lucy Scuderi
29.
Subdivision No. 13-1990
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Robert and Margaret Reid
30.
Site Plan No. 78-90
Karamatt Broadcasting, Inc.
Owner: Tiernan, Berstein, and Pinchuk
34.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS
WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
--'
--
QUEENS BURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16TH. 1990
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PETER CARTIER. ACTING CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
NICHOLAS CAIMANO
JAMES MARTIN
EDWARD LAPOINT
MEMBERS ABSENT
JAMES HAGAN
CONRAD KUPILLAS
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH
ASSISTANT PLANNER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. CARTIER-Good evening. We're going to get started 10 minutes early, so that we can deal with
some internal things that we need to get talked about and don't have hang them up until the end of
the meeting and I'm shooting for being done with that stuff by 7:30. so that we can get started on
the regular meeting stuff. First item, I'd like to introduce everybody to our newest member, Ed
LaPoint, who's joining us tonight. We thank you for signing on, Ed. Ed brings us an engineering
background that we are delighted to have. We've got to talk about an election. Now, we've got some
options, here. We can do it tonight. We can wait until November, until Jim is back. or we can wait
until January, because, at our first January meeting, we have a regular reorganization, if you will,
and what's your druthers?
MRS. PULVER-I'm for waiting until January, if you don't mind being acting chairman until January.
MR. CAIMANO-Let's wait until January.
MR. CARTIER-Not at all. That takes care of that, that's simple enough.
MR. CAIMANO-Do you want to vote on it? Okay.
MOTION TO MAINTAIN MR. CARTIER AS VICE CHAIRMAN AND CHAIRMAN PRO T9IP AND ALL OTHER OFFICES UNTIL
THE REGULAR ElECTlOII III JAllJARY, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded
by James Martin:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-I had a meeting with Paul Dusek. and I can't find the notes of that right now, but, in
effect, he said that we would have something in hand, and Karla's already given that to us, and I
think we've already decided, all we're going to do is look at that. What we have to do is decide,
if and when, we'd like to have a workshop session on that. I think that's the most appropriate time
to do that. While we're talking about workshop sessions, we also have a request from the Docksider,
from Mr. O'Connor representing the Docksider, for a workshop session on revisions that they have.
We have also been requested by those involved with the mall, the Aviation Mall re-zoning, for a special
meeting for that. So, we have three issues to deal with, in terms of how we want to handle them,
as far as workshop sessions are concerned. Maybe we can combine some of these things into one workshop
session. Let's take this special meeting for the mall. Do you want to, potentially, schedule one
for November?
MRS. PULVER-How soon do they have to have it, or did they say?
MR. CARTIER-Stu, do we have any formal letter from, I believe, we have, in the file, from the Aviation
Mall. a request. Did they indicate anything?
1
----'
-.../
MR. BAKER-I believe we do, but I do not have it with me, this evening.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I'll tell you what, let's wait until next week on that. We can handle that next
Thursday. That takes care of them. The Docksider?
MR. CAIMANO-Well. here's my suggestion to you. My suggestion to you is, why don't we add one extra
meeting, at the beginning of November, limited in time, and agree to cover all three within that
time 1 imit?
MR. CARTIER-Are you saying you J!Q. want to look at the Docksider in a special meeting?
MR. CAIMANO-Well. if we're going to have a special meeting, I would not mind taking up the issue
of the Docksider, in as much as Mr. O'Connor talks. about it. I'm not anxious to have a special meeting
simply for the Docksider. If we're going to need a special meeting, anyway, why not handle three
items and limit the time.
MR. CARTIER-Well, two of the items are rather significant in length, I think.
MR. CAIMANO-That's why I'm saying, limit the time.
MS. CORPUS-I would not recommend that the Board limit the time period for each applicant.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-There have been some phone calls and/or letters in to the Planning Department with regard
to the Docksider. They, and correct me if I'm wrong, Stu, they want things done in public and they
want a situation in which they can be heard.
MR. BAKER-That's correct.
MR. CARTIER-Which suggests that we do not handle the Docksider in a workshop session.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Just a special meeting?
MR. CARTIER-~ do we feel it's significant enough that we want to have a special meeting? Why can't,
the other alternative is to allow the Docksider to be just one item on a regular meeting agenda.
MR. MARTIN-I really don't see where the complexity merits a special meeting. It's not like we're
seeing it for the first time, either.
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MRS. PULVER-The Docksider? But the letter indicates that it has been revised, reduced.
MR. CARTIER-Theoretically simplified.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Maybe two meetings would make sense. One for a workshop session on the Town Board stuff
and then one for the mall, because I think the mall is something that going to, that's significant.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, let's sort this out. What do you want to do about the Docksider?
MR. CAIMANO-I'm not anxious for a special meeting all on the Docksider.
MR. CARTIER-Alright. Do we need a motion to request the Staff to draft a letter to Mr. O'Connor,
indicating that the Board has considered his request for a workshop session and...
MRS. PULVER-Excuse me. Why not?
MR. CAIMANO-Because we've already talked about the Docksider. ad nausum and it's going to be scaled
down. I don't think there's anything on there that's going to be of any complexity, as somebody
has already said.
MRS. PULVER-So, you think it can be handled at a regular meeting?
MR. CAIMANO-Absolutely.
2
-
-.,../
MRS. PULVER-They ~ on a regular agenda, right?
MR. CARTIER-They will be. Well, I don't know if they are now.
MR. CAIMANO-They have not been. The last time, they withdrew. Well, you missed that meeting. They
backed away. O'Connor came and said, look, I'm on this case, now, and I want to table this thing
and talk to him, that's the result of this. He's now downsized the project, but everybody's familiar
with the project. He's going to come in with his new things. I think it should be on a regular
meeting. I mean, it's not that we don't know the project, because we do.
MRS. PULVER-Well, were they led to believe that they could get on a special meeting? Because, now.
if they can't get on next month, they could be two more months away.
MR. CAIMANO-No one led them to believe that, at all. There was no discussion of a special meeting
at the last Board meeting.
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. CAIMANO-None.
MR. CARTIER-That's a request that, I believe, has been initiated by Mr. O'Connor.
MR. CAIMANO-In other words, Mike hasn't come before this Board, when he was here last time, he didn't
say, well, gee, let's talk about a special meeting. That was not a discussion at all. He tabled
it and said, we'll come back to the Board at a later date.
MR. MARTIN-The other reason I say that, Peter, is I think that, if we do it in a regular meeting,
that will facilitate better public participation.
MR. CARTIER-I agree.
MR. CAIMANO-I think we'll be in trouble if we don't.
MRS. PULVER-Is the public hearing still open on it?
MR. CARTIER-Yes, but if we do it in workshop, we don't conduct a public hearing.
MRS. PULVER-Well, that's what I was going to say. Now. in workshop, would we?
MR. CARTIER-Nothing formal happens.
MRS. PULVER-I was going to say. we wouldn't make a decision anyway.
MR. CAIMANO-Right. He's got to come back to a meeting, anyway.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-And that may be the way to present it, Stu, that it doesn't necessarily speed things up
for them, if that's what they're looking for.
MR. BAKER-Right.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Do you want to do that, then, Pete?
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MOTION FOR SITE PLAII 110. 17-90 THE OOCKSIDER RESTAURANT THAT THE SECRETARY BE INSTRUCTED TO AlSWER
MR. O'CO_R'S LETTER III THE NEGATIVE AID INDICATE THAT WE WILL HAllDLE THE DOCICSIDER AT THE NEXT
REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETIIIG THAT THEY CAlI GET THEIR SITE PlAN APPLICATION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
3
MR. CARTIER-Okay, which leaves us with, I think Jim's suggestion, is that we handle the reV1Slons
of the Planning Board procedure and the Mall Petition for Re-zoning Recommendation that we have to
make to the Town Board, for a second meeting, for it's own special meeting.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Sometime in November?
MR. CAIMANO-The day after Thanksgiving's fine with me.
MR. CARTIER-Stu, do you have a calendar in front of you?
MR. BAKER-No. I'm afraid I don't.
MS. CORPUS-I've got one.
MR. CARTIER-I don't even know the November meetings are.
MRS. PULVER-Here we go. The 16th and 23rd are our normal meetings.
MR. CARTIER-The 23rd is, what, a Tuesday?
MRS. PULVER-A Tuesday. I'm sorry. Wait a minute. The 20th, and the 27th.
MR. CARTIER-The 20th and 27th. When's Thanksgiving?
MR. CAIMANO-The 22nd.
MR. CARTIER-Early December?
MR. CAIMANO-No, why don't we do it like the first or second week of November, get it out of the way.
MR. MARTIN-Ri ght. I agree.
MR. CARTIER-Tuesday, the 6th?
MS. CORPUS-No, the 6th is election day.
MR. MARTIN-That's right.
MR. CAIMANO-So, what?
MR. CARTIER-Okay, so, here we go. When is this room available?
MR. MARTIN-How about Thursday, the 8th?
MR. CARTIER-Good. Thursday, the 8th.
MS. CORPUS-The Town Board has moved it's regularly scheduled meeting until the 8th, I believe.
MR. CARTIER-When do they normally meet?
MS. CORPUS-The 5th.
MR. CARTIER-Well, can we steal the 5th, then? If they're not using it the 5th, can we have it the
5th?
MS. CORPUS-Sure.
MR. CARTIER-Can we tentatively schedule this for the 5th and make a formal decision next week?
MR. BAKER-Yes, the Planning Department will check on the availability of the room.
MR. CARTIER-Great. So, we've postponed two things, here, until next week.
MRS. PULVER-Alright, and if it's official, will the Planning Department send me a notice, please.
MR. MARTIN-Now, is that for the Mallon the 5th?
MR. CARTIER-Yes, the Mall on the 5th of November. I believe they've already submitted stuff to the
Planning Department. Have they not?
4
--./
MR. BAKER-Yes, they have.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have to deal with lead agency status, tonight, on that, that's because we're
running on a time clock, we can wait until the end of the meeting to do that. That's kind of a
formality.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Right.
MR. CAIMANO-What about the resolution?
MR. CARTIER-The resolution regarding what?
MR. MARTIN-The special workshop session.
MRS. PULVER-Look it over, we'll discuss it.
MR. CARTIER-That's what we're going to do at that special meeting, when we do the Mall re-zoning.
MR. CAIMANO-We're going to do it at the same time?
MR. CARTIER-Yes. Those two things.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Alright.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm getting phone calls from individuals, just to let you know, and what I'm doing
is referring them to the Planning Department. As far as 1'm concerned, anything that gets to us
should come through the Planning Department first. So, 1'm just letting you know that.
MR. CAIMANO-As a matter of course. I think it might be interesting if we simply, at the next regularly
scheduled meeting. indicate those phone calls, for the record. I think it would protect us.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, the one I got, that I'm referring to, has to do with Mr. Eckerdt, up in
Assembly Point. You may recall. he built a dock and a boathouse and he was required to put stairs
up. from the dock.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Well, he's put a walkway from the shore to the top of the deck. Mr. Hatin has challenged
that. Mr. Eckerdt wants to, he wanted to get in on tonight's meeting or this week's meeting, this
month's meeting and I said, get yourself on an agenda. He wants to talk to us. I think what he
is looking for, essentially, is approval of the revisions he made.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Down the line, our December meetings include December 25th, so we'll decide, somewhere
along the line, about changing those, I assume. also, okay. Alright. let's get into our normal agenda,
here.
CORRECTION OF MIrIJTES
August 21st, 1990:
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21ST. 1990, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Carol Pulver:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October. 1990. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint
August 28th, 1990:
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 28TH. 1990, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its
adoption, seconded by James Martin:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
5
----'
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint
Special Meeting, September 4th, 1990:
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 4TH. 1990, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PlAN 110. 55-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME ROUTE 9. AT THE lOCATION
OF THE MOUNT ROYAL MOTEL FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER 45.800 SQ. FT. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
STRUCTURES AID CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER WITH PARKING. (WARREN coum PLAIINING) TAX MAP
NO. 70-1-9 LOT SIZE: 5.25 ACRES SECTION 4.020 (K)
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Warren County disapproved, with comments:
not meet with the Queensbury Beautification Committee."
picked up copies of that?
"Failure to meet previous conditions. Did
Do you have copies of that? Have you already
MR. MILLER-Yes.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. CARTIER-And we have a letter from the Beautification Committee, indicating disapproval, to
Queensbury Town Planning Board, dated 10/8/90 (attached) We have a further letter from Mr. Eddy,
regarding the Site Plan. This is dated 8/27. I believe we may have looked at those letters already,
the last time that they appeared before us. Is that new information to us?
MR. CAIMANO-What letters?
MR. BAKER-I don't believe the Board has seen that letter yet.
MRS. PULVER-This is a letter that says he inadvertently checked "approved", on the previous
application, and he meant to check "disapproved", but, since the application had been tabled, no
harm was done, but he wants to go on record as saying, he made a mistake in the first check and that
this is actually, this is his decision.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Since you summed it up so well, we don't have to read the letter. Correct?
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. MARTIN-The 10/8 letter is the one that's most recent.
MR. CARTIER-Is the pertinent letter, okay. I also have a letter from Joseph Kelly, Traffic Safety
Division, DOT, Albany, New York.
MR. CAIMANO-No, it's~.
6
-.../
MRS. PULVER-It's ~ him.
MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry.
MR. CAIMANO-It's ~ Joseph Kelly, from Stu.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, that's just involving SEQRA. lead agency, and you don't have comments from DOT,
yet, Stu, is that correct?
MR. BAKER-DOT has not had a chance to review the Passarelli application, yet. However, since they
are a permitting agency, they will be doing a separate review and any traffic problems that they
find will be taken care of, at that point.
MRS. PULVER-How about Department of Health?
MR. BAKER-We've had no word from the Department of Health.
MRS. PULVER-That was the other letter.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, gentlemen?
MR. MILLER-Good evening. I'm Jim Miller from Northfield Design Architects, representing Guido
Passarelli and Al Cerano, for the Mount Royal project. What I'd like to do is give you a brief
overview of the scope of the project and then I'll turn it over to Joe Sporko, from the LA Group,
for the more technical aspects of the Site Planning. When Joe's done, we have our traffic consultant
here, who's prepared a report that's i ncl uded in our submi ssi on and he can talk a 1 ittl e bit about
his traffic findings.
MR. CARTIER-In the interest of time, I think I would like to have you address, and anybody on the
Board correct me, here, if I'm going in the wrong direction, I think I'd much rather have you address
the issues that have been brought up by Staff. I don't think we're going to look at an approval,
tonight. since there are so many outstanding issues and it might be better to use your time finding
out what other issues the Planning Board wants us to look at, rather than making a presentation on
something that we know isn't going to get approved, tonight, because, again, because of the outstanding
issues.
MR. MILLER-Okay. lid like to take issue with the concept of being approved, tonight. I don't believe
the issues are that outstanding. We did a very comprehensive revamp, from the last time around,
and have sent out the application to all parties concerned. The issue of the Beautification Committee
has been kind of one that has bogged us down throughout the whole project. We never received a notice,
when they were meeting. We did send drawings to them, and we never heard anything from them. I
tried to contact them, the day of their meeting, and I was not able to find out when the meeting
was, and then we received notice that we had missed the meeting. So, what I would be asking for
this evening is, if we can gain approval with a contingency of any items the Board feels are
outstanding.
MR. CARTIER-We have been very reluctant, in the past, and continue to be reluctant to provide
contingent approvals. They usually back-fire on us.
MR. CAIMANO-Having said that, however, we don't know what the contingencies are, so, I think we should
just find out what's going on.
MR. CARTIER-Fine. Go ahead.
MR. MILLER-Okay, the other point I would like to make is that we did meet with the Town Planners
and Rist-Frost, after our meeting in July, to go over the direction we would take, for the new design.
So, there has been quite a few different items we've addressed, in getting to this design. Just,
quickly, we presented the concept of what the building will look like. The major changes in
circulation is we moved our entrance, opposite Kendrick Road. Previously, it was at this location.
We have a Boulevard type entrance, one way in, two ways out, a right and left turn situation. We
have revamped our service drive. around the back of the building, to accommodate the requirements
of the fire marshal. In addition to that. we have cut another exit only, right turn only, exit from
the parking lot, at this location. We've down scaled the size of the building, itself, by, basically,
4,000 feet, and revamped the septic and stormwater systems to accommodate the new design. In addition
to that, we've gone step by step through every comment that was brought up at the 1 ast meeti ng, and
have written a rebuttal of what we have changed. With that in mind, I'd like to turn it over to
Joe Sporko. Perhaps, he could talk a little bit about some of the items that were brought up at
the July meeting.
JOE SPORKO
MR. SPORKO-Thank you. I'm Joe Sporko with the LA Group. I'll quickly, kind of, paraphrase the letter
that I had submitted to the Planning Board. which discussed the changes that we did make to the plans,
7
'-'
..-
which Jim kind of, briefly, covered. We did submit, along with the plans, a technical report that
incl uded a waste water disposal report, a stormwater management report, and a traffic study, which
was done by Larry Levine, who is also here, this evening. As Jim said, the size was reduced from
45,000 square feet, to 41,500 square feet. So that, in turn, reduced the number of parking spaces
necessary, from 252 spaces down to 230 spaces, so that, in turn, allowed us to open up more green
space in the front of the building. The access, as Jim said, was changed to a singular access,
opposite Kendrick Road, which was the one large requirement that the County had placed upon us, that
we did follow. The entrance line is 12 feet wide. The two exit lanes are 10 feet wide, each.
In addition, we have a right turn only exit lane, located right over here. The plans were submitted
to the Department of Transportation and, when I'm done, I'll turn it over to Larry, so he can give
a quick update, as far as what the Department of Transportation has to say about it. We do not have
an approval from them, yet, but the plans are still being reviewed by them. We've revised the size
of the handicapped parking spaces. as per the new handicapped requirements. We've also included
breaks in the islands, to allow for easier pedestrian travel through the parking lot, to get to the
shopping center. A 20 foot wide area is reserved, on the north side of the center, which is located
right over here, for possible future connection to the adjacent land. As Jim mentioned, the service
access road, to the rear, has been widened, from 12 feet to 20 feet, and, also, in addition, we've
enlarged the radius, on both the turns around the building, for the service access road, so that
it can now accommodate either a fire truck or a semi. In addition, we have followed up, we have
sent plans to the Chief of the Queensbury Central Fire Company and the Queensbury Fire Marshal.
There was a comment made, from the adjacent property owner, that some additional buffering or planting
would be desirable along this edge of the property. We have accommodated that. There is an existing
stand of woods, located right here, which are, for the most part. on the Sunset Motel owner's property.
We have. in addition to that, added some additional evergreens. So, welve increased this row, which.
previ ous 1 y, ended, ri ght about here, and we've en 1 a rged it to i nc 1 ude the whole distance to the back
of this center. Lighting, also, was a question, at the last meeting, and we have sent both a plan
and a detail to the Twin Drive-In owner's attorney, who was here, last time. The issue was, would
lighting from this shopping center have any effect on the drive in. And the answer is that, it will
not have an effect. We have details, in the plans, that show what the lighting is like. We have
decorative lighting, within the parking lot, itself, which are mounted on a 12 foot pole, which,
in fact. will actually be shielded by the building itself. which I believe is 24 feet in height.
In addition to the decorative lighting. we have a standard pole light with a down cast type fixture,
both at this entrance, at that exit, which is 25 feet high, and the light. itself, is shielded, in
a box and is down cast, directed down to the pavement, where the lighting is needed, so that it will
not have an effect from any di stant views. The only 1 i ghti ng to the rear of the bui 1 di ng woul d be
a small door, overhead lighting, for security purposes, over each of the exit doors, in the back.
Those would be directly over the doors. They would be, approximately, 8 or 10 feet in height, and,
again, will also be shielded type fixtures with the down cast type light. We've had a conversation,
our engineers have conversed with Mr. Yarmowich of Rist-Frost, regarding his comments and we believe
that all of the comments that are in the Rist-Frost letter can be worked out quite easily. The
comments regarding septic and subsurface sewage disposal system, we agree with and we will make the
change. In fact, I have a revi si on with me, here, toni ght, whi ch I rea 11 ze no one can react to,
or I won't even present, but I will, after I'm done. distribute the plans to Mr. Yarmowich, from
Rist-Frost. So, the comment regarding sewage disposal will be taken care of. The comment on the
soil infiltration, regarding how much standing water will be present in the retention basins, we've
also done some calculations, which I will also submit to Rist-Frost, this evening. Briefly, the
results of the calculations indicate that, for the 10 year storm, that water will be standing in
the basin for, approximately, 59 minutes. It will take 59 minutes for the water to totally percolate
into the soil and that's under the assumption that, we're using a rate of 299 gallons per square
foot, per day for a percolation rate, which is the suggested percolation rate that we got from
Rist-Frost. Also, the calculation assumes that all the water will enter the basin at once, which,
in reality, isn't what happens. The water enters the basin, over a period of time, but, for
calculation sake, we tried to look at what would be kind of a worst case scenario and that's what
we came up with. I think that's all the revisions. I think I'll just turn it over to Mr. Levine,
so he can give you an up date on the Department of Transportation review.
MR. CARTIER-Gentlemen, let me tell you what you're up against, here, tonight. You have been
disapproved by the County. that requires five votes, affirmative votes, from this Board. Our newest
member is abstaining on Old Business. At max, you can only get four votes, tonight, which does not
grant approval. okay. I understand that that's through no fault of your own, but, in order to save
us some time here. again, I think it might be to our advantage and to yours, for us to talk about,
or have you listen to what other concerns the Board members may have. It's unfortunate, but that's
the situation we find ourselves in, tonight. Do the Board members have any comments or questions
they'd like to raise?
MR. CAIMANO-Let's start with your notes, Stu. Number Two, we talked about this last time, about
the brick walk, and, eventually, extending the walk all the way along Route 9. You talk about, "may
wish to extend the brick walk to the parking lot on both sides of the entrance", doesn't this drawing
show that, now?
MR. BAKER-The drawing shows a brick walk going all across the front of the property. As it stands
right now, if that wal k is to be used for pedestrian access, pedestrians would have to enter, via
8
---.-/
the ingress and egress for cars and that could create a hazard, in the future. Realizing that there
may not be an immediate use of that brick walk, upon completion of this Plaza. my comment was mainly
a point of observation that, in the future, when they find that pedestrian walk being used. it may
be safer for pedestrians if they can extend it right to the parking lot, and I believe that can be
done without reducing the permeable area by very much, at all.
MR. CAIMANO-You mean inwardly. I'm sorry.
MR. BAKER-That's correct.
MR. CAIMANO-Alright.
MR. CARTIER-Anything else from the Board?
MR. CAIMANO-Well, the other thing is the traffic. Again, we're running into a problem of a left
turning lane across that major highway.
MR. MARTIN-I would definitely like to see the comments from DOT, prior to any approval. I mean,
that may, for all we know. drastically effect the design and, therefore, the problem with the
contingent approval.
MR. CARTIER- I agree. I, in terms of traffi c also, you did a very thorough traffi c study, but what
I was looking for, in here, is something simple that I can deal with, and that is, what's the level
before and the level of service afterwards, okay.
LAWRENCE LEVINE
MR. LEVINE-Maybe I can address some of that. My name's Lawrence Levine and I was working as the
consultant for the traffi c porti on of thi s project. I still am and, just as an update, when I got
involved in the project, there was a plan with the two access drives and I didn't realize I was on
the same wavelength with the County, but I guess I was, because the waves got rocked, or the boats
got rocked, and we moved the entrance to Kendri ck. Unwi tti ngly, I guess, went along with the, I
was already in tune with the County's, and I agree with them, for various reasons, not necessarily
just level of service, but the sight distance, from this particular location, is much better, and
that was a concern I had, especially with the left turns, crossing a heavily traveled road. The
level of service, at this particular intersection of Kendrick Road, is a rather deceptive quantity,
because Kendrick Road has very little traffic. If you look at the level of service of the highway,
itself, just that there's one lane in each direction and they're heavily traveled at different times.
We ran into this situation of, we're not talking about a large interruption of traffic into that
stream, necessarily, during the highest peak on Route 9, and, also, it's, maybe, Friday evening,
Saturday peak. So, the level of service, I don't know if it's that good of an indication. The roadway
on Route 9 is, obviously, a heavily traveled road. DOT, I've contacted Ken Carlson, and also Jan
Mulhedy about this. It's, right now, passed Ken Carlson's desk, the Study, and it's on to Mr. Dana's
desk and they're looking at the distribution and then it goes back to Mr. Mulhedy's desk, for his
review.
MR. MARTIN-Do you have any estimation of what kind of time frame we're looking at, before DOT comment?
MR. LEVINE-I've asked them several times. I really can't get an answer. I would say, possibility
of a couple of weeks.
MR. CARTIER-Don't they have a time clock that runs on them, too?
MR. BAKER-Are they working within the 30 days? They have a separate permit. Because of their current
backlog, they're not able to get to this application, immediately. My understanding is they're
backlogged in permit work, by about three weeks, at least.
MR. LEVINE-That's once it gets to Mr. Mulhedy's desk, because he would be handling the permit. So,
Mr. Dana's desk, it's at the top of the pile, I was told, but it could still mean a week or two.
So, that's where welre at, with that.
MR. MARTIN-I'm especially concerned, just as a layman's comment to that, it's very close to an area
of the highway that reduces down, from a two lane situation into a single lane.
MR. LEVINE-Right. We did a lot of extra work on this project, for this exact reason. When I went
out there, I said, gee, which way, do we need a signal some place in there, because there aren't
too many si gna 1 s along that road, to break up the fl ow of traffi c, and, what we came up with was,
first we did the traffic counts and it was a border line situation, just because it's heavily traveled
on Route 9 and, during the peak hours, on a week day, for maybe 15 minutes, you might have a period
where, yes, you could say, hey, that whole road could use a signal, but you don't put in a signal
because of the peak 15 minutes. There's warrants you have to meet for a number of hours. Then,
just to feel comfortable about the whole thing, I had somebody sit out there, well, three people
sit out there, and we counted the cars coming in and out of all the driveways. Kendrick Road, along
9
---/
there, and we counted all the gaps in the traffic, available for left turning vehicles, which is
really the basis for level of service determination.
MR. CARTIER-You're getting to it, thank you.
MR. LEVINE-Actually, when you get right down to it, itls, what's the delay to the side road going
to be and what are the gaps, and are there enough available gaps of sufficient length of time to
allow the number of cars you're expecting to get out of here, okay. We don't anticipate any real
delays on Route 9, okay, but we could have delays on the site. It could be backed up on the site,
and that's part of the reason this has a long driveway, to have some kind of stacking room.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. LEVINE-And what we found was, for Friday and a Saturday, there are sufficient gaps in the traffic
for this development, to get the cars in and out, sufficiently.
MR. CARTIER-What is the level of service, however?
MR. LEVINE-The level of service of the entire intersection, itself. going from memory, here, but
I believe that it's a Level B, B to C.
MR. CAIMANO-Now?
MR. LEVINE-Well, there's no intersection with the, with Kendrick, I would have to say it be a Level
B. A to B, because there's very few cars coming out of Kendrick.
MR. CARTIER-True.
MR. LEVINE-Now, that's because of Kendrick, the delay on Kendrick Road, not because of, there's no
delay to the vehicles on Route 9, so they're Level A.
MR. CAIMANO-I know, but, in your opinion, it's a B, now, at best B. What will it be, afterwards?
MR. LEVINE-When the shopping center's complete, and you're talking about full development and you've
got cars coming in and out of here, then I would say it was B to C, at that point, which would be
acceptable.
MR. CARTIER-Still B to C.
MR. LEVINE-Right" and that's because of the number of gaps that we found. Now, we took those gaps,
and, of course, we had to figure in, well, what's it going to be, three years from now.
MR. MARTIN-What was the date of the site visit that you did?
MR. LEVINE-The exact date?
MR. CARTIER-Well, we were looking for times and season, right.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. LEVINE-Time of the year? It was in the summer.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. LEVINE-I did it during a peak. it was a high, that's why I needed three people out there to count.
It was pretty heavy duty.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. LEVINE-The other thing is, you J!Q. have a median strip, there, so that a left turning vehicle
is not necessarily turning across the whole road. There is a refuge for them, in that median strip,
if, in the event that they misjudge, okay, that's what it amounts to, and that's similar to other
roads. What that median strip amounts to doing is that it reduces the accident rate.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. What about, just to finish my questions off, internal traffic flow, have you got
any pattern, or is it going to be two way?
MR. LEVINE-It would be two way aisles, yes.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
10
~R. CAIMANO-,I guess I want, to get to some reality, regarding this traffic, because I kind of brought
1 t up and I m the one who s concerned about it. It seems to me that, at one time, the Mount Royal
Motel was a pretty viable motel and it's most viability is, as the rest of those motels in the summer
. '
tlme, at a time when we didn't have that safety island in the middle. Does anybody know what the
accident rate was, there, if any great amount, at that time? It would certainly tell us something.
MR. LEVINE-I have the accident history for the past five years.
MR. CAIMANO-What is it, five years ago?
MR. LEVINE-Five years ago?
MR. CAIMANO-Bad, good?
MR. LEVINE-It was about the same. It hasn't really changed too much.
MR. CARTIER-Well, the traffic pattern for a motel, however, is much different, I think. than the
traffic pattern for a shopping center.
MR. CAIMANO-I agree, but we're looking at a heavily traveled road, at a time when there's not a middle
island, and a motel, in which case, the motel is going to be used.
MR. LEVINE-Well, it was actually more than a motel, also.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, correct. There was a restaurant there, once, at one time.
MR. LEVINE-There was a pretty heavily used restaurant. there, and the way the driveways are set up,
right now, we changed to this layout. I was disturbed by the driveways that exist, okay, and I think
that had a lot to do with the accidents that are out there. There's a driveway very close to this
vertical curve, here, right now, near the restaurant, and you really can't see too well there. So.
we're trying to improve that.
MR. CAIMANO-No. I guess my point, Pete, is the fact that. contrary to the Quaker Road thing, at
least we have ~ evidence of the past, where, at Quaker, there was nothing there.
MR. LEVINE-Yes, it hasnlt really changed. Most of the accidents are, actually, from Kendrick, and
it was difficult to pin down other accidents, coming out, because the restaurant was not in operation.
MR. CARTIER-Any other Board members have any questions? I think the public hearing remained open
on this. Is there anybody who wants to address this issue? I would intend to leave the public hearing
open, I think, anyway. I see somebody who would like to address this, however.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
HOWARD KRANTZ
MR. KRANTZ-Not as part of the public hearing. Howard Krantz, attorney for Mr. Passarelli. I would
just like to touch base on two items, very briefly. One, while awaiting the response from DOT, as
to the detailed traffic study, submitted by Mr. Levine, I would also ask you to draw on your own
experience and common sense, with what the traffic is, on Route 9, there. This will be a shopping
center, no different than a typical shopping center, with traffic coming in and out, more or less,
on a regular basis, and I would submit to you that, from my experience with the traffic flow in and
out of the drive in movie, and in and out of the Route 9 Cinemas, where movies let out and, all of
a sudden, at one time, you have a far larger number of cars than would ever, possibly, come out of
this shopping center and, to my experience, having been there in the movie, yes, sometimes you're
backed up. five, ten. twelve, cars, and they gradually get out, but I've never seen any major problem,
when the Cinema's let out, and I've seen two, and sometimes three movies, let out within 15, 20 minutes
of each other, which, I think Mr. Levin would agree, would be far more cars than would ever attempt
to exit a shopping center at anyone time. Also, I'd like to address the situation with the County
Planning Board. which we think has put Mr. Passarelli, unfairly, in a disadvantageous position.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't mean to keep cutting you off, here, but we have other applicants. tonight.
I think that's an issue that you want to talk to the County Planning Board about.
MR. KRANTZ-Well, that's what I just wanted to bring to your attention.
MR. CARTIER-You are going to talk to the County Planning Board about it, correct?
MR. KRANTZ-Well. that's what I wanted to bring to your attention. What we're going to do, I spoke
with Karla Corpus, Assistant Queensbury Town Attorney. We're going to see about going back to the
County. They're concern was, primarily, Beautification. I understand plans have been done. have
been submi tted, to coordi nate that, and they had one other concern about the entrance and exi ts,
11
',-.-/
which we think we've address, now. So, we're going to explore going back to the County and seeing
if they would not reconsider, given the fact that the conditions have now been met.
MR. CARTIER-Sure, that's great. I don't have any problem, at all, with that. It's just that something
has got to be done.
MR. KRANTZ-Right. Thank you.
MR. CARTIER-Are we at a point where we can do SEQRA on this or do you want to postpone, or what?
MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, I believe that, because DOT is an involved agency and hasn't given it's
comments yet, regarding SEQRA, and Stu has showed me a letter where they concurred with thi s Board
being lead agency, with a coordinated review, you would need their input before pleading that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. thank you.
MR. CAIMANO-However, in all fairness to the applicant, have you, as the engineer, and the Planning
Department, are you satisfied that they are going to comply with all the rest of the problems, so
that, once DOT comes in, we can move right along? That's, I guess, what I want to find out.
MR. CARTIER-Well, they have, because of the situation we're in, here, the applicant ~ going to have
time to address these issues, between now and the next time around.
MR. CAIMANO-I just don't want us to be asking the same questions again, when they come back.
MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, the other possibility that Stu and I discussed was asking DOT whether they
would want to do their own SEQRA Review and then freeing the other agencies, this Board, to go ahead
and do its SEQRA Review and Stu said he would check into that, whether they would do a separate SEQRA
Review, thus taking themselves out of the coordinated action.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but we don't know that tonight.
MS. CORPUS-Correct.
MR. BAKER-I can get in touch with Ken Carlson. at DOT, and discuss this with him.
MR. CARTIER-But the bottom line, if you will, is that we don't do a SEQRA tonight.
MS. CORPUS-Right.
MR. BAKER-That's correct.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-I would also like to emphasize the coordination with the Beautification Committee. If
we're looking at a tabling, here, it's seems that we've slipped up, twice, here. Let's not slip
up a third time.
MR. CARTIER-Gentlemen, in terms of your own situation, what can you do to find out when you're going
to meet, or what can the Staff do to let you know when Beautification is going to meet, or do you
already know?
MR. MARTIN-Do you know, Stu. when the next meeting is, for Beautification?
MR. BAKER-I believe the Beautification Committee meetings are the first or second Monday of the month.
MR. CARTIER-Who do they call to find out?
MR. BAKER-They can call the Planning Department, tomorrow morning. We can give them a definite date
for the next meeting.
MR. CARTIER-Does that take care of that?
MR. CAIMANO-I guess I just want to go, one more time, and ask you a question, Mr. Chairman. I just
want to make sure that you know where we are, right now, and everything's going to be taken care
of. I guess I don't want this to happen again.
MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly.
MR. CAIMANO-I don't want the applicant to be disappointed, again, coming here, that everybody
understands what has to be done, that all the questions, here, are answerable to them, and we're
ready to go, as soon as DOT gets in here, and the County Planning Department. Is that right?
12
MR. MILLER-Will we be on the agenda for the next, not the next Board meeting, this month, but the
following month?
MRS. PULVER-What's the submission deadline?
MR. BAKER-The submission deadline date is the last Wednesday of the month. As it stands, right now,
we have received at least seven applications already, Old Business and New Business, for next month.
So, this application may not make the first agenda for November.
MR. MARTIN-But it can make it in November?
MR. BAKER-It can make November. yes.
MR. MILLER-We're Old Business, too. Now, do you need the DOT response, prior to putting it on the
agenda? Is that what you're telling me?
MR. MARTIN-You don't need it prior to next Wednesday, do you, DOT response?
MR. BAKER-It would be preferable, but that's at the Board's discretion. We definitely need the DOT
response before the SEQRA can be completed.
MR. CARTIER-Which means you have to have time to look at it and respond to it?
MR. BAKER-Correct.
MRS. PULVER-Well, we didn't have it, tonight, and, chances are, you'll have it by the time you do
your review, though, right? You don't do your review until November.
MR. BAKER-I cannot make any guarantee on when DOT will respond, mainly due to their backlog of work
to review.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess where we're leaving this is that we encourage you to do what is necessary
to get yourself on the November agenda, with the understanding that some of the things may not be
in by the deadline date, but I think there are a number of issues that you can address, here, prior
to the deadline date.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, a meeting with the engineer would be a good idea.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I know we're facing deadline dates, here, but welve got an applicant who has some
problems, through no fault of his own, in terms of our vote, here, and I think we can expedite that,
as best we can.
MR. CAIMANO-That's what I'm thinking, too.
MR. MILLER-I can add that the comments that were made for tonight's meeting have already been
addressed. We have the drawings done. We can get them to you this evening. The only thing we do
not have is the Beautification Committee approval and the DOT approval.
MR. MARTIN-And Warren County Planning.
MR. CAIMANO-And Warren County Planning.
MR. CARTIER-And Warren County Planning, but I, apparently, I get the impression that you've already
addressed that and it's just a matter of clarifying some things with Warren County Planning, correct?
MR. MILLER-Yes. The other point, in all that, was that we weren't notified at the County Planning
meeting, also. So, we would have gladly been there.
MR. CARTIER-Just so that we, as Nick is working at, here, and I agree with him, so that we have an
understanding of what we're talking about, that I think we're going to give you some leeway on time,
on deadlines. Stu, tell me if this creates problems for you. I'm going to give you some leeway
on deadlines, in terms of getting things in, but we expect that all the issues raised by Staff, by
Engineer. by Warren County, by Beautification Committee, DOT, DOH, all of those things will all be
coming in to us in one basket, at the November meeting.
MR. MILLER-Okay, to address one of the items you just said, so we're clear on it. You mentioned
DOH. I don't believe they had any comments, this time around.
MRS. PULVER-No. That's DOT, traffic.
MR. CARTIER-Alright. I stand corrected, and you may be right, here.
13
',,--,
--
MRS. PULVER-It's DOT.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, so scratch DOH.
MR. MILLER-We did copy them. We did send drawing direct to them.
MR. CAIMANO-Fine.
MR. MILLER-So, just to summarize, it's the DOT approval, meeting with the Beautification Committee.
If the Warren County Planning Board will see us again, we'll gladly meet with them, and we can do
that at their regular meeting, or if they want to set a special meeting, I-'d gladly be there for
that. In terms of the comments by Rist-Frost, we have already addressed the percolation rates for
the stormwater retention, which is not a problem at all. We have redesigned the septic system to
meet their requirements. I believe the only other question was one of the other access on the brick
walk. which we will gladly do. As you might recall from our July meeting, the brick walk was kind
of a tangent issue, anyway. I think we pretty much have it. It's just getting the paperwork in
the right place.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MRS. PULVER-The thing that I want to be sure that you're clear on is, that, if you don't get approval
from Warren County, supposing they disapprove, you need five of us to vote for you. You see, we
can overturn the County's disapproval by five votes and that's your problem tonight, as Mr. LaPoint's
goi ng to abstai n, that only 1 eaves four of us to get four votes, and you need fi ve votes to get
approval for this project.
MR. CAIMANO-Right, so you're better off, that's what I was going to say, too. You're better off
getting that approval from County, if you can get it, because, if I turn up sick and Carol turns
up sick and there's only four people here, you're stuck again, and that has nothing to do with us.
that's just rules and regulations.
MR. KRANTZ-Okay, just, very quickly, to go over this. I'm a little bit confused about the County
review process.
MR. CARTIER-We can't answer that for you. You've got to talk to the County on that.
MR. KRANTZ-What I'm getting at is, we had an approval, the first time around, with two contingencies.
and then, all of a sudden, it's back to them and then we're disapproved.
MR. CAIMANO-But asking us about it is like asking that brick wall. We have no idea what's going
on.
MR. KRANTZ-Okay, but it, seemingly, is affecting how you react to our proposal.
MR. CARTIER-I understand your concern, but that's something you need to raise with Warren County.
MR. CAIMANO-Wait a minute, you said something that's wrong. It is not an effect that we have on
you. It's just rules and regulations. We have a new member who, because he's never reviewed this,
abstains from thi s. We only have four. The rules say that we have to have five to override. We
could love it, it doesn't make any difference. If we don't have five to override, we can't override.
It's not a matter of whether we like it or don't like it.
MR. KRANTZ-Right. No, my point is, if they had approved this, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
MR. CAIMANO-Right. it wouldn't be an issue at all.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, so I think we have an agreement?
MR. KRANTZ-I think so. I just want to clarify, is Mr. LaPoint going to be participating in voting,
in the future, or are we going to be shy one potential vote.
MR. LAPOINT-I believe, on this particular issue, I should be ready by the time November rolls around.
I have reviewed it, thoroughly, up until now. This new background information is what I need, that
I have received, tonight, thi s discussion. So, I should be able to pass a judgement by the November
meeting, if you're on the agenda.
MR. CARTIER-I think you can take that as a firm commitment from Mr. LaPoint.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
14
MR. KRANTZ-And a final concern that we have is that we believe the professionals working with Mr.
Passarelli, that we will have everything in, that is needed, before the November meeting, all the
concerns addressed, but, what we have no control over, is DOT's input, and what we're concerned about
is that, and I don't mean this sarcastically, that it's sitting on someone's desk, down there in
Albany, and everything is in, but that one item, we would ask that the SEQRA process and the vote
go ahead, and that we not be held hostage due to one input that's missing.
MR. CAIMANO-You run a risk, because we can't pass the SEQRA process without the DOT, and if we say
it is a positive, then you've got to go through Environmental Impact, so you donlt want to do that.
MR. KRANTZ-I mean, but you have a detailed traffic study.
MR. CARTIER-Frankly, what I'd like to do is cross that bridge when we come to it, and I think Karla
has addressed that, that we can separate the process, if that's the situation that you find yourself
in, in November.
MR. KRANTZ-Okay, thank you.
MR. CARTIER-So, I believe, who is the spokesman for you gentlemen, because we need somebody's agreement
to table this, from you. Mr. Miller, are you the spokesman?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, let the record show that Mr. Miller has indicated his willingness to table, and
we need a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PlAN NO. 55-90 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For the Mount Royal Motel re-construction as a 45,800 sq. ft. scaled down shopping center for the
following reasons: Number One, satisfaction by Staff and Rist-Frost that the applicant has addressed
their concerns; Number Two, the report from DOT; Number Three, the report from the Beautification
Committee; Number Four, a report from the applicant regarding Warren County Planning Board approval.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint
AD SITE PLAN NO. 28-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-4ZA DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT CO. INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
,;...)1> DUNHAM'S BAY. EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9l FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE OF 70 BOAlS AID UP TO 25 BOAT TRAILERS
\V (WITHOUT BOAlS). (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN coum PLAIINING) TAX MAP 110. 10-1-19.2 LOT
SIZE: 13.59 ACRES SECTION 9.010
WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. PULVER-The public hearing is still open.
MR. CARTIER-If you will recall that, the last time, I believe, we had a discussion, we asked the
applicant to get together with neighbors and see if they could iron out some of their problems on
their own. Does the Staff have any new comments on that? I'm kind of shuffling through my pile,
here, and live lost some things.
MR. CAIMANO-There are a bunch of comments.
MR. MARTIN-September 19th, yes.
MR. BAKER-The Staff does have comments, but Attorney Rehm would 1 i ke to speak, before the Staff
Comments are read.
MR. CARTIER-Mr. Rehm.
MR. REHM-Thank you, Mr. Cartier. As you know, I'm Walter Rehm and I represent Dunham's Bay Boat
Company. I believe that we're in the same pickle that Mr. Passarelli is in, only worse, because,
as I recall, Mr. Caimano has stepped down for this proceeding. or at least, at the last meeting,
did, and if that's the case, there's no possibility of an approval of this matter, tonight.
MR. CARTIER-We're looking at three votes.
15
MR. CAIMANO-Well. that's not so. Since that time, I have written a letter to the Legal Department,
a handwritten note. In fact, I handed it in that night, indicating that. upon further review, and
talking to the Legal Department, I found no conflict of interest. As a matter of fact, since that
time, that conflict, no matter how fleeting, is now gone, because, at the time, if you remember,
and if you remember, Mr. Chairman, and Karla, I felt I had a conflict, in view of the fact that I
had a son working part time there. He no longer works there and, therefore, any financial conflict
of interest is totally gone.
MR. REHM-Thank you, but. nevertheless, we still have a numbers problem.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. REHM-I would, because, as I understand it, Mr. LaPoint will abstain on this application. I would
ask the Board to consider a couple of possibilities. One, I would request that this matter be
referred back to the County Planning Board. The County specifically said, come back and see us,
once the debris in the area was cleaned up, and I would like to have that opportunity to do that.
If that is a difficulty, procedurally, I would also be willing to recommend to Mr. and Mrs. Howard,
to withdraw their application and to submit a new application and ask that the record that's been
developed so far become part of that application. I can see that we're not going to go anyplace,
tonight. I'm here, and more than willing to discuss the matter with you, but it seems like it's
a futil e effort, for everyone, and I know that you have along agenda and I woul d 1 i ke to cooperate,
if we possibly could.
MR. CARTIER-So, you are formally requesting to withdraw the application, is that correct?
MR. REHM-Well, I would prefer to have the Planning Board refer the matter back to the County Planning
Board, to review it in light of the new information that's been developed.
MR. CARTIER-Well, we don't normally do that. What we normally do, I think, is table it, pending
Warren County Planning Board approval, or whatever.
MR. REHM-The problem is, I had talked to the County Planning Board, and they say that they won't
consider it, unless it's referred to them by the Town.
MR. BAKER-That's correct.
MR. CARTIER-Well, what's the most expeditious way of getting this thing moving?
MR. REHM-If the Planning Department would refer it back to the County Planning Board, we could appear
at the next County Planning Board meeting and be here next month. That would be more expeditious
than filing a new application. If your procedures require that we file a new application, we'll
do that.
MR. CARTIER-So, we're talking about tabling, until such time as Warren County Planning Board can
look at this, is that correct?
MR. CAIMANO-I don't know if we're tabling this. We're taking no action, and returning it to the
County Planning Board for further action, right, or, well, guess you're right, tabling it for Warren
County approval. Did Warren County turn this down?
MR. REHM-They turned it down.
MRS. PULVER-They did? I thought they approved it.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, so, in effect, you've got to get your ducks in a row with the County, before we
look at it.
MR. CAIMANO-Because we can't overturn, tonight.
MR. REHM-It's impossible for us to receive an affirmative vote.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Will Warren County look at it again?
MR. BAKER-I believe they will. I can get in touch with the County Planners, tomorrow, and verify
that, but, in their disapproval, dated June 13th, they did say the applicant may re-apply, once the
site was cleaned up.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, so. in effect, the most expeditious way is for you to request that we table it
and we decide whether or not we wish to table it, correct?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
16
'----
MR. REHM-We would make that request.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I'll call for a motion to table, then.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAII 110. 28-90 DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT CO.. INC., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
To table and refer the applicant back to the Warren County Planning Board.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint
GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE
GENTLEMAN-I only ask you, since we travel so far to come up here, this is the fourth time. could
you have this on the top of the agenda, for the next meeting?
MR. CARTIER-It's going to depend on how they come in, sir.
GENTLEMAN-How they come in? Well, wouldn't this, automatically, have been coming in? You people
postponed it.
MR. CAIMANO-No, we didn't.
GENTLEMAN-Yes, you did.
MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Excuse me. The public hearing hasn't been opened, on here, but I'll
give you the courtesy of an answer, if you'll listen. We don't control where it fits on the agenda.
It will come in under Old Business, which will be at the beginning of the meeting, but, in terms
of what spot, Number One or Number Two, we can't give you any guarantee.
GENTLEMAN-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-It'll be the first part of the meeting. I can tell you that.
GENTLEMAN-But, just to clear it up, you did postpone this, for sixty days.
SITE PlAN NO. 43-90 TYPE: UIILISTED HC-IA LEO LOMBARDO lEO'S LOBSTER HOUSE OWNER: L I C LOMBARDO
WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 FOR COIISTRUCTION OF A NEW DINING ROOM SO THAT THE EXISTING SPACE CAN BE A WAITING
AREA. (WARREN coum PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10. 11. 13 LOT SIZE: 3.851 ACRES SECTION 4.020
K
RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. PULVER-The public hearing is still open on this.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Okay, and I have a further letter from DOH, addressed to Mr. Ronald Rucinski, "Dear Mr.
Rucinski, We have on this date approved plans for a sewage disposal system to serve the above project.
This letter will confirm that you picked up five copies of the approved plans and that one has been
retained for our files." We also have a letter indicating, from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, you do not require a SPDES Permit and you got $10 back. Congratulations.
I believe Warren County has signed off on this, have they not? Are they done with this one? I have
misplaced my Staff Notes. 11m sorry. I don't know what I did with them.
MRS. PULVER-I don't have it in my packet. Does anybody have Warren County? This is what we had
the last time.
17
-.../
MR. CAIMANO-I don't have it.
MRS. PULVER-Stu?
MR. BAKER-I'm looking for the County.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I've got my old notes.
MR. BAKER-Yes, Warren County did, indeed approve, at June 13th.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, Warren County approved. Beautification Committee, I believe, approved, if I'm
correct?
MR. BAKER-No action was taken by the Beautification Committee.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
road cuts and so
applicant?
So, that's cl ea r. DOT, I bel i eve they 're. we took care of the curb cuts, the
on, that's all been taken care of. Is there somebody here, representing the
MR. RUCINSKI-Good evening. I'm Ron Rucinski, Mr. Lombardo's architect.
MR. CARTIER-Anybody on the Board have any further questions on this application?
MR. CAIMANO-Just a question, do you have any questions with Mr. Yarmowich's letter?
MR. RUCINSKI-None whatsoever. We'll revise the drawing.
MR. CARTIER-The public hearing was left open on this. Would anybody care to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NOCOMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-I believe we can do SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF 110 SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION 110. 43-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol
Pulver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a new dining
room at LEO'S lOBSTER HOUSE. so that the existing space can be a .iting area, and
WHEREAS, thi s Pl anni ng Board has determined that the proposed project and Pl anni ng Board acti on 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:
State of New York Department of Health
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
havi ng consi dered the criteri a for determi ni ng whether a project has a si gni fi cant envi ronmenta 1
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules
and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning
Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of
non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
18
',---,
----'
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint
MR. CARTIER-Okay, we need a motion, regarding approval, or disposition of.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAII NO. 43-90 LEO lOMBARDO LEO'S lOBSTER HOUSE, Introduced by Nicholas
Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For construction of a new dining room so that the existing space can be a new waiting area, subject
to all of the concerns and changes indicated by Tom Yarmowich's October 15th letter become a part
of the final plans. The deadline for submittal of these final plans to the Planning Department of
the Town of Queensbury will be one week from today, the 23rd of October, at 4:30 pm.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1990 SKETCH PlAN TYPE: UNLISTED lI-IA ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK. INC. OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE WARREN/WASHINGTON coum INDUSTRIAL PARK. coum LINE ROAD. LOTS 54-60. WEST SIDE OF
COUNTY LINE ROAD. lOTS 54-60. WEST SIDE OF COUNTY LINE ROAD. J.i MILE SOUTH OF HICKS ROAD. REZONED
BY TOWN BOARD: JULY 9. 1990 FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 14 LOTS TO BE USED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS.
TAX MAP NO. 55-2-20 LOT SIZE: 25.2 ACRES
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. CAIMANO-Pete, I think, at this point, it might be apropos. that you introduce Ed's letter into
the formal record.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, Mr. Chairman, may I read that into the record? My letter dated October 16th, 1990,
to the Queensbury Planning Board, all members, carbon copy to the Planning Department, Jack Haanen,
of Haanen Engineering, Tom Nace, of Haanen Engineering, and John LaPoint, of Haanen Engineering:
Dear Colleagues, prior to my active participation, I would like to make the following statement and
personal resolution. My brother John is an employee of Haanen Engineering. In the past, we have
not, nor in the future do we intend to, discuss issues associated with the Town's Planning Process.
Based upon my professional experience, I do not believe that this situation represents a conflict
of interest. However, it is conceivable that this relationship could effect both the Board and Haanen
Engineering. I will abstain on all matters and projects represented by Haanen Engineering. It should
be recognized that this decision places an added burden on the Board to establish a complete and
thorough review, without my participation. This decision should, in no way, effect Haanen
Engineering's ability to effectively represent and serve their clients. Sincerely, Ed LaPoint
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Do we have somebody. here. representing the applicant?
MR. NACE-Yes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
MR. CARTIER-A letter from Paul Naylor, again, of September 20. 1990. to Planning Department (attached)
Engineering Comments, please.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. NACE-Okay, for the record, my name is Tom Nace. representing Haanen Engineering, here on behalf
of the Adirondack Industrial Park, Inc. The first thing, let me address the roadway radius, that
seems to come up, again and again. I met, today with John Goralski and Paul Naylor, with a proposal
that I had for, hopefully, mitigating Paul's concern, regarding the truck turning radius on these,
and
19
...-/
that was a proposal that DOT normally does, is to widen the pavements in those areas. As a result
of our meeting, that has been rejected and I wi 11 be substituti ng 250 foot radi uses, here and here.
So, what that will mean, as far as the layout goes, is, simply, a little re-configuration of this
lot. These lots will come out a little further, and this radius will cut back in and make these
a little more key hole lots. So, we will, in Preliminary, show that 250 radius to conform. The
other waiver I had requested, and Paul, really, has not addressed that yet, is the waiver, on radius,
of the ri ght-of-way down at thi s corner. The purpose of the request was that, or the 1 ogi c behi nd
it was that, the right-of-way, on Queensbury Avenue, is much larger than normal. The right-of-way
radius is normally done on a 50 foot road right-of-way, so that the Town has room to plow snow and
maintain around the intersection. Since this is set so far back, it's really not necessary for that
purpose, and, since we don't own the adjoining land, we really can't provide that right-of-way.
Originally, if you remember, we had the road over here. So that was not an issue, that was on our
own property and we could've provided the right-of-way radius. So. I don't think that's a major
issue. As far as internalization of the roads, I have attempted to do that. We will be eliminating
the road cut, here, and providing access to this parking lot, off of our internal road. Now that
these two lots have been turned around, we will be providing access directly off the internal road
for these. They will not have access. So, the only access points that everybody's making a fuss
about are these two existing access points, on Queensbury Avenue. Personally, I don't feel that
its that big of an issue. They're existing. This whole of Queensbury Avenue was originally developed
for industrial use with 200 foot lots. We're, in fact, improving what the original concept was,
of Warren/Washington County Industrial Park subdivision. So, I think it's unreasonable to request
that we re-configure the whole subdivision and it would be a complete re-configuration to try to
provide access for these lots to the back. The private sewer line, if youlll recall, we are proposing
a pressure sewer, to connect these back lots into the existing gravity sewer, up on Queensbury Avenue.
I have talked to Tom Flaherty. We will do whatever the Town wants to do. If they want it in the
right-of-way, we'll give it to you in the right-of-way. If they want it on a separate easement.
behind the right-of-way. we'll put it there. I simply need to get some direction from Tom Flaherty
and the rest of the Town. The thought was, putting it in the right-of-way. is that, probably, sometime
in the future, this sewer system up here would be taken over by the Town and probably be piped in
to the Glens Falls Sewer Plant. Whether that's in a year, or five years, or ten years, I don't know,
but, at that stage of the game, I would think it would be advantageous to the Town to have that sewer
in the exi sti ng hi ghway ri ght-of-way, so that it's easy for them to take over and ma i nta in, but we
will do it either way. As far as Lee's comment, regarding concept redesign, I would hope that we
can circumvent that, that, by addressing the road radius, which seems to be one of the major issues,
that we can take care of that at Preliminary submission. Engineering conunents, the first one we
will obviously take care of, by conforming to the standards. Grading plan will be developed and
submitted with Preliminary submission, when it's normally due. Building areas, I'll have to get
together with Tom and find out what he IS referring to, there. I don't. really, offhand, know. We
have reviewed those. I was under the impression we ~ in conformance, but I will review that with
Tom. The surface runoff, we will provide catch basins at 350 feet, maximum length, in order to
conform. We do have, shown on the plans, now, that the road will be a winged swale, to conform with
Paul Naylor's request. The driveway easement at the entrance to Lot 3 and 4, that has already been
provided. It was provided at the time that these two Site Plans were reviewed, because it's existing.
It was a common access, at that point, and I believe that was one of the requirements for the Site
Plan approval at that stage. Is there any other questions?
MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? I don't have a problem with the two road
cuts that are already there, on a County line, that's just me talking, but I don't have a problem
with those.
MR. CAIMANO-The problem would be if they sell. If they wanted to sell them off individually they
would be difficult to sell off. There's a problem of access, I think, but maybe we should just wait
until that happens. I don't have a problem with it, right now.
MRS. PULVER-I don't either.
MR. NACE-I'm sorry, I don't understand.
MR. CAIMANO-The problem that Lee brings up, with not doing your road cuts now, is that, come, down
the road, if these folks want to start parceling off these lots, there may be a problem in parceling
off the lots, okay.
MR. NACE-How so? There will be, in the deed, you're talking about these two?
MR. CAIMANO-Or anyone.
MR. NACE-Or anyone. Let's pick Lot 2.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. NACE-Why would there be a problem in selling that lot off? He has access on County Line Road.
20
r
MR. CARTIER-They both have access.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, thatls true. They both have access. I was thinking that they had access through
here, but they don't.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. CAIMANO-Do you know what Lee was getting at?
MR. BAKER-Regarding which point?
MR. CAIMANO-Regarding the point of access on Queensbury Avenue.
MR. MARTIN-I think what she was looking to do is get the traffic that would, you know, slowing traffic
to turn in off a municipal road, you could internalize it all into the proposed road of the
subdivision, which, from a Planning point of view, I think there is some merit for. The other question
I have, Tom, what is the, it just strikes me as that Lot 7 is a funny configuration. I don't
understand why you just didn't carry Lot 4 all the way back to the proposed road, because that one
little jog in there, really, is useless.
MR. NACE-No, it's not really useless because, in the grading, this will allow us to bring the entrance
road for this in. The main road is dipping down to a low point, somewhere over in here. My building,
here, is going to be higher than the road, and this will allow me to get my entrance drive in, without
coming up a steep hill to it. It also allows me to maximize the building size for Lot 7. I've got
what's required, here, for Lot 4. I ought to be allowed to create a lot, there, that gives me a
building conforming to your zoning.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but, if I understand what you just said, that access drive is going to angle in,
it's not going to be a 90 degree access, is that correct?
MR. NACE-I don't have the plans with me, but, we're starting on the plans for that, now.
MR. MARTIN-A perpendicular access.
MR. CARTIER-It won't be.
MR. NACE-No, it must not be. I don't remember whether we come in a little ways and swing it, or
what, but it's not an acute angle, no.
MR. CARTIER-But it's not going to limit a trucks approach from either direction?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. CARTIER-Coming in or coming out?
MR. NACE-Well, there will be two. There's also an access over here.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? Well, we're confronted with a couple of choices,
here. We either send this back for conceptual redesign, or we can go for having these things addressed
at the Preliminary Stage. What's your druthers?
MR. CAIMANO-What is this?
MR. CARTIER-This is Sketch Plan only.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't think they need to redesign the whole thing.
MR. MARTIN-I don't think there's any comments, here, that can't be addressed in a Preliminary drawing.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. MARTIN-Get this off the mark, here.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I agree.
MR. CAIMANO-As long as it's Sketch Plan, there's plenty of time to do everything.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, does anybody else have any concerns they want to point out to Mr. Nace, or questions
or comments?
MR. MARTIN-I just want, you have thoroughly looked over any, you know, fully internalizing even the
existing cuts, the curb cuts?
21
-----
MR. NACE-My problem is. there, if I do that, what I'm in essence doing, is bringing this road up
higher and it makes access to these lower lots a little more difficult, okay, in and out of these
lower lots. It makes it harder, if I can get the road down further, then I can utilize the land
that's there a little better, that's all.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Any other questions or comments?
MRS. PULVER-Should we make a motion?
MR. CARTIER-I guess we're ready for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISIOII NO. 8-1990 ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK. IIIC., Introduced
by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
For a subdivision of 14 lots to be used for light industrial buildings. At Preliminary, all
engineering will be addressed. We will also see a road grading plan and' comments from Paul Naylor
on the private sewer line in the right-of-way to be presented to the Planning Board.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PlAII 110. 76-90 TYPE I WR-lA MICHAEL AIID MARTHA HOGAN OWNER: SAME PIOIIEER POINT. GLEN LAKE.
GO TO END OF FITZGERALD ROAD WHERE THE MACADAM ENDS. GO STRAIGHT TO THE TIP OF PIOIIEER POINT. THE
HOGAN CAMP IS THE YELLOW CAMP BETWEEN THE WHITE AIID BLUE CAMPS TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING SEASONAL
CAMP AND REBUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME 011 THE SAME FOOTPRINT. (WARREN coum PLAIINING) TAX MAP NO.
41-1-35 lOT SIZE: .19± ACRES SECTION 7.076
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached)
MR. CARTIER-We have a letter from Mr. O'Connor. I don't know that that needs to be read into the
record, because, at this point, I believe that's moot, is it not?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-And we have, what is this? This is new to me, Stu.
MR. BAKER-That is just a receipt from DEC, acknowledging that they have received the negative
declaration that the Zoning Board of Appeals did, on the Area Variance application.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we have approval by Warren County, with no comments. Beautification Committee's
not involved. Mr. O'Connor. would you care to make comments, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little and
O'Connor and we're here representing Michael and Martha Hogan and I'll try and be brief, if I can.
I don't think you have a great deal of issues and I'm not trying to beg the question. This is a
matter in which we have been before a couple of different Boards. We applied, first, to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a variance for two different requirements, one for the Zoning Ordinance
requi rement that the lot front on a Town Road. Thi s is a lot that was created in 1957, when thi s
particular portion of Glen Lake was developed, and access to it is by a 20 foot right-of-way. That
20 foot right-of-way serves the Hughes property. the Barton property, property that I own, myself,
personally, two places that my mother owns, and then goes on to a Town road. We also asked for a
variance for Section, I think, 280 of the Town Law, which is a separate requirement, saying that,
if you get a
22
building permit, you need to be on a Town road. Both those variances were granted, by the Zoning
Board of Appeals, without a great deal of comment. There was a public hearing. There was no comment,
at all, by anyone from the public, other than the applicant, at that time. We then applied to the,
and that also went to the County Planning Board and was approved, as a variance, by the County Planning
Board. We then applied to the Town Board for a variance from the Septic Ordinance and we applied
for a Separation Variance because what we are proposing, here, is a holding tank, and, to place the
holding tank on the lot and maintain the setback from the adjoining properties, we had to put it
closer to the footing, which is a slab type footing, than is permitted. There's supposed to be a
10 foot separation. We are calling for a two and a half foot separation and the Town Board. after
reviewing the plans with David Hatin and after approval of the holding tank plans, by David Hatin,
granted that variance within the last couple of weeks. Lastly, we went to the County Planning Board,
on a Site Plan Review. They did approve it without comment as part of one of their blanket approvals.
As to Staff Comments, they ask for the Board to consider the impact that this proposal will have
on the adjoining properties and the adjoining neighbors. I can speak, on my own behalf, that I don't
think it'll have any detrimental impact. If you take a look at the Lake. and there are, I think,
some area maps that are provided, the Barton property, right next door to it, from the Lake, appears
to be a two family house. It is, in fact, a split level residence, with the lower level being living
room and enclosed porch, and the upper level being bedrooms. Mine appears, I think, from the Lake,
as being like a single family ranch. My mother appears, probably, like a two story residence. which
it is. Over on this side, you've got Christensen. It's a two story residence, and, if you go down
this way, you have some other two story residences. We have submitted the plans to the immediate
property owners, the Barton's, which own this camp, right here, and the Hughes's, which own this
camp, right here, and they both have submitted to me written approvals, with a request that the Board
look favorably upon the application, it being their belief that it will have no detrimental effect
upon their property. I think, probably, the question that came up, if anything, was what effect
it would have upon the Hughesls sight or sight lines, and as we're building upon the same footprint
as exists there, it will have no effect, other than what is presently there. I think that's the
only that Staff had that I would address, unless you direct me to address others. The questions
of the Consulting Engineer, apparently, he did not have a copy of the designs that were submitted
to the Town Board for the holding tank, which is part of the Town record, that's a pervatum showing
of the rules and regulations of the Town requirements for holding tank. Mr. Ray Irish is here, who
was the Consulti ng Engineer who prepared that for us. I thi nk he'd be gl ad to answer any questi ons
that the Board might have, on that. It shows, if you will, a couple of specific comments, the flood
plain. The tank is up in this area, here. The flood plain is down here. There is a good difference
in elevation on this lot. Topographically, we also have the maps, up by the holding tanks.
RAY IRISH
MR. IRISH-There's a distance in elevation, from the Lake level, of about 15 feet, 13, 15 feet. The
Lake level is 398. The holding tank's up here. around 413. The flood plan was down, here. This
is like a retaining wall.
MR. CAIMANO-Where's the holding tank?
MR. IRISH-It's up in here.
MR. BAKER-Excuse me, Mr. O'Connor, were the details on the holding tank submitted to the Planning
Department?
MR. O'CONNOR-They were submitted to the Town Board, as part of the application.
MR. BAKER-That's correct, but the Planning Department never received them, though, and that's why
the Consulting Engineer did not receive them.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It is my belief that the Consulting Engineer's firm was consulted with, by the
Town Board, when the Town Board did the review for the variance, at that time.
MR. YARMOWICH-That's not correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not correct?
MR. YARMOWICH-No, it is not.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, well, you've asked for details. We have them. They've been approved by David
Hatin. As to the construction of the holding tank, we are willing to stipulate that the holding
tank will be constructed in accordance with the Town Regulations, except for the separation distance
from the foundation, for which we have obtained a variance from the Town Board, which I think is
the reviewing board, as far as the Board of Health, when we are looking for a variance, the proper
board for that.
MR. IRISH-I'm Ray Irish. In regards to the question about the toilets limiting flow, conservation
type toilets, that was actually a condition of the Town's variance, was that it would be very low,
23
--
I forget, 1.5 gallon, I believe. If you'll look at that variance, you'll see that they made a
stipulation also.
MR. O'CONNOR-The variance approval was submitted to the Planning Staff, and it did require the water
saving devices which the Consulting Engineer has suggested, and we have no problem with that. That
was the only condition upon the variance. I think that is part of your record.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I think what you're essentially saying is, here, is that you've already addressed
the comments, here, of the Consulting Engineer.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we have.
MRS. PULVER-With the Town Board.
MR. YARMOWICH-Can I ask Ray a question, Mike? Did you do any determination of groundwater level?
MR. IRISH-On the adjacent lot, we did a deep test pit to determine the possibility of some sewage
disposal over there, and we found, we went down as deep as we could go, without the sides collapsing,
in about 13 feet. I, with the soils that are there, I would anticipate the groundwater table would
be very close to the Lake level, at the septic tank. We did not do it right at the tank, because
that's where the septic tank is, right now.
MR. YARMOWICH-I was not aware of topography. The location of the tank is about 15 feet, ground
elevation, higher than the current Lake elevation?
MR. IRISH-Yes.
MR. YARMOWICH-And we're within 60 feet of the Lake?
MR. IRISH-Right, correct.
MR. YARMOWICH-I concur with your conclusion.
MR. IRISH-Thank you.
MR. YARMOWICH-The 100 year flood elevation has been addressed by you, in your plan, that I've not
seen?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. IRISH-Yes.
MR. YARMOWICH-You're just affirming that you can meet all these conditions in my letter?
MR. IRISH-Yes.
MR. YARMOWICH-I don't have any problem with that.
MR. CARTIER-You don't have any problem with that? Okay. Does the Board have any other questions
or comments?
MR. CAIMANO-Well, I'll bring up Mr. Hagan's monthly comment, and that's the expansion beyond what
is allowable, of a nonconforming lot. We are, in effect, doubling the size of this place, on a lot
that is .19 of an acre, on a one acre zone.
MRS. PULVER-Well, they're rebuilding on the same footprint.
MR. CAIMANO-No, that doesn't make any difference.
MR. O'CONNOR-Typically, if I might respond, in part, to that. You measure a dwelling by the number
of bedrooms that you have in the dwelling. Presently, there are in use, and have been in use, three
bedrooms, in this dwelling. What we're talking about is making it a much more convenient, a much
nicer operation, and still remaining with three bedrooms, and, in fact, what welre doing is removing
an existing septic field which is within 100 feet of the Lake. by installing a holding tank which
will, in fact, be a betterment to that particular area, because that sewage will be totally removed
from that watershed. Also, if you take a look, we have increased the square footage by building
part of it above a second floor, but we have also decreased the amount of sheet water drainage, because
we're installing some provisions for sheet water drainage, with the new construction. that isn't
there for the existing construction. So, we're going to improve the drainage of the site. We're
going to improve the septic handling on the site and then, overall, I think, be an improvement to
what's there.
24
'~
--'"
MR. CAIMANO-I don't doubt that one single bit, and I like the project and, unless I hear anything
further, it's great. However, Article 9.011 says, under Nonconforming Uses and Structures, "No
enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the gross floor area of such
single family dwelling or mobile home, immediately prior to the commencement of the first enlargement
and rebuilding." So, if we approve this, then we have to approve it with full knowledge that we
are going against the Ordinance.
MR. O'CONNOR-We addressed that, with Staff, as to whether or not a variance was required.
MR. BAKER-This project has had full zoning review, by both the Zoning Board and the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. CAIMANO-So, you're suggesting. don't bother to come here, then?
MR. MARTIN-Just to confirm, in my own mind, what is the square footage of the existing structure,
living space?
MR. O'CONNOR-It's in the Long Form EAF. I believe it's 900 and some feet.
MR. CARTIER-Here it is. Total, gross area...
MR. O'CONNOR-994.
MR. MARTIN-994, and what is the living space of the new?
MR. O'CONNOR-There's an additional 800 feet in the second story.
MR. CARTIER-Any'other questions or comments from Board members?
MR. YARMOWICH-I'd like to ask Ray if he can tell me, are the separation distances between this holding
tank and other wells, met?
MR. IRISH-Yes, the separation distances are provided and the adjacent water supply's were located
and shown on the plan.
MR. YARMOWICH-As well as on site?
MR. IRISH-Yes.
MR. YARMOWICH-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-I III open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. CARTIER-While the public hearing's open, here, let me read two letters into the record. This
is to the Queensbury Planning Board: "Gentlemen, please be advised that we have reviewed the proposed
plans of Michael and Martha Hogan. We understand that they propose to construct a two story residence
on the footprint of their existing residence. We have no objection to same, and look upon same as
being an improvement. We urge your approval of same. Very truly yours, Robert Hughes and Edith
R. Hughes" To the Queensbury Pl anning Boa rd: "Gentl emen, and Ladi es, pl ease be advi sed that we
have reviewed the proposed plans of Michael and Martha Hogan. We understand that they propose to
construct a two story residence on the footpri nt of thei r exi sti ng resi dence. We have no objecti on
to same, and look upon same as being an improvement. We urge your approval of same. Very truly
yours, William Barton and Anna Mae Barton"
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, perhaps, for the record, I should also submit to the Board letter's of
May 18th, 1990 and April 20th, 1990, from Patricia Collard, which address the question of variances
that would be required. at least under their review of the Zoning Ordinance, and we did get into
a question of expansion with her, and, in her response. she did not directly address it, but directly
addressed what variances we would be required and I believe this was after consulting with the
Assistant Town Attorney, and she refers to that in those letters.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I think when we still have some questions in our minds, about which way we want
to go with something like that, going through the SEQRA Review sometimes helps. Do you want to go
through the SEQRA Review, at this point?
MR. CAIMANO-Sure.
MR. MARTIN-Sure.
25
.-
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF 110 SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION 110. 76-90, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas
Caimano:
MR. CARTIER-(Referring to Long Form EAF) Item Six, "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or
patterns or surface water runoff?"
MRS. PULVER-Itls supposed to improve it.
MR. IRISH-SIight reduction.
MR. PULVER-Slight reduction?
MR. IRISH-Yes, 14 percent reduction.
MR. CARTIER-A 14 percent reduction, because of, that's a question we had, when we were out there.
MR. IRISH-They proposed an eave trench, around the house. In other words, a stone trench beneath
the eaves.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: to de.olish the existing
seasonal camp and rebuild a single fa.ily h~ on the sa.e footprint, and
WHEREAS, thi s Pl anni ng Boa rd has determi ned that the proposed project and Pl anni ng Board acti on is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is a Type I 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 envi ronmental
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 thi s Board will have no si gnifi cant envi ronmenta 1 effect and the Chairman of the Pl anning
Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of
non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-Well, any further Board discussion? This is one of those philosophical kind of issues.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, it's not philosophical, at all. I mean, I certainly, there's nobody complaining
about it. I certainly see myself voting for it. I just think it should be on the record that, when
we vote for this thing, as you so often say. there is a precedent.
MR. MARTIN- I have a questi on. I pose thi s to Stu, as being my nearest, best contact, how can thi s
application get this far and go through the scrutiny that this has gone through, and not have anybody
mention that there's a gross floor area increase, here, of 82 percent?
MR. BAKER-I really can It respond to that, other than to say that the Zoning Administrator does review
every application that gets before this Board and it is the Zoning Administrator's responsibility
to make sure that each project has received all the necessary variances.
26
---
MR. CAIMANO-But she doesn't vote.
MR. MARTIN-I just want that officially noted.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, but she makes the determination, whether or not....
MR. MARTIN-But, there's been no specifi c reference to thi s aspect of thi s project and, granted, thi s
has got a lot of merit for a lot of reasons, but this is something that should be specifically noted
and something should be done to avoid this, in the future, or make sure that this determination is
made, prior to this getting to this point.
MR. CAIMANO-Because the applicant would have no way of knowing. The applicant comes here and he
gets hit in the face by, this is a gross violation of an Article in Nonconforming Use, and the first
thing we talk about, as y.ou well know. The first thing Jim Hagan brings up, the Nonconforming Use.
MR. BAKER-I agree. I understand the Board's concern.
MR. CAIMANO-So, when we pass this. just as long as, Mr. Chairman, you understand.
MR. MARTIN-No, I want her to be informed of our problem with this, as it relates to this specific
point of the Ordinance. I want her to be informed that this was a concern of ours, and that, in
the future, projects of this nature, be looked upon in this light.
MR. CARTIER-Well, we have some options, here. One is, if we're uncomfortable with the determination
of the Zoning Administrator, we can kick it back to the Zoning Board for an interpretation, correct?
MR. MARTIN-Well, the problem is, she hasn't made ~ determination.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. MARTIN-She's totally gone by it.
MR. CARTIER-Well, it's a determination that's been missed. I'm kind of stretching things, here,
a bit, I know.
MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying that I apply my comments to this particular project, necessarily. I'm
saying about something is missing in the procedure.
MS. CORPUS-I think that, and this is going on memory, that the Zoning Administrator did address the
issue, but didn't do it in a letter stating that a certain variance wasn't needed. Her letter was
an affirmative letter, as to which ones ~ needed, and the gamut was run, as to the discussion
of whi ch different types mi ght be needed and whi ch ones were rejected. You're ri ght. I can see
where the Board would recommend. In the future....
MR. MARTIN-This is not something that's a matter of a judgement call.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. MARTIN-This is a matter of a hard and fast calculation.
MS. CORPUS-Well, in the future. what could be done is the Zoning Administrator, when issuing a letter,
could issue a letter saying which variances were needed and which variances were discussed and
determined were unnecessary, which would clear this up for the Board, in future cases.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MS. CORPUS-Which, in itself, would be a determination, as to, you know, which is something that would
either.. ..
MR. CAIMANO-Also, I would like that determination to be made, in the future, whether or not it's
needed and, also, why, an explanation.
MRS. PULVER-We want a written opinion from her.
MR. BAKER-What I would recommend that the Planning Board do, at this point, is make a motion voicing
these concerns, and make the motion directed to the Zoning Administrator, and we will forward that
motion to her, tomorrow.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, right now, we have an application in front of us, and we don't want to put the
monkey on his back, and, I think, Mr. Chairman, that we can do it in another way, and I think Mr.
Baker is in the right direction. I don't think this applicant should get this far, and then be
penalized
27
by this Board because somebody else, along the line, didn't do their homework, on .19 of an acre
in a one acre zone, on a nonconforming use.
MR. MARTIN-In a Waterfront zone.
MR. CAIMANO-On a Waterfront property. I mean, that should have been Number One, not Number Nineteen,
which is skipped over, and now we're stuck with it. Well. this applicant's going to get my yes vote,
but we're going to send something to the Administrator, as far as I'm concerned.
MRS. PULVER-Can we take care of this motion, and this applicant, and then request from the Zoning
Administrator, a written opinion as to what she considers having to have a variance, as far as increase
in square footage.
MR. BAKER-That would make the most sense. I would finish up your business with this applicant, first.
MRS. PULVER-I mean, thatls the simple way to do it.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MRS. PULVER-Since we already know we're not conforming with the Ordinance. We'd like to know what
her, you know, supposing the next application has the same thing.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MRS. PULVER-We'd like to know that, you know, like she said, if you double it, it's okay with her,
so we know when it gets this far. Okay, Stu, can we do that? Can we ask for a written opinion from
the Zoning Administrator?
MR. MARTIN-Do it in the form of a resolution.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-And we can do that at the end of the meeting, I take it?
MRS. PULVER-Okay. Shall we have a motion?
MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think we're ready.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN 110. 76-90 MICHAEL AIID MARTHA HOGAN, Introduced by Carol Pulver, who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
To demolish the existing seasonal camp and rebuild a single family home on the same footprint to
conform with the Town Board I s approval on holding tanks and any other engineering concerns to be
addressed.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'd make just one comment, and, maybe, you hit me with something that I
hadn't addressed before, specifically, but, part of the question, or, part of the answer might be
that, part of this building is not nonconforming, so, when you get into your ratios, you don't,
necessarily, simply, take the square footages and apply them.
MR. CAIMANO- The lot is nonconformi ng.
MR. O'CONNOR-The lot is nonconforming, but you're talking about expansion of a building, and the
only thing, when you get into, shall not, you're talking about expanding the nonconformity.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-So, a portion of that is not an expansion of a nonconformity, because a portion of,
even the addition, will comply. Now, I haven't. mathematically, figured it out, but it's not simply
a straight square footage. I appreciate your concern.
MR. CAIMANO-Not to belabor the point, but, the point, here, is, and my point is, that that should
have been already taken care of, before you got here.
28
-'
MR. O'CONNOR-I presumed it was, Mr. Caimano. We've been going since, I think, the letters are dated
May and April. We've been going since, I think, sometime in 1989. I won't belabor the point. Thank
you for your approval.
SITE PLAN 110. 77-90 TYPE II WR-lA MARY D. SCUDERI lUCY SCUDERI OWNER: SAME CHESTNUT lANE SHORE
COLONY ASSEMBLY POINT TO CONSTRUCT All OPEN DECK ATTACHED TO THE PORCH WHICH IS OVER THE EXISTING
GARAGE. (WARREN coum PLAIINING) TAX MAP 110. 8-6-7. 8.1. 8.2 LOT SIZE: 22.500 SQ. FT. SECTION
9.010
JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached)
MR. CAIMANO-Can I stop you, right there, Stu. (Referring to Staff Notes) You said a dock and a car
port. Is it a deck or a dock?
MR. BAKER-It's a deck.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I assume engineering didn't look at this. They had no need to.
MR. BAKER-No.
MR. CARTIER-Comments from Warren County: No County Impact. Is there somebody here to represent
the applicants?
MR. RICHARDS-Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards. 1'm an attorney. I'm here on behalf
Mary and Lucy Scuderi. They're also in the audience, if you have any questions for them, and, of
course, this ~ in connection with the summer cottage on Assembly. I believe you all have a print,
but I'll post one, in any event. They do plan to put a deck on the east side of the house, to allow
themselves and their parents an opportunity to get out. It says a screened in porch, at one point.
It's really more than a screened in porch. This is an extra room that they're building the deck
off of, and the deck will encroach on the setback, and we obtained a variance for that. It will
not, however, encroach any further, actually, will not encroach as far as the existing house. I
do have a couple of pictures, here, I'll just pass to the Board, if I may, and, as I think the Staff
Comments bear out. there really is no impact, as far as the Site Plan Review criteria are concerned
and we ask for your approval.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, any Board questions or comments? Can you clarify this Item 6, for us?
MR. RICHARDS-Yes, we believe that ~ municipal water. It ~ seasonal, municipal water, but the Town
does bill them for it.
MS. CORPUS-There's a Shore Colony Water District.
MR. CARTIER-Is that what, that's part of that blue water tank situation?
MR. RICHARDS-Yes.
MS. CORPUS-Yes. There is such a thing as a Shore Colony Water District.
MR. RICHARDS-They pay $69 a year, to the Town of Queensbury, for that water, and the septic system,
as you can see, has already been replaced. I think we attached exhibits on that.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NOCOMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-Are we ready to do a SEQRA on this?
MR. BAKER-No SEQRA is necessary. It's a Type II action.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anybody have any questions or comments, or are we ready for a motion?
29
MR. CAIMANO-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN 110. 77-90 MARY D. SCUDERI LUCY SCUDERI, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
To construct an open deck attached to the porch which is over the existing garage.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA ROBERT AND MARGARET REID OiliER:
SAME WINCOMA DRIVE. NORTHERLY ALONG RIDGE ROAD FROM QUAKER ROAD TO WINCOMA DRIVE. COITIJlJE NORTHERLY
FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISIOII. RETAIN 5.73 ACRES SURROUNDING EXISTING RESIDENCE. COIIVEY WESTERLY 1.66
ACRES FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING lOT. TAX MAP 110. 55-1-2.11 LOT SIZE: 7.39 ACRES
ROBERT REID, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski. Planner (attached)
(END OF FIRST DISK)
30
'~
.-/
MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have comments from Rist-Frost: "We have reviewed the project, and there are
no engineering concerns." Okay, is there somebody here, representing the applicant?
DR. REID-I'm Robert Reid, representing Robert and Margaret, and, would you like me to put up
a map? Thi s is the present lot whi ch consi sts of, approximately, seven acres, and I propose
to make this lot 1.66 acres, with access out to here. Not being used to all this type of jargon,
please guide me over whatever questions I might be able to answer, but I canlt answer many.
MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have any questions?
MR. CAIMANO-I don't have any questions?
MR. CARTIER-You're going to share a common driveway, is that correct?
DR. REID-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Youlve fully thought through that narrow access to that 1.6 acre lot, there?
DR. REID-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-And you understand the comment, regarding, do you have comments? Did you get a
copy of those?
DR. REID-No, I didnlt. Is there something I should address, now?
MR. CARTIER-Just be sure that you're aware, these frontages preclude further subdivision of
these lots, without construction of a Town road. This would be extremely difficulty, without
acquiring additional property, given the location of the existing house.
DR. REID-I understand that.
MR. CARTIER-You understand that?
DR. REID-Yes. I have no intent to.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody else got questions? We're at Preliminary Stage. We need to
hold a public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-We need to do a SEQRA.
MR. CAIMANO-Full SEQRA.
MR. MARTIN-I believe so.
MR. CARTIER-Well, the Long Form's here.
MR. BAKER-Long Form, correct.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGIIIFICAllCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 13-1990, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded
by James Martin:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT AIID MARGARET
REID. Wincoma Drive. for a 2 lot subdivision. This is at Prelillinary Stage. Retain 5.73 acres
surrounding existing residence. convey Mesterly 1.66 acres for residential building lot.. 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.
31
-'
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules
and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning
Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of
non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think we're ready for a motion, but I remind whoever is going to make the
motion, that we have a waiver request to include in our motion.
MR. CAIMANO-May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, please? Actually, it's a legal question. This
is a relatively innocuous and insignificant subdivision. Is it the purview of this Board, can
we not take Preliminary and Final, at the same time, rather than belabor this?
MS. CORPUS-I really can't answer your question. I don't know, off the top of my head.
MR. CAIMANO-How about if I do this? How about if I make the motion for Preliminary and Final
approval, subject to final legal review by you, that way, if it is so. we have done it, and
this man doesn't have to come back here, again. for this.
MS. CORPUS-The Board also has the option of that, true. or putting it on for next week's meeting,
also, Final. that's another option.
DR. REID-I like the idea of not coming back.
MS. CORPUS-It may not be necessary for you to come back, sir, if there were no problem.
MRS. PULVER-How about if you put that in the motion and, if he is required to come back, that
we'll throw him on next week?
MR. MARTIN-That was going to be my final comment. You have one week, now. Just to make sure
you don't miss the deadline, if you do have to come back, you have to have your stuff in by
next Wednesday, right?
MR. BAKER-By the last Wednesday of the month.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR, CAIMANO-Next Wednesday.
MR. BAKER-Is that next Wednesday?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BAKER-Okay.
DR. REID-There's more forms?
MR. MARTIN-There's a whole other Fi na 1 appl i cati on. Thi s is Pre 1 imi nary, that's Fi na 1, but
we're trying to circumvent that, and give you both, tonight, because nothing's going to change.
DR. REID-I will hear from you, if I have to do something?
32
.....-"
MR. MARTIN-Youlll hear from the Town Attorney's office.
MR. CARTIER-I can appreciate what you're trying to do, here, for the applicant. I'm a little
bit concerned that we set precedent, in a situation like this, and back to my question, what
do we gain and what do we lose, here?
MR. CAIMANO-We gain the goodwill of a Town taxpayer of some noted repute. We gain the everlasting
gratitude of the Supervisor of the Town.
MR. MARTIN-No, I think, on a more substantive point, the thing we do gain is, you gain valuable
spots on your agenda, at the next meeting.
MR. BAKER-Excuse me. If I may interject, here. I understand what the Board would like to do
and I'm all for it, except, one problem, I think it goes directly against the Town Subdivision
Regulations, which do call for a two step process.
MS. CORPUS-I also see something that I, again, I did not answer your question, Mr. Caimano,
earlier, but I do see, now, looking at Final Plat requirements that, first, before the Board
can give Final approval, a Final Plat must be submitted and we don't have a Final Plat.
MR. CAIMANO-Alright, that's right, that's a good point. Let's forget it and just go on with
this thing.
MR. CARTIER-What it amounts to Dr. Reid, is that you're going to have to re-file a Final
application. but I think your blueprints; in essence, your blueprint is going to be exactly
the same. It's just the front cover, is what it amounts to.
DR. REID-Before next Wednesday?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-In order to get on the November agenda, correct?
MR. BAKER-Correct.
MR. YARMOWICH-No, it would be two weeks from Wednesday.
MR. BAKER-Is it two weeks from Wednesday?
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-And so you don't miss a whole other month, for virtually no reason.
MR. CARTIER-I think the Board's got a valid point, here, but I hate to see us jump into him
that fast. I think that's something we could talk about at our workshop session.
MRS. PULVER-This would be something that the Planning Board may, possibly, be doing, the 2 lot
subdivision, with no impact.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, I believe this concern is addressed in the proposed changes.
MR. CAIMANO-Right. I was just jumping the gun.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1990 ROBERT AND MARGARET REID, Introduced
by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For a 2 lot subdivision. Retain 5.73 acres surrounding existing residence, convey westerly
1.66 acres for residential building lot and, in addition, the applicant has requested a waiver
from the requirement for drainage calculations and the Board has granted that waiver. All
comments on Mr. Goralski's letter of October 12th are understood by the applicant and will be
followed.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
MR. BAKER-All the comments of the Planning Staff have been addressed. The current drainage
plan does show drainage going from the proposed house going to the north.
MR. MARTIN-They've already been shown on the plat.
33
...-
MR. CAIMANO-Okay, then that's fine. We doubled ourselves.
MR. YARMOWICH-The last Wednesday of the month is October 31st, not next Wednesday.
MR. CAIMANO-You're right.
DR. REID-What's that make, the filing date, then, is changed?
MR. MARTIN-October 31st.
DR. REID-Okay.
SITE PLAII NO. 78-90 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA KARAMATT BROADCASTING. INC. OiliER: TIERNAN.
BERNSTEIN. AND PINCHUK 25 QUAKER ROAD FOR INTERIOR ROODELING. (WARREN coum PlANNING) TAX
MAP NO. 104-1-4.32 LOT SIZE: 5.8 ACRES SECTION 4.020 J
FRANK DESANTIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MR. CARTIER-Warren County Planning Board, No County Impact. There are no engineering concerns,
raised, here. Does anybody have a question, here?
MR. PULVER-Is this for an existing radio station, that we already have, or a new one?
MR. MARTIN-No, this is a new one. I just had a question as to how the material was presented,
but maybe the Staff Comment clears it up.
MR. DESANTIS-Yes, let me just introduce myself, for the record. My name's Frank DeSantis.
I'm an attorney for Karamatt Broadcasting, here, tonight. I realize that the application in
front of you is signed, authorizing a Michael Vittengl to appear. I have presented the Staff
with a copy of a letter from the owners of the building, which I would just like to read into
the record, so there's no question about who I'm speaking for. It says, This letter is to
authorize Frank DeSantis to represent 73 Quaker Road Associates, owner of 25 Quaker Road,
Queensbury New York, concerning the current Site Plan Review application before the Town of
Queensbury and Warren County Planning Board's. This authorization shall be limited to
applications for Karamatt Broadcasting, Inc., and for no other purpose. Signed by Neil Pinchuk,
President, 73 Quaker Road, Corp., and general partner. So, that's why I'm here, tonight. The
reason that the application, essentially, is, the current building of Mallincrodkt, is that
the Site Plan Section of the Zoning Ordinance, which is Article V, as you well know, and Article
IV don't neatly mesh together, in this particular area. Article IV requires that all changes
of use, in a Plaza Commercial zone, seek Site Plan Review, even if those changes of uses do
not effect anything exterior to the building. Karamatt Broadcasting, the applicant in this
case, is a tenant, not a land owner, does not have the capability of, effectively. changing
anything, outside the building without the land lords permission, has only been allowed to make.
essentially, non-structural modifications. Essentially, what they are is office partitions,
without any change to the structural, electrical, plumbing, water delivery, water discharge
systems, to this building, in any manner whatsoever. I guess I just want to make a point, here.
because I think that you're going to see this over and over.
MR. CARTIER-We are working on it. We're in the process.
MR. DESANTIS-And one of the things that I had an extended discussion with the members of the
Planning Staff about this, because I asked them, exactly, how do I address the questions, the.
I don't know how many, we're almost into double lettering, now. I noticed, you're approaching
Z, as you get down to the bottom of the form. How do we answer those questions, as they relate
to this, and none of them are applicable, because, if you analyze all of those questions, they
relate to outside structures. Parking is something that, as the Staff comment, is a legitimate
concern. This structure was constructed and approved by this Board, in 1983, and, under the
then Ordinance, it was determined that it needed about 110 parking spots. We counted 108 that
were striped, but they're kind of worn in the back, but there's space, where there was a loading
dock, for about another 30 or 40 cars.
MR. CARTIER-What kind of traffic does a radio station generate?
MR. DESANTIS-We have, at maximum, at any time, in what we would call the day shift, Monday through
Friday, day time, about eight people on site. We have a total of about 15 or 16 employees,
but we're there seven days a week, 24 hours a day. So, if you were there at four in the morning,
you'd find one person there.
34
--../
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. DESANTIS-So, welre going to use, at most, even if we had some people stopping in and out,
10 of 108 spaces, which already exist.
MR. CARTIER-How much of the building are you using?
MR. DESANTIS-The building is 47,000 square feet. We leased 1500.
MR. CARTIER-Is the rest empty, Frank?
MR. DESANTIS-Half of the building, the downstairs, there's 18,000 square feet, currently being
leased by VanGuard Medical, which is a third party billing service. Knowing something about
paperwork, you can appreci ate that doctors need some assi stance in fi 11 i ng out these forms.
MRS. PULVER-Doesn't it say Ridge Enterprises, too, is there?
MR. DESANTIS-Ridge Appraisal is another office that's there, and they occupy about 800 square
feet. They have two people there.
MR. MARTIN-Why is Karamatt Broadcasting here?
MR. CARTIER-Because we've got a change in use.
MR. DESANTIS-You have a tenant, to answer you that, what happens is, the tenant makes the
application, because it was office space.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but, why are we not dealing with the owner of the property?
MS. CORPUS-It doesn't matter.
MR. DESANTIS-You are. The owner has given authorization to Mr. Vittengl to make this application,
and that's why I was saying, is that my name doesn't appear on that.
MR. MARTIN-What you're potentially talking about, though, is changes to the site that are the
owner's responsibility. I mean, if you're talking about adding parking spaces and paving.
MR. DESANTIS-Well, that's, if you were, I would agree with you, but, here, you have interior
remodeling, only. If you had a tenant" had space, where someone was saying, going to change
the outside of a plaza, or put an extension on a building and lease that, i.e. Aviation Mall.
Those parties in there are going to be tenants, they're not going to be owners. In that case,
I'm sure you'll be dealing with the building's owner. You won't be dealing with the tenants,
because they're talking about additions in structural. We're interior only. I think that's
the reason, to answer your question.
MR. CARTIER-This is one of the one's that Staff is going to handle, from now on.
MS. CORPUS-The reason is, all changes in use in Plaza Commercial and Highway Commercial Zone,
everything requires Site Plan Review.
MR. MARTIN-I understand that, but it seems to me. like, once you get the building and the system,
here, so to speak, that, now you have a need to add 25 spaces, according to the Parking
Requirements of your Ordinance.
MRS. PUL VER- No.
MR. DESANTIS-No, that's absolutely, that Staff Comment, which I would just, not necessarily
agree with, you have a prior nonconforming building here.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. DESANTIS-That's 47,000 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. DESANTIS-It has 108 parking spaces, okay. Currently, there are less than half the buildings
occupied. Under the current Ordinance, the one in 1988, if that building were to be constructed,
today, it would need, I think. 133 spaces, and that's where the 25 additional would come from.
This application involves, maybe, three percent of the building.
MR. BAKER-If I just might clarify my comments. My comment, on the proposed parking, was based
on the penciled drawing that was submitted, which shows proposed parking in and around the loading
dock.
35
"'---
---./
MR. DESANTIS-If you take 47,000 and divide it by 150, applying Article VII, which is on Gross
Floor Area, you come up with, something like, 133.
MR. BAKER-Right.
MR. DESANTIS-There are 108, there, which I think met, then, current Ordinance for the use of
the building.
MR. BAKER-So, what you're showing on here, is that there's room to put additional parking.
MR. DESANTIS-There's a big enough macadamed area in the back, quite honestly, to be a. it was
a truck warehouse area.
MR. BAKER-I understand.
MR. DESANTIS-Mallincrodkt, before that was Warner Pruyn or Finch Pruyn Lumber yard. It's, there's
a tarmac.
MR. BAKER-But, Mr. DeSantis, you're not proposing making that into parking. You're just showing
that it's there if needed, correct?
MR. DESANTIS-I'm showing that, if this building needed to be brought, if, hypothetically, the
entire building were, tomorrow, with a magic wand, to be occupied, and this Board said, do we
have enough space to meet the current Parking Ordinance, on site, we do. That's what we showed
on the Site Plan that we submitted.
MR. BAKER-Right.
MR. DESANTIS-And what we would do, in essence, is stripe existing macadam, in accordance with
your Ordinance. We would not be installing any further macadam, or taking down any buildings
or anything. We'd be striping it to bring it in, to show you the spaces.
MR. CARTIER-Is the building handicapped accessible?
MR. CAIMANO-I know it is. I've been in there.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, I think it is.
MR. DESANTIS-I don't want to speak for the whole building. Again, youlre talking about a
structure that, parts of it, I've never even been in.
MR. CARTIER-I'm only talking about access to the radio station portion.
MR. DESANTIS-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Are you going to use the main, front door?
MR. DESANTIS-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-It's handicapped.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I think what's happened is, the owner has said, yes, you can use the
building. You go through the approval process. I donlt want to do it. Basically, that's what's
happened.
MR. DESANTIS-Quite honestly, as much as the applicant would like to believe that they were really
important to the owner. 1500 square feet, on 47,000, just doesn't cut it. for him to come up
from New York City, that's the practical reason why the owner's not making the application.
MR. CARTIER-Do we have a copy, a letter, on file, from the owner, saying that...
MR. DESANTIS-That I'm authorized to appear, here, tonight?
MR. CARTIER-That the owner of the property is authorizing you?
MS. CORPUS-Yes.
MR. DESANTIS-Yes, I just read that into the record, and I've given a copy to Staff.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, then, I think that covers it.
36
---'
MR. DESANTIS-That's why I wanted to read it into the record, in case there was any question
as to why we're here.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, any further discussion? Public hearing opened.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-We have a Short Form to do on this. I believe. Itls unlisted, correct?
MR. BAKER-Yes.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 78-90, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Ma rti n:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: interior remodeling,
and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action
is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules
and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by thi s Board will have no si gni fi cant envi ronmenta 1 effect and the Chairman of the Pl anni ng
Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of
non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN NO. 78-90 KARAMATT BROADCASTING. INC., Introduced by James Martin
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For interior remodeling at 25 Quaker Road.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
37
'-
..-
ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano
MR. CARTIER-We've got some odds and ends to take care of, here. Karla, do you want to take
us through the lead agency. The Town Board's requested lead agency status.
MS. CORPUS-I'm afraid I don't have that, whatever you have before you. I do not have a copy
of that.
MR. CARTIER-Well, do we have to make a motion supporting the Town Board's lead agency status?
Do we have to do anything with that at all?
MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, could I just see what you're, I don't have a copy, so I don't know
wha t ?
MR. CARTIER-The Town Board is requesting lead agency status for the zoning on the new mall.
MS. CORPUS-11m afraid I did not get a copy of this.
MR. CARTIER-Do we need to do anything with that? Do we have to make a formal resolution about
granting them lead agency status?
MR. CAIMANO-It says advisory, Peter. It says, this is to advise you.
MR. CARTIER-Alright.
MRS. PULVER-Right. that they have taken it, what they usually do, sometimes, is they'll kick
it to the Planning Board and make us lead agency.
MR. CAIMANO-I don It think we have to do anything with it.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if there's a resolution needed on this, can I get back to you, regarding
Pyramid Mall, next week?
MR. CARTIER-Sure, we can do it next Thursday, fine.
MS. CORPUS-Okay. Thanks.
MR. CARTIER-And if there is, Karla, could you put a resolution together for us?
MS. CORPUS-Definitely, thank you.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much.
MR. CARTIER-We said that we wanted to make a motion regarding the Zoning Administrator, or a
resolution.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, let's start it off, Mr. Chairman. We're put in the position, by a number
of people, including the Zoning Administrator, of facing an applicant where there is clearly,
not a violation, it is a....
MR. CARTIER-Nonconformance.
MR. CAIMANO-It is a nonconforming use and subject to a Zoning Regulation that has been clearly
overlooked and it is one that has been the most important one. It is a grossly undersi zed lot
in a one acre zone. It is next to an environmentally sensitive body of water and yet, it wasn't
even considered when it was brought before this Board, that we know of, because nobody mentioned
it. So, I guess what we'd like to do, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, is to, somehow
get notification to the Zoning Administrator that, at least some of us on this Board, and maybe
all of us, are concerned about this because it puts us in a bad position in front of the public.
It is a situation where we are setting a precedent that may come home to haunt us and it need
not have been done thi s way because, somewhere along the 1 i ne, as Stu put it so ni ce ly and,
yet, unfortunately, in the wrong context, several people have looked at this first and yet it
got here with a clear violation of our regulations.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, and, maybe this helps. In talking with Paul Dusek about a whole bunch of
things, last week, I was talking about, suppose we have a question about the legal aspects of
an issue and he said, well, the best thing for you to do is table it until you get the legal
aspects cleared up, but I think that's different from what you're talking about. I think what
you're trying to do, here, what we're trying to do, is flag the Zoning Administrator or somebody
38
--
--
that, hey, something was amiss, here, and how do we avoid having it happen again.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I think having Stuart request an opinion from the Zoning Administrator, as
to when she feels a variance would be needed for what amount of size. I mean, does she feel
a 50 percent increase, an 80 percent increase. I mean, this is an 82 percent increase, right?
MR. CAIMANO-Well, she doesn't get a chance to feel. It's clear in the Regulations. It says,
50 percent. The regulation is clear.
MR. BAKER-Mrs. Pulver, that request for clarification on that really should come from the Board
and not from the Planning Staff.
MRS. PULVER-No, I mean, you could request from the Planning Board.
MR. CAIMANO-He's talking about in the process.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-What I think might, just to tie this down, that, in the future, anytime that there's
a project before us that involves a nonconforming use, they simply have to, in their
determi nati on, or in correspondence to thi s Board, ci te, Secti on by Secti on, ri ght out of the
Ordinance, their opinion, so we cover it. So, that way, she can make a notation in her written
determination, you know. Section 9.011, you know, Enlargements, you know, she states right out,
not an issue, or whatever, but that she has to go right through each one, in any case where
there's a nonconforming use for structures.
MS. CORPUS-I believe that she did cover this issue, but the problem is, again, for the Board,
that it was not in the letter.
MR. BAKER-It wasn't documented anywhere.
MS. CORPUS-It wasn't documented anywhere.
MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean, there's no documentation.
MS. CORPUS-The only thing that was documented in the letter was what was required, not what
was not required and I think if both aspects of that issue were covered, then you would be clear.
MR. MARTIN-And, to go beyond just making the determination, but some sort of explanation along
with it.
MS. CORPUS-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-My question to you. You said that earlier and my question to you, without belaboring
this point, is, how could that be? It is the single most important item on this whole thing.
MR. BAKER-We can't speak for the Zoning Administrator.
MS. CORPUS-I can't speak for her.
MR. CAIMANO-Then how can you be so sure that she went through this?
MS. CORPUS-Because, I was there, but I don't want to put words into her mouth, as to her
rationale, and I would definitely think the Board, if you feel you would like her to write a
letter to you, regarding that determination, I don't see a problem with that.
MR. CAIMANO-I guess my suggestion is that, somehow, the Chairman just communicate some
unhappiness.
MR. BAKER-Just for the Planning Board's information, the Zoning Administrator does document,
Section by Section, from the Ordinance, what applies, in terms of what Sections an applicant
needs variances from and what sections require that the applicant get Site Plan Review. That
is in written form and the Planning Department does have a copy of that on file. That is done
every time she determines. you know, meets with an appl icant and determines what process they
need to go through. So, it's documented in that form, but, as you're correctly pointing out,
she doesn't document what Sections do not apply and for what reasons she feels they don't apply
and that may be part of the problem.
MR. MARTIN-And I particularly stress the reasons for the determination.
39
--
--
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. MARTIN-Because I can see it, it's coming about, now, like, for example, the Docksider.
We're having an issue over the parking and she has just come out and made a statement that it's
not an issue, or that she's made an i nterpretati on about there bei ng two uses present. I want
some reasoning behind that.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, I think that, if we made an issue of this thing and Jim certainly did make
an issue of thi s thi ng, then, to me, correct me if I'm wrong, Peter, she shoul d be here, when
that case comes up, to defend her position because, as a matter of fact, this Board finds that,
or at least one member of this Board finds that to be a very significant issue and to just dismiss
it is ridiculous, on it's surface, because the applicant now thinks it's a non-issue when, in
fact, the Board thinks it.li. an issue and we don't have any idea what the Zoning Administrator's
thinking. Of course, that's pretty natural, anyway. I have no idea what the Zoning Administrator
thinks in this Town, anyway.
MR. CARTIER-Is this a solution? If the Zoning Administrator, in writing her determinations,
i ncl udes reasons by whi ch she has reached those determi nati ons and also ci tes specifi c thi ngs
in the Ordinance that has led her to those determinations, would that satisfy this Board?
MR. BAKER-Well. the problem is, that's what she's already doing. I mean, thatls what she's
already doing. She documents why certain variances are needed and why Site Plan Review is needed.
She does not document why other types of variances are not needed.
MR. MARTIN-Well, that can be just as critical to the case.
MR. BAKER-And I agree, but I think that...
MS. CORPUS-See, the problem in that is that could cover anything that's left in the Zoning
Ordinance, from A to Z, which would require a lot of, if the Board has a special concern with
nonconforming uses, I could see limiting it to a certain area where you would like to see it,
each time it comes before the Board, saying
MR. CAIMANO-Hold it. Just a second, and I don't want to get you or her all upset over this
thing. To me, and apparently to Jim, and maybe to somebody else, if you'll speak up or not
speak up, it is a very simple thing. It's common sense. We are dealing with somebody who's
on a grossly nonconforming lot next to a sensitive piece of water. It is an almost 100 percent
increase in the size. That's not significant? I mean, it's just common sense. Thatls all
we're asking for, is to look at the thing on the common sense basis. How can she not say
something to us? How could this man get to this point, and not even know it's an issue? He
never even knew it was an issue. How could he not? It's as clear as the hair on your head,
if you will. It's clear. It's a nonconforming lot, grossly. Here's what it says about
nonconforming lots. Somebody ought to say something. No. It comes here. We've got to vote
on it. What we should have done is turn the the thing down, frankly. It's clearly in violation.
Not just a little bit in violation, a Jrt..[ bit in violation, almost 100 percent, and nobody,
in this whole process, thought enough of that to tell the applicant. They thought about
everything else, but not this. It went before the Town Board.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. So what's the solution?
MR. CAIMANO-Just communicate, I guess.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I'd like to come up with something specific, here.
MR. MARTIN-I think, as you stated it earlier, those written determinations, as well as the
reasoning behind them, woul~ be a start.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, Karla, I'm calling on you, here. You started to talk about limiting it to
certain kinds of areas.
MS. CORPUS-I just see a practical problem, in that, given this, this particular issue, if the
Board has a concern with that, that's fine, but I'm saying, maybe there's other things that
other people feel just as strongly about, in other Sections of the Ordinance, it could be a
problem, in that, the rest of the Ordinance is rather large and cumbersome and to write an opinion
stating, well, I don't think Article Seven applies. I mean, even if, granted, only the obvious
things. I'm not talking about things that no one would go.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MS. CORPUS-But I'm saying, in the case. I see this coming up, time and time again, specifically
on nonconforming structures and uses, that seems to be one concern that needs a lot of
i nterpretati on.
40
-
--
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MS. CORPUS-That Section always needs interpretation, that and Article Eight. Those are the
two that seem to come up most often, Article Eight and Article Nine. because they're the most
vague.
MR. BAKER-To narrow it a little bit, we're dealing, specifically. with preexisting, nonconforming
structures or uses.
MS. CORPUS-Right.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, let me try something else, here. With the exception of Ed, who's relatively
new, the rest of us have been around, together, for several months. and there certainly has
been, when you guys get together in your Planning Department, there is a sense of what this
Board likes and doesn't like and I think that the Zoning Administrator hasn't a clue, for whatever
reason, and I think it's up to the Zoning Administrator, just as we have to think about you
guys. and thi nk of you as an envi ronmenta 1 i st and John as a practi ca 1 person, when we talk to
you, I think it's incumbent upon you to think about what the tenor of this Board is. It's very
obvious. If Jim Hagan had been here tonight, he would have gone nuts. He would have said,
no. He woul d have refused, because you know how he is about, if you don't know, you shoul d
know, how he is about nonconformi ng. He's the fi rst guy to bri ng the issue up. So, I thi n k,
what should happen, is, just as you know us, maybe she should, and Dave should, also. Maybe
somebody should clue them in, hey, the guy's a wacko down at the end of the table. You ought
to be careful of this.
MR. MARTIN-Well, no, all I'm saying is, in this example that was here before us, tonight, that
that should have been given a variance which cited that specific Section. I'm not saying to
say, no, this individual can't have their camp expanded, but just that it's
MRS. PULVER-They should have applied for a variance at that time.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BAKER-I understand, completely, what the Board is saying and I agree with what you're saying,
Nick, that, perhaps, the Zoning Administrator doesn't have that same understanding.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. How's it going to be conveyed?
MR. CARTIER-Would it help if we had from her, her reasoning behind this one?
MR. CAIMANO-I sure would like to hear it.
MR. CARTIER-Well, can we do something?
MR. BAKER-I'd recommend a resolution to that effect.
MR. MARTIN-Or maybe just, in future cases of nonconforming uses, just have that reasoning in
each project that involves a nonconforming use, that would be a start.
MS. CORPUS-Right, and I'd say also, from being here for some time, now, is Article Eight is
another one of those wonderful ones whi ch is, defi nitely nonconformi ng uses, but lot si zes,
that has to do with two small lots and adjoinder and that sort of thing.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Well, I would like to hear what the rationale was for not mentioning this
and why the applicant never got...
MR. CARTIER-Can you turn that into a resolution and we can act on it, as a Board.
MR. CAIMANO-Sure.
MOTION THAT THE STAFF REQUEST OF THE ZOIlING ADMINISTRATOR A WRITTEN OPINION AS TO lilY THERE
WAS NO VARIANCE IIEEDED FOR SITE PLAII NO. 76-90 MICHAEL AIID MARTHA HOGAN. CONCERIIING
OVERCONSTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING USE, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its
adoption,' seconded by James Martin:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas
41
'--'
MR. CARTIER-Could you ask Staff to draft that letter? Stu, would you be willing to handle that?
MR. BAKER-Certainly.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Peter Cartier, Acting Chairman
42
'----'
--
lOCATIOII MAPS
October 16th. 1990 Planning Board Meeting
OLD BUSINESS:
Site Plan No. 55-90 Guido Passarelli (See Staff Notes attached)
Site Plan No. 28-90 Dunham's Bay Boat Co, Inc. (Staff Notes atttached)
Site Plan No. 43-90 Leo Lombardo Leo~s Lobster House (See Staff Notes attached)
"
«1
~
tb..c) ~ 1-1 ÞJ ¡¡;
~,
t~
r
Subdivision No. 8-1990 SKETCH PLAN Adirondack Industrial Park, Inc. (See Staff Notes attacbed)
VICINITY
N.T.S.
MAP
'--'
~
LOCATION MAPS
October 16th. 1990 Planning Board Meeting
NEW BUSINESS:
Site Plan No. 76-90 Michael and Martha Hogan (See Staff Notes attached)
Site Plan No. 77-90 Mary D. Scuderi; Lucy Scuderi (See Staff Notes attached)
T·---···-t~¡Jt-ì~~1·_··-);/
f t'..) n\o.A1 ~~~--\ '';>lIn~:~\L(lI\.~;~r I
~I L(\~'~ 1:")'.1 J
\~I _, (~. '1,/
{ - Æ,)o'((/.." . Ò,": -"_/ rl L ~
\ <lC' _2'(..
~ "~,4, .-0 \
j . ,~¥. .
)<; ~¡
1~; ~) 1\
~. ~
¡,;
)" I
. ......,...., ," .......-......,... / . ' 'l
. .. - .
Subdivision No. 13-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Robert and Margaret Reid (See Staff Notes attached)
Site Plan No. 78-90 Karamatt Broadcasting, Inc. Owner: Tiernan, Bernstein, and Pinchuk (See
Staff Notes attached)
." ,............. o. _ _-.- _...".... .v ...........
1 . -----'''.-
t1' I
,,
, .
I;;~. ~\~~ií d~Rf$ ~ ~
\\lII'illl/l \ - ) ',(
f/Tih-l. ~,/~({\t ~
,.' ,,~\; ,
,,"Y'
.. ......._--,-~._-
--.../
q
".
v,Jf$'
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
F 1 L E
COpy
PI_nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
October 5, 1990
By:
Stuart Baker
Area VariaDce
U. Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
Subdiñsion: Sketch' Prelim'
-,r- -. - mary.
A Site Plan Review
- Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDal
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 55-90
Applicant'. Name:
Guido Passarelli - ~ount Royal Shopping Center
MeetiDø Date:
October 16, 1990
............................................................................................
This application \.¡as te,bled by the Board at the July 24, 1990 meeting in
order for the applicant to Make the various design chcnges necessary to
address the concerns of Staff and adjacent propsrty owners. Copies of the
revised plans have been forwarded to DOT and DOH for their review.
The Tet-111 Engineer l1i11 address tl:1e adequacy of the en~ineerin8 chanses
\-:hich have occurred. The cover letter submitted by the L.A. Group tr1ith the
revised plans outlines in detail the chanp;es that have been l"'.~de to ~.ddress
the Planninp, DepartM.ent concerns. I have revie\.¡ed these changes, and I l:1ave
the following comments:
I) The potential access to the north of this lot is located so that only
two parking spaces trlould be elicinated if an interior access road \lere put in
place at a future date. The ret'1ainin~ nunber ui 11 be s'..lffic ient to corn)'>ly
with the re~uirements of the ordinance.
2) The applicant may wish to e,..tend
both sides of. the entrance to provide
future. Both access drives should have
?avenent for additional pedestrian safety.
the brick \'1aI!~ to the nar!dng lot on
for safe pedestrian access in the
crossualk striping painted on the
3) The existin3 \.¡ater val\fes at the proposed entrance/exit should be
labeled as such.
This revised plan is very \.¡ell thought out, and the changes \.¡hich have
been nade should benefit both the developer and the TO\-111.
SB/pw
.~.._-------
~
~IST.FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 SAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793-4146
518 .793-4141
'--'
---'
October 15, 1990
RFA #89-5000.055
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Guido Passarelli, Site Plan 55-90
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering
comments:
1. Regarding septic and subsurface sewage disposal system:
a. The connecting piping exiting the first septic tank should
be set with the crown at the bottom of the inlet tee and
shall slope at 1/4" per foot to the second septic tank.
b. The total drop across the series septic tanks should be 3"
from septic system inlet to outlet.
c. The width of an absorption bed should not exceed 15' per
DEC des ign standards (page 59). It is recommended that
absorption beds be separated by 10' .
d. The emergency holding tank location should be shown on the
drawing.
e. The Board may wish to require the appl icant to submit a
modified septic system design for review as a condition of
approval.
2. Based on so il infil trat ion test data a storage rel ease hydrograph
analysis should be provided to characterize retention pond/dry-
well systems operation. Of concern is the period of time
standing water would remain in the retention basins under design
cond it ions. The storm water management concept appears well
developed for the proposed intensity of site utilization.
3. Additional stop signs should be provided for people exiting the
site main entrance from the first row of parking.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST~ . SSOCIATES, P.C.
~\(~. ,'vv,/~~~,!l
Thomas M. ' a mowich, P.E.
Managing Prh'ect Engineer
* GLENS FALLS, NY·LACONIA, NH
-------~. -- -.,
'''---"'
--.../'
.
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804·9725 (518) 792-5832
8/27/90
Richard Roberts, Chairman
Queensbury Town Planning Board ~~
From: Robert L. Eddy, Chairman ~~
Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification
Re:Site Plan #55-90 Mount Royal Shopping Center
Lake George Road
Enclosed is corrected copy of - the report from the
Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification on this
application.
On page #3 of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting
of July 24 you said that the Queensbury Committee for
Community Beautification had approved. I knew we had
disapproved, so I checked the attachments at the end of the
minutes and found that inadvertently I had plaed an "X" in
the wrong place on the form.
I notice the Planning Board tabled the application, so
it may be that no serious harm has been done, but I do want
to go on record that I made an error that I hope can be
corrected. Stuart Baker made a point of bringing the
obvious error to your attention.
Copy of this and the corrected copy are being sent the
applicant. We look ¡orward to viewing the revised plans
that will be presentèd to the Planning Board.
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
-../
CORRECTED COpy
TO~iN OF QUEENSBURY
COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION
Robert L. Eddy. Chairman
17 Owen Avenue
Queensbury, N. Y. 12801
TOI eX) Warren County Planning Board
(X) Queensbury Town Flanning Board
( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Beard of Appeals
(X) APp1i cant
Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary
8 Queensbury Avenue
Queensbury, N. Y. 12801
Date I 7/9/90
"
Rea Site Plan #55-90 Mount Roya; Shopping Center
Lake george Road
We have reviewed the request fora ( ) Variance. (x) Site Flan Review,
( ) Other - and have the following recommendations I
( ) Approval (X) Disapproval
This application has been disapproved by our Committee as data for
landscaping, screening and plantings for the above applicant for a Site
Flan Review or Variance has not been submitted or is incomplete.
Would you please, therefore, refer the applicant to our Committee
for approval of its plans prior to granting the application pending
before your Board or before construction permit has been granted.
You and the Building Department will be notified just as soon as
plan~ have been approved by us.
~
Respectfully Submitted,
C~¿ ¿:--I~
Robert L. Eddy
Chairman
Several members,Qf the Committee expressed concern that no one
appeared for this large project which we believe requires considerable
atten~ion prior to it's approval.
ÌIf:
----.--------
'-.-'
--
TOW N OF QUEENSBURY
FiLE COPy
COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION
Robert L. Bddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary
17 Owen Avenue . 8 Queensbury Avenue
Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Queensbury, N. Y. 12801
To. ex) Warren County Planning Board Date. 10/8/90
(x) QUeensbury Town Planning Board
( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of APpeals
(x) APplicant
,.
Re. Site Plan #55-90 _ Mount. Royal Shopping Center
Lake George Road
We have reviewed the request for.{ ) Variance, (x) Site Plan Review,
( ) Other - and have the fOllowing recommendations.
( ) Approval (x) Disapproval
This application has been disapproved by our Committee as data for
landscaping, screening and plantings for the above applicant for a Site
flan Review or variance has not been submitted or is incomplete.
Would you please, therefore. refer the applicant to our Committee
for approval of its plans prior to granting the application pendinl
before your Board or before construction permit has been granted.
,
You and the Building Department will be notified just as soon as
plan~ have been approved by us.
~
Respectfully Submitted,
~~ ~%~
Robert L. Eddy .
Chairman -
This is the second time no one has appeared to present
plantfng plans . Blueprints of plans have been sent, but the
Committee vishes to have an explanation of location of plants
and specie. ~9 be used.
The C9mmlttee respectfully requests that no action for
approval be made until a representative appears to explain plans.
r j L t
L
,- i
-/
'--'
.
-
SITE PLAN REVIEWHO. 5';-90
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804·9725 (518) 792-5832
October 5, 1990
Joseph Kelly
Traffic Safety Division
Dept. of Transportation
84 Holland A venue
Albany, New York lZZ08
RE: Site Plan Review No. 55-90
Guido Passarelli
Dear Mr. Kelly:
As Lead Agency under SEQRA, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board is forwarding
a set of revised plana for the Mount Royal Shopping Center on Route 9 in Queensbury.
It is the Planning Department's understanding that the LA Group of Saratoga Springs has
also forwarded this information to your office.
The Planning Department would appreciate it if you could forward~ to us, any
comments your office may have on the potential traffic impacts of this project by October
16, 1990.
We thank you in advance for your assistance in the Town of Queensbury's review
of this project.
Sincerely,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~~
Assistan t Planner
SGB/sed
Enclosure
"HOME OF NA rURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO liVE"
SETTLED 1763
.
-
SITE PlAII REVIEW ~.JJ...c¡ ()
TOWN OF QUEENS BURY FILE COpy
531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 (518) 792·5832
October 5, 1990
Department of Health
Z 1 Bay Road
Queensbury, New York 1 Z804
RE: Site Plan Review No. 55-90
Guido Passarelli
Dear Gentlemen:
As Lead Agency in the SEQRA Review of the propoaed Mount Royal Shopping Center,
the Town of Queensbury Planning Board is forwarding the revised plana for this project
to you as an involved agency.
Any comments regarding the adequacy of the proposed septic design should be
forwarded to the Town of Queensbury Planning Department by October 16, 1990
We thank you in advance for your assistance in this project review. Please contact
the PI~nt1;tlg Department if we can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~~~~-
Asaistan t Planner
SGB/sed
Enclosure
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY . . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1783
------'
.
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
ptaftftiftg 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: John S. Goralski
Area VariaDce
Use Variance
- Sip Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
Subdi"risioa: _ Sketch, _ PrelimiDary,
X Site Plan ReYiew
- Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit
FiDal
Application Number:
Site Plan Review No. 28-90
Applicant'. Name:
Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc.
MeetiDg Date:
September 20, 1990
............................................................................................
There was considerable discussion at a previous Planning Board meeting which covered
three basic points: 1) Traffic safety on Route 9L, 2) Use of the R.O. W., 3) The condition
of the storage site. At the above referenced meeting, the Board tabled the application
in the hope that the concerned parties could meet and settle some of their differences.
Although a meeting was held, none of the differences were resolved. Therefore, it is
my recommendation that the Board proceed with its review based on the. information
that has been received to date.
Regarding traffic safety, it is true that there have been no reported accidents
attributed to the Dunham's Bay Boat Company. However, the transporting of boats across
Route 9L does create the potential for a serious accident. In an attempt to minimize
this potential, I would recommend placing a time restriction on the movement of boats
from the storage site to the lake front site. If the movement of boats were limited to
10 A.M. to 4 P.M., it would avoid peak traffic hours and assure that the operation were
conducted during times of ample sunlight. This will minimize any potential traffic problem.
There are two concerns with respect to the use of the R.O.W. One is the speed
of the vehicles and the related dust. The other is the number of vehicles that use the
R.O.W.
The applicant should discourage the use of the R.O.W. by anyone except Dunham's
Bay Boat Co. employees. All patrons of the Boat Co. should be required to go to the Boat
Company office prior to going to the storage site.
As for the dust problem, a 5 mph speed limit should be established, and the road
should be paved. Paving the road may cause some additional storm water runoff which
must be handled, but it is the only permanent solution to the dust problem.
As for the condition of the storage site; the site has been cleaned up substantially
since these proceedings have begun. To date, N.Y.S. D.E.C. continues to pursue the clean-up
page 1 of 2
Site Plan No. 28-90 ~
of this site. I would recommend that the Board require that no used oil, engines, engine
parts or debris of any kind should be stored on site. Only boats and trailers should be
stored on site.
JSG/sed
page 2 of 2
,-
-./
WALTER O. REHM, III
(1~~t!~~W7~i'~)~
' \ .......... ~.....' ,I~ ¡
\ ,... . ..~. ,
~ ~ ~~. ",
'\~ St~ - ,.",~'
ATTOHNEY AT LAW
1715 OTTAWA STBEET
LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK 128415
1518-668-15412
1518-668-15413
JOHN J, HAY
September 10, 1990
FAX 151.8-668-3629
Mr. Richard Roberts
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Queensbury Town Offices
531 Bay Road
Queensbury, New York 12804
FilE COpy
SITE PlAII REVI£W l1li ;¡?- 90
Re: Dunham's Bay Boat Co. Inc./
Roger and Karen Howard
Our File No. 3226-1
Dear Mr. Roberts and Board Members:
This letter will supplement my letter of August 2, 1990
regarding the Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc., matter which is
currently before the Board. In that letter I indicated that the
Howards were in the process of formulating a series of measures
which could be undertaken to mitigate those legitimate problems
raised by the neighbors.
After monitoring the situation and in light of the comments
made by those in attendance at the previous Planning Board
meeting, it is the intention of the Dunham's Bay Boat Co. Inc.,
to accomplish the following:
1. Traffic safety - Route 9L. Since our meeting with the
neighbors was totally unproductive and there was an absolute
refusal to allow Dunham's Bay Boat Company to increase the width
of the right of way at its intersection with Route 9L by purchase
of an additional easement area, the most obvious improvement
would appear not to be possible. It should be emphasized that
the storage facility has existed for approximately 20 years with-
out traffic mishap which is testimony to the care and safety
measures employed by the marina personnel over the years. Never-
theless, the Howards have and will continue to insure that all
employees transporting boats to or from the storage area exercise
extreme caution and are kept constantly aware of their responsi-
bility to do so. Furthermore, notwithstanding statements made to
the Board to the contrary, the sight distances when traveling in
both directions on Route 9L are substantial which probably
accounts for the lack of difficulties in the area over the years.
Nevertheless, it is suggested that either the Town of Queensbury
or the New York State Department of Transportation may wish to
look at the possibility of additional signs in the area.
------...
'---' '
...-
Mr. Richard Roberts
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Page 2
2. The following changes with respect to the utilization of
the right of way road will be implemented:
(a) A portion of the road which is not paved will be
repaired, the potholes filled and any grading that is required
will be accomplished. Also, efforts will be undertaken in the
future to keep the road, to the extent reasonable under the
circumstances, in a good state of repair and free of potholes.
(b) A preparation called Soil-Sement which is an
environmentally safe dust retardant will be applied to the non-
paved portion of the road as necessary. Information regarding
that project is annexed to this letter.
(c) Company vehicles utilizing the road will be
modified so that exhaust will no longer be directed downward onto
the road, thereby eliminating a fair amount of dust.
(d) A five mile per hour speed limit will be utilized
on the entire length of the right of way road.
(e) The possibility 6f paving the entire road was
examined, however, given current thinking regarding storm water
runoff and the recently enacted Lake George Park Commission regu-
lations relating thereto, it was decided that allowing the
currently existing pervious surface would better conform to the
spirit and letter of those regulations.
(f) Although private traffic cannot be completely
eliminated on the right of way, every effort will be made to
limit private traffic to the degree possible. It should be
pointed out that at this time there is very little private
traffic using the right of way.
3. The storage site. A great deal of effort has gone into
the improvement of th~ storage site. The general cleanup and
removal of old boat parts and other items as been substantially
completed. The only activity remaining in this regard will be
the placement of some additional fill and grading in areas where
debris was removed which work is to be completed within the next
two weeks. The area will not in the future be used for the dis-
posal of .any type of material.
The Howards sincerely believe that the measures referred to
above which they intend to undertake notwithstanding the failure
of the neighbors to cooperate in any manner whatsoever, will
substantially mitigate any reasonable problems which exist or
have existed. It should be pointed out that perhaps the only
positive note voiced at our August meeting with the neighbors was
that there appears to be a consensus that the use of the right of
way and the other activities relating thereto during the 1990
season is, in fact, a marked improvement over the previous year.
--.---.-.
----
Mr. Richard Roberts
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
Page 3
Finally, we must again request that the Dunham's Bay Boat
Company matter be adjourned to the October meeting by reason of
our clients' travel schedule. Also, by the October meeting, all
of the work referred to above will be completed and available for
inspection by the Board and representatives of the Planning
Department prior to the date of that meeting.
WOR:bar
Walter o. Rehm III
Enc.
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Roger Howard
.----..-
, ~
.
',,---
o
'¡'., -- ,(ß)" I-
~., . . ':
. .
;" ',' .-
#III
"-"
t}®
emmeIffiu
Duet Aetardant
Out'tanctl"ø Features
. (Ø) Ord.. your SUPPlY todayl
SOII-SemenJ MldWeltllldUltrlal
Unconditional lu....lv InC
Guarantee .... ., .-
d ct h_ frO MI_..-,t I p.o. Sox 8431, tanton, OH 44711
Every "ro u you pure...... m "".... .
COYtrlCl Þy our WOnG ,,~ no-rille "1ICJ1fae-
tlon Gual'lfttlld" DOIICY. YOU must be eam-
pleteIY ....... WIth tach øurchlte Of any
MldWeIt ~ or yOUr øurch- ørtce will
bll'IfUndtcl. If YOU are not AtltfIed, notIfY us
Wfthfn 10 dew fOr . com"... rerund or .
credit "
· controls TIP and PM10 fUGitive particulate'
matter.
· $to,. dust. ,oust CloudS, dust nullanet.
t RlcaUceS ruttlnlJ. sinking. anca overall ro.ø
$ul'flCt Geterloratlon.
· Incr..... load-Þearlni ...ength of all tvpa
of soils.
· EffeCtlvl II 011 . . . the bllt replacement fOr
011.
· flfðl traction and taflty . . . mlnlmlz.. muCl
'Itlon..
.num WMthtraÞlllty to rain. ultraviolet
- and wind.
· ç"mUlaUvoeffect from lach applicatiOn.
· Ecologically safe.
. Øoes NOT leach or waSh away.
· Doe. NOT trade. .1 NOT, çarrled away on tires.
· 0011 NOT become brittle and øothOIt.
· Wilt NOT polute undergrOund wattr SUøøly.
· DOes Nor corrode or Ølt metal and
equløment. .
· clan. . . easy CJean·u~.
· Economical: At I to 1 mix ratio, working
solution tostS onlY 1St per gallon.
FðF ,. ¡Qt'\Ifœ
or a discuSSIOn of your requlrementJ,
cau: BOb Vitale, pete Spill OS,
Lynn Edwards, Shannon NOble,
Brian Janes, Jon carroll
or Steve Mathews
216-456-3121
or TOLL-FREE 1..800-321-0699
PAX 211-411·5247
T
.
...... A........ CDfII MIIdaa lad,,- a lIS c.......
C11ØCM.11·19Ø311_ MIdWeSt InClustrlat IUØØfV. Inc.
._-~~~
~
..
-
',--,
---'
f 1 L E
COpy
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Plann;ng Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
October 12. 1990
John Goralski
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
SubdiftsioD: _ Sketch. _ PreJimiDary.
X Site Plan ReYiew
- Petition for a CbaDge of Zone
- Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit
Final
AppUcatiOD Number:
Site Plan Review No. 43-90
AppUamt'. Name:
Leo Lomb~rdo - Leo's Lobster House
MeetiDg Date:
October 16. 1990
............................................................................................
This applicat ion was tabled in August so that sewage disposal concerns
could be addressed. All other concerns have been addressed. If the Boards
consulting engineer is satisfied that the existing and proposed sewage
disposal facilities will be adequate. I recommend approval of the project.
JG/pw
~---,._--~
~
--
--
1IST-'ROST ASSOCIATES. P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
POST OFFICE BOX 838
21 SAY STREET
GLENS FALLS
NY 12801
FAX 518 .793-4146
518 .793-4141
October 15, 1990
RFA #89-5000.043
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Leo Lombardo, Site Plan 43-90
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the site plan and have the following comments:
1. With regard to the sewage disposal system:
a. The applicant has provided certification that the existing
septic system #2 is adequate to accommodate the proposed
use.
b. A new system design for a replacement to system #1 has been
provided. The design flow used may be low, however, due to
the entirely seasonal and predominately weekend use of the
new system, and the remoteness of the site from critical
environmental areas, the design should be adequate for the
proposed use.
c. Trench~ stone over laterals shall be placed to a depth
sufficient to limit earth cover over laterals to between 6
and 12 inches per page 30 design standards of the
Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance.
d. The 4" perforated pipe should be sloped between 1/32" and
1/16" per foot per page 30 design standards of the
Queensbury Disposal Ordinance.
e. The Board may wish to require the applicant to submit plans
with modified subsurface disposal system details for review
and verification of compliance as a condition of approval.
2. Except as noted, previous engineering comments have been
addressed.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
~L~AI.I -~w~~.l
Thomas M. Y~WiCh, P.E.
Managing ProJ~~~ Engineer
TMY/cam
* GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH
,-,L~øs ~s¡.,'-~ .~ 4 '
STATE OF NEW y~NO ~-9()
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
District Office
282 Glen Street
Glens FailS,: ~..Y:12801, ~,:]~~l ¡793-3893
.-. ''! ;: .l ¡ ~
, ", ' ,
.¡,,;,~:+?Œ to;;;:'ð,
September ~/' ;'r~'~
David Axelrod, M.D.
Commissioner
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Linda A. Randolph, M.D., M.P.H.
Director
Brian S. Fear, P.E.
District Director
Ronald Rucinski, A.I.A.
9 Maple Court, RD 2
Gansevoort, New York 12831
RE: Sewage Disposal System
Leo's Lobster House
Queensbury (T), Warren County
Dear Mr. Rucinski: ·
We have on this date approved plans for a sewage disposal
system to serve the above project. This letter will confirm that
you picked up five copies of the approved plans and that one has
been r~tained for our files.
Very truly yours,
/%-J--/~
Brian S. Fear, P.E.
District Director
BSF:ns
'.--"-_._--
(~CJ¡ ~~_~~
-
, ,'., - .' ,,'
. I ¡.
,., '{. : .a;
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ,. .~
Division of Regulatory. Affairs Å'C:..r
P.O. BoX 220, Hudson street ~
Warrensburq, New York 12885-0220 . ....,.~ .'.
"u..II~""
Telephone: (518) 623-3671 or 668-5441~~06PT~c'~
Thoms. C. Jorll"g
Commissioner
September 24, 1990
Pð.
~6(a)s.~.
lfMA- Ìo~
Ronald R. Rucinski
9 Maple Court, RD 2
Town of wilton
Gansvoort, New York 12831
Re: SPDES application for Leo's Lobsterhouse
Town of Queensbury, Warren county
Dear Mr. Rucinski:
As explained during our phone conversation of september 24,
subsurface sanitary discharges of less ,than 1000 gallons per day
do not require SPDES permits.
I am returning your check for $10.00. As agreed, the
application materials have been discarded.
Sincerely,
7~~
¡;"
.' I .
~
I' I' '
'__. )I....../.L{)
Kevin R. Bliss
Environmental Analyst
KRB/dd
cc: Al Matrose
~'
. ~Ù
6'I'(ì/
'2, (p ç, ør
._---------_..-.-...
Ii
-
--
~
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PI=-nning Department
" ,.,
l.. C
I..)p Y
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: October 12. 1990
By: ,Lee A. York
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sip Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
x Subdi.u.ïoa.: X Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary.
Site PIaD Rerie. -
- Petition far a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
FiDal
Application Number:
Subdivision No. 8-1990
Applicant'. Name:
Adirondack Industrial Park. ~nc.
MeetiDg Date:
October 16. 1990
............................................................................................
The proposed industrial subdivision has been modified because of previous
staff and Board comments. Mr. Nace has subt:1itted a description of the
modifications (attached).
The applicant is now requesting two waivers from the road't-lay design
standards. The first is to the minimum roadway radius which is intended to be
compensated for by a req.uest for a 15 M.P.H. speed limit. I requested input
on this from the Highway Superintendent who stated that his previous comments
on this project were still ap91icable. (attached)
Another concern raised earlier was the access to Queensbury Avenue from
the front lots. The subdivision is cl'.rrently in single ownership. If the
Board wants to have access to all lots from an interior road. it should be
mandated prior to the sale of any lots. This May be appropriate given the
industrial traffic 't-mich could be better controlled and contained within the
subdivision. The applicant has reduced the access points from his last
submission, to four points along Queensbury Avenue. The rat ionale for not
completely internalizing all the lots is that lots 2, 3, and 4 were already
developed. The Board may want to request an alternative design which would
either have all lots accessin~ the interior road or tie together the parkin~
areas on lots 2 and 3 as has been done on lots 3 and 4. This could
potentially reduce a road cut or t\TO. Because of the concern over the roadway
-1-
-
radius waiver and the internalization it may be appropriate for the Board to
look at alternative designs and determine which is the most feasible.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver from the intersection radius
standards on the northern intersection of Queensbury Avenue and the proposed
road.
The private sewer line is still shown as being in the proposed road right
of way. which the Highway Superintendent commented on previously.
Given the remaining major concerns about the roadway access, waivers and
sewer lines, I would recommend that the Board request a concept redesign. The
previous submission and this one are substantially the same. Perhaps a
situation where the roadways were designed first, and as close to Town
standards as possible. and then lot access was considered. would be
appropriate.
A minor point which should also be corrected is that County Line Road no
longer exists, it was renamed Queensbury Avenue and the plans should reflect
this.
LAY/pw
-2-
'--'
SUBDIVISION NO.
¥J-1Qqo
-.../
151
HAANEN ENGINEERING
..JOHN L. HAANEN, RE.
253 BAY STREET· GLENS FALLS· NY 12801 518-793-7444
september 25, 1990
TOWN OF QUEENS BURY PLANNING D~PT.
Town Otfice Buildinq
Bay & Haviland Rd..
Queensbury, Ny 12804
RE: Adirondack Industrial
Park Proposed
Subdivision
Haanen File 25019
Gentlemen:
Enclo.ed i. a revised sketch plan submittal for the referent
subdivision. The Resubmission include. fourteen (14) set. each of the
plans and application form. I am not resubmittinq the EAr since the
only required chanqe is to chanqe Item C9 from 14 to 13 lots.
In accordance with your comments on the previously submitted sketch
plan, we have made the followinq chanqes:
1. The acce.s for the small buildinq on Lot #2 has been relocated to
the proposed road. However, we tind that it i. impractical to
internalize the access for the existinq buildinqs on Lots #2, #3
and #4. These accesses remain of.t of couïP' Line_~~.§!I-, Allot
the lots remaininq to be developed (Lo~'5 thru #13) will have
internal access off of the proposed road.
2.
In order to meet the minimum depth required
the north end of the proposed road has been
and #6 have been reconfiqured. Also, Lots
vious plan have been combined into one lot.
meet the required depth and width.
by Queensbury Zoninq,
relocated and Lots #5
#2 and #3 on the pre-
All lots as shown nOW
3. A tabulation has been provided showinq that zoninq requirements
are met tor the proposed lots which have pre-existinq buildinqs on
them.
4. The proposed roadway will include winqed swales. The drainaqe con-
cept plan indicates that drainaqe will be picked up from the
. winged ~ales and conveyed to a storm retention basin.
5. The mintmum roadway radius shown has been increased to 175 feet.
While this does not meet the Queensbury Subdivision Requirements,
we do teel it is adequate for the desiqn traffic and speed for the
proposed road. Accordinqly, we would request that the proposed
road be siqned for a speed limit of 15, MPH in keepinq with the
character of the park and intended purpose of the road.
As a point ot information, we have been workinq on a
file for the road and the maxtmum qrades will be
3-1/2'. The complete plan and profile for the road
mitted with the preliminary submission.
proposed pro-
approximately
will be suÞ-
--.-.----.----
'----'
---
I ·will be happy to meet with the planning staff and Highway Dept.
personnel to discuss the requested road radius waiver.
6. Forty foot radiuses have been provided at the intersection of the
proposed road and County Line Rd. Twenty-eight foot right-of-way
radiuses have also been provided with the exception of the
northern corner of the north intersection. This has not been
provided due to the fact that the applicant does not own the
property to the north of the proposed road. We do not feel that
the lack of a radius is detrimental due to the fact that the
right-of-way for County Line Rd. is so wide. Therefore, we are
hereby requesting a waiver from this right-ot-way radius
requirement in this particular location.
7. The proposed pressure sewer shown on the utility plan will be
privately maintained by the developer. Our rationale in locating
it within the proposed road right-of-way was to provide for main-
..L,tenance access in the event that this area is incorporated into a
/.( municipal sewer district sometime in the future. If necessary,
. t the pressure sewer will be located on a utility easement along the
front of the proposed lots.
Please let me know if there are any que.tions regarding this revised
subdivision concept plan.
Very truly yours,
~~-~.
Thoma. W. Nace, P.E.
TWN/jmm
cc: Joe Clark, Adirondack Industrial w/encl.
Van Due.en , Steve., w/encl.
. ---.--- -.---
_. >.....'Joô'_......;.~~...t"Wt
--
"---"
~ of ctsœeneburv ~iS¥Uav ~e,artment
.., It H.w"" R....
Offlce Phone 511-713-m1
fllE COpy
Queen.bury, New York 12101
+.~
~ ":"7~--
PAUL H. NAYLOR ..,..
SuperlnfMdlnt HIfhwara ,>
RICHARD A, MISSITA
Oeputy Su".rintendent Highway.
'\~
i S£P2
DATE:
September 20, 1990
TO:
Planning Department
Paul H. Naylor
Proa:
.;~.-. ,.
Re: Adirondack ~n~ustri~,,-:~
Proposed SUbdJ.V1S~~' . ',:, '¡"!
, . ",-4,"! ,,,.f;/ .' -..~.;. ·1'"
. -" -", .' ~.
"'~~-Î '. . '" .:~,I,-,::~
~_. .~-..:t~ =\~~
--"'~~.t:ri.t. PøJt-:.~·,..a.à.~ '. ..,. '. .-
_.. " lar~capàdty·t:ra~~vül J».~ ib"~"""~¡
~... PI. . \ ,,,' /~"'~' .. -~). ~/-t,.,
",' I' <. ,', '\.
¿ :'~ /~~, would' lik..· to· sew a. f)e~teJP·.prai
;1L<~~!~IJ.i:01!'" 'ItIe iDt:eri~_ r~o _,,: ,~,' '.( ,
swales, and no d~tcbe.. . ~ " ~"._ :,,~,Js I,' ~/<~
'\. " .'
I do not approve, of ,_ 'pù....~e sewer' 'line. ilt' the rigbt
of way. .' " .~. ..-":i¡. /
~ a~ :~:.tt~~ba~ ;:tv:,:;~fi~;
directly out OD Qu~nsbury Avenue.
¥~~ ~
-'~" ~
au! H. jay lor
Highway Superintendent
.
. ----~-~- ---- ----
t
~
'----
-../
~IST.FROST ASSOCIATES. 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
October 15, 1990
RFA #89-5000.508
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Adirondack Industrial Park, Subdivision 8-1990
Sketch Plan, 14 Lot Resubdivision of Lots 54 through 60
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering
comments:
1. The Proposed Road mlnlmum radius is indicated as 175 feet.
Subdivision Regulation VIII E.9. stipulates a minimum radius of
250 feet for marginal access streets. The applicant has
requested a waiver. Eleven (11) lots will be served by the
Proposed Road. Highway Department approval should be obtained.
The engineering acceptability of a 175 foot centerline roadway
radius is dependent on proposed road grades and design vehicle
speed on the non-conforming curves.
2~ A road grading plan should be provided.
3. Permissible building areas as stated on the plans, fDr lots 7 -
13 do not conform to Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Section 4.020n.
The stated lot permeability for lot 4 is not correct.
4. Surface runoff along the proposed road shoul d be a max imum of
350'in length per Subdivision Regulations Section VIII I 2 e.
5. Storm water management for existing development should be
indicated. Subdivision should be consistent with on site storm
water management for all existing development.
6. A driveway easement at the entrance to lot 3 for access to lot 4
will be required.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSO~IATES, P.C.
~~. î(' .
~ \'^-"" A~~~-,,~J (
Thomas M. YarrnoWich, P.E.
Managing Proj~~ Engineer
TMY/cam
@ GLENS FALLS, NY-LACONIA, NH
-,,,--- -.--. --- -
-./
.
-
0; f,'
.. t \
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PI_nning Department
'. ¡
r, :,
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: October 9. 1990
By: Stuart G. Baker
Area VariaDce
U. Variance
- Sip Variance
== Interp:-etatioD
Other:
Subdmaioa: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary,
-X Site PIaD ReYiew -
== Petition for a ChaDge of Zone
Freshwater WetJaDda Permit
FiDal
ApplicatioD Number:
Site Plan Review No. 76-90
MeetiDg Date:
Michael and Martha Hogan
October 16, 1990
Applicant'. Name:
............................................................................................
The applicants are proposing demolishing the existing seasonal camp, and rebuilding
a year-round home on the same footprint. An Area Variance for this project was approved
at the August 15, 1990 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. A Septic Variance for the
proposed holding tank was approved by the Town Board of Health on September 17, 1990.
I have reviewed the application according to the criteria in Section 5.070 of the Ordinance,
and I have the following comments:
1. The proposed building will be built on the existing footprint. The new building's
roof will peak at 22 feet. The Board should consider the impact of the new houses
height on the neighbors, and on the scenic quality of the Glen Lake shoreline.
2. Vehicular access will not be affected.
3. Parking will not be affected.
4. Pedestrian access will not be affected.
5. The adequacy of the storm water drainage plan will be reviewed by the Town Engineer.
6. Water supply will remain unchanged. Sewage will be handled by the holding tank.
7. Existing trees should be protected during demolition and construction.
8. Fire access will remain unchanged.
9. A hay bale filtration wall will be constructed to prevent soil erosion during
construction.
SGB/sed
..~.._-_._.- --"
~
~IST'~ROST 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
(Ð
"--
~
October 15, 1990
RFA #89-5000.076
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Michael and Martha Hogan
Site Plan 76-90
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering
comments:
1. Regard i ng the proposed sewage hold i-ng tank, des ign deta il s shaul d
be prov ided in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Sewage
Disposal Ordinance Section 3.050 to address the following:
a. Groundwater should be located at the holding tank location
and the tank des ign should address tank fl otat ion and
watertightness as appropriate.
b. The 100 year flood level shall be indicated and the holding
tank access manhole shall be located to prevent inundation
at the established 100 year flood level.
c. Adjacent water supplies must be located and proper separa-
tion distances shall be maintained.
d. The Board should consider if they wish to require this
informat ion prior to a.pproval. In add it ion the Board
should stipulate that the holding tank be in strict confor-
mance. with Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance Sect ion
3.050 and in particular that low volume toilets be in-
stalled and that a solenoid valve in the waterline be
provided to shut off water to the residence when the tank
i s fill ed .
2. If hay bales are to be used for erosion control, installation
shall be in accordance with the NYS Guidelines for Urban Sediment
and Erosion Control, and shall be left in place until all
disturbed areas are stabilized.
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST A SOCIATES,
~L
Thomas M. Yarf~ich,
Project Engin~"
~,
GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH
P.C.
,{
P.E.
--
..-
srÆPWREVIM~
LITTLE & O'CONNOR
ATTORN EVS AT LAW
NINETEEN WEST NOTRE DAME STREET - P. O. BOX 898
GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801-0898
J. DAVID LITTLE
MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR
September 5, 1990
AREA CODE 5 I e
TELEPHONE 792-2113-4-5
.AX 792-6972
COLLEEN A. SHAW
.w........
Stuart G. Baker
Assistant Planner
Town of Queensbury
531 Bay Rd.
Queensbury, New York 12804
~~a![,
Dear Stuart:
.ANNING . ZON'NI .
"!PARTMEN""
Receipt of your letter of August 30, 1990 to Michael and
Martha Hogan is acknowledged.
I would ask for your consideration to see if we could be put
on the second agenda for the Planning Board for September.
I note that we filed and were treated as being complete for
a Septic Variance on August 21, 1990 and the Town Board has taken
or will be taking approximately 20 days, to September 10, 1990
simply to set a Public Hearing on what is a very inconsequential
request for variance. I am hopeful that the Town Board will not
hold us up too long beyond September 10th. Can we, considering
these circumstances go on the September agenda with the
understanding that if we do not have the Town Board approval in
hand the matter will be automatically tabled.
Likewise, as we have had or will have at least 2 months from
the time we filed our site plan application with your office I am
wondering whether or not you can share prior to the meeting your
comments and those of your consultants so that if there is
additional information or questions we can answer them.
Particularly, if you ~re going to say that we are going to have
to wait until October it would be nice to have your comments well
in advance of the filing date for September so that we don't get
to the October meeting simply for the purpose of adjourning it
for further information.
MJOC/ms
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Hogan
Paul Barton
William Barton
~~:E v:r: .~:~:~
b~ ~~~
.-....---.. ..-.-.-
........ ...
-./
FilE
COpy
=ILE NUMBER:~~~~N5523400-00047:¡::::Jo'Nn of OUE~""MEN'MRREN County
mnHEEWH!¡¡::¡¡:¡w:~wwm:::m¡¡i¡i¡i¡¡¡¡¡HmmmmmHHmf¡¡¡¡¡¡¡m¡i¡i¡¡i¡i¡¡¡:¡j¡¡¡!¡!::¡:¡:~:::W::WW:::::Y::j::::::::::::H::~~:::::::H::~:::::::¡::::::::::::!YY:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::HHHH:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::m:::::
EAD AGENCY: ::::::::::::5234QO::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Town Of QUEEN;::.BURY, WARREN Count y
jn#:#:±¡Ë:~:nH~:~:H~:b~:~:5::;::!1¡12~:~;¡Ï:~:~:m:~¡~:~;~:~H:¡¡~:~:::::~:~:~:~¡~::l:~:::H:::¡'II¡¡¡!¡¡¡i¡!¡!¡i!!¡i!·¡!·¡¡¡::·¡/I¡:¡¡¡);jH.:!· i!:¡./:-i';.!i::i:i!¡!:¡;¡i~i¡i:.ii¡!¡¡~I::i..:.¡.·¡·¡.·@.:'·"·!·i"';:·:·¡¡:·:·¡·:¡r
t'~'%;S'~;i:':I'~~:~~:~~I:::~I:;~~:~~~~f.::;.~~~~~:;;::':::;;;:I"II:IIIIII:1:11~~~0~:;I!,IT,:I!II~~~~,:~~'llilll1/1111·11!:111/11!1111111111.11;111;11111111111;:1:;·;;1:1:1111
:::E:S\::R:ip:T::I:O:N::~::::::G:~:~:~:t:::::::::~:~:~::~::::~:~:~:'i:~:~:~:~::::::t:~:::::~::í::l:;~::.~:::::~~:::::b::.t:;j:~::::::::~:;;:~:;·:~:'i::t:::::f:~:~:::::~:::::'í:;~::t::::':t:h:~~::t:::::d:~:~:~:::::
:::0 A T [: f~ E C E I II E I) : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;:::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::.
¡,¡i.iiiil~m~:~'::~m'm:~~~::~.~ill~~:;:m~:!I:~';iï_!:!:::!:!¡;!:'i~·!I¡i!!·II··i·
::::::::::::::::::;::¡::::::::::::¡:::::¡::::¡::::::::::::::¡:::::::::¡:::::::::::::::¡:::::::::1:::::¡:::n:::::::::::n¡H:::::::~::~E~:W¡:H::!::i::::~::::::::::::::¡:H:H~:::::j
···III.!i·!!j ·iii·I.·.~~:~~~~~~~~~·iil·III·:I· j"··I ·~ ·I!"··llllllliilii!lilil!illl·ii·il!ill!!IIIII!llil!!il!ilil,iililill iiil "lililii!lillii!lll"iIBlIII!i! ii_II!I~!~~I!
IMPOR.TANT
»
F:i.le Number:
NS-S23400-00047
Use the above number in all
correspondence about this action!
To the Lead Agency:
The above information confirms that filings on the described
Negative Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the
SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED
above. The date and time in the second line show when this
document was printed. Please check the inforrnation above carefully.
For corrections or questions c:ontact Charles 1..l)ckrow, (518)457-2224,
or write to:
SEQR Repository
NYSOEC Division of Regulatory Affairs
50 Wolf Road, Room 514
Albany, NY 12233
Town of QUEENSBURY
Zoning Board of Appeals
Bay at Haviland Rd.
Queensbury, NY 12804-9725
.
-
'--'
--""
TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY
pJanni"8 Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
October 12, 1990
Lee A. York
Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
SubdiYision: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
X Site Plan Review
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wet1and8 Permit
Final
AppJication Number:
Site Plan Review No. 77-90
AppJicant'. Name:
Mary D. Scuderi. ~ucy Scuderi
Meeting Date:
October 16, 1990
..........~.................................................................................
The site plan is to allow an addition to a structure which is
nonconforming due to the front yard setbacks. The addition is designed to act
as a dock and a carport. The lot size is about a half acre and this addition
does not appear to be significant given the amount of open area on the lot.
The applicant has previously received a variance from the front yard setback
of 30 feet. The deck \-Till be at its closest point 20 feet from the property
line.
I reviewed this application with reBard to Section 5.070 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
I. The location arrangement and size of the addition is compatible with
the site.
2. Vehicular access is adequate.
3. There is sufficient parking area.
4. Pedestrian access is not an issue.
5. There appears to be sufficient permeable area on lot to handle the
small increase of storm\oTater which may be created.
6. Documentation has been submitted which indicptes the a.pplicant is
intending to re!)lace the septic systel!:. and that the site is served by a
"municipal" water system. This nust be a private water system and the Board
may want to get clarification of this.
-1-
'..-'
7. Plantirtgs are adequate.
8. N/A
9. Erosion control standards should be maintained during construction.
LAY/pw
...-
.
-
l i L [
~v
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Planning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
By:
October 12, 1990
John Goralski
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
Area Variance
Use Variance
== Sign Variance
_ Interpretation
Other:
x Subdi~ Sketch, X Prelim'
- - mary,
Site Plan Rmew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDal
Application Number:
Subdivision No. 13-1990
Applicant'. Name:
Dr. & Mrs. Robert Reid
MeetiDg Date:
October 16, 1990
............................................................................................
The Reid's propose to subdivide ±. 7.39 acres into two lots in an SR-IA
zone. This plan complies with all requirements of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance.
The lot has 94 feet of frontage on Wincoma Drive. The resultant lot I
will have 44 feet of frontage on Wincoma Drive and lot 2 wi 11 have 40 feet of
frontage. These frontages preclude further subdivision of these lots without
construction of a Town road. This would be extremely difficult without
acquiring additional property, given the location of the existing house.
The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for drainage
calculat ions. If the area around the proposed house is graded so that
stormwater is directed to the north, the additional stormwater runoff should
have little if any impact;: on the adjacent properties.
JG/pw
-_..~----- --~..-
~
~IST-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
--
-../
October 15, 1990
RFA #89-5000.513
Town of Queensbury Office Building
Bay and Haviland Roads
Queensbury, NY 12804
Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner
Re: Robert and Margaret Reid
Subdivision 13-1990, Preliminary Stage
Dear Mrs. York:
We have reviewed the project and there are no engineering concerns:
Very truly yours,
RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C.
A ~
~~ (~\r.....".~ ~r~''''''v, ,.""",)1,
Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E.
Managing Project Engineer
TMY/cam
e GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONlA. NH
, .
.j~ ..
VþII
-
~
-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
pa"nning Department
-
1 "- '-
\.. "'-
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
By:
October 9, 1990
Stuart G. Baker
Area VariaDce
Uøe Variance
- Sign Variance
== InterpretatiOD
Other:
SubdiYiaioD: Sketch. _ Preliminary,
-,r- Site P1aD Review -
- PetitiOD for a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDda Permit
Final
Applicatioa Number:
Site Plan Review No. 78-90
Applicant'. Name:
Karamatt Broadcasting, Inc.
MeetiDg Date:
October 16, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant would like to use a portion of the existing Mallinckrodt
building for a radio station studio and office. No exterior site work is
proposed - only interior remodeling.
The purpose of requiring site plan review for changes of use is so that
the Planning Board might consider potential impacts on parking adequacy and
traffic circulation.
The applicant is proposing to add an additional 25 parking spaces. if
needed, to handle the parking 'needs for the proposed radio station.
The new light at the intersection of Lafayette and Quaker. once operating
properly) should mitigate the impacts of any increased traffic.
SB/pw