Loading...
1986-02-18 ;¿ (,5 MINUT"illS '\.......- Queensbury Planning Board Tuesday, February 18, 1986 8:00 P.M. Present: R. Roberts, Chairman K. Sorlin, Secretary .Y. Dyb as H ~ ~1ann ~. ~pL S~ Levandowski M. Dean, Staff R. Case Prime, Counsel The minutes of the January 21, 1986 meeting were approved as vvri tten. SUBDIVISIONS: Subdivision No. 2-86 - Westwood (David Miner) 11 lots Luzerne and Burch Roads Public Hearing. David Miner present. Board questioned owership of 20 ft. strip in conjunction with Lot 7. Mr. Roberts totally rejected new layout plan. 'The major problem \~ being two roads in a very small area. (230 ft. between roads. ) Board wants to consult highway superintendent before sketch plan is approved. Planning Board prefers 1st Plan~ Motion by Mrs. Mann to table proposal, seconded by Mrs. Lewandowski. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: Proposal tabled for further input by the highway superintendent. Subdivision No. 1-86 - Van Howe Estates, Section II 30 lots off Potter Road Public Hearing. Mr~ Leon Steves present~ Environmental Assessment must be addressed. 31 lots shown on plan. Mr. Roberts questioned ho,'1 close to the inter1ni ttent brook these lots are~ Mr~ Steves explained that only 1 lot is within 100 ft. of the brook~ Mr. Roberts stated the citys' concern over the drainage. Mr. Steves stated drainage went east and then south to an existing culvert onto watershed property. ~'~r ~ Steves also stated in the past the concerns \rfere not watershed but rather sewage. The city has been notified. ~ c2 ro~ 2 Questions were raised concerning the extension of Stewart Road. There are two entrances to the subdivision. Mr. Henry Beton raised objections to the continuation of Stewart '--' Road. The TOI.¡n Attorney will look into the Ste\oTard Road matter~ Long discussion followed concerning the Stewart Road matter~ ~r. Roberts stated that the matter has not been resolved but that they will not hold up the subdivision because of it~ Public Hearing Closed. Motion by Mr. Sorlin for preliminary approval, seconded by Mrs. Mann. Motion carried unanimously~ RESOLVED: Preliminary approval granted. Mechanics for Stewart Road must be worked out. The Board also needs fu.rther action from the Health Dept~, Highway Dept., Water Dept. and a S.E~Q.R~~. workshop must be held. Subdivision No~ 5-86 - Baybridge Phase II, Daniel Valente, Developer, Walker Lane~ Charles Scudder present~ Letter from Water Department read. ~ letter from Richard Morse, engineer, hired by the Planning Board \oTaS rearl ~ ~~r ~ '\~or se gave preliminary approval and gave recommendations for final approval. Final approval items were: an approved SPDES permit for Phase II, straw bale dyke detail for construction sediment control, sewer alignment, electrical trench detail, wear box detail, ~ sani tary sewer profiles, confirmation of water department approval and sizing of riff raff energy dissapation areas. All matters will be incorporated into final plans. :Ugh\rJ'ay Department letter read giving preliminary approval by disgression of the Planning Board. S.E.Q.R.A revie\¡v has been Mr~ Scu~der addressed the Board as to what has been accomplished so far~ He also stated that he has approval from the Attorney General's Office in hand~ Mr. Scudder told the Board that all points brou.ght up in Mr. Morse's letter will be addressed before reappearance for final approval, if preliminary approv~l is given tonight. Motion by Mr~ Levandowski for preliminary approval, seconded by Mr. Dybas. 'JIotion carried u.nanimously~ RESOLTBJD: Preliminary approval granted. Final approval subject to Mr. Morse's approval and SPDES Permit being granted. OLD BTJSINESS: ~ \.- Site Plan Review No~ 27-85 - Eugene Lisewski, Jr. (PC-1A) 680-682 Upper Glen Street To operate an alÜofaoti ve repair facility in existing building in Plaza Commercial 1 Acre. County Board has approved with stipulation that only three parallel parking spaces be provided on Foster Avenue and that a sign has to be provided on the building to restrict parking to these spaces. Parking in alleyway between fire station and site be prohibited~ Mrs. Mann expressed concern with the moving of cars to and from the facility from the parking area~ TJIr ~ Montgomery, Esq~, explained that there is only one full-time employee and therefore only a few cars a day will be worlced on~ ~1rs. Mann (luestionedívhere the parts for these vehicles are going to be stored. rJIr. Montgomery stated. they would. be lcept inside to be reclaimed. There is also an existing trash container outside (along the side of the bUilding) which is emptied once a week. Mrs. Mann made motion for approval \lI]"ith stipulations, seconded by 1>1rs. Levandowski~ Motion carried unanimously. "-- RESOLV1iJD: The Queensbury Planning Board approve Site Plan 27-85 1Ñi th stipulation that only 3 parallel parking spaces be provided in space as delineated at "c" on plan (Foster A.venue) and. that si gnage be provided on the building to restrict parking in these spaces. Parking in alleyway between fir e station aad site he prohibiterl a)1(l pavernent marked appropriately. Also, parking in lot "A", as desi gnated on plan, be provided by building owners for this applicant as long as it exists~ These restrictions must be passed on to any future owner of this business~ A.lso, any parts that come off vehicles will be stored under cover or inside building. NBWBUSINESS: Site Plan Review WOo 1-86 - Stanley Gannon (PC-1A), dba Top of the World Auto Body of the World Auto Body ~ ;¿~1 3 d.(P~ 4 ~~ To construct addition to existing auto body shop in Plaza Commercial 1 Acre ~one on the property situated at north side Quaker Road across from North Country Imports. Represented by steve Lynn. Mr~ Lynn explained that Mr. Gannon is proposing to add on a two bay addition of approximately 1,124 sq. ft. to preexisting business. Questions were raised concerning storage beyond drainage di tch~ Board is concernecl abou.t it turning into a junk yard~ Mr~ Lynn stated it would only be used for cars that are going in for repair and that the area would not really be u.sed at this time. Letter from DEC was read. That letter stated that a DEC permit pursuant to Article 24 ECL is not require(Ì. DEC does advise that disposal of blacktop behind building be discontinued and that deposited blacktop be removed. This proposal has also been reviewed by the Warren County Planning Board at their February 13th meeting. They recommend.ed approval without comrnent. ~'~otion by ~v1rs. Mann for approval with stipulation, seconded by Mr. Dybas. Motion carried unanimously. ~ RESOLVED: The Queensbury Planning Board gr ant s approval with stipulation that there be no parking or storage behind drainage ditch and that a fence be provided so that any cars being stored in rear of building be screened from view from Quaker Road. Site Plan Review Type II No. 2-86 - T. J. Farone and Son, g Inc. .\.If''''''lV (UR 10 Zone) t;/. To construct ~166 condominium townhouse units on 38 acres in Urban Residential 10 Zone on the property situated at Dixon Road north of Halfway Brook between Dixon Road east of 1-37. Public Bearing Open. Attorney Joan Keller representing Mr. Farone, in place of Cynthia TJaFave who could not be at the meeting, was present. Attorney Keller stated that they were aski1lgf.'or preliminary approval for Phase I and to hear the public's concerns about this pro ject so they could deal with them~ Mr. Walters, also a Farone representative, stated that they attended last weeks' meeting of the Warren County "Planning Board at which time the Board gave approval for this project: l'Jfr~ \,valters explained the conceptual plans for the units~ There will be 164 total units, with approximately 4 dwelling units per acre~ Half the allowable ~ ~ .'-...... '--' :< tÍ <1il' 5 density~ Water supply will be from the Queensbury Water District. Waste water disposal will be subsurface systems of various sorts. Considering the complexi ty of the plan there probably will be minor changes as the plan progresses. Development will be in four phases over four years. ~ach phase would have 40 units. Mr. Roberts questioned when the second entrance to the project would be incorporated. ~r. Wal ters stated the plan called for the seeonrl entrance to rJe added during Phase III of the project. There was some discussion on the realignment of Dixon Road~ Long discussion followed on the building of the roads and how it would be handled~ Detailed discussion of Phase I followed. ~ ttorney Keller requested that "clustering" be appli ed to this project so that setbacks would not be violated. Clustering \vould. also provlrle more open space and make the project more attractive~ Attorney Keller explained that these units wou..ld be sold not rented. There ",.¡ill be a homeowners association to make sure the property is maintained~ The projected cost of each unit would be approximately $70 ,000. Bill ;¡Tor gan of the Queensbury Outdoor Recreation and Environment Association said his organization was very concerned about the storm water runoff. They feel the plan does not provide adequate management of this problem. Attorney Keller assured Mr. Morgan this problem was being addressed. Donna Farrare asked the Board if they were in receipt of letter from several of the local homeo'Ì¡lmers anti that it be rea,} SOfas t irue during the meeting~ Mr. Tom Durkee expressed his concerns about where the road along his property would be placed. The situation was explained to him in detail. He was not opposed to the placement. John Terry stated his concerns with the traffic on Dixon Road~ He explained that he would not like to see the curve in Dixon Road straightened out because it tends to slow traffic down. Straightening out the road would turn it into a virtual r1ragstrip~ He also stated that he has small children that have to walk to school and thi s is a very real hazard to them. They have very strong reservations about this project because of the added tra:ffic~ Many other people stated they have the S:-J.nH~ concerns. Lengthy discussion followed on the traffic problem in this area. Letter from homeowners stating their objections was read. One ho~eowner stated they just want to make sure this project is something that they can live with an(lthat it lrJ'ill not èl.rastically change the neighborhood. ',Tore discussion followed on the layout of the project. Mr. Roberts assured the group that this evenings' meeting was only for preliminary approval not final approval. Another lengthy discussion followed on the traffic problem and other inher ent problems. "Publ ic Hear ing Closed. Mot ion by Mrs. Mann to grant conceptual approval, seconded by TJIr. Dybas. ]'~otion carri ed unani mously. '- RBSO-rj'i!ED: r~he Q1.leensbu.ry Planning Board grants conceptual approval of the entire project under Site Plan Review No. 2-86 under the clustering provisions or the ordinance with the Phasing of the project to be approved under Subdivision procedures~ This hearing will be considered the public hearingt'or Phase I of the project: Subdivision No; 3-86 - Michael and Ralph Woodbury, Sherman ~venue (Sketch Plan) Mr ~ TJeon steves represent ing TJIic hael and Ralph "\"0 od bury presented Sketch Plan for Subdivision consisting of 70.27 acres, UR 10. They will be dividing the 70 acres into 155 lots or 2.2 units per acre, single family residences. This property is located on Sherman Avenue off of Dixon ìi.oad. .'-...-. The problems of traffic and children going to school were discussed~ The entrance to the project was also discussed. There would only be one rCleans of entrance and exit. Mr. Roberts stated that this conceptual plan meets the zoning and the lot sizes are right~ Traffic would be the major problem~ Motion by Mrs. Levandowski to approve sketch plan, seconded by Mr~ Dybas~ Motion carried unanimously~ RES01VT!)D: rrhe Queensbury Planning Board approves sketch plan 3-86 to Michael and Ralph Woodbury as this is single family homes in single family zone. !-r ,~ZONIN1 BEQUEST ~ Oix A.venue to IÑarren Street HI-3A to TJI-1 A. Motion to recommend approval of rezoning made by tJIr. Dybas, seconded by Mr. Sorlin. Motion carried unanimously. ~~~ ~ Richard Roberts, Chairman d7D r o r