Loading...
1987-01-20 55 QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD '- Regular Meeting Held: Tuesday, January 20, 1987 @ 7:30 p.m. Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Susan Levandowski Joseph Dybas Frank DeSantis Kenneth Sorlin, Secretary Victor Macri Hilda Mann Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner R. Case Prime, Counsel The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Corrections to the minutes were made as follows: Page 9, The motion was seconded by Mr. Macri. The minutes were accepted as corrected by consensus. OLD BUSINESS SUBDMSION NO. 13-86, Preliminary Approval Herald Square, Phase I Mr. Roberts said this was previously tabled for resolution of engineering details between the applicant and the Boards consulting engineer. The public hearing was closed in December and a negative declaration for SEQR issued. Mr. Sorlin read a letter from the Board's consulting engineer, Nick Sciartelli of Morse Engineering, indicating that revised plans had been submitted and all engineering details resolved. Mark Bombard of Dennis Dickinson Associates indicated that letters were being sought from appropriate officials for final approval. Ms. Mann MOVED for preliminary approval of Herald Square, Phase I as engineering details have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Boards consulting engineer. Mrs. Levandowski seconded. Passed Unanimously. 1 ~b SITE PLAN NO. 30-86 "- Walter Dombek Attorney Bob Stewart explained the project has been before the Board for 7 months. Substantial revisions had been made to the site plan at the Boards urging. The new site plan showed removal of the northeastern building, inclusion of 50 foot buffers, building mounted lights, and a culvert extension which has been approved by the D.E.C. The northwestern building was placed 55 feet from the property line so that the building could be accessed from the north. The applicant would still be requesting a 10 foot front setback variance from the Zoning Board for the southwestern building. Ms. Mann requested plantings be extended along the front property line. This was agreed to. Mrs. Levandowski said that the existing light poles must be removed. Mr. Stewart suggested that the lights be placed on poles below the roof line. Board members emphasized that the lights must be mounted on the building walls. Public Hearing Opened: Bill Morton, 9 Meadow Drive, said the plan didn't show leach lines. Mr. Mesinger said this was because holding tanks were proposed. Mr. Morton asked whether the site would be paved or would have a gravel surface. Mr. Roberts said only a short paved driveway was proposed. The balance would be in gravel. Public Hearing Closed. Ms. Mann MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan 30-86. Stipulations are as follows: The septic system will be 2-1,000 gallon holding tanks with electric alarms. Lighting will be 175 watt mercury vapor lights mounted on the building. Planting will be as per sketch plans including screening along Meadowbrook. Plantings shall be in accord with plans dated January 9, 1987 and agreements with the Beautification Committee. Mr. Macri seconded. Passed Unanimously. NEW BUSINESS OFF PREMISES SIGNS NO. 27 A, 27B, 27C, 28, 29 Mr. Roberts said this application was to legitimize 3 existing off premises 2 57 signs advertising Warner Bay Dockage and Storage. The signs are located at Seeley "- Road and Rockhurst Road; Cleverdale Road and Route 9L and Seeley Road and Mason Road. Off premises signs 28 and 29 advertising the Mooring Post Marina and Lake George Boat Company are located on the same sign post as sign 27B, at the corner of Cleverdale and Route 9L. All signs conform to ordinance requirements; the Planning Board must authorize a permit. Mr. DeSantis MOVED APPROVAL of Off Premises Signs 27B, 28, and 29 at the corner of Cleverdale Road and Route 9L as the signs presently exist. Mr. Dybas seconded. Passed Unanimously. Ms. Mann MOVED APPROVAL of Off Premises Signs 27 A and 27C as signs are preexisting and present no problems. Mr. DeSantis seconded. Passed Unanimously. SUBDMSION NO. 6-86 Preliminary Approval Stonecroft, Section I! Leon Steves presented plans for Section I! of the Stonecroft subdivision. Section I! consists of 9 lots served by an extension of W oodcrest Drive ending in a "hammerhead" cul-de-sac. Six lots are in the SR-30 zone; 3 in the RR-3A. The lots in RR-3A are proposed to be clustered with other lots in phase II!. Lots are to be served with tile fields. Town water is available. A culvert will be placed in the drainage easement leading to West Mt. Road to reduce erosion problems. Board members indicated they had approved the clustering concept at the sketch plan phase, but needed to see how lots were laid out on the entire parcel before they could approve lots 13 and 14, which were undersized. Board members also questioned whether the "hammerhead" cul-de-sac would be acceptable to the Highway Department. Mr. Sorlin read a letter from the Boards consulting engineer, Nick Sciartelli of Morse Engineering, indicating that more information was needed on roads, storm drainage and water service. Mr. Steves indicated that this information could be provided. Pumps would be put in house basements to assure adequate water pressure. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Macri said that lot 13 appeared to have a slope of 17 percent; buildings were not to be constructed on lots with slopes exceeding 15 percent except by site plan review. Driveway grades could not exceed 10 percent. Mr. Steves indicated 3 5<Z "- switchbacks could be used. Mr. Macri asked that a slope analysis be provided. Mr. Macri MOVED that Subdivision 6-86 be TABLED for further information, specifically: clustering data, water district information, drainage plan, roadway typical section, Highway Dept. approval of cul-de-sac, information on grades of lots 12, 13, and 14. Mrs. Levandowski seconded. Passed Unanimously. SUBDMSION NO. 7-86 Preliminary Approval -lj.1t> J 31 Grant Acres, Phase II Mr. Sorlin noted that sketch plan approval had been given to this 15 lot subdivision utilizing the clustering provisions. Preliminary approval was previously tabled for resolution of several issues, primarily whether access would be afforded via Sunset Trail. The public hearing remained open. S.E.Q.R. was previously addresses. Mr. Sorlin read a letter from the Boards consulting engineer, Nick Sciartelli of Morse Engineering, questioning lot sizes, the access from Sunset Trail and soils information. Mr. Roberts said that the Board had approved clustering provisions. Access from Sunset Trail was eliminated. Mr. Mesinger said soil data had been reviewed by himself and the A.P.A. D.O.H. and A.P.A. approval were expected to be forthcoming. Board members asked why lot 39 had 2 frontages on Wildwood Road. Mr. Steves explained that this was provided in case the lot owner had trouble getting a wetland crossing permit from the A.P.A. Public Hearing Opened: * Phyllis Marlin, Boulderwood Drive, said she bought her lot 9 years ago. The map at the subdivision entrance showed a lake. She bought there in part due to this beaver pond and had enjoyed it over the years. Her access to the pond would be lost, which was not fair. A small access to the beaver pond should be provided. Ed Grant replied that legal access had never existed and that he had simply allowed trespassing. There was never any representation that this would be a public lake. The pond existed for those owning lots on it. A homeowners association could decide to provide public access, if it so desired. Mrs. Marlin said that since the subdivision sign showed a lake, she assumed it was part of the subdivision. Access should be provided. Mr. Roberts noted the pond was in fact on private property. " * Marlin should be Marvin 4 59 '.-........-.- Ms. Mann asked whether a right to use the pond could be acquired by continual use. Mr. Prime said there was no basis for establishment of such rights in this case. Mr. Sorlin noted the beaver pond had not been delineated on the map, only the A.P.A. designated wetlands line. Mr. DeSantis said the map should show the pond continuously on the entire parcel. Mr. Grant said the A.P.A. only delineated wetlands for one side of the pond because only one side had lots. Mr. Steves noted that all septic systems were shown at least 100 feet from the wetlands line. Mr. Mesinger said it appeared that all lots could comply with the sanitary code. Public Hearing Closed. After further discussion, Mr. Steves and the Board agreed that pond boundaries would be shown on the final map. Ms. Mann MOVED for preliminary approval of Grant Acres Phase II. Mapping of pond area shall be delineated on the final map and test hole data for lot 45 should be provided, if available. Mr. Dybas seconded. Passed Unanimously. Mr. Grant noted that since no new roads were involved, the highway superintendent had indicated that he did not need to review the plans. D.O.H. and A.P.A. approval would be forthcoming for final approval. SUBDMSION NO. 15-86, Sketch Plan Approval Lehland Park J ' .:l/) ..;- B1 Dennis Dickinson presented sketch plans for the 105 lot Lehland Park Subdivision east of West Mountain Road. All lots are 20,000 square feet or larger. Drainage is to be handled by internal recharge basins, limiting or eliminating runoff to Rush Pond. On site septic systems and town water will be used. Limited soil testing has been completed. Rush Pond and a surrounding 500 foot buffer area are currently undergoing hearings for designation as Critical Environment Area. A very thin strip of land on the eastern property boundary falls within the C.E.A. 5 bÒ '-- Mr. Mesinger said this would cause the project to be designated a Type I action under S.E.Q.R., which would require a more thorough environmental review. The major issue was drainage to Rush Pond, which appeared to be adequately handled. Phasing was discussed. Three phases were agreed to, the first to consist of 46 lots. Mr. Sorlin read a letter from the Board's consulting engineer, Nick Sciartelli of Morse Engineering. Several issues to be addressed at the preliminary approval stage were raised. Board members noted that this was a very complete and thorough submission. Mr. Dybas MOVED for sketch plan approval of Lehland Park Subdivision as it is a very comprehensive submission. Mr. DeSantis seconded. Passed Unanimously. SUBDMSION NO. 1-87, Preliminary Approval J- at) -81 Dixon Heights, Phase III Mr. Mesinger said that this proposal was for 58 dwelling units to complete the Dixon Heights project. However, Phases I and II consisting of over 100 units had not yet been constructed, and Phase I had been sold to another builder. Staff's opinion was that approvals for subsequent phases of a project should not be given until the previous phases are somewhat built out. In staffs opinion there was ample evidence in the record to indicate that the project was to be constructed in phases. Project Engineer Frank Walter explained that phases III and IV had been combined; this was now the final phase. No construction had yet occurred in any phases. Mr. Walters questioned why the Board would require that previous phases be constructed; he felt that this was changing the rules on the project. Mr. Roberts disagreed saying that the record indicated that the project was to be constructed in phases. He questioned the sell-off of phase I; the Board had always understood that Mr. Farone was to be the developer. Mr. Farone said that Phase I was sold to Mizzoula Construction Company. This firm now built all his townhouse projects. This was a common arrangement. Mizzoula had an option on phase II. Mr. Macri emphasized that the Board did not wish to address the final phase of a project until previous phases were built. Attorney Cynthia Lafave said there were not written regulations on phasing and that other large projects had been approved in one phase. The Board was being inconsistent and didn't have the authority to require phasing. '~ 6 0/ "- Board members reiterated the reasons for phasing, particularly the unique problems associated with a townhouse project. The Board noted that special considerations had been given to this project; density was allowed to be doubled by using the site plan review provisions. Problems with traffic, split school systems, water and drainage were noted. The Board required phasing so it would have better control of the project if problems cropped up in the early going. This was the Boards only way to monitor the project. Miss Lafave said at least 7 developers in town have received approvals and sold units to other developers. Mr. DeSantis said nothing had been built on this project yet. Many questions and potential problems were raised by the sell-off of phases. Mr. DeSantis emphasized the differences between residential subdivisions and townhouse projects. Miss Lafave said the duty of the Board is to be consistent. She felt the Board was retroactively changing the rules. Mr. Mesinger read several sets of previous minutes, the application form and the project environmental assessment form, all of which stated that the project was to be constructed in phases and giving schedules for phased construction. He said there was no other rational reason for the Board to require phasing, except that the project be constructed in phases. The applicants own submissions and testimony seemed to indicate that they were fully aware that phasing meant the project was to be constructed in phases. Mr. Roberts said it made no sense to simply approve projects in phases; phasing meant that the project would be constructed in phases. Mr. DeSantis said the basic problem was that the developer was looking for final approvals on the last phase before any building had occurred on the first phase; this was not acceptable. Mr. Sorlin read a letter from the Board's consulting engineer, Charles Scudder, noting that grading and road details had not been provided; however these could be addressed at the final approval stage. Mr. Walters reiterated his position that the Board was changing the rules as it went along. In the absence of published rules, he felt the Boards position was unfair and wrong. Board members reiterated that the only reason to require phasing was so the project would be built in phases. The unique nature of a townhouse project was again noted. Mr. Macri MOVED DISAPPROVAL of Dixon Heights Subdivision 1-87, Phase III as the Board feels that since no construction has taken place on Phase I and Phase II, the Board is unable to assess the impacts of Phase III. There has been a sell-off of Phase I to new ownership, raising questions of control of the whole project. This was originally represented to be constructed in phases and this has not been done. Substantial changes have been made in that there are now 3 phases instead of 4. 7 02 '-" Ms. Mann seconded. Passed Unanimously. SUBDMSION NO. 2-87, Sketch Plan Approval Braeside, Ltd. Surveyor Tom McCormick presented plans for this 4 lot subdivision off of the Fuller Road. Two lots have frontage on Fuller; a small cul-de-sac will serve the other two. Lots are in excess of 1 acre. Town water and on-site septic will be used. Mr. Naylor had verbally approved the road. Mr. Roberts asked about a drainage easement at the end of the road. Mr. McCormick explained it would be a small grassy swale. Mr. Prime asked who would own the circle shown in the middle of the cul-de-sac. Mr. McCormick said the town would. Mr. Prime questioned whether this was acceptable. Mr. McCormick submitted a short environmental assessment form. Mr. Mesinger said he had no problems with the proposal. A public hearing will be scheduled at final approval as this is a minor subdivision. Mrs. Levandowski MOVED Sketch Plan APPROV AL of Subdivision 2-87 as it fits into the plan for the zone. Applicant should clarify ownership of center of cul-de-sac. Ms. Mann seconded. Passes Unanimously. SUBDMSION NO. 3-87, Sketch Plan Approval Kubricky Subdivision Surveyor Tom McCormick presented plans for a proposed 16 lot subdivision west of Upper Ridge Road and north of Pickle Hill Road in a 3 acre zone. The Board previously gave sketch plan approval to a 12 lot subdivision here. It was now proposed to cluster the project and provide 16 lots. The Board engaged in a lengthy discussion of how to compute developable land for clustering. Mr. McCormick had simple subtracted the road from total acreage. The Board said that lands within 50 feet of a stream on the property and slopes greater than 15% must also be excluded due to prohibitions on building in these areas. Mr. McCormick was instructed to recompute density using this formula. ',- 8 03 Mr. McCormick described the drainage plan and said that Mr. Scudder was ',- the engineer. Mr. McCormick also presented a landscaping plan prepared by Meads Nursery. Mr. Sorlin read a letter from the Boards Consulting Engineer, Nick Sciartelli of Morse Engineering, questioning lot sized, storm drainage, road layout and alignment, water service, septic service and site distances. The Board noted that many of these items should be addressed at the preliminary stage. Mr. Mesinger questioned the 2,200 foot length of the cul-de-sac which would serve the subdivision. Subdivision regulations called for a maximum length of 1,000 feet. Board members felt this wasn't a problem because the subdivision wasn't very dense. Mr. McCormick said that preliminary discussions with Mr. Naylor had not raised any objections. The Board discussed the possibility of acquiring land to extend the road to tie into Pickle Hill Road or Jennifer Lane. Mr. McCormick suggested that an easement could be left for future access. Mr. Roberts noted that Mr. Sciartelli had suggested that internal subdivision roads be designed for a 30 mph speed limit. Board members felt this was too high for a residential subdivision. However, it was noted to be a requirement of state law. The Board TABLED the application by consensus with the consent of the applicant for recalculating density both with and without clustering. All land with slopes greater than 15% and all land within 50 feet of the stream as well as road acreage must be deducted if the clustering provision is to be used. Passed Unanimously. SITE PLAN NO. 43-86 John Flower John Flower presented his proposal to construct a garage apartment on property on North Sunnyside. Duplexes are allowed in this zone under site plan review. Adequate acreage is available. A septic upgrade is planned. The Board went through its sit plan checklist. The apartment was found to be undersized at only 560 square feet. The applicant agreed to increase the size to 600 square feet. No other problems were found. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Dybas MOVED APPROV AL of Site Plan 43-86 as it meets all the requirements of site plan review if the applicant increases the floor size of the unit '-- 9 ,~~&ð (P? Jlr¡l v? (Pi to 600 square feet. Applicant must increase floor size to this minimum. "- Mr. Macri seconded. Passed Unanimously. The Meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ~4 (f:¿)r4- Richard Roberts, Chairman Minutes prepared by Stuart F. Mesinger, Senior Town Planner "-..- 10