1983-09-19 SP
/'12.
MINUTES
QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD - SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, September 19, 1983 7:00 p.m.
Present:
R. Roberts, Chairman
R. Montesi, Secretary
H. Mann
K. Sorlin
J. Dybas
R. Noll
M. Dean - Staff
Absent:
W. Threw
SITE PLAN REVIEW #11 - 83 Hitch World (U-Haul)
112 Main St., Corinth Road
HC-15
Mr. John McCormack present. The Warren County Planning Board
recommends approval. Motion offered by Mr. Sorlin, seconded by
Mr. Dybas recommending approval of Site Plan. Motion carried
unanimously.
RESOLVED: The Board approved Site Plan
Review No. II - 83.
SITE PLAN REVIEW #12 - 83 Leo Lombardo
west side Rt. 9, north of Rt. 149
HC-15
No one present. The Warren County Planning Board recommends
approval with stipulations. Motion for approval offered by Mr.
Noll, seconded by Mr. Dybas. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: The Board approved Site Plan Review
No. 12-83 with the following conditions:
1. From day after Labor Day until May
1st.
2. No more than 12 boats may be stored
and they are to be stored individually
on boat trailers with no stacking.
3. No boat sales allowed.
4. Storage in only specific area shown
on map behind building and south of
pool.
'~
11-3
Page Two
September 19, 1983
SITE PLAN REVIEW #13 - 83 Ciba-Geigy Corp.
Lower Warren Street
HI-3A
Mr. Brian Stewart, Esq. present. Warren County Planning Board
recommends approval. Motion offered by Mr. Montesi, seconded by
Mrs. Mann for approval. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: The Board approved this Site Plan Review
Type II No. 13-83.
SITE PLAN REVIEW #14 - 83 Michael Pall
north side Walker Lane
UR-5
Mr. James Horwitz, Esq. present. This Site Plan was not required
to go to the County. The Public Hearing was held at the Sept. 7
meeting and an informal vote was taken with two votes in favor and
4 against this application. Mr. Roberts is of the opinion, after
talking with the County Clerk, Highway Superintendent, Deputy High-
way Superintendent, Town Attorney and Town Surveyor, that a variance
will be required because the property does not front on a public
highway. D~scussion ensued regarding which should be handled first,
the variance or the Site Plan. Mr. Horwitz thinks it uncertain
that variance is required and asked that he be heard, suggesting a
conditional Site Plan could be approved thus avoiding a time delay.
Mr. Roberts commented that when the Board was redrafting the Master
Plan they consciously tried to establish more acreage, more zones
in the Town promoting the idea of multifamily housing, primarily
apartment complexes. The major one of these is along the Bay Road
corridor, the area that is under question. The reasoning was that
someday there would probably be mass transit, sewers and there is
alot of open acreage in this area. Mr. Roberts does not remember
receiving alot of opposition to this concept. The question the
Board must ask themselves now is, if they allow one or a few single
family residences in this area, what are they doing to the master
plan, the long term plan for that area. Mr. Roberts stated that,
on advice of Town Counsel, he does not feel that if Board ohooses to
say no this fox these planning concept reasons (intent of ordinance)
they would be on solid ground.
Mrs. Mann argued that the Board had given conceptual approval to
another duplex development on Bay Road with the idea in mind that
there would be duplexes with professional offices. Mrs. Mann said
that traffic was the only consideration in that decision, not be-
cause there would be Dr. 's offices. Mr. Sorlin disagreed with Mrs.
Mann and said he thought they had convinced that developer to with-
draw any reference to Dr. 's offices and that it would be a sub-
division of duplexes only. If, in the future, they wanted professional
offices they would have to come through individually. Mr. Roberts
said that subdivision is contiguous to Bay Road and an entirely
"-
I'll
Page Three
September 19, 1983
different situation. Mr. Sorlin wanted to reiterate a comment that
he had made at the last meeting, that if there are professional
offices in the Bay Road corridor, which is fairly wide, he thinks
it was the intent of the Board when they put the plan together that
any professional development would be closer in to the Bay Road
portion of it and not back where they would expect the residential
development to take place. Mr. Sorlin said he did not believe it
was good planning to allow these things (application) to develop
that far off Bay Road when the corridor has not yet been developed.
Mr. Dybas agreed with Mr. Sorlin. He said he felt sorry for the
people involved but the master plan and all the hard work that has
gone into it is useless to the Board and the community if they break
every time someone comes in.
Mr. Horwitz thinks the key issue is whether or not the zoning ordin-
ance sets forth an ability to have a single residence with a Dr.'s
office in this zone and it clearly does. What he is hearing is that
certain members of the Board have envisioned certain areas in a UR5
zone to be strictly duplex or multiapartment and that if this appli-
cant had made application on Bay Road there would be no difficulty
in granting this Site Plan Review. If that is the case he would
respectfully suggest that the Board is limited by what is set forth
in the zoning ordinance and that the ordinance does indicate that
a Dr. 's office and a single residence are allowable. It seems to
him that the Board is setting up a zone within the zone. Mr. Horwitz
hopes that the discussion earlier regarding the variance doesn't
predjudice anyone in terms of their decision and that if the appli-
cation is denied, the Board set forth the facts on the record so that
they understand exactly why it has been denied.
Mr. Montesi said that under Article B - the use would ,be in harmony
with the general purpose of the intent of this ordinance, the intent
of the ordinance was that this be UR5 multiple family dwellings.
Mrs. Mann said that listed under multiple family dwellings is single
family residence so somewhere in our discussions we thought these
things could fit harmoniously in this area.
Mr. McNairy, Walker Lane resident. Multiple housing means just that,
not professional buildings/homes.
Mrs. McNairy. We have seen a growing trend for good multiple housing
in this area.
Unknown - OWns one of duplexes on Walker Lane. Thought it was
strictly for two family dwellings, did not think it was for commercial
or professional use.
.,--
/ 't 5-
Page Four
September 19, 1983
Mr. Roberts offered a motion for disapproval of Site Plan,
seconded by Mr. Montesi. All voted in favor of motion with the
exception of Mrs. Mann who voted no.
RESOLVED: The Board disapproved Site Plan Review #14-83.
It does not meet:
1. The objectives of Ordinance UR-5.
2. Effect on surrounding properties.
3. The objectives of the Land Use Plan.
4. The ability of the Town tø accommodate
this kind of growth in this area 1600 ft.
deep on Walker Lane.
5. This also does not meet the objectives
of the Land Use Plan in this specific
area.
6. The intent in UR-5 was for residential
development in multi-family fashion:
to allow professional development before
residential development occurs is not in
harmony with good planning.
SITE PLAN REVIEW #15-83 Len and Peg's Country Inn
HC-l A
The Warren County Planning Board recommends approval. Mr. Sorlin
offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Noll. Motion carried
unanimously.
RESOLVED: The Board approved Site Plan Review No. 15-83.
SITE PLAN REVIEW #16-83 Thomas and Irene Jones
east side Route 9 at Exit 20
HC-15
Mr. and Mrs. Jones present. The Warren County Planning Board
recommends approval. Mr. Dybas offered motion for approval, seconded
by Mr. Sorlin. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: The Board approved Site Plan Review No. 16-83.
SITE PLAN REVIEW #17-83 Ralph Boice LR-3A
Lockhart LOop and on Lake George
Mr. Tom McCormack present. The Warren County Planning Board approved
with conditions. Mr. Montesi offered motion for approval, seconded
by Mr. Noll. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLVED: The Board approved Site Plan Review #17-83 with
the following conditions.
3 homes be required to have their septic systems
brought up to the Queensbury Septic Ordinance
Standards.
Updated map presented - map of record 9/21/83.
\j~clJ/o1Þ, rj¿tr