Loading...
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