Loading...
1985-04-16 C:</J MINUTES \: ueensbury Planning Board '~'uesday, April 16, 1985 8:00 p.m. Present: R. Roberts, Chairman K. Sorlin, Secretary S. Levandowski R. Noll V. Macri M. Dean, Staff Absent: H. Mann J. Dybas The Minutes of the March 19, 1985 meeting will be acted on at the next meeting. Off-Premises Si~n #21 Adirondack Girl Scout Council Lacinda Hess present. Request to place wooden, rustic sign at northwest corner of Quaker and Meadowbrook Rds. on Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. Sign will be 18x36", placed 10 or 12 feet from Regency sign (lower but in same line). They will comply with setback, have verbal okay from NI-MO, will have it in writing. Sign will direct to Council headquarters and will not hamper vision of motorists. Mr. Noll offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Macri. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: Planning Board approved Off-Premises directional sign #21 as presented. SUBDIVISIONS: Subdivision No. 6-84 - Bedford Close, Section 5 Tabled Subdivision No. 9-84 - Van Howe Estates 32 lots Potter Road Leon Steves present. Has approvals from Water, Highway Depts. (read by Mr. Roberts) and Dept. of Health. Lot 16 has been eliminated. Mr. Steves has talked to City because of proximity to watershed property and to his knowledge they have no problem. Mr. Sorlin said letter was sent to Ed Foster in Glens Falls on December 21, 1984 so they were properly notified. Septic will be in front yards. Road will tie-in with road in Pines of Queensbury development. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Naylor if there would be a problem if roads did not connect for a year or two. Mr. Naylor said no. There was some discussion on drainage. Mr. Roberts said that Mr. Steves had submitted everything that had been asked for. Mr. Macri offered motion for Final Approval, seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Planning Board gave FINAL approval to Subdivision #9-ß4 as submitted with no comments. ~/~ Page Two Subdivision No. 3-85 - Pheasant Walk, Section 2 36 lots adjoining Section 1 ~eon Steves present. Request for preliminary approval of 36 lots south side of Peggy Ann Road. Discussion of drainage but plans not finalized at this time. Mr. Roberts asked Paul Naylor to look at cul-de-sacs. This is a Public Hearing-no one appeared from the public. It was noted that the Board had seen this conceptually as part of Phase 1. State Health, Highway and Water approvals required before final approval. Mrs. Levandowski offered motion for Preliminary Approval, seconded by Mr. Sorlin. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Planning Board gave Preliminary Approval to Subdivision #3-85. Subdivision No. 4-85 - Mattson/Catalfamo 30 lots Bay and Blind Rock Rds. Ken Mattson present. Mr. Mattson showed sketch plan for sub-division of 30 single family lots on southwest corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road (27 acres). Mr. Mattson said soil tests show this land more suitable to single family dwellings rather than high density. Mr. Roberts stated that this zone was planned for duplex type development along Bay Road corridor and that the town has already set aside ample space for single family residential. Mr. Roberts said this would create a situation (if it were allowed to happen) where someone to the north and south comes in with what it's zoned for and then all the single family residences complain. Mr. Sorlin asked about the possibility of having an inventory of existing undeveloped lots put on computer. Mr. Sorlin said he feels we have a huge inventory of single family lots and we need more multi-unit development. Mr. Sorlin said it looks like Queensbury is rapidly becoming a 72 square mile town of single family residences. Mr. Mattson said they were willing to explore the possibilities of multi-family units. Mr. Mattson asked the Board's opinion of the proposed road entering on Blind Rock and coming out at Bay Road. The Board thinks its a good concept. REMARKS: This Sketch Plan tabled for consideration of multi-family as UR-5 is designed. Subdivision No. 2-85 - Kings Plantation 90+ lots Peggy Ann Road Gabe Armando and Tim Dunn(surveyor) present. Maximum 98 lots planned, all duplex. Sandy soils, no standing water at this time. Lengthy discussion on drainage. Mr. Macri said they should consider alternative to dry wells in their drainage plan. Dry wells require maintenance and should be avoided. Mr. Armando said it would be ideal to have a culvert for drainage to city water shed property. Board suggested he talk to City. Mr. Macri said he should submit plan to Paul Naylor and Charles Scudder, P.E. before next appearance. Mr. Macri offered motion for Sketch Plan approval, seconded by Mr. Noll. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: Conceptual approval given on concept of total plot only and no layout or lot concentration approval given at this time. #I ) J.o Page Three Haviland Acres Subdivision - Martell Road etter of request from Della Monica to Sub-divide lot in an existing ~ubdivision. Leon Steves present. Owner would like to cut 5 acre lot into two 2\ acre lots. The prospective owner is buying the house and would like to eventually own the remaining 2\ acres but can't manage it at this time. Mr. Roberts said this is a huge lot to begin with and the two lots would still be large. Mr. Noll offered motion for approval, seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: Planning Board approved division of lot 5 in subdivision into two smaller lots. OLD BUSINESS: Site Plan Review No. 5-85 - John J. Nigro -former Barker Store Tabled Site Plan Review No. 6-85 - M. & R. Woodbury Dixon Road i-t ..IIP~~ /' Leon Steves present. This plan submitted last month. At that time some neighbors expressed some concern about living in the middle of all duplexes. Mr. Woodbury said he was perfectly willing to put in two single family homes to the south of house in question - everyone seems to be happy. Instead of five duplexes there will be three duplexes and two single families. Mr. Roberts asked if Mr. Steves had heard from the City. The Water Board was to meet on Tuesday, April 9 at which time they would consider this. Mr. Steves talked to Mr. Coults (Glens Falls Water Supt.) Monday, April 15 - he said he was waiting for Mayor to respond. Unofficially he said he thought the Board had no problem with the proximity of this project to the reservoir. Mr. Sorlin noted that they had received letters from Coults on March 19 and March 21. The letter of the 19th said city had not had adequate time to review site plan asking Planning Board to table. The letter of 21st thanked Planning Board for tabling. Mr. Roberts said they had had time to respond - at least a months time. Mr. Steves said if the City had a constructive criticism, they would be happy to comply. Warren County Planning Board recommends approval without comment. Mr. Macri offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Noll. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Board approve with consideration that property owners will have further discussion with City of Glens Falls regarding any potential watershed problems. None are anticipated. NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan Review No. 8-85 - Michael L. Pall - Tuthill Road Martin Meyer, Esq. present. SPR to allow for a professional office incidental to residential use of an existing residence in RR-5A zone. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval without comment. Dr. Pall is under contract to buy house. He is a clinical psychologist and would like ~o have office in his basement to see patients on one-on-one basis. );}./ Page Four He would not anticipate there would be more than two cars there during office hours (his own and patient's). Mr. Roberts said it was about orst location he could imagine for Dr. 's office. Mr. Roberts said he -Was opposed for safety reasons in travelling up the mountain in all kinds of weather. Mr. Meyer said that would be a judgment for patients to make. Mr. Roberts said the Highway Superintendent agreed wtih him. Mr. Meyer said that if what Mr. Roberts says is valid it will show itself in number of patients rather than from a planning point of view. This type of office is allowed under Site Plan. Mr. Roberts believes under Site Plan Review the Board has right to give consideration to the hazard and he could not vote for this in good conscience. He believes it endangers the health, welfare and safety of too many people by promoting this kind of intense use on the mountain. A neighbor asked if this is allowed and the proeprty is sold, does variance go with the new owner. Mr. Dean explained that this is not a variance, but a use that is allowed under Site Plan. Mr. Sorlin disagrees with Mr. Roberts - looking at this specific piece of property and the impact on that neighborhood he sees no problem. Mr. Macri suggested tabling for legal opinion. Mr. Meyers noted that they have an option which expires April 30 so they would need approval or disapproval for financing institution. Mr. Noll said that Mr. Roberts concern was well taken but as grounds for denial finds it hard to vote.. .Mr. Sorlin said he interprets the safety issue a little differently because this is not something someone will be forced into, any hazard that's created by Dr. having an office on that mountain is a voluntary hazard that someone enters into if they want to go up that hill in the winter. The application itself is not creating a hazard that you or I have to be impacted by. Mr. Noll offered motion for approval of Site Plan #8-85, seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Three votes "yes" (Levandowski, Sorlin, Noll) 1 vote "no" (Roberts) 1 abstention (Macri) Discussion on whether this vote constitutes approval or disapproval. Mr. Roberts believes it's disapproval. Vote is recorded, will be looked into. VARIANCE NO. 982 - H. John Schutze Dixon/Aviation Roads and Poplar Lane Proposal for professional office duplexes. Dr. Schutze and Dennis Phillips, Esq. present. Dr. Schutze read letter (in file) describing his intentions. Proposed three single story tudor residential style buildings. Each building contains 4800 sq.' Interviewing the neighbors determined that they preferred this site to be developed as professional offices. Dr. Schutze read prepared statement outlining proposal (in file). Board questioned number of parking spaces and recommended reduction of same, leaving more green area. Sorlin said this looked like a good plan, good buffer between residential and commercial. Dr. Schutze said he expected development to occur over next one or two years. First building would contain offices for himself and Dr. DelSignore. Robert Stewart, Esq. spoke against the plan on behalf of Dr. Burkich, dentist adjoining property: Letter from Beautification Committee in file noting one of finest presentatIons received by Committee. REMARKS: The Queensbury Planning Board suggests Zoning Board review ordinance Section 4.020-d UR-5 Zone to determine whether proposed development is health related and subject to Site Plan Review (Type II) item #9 instead of variance of non-permitted use. 22~ Page Five Site Plan Review 9-85 - Prospect Resources Inc.south side Aviation across from Mountain View Lane. ',,-- To construct an eight (8) room classroom facility for the develop- mentally handicapped in SR20 zone on property situated at south side Aviation Road. Mr. Paul Cushing present. This is an allowed use in this zone. Board thinks this a good plan. There was discussion on lighting. It is not in the plan as presented but may be done if money is available. If so it would only be used when building is occupied. Mr. Noll offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Sorlin. Motion carried unanimously with the exception of Mr. Macri who abstained. He is part of the applicant group. RESOLVED: The Board approve since no adverse effect on neighborhood and it makes good use of the land and it expands upon a very worthwhile existing facility across the street. Site Plan Review No. 11-84 - Kennedy-Betz(Fox Farm Townhouses) To construct 12 multi-family buildings with 7 dwelling units in each building in UR5 Zone on the property situated at the end of Fox Farm Rd. No one appeared. Mr. Roberts noted their last appearance was in July. Mrs. Levandowski offered motion, seconded by Mr. Macri. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: Board considers Site Plan Review No.11-84 as being withdrawn because they did not appear, nor did they notify the Board. A discussion was held regarding town roads and privately owned roads. ~~$~ Richar Ro erts, C airman