Loading...
1986-05-20 ~fð MINUTES .~ Queensbury Planning Board Tuesday, May 2G, 1 986 8:00 p.m. Present: R. Roberts, Chairman V. Macri, Acting Secretary S. Levandowski J. Dybas H. Mann F. DeSantis M. Dean, Staff Absent: K. Sorlin The Minutes of the April 15, 1986 meeting were amended as follows: Dick Morse should be referred to as Consulting Engineer to specific projects. The Town does not have a Town Engineer. The Town hires different engineers for different projects. It is also noted that Van Howe Estates - Section 2 (31 lots off Potter Road) - In the Minutes Mr. Morse, Consulting Engineer, said drainage would be through existing culverts in response to question of Bill Morton, representative of Queensbury Outdoor Recreation & Environmental Association. The Board subsequently finds that in DEC environmental magazine applicant is requesting a 270 foot culvert to encase what is known as Halfway Creek at that point. The Planning Board is looking into this and working with developer to change this and perhaps be able to move entrance road to the west and avoid the creek bed entirely. At this point ill time the Board unanimously agrees to rescind Final Approval for the meeting Minutes of April 15, 1986 and will discuss this later in the evening. The Minutes of the April 15, 1986 meeting are unanimously approved as amended above. \...- .¡. . SUBDIVISIONS: Subdivision No. 5-85 - Baybridge Phase II - 44 Townhouse units - Walker Lane Final Approval. Charles Scudder, P. E. present. Previously all requirements satisfied except for acquisition of SPDES permit. They now have SPDES permit. Letters are in file from Consulting Engineer, Dick Morse, who is satisfied that project is on track (letter dated 4/29/86) (subsequent letter dated 5/1/86). Motion for Final Approval of Phase II offered by Mrs. Mann, seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Motion carried unanimously. RESOL VED: Final Approval granted for Baybridge, Phase II, 44 townhouse units on Walker Lane as all necessary, official approvals have been received. Subdivision No. 5-86 - Ashwood, 25 lots plus/minus West Mountain Road Sketch Plan. Dennis Phillips, Esq., Charles Scudder, P. E., Andrew T. McCormack, Surveyor, present. Mr. Phillips amended name from Ashton Acres to Ashwood. Mr. Phillips said the present use of property is a batching plant. Proposed use is residential subdivision, in effect a transformation of use from heavy industrial to residential. Present use is non-conforming. There are three different zones on the property consisting of 33.53 acres. Mr. Scudder said that part of the development will be the demolition of the existing commercial/- industrial facilities. There is fairly extensive concrete pavement, a metal building, a considerable .--- cJ 81 Page Two May 20, 1986 ~ amount of miscellaneous debris on site. There is also a very large hole in the ground which sometimes has water in it and some other topographical irregularities on lower portion toward West Mtn. Road which would be graded and filled. Mr. McCormack has prepared a topographic and a boundary survey. The three zones that cut across property are SR-30, RR-3A and SR-IA. 3.1 acres would be removed for roads and from 1.2 to 2.4 acres for green area, the remainder would be 28 acres. The applicant is seeking approval to create 27 or 28 lots with discretion on the layout of the lots, no lot to be under 30,000 sq. ft. They propose to fill in hole with debris, on-site. That will also be green area. Mr. Scudder said debris would be primarily concrete, some metal, some rubber tires, etc. Part of the plan will be a demolition plan showing what things are to be removed from site and what things can be buried on site. They will not bury anything that will damage site or ground water. They have developed two plans, one with one road cut on West Mountain Road, one with two road cuts. There is a transmission main belonging to the City of Glens Falls from the upland resevoir crossing the property. They want that to lie along property lines from southwest to northeast, contained in road rather than cutting through middle of lots. The depth of the pipe is at least 5 feet. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Scudder said they planned to keep storm water on site and applicant is asking Board to give them latitude to blend zones and maintain a minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. for each lot. This subdivision is not in Adirondack Park. Mr. Dybas offered motion for sketch plan approval, seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Motion carried unanimously. ~ RESOL VED: Sketch Plan approval granted based upon information presented that it would be an asset to the neighborhood. The Board reserves comment based on plans as presented. The plan to be utilized is Scheme C - 27 to 28 lot maximum with one entry. The smallest lot will be 30,000 sq. ft. The Board gives applicant flexibility in blending lots in three zones. Subdivision No. 6-86 - Stonecroft, Section II - 17 lots off West Mt. Road Sketch Plan. William Threw and Leon Steves present. Road contours and elevations were discussed and it was noted that the soils were perfect. Mrs. Mann offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. DeSantis. Motion carried unanimously. RESOL VED: Sketch Plan approval granted. This is an exension of an existing subdivision. Board is waiting for pertinent information. Subdivision No. 7-86 - Joan Kubricky, 12 lots plus/minus Upper Ridge Road Sketch Plan. Andrew T. McCormack present. The smallest lot would be three acres. There will be one entrance on Ridge Road and the possibility of the road going through to Pickle Hill Road. If the road does not go through there will be a turn around. Mr. McCormack will see what type Mr. Naylor, Highway Superintendent, would prefer. Mr. McCormack said the road has a curvallinear pattern to keep a reasonable grade and cross the brook at an existing crossing where there is a culvert and an old farm road. Mr. Macri offered motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Dybas. Motion carried unanimously. ---- J.f2 "- Page Three May 20, 1986 RESOL VED: Sketch Plan approval granted, it is within required zoning and appears to be proper use of land. REVIEW FOR CHANGE LOT LINES Subdivision No. 7-80 - Walter Dombek Subdivision - Stephanie Lane '- John Winn, Esq. representing Stephanie Lane Corporation. Application is to reduce by one the previously approved subdivision which was a 42 lot subdivision. The change would create 41 lots. Mr. Roberts said that about a year ago these people were before the Board and someone from the audience said they had a copy of the restrictive covenants which said duplexes were not allowed. Mr. Roberts said as it turned out that gentlemen lived on another street but before anybody realized that, the applicant withdrew the application. Mr. Winn said that when Mr. Dombek originally purchased the property he purchased 21 acres and an additional lot on an adjoining street. Mr. Winn said be believed that one lot did have a one family restriction. He said this property has no such restriction. The first covenant contained in the Declaration of Covenants is that "The lots in the above described premise shall be used for residentail purposes only and no building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot or separate lots except one dwelling house for one or two families and a private garage for not more than two cars." Mr. Roberts said he finds that language ambiguous. Mr. Roberts said he had shown this to the Planning Board attorney and he indicates that probably duplexes could be permitted. Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Winn why they wanted to build duplexes. Mr. Winn said by reducing the number of lots they would be able to create larger lots to permit construction of duplexes. Mr. Winn said the intent is to make lots more readily saleable by giving the purchaser the choice of single family or duplex. Mrs. Mann asked if the preexisting lots of record are left as they are, would duplexes be allowed. Mr. Roberts responded "only of they use two lots". Most of the lots have been developed, lots 1-22 and 36-42. Lots 23-35 still owned by Stephanie Lane Corp. John Cross, 17 Stephanie Lane - He believes Mr. Dombek intends to construct duplexes on Stephanie Lane. Presented petition urging Board to disapprove application. Martha Shepard, Stephanie Lane spoke against, said they were led to believe it was single family neighborhood. Mr. Roberts said he was opposed to changing plat and feels that duplexes would change the character of neighborhood. Mr. DeSantis said he saw no hardship on Mr. Dombek's part and application should be denied. Mrs. Mann offered motion to deny change of lot lines, seconded by Mr. DeSantis. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: Board denied application to change lot lines on Stephanie Lane. Majority of lots have been sold and are used for single family residence. Board feels that duplexes on single lots would be out of character and at the same time they are not prohibiting the sale of duplexes if double lots are used and accepted density requirements are followed. ~ "- '", ~lJ Page Four May 20, 1986 '-' OLD BUSINESS: Site Plan Review No. 2-86 - T.J. Farone & Son (Dixon Heights) Phase I .'---' Requesting Final Approval for Phase I. Frank Walter, P.E. and Cynthia LaFave, Esq. present. Mr. Walter submitted plans, said nothing much had changed since preliminary approval. They have town water supply, wastewater disposed of in subsurface systems, storm water management developed with ditches, catch basin manholes and storm sewers discharging through an energy dissipation structure at lower end of main road. They have approvals from water superintendent. highway superintendent, planning board engineer on project, Mr. Lamy, DEC, indicates project is satisfactory and they will be eligible for SPDES permit on Friday of this week. Mr. Roberts asked if the Board had received a revised set of restrictive covenants. Ms. LaFave said they were delivered to Mr. Prime. Ms. LaFave said Homeowners Association has not yet been approved by Attorney General's office. Mr. Roberts said he went over restrictive covenants with Mr. Prime and that any suggestions for change have been addressed to the Board's satisfaction. Mr. Roberts read letter from Charles Scudder, P.E. (project engineer, planning board). Mr. Scudder said the only thing that bothers him is the idea that if a problem arises with the sewage system, the building sewer which cuts across four privately owned lots, the septic tank being on one of those four lots and the leaching system being beyond in the common area. It seems to him that is a recipe for problems down the line. Mr. Scudder feels that facilities that are to be used in common should be placed in the common area. Mr. Roberts said that they had similar concerns early on in the review process, but they have been convinced, although this is new concept in Queensbury, it seems to fall within our ordinance, be legal and done elsewhere. Ms. LaFave explained responsibility procedure if unit experienced septic problem. Homeowners Association was discussed in detail. Concern over arbitration procedure. Ms. LaFave referred to Amendment to Article 4. She will file copy of approved Home Owner Association when she receives it. Ms. LaFave said they met with superintendents of both school districts. School districts will be split by town and city lines. Mrs. Mann offered motion for final approval for Phase I, seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Motion carried unanimously. RESOL VED: Final Approval granted for Phase I with the stipulation that Board receives SPDES permit, letter from Planning Board attorney R. Case Prime saying that he has reviewed and concurred with the various restrictive covenants. Mr. Burke, Dixon Road resident, asked Mr. Walter to elaborate on the location where Quaker Hill Road will come out and join Dixon road. Mr. Walter said it would be exactly as it is on map. He said the elevation in road is still a little uncertain. He doesn't believe it change more than 6 inches which would be upward. Site Plan Review No. 2-86 - T. J. Farone & Son (Dixon Heights) Phase II. Public Hearing. Mr. Walter said the major change for Phase II is proposal by Highway Superintendent that they utilize the old Dixon Road as a fronting road which will make total of two road entrances for entire project. He said that everything else is in accord with the conceptual '-' ~¡1 Page Five May 20, 1986 '-" plan. There will be a total of 56 units, continuation of water system from Phase I. Wastewater disposal system discussed. Mr. Roberts said this project will come under new law re: recreation fees. Mr. Roberts said that the Town Board has indicated that they would be more interested in money in lieu of land. Mr. Roberts asked if there will be room enough to leave not only the land for the existing septic systems but an equal amount of land in case they ever have to be improved, enlarged or repaired. Mr. Walter said yes and that DEC also addressed that point. Mr. Walter said the main purpose this evening was to have a public hearing, to show the Board where they were going with Phase II and particularly to show the change in the road from the conceptual plan. Mr. Burke asked about the abandoned Dixon Road and what would happen to it. Mr. Walter thought that would be the discretion of the Highway Superintendent. Mr. Macri asked if the realignment does not take place on Dixon Road would there be three exits on to Dixon Road. Mr. Walter said he really did not know. Mr. Walter said based on heresay and whatever he has heard about this project;¡ he knows that the Highway Superintendent is quite serious about realigning and improving that road. He doesn't think there is any question it will be done, there might be a question about timing. Public Hearing closed. Motion to table preliminary approval offered by Mr. DeSantis, seconded by Mr. Macri. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan Review No. 12-86 - Persons & Persons Real Estate, south side Sweet Rd. ,,--. To construct 2 eight unit apartment buildings in UR 5 zone to rear of property zone SFR 30 on the property situated at east side Route 9 - 1000 ft. north of Exit 20. Garfield Raymond, Esq. and Leon Steves, Surveyor present. Applicant has approximately 4 acres which they would like to break down into 4 separate parcels, two of which would be residential lots 110 x 275, one small parcel they will sell to Mr. Tisinger, adjacent land owner, and remaining 80 feet on Sweet Road with a depth of 500 feet which will contain two 8 unit - one bedroom apartments. Each apartment will consist of 600 sq. feet. The buildings will be constructed in UR-5, the single family residences are in SFR zone. Mrs. Mann said majority of homes that have been built on Sweet Road in recent years are single family and that mobile home park was pre-existing. She feels that character of neighborhood is going toward single family and more expensive homes rather than multi-unit. She has reservations about the way plan is designed. Mr. Don McKinney, 31 Montray Road. Applicant's parcel borders his backyard. He and his wife are opposed to proposal. Mrs. Mann asked if they would have any restrictions regarding the number of people they would allow in one bedroom apartments. Mr. Raymond said he had not done that yet but he wouldn't want more than two people. Dick Sims of Sweet Road concerned with access to property. Cemetery cleared last year. These units will be only ones visible to cemetery. There would be alot of people and their automobiles in and out of that one driveway. Mr. Ray Mulaker, 32 Sweet Road has environmental concerns. There is a stream that goes to pond in cemetery. It will no longer be peaceful in cemetery, feels it will be an eyesore. Several neighbors asked questions about septic, what material to be used for driveway and numbers of cars. Mrs. Levandowski asked if there would be garages. Mr. Raymond said no, parking area would be gravel with packed powder. ~ o<3S Page Six May 20, :1:986 -" Board reviewed Site Plan check list. Mr. Roberts said he felt the drawing was somewhat inadequate, they would like something more to scale, with final locations of buildings. Mr. Raymond said there would be one owner for both apartments. Road will be 20' wide and will be gravel with dust. After review of checklist Mr. Roberts said they would like to see more adequate Site Plan dealing with storm water drainage, topo work and map to scale. Mr. Dybas offered motion to table for further information per checklist, seconded by Mr. DeSantis. Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing open for further comment. Site Plan Review No.- Wooden Indian, Inc., east side Route 9 No one appeared. Tabled for one month as courtesy. Resident of Stephanie Lane asked what process would be for changing zoning on Stephanie Lane and probably Pinewood to single family. Mr. Roberts said they would have to petition Town Board. Resident said original development was for single family dwellings. First owner said Mr. Dombek told him it would only be single family residences. Hidden Hills Subdivision '- SEQRA vote. Mrs. Mann offered motion for negative declaration, seconded by Mr. Macri. Motion carried unanimously. Van Howe Estates - Section 2 Mrs. Mann offered motion to amend map, seconded by Mr. Macri. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: Van Howe Estates Section II map amended, exit on west end of Potter Road to reflect the changes worked out between Chairman Roberts, Leon Steves and Highway Superintendent. Meeting adjourned 12:00 a.m. ~ø"CfuJ;- .. ¡chard Roberts, Chairman --