Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lawrence Contractor Yard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers pitch contractor storage yard for remediated 1 Lawrence St. site; traffic and wetland buffers flagged
Summary
Developers presented a referral for reuse of the remediated former Noble chemical site at 1 Lawrence St. as a contractor storage yard. The team said the plan stays within previously disturbed areas, adds perimeter screening and restricts left turns at the western driveway; traffic consultant and board members requested additional turning studies, hours/noise clarifications and wetland/steep‑slope detail.
Matt Behrens, counsel for the applicants, introduced a proposal to reuse the 10.77‑acre, remediated parcel at 1 Lawrence Street for a contractor storage yard and limited vehicle storage. Behrens said the site participated in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program and received a certificate of completion; a roughly 12‑inch engineered cap remains in some areas and DEC coordination will be required for any work that breaks the cap.
Civil engineer Mark Petrarault reviewed the site plan: the outdoor storage yard would be a gravel surface encompassing about 110,000 square feet within the previously disturbed footprint; roughly 48 truck/vehicle storage spaces are shown on the west side and the plan provides 64 regular parking spaces (four accessible). The design includes perimeter evergreen screening and reconstructed two‑way driveways on Lawrence Street; the west driveway would have left‑turns restricted to reduce conflicts with Parkway traffic. The applicant said the likely users include the owner’s scaffolding company but that the approval is sought for a general contractor storage yard use so other contractor users could locate there in the future subject to code compliance.
Town traffic consultant John Canning said the project is a modest traffic generator overall but called for additional turning analyses and cautioned that left‑turn movements at the western driveway could queue into the Parkway approach; he supported the proposed restriction on that left movement but asked for careful turning and queuing analysis. Board members asked about hours of operation (the EAF listed 24/7; a follow‑up response indicated 5:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.), potential noise from stored metal equipment, truck sizes, enforcement of truck routing (to avoid parkways), and whether sidewalk frontage and sight‑distance upgrades would be provided. The applicant said most anticipated trucks would be smaller flatbeds but included conservative WB‑50 turning paths on plans; the team agreed to supply additional turning simulations, confirm hours and provide written responses on noise mitigation and routing signage.
Wetland jurisdiction and steep‑slope limits were discussed; the applicant said wetlands delineations were provided to DEC, and that the proposed disturbance would remain outside delineated wetlands while buffer impacts would be worked through with DEC. The board asked for clarifications on nights/weekend operations, lighting, and staffing/staging to ensure off‑site queuing is minimized. The applicant agreed to provide requested details and to return for another work session.
Next steps: the applicant will supply additional turning studies, clarify hours and noise mitigation, and provide a written response to the board’s outstanding questions; the Planning Board will schedule further review once those materials are received.
