Loading...
1993-05-24 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MAY 24,1993 6:30 P.M. MTG #39 RES #304-314 BH #19-20 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN (entered meeting at 6:55 p.m.) SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN TOWN ATTORNEY PAUL DUSEK TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin, PRESS: G.F. Post Star Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order in the Supervisor's Comerence Room ... DISCUSSION - TOWN'S INSURANCE 6:30 P.M. Town Board held discussion regarding Insurance Coverage for the Town and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION REGARDING INSURANCE RESOLUTION NO. 304, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz That we would buy two million dollars worth of liability coverage instead of three million, we would revisit that once we got quotations on another million dollars. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan Councilman Monahan entered meeting, 6:55 p.rn. Town Board adjourned meeting from Supervisor's Comerence Room and reconvened to the Queensbury Activity Center, 7:00 p.rn. Supervisor Brandt called meeting to order in the Queensbury Activity Center. Supervisor Brandt-The Board opened it's session at 6:30 in a meeting in the other room to discuss insurance matters and in that meeting we passed a resolution lowering our liability from three million dollars coverage to two million until we can examine quotes for three million again and we may re-raise it but at this point we had to make a decision because that policy goes into effect at midnight and so as a cost saving move, we lowered it to two million for now. So we're still in session and it's my understanding on the public hearings, the first item on the agenda, the applicant's not quite ready. So we'll go on ... PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE - STANLEY JUCKETT 7:00 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Is Mr. Juckett here? Okay, let's go right into that public hearing, come on right up. That's a public hearing for a zoning change and I'm going to open, so we are in a public hearing. It was properly advertised, is that correct? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, so are there any questions of anyone on the Board on this? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-This is Zaremba right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, this is Juckett. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Stanley Juckett, the second one. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-We're on the second one? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes, we're taking the second one first. What I was trying to look up is, see the difference between commercial residential zone, where's Jim Martin, is he here? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Jim went to get something, he'll be back in a minute. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Okay. MR. JOHN WINN-My Name is John Winn, I'm an attorney from Granville, I represent Mr. Juckett whose sitting to my right. Commercial Residential zones are on page 52 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance referred to as transitioning zones from Residential to Highway Commercial uses on narrow arterial roads and the purpose is to allow for this transition in a manner which permits the widening of the route and of course safe traffic patterns, while at the same time maintaining an aesthetically pleasing environment and safe pedestrian circulation. Neighborhood Commercial is stated on page 53 ... to be one whose purposes to create small scale neighborhood oriented shopping areas so that there's not a need for the residents in that area to travel to the major commercial centers. It was the thought of the Queensbury Town Planning Board when the application was presented that a commercial residential zoning was more amicable to this property than the neighborhood commercial. We would tend to agree with that because the property ofMr. Juckett is off of Quaker Road on Ridge Road. It's neighbored on one side by Conklin Plumbing which is a highway commercial and on the other side there's a hair dressing salon which is a commercial use and to the rear of the property is also commercial. So, I know the public hearing was set for the purposes of determining whether or not the property should be treated as neighborhood commercial and Mr. Juckett's original application sought that. But the Queensbury Planning Board felt that the classification of commercial residential was more appropriate when they approved it five nothing and we would tend to agree with their analysis that commercial residential would be a more fitting purpose for this particular piece of property. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Now when you went to the Warren County Planning Board they advised against it? ATTORNEY WINN-Well, they seemed to feel that it was a request for spot zoning and therefore disapproved it on that basis. However, spot zoning doesn't really apply here. The definition of spot zoning is where you take a single parcel of land that's surrounded by different uses and try to create a special zone for the benefit of the owner. In other words, if right in the middle of a residential area, someone requested a classification of highway commercial that would be spot zoning. In this particular case, the property that's owned by Conklin Plumbing is commercial, the property to the rear of this particular parcel is commercial as well and because of those two commercial, highway commercial uses, it does seem appropriate that there should be a transition parcel which fits right into the definition of commercial residential. That kind of a transition in, would not constitute spot zoning in any way, shape or form but merely a continuation of the general comprehensive plan for the Town of Queensbury. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I don't have any problems either way. I think ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I do. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You do? Go ahead. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Which way did you go to Warren County Planning Board, for neighborhood commercial? ATTORNEY WINN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We can't be switching what's been in front of the Warren County Planning Board. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Right. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I'm not saying that. I think the only reason that they come up with, when I'm saying I'm not having any trouble with it, in this respect, I'm not talking about that aspect of it. The aspect I'm talking about is the fact that when I discussed this the first time around, all I was looking for was a transition zone and both of these can be used as transition zones. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The only trouble with, is commercial residential, it has not turned out as the Town Board planned it to turn out. Because what's happened is, if, if! find that, let me just find my highway commercial or not, commercial residential I mean. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Page 17980. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN- ...179-24, COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-17980 is the page. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, alright, they've been allowing them in areas less than 15,000 square feet because of the lots already there that's in that zone that says you can have it and what's happened is the same way that's happened up in West Glens Falls, alot of commercial uses on too small zones. Because they're not following the intent of what this is. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But I don't think the applicant cares either way, does he? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Neighborhood commercial, you've got, it's much more restrictive of what you're allowed to do and you don't stop that, start that domino effect. If you're not careful, you're going to have a domino effect going up Ridge Road into your very good residential areas that are going to get pressure then to go commercial and you're not going to have your buffer in between there. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, neighborhood commercial, that's why it was established to protect your residences around and do the kind of services that you would have in those zones. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-The Beauty Salon is commercial due to a variance, not rezoning. ATTORNEY WINN-I'm aware of that but the reason that the variance was granted is because it does appear to be a transition area, so. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I was on the Zoning Board at the time it was granted so ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I think that also would qualify under neighborhood commercial, wouldn't it, if I remember right? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-The use of it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, the applicant doesn't care. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The beauty shop ... COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I'm not against commercial, it's just which one to put it into. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Which zone and the beauty shop would qualify... ATTORNEY WINN-A barber or beauty shop falls within the definition of a permitted use in neighborhood commercial. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, of neighborhood commercial and the neighborhood commercial protects the neighborhood much more than a commercial residential. See when West Glens Falls and Dix Avenue were put commercial residential, the feeling was that those roads were going to end up being commercial because they're, you know, on main highways. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- You're not trying to convince me because I thought it should be neighborhood commercial to begin with. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Do you want to make a recommendation Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would say that the application to us is for neighborhood commercial and I would say, stay with that application and that's what came in front of Warren County. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And you don't have any problem with that, do you? ATTORNEY WINN-No. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Are you comfortable with it? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Certainly, I don't have a problem with it. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-You making a motion Bet? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well wait a minute, we're in a public hearing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, wait a minute, no, we got to do a whole mess of stuff first. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Oh, alright. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think we've got to do a SEQRA and everything, don't we Paul for this? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, and first is a public hearing and this is the chance for the public to give input. Okay, I just wanted to start this dialogue and hear out the applicant first. Alright, I think it's time for anyone here that would like to speak on this. MS. DOROTHY CHARTIER-I'd like to speak against it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, come on up and speak against it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Come on up and if you would take a microphone so that we got you on the record. Can you guys make a spot for her? MS. CHARTIER-My name is Dorothy Chartier and I own two pieces ofland north of the beauty shop that's in question. Now, I'm very interested in having you know why Stan Juckett want's this changed, why he has requested this change. Stan Juckett bought this piece of property many years ago at a very low price, it was a small house. He bought it as an investment piece of property. Shortly after he bought it, he decided it might be good for running his real estate business out of it and so far as I know, without permit, he made a small apartment on the south side of that building. I don't think there are any permits and this being a single family residential, I believe that's in violation of the code now. I may be wrong but I think it is. Now, there is no hardship here, he doesn't want to operate his own business here. He wants to sell the piece of property. He asking a hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars for it. MR. STANLEY JUCKETT-That's news to me. MS. CHARTIER-I know, I know of a couple of people who had been interested in the property, they couldn't even begin to think of it at that price. Now, we talk about Conklin Plumbing, Conklin Plumbing was there before I bought my property in 1950. I owned the property then where the Cunningham Beauty Shop is and the several, two lots north of that. There was no Quaker Road. Conklin Plumbing was, what you call grandfathered, I think that's the expression. The people of the community there are very interested in keeping it private, residential. I'm here representing several homeowners, several taxpayers, land owners. One being Marg Johnson who owns a very large tract of land opposite that whole section. The other is Heidi Johnson who lives at the corner of Meadowbrook Lane I think it's called and Ridge Road. So there's all but, all but one, Harder. Harder isn't interested in commercial, she doesn't want her name used pro or con, she's a little bit concerned. But this takes in the whole area across on the west side, these people all want to keep it residential. I want to keep it residential. I've lived there since 1950. Now when Stan came in there, he liked the neighborhood and now he wants to change it because he can't get enough money for his piece of property. I'm interested in knowing what does this, on this notice, it mentions that this is a subdivision. I don't know of, what subdivision means. When we bought these pieces of land, these lots, they were just lots that Tom Rogers sold, there was no subdivision. This seems to have come into effect after the zoning laws were, can anybody tell me what that means? Am I part of a subdivision? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You're talking law, I would assume it's, once it's been subdivided under the law and made into lots, it is a subdivision. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, subdivision procedures were formally initiated into the Town I believe in 1982. Prior to that, there was no formal subdivision procedure, you simply... MS. CHARTIER-But you call me a subdivision anyway? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, a subdivision is the splitting of any lot into two or more lots. That's how it's defined under the code. MS. CHARTIER-Because originally this was all one big tract ofland owned by someone by the name of Thomas Rogers and he wanted to sell. Now, the only reason there is a variance at the beauty shop is because ..., Earltown bought a piece ofland between my property where I live and the beauty shop. I could not get them to give me a right-of-way so that I really sold that at a sacrifice, twenty-five thousand dollars a house, big houses. So I really sacrificed because of Earltown coming in there, buying it ..., I never had an opportunity to buy it and I own property on either side and had been trying to buy it for years. So I got caught in the middle of this thing. Now, we have the dam sewer come along and I got sucked into that because of Earltown which was planning on building this big area. So, I got caught in on that. Now, we're getting caught in on this kind of a thing with Stan Juckett where he only wants it in order to sell his piece of property. Now, I don't think that's giving fair due to those of us who have lived there all these years and paid our taxes and like our neighborhood which Stan came in because he liked the neighborhood, it was a good investment and now he wants to sell it. So he wants to change it for me and my neighbors in order for him to sell his piece of property. I don't think that's concerning himself with the rest of us who have lived there all these years. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-One thing that concerns me just looking here is this neighborhood commercial under type II use allows a gasoline station. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And a laundromat and restaurants. Drug store, pharmacy, probably wouldn't be a problem. I think there's alot, I think there's alot of meat in what Mrs. Chartier says. I mean, first we were looking at, should it be residential commercial or neighborhood commercial. I think we all agreed it should not be residential commercial and I think now we have to look very hard at the uses under neighborhood commercial and see what kind of an impact that is going to be on those subdivisions there. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So limit, as we have discussed many times in the past, we can limit those things that are under the type II. MS. CHARTIER-But, well, why would you want to do it anyway, just for someone to sell a piece of property? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What's the zoning now? MS. CHARTIER-Residential. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Just like the subdivision across the road. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Single family residential one acre. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-All the way up to the end of the road? MS. CHARTIER-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, until you get in ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Up to Conklin. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-As you get, I don't know Jim ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Up to Conklin. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Up to Conklin. Conklin is highway commercial. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, well, but he predated zoning. He predated zoning. MS. CHARTIER-That's right, absolutely. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-He was grandfathered in there. ATTORNEY WINN-Well, I think Conklin also is in the highway commercial. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-He's in the highway commercial. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because he was already there and they gave him the designation ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It doesn't make any difference what the reason is. My point is, that the corner is highway commercial and when I was first approached about this and asked about this, it sounded like a good idea to me, for the same reason it was a good idea in my neighborhood and that is that the transition zones are a great way to protect the residential zones, if you limit what can go in there. Because if you run a commercial zone up against a residential zone, that's when you normally would have problems. We don't know that Conklin is going to be there forever, we assume he is, we don't know that, it's still a highway commercial up against a residential. And that was, and that's why I see this as a good transition zone, just as that area is by Sokol's. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And I think Nick ... MS. CHARTIER-How is that good for us as ...? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Sokol's is a little different situation. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It is? Only if you don't live there. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, but I'm talking about facing Aviation Road. You know what I'm saying? Because the use is on the other side, is not residential, on the other side of Aviation? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But on the other side of that strip ofland... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Helen Street, on Helen Street, yes but you are protected and buffered from it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-On Dixon too. We're protected and buffered because they changed that to a transition zone. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And you know and that might be a good idea Nick, if you limit type II because type II is a bad one. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea, if we limit it, it will be fine. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Let's continue with the public hearing, get everybody's input. MS. CHARTIER-I'm very interested in knowing what that's going to do to me who wants a nice quiet residential neighborhood which I have been subsidizing entirely for forty odd years and many of my neighbors have been almost thirty years. What good is, what's that going to do for me who wants to be what I have been all along which is a residential neighborhood. What will this change do for me? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't think it will change it either way, other than protect you from anything else coming on that highway commercial. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It depends on how we form it and that's what Nick is saying. If we restrict it in certain uses ... MS. CHARTIER-Well, why do you have to change it? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We don't have to change anything, it's really the, a consensus of the Board if they think it's in the best interest of the Town, they can do it and does that say that it's smart to do it or that we're always right? I don't know, I don't think so but you know, we do our best, that's all. MS. CHARTIER-Oh, I know that. I have great confidence in the Board truly but I just don't see how changing something with which the taxpayers are satisfied can possibly be bad, be good for us. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Obviously some of the taxpayers are not satisfied. In this case, it's Mr. Juckett, he's not satisfied. MS. CHARTIER-Well, he only has this as a, he hasn't lived there for two years. He rents it out, he hasn't used it as the business, he's trying to sell it. Now, I don't think it's fair that you people should be concerned with his getting a good price for his .... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We aren't. Let me tell you, I really don't care what he does with the property, I care how it functions in the Town. MS. CHARTIER-Well, he's only asking for it because he wants to sell the property. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, that's fine and there's nothing illegal about that. MS. CHARTIER-Well, of course not. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Or immoral or wrong. MS. CHARTIER-If! didn't live there, I wouldn't care too much either. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay but you know, many years ago I bet you we all heard the same thing about diagonally across the street or actually, directly across the street. There was an enormous public hearing about the property where those businesses are for a rezoning and we went through all of those same arguments and I remember it as the hottest thing I ever heard since Red Lobster. And when we finally made the decision, poof, it went away, you got some nice businesses there. They don't seem to be a big problem and I look back at it and say, you know, it's the convulsions you go through as you change the Town. It's changing, it's a very, very high traffic area and ... MS. CHARTIER-I agree but I just don't see why on this particular situation because someone's trying to sell a piece of property that he bought for investment anyway. That's his only reason for buying it originally because he told me that himself. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, that could be Dorothy and it's also possible that things change as we put our, the Town put a sewer district in there and they certainly put alot of taxes on property there and when that happens, they change the community. Suddenly you've got high costs to a property owner and then, you know, you have to have more use out of the property to pay the taxes. It's a problem but that's what happens when you create these districts and when we're planning the community in the future, that's what we've got to look at. And when we put in these districts, we've changed the zoning in affect and we really haven't been too good at that in the past and it's time to really look at it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Actually, a very good point because if you're able to get better businesses in there, then that is going to help essentially the people, the residential people in the sewer district because all of those things will help to lower the cost. MS. CHARTIER-Well, I would like to see the consideration be given for some reason other than wanting to sell a piece of property. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Is there anyone else, members of the public? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, I would like to ask Jim a question first for clarification? Jim, I'm looking at their application, okay and we're looking for a rezoning from SFRl acre to NCl acre. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, according to the papers that Mr. Juckett submitted, they don't even have an acre of land there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, it's a non-comorming lot, it be grandfathered. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Which means that if you try and put alot of these uses in there ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -It won't fit. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- They won't fit. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-They're going to be crowded, you know, it's going to be a mess. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's why it has to be limited. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, they won't fit and they probably can't go in there, I think that's ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh, they can, they can get it done by variance. Once we rezone it, then the Zoning Board is very fast to give variances. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Unless we limit it. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Alright, we've got another member of the public that would like to speak. MRS. BONNIE GLENDENING-I'm Bonnie Glendening, we live at 374 Ridge Road which is up the road and diagonal from Mr. Juckett's property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me, is that mic on Caroline, I can hardly hear Mrs. Glendening? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-Yes it is. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No, the other way. MRS. GLENDENING-I'm on. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, now I can hear you. MRS. GLENDENING-Thank you. We live diagonally from the property in question and we also live in one of the oldest homes in Queensbury. It's, Doctor and I found it very difficult thinking over this situation but after a long thought, we feel that the situation as it stands looking at it from a homeowner's point of view, it would be very difficult to live in that as a residential home because of the fact that you are set between two businesses and even though the businesses are both very reputable and used primarily during the day, you still have that kind of activity. If the Board could make certain recommendations and policies so that a professional type of business or an office type of thing were to go in there, it probably would be the best benefit for the neighbor, then have the property sit and consequently deteriorate. Because that can occur if it isn't used in a proper manner and alot of the professionals in this area have done dynamic things, both with the properties and their landscaping. And so it may be an enhancement to the area as opposed to being a detriment. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? MS. MARJORIE JOHNSON-I'm Marjorie Johnson and I live diagonally from the property and all I want to say is I agree with Dorothy Chartier, it should not be rezoned. Okay? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. Anybody else from the public? Any other questions of Stan or anything you ...? MR. JUCKETT -Could I say one thing? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure. MR. JUCKETT -About, she mentioned I bought this as an investment. I bought this for a real estate office eighteen years ago and was on a variance and still am until I was turned down last year. I rented the place in the Fall before I went south and I had to fly home at Christmas to get them out and anybody that lived in the neighborhood, I had a very bad experience, the police were down there several times, they were raising dogs against what I told them, I had no rights as a landlord. Believe me, I didn't and without the help of Mr. Winn, they probably still been in there right now and if any of the neighbors saw what was going on there, it certainly didn't help the neighborhood. And I had the business there for eighteen years with cars coming and going and never had a complaint from any of the neighbors before. And I just don't see, it's been used so to speak as commercial, I've never had as many cars in the yard as the beauty shop next door that Mrs. Chartier sold. And to me, as I say, as you mentioned the taxes have gone up and the assessments have gone up and I didn't buy it for an investment, I bought it for my business. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Anybody else that wants to speak on this matter? ATTORNEY WINN-Just if! can just add one point briefly. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes. ATTORNEY WINN-In so far as a type II uses as a gas station, this an existing building, it's not suitable for a gas station and I think anyone would agree with that. As Mr. Caimano ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But Mr. Winn, we don't know what somebody might want to do in the future and if that's allowed there, they can rip that building down and put one up. ATTORNEY WINN - We don't have a problem, the rezoning taking uses such as a gasoline station facility out of there and saying that that's prohibited. Or if you said a restaurant, I guess you can only have a restaurant without an alcoholic beverage license but once again, the same thing is true there. That, you know, those usages don't seem appropriate to the area. But I think the point is, that this really doesn't constitute a change in the usages of the property, as Stan Juckett has said, he used the property as his professional office for nineteen years now so it's really a continuation of what's happened. And like you say, well, why can't he just operate under a variance for a time, the point is that during that nineteen years, I think Quaker Road has at least one new lane added to it. The traffic has improved substantially and as the second woman who spoke pointed out, in order to avoid additional detriment to the property, making it neighborhood commercial or commercial residential property would be a proper transition between the highly commercial Quaker Road and moving back into the residential areas established in the fifties. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, you know you asked if we can put a motion together, I'm sure we can. I'll tell you what I would like to do and I know that you kind of think along these lines too, since government is supposed to facilitate our lives, what I really like to see happen is that Mr. Winn and Mr. Juckett sit down with Mrs. Chartier and Ms. Johnson and line out, and make their own proposal as to what will be allowed there under neighborhood commercial or not. I'm inclined to go with neighborhood commercial, I also understand their feeling that there are certain things that go in there that may destroy the residential character of the neighborhood. And since they all have to live together, I would love to see them spend the next week and see if they can work something out with Jim Martin and the come back here and we wouldn't have any animosity, it will be all done. That's what I would like to see. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I have no problem with attempting that. On the other hand, if they can't come to terms then it's going to be ours to do. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And we'll have to work it out. So with that, I'll close the public hearing. Oops, go ahead. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-No, I can say it after the public hearing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I just wanted to ask Jim one question. I don't seem to have Warren County Planning Board's recommendation. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't either. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We don't have that in our packet, Jirn. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They turned it down. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But I would like to see the resolutions. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You know, I think that's something we should have in our packet, please, that and our own Planning Board. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, that was supposed to be sent on to you, our Planning Board along with the minutes of that meeting where they discussed it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well but we need it together in a packet, instead of a drib here and drab there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-As I understood it, the Warren County group was afraid that you're expanding the commercial as a spot zone. And really what we're trying to do is do a transitional zone, that's what we said from the beginning and that's certainly what everybody is still talking about. And probably the zones that we have are both a little too broad, so we need to restrict it and probably we can come to a happy medium here and satisfy most people, I think. So, I'm going to, John, you go ahead. ATTORNEY WINN-If! can only ask one thing, could you merely postpone the public hearing and why don't you let us go out into the entrance way and speak for a few minutes. There are only ten different uses in a neighborhood commercial. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You can do that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Alright we can close, or do you want to come back ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that's rushing it. ATTORNEY WINN-Well, that would give Mrs. Chartier an opportunity... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think that's rushing it, we might better do another week. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We'll leave the hearing open and we will go ahead on other matters. If you people can settle it, God bless you and we'll come back and if you can't ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Ifthey can settle it, what's the difference, Betty? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, my concern is that you know, you really have to look at these and really think about them and when you do it like that, is when we make the mistakes. And you know, I think it's putting alot of pressure on the neighbors. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We don't even know if Mrs. Chartier wants to do that, I recommended it but MS. CHARTIER-I'm so happy to hear Betty talking about, thinking about it a little while because this is my, this is my home for many, many years and wouldn't be nice if two doors down I found a restaurant. I've been broken into a couple of times already and I foresee there's alot of problems with any more commercial. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-How about you guys getting together, talking it out and we'll keep it open and we'll come back to you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And if you can't, we can still, you know I don't want to drag it on either but Mrs. Monahan makes a good point though and lets not rush into it if you don't have to, let's make sure everybody is happy. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Might I make a suggestion because I think we're tying the neighbors hands there, do you have a copy of what our neighborhood commercial zone allows? Well, if you would allow Jim to run over and make them a couple of copies or three copies, they don't even know what they're talking about. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Accept we need Jirn. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They can have my book. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Wait a minute, I've got your book. ATTORNEY WINN-I have a copy right here. MR. JUCKETT-John can go over with them, he's got the copy. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Yea, I have a question. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Go ahead. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-And it was something that Mrs. Chartier brought up about the possibility of an apartment there. I think that should ... MS. CHARTIER-Well, they're already is a separate apartment ... MR. JUCKETT-May I speak on that? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Yes, could you. MR. JUCKETT-You're open to inspect, there is not another apartment. The other side, the south side she's talking, is my, was my real estate office. I still keep a desk, I still have it licensed as All Good Realty and at this present time my son is living there, I'm collecting no rent and I've never had an apartment on the south side. The south side was my office, I lived on the other side. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Okay, I want to make that clear. MR. JUCKETT -And the house is open for inspection any time, as long as I get the key from the son but there's never been an apartment in the south side. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Juckett there are two uses in that building right now, is that correct? MR. JUCKETT -By my variance I have a use to live there and have the real estate office. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And that's exactly what's happening there now? MR. JUCKETT-That's been there for eighteen years or nineteen. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea and that's exactly what's happening now, your son is living there, not you and then you have a real estate office. That's what that building is being used for now? MR. JUCKETT-I'm just having him stay there because I'm south because I had to chase these people out that ruined the property. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea, I'm just trying to find out what the present use is. The present use is ... MR. JUCKETT-The present use, my son is living there on one side to keep the house up for me so I can do something with it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And you have your office on the other side? MR. JUCKETT -Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, thank you. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-The reason I brought it up, is I think it's good to have that clear because I don't think we should entertain a rezoning if there was a violation at that property. MR. JUCKETT-There's definitely no violation there, you're free to inspect it anytime. MS. CHARTIER-There were two families living there since the time that he quoted. MR. JUCKETT-The families that were living there is why I flew home to evict thern. MS. CHARTIER-No after that, there were ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'm going to move onto other things. If you guys can get together and settle it, it would be great and if you can't, you tell us so but I'm going to leave this public hearing open and we're going to move onto another public hearing. ATTORNEY WINN-That's fine, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE - ZAREMBA GROUP 7:45 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, we're now starting on a public hearing on a petition to rezone for the Zaremba Group. And once again, that public hearing was properly advertised, is that correct? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-Yes. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-One more second, you did leave the public hearing open on the Juckett thing, right? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes. Okay, as part of the public hearing, you people are going to make your presentation and then I'm going to declare the public hearing open and then the public can make comments. Okay? MR. TIM MORGAN-Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Board and the public. My name is Tim Morgan, I'm a representative of the Zaremba Group which is here petitioning for a change of zone for a proposed retail development in the Town of Queensbury bounded by the Dix, Quaker and Hiland Avenue roads. We have been before both the Planning Board and the Town Board and that brings us to this evening's meeting. This property is currently grandfathered under a zoning by the current owner, Mr. Claude Charlebois. The actual project site that we have initiated and request the rezoning on, is shown in these dark lines here (referred to map) bounded to the south by Niagara Mohawk, by east Hiland and Quakerroads. On the north ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Excuse me sir, but you're standing in front of your map and we can't see a thing that you're showing there. MR. MORGAN-Okay, well it's going to be difficult to ... both the public and the Board. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Maybe if you had a pointer. Don't we have a pointer so that, you know, you don't have a body in front of that? MR. MORGAN-As I just mentioned, the project site is located in this area and again, is bordered on the south by the Niagara Mohawk Power easement, on the east by Hiland and Quaker roads, on the north by Dix and on the west by the lands of QEDC. As I just mentioned this current property has a grandfathered zoning designation on it. This area is noted as heavy industrial three acre and this portion is plaza commercial. Now, if you take a look for a second at the current zoning designation for the property, the Town has designated it as light industrial. We stand before the Board this evening to request a rezoning, again to the project site as well the adjacent lands that are currently owned by Mr. Charlebois to the designation of plaza commercial. This zoning designation under the auspices of the Town would allow for the proposed retail development. That in a very short summary is why we stand before you this evening and once again we request a change in zone from one of two angles. We can look at it from the current zoning designation, which is light industrial or we can examine it from the current grandfathered designation which is a combination of plaza commercial and heavy industrial. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, do you want to take questions as you go? MR. MORGAN-I'd be happy to proceed anyway you want Mr. Chairman. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-If people have questions or want to give input, I think questions are in order now and input a little bit later. Anybody from the Board? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I'd like a clarification on his terminology, grandfather. I have a question in my mind, is it grandfathered or was it just rezoned in 88? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Technically, if someone was to come in, the zoning that's in effect, is the grandfathered zoning and the reason for that is Mr. Charlebois came in with a subdivision application approximately mid 1988, right before the rezoning was adopted. And with an active application in, that locked him in under the current zoning, the zoning that was in place at the time. And through a serious of extensions which have been given by the Planning Board for, expanding several years now, that remains to be the case. I think even Nick recalls it, it was before us during the time he was on the Board, an extension was given. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-When you say grandfathered Jim, I hope you check dates because I remember some of those subdivisions that came in, were declared, were decided not to be subdivision because the deadlines that they came in were wrong, when we were working on that zoning. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, that's all been thoroughly researched both by myself and Lee prior to that, these have all been just a held over situation, as long as that application remains in this active stage so to speak. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, anything else you want to present to us? MR. MORGAN-I think maybe what I can do is, as the questions come from the public, we can jump from issue to issue and I'd be happy to present that as they come up. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The floor is open to the public, is anyone here that would like to speak or ask questions about this? Come right up and because we have a legal record, would like to have you put your name on the record and go ahead and speak up. MR. TONY LOCASIO-My name is Tony LoCasio. I own a piece that, well was Holister's at one point and they subdivided that and the property, that small strip in between before the power lines. Now, when you change that, I know it's going to be plaza commercial. At one point, when I purchased the property it was highway commercial, the piece that I have. Then in 88, I believe it was, they rezoned it and I became light industrial, I assume because of the plan to make it all that way. If in fact the Board does rezone that, I would like that strip personally, where I am, to be highway commercial as it was before. And at the properties across from us because we now have five pieces, small pieces of property now since they've been subdivided and plaza commercial I don't think is going to do anything for us and I only have point five seven acres, or something like that. So, I have no objections to them doing what they're doing but I think, I don't want to be light industrial anymore because it doesn't do anything for my property. I don't think it does anything with the property going down the street either. So, that's my point. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. Anyone else here that would like to speak on this? MS. GA YNELLE MOORE-I'm Gaynelle Moore and I represent the Feeder Canal Alliance and I would like to ask a question about the stormwater runoff for this section of land and can you explain? MR. MORGAN-I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a question asked. MS. MOORE-Okay, yes I wanted to find out what the plans are for drainage of stormwater on your parking lot and your property. MR. MORGAN-If it's okay with you, the Board, I'd like to turn that question over to a colleague of mine, is name is Jim Connors and he represents CT Male which is our civil engineering department in Albany. MS. MOORE-Alright, thank you. MR. JIM CONNORS-As far as discharge to the Feeder Canal, the entire property north of Quaker Road, Dix Avenue, Queensbury Economical Development Corporation, everything goes into Feeder Canal currently. All stormwater runoff in that area drains to the Feeder Canal. As far as project specific, it really doesn't have to do with the zone change. We're planning on constructing stormwater detention basins which will promote sediment dropping out so that it will not be discharging any pollutants into the Feeder Canal. We're also going to be implementing stormwater ... methods which will not increase the peak rates of discharge or surcharge into the Feeder Canal itself. Currently there's two culverts, down the street from the project site, one is located near the intersection of Warren Street and Hiland Avenue which discharges through a ditch on the opposite side, on the south side of Warren Street which runs along into a depressed area and ultimately over flows into the Feeder Canal. The second culvert is located down on the junkyard ... which ultimately does the same thing. We will be implementing and complying with the Town's ordinance for maintaining the existing ... grade so that we will not be adversely affecting downstream property or the Feeder Canal in this situation. MR. MORGAN-I think the most important element for you to understand is that the current peak rate that is generated by this property being vacant, will not be exceeded by this project. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There isn't, excuse me, but there is another very important point too. Once you blacktop that parking area and you're going to have all the type of residue that cars leave behind them, what are you going to do to trap that? MR. CONNORS-We'll be employing catch basin sediment traps which isolate the pollutant at the source. Essentially what it does, is each catch basin is the source for all the ultimate petroleum contamination. Essentially it acts like a, I don't know, I'll explain it to you, I don't know if this will be too complicated but COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I'm aware of what you're talking about. MR. CONNORS-Okay. In which case the water surface within the catch basin is controlled by the outlet of culvert, the culvert itself will be protected by a hood I would say, where all the petroleum products will be contained on the surface ... and any stormwater would have to go down and up through this hood into the catch basin. It ultimately eliminate the main source of petroleum contamination which is the parking lot initially and then ultimately it is the catch basins themselves. MS. MOORE-Doesn't that require regular maintenance to keep that working properly? MR. CONNORS-Yes it does. It's very limited maintenance, it's more along the lines of inspection. There will always be water sitting in this catch basin and the petroleum residue, you would be able to see and at that point in time, it would have to be removed and maintained on a regular basis. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Does the petroleum product, wear off the top? How does it, does it go over a wear on the top or does it come off the bottom? MR. CONNORS-The petroleum sits on the surface of the water. The outlet, the water goes down below the hood, comes up into the culvert and goes out. The petroleum is contained within the catch basins. MS. MOORE-Where does it ultimately go? Where does the petroleum ultimately go? MR. CONNORS-It will be hauled off site by a licensed hauler. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -In other words, you skim it off at some point, if there's enough buildup? MR. CONNORS-Yes, but there's many ways of collecting the petroleum from the catch basins. There's fabrics out that actually absorb petroleurn. So it will be handled in that way or it could be disposed of entirely just by pumping it out and filling it back up with clean water. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-There's probably some evaporation. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, the point is that you are going to take steps, measurable steps to protect the Feeder Canal from contaminates, not only from the ground but from the parking lot as well. MR. CONNORS-Yes. MS. MOORE-Well, just for the record I would like to state that of course, the Board knows that the Feeder Canal Alliance has a master plan for turning this canal into a linear park for recreational and cultural purposes and we do have some concerns on a project as big as this that it must be monitored very, very carefully. And here are our concerns, that there might be additional siltation into the canal because of this, water that, seems to me to be more water than usually coming into the canal. The second one is the potential for contaminates that would be oil and salt. And the third one is the concern that significant discharges under heavy raimall would adversely effect the level of the water in the canal and so I just request respectfully that the Zoning Board consider those concerns of the Alliance. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Planning Board. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right. In a site plan review process, those should be part of the record and transferred to the project record so that they can be addressed. MS. MOORE-Alright. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim, you will make sure that there is a note of that? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes. We've already got correspondence from, I believe it was Mr. Cox, was it? MS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thank you. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But also, you know, the type of filtration system and etcetera, and maintenance, etcetera because you know what's happened to our lakes around here because we don't have those. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, oh definitely. MR. JIM WELLER-I'm Jim Weller and I'm going to take the opportunity if I may to speak both as a resident of the Town of Queensbury but I also have a business interest in the K-Mart project which will come out. I'd like to point out to the Board that this particular application is not project specific as I understand it. If the application that's before you is to rezone this particular forty acres ofland, if the K- Mart project goes there, it will only utilize some twenty-five acres of the land but in fact, you may find yourself rezoning this property and no K-Mart going there. There is no guarantee in your rezoning that the tenant will end up being the K-Mart. So that's why I say it is not project specific. Let me give you a little bit of my background so there's no cloud as to why I'm here or what I'm doing. I represented, as a consulting engineer some three years ago, the Benchmark Group, which is now the American Equity application that's in and they purchased an option on the particular piece of property and we studied it for them to give our recommendation as to whether or not we thought from our standpoint it was a suitable site for the K-Mart development. And because we ran into the wetlands issue, we ran into the drainage issue and I was quite familiar with the drainage issue because I had just finished the FW Webb project which was fairly small relative to this project and fairly enormous in its concern, both in the neighborhood and with Warren County DPW. I also contacted DOT, the Division of Canals to get their input on how they felt about this particular project and they were against draining additional stormwater into the canal. Now we hear and I was at the meeting this afternoon at Warren County, we hear that the development will not exceed the peak rates that are currently existing and that's part of your regulations here in the Town of Queensbury. But if we speak to the volume of water going there, the volume will be substantially increased, the volume of water that gets discharged is always increased when there's a development. It's only the rate of discharge but if the rate of discharge was over a period of ten minutes before development, it may be over a period of two hours after development. So the impacts to the Feeder Canal are enormous and DOT and I can send a copy of the letter over here if you would like, encouraged us to look elsewhere for this development. We also had some concerns, as you know I sat on the QEDC at the time and the QEDC Board, I brought it to their attention and I told them of my involvement and the QEDC Board was anxious to see that property stay as potentially industrial developable property. There was some concerns of the NIMO right-of-way which must be crossed for almost any kind of development. NIMO, I'm sure will allow it but the ramifications can be quite extensive. There's a problem there with high rock on the site, making construction relatively expensive for whatever those concerns may be. With all these concerns, I recommended to my client who was Benchmark or American Equity, that they look elsewhere for a site that might be suitable for the K-Mart project and I introduced them to the Earltown properties. There is an application before the Board, before the various Boards here in the Town for the K-Mart development to go on the Earltown properties. What happened, this other developer came in behind us and retook a look at the possibilities of putting in on the Charlebois property. We will run our application through being project specific. We will, there will be no doubt a K-Mart going into Town, if you turn this down, the Town of Queensbury will not lose the K-Mart project. K-Mart is sitting in a rosy position right now because they've got two developers putting two proposals together and they're going to take the best deal they can get. But, we think, we studied it, we looked at it. The big thing I point out to you, is that this application is not project specific and you may in fact find that you're rezoning this entire forty acres of land for plaza commercial and that no K-Mart goes there. Thank you. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Jim, could I just ask you a question. Since you have been on the QEDC, do you think it's and it would be adjacent to the, you know, light industrial, do you think it's better to keep it as is because of that, because it could all work into one big light industrial area? MR. WELLER-This is private property, I'm not sure I can fairly answer that question and I'm no longer on the QEDC Board. So I, that was, that was my feelings and my thoughts at that time when I was on the QEDC Board and I had the opportunity to review the whole proposal with the QEDC Board. I had a sincere interest in trying to take the projects that I was involved in here in the Town of Queensbury and make them compatible with what I personally thought the best interest of the Town of Queensbury were and that's why I recommended to my client, I'm sitting in a pretty bad position right now with my client by the way, but that's why I looked into the possibilities of the Earltown property. And have since done extensive studies on the Earltown property which is going to be coming forth here pretty soon to see if the K-Mart project can't be developed there. The point again, that I am making, is this application is not project specific. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Jim you're, from QEDC, you're aware alot of the construction constraints that were on that land where the QEDC is, does this same rock ledge and everything run right through the Charlebois property, do you know? MR. WELLER-On the, yes the rock is high on most of the property, yes. But again that's, as a relative thing, I can give you the imormation and I'm sure the sponsor or the applicant here has got the imormation on the depth of rock on that site, I think they've done extensive studies there and I think they were given the studies that we did. The rock situation is similar to what it is at the QEDC park. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, thank you. MR. WELLER-Thank you. MR. DANIEL OLSON-Mike, I'd like to just examine the map first. Actually, I had a couple questions that the lady brought up. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You better identify yourself, please sir. MR. OLSON-Daniel Olson, resident of the Town of Queensbury. And I was concerned with the stormwater runoff of the parking lot knowing, I'm familiar with that land and some other land that's close by there. There is a high water table in there and there's, the bedrock, the rocks pretty close to the surface of the ground also. But I can tell you from someone who, spent probably my first twenty-five years of my life living in that neighborhood and operating a business down there longer than that really, and my family before that, the water is there, the drainage ditch or stream that you talk about is, doesn't come through Browns, it's to the west of Brown's property which is now a junkyard. But it's the west, between Brown's and Taylor, is a culvert that runs, it's a forty-eight inch culvert that runs into the Feeder Canal, directly into the Canal. That drains the property the property that's in question now, it drains the ditch that you see next to Gardentime which goes under Quaker Road and drains Earltown properties. That stream ends up in the Feeder Canal. It dries up about, well it be dry now if we hadn't had all this rain, it'll dry up in Mayor early June and it's dry until late Fall sometime, depending on the rain in the Fall. Then it runs in the Winter. So actually I think, from what I've seen and what I remember down there, that the ground usually takes care of the runoff except in extreme wet season of the Winter or the Winter, Fall, early Spring. The only question I would have would be the additional parking lot and parking, blacktop areas that were used to saturate the ... because that really, the water, that originally was a farmland down there and that was really cornfields and a dairy farm in there at one time that supported that area. Actually, I am quite familiar with the land, I tell you, it hasn't been used for a long time, it's been sitting vacant, I think it's a good use for the property. It has the road, the structure of the roads with Warren Street, Quaker Road, Boulevard, Dix Avenue coming from Washington County in and I think it's a use of the property. Nothing else has happened down there for that piece of property, so, thanks for your time. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak? MR. GEORGE HAGERTY-My name is George Hagerty, I run a business across the street on Dix Avenue, it's called Hagerty Technologies. We purchased what was the Mannis Glass building and the question I have is relative to traffic studies. What's being done to manage the additional traffic should this go through? MR. CONNORS-We are currently in the process of evaluating the existing roadway network as well as the impact the specific project would have on the roadway network. We'll be coordinating with the County and DOT and ... and at this point we have not finalized the studies so the ramifications of the project which is not anticipated to effect the level of service at the intersections currently operating there. So we can't say right at this point in time what the ramifications of the project would be. MR. MORGAN-As an adjacent business owner, I can understand your concern to ...1 would suggest, should that traffic study was reviewed by both Warren County and DOT, in their estimation require improvements ... intersection, they will be done or we will not receive site plan approval. MR. HAGERTY-Right now, at noon time, that intersection ofDix and Quaker is quite interesting to drive through and take a left hand turn at the light. I would assume that the proper widening of the road and the proper left turn only arrow and things like that could alleviate it. MR. MORGAN-Whatever the findings of that report on and the requests that are handed down by DOT or Warren County, they will be met in their entirety or we will not be ... approval. MR. HAGERTY-From the proposed building drawings, I have no objections to what's going in. It was just that one issue that I had a concern over. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else who would like to be heard on this? Any questions from the Board? Thank you very much. I declare the public hearing closed on this one. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I have a question for Paul. I don't know how to ask this question frankly. This Board is now in knowledge, I don't think there's any problem but I just thought I would ask anyway. This Board now has knowledge that one applicant is coming at us from two different directions and I guess I'm happier then a pig in slop, are we in any problem here, legally? ATTORNEY DUSEK-No and I'll tell you why because you really when you're entering into a rezoning consideration, it's not the particular applicant that you're able to rezone for, rather your considerations are whether that particular zone in that area of the community would be appropriate no matter who went in there. Now, you can of course limit the affects of your zoning by conditioning it in certain fashions and maybe having similar type of structures built in that area, you have quite a bit of authority to condition. But you certainly can not pick the name or identify the tenant in any event for any rezoning in the Town. So, I think if you look at it from that perspective then it becomes irrelevant whether the applicant is seeking to try to, you know, the person behind the applicants are seeking to try to come into two areas of the Town. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right, I assumed that, as Jim said, even if we passed it, it doesn't mean there will be a K-Mart there. Okay. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. How do you want to proceed? Do you want to go into that or come back to this issue as far as SEQRA and consideration of the rezoning? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-One thing that should be noted just for the Board's imormation, the County Planning Board has taken no action on this as of this afternoon. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- They did not? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They did not take action. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Because? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-They feel they had insufficient imormation. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well Jim, I was just going to ask a question. Someone mentioned that this parcel is forty acres, is that correct? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, I believe. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because as I read this SEQRA review, what they're asking for in the SEQRA is just to do the twenty-seven point nine acres, which would leave the other in the original zoning. And what was the original zoning of the balance of that? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN - I think the twenty -seven point nine, if I'm not mistaken refers to just the area to be developed. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea but that's what I'm saying, so the other zoning would stay what it is. So what is, in that parcel that would not be involved, what is that zoning? MR. CONNORS-The petition for a zone change is for the forty acres. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, then we've got a SEQRA review saying, papers that are entirely incorrect because they're only for the twenty-seven point nine. MR. CONNORS-Everything is written about the forty acres in total, the petition for a zone change is for forty acres. That one ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But your SEQRA is only for twenty-seven point nine and if we're going to do a zone change, we have to have it on the whole forty acres. The SEQRA has to be on the forty acres. MR. CONNORS-Correct. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Then why doesn't it say that? MR. CONNORS-So, essentially what we would be requesting then is that we amend the twenty-eight acres to identify the forty. It was an oversight on our part, on my part ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But then your figures are wrong on here. Not only twenty-seven point nine but your breakdown all the way through is wrong. MR. CONNORS-Well, we have a total acreage of a site to be developed and as part of that, we originally envisioned this going forward as a whole package and we wrote it site specific for the twenty-eight acre parcel to develop the property. Ifwe, we would of had to eliminate all site coverage, all disturbance numbers and it strictly be for a zoning issue. We presented all the data with the exclusion of the additional ten or twelve acre zone. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You can't do that. MR. CONNORS-Which, we're requesting right now formally that you include it as forty acres and specifically amend that section of the SEQRA process. I could scratch it out right now if you would like? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, it changes things all the way along, it's not just that one point. MR. CONNORS-We would essentially eliminate all site coverage references. All those numbers that you're looking for, for disturbance of the property, it would be none as being disturbed by the rezoning. Nothing is being done except for changing the zoning. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But when we do and I went into this because we goofed on a thing we did a few weeks ago, when you do a SEQRA on a rezoning, you have to consider the maximum impact that rezoning can have on the land. You can't say because you don't have a project, there's no impact. You have to look at what the commercial would allow under our zoning and consider the maximum impact on the land. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -So what? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, lets ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I mean, of course we all know what we're talking about, a great big commercial enterprise and I think we're all capable of understanding that. We've got an engineer sitting here who will answer any question we've got, let's get on with it. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I just want to say, going back to the master plan and why that was light industrial in the first place. If you look at the zoning in this town, there are very few areas of this town where industry can go. This town seems to be going commercial right and left. Commercial does not create the type of jobs that permit people to live within the Town of Queensbury, those just don't pay enough. Therefore we're pricing people out of living in this town and I think that is part of what our master plan and part of what our staff notes were referring to that which way do we want to go. Do we want to see this town all commercial with low paying jobs or do we want to save land here for light industry? We may not get them here tomorrow or even the next day but we don't, do we want to preclude them from ever coming here because we've rezoned everything commercial. And that's a decision I think that's in front of us tonight. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think it's very hard. I think you can set aside more land for industrial in another area. It isn't working here. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Where are you going to get it Mike? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well, I don't know where you're going to get it, that's ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's what I'm saying, that's what was looked at very closely years ago and the land wasn't there to get. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The land is there, it's been there for a long time, it hasn't been used and we can move to a different site and create another site for light industrial. I don't think that's a question. We have some opportunities here, people are asking for a rezoning and I think you've got to look at that. I, you know, just because we zone land commercial or industrial, doesn't mean that a large industry is going to move in. In fact, with the laws and the taxes in New York State, it's pretty hard to get industry to move in. We certainly have seen alot of that and you know, so ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's true for today but we also have to look at twenty-five years down the road. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I know but, today we have to live and as I remember right there was ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And we're not living with these kind of jobs, ask the people out there trying SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yea, well there is four hundred and sixty-five jobs if! remember right and you have to ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-At about five bucks an hour. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I'd be surprise, I can't hire people for five bucks an hour, if you can, you're doing great. I sure can't find that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Look at the unemployment rate around here. MR. MORGAN-In difference to Board member, Mrs. Monahan, do not feel that it's unfair to generalize as to the true nature in the extent of payment for these jobs. I don't know that you're actually aware of the employment numbers, the salaries involved or what those positions would entail. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, if you, that is the type ofimormation that's supposed to be developed during the SEQRA type of thing. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I will say this. There's a third, you say there's two options and there's a third option. We can continue to leave these lands barren and get no tax increase no, tax benefit. Two things on these pieces of papers before us Paul. One on the SEQRA application on the non-significance, it does not say in here that we have declared ourselves as lead agency. That's number one. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's already been done. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It does not say that in here, however. Number two is in the change itself there is an error now and that's on the third whereas paragraph because the County Planning Board has not recommended approval. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Because they have not recommended approval, you can not adopt this resolution tonight. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's right. ATTORNEY DUSEK-It would be jurisdictionally defective since the thirty day time period has not elapsed either from what I could calculate from what Jim gave me. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, so close the public hearing which we did and leave this sit for now and revisit it when it matures. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The only thing you could do is the SEQRA review if you wanted to or you could postpone that. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But Jim how can we, you've done a negative dec on that SEQRA review and how are you doing a negative dec if a high water table is there and the rock and all that type of stuff, the traffic hasn't been considered, we don't even have a part II here to go through? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That was just prepared in, as an attachment to your resolution. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think ... COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I didn't have an application, a long one like this ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, all we've got is this. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, supposably we had it last time. Is that right? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Did we? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-We only got part I. ATTORNEY DUSEK-My understanding was that the developer had given a big booklet to everybody. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I never got a big booklet. MR. MORGAN-There were sixteen copies provided ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yea, there were. We've had them. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Wait a minute, there's so many big booklets. MR. MORGAN-There's one with a grey covers ... COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Oh, Hudson Pointe I saw a big ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It was this. MR. MORGAN-There were sixteen copies provided to the town. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Maybe I have it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You've got that one. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Okay, I have a question for Jim. It's about the Warren County Planning Board, did they give specifics as to what imormation they didn't have? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I wasn't there because I had a conflict today, I had to be in court for an emorcement issue. Tim was there, maybe he can address that issue. MR. MORGAN-We could get into that. I was just going to address Mr. Dusek briefly, if you would explain to us the thirty days in which he's calculating, that the County Planning Board has not had time enough based on the submission dates. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Under the general municipal law it provides that once you submit a complete statement to the Warren County Planning, they have thirty days from receipt to act upon on it. The law says thirty days from receipt will be determined in accordance with their rules and regulations. MR. MORGAN-So what receipt date are we figuring? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Their receipt date would be the date under which you had to have it in by to meet the calendar date, from what we could see which ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Probably the first week in May. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Jim tells me that probably would be the, if you calculate the thirty days from that time period it looks like it would expire about June 3rd. MR. MORGAN-Gentleman, do you think we could figure more accurately then maybe? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well Paul, wait a minute, you're saying they asked for additional material and if they ask for additional material, I wouldn't think that date went into play. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-But they never extended the date Betty. They have to do that by resolution, they have to ask for more time. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well Paul said, by their own rules and regulations, when they considered it complete or words to that affect, I'm not quoting you precisely. ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, the complete aspect is dictated by the towns completeness of it's package. The town is not required to send any more then what the town has as a complete package. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright but if Warren County is saying there's not enough in there to answer the questions that they have which apparently they have done, I mean I don't have their action in front of me. So does the date start then, when they get that material that they have asked for? ATTORNEY DUSEK-Not necessarily because they are only entitled to the materials that are required for and accepted by the town as complete. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would like to know frankly what they think is not there because I think that has a bearing on what we do. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's kind of difficult to do sometimes because they, you know, I heard nothing of this, no calls were ever made to me that they had any questions. All of a sudden there's just a no action verdict today and this is the first I've heard of this and they've had this now for nearly a month. You know, the phone lines run both ways. MR. MORGAN-Actually I believe that they had their original meeting on April the 13th which would subsequently cause more than thirty days to elapse. So I guess that that's my query to the gentlemen over here is to exactly what date are we figuring from so that we can be exact in the methodologies as opposed to saying I believe or approximately. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, I was going by ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-May 3rd, I would say. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I was going by the date Jim gave me of May 3rd. MR. MORGAN-Okay, what date is May 3rd? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's the submission date for the May meetings. We didn't make it in time for the April meeting, even though it was here in like April 9th or so, we did not have it in time. MR. MORGAN-So we as applicants are penalized for that, in spite of the fact that we had submitted on time? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, I don't know that, when, that's what I'm saying, the April submission was not on time for the County submission date. MR. MORGAN-Well the ... is dated April 9th for an April 13th ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I think it was prior to that. MR. MORGAN-What was prior to that? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The County submission date. MR. CONNORS-The County held a meeting on the project at the same time that the Town Planning Board did. MR. MORGAN-The same evening. MR. CONNORS-The same evening which was on the ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, I don't think they officially took this up on their agenda until May 10th, at their meeting and they postponed it until today's meeting. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So they did have it in time. MR. MORGAN-Yea, that's the exact point we're trying to establish. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Ifthey took it up at a May 10th meeting, they had in time. ATTORNEY DUSEK-For May 10th. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-For the May 10th. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But the May 3rd was the submission date and they get thirty days from that submission date to do a determination. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh, okay. COUNCILMAN GOETZ-If they don't act, are we allowed to go on and act on it. ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right, if they don't act within their thirty day time frame, then this Board is free to act upon it. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I want to clarify all these dates tomorrow because this was, all happened, they had their meeting today at three o'clock with them. MR. MORGAN-So there is a consensus among the Board, in your opinion Jim, that they did not have those materials until the third of May? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Not officially. MR. MORGAN-But, you know officially doesn't do a whole lot when we have a time frame to make and when we sit down ... COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, we want to do the project right so you better listen to us. MR. MORGAN-No, I'm not trying to cut corners, Ms. Goetz, I'm just trying to establish at what date the Board had the materials. I'm not trying to cut corners ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yea, but that's what I'm saying, it's not a matter of what day they got it, it's what date they calculate it from and that's our submission date and that's May 3rd. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Alright, in this process so I understand it, get into simple english. All we could do right now if we wanted to is address the SEQRA findings and stop at that point. And then after the thirty days mature, then we can come back and revisit it or we can do both, let the thirty day, you know, do SEQRA at that same meeting. Right? ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-That's what I would suggest, if there's any questions of the SEQRA form that you have in front of you, any corrections that you would like to see made. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That, that get corrected and resubmitted. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right and then take it up at that, the night of your decision. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yea. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Which doesn't hold you up any because if we take them both, one tonight and one next time or both next time, it doesn't stop your time frame, other than delay you one more week. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right, essentially. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-So whether we do one tonight and one next week, doesn't mean a hill of beans, frankly, for timing wise. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay, so let's move on and if you'll sit down with it and change the SEQRA form, if you're willing to do that, then we can look at it as it's currently being discussed. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The one thing I would suggest, if there's anything, any concerns that the Board has in general about the whole SEQRA look at this, now is the time to bring those up and give them an opportunity to address those issues. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just the same one. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The one concern I have is stormwater management, depth to bedrock and water table, are the three that... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But, but ... MR. MORGAN-But aren't those all unique to site plan approval. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I was just going to say... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, we, no that's wrong. We, for this here we do the one site plan and that's it and we need those answers now. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ou mean we're not going to do a SEQRA at site plan? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, that's always the ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-There is a move thing whether or not you can double jeopardize an applicant. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Well, I'm not going to belabor this meeting tonight but I'll be danm if I can see how it's going to change by changing the zone. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I would recommend against a segmentation or even the appearance of such in terms of the SEQRA review. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I have this whole thing in my mind, I can not understand how by changing letters on a zone, it's okay over here, it's not okay over there in the SEQRA process. It has to be, SEQRA seems to me that it has to be site specific, otherwise you don't know. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's right, that's our lead agency status. MR. CONNORS-And with that, I present to you that the SEQRA form is structured about the site specifics. The rezone of the remaining land of Charlebois fronting on Warren Street is not being done, it has nothing, no development associated with this project, that is receiving rezoning. So ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-The point of it is, when you rezone, you're changing the use as allowed to that land and you have to look at what kind of use you're allowing and can the land support that use. That's why you're not, don't have to be site specific. It's whether the land can support that type of density that you are permitting. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Actually, you're going down. MR. CONNORS-May I point out that the density of plaza commercial is less than in highway, the existing light commercial and heavy industrial and ... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then maybe it's going to work to your advantage but that is what we have to look at. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Alright, we're going to move on and reconvene on this. What's, when can we put it on, when does it mature, what's the date? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I would say the first week in June, June 3rd or 4th. What date would that be Caroline? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-June 7th would be the first meeting. MR. WELLER-The Warren County Planning Board this afternoon indicated that they were going to take action on this on June 9th, it's their next meeting. And they were specific in that they were looking for more imormation from the files that Jim has on what the study was at the time that they did the rezoning on the land and also additional traffic imormation. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Which you don't have, right? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Well, again, purely from their point of view, they should be only looking at the rezoning because they're going to see this again at site plan. To me traffic would, in their case, they're going to see this twice, so that's clearly a site specific issue with thern. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Will you talk to Pat Tatich and let us know tomorrow what's going on? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, I will call her. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-If necessary, we can call a special meeting to handle this and I'm certainly willing to do that to try and keep you on schedule. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I'll tell you what while we're sitting here on the subject, my mind boggles, I'd like to have a special meeting some night and have a real donnybrook on the SEQRA review for change of zones because it just boggles my mind how we can do that. But, that's another topic. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I think you, in effect, you are site specific. I think you really are pretty much, you know what the use is and you've got to address it as best you know how and get on with it. We're not in an academic, you know, we're not the university arguing about it. So, let's make some decisions. So we'll either, I don't have a calendar in front of me. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-June 7th. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK MITCHELL-It will be June 7th. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -June 7th. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, if Warren County is meeting the 9th ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, he's going to check more tomorrow. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-On the other hand, if Warren County, I mean, they've got some responsibility to move things along too and I, you know, at some point you have to look at the law. I don't know the law but I don't want to sit and wait for them forever, if they decide to take forever. MR. MORGAN-Attorney Dusek, you had mentioned that May 3rd was that submission date, I think we've established that. Would not June 9th exceed that date by more than thirty days? SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea. ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think that's the calculation, yes. MR. MORGAN-So then upon June 7th, would we not be able to move forward and have this ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It sounds like we would, I don't know the law but if that's ... ATTORNEY DUSEK-So long as the municipality turned over the required imormation that it had to the Planning Board, the Warren County Planning Board and so long as the thirty days from whatever that date is and I'm getting May 3rd from Jim as the submission date, so long as that date is passed, then I think you're free to act. MR. MORGAN-So that meeting would be null and void, correct? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, let us work on that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yea, you can give us a call and our Planning Department and we'll check that out ... EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I'll confirm those dates. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I want to know that too. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We'll put it on the agenda, the next meeting after the maturity. Okay, and if that doesn't work and you need a special meeting, tell us, we'll see if we can work it out. Thank you. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 305, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES OF SANIT ARY SEWAGE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR JOHN T. HUNT, JR. RESOLUTION NO. 19,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is, by operation of Law, the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury and, as such, is authorized under Chapter 136 of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance to issue variances to such Ordinance, and WHEREAS, John T. Hunt, Jr. has applied to the Local Board of Health of the Town of Queensbury for a variance from certain standards of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance set forth in Chapter 136, Table 5, such standards providing as follows: TABLE 5 SEEPAGE PITS - REQUIRED ABSORPTIVE AREA (IN SQUARE FEET) FOR HOUSEHOLD SYSTEMS PERCOLATION SEWAGE RATE APPLICATION 300 GPD 459 GPD 600 GPD 750 GPD 900 GPD MIN/IN GPD/SQ. FT. 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR 6 BR 0.5 1.20 250 375 500 625 750 , and WHEREAS, John T. Hunt has indicated a desire to have 201 square feet absorptive area rather than the required 375 square feet, and WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt has also applied for a variance from New York State Department of Health Wastewater Treatment Standards for Individual Household Systems, Section 75A.8(H), which provides as follows: (vi) The separation between the outside edges of seepage pits shall be three times the effective diameter of the largest pit. This separation is measured as the undisturbed soil between pit excavations. , and WHEREAS, Mr. Hunt has indicated a desire to have 15 feet separation between seepage pits rather than the required 24 feet, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on June 7th, 1993, at 7:00 p.rn., at the Queensbury Activities Center, (reasonably accessible to persons with mobility impairment) 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for variances of John T. Hunt, Jr., (1) to have 201 square feet absorptive area rather than the required 375 square feet, and (2) to have 15 feet separation between seepage pits rather than the required 24 feet, respectively, on property situated at 14 Holden Avenue, Town of Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No.: Section 117, Block 9, Lot 19, and, at that time, all persons interested in the subject thereof will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized, when in receipt of a list of neighbors within 500 feet of the subject property, to publish and provide Notice of said Public Hearing as may be required by law, and authorized to mail copies of said Public Hearing Notice to the adjoining neighbors. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: NONE RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 20, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns and enter Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 306, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes of May 4th, 1993. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED SEWER CONNECTIONS FOR MR. ROBERT D. S. CONDIT RESOLUTION NO. 307,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is authorized, pursuant to ~ 136-44.1 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, to, upon request, waive the sewer connection requirement of ~ 136- 44 thereof or vary the time in which such connection must be made, provided that certain standards and criteria or conditions are met or demonstrated and provided that a certain procedure is followed, and WHEREAS, in granting a variance or waiver, the Town Board may consider one or all of the following circumstances: (a) The distance from the building to the town sewer pipeline to which connection is required. (b) The cost of the connection. (c) The existence or nonexistence of any physical obstructions. (d) The financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system. (e) Whether the current sewage disposal system is properly functioning. (f) Whether any rights-of-way or easements are needed in order for the applicant to make the connection to the town sewer system. (g) Whether strict application of the connection requirement of ~ 136-44 would result in a specified difficulty to the applicant, for which the applicant has not been given a reasonable time to respond to or address, and whether the variance or waiver would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the sewer connection requirement or that the property and the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or objections of the plan or policy of the town and that the interests of justice are served. and WHEREAS, if the Town Board finds any or all of the above circumstances or conditions, the Town Board may grant the following relief: (a) In the event that circumstances giving rise to the request are due to physical obstructions, costs significantly greater than the usual sewer connection costs, a distance greater than two hundred fifty (250) feet from the sewer pipeline to the building or structure to be connected or a documented inability to obtain an easement or right-of-way over which the sewer line must pass in order to connect to the town sewer system, the Town Board may grant a permanent waiver from the requirement that the applicant connect the subject property, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and (b) In the event that the circumstances giving rise to the request are due to excessive costs of connection, the financial loss to be sustained by the property owner in the event of nonuse of the current system or any other specified difficulty which makes it difficult or impractical for the applicant to connect to the town sewer system and the applicant is willing to pay the full and usual sewer rents or taxes accruing against the property, the Town Board may grant an extension of time, not exceeding two (2) years, in which to connect to the town sewer system, provided that the sewage disposal system currently serving the property is operational, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury laws and regulations and appropriate New York State agency rules and regulations, and WHEREAS, Mr. Robert D. S. Condit has applied to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a variance and relief from that part of the law requiring sewer connections upon the grounds that: he is without the economic ability to complete such a hook-up at this time; and WHEREAS, the applicant has also indicated that: the building is currently empty and causes the applicant great strain. He is attempting to find a new tenant or to sell the building, and would like a six month extension of the variance or until the building is sold; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on the applicant on June 7th, 1993, at 7:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, to consider the application for a variance of Mr. Robert D. S. Condit, on property situated on Quaker Road, Queensbury, New York, and bearing Tax Map No. 107-1-1, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the hearing shall be on written notice to the applicant and said applicant shall be entitled to ten (10) days written notice, with the provision, however, that this notice may be waived by the applicant by affirmative action or by appearance at the time and place of the hearing, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury be and is hereby directed and authorized to publish a Notice of Hearing in the official newspaper for the Town not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, which Notice of Hearing shall be in a form substantially consistent with the Notice presented at this meeting. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYES ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE ABSENT: NONE DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Supervisor Brandt -You have a copy of this letter that was sent to me by Mr. Condit asking for an extension of time to make a sewer connection. I remember we had done this on the vacant property, vacant commercial property before and I have not had a chance to talk to anyone about this and it's really up to the Board if they're willing to do that. I would suggest, if we do it, it's subject to hooking up if there's a sale or a use of the property as we did in the past. For today, all we can do if we feel that way is to sell a public hearing leading into it. Councilman Caimano-Aren't we violating our resolution which said that we're going to cut off on what, June 30th? Councilman Goetz-The 30th. Councilman Monahan-But wasn't that only for places already established? It wasn't vacant property. Supervisor Brandt -Yea, I think vacant property we didn't do that. Councilman Caimano-Okay. Supervisor Brandt-And as far as I'm concerned, I would think it wouldn't hurt us at all to give him that extension because they're not really using the sewer and they're paying sewer taxes anyhow. Councilman Caimano- They are paying taxes? Supervisor Brandt -Oh yea. Councilman Monahan-And they don't really know without something going in there, where the connections need to be. Councilman Tucker-So we've got to set a public hearing? Supervisor Brandt -Yea, so we would set a public hearing. I didn't want to do that unless the sense of the Board was that, that was fair play. Councilman Monahan-But right now he would automatically come under, I would think, the extension that we did grant to the other people. Councilman Caimano-Already, that's right. RESOLUTION REGARDING LEAD AGENCY - EURASIAN W ATERMILFOIL RESOLUTION NO. 308, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been provided with a copy of a letter dated April 26, 1993, wherein the Adirondack Park Agency has requested that the Town determine its interest in acting as lead agency or an involved agency, in connection with a proposed plan by the Adirondack Park Agency, and WHEREAS, the aforesaid Adirondack Park Agency proposes to establish a general permit for the hand harvesting of Myriophyllum Spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby consents to the Adirondack Park Agency being the lead agent for the proposed action described in the preambles of this resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Councilman Tucker-What are we doing here, Mr. Martin? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It's seeking lead agency status in order to establish the hand picking of eurasian watermilfoil. Councilman Goetz-I spoke with Mary Arthur Beebe of the Lake George Association to get a little background and she said that AP A has decided that they have jurisdiction over these water bodies because of the wetlands act. She did say that she felt the Town Board should make a comment about this. She feels the people shouldn't even have to get a permit. Councilman Caimano-I'll tell you, when I read this thing, not only do you have to get permission to clean up a bad thing but you're only limited to a certain amount of cleaning up you can do. I think it's the most idiotic thing I've ever read in my life. Whose going to be the eurasian milfoil pulling police? Councilman Goetz-That was her point but she said as far as it stands right now, she didn't have any objection to them being the lead agency. Supervisor Brandt-I would think if we don't pass this and give them lead agency, that you're really setting up a procedure where people can't get anything done. Attorney Dusek-The resolution has a last resolve clause which basically indicates you have the following concerns and I would recommend that either it be stricken or if you do have a concern that you want to be put in. If you don't want to add anything I would recommend a period after resolution and that entire, be it further resolve, the last clause be stricken. Supervisor Brandt-Okay, I would offer it with that modification. Town Board held discussion regarding Resolution for Electrical Inspection Service, agreed to wait for Mr. Hatin's recommendation. RESOLUTION TO INSTALL STREET LIGHT ON ROUTE AND CHANGE TYPE OF LIGHTING FROM ROUTE 149 NORTH TO TOWN LINE RESOLUTION NO. 309,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of arranging for the placement of one street light on Route 9 in front of Leo's Lobster in the Town of Queensbury on pole # 171 at a cost of $214.22/yr, and WHEREAS, the Town Board would like to have all of the street lights on Route 9, from Route 149 north to the town line, changed to 250 watt high pressure sodium bulbs at no cost to the town, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that a 250 watt high pressure sodium street light be installed on Niagara Mohawk pole number 171, and all present street lights in the town right-of-way from Route 149 north on Route 9 to town line be changed to 250 watt high pressure sodium bulbs, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the cost of said light shall be paid from Fund #25, Queensbury Lighting District, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury shall make all arrangements through Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None RESUME PUBLIC HEARING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE - STANLEY JUCKETT 8:45 P.M. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We still have an open public hearing. The people who took part in that, do you have any input for us? Come on right up and talk to us. ATTORNEY WINN-I think we have most of an agreement, if not entirely. MS. CHARTIER-Marge Johnson and I would like to discuss this before we compromise, we would like to discuss it with Heidi Johnson who was the other person that I represented tonight. We would at least like her to say yes or no in terms of what we think would be a compromise. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Have you come to what you would, you know, can you divulge what you think is a compromise? MS. CHARTIER-Yes, but we would like also to talk to some of your technical people, I don't know if it's, it would be the Board or the Zoning people or who, to find out exactly what we can ask for within the restrictions if we compromise. We don't understand that. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right over there, are the two greatest brains... COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It would be a case Mrs. Chartier I think under those type II specific uses, which one should be excluded and not be allowed in this particular neighborhood zone. That would be my answer, what would be anybody else's answer? COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I think that's the only answer. MS. CHARTIER-What we were thinking, what happens if we agree to a certain usage and the property is sold and used for that uses, they decide they want to put a second story on it and make it bigger and change the whole comormation of it. Will they have the right to do that or can that also be restricted? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, it is restricted. Go ahead. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-It's a grandfathered lot but only in terms of the lot size, it would have to meet the setback requirements that are in place today for today's zoning districts. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But Mrs. Chartier wants to know if they unilaterally decide to go to a second story, they can't just put a second story on there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-No, it's going to need site plan review and that would require ... MS. CHARTIER-So, we would have some input into that? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's a process by which there's another public hearing, people within five hundred feet are notified and all that. MS. CHARTIER-Well, we're not ... COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Jim, any restrictions that we put on it to rezone it now, go with the sale of the property, is that true? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Exactly. That's law. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Stays with the land. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-That's law. MS. CHARTIER-So it stays with it? COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It can only be changed by another Town Board. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Exactly, the Town Board is the only Board authorized to change zoning. MS. CHARTIER-What is that going to mean in terms of other people coming in and say, oh I want to get in on this deal, you know, going commercial, here and here and here? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Domino effect. MS. CHARTIER-What? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Domino effect. MS. CHARTIER-Yes, exactly. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I heard about that in South East Asia and I didn't quite understand it then and it doesn't seem to fall together. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The answer to your question is, there's nothing to keep anybody from doing that, but that's absent whether we pass this resolution or not. Anybody can come in tomorrow and do the same thing. So there is no assurance that someone won't come in the door tomorrow and request something else. MS. CHARTIER-Well you see, as a homeowner who built this home for my later years, I'm frightened because this may mean to me as the result of things which happen now and these constantly increasing costs because of all these things that are happening, that I can no longer live in the house that I built to live in at this stage of my life and I'm frightened. I'm not being obstreperous just to say no to everything but I'm very, very concerned and Marg has the same situation herself. We don't know, we have to think about what we can afford to pay and we're afraid that things are coming along through something like this that are going to stearnroll right over us and we won't be able to pay. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't see that. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Dorothy, I'm very sympathetic with what you're saying but the truth is, the Town's changing and none of us control that. You know, in 1988 this Town adopted a very complex set of rules, basically and it was said in public hearings to slow down or stop growth and they haven't. We see two hundred units of new housing almost every year so these complex rules we have, haven't stopped the growth and it continues. So, as the growth continues it changes and what we're really looking at here is buffering from a highway commercial which is a very intensive use zone to a residential and here's a place we can buffer it. And my intuition is that that's proper use of zoning and it's proper planning in the Town. But to say that we can really control what's happening and it's still a free market, it's still people can do pretty well what they want to and maybe that's the strength of the society, you know, I don't know what to tell you. MS. CHARTIER-I understand what you're saying and I do have, I feel that the Board will be protecting my interest, I have to accept that. And other than, I don't think I have any. Now I don't know if you have to vote tonight before we talk to our ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We don't have to vote tonight but I'm sure these people would like to keep things moving along too. So, it's like so far we're not getting very far in very many pieces of business but ... MS. CHARTIER-I know, I know, you're not getting very far but this is terribly important to me and I don't mean to try to avoid ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No, I understand. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Actually, it's interesting because and I have to tell you that I agree with Mike, I think that we, certainly some of us felt, we were protecting you. That's what a buffer zone is supposed to do. MS. CHARTIER-That's what I, okay, you see that makes me, because I don't understand these things. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well one thing we established in our first meeting was that since this is a small parcel of land, sold as it is, not combined with anything else, it is restricted in what it can be used for because of the size. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just by the size. MS. CHARTIER-Yes, it is a small... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -So the size itself is very restrictive. On the other hand if it were bought and combined with other properties, that would go away. But then if that happens, you get into site plan reviews and all this also. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-The only thing I might say is the Board, the time I've been here looks at each application on it's own merit and they go through these things very thoroughly. It's not like these things are just packaged up and brought through in a steamroller fashion, I mean... MS. CHARTIER-Well, as a CPA I can say, I know you can't stop progress but as an individual living in my own home which I love, I would like to do it. But I know that I can't do it. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-John, you had something to say? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You know, Jim, I just want to ask you a technical question, okay. Gosh dam it, I don't know where this applies to, okay, look at NClO in our book. Have you got your book with you? COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No, Nick's got it. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-I've got Paul's. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Oh that's okay. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, you said that the barber shop north of this, or beauty shop I should say, is there by a variance therefore it's still considered a residential zone, correct? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Yes. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Alright, look at NCl acre and go back, go look at, alright, they're not an acre, they're only three quarters of an acre. They have to have fifty foot setback in the front or off of any right-of-way, thirty feet setback on the side, fifteen feet setback in the rear. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-And they also have to have a fifty foot buffer shall be required adjoining the residential zone. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-Right. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, they've got to have the side, thirty feet plus another fifty feet, is that correct? And if the residential zone is to the rear of them and I don't know whether or not it is, they've got to have to have fifty feet plus fifteen there. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. MARTIN-In this case, I believe it is to the rear. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So, you know, I'm just wondering. The point I'm trying to bring out Mrs. Chartier is this, we say we're protecting you. On the other hand, they can go to the Zoning Board and get everyone of these things, negated by variance. Not the uses, but all these setbacks and all the buffer zones and I've seen that happen over and over again. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-And they could whether we pass this zone or not. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's true but I just want to tell the whole story. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Can we restrict that? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't know if you can legally or not. COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Can we? COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I haven't the faintest idea. SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I don't think you want to. ATTORNEY WINN-Can I perhaps explain where we were talking here? SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure. ATTORNEY WINN-Obviously on the one side of this property is Conklin Plumbing which is the highway commercial zone. Behind it is a commercial zone, next to it is the hair dressing shop and what we've been talking about is the fact that if this property is restricted to residential use only, it's only going to result in a deterioration. Because it's not residential property, you have a business on one side, a business on the other, commercial use behind there. What we were talking about doing is, looking at number 2 under the permitted uses, professional office and the definition of what a professional occupation is which includes, members of the field of medicine, lawyer, architect, engineer, surveyor, licensed beautician or barber, real estate broker and accountant. So, what we were talking about, restricting it to a professional office however, taking out of that, a beautician or barber because that is a high traffic, more commercial type thing. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Now are you saying Mr. Winn that you're willing to have this neighborhood commercial zone restricted so that the only thing that can go in there are professional offices? ATTORNEY WINN-Exactly. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, that would be a very big ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-That's a big ... SUPERVISOR BRANDT -A big restriction. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That would be a very big protection for the neighbors. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Sure it would. ATTORNEY WINN-What we were thinking is that a professional office would not necessarily be opposed to being in a highway commercial, bordering a highway commercial on one side because everyone wants a better traffic pattern and location. On the other hand, a professional office will not have weekends and evenings unless ... COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Unless they're crazy. ATTORNEY WINN-Unless they do. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Or they're a lawyer, one or the other. ATTORNEY WINN-But it isn't something that generally in the evening is going to interfere with the residents that might be next door. COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well given all the considerations, I think that that's certainly a protection of that residential area. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's a good answer. COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Well, if they restricted this neighborhood commercial strictly to professional office, then I would say that the neighbors have very good protection. SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Alright, if that sounds sensible, I'm going to close the public hearing so we can, maybe get something done yet tonight. I'm going to declare the public hearing closed. Thank you. Whoops, you want to say something before we close it? MRS. GLENDENING-Just that I'm very much in agreement with that... SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you Bonnie. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Lead Town Board through the Full Environmental Assessment form with the following determinations: Mr. Martin-Impact on Land. 1, Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Answer, YES, SMALL TO MODERATE IMP ACT. 2, Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? Answer, NO. Impact on Water. 3, Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Answer, NO.4, Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Answer, NO.5, Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? Answer, NO.6, Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Answer, YES, SMALL TO MODERATE IMPACT. Impact on Air. 7, Will proposed action affect air quality? Answer, NO. Impact on plants and animals. 8, Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? Answer, NO. 9, Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Answer, NO. Impact on Agricultural Land Resources. 10, Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? Answer, NO. Impact on Aesthetic Resources. 11, Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? Answer, NO. Impact on Historic or Archaeological Resources. 12, Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? Answer, NO. Impact on Open Space and Recreation. 13, Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Answer, NO. Impact on Transportation. 14, Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Answer, NO. Impact on Energy. 15, Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Answer, NO. Noise and Order Impact. 16, Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? Answer, NO. Impact on Public Health. 17, Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Answer, NO. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood. 18, Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Answer, NO. 19, Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Answer, NO. Attorney Dusek-On the resolution, I would just make one recommendation to the Board that the first resolve clause, where it says, resolved that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, and then I would put, insert this clause, the limiting conditions proposed a part of the rezoning, coma and then continue on. Town Board agreed and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. STANLEY A. JUCKETT FROM SFR-IA TO NC-IA RESOLUTION NO. 310, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the application for a change of zone by Mr. Stanley A. Juckett, requesting that a certain parcel of property bearing Tax Map Number 109-1-6, be rezoned from the current zoning of SFR-IA (Single Family Residential- 1 Acre), to NC-IA (Neighborhood Commercial- 1 Acre), and WHEREAS, the proposed action has been determined to be an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, the limiting conditions proposed a part of the rezoning, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the Negative Declaration presented at this meeting is hereby approved and the Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to file the same, as may be necessary, in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Just before we take the vote, in terms of the negative declaration, reasons for supporting this determination. The restrictions in the uses warrant a negative declaration. Town Board agreed and the vote was taken. DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING RESOLUTION NO. 311, 93: Attorney Dusek-I have some proposed language for you based upon what I'm picking up from the discussion. The resolution on page 2, the last whereas before you started the resolve clauses. I would put right after the word rezoned, and the need for a transitional zone. In the first resolve clause to accomplish the objectives of the Board I would recommend that you say, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to re-zone the property owned by Mr. Stanley A. Juckett, Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 109-1-6, to NC-IA (Neighborhood Commercial 1 Acre), accept that this rezoning is conditioned upon the applicant filing a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney indicating that the property may only be used for professional office uses, excluding beauty and barber shop uses. Actually you should say, Professional Office services as defined under the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury excluding barber shops and beauty shops. Supervisor Brandt-I hate to be a problem but in that in a deed ties to an ordinance that's subject to change. So what does that mean? Attorney Dusek-Well, they would have to dig out the original ordinance I suppose. We could actually insert the full definition from the ordinance, that might be better. What we'll do is we'll include the full definition, right here, may only be used for professional offices defined as, and then we'll define it and we'll just leave out the beauty shops and the barber shops. That definition will be inserted at this point in your resolution and it will also be inserted in the deed with the exception of those two items. Councilman Monahan-So what you're putting in Paul is word for word what it says professional occupation because it's on the next page, it says professional offices, an office used to conduct a professional occupation. And then since beautician or barber is in that, you're going to say they're excluded so it's going to be members of the field of medicine, a lawyer, architect, engineer, surveyor, real estate broker or accountant, or any thing allied line of that type because it says not limited to. So, excluding the beautician and barber. Okay. Attorney Dusek-You're saying Betty, including but not limited to and you want those all named and then at the end saying ... Councilman Monahan-Well, I think to cover Mike's point, you have to because that's what this definition says. Attorney Dusek-But at the end you're saying, and of that nature or type. Councilman Monahan-Well no, I would just copy this word for word, just what it says here, not change anything accept then, exclude the beautician or barber so they know we did that on purpose. Attorney Dusek-Okay then, after you finish that language, add language saying and no other uses and that the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions may only be revised or repealed with the written consent of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Town Board agreed and the following resolution was proposed: RESOLUTION AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY STANLEY A. JUCKETT FROM FROM SFR-IA TO NC-IA RESOLUTION NO. 311, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHEREAS, Mr. Stanley A. Juckett, petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for a zoning change of a certain parcel of property bearing Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 109-1-6, from the current zoning of SFR-IA (Single Family Residential- 1 Acre), to NC-IA (Neighborhood Commercial- 1 Acre), and WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of February, 1993, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board recommended approval of the petition, and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of February, 1993, the Warren County Planning Board recommended disapproval of said petition, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this matter on May 24, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has made a determination that the rezoning will have no significant environmental impact, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has considered the conditions and circumstances of the areas to be rezoned and the need for a transitional zone, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to re-zone the property owned by Mr. Stanley A. Juckett, Town of Queensbury Tax Map No. 109-1-6, to NC-IA (Neighborhood Commercial- 1 Acre) except that this rezoning is conditioned upon the applicant filing a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in a form to be approved by the Town Attorney indicating that the property may only be used for PROFESSIONAL OFFICE uses defined under the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury, as an office used to conduct a professional occupation, PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATION being defined under the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury, as one who is engaged in professional services, including but not limited to all members of the field of medicine, a lawyer, architect, engineer, surveyor, licensed beautician or barber, real estate broker or accountant excluding, however the beautician and barber, and no other uses and that the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions may only be revised or repealed with the written consent of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, thereby authorizing all uses permitted under Section 179-25 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury in such area, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Zoning Map for the Town of Queensbury is hereby amended to provide for the rezoning of said land, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk shall, within five (5) days, direct that a certified copy of said changes be published in the Glens Falls Post-Star and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and copies of this resolution and the aforesaid notice shall be circulated to the various agencies and departments as may be required by law or regulation, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this amendment take effect ten (10) days after publication in the official Town newspaper. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION REGARDING F ARR LANE EXTENSION Town Board held discussion with Mr. and Mrs. Sweet, adjacent landowners regarding their situation with Farr Lane Extension. Supervisor Brandt noted that the Town Board visited the site on Friday with Mr. Leon Steves. Supervisor Brandt referred to map noting the existing right-of-way, center of the town road and the Sweet's property. After further discussion, Town Board agreed to propose the following resolution: RESOLUTION REGARDING F ARR LANE EXTENSION RESOLUTION NO. 312, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Betty Monahan WHEREAS, the original Farr Lane has a center line that is off set from the center of the Town's right-of-way, and WHEREAS, the new extension ofFarr Lane does not meet the center line of the old Farr Lane properly because of this off setting of the original F arr Lane, and WHEREAS, it has been brought to the Town Board's attention that Mr. Leon Steves has indicated that a realignment could be had such that the new Farr Lane center line will meet the old Farr Lane center line with out a violation of the road construction standards of New York State, and WHEREAS, the Town Board notes there would be a number of benefits if the roads were aligned such that the centers of both the old and new road would meet, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby requests that the Town Highway Superintendent examine the layout of the roads and if possible allow the two center lines to match of the old and new roads and give his approval to allow the center lines of the old and new road to match, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board would hereby also request that the paved swales on the side of the road not start until the State property as opposed to on the old Town right-of-way, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event that further surveying work is needed to accomplish the objectives requested by the Town Board, the Town Board hereby authorizes an expenditure of funds not to exceed the amount of $1,000.00 for such work and it shall be paid for from the appropriate Town budgeted account for surveying work. Duly adopted this 24th, day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTORNEY MATTERS 9:30 P.M. Attorney Dusek reviewed with the Town Board the fax from Lynda Tremblay, Mayor of Hudson Falls regarding the sale of water to the Village of Hudson Falls. (fax on file in Clerk's Office) Attorney Dusek submitted and reviewed handouts to the Town Board. One, a draft of the proposed contract for paper mill sludge and construction and demolition for anyone wanting to do business with the Town, which is in the name of IP Corp our first candidate and the other is a proposed modification on consent order with DEC as a result of last Thursday's meeting that took place with the department. Attorney Dusek requested approval from the Town Board to submit these to DEC and IP to continue the process and the negotiations with the understanding that the Town Board has not given final approval. Town Board agreed. Mr. Morgan-Questioned the Town Board to reconsider adopting the determination of non-significance on the zoning change by the Zaremba applicant. Town Board held discussion, Supervisor Brandt noted that the Town Board does not want to do SEQRA specific to the proposed building but rather make it specific to the rezoning. And therefore are requesting the applicant to address all of the site specific issues with the Planning Board in a later process and as part of that process, do a SEQRA review again. Mr. Morgan-Agreed. Councilman Caimano noted further that if we can do the SEQRA based upon only the zoning change and reserve the right for the Planning Board to do the site specific SEQRA and we can do it based upon, one zone versus the other and what's allowed in those zones, then I think we can get through the SEQRA fairly quickly. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Lead Town Board through the Full Environmental Assessment form with the following determinations: Mr. Martin-Impact on Land. 1, Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Answer, NO.2, Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? Answer, NO. Impact on Water. 3, Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Answer, NO.4, Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Answer, NO.5, Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Answer, NO.6, Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Answer, NO. Impact on Air. 7, Will proposed action affect air quality? Answer, NO. Impact on Plants and Animals. 8, Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? Answer, NO.9, Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? Answer, NO. Impact on Agricultural Land Resources. 10, Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? Answer, NO. Impact on Aesthetic Resources. 11, Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? Answer, NO. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources. 12, Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? Answer, NO. Impact on Open Space and Recreation. 13, Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Answer, NO. Impact on Transportation. 14, Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Answer, NO. Impact on Energy. 15, Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Answer, NO. Noise and Odor Impacts 16, Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? Answer, NO. Impact on Public Health. 17, Will proposed action affect public health and safety? Answer, NO. Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood. 18, Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Answer, NO. 19, Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Answer, NO. Attorney Dusek-For the record, I take it that the Board's responses are primarily keyed to the comparison of light industrial zone to the commercial? Councilman Caimano-For this Board member, that's the only thing I'm comparing. Supervisor Brandt -Yes. Councilman Caimano-And this Board member also goes on the record as saying, one more time, this is useless, absolutely useless. Supervisor Brandt-But required. Councilman Caimano-No, I don't think it is. Attorney Dusek-Umortunately, New York State law is ... Councilman Caimano-I don't think it is required, I don't think it's required until it gets to the Planning Board level when there's some teeth in it and something to do, but we're here so. Supervisor Brandt-I'd like to offer a resolution to neg dec this. Councilman Caimano-I want to also on that resolution, I want to have it plain in there that we reserve the right to the Planning Board to look at this at the site plan review, as SEQRA. Supervisor Brandt-I'll accept that. Attorney Dusek-The only other thing you should do is authorize your Executive Director to put into the reasons for the determination in your negative dec the following: The Town Board, after considering the action proposed, and after considering the fact that the property to be rezoned was previously zoned Light Industrial in 1988 and previously had grandfathered zoning stats ofLI-IA, PC-lA, HC-15 and HI-3A and that the new zoning will be Plaza Commercial and in consideration of the fact that a further SEQRA Review will be performed by the Planning Board at such time as any site plan approval is sought by the applicant. Town Board agreed to propose the following resolution: RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. CLAUDE C. CHARLEBOIS (ZAREMBA GROUP, INC., APPLICANT) FROM LI-IA, PC-lA, HC-15, AND HI-3A TO PC-IA RESOLUTION NO. 313, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the application for a change of zone by Zaremba Group, Inc., requesting that certain parcels of property owned by Mr. Claude C. Charlebois, bearing Tax Map Numbers 110-1-2.1, 110-1-21, 110-1-22, and 110-1-30, be rezoned from the current zoning ofLI-IA (Light Industry - 1 Acre), PC-IA (Plaza Commercial- 1 Acre), HC-15 (Highway Commercial- 15,000 Square Feet), and HI-3A (Heavy Industry - 3 Acres) to PC-IA (Plaza Commercial - 1 Acre), and WHEREAS, the proposed action has been determined to a Type I Action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein and after considering the fact that the property to be rezoned was previously zoned Light Industrial in 1988 and previously had grandfathered zoning status ofLI-IA, PC-lA, HC-15 and HI-3A and that the new zoning will be Plaza Commercial and in consideration of the fact that a further SEQRA Review will be performed by the Planning Board at such time as any site plan approval is sought by the applicant, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the Negative Declaration presented at this meeting is hereby approved and the Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to file the same, as may be necessary, in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Monahan ABSENT: None Town Board discussed holding a workshop for the Town Board in determining SEQRA reviews. Councilman Tucker-Submitted petition from Mr. Nicholson of Luzerne Road, regarding dissatisfaction with the excessive property assessment. (petition on file) Councilman Tucker-Noted that he had a tractor trailer come on his street between five-thirty and six o'clock Saturday night selling furniture. He had a permit and it was signed by you. Deputy Town Clerk Mitchell-Yes, Cottle Furniture from North Carolina and it expires in June. Councilman Tucker-Do we have to allow that? Deputy Town Clerk Mitchell-Yes, under the law. Councilman Caimano-We've been through this and our transient merchant law allows it to happen. I think it should be looked into, because you're hurting the County and merchants. Councilman Monahan-I think, send this to the New York State Department of Taxation that we gave a permit to this person and did they send sales tax in on these sales to New York State. Councilman Tucker-No reflection on, the Clerk is doing her job but I think it's wrong that we allow this stuff to happen. Councilman Caimano-Let's find out if they paid the taxes. Councilman Tucker-One other thing, Attorney Dusek, remember I talked with you about the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad passing a resolution to go in partners with Empire Ambulance and authorizing Empire Ambulance to collect if the people have insurance? Attorney Dusek-Yes. Councilman Tucker-Would you read the contract that the Town has with West Glens Falls and let me know whether it's legal or not? Supervisor Brandt-One of the members of West Glens Falls told me that they have given that contract to their attorney together with this proposal for their review and they would like to have the chance to review that before they bring it to the Town Board. Councilman Tucker-Well, I would like to have an answer Paul. Attorney Dusek-Yes. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 314,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, That the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enter Executive Session to discuss a Personnel Matter. Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None ABSENT: None No further action was taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY