1988-09-06 SP 189
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 6, 1988
7:30 P.M.
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
STEPHEN BORGOS-SUPERVISOR
MARILYN POTENZA-COUNCILMAN
RONALD MONTESI-COUNCILMAN
BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN
TOWN BOARD MEMBER ABSENT
GEORGE KUROSAKA-COUNCILMAN
TOWN COUNSEL
PAUL DUSEK
TOWN OFFICIALS
LEE YORK, PETE CARTIER, BOB EDDY, DOROTHY BURNHAM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN POTENZA
PUBLIC HEARING-ADOPTION OF NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND LANDUSE do SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
NOTICE SHOWN
ALMA R. HURWITZ, Gunn Lane, Cleverdale-I have a comment to make about the omission
in Article 7, Section 7.012 Regulations A2 Docks and Moorings. The comment submitted
by me to the June 27, 1988 Public Meeting, on New Zoning Regulations, suggested that the
Town of Queensbury regulation pertaining to vessels, berths at docks be made consistent
with the corresponding Lake George Park Commission Regulation titled 6 New York Compilation
of Rules and Regulations 646-1.4K. It is my understanding in response to my suggestion that
the decision was made to incorporate the wording of this 646-1.4K in the Queensbury Zoning
Regulations. Unfortunately the August 16, 1988 Draft of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance makes no mention at all of vessels, berths at docks. It is my understanding that
this omission resulted from an oversight or misunderstanding. I therefore respectfully request
that this omission be rectified by including the following wording in the revised Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance. No vessels shall be berthed at a dock, wharf, or mooring without the prior
consent of the adjoining landowner, so as to encroach beyond the adjacent property line extended
into the Lake on the same as to the property line runs on shore where it meets the lake or
at a right angle to the main high water mark results in lesser setback. In my opinion the
enforcement process will be greatly facilitated if the Town of Queensbury and the Lake George
Park Commission have the same regulations wherever possible.
COUNSEL DUSEK-Mrs. Hurwitz called me today in fact and indicated that she had some
concerns which she has expressed here tonight. I indicated to her that she should come to
the meeting and voiced those concerns. I believe she is correct and originally this part of
the ordinance was passed that she indicated and apparently through discussions which I had
with Mrs. York, Mr. Holman, somehow, I think there has been a misunderstanding and that
part of the ordinance that Mrs. Hurwitz refers to has been left out. I think our conversations
were such that, there were parts of the ordinance that we thought should be left out due
to the confusion that they would cause. But it seems to me, that Mrs. Hurwitzs' points should
have been left in. Perhaps tomorrow Lee and I can get together and see if we can resolve
this.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Would this be considered a major or minor change? In other words
something we might approve tonight or something best left until after we go through and
clean up after this has all been adopted?
COUNSEL DUSEK-Tonight there won't be any firm approval of this ordinance in any event.
What I thought was perhaps tomorrow after we have a chance to sit down, take a look at
the ordinance as it is presently written, with the modifications proposed, I could make a determination
at that time, whether it would be a minor or major change. I suspect it may be a minor change,
but I would want to look it over first.
WALTER FISHER, Nottingham Drive, Sherwood Acres-(submitted maps to Town Board)In
February, 1986 my wife and I purchased a 19.3 acre parcel in Queensbury, located on map
8, Section 109, Block 4, Lot 1.2. The first map there shows the property, just south of the
Airport. This land is south of the airport, west of County Line Road and was zoned Light
Industrial 1 acre at the time of my purchase. The zoning contributed 100 % to my decision
to invest in the property, as growth or overflow from Warren-Washington Industrial Park
was eminent. My neighbor on County Line Road, Mr. Ron Chartrand, informed me in June
190
of this year that your new zoning split my property into single resident 1 acre and Light Industrial
1 acre, landlocking my industrial property. At the public hearing of June 27th 1988, I expressed
my concern regarding the mistake in joining of the zoning lines. This month I paid my $6.00
for a copy of the new zoning map and was horrified to see that the area surrounding and including
the airport is slated for Light Industrial 3 acres. The only Light Industrial_ 3 acre zone in
the Town of Rueensbury. The map I have drawn exposes the area a little better to point out
the only area really effected by the new zoning is my 19 acres and Mr. Chartrand's 25 acres.
An,airport is an airport, it is highway commercial, plaza commercial, heavy industrial, light
industrial, etc., all at the same time. The Warren-Washington County Industrial Park, although
nearly sold out, were designed as one acre parcels, I'm sure the remaining plots will be sold
in the same manner. I don't understand the logic behind zoning this area in 3 acre parcels,
nor do I understand zoning the area south of the north-south runway, single residence 1 acre.
Maybe for those who embrace the thunder of aircraft at full throttle. The Torrington building
on County Line Road and Hicks, is now SR1A. It is an office building leased by the Tribune _
Company, employees approximately 100 people, Light Industrial 1 acre was a much better
choice. Light Industrial zoning in 1 acre increments has proven to be both beneficial and
extremely workable. The new Technical Park, a rezoning from Heavy Industrial 3 acre to
Light Industrial 1 acre.supports this view. Both myself and Mr. Chartrand have.a lot to lose
should the 3 acre zoning remain enforce, two-thirds of our investment, to be exact. Additionally,
Rueensbury loses by cancelling growth at our most potential area and airport. We request
that you zone the area as it was and should be, a Light Industrial 1 acre. Sincerely myself,
my wife and Mr. Chartrand.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank You Mr. Fisher. We will look at this. Tonight we're not going
to make any decisions about this, all we are going to do,later is vote on the completion of
the FEIS. We are going to then start with a 10 day review period, where we can look at this.
I want to clarify a couple of things, Mr. Montesi pointed out to me, that the Warren-Washington
County IDA land generally is 21 acres or more. I don't know of any 1 acre lots over there.
The Rueensbury Technical Park, although it may be sold in lots as small as 1 acres envisioned
to have 2 to 4 or 5 acre parcels, which is not to say what you are asking ins not right, but just
to correct the record, that the IDA land is 21 or more acres per lot.
MR. FISHER-I tend to dispute that, many of that properties at the Warren-Washington County
Park are over 1 acre, but a lot of It is less then 2 acres. Going back to the zoning that is
Light Industrial 1 acre zoning.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-It was zoned Light Industrial 1 acre, but when the County broke
up the lots, minimum lot size, was 21 acres. That was the only point I was making, that when
you buy a lot there, the minimum you can buy is 21 acres up to maximum of 4, 5 or 6, 7 lots.
They are all 21 acre lots.
MRS. LEE YORK-Mr. Fisher and Mr. Chartrand did request a zoning change on their property,
and the committee looked at it, and did make their property Light Industrial because of the
zoning of Light Industrial, the adjoining airport property had been extended for environmental
reasons and their property had been incorporated in that zone.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-How about the change from 1 acre to 3 acres, was there a reason
behind that?
MR. FRED HOLMAN-Extension of existing zone.
MR. FISHER-But an airport is an airport. If the airport wants to build another hanger next
to the other one, .they're not going to put that on a separate 3 acre parcel, I am sure.
MR. HOLMAN-Again, it is just an extension of an existing zone.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Something we can take a look at again though.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Fred, one other point, I understand the environmental sensitivity
of where the committee was coming from, with a large parcel of that airport property. It '
is interesting to note, that Mr. Fisher's property and Mr. Chartrand's property, specifically
Chartrand's property, it is across the street from the airport, Mr. Fisher's property is on the
same side as the airport, but it is up on the hill, isn't it, Mr. Fisher?
MR. FISHER-It is just south of the airport, PBS is on the north side, I am on the south side,
a big blue barn, with a white silo in front.
MR. RON CHARTRANU, 175 Rueensbury Avenue-Many lots in the airport, Industrial Park,
which I will go out in my car right now and get the break down of the lots, 1.8 acres, 1.7 acres,
most of them under 2 acres. I have been up there since 1969 and I have looked at that map
many, many times and there are probably some small acres that is undesirable and they are
greater then the 1 acre. What most of the people have been doing up there is buying an additional
191
lot. Also it is my understanding, I will stand to be corrected if I am wrong, they buy one
lot, and if there is an expansion of their business, they buy another lot. My understanding
of the IDA requirements are that they put a building on these lots. If they buy another building,
it is an extension of the present building, that is one of the requisites of the conditions of
the sale. So this 3 acre thing, I don't know that is justified. I put a request in about 30 days
ago, which I talked to you about, to the Town Clerk,made,part of the record, and I haven't
heard anything. I look on the map and nothing on the map has changed, I am wondering what
the status is of my request.
MRS. YORK-I talked to Mr. Chartrand the other day and I went over the response to his comments.
We do not respond to every comment that was written that does not effect the EIS.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So you are saying you did not write back directly to anybody?
MRS. YORK-No. However, I did call Mr. Chartrand and explained the reasoning of the committee.
MR. CHARTRAND-1 don't except that reasoning the committee said, because of all the changes
being done in the zoning. I call your attention to the map that Mr. Fisher just gave you and
to the south of Mr. Fisher's property, there is a jagged line in there that says it is going to
be LI3A proposed. On the old map is was SR1A, I would like to have that explained to me
because this land in question is directly across the street, to the east. Would you explain
that to me? You are changing all the zoning here, what about me, is there something wrong'
with me, you can't change mine, but everybody elses?
MRS. YORK-It is a residential area.
MR. CHARTRAND-No, it is not a residential area. There is ledge up there, there is airplanes.
I wouldn't put a house there and I wouldn't have a person sign the papers if they knew the
airport was there because if they don't know the airport is there, they're in trouble. What
is the disposition of my request?
MRS. YORK-Mr. Chartrand, I would like you to come into my office and discuss,this with
me at length.
MR. CHARTRAND-You can't give me an answer? Was it discussed, was it considered, was
it not considered, was it not discussed?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-It apparently has been discussed by the Committee, the Citizens
Advisory Committee. We are not going to make a final decision tonight but we will look
at this closely again. Your preference is to see it Light Industrial 1 acre, is that correct?
MR. CHARTRAND-Yes.
MRS. YORK-That property was formally zoned residential.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-In the old zoning, it was residential. I know when it first appeared
before us in the revised form it was residential then it was requested to go to Light Industrial.
So the group honored the request to go to Light Industrial but at 3 acres. Was there a special
reason why you went and made this the only 3 acre Light Industrial zone in the Town, rather
1 acre?
PETER CARTIER, member of Advisory Committee-Maybe I can answer the question about
why it went from 1 acre to 3 acre. We had talked about 1 acre first and changed it to 3.
The problem in much of that area is the fact that it is light bottom clay. Very high water
table, water sits on the surface or probably eight months of the year and it would be very,
very, difficult, we wanted to keep the density down somewhat in that area. We figured 3
acres would be much better than 1 acre.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We talked about that in particular, Queensbury Avenue, County Line
Road section, a few times in regard'to residential development. We talked about what would
happen if the sewer comes through, and the answer was, probably higher density would permitted
residentially. Would the same hold true do you think, for commercial development, if and
when a sewer goes through there, would the committee look differently on that?
I
MR. HOLMAN-If there is a high runoff area, higher density would create additional runoff.
It is something to be considered.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Your concern, is that it does come to a triangle, you said how could
I ever sell that kind of frontage, went for Light Industrial 3 acre, how much behind it do you
own?
MR. CHARTRAND-1 own quite a bit which is in Kingsbury. But what good is Queensbury
192
property to me if it is 3 acres. Those lots are deeded and separated by legal deed description,
are 1 acre, the lot in the triangle point and the next lot which is the broader, fronts the broader
property, then the airport easement, and then further down to the Reilly house. The land
is so shallow as it begins, that it only gets interesting until it gets down to the south where
it has some depth. This is part of the reason why I am requesting that that 10 acre lot be
zoned Industrial. I dispute the people that say it has,always been residential, because you
are changing everything. That is the lot that I am talking about, that has good depth. It
is kind of ledgey, I don't think people would like to build a house on a ledge, at least I wouldn't.
This man that just came up that says there is a high water table there, I dispute him and I
invite him to come up anytime, without notice, especially when it has rained for three days,
and show me these water collection areas. I've walked eve'ry inch of that land. There is a
hundred acres, there are a few spots that are low that I am going to fill, and hope that the
water will drain naturally somewhere so that the land is good and dry. Naturally sewage
going through there, sewage line going through would be helpful in doing this better. I would
like to discuss with you the reading in the paper about the Queensbury Industrial Park off
of Dixon Avenue, adjacent to the Glens Falls almost full Industrial Park, they are selling,
according to the paper and I know the paper makes a lot of errors, the Town of Rueensbury
was selling 1 I acre parcels for 20,000 dollars an acre. ...�
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The land is being sold, unless it has changed, for 30,000 dollars per
acre.
MR. CHARTRAND-That is zoned LIlA. Very nice for the Town of Rueensbury to sell their
land but you zone my land L13A and you put me in the closet, lock the door and shut me in,
I don't know when I will ever be able to come out. Plus the fact Mr. Mathias told me I have
to have 50 foot this side and 50 foot that side, the shape of my land, doesn't look too favorable
for this LI3A. That is all I have to say, thank you very much.
PHIL SANTASIERO, 320 Ridge Street-My business is selling commercial and industrial land
in this Town. I am very familiar with the property that Mr. Fisher owns, I've walked it, and
the reason why Mr. Fisher bought this property was to invest in Light Industrial land. He
bought it as 1 acre lots, and expected to develop it along those lines. With the rezoning you've
taken two,-thirds of his potential away from him. I don't think that there is a problem with
water tables on there, I have walked every inch of that property. I think that something should
be done to support his request to keep that zoning back into 1 acre lots.
TRACY TABOR, West Mountain Road-I am here tonight with a few comments on behalf of `
the Rueensbury Association. First of all, we would like to commend the Town Board and
the individuals responsible for the proposed Master Planning, all you guys deserve a round
of applause. To get right to our points, we whole heartily endorse the PUD requirements
in the plan that links the PUD's to the existing zoning density. We brought this up at the
last comment period noting that this requirement could have been gutted completely. We
thank the Town Board for keeping the current wording in the new Town Plan, and we feel
this is very important. Our second point concerns the Earltown wetlands known as the Big
Cedar Swamp. The Rueensbury Association feels to make an exception in the wetlands zoning
for Earltown or any other developer would compromise the integrity of this process. We
also feel this would look like a political decision rather than a decision that is based upon
natural resources which to this point is what this entire Master zoning plan has been based
on. We do admit however LC10 for this area is much better than the current Industrial zoning
but this isn't in consistent with the zoning of other major wetlands in Rueensbury, such as
Rush Pond and the others that are LC42. At the last comment period regarding this matter
we brought up many other points which we still support very strongly. To save time tonight
we have elected not to review these again, we do ask you however, if you could please review
them and consider these again. Thanks a lot.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We will do that, thank you and your association very much.
DENNIS FITZGERALD,13 White Pine Road-I have looked over parts of the zoning map and
the zoning regulations as they existed prior to the proposed ones, which I managed to pick
up today. I come from Westchester County and had a lot to do with respect to zoning changes
and problems that relate to nonconforming uses as a result to those zoning changes. I do
recognize the problem that you are all facing and I sympathize and support your efforts. `
I regret in one way that the property wasn't zoned 1 acre before the lots were developed
because personally I was looking for something more along those lines at the time. Never
the less as it exists and the reason why I am here today, is particularly that the zoning as
they apply to the section of the Pines which I am located in, was previously an SR20 zone
under, or currentl a SR20 zone. Under the new zoning code it becomes an SFR1A which
significantly changes the character of the lots that are there. The development that we're
in was set up by Woodbury's, has mostly 1/2 acre parcels in complying with the SR20 designation.
Mine happens to be a 3/4 acre parcel. There are some 1 acre parcels bordering on the brook
that are there. My major concern is the fact that the way this SFR1A zoning has been put
into effect on the whole corridor coming down there near West Mountain Road does not at
193
all, in my opinion, take into effect and I hope that you may be able to clarify that. The fact
that very recently these developments have taken place within the last three or four years.
These are substantial houses that have been developed, there is probably better than two
hundred homes that have been put up in the one section that I am in, in the space of the last
three years and I know there is many more that are there but I haven't had the time, as I
am not up here full time to look at everything. I do not understand why such a corridor had
to be carved out as a SFR1A as opposed to taking the new area that was to be developed,
those that have not been subdivided. If the true interest is to make an SFR1A area to set
it �1p with a new area in mind, which I believe would be in keeping with what Rueensbury,
from what I've heard looks to do. To turn around to make hundreds or possibly thousands
of nonconforming lots out of the parcels that are there, to me just is striking of problems
in the future which are going to cause needless expense, needless board reviews, if anybody
wants to do something with their property merely because if you approve it the way it is
you going to be creating an awful lot of nonconforming lots. These nonconforming lots in
my opinion based on review of the code are not grandfathered in to the point of saying well
yea they already have one house on these lots, what more do they want. We are talking really
about accessory uses to these lots and what you must comply with when you turn around and
take a difference of a SR20 and now become an SFR1A. That is a big difference. It may
not seem like very much but when the house and everything is created already, it becomes
a very big difference. For vacant land, I support it, I really do, I wish it had been done four
years ago and then the lots that I'd be involved in would be SFR1A lots. But at the present
time I have to say I object to it very strenuously.
COUNSEL DUSEK-1 think that Mr. Fitzgerald's point has been addressed in the ordinance,
it is under section 8.010 It says, as to the date of this ordinance such a lot that is not adjoined
to a lot in the same ownership provided, however all such lots in the same ownership shall
be treated together as one lot except that this provision does not apply to subdivisions approved
and filed prior to the date of the approval of this ordinance. So the subdivisions have been
excepted from that automatic joiner of nonconforming lots. So the lots, yes I think technically
would still be nonconforming however they would be allowed to stand in the subdivisions.
MR. FITZGERALD-That particular section that you refer to is further exempted by the next
section 8,011, which talks about a three year requirement. But getting back to 8.010 it talks
about the 'as consider with complying with the minimum lot requirements, no variance shall
be required.' We are not talking about the minimum lot requirements to build a house, these
houses are already built. We are talking about accessory uses that are going to be expected
to be utilized with respect to the area that has already been developed. You are turning
around and in one particular serious situation as I see it, you've got the permeability section
in a SFR1A category of 65% of a parcel, where as in the SR20 you're only talking about 30%.
`i That is a heck of a lot less when you turn around and consider how much is there. If you take
a one acre parcel and say yea, 'you can only build on 45% of this parcel or 35% of that parcel,'
that is fine. If you take 1/2 acre parcels and say 'hey you're restricted to the same category,'
I do not believe the language of 8.010 would cover that kind of situation if it came back to
applying for a building permit.. Which you're in effect asking that to do that is to say in the
future, anytime someone applies for a building permit, someone is going to pull out the zoning
map and say 'oh wait a minute we got to go back now and look at this, what section was this
in.' Basically, the area that I come from has this problem quite a bit because a lot of development
that has gone on in the-last ten years. I believe the matter is more appropriately addressed
by dividing the lines down the existing subdivisions in keeping what was there. If you feel
it is appropriate to change it from a SR category to a SFR category, but keeping it the same
minimum lot requirements of 20,000 square feet or 30,000 square feet. I can agree with that
kind of feeling because of the more limited SFR category but what you turn around and create
parcels that are 20,000 feet or 30,000 feet minimum and then have to comply with the 1 acre
category, I don't see that at all.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I do remember reading and responding to your letter. I think in that
letter I indicated that we had discussed this fairly extensively with the committee. Maybe
Mr. Holman could address this situation and just explain why when a mass of area and land
is pretty much already developed as subdivision in 1/2 acre, 3/4 acre lots, why would we now
go in and impose this 1 acre zoning.
MR. HOLMAN-The committee discussed this a great length a number of times during the
initial planning stages. As the speaker discussed earlier a variation of lot sizes within those
existing subdivisions from the 1/2.acre to an acre. What we found in our natural resource
analysis was that those areas that were subdividing and developing in great intensity were
indeed some of the most sensitive land area effecting aquifer recharge areas within the Town.
The committee felt so strongly about this that they said 'yes we understand there maybe
some problems, however, until such time that water and sewer can be provided to these areas,
and I think most of the areas have water, so basically we are talking about sewer, that we
did not want those lots that are 1 acre or 3 acres or greater that are interspersed within these
areas to be subdivided down to 1/2 acre. We wanted to make sure that they are at least 1
acre size. Again, the long range plan is to prioritize these areas as areas to be sewered. Once
194
the sewers are in then we recommend that the density be increased in those areas at back
to the original 10 or 30,000 square foot lot sizes.
MR. FITZGERALD-I do understand what they've attempted to do but again I'm not from this
area so I have difficulty in addressing everything. I am familiar with the Pines and a couple
of the developments that have recently gone up around it. Also, with the developments off
Kiley Road, Beuna Vista, the others off of Potter because of it being on the access to the
area. I found it incomprehensible to say that there is any large parcels in any of that section
which could further be subdivided. As I pointed out in our section it's 209000 minimum. Certainly
I could not subdivide the :3/4 acre parcel. The only parcels which are 1 acre have basically
minimum frontage and they also all have houses upon them. One of the restrictions:in our
particular subdivision was that we had to build a house on each lot. We could not buy extra
lots because if we did we had to build another house on that particular lot. These have already 1
been subdivided, already been developed, there is probably only one lot that I can think of
or two lots adjoining on,White Pine Road, which I believe are close to the designation. They
are not SR20, I believe they were in the category whatever it was to the east of it, off hand
I am not certain because I was in the SR20. It kind of goes down somewhere around Sugar
Pine, between Sugar Pine and Sycamore and there is a dividing line on the present zoning .,.„
map which is far as the categories go. Those are the only two adjoining parcels that could
turn around and say they are already broken up into 3/4 acre parcels. The addressing of what
they've done because of the sewers, they make sense in theory but when you look at what
is there in reality, I don't think it applies to that section with respect to what we're dealing
with here. I still see no reason to that area at least. I do appreciate the fact that we are
close to the aquifer and everything with respect to the water too and I'd like to see sewers..
MRS. YORK-Am I understanding correctly your primary concern here. Your primary concern
is that people will have preexisting nonconforming lots .... accessories will have to meet the
set back requirements?
MR. FITZGERALD-They have to meet everything that the 1 acre parcels meet, they have
to conform in the respects, there maybe certain gives but their losing a lot in terms of whats
there existing now. Why, to make this all nonconforming does not make any sense. We are
not talking about building houses on these, most of them are already created.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-With your legal background, do you think there is some small bit of
language that could be inserted into our proposed ordinance that would clarify that and exempt .
that?
MR. FITZGERALD-I think you can always utilize language to do it. But I think you would
be, in my opinion, be approaching it the wrong way because it is much simpler to turn around
and take the area that is already developed. I have been through those sections, so I know
as far as the area between Aviation Road and the Pines, that's virtually all developed, possibly
one section north of the Pines, between Aviation Road and west of the Pines, which is not
developed, but that's fine, you've already got subdivision maps covering the Pines. If you .
drew the line down along the developed sections, which are virtually complete as far as construction
goes, you be saving a lot of language problems. Nobody needs to interpret things later if
you can avoid it, we like to make things simple if at all possible. That is all I am really trying
to do, rather than get it more complicated with language and who is going to interpret it
one way, and who is going to interpret another, unless there truly is a justification for making
a substantial number nonconforming lots. It just baffles my intelligence.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-That is my ward and district and I am very familiar with it, and
I understand where you are coming from with the Pines. But there are other developments
in that area off of West Mountain, that are still being built up. They are subdivisions, they
are on the books as subdivisions, they are not as well populated as the Pine area is, and I think
that is one of the.concerns. That is what rezoning is, stopping what is bad and adding the
good. I don't know. Maybe you have the answer, maybe it is to exclude the Pine area. But
that means, as far as I am concerned, almost doing an inventory of all the subdivisions, and
finding out how much of the subdivisions have been built up on, how many lots are left to
be built on and perhaps clarifying each of the subdivisions.
MR. FITZGERALD-I think what you are saying might be true. If there is a lot to be developed.
As you say, there are off of Pinion Pine, alot of developed area that still have to be constructed
upon. I am not familiar with the subdivision mass of those but I'm willing to bet that they
are probably 20,000 square foot parcels, give or take 5,000 square feet or so. There are some
off of a cul de sac,down off Pinion Pine that are close to 1 acre or a little over. But you
have that brook that runs back there which sets all those off in that way because nobody
could get access to them in any other way. Basically what I am saying is, yes it might require
a little more looking,into at this stage but it is also going to save hundreds of people from
having potential problems later on. Nobody wants to have a house and say it is a nonconforming
lot. Based on mine experience from West Chester and these things do crop up, we don't have
95
the development in terms of the area in the section that I am in that Rueensbury now has.
I appreciate you're addressing that and I am not looking to turn away those that are undeveloped,
I agree with that. But I think you have to look at those that are to be developed, and if they
are under proper subdivisions, the one thing your code presently does allow is that they can
continue to be constructed that way. That doesn't save the problem, you still got the same
thing, and if you are trying this 1 acre to solve that, that is not going to work. I am looking
for an answer, I look forward to a lot of years up here eventually and I think it is a very nice
area, and I would like to see a lot more 1 acre or even larger parcels. I don't see restricting
it far those who already have the lots developed.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think you have raised some important issues particularly with the
set back requirements.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Those are very good questions. I was looking at all the SFR zones
*-- and if we had to pencil out all of the existing subdivisions that may have been SR20, SR30
at a point, we probably would have a terrible looking zoning map that was full of little pockets
of these kinds of zones. One of the things that I think we as the Town Board members charged
the committee with was people have said they would like to maintain the quality of life, the
open space character of our-Town and they would like to see density reduced. One of the
trade offs, obviously is exactly what you are pointing out that the some people get caught
into an existing subdivision. The Pines is a very easy one to address because it happens that
there is probably two hundred houses that have been built in a course of four or five years.
If you could block that out, it would be an incredible job, and the rest of the Town on every
other SR2 zone. Another thing that this group was charged with was to not split zones, to
go to property lines. We have a lot of split zones that caused incredible problems. I think
it is worthy of some deep thought in the next workshop meetings that we have. But I have
a feeling that we might be creating a real spotted looking zoning map that may be more difficult
to work with.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Fred, section 4020G, suburban residential and 4020H, single family
residential, in SR20 the minimum percent of lot to be permeable is 30%, it is the same for
the single family residential but then you get up to 1 acre and the SR zone is 5096 permeable
and SFR zone it is 65% permeable. So we have one area where the permeability stays the
same in the 2 zone, then it gets up to the 1 acre and it changes. Is there a reason for the
way that formula was developed? There is also a difference in the size of the lot, the smallest
lot in the zones, you've got a 10,000 SFR and it is 30% and you've got SR 15000 that is 30%.
- I was just looking at that and wondering why the reason for the formula being set up that
way?
MR. HOLMAN-I would have to look back and research that.
RICHARD HOPKINS, Lynfield Drive, Rueensbury-I would like to second the comments of
the last speaker because I live in an area which is adjacent to his. I live in which is known
as Westland, which combines the lots on both sides of Aviation Road, between Aviation Road
and Potter Road and on the North Side of Aviation Road directly across. Many of those lots
are only 15,000 square feet, 100 x 150. Most of this area has been built up since at least
1972 or 1973, there has been almost no building in this area. In the general area around my
house there is only three vacant lots, all of them which area 100' frontage. I firmly believe
that it is a mistake to rezone that. I also have a question. It says here that the lot is
nonconforming, it shall be exempt from such minimal lot requirements, and no variance will
be required for a minimum period of 3 years. Then what happens, then what do we do?
COUNSEL DUSEK-What happen was originally you had 8.010 just simply combine the nonconforming
lots with no provisions for nonconforming lots. Then I believe you have 8.011 which was the
exemption which allowed subdivision lots to to be exempt for up to 3 years and then thereafter
they too, if owned by a common owner would have to become joined if that was the case
or otherwise they would stay nonconforming, if it was just a single owner owning one lot some
place in a subdivision. Then just a little while ago, was when this last provision was made
as a part of the top section, 8.010, where it said that any subdivision lot would be left alone.
I think what has happened is that the provision in 8.010 would be controlling which means
the subdivision lots would be allowed to stand. Only that part of the 8.011 would apply, if
any, it appears at least from a ...
_ SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We appreciate you pointing out to us this language situation.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That would not effect an individual lot owner, it would effect
the developer of the subdivision and they would have to develop within the 3 years.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We have to make sure that the intent of what is being done and the
language match. This is the fine tuning that we will be doing in the next couple of weeks.
Going back to Mr. Fitzgerald's and Mr. Hopkin's comments... if indeed we are in a developed
subdivision and the setback, let us say is 10 feet, if this changes in density and the new set
176
back requirement is 30 feet fora storage shed, for instance, would the new set back prevail,
or because it is a preexisting subdivision, would we still be at the old set back restrictions?
COUNSEL DUSEK-I think Mr. Fitzgerald's position, in reading the ordinance, which at least
initially would seem as his argument certainly has some credence, that the new set back requirements
would apply in the old lots that have already been created, I think that is what he is indicating
would cause the problem.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-We should take a very close look at this, people may have been planning
for years to put in a swimming pool or something and all of sudden, the pool doesn't fit. It
was the intent of the committee not to change the character of the neighborhood, is that
correct?
MR. CARTIER-What I don't want lost in this discussion, is what we were trying to do, and
we fundamentally did it, and that was protect the aquifer. We understood that there would --
be some restrictions that would apply, that people would not be happy with. But until such
time that we get sewers up there... we wanted that area protected. I might be able to answer
your question Betty. We did the math on all those permeabilities to make sure people could
build what was allowed to be built and still maintain permeability. We were trying to increase
permeability as much as we could, and we looked at permeability in every single one of the
zones.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-Was that done on one acre or...
MR. CARTIER-All of them, we spent hours doing that.
LEON STEVES-I will make one comment based on the last speaker. Sometimes in mortgage
surveys that is performed on existing buildings, either it is the title company or the bank,
wants to know what the set back requirements are in the Town. If we now see 20 foot on
a side line, all the buildings would be in violation. The Building Inspector then would have
to write letter after letter, to convey the fact that that building preexisted the present code.
In the Subdivision Regulations on page 2, talking about the sketch plan for conference, where
we would meet with the planners to discuss the requirement of the particular lot that is being
subdivided. As we go through this to page 6, we come to a preliminary plot and that is only
addressing subdivisions that would require an engineer or engineering if you will. I would
hope that lots that are 2-lots or 3-lots subdivisions that would be created in the future wouldn't
necessary require engineering, wouldn't need engineering. But rather that would be determined
at the time of the sketch plan review by the planners and it would not require a waiver from
the Planning Board before they saw the plan. Under this regulation, it would be needed if
a 2-lot subdivision were brought forth that had no environmental concerns. A waiver would
have to be sought prior to the application to the preliminary plot, the way I see it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is this correct, Mrs. York?
MR. HOLMAN-The section on the back states that the Planning Board can make any regulations.
MR. STEVES-That is correct, but the way it would have to be sought before the application
is reviewed ... and that doesn't seem necessary.
MR. HOLMAN-The Planning Board sets up this stipulation....the intent is that the Planning
Board then tells the developer or owner what the requirements should be...if it is a two lot
subdivision and it does not require the engineering, then it does not require an engineer and
the Planning Board can tell the developer at that point that it does not require an engineer.
MR. STEVES-You feel that the requirements then for a preliminary plot should remain the
same as your waiver, a condition each and every time?
MR. HOLMAN-Yes, in fact that is what the committee definitely wanted, they want a Planning
Board to be able to take positive action on these submissions. Wj
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Fred, was that based primarily on a concern of surface water drainage
and aquifer? You get a couple of lots and all of sudden they may be a problem simply because
there in an end of a line or there in the end of a road where there the situation exists because
of primary surface water drainage. So the Planning Board wants to take a look at that so
if they feel that it is an area that isn't sensitive for some of these reasons, then they check
it off and give the waiver.
MR. HOLMAN-We are.finding in all the towns not just Rueensbury that the larger subdivisions
are reviewed quite vigorously, problems that arise, they look at traffic and a number of things.
But when minor subdivisions, after a number of years, they are finding out it is the minor
subdivisions that are really causing problems in the town.
19:'
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-There is quite a bit of language in this new addition that we inserted
last year related to a licensed land surveyor with the exemption, is this maybe what you are
driving at? You talked about a licensed engineer having to do some things?
MR. STEVES-That is all taken care of. I was thinking more for the individual who would be
coming to the town to subdivide his lot. Any division of land today is a subdivision. A 2-lot
subdivision lot, it could be a two 100 acre lots, it could be two 10 acre lots, depending on
the zone it is in or the desire of the individual applicant. In doesn't seem to me proper for
him to come in with a plan and immediately ask for a variance to continue on with it. I can
see both sides, I really can, but it just seems a little bit strenuous and expensive to the individual.
MR. HOLMAN-Being an ex-planning board chairman in Saratoga Springs, I had 2-lot subdivisions
where the press had been meddling, so I understand your problem. We did the same thing,
2-lot subdivision, hey it looks good, go ahead. After that we made sure that everything was
reviewed to make sure that that at 2-lot subdivision was done in accordance with our guidelines
and regulations. I can see where 2-lot subdivisions can cause a problem. But the committee
felt it was correct in requiring a 2-lot subdivision a sketch plan review and then they are
given direction as the way to go. Again, the Planning Board if they find there are no problems
they can waive all the requirements.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-This is one of the problems with the entire new zoning set up, is that
almost everything will have to go to the Planning Board. Almost everything, site plan reviews,
special. It is nice, the real world is going to say it is back logged quickly. I think Mr. Steves
is trying to avoid some of that without taking out the intent of the rule. Perhaps the Planning
Board can set up a prescreening committee. Your committee the way it is setup, I don't know
if you have the authority to do the kinds of things we were talking about.
MRS. YORK-No. Many large developers feel currently that they are discriminated against
because the small 3 or 4 lot subdivisions don't have to go through what they go through. Really
we want the best development in our town, whether it has 1 lot or whether it has 100 lots,
that is where we are coming from.
MR. STEVES-1 feel I have to bring to your attention, and I think I have, in the past the Department
of Health clearly says that any subdivision of land 5 lots or more creates a subdivision. There
was a gentleman in the western part of the state who bought thousands of acres. Anyone
who wanted to buy a lot, bought a lot, they could do anything they wanted on that lot, 1/2
acre to a 1000 acres. The State Health Department decided to take him to court, and did.
The Judge asked what the law states, and the law states, any division of land of 5 lots or
I more is a subdivision. The guy had to comply and was thrown out of court. The Health Department
decided to go back and redefine their law. I don't feel that Queensbury is looking forward
to anyone breaking in a 2-lot subdivision of a hundred acres magnitude, that has to go through
the regulations as said in this book.
MRS. YORK-As Fred said the Planning Board can waive any requirement they deem necessary.
MR. STEVES-But you have to,go through the Planning Board to get that waiver.
MRS. YORK-Yes
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much for your time. In spite of our differences, I have worked
with Fred, and he has done an excellent job.
MARTHA FREIBERGER, Butler Road-I have spoken to Steve and Mrs. York, about our piece
of property that you have zoned for C42. We have 77 acres on the west side of 87, the 37
acres was cut off from our property on Route 9 when they built the Northway. This land
was never wetland, the State now designates that it is. I know that you don't have anything
to do with that, but the 42 acres, I just don't see it because it was never wetland before, and
the beavers and God knows what else, is causing that water to back up in there. I think the
Town of Queensbury is going to have a big mosquito problem eventually if that water stays
there. Besides the land is absolutely no good to us and we have owned it for 42 years. I just
don't think it is right. If you do take this 42 acres and it is only a 37 acre parcel, does that
mean you can go into the other 40 acre parcel to make up the 42 acres?
s--. SUPERVISOR BORGOS-No, that would be with the one parcel, that would mean one primary
structure, I would presume. If the 42 acre zone and the parcel is 37 acres that would be preexisting
nonconforming lot, one structure, is that correct? Your concern is well taken. I have written
to the Department of Transportation for you. The beavers have built a damn there in the
last 6 or 7 years or so and have flooded an area that has always essentially a sandy area.
It is next to Rush Pond but not part of Rush Pond.
MRS. FREIBERGER-We have the maps that the state appraisers gave us when they built the
Northway. When they went to pay us for the 37 acres they completely land locked and that
198
is why we bought the 40 acres to get into the 37 acres. Of course is we had known that it
was going to be worth nothing,we would have let the State have the whole thing at the time
instead of keeping it all these 42 years, it really doesn't make-much sense. I wonder now
if they do take these beaver dams out of the culvert and that water eventually drys up, I'm
sure it would have this summer, is that 42 acres still going to stay the same as what they
propose now?
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is that within the designated wetland area or is it just outside?
MRS. YORK-We just go by property boundaries. I did talk to Mrs. Freiberger at length, her
area is right in here by Rush Pond, and unfortunately it is designated by DEC as wetlands
and I explained that to her.
MRS. FREIBERGER-We went up to see them in Warrensburg and we told them that land was
never wet before. I used to drive trucks back there, we've had wood cut off of that property.
My kids played in there. Now they say it doesn't mean anything that there was never any
water on that land, that they go according to the vegetation. The vegetation, it wasn't like
that before. I can't very well argue with the state, I can but it wont do me any good. Well
it is wetland now, but I am sure that big area wouldn't be wet if the water started running
again.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Mrs. York, was the entire 37 acres within the wetland designation?
MRS. YORK-Part of it is.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is this one of the cases where you might consider split zoning, splitting
property? I know the theory but if the parcel was 500 acres or 2,000 acres and there were
20 acres wet, would you not split out that?
MRS. YORK-We would have to go back through the entire map and do that with every parcel.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I understood at one of our meetings that generally if the majority
of the parcel...
MRS. YORK-The majority of the 37 is wet.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mrs. Freiberger, how would you get to this property, is it land locked?
MRS. FREIBERGER-That is why we bought the 40 acres that is off Mountain View Road,
off of Bonner Road.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is it possible for these people to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
to get a variance in this kind of a situation, where some of the land is wet? For instance
if they°wanted to do two or three structures.
MRS. 'YORK-I explained that to Mrs. Freiberger. Some developer may think that is a choice
parcel because it can be maintained as open space.
MRS. FREIBERGER-I wish the Town of Queensbury would buy it, you would have a nice park
there.
MRS. YORK-1 feel very badly about your problem and I don't know what your intentions...
This is a substantial piece of property.
MRS. FREIBERGER-It certainly is, 1 should never had held onto it this long. "
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I am sure after tonight's meeting you will get offers.
MRS. FREIBERGER-I hope so, thank you. ..,�
FRANK MUNOFF, 193 Star Route-I want to address what I feel is a unique problem and I
want to address it from two different focal points. One I guess from a legal, although I am
in no position to determine what is legal, I think what is legal. The other is to rectify something
that was, I feel has been wrongly done. I don't know if the Board knows the entire story so'
if you will allow me to document the history of this land. I've done this probably three months
ago, and each time I've checked with the Town of Queensbury no one has refuted any of my
claims. The piece of land on upper Ridge Road, 9L about 5 3/4 acres, originally I wanted
an acre of land to build a house. I bought 5 3/4 as an investment. Next to the Cleverdale
store. When I bought the land.... I'll go back... into the forties, the first people, far,back
as I could go, Lanner Dickenson, this land was zoned, neighborhood commercial. Somewhere
in the fifties, I believe,Betty Smith bought the land, it was zoned neighborhood commercial.
Betty Smith left it to her'daughter, Mrs. Curren, Linda and William Curren, South Glens Falls,
199
neighborhood commercial. The day I buy the property, we find out it is neighborhood commercial.
It is no secret how it got changed, I made that known to Mr. Borgos in a letter. It is no secret,
and there wasn't anything wrong in the way it was changed. As a matter of fact, I think it
was serve the purpose of probably me.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-You might want to explain this again, I sent copies of that to everybody.
MR. MUNOFF-We met here the day before the date of closing, we met here at the Town
Board, downstairs.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Please say who we are.
MR. MUNOFF-My attorney and I. We said there was some question as to what the zoning
is. He said no that there was no question, it is neighborhood commercial. He looked at the
map and he said although that line here, he said what is your plan. I said I am going to build
a home. He said, 'well there was some problem about the line.' Now we are talking something that was zoned since the forties but there was some problem about h line and at that particular time we walked out of there with a piece of paper that made it, I don't
want to say Lakeside it might have been Waterfront then. Lakeshore Residential.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Who changed it?
MR. MUNOFF-Then and there. I asked and asked, for anybody to repute that, no one can.
I've got the documentations on that.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Those are the kinds of things that wont happen anymore.
MR. MUNOFF-So I look at this as an opportunity to rectify something that was wrong. I
want to you to understand that any names I mention, I think anyone should be legally entitled
to do with their property what they may. If I built a home next to a piece of property, that
I've found out ten years later, that it is a rifle range, that is my problem. If they are legally
entitled to do that, I really feel that way. So I guess what I am saying is over the years, long
story short, now I have my home in Qlueensbury, very happy with it. I am not happy with
my investment. I am going to tell you why. I have an acre of land next to the Cleverdale
store. I think the Cleverdale store is a class operation, that is why I want this to get lost
in what I'm here for, I am not here about somebody else, I am here about myself. That piece
of property is unsuitable, and I repeat, and if anyone would have taken my invitation to please
come up, is unsuitable for a residence. I repeat there are eleven businesses on one piece
of property. I am going to take you for a short trip from one corner to another, and you tell
me if it is residential. I am going to take you from Castaway Marina, and as many people
here are boaters, that is a motel on weekends. I am not complaining about that, I love it,
it is great. So any of the places I mention, I am not complaining about, I'm part of it.
1 am going to take you next, Sunspell Contracting, next Johh ? , residential. Jane Schoonover,
residential. My property, Cleverdale store. From the other side, McLaughlin Contracting,
a two family halidays, operated as an investment, not the owner residing. Next to halidays,
before Mr. Pencil, I forget the name, I think is Mr. Kline, again two family, investment property,
owner not residing there. Mr. Pencil's, residence. After Mr. Pencil, a bigger piece of land,
which has been commercial since the forties, whether that got changed in this, I don't know,
New Jersey people. From there I'll go to the New York Telephone, then I'll go to the firehouse,
then the rescue squad, all marvelous, and they should be there. Then down to where I keep
my boat in Harris Bay. I walk to Harris Bay on the weekends because you can't park there,
because it is a motel, we all know that. These people have needs. What do we have in Harris
Bay, maybe a couple hundred boats. There is needs to be there, this is not, and it is obvious
why my property was neighborhood commercial. Now the reasoning I got, and the response
from Mr. Borgos, and that is why I just don't feel it has been consistent. If you do in fact
consider this residential. I don't, just from what I just told you. There is more commercial
and municipalities then there are residents. I will name four year around residence in that
stretch, and that is it. If I were to take the reasoning that you offered me, that it is residential
and that is why my property isn't going to be changed. I don't want my property to be changed.
L' I want to be reinstated what it normally was. Do I think I should be spot zoned, yes. If you
don't go for that, then do I think my whole property should be zoned commercial, yes. I really
think I'm unique. I effect no one else. I'm the only piece of property adjacent to this busy
municipality, the store. You go to all the three other sides to me, there is not another residence
that borders me, I repeat there is not another residence that borders me. The time I spent
with Mrs. Kathe, I think Mrs. Kathe challenged everything I said. Good questions, and I had
an answer for every question to show that I was unique. I effect no one else. Do I have enough
the land between me and the store, if you gave me a spot zone of 1 acre that borders the
Cleverdale lawn... I'll tell you what people have said that I've tried to sell that property to,
and again I am the biggest fan of the Cleverdale store, it is a class operation, I am not saying
it is not. I am saying it is not the place for a house, and everyone says the same thing. We
got a buffer zone because of the lawn. What happens is the lawn neighborhood commercial,
of course it is, it's part of their property., Well what happens when that gets developed?
200,
Do you understand where I am coming from? I think something has been wronged here. I
look at this as an opportunity to rectify it. 1 have enough land... Mrs. Kathe, one question
she had, which I thought was excellent, she said 'if the acre of land next to the Cleverdale
store was spot zoned and made commercial, what would be your protection from that then?'
The answer was easy, I have another acre between that. So the only person that you are effecting
by this decision, that I feel, is me, is my home. To be sitting here saying this area is commercial,
I'm a little uncomfortable with that too, because I really don't want everything developed
commercially. I really don't know if I want to develop my piece of land commercial. But
I bought it as an investment. I'd like to take advantage of this opportunity, to say that legally,
and I probably spent a hundred dollars on this...I've been down here, I've gone through everything
there is to go through. There was never any meeting. My'land has never been changed as
of this moment, I think legally, and I again I'm not an legal expert. There has been no change
by any board in the Town of Queensbury to change my zoning which was neighborhood commercial.
Now, who knows who is responsible, you might have built your house illegally, I might have.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-The least we could do is have you tear it down.
MR. MUNOFF-I just want the Board members to understand the uniqueness of the situation,
and I want the Board members to understand that I am not crying over spilled milk, and I
don't want something that I normally didn't want. I was very naive, my wife and I, yes we
want to build a home. It wasn't until I lived there, we are talking about, you had to go through
there with a machetti, to build a road to where I live, it was just growth. After living there,
I find out that this one piece of land that I have, is utterly useless as an investment. Utterly
useless as a residential dwelling. I repeat the number of business that are adjacent to that
piece of property. It is not fit to build a home, to get a return on my investment. The answers
that I have asked for, I haven't received. I've asked for someone to tell me why, well I gave
you the why it was changed. It was sort of in convenience, and it was nothing underhanded,
it really was nothing that was wrong. I think he was trying to serve a citizen of Queensbury.
But did cover myself, I did go to Mrs. York's office three weeks ago. Your assistant, I'm sorry,
I don't remember his name, I asked him and we went through and we did the scale. We did
by the scale the footage from that corner what is considered commercial. Because he used
the footage that you have, you have a chart. Yes, it backed up my claim, yes your land is,
was, whatever, part of neighborhood commercial. Now the only thing he brought up, was
perhaps in 1982, there was some amendments to the zoning. So I checked on that. My land
was bought in 1985, until the day I bought it was neighborhood commercial. So legally it
has never been changed. I guess what I am asking the Board again tonight, I really don't think
I am asking for something I am not entitled, what.I am asking you for is to rectify what I
feel was a wrong doing. I don't mean a wrong doing by him trying to help me out with a residential,
but 1 guess wrong doing on my part, feeling I live in a residential area, as I just.pointed out
to you. There are four year round residence. It is basically a commercial area. When you
have five hundred people sleeping in less than four-tenths of a mile in one night, I call that
commercial.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Mr. Munoff, your request specifically then is, of the five acres
you own, three acres is where your house is located, you are requesting the Town Board to
consider the one acre parcel that is adjacent to the Cleverdale store, that would be on the
west side of your property, southwest side, to rezone that commercial, or neighborhood commercial,
the same as the corner with the Cleverdale store.
MR. MUNOFF-That was my original request but as you had said at the last meeting, spot
zoning was not looked on favorably. So if it wasn't looked on favorably as I said at the last
meeting, then I would like reinstated my original zoning, which legally I think it still is zoned.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-That means that all five acres would be neighborhood commercial.
MR. MUNOFF-Yes rather than lose the investment of that one acre. Because we are talking
about some valuable land. I feel is valuable.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Would one acre be spot zoning if it is contiguous with next door
neighbors land?
MRS. YORK-1 think the answer was that we disapprove of split zoning.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-My letter to Mr. Munoff, I believe summarized the feeling of all the
boards, that was my intention, and that this has been looked at several times, I believe very
closely. The boards seem to hold to their position, leaving it residential. Now if anybody
from the Citizens Committee would like to speak or anyone else... even though we some time
disagree with them, there are times when we find it difficult to disagree depending upon
the circumstance. Your one acre request seems to have gotten some positive head nods,
the five acre request doesn't seem to be getting the reaction you would like to see.
V Y_
MR. MUNOFF-If you were to ask me what my option were, in response to what Mr. Montesi
just asked me, yes my option would be for that one acre commercial, for that one acre that
is adjacent to eleven businesses. All of them, I am glad I live next to them, I use all eleven
of them. But what I am saying is, it's just not a piece of property that can be developed residential.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-It seems to me I remember a comment that, one objection to
it was the visibility of where the access would have to be on the road, the curve.
MR. MUNOFF-I remember that concern was voiced. I had to go to Warren County Planning,
why I had applied for a variance commercially. With the frontage I have, which is, my wife
is better at numbers, hundreds of feet on 9L9 we have no visibility problems. I had to do all
of those along with the ENCON reports and everything when I went for my variance. If you
j could see my piece of property on a map you would understand, but I have a stretch on 9L
that in there you can find a place that is not a visibility problem, like adjacent to the Cleverdale
�— store, down below the hump. I know the hump you are talking about Mrs. Monahan.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I will say to the best of my knowledge, neighborhood commercial
�.� was a new zone instigated in 1982.
MR. MUNOFF-Correct, and I did check the 82 and there was no change on our property.
Also, that I thought was unique was when you said residential. If in fact, I'm just looking
for some consistency, if in fact you consider this residential the area, I guess I'd like to consider
four acres of mine residential, I was gathering the feeling by the news and by decisions on
other places, that when you dealt with an area that you felt was residential, you in fact, I
don't know the legal terms, made any commercial establishments in that particular area,
there was ... period on them. I don't know what the term is, I know that Gwinups store fell
into that category, I guess Williams store fell into that category and the reasons given were
the exact reasons you gave me. I guess my question is, is there consistency in your decision,
were all the commercial businesses that I just mentioned in my stretch, were they treated
in the same way as those stores, and if not why?
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Are you saying when Gwinups and Bardins market went through
the controversy of taking away....
MR. MUNOFF-Right, and I was one of the people that signed for both of them, not to take
it away.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Why wasn't Cleverdale store also...
MR. MUNOFF-No thats not my question at all. I am talking about the ten businesses in my
stretch, I am not talking about the Cleverdale store. I'm talking about cleverdale, the marinas,
Scotties, I don't want that done, don't get me wrong.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-1 think the answer is very clear.
MR. MUNOFF-Why was it done differently?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In neighborhood commercial they are not allowed uses in neighborhood
commercial. Neighborhood commercial are uses that are very essential to the people of that
area.. do we have a big snow storm, do we have some way they can't get out. They were
done originally in 1982 because these were basic necessities of people to try and cut down
on transportation, pollution, the gas prices and so on and so forth. A marina is not considered
an essential service. That is why they were included under this type of thing. We are not
comparing apples and apples.
MR. MUNOFF-Okay, that is a good answer, thank you.
MRS. YORK-When you say run out period, I guess what you are getting at, these big business,
which are part of this residential community, but not yet zoned as businesses are considered
preexisting nonconforming uses. The only way they can change at all, is if they go out of
operation completely for eighteen months and they revert to the residential uses.
MR. MUNOFF-Right, I guess what I didn't understand is why one sections were different,
treated differently, I thought, were treated differently, but Mrs. Monahan gave me an answer
that I am happy with. But gentleman I'm just not happy with the zoning of that one acre
and I challenge you, I'll feed you lunch, I make great eggsalad sandwiches, please come up
any day, and just watch the traffic on that corner. It is mind boggling and I'm not saying
it in a negative way. I'm proud to live next to the store, but I'm glad I've got three acres
between us.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mr. Munoff, I have another question. The front of your property
naturally faces Route 9L, but the back of your property abuts up to other residential property,
2-02
correct?
MR.-MUNOFF-Yes. Part of that Cleverdale store, most all of my property borders Cleverdale
store, and an estate, an elderly gentleman in Cleverdale. Down further going towards the
Schoonover side no residence border me. By residence I mean, there are no dwellings that
border me. In other words there is property between Jim,Schoonover and I.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Vacant property?
%MR. MUNOFF-Right. There is no residence behind me until you went up the Cleverdale Road,
I would say 3/4 of a mile, near John Mason's house up on the hill. I border no residences.
Dr. Kirkpatrick probably has forty acres back there.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But you are bordered by residential zones at that side of your
property?
MR. MUNOFF-I would say yes. Dr. Kirkpatrick's, he has access from two sides, from Cleverdale
and a deeded right of way from 9L, but no frontage on 9L. That is not anywhere near the
acre that we are talking about again.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just one other question so the Board knows, you did at one point
on ownership of this property, seek a variance for a seasonal business, specifically ice cream.
What was the disposition of that and why?
MR. MUNOFF-I didn't use any of this for my variance, okay. The fact that it was changed
because I knew it was changed. 1 think the reasoning was, I know what the reasoning was,
I don't think it was neighborhood dissatisfaction, as it was, I think the Cleverdale store was
misinterpreted to my intentions, and I really don't blame them. You get neighborhood commercial
and the next thing I'm selling Cambell soup, that is not my intention at all. But at that time
they were very concerned, very concerned and they voiced the most opposition of course.
But as I said on a weekend when you are sleeping that many people, and you can say what
you want gentleman, there are needs to be met. There is only one place to meet those needs
right now, and of course that is the Cleverdale store. Fine, that is where most of my needs
are being met. What I am saying is, I have a piece of property that originally I thought I could
develop residentially, that is why I bought it. I need one acre for my house, I didn't, I am
glad I bought it, but at the same time I want to take advantage, yes, am I taking advantage
of something that was done, I feel wronged, yes. I think that legally I am still neighborhood
commercial and I defy anybody to define the change for me. Nobody has been able to. I've
spent probably forty hours down here. Again, the last time we came, we did it with a ruler
and we did it by the footage. Yes, you definitely were, of course he didn't say what my zoning
was but according to how the zone was established, yes your property indeed was part of
that original neighborhood commercial.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Is there any reason why you haven't sold that in the past two or three
months as neighborhood commercial if that is what it currently zoned as? Have you been
trying to sell it?
MR. MUNOFF-No because I would never do that without coming to the Board and making
sure because according to documentation, I'm not neighborhood commercial.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-According to the proposed, but you are saying according to the present
zoning you are.
MR. MUNOFF-No, according to the way I interrupt it.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-So your whole parcel was changed?
MR. MUNOFF-Yes, with the flick of a pen, in 1985.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Just so everyone understands, what you are saying is, you came
in in 1985 and someone downstairs, the zoning code enforcement officer, whoever, said to
you in order to build your house here you really need to have it residentially zoned and erased
the line and made it residentially zoned. In essence that is what you are saying happened.
MR. MUNOFF-In essence, he asked what are intentions were, and we said to build a home.
The reason we came was because the day before the closing we found out it was neighborhood
commercial. So Mike called me and I met downstairs. With all do respect to the gentleman,
he looked at the line and said, 'well yea, I guess this could have been,' there was nothing pretentious,
nothing underhanded, there was nothing dishonest. There really wasn't and at the time he
did me a service. I find out later that it turned out to be a disservice. I would much rather
have gone for a variance to build a house then go for a variance to get a commercial piece
of property.
243
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-He really did something wrong.
MR. MUNOFF-You have to understand the situations too. Other people wanted the property,
it was the day before the closing, the didn't want a fuss, the sellers, do you understand where
I am coming from. If I said, 'ito 1 want to get this cleared,up legally,' then the property is
gone also. So I guess I felt like I really had no choice. But again I thank you all for listening
to me and to all of us because I know how valuable your time is and what a service you are
doing. I'm not saying that for any points with you, I really mean that. But at the same time,
I really want you to look at my situation. I repeat, I really feel I am unique. I effect no other
residents. I guess as bugs bunny says, thats about it folks... Thanks alot.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Thank you. Let us never be accused of cutting anybody off. We listen
to everyone all night long if we have to.
DAVE SANDERSPREE, Cleverdale-If I want to make an addition on my bar, restaurant, am
I going to have to go for a variance? It is in Cleverdale and has been there for longer than
most of the houses. Will I have to go for a variance? I don't want to do anything today, but
maybe tomorrow.
MRS. YORK-You have commercial property but you have not been zoned that, you are in
a residential neighborhood, even though you are commercial property. There are many, many,
cases like this all over town. In any case with your property if you wanted to expand, you
would need a variance. I can absolutely say until I look a little more closely to your property
but your situation has not changed.
COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Lee that is the case. Prior to this zoning change, Mr. Sanderspree,
with the existing zoning the way it was, if you were to do, I don't know what percentage,
but if you were to do a major addition to your business it would probably require a variance,
right now, today.
MRS. YORK-Your situation has not changed. Today you would need a variance for it in all
likelihood, I can't say for sure until I look at your proposal and that would fall under the determination
of the Zoning Administration, not myself.
COUNCILMAN POTENZA-041 of the shin s if something should g g happen and the restaurant
should close or it should go out of business and eighteen months passed, that property would
revert back to residential piece of property. It could not be sold as a business. That is the
difference between perhaps Gwinups or Williams. That is zoned neighborhood commercial
and they can expand their business and do what they want with their business. After eighteen
months you would have to revert back to a residence, it is a nonconforming use.
MR. SANDERSPREE I understand, thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think like everyone else in the audience, I would like to pay
tribute to the volunteer citizens who spent so many hours, we promised them when they first
took on this job, I don't know if we told them they would be meeting for three or six months.
MRS. YORK-Three months.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I am not going to even ask how many hours they put in and how
many meetings. But I do want to thank them for the dedication to the task and for getting
a second breath along the way every time they needed one and tackling it again.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-I think we all want to second that. It has been a tremendous effort,
as much as we've suffer through some of these, your suffering has been, good suffering I guess.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9:22 P.M.
COUNSEL DUSEK-The public hearing completes one phase. There is actually two things
going on in the rezoning process. One part of the rezoning is the actual passing of the law,
which follows the Town Law, section 265. The other section that the Town Board is dealing
with at the same time is the SEQRA process, which is mandated by New York State Law,
which is the Environmental Review aspects of the zoning ordinance. Tonight the Board is
accomplishing two things, one being the Public Hearing on the Zoning Law, the second being
the review of the final environmental impact study for the SEQRA review process, which
there is a proposed resolution for the Board to consider, finding that this document is complete.
In regard to the SEQRA process, if the Board in fact finds that the final document that is
before them tonight, is in fact complete, it will then be published in the newspaper, notification
that the document is complete. Ten days from the time that it is published in the newspaper
the document will be available for the publics review. I believe the notification that will
be published in the paper will indicate that the document will be available here at the Town
2
Hall at the Adirondack Community College, also at the Crandall Library, and the I believe
the Town Clerk will have some copies on hand, in addition to the copy that is available for
review. ,Following the ten day comment period, which, if my calculations are correct, should
put us around the 19th or 20th of September. At that point the Board will be in a position
where it can make its final findings concerning this environmental review process. The final
findings can go one of two ways. There is no environmental impact or whatever environmental
impacts there are, they are relatively minimum and they should not cause the project to fail
which is the rezoning. Or it could find that the environmental impacts are so significant
that the project should not proceed. Assuming that they find that the project should proceed,
as soon as that is over with, which that could occur as early as the 19th or 20th. The very
next step for the Board to do after that is actually pass the ordinance, which should also occur
on the 19th or 20th. As soon as it is passed it will be published in the newspaper, most likely
the next day, a summary of the ordinance. The ordinance will thereafter become effective
within 10 days of the publication date, pursuant to law. We have found-that apparently the
zoning booklets that are basically photocopies that are in the Town Clerk's office, the PUD ----...
or the Planned Unit Development article, which is article 15, that has been inserted in these
books is in error. That there should have been inserted another Planned Unit Development
article, which is the current Planned Unit Development article that the Board is presently
operating under. What was accidentally inserted was the one that was originally adopted
in 1982. That one had been amended in 1987. I would like to propose to the Board that in
addition to the resolutions they have before them tonight that they also authorize a notice
to be published in the Post Star indicating that there will be a correction made to this part
of the zoning, which could also be accomplished in the next ten days as well.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Would the final ten days after we pass this, coincide with when
we come out of the Moratorium?
COUNSEL DUSEK-Right to the day as of tonight.
SUPERVISOR BORGOS-Noted that once we come out of the moratorium and anyone wishes
to submit a request for a rezoning it would go through the normal channels, a smaller, quicker
process.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION OF COMPLETION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
THE REZONING OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, TYPE I
RESOLUTION NO. 363, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded —,Xp'"
by Marilyn Potenza.
WHEREAS, the Master Plan Advisory Committee was formed in August of 1987 and thereafter
the Master Plan Advisory Committee held neighborhood meetings and developed a rezoning
proposal for the entire Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board established the Town Board as lead agency for the rezoning of
the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury determined the necessity for preparing
an Environmental Impact Statement in connection with the rezoning of the Town of Queensbury,
and
WHEREAS, Lee York, Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury, prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the rezoning of the Town of Queensbury
was accepted and deemed complete by the Town Board for the Town of Queensbury on May
16, 1988, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on June 6, 1988 in accordance with the State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the purpose of obtaining public comment on the DEIS and the rezoning
of the Town of Queensbury and
WHEREAS, a second public hearing was held on June 27, 1988, in accordance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act for the purpose of obtaining comment on the DEIS and
the rezoning of the Town of Queensbury and
WHEREAS, a proposed Final Environmental Impact Statement on the rezoning of the Town
of Queensbury has been submitted for review to the Town Board, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury recognizes the need to make diligent
progress in the review process for the proposed rezoning and revised subdivision regulations,
205
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts as a Final Environmental
Impact Statement the proposed FEIS which was submitted by Lee York, Senior Planner, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the annexed Notice of Completion of Final EIS is hereby approved and adopted,
and'BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that copies of such Notice of Completion and FEIS shall be filed and served in
accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality.Review Act regulations.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FROM THE NEW YORK STATE
DIVISION FOR YOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 364, Introduced by Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Montesi.
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is eligible for funds from the New York State Division
for Youth, and
WHEREAS, Harold R. Hansen, Director of Parks and Recreation, has prepared application
for the total amount of monies which the Town of Queensbury is applying for in the year
1989 for recreation funds in the amount of $18,500. for the administration, supervision and
operation of year round recreation programs and activities,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorize Stephen J. Borgos, Supervisor, to sign the funding
application for submission to the New York State Division for Youth.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CORRECTION NOTICE
RESOLUTION NO. 3652 Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, it has been noted that the wrong Article 15 was inserted into the proposed new
Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to correct this error and hold another public hearing on
the correct Article 15,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Clerk to publish a corrected
notice in the Glens Falls Post Star, setting a public hearing on the Correct Article 15 on September
19, 1988 at the Queensbury High School Auditorium, Aviation Road, Town of Queensbury 7:00
P.M. and be it further
RESOLVED, that corrected version of the Article 15 Planned Unit Development are on file
in the Town Clerk's Office.
Duly adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
Noes: None
Absent: Mr. Kurosaka
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
t
_mot""'•