Loading...
1991-02-27 WKSP ----- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WORKSHOP SESSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 1991 INDEX Amendments to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance 1. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ i J ('f-/ (jY( QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WORKSHOP SESSION FEBRUARY 27TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JEFFREY KELLEY BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA JOYCE EGGLESTON TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI MR. TURNER-We have a draft amending the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. We have Section One. Article II, General Provisions, Related to Definitions. We have Amendments and Deletion of certain definitions set forth therein as follows and to re-number all definitions chronologically if necessary. Okay. Does everybody understand what they've got? Under Home Occupation. you're going to include Bed and Breakfast? MR. DUSEK-That's a request by the APA. When the Ordinance originally went through. in 1988. the APA reviewed it and made several requests, they call them requests. I guess. almost instructions. that we should revise these areas of the Ordinance to bring them into compliance with what the APA wants. Mrs. Monahan's here tonight. I know she's had some concerns over that. It's proposed. right now. I suppose some di scussion will have to occur with the APA and the Town Board and whatnot, but that's how it got there. MR. TURNER-Okay. The parking space, everybody's familiar with that. We just talked about that. MR. GORALSKI-Just to reiterate that the Planning Board had recommended that you change all parking spaces to 9 by 20. The Zoning Board may want to mention whether or not they agree with that or don't care. MR. TURNER-9 by 20. that's residential included? MR. GORALSKI-For everything, right. MR. TURNER-Everything. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARR-Ted. could we go back to Home Occupation. I had a question. Okay. This is excluding Bed and Breakfast. beauty shops. etc. and other establishments offering services to the general public. Does that mean doctors, lawyers are not Home Occupations. or cannot be considered, general offices are not considered a Home Occupation? MRS. COLLARD-No. they are not. MRS. GOETZ-You can't have more than. is it. more than one employee in Home Occupation? MR. CARR-Well. I'm looking at. okay. Bill Nealon's office on Glen Street. That's in the Town isn't it. or is it just in the City? MRS. COLLARD-That's in the City. MR. TURNER-No. that's in the City. MR. CARR-Okay. but that situation. I mean. he's got one secretary and he's got his Home Occupation. MRS. COLLARD-No. because you can't advertise. MR. GORALSKI-You can't have a sign. 1 MR. TURNER-No signs. MR. CARR-So who is the other attorney. just down the street from him? MR. TURNER-John Matusik. MR. CARR-He just filed for bankruptcy. KARLA CORPUS MS. CORPUS-John Matusik. MR. CARR-John. MRS. GOETZ-It's Don. MR. TURNER-Don. MR. CARR-Don Matusik. So. if that was his home, he would not be allowed to have an occupation there. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. COLLARD-There are Sections of the Ordinance that permit a professional office. incidental to residential use. but that's site plan approval. but it definitely would not be a Home Occupation. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-That's what it says. That excludes it. MR. CARR-That means it has to have site plan approval, but does it also now mean it has to have a va ri ance? MRS. COLLARD-If a doctor wanted to have a house in his home, he would have to have a variance first. MR. CARR-A use variance? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Well. Pat. isn't there some zones that allow that. though? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-With site plan review. MR. DUSEK-Right. So he wouldn't need a.... MRS. COLLARD-If he's in the right zone. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARR-But then don't we have a conflict in here? MR. DUSEK-No. There's a separate. Home Occupation is one thing. Then there's a separate clause. what is it. Professional Office in the Home or something. there's another clause that specifically allows it. MRS. COLLARD-It's Professional Office Incidental to Residential Use. MR. GORALSKI-For example. I think in Rural Residential that's allowed. MRS. GOETZ-I think we need to go back to, why didn't we exclude it in the first place when we wrote the Definitions? MR. TURNER-We have a definition of Bed and Breakfast. MRS. COLLARD-What's the difference between Bed and Breakfast and a Tourist Home? MR. TURNER-There's a lot of difference. MR. DUSEK-Well. the Definitions in the Ordinance on Page 5 for Bed and Breakfast. MR. TURNER-Yes. right at the top of the page. 2 MR. DUSEK-It says it means "a Bed and Breakfast facility which is not a hotel or motel, but rather is a dwelling", so indicating some sort of a house type unit, "in which overnight accommodations for a maximum stay of one week and breakfast only are provided or offered for transient guests for compensation" and they're indicating it's secondary to the use of the occupancy as a family dwelling unit. MRS. GOETZ-It must be that it was felt the Bed and Breakfast operation is unique enough to be pulled out of Home Occupation definition. Ted. do you remember why we have. there had to be a reason why we felt it should be separated out in Definitions. MR. TURNER-I guess you've got to go look here. MRS. GOETZ-But is APA going to say we have to do it anyway? I mean, why do we hassle it if? MR. DUSEK-Well. that's what they've said so far, but my position is that's what they contacted us and said. There's nothing to say we can't go back and discuss it with them if that's what the Town Board would like to do. MRS. COLLARD-Why would you want a Bed and Breakfast as a Home Occupation? MRS. GOETZ-That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I do want it. MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and under Definitions. Bed and Breakfast is a Home Occupation and therefore to be consistent with their Definitions. they would like to see it be not a definition. MR. TURNER-Bed and Breakfast is in the RR-3 and RR-5 Zones. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. it is. MRS. COLLARD-Right. MR. TURNER-And that puts it right in the APA. pretty much. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. SICARD-If you're in the APA. MR. TURNER-They're right in the APA. pretty much. MRS. GOETZ-Right. but they don't want it as a Home Occupation? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-Well. they're just saying that it's not a Home Occupation. MR. TURNER-It's not a Home Occupation. They're classifying it as a business. MR. CARR-It's a business. MR. DUSEK-Maybe that's an important point to note is that they're not saying you can't have it. They're just saying. we don't call it a Home Occupation. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-And they're saying. you shouldn't do it either and I think maybe the critical thing to do here would be to check the rest of the Ordinance to make sure we haven't precluded. you know. if you have. like. under Rural Residential. Home Occupations are okay and if you've changed the definition. now that means Bed and Breakfasts aren't okay. So, maybe we have to go back through and change it. MR. GORALSKI-However, Bed and Breakfasts are listed separately in those zones. MR. DUSEK-So maybe it won't have as big an impact as we think. MRS. COLLARD-I don't think it's going to have. MRS. GOETZ-So aren't we doing what they wanted by separating it out? MR. GORALSKI-Anyway. yes. we are. Technically. our Ordinance, I think, does what they're asking us to do already. MRS. GOETZ-I do. too. 3 ~ MRS. COLLARD-I agree. MR. GORALSKI-But I think it's just a matter of semantics. MRS. GOETZ-Right. because we wouldn't have made it two separate definitions. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. GOETZ-And maybe it's better to leave well enough alone and not do as they suggested. MR. CARR-I also have trouble with semantics. there. because it says. a Home Occupation means any domestic or service activity carried on by members of a family. but excluding services to the general public. I mean. what's the sense of having a Home Occupation that's a service that you can't sell to the general public? I mean. it doesn't make sense. So. you 're saying you can have a Home Occupation service. but then two phrases later you're excluding the whole thing. MRS. COLLARD-You could be a Home Aid. you take phone calls in your home. Come and give me a bath. MR. CARR-But that is offering services to the general public excluded. MRS. COLLARD-I have determined that offering services to the general public is the general public is coming to your house. MR. CARR-Well. then I think that's got to be clarified here because, yes. you're reasonable. but what if you're not around? MRS. COLLARD-I'm going to be around forever. MRS. GOETZ-But the uses that they exclude in the definition of Home Occupation seem to have the potential of having a lot of traffic problems. MR. CARR-And that's all I'm saying is that I think you're just asking for either abuses or misconceptions about what that means because you're saying you can do it. at the very beginning, and then you're excluding it and. I mean, there's an inherent conflict right there. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think, yes. but I think if you were to apply court rules in terms of interpretation. the listing that follows, but excluding and then they provide a list, and then that general statement of establishments offering services. I think the court would try to read it, first of all, consistent. and I think you very well could. by saying what they've obviously done is tried to list the types of establishments that would not be allowed in a Home Occupation and that generalized statement afterwards is not in conflict with what first started. but rather just a continuation to tell you. this is the way we really meant it. just any type of thing that falls in this general category will not be allowed. MR. CARR-Yes. but there's two problems with that. One is, you know. the court would have to decide. So why even waste our time and money getting to court if we can clarify it now, and the second thing is. the Planning Board is always griping that Pat interprets too much. So why start something that we know is going to be subject to interpretation that somebody, either on our Board. the Planning Board or the Town Board may come up against and disagree with. if there is a way we should, I think we should work on wording it now, to take care of that. MR. DUSEK-The only other thing I'd like to mention here is that the whole idea behind these amendments was just to pick out the big areas that were problematic and I'm not saying. certainly. if you want to you can't address this area. but the definition that you see here was in existence prior to the change. The only thing that's been changed is the word that we've underlined as added. As you go through all of this, just so you know. what we've tried to do is just pick out the biggest areas that the Board. in meeting with Lee and everybody, were concerned with and then we can always revisit these other areas, but certainly if you feel, if it's enough of a concern, I mean. I think you certainly have the right to tell the Town Board what you think about it. MRS. GOETZ-What would your suggestion be for a definition? MR. CARR-My suggestion would be in other establishments offering services to the general public which would require their presence at the home location, or something to that effect so that we're clear that what we're doing is not the person who's answering the phone for the Maids or whatever. but it's when the people have to come and say. okay. I want to fill out this contract here. or whatever. MRS. GOETZ-Try to enforce that. I know of abuses in Home Occupation. MR. CARR-Sure. but that's the intent. I mean, right? That's what I heard right now is that that's the intent is to, any service that requires people to come to your home is going to be excluded from Home Occupation. 4 MR. TURNER-Anything that is as listed or other uses that are similar are a business. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-They're excluded. MR. CARR-That's right. MR. TURNER-They're gone. They're not a Home Occupation. I don't have any problem with that. Have you got a problem with the way it's worded? And then it down here it says. massage or other establishments offering services to the general public. other establishments offering other services. MR. CARR-Right. Well, I mean. what's an occupation that doesn't offer a service to the general public? MR. TURNER-But a Home Occupation is like somebody that quilts or does crafts or something like that. but that's an incidental use to the residence that's within the residence, that's done by that person. There's no sign out there that says there's anything for sale. period. MR. SICARD-Well. a one person beauty shop could comply with just what you've said. MR. TURNER-A beauty shop... MR. GORALSKI-People have to come there. MR. TURNER-They have to come there. MR. CARR-But a quilting person might. too. MR. SICARD-Everybody has to come there. MR. CARR-Yes. I think this is overly restrictive, myself. MRS. COLLARD-A lot of people think it is. MR. CARR-I mean. yes. I could make. I think. a real good argument that it's any business that the public uses. but you can't have as a Home Occupation. MR. TURNER-How about a guy that wants to run a t.v. repair shop in his garage. How about a guy that wants to sell guns out of his garage like we had before us here one time. That is a business. That doesn't belong in a residential zone. MR. CARR-I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying. MR. TURNER-No. but I'm saying, it doesn't belong in a residential zone. MR. CARR-Well. I'm just saying. okay, that guy comes and the quilting person comes. who makes the interpretation as to what is meant by this? I mean. and then when you get into interpreting what is meant, then you're getting into an imbalanced Zoning Ordinance when it's subject to too much interpretation. Am I wrong in that? MR. DUSEK-Well, two points. You. first of all. read the Ordinance to see if it's ambiguous and I guess what I'm suggesting is that I don't feel, based upon my reading of that, that it's ambiguous or that a court would find that it's ambiguous. I think that. certainly though since we're discussing it. maybe there's reason to try to improve it so that we can make it better, but I'm not terribly uncomfortable. from a legal standpoint. with the way it reads. MR. TURNER-No. I don't have a problem with the way it reads. It defines, down at the bottom. what a Home Occupation might very well be. MR. SICARD-I know. in the past, we've allowed some of these services. like I can remember a bicycle repairman. where a man retired because of some disability and he went into a cellar repairing bicycles. So, people have to bring bicycles there and take them away and this is in operation today and I think this is fine because he couldn't do anything else because of a disability. but people still have to go there. the same as Teddy said and it's a service to people. just as Bruce said. that would cover just about everything. MR. CARR-You've got a catch all phrase. here. for Home Occupation that catches everything that h a Home Occupation and I just think it's subject to abuse. it could be. MR. DUSEK-Have we had a lot of problems in Town with it so far? MR. TURNER-Not really. 5 "-- - MRS. COLLARD-If there is a problem, I'm able to phone the person and it generally is handled. MR. DUSEK-Well, I mean. have you had a lot of problems fighting over interpretation of this provision? MRS. COLLARD-No. MR. SICARD-There's a lot of services out there that are being done today by one person and they're classified as Home Occupation. I could probably give you 25 quick. MR. TURNER-Charlie. just like you said. there's a lot of places in Town that are doing things that nobody even knows about. MRS. COLLARD-That's right. That's very true. MR. SICARD-Well. I think this is probably true, but just as Bruce said. this should be clarified because it puts her on the spot and if she says yes and somebody says no. it's the same. You talk about thi s man with the bicycles. MRS. COLLARD-I haven't had a problem with it at all. MR. TURNER-Well. a guy comes in. or she calls the guy up and she says. you know. we've got a complaint. right. You're doing repair work on. all right, we'll take your case. bicycles. right? MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's not a Home Occupation. MRS. COLLARD-He would have to come in for a variance. The bicycle repairman would have to come in for a variance. Charlie. MR. TURNER-That is a business. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. CARR-I have a question. too. My wife had a word processing service. We have a computer and a printer at home. She'd take in resumes or whatever. People sometimes would come to our house. I mean. what's the difference between her typing and somebody knitting? MR. SICARD-Or repairing a bicycle? MR. CARR-Yes. what's the difference? MR. DUSEK-I think what you're saying. Bruce, is that you might want to broaden the definition. Is that the idea? MR. CARR-She's out of business, today. MR. DUSEK-I sense there's a couple of different issues floating around here. One is whether or not the language is clear on what it means. but then there's also another case being made that maybe this is too restrictive. Is that what I'm sensing? MR. CARR-I guess when you items. but then you put a getting into a conflict. things that you think are Occupations. say a Home Occupation. you define it. but then you say. excludes certain catch all exclusion that catches what you've just defined. I think you're I would rather either see there's no catch all and you list the specific not Home Occupations or you list the specific things you think are Home MR. KELLEY-They are listing the things that are not. MR. SICARD-That would clarify it. MR. CARR-Right. and I'm fine with that. What I have trouble with is. for all other establishments offering service to the general public. MR. DUSEK-What it if said, or all other establishments offering similar services? Then doesn't it clarify that that statement means to define generally. that that's a list of examples and that. if you fall within that example list. I'll tell you. there's two sides to the issue. One is. you can list it. The other is. though. that if you list it, I mean. that can be good because it's clear. but then you 're stuck with that list and what is happening to you in your Ordinance right now is that somebody comes in, li ke with the Wood Ca rte. and they don't fi tin anywhere. so they had to come to you. MR. TURNER-Yes. 6 MR. DUSEK-So. there's a pro and a con and in the end it's your call, but I just point that out to you. MR. CARR-I mean. I think John said, if it's not broke. don't fix it. Well. I just see this. I mean. everybody with a Home Occupation should be in here for a use variance, based on this definition. Pat. that's my interpretation. MRS. COLLARD-All right. I've listened, but I don't agree with you. MR. CARR-I mean. it doesn't make sense. MRS. COLLARD-I have not had any problems with it. Bruce. MR. CARR-No? MRS. COLLARD-No. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-No because. Bruce, the other areas of the Ordinance have picked up on that and defined a lot of stuff that was falling between the cracks. too. MR. SICARD-Well. I think there's a lot of things you can, like I think a home service should be one person, the person that lives there. MR. TURNER-That's it. MR. SICARD-And this kind of thing, but the minute you put on two people and you start delivering or putting up signs and all these other things. they should be all eliminated. but one person that's repairing a bicycle. I'll go back to that. People bring their bicycle there. He's a disabled man and he's just, and I can remember this a long time ago. and the guy can't do anything else. MR. TURNER-Yes. I remember that. MR. SICARD-He's not delivering. He's not advertising. He has no sign. He doesn't even have a telephone. They just bring a bicycle in to be repaired. What's the difference between that and a hairdresser that's doing this part time, one person? MR. COLLARD-Charlie. come in tomorrow and we'll talk about it. okay. MR. CARR-1'm not going to make any thing of it. If Sue can live with it, I can live with it. I mean, she designed this thing. If she can live with an inherent conflict in her Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-Right. it's not mine and the thing is, it's amazing that we ever put anything together. Look at how we hassle over these few words. MR. GORALSKI-True. MR. TURNER-Are we off that one? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-196. we've already taken care of. parking. Shoreline setback. we're going to delete 262. change it to 263. Is that correct. Paul? MR. DUSEK-What happened is in the Ordinance there were actually two definitions set forth for shoreline building setback. We're eliminating Number 262 and going with Number 263. At least that's the proposal. and 263 has been slightly modified on the next page. MRS. GOETZ-Just expanding upon.. MR. TURNER-Shoreline lot width, yes. Shoreline lot width is 6462. MRS. COLLARD-What are we on now? MR. TURNER-263. Does anyone have a problem with that? No problems with that? Section two Article IV. Zoning Districts and Regulations, permitted use where it's underlined. MR. GORALSKI-If I could just kind of paraphrase that. What that means is that. the uses listed at the top of the next page. if there was a change of use. where one of those uses was going in. no site plan review would be required. MR. TURNER-Right. 7 MR. GORALSKI-In the Planning Board discussion, they fe1t that possibly one of the uses such as a restaurant on that list might not be appropriate because most of those uses are types of retal1 businesses or businesses that have basically the same traffic generation. where the restaurant would be di fferent. MRS. COLLARD-True. MR. GORALSKI-So. I think the general feeling from the Planning Board at least was that Restaurant be removed from that list. MRS. COLLARD-I thought it was going to basically say a retail business can replace a retal1 business. Mr. Dusek. MR. DUSEK-I don't follow. MRS. COLLARD-A retal1 business can replace a retal1 business. If a drug store goes out and another retail business wants to come in. MR. DUSEK-That's what everybody is trying to accomplish. here. MRS. COLLARD-I thought so. MR. DUSEK-And in this particular instance. it was done by listing. MRS. COLLARD-So the Restaurant shouldn't be included in that? MR. DUSEK-Maybe not. BETTY MONAHAN. TOWN BOARD MRS. MONAHAN-Paul. can I jump in here. because I remember that discussion very much and what the discussion was. they were saying that the list should depend on the same intensity of use. in relationship to parking and the traffic and etc.. because you could take one retail that there might be very little traffic coming to it, and you might take another retal1 if there was more. There was just one for the Staff review where it had been a pet shop with very little traffic. They wanted to become a pizza parlor which was going to be a lot of in and out traffic and they were talking about that type of situation. that if you're going to let something replace each other. you had to make sure it was going to be the same intensity of use. MR. DUSEK-This may be something. in light of the comments. when it gets back to the Town Board. that maybe it wl1l be slightly. you refreshed my recollection on the Planning Board's conference. too, and I think that this is something that possibly they may just try to re-word. but I think the general goal is as Betty stated, that they want to try to set up a situation whereby establishments currently in existence. that are not going to be changed by a new occupancy, w111 not have to go through the site plan review, so long as it's a siml1ar thing. Like if a guitar shop moves out and a pharmacy moves in, then nothing would have to be done. Right now, if that happens. they have to go through site plan review. but they're saying. well, why bother if the intensity and the cars and everything are going to be the same, but like Betty says. if the guitar shop moves out and the pizza hut comes in, well now you've got a different situation because you've got pick up windows and traffic circulating much more viciously. concentrated at certain times of the day and therefore maybe it's appropriate to make them go into a site plan review format. So that's generally what I'm getting the gist out of, what everybody wants to try to do. They want to try to accommodate similar businesses so that they don't have to go through the site plan, but they also want to protect the Town and that's been the message I've been getting from the Planning Department and I think the Town Board's started this off with that same idea in mind. MRS. GOETZ-So is Restaurant supposed to be in that list or not? MR. DUSEK-Well, what I'm saying is this is how it started. Planning Board has had their input and it hasn't gotten back to the Town Board yet, so I'm not quite sure how it will ultimately be re-worded. MRS. MONAHAN-Didn't they ask you, Paul, to come up with a list based on intensity to make sure there wasn't anything in there that was way off base? MR. DUSEK-Well. here again, my understanding is I think that they've asked it to be re-worked in some fashion and that's kind of how we left it. MRS. MONAHAN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-At this point, I didn't want to do anything until we've gotten through the first round of comments. 8 --" MRS. GOETZ-Well. what does everybody think about leaving restaurant in there? MR. TURNER-I don't think it belongs in Plaza Commercial. MRS. GOETZ-You don't think it does belong there? MR. TURNER-No. Well. you take Northway Plaza. You've got Mahov's there. right. That's one restaurant that's in the Plaza Commercial. It's not a big restaurant. MRS. COLLARD-Plaza's don't require site plan review. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-I think it should be taken out. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. and their parking. you have the parking schedule, right. applies? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-The parking schedule would apply to a restaurant in Plaza Commercial and that's separate from site plan review. MR. GORALSKI-They'd have to meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. TURNER-They'd have to meet all the requirements. MR. GORALSKI-They would still have to meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. CARR-Now. also on Type II. you're adding Retail Businesses? MR. DUSEK-Right. It's a more general clause to. it's kind of what. the Zoning Board has, in effect. done that kind of the other night. MR. TURNER-We did that the other night. with Blockbuster Video. MRS. GOETZ-I thought we did it with retail. with Carte. MR. DUSEK-You did it with Carte. MR. GORALSKI-The Wood Carte. MR. TURNER-I mean, with Lindsay Carte. not Blockbuster Video. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Well. I guess that would be our recommendation. then. not to include Restaurant under Type II in Plaza Commercial. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-So what we're saying is, basically. a restaurant should always go through site plan. unless it's part of a plaza. Is that right, and it's a change of use. MRS. COLLARD-Rather than list. why can't you just say. change of use would require site plan review? MR. CARR-Well. I guess what we're saying is that if there's a stationery story that goes out of business and a hardware store goes in its place. unless it changes the outside of the building, making additions or whatever. it doesn't need site plan. Is that correct? MRS. COLLARD-I'm saying. so a change of use. That stays retail. but I'm saying the change of use. MR. CARR-Well. okay. How about if we go from a stationery story to a radio station? MRS. COLLARD-That's office. MR. CARR-Right. So it's a change of use. but we're saying because.... MRS. COLLARD-So why list it, though? Why not just say a change of use will require site plan review? MR. CARR-Because. no, they're saying you don't need site plan review with that because the traffic flow between the stationery store and the radio station probably is similar so that you don't need to waste the Board's time by going back and having it looked at. Is that correct? 9 --- MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MRS. COLLARD-Okay. MR. CARR-But Restaurant has such hi gh turnover. You see. most of these places don't have a lot of in and out traffic. It's not like a restaurant in which you're going to try to feed so many dinners in so short of time. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. Well, if that restaurant. just quickly. on the corner of Corinth and Main were not serving food in the restaurant, no tables. wouldn't that just be a retail use. according to this definition here? MRS. GOETZ-Carl R's. you mean? MRS. COLLARD-"A restaurant means the preparation. serving and consuming indoors of food". Well, they're not going to consume. MR. CARR-What are you talking about. Corinth and? MRS. COLLARD-There was a proposed restaurant. a pizza place. on the corner of Corinth and Main. and I don't think they were planning on serving any food in the restaurant. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. they are. MRS. COLLARD-They are? Okay. MRS. MONAHAN-But they also thought that would be a high traffic volume type of thing because of people's dashing. picking up and leaving. you know, you'd have a lot more than the pet store that was there before. MRS. COLLARD-True. MR. DUSEK-Let me ask the Board this. Do you think there's a. maybe the device that was used to try to accomplish what we're looking to do, by listing, I guess the question is. is that the way to go. or should we have some sort of a general statement that says, if you're switching things that have the same intensities with other things that have the same intensities in a building already existing. that you don't have to go through site plan. In other words, what I'm saying, maybe we need a statement instead of a list. MR. CARR-No, because you can't have that because then we'd have the Wood Carte arguing with Pat saying, well. we have the same intensity of customers as a hardware store. okay, but they're a retail business. MRS. GOETZ-And this way, you get a little control over it. MR. CARR-Yes. I'd rather list. and if it doesn't come in the list. well, maybe we can amend it later, but you're going to have to go through site plan. MR. DUSEK-Okay. So you're saying list is a better way of going. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think so. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. because you get to talk it over and really see. Otherwise. it's left up to one person's word against another as to intensity, totally. MRS. COLLARD-And dangerous. MR. DUSEK-Well, there's other devices. For instance, maybe you use the parking schedule to dictate if it has the same intensity. MR. TURNER-Well. the parking schedule is going to dictate a lot of this anyway. MR. DUSEK-Right. But, okay, the favor here is the listing. though? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Also in that Section, the change to 20 percent permeable from 30 percent. MR. TURNER-Yes. 10 --- MR. GORALSKI-And you'll see I distributed. the Planning Board asked that we come up with. I guess. an explanation as to why 30 percent was arrived at. as opposed to any other number. I distributed Lee's answer to them to you. MRS. GOETZ-Is this consistent with what they did at Aviation Mall? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-It looks. to me. like we're changing everything to match Aviation Mall. Did I dream that? MR. DUSEK-Well. the suggestions got made that certain changes be made to Plaza Commercial. They would start to match up closely. There are. I think. some differences. though. between the two zones, though. in terms of acreage required, in terms of loading. There's a couple of differences". but they are coming c10ser together. if this proposal was adopted, and I don't know what the Town Board feels about it yet because the Town Board has just asked that this be circulated. MRS. GOETZ-It seems like the Town Board approved Aviation Mall. MR. GORALSKI-At any rate. you should all read what Lee wrote. but to quickly paraphrase. there is no hard and fast formula on how to figure out what the appropriate permeable area on a lot is. It has to do with recharging groundwater, hand1ing stormwater run off. It has to do with the Town's goals. as far as aesthetics and open space. There are a lot of subjective criteria that are used. So. nobody can stand up and say. it's got to be 30 percent or it's got to be 20 percent. It's really a decision that has to be made by the community. MRS. GOETZ-But it doesn't seem like 30 was way off. I mean. when you read the statistics of Colonie and C1ifton Park. They obviouslY weren't good. the five percent. and they had all these problems and there must be a good reason why they went to 15. So. like 30 doesn't seem that far off from what is reasonable. but those are statistics that have to be arrived at by engineers. aren't they? MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's what I'm saying. There is no empirical formula that an engineer is going to use and say. this is how much permeab11ity you should have. It's got a lot more to do with what the community feels is appropriate. MR. DUSEK-I mean. think it does have ~engineering ingredients, in terms of drainage and stuff. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. DUSEK-But John is right. There's more than just that. I think that's what you're trying to say. MR. GOETZ-So it's hard to know whether 20 or 30 is the best. MR. DUSEK-I think the other element, if I recall correctly. that is being considered is what is Plaza Commercial. currently. and I don't know if Plaza Corrnnercial reaches anything near 20 percent. even as it exists now. does it? MR. GORALSKI-I would say. I can't even think of a property in the Plaza Corrnnerc1al Zone that has 30 percent permeability. but I could be wrong. MRS. GOETZ-But that doesn't mean what's there is right. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MRS. GOETZ-And we are trying to improve the situation. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARR-But is there a bad situation? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. I do. I hate the Queensbury Plaza. You look at that place and that's a mess. The Queensbury Factory Outlet. whatever it is. and why did we go to all the work of this? MR. CARR-Well. what's a mess? What do you mean it's a mess? MRS. GOETZ-It's total blacktop. MR. CARR-That's the one where half the stores are empty. right? MRS. GOETZ-Right. No. I think visually. for one thing. all blacktop. So that would be my answer to that. I don't care what every thing is now. 11 -.-r MR. CARR-Well. what's the difference between that and Northway Plaza? MRS. GOETZ-Northway Plaza is nothing great either. I think they've done a lot with a bad situation to improve it. MR. CARR-But isn't that the purpose of a Plaza Commercial is kind of really to put the businesses in there? MRS. GOETZ-Not really. Not in my mind. MR. SICARD-I think the Northway Plaza probably had a lot more land that was available for just that thing. where there's other places that just don't have the land available for this kind of thing. You've got slopes and stuff at the Northway Plaza. They can't build on them, so they use it for permeability. but there's other places that are flat and then you have to take into consideration what's existing. You're not going to make a man tear up a piece of blacktop or something. That would be difficult. MRS. GOETZ-It would be nice, but, no. we're not going to change that. but. well. maybe that Queensbury Outlet. if somebody buys that, that will improve it. to some extent. MR. SICARD-That's going to change. That's all going to change. the whole configuration. MR. CARR-I mean. they aren't going to plant grass or anything, but I mean I just see plazas like... MR. GOETZ-Well. how do you know? They might. MR. CARR-They might. MRS. GOETZ-But my point is. I don't care what the existing shopping centers are. They're not the ideal. MR. CARR-I just don't know if 30 percent has to be open space 1Ð- that~. I mean. I see that as a very densely populated, commercial zone that you're going to find. Like the Northway Plaza. that's a large parking lot. but at least they've done nice with the building. MRS. COLLARD-They've got a good deal of plantings there, too. MR. CARR-Sure. MRS. GOETZ-They've improved it. MRS. COLLARD-It looks very nice. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There are other concerns. Like I say, there's no empirical formula. For example. it just so happens that the Plaza Commercial Zone in this Town has Halfway Brook running through it which is part of the major drainage system in this area. So, by paving everything over in that area. eventually the stormwater is dumping into Halfway Brook. or you're changing the flood plain of Halfway Brook. I mean. there's a lot of, that's why. you know. there's no hard and fast number that you can come up with. MR. SICARD-You're not referring to the Fire Station in there. are you? MR. GORALSKI-I could be. yes. I certainly could be. MR. KELLEY-All you have to do is look at the Brook after a rain storm. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KELLEY-Quaker Village is right up to the top. MR. TURNER-You're losing your absorption field for water, right away. MR. GORALSKI-Right. exactly. That's my point. MRS. GOETZ-Who came up with this 20 percent? MR. DUSEK-I think it's just thrown in there. It's nothing that any, you know. it was some suggestions. and I forget where they came from now. 1 took suggestions from everybody when I was drafting this and so if you want to know who put it in there. 1 put it in there. I put all the changes in. MRS. GOETZ-But did the Planning Board seem to favor it? How did they? MR. DUSEK-No. The Planning Board's reaction is what John is telling you. that they said. we want to see some proof as to what that figure should be. 12 -- MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. DUSEK-They didn't say they liked 20 percent. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. I don't like 20 percent. Are we going to say what we think. as a Board? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Why don't we just not change it. then. I mean. the 30 percent seems to be working. MR. TURNER-Leave it like it is. MRS. GOETZ-Leave it. MR. TURNER-There's been no problem with it. MR. KELLEY-The other thing, if you look at Colonie and Clifton Park, Colonie was at five percent and in 1979. they passed a change going to 35 percent. MRS. GOETZ-That's what I said. MR. KELLEY-Clifton Park was 35 and they're thinking of going to 40. So there must be some reason that they've run into why they want more permeable land. MRS. GOETZ-Right. and do we want to be another Wolfe Road? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-So I would like to see it stay at 30. MR. KELLEY-Leave it. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-I'd leave it. MR. TURNER-Okay, are we ready to move on? Article IV Zoning Districts and Regulations as it pertains to Highway Commercial and the part that's underlined is permitted uses. MR. GORALSKI-That's the same change as in the Plaza Commercial. MR. TURNER-Same as before. MR. CARR-So you're going to have the permitted with site plan. but you're also going to have the lists of permitted? Okay. Is that list actually going to be. I mean. it's not. just to be picky here. It's not listed here. Is it going to be listed there? MR. DUSEK-No. That wasn't the intent when I drafted it and I'll tell you why. because if you look in the current Ordinance. as it is written. they use that same type of thing saying that all uses permitted in the Plaza Commercial are permitted in the Highway, so I'm just trying to keep with the, you know, when I try to draft in the changes to the Ordinance. I try to leave as much of it as intact and try to keep my drafting style similar to that of the Ordinance so that it reads consistently and we're ever challenged. it hopefully has a unifying feature to it. In this particular case. there's no reason why we could not list them all. if that was the Board's preference. MR. CARR-Well. I think. I guess my question is, okay, in the Ordinance as it stands right now, you have this permitted with site plan review Type II. Okay. for Plaza Commercial you have a list. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARR-And for Highway Commercial you have a list also, don't you? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARR-And some of the things overlap. MR. DUSEK-Right. but then it has a statement that says. everything that's allowed in Plaza Commercial is allowed in Highway Commercial. MR. CARR-That's under the permitted uses, right? 13 --- MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARR-But what I'm saying is that the way it stands now is that all uses in Plaza Commercial are site plan reviews. right? MR. DUSEK-No. well not under the proposed revisions. There'll be certain uses. MR. CARR-No. I'm saying as it stands now. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARR-So. if you're adding a list in Plaza Commercial to clarify that these uses are interchangeable, not needing site plan. I just think you should add it here. as well, even though. because what you're asking to do is... MR. DUSEK-Turn back to Plaza Commercial. MR. CARR-Yes. but also you're not asking them to do it here. I mean. in the Ordinance as it's standing now. MR. DUSEK-No. What we're asking them to do in Highway Commercial is allow the same uses without site plan as in Plaza Commercial and it's really a matter of semantics whether we simply list them or we say, look back to Plaza Commercial to see what we allow. MR. CARR-Okay. I would like to see them listed. MR. DUSEK-If that's a preference. I don't have any trouble with doing it either way. MR. CARR-Because I think if you just. again, just to clarify it so that we know what we're talking about. MRS. GOETZ-You want to see what listed? MR. GORALSKI-The same list that was in Highway Commercial. MRS. GOETZ-I see. Okay. because it would be consistent. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. just to be consistent. I'm just afraid that somebody could argue. again. that, yes, in a Highway Commercial. you can have any use that's allowed in a Plaza Commercial. but low and behold. office building or professional office. I think, is on the good list under Plaza Commercial, but under here it specifically says. in a Highway Commercial, it needs site plan review. So it doesn't go back to Plaza Commercial. Just saying you can have one there, but it's site plan reviewed. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. DUSEK-I think you're misinterpreting what was written, though. that's what I'm saying. I think that what we did is we took, where it says permitted uses. if you read through the whole Ordinance. anywhere you see the word "Permitted Use". that means that you can do it automatically. So. if you look under Plaza Commercial, you see "Permitted Uses". All of those things that are listed there. so long as you're in the same building. you can do it automatically. So if you go to Permitted Uses under Highway Commercial. it's saying anything that was listed as an automatic Permitted Use under Plaza. it's the same thing under Highway and I'm saying. from a legal standpoint. I don't have a problem. I mean. I can list them again. That's not a difficult thing to do. but either way, I think it's the same. That's all I'm saying. MR. CARR-I'd like to see them listed. MR. TURNER-We haven't really had any problems with that. MR. CARR-No. I'm not saying that. but we might, because we're adding. We're putting another list in Highway, Plaza Commercial. I would just like to see the same list in Highway Commercial. If we're listing things that don't need site plan review. I would like to see the same list in Highway Commercial saying we don't need site plan review if you're just interchanging the lists. MR. SICARD-It would save a lot of time. too. probably. MR. CARR-That's right. I mean. why make people go back and forth between things. I mean. for the cost of the ink. it's clear. MR. DUSEK-And from a legal standpoint. I have no particular preference. I mean. my beginning statement was just explaining. I was just trying to keep as similar as I could, but I don't think that's so big of a change that would make that big of a difference. 14 MR. TURNER-When they come in for applications. they check in right downstairs and they'll nip it right in the bud right there. I don't see where we're going to have a problem with it. MR. CARR-Well. I'm just saying. I can see a problem arising and I think we are definitely not going to have if we list it. MR. TURNER-The only one we had a problem with was this one tonight because it wasn't listed as a Retail Business. That's the only one. MR. CARR-Yes. I just see on the list of exclusions is a Professional Office that remains a Professional Office in Plaza Commercial. but then I go to Highway Commercial and Professional Office is an allowable use. okay. but then it says here. Professional Office permitted with site plan review. I just think it could be confusing. I know \'4hat Paul is saying, and he's probably correct, but it just seems like you're making somebody flip back and forth and then trying to justify between the two what is really meant. when all we've got to do is just list them and everybody knows what's really meant. MR. DUSEK-I mean. like I say, from a legal standpoint I have no. you know, I can't tell you either way is wrong. You can do it either way. MR. SICARD-You wouldn't even have to list them. just put "same as". MR. CARR-Well. then you're flipping back and forth again. If it's the same list. I don't see what. all you've got to do is block it. move it. and reprint it. MRS. GOETZ-I have a question. as it's proposed. the wording. the new wording. under Pennitted Uses in Highway Commercial. The purpose is to cut down on site plan reviews, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. TURNER-All right. Is everybody satisfied? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Is that satisfied without the change or with the change? MR. TURNER-With the change or without it? MR. SICARD-With. MR. TURNER-Do you want the change. Charlie? MR. SICARD-Yes. I'd like to see the change. I think it would save a lot of work. MR. TURNER-Jeff, do you want to change the list for uses in Highway the same as they are in Plaza. without site plan? MR. KELLEY-It doesn't matter to me. I can do it either way. I guess. MR. TURNER-Yes. I can too. MRS. GOETZ-It's not going to hurt, and it might help. MR. CARR-That's my point. MR. TURNER-All right. the next Section is Designated Arterials. It's amended as follows. Does everybody understand that? The following roads shall comply with the requirements of the travel corridor overlay zone. and they're listed. Article IV. the amended part shall be. that's again. Overlay Zones. Let's see. designated streets are amended as follows, Regional Arterial Streets, and add Bay Road? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. TURNER-The next one is Section Six, Article IV. New Subdivision E.. to read as follows. principle buildings andlor structures, there should be no more than one principle building or structure on any single parcel of land less than two acres in size. 15 "--- MR. GORALSKI-What that does is it eliminates having two buildings on a lot. unless you subdivide, if it's less than two acres. MRS. GOETZ-Are there instances where this has come up before us? MR. GORALSKI-No, because they were allowed to do it. If you had a three acre lot. or in this case. if you had a two acre lot. you could put two houses on it without any review whatsoever. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-How did this come to be proposed? MR. GORALSKI-Because it was felt that that was a problem. People would build two single family houses on a lot. maybe 25 feet away from each other. parents and a son or a daughter and then later on they'd come in. they might come in and say, I want to subdivide now. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And then they'd have to come to you for a setback variance and they're difficulty would be. hey. I built those houses and you told me I could build them. you know. MRS. GOETZ-Like the one we had, the proposed on West Mountain Road? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. TURNER-That was two acres. there. MR. CARR-But why two acres? I mean, if somebody has three acres they can two put principle structures on it? MRS. COLLARD-Three principle structures on three acres. MR. CARR-How many? MR. GORALSKI-Three. MRS. COLLARD-Three. MR. GORALSKI-If it's a one acre zone. MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-If it's a one acre zone. It depends on the zone. MR. CARR-Okay. So I guess. why did you come up with these. or why did whoever come up with these? MR. DUSEK-Just a number picked that everybody. I think. felt comfortable with. that's my recollection. MR. TURNER-Does this pertain to the one on West Mountain Road where we considered it a flag lot and then there was a discussion? MR. GORALSKI-Not particularly. MR. TURNER-She could technically build. MR. GORALSKI-I mean. it would. yes. She could do that, yes. MR. TURNER-She could build on that other lot. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. she could. MR. TURNER-As long as she owned it. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. TURNER-I remember that discussion. MR. GORALSKI-But this has come up because people have actually done it. MR. TURNER-Yes. 16 MR. GORALSKI-To avoid the variances at this particular time. MR. CARR-I just don't understand. I mean. with three acres you can build three houses, but with two acres. well. okay. we've got you, you know. So. if you have 2.1 acres. I can build two houses then. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARR-If I have 1.99 acres, I can't. MRS. COLLARD-That's right. MR. CARR-I mean. it seems really arbitrary. MR. GORALSKI-What it kind of does is almost create a two acre zone. MR. TURNER-Yes. it does. MR. GORALSKI-Well. so maybe the consideration should be made that in general you can only put one house on a lot. MRS. GOETZ-What does that mean. though? MRS. COLLARD-That is what I would prefer to see. MR. CARR-Well. I mean. Paul. can you defend this in court? MR. DUSEK-Well, I think that the policy considerations. here. would have to be that. you know, from what I'm picking up allover. I mean. I'm just telling you what I see as the theory. if you will. of what they're trying to do here, is they're saying that. we don't want situations where somebody has such a small pa rce 1 of 1 and and then they put two and three houses on that small pa rce 1 . We can 11 ve with two and three houses on a single parcel if it's more than two acres. or a large enough parcel. For instance. if you have a 20 acre parcel and somebody puts two houses on it. so what. but if you have a ~acre parcel and people put two houses on it. which they can right now under our Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-No. they can't. MRS. COLLARD-No. they can't. MR. GORALSKI-Not in a one acre zone. MR. DUSEK-Well, we have. what is it. SR-20's or half acres or something. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. DUSEK-That's what I'm thinking of. That's what they're saying. we don't want to let that happen. We'd like to see that. see if it £!!l be subdivided because it's such a small piece of land. In other words. the larger the land becomes. the more likely it is that it probably can be subdivided successfully. The smaller the land is. the more difficult it may become, and I think that's the theory. MS. CORPUS-I have a question. I wasn't in on any other discussions. If you have a three acre parcel and you build three houses and you want to subdivide to one acre each and you're in a one acre zone. you can still do that then? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MS. CORPUS-Which would be the same thing as having two houses on a two acre parcel in a one acre zone. MR. DUSEK-Right. It's not a perfect formula. This was proposed and we've written it up. If you've got a better way of doing it. I'm sure. MR. CARR-Well. Pat. you had a suggestion is maybe one principle structure per lot. right? MRS. COLLARD-Per parcel. MR. CARR-And perhaps that's the way to do it. then we can review it before they do it. MR. DUSEK-Yes. the problem then is. of course, you're not allowing. then. any extra dwellings on anybody's premises. MRS. COLLARD-That's right. which is the way I feel it should be done. MR. CARR-Well. yes. but we aren't. no. we aren't allowing it under the Ordinance. but we perhaps are allowing it with a variance, which is probably the way it should be reviewed. MR. DUSEK-How do you make a case for a variance? MR. GORALSKI-Or possibly make i .without sHe plan review. .;.~..;~' .,' :.;-'¡'..;>'..,";.~-'~ ':..:-~:~:~,¿~':! 17 MR. DUSE~·! think you're aoing to be hard pressed to make a case for a variance. MR. GORALSKI-But if you say you can't have more than one principle dwelling on a lot without site plan review, the whole point is, as you said. to see if it possibly could be subdivided. which would be done in front of the Planning Board anyway. So. maybe it should be done only with site plan review. and then you could have two on less than two acres. only with site plan review. MR. DUSEK-I mean. certainly any kind of suggestion. MR. KELLEY-I mean. that makes more sense because if you can look at the piece of property and say. yes. technically they can make two conforming lots. put two buildings that would meet all setbacks and whatever. what harm would that be? MR. GORALSKI-Right. even if it was under two acres. MR. KELLEY-The one you're trying to do away with is the one where they come in and they've got to get variances all around it to make it a usable piece of property. MRS. COLLARD-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KELLEY-That's what you don't want. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. COLLARD-That's correct. MR. KELLEY-Maybe there's a way to do it with a site plan review or something. MR. CARR-And isn't that the way we want to control the growth of the Town, is basically if people want to build. subdivide, you know, basically. what they're doing. if they have four acres and build four homes, they're subdividing and we'll have coming in and doing the subdivision and that just creates helter skelter. MR. DUSEK-And that's exactly what they're trying to eliminate with this clause. MR. CARR-Well. I think it would be better to do it the way Pat says and just say. one principle structure through taxable lot. MR. DUSEK-The concern I heard voiced on the other side of that. though. was that they didn't want to hurt the son who wants to bring his mother in in a house right next door. MR. CARR-Well. that's fine, have him subdivide and make two lots. two taxable lots. Then we don't have to worry when mom dies that we're stuck with the building. MR. DUSEK-That's what the Board. I think. was looking at. I guess. you know, if you remember back a couple of years ago. you had an ability to subdivide without going through the Planning Board for four lots and under and I think part of this is a throw back to that. that they're trying to bring in some of those type of benefits in certain cases where it's small and manageable and that's why the number two was picked. Keep in mind. too. I hope you understand. I'm not taking a position. here. I'm just trying to give you the rationales that go on both side. here. MR. CARR-Well. I don't 11 ke it. I think that could just make. I'm sure Paul Naylor is not pleased with this. MRS. GOETZ-Why wouldn't he like it? MR. CARR-Well, I can just see a person with four or five acres putting four or five homes on theirs and he's got to plow. All of a sudden there's a street there. MR. DUSEK-Well, no. he wouldn't have to plow that street. MR. CARR-All of a sudden they come in for a site plan or whatever and how do you deny it? MR. DUSEK-The Town Board would have to accept dedication. It would have to be built to standards. I mean. there's all kinds of controls there. MR. CARR-That's after the fact. I think. MR. DUSEK-It's not that easy to make the Town take a road in there. MR. CARR-Well. maybe Paul Naylor will love it. I don't know. 18 -" MRS. MONAHAN-There's another possibility and that is, mother-in-law's that are getting real old, father- in-law's that are getting real old. I have 20 acres. I've got 25 acres in one parcel and I've got other acreage in another parcel. I think it's rather tough. in those kind of circumstances. when you tell somebody. you've got to make two legal lots. two separate deeds and everything. in order to make a home for somebody in your family so they can be maintained near you. instead of maybe going to paid help. nursing home. this type of thing. I think, frankly, that Queensbury is getting a little bit too pure. too stuffy, too rigid for humanity out there and you've got to start thinking not so legalistic. but humanistic. MRS. COLLARD-But what happens when that person passes away. Betty. then what do you do? MRS. MONAHAN-With that amount of land. who cares? MRS." COLLARD-But eventually. you're going to have to sell that house. You can't sell that house. The bank you won't give you a loan on that house. MRS. MONAHAN-By that time. as long as I take the responsibility of putting that up so it can be legally taken off if it has to be. and maybe that's why your site plan review is a good idea. but I don't think you should have to create two separate lots for those type of things and I mean. you know, this is the way we used to li ve in Queensbury and I think we've had too many New York City ideas move up here and we say we want to maintain our quality of life and I think some of the things we're doing are ruining our quality of life and it's leading to this thing where families no longer can be these entities and. Sue, it goes right into what we were talking in the League. last night. about health care people and older people. MR. CARR-Well, Mrs. Monahan. I tend to di sagree. I don't di sagree with your theory about. you want to take care of your family. that's fine. but why does somebody who only has two acres. why can't they take care of their family. but somebody with 25 can because they've got enough room. MRS. MONAHAN-As far as I'm concerned. the people with two can if it's done the way it should be done and that's what I'm saying is. don't throw out the baby with the bath water. by trying to be too pure. MR. CARR-No. I think you're right. if it's done the way it's supposed to be done. but who is the governing to determine whether it's done the way it's done to make sure it's done properly if they don't have to talk to anybody? MRS. MONAHAN-Well. I said. maybe that's why your suggestion of site plan review might be a good idea. but I don't think you should have to have a legal subdivision with two deeds filed up there at Warren County. which will also effect your taxing situation a great deal. I think it's overkill, but I just wanted to throw that out for something for you to think about. MR. CARR-I do agree with your point to some extent. but I disagree in the main. only because I think for future growth to be coordinated in an orderly fashion. you just can't allow people to build anywhere they want to and even if it is a hassle now, you know, 50 years down the road, when those two homes are still there. but the people who own them aren't. we will have two separate tax lots because it very well would be owned by two separate people and I just think we'd be avoiding a lot of headaches in the future. for the planning and growth of this Town. if we took care of the problem as it arose. that is. as it's being built and then we don't have to worry about working with what's there because we'll know what's there. MRS. COLLARD-True. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KELLEY-What are we saying we're going to do, here? MRS. GOETZ-It seems like we don't agree with this Section as proposed and it needs more work and the question is. are you creating a two acre zone. is another thing. How would this be imposed on existing zones and I'd like to look into the site plan review idea. MR. KELLEY-Yes. I thought when the re-zone the one acre zone in lot areas that was too restrictive. MRS. GOETZ-That caused one heck of a lot of trouble. MR. KELLEY-You drove the little guy out. you know. MR. DUSEK-This is not creating a two acre zone. All it's saying is that you can do whatever the Ordinance says you can do. like you always could. except that we're just not going to let you put more than one house on a parcel unless you go and get it subdivided. unless it's over two acres. then we'll let you put an extra house on. So. it's really not taking away any rights and it's not saying you can't build a house on a half acre. It's just saying that if you want to put more than one house on one parcel without going the subdivision route. we're going to let you do that if you have more than two acres. 19 MR. TURNER-Right. MR. SICARD-That sounds reasonable. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. but you could also put. if you had 20 acres, you could put 20 houses without going to subdivision. MR. TURNER-Twenty houses. yes. MR. DUSEK-Well. and that's true. I mean. that's the hole in the thing. I guess. if you will. MR. GORALSKI-That's why I'm saying possibly site plan review would be a route that would keep a handle on it while allowing people to put a second house on. MRS. GOETZ-And who's to say that they mean specifically houses? I mean, it says, buildings or structures. MRS. COLLARD-Well. the zoning would control that. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Right, so I mean it's more than just a home. MR. GORALSKI-Right. if it wasn't a Residential Zone, if it was a Commercial Zone then it would be two commercial structures. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-Okay. MR. TURNER-All right? MR. CARR-Well. what's the consensus of the Board? MR. TURNER-More work on it. MR. DUSEK-That's what I wrote down in my notes. I'm picking up that the ZBA is suggesting needs more work. perhaps site plan review. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Yes. some kind of a site plan. MR. CARR-Well. I'd just like to say, then, I agree with Pat that it should be one principle building per lot. absent of variance or site plan review. I mean absent somebody looking at it and giving it an officially governmental, okay this will work in the future or whatever. MR. SICARD-So, actually. if you had 20 acres, you'd have to have a subdivision? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. MR. CARR-Well. my feeling is, if you have two acres you should still subdivide. If you're putting two homes, divide it. MR. GORALSKI-If your site plan review was required. you could have 20 houses on 20 acres without subdividing it as long as you got site plan approval. MR. SICARD-With a site plan review. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. SICARD-It's kind of throwing the ball. but that's the way it works. MR. TURNER-Okay. are we ready to move on? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-Article Seven. Subdivision A of Section 7.051, title excavation is amended to read as follows: A. Slopes caused by the excavation shall upon completion not exceed 30, that's the excluded. 50 percent. Any property owner andlor developer who upon completion of the excavation leaves a slope of less than 50 percent or greater than 30 percent shall file with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Administrator a licensed engineer certification that said slope is and shall remain stable. Retaining walls should not be greater than 10 feet in height and certified by a licensed engineer. That the same is stable and will remain stable. Does anyone have a problem with that? ?n MRS. COLLARD-Is that Commercial and Residential? MR. CARR-Well. I think the excavation is only allowed in Commercial zone. isn't it? MRS. COLLARD-I think Rural Residential allows excavation. MR. DUSEK-I think this is excavation wherever it occurs. MR. TURNER-Right. wherever. This is related to the incident up at Glen Lake, right? Is that the cause of it? MR. DUSEK-Not really. MR. TURNER-No? MR. DUSEK-No. We were careful when drafting so that we wouldn't change the Ordinance from where we stand there to where we stand now. but I'm trying to remember how this got started now. I think Dave was partly in on it. The idea was I think there are just instances in Town where, from time to time. somebody would li ke to leave a slope greater than 30 percent and the Ordinance. right now, would seem to preclude that and the reasoning here is. why not let them have up to 50 percent so long as we can have it certified that it's going to be stable. I guess the general thought is not to go ~ 50 percent. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-What is the status of that Glen Lake problem? Is it in court now? MR. DUSEK-It's still in litigation. MR. TURNER-Any further comment on that? No comment? Okay. we'll go to the next Section. Supplementary Reg's. Subdivision A. Section 7.052, Buffer Zones as amended to read as follows: An undisturbed 50 foot buffer zone shall surround the excavation resulting from any commercial sand and gravel contracting within the limits of the property. MR. DUSEK-That probably should have been, instead of "contracting". " extracting". MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-Or extraction. maybe. MR. TURNER-That one's all right? No discussion on that? We'll go to the next one. Supplementary Reg's. again. 7.071. Off Street Parking Design is amended to read as follows: MR. GORALSKI-Once again. instead of reading that, the whole crux of that was changing the size of the parking spaces, I believe. in the Plaza Commercial Zone and it's my recommendation and the Planning Board felt that 9 by 20 all through the Town was appropriate. MR. TURNER-Okay. Article 8 General Exceptions. 8.010 titled General Exceptions to the Minimum Lot Area Requirements as amended to read as follows: Section 8.010. General Exceptions to Minimum Lot Area Requirements for lots located in the APA or designated Critical Environmental Areas. Any nonconforming lot of record within the APA or any Critical Environmental Area as of the date of this Ordinance which does not meet the minimum lot area and/or minimum lot width requirements of this Ordinance for the Zoning District in which such lot is situated shall be considered as complying with such minimum lot requirements and no variance shall be required provided that as of the date of this Ordinance such a lot does not adjoin other lots in the same ownership. provided however that 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. MR. CARR-Doesn't it read that any nonconforming lot in the Town. etc.. etc., etc. I mean, Paul. doesn't it read now? MR. DUSEK-It would read. right now. if you took out the underlying language. MR. TURNER-That's all. It reads the same. MR. CARR-Well. why are we adding that language? MR. DUSEK-To reduce the application of the clause. MR. CARR-What is it? MR. DUSEK-To reduce the breath of the clause. In other words. it's now going to apply to any nonconforming lot within the Adirondack Park and Critical Environmental Areas. It won't apply Town wide. ?1 -- MR. CARR-So, what are we saying for somebody who's not in either of these zones. that has a nonconforming 10t of record. MR. DUSEK-I'm trying to remember back, now. I guess you're saying it won't join. MR. CARR-What do you mean it won't join? MR. DUSEK-Right now, I think that c1ause. I guess I need some he1p from either Pat or John. Isn't that the joiner c1ause? MR. CARR-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARR-If peop1e own two 10ts next to èach other. they have to put them together to make one. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. DUSEK-Right. and what this is going to do is it's going to say that if you're not in the Adirondack Park or Critica1 Environmenta1 Area. you're 10t doesn't join anymore. MRS. GOETZ-Why wou1d this be proposed? MR. CARR-Yes. why do that? MR. DUSEK-This was a proposa1 that came out of that conference. I can't remember. MR. CARR-I don't agree with that. MRS. GOETZ-I mean. what about a11 the peop1e that we've made join? MR. CARR-And that's the wh01e purpose of changing zones in the Ordinance is to keep up with what you think is necessary for the Town and now you're saying. we11. here's a way out for everybody. MR. DUSEK-I think the thinking was that they. I'm trying to go back on my rec011ection now. but I think at the time the thought was that they just didn't want to join. I know they didn't want to join subdivision 10ts. I know that's how it got started. They said that if anybody was in a subdivision that was approved and fi1ed, they did not want those 10ts joining and that's how this thing got started and then they said, we11. if peop1e have 10ts outside of subdivisions. what's the difference. We don't want those joined either and then they started to 100k at it and they said. wen, if you're in the Adirondack Park or if you're in a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area. maybe you ought to be joined because of that specia1 distinction because it's an intensified or that particu1ar area ca11s for that specia1 treatment. but they wanted to try to 1eave the 10ts a10ne outside of Town. I think that's my rec011ection of how it got started. MRS. GOETZ-But it seems 11ke the way it is now is improving the situation. Who's "they"? Are we ta1king about the P1anning Board or the Town Board? MR. DUSEK-These comments first got started as a resu1t of a meeting between the Town Board. I think. Pat. were you there? MRS. COLLARD-Yes. Dave. MR. DUSEK-Lee York. Dave. myse1f. obvious1y I was there and I think if I remember the meeting correct1y. it primari1y took the shape of the significant areas that Lee had pointed out on her 1ist. Dave might have had a coup1e and I know I had a coup1e and that's how we proceeded and these things were genera11y discussed at that meeting and my effort here was to try to reproduce, in writing. what everybody was 100king for. at 1east what 1 perceived everybody was 100king for and at this point now. as I say, the Town Board is 100king for just your comments and feedback on it. MRS. GOETZ-I think we shou1d 100k to the purpose of why it was written that way in the first p1ace and it wou1d seem that that was a way to make 1arger 10ts and improve the situation, and we've had that with mobi1e homes. haven't we. mobi1e home situations? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And setbacks and an that. some, where if they cou1d join their 10ts it was a better situation. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-So. I'm trying to think of why it was written the way it is now. What are the other comments on this? 22 -- MR. GORALSKI-The reason it's written that way is to bring. create more conforming lots and eliminate the nonconforming ones. MRS. GOETZ-Right. So why aren't we leaving it that way? MR. CARR-Because "they" don't want it. MRS. GOETZ-"They". but I don't think, was it unanimous? MR. DUSEK-Keep in mind. these things were discussed as ideas and concepts. They were placed into writing and the Board has. the Town Board has not passed judgement on these. MRS. GOETZ-That's good. MR. DUSEK-They wanted it ci rculated. to get input before they passed judgement. So when we say "they". we're talking about collectively that night these are the ideas that came forth and were put down on paper and I don't think it would be fair to the Town Board to say that they're necessarily committed one or another yet. at least that's ~ perception. I think they honestly wanted to get some feedback. because keep in mind, we haven't even started the process yet. This is a send around of the Ordinance by the Town Board voluntarily. There's nothing under the law that requires them to do this. They said. okay. here's some ideas. They got together. They met. I drafted it. gave everybody copies of it and the Town Board said. okay, well. now before we do anything else. why don't we distribute it and get some more input and I think they're going to obviously listen to that input and take a look at it and then they'll make decisions. Ultimately, if you will. I suppose joining or not joining lots becomes a policy call that they ultimatelY make. MRS. GOETZ-What did the Planning Board say about that particular, did they have any comment on it? MR. GORALSKI-I don't think they made any hard and fast decision one way or another on that. MRS. GOETZ-It didn't effect what they do? I don't like the proposal. I think it chips away at the new Zoning Ordinance and it chips away at all the reasons we made it the way it is now. What does anyone else think? MR. CARR-I agree with Sue. MR. TURNER-I do. too. MR. CARR-I think the whole reason you change the zoning in the first place was to make larger lots. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-Or to change. whatever, the character. and now what you're doing is you're allowing more loopholes to get out of that. I mean. zones change. That's a fact of life. MR. TURNER-Well. the rationale for making the larger lots was the comments from the circulars that were sent out by the Town to the private citizens. which was sent back to the Town. MR. CARR-That's right. MR. TURNER-And that was their comments and that's the issues that we addressed. MR. CARR-And I also still like the lot. even in a subdivision. Give them three years to get it. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, anybody can transfer a piece of property to a relative within three years with no tax consequences. I mean, if they don't comply then. I mean ci rcumstances change. So, I'd say. leave it just the way it is. MR. KELLEY-Yes. because I would say if what this proposes is to do away with this joining of lots, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-That's what we're saying. If there's an area where you need smaller lots and it wasn't done that way. then maybe it needs to be re-zoned. go at it through a re-zoning rather than trying to make loopholes or whatever. MR. CARR-Yes. because they're condoning spot zoning. MR. TURNER-Yes. 23 MR. DUSEK-We11. I don't know that I wou1d agree that this is spot zoning. Spot zoning is taking a Residentia1, for instance. and converting it to a Commercia1. That's a c1assic examp1e. MR. CARR-Yes. I know. It's not the same, but I'm just saying. you're a110wing certain peop1e to be ab1e to keep thei r very sma11 10ts or sma11er 10ts than we wou1d 11 ke to see there. and not just ~. I mean. the Town. I mean this was passed around to a 10t of different peop1e and voted on by a 10t of peop1e and now we're saying. we11. okay. 1et's find ways around what was the consensus of perhaps the majority and I don't think that's right. MR. KELLEY-I think there was some prob1ems in the re-zoning to start with, though. I mean. I've got a typica1 examp1e. I've got a deve10pment that's got 33 10ts in it that were, at the time that I put it in. was zoned for 20,000 square foot 10ts. okay. Technica11y. if I don't checkerboard them. they're going to be joined together because it was made a one acre zone. A11 right. if I can't se11 them at 20.000. how wou1d I ~ se11 them at an acre? I mean, there's a rea1 prob1em there. but I think that's more one of zoning. I don't think that it shou1d have been a one acre zone. Not everybody's going to afford a one acre 10t. There shou1d have been more provisions for 20.000 square foot 10ts or whatever, but that. to me. is a zoning thing. It's not, you shou1dn't go around picking apart and doing this sort of thing and go back and take another 100k and say, hey. maybe we made a mistake or whatever. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Did you go to the pub1ic hearings, at the time? MR. KELLEY-Probab1y not. I don't remember. I don't have a prob1em. I'm going to checkerboard them. MRS. GOETZ-Are you? MR. KELLEY-Sure. MR. COLLARD-But if you checkerboard them now. I don't think it wi11 do you any good because it was as of the date of this Ordinance they were joined together. MR. CARR-No. Not if it's an approved subdivision. MR. GORALSKI-Not an approved subdivision. He's got three years. MR. TURNER-He's got three years. MR. DUSEK-He's got three years. Pat. MR. CARR-He's got unti1 October. MR. KELLEY-I've got unti1 October. MR. TURNER-October. MRS. COLLARD-Are you sure? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MRS. COLLARD-Okay. MR. DUSEK-But this exact1y. though, too. this is why I think this wh01e thing got discussed and that is that by simp1y transferring ownership, peop1e can accomp1ish this anyway. MR. CARR-We11. make them jump through the hoop. If it's that important to them. make them do it. MR. GORALSKI-That's in an approved subdivision. but if it wasn't in an approved subdivision, then they can't do that. MR. CARR-Ri ght. MR. DUSEK-We11. then he cou1dn't. right, but I'm saying that this. in the next provision. that's what they kind of go to. This is a11 kind of going together here. MR. TURNER-Okay, so we're in agreement that we're not in favor of changing that section. right? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let's go to the next one. Artic1e VIII. Genera1 Exceptions Section 8.011 and the present one is going to be scratched right out and the new one is under1ined be10w. 24 MR. CARR-I think this just flows right with the. doesn't it? I mean. the same thought is that they're trying to protect those land owners. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. DUSEK-What I think happens here is that, once again. there's no joinder and what happens. instead, by this new clause. is that a subdivision which expires after a certain length of time. the lots don't become joined they merely become nonconforming. That's what this is doing. and you mayor may not have to go to the Zoning Board for a variance. depending upon the type of structure and the size of the lot. etc. This happens to be. incidentally. State Law. I mean. that's the way the State Law sets up the protection for subdivisions right now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Right. the three year window. MR. TURNER-Three year. yes. MR. CARR-I like it the way it's written. MR. DUSEK-You mean you like it the old way? MR. CARR- Yes. MR. DUSEK-Where it joins the subdivision lots. MR. CARR-After three years. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else like it. the way it is or the way it is proposed? MRS. GOETZ-It seems all right as proposed. doesn't it or no? Which one are we on. here? MR. GORALSKI-The way it's proposed. the lots in an approved subdivision. after three years. simply become nonconforming lots. They're not joined. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-The way it exists. currently. the lots in an approved subdivision after three years are joined to make conforming lots. MR. CARR-Well. they would if we leave what we want it to leave. MR. GORALSKI-If you leave it the way it is. the lots in an approved subdivision are joined after three years. MR. CARR-Ri ght. MR. GORALSKI-If you change it to the proposed wording. the lots are not joined after three years. MR. TURNER-They're not joined. They become nonconforming lots. MR. CARR-But also, well. to clarify it, even if we change it to the proposed wording in this section. in three years it would just become a nonconforming lot, but then we've already said up there. nonconforming lots owned by the same owners get joined. MR. DUSEK-Well, no, but that's the problem. As it's currently written. though. the Ordinance I think if you read the whole thing in total. it exempts subdivisions for a three year period from the date of the Ordinance. So. what everybody's saying. if you leave it as it is. even subdivision lots will become joined after three years from the date of the Ordinance. If you change it to the way it's proposed. only lots in the Adirondack Park or Critical Areas would become joined. MR. GORALSKI-So. you want to leave it the way it is. MR. CARR-I want to leave it the way it is. MR. SICARD-Leave it the way it is. MR. CARR-I mean. to me. if somebody was approved for a subdivision just prior to it, but at least. I mean. if they knew well in advance that the zoning was coming up. it just seems then people who had subdivision from way before that have had enough time to sell those lots as they are. MR. COLLARD-But they can checkerboard them. 25 MR. CARR-Yes. I mean. there are loopholes and we can never change those. I mean, you really can't do anything about that. MR. TURNER-So. what's the choice? Do you want to leave it as is. or do you want to go with the proposed? MRS. GOETZ-Leave it as is. MR. KELLEY-Probably leave it. MR. SICARD-Leave it as is. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let's go to the next one. Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Article IX Section 9.010 Taking out the word "altered". MR. DUSEK-Right. That's essentially what it's doing. It is also taking out "by site plan approval". MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-But. what that effectively does is it allows some rebuilding without site plan and some with because the site plan approval clause reappears again later here. MR. GORALSKI-I believe what this Section does is. if you are enlarging a nonconforming residential structure by less than 50 percent. you don't need site plan approval. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. MRS. GOETZ-Unless it was a variance. area variance problem. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. GOETZ-That makes sense. MR. GORALSKI-Actually. no. If it was the setback problem, they still wouldn't need site plan review. MRS. GOETZ-But they'd need a variance? MR. GORALSKI-They would need a variance. yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. well it seems like this is cutting down on unnecessary applications. is that it? MR. GORALSKI-That's the intent. yes. MRS. GOETZ-For site plan. okay. MR. TURNER-That would apply to commercial as well as residential. wouldn't it? MR. GORALSKI-I don't specifically remember the wording. I thought it was just applying to single family. MR. TURNER-It doesn't say that. MR. DUSEK-I think it would apply to anything. MR. TURNER-Anything. MR. DUSEK-But I think that the other point you should. I guess. make here is that site plan approval generally would not be required unless it were in a Critical Environmental Area for that up to 50 percent enlargement business, as this is proposed. and the other thing that would happen is if you alter your premises in some fashion you would not have to ever go for site plan approval and altering means. like. changing windows. changing doors. MR. GORALSKI-Re-siding your house. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. TURNER-That's reasonable. I didn't think you considered that. you know. I was going to ask you what you meant by altered. but I wouldn't consider if you changed your windows. not necessarily from one size to another but you replace them. you're not altering. 26 '~" MR. DUSEK-I mean. I think that's a reasonable interpretation. The problem is. the word "altered" is so broad and can be argued that it's thought of just to leave it out to avoid that problem. MR. TURNER-Better to leave it out. Okay. Let's go to the next one. then. Article IX Section 9.015 and they're going to take out "altered" a~ain. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. The next one is Article IX Section 9.016 and that's proposed to read as underlined. MR. DUSEK-Right. That's a new Section. MR. TURNER-A new Section. MR. DUSEK-And this is what explains when you need site plan approval. MR. TURNER-Yes. Does anyone have a problem with that? Okay. we'll go to the next one. Section 9.060 and that is amended to delete the entire Section. MR. CARR-Paul. what's the purpose? MR. DUSEK-Here. again. just a decision made that evening that it was proposed just to delete that entire Section. that the Town wanted to get out of that area. MR. GORALSKI-It's about the rental of docks. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's a tough thing to enforce. MR. GORALSKI-I think that's what the issue was. How do you enforce the rental of docks. MRS. GOETZ-And does the Lake George Park Commission. do they regulate that? Does somebody step in and take over this? MR. GORALSKI-I'm really not sure. to tell you the truth. I know they have definitions as to what is a commercial dock. MRS. GOETZ-It probably doesn't matter who's overseeing it. Nobody can really enforce it anyway. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let's go to the next one. Article X Section 10.040 entitled Requirements for Granting Variances as amended to read as follows. Do you want me to read it or did everybody read it? Have you got yours. Charlie? MR. SICARD-No. MRS. GOETZ-Well. Joyce Eggleston. since she isn't here. did have some questions on this Section and she was very concerned that it was diluting the evidence you had to show for the variance. It seemed to her that this meant just as long as we talked about each item that had to be considered. it didn't mean that we had to grant the variance. MR. CARR-Well. I think what you're finding. though. if you really went by the strict rules of the law and the strict rules here, we probably shouldn't be granting 75 percent of the variances we grant. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're probably right. MR. CARR-But I think what it is definitely diluting what is required of us. but I think it's making it more realistic what's required of us and that's that we consider all the options. That's what we do is we consider all the factors before granting or denying a variance. So I think you're just stating what we are actually putting into practice. rather than setting up a standard that we never meet or we very seldom meet. I mean. use variances. technically. no one will ever get a use variance because no one's ever come in here and really proved economic hardship. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. CARR-But you've got to consider, you know. I think in realistic terms all we should do is consider the factors and see whether, through that consideration. they weigh heavily enough to grant the variance and I think that's what's being proposed here. MR. DUSEK-Well. maybe I can help out. This was my baby. in terms of writing up, this got started. in part. because of a comment Bob Stewart had made at one point say. you know. what are you guys doing? You don't have the same area variance criteria that the rest of the State is using and we went through and read it and reviewed it and I found if you review case law and as well as some treatises on the subject that. yes, we are overly restrictive. So I think to the extent that Mrs. Eggleston might have 27 -" --- picked up the fact that we're relaxing the standards, yes. we are. because the standard that was set forth in your Ordinance is too strict. I might also add that I think that the Board has been closer in its decisions to what has actually been proposed here than what was set forth in the Ordinance on its area variances. There should be a distinction between what you grant as a use variance and what you grant as an area variance. What I did, here. when I drafted this, is I went back to a notable authority on the subject which is Andersen. and read through Andersen and looked at the court cases that.!!!. cites and between working with the Ordinance to not try to make it too much different. but yet also trying to get in shape with what the court decisions had. I rewrote this Section to bring it into line with what it seems that the general court decisions are. There's a benefit behind doing that and that is that ultimately if we are ever challenged. which from time to time we are. I have a case body upon which to back myself. Right now, because our Ordinance is slightly different than everybody elses. it's a little bit more difficult when you're trying to fight these things in court. MR. CARR-I would also urge that a lot of this language be put in for use variances, that I think the criteria listed is different from what's listed under an area variance, but I still think it should be the consideration of the Board and I'm not sure if under area variance it says we have to find certain things. MR. DUSEK-Well. yes. one further comment. When this was written. when I wrote it. I took out the word "find" and put in "considered" and at the time that I wrote it, the reason why I did that is because I find that many times when the various Boards. not only your Board. but also the Planning Board are giving decisions. sometimes they don't. in their decisions. specifically refer to each and every item. It's not to say that you can make a decision without considering all these things. That's why I used the word "consider". but as I'm sitting here tonight I just made myself a little note to make sure that I'm not short cutting the process. I mean. I think you have to do more than just give lip service or consider it. I think it has to be there in the papers and maybe I'm going to have to put back one of those "find's". here, but that was my intent. I didn't want to have to lock you in so that your resolutions always had to have these things in there. I wanted to make it open enough so that as long as your meeting minutes showed that you did in fact deal with all these issues and make those findings. that even if your resolution didn't specifically set it forth. that we weren't dead in the water on it. That's what I was trying to do is loosen up that part of it. but like I say. as I'm looking at this. maybe I have to strengthen that because I think you do have to do more than just simply consider it. I think you do have to find certain things to exist. MRS. COLLARD-Don't they have to use the same findings. though that New York State lists, this New York State Zoning Law lists? MR. DUSEK-No. Maybe this will help. I was talking to Sue a little early before the meeting got started. The problem you have is that if you go to State Law. which is the Statutes written in the book. they don't give you a whole lot of guidance. They simply say. if you the Zoning Board want to grant a variance. and they don't even tell you what kind of variance. It could be use or area. they say. you've got to find practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship and in point of fact. until I think it was roughly the 50's. 1950, the courts of the State of New York interpreted that to mean that in the case of area variance or use variance. the criteria was the same. So that's how they interpreted it. Then after a major court case. Otto Versus Steinbrenner, in fact. is the Court of Appeals case, the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State said. wait a minute. guys. It seems to us that an area variance ought to have a lesser standard of proof than a use variance and from there on in. the courts took off and started re-shaping this area of the Law so that now you have two different standards and if you read what I have written in here. in terms of what you should consider for an area variance. and you read what is currently in the Ordinance now for the use variance, you'll find that your criteria. now. is different. The area variance is a lesser criteria. The use variance is a stronger criteria and that I would submit is fairly close to what court cases are currently requiring. MR. TURNER- Yes. see. here it is ri ght here. 1956 was the court case and they set forth in it the practical guidelines for the Zoning Board of Appeals to follow and they're listed right here and they're pretty much what you've got. how substantial the variation is in relation to the requirement. Two. the effect that the variance is allowed of the increased population density thus produced on available government facilities. fire, water. garbage. and the like. Three. whether a substantial change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a substantial detriment to the adjoining properties created. Four. whether the difficulty can be alleviated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a variance and. five. whether in view of the matter in which the difficulty arose and considering all the above factors the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance. and that's just about what you said. MRS. GOETZ-One question I have is, is there more that we should be doing in our resolutions. and I talked to Paul about this. Before Michael Muller left. he said, remember your findings of fact. you know. and I wonder if it would be helpful if we had some little check off thing that we could make sure we did on each. you know, to some extent. MR. TURNER-Well. I think we do it. 28 MR. DUSEK-Well, I'll tell you. I was listening carefully tonight to the one that was done tonight on the Carte and I think the resolution was substantially in the form of what it should be. There were facts referred to. There was justification and I think the biggest thing to remember is. and this is kind of a messed up version right now because with all the lines and everything it's kind of hard to read. but there will be one, two. three, criteria listed here for you and I think the thing to remember is that when you give a decision. you don't want to just merely recite that criteria. that. yes. we found it. but rather you want to say. Number One. we find that this would not be materially detrimental to the Ordinance because. you know, just give a quick reason and as I said to Sue a little earlier. sometimes. though. and I know I sit here. too. and I listen to this going on. that sometimes you really can't give a very good reason and it's not because it's not good case. It's just because sometimes there's certain criteria that you're looking at that is stronger than others. So sometimes you're going to. on all three of those things you might be stronger on one, perhaps. than on the other. but that's okay. as long as you, what you're trying to do. you see, when you give your decision is you're just trying to show the court that we've, one. thought about it. two. that we see all the proof that is sitting here before us and this is why we're saying what we're saying, court. We're smart people We're rational. We know what we're doing and here's all the proof and here's how come we're saying what we're saying and I think that's what Mike was always emphasizing in his decision was that he wanted always to get that in there because later, when I go to court. you see. the judge looks at that resolution. and that's where we start from. We don't go through the minutes. We start with the resolution and the judge looks at that and he says, okay, reading that, can I see why it is the Board did what they did. Does it make sense? And if the resolution just simply says, approved. that doesn't help at all. obviously. If the resolution says. well. we approve it because we feel that one. two. and three are present. that's a little bit better. but it's still not very good because it doesn't tell the judge ~ you found one, two. and three. So if you go just a hair further and say. we feel Number One. because and then you point to a couple of things that occurred in the record, now you've got it because now you're showing the judge that you reasoned the thing out and the thing I find a lot of times is that you've already reasoned it out throughout the minutes. I mean. it's there. but sometimes it doesn't show up in the resolution. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-So I think you just have to always keep that in mind. Hopefully. that helps. I don't know. That's just my thoughts on it. MRS. GOETZ-Well. and also you had mentioned to me remember balancing the need versus harm. I like tha t. MR. DUSEK-Yes. this is. you know. to give you. you wanted an example. Sue. and to give you a perfect example. when you were considering the Wood Carte. the other night. a week ago tOday, you were doing exactly that. That was a perfect illustration of the Board weighing. as it properly should. the needs of the community versus the needs of the applicant. The comments that were coming out were. we've got to be concerned about the future of the community because you may not always be there and. you know, we may have somebody who has a much higher parking needs than you moving into that site. That's the needs of the community. On the other hand. you were looking at the needs of the applicant and saying. well. we can understand because you're a special type business and you really don 't need all this parking and there's another need in the community that we want to maintain some open space and everything. So you're looking at all of this and 1Q!!. are juggling and balancing all of this. When you made the applicant go back and add more parking spaces so you cut down on the minimum part of the variance, you yet filled another part of the test. So. ultimately, this case just so happens that. it didn't hit me until after we got done tonight that this happens to be a case where this Board. I mean the jOb was perfect. I mean. that gives you a good illustration of what you want to do. You juggled. back and forth. the two needs. Your decision was totally complete. So. I don't know. maybe in the end I'm kind of. I don't know if I'm helping that much because it sounds like you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. MRS. GOETZ-Well I think our resolutions could be more complete at times. MR. DUSEK-Well. you always strive to make better. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Are we satisfied with the way it's worded, then? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-As proposed? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'll move on to the next one. Article XV Section 15.040 entitled Land Use Intensity Considerations as amended to read as follows. and you look and see the underlined parts and that pertains to the APA. 29 -- --- MR. DUSEK-All of these last changes were requested by the APA. MR. TURNER-APA. right. Okay. We're in agreement with those? MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. CARR- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's all we have. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Turner, if I could just bring up something else that came up at the Planning Board review and this was. I would have to say, directly related to the review of the Docksider and the fact that there was some discussion as to how many uses were on the property and what parking was required. Jim Martin made several suggestions that he had written down that Paul mayor may not have with him. I don't know. MR. DUSEK-I don't know if I even got those yet. John. MR. GORALSKI-You got them the next day. MR. DUSEK-Did I? MR. GORALSKI-You're secretary got them the next day. MR. GORALSKI-All right. then I have them. but basically he was proposing to change the definition of Restaurant and the definition of Tavern to include the words "area within a structure". So that. in the case of the Docksider. you might have a Tavern and a Restaurant in the same structure and you would base your calculation on the amount of area taken up in that structure. MR. TURNER-Your parking calculation? MR. GORALSKI-Right. your parking calculation. MR. TURNER-I don't agree with his concept at all. I totally disagree with him. I told him so and I still disagree with him. MR. CARR-So, you're saying Carl R's would have, you'd have to do two calculations of what is the bar area and what is the restaurant area? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. TURNER-I think the evidence that was present indicated, from the record. that the food that was served there was in excess of 70 percent. Therefore. it fell under the category of a restaurant, even though the bar was within that restaurant. MR. CARR-I think bars are just part of a restaurant. MR. TURNER-We have two definitions of a Restaurant. We have a definition of a Restaurant. We have one of a Tavern. The Tavern is the place where the sale of alcoholic beverages is their principle income. or words to that effect. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Also in that discussion. in changing the definition of a Restaurant. within that definition it indicates that it's for the service of food indoor. MR. TURNER-And we have a case where there's food served outdoors. MR. GORALSKI-We have several areas in Town where food is served outdoors. MR. TURNER-Right. The Trading Post is one. The Docksider is one. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. SICARD-McDonalds MR. TURNER-McDonalds. MR. GORALSKI-McDonalds. Pizza Hut. Long John Silvers. There's a lot of them and I think the discussion was leaning towards removing "indoors" from the definition. 30 -- MR. CARR-So that would allow. in the case of the Docksider. would allow them to, you would calculate the outside eating area also while.... MR. GORALSKI-I think, once again, you'd have to change the way you calculate parking to include that exterior eating area. MR. CARR-Just Gross Floor Area utilized in the restaurant. MRS. COLLARD-What happens if the new restaurant O'Tooles coming to the new Plaza wants to put eight tables outside? Right now they can't. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. TURNER-They would come for a variance just like the Tropicana came when they wanted to put their tables outside. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean. why can't they and why can the Docksider? MRS. COLLARD-I don't know. I can't answer that. MRS. GOETZ-It does impact the parking. though. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Look at Long John Silvers and Pizza Hut. They're on two small pieces of property now. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you've got two uses on. that parking adjoins. MR. KELLEY-That's probably not a good example. then. MRS. GOETZ-It's not? MR. TURNER-That's not a good example. MR. KELLEY-Go to the Trading Post. MRS. GOETZ-You need more parking is the bottom line. MR. KELLEY-The Trading Post has outdoor. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. KELLEY-All right, but that's on its own piece of property. So, you're saying that the outdoor eating area should be considered into the parking scheme. right? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. SICARD-Of course. you've got to take into consideration the... MRS. COLLARD-Excuse me. Those are fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants you can eat outside. MR. KELLEY-The Trading Post isn't. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. COLLARD-No. but I'm just saying. you were talking about Long Johns. MR. TURNER-Yes. you're right. MRS. GOETZ-So we need to change that part. MR. GORALSKI-Why is Pizza Hut fast food and the Trading Post isn't? MRS. COLLARD-Long Johns is fast food. MR. SICARD-What's a fast food restaurant? MR. CARR-Yes. what's a fast food restaurant? 31 - MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So we're saying that we should change that? MR. CARR-Wait a minute. Sue. MRS. COLLARD-To me. fast food is I can go up to the counter and order my pan pizza and pick it back up in five minutes. MR. CARR-Well. I can do that at the Trading Post. MRS. COLLARD-Can you. MR. CARR-Sure. You can order a pizza to go. MR. SICARD-Are you say that a table that's outside. if they go up and go and get their food and bring it back to the table and eat it. that's a fast food restaurant? Does that make it a fast food restaurant? MRS. COLLARD-No. I'm just reading the definition of Restaurant. Fast Food. here and it says. establishment who's principle business is the sale of pre-prepared or rapidly prepared food. MR. GORALSKI-At any rate. if I could tie you down to specifics and not get into a big overblown discussion. How would you feel about removing the word "indoors" from Restaurant definition? MRS. GOETZ-I'd feel great about it. MRS. COLLARD-Me. too. MR. SICARD-It would solve a lot of problems. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, and then if that is removed. do you feel that the description of how to determine parking should be changed to accommodate exterior tables? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. What does it say now? MR. GORALSKI-It doesn't address it. MR. TURNER-It doesn't address it. MR. CARR-What does it say, just Restaurant? MR. GORALSKI-No. It says it just says, square footage inside the exterior walls of the structure. MR. TURNER-Interior. MR. CARR-Okay. I'd just say. gross eating space, floor eating space. MR. SICARD-What would you do, John. change that every nine months of the year for indoors only. because they wouldn't be out there in the summer. just in the summer. You have three months outdoors and nine months indoors. MR. GORALSKI-That's part of the discussion is how we determine that. MR. SICARD-But the majority of the food to be served would be served indoors for the nine months. especially around here. and then the rainy days and so forth you can get it down to about 20 days. MR. GORALSKI-But usually parking calculations are based on a worst case scenario. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. GORALSKI-And theréfore you have to provide for your peak hours of operation and your peak hours of operation for a restaurant with exterior dining would be during those three months. MR. SICARD-Are you saying that because they're outdoors restaurants. that they increase the capacity of people that use it in the summer time? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. SICARD-That it would increase it. you could say that. honestly say that? 32 -" -..../ MRS. GOETZ-Yes. I think it definitely does. MR. KELLEY-Yes. It's no different than the Kelly Carte thing. If you're looking at the worst case scenario. now it's a furniture store. but what's it going to be when it becomes something else where you need all those spaces? MR. SICARD-But then you take into consideration that it's only for three months also, excluding rainy days. MR. GORALSKI-That may be true. but the reason to have parking calculations is to prevent traffic problems and danger of accidents and there is a danger, during those three months of the year. that there's going to be accidents and traffic problems. Now. just because it's only three months out of the year. doesn't mean you should just ignore it. MR. SICARD-If you get a good lawyer there I think you'd have a case. MRS. GOETZ-I don't. MR. CARR-Not contingent. MRS. GOETZ-It was really nice to get a chance to cOl1lllent on the proposed changes. I hope we can do that more often. Was it just because you had a whole lot to contend with? MR. DUSEK-No. The Town Board, I think that they want to try to get as much input as possible. That's the sense that! got. MR. TURNER-We didn't answer. did we answer John's question? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. I thought we did. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think we did. MR. GORALSKI-Well. you said. yes. you want to remove "indoor" from the definition and then I said. should that change be reflected in how you calculate parking? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MRS. GOETZ- Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I think it would have to be. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. DUSEK-I guess maybe one more conment. Sometimes when things don't get circulated. I feel I should just add this. It's just that in the speed of affairs and not only speed, but just sometimes the complexities of everything that's going on. things get overlooked. but my feeling is that there's a Town Board member here. so she can probably confirm it. but I think that they generally do want to try to get as much input and all of this stuff as they can. Ultimately. there's a policy call. in many of these situations, that have to be made and that's their job. but they're certainly looking for the input. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further cOl1lllent? We'll end the Workshop Session. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman 33