The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-03-19 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19TH, 1991' INDEX Site Plan No. 71-89 Kubricky Construction Corp. 2. Subdivision No. 11-1990 Whipple Subdivision 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Owner: Robert W. Whipple Site Plan No. 7-91 Gloria Caldaroni 7. Petition for a Change Charles A. Diehl 19. of Zone Pl-91 Petition for a Change Linwood and Peggy Hastings 26. of Zone P2-91 Site Plan No. 12-91 Frank Brenneison. Sr. 29. Site Plan No. 11-91 Kelly and Lindsay Carte 31. c/o The Wood Carte 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. ~'\t,..... , I J' ~ ~EENSBURY PLAflNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER. CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES MARTIN EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES HAGAN TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 15th, 1991: Page 2, Mr. LaPoint is speaking, his second comment, fifth line down, salvage sIb settling basin; Page 5, top of the page, fourth line down, the word "except" sIb accept February 12th, 1991: NONE MR. CARTIER-Lee, do these minutes get sent to the Town Board? MRS. YORK-Not until after they're corrected. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but this set will be sent to the Town Board? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-This is a special meeting where we went through changes in the Ordinance and I'd like to be sure that this gets sent to the Town Board. I would also, we had a discussion about permeability and you put some notes together. I think it would be appropriate if you added those notes that you put together on permeability, to these minutes when they're sent to the Town Board. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And Bob Eddy sent Paul some notes with regard to permeability. Maybe those ought to be incorporated, too, in that set. MRS. YORK-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CAIMANO-Real quick. I want to go on the record. As we all know, we get paid a tremendous amount of money to sit on this Board and I had a discussion, today, regarding the amount of income, with the Town Attorney and I just wanted to go on record as, that little piece of paper that we sign before the meeting, Lee? MRS. YORK-That's a voucher. MR. CAIMANO-The voucher. that's the word. I handed that in without signing it because the Town, apparently, is making a determination as to how that's going to be handled. If it's going to be handled one way, then I'll be glad to take it. If it's going to be handled another, I don't want it. Either way, I just want it on record that I have sent that in, that I have not signed, held in abeyance as to your determination as to how that's going to be paid. 1 MR. CARTIER-Okay. That being said, we can get on to the regu1ar agenda. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 71-89 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. 265 BAY ROAD FOR RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-1-25 & 27 LOT SIZE: 2.56 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N REQUEST BY GREG BESWICK FOR AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL THAT WAS GRANTED ON NOVEMBER 21, 1989. DUE TO ECOfl)MIC CONDITIONS THE APPLICANT lIAS UNABLE TO BEGIN WORK ON THE PROJECT PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 21, 1990 DEADLINE. AS A RESULT, THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED. GREG BESWICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Just for the record, correct me if I'm wrong, here. Lee. We're going to have to re-approve or re-act on this. It's more than just an extension because this has expired, correct? MRS. YORK-That's right. MR. CARTIER-So we'11 be issuing an approva1 or a disapprova1 or whatever, whichever way the Board wants to go on this. Okay, can we take Staff Comments, p1ease. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Gora1ski, P1anner, Site P1an No. 71-89, Kubricky Construction Corp.. dated March 19,1991, Meeting Date: March 19, 1991 "This site plan was approved on November 21, 1989. The app1icant has not been ab1e to undertake the project since that time. Because one year has e1apsed since the origina1 approva1, the app1icant must receive a new approva1 from the P1anning Board. Two minor revisions have been made to the p1an at the request of the Bui1ding and Codes Department. These revisions inv01ve handicapped accessibnity and do not significant1y impact the site p1an. It is my recommendation that the P1anning Board approve this project." MR. CARTIER-And we a1so have a 1etter from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped. "Dear Chairperson: The handicapped parking shou1d be 8' wide with an access ais1e of 8'." I assume that the revision that you just referred to covers the 1etter from the Citizens Advisory Committee? MRS. YORK-Yes. It's my understanding that's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the app1icant? MR. BESWICK-Good evening. My name is Greg Beswick, representing Kubricky Construction. I have nothing further to add. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-Just a question. We have an officia1 group that is supposed to be an oversight group regarding the Committee on the Handicapped, is that correct? What do you ca11 that? MRS. YORK-Yes. The Citizens Advisory group for the accessibi1ity of the handicapped. MR. CAIMANO-This is not the Citizens Advisory Committee that I've known to 10ve? MRS. YORK-No, there are many citizens advisory groups throughout the Town. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I withdraw my comment. MR. CARTIER-A11 right. I'll open the pub1ic hearing on this matter. Does anybody care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-I hesitate to ask this, but I'll ask it. Do we need to go back through the entire SEQRA process on this or can we 1et the SEQRA process stand? MR. DUSEK-Yes. you have to go back through it because once the Statute causes the other thing to expire, it's 1ike a fresh app1ication at this point. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 2 ~' -' RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 71-89, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KUBRICKY CONSTIIJCTION CORP., Bay Road, for renovation of the existing residence into a professional office. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Before we entertain a motion on that, did Warren County have to go back and act on this again, also? MRS. YORK-Yes they did and I believe they approved it. MR. CARTIER-They've approved it. Okay, so we've heard from Warren County. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 71-89 KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For renovation of the existing residence into a professional office with the rider that the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped letter March 19, 1991 be included. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-The time on that, that's extended for a year from tonight, is that correct? MRS. YORK- Yes. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 WHIPPLE SUBDIVISION OWNER: ROBERT W. WHIPPLE NORTH SIDE OF WALKER LANE NEAR TOP OF HILL FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO 3 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-13.5 LOT SIZE: 2.09 ACRES TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 3 STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 11-1990. Robert W. Whipple, dated March 11, 1991, Meeting Date: March 19. 1991 "At Sketch Plan the applicant received approval for a four lot multifamily subdivision. Because of site conditions the preliminary application has reduced the number of lots to three. The documentation provided does not clearly indicate how many dwelling units are proposed. The maximum density allowed by the Zoning Ordinance would result in four units on Lot 1, 5 units on Lot 2, and 8 units on Lot 3. From the parking provided it does not appear that the maximum density is proposed. The Board needs this information to determine parking adequacy, traffic impact, and sewage disposal needs. This is an unlisted action under SEQRA and this information is necessary to review the Long EAF. If adequate parking and sewage disposal facilities can be provided for the proposed number of units, I recommend preliminary approval of this project." MR. CARTIER-Okay, Engineering Comments please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost. Town Engineer, dated March 15, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Regarding Stormwater Management: a. Because Lot 3 has the greatest net increase in impermeable area, and therefore, runoff as well. The SWM analysis should demonstrate adequate drywell storage and infiltration capacity for Lot 3 to validate the SWM report conclusions. b. A recognized reference that justifies the design infiltration rate. based on field identified soil types, should be provided. c. The sketch plans submitted include a typical driveway culvert and ditch for Lot 1 at Walker Lane. The preliminary plans have deleted this from the concept grading design. Accommodations to handle stormwater flow along Walker Lane should be addressed. d. It is demonstrated that the subdivision proposed is suitable for individual lot SWM. The final plan should address by note the conceptual nature of SWM and the need to adjust SWM according to any variations from this plan compared to specific multiple family dwelling site plan conditions at site plan review. 2. A note should be added to the grading plan indicating that sediment and erosion control measures will be installed in accordance with NY Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 3. The date of soil testing should be indicated. 4. The sewage disposal system sizing note #3 should be revised to eliminate any conflict with the table for 5 and 6 bedroom installations." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nace, would you care to address the Board. please. MR. NACE-For the record. my name is Tom Nace. I'm with Haanen Engineering, here representing Mr. Whipple. First, I guess the issue to be addressed would be the number of residences or number of units proposed for each lot. At present, Mr. Whipple is thinking that the development on here will probably be three units per lot, okay. As the Planning Staff pointed out. Lot 3. well, actually Lot 2 and 3 will support more, as far as density goes, but the site is relatively steep. Finding a place for parking and sewage disposal is at a premium. So, unless sewers become available along Bay Road in the future, as long as we're confined with on site, it will probably be three units per lot. Again. that will be addressed very specifically at site plan review. MR. CARTIER-Can we still do the SEQRA, though. based on, well we're going to do the SEQRA based on three lots, or three units per lot. We're also going to do a SEQRA Review on site plan, too, won't we. Okay. Thanks. MR. NACE-Regarding stormwater management, I had run through the calculations on stormwater management for Lot Number 1 because it appeared. even though Lots 2 and 3 have a longer driveway and thus more runoff, Lot Number 1 was the most confined in order to get facilities in, okay. So, agreed, Lot Number 3 will have more runoff and may require a drywell somewhere along the driveway to take care of increased runoff, there again I think we wanted to address concept and show that, on the most critical lot. it could be done and at site plan review we would address the specifics for each lot. I will provide a reference regarding the infiltration rate. Tom is right. I have left off the driveway culvert. My fault. It should be there and it will be there at final. A note will be added to the grading plan regarding soil erosion control. The date of the soil tests will be added. It was last summer and last fall and the sewage disposal note will be modified to take out the reference, the conflicting reference, on five and six bedroom. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I just want to be sure I have this clear in my mind. Is it my understanding that the present owner of the property is going to develop these himself at site plan, or is he going to sell these lots off for someone else to develop? MR. NACE-His present, well, he can address it specifically if he would like. As far as I understand Bob, his present thought is to go ahead and develop the first lot. Beyond that, I don't know if he wants to commit himself at this point. MR. CARTIER-No. he doesn't have to commit himself. I'm just saying... MR. NACE-But his purpose is to develop them himself. 4 '-----' MR. CARTIER-Okay, because I'd like it understood that if the lots ~ sold off for someone else to develop a multi unit, it should be understood that the subdivision was approved based on three units per lot. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Do Board members have any comments or questions? MRS. YORK-I hate to jump in at this point in time, but in our Zoning Ordinance. on Page 79, in the Section regarding Multi Family Dwelling units, which a triplex would be, it states Road Design - An non public roads used for vehicular circulation and all multi family projects shan be designed with curvature, etc. accommodate service and emergency vehicles and shall meet all Town standards for public roads. Were you aware of that? MR. NACE-No, I was not. We will, obviously. have to look for a variance on that. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. NACE-Because of the grades. MRS. YORK-Yes. don't think this Board can act on this until you do receive that variance. MR. CARTIER-Until what? MR. CAIMANO-Until the variance. MR. CARTIER-A variance is required? MRS. PULVER-Lee, what Section was that? MRS. YORK-Section 7.030 Multi Family Units, Part B, Access Road Design. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-It's basically a provlsl0n to anow emergency access. or emergency vehicles to gain access to a multi family development. I guess the question for the applicant, though. is whether or not they can comply without having to go for a variance. MR. NACE-I think the answer to that is obvious. Because of the grades. I don't believe we can comply to the six percent which is reany a regulation that was never intended to apply to private roads. It's impossible. MR. CARTIER-Well, where are we? Are we still in need of a variance here? Okay. MRS. PULVER-To go to Lot 2 and 3. but not to Lot 1, right? MR. CAIMANO-Well, for further subdivision. MR. MARTIN-The other question I have, Tom, is, you say three units for each lot. right. three dwelling units? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, the parking schedule calls for two spaces per dwelling unit, in some cases where there's only four. MRS. YORK-My assumption is that the Zoning Administrator has reviewed this. MR. NACE-There will be parking and garage space underneath the units. okay, the way it's presently planned for the additional spaces. MR. CARTIER-So, there'll be one garage parking space per unit plus outside parking? MR. NACE- That is correct. Yes. Wen, I've opened the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR 5 ~ MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here representing Steven Pinchook and Joan Bovee who are also present. They are owners of a parcel of land which is immediately to the west of this parcel and they are concerned with the development. They understand that some development mayor may not take place on the site. They are concerned with the proposed density and have different issues that they would raise with what we've seen, even here tonight. For your reference, I have a sketch which win show you where the Bovee residence is or the Pinchook residence is and on your map I would locate it as about 60 feet from this point right here. Their driveway, in fact, comes up this parcel, here. and comes to their residence. MRS. PULVER-It comes off Walker Lane? MR. O'CONNOR-It comes off Walker Lane. MR. CAIMANO-Their driveway comes off Walker Lane? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. They. in fact, bought the parcel of land from Mr. Whipple. Mr. Whipple owned their lot and this lot and in 1987 created a two lot subdivision and they ended up buying what was the westerly portion of that lot. From what I see before you here, you're talking about construction which would also require some variances because you're talking about construction on slopes that are greater than 15 percent. I also have a question as to the timing of the water test or the soil tests that were made. I think their outside of the scope of the sanitary sewer time table. It's not March, April, Mayor June. maybe I'm not correct on that because some were made last fall and you may need a variance or at least some better explanation on that. We do have a concern with the amount of traffic that would be created, even on Walker Lane. Walker Lane itself is not a fully developed road, as it comes down through here. It was a road by prescription. I think it was partiany widened by deed as it enters into Bay Road, within the last few years, by a deed from John Hughes who's the developer, but up in this area up in here the actual width of Walker Lane is minimum. It's not much more than what has been maintained by the Town. I don't believe it's a deeded road. It's a road that's there by prescription. They've got some concerns there and as I think you've indicated. this is probably going to have to go to the ZBA for some variances. That would be our comments at this point. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Mr. Nace, would you care to respond? MR. NACE-Yes. First, I guess relative to the closeness of the adjacent residence, this is an MR-5 zone which allows five or one unit for every 5.000 square feet or nine units per acre. So those types of closenesses come with the zoning of the area. Secondly. the issue of the soil tests. They were done last summer and last fan. Both of them were done prior to the interpretation by the Building and Codes Department regarding time period and the tests were done under my supervision and I have applied to the Town Board for certification for testing outside the specified time period. MR. CARTIER-Will each lot be re-tested at site plan? MR. NACE-If there is not an existing test exactly where we want to put the septic system, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NACE-For instance, if you look at Lot 3, there really is no percolation test that deals specifically with the location of that tile field. We have a good indication, from our testing. that that higher ground is good, but we will provide specific testing at site plan for that. MR. CARTIER-I'm going to leave the public hearing open on this. I would suggest, would you agree to a tabling, Mr. Nace. Considering the fact that this is going to require variances, we certainly are in no position to approve. MR. NACE-Obviously, yes. The variance on the roads I had, certainly, not been aware of and we win have to go through that so, yes, we will table. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. I might suggest that you may want to sit down with the Zoning Administrator and have her or someone in that office take a closer look at this application and pick up whatever loose ends there appear to be on this application. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions? Can we entertain a motion with regard to tabling that? MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. Someone would still like to speak. DAN VALENTI MR. VALENTI-My name's Dan Valenti, Valenti Builders. We have the development opposite this proposed site. The only question I'm asking, is there an architectural review board that's going to oversee what's going to be put up there? 6 -,' MR. CARTIER-There is no architectural review in the Town of Queensbury. MR. VALENTI-All right. Well. I've been trying to get one for many years. but the question, we have no control when a subdivision is approved. If the developer decides to sell or not develop at all, what's going to be put up there? I'll just put my cards right on the table, we could end up with modulars right across from a 248 unit subdivision which will directly effect my subdivision and that is to the entrance to my subdivision. So that's the only reason I'm concerned. I'm not objecting to the project, but I was just wondering if there was some way that there's some kind of control that, asethetically, will blend in with the community? MR. CARTIER-That's an idea that's been bounced around in this community for a ~ time, architectural review. MR. VALENTI-I agree. MR. CARTIER-And I've never seen anything formal go forward. At the risk of sounding like I'm passing the buck, this is not the Board to address architectural review concerns to. It's the Town Board. MR. VALENTI-The Town Board. MR. CARTIER-They're the ones who are going to have to develop an Ordinance and pass an Ordinance, but to answer your question in a short form, no, we have no control. MR. VALENTI-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Peter, if I can address one more thing, while the public hearing is open, that he called to mind, that I didn't address from Mr. O'Connor, was the traffic issue and I think Mr. Valenti addressed it quite adequately. There are 248 units that are serviced by that road. Nine more units on this property are not going to significantly impact that overall traffic. MR. CAIMANO-However, another good reason why the Zoning Administrator should take a second look at the whole thing. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-Also, while we don't have an architectural review board, we do have Article V and talks about harmony and those kinds of things and that's something the applicant could, Mr. Valenti could take into consideration. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Is there anybody else who would care to comment at this point? Okay, again, I'll leave the public hearing open until we see this again. The applicant, Mr. Nace. has agreed to a tabling. We can entertain a motion to table, which you started. tlJTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1990 WHIPPLE SUBDIVISION. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Tabled until the Zoning Administrator has the time to look at this matter further and we get some understanding as to where we sit with the variances. Duly adopted this 19th day of March. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mr. Hagan NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-91 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 GLORIA CALDARONI OWNER: STEPHEN BRITTON AND FRANK DESANTIS NORTHWEST CORNER OF RICHARDSON AND MAIN STREETS FOR A PIZZERIA RESTAURANT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 130-2-13 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION 4.020 L STAN PRITSKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 7-91, Gloria Caldaroni, Dated March 13, 1991, Meeting Date: March 19, 1991 "The request is for a change of use in a Highway Commercial zone on 7 '--- --.-/ Corinth Road. Main Street, and Richardson Street. The current use is a pet store and the proposed use is for a pizzeria. The biggest concern was for traffic contr01 and management since Main Street (Corinth Road) is our most heavi1y trave1ed roadway. The way this concern was addressed was to have one way access into the restaurant from Corinth Road and traffic exiting onto Richardson Street. Appropriate signage shou1d be provided. There is no parking current1y on Corinth Road. Warren County D.P.W. has approved this traffic management approach. The app1icant has provided 13 parking spaces which the Zoning Administrator has determined is sufficient for the use. The other concern is the septic system and its abi1ity to hand1e the change of use. The app1icant's agent has t01d me the septic system was rep1aced in 1984. The app1icant has app1ied for a pennit from the Department of HeaHh. Information regarding the existing system shou1d be provided by the meeting. The Beautification Committee approved the site p1an. This site p1an meets an the criteria for an expedited matter. This is an un1isted action under SEQRA. A short environmenta1 assessment form is attached for the Boards review." MRS. YORK-With the Department of Hea1th approva1 pending, we did not make this matter expedited. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Even though it's an expedited matter, it wi1l be unexpedited because we have some peop1e here who wish to address that. Engineering Comments? MR. YARMOWICH-There are none. MR. CARTIER-We have a 1etter from the Citi zens Advi sory Committee on Access for the Handi capped dated March 19. 1991 ''''Fun accessibi1ity is required when there is a change of classification, inc1uding curb cuts, entrance and handicapped bathrooms. Parking for the disab1ed shou1d be 8' wide with an access ais1e of 8'." We have a letter from West G1ens Fans Fire Chief Victer T. Miner, dated 2/11/91 "Dear Queensbury P1anning Board members, I am writing in response to the site p1an review app1ication of G10ria Ca1daroni app1icant, and owners, Stephen Britton and Frank DeSantis concerning the proposed property use change of the pet store on the corner of Main Street and Richardson Street, West Glens Fans. to a pizzeria restaurant. I have 1isted be10w my concerns and recommendations as Fire Chief of West Glens Fans V01unteer Fire Co. #1. 1. I recommend no parking on Richardson Street side of bui1ding. 2. Concern over the fact that the visibi1ity coming into the intersection with 1arge fire equipment is a1ready poor. 3. Concern over more traffic congestion do to traffic exiting onto Richardson Street from parking 10t. If you have any questions p1ease fee1 free to contact me." Okay. Wou1d the app1icant introduce himse1f, p1ease and make whatever comments he fee1s appropriate. MR. PRITZKER-I represent the Ca1daroni's. I'd 1ike to give out some information on the septic system, initia11y. MR. CARTIER-Let me read this into the record. Memorandum "To Whom it May Concern From: Whitney Russen, Town of Queensbury, Regarding Former Bob's Aquarium, 47 Main Street, Queensbury, date March 18. 1991 "P1ease see attached septic system and 1ayout stamped by Brian Fear of the New York State Hea1th Department, on March 15, 1991. As shown on this p1an, the system win meet requirements of New York State HeaHh Department and the Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewage, signed Whitney Russen. Code Enforcement Officer" Anything e1se? MR. PRITZKER-We do appreciate the assistance from the P1anning Department on this. There is something else. I have a Hazardous Materia1s form. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That can go to Staff. MR. PRITZKER-And that's a11 I have to say, right now, thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do Board members have any questions or comments? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I have a question. We went up to see the site and I have a question as to where the wester1y property boundary actua11y sits in re1ation to the next bui1ding to the west? Is that under the same ownership? MR. CARTIER-What's the name of that? It's a diner. What's the name of that? MRS. PULVER-The Northway Diner. MR. PRITZKER-Right. I don't be1ieve the restaurant is under the same ownership. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So that wester1y boundary you're showing. is that. then, how many feet is that from the bui1ding to the west? MR. PRITZKER-I don't think I have that information on my site p1an. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's why I. because we were there and it appears that there's parking being provided to that bui1ding to the west by the same area that m.. propose for parking. It just doesn't seem 1ike there's enough space there. 8 MRS. PULVER-They may be spi11ing over on your parking 10t. MR. PRITZKER-That is what's happening. That's correct. It's an arrangement that we've anowed to occur. The owner of the property has anowed the parking to spi11 over. What we're proposing. as I've stated in my cover 1etter, a10ng the boundary 1ine which is noted in the site p1an. I don't have the distance from the other bui1ding, but you cou1d see it re1ative to our bui1ding. We wou1d 1ike to put up a set of 1ights, perhaps, with some trees or a 1itt1e box with some 1ights sitting up to at 1east set that forth, that boundary 1ine. That's what we have in mind as part of the site p1an. MR. MARTIN-Because it's just 1ike, seems to be a1most a, definite1y a shared usage and, 1ike I said, you can't even te11 where the property boundary 1ine is at a11. MR. PRITZKER-That is a permissive use and we wi11 be putting up a boundary. As part of my submission I set just the basic p1ans for that down. MR. CARTIER-Are you saying to us, though. that once this pizzeria goes in, that the Northway Diner patrons wi11 no 10nger be ab1e to park there? MR. PRITZKER-I be1ieve that's true. I think once the pizzeria goes in there, we're going to set forth the boundary 1ine with a set of p01es and markers that I indicated in my p1ans and that's going to be parking for the pizzeria. as we've indicated here, whatever's on this piece of property, which extends, the frontage extends 95 feet and then goes back. MR. CARTIER-Okay. With regard to handicapped, whi1e we're ta1king about parking, here, you're going to have to get an eight foot wide 1ane in between those two handicaps. What is that going to do? That's going to push you eight feet somewhere. MR. PRITZKER-Right. MR. CAIMANO-It's going to reduce one s10t. MR. PRITZKER-Right. We'd 10se a s10t. but that wou1d be okay because we've taken that into account in our p1ans. We've tried to give ourse1ves extra spots for the amount of peop1e and I set that forth in my cover 1etter. So we have no prob1em doing that. I win put an eight foot spot in between, to provide access for the ramps, etc. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody e1se have any questions? MRS. PULVER-Yes. So. if he takes over the parking which is rightfuny his for the restaurant, what is going to happen to an the rest of the cars that have been parking there? Apparent1y, the Diner is doing a booming business? Does the Diner not have enough parking where they are? MR. DUSEK-I don't know that parking, but I have a question. Do they have any easements or any 1ega1 ri ghts to park? MR. PRITZKER-No. My understanding is it's just been a permissive use and I checked this with the owners. MR. CARTIER-Permissive use in writing? MR. PRITZKER-No. It's just an arrangement. MR. DUSEK-The question I had which, correct me if I'm wrong, you've answered no. the question I have is whether they have any 1ega1 rights, in terms of easements or anything in writing that wou1d anow them to park there, that you cou1d not stop them? MR. PRITZKER-Neither at 1aw or by prescription. MR. DUSEK-Okay. If that's the case then this property is his to do with as he p1eases and it becomes the Diner's prob1em, in terms of trying to find parking to accommodate their needs. Now I'm not persona11y fami1iar with the Diner's parking needs or where they wou1d park, to answer the other question that was raised. MR. PRITZKER-I a1so, from 100king at the property, I've been down there severa1 times, I think there is a 10t of room for the Diner, for parking there. It's just what I recan. In addition, I wou1d note that we de1eted three spots from the Richardson Street side of this bui1ding. based on what the Fire Chief t01d us. and we tried to accommodate your needs in that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How are you going to prevent peop1e from parking there? MR. PRITZKER-I guess we'n mark it and do the best we can. We a1so are going to have arrows. It's a1so one way, as you can note, it entrances through Main Street and it goes out through Richardson Street, parking has to f10w one way and we certain1y wi11 mark No Parking back there. 9 ~/ MRS. PULVER-What about putting up a sign, "you're car wiH be towed away at your expense", or something, if you park here. MR. CARTIER-Or something. MRS. PULVER-Something more than "No Parking". MR. CARTIER-Yes, like "Don't even think of parking here" or something like that. MR. MARTIN-Is there a light at the Richardson Street intersection? MR. PRITZKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. PRITZKER-We will put up a sign there and whatever you think we'll be able to take care of. MR. MARTIN-My other question. is there going to be sit down dining in the restaurant? MR. PRITZKER-Yes. Right now. we be1ieve, it's going to be mostly take out. but right now we think there will be about seven tables, seating maybe 28 people. MR. CARTIER-Has that been calculated in the parking, are you aware? MR. PRITZKER-Yes. MRS. YORK-I believe so. MR. CAIMANO- Lee, on the Fi re Depa rtment and whoever else, on the Fi re Department I s concerns, here. Number Two says he's concerned that the visibility coming into the intersection with large fire equipment is already poor. Coming into the intersection. from Main, from Richardson? I know where he's coming from, because the fire department's on Richardson Street. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. LAPOINT-From north to south on Richardson. MR. CAIMANO-But there's a light there. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. CARTIER-I think what he's suggesting is, he doesn't want any more parking on the east side of that building that may further hamper visibility when trucks are coming out of there. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And I think by saying no more parking on Richardson, it's taking care of that. I think. MR. CAIMANO-That's not a hardship for you, is it? MR. PRITZKER-No, sir. MR. MARTIN-Lee, the Zoning Administrator did look at this for conformance with parking, right? MRS. YORK-Yes. I asked specifically. MR. CARTIER-And she satisfied herself that 13 parking spaces are going to do this? MRS. YORK-I asked. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I just wanted to get it on record. AH right. Thank you. Does the Board have any other questions or comments before I open the public hearing on this? MR. CAIMANO-I think you should read into the record the concerns that we have. MR. MARTIN-All right. I'll do that because I don't want to be unfair to the applicant. MR. CARTIER-No, but on the other hand, I want to be careful that we don't set a precedent, here, that we will be sorry for later on. 10 '"-'" MR. MARTIN-Wen, I'm just going to raise this issue and then the Board, obviously, can do with it what they want, but I want it read into the record that the building area is calculated at 1464 square feet, 61 by 24. I believe my map is correct. So there's a 1400 square foot bui1ding and under the Section 7 for parking requi rements, one space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area or one space for each four seats, whichever is greater and one space for each two employees. So we're going now from 13 to 12? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And so if we have one or two employees, we're looking at a need, according to the Ordinance, of 15 spaces and like I said. I don't want to be unfair to the applicant and if the Zoning Administrator has looked at this, she's looked at it and that's the end of it, but... MR. CARTIER-I disagree. I don't think that just because the Zoning Administrator has looked at it is the end of it. I want to be very cautious in what we do here, that if we disagree with the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Ordinance and do nothing about it, we are setting legal precedent. MR. CAIMANO-We don't even know. and this is what we get back to the old argument, that the Zoning Administrator looked at this Section of Ordinance and said, this is okay because. that's the problem with this whole system. MR. LAPOINT-Jim, did you subtract out the storage from that calculation? MRS. YORK-Yes. You've got to subtract out the storage area. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. MR. CARTIER-1090 square feet. well lets call it 1100, so that's 11 parking spaces. MR. CAIMANO-And they've got 12. MR. CARTIER-They've got 12, but we haven't got two employees covered. So we stil1 need 13. MR. CAIMANO-No, I think he's got the 12 with the two. isn't it, Jim? MRS. PULVER-Isn't it one parking for every two employees. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-It's one parking for every two employees. MR. CAIMANO-You're not going to have a delivery. This is not Domino's, right? MR. PRITZKER-No. We were very conservative with the storage space. We list it on Page 3. If you've ever worked in a pizzeria, you really need to store a bunch of things. MR. CARTIER-How many employees are you going to have there at anyone time? GLORIA CALDARONI MS. CALDARONI-I'm Gloria Caldaroni. We are purchasing the property, the house behind the pizzeria. So we are planning to use that as our parking. anyway, if needed. MRS. YORK-Okay, but that is not part of your site plan which the Board can consider at this time. MS. CALDARONI-Right, if needed, but I believe Stan has calculated our parking adequately. MRS. PULVER-I'm probably more concerned with the restaurant parking because I go by there every day and it is always filled, and the side as well. MR. CAIMANO-You're talking about the Diner part. MRS. PULVER-Yes, the Diner part, not theirs. I mean, if they're entitled to it, they're entitled to it. but now it may create another problem on the other side. MR. CAIMANO-But he's saying. the iawyer is saying, Paul is saying. that's their probiem. Once they take over and the signs go up, then the Diner's got a probiem. MRS. PULVER-If they start spining out into the streets. Paul. and creating a problem, wouid they can the Buiiding and Codes Enforcement Officer to go down and do what? MR. DUSEK-Wen. if people are vioiating parking requirements up and down Main Street, that wouid be a matter for the Sherriff's Department. 11 -..-' MRS. PULVER-All right. MR. LAPOINT-Generally speaking, that Diner is full in the morning and almost empty in the afternoon. Whereas. a pizzeria would be generally full in the afternoon. That Diner may not, is it even open in the afternoon? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. PULVER-When were we there. Peter, 2 o'clock? MR. CARTIER-Yes, about. MRS. PULVER-Two o'clock, and their lot was full. MR. MARTIN-I just want to ask the question, where in the Ordinance does it say that we subtract storage area. MRS. YORK-Page 85. Section 7.071 Off Street Parking Design, B. MR. MARTIN-All right. Good. MR. CARTIER-So, based on 1100 square feet of. public use I guess is the way to describe it, we will have 12 on here and that will cover it. just make it. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Would anybody care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-I'm Don Daniels in Queensbury. I've got some papers I'd like to pass out. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. DANIELS-The front page you will see is a copy of the legal description of the pet shop property. the proposed change of use property. On the documents that you have in the application, it shows 95 or 96 feet of frontage. There's actually 84.18, which is a little less than what they're showing there. MRS. PULVER-Could I ask you where you got that calculation, 84.18? MR. CAIMANO-It's in the legal document. MR. DANIELS-Right on the legal document. MRS. PULVER-And where did they get their 95 feet. off the tax map? MR. DANIELS-I don't know. It's right there. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but now I want to know where they got theirs. MR. DANIELS-There's a lot of figures that are in the application that are different than what I've seen and what we've measured. It is true that the Northway Diner is very busy. The entire area between the both buildings many times has 30 and more cars due to the Northway Diner and it is true that a lot of that property is the corner property, but it has been used for more than 50 years and the arrangements that have been made between the property owners. the garage property in the back. the Di ner property, the corner property and the house property tha tis behi nd the pet shop, all those four pieces of property usually had one snowplow person who plowed the snow and coordinated that snow plowing effort. Most of that snow wound up behind the Diner or on the far north wall by the garage to remove all that snow and keep everything open so the traffic could flow properly. Now. on the second page, if you have the second page, there are 15 different points that I would like to have addressed. The first one, the land area between the pet shop building and house, is this 50 year or more period. Now I own the Northway Diner property. I have owned it for some 22 years now and I bought it from the Crannell family who owned it for more than 50 years. So for the last 75 years or so there's been two owners of that property and ingress and egress behind that building has always been open. People have traveled back and forth through there, going out that way, traveling toward the fire house or coming out onto Richardson Street to the light and going into the Diner, having free open area. There's no fence in the middle, no fence behind the building and traffic has always flowed without any problem. Now it maybe true that when or if you pass this application and the fence is put up. it maybe true. They may own that land and they may be able to put that fence up, then they may not be able to put the fence up. It is my understanding that behind that pet shop building there has been a right-of-way that was granted maybe 75 years ago that the church used, going into that garage and had their trucks and tractors for use in the cemetery and stored in that building for 50 years before I was there. 12 .----- MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you a quick question. Is there documentation to show that there is a legal right-of-way through there? MR. DANIELS-That I don't know because I don't have those papers. MR. CARTIER-And. secondly, Paul, can a legal right-of-way be established by use? There's a phrase for that and I can't remember what it is. MR. DUSEK-I think what you're thinking of, Mr. Chairman, is a use that would be estab1ished by prescription or what we call Adverse Possession. MR. CARTIER-Yes, thank you. MR. DUSEK-Which is something that might not necessarily show up in a written. legal documentation. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. DUSEK-I will say this that, obviously, this is the type of issue that I would have to take some time to explore and could not give you a snap judgement on. MR. CARTIER-Right. Okay, so we have some question, there's a question with regard to the lega7ity of a right-of-way there. MR. DANIELS-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Go ahead. MR. DANIELS-If there was a restaurant in that building on the corner, if all the parking that was in the middle and the Caldaroni's were to clear all the way back to the house or raze that house and clear it all the way back there and the one large parking area all nicely paved all the way to the Diner, snow plowing and cooperation type effort between the property owners that are in there now probably would be in the best interest of everyone, were you to pass this application. Number Two. we will get to the septic tank. Now. it was mentioned earlier about the septic tank that was replaced. That septic tank that is behind the pet shop building was not replaced. A County truck broke the top on the tank and they replaced the top on the tank that was in there. That entire system was never replaced. There was a broken top where one of the sand trucks that was in there for one of the winters cracked the top on the tank and they did make a repair on that. but the system was not replaced there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think I can answer and the answer may not make you happy, but there is an answer there. We have a statement from the Department of Health saying what's there is adequate and will serve. So I think that's kind of a non-issue. MR. YARMOWICH-No, they're going to rebuild that system. MR. CARTIER-They're going to replace it? MRS. YORK-Yes. It's a replacement system. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. thank you for the correct. So that will be replaced. MR. DANIELS-The gallonage, you have a figure of 200 gallons a day. I can't imagine where anybody could get a figure of 200 gallons a day that you have in your application there. The actual usage, the Northway Diner uses about 300,000 gallons in a year. which is close to 1,000 gallons a day. I would imagine that, I've had several other restaurants that I've managed. Most use about that much water. I couldn't imagine 200 gallons a day. A house uses more than 200 gallons a day. I would think that the usage would probably be closer to 1,000 gallons a day in that spot. If the figure of 200 gallons a day is what was submitted to the Board of Health, that would have to be checked out a little closer. The house, now, that would have to be checked out a little closer. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Daniels, I'm going to interrupt you every once and a while because you've got a long list and I want you to understand that we'll go through all of these. but we're only going to go through the ones that are pertinent to this application and Number Three isn't. That may be a concern of yours, but I don't think that's an issue with regard to this application. Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. MR. DANIELS-Okay, that's fine. MR. CARTIER-That may also be true for Item Four. MR. DANIELS-Number Four, you want to drop Number Four? Number Five I have mentioned already is the discrepancy in the frontage. You have on your application, there, the front of the pet shop building. 13 '-- ----' I don't know if that has very much bearing on it. I think it shows 13 feet. It wasn't mentioned from the property line. There hasn't been a survey to show where that property line is there. MRS. PULVER-Well. it's a preexisting building anyway. MR. CARTIER-Well. I can answer Number Six. When the road is widened, that building won't be there and neither will a lot of other buildings. MR. DANIELS-That's why I mentioned it there. Because I've been there for 22 years, we've heard about all the various stories of that road being widened. The last one is 10 feet on each side of the road, two lanes going down through there, all on one side. We've heard a lot of things. It is close to that point. Maybe that might not be a thing that the Caldaronis have worried about. but many of the people on Main Street have been concerned about it. The Northway Diner may only be an office building if 10 feet of the front of the Northway Diner property is taken away. MR. CAIMANO-But neither here nor there, as far as this application is concerned. MR. DANIELS-No. I just wasn't sure if you wanted to see that or not. but I put that down. Now. the pet shop building, the side of the pet shop building to the community chapel is 135 feet. Liquor, beer. and wine should not be allowed in the new building, the new proposed restaurant as per application for restaurant/bar. It does state on your application restaurant/bar, whether it's for 28 seating or 50 seating or 75 seating. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but that's got to be an issue between the restaurant owner and whenever he applies for a liquor license. That's not anything that this Board... MR. DANIELS-Many years ago there was, about 15 years ago there was a property across the street where Double A Provision is and the Town turned down the use of that. It was 198 feet from the community chapel. They turned down the use of that as a restaurant so that there wouldn't be a future problem, but this Board would have to do what they feel is the right thing to do. MR. CARTIER-I understand your concern and it may be a legitimate concern, but this is not a liquor licensing board. That is an issue that's got to remain between the applicant and whoever issues those licenses. MR. DANIELS-Number 8, parking at the end of the property line near the garage and house area would block the cars and trucks from entering the three bays and the gate of the garage building. There are four service bays on the back of the garage that was approved by the Town for Mr. Maille many years ago to have an entrance to utilize that service garage. MR. CARTIER-Where is this garage in relationship to your Diner and the aquarium? MR. DANIELS-It's directly behind the Northway Diner and along side of the house. MR. CARTIER-And access to it is? MR. DANIELS-Access has always come in between the parking area of the Diner and the pet shop building and behind the pet shop building. MR. CARTIER-Is that the only access to that garage? MR. DANIELS-For those bays. There's one bay access on Newcomb Street side. but the other service bays, which is what the church always used for all the years that they had it was only through there. That was the only access that there was to go in there from there. MR. DUSEK-Just to make sure that I understand this. is this the same access that you were talking about a little while ago. the right-of-way? MR. DANIELS-Behind the pet shop building. the pet shop building and Diner building. cars can travel. There's never been a problem with people coming in between It's always been an understood thing that trucks or repair MR. CARTIER-This refers to the legal right-of-way that you mentioned in Item One. MR. DANIELS-Right. MR. CARTIER-That access to those three bays was through this. what you are calling a legal right-of-way. MR. DANIELS-Right. Now, that's not my property. That's not my property, but that man that owns that property is here tonight also. He has concerns also. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 14 '--'" MR. DANIELS-Number 9, the fence that they propose will put the cars in the midd1e. If there are in fact 11 or 12 feet less than their drawings, the traffic will be 11 or 12 feet closer to the pet shop building. I put that in there as some information for you. Number 10, the two parking spaces for the two parking spaces for the handicapped that you've always addressed and the 96 inch space. I have those notices about the handicapped parking a1so and there wasn't the access on the drawings. but we've addressed those. Number 11, no area for parking has been set aside for emp10yee parking. Now there's no mention on the drawings. there, for employee parking. There is mention of four emp10yees. Generally, if you have four employees, you have one or two of the owners that might be there which wou1d constitute three or possibly four cars for owners and emp10yees. It is on the app1ication. four employees, not just one or two at a time. It takes, usua11y, more than one or two people to run a restaurant. De1ivery service. most of the Italian pizza restaurants in the area offer delivery. If there's delivery, if this app1ication goes through they could have delivery. There's nothing that would stop them. Two more delivery cars, three delivery cars, there's no provision for delivery vehicles at an. The access going in only one way and coming out one way would create another problem if somebody was turning from Main Street and somebody backing out into the narrow area there and would have to stop quickly. There's going to be more accidents. That road now has an the traffic of the lumbering trucks and they don't stop on a dime. They need 100 feet or 200 feet. If a car just touchs its brakes, they're going to be slamming on their brakes and smashing into people. The beer company. Northern Distributing down the street. their trucks always travel up through there. They're heavily loaded trucks that need adequate time. The light has taken care of a lot of the problem, but with people in that narrow corridor that will be created if you approve this application, there's going to be many more problems. Yes, there is no parking on Main Street. That was put up last summer, the parking signs, and Newcomb Street. the parking si gns were put up several years ago. If thi s was to go in, there would probably be No Parking signs on Richardson Street. There won't be any parking anywhere in there. Myself, along side that Northway Diner property, to the west of the Northway Diner property, in between the community chapel, I have another building in there that is a beauty shop now, but I had four different pizza restaurants in there, four different operators that an did a pizza. a take out business. They had sit down in there, submarines, varieties of Italian foods, and they all lasted about a year and ail went out. It didn't seem to go over too well. They had a nice shop in there and their food was good, but it didn't seem to work too well, and their comment was they needed a lot more room than they could have. Number 13. the No Parking areas, we've talked about those. Number 14. the placement of snow. It's always been coordinated with the fencing up there. That's going to create a problem. Probably all that snow may have to be removed by trucks. MR. CARTIER-It would have to be. There's no other place to put snow in the winter time. That would have to be part of this operation. The snow would have to be removed. There would be no question about it. MR. DANIELS-It's never been a problem in the past because the people in that area. there, have always coordinated. as I mentioned before. Number 15, the dimension of the pet shop is 62 by 26. that's 1612 feet. I went there and measured it yesterday. The Diner has 80 seats now and as you had mentioned, their open breakfast, lunch, and dinner. At breakfast you can't get in there. At lunch you can't get in there and at dinner you can't get in there and ail day Sunday you can't get in there. It's true, they can put No Parking signs on their side. They can put tow away signs. We can have the police down there and just keep arresting everybody. If the pizza shop were to have their area filled, some of their customers may go over to the Diner side. Bob's Pet Shop has had his customers, over the years, have parked in the Diner's area. It's never been a problem and nobody's ever complained either way and my last comment, the last five pages that you'll see were people in the area that have signed this affidavit which doesn't effect you, I know you mentioned. The community chapel and the pastor has signed and attested to these peop1e that have signed. People that live around the neighborhood that received some of the notices to attend here have signed. MR. CARTIER-I'm going to cut you short, here. That is a petition that needs to go to the licensing board, if and when this applicant decides to obtain a liquor license. MR. DANIELS-I know. I was asked, the pastor gave me these sheets to bring in with my comments and I bring them to you to let you know what the community and that area would 11 ke to see happen and my comment is that we would prefer not to have a pizza restaurant, an additional pizza restaurant, on that corner. Thank you very much. MR. CAIMANO-Well, Mr. Chairman, these 15 wen thought out points real1y seem to narrow down to three. One is a legal one which has to be determined, and that is the access to that driveway by prescription and we'l1 let that be worked out over there. The second is guess work. Everybody has a right, as we said before, to fail in their own business and somebody else guessing on whether something is going to fail or not is immaterial. Third appears to be a plea for neighborliness and that is a sharing of the driveways and the snowplows. Do you have any problem with that? MR. PRITZKER-Absolutely. Yes, we certainly don't have a problem with being neighborly if we're given a chance to be and that's all we're asking for. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. 15 '--'" MRS. PULVER-I want to say something. I kind of have a little problem with that, with them sharing because I'm looking at the application, here. and it looks like Britton/DeSantis are the property owners. MR. PRITZKER-Correct. MRS. PULVER-I seem to get the feeling that the Diner rea1ly wishes that they had made some sort of agreement about parking before this came about and now they're scrambling to take over this applicant's idea. business. restaurant, whatever. Li ke with the snow removal. They are renting that piece of property. They are going to maintain it. They are going to be responsible for it. I don't think we, as a Board should ask them to share it with their next door neighbor and take the responsibility, they're paying rent on it. They are renting it. They should not have to share it. MR. CAIMANO-As far as the snow plowing and those kinds of things... MRS. PULVER-They have to maintain everything themselves. We should not. as a Board, require them to give it up. If the restaurant is unhappy with the situation. I think they should go to Mr. Britton and Mr. DeSantis and try to work out some sort of agreement or something with them that would. at this time, if they have already signed a lease, would be agreeable to this applicant. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MR. PRITZKER-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would anybody else care to comment, please? MR. MAILLE MR. MAILLE-Hi. My name is Mr. Maille. I own the garage behind the pet shop and the Diner. There's always been a parking problem there. I've been there eight years. I'm not there now. I lease it. I own three tow trucks. I've towed cars. I've moved cars, and they still park there. I put a 10,000 fence up. They sti1l park there. MR. CARTIER-When you say park "there", can you identify exactly where "there" is. MR. MAILLE-Restaurant people, the Diner, the church. MR. CAIMANO-Park where? MR. MAILLE-Any where they can find a place to park to go in to eat. So there's going to be a problem. I've been plowing snow there for the last eight years. I had to put a drywe1l in to absorb a1l the water from all the snow that we plowed between my garage and the Diner. I do have, somewhere. a right-of-way through there. I originally owned all the property there at one time, the pet shop, the house in back and the garage. I didn't have time to get it out, but a do have a right-of-way through there. MR. CARTIER-You have a legal right-of-way. MR. MAILLE-Yes, I do. MR. MAILLE-Established from Richardson Street to your three bays. MR. MAILLE-To the garage. yes. MR. CARTIER-To the garage behind the Diner. MR. MAILLE-Yes, I do. When I sold the property, I haven't got a copy. My lawyer's out of town. He has everything. I couldn't get a copy of it. I don't know if it got put back in there at the second sale, because I've sold it twice. I know it was there the first time. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but that's an issue that needs to get cleared up. MR. MAILLE-Yes, it does, and it should be. MR. CARTIER-Apparently. This legal issue needs to get cleared up. MR. CAIMANO-That's a big one. MR. MAILLE-That's a big one. MR. CARTIER-Absolutely. 16 MR. MAILLE-I'm almost positive there is a right-of-way through there for me. Now, for Daniels property I don't know, but I did have one, okay. I'm not against it. I'm not for it. I'd li ke to see everybody try to make it in business. We can always work things out as far as snow goes, the parking goes, but it is a problem with parking. MR. CARTIER-What I'm hearing are some neighborhood concerns, here and I agree with what Mrs. Pulver is saying and I want to keep this Board out of any neighborhood dispute as much as I possibly can. So I think what we're going to try to do tonight is get all the issues on the table and then go from there. MRS. PULVER-Can I add one other thing, Mr. Maille, is that you're saying there's a parking problem that already exists and it exists before this applicant has even done anything and it looks like the Diner may possibly somehow have over extended itself. Maybe there are more tables and more seating in that Diner than the square footage will allow at this point and so maybe we should look at the Diner and see, cutting that back. MR. CAIMANO-As you say, this applicant shouldn't be penalized. MRS. PULVER-Right. They have an idea. They should be able to do it. MR. MAILLE-Right. I understand that, but you could put your signs up. You could put No Parking and they'll still park there, believe me and I want everybody to understand. li ke I say. I'm not against it. I'm not for it. I wish that we could just, Mr. DeSantis. ail of us get together and work something out with the problem, because there is a problem with snow and parking and there always will be. I've been there a long time and I haven't seen any changes yet and I have a trucking company that has to go through there with their trucks because they've got a tractor trailer and they can't come in from Newcomb Street side because I put the fence up to stop the church people from parking there. MR. CAIMANO-Jim brings up an interesting point and it harks back to the point I made earlier and the point I made to you regarding the fact that the Zoning Administrator, in spite of the fact that the main problem here is parking. has not told us what criteria was used to determine this was okay. We were just talking, here. about the fact that there may be three nonconforming businesses here all trying to conform in parking and really it seems to be, you don't want to penalize this applicant, but maybe this is the way it worked backwards, but I don't see how we can go much further with this thing without getting a determination from the Zoning Administrator on how in the heck they came up with the idea this was all okay. MRS. YORK-I believe what she indicated to me was that she used the square footage of the building minus the storage area. MR. MARTIN-That's the interesting crux to the matter, here. is that. technicaliy, this applicant is only bound by the property that it's trying to control and if it can meet its needs within those bounds that's fine, but you have a planning issue. here, of how do you deal with the realistic problem of three uses trying to share this one area and what makes sense. MR. MAILLE-Can I say that I have no parking problems. MR. MARTIN-No, I don't mean parking. I mean your right-of-way problem is your issue and then you have the parking with the other two. MR. MAILLE-Right. The only thing I have is the right-of-way, and. right, the vehicles. because in and out of there, the problem I've had over the years is, I've even left gates open for the church to use the property to park and the Diner and I got a wrecker call. I go down there. They're parked in front of my doors. I can't get out. I can't move, and there's got to be a control of some kind of parking and there's going to be a problem. MRS. PULVER-Have you called the Sheriff? MR. MAILLE-Yes. I've gone into the church. nicely. and asked them to move and it's going to be a problem. The snow is going to be a problem. I don't care if they bring the snow over because I've got the drain there. but I've gone over to the Diner several times and asked the girls to have people move their cars so I can get a car out of the garage which. I don't know what you're going to do, but I do have, somewhere, a right-of-way through there and when I first originally bought, like I said, I used to own all of that and there is one. I have it. I'm pretty sure. MRS. PULVER-Well, Paul, if he has a right-of-way through there and he can find the documentation, doesn't he have to bring that to Mr. Britton and Mr. DeSantis to show them that he has the right-of-way and can use that property as a right-of-way? MR. DUSEK-Well, I think that would be a good idea, but it would be more important to show the Town what exactly you're claiming over there so that the Board can in turn make a decision as to whether or not it's possible to accomplish what this applicant is proposing at the site. The other comment 17 ~ '--' I might make at this point, too, is that I see that if the parking and traffic issues are something, as Jim has mentioned, of concern from a Planning perspective, perhaps this Board needs further information on those issues as well, in terms of, it comes up actually twice. in terms of your SEQRA Review as well as later on in your site plan review, but you can certainly gather, make a request, not only for Zoning Administrator input. but also just to study that whole area down there in terms of parking. MR. MARTIN-Well, with that comment in mind, I would like to make this request of the Planning Department because I certainly can't put the weight of the request on the applicant. I'd like to see a small. schematic site plan of all properties involved and how they interrelate with each other. in terms of parking areas and driveways and right-of-ways and so on. as it currently exists. In other words, a site plan that would show all tax parcels involved and on that site plan show existing buildings, parking lots, driveways, etc. and then we can get to see a perspective of how all this interrelates. MRS. YORK-Okay. We will have to have the cooperation of all the property owners in that area. MR. MAILLE-I have no problem with that. MRS. YORK-Does the gentleman who owns the Northway Diner have any, would you have any problem of us coming in and talking to you and preparing some drawings on your lot? MR. DANIELS-No. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MAILLE-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to comment? DOROTHEA FISHER MRS. FISHER-My name is Dorothea Fisher and I basically came here from the Community Chapel. but I think Mr. Daniels had our question answered. We were very much concerned over the bar issue and that's all I would like to say. MR. CARTIER-Yes. As I said, that's going to be an issue that will be addressed by a State Licensing Boa rd. MRS. FISHER-Unfortunately, we're going to be in limbo because our minister is leaving. MR. MARTIN-I'd also like to see the Chapel. then. This seems to be coming into play here also. MR. CARTIER-Is there anyone else from the public who would care to comment? Okay. I'm going to leave the public hearing open for now. We'll see where we go with this. MR. PRITZKER-Stan Pritzker, I represent the Caldaroni's. The only thing I would like to address is the right-of-way issue. easement issue, whether by prescription or by law. I've been assured by the owner that there are no right-of-ways or easements over that property. MR. CARTIER-The owner being? MRS. PULVER-Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Britton. MR. PRITZKER-Yes, Steve Britton and Mr. DeSantis. MR. CARTIER-Okay. well. that's an issue that is apparently still in dispute. It needs to get settled. MR. PRITZKER-Right, and when we get more information on it, we will fully comply and we'll see where we go. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Great. MR. PRITZKER-Might I ask. I submitted my application with a cover letter that addressed each of those in order, okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. PRITZKER-So each of those items on the checklist were addressed, okay. Thank you. MRS. PULVER-Or possibly if there is a right-of-way that exists. this applicant may not want that property with all those other cars. 18 ~ --- MR. CARTIER-Okay. Just for your information. on this list that Mr. Daniels turned in, I think the issues that have been addressed are 2, 3, 4. or that we can't do anything about, are 2. 3, 4, 6, and 7, okay. Those are a wash, at this point. MR. CAIMANO-Well. and there are a couple of others, 15 being among them, that are suppositions on the part of the public which have no relationship to anything. They're nice, but they don't mean anything. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, it has to be addressed I think. MR. CAIMANO-By whom, though? Carol brought the problem that the Diner itself may be nonconforming all along the way. Who's to say that the Diner is right? I'm not saying they're wrong. MR. CARTIER-The fact of the matter is, I think we have to know whether it is 61 by 24 or 62 by 26. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. I'm not saying that. I'm talking about whether or not they need, who can cook pizza and all that kind of stuff. That's neither here nor there. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I agree. MR. CAIMANO-We're going to table this thing, I assume. MR. CARTIER-I assume. MR. CAIMANO-Well, it can't pass the SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-No. Does anybody have any more questions or comments? MR. DUSEK-Before the Board tables, may I recommend to you that you consider a resolution which would identify the reasons why you are not proceeding with SEQRA at this point and my understanding from the drift that I'm getting from the Board is that you don't have enough information. but I think that should be made a part of the record so that it's clear that you're not even entering into the SEQRA process until you get, or making any determination of significance until you get further information. MR. CARTIER-As part of the motion. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you agree to a tabling of this application? MR. PRITZKER-We would. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. A motion's in order. II)TION TO TABLE SITE PLAN fI). 7-91 GLORIA CALDARONI, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a pizzeria restaurant on the corner of Richardson and Main Street, so that further information regarding size of lot and building, parking, potential effects of deed restrictions with regard to right-of-way, general planning considerations (traffic issues) of that area. No further action regarding environmental significance will be taken until the information is received by the Board. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan IA\ ~' '5\ PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE PI-91 CHARLES A. DIEHL UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE, SOUTH SIDE CURRENT ZORE: SR-IA PROPOSED ZONE: SR-2O TAX MAP NO. 121-22 PROJECT: ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS. PHASE II ACTIOR: SUBDIVISION OF 48.275 ACRES INTO 100 LOTS HAVING A TOTAL OF 100 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE PROPOSED ZONING PROVIDES FOR GREATER DENSITY. (AFFORDABLE HOUSING RE-ZONING). WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 19 -.../ Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Petition for a Change of Zone Pl-91, Charles A. Diehl. dated March 13, 1991, Meeting Date: March 19, 1991 "The request is to change the zoning from SR-1 Acre to SR-20 on ±48 acres on Sherman Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct moderate income housing. The proposed units are to be sold to families whose incomes fall within 100 percent to 120 percent of the median family income as identified by the Community Development Department of Warren County. This original sales restriction is to be part of the covenants. The Sherman Pines subdivision received preliminary approval from the Planning Board on July 17. 1990. The approval was for development of 46 single family townhouse units. The footprints were to be sold and a homeowner's association was to own the open space and common area (motion and cOlllllents attached). Final approval for this subdivision has not been applied for. The project is on Town of Queensbury water. Subsurface sewage disposal systems are anticipated. The percolation rate on the property is less than 15 seconds and therefore it wi" be necessary to amend the soils under the septic area so that a percolation rate of 11 - 15 minutes can be achieved. A SPEDES Permit for the project will have to be issued by DEC. The statement of intent for the subdivision indicates that as much forested area as possible will be left intact. Drainage was to be recharged into the ground through the use of catch basins and drywells. The proposed subdivision roadway will be ±l,900 feet in length. The developer submitted a copy of Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Easements, and Charges and Liens. The above referenced factors were reviewed at the preliminary stage of the subdivision. The attached approval and staff comments refer to the reviews. The Board should be aware that the Assessor's office tax maps show the property as being number 121-1-22.1 rather than the number stated on the application. The application for re-zoning anticipates a change to more than double the density. The current zoning is one acre. The SR-20 zone states that for multifamily units, 15,000 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit is required. Should the Board re-zone this land, a total of +120 townhouse units could be built. The applicant is requesting 100 units on this property. The Planning Board previously approved this property for 46 units. Any density change should be considered using this figure as the current density. The applicant is utilizing a cluster design which will be reviewed by the Planning Board at subdivision review. The intent of the applicant is to indicate that the property can support the density increase. The EAF on page 3 (project description) states that there will be 72 vehicular trips generated from the site per hour. The nearest intersection is with West Mountain Road. Since this is a County road. I spoke with Roger Gebo of the Warren County D.P.W., who did not have any concerns about the traffic generated from the site. The 1985 traffic study completed for the County indicated that the intersection of Sherman Avenue and West Mountain Road was at a Level of Service C. The applicant's agent has stated that the re-zoning of this property to one half acre could act as a transition area between the mobile home overlay zone adjacent to the property and the one acre single family residential areas. The mobile home park overlay zone on Birch Road is zoned at one acre. The density at this time may be substantially greater, however, there is no specific information regarding this. The argument that the Diehl property could act as a transition zone regarding housing types may be one the Board wishes to consider. However, the mobile home area in question borders the Diehl property on the south side for about 1100 feet (J¡¡ mile). The overlay zone and the Diehl property do not front on the same street. The request for re-zoning indicates that substantial areas around the units will be wooded. The plan presented shows the rear of the closest townhouse would be ±160 feet from the mobile home zone and property line. The proximity of the mobile home overlay zone does not appear to have affected any of the other subdivisions on Sherman Avenue. In fact, the Sherman Acres subdivision borders the mobile home overlay zone on the west side for about 1,700 sq. ft. (1/3 mile). The property does abut Cranberry Lane to the west which is detached single family residences on over an acre lots. To the east is Adirondack Plantations which are four unit family apartments. If these existing developments are taken into consideration then the proposed townhouses could be viewed as a transition area for housing types. There are some considerations which have to be addressed in any re-zoning request. These include: 1) The relationship of the request to the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the public need for the change in question. 2) Why the current zoning classification is inappropriate for the subject property. 3) How the proposal wi" affect the neighborhood. 4) How public facilities will be affected. I reviewed this project as it relates to these questions. 1) The request is to more than double the density to provide for affordable housing within the community. This goal (affordable housing) is stated in the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The demographics section identified that the need in regard to the changing of densities to allow for affordable housing is the availability of municipal services and infrastructure to handle the increase density changes and affordable housing. Reference is made to encouraging development or in-fill lots where existing sewer and water facilities are available. Density Changes The densities, especially on the west side of the town were determined in part by the lack of sewer facilities and the presence of high perc soils. Once sewer facilities are installed where high perc soils is the major determination for density. consideration should be given to raising the permitted density levels. Since pollution of the water table is a primary concern, the application of lawn and garden chemicals should still influence development patterns. The creation of lawns should be discouraged in favor of the retention of existing woodlot. Clustering or strict cutting requirements should be considered when developing these areas with higher soil percolation rates. Special Committee on Affordable Housing The question of providing affordable housing is complex and beyond the specific scope of this Master Plan. A special committee should be established to identify the existing and future potential for providing affordable housing within the Town of Queensbury for senior citizens. young couples, and other sectors of Queensbury's population. 20 ',- ---' Other considerations which came into play regarding the SR-1A zoning in the Sherman Avenue area were the desire to maintain open space and the rural character of the community and to limit traffic. The major consideration was the potential for ground water contamination, and this is illustrated by the fact that Sherman Avenue/Peggy Ann Road was identified as a priority area for sewer expansion. The applicant does intend to have a cluster design, which would limit infrastructure. The internal roadway will be 1,600 feet in length. The immediate intersection will not be affected. The impacts on the other town intersections and roadways cannot be anticipated. A drainage concern was raised by Paul Naylor, but this would be reviewed with the subdivision. The anticipated water usage is 31,800 gallons per day, which might be a consideration in the Town Board review of this project. The applicant is proposing fill septic systems to reduce the percolation rate. The cluster design will provide for significant open space and the application states that the treed areas will be maintained to the greatest extent possible. The Board has to weigh the public need for moderate income housing and the degree to which this development will meet that need against the question of whether the need can be best served by changing the classification of this particular piece of property. This submission only guarantees that the original sale will be to moderate income families. There is no mechanism in the Town to assure the long term affordability of these units. 2. The zoning classification of SR-I acre is not inappropriate for the site given the soils and other stated goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 3. The proposal to go to half acre density will not significantly change the character of the neighborhood. The cluster development will afford substantial buffering between it and the neighboring developments. Adirondack Plantations is already in a cluster design at a half acre density. Cranberry Lane is single family residential units on acre + lots. Most of the other subdivisions on Sherman Avenue were developed at pre 1988 densities. 4. We cannot anticipate the long range impact on the roadways or intersections. The water usage was reviewed by the Water Department at the subdivision review for the earlier proposed 46 lots and there were no comments. The Town Board may want to consult with the Water Department about any concerns along these lines. Drainage issues will have to be addressed with the Highway Department. I believe this is a Type I Action under SEQRA and will require a coordinated review. The Town Board will probably take lead agency status and the coordinated review will be handled by the Attorney's Office." MR. CARTIER-The other written responses we have were from the Warren County Municipal Center. They disapproved it with the comment, "The parcel sits on an aquifer recharge area. There were density and septic issues." MR. CARTIER-Mr. Mathias, would you care to make a comment? MR. MATHIAS-My name is Wilson Mathias. I represent the applicant. I have offices at 525 Bay Road in Queensbury. I'd like to, I don't always agree with her, but I would like to thank Lee York for the comments that she's given to this project. I think, as you can see, she's done a very thorough analysis of the issues that are going to come before the Town Board. particularly, at least if it appears to be going that far. We've been here before, although some of the members here weren't here when we made the initial presentation, in terms of the 46 units that were approved or given preliminary approval. At the time we did that, we demonstrated, from an engineering standpoint. that this soil area was capable of, at least to your engineer's satisfaction and ours of course, but was capable of handling on site septic disposal for at least 46 units. When we increased the number of units in this proposal and Morse Engineering, initially, has done our drawing as represented there. Although the zone is for 120 or would allow for up to 120 units at least the engineering, their position was that they felt that they could justify 100 units. Now, obviously, if we go further along this, we're going to have to submit some substantial documentation to that end, but, again, because this is one of these things, you don't know where a project is going to go in terms of the type of information that you can afford to obtain, but we've got some detailed analysis in terms of 46 units. Along with our submission, we engaged Morse Engineering to provide a traffic study for us, based on the increased number of units and that's made a part of the record. I think that, really, the net result is that, at least at this point. Sherman Avenue is a road that would be capable of handling the additional traffic generated by this unit and we've got the County Highway engineer indicating that there would be no impact on the County roads. One of the things that we would be doing, if this project proceeds, it's my understanding that. currently, this area is not on the Greater Glens Falls Bus, or Transit System routes. We've checked and actually Mrs. York has indicated that the folks with the Bus System would be, if they've got more people, they would be glad to extend their area of service, and I think that's in keeping with, Number One. what these houses are going to cost. at least we hope. and providing the people there with some reasonable public transportation. The other thing that I think is important to note is we've continued the cluster concept with adjoining townhouses. People will buy a footprint only, just as under the other proposal. One of the major differences is that, under this one. they're going to be buying a smaller footprint. We're talking. at least at this point, the initial plans would be that these would be two bedroom homes as opposed to three bedrooms. which is what the 46 unit project proposed. Again, we're going to limit the amount of clearing that occurs on the site and we're going to have some significant setbacks of at least 100 feet from Sherman Avenue and there are much greater setbacks from the south portion of the property. So, I think that we can continue to effectively screen these units so that you're not going to see 100 or 86 or 92 row houses right along Sherman Avenue. We've set them back and I think that makes good sense. The other significant point, I think, is that I know that the Town Board has been considering the possibility of an affordable housing overlay zone and I have discussed this particular project with Mrs. York, in terms of the criteria that any type of 21 --" overlay zone would have and without knowing what our criteria were, I think that we got relatively high marks for the project that we proposed. I think one of the suggestions that was made. and I think we could incorporate into any plan if it goes further, is some form of passive recreational use with trails or nature trails, that kind of thing. Again. what we would be doing on that is, in a sense, attempting to limit it because it's not going to do us any good, all of those trails would be maintained by a homeowner's association and it won't do us any good if we have inexpensive housing units so that mortgage payments are low. but people have to pay a huge number into a monthly maintenance charge for insurance and that type of thing, but I think that we may be able to find some happy balance there. I think that the other significant issue that Mrs. York brings out is the question of what can the Town do to make sure that these units, I mean, if we're here requesting increased density based on the concept of affordable housing. how are you going to make sure that we. in fact, sort of keep our end of the bargain? I think that we've included some draft covenants and restrictions and, frankly, those covenants and restrictions. with respect to affordability, mirror the ones that Adams Rich negotiated with the Town. I think that it's an interesting concept, in terms of what happens after the second sale. I think there's clearly no question. in terms of regulating us on the first bonafide sale, that the issue of affordability, whether it's the purchase price or the amount of mortgage, is something that makes good sense for the Town to regulate. I don't know if they ~ regulate. you know, the American Dream of the guy buying a house, holding on to it for a couple of years, and selling it for more than what he paid for it, but I think maybe that's a policy decision. In any case. our covenants and restrictions deal with the first bonafide sale of the property. I think that the other kind of. general, issue that I know is out there is that will people use the guise of affordable housing to, in effect, just get more lots and I think that, of course. that's a real possibility. I think that we've given a lot of preliminary thought to this project, as opposed to simply cutting it up into a grid pattern and trying to fit 100 units in there. The density is increased and the reason for that is to spread the cost of the infrastructure that we're going to have put in. primarily the road and the drainage and underground utilities over a greater number of lots. By doing that, the cost of each individual lot can be reduced. I think that ~ feel that this project. which does not contain any representations on our part to obtain any form of subsidized housing grants or programs of that li ke, I think are simply an understanding on our part that there's someone who's kind of ahead. in terms of having gone forward, taken care of the efforts to at least attempt to obtain those grants and, from a realistic point of view. are there going to be additional monies that are going to be available for the Town of Queensbury for a similar type project. I think, at least it's .Q!!!. opinion that the likelihood is that that's simply not going to occur. I guess that's it, in terms of a preliminary di scussi on, and I'd li ke to reserve the ri ght to respond to any of the comments from you or anybody out there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm not planning on holding a public hearing on this. There's no public hearing scheduled. Do the Board members have any questions or comments? MRS. PULVER-Yes, I do. My questions are, who's going to pay for the trails that you're going to put in? Is it going to be part of all the initial infrastructure and everything? MR. MATHIAS-The idea of trails. if it were going to be done, yes, I think it would be something that would be initiany done by the developer. but it would be a thing that would have to be maintained and I think the real cost would be the insurance factor from the homeowner's association. MRS. PULVER-Well, my question is, why mention it, then? If you're not planning on doing it, you don't know what the cost is, I had the feeling you were mentioning it thinking that that's what we would like to hear about having some sort of recreation or some sort of trails for them. MR. MATHIAS-Wen, I think that there are lots of issue of recreation. in terms of cost that are going to be passed on to the developer. I mean, one is the recreation fee and I think that that would be.... MRS. PULVER-But that fee goes to the Town. MR. MATHIAS-Right, but I mean it's passed .Q!!.. to the developer and the Town also is able to, as I understand it, the Town Board is able to accept land for park purposes, in lieu of the financial offering that would have to be made. MRS. PULVER-How do you plan on selling these units? MR. MATHIAS-What do you mean? MRS. PULVER-Well, run an ad in the paper, how are you going to sell them, call a realtor, broker? MR. MATHIAS-Yes, I think that they would be listed with brokers, just like any other housing project. MR. CAIMANO-I have two, one is a question, I guess, Wilson, and you made mention of the fact that you gave a lot of preliminary thought to this project. I have been reminded by a piece of paper, here, that eight months ago, I introduced a motion because I thought that your previous project was good and I remember you saying that that one got a lot of preliminary thought, too. What has changed your mind and why are we going off of one onto another? 22 --- MR. MATHIAS-I think that the answer to that is simply the market. I think that, in terms of what we could market those initial 46 units for, the cost is just. there aren't buyers out there for that. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, and I thought that that's what you would say because it's an obvious answer which brings me to a point. and that's the fact that. until we get something done definitively in this Town, will we be always jumping or be pushed by market pressures or wherever to continually look at one place or another to change a zone? Should we not just face the issue, have the Town Board finally bite the bullet, and get this overlay zone done. the one that's been worked on for the last 48 million years. because there's nothing wrong with what these people are doing. The market says, look, this is not going. lets try this. This is the United States of America. The Town Board has said, in one case. okay, we'll allow a zoning change for affordable housing, but I think we'll be chasing, it's like a pilot. We'll be chasing needles on this Board for the rest of the time that we're on this Board. until the Town Board finally bites the bullet and does something about an overlay zone for affordable housing. MRS. PULVER-Well, let me just interrupt you for a second, there. Nick, that, even with an overlay zone, one of the questions I have is, have you done any studies to know that there is a need for this type housing? I mean, we know there's a need for affordable housing, but is there a need for townhouse type, two bedroom housing? You could be in a worse position building these then you were trying to build $100 or $125,000 housing if there's no need for this. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I guess the issue. in terms of do we have a marketing study specifically that identifies this housing unit type, no we don't. MRS. PULVER-You see, the Town may want to consider, to have a study done for this type of need so that the units don't get started and the roads don't get half done and we have a bunch of. you know, even if it were approved, a bunch of affordable, unaffordable, affordable housing that nobody wants. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, I guess our point simply would be, whatever the rules are, we feel that... MR. CAIMANO-He should play by them, too. MR. MATHIAS-Exactly. MR. CAIMANO-Right, I agree. MR. MATHIAS-And if everyone up here who's going to make a presentation under the theory of increased density with affordable housing has got to produce a marketing study. then I think that's the rules and everybody plays by them and it certainly seems to me to make a lot of sense, because at some point, they're going to say the market's saturated. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MATHIAS-The issue. I guess is, with 40 units approved, is the market saturated now, and what types of requirements were imposed on the prior applicant and what are going to be imposed on us. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MRS. PULVER-Okay, that prior, I happen to have that resolution here. if you want to see it. It was 42 single family detached, not townhouse type housing and another question you brought up was about the funding. There is $25,000.000 in New York State Affordable Housing Fund for this next year. and if you write a good application and you have a good project, there's no reason why the money wouldn't come back to Queensbury. It is based on the value of the project. MR. MATHIAS-Well, that's something we may consider and we hope that, Dr. Westcott has been contacted by my client and partly, you know. we look to a variety of resources that are out in the community to help us search those opportunities out. MR. MARTIN-I have a comment that gets back to the more fundamental issues with affordable housing and I work in this field, if you want to call it that, from time to time. I just don't understand why, in order for a unit to become affordable, that it has to be on a parcel of property that's half the allowed zoning? I mean, we're getting into an issue, here, where we're talking about profit margins and, you know. I just don't understand why a person who wants to live in an affordable home has to put up with the sacrifice of living on a half acre lot, as opposed to a full acre lot? MR. MATHIAS-Well. I would say the answer, from.QJ!!. point of view in terms of the infrastructure that's here, is simply the cost in infrastructure. It costs $125 a foot to do a road. MRS. PULVER-And the cost of the land. MR. MATHIAS-Right, and the cost of the land, you know. land acquisition. I mean. I think that's a quid pro quo. 23 '---- --.-' MR. MARTIN-That's a nebulous argument, I mean, you know, that one man's return on an investment is different than another man's return on an investment for property and, you know, you're making an assumption and then you're making your argument off of that assumption and I'm not so sure I buy that assumption. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I mean, profit. in terms of, you know, we can argue this, but we could sell 46 of these. MR. MARTIN-You can sell 48 one acre lots on that property for $85, $90,000 and still make, probably. a pretty good profit. MR. MATHIAS-Maybe. if we can sell them. MR. MARTIN-I tell you, they would be a lot more attractive to have a single family detached home on a one acre parcel then it would be to have a townhouse footprint sale with a.... MR. MATHIAS-Well, let me tell you that we wouldn't be able to have single family detached homes on that without significantly cutting the trees, significantly increasing the road frontage. I mean. those are two major changes that would have to be implemented if we went into the single family detached houses. MR. MARTIN-Especially if you apply for an affordable housing grant and it can give you upwards of $20, $25,000 subsidy per unit. I just don't see where the first alarm switch that has to be hit, here, is the re-zoning. MRS. PULVER-Yes. A $90,000 house becomes very affordable if there's a $25,000 grant that goes with it, you know, reduced the cost significantly. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I mean, when you write these grants. there are certain land stipulations? I mean, you can't? MRS. PULVER-No. You have to have a project. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but I mean, you're not going to get affordable housing grants for one acre lots. MRS. PULVER-Sure you are, if you can make it work. It's the end cost. It's the cost per unit. MR. MARTIN-You have to conform with the existing zoning, as a requirement of the application. MR. CARTIER-Let's see if we can distill this, here. a little bit. Does this Town need affordable housing? I don't think there's anybody sitting on this Board that would disagree with the idea that we need affordable housing. I think everybody is fully convinced that we need affordable housing. The next question, for me, becomes, are there places in Town where it's appropriate, and the answer, again. for me, is yes. The third question, which is specific to this application is, is this a place in Town that is appropriate for re-zoning for an affordable housing project and for me the answer is a very firm, no. We re-zoned that area of Town in order to protect the very important aquifer. I hate to see us start piecemealing our way back to a 20.000 square foot zone over there or an SR-20 zone. Either we are going to protect the aquifer or we're not going to protect the aquifer. I'm not interested in paying lip service to groundwater protection around here. We are either going to do it or we're not going to do it. So. I have some significant difficulties with this application, beyond the marketing and so on. I do not want that read as being against affordable housing. This Board has, in the past, been accused of being against affordable housing and that is not the case at all, but there has to be a better way of doing it than our piecemeal approach and I think it is extremely important to emphasize what Mr. Caimano said, that we get this affordable housing overlay zone going. Paul, do you know where that is, what is the status of that thing, at this point? MR. DUSEK-Yes. Lee has given me some documentation with regard to that and my office is in the process of reviewing it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you have any idea when that review will be completed? MR. DUSEK-I would say, right now, we're definitely looking to after April 1st, because the landfill issues are taking a predominant amount of my time as well as the Town Board's time at the moment. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-But, Paul, being realistic, when do you suppose that that overlay zone will be in position for the people of Queensbury to use it, a year? MR. DUSEK-Well, once the Town Board starts the process. it's a zoning amendment type of process. That could be done in as quick a time as two months from the beginning of the process to the end and, a maybe more likely time of anywhere from three to four months, possibly five months. My experience 24 "'--' --- with the re-zonings that we've done. to date, is most of them are generally finished, when they actually get started, I'm not talking about when they first are proposed, but when they actually get started through the process, the first advertisements. going to the public hearings, the submission to all the various Boards, definitely within six months. So. I think that, to give you a rough idea of a time frame. I think you could look to, depending upon the type of effort that's put into it and the amount of. you know. the speed that the Town can devote to it. you can see anything going from two months to. roughly, six months before implementation. MR. CAIMANO-It's also a measure of the need, though, Carol and Paul. to you. If the need, as we all are saying here is really great, and I believe it is, if that great need is felt throughout the Town. then the pressures from the Town will create its own agenda and it happens time, and time, and time again. If the people out there want it, they will pressure the proper people to do the proper thing. The problem that we're having, and you and I seem to agree on it, is that this Board is going to constantly get these requests to give to the Town Board and it's always going to be a new set of rules because you're going to come in with your argument and he's going to come in with his argument. and he's going to come in with his argument. Why don't we just settle the issue. If there's real1y a need for affordable housing in this Town. and I think there is. I think your project is a good one. I don't share, not because he's wrong, I don't share Mr. Cartier's concern, necessarily. but where's the great human cry? Where are the great masses running through the door of the Town Board. Where are the great masses going into Borgos's office or your office saying, get me that overlay zone. let's get this thing on the road. MR. MATHIAS-Well, we may be the first. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. then let's do it. MR. MATHIAS-And I think that, just the one thing to address your concern, Peter. and I think it's legitimate. in terms of the aquifer recharge area and what you do, but al1 you have to do it look at that map of Queensbury and see where all that yellow is and then you tell me where you're going to put affordable housing. Are you going to put it up with me up on Gurney Lane or up on the Lake? No. I mean, the fact of the matter is. that's, you know, it's like, where the people are, that's where the land is. right? I mean, like it or not, and I think that we're going to have to rely on some state of the art engineering. but I think the pressures are going to come. I don't believe that we're unique thinkers, here. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. MATHIAS-We just may be further ahead in line of projects. and I'm convinced that they're going to come in areas within that yellow color because where else can it go? MR. CARTIER-But there are other ways of doing it within that yellow color. and I'm not sure piecemeal re-zoning like this is the way to do it. MR. CAIMANO-You also said something else, which. if we get these rules and regulations, if we get this zoning, will be taken care of. There is concern. and you talked about the covenants of keeping your end of the bargain on the first bonafide sale. If we don't do this the right way. and the first project ~ done the right way. If we don't do the right way, there is potential for abuse, potential. MR. CARTIER-If we sit here, as a Board, and keep recommending approval of these re-zonings for affordable housing. the overlay issue is never going to come to the fore. MR. CAIMANO-It will never come up. that's right. MRS. PULVER-All right, well, let me say two things. I have a newspaper clipping in my office from 1988 where Ron Montesi said that. any day now. we're going to have an overlay for affordable housing, and last year the Town Board was asked again, and it's a whole year later. It was about this time last year they were asked for that, but I think on m affordable housing development there should be stipulations, whether it comes under overlay or not and that is, someone should be monitoring that project and reporting to be sure that applicants ~ 100 percent to 120 percent of median. There should be a report back. They should not be sold through real estate brokers that add seven percent. that's $3,000. That adds nothing to the value of the house. I mean, it's ludicrous to think you're going to affordable housing and then add seven percent to give to a real estate agent. MR. CARTIER-How do you do that, a housing authority or something? I don't think that's something you just turn over to Building and Codes. MR. PULVER-You can do it through a nonprofit. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Don't read anything into that. I'm just suggesting if we're going to do it right, we need to do it. 25 -./ MRS. PULVER-No. Right, through a nonprofit can handle it. A lot of municipalities hire someone just to handle that type of issue. but those are things that the Town, with an overlay or without an overlay, definitely need to consider. If you're going to do affordable housing, you're going to do it. MR. CARTIER-Okay, where does that leave us, with regard to this application? Is this Board at a point where it cares to make a recommendation? MR. CAIMANO-I do. MR. CARTIER-Yes? Okay. Nick. MR. CAIMANO-What do we have to do, just a recommendation to the Town Board? MR. CARTIER-We want a recommendation to the Town and also probably include this portion of the meeting minutes. You may want to add some cOlllllents about pushing for this overlay zone. This might be an appropriate place to do it. MR. CAIMANO-Why don't we. as opposed to one formal recommendation, poll the membership, as a, it's yes or no, and that will be a our recommendation to the Town Board and they will know where at least five of us stand. That's my recommendation. MR. CARTIER-In other words. you want each member to make specific comments? MR. CAIMANO-Can we do that. Paul? How can we do this? MR. DUSEK-Well, this part of the process is recommendation only. The formal process would be engaged in, later, with the Board. where SEQRA Reviews and everything else would be done and this Board would have a chance to revisit this area to get into more detailed specifics. At this point, then. the recommendation is really up to you. on how elaborate or how or how brief you'd like to be. MOTION TO RECOMMEffD TO THE TOIßI BOARD DISAPPROVAL OF PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZORE PI-91 CHARLES A. DIEHL, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin: Since the Planning Board feels there is an urgent need to settle the entire issue of affordable housing and its overlay zone. The first option to be chosen is not necessarily dicing up areas of the Town in half of the existing zoning requirements, and strong encouragement that the overlay zone for affordable housing be accelerated so that we can avoid problems like this in the future. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver ABSENT: Mr. Hagan PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P2-91 LINWOOD AND PEGGY HASTINGS NEXT TO LEN AND PEGS CURRENT ZONING: SR-IA PROPOSED ZONING: HC-lA TAX MAP fI). 52-2-1.33 PEGGY HASTINGS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee. A. York, Senior Planner, Petition for a Change of Zone P2-91 Linwood and Peggy Hastings, dated March 8, 1991. Meeting Date: March 19, 1991 "This Petition for Re-zoning has been requested to be considered in conjunction with the petition for Frank and Teresa Rollo (P12-90). The reason being that the Hastings property is between and existing HC-1A zone and the Rollo property which is under consideration to be re-zoned to HC-1A. The Hastings property is adjacent to Len and Pegs Restaurant and is used as a restaurant and parking lot. The properties around the Hastings and Rollo property are either vacant or residential. The properties were both zoned Highway Commercial prior to 1988. During the re-zoning which took place, the designations along Route 149 were reviewed. At that time, residential or vacant properties were changed to a less intense use. There were a number of reasons for this which are identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Some are: To maintain the rural character in the cOlllllunity, To restrict commercial development on collector and arterial roads, Limit Highway Commercial zones to reduce commercial strip development along arterials especially Route 149. Increase lot sizes for highway commercial activities to a minimum of one acre. I reviewed this property with regard to the resource maps in the Planning Department: Water Resources - Aquifer Recharge Area / Soil Analysis Percolation Rate: 6 to 20 inches per hour - Limited to unsuitable. /Intrinsic Development Suitability Limited needs, design alternatives. The land to the south and east of this particular property is zoned Land Conservation 10 Acres. This was done partially because of 3 hazardous waste 26 --../ sites in the area. (Queensbury Landfin, Glens Fans Landfill, and the West Glens Falls PCB Disposal site). I reviewed the site plan review permitted uses in the Highway Commercial zone. A number appeared on the list which would be inappropriate if the desire of the community is to maintain the rural character and limit strip development. In reviewing the re-zoning requests, some considerations which have to be addressed are: 1) The relationship of the request to the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the public need for the change in question, 2) Why the current zoning is inappropriate for the subject property, 3) How the proposal win affect the neighborhood, and 4) How public facilities win be affected. 1) The goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which have already been stated attempt to limit highway commercial development in this area. There is pressure for property in this area to go commercial. The Planning Department has been requested by the Planning Board and the Town Board to investigate a zoning change in this area. A corridor study is underway and recommendations are being generated which win be given to the Town Board within the month. 2) The use on the Hasting's property is accessory to an existing commercial establishment and may be appropriate because of this accessory use. 3) Re-zoning of the Hasting's property will not affect the neighborhood except that a "domino effect" is anticipated which could cause adjacent properties to request a change in zone. 4) The roadways in the immediate neighborhood will not be affected. Water and sewer facilities are not available." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Just one quick comment, to go back to your Number Three. Would not the re-zoning that you're working on take care of the so caned "domino effect" up there? MRS. YORK-Yes, I'm hopeful that it would. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have Warren County approved this and I guess we did, indirectly or informally. discuss this piece of property, as Lee points out. Do any of the Board members have any other questions or comments? MRS. PULVER-No, except that, Lee, when you submit within the month, that's going to handle the other property owners coming in for Highway Commercial? MRS. YORK-Right. What we are doing is a corridor study of 149. We've basically got all the information together. It's at the point where some recommendations have been generated. As soon as Mr. Goralski gets back from his vacation we win sit down with the Town Board and present this to them. This does not mean it will be adopted or implemented rapidly. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Would you say that this, being familiar with what's being proposed out there, would you say that this proposed request is pretty much compatible with what's being suggested for that area? MRS. YORK-Wen, I have a concern, not specifically with this particular property. but there are many Highway Commercial uses that are not appropriate for 149, if you look through the Highway Commercial uses. My concern is once these are re-zoned to Highway Commercial uses, that's it. you know. MRS. PULVER-Well, what about when you're presenting it to the Town Board, that you present it as Highway Commercial with the exceptions of X, Y. and Z not being appropriate for that site? MRS. YORK-Well. we aren't even presenting it as Highway Commercial. It wouldn't be a Highway Commercial Zone. It would be different. bringing in different characteristics. MR. CARTIER-A new zone? MRS. YORK-Yes. MRS. PULVER-So it would be presented like that? MRS. YORK-Yes. MRS. PULVER-A new zone that X, Y, and Z can go, but A. B, and C can't? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, in fact, this entire corner that we're talking about, at 9L and 149 could in fact be re-zoned to some other commercial use besides just Highway Commercial? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. which would include this particular piece of property? MRS. YORK-Right. I have no problem with this particular piece of property, per see My concern is the Rono property next door and the property next door to that and the property next door to that. There's a lot of reasons that this area was zoned the way it is. 27 ~ --/ MR. LAPOINT-We just did the adjacent property. MRS. YORK-Yes. What you said was, I attached the resolution, here, that you recommended to approve the request to either Highway Commercial or Commercial Residential. Also for consideration is a zone change for the Hasting's property. MR. LAPOINT-So, essentially, we've sandwiched it or recommended that it's sandwiched. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. LAPOINT-So that to keep it an SR-1 would, again, probably be inappropriate for the lot. I can't imagine why you'd want a single family residence there to begin with. MR. MARTIN-The lot there, 1.2 there. it's like a wrap around lot that sort of has the effect of physically limiting the development of these other lots, the lots right there in the corner. MR. CAIMANO-Is that LC-10A, that 1.2 acres? MR. MARTIN-The 1.2. 47.11 acres. MR. CAIMANO-Or 47.11 acres. I mean. MRS. YORK-Yes, it is. MR. CAIMANO-That's LC-10A? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Mrs. Hastings, would you care to comment? MRS. HASTING-The reason for the split in the property, to start with, was because we only bought the acre and a half, to start with, with the restaurant and then later on we were forced to buy the other property and it was a vacant lot. So this is why, when they came through, seeing that was a vacant lot, they re-zoned it, unaware to us. okay. We weren't aware of it at an, which we didn't find out until two years later. So this is the reason for that. but it has been our parking for the last 11 years, for the restaurant. So we do need it and as far as the way the property is wrapped around, it has nothing to do with Rollo's property. There's is square. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anybody else have a comment or question? Are we prepared to make a recommendation? Would somebody care to do that? NJTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN IIJARD APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF lONE '2-91 LIfIIOOD AND PEGGY HASTINGS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: From an SR-1A zone to an HC-1A zone. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Okay, a recommendation to approve this zone will go forward to the Town Board. Understand it's the Town Board who has final disposition here, okay. Thank you. 28 '---- -../ SITE PLAN NO. 12-91 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-lA FRANK BRENNEISON, SR. MER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD BE11ÆEN SULLIVAN ROAD AND SULLIVAN PLACE ON GLEN LAKE, 5 HOUSES PAST GLENIIJOR LODGE GOING EAST. TO INSTALL A PRIVATE BOAT RAMP FOR OWNER USE ONLY. (WARREN coum PLAflNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-19 LOT SIZE: 12,400 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012 C FRANK BRENNEISON. SR., APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Gora1ski, P1anner, Site P1an Review No. 12-91, Frank Brenneison, Sr., dated March 12, 1991, Meeting Date: March 19, 1991 "The app1icant has constructed a boat ramp on the shore of G1en Lake. Because the app1icant states that the ramp is "for owner use on1y", the on1y concern is erosion and sediment contr01. The proposed berm, wn1 minimize the impact of stormwater runoff from the driveway. The #3 stone in ramp wi11 a1so aid in sediment contr01. The sides of the ramp shou1d be stabi1ized with some type of wan to any possib1e erosion. The Board shou1d review the EAF supp1ied." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Warren County approved. MRS. YORK-Did the Board get some 1etters that have come in from the pub1ic on this particu1ar app1ication? MR. CARTIER-No. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is there somebody here representing the app1icant? MR. BRENNEISON-My name is Frank Brenneison. I 1ive on G1en Lake and I have a map. here. I'll put up. MR. CARTIER-P1ease. Okay. Do you have any comments you care to make at this point? MR. BRENNEISON-No. not rea11y. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do the Board members have any questions or comments? Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-I'11 start by reading these 1etters. A record of phone conversation between Susan Popowski and Lee York. "Susan Popowski. a neighbor within 500 feet, caned with concerns regarding the site p1an, since the boat 1aunch is a1ready in. Her concern was that it be used as a pub1ic 1aunching area onto G1en Lake. She respectfu11Y requests that the P1anning Board 1imit the use of the ramp to property owner on1y." How are you going to use this? I don't want to assume, here. MR. BRENNEISON-I a1ready have an existing boat ramp on the property that was given. deeded to me, when I bought the house. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BRENNEISON-Okay. There's two pine trees there that stop me from putting my boat in. They're six feet apart. My boat is eight feet wide. It's a pontoon boat. MR. CARTIER-Right. Okay. MR. BRENNEISON-So, I can no 10nger use that ramp. I have used it when it had smaner boats. but when I got the new one, I cou1dn't use that. I had to use the pub1ic faci1ity which I had been using and keeping my boats stored across the street in the G1enmoor parking 10t because I had access to do that. but I'd 1ike to keep it. now that I'm retired, I'd 1ike to keep it on my own property. I have the time. and when I have to work on it I have to go across the street to the parking 10t to use it. It's a great inconvenience and a1so putting this boat in and out. If I can put it up on my shore and put it in on my shore and I'm taking the dirt out of the new boat ramp and putting it into the 01d boat ramp and fi11ing it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BRENNEISON-I put new berms on that to catch the water. When I had that driveway insta11ed, it was graded, about 15 years ago, it was graded so it a11 goes off to one side. The one berm was a1so in there at that time. I put that in myse1f for that reason, to catch the water. So, now I put the other one in and of course it's a11 #3 stone and everything. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're not ta1king about week1y 1aunching? We're ta1king about putting it in at the beginning of the season and taking it out at the end of the season and basica11y that's it, correct? 29 "'--' ~' MR. BRENNEISON-Exactly. unless something goes wrong and I have to pull it out for some reason, but that's it and it's for my own personal use, that's what I'm doing it for, with the exception that I have some sons. three sons. okay. They each have a boat of their own, okay. They don't live in my house, but they will be bringing them up for summer vacation and storing them there, too. That was the only thing, that's personal, I feel, from the family. MR. CARTIER-Where are they going to park their vehicles and trailers when they do this? MR. BRENNEISON-Well, I have other property up on Glen Lake Road. I have three and a half acres up on Glen Lake Road, not too far from there, that they can pull them right up there if they want to. I have stored my trailer up there, too. MR. CARTIER-So, we're not going to have three cars and three trailers hanging around there? MR. BRENNEISON-Well. they never all come at the same time, anyhow. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BRENNEISON-They're never there, one boy is still in service and the other two, the wouldn't all be there at the same time. They all don't have trailers, though. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Another letter from Susan E. Rourke, Mrs. Richard Rourke, dated March 19, 1991 who has a Jay Road summer home. "To Whom It May Concern: I object to the granting of this application for the following reasons: This fall from the water I observed a boat ramp already in place and graveled. I did not see a permit posted. Believe me, I looked. Number Two. how are you going to govern private use? I am under the impression that Mr. Brenneison works on boats on boats for profit." Is that correct? MR. BRENNEISON-No, that's not so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "This probably means boats tested after repair and allowing customers to launch." You're not operating a boat repair shop there by any means? MR. BRENNEISON-No. I am not and I have, in the past, I have. I had some clients on the Lake that I take care of their cottages. I'm a caretaker on the Lake and I have. in the past, but since I've been retired. I don't do it any longer. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "I am aware that there are a few ramps already on private property, but that's just what they are, private. I also know the permit came before the ramp. This application could set a very harmful trend for the Lake. If his application is denied, does he have to fill the bank back in? Which Department oversees it's re-construction? In closing, I hope you take my concerns and observations into consideration when making your decision. I'm sorry if my disapproval is upsetting for the applicant, but caring for the Lake is everyone's business." Okay. I guess the only question I have refers back to Staff Notes, with regard to stabilizing, because we were up there looking at it Saturday. How are you going to stabilize the banks on the side of the ramp where that bear soil is? MR. BRENNEISON-They're rocks. intend to put rocks on the side there. you know, boulders. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have a question? Does anybody from the audience care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to entertain a SEQRA. MR. CAIMANO-A Long one? MR. CARTIER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-91. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pul ver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: to insta11 a private boat ramp for owner use on1y, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 30 --- ~ RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compi1ation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi1l have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the P1anning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-91 FRANK BRENNEISON, SR., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: To install a private boat ramp for owner use only, Frank Brenneison. Sr., Glen Lake Road between Sullivan Road and Su11ivan Place. emphasis on ~ ~ only, with the exception of direct offspring. This Board understands that there will be no commercial maintenance or boat launching at this site. Duly adopted this 19th day of March. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan SITE PLAN NO. 11-91 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA KELLY AND LINDSAY CARTE C/O THE WOOD CARTE OWNER: KELLY AND LINDSAY CARTE LOT 2, CJ,IAKER RIDGE, EAST CJ,IAIŒR SERVICE ROAD FOR RETAIL FURNITURE STORE. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.63 LOT SIZE: 2.03 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 11-91, Kelly and Lindsay Carte - The Wood Carte, dated March 11. 1991, ,Meeting Date: March 19, 1991 "The request is to construct a furniture store on Lot 2 of the Quaker Ridge subdivision. The app1icant applied for a parking variance and received one last month. The variance was to have 80 parking spaces rather than the required 105. The applicant proved that the permeabi1ity could be maintained with the 80 parking spaces. The Board should consider a110wing the app1icant to retain the area for future parking spaces in green space. In the event there is a change of use, the necessary parking can be graveled or blacktopped. The proposed furniture store usage should not require 80 spaces. This is the first development in the formerly approved Quaker Ridge cOlllllercial subdivision. I reviewed this site plan with regard to Section 5.070: 1) Location arrangement and size of the lot is compatible with the building lighting and signs. 2) Vehicular traffic access is sufficient. 3) Variance has been granted for parking. I recommend that future parking be retained in green space. 4) There is sufficient off street loading. 5) Pedestrian access is sufficient. 6) The engineer will address storm drainage faci1ities. 7) Water supply and sewage disposal facilities will be addressed by the engineer. 8) Plantings are sufficient. 9) Fire access is sufficient. 10) Erosion control methods should be observed during construction." MR. CARTIER-(Referring to Staff Notes) If this piece of property has to do that, later on, graveled or blacktopped. will they still make that 30 percent permeability? MRS. YORK-Yes, they will. 31 ',--, ~ MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom. MR. YARMOWICH-There was a February 21 1etter which was pre agenda review that the app1icant has responded to. Our review 1etter is dated March 18,1991 and I'll read that for you. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer. dated March 18. 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the fo11owing engineering comments: 1. Regarding stormwater Management: a. The overal1 p1an provides a suitab1e concept to 1imit runoff to predeve10pment rates. The app1icant's engineer shou1d address the remaining minor technica1 issues as noted. b. The grading p1an drawing shou1d indicate the pipe size. materia1 and inverts, between SWM basins 1 and 2. c. SWM basin 4 out1et pipe size, materia1 and inverts shou1d be shown on the drawing. There is a potentia1 e1evation conf1ict between the basin 4 and out1et pipe and the septic tank eff1uent pipe. d. Provisions for snow remova1 that do not interfere with SWM basin operation shou1d be addressed. 2. The erosion and sediment contr01 p1an shou1d address perimeter contr01s for disturbed areas draining to the north. 3. The septic tank eff1uent pipe earth cover at the corner of SWM basin 4 shou1d be addressed." MR. CARTIER-A quick question for you on a procedure. Is this the first time we've done a pre engineering review? MR. YARMOWICH-No. We have done other projects. This was prior to them making a forma1 app1ication. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARftI>WICH- It was the same comprehensi ve review, in that they responded to those comments and then made their submission. MR. CAIMANO-Did it work we11, timing wise, everything was a11 right? MR. YARMOWICH-I'11 1et the app1icant speak to that. MR. CAIMANO-For 12.!:!. I'm ta1 king about. MR. YARftI>WICH-We made every effort possib1e to review the information. turn it around to 1et the app1icant adjust and respond to those comments. I do be1ieve it worked re1ative1y we11. MR. CAIMANO-Good. MRS. YORK-The app1icant submitted. actua11y, a month before they were ab1e to get on an agenda. MR. CAIMANO-Good. MRS. YORK-So we gave them a number and 1et them go. MR. CARTIER-A11 right. Great. Town of Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification approved. Warren County P1anning Board approved. Okay. We have a 1etter from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped, dated March 19, 1991, "Dear Chairperson: The Committee cou1d not distinguish if there is access to the porch from handicapped spaces in the south/west parking area. If access is not provided at this 10cation, we wou1d recommend these spaces be re10cated c10ser to the ramp." MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, my name is Char1ie Scudder from Scudder Associates, Engineers and P1anners. We represent the Cartes in the matter of this app1ication. As Mr. Yarmowich says, we have had severa1 meetings prior to this evening and reviewed the technica1 features of the project. By en1arge. they've come down to matters concerning stormwater and a few other things. erosion and sediment contr01 and the items most recent1y set out by Mr. Yarmowich in his 1etter to Mrs. York and I be1ieve he just read that to the Board. We have responded' to each of those. I have a brief 1etter which is now before you and Sheet 2 and 4 of the drawings that were submitted have been revised to ref1ect these changes and I've submitted those corrected sheets to you a1so. The pipe materia1 sizes and invert e1evations in Stormwater Management Basins 1. 2 and 4 have been added to the grading, stormwater, and sewage p1an which is Sheet 2. Second item, a grading change has been made at the crossing of the septic tank eff1uent pipe and the Basin 4 out1et 1ine. The grade separation is adequate. By that I mean that the pipes pass each other without conf1ict. Number Three, provisions for snow management are noted at the bottom of Sheet 2 in the form of some notes descri bing how we're going to hand1e snow on the site and fourth, the si1t fence has been extended around the perimeter of the norther1y ha1f of the site. So that. in essence, we have a si1t barrier around the entire perimeter of the property and a1so straw ba1e dike at one p1ace where we think it's probab1e that some sheet erosion of sediments cou1d occur inside, toward the center of the 10t. Perhaps. Mr. Chairman, I cou1d describe the project and ask you to refer to this drawing over here. It's been mentioned by Mrs. York that this is the first project in the Quaker Ridge subdivision and this is a project on Lot #2 and as you see, there is a service road off Quaker Road which serves the 10ts in this project. This 10t is a 1itt1e over two acres. We have a 32 '---' -./ furniture store proposed for it. I think the record shows that we've been to the Zoning Board to get a reduction from the Code Requirements for parking, which was granted, and also a use variance because there was no specific mention in the permitted uses in this zone for a furniture store. So we have both an area variance and a use variance for this project. The layout is pretty simple. We have a dual entrance to the site. The main parking area is in the front of the building along the road separated from the road by a green space. a ramp up on the easterly side to a higher elevation where access is had to the second level of the retail store. Parking on that level both for handicapped and non-handicapped people, a 20 foot wide driveway that goes around the building with access to two loading docks. additional parking reserved for future in the northwesterly portion of the gravel area. MR. CARTIER-And that's what we're talking about maintaining as green space? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-I think it's an excellent idea because we don't think that a furniture store needs any where near 80 spaces. MR. YARMOWICH-You don't intend to gravel that at this time, only as needed. MR. SCUDDER-Right. exactly. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Actually, we think we can get by with 25 or 30 spaces for the purposes of the furniture store. You can see where the green areas are. They're represented in a couple of shades of green. The blacktop that we propose terminates here on the east and here on the west and across the front, the rest of this being compacted gravel. parking here, parking here, here and here. We have an on site septic system which is designed for double the metered water consumption over the past year. So that it really is twice the size it needs to be. Public water serves the site. The water main exists in the East Quaker Service Road. Stormwater will be handled in this fashion. We have done both a pre development and a post development runoff study and we quantified the amount of water that would occur in a design storm of 50 year return, before any development takes place. and we find that the runoff to the road would be in the order of 3.3 second feet. The rest of the water would go to the north towards the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. We also carried out a post development runoff study to determine what the increase would be and we designed retention basin system on the site to hold the difference between post development and pre development quantities of stormwater. I think I would rest there and entertain your questions. MR. CARTIER-The only question I have regards the handicapped, what was addressed in the handicapped parking. MR. SCUDDER-Well, our proposal, and we have, maybe, a better way to show it, but our proposal is to have two handicapped spaces up here at this elevation such that the handicapped lane would be here between the two parking spaces which is according to the current State Code. The wheelchairs. presumably wheelchairs, could run right up here on the sidewalk. up this ramp. to the porch in through those doors or around here and in there. Actually, there's no need to go around there. they can go in here. So there's parking here for access through this pair of doors. This would be a six foot double leaf door, or handicapped parking down at this level for access into the lower level through these doors. MR. CAIMANO-So you can go through the lower level. I think that's what they were asking is they don't see that. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. So we have handicapped down here for the lower level. handicapped up here for the upper level. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 11m having a little trouble reading this. This is the end of the ramp, right here, right next to that handicapped spot? This is the end of the ramp, here? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-We probably have a better exhibit to show that, but this is the ramp, right here. MR. CARTIER-From here to here? MR. SCUDDER-From there to there. It's a one on twelve pitch, so it would come up here onto the sidewalk along here. up the ramp and in the door. 33 ~ '- MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I have a question, Paul, we're all so concerned with the environment and everything why, if the applicant says, he only needs 25 spaces, we're going to make him pave 80? If he finds out he needs 26, chances are he's going to pave another one, but why are we making him pave 80 spaces? MR. CAIMANO-We're not. MRS. YORK-This Board can decide to leave it in green space until it's necessary. MRS. PULVER-But doesn't he have 80 up there? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but he's not going to do it. He's only going to do 25. He said he's only going to do 25. MRS. PULVER-No. He's going to do more than 25. MR. CARTIER-If you want. we can say. he's got 27 out in front. Charlie, correct me if I'm wrong, here. He's got 27 spaces out front. If this Board decides that they want to try it with just 27 spaces and eliminate these and leave this green space and leave this green space, we certainly can do that. MR. MARTIN-Is that going to have any impact on your loading docks or? MR. CARTIER-No. He'd still have a service road around that. MR. SCUDDER-Peter. if I may, we've proposed to pave these spaces right here, too. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-This is a slope. here, and we come up and we get on the level right up here and we've proposed to pave. 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 spaces here. We've proposed not to pave these, not to pave these, not to pave these. and not to pave these. MR. MARTIN-I see. MR. CAIMANO-Right, and how many is that up front? MR. SCUDDER-This is 27 and 9, 36. MR. CAIMANO-So, 36 spaces. MRS. PULVER-Thirty six spaces. MR. CARTIER-Out of a total of 80. MR. SCUDDER-The Code requires 110. That's why we had to get a variance. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well. that was for a furniture store. Understand that a building that size could very well, in fact, require 110 places. MR. SCUDDER-It does. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have any comments on the Board? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience who would care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-91. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pul ver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a retai1 fum1ture store knmm as the WOOD CARTE on Lot 2, Quaker Ridge, East Quaker Service Road in the Town of Queensbury, and 34 '-..- ---' WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that my be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion on the application. MOTIQK TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-91 KELLY AND LINDSAY CARTE c/o THE WOOD CARTE, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the construction of a retail furniture store with one contingellcy. that the paving for the parking be limited to 36 spaces along the southern and eastern side of the building until future demands warrant expansion and that the remaining areas for future parking, as indicated on the plan, be retained for green space. I make this recommendation pursuant to conformance with Section 5.070 A through D of the Zoning Ordinance. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CAIMANO-Charlie, how did that new back and forth work coming from the Board? Did it work we" for you guys? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay a few bits and pieces. very short, here. Local law regarding the position of Zoning Administrator comes up before the Town Board April 1. 1991. I don't know if anybody wants to go there and make comments to that effect. Would you care to authorize me to write a letter to the Town Board in reference an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone? MR. CAIMANO-I think we need to just send the minutes of tonight's meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Petition to Re-zone, the draft. that new draft, the form? Why don't you send it out to the Board between now and next week and they'l' have a chance to look at it. tomorrow. MRS. YORK-Tomorrow. all right. MR. CARTIER-New member, anything on a new member? 35 -- --/ MR. DUSEK-I have not heard any discussion. MRS. YORK-I have not heard anything. MR. CARTIER-Okay. April meetings. The 4116 and 4/23. Car01 wi11 not be here the 16th. I wil1 not be here the 23rd. MR. CAIMANO-I wi11 be here the 23rd. MR. LAPOINT-I wi11 not be here the 23rd. MRS. PULVER-So, there wi11 be four of us for the 23rd. MR. LAPOINT-I wil1 be here the 16th. MR. CAIMANO-I'11 be here the 16th. MR. MARTIN-I'11 be here both meetings. MRS. PULVER-And, Pete, you'11 be here the 16th? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-That is going to be the re-vote for the extension for the affordab1e housing project. MR. CAIMANO-You'11 be here for the 16th? MRS. PULVER-I won't be here. MR. CARTIER-We'11 have five members the 16th. MRS. PULVER-But you can't use this man's vote or mine. MR. LAPOINT-No. What I'm going to do is, I hastily took myse1f off Haanen Engineering. After being on the Board six months, I rea1ize there's no conf1ict of interest. So I'd 1ike to fire off a 1etter to everybody to that effect. that I can consider their work. Again, my brother doesn't even work for Mr. Nace. He works for Mr. Haanen on paper mi 11 projects and we don't ta 1k about anythi ng anyway. So. I think I wi11 be on Board for that and I have been reviewing it a11 the way a10ng anyway. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Wen, anyway, just so you know. the 16th is supposed to be that. I won't be here. MR. CARTIER-The 16th is a11 set. We're down to four members the 23rd. Has anybody got anything e1se? MR. DUSEK-Okay. What I just gave to the Board is a P1anning and Zoning referra1 form. If you wil1 recan at the 1ast meeting the Board had indicated and I have actua11y received. here, at this 1ast meeting a format proposed for use by the Zoning Administrator. After that. I met with the Zoning Administrator to see, first of a11. just to genera11y discuss it with her. As you know, I had some concerns as to exact1y how we were going to imp1ement that. We11. what I found out, in discussing with the Zoning Administrator, she's a11 for doing some sort of a form. So that was, and it a1so just so happened that she had a1ready deve10ped this one that I just gave to you. Now this one is not 1ike the one that you gave to me and I'm aware of that, but. at this point, I fe1t it wou1d be a good idea just to ta1k it over with you and get your reaction. This is what she has proposed. You have proposed something different and she gave you copies of different ones that she had used it for a1ready. Each one of you got, I think, a different app1ication, there, but I just wanted to get your reaction. Is this going a10ng the right 1ines? Do you have any recolllllendations to improve it? Do you want to make it c10ser to what you gave me before? I'm 100king just for feedback, at this point, to try to c1ear this up for everybody. MR. CARTIER-We11, this is pretty generic and very genera1 and I. wen. I think it happened tonight with Tom's project. Some things got missed and I think that was the origina1 idea behind that first check1ist that we 100ked at that was very detai1ed that wou1d he1p her pick up on things and go through the Ordinance much more carefu11y. MR. CAIMANO- That was my first reaction. too. especia11y based on what happened tonight. It seems to me that there shou1d be somewhere in here which says something about the major areas of concern because of the Zoning Ordinance. Something of the major areas of concern. because she's not going to 100k at the wh01e thing, but tonight, for example, in tonight's issue, parking was a rea1 major prob1em and we wanted to know what her thoughts were, or whoever 100ked at it, what their thoughts were. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. It wou1d be nice to see the ca1cu1ation, you know, if her square footage that she actua1 used, because we had two different square footages here, tonight, and we didn't know what our Zoning Administrator used, possib1y a third. 36 ~ , --.-/ MR. DUSEK-Just to give you . you know, her reaction on the other si de to the other form was that she felt there was a lot of parts to that other form that were inapplicable to many applications. MRS. PULVER-Leave them blank. MR. DUSEK-And so what I'm thinking of. from what you just told me now and what she had told me before, I just got an idea here which is that what if a middle of the line form was developed whereby the generic area was listed. such as parking, stormwater drainage. traffic, you know, and then if she felt it was an issue for her to check that box and show her calculations, rather than the form that was previously given which was very. very specific in terms of having to either check yes or no or make some comment in it. You think that maybe we can give you something more than what she's given you here, but less than what you got before. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think we definitely need something more than this. MR. CARTIER-Whatever it is, I think it needs to be done in such a way that it helps her and we avoid the kind of thing we ran into tonight. MR. DUSEK-I think tonight served as a good illustration because you want to see the calculations for the parking, for instance. MR. CAIMANO-You see, I don't know how they get that started, though, whether it comes from the Planning Department? It was pretty obvious what the major problems were tonight and it should have been obvious to the person making the form out. MR. CARTIER-For example, if we get a comment like the Zoning Administrator has determined that the parking is adequate, we want the rationale behind that statement, okay. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. DUSEK-Right. That's what I'm saying. You're looking for the calculations that went into it, 1100 square foot building, therefore. MR. MARTIN-Right, or if we get into a situation where we're dealing with an application for an expansion on a shoreline property. We want to see that, is it over a 50 percent expansion. That's a critical area in an issue like that. MR. LAPOINT-Right, the numbers she's using. MR. CAIMANO-What numbers she's using. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, because. again. in several instances, we've seen conflicting numbers. and there may be three of them floating out there. MR. CAIMANO-So, it really isn't all that, you know, it's not going to go out into NeverNever Land because it's pretty obvious what the problem is. MRS. PULVER-I'm hoping, too, that she doesn't use the applicant's calculations for square footage and stuff. that she does do it herself, because they differ immensely. MR. CAIMANO-No. She should use her own. Like, tonight, the applicant was wrong. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I'd like to see some indication on that form as to whether or not she's made a site vi si t. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Good point. Just a check mark. was the site visit. MR. MARTIN-Because if she's accurately going to do some of these calculations, then she has to do interior gross floor areas and maybe she's got to actually go in the building with a measuring tape or go out in the parking lot with 100 foot tape. MR. DUSEK-Okay. I think everybody's heading in the right direction. A form. itself. is agreed to. It will be my job to get that legally implemented, but Pat has indicated that regardless of whether it's legally implemented or not, she's willing to start using it. which I feel she does have that much option to go ahead and do. I'll want to crystallize it, eventually. in some way and, in fact, as Peter mentioned tonight, there is a Local Law coming up anyway which provides in it, among other things, that forms will be kept by her, so I think that may serve as a legal basis, but I don't know where that's going yet, but ultimately we can address that legally. So what I'd like to do for the Board now is that I want to get this back. Get some feedback. I'll go back. Let me see if we can just restructure a form. It won't come to you as fancy as this one is, next time. it will be more on a photocopy and we'll try to have something for you just as quickly as we can, perhaps as early as next week, if you don't mind, just to bring back and shoot it by you again. 37 ~ -..-/ MR. CARTIER-I'll tell you what would help, for me anyway. is if you get this out to us in the mail. Give us a chance to look at it before the meeting and think about it and have some comments, instead of working cold. MR. DUSEK-Okay. I won't have a chance, probably, to get it to you by next week. then, or what I could do is give it to you at next week's Board Meeting. Pete. and then you can review it at the next meeting. How's that? MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MR. CARTIER-Fine. All right. MR. DUSEK-If I can try to shoot for that for you. I think. li ke I say. we made progress inasmuch as everybody wants this thing. Now I'm just out to finalize the form and get it done for you. MR. CAIMANO-Headed in the right direction, great. MR. MARTIN-My other question is, what's the status of the changes in the Zoning Ordinance, the language? MR. DUSEK-It's still to be worked on. As I mentioned earlier. the big thing right now is landfill. We're up against an April 1st deadline and much of my attention has been directed to that, numerous meetings with the Town Attorneys. etc. Also we've had some litigation matters that have consumed quite a bit of my time in the recent weeks. We're getting to the other stuff. I'm just trying to give you an idea as to what's going on. The Zoning Amendments, though, I suspect that, I know the Town Board is anxious to get those moving. If I had to guess, within the next two to three weeks they should start taking off. MR. CAIMANO-Great. MR. CARTIER-Has anybody got anything else? If not, thank the Board and Staff for their time. Move to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 38