1992-02-25
u
'-,
-'
---
~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 25TH. 1992
INDEX
Subdivision No. 4-87
FINAL STAGE
Shallow Creek Subdivision
Dona 1 d Kruger
1.
Subdivision No. 11-1991
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Sunset Hill Farm
6.
Site Plan No. 2-92
Frank W. and Kathleen V. England
13.
Site Plan No. 7-92
Joan M. Rohne
16.
Site Plan No. 8-92
Harry J. Reith
19.
Petition for a Change P2-92
of Zone
General Mills Restaurant, Inc.
20.
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.
--.;'
~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 25TH, 1992
7:03 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
PETER CARTIER
EDWARD LAPOINT
TIMOTHY BREWER
JAMES LAURICELLA
SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD IIJSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-87 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA SHALLOW CREEK SUBDIVISION DONALD ICRllGER
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SHALLOW CREEK ROAD, SOOTH BONNER DRIVE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF
THE 1110 LOTS WHICH WERE DESIGNATED AS PHASE II. TAX IMP 10. 75-1-23.8, 23.2 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY
113 FT., 145 FT. BY 123 FT. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS
DAVE BOLSTER, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:03 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 4-87, Donald Kruger, 2-4-92, Meeting Date:
February 25, 1992 "The application is for final stage approval of two lots which were designated Phase
II. The subdivision was divided into two phases because lots 2 and 10 required stabilized fill prior
to Department of Health approval. The Planning Board has received a letter from Brian Fear stating
that the lots have been properly fi led and the fi 11 stabi 1 i zed. The appl icant has received setback
and area variances for what are now considered substandard lots (the zoning changed in 1988). The
stream on the property has been an issue that was raised. The applicant has shown that he can construct
a unit and the necessary facilities on the lots without infringing on the stream corridor setbacks.
A SEQRA review was done on the entire subdivision on July 21, 1987. There was a negative declaration.
MRS. YORK-And if the Board could just be indulgent, I'll read the Department of Health letter to you.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MRS. YORK-It's directed to Jeffrey Anthony, who is the agent for the applicant. "Dear Mr. Anthony:
On October 20th, 1987, I wrote to you indicating that Phase I of this project was approvable and
outlining the conditions for approval of Phase II, which consisted of Lots 2 and 10. Please be advised
that on May 22nd, 1991, I accompanied Mr. Don Kruger on an inspection of these two lots. At that time,
I determined that the lots had been properly filled and that the fill was stabilized. Since the
conditions for approval have been met, by this letter, I am granting final approval for Phase II of
the project. Sincerely yours, Brian S. Fear, District Director of the Department of Health"
MR. CARTIER-What's the date on that letter?
MRS. YORK-The date on this letter is December 11th, 1991.
MR. CARTIER-And no other soil or anything has been moved around since then, that you are aware of?
MRS. YORK-Not that I am aware of.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience for the applicant?
MR. BOLSTER-I'm Dave Bolster, a surveyor with VanDusen and Steves.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. BOLSTER-No fill has been moved around on this since Brian was here.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. This was before us just, what, last month was it?
MR. BREWER-Yes, it was last month.
MR. MARTIN-And, at that time.
1
~"".,
'-
MR. CARTIER-We had a request to table.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We had a request to table, from the developer, I guess, and that was a little bit
of a misunderstanding, but I believe this DOH letter should clear things up for us, here, on this.
Does anybody have anything else to add?
MR. CARTIER-The only other question I had was, on Phase II, what's known as Phase II of Lot 2, the
degree of the slope.
MR. BOLSTER-Right. Right now there is, but once we get a foundation in, we'll back fill that, so that
the slope won't be that steep.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, the slope will be brought up to Code, then?
MR. BOLSTER-Yes, it will.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MARK HOFFMAN
MR. HOFFMAN-I have a question.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Well, we're not, did we leave the public hearing open on this?
MRS. YORK-I believe you did.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Yes. Please come forward.
MR. HOFFMAN-My name's Mark Hoffman from Bonner Drive. I was at a meeting of the Zoning Board
approximately a month ago, at which time it was my understanding there were setback requirements that
were not met, with regard to the stream behind one of the, or perhaps both of the proposed houses,
and Mr. Steves was here representing the contractor, and stated what I thought was very clearly, that
there was no way they could possibly meet the setback requirements related to that stream, in terms
of where they could put the septic system and so forth. Has a variance been granted in that regard,
or what?
MRS. YORK-No. What occurred was that the applicant has shown, on a plan, that he can put a house and
septic system on that lot. If, in fact, when he gets to the point of actually doing construction on
that lot and he finds that he cannot do it as planned, then he will be required to get a septic variance
from the Town Board of Health. That's under the jurisdiction of the Septic Ordinance and is under
the jurisdiction of Mr. David Hatin, Director of Building and Codes. I understand your concerns.
This gentleman is concerned because the stream corridor setbacks changed with the new ordinance.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I figured that might have been the case.
MRS. YORK-And perhaps, Mr. Kruger, you could answer the question, were you and your agent able to show
that a house and septic system could be placed in conformance on that lot?
DON KRUGER
MR. KRUGER-For the record, 1'm Don Kruger. I'm the developer. We can, and it will require a variance
for the setback, so that we can put the house further back and put the septic in front of the house.
MRS. YORK-Okay.
MR. KRUGER-But it is possible, and it's feasible, and it's all sand and gravel there. It's not like
it's clay and it's going to wash down into a stream. I think Mr. Hoffman is under the impression that
this stream has trout running in there. It's an overflow from Butler Reservoir. It's a controlled
scenario, and it's only a question of time before that doesn't even exist, except for just spring runoff,
because I understand those open reservoirs are going to be illegal for the City of Glens Falls in the
near future. I mean, I'm not making light of the ecology. I'm very concerned, but it's not a stream
that children go down there and fish for trout every evening. It's a dry creek most of the time.
MR. CARTIER-Do I understand you to say that you're going to end up getting a setback variance for the
house rather than the septic system, and you're going to put the septic system in front. Is that how
you're going to do it?
MR. BOLSTER-That's correct. I apologize for not having those maps with me. Leon went on vacation.
I don't have them.
2
---
MR. CARTIER-But I think that addresses the question very appropriately, is that I think Mr. Hoffman
was concerned about the septic system being near the stream and within the setback corridor, and what
I'm hearing you say is the house is going to be in the setback corridor and the septic system will
be moved even farther away from the stream. Is that correct?
MR. KRUGER-To answer that, the maps are drawn up, and I know Leon has talked with Teddy Turner about
it, and Teddy didn't have a problem with it.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. KRUGER-Does that answer your question, sir?
MR. HOFFMAN-Not entirely. First of all, with regard to the stream, it's true that it does consist
of runoff from the reservoir. However, the stream does run virtually continuously from the spring
runoff until early to mid fall, which is common for many streams, regardless of whether you call them
runoff streams or whatever kind of term you use to belittle the stream, and although there are no trout
in it, my children do play in the stream. It's an aesthetically pleasing stream. It does supply a
large area of marsh land that borders the Northway, and indirectly effects Glen Lake. I think it's
an important stream. I believe, at the Zoning meeting, we heard a letter which was, or a comment from
the DEC, which stated that it was a high caliber stream, and recommended that setback requirements
be strictly adhered to. The idea of moving the house, I guess my concern is that we're in the process,
here, of approving a building which does not meet requirements, in the expectation that, ultimately,
it's going to require a variance, and I just don't see the logic behind that. Mr. Kruger knew there
was a stream there when he bought the property and planned the house, and I think that we have a
requirement to protect that stream, and the area surrounding it.
MR. CARTIER-I agree with you, and I think your concerns are valid. I think, however, they're being
addressed. Can you, at this point, give us any idea of how much of a variance you're going to require?
MR. BOLSTER-No, not without the maps. I don't have them here.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. BOLSTER-But I disagree with Mr. Hoffman on that brook running throughout the summer. I'm a resident
on Bonner Drive, also. I pass it every day, and it's only there when they draw off the reservoir.
It doesn't run year round.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me try another question, that you may not be able to answer either. About how
far away from the stream will the septic system and leach field be, more than 100 feet, more than 200
feet?
MR. BOLSTER-Not more than 100, maybe 100 feet. We're asking to put the house closer to the stream
than the, the septic will be, it will be up in the northeast corner.
MR. KRUGER-I think the septic system is 75 feet, which means the house will be, like, 45 feet. I just
saw the map for a moment, and it was a month ago.
MR. BOLSTER-Seventy-five feet, right. Do you have copies, Lee, of those maps?
MRS. YORK-All I have is the subdivision map. I don't believe he brought those in to me.
MR. MARTIN-That's the best you can do, is?
MR. BOLSTER-I would guess 75 feet. I don't have those maps.
MR. MARTIN-So, you estimate it to be about 75 feet?
MR. BOLSTER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-If we approve this tonight, and then he went and got a variance, would he have to come back
to us again?
MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what I was just going to say. This is kind of irregular, that we're.
MRS. YORK-It really is irregular. I was given the distinct impression, from Mr. Hatin, and I might
have misunderstood him, that it could be in conformance. At this point in time, I mean, the Board
is in a very precarious position, here, because a former Planning Board, in 1987, made these two lots
Phase II, and clearly did a SEQRA saying there is no environmental impact, and prepared a negative
declaration and said that, with the exception of granting final approval on these two lots, which would
occur upon receipt of a letter from Brian Fear of the Department of Health, saying that there was
stabilized soil there.
3
--
MR. BREWER-I guess the reason I ask that question is, it says, here, in this letter, or your Staff
Notes, "The appl icant has shown that he can construct a unit and the necessary faci 1 ities on the lots
without infringing on the stream corridor setback".
MRS. YORK-Yes, that was my understanding from Mr. Hatin.
MR. BREWER-So, why would he have to get a variance if he can meet the setbacks?
MRS. YORK-Well, at this point in time, it's my understanding from his agent that that is not the case.
He would need a variance. To be quite frank, this is a designated stream. It is a Double A Trout
Stream.
MR. CARTIER-It's a Double A Trout Stream?
MRS. YORK-Well, it's a Double A Class Stream.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Well, we have nothing to work with, in front of us. That's, I think, our dilemma. We
don't have any of the drawings to take a look at what this particular issue is.
MR. LAURICELLA-Doesn't he have to get approval, a variance, before we can?
MR. BREWER-That I s exactly what I said, but it says, under Lee's understanding, he can put the house
there, and if he can put the house there, why does he have to get a variance?
MRS. YORK-Right. That was my understanding. It might have been an error.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Didn't the applicant confirm that, that you would probably have to get a variance for the
house to be setback?
MR. BOLSTER-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-So they will, indeed, be getting a variance for the house.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. BREWER-And they should be before the Zoning Board before they come to this Board, I believe.
MRS. YORK-Right. The septic system would have to be 100 feet away from the stream, and the house could
not be built within 75 feet.
MRS. PULVER-No. First they'll get subdivision approval. Then they're going to go and get their building
permit and find out if they need a variance, and then they go before the Zoning Board and get their
variance, before they can build.
MR. CARTIER-But we're still approving a final phase of a subdivision that's subject to a variance.
MRS. PULVER-Right. For what?
MR. CARTIER-Location of the house and septic system on this particular piece of property.
MRS. PULVER-I don't think so. I think that when they go to get their building permit, and they want
to put it on there, then they'll have to go for their variance.
PAT CRAYFORD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MRS. CRAYFORD-I came in late on the conversation, but I don't understand why you couldn't grant final
approval to a subdivision, and then, when he has to build, he can get a variance at that time.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-If his variance is turned down, he either has to find another place on that lot, or he
can't, it becomes an unbuildable lot.
MR. MARTIN-It's my understanding that we're not supposed to be approving nonconforming lots, right?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Right now, that received a variance. Those lots received a variance at the last Zoning
Board meeting.
MR. BOLSTER-The size and the setbacks, we have a variance on them.
4
-...-"
MR. MARTIN-All right.
MR. HOFFMAN-That's not correct. Perhaps there's been another meeting since the last one I attended,
but my understanding was that only Phase I was dealt with at the last, and that only area setbacks
were discussed, because the issue of the stream specifically came up, and, very explicitly, it was
stated that the contractor would have to come back and get another setback, with regard to the setback
from the stream. I would also comment that those are very small lots, and to move the house enough
to meet that setback, is going to be difficult. In addition to which, we were already told that there
were requirements, as far as the fill that needed to be placed. Now, when the Health Department decided
what was required, as far as the fill, were they basing that based upon where the house was planned
to be located, and if the house is going to be moved, does that whole issue have to be reconsidered?
MRS. CRAYFORD-In my understanding, the Health Department granted approval on where the house is going
to be located, how it's going to be constructed.
MRS. YORK-I think the approval was granted on the stabilization of the non-native soils for the septic
system.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MRS. YORK-Wherever that might be.
MR. MARTIN-So, then, if the Board does decide to approve this, then what we're essentially doing is
we're approving a nonconforming lot?
MRS. CRAYFORD-It's received an area variance.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the setbacks for septic are just as important as those setbacks for side yard and
front yard and so on.
MRS. CRAYFORD-If it needs a septic variance, then it would go to the Town Board.
MR. MARTIN-Well, what's the Board's preference, here?
MRS. YORK-If I could just interject something, these lots have not received final approval. So, they
are not legally existing lots. So, it would be, getting a variance would possibly come after a lot
comes into existence.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I thought that's why they were here tonight, to receive final approval for the two lots,
and then, after that's received, then they can apply for a building permit.
MR. MARTIN-And at that time. that's when the red flag would pop up. about the septic.
MRS. CRAYFORD-If need be.
MRS. PULVER-And the setbacks.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. CARTIER-In which case, Mr. Hoffman would have another shot at that, in terms of the Zoning Board.
Is that correct?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Or the Town Board. You say the Town Board is the?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Is the septic.
MR. MARTIN-Grants a septic variance.
MR. BREWER-But he's not getting a septic variance, he'll be getting a setback variance for the house.
MR. MARTIN-No. He's already got those for the house.
MR. BREWER-No, but he's changing it around. He's putting the septic in the front and the house in
the back.
MR. LAURICELLA-He needs a variance, not for the septic. He's needs a variance for the house.
MRS. PULVER-But, as soon as he goes for his building permit, they'll decide what variances he needs.
That's not a Planning Board issue.
5
'.../'
"----'
MR. LAPOINT-Well, without the drawing, we don't know, you know, everybody's guessing at that setback
distance, even for the septic.
MR. LAURICELLA-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-So, he may have to get both.
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-I'm Matt Steves of VanDusen and Steves. The maps were shown to, they showed that the septic
would meet the stream setback variance, and the front setback, also, of 10 feet from the property line,
depending on the size of the house. Now, you can't be guaranteed on how much of a stream setback
variance we need with the house, until we determine what size house is going to be put in there.
MR. MARTIN-That makes sense.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. STEVES-But the septic will fit, meeting all setback requirements.
MR. CARTIER-The septic system will, you're saying you don't have to get a variance?
MR. STEVES-Don't need a septic variance, no.
MR. CARTIER-Don't need a septic variance.
MR. BREWER-It would be for the house.
MR. CARTIER-House only.
MR. STEVES-It would be for the house. Depending on the size of the house, it would depend upon, if
any, what size variance would be needed.
MR. MARTIN-All right. I'm getting a clearer picture now.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-All right. So, it looks like what's going to be needed is a variance on the house, possibly,
depending on it's size.
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, I think we've got a clearer picture, as to what's going on here. Do we need
a SEQRA on this, Lee?
MRS. YORK-No. It's already been done at the Preliminary Stage.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Okay. Is there any more comment from the Board? Any more from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MARTIN-And, if we're all set on SEQRA, I think we can entertain a motion.
IIJTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-87 SHALUII CREEK SUBDIVISION DONALD ICRUGER, Introduced
by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
For the approval of two lots which were designated as Phase II.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE (7:27 p.m.)
/Av
() ,}\)
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I WR-lA SUNSET HILL FARM OWNER: PAUL KNOX, III
KNOX ROAD ON ASSEMBLY POINT TO SUBDIVIDE 25 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED BY INDIVIOOAL LOT
PURCHASERS. DRILLED WELLS AND ON-SITE WASTEWATER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED FOR WATER AND SEIlER SERVICES.
LOTS WILL BE ACCESSED BY PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED DRIVEWAYS. LOT 1 COITAINS THE (lIfER'S RESIDENCE
AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE (liNER. TAX MP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGUlATIONS
MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:27 p.m.)
6
'--
-----"
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I don't know how much you want to get into this, at this point. I'll bring the Board
up to date, here. The neighboring property owners were not, it's our understanding, properly noticed
by the applicant, and with that not being present, the applicant's in agreement that we really can't
move ahead with this. I do believe that's the case. Mr. Schachner can probably explain further.
So, I don't know. It's really pointless, at this point, to get into this, for the Preliminary review
at this time. Mr. Schachner, do you have anything else you'd like to add, or do you think that's
appropriate, at this point?
MR. SCHACHNER-Only the applicant's and his representative's apologies for any inconvenience caused
to Planning Board members, Staff, and any members of the public who may have come because they might
have heard about this, but, unfortunately not received a notice. There was a misunderstanding, although
it did not involve myself and my office, it did involve the project team and some representatives of
the applicant, and we apologize. We would request, we would not only agree to being tabled, that we
be tabled, because we don't think it's appropriate to proceed at this time. I do have one other request,
but I think it would come after, perhaps, your tabling.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, is everybody in agreement with that being the case, and we'll table this?
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I don't have a problem with that. The only question I would ask is, Mark, I assume
you've got some copies of engineering comments somewhere. Are you going to change the application,
in response to those engineering comments, and if you do, we get kicked into deadline situations, again.
MR. SCHACHNER-You have led right into my other request. I didn't know if it was more appropriate for
it to be tabled before or after. My only other request was, since we do have those engineering comments,
we were wondering if the Board would allow the applicant to submit, I don't know, by a week from
tomorrow, perhaps. Tomorrow at 2 o'clock is the deadline for next month. That's not possible, but
we would like, if we could, perhaps, a week from tomorrow at 2 o'clock, to submit just the stuff in
response to the Rist-Frost comments? It would not, by the way, be a modification. It would just be
responses, and anything that has to be on the plan to address those comments.
MR. MARTIN-We usually look to our Staff on that. We try to work with them.
MRS. YORK-Right. If it could be in by Tuesday at 2 o'clock, because Wednesday morning we have Staff
Review. I would find it a little better.
MR. SCHACHNER-Lets say Tuesday at 2 o'clock. That would be fine.
MR. MARTIN-Is that workable, Lee, for you?
MRS. YORK-That's fine.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-That would be fine, sure.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, lets get through the motion, here, to table. We have a request from the
applicant to table.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by Peter Cartier
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
With the stipulation that any comments in response to Engineering Staff comments of the February 21
letter be submitted to the Planning Department on or before 2 p.m. Tuesday March 3rd.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
MR. MARTIN-Before we call the vote, we obviously have some people, here, in the audience regarding
this application. Would the Board like to hear from them, at this time?
MR. CARTIER-If there are people who have driven here from a long distance, it seems unfair to get them
bac k here.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-I have no objection to hearing from people.
MRS. PULVER-I don't either.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MRS. PULVER-As long as everyone understands that they're just going to state what they want to say,
and that's it.
7
'--,
MR. MARTIN-Right. This is not, the public hearing is still forthcoming on this application. However,
this was advertised in the paper. We don't want people to make the drive for no reason, especially
on a night like tonight. So, I'll hold off the vote on that tabling until we hear from members of
the public who have come here on this application. Please come forward and state your name.
LI LLIAN ADAMSON
MRS. ADAMSON-My name's Lillian Adamson and I'm a neighbor on Assembly Point. I just want to know when
the decision was made to not have the meeting, because I was in the Planning Office looking at these
details yesterday.
MR. MARTIN-It was very, very late information. We didn't receive this until late this afternoon, that
this was the case.
MRS. ADAMSON-I see. Now, I'm able to be here tonight. I'm not sure, if you're going to have the meeting
another night, that I'm going to be able to come back that next night, and I kind of wanted to see
where the road was going to be and the various details about it, and if it wouldn't be too inconvenient,
I'd like to have a little information from the group.
MRS. PULVER-Here you go. I'll give you that.
MRS. ADAMSON-Yes. I know those are available, and I could have sat down at the Planning Office and
looked at it, but I thought there'd be an explanation tonight, and then there could be a question and
answer and I could get some more information that way, and have a little input, and it's disappointing
that it's going to be scheduled for, what, a month away from now, now?
MR. MARTIN-Probably, yes. We're looking at March as our next meeting dates. So, probably the third
and fourth week of March. Again, I apologize. This is out of our hands.
MR. SCHACHNER-We do, too.
MR. MARTIN-And I'm sure it's just an oversight.
MR. BREWER-You can ask questions.
MR. MARTIN-You can ask questions now.
MRS. ADAMSON-I can ask questions now?
MR. MARTIN-Sure.
MRS. ADAMSON-The road, the biggest concern that I have, as an Assembly Point resident, is the road,
and the access to these, and how it ties in with the Town roads and that sort of thing. If you could,
do you have that information?
MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not prepared to answer any questions.
MRS. ADAMSON-You can't answer any questions. So, it doesn't do me any good to ask anything, then.
MR. LAPOINT-Well, you can completely take a set home with you.
MRS. ADAMSON-I can take a set home?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MRS. YORK-If I could maybe clarify something. Is your concern the potential loop from Knox Road to
Sunset Road?
MRS. ADAMSON-Yes.
MRS. YORK-Okay. That is something that is currently being investigated, okay. Basically, through
the Highway Superintendent's Office, and that's just, it's an ongoing process at this time. Maybe
by next month we will have some further information for you. I'm sure your Town Board members will
be informed, and will proceed according to what they think are the best interests of the community.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, and just to clarify things, here, and to be fair to the applicant, the extension of
that road was never part of their application.
MRS. ADAMSON-I understand that.
8
"---'
'--
MR. MARTIN-And it was, it came up in the course of discussion. This went through several meetings
at Sketch Plan Phase, to allow greater accessibility to those new lots and those new homes to be created
there, as well as the existing. It had long been a feeling of some people in the Highway Department
to provide that access, and that's where the idea started and this application sort of rekindled those
feelings, and it's appropriate to say that nothing is set in stone at this time, and that this is now
the appropriate time to come forward and speak.
MRS. ADAMSON-Yes, well, I understand that Paul Knox, and I am not against anything he, really, what
I'm trying to say is, in recognition of the fact that transportation on Assembly Point is very difficult,
because we have a lakeshore road that may collapse into the lake, and we have, for a long time, been
trying to get a road behind. The road behind would access through the front part of his property,
there. Now, obviously, Mr. Knox does not have to do anything about that. I'm not saying that. It's
just that I would like to see, somewhere along the line, another road accessed through there, and since
this is one of the last pieces of property where this might be available, somehow or another we need
to look, and Knox Road is a very, have you been out on Knox Road?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We've been up there several times.
MRS. ADAMSON-Access is going to be very difficult unless the Town does something about the road, and
I'm sure Mr. Knox would be just as concerned, as anyone else, about that.
MR. MARTIN-Right. Well, that was where these feelings came from, along those same lines.
MRS. ADAMSON-Okay. I won't keep you any longer. I'll read all this, then.
MRS. PULVER-It has been agreed to that Paul Knox would give up to 35 feet to the, possibly.
MR. MARTIN-I don't know if we arrived at, it's really just a concept, at this point.
MRS. PULVER-To just widen the road, to make it a little safer.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MRS. PULVER-The current road that's already there.
MR. MARTIN-Again, nothing is under formal agreement, or set in stone.
concept, and I can't stress enough that this is at Preliminary Stage.
Plan, so the project itself is very much in flux.
This i s really, basically, a
We're just barely out of Sketch
MRS. ADAMSON-Well, I kind of find that it's a good idea to get in on the beginning of some of these
things, because sometimes it's all set and done, and then you're too late.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Lets not shut the barn door after the horse is gone.
MRS. ADAMSON-Thank you very much.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to comment on this application?
DENNIS MAC ElROY
MR. MACELROY- Thank you. My name is Dennis MacEl roy. I'm a resident of Assembly Point, and a property
owner on Knox Road, and I suppose I'm the culprit that called it to your attention that it wasn't
properly noticed.
MR. MARTIN-Well, then, you don't mind showing up here.
MR. MACELROY-No, and I do apologize, also, for those, and I stated so in my letter, that I apologized
for any inconvenience to people who may have made arrangements to be here, and now, possibly, for naught.
I have two concerns beyond that. Number One, Lee referenced the issue of the ownership of the road,
or the ability of the Town to make that connection. I've had meetings with Lee and with Paul Naylor
regarding that. I have information that would indicate that the Town does not own that road, that
section of the road that would be necessary to make the connection. It's property that, I believe,
is in our title, my family. I have a problem with the Town's presumption that they could make that
connection, and I think it, potentially, was a misunderstanding, and, as Lee indicated, there is some
investigation ongoing. I'm concerned that the Planning Board, evidently, might have made that a
condition of this project. It's unfortunate, if it was, on behalf of the applicant, because it's a
hornets nest, not only at our end of the road, but at the beginning section of the road as well. Title
on that is very unclear. I also have taken the time, in the past several days, to review the the plans,
and I've come up with a letter that I'd leave you, and comments that I would ask, that potentially
also got forwarded to your engineer and sent on to the applicant. I happen to be a professional
engineer, and I have served as a reviewing consultant for this Town Board and the Planning Board in
the past. I have certain knowledge of planning issues, and live got a list of comments that should
go along with your Engineering Consultant's comments.
9
---
---'
MR. MARTIN-Good. They can be accepted into the record.
MR. MACELROY-I appreciate that. I think that this issue, and the study of any alternatives, really,
is still an open book. The final two double drives that are shown on the plan, are not good design
and it's not good planning.
MR. MARTIN-Well, there are some members of this Board who would agree with you on that.
MR. MACELROY-I've done calculations to show that, off the consultant's plans, that would indicate the
amount of clearing that's necessary for those five drives, three double driveways and two single
driveways, clears 15 percent more land than a 900 foot Town standard road, 50 foot wide right-of-way,
900 feet long, plus 140 foot diameter cul-de-sac, plus eight drives at 100 feet long at 25 foot width.
Fifteen percent more area would be cleared for those driveways, than for a Town road access.
MR. LAPOINT-Nine hundred foot Town road.
MR. MACELROY-With a 140 foot diameter cul-de-sac.
MR. LAPOINT-With a 140 foot diameter cul-de-sac.
MR. MACELROY-With eight 100 foot long driveways cleared to 25 foot width, and, aside from the area,
it would be, presumably, area that was far less susceptible to erosion, visual impact than the proposal
that's before you.
MR. MARTIN-Well, that's all very interesting.
MRS. PULVER-You weren't at any of the previous meetings, were you?
MR. MACELROY-I was at the meeting in October.
MRS. PULVER-Okay. Let me see, it must have been November or December, though, when the Highway
Superintendent was here and said, was not fond of the cul-de-sac idea.
MR. MACELROY-Understood. Understood. It is part of your regulations, and it is allowable, meeting
certain conditions. That issue of whether a full sized Town road, maybe should be opened to
consideration. The Planning Board has that ability to modify certain standards. One of the concerns
about having a full sized Town road is that it doesn't blend with the character of the area. Paul
Naylor told me this, yesterday, it didn't make sense to have a full blown Town road when the supporting
roads were less than that standard. Maybe an option is to have less of a center road. It's still
a 50 foot right-of-way, potentially, but still built to less of a standard.
MR. CARTIER-If my memory serves me, I think that's the direct we were going, somehow. Things are still
very much up in the air.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I think what happened, though, was then the road has to be deeded to the Town. The
Town has to accept it, and there was the possibility that the Town would not accept a road that was
less than the standard, since they are going to have to maintain it, for fire vehicles and the whole
business. I mean, they're maintaining substandard roads right now, but that doesn't mean they want
to continue to do that in the future, you know, is that good planning.
MR. MACELROY- That's right. The issue, more, is not right-of-way, because the right-of-way could be
issued. A 50 foot right-of-way could be dedicated, but maybe the road surface itself, instead of a
24 foot wide, two foot wing gutters, 28 foot total, go to something more characteristic of the area.
It still would be able to be plowed. Paul would still be able to bring his big trucks in there, and
that was his primary interest. I had a meeting with him yesterday. I don't want to speak for him,
but that was my indication, is that he was concerned about being able to get the big plow in there.
MR. MARTIN-Well, your comments are very much in conformance and echo some feelings of some of the members
of this Board. It's too bad that you weren't at some of our Sketch Plan meetings, because you would
have saw that to be true.
MR. LAPOINT-How many lots did that calculation go for?
MR. MACELROY-The same number of lots.
MR. LAPOINT-Ten lots?
MR. MACELROY-Right. The same number of driveways, and I've worked out, on a little Sketch Plan, but,
I mean, that's not my job to do, but it would preserve the lots that, basically, he would be interested
in, although I would say, there's still some concern, because the road, now, would occupy the center
area, which is the prime area. It won't deny that, but maybe that leads you to believe that the site
10
'----
---
can't support that amount of lots. I'd make another point that's in my comments. Never, yet, does
the application indicate the information to provide the calculations that the regulations require for
the density that would be allowed on that site, taking the total area, subtracting undevelopable area,
wetlands, slopes over 25 percent. I don't want to be naive, but nObody knows how many lots are allowed
on that site.
MR. MARTIN-If you subtract out the undevelopable area.
MR. MACELROY-Is it 1O? Is it 20? I think, in some of the alternatives, we're led to believe that
he's doing us, I shouldn't put it that way, that he's not taking full advantage of the development
rights by not building 20 lots. Well, I don't know what the calculation is that allows that, and that's
something that should be provided as part of his Preliminary Site Plan application.
MR. BREWER-That's what I was just going to say, that Mr. Knox indicated that, if he were to put that
center road in, his infrastructure would be more, and therefore he would probably go with more lots.
MR. MACELROY-Well, within the limits of his ability to do so. Subdividing that way, that's a down
and dirty way of doing it. There's no expense there, other than his soft costs, his engineering.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, I don't understand what the advantage is to having a Town road cut down through
the middle of there. I mean, is there an engineering advantage to that, as opposed to that?
MR. MACELROY-Well, the susceptibility of those slopes that are cut through by those driveways. Ten
percent driveways, 360 feet long, that end one, that double drive, clearing 60 to 90 feet wide, a swath
through there.
MR. LAPOINT-That's showing a 60 foot swath on there?
MR. MACELROY-Sixty to ninety feet wide, the amount of clearing. That's off their plan, off the grading
that would be required, and I just might add, that's a Site Plan, you know, once that's subdivided
and a property owner, five years down the road buys that lot, who's to say he's going to build the
road like that. There might be guidelines that the Town would implement, but it doesn't always happen
that way. The same thing goes for clearing, vegetation clearing. The Town has poor experience in
being able to control clearing off the shorel ine. Kruger's property, Lockhart Road, Lockhart Mountain
Road, a perfect example. Clear cut. That's a prime location for that same type of thing. People
are going to be buying that for lake views. What control does the Town have, as far as that vegetation
clearing?
MR. LAPOINT-Would that make a difference, if there were a Town road down through the center?
MR. MACELROY-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-It would? I mean, that would control the cutting somehow?
MR. MACELROY-As far as the clearing required for access to those lots would be run up through the ridge,
it wouldn't control clearing for visual aspect, but to have those swathes cut through there for the
driveway access, that's right in the face of things. If the road goes up on the top ridge, that's
less visual, it's less protective, and it also occurs in areas that don't have the slopes, that aren't
as susceptible to erosion and stOrnMater control. Stormwater design, prepared as part of that, is
very deficient. So, I mean, you'll see the comments, I guess, that I made.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You've got all those calculations for us? We'll get all the copies? I mean, I
just have the one letter from you.
MR. MACELROY-Right. I have three letters for you, of eight page comments.
MRS. YORK-If you would like to give them to me, I can make copies for the Board.
MRS. PULVER-I just want to go back and ask a question. You're saying the last driveway there is 60
feet wi de?
MR. MARTIN-The clearing required for it.
MR. MACELROY-This swath, and it shows better on the grading plan, although this is, these lines is
an indication there, grading plan, okay, Sheet Three shows some indication of the outline of the
vegetation. I simply measured the width, I did a perimeter computation of what the area was, to confirm
it, 60 to 90 feet wide clearing area for that 360 foot long common drive. The common drive splits
off another 190 and 200 feet, respectively, for access to the house itself. Now, there's another,
depending on the driveway, 30 to 40 feet, but the area that comes out is 15 percent greater than if
it was a Town road that might have come from this location and in, or in here, still preserving those
lots as he has laid out, to some extent. There would be some modification required.
11
--
-../
MR. LAPOINT-So, you weren't working from one of the previous alternatives we had worked from?
MR. MACELROY-No.
MR. LAPOINT-This is just your speculation on where the road would go, through any 900 feet?
MR. MACELROY-I've done two quick layout plans of two roads, one that comes in from here, and one that
comes from this vicinity, one of which is similar to the alternative which came in front here.
MRS. PULVER-Well, the one coming in from the top, there wouldn't be any access to it.
MR. MACELROY-Excuse me?
MRS. PULVER-A road coming in from the top, here, they would have to get another right-of-way, right?
MR. MACELROY-No. They have access right off here.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I know, but this is going to be somebody's lot.
MR. MACELROY-Well, there'd have to be some modification of the lot lines in there.
MR. MARTIN-I think the Board would appreciate copies of those comments.
MR. MACELROY-Right, and I apologize, you know, this is not necessarily a public hearing, and the
applicant's not fully here to respond or to understand.
MR. MARTIN-I think he appreciates having these as early as possible.
MR. CARTIER-Can I suggest, also, Lee, that our engineer get a copy of those comments, too?
MRS. YORK-Certainly.
MR. MACELROY-Yes, I have asked that you do that, in my letter, too.
MR. LAPOINT-Without reading it, real quick, here, did Rist-Frost have any concerns with any of the
cuts to the roads as shown?
MRS. YORK-I believe they had concerns about erosion control methods, and stormwater management concerns
regarding the driveways, and the infiltration rates of the drywells, and things like that.
MR. MACELROY-What I've done is gone down through the regulations, the specific Code, your subdivision
regulations, and reference the Sections that I felt were deficient, in the design that you've got.
MR. MARTIN-I appreciate that. Well, I appreciate those comments very much. Thank you.
RALPH ARLISS
MR. ARLISS-My name is Ralph Arliss. I'm a property owner on Knox Road, at the end of Knox Road. I
live in Albany. There are just two small points I'd like to make. There appears to be uncertainty
about who owns the property, the road that's planned to be built. I remember, it must have been, I
think, in 1979, Dr. Mackel roy, who is no longer living now, showed me where he owned property, and
it was in the area where the road is being planned. I talked about this with Mr. Dennis Mackelroy.
It is the place where increasingly, over a number of years, maybe 10 or more years, vehicles have driven
through, and I think it is, at this place, where the road is being planned. The other point I would
like to make is that, in the years since 1977, that we owned this property, that we can be there, and
have been there, often in the winter time. It has never been a problem that the road was not cleared.
The plows do get in there. It is more tight than at other places, but we have had to be in Albany,
in the winter time, after a heavy snow storms, on an emergency basis, and we were able to get out there
without any difficulty. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else here for this application, and, again, lid apologize.
This is not the official review of this at this time, but all the property owners will be duly notified
through the mail, now, and you'll have a, you'll be updated as to when the next meeting is that this
application is before this Board.
MR. CARTIER-Can I make a suggestion? For those of you who are here tonight, who may not be able to
make another meeting, you might want to put your comments in writing and submit them to the Planning
Department, so that they will, in fact, be incorporated into the official minutes of the meeting, and
we can get a look at them.
MR. MARTIN-And they will be reviewed by the Board. Okay. I believe we had a motion on the floor,
and it was seconded, for tabling. I think this has been very enlightening, and there being no other
comment from the Board, I'll take a vote on that motion.
12
--
---
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE (7:55 p.m.)
NEIl IIJSINESS:
SITE PIAN NO. 2-92 TYPE II lIR-lA FRANK II. AND KATHLEEN V. ENGlAND ClßlER: SAME AS ABOVE HILLM\N
ROAD. SECOND LEFT OFF CLEVERMLE RMD FROM RooTE 9L TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FT. BY 36 FT. SOOTH LEG DOCK
OF A ·U· SHAPED DOCK IIITH AN 8 FT. BY 11 FT. CONNECTING SECTION AND A 16 FT. BY 28 FT. SUNDECK TO AN
EXISTING 36 FT. BY 8 FT. DOCK. (WARREN CoolTY PLAIUI1ING) TAX IMP 10. 12-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES
SECTION 179-16 D[3][A][2]
FRANK ENGLAND, PRESENT (7:55 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 2-92, Frank W. & Kathleen V. England, 2-13-92,
Meeting Date: February 25, 1992 "The owners wants to construct a boat house with a deck. In order
to accomplish this the applicant intends to expand the existing dock into a U-shaped dock. The property
is off Hillman Road in Cleverdale. On 6-19-91 the applicant received a variance for construction of
a den and garage. Prior to that the property was owned by Karolyn Smith. The property contained two
residential units. The property owner is in 1988 requested a use and area variance to be able to tear
down one of the residences on the lot and rebuild it. The discussion centered around whether the lots
needed variances to demerge. The Zoning Board ultimately ruled that the lots were not joined by virtue
of the ordinance. At that time a setback variance was granted for the shoreline and side yard. The
Smith's then constructed a new home. On 3-20-90 they received a site plan review to construct a covered
boat house. After the 1988 Zoning Board decision the Smiths' sold one of the lots to the Englands
who received the previously identified variance to be able to improve their lot. The Englands on 10-29-
89 also received a septic variance in order to have seepage pits closer than 150 feet on Lake George.
At this time the Englands have an existing straight dock on about 70 feet of shoreline. This is allowed
per Section 179-60. They intend to expand the straight dock into a U-shaped dock and put a deck over
it. They would still have one dock per the ordinance. The only issues concerning this development
would be aesthetics and if the structure would somehow limit the neighbors lake view. This does not
appear to be the case."
MRS. YORK-I do have one letter, here, dated February 25th, "To the Queensbury Planning Board: I object
to the construction of a sundeck on Frank England's property for the following reasons: Number One,
the proposed sundeck will interfere with my view. My house is oriented so as to capture the view of
the lake. Please note enclosed drawing. The proposed structure would raise five to five and a half
feet above the grade. Two, I feel this property is on a prima facia example of unplanned and
overdevelopment. Since I sold the property to Mr. England, above ground usage of the property, which
is 9,588 square feet, has increased from 1, 119 square feet, to 3756 square feet, not including the
new driveway. This represents a dramatic increase of open space usage. Originally, 11.7 percent was
used, and the current usage is 39.2 percent. This is an awful lot going on such a small parcel. It
now appears that, lacking sufficient undeveloped area, the applicant's wish to extend their property
with the proposed 512 square foot cover. Please refer to attached drawing to illustrate my points.
I object both to the extent and the piecemeal approach to the development of this property. Thank
you for considering my objections. Karolyn Smith"
MR. MARTIN-Is that it?
MRS. YORK-Yes. I would just bring this up for the Board to review.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have a note from Warren County Planning Board stating, "No County Impact", and
that constitutes the Staff Notes. Is there anyone here from the applicant?
MR. ENGLAND-Yes. I'm Frank England. I live on Hillman Road. Lee, did you want to have the Board
notice the typographical error on the agenda, that I spoke to you about?
MRS. YORK-Yes, I did. Thank you very much. Mr. England redesigned his deck and, unfortunately, the
secretarial staff just typed it as the former description that we had. So, I'm sure Mr. England will
explain to you what he's doing.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Unconfuse me one step at a time. What's the typo on the agenda?
MRS. YORK-Okay. The typo was, the dock size has been reduced.
MR. CARTIER-From what to what?
13
'~
MRS. YORK-So that instead of, he had a U-shaped dock with an 8 ft. by 11 ft. connecting section. What
he has is now an 8 ft. and a 4 ft. connection section.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Eight foot by six foot?
MRS. YORK-Right. No. If you look at his plan that's attached to your application, what happened was,
Mr. England submitted a plan, was on an agenda, asked to be tabled. In the period in which he was
tabled, he modified his drawing to come into greater conformance with the Code, okay.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is that?
MR. ENGLAND-Yes. That's correct. When I originally submitted the application, lets say my drawing
wasn't quite up to engineering style, and the Smiths' made an engineering drawing and I accepted their
dimensions, and I decreased the size of my dock. In other words, I went from, originally I was going
to have a six foot southern leg toward their property. It turned out that it was too close, and when
I sent in my change, which you have there, December 13th, I changed the width from six feet to four
feet, and decreased the slip by one foot. So, I moved everything three feet over to make it so I'll
be 20 feet, as the lot line kind of points toward my place. So, if you'll notice in there, in the
new change, I gave you a map, and I showed you the map. In fact, that's the Smiths' map. He's an
engineer. He drew it. He's very good, and I used it, and so, as you can see, I've moved my dock over
so it's exactly, the closest point is 20 feet three inches.
MR. LAURICELLA-Is he still objecting to your?
MR. ENGLAND-I don't know whether she's still objecting to the change or not. However, her original
objections were sent to the Lake George Park Commission, and I explained everything to them and changed
it, and I have, here, from the Lake George Park Commission, for the Board, a copy of their permit,
on the new way I've done it, and also a copy of my permit from DEC. I think it's kind of hard to say
anything, here, because I bought the land from the Smiths. When we were doing it, they were well aware
of the lot that they were selling me. I've been before you a couple of other times, because everything
I've done, I've upgraded the property. It so happened that the old septic system there could not be
used. I had to have a professional engineer come in and do a mound system in the back. Originally,
I was going to have a two car garage, but that, because of the septic system, I was unable to do that,
and I've ended up with just a den and a one car garage. When we bought the property, there were actually
three docks on the property, and I have some pictures here to show the Board. This is actually what
was there. It was there when I bought the property. The thing was, I can't say that I, specifically,
when I bought it, told them I was exactly going to do this and that, but it was obvious I owned the
boat. I had a boat house, and eventually I'd like to increase the dock there. Actually, on the
property, there were three docks, on our side of the property, that we bought, and now I've actually
just gone to two, and as for blocking Mrs. Smith's view, I think the Board was out there and viewed
the property. If you'll notice on my drawing I showed you how her house sits, the part that is that
way is the side of her garage, and there are no windows in it, and there's a porch up 10 feet, and
also there's a 25 foot hemlock, which is about three feet from my line, from inside her land, on the
shoreline, which also blocks her view. Most of the bushes and everything there are at least six or
seven feet high, and my dock is only going to extend up just the railing, and it's going to be an open
railing.
MR. LAURICELLA-So, you're going five feet high?
MR. ENGLAND-Well, over the, see, we come out and there's a bank that drops down about five or six feet,
but the actual extension of my railing over that is only about two feet over the.
MR. LAURICELLA-How high, from your dock, will you be up?
MR. ENGLAND-From the dock, there's a drawing in there that tells you exactly, in your packet. See,
here's the hemlock tree, on the bottom, here. There's six foot bushes along through here. Here is
part of her house that looks that way. This is up 10 feet. This is the side of her garage.
MR. LAURICELLA-That's for sale, still?
MR. ENGLAND-Yes. They put their house up for sale.
MR. MARTIN-Are those copies of the permits ours to have for the files?
MR. ENGLAND-Yes, they are.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. All right. So, I think we have a lot of new information, here, that's come
to light, from our, the difference we have in our package from this one. I guess we'll hear from the
public and see if there's anybody here from the public. I'll open the public hearing on this
application.
14
'-
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MARTIN-Is there any comment from the Board, at this point? There being none, I think we can
entertain a SEQRA Review on this.
MR. CARTIER-This is a Type II. It doesn't need one.
MRS. PULVER-Not on docks.
MR. CARTIER-I guess my question is, Mr. England, are we done on this piece of property?
MR. ENGLAND-I certainly hope so, sir.
MR. CARTIER-Does that rail have an open deck? Is that rail on the top of the deck going to be an open
rail? It can be seen through? It will not be a solid deck?
MR. ENGLAND-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-The sides of the boat house will be left open? Those will not be closed up?
MR. ENGLAND-Yes. The sides of the boat house are open. You received the drawing in the December 13th
packet that I gave you.
MR. BREWER-Mr. England, at the highest point of this deck, how high, how tall, from the water level?
MR. ENGLAND-From the water? Here it is.
MR. BREWER-Okay, 11.6.
MR. ENGLAND-See, it's 11.6 from the water. See, we have a six foot embankment here, and see the railing
will just be up, and where this is on the shoreline, here, as I was telling you, here's the 25 foot
cedar, right there, and all this vegetation is six feet, and the question on the railing of the dock
wi 11 be.
MR. CARTIER-In other words, somebody standing on the shore can see through the railing?
MR. ENGLAND-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-It's not going to be a solid.
MR. ENGLAND-You can't have a solid boat house anymore.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anymore comment from the Board? You represent yourself very well.
MR. ENGLAND-Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Everybody feel comfortable? Okay. I'll entertain a motion then.
IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-92 FRANK W. AIm KATHLEEN V. EIGLAND, Introduced by Carol Pulver
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint:
To construct a 4 ft. by 36 ft. south leg dock of a "U" shaped dock with 8 ft. by 10 ft. connecting
section and a 16 ft. by 28 ft. sundeck to an existing 36 ft. by 8 ft. dock.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE
MR. ENGLAND-I would like to thank the Board, and as Mr. Cartier says, I hope this will be the last
time we'll be here before you, but I would like to say one thing before I leave, having been a Chairman
of a Board of Selectman in Massachusetts, I would like to point out to you, I think you're very lucky
to have the Staff that you have help you, and in my trials and tribulations over the last two years,
I'd like to tell you that I've been treated very, very courteously and very knowledgeably, and I think
you're extremely fortunate to have such good people working for you. Thank you.
15
',,----
MRS. PULVER-Well, we appreciate that.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. (8:13 p.m.)
SITE PLAN NO. 7-92 TYPE II IIR-lA JOAN M. ROHNE (liNER: JOAN M. ROHNE BAY PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POIIT,
LAICE GEORGE MINOR fl)DIFlCATION OF EXISTING U-SHAPED ROCK FIlLED CRIB AID BRIDGE DOCK; INSTALLATION
OF 16 FT. BY 32 FT. (II/SKIRT) OPEN SIlEO BOATHooSE. (WARREN CoolTY PLAINING) TAX MP NO. 9-1-34 LOT
SIZE: ± 1 ACRE SECTION 179.79 F, 197-16
JOHN MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:13 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 7-92, 2-25-92, Meeting Date: February 25, 1992
"The applicant intends to add a boathouse to an existing U-shaped dock. The plans do not specifically
identify the height of the structure. In order to assure that there is no misunderstanding, the Board
may want to get that dimension on the record. The Staff measured the proposed deck and found it to
be 718 sq. ft. Section 179-60 (pg. 18023) states that "no F, L, T or U-shaped dock surface area shall
exceed seven hundred (700) square feet." The Zoning Administrator has indicated that Mr. Mason was
contacted and that the structure will be in compliance. The Board should also get this on the record.
This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review: 1) The location and
arrangement of the proposed dock is presently partially existing. The size should be verified. 2)
Vehicular traffic access is not a concern. 3) Parking and loading are not a concern. 4) Pedestrian
circulation is not a concern. 5) Stormwater drainage is not a concern. 6) Water supply and sewage
disposal is not an issue. 7) Visual impacts should be discussed. This will be an opensided facility,
however, it may impact the neighbors view of the Lake. The structure does appear to be within 20 feet
of the neighbors property line as projected into the Lake. (pg. 18025) 8) Fire and emergency access
is not an issue 9) The applicant should adhere to the soil and erosion control standards if the lake
shore is to be effected."
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? We have Warren County Planning
Board minutes that approve the application.
MR. MASON-My name is John Mason, and I'm representing Mrs. Rohne. I think the easiest way to go through
her Staff Notes is piece by piece, each objection she has raised. The first one, regarding the height
of the boat house will be under 14 feet. It will be in compliance with the Town of Queensbury Ordinance,
as well as the Lake George Park Commission Ordinance, regarding flat roofed boat houses. Secondly,
regarding the measuring of the proposed dock, she found it to be 718 square feet. I went to the site
today, with Pat Crayford. We measured the dock. I have a diagram, here, that shows the dock to be
697 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is this diagram any different than what we have in our application?
MR. MASON-Well, actually, there is one difference. Out at the outer end of the dock. This measurement
right here is in error. It was a 9 foot 6, and that might be the difference.
MRS. PULVER-It was? What is it now?
MR. MARTIN-It's eight foot even, now. The nine foot measurement is to be eight foot even.
MR. CARTIER-That brings it under the 700 feet, correct?
MR. MASON-It is under 700, yes.
MRS. PULVER-So, it's just a dimension error, kind of a typo.
MR. MASON-I think the third is the comment about visual impacts. This boat house, if you stand at
the level of any of the houses along this property, you will look directly over the top of this boat
house. This is on a very steep bank, and, finally, the structure does appear to be within 20 feet
of the neighbors property line, as projected into the lake. It is not. No portion of either the new
dock construction, or the new boat house is within 20 feet of either property line, and that has been
verified by a survey I have here.
MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. We're getting stuff handed in to us, tonight, that hasn't gone through
Staff. Is that correct? You haven't seen this stuff yet?
MRS. YORK-The new drawing?
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MRS. YORK-No. I haven't.
16
'--
MRS. PULVER-Well, there isn't any new drawing. It was a dimension error. That's all.
MR. MASON-Yes. I've got a dimension error in one spot.
MRS. PULVER-Which you could call a typo.
MR. CARTIER-Well, what is this you're about to hand us, or show us?
MR. MASON-I don't need to hand you anything. I will tell you. Neither the new boat house, nor any
addition to this dock, is within 20 feet of the property line that's extended into the lake.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Can you submit something that will document that.
MR. MASON-Absolutely. I have a survey that was prepared. The Lake George Park Commission asked me
to prepare a survey. We contacted VanDusen and Steves, and I had that surveyed.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. MASON-And it shows that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. MASON-If you would like that survey.
MR. CARTIER-I think that should be part of the record.
MRS. PULVER-Well, yes. We're looking at this drawing that you, which shows that the dock is 20 feet.
MR. MARTIN-Well, having been there, it is difficult to see that.
MR. MASON-That's why the Park Commission asked me to have the survey prepared. Besides which, one
property owner encroaches, substantially, on this property, yes, 32 and a half feet.
MR. CARTIER-This is what this is referring to, here.
MR. MASON-Yes. That's already preexisting, to tell you the truth. It was just measured wrong.
MR. CARTIER-But that was the debate, whether this was closer than 20 feet to this line.
MR. MASON-Actually, I think it's still beyond 20 feet. It's 32 feet away.
MR. CARTIER-See, my problem, John, is I'm looking at two different diagrams. I'm looking at this one,
with this bend like this, and this is kicked this way.
MR. MASON-We're not changing that, though, I should mention this. That's already there.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I understand that, but this, notice the shoreline is straight, here. So, if you
use this, it's farther away, but if you use this one.
MR. MARTIN-The two diagrams don't really follow each other.
MR. CARTIER-The two diagrams don't jibe.
MR. MASON-Well, I'm not a surveyor.
MR. CARTIER-But this is what you're submitting to us.
MR. MASON-That's already there, though. I'm not changing that. That is there.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that.
MR. MASON-I'm not adding anything within 20 feet of the boat.
MR. CARTIER-I fully understand that. My question to you is, what is this distance from the extension
of this property line. That's Lee's question.
MR. BREWER-Is that in compliance, is what he's asking.
MR. MASON-I would have no idea about that, whether it's in compliance or not.
MR. CARTIER-See, I'm not talking this. I'm not talking this at all
17
'---
---
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-I'm talking this distance.
MRS. PULVER-In compliance with what? What does it have to be?
MR. LAURICELLA-Peter, enlighten us as to what you're doing.
MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry. On this diagram, if you extend the property line out into the water, what is
this distance? I wanted to just be sure it's in conformance. Now, if this is, in fact, 32.5, which
is what you're representing to us, I can assume that this is more than 20.
MR. MASON-You can assume that.
MRS. PULVER-But, Peter, that's alreaqy there.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that.
MR. MASON-The point I would make to you is, I don't know, and I don't know as it's even shown on that
survey. I'm not going to take the position that the dock, as it's currently configured, conforms to
the Ordinance. I'm not trying to take that position. Any of the additions we put on do conform to
the Ordinance.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I guess that's what mY question is. Why would we have to know that, since it's already
preexisting?
MR. CARTIER-Because I want to know it. I want to know if we're expanding something that's not in
conformance at present. Maybe we can answer it this way, John.
MR. MASON-An easier way's right here. The survey is exactly to scale.
MR. CARTIER-I can do it even better. How long is this, right here?
MR. MASON-The whole thing is 16 feet. You're over 20. I can tell you right now.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. MASON-That entire thing is 16 feet, from there to there. So, you certainly have over 20.
MR. CARTIER-All right. That answers mY question.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is for part of the record, then, with the application?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, that and the 700 square feet issue was the big hurdle. Is there going to be
any disturbance of the land along the shoreline, there?
MR. MASON-No, there isn't.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here from the
public to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COtIENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MARTIN-And this is a Type II, again. SO, SEQRA is not an issue. Is there any more comment from
the Board?
MR. LAURICELLA-Is he in violation there, or not?
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. CARTIER-It sure looked that way, when we were out there eye-balling it. It sure looked like it
was closer than 20 feet.
MR. MARTIN-It's very difficult to see, when you're out there, but the survey clearly shows that he's
in excess of the 20 feet, even with the extension that's existing. All right. Does anybody have
anything else? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on this application.
18
~
-
IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN NO. 7-92 JOAN M. ROHNE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For the modification of an existing U-shaped rock filled crib and bridge dock with the installation
of a 14 ft. by 32 ft. with skirt open sided boathouse, with the stipulation that it be built according
to the dimensions of the survey map submitted February 12th, 1992.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE (8:25 p.m.)
MR. MARTIN-I'd just like to bring something up for the Board's consideration, here, that maybe, in
the interest of the last applicant, here, that we maybe go to that. I think we clearly have a number
of people here for the Red Lobster, the General Mills Restaurant issue, and this last item is, in
comparison, minor, and I'd like to, in the interest of that applicant, maybe go to, so they don't have
to stay this extra long period. If the General Mills agent would not mind that delay?
MR. GORALSKI-No.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 8-92 TYPE II IIR-lA HARRY J. REITH (liNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROOTE 9L, 4TH CAMP ON LEFT
SIDE FROM OONHAMS BAY BOAT CO. (NAME ON TREE) ALTERATION OF SITTING PORCH AT CAMP. (WARREN coum
PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 4-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-79
DAVE MCWILLIAMS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT (8:25 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 8-92, Harry Reith, 2-25-92, Meeting Date:
February 25, 1992 "The application was not moved on at the Warren County Planning Board meeting because
it was not felt that there was sufficient information on the exact size of the deck and what changes
will be made to the porch. Since the Board has not, in the past, acted on applications which do not
have a County recommendation, the applicant should be requested to table until next month. The Board
may want to discuss their concerns with the appl icant at this time and hold the publ ic hearing. The
staff concerns revolve around the increase in permeable area in an area that is already heavily developed
and which is a CEA. The lot is ± 50 feet wide and ± 163 feet long. The applicant plans to extend
the porch by 6 feet and add a 14 x 32 deck. The deck will be 6 feet on the north from the property
line and ten feet on the south. The Zoning Administrator has stated that the lot has 67% permeability.
The Board is aware of the concerns about expanding along lakeshores and the impacts of storm water
runoff and visual pollution. The lot is also very steep. The applicant has a sitting porch and patio
at this time. Perhaps mitigation measures in the form of removal of impermeable surfacing and storm
water infiltration devices could be discussed."
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone here from the applicant?
MR. MCWILLIAMS-My name is Dave McWilliams. I'm the contractor for this, but he was supposed to show
up, and I don't have any of the paperwork.
MRS. YORK-Yes. I believe Mr. Reith was here earlier. I spoke with him. I know his understanding
was that he would be tabled, pending the outcome of the Warren County Board. Apparently, he went there
for his variance last month, and did not believe he had to go back again this month, for the site plan.
MR. MARTIN-I see in their notes, here, it says, "requires further information on the exact size of
the deck ¡¡nd what changes will be made to the porch". So, is he preparing that?
MRS. YORK-Yes. I have indicated to him that he needs to call the Staff at the County and find out
exactly what they want him to have there.
MR. CARTIER-Well, one of the things I would think, I know I'd like to see this Board have, is some
permeability numbers on the whole property, a before and after set, so we can do some comparing. I
know the permeability numbers have to be pretty high up there, and we seem to be decreasing permeability
somewhat, and I want to see those.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I'll furnish those numbers for you, but they were discussed at the variance hearing,
and they were sufficient. I gave a breakdown. It I S probably in the minutes, but I'll furnish them
for you.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you.
19
'--
--
MR. MARTIN-So, is he, then, going to attempt to go back to the County, then?
MRS. YORK-That is my understanding.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's probably why he's not here.
MR. MCWILLIAMS-Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Okay. Have you been authorized, in any way, to act as his agent on this?
MR. MCWILLIAMS-No. I haven't.
MR. CARTIER-We don't need permission. We've just got to act within, what, 45 days? We can table and
we have to act within 45 days. We can still table without permission.
MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. Then, that being the case, I'll entertain a motion to table, please.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PUI NO. 8-92 HARRY J. REITH, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For alteration of a sitting porch at camp, until such time as he has satisfied Warren County Planning
Board concerns.
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE (8:30 p.m.)
BREA K
PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P2-92 GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANT, INC. PROPERTY INVOLVED: COHlER OF
AVIATION ROI\D AND GREENWAY NORTH CURRENT ZONING: SFR-I0 PROPOSED ZOrtE: HC-lA FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A RED LOBSTER SEAFOOD RESTAURAIT. TAX IMP NO. 98-Z-1 TAX IMP NO. 98-3-1, 5 TO CONSOLIDATE THE
THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO TWO LOTS, ONE LOT OF 2.91 ACRES AID ONE OF 1.47 ACRES. TOTAL A.CREAGE OF PROJECT
AREA IS 4.377± ACRES. THE DEVELOPIEIT WILL CONSIST OF A 8,336 SIJIARE FOOT IIJILDING. UNDSCAPING, PARKING
FACILITIES, AND STORJIIATER IWIAGEMENT FACII.ITIES. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE)
JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:39 p.m.)
MRS. YORK-Okay. First, I want to make the Board aware that the application has been deemed incomplete
and removed from the agenda at Warren County. The Warren County Planning Board requests further
information, in that the traffic study be more thorough and up-to-date and requests more information
on the traffic on Aviation Road and how the residential uses will be protected from noise, odor, etc.
of the commercial use. The Warren County Planning Board did grant the Town Board lead agency status.
So, I want you to be aware that the County has requested further information. I also have a letter
from DOT that I'd be happy to read into the record.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, P2-92, General Mills Restaurant, Inc., 2-25-92, Meeting Date:
February 25, 1992 "The request is for a recommendation on a re-zoning from SFR-lO to HC-IA. The
property is on the corner of Aviation Road and Greenway North. The major issues regarding the re-zoning
appear to be the traffic impacts and the impacts on the residential neighborhood. The County Planning
Board has not moved on the request. It was felt that a comprehensive traffic study should be developed.
DOT is also requesting the same information. The Staff would recommend that the Planning Board review
a comprehensive traffic analysis which takes into account the buildout of the total property. The
study should also look at the impacts of this development as part of the cumulative traffic impacts
facing this section of the community. The Board is aware of the Level of Service at the southbound
entrance of 1-87 and at the Route 9 and 254 intersection. The neighborhood is located across from
Aviation Mall is an island of residential development which is surrounded by commercial uses. The
lots are small and the area is buffered by trees. The neighborhood is already dealing with "drive
through" traffic from Route 9 going to the mall. Any development in this area should keep the
residential interests in mind. The application was reviewed with regard to the Planning Board questions:
1) What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? There is no identified community
need that will be met by the proposed development. 2) What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated
need? Highway Commercial, Plaza Commercial, Light Industrial, Neighborhood Commercial. 3) How is
the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? a) The residential neighborhood is caught between
two major arterials which have spawned intense commercial development. The area was zoned Urban
20
"----'
~
Residential 10,000 sq. ft. prior to 1988. b) The three lots which are being considered were purchased
by the current owner at different dates. A portion of lot 98-2-1 (2.62 ac) was purchased from the
Town of Queensbury on 2-11-91 as a road abandonment (Seage Road). Lot 98-3-1, the lot with the house
was purchased on 10-17-86. The assessment records do not identify when the remaining parcels were
purchased. The area was zoned residential at the time of the purchase of the last two lots. c) The
development potential has increased because of the proximity to the major roadways and interchanges.
The zoning around the residential area is commercial to the east, west and south. This has led to
the increasing pressure for commercial development on these lots, and conversely led to the decrease
in the desirability of using the lots for residential purposes. The proposed development is compatible
with the other commercial uses but will conflict with the residential neighborhood. 4) What physical
characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The site is located off an interstate
highway and a major arterial. 5) How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? A traffic
impact study is necessary to determine this. 6) Why is the current zoning classification not
appropriate for the property in question? The applicant states that the property is unusable as zoned
and creates an economic hardship. 7) What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?
The traffic generated by the development will have to be analyzed as it relates to the environment.
8) How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master
Plan? This type of proposal is not discussed in the land use master plan. 9) How are the wider
interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The application states the benefits of jobs
created and increased sales tax are inherent in the development. The Board must weigh this against
the increase in traffic and possible neighborhood concerns and impacts." Do you want me to read the
letter from DOT?
MR. MARTIN-Certainly. Yes.
MRS. YORK-I sent this application to DOT for their review. "Dear Mrs. York: We offer the following
comments on the Red Lobster proposal as you requested. Since the applicant is proposing work in the
right of way of a NYS Route 254, a NYSDOT permit will be needed. The proposed action includes a
consolidation of three parcels into two parcels and re-zoning them from residential to commercial use.
Since traffic impacts are likely to result from this action, a traffic impact study will be required
as a part of the permit process. The traffic study should address potential impacts at the proposed
driveways and extended to the Northway ramps to the west and the 9/254 intersection to the east. I
have enclosed an outline of the NYSDOT's requirements for traffic impact studies. To begin the permit
process the applicant should contact Herbert F. Steffins NYSDOT Warren County Resident Engineer at
623-3511. As I am sure you are already aware, this development is located in an area of high traffic
volumes and growing traffic congestion. A 1990 traffic impact study for the Aviation Mall Expansion
predicted that the intersection of Rts 9 and 254 will be operating near capacity by 1992. In addition
to the Red Lobster proposal, we are aware of several nearby planned developments - the Aviation Mall
expansion, the Queensbury Factory Outlet expansion and the Mount Royal Shopping Center proposal - that
are likely to worsen traffic conditions in the near future. These developments are located close enough
to each other to produce cumulative impacts on the highway system, generating a greater need for
mitigation than an individual analysis of each project would indicate. The Glens Falls Transportation
Council is currentlY working on a study of these and other longer range transportation issues effecting
the Rte 254 corridor and is scheduled to make recommendations that will encompass both highway
improvements and possible land use regulation changes in the latter part of this year. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please call me at 473-0494.
Sincere ly, Ken Carl son, Senior Transportation Analyst"
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you, Lee.
MRS. YORK-There are some other letters that have been submitted.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MRS. YORK-Does someone else want to recitate?
MR. GORALSKI-This is not a public hearing, correct?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. GORALSKI-This simply a recommendation from the Board?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I would imagine the Board would be quite interested in knowing the feelings of
the public, and I know it's been past practice for us to accept such comments, prior to giving our
recommendation. So, I would have the Secretary read in the letter, please.
MRS. PULVER-This letter is dated February 17th, "Dear Mr. Brandt: On the 6th of February 1992, I became
aware of a drastic change to be made in my immediate neighborhood along the Aviation Road. The
information was passed on to me and my neighbors that a new restaurant as to be built opposite the
Aviation Mall, westerly of Birch Lane. This information came from a real estate agent, offering to
21
---
---
help me sell mY property. Under the circumstances, this might be a reasonable reaction after finding
out what is contemplated. I should like to offer a few comments to you and your committees concerning
this latest project. 1. After nearly seventy years of living at this location, it has become apparent
that most of the "improvements" here have had a less than positive effect on the quality of life for
the inhabitants. At the present time, we can smell hamburgers and French fries from three directions
and pizzas from another. With this new addition, the smell of fish and lobster will be borne to us
by the prevailing westerly wind. 2. One of the things we will miss most will be the patch of woods
just to the west of us which will have to be destroyed to make way for a restaurant and parking lot
to service it. This will require another couple of acres of black top with dust and run off problems,
as well as the racket of keeping same clear of snow in the winter and blown clean in the summer. If
you multiply this intrusion on the peace and quiet of a neighborhood by the number of parking lots
immediately adjacent, it makes for considerable noise all coming after hours for the businesses
concerned. These noise making operations must not interfere during business hours, nine to nine, so
must fall during evening hours or during the night, for the entertainment of the residential home owners.
3. As you may assume from the foregoing, I am not in favor of any more restaurants, any more parking
lots, any more traffic, any more noise, or any more questionable improvements. We are in need of more
eating places nearby almost as much as we need more malls or shopping complexes in this town. There
are empty spaces in already constructed facilities which would readily handle this expansion and at
the same time keep the "progress" located in areas already developed. 4. At the least, a buffer zone
of the present woods should be left to screen the transition between residential and commercial zones
and give us long time residents some consideration. 5. This is a rather unique situation where there
is an island of residences surrounded by commercial properties and very little consideration has been
given to promote a dignified existence for these people who, in some cases, predate any of the "progress"
in the last fifty years. In this day of controlled planning, I will ask that the Town Board give some
serious thought to letting the benefits of progress extend to all of its citizens or at least keep
conditions from deteriorating to the point of no return. 6. As a further observation made after several
years of touring around the country, I have noticed that any main exit from a super highway or interstate
road becomes a "strip", on which will be found most of the accommodations for travelers to dash off
the ramp and straight into a filling station, restaurant or mall to relieve whatever urge he has
developed while cruising the superhighway. That is exactly what has happened here with all the trappings
and logos, with the exception of some such as Perkins, Hardees, or some other chains which have not
yet arrived. 7. I sometimes wonder what C. V. Peters would say if he could see what has developed
on his lands, which he had tried to keep for residences only by imposing covenants and sanctions in
his deeds to protect against what has occurred. It is past history that later schemers bought out
the interests of those who had thought they could be protected by such contracts. So much for good
intentions. About all the survivors have left is to ask the Town Officials to try to temper the
destruction of the natural aspects of the neighborhood. Some remnants of the lost wooded area should
remain to take away the scorched earth appearances of acres of roadways, roofs and parking lots.
A strip of the existing woods left in place along the easterly side of the parcel would certainly enhance
the location and serve as a screen between two different types of land usage. Perhaps, eventually
this will be completely occupied by business, but while some of the "natives" remain, it would be nice
to feel that there is room enough for all. I would appreciate your forwarding this correspondence
to your appropriate committees and would welcome any comment you or they might have. Very truly yours,
Alfred J. Lanfear"
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Lee, do you have any ones, in addition to that?
MRS. YORK-There is, I bel ieve, another one attached. Dated 19 February 1992, "Dear Mr. Brandt: I
was sent a letter about two weeks ago from a local Real estate agency, about a national chain building
a Sea Food restaurant on the property just West of my home on Birch Lane. I believe that this is a
very poor location for such a restaurant, not just due to the fact that it would effect the quality
of life for all the inhabitants in this area, but it would multiply the intrusion of what little peace
and quiet that this neighborhood has now. This Town has many empty eating places, empty malls, and
empty shopping complexes an with all these empty spaces already constructed, I would think that this
expansion if it is needed at all could be located in areas already developed. If this cannot be
accomplished at least a buffer zone of the present woods should be left to screen this restaurant and
parking lot from the citizens that live here. I wonder what C.V. Peters who owned all this land would
say if he could see what has happened to his lands which he tried to keep for residences only by imposing
covenants and sanction in his deeds to protect against what has occurred along Aviation Road. So much
for the wishes of all the far sighted citizens that tried to protect these lands. The Town of Queensbury
in the last thirty years or so has seen the destruction of most of its natural aspects of many
neighborhoods and now only remnants of the many woods and green forests remain, to be replaced by acres
of roads, roofs, and parking lots, but maybe this is progress, but progress without planning. Very
truly yours, "Royce H. Boynton"
MR. MARTIN-Yes. That constitutes all the written comments from the public. Unlike other processes
which we go through, this really, the re-zoning request really has no format to it, for this Board,
but the one thing I would like the public to bear in mind is that we are only asked to make a
recommendation. The ultimate decision does lie with the Town Board, and we always forward on for their
review copies of minutes of this meeting, as they consider this, and this will be coming before them,
I'm sure, at some time in the near future. So, please bear that in mind, as you consider your comments,
and we will allow opportunity for all of you to be heard, but I'd like, at this time, and if the Board
22
-'
is in agreement, to hear from the applicant/agent, first, have them make their presentation before
us, and then, at that time, after that's completed, all of you will be brought up to speed, as will
we, and then we'll have opportunity for public comment at that time, but I would ask that the applicant,
now, step up and make his presentation.
MR. GORALSKI-Good evening. My name is John Goralski. I work for Richard E. Jones Associates, and
~e' re representing General Mi 11 s Restaurant. They own the Red Lobster Restaurant Chain. The proposal
ln front of the Town Board, currently, which you have been asked to make a recommendation on, is to
re-zone the property at the corner of Greenway North and Aviation Road from SFR-I0 to Highway Commercial
One Acre. The site in question is 4.3 acres. It is currently comprised of three lots. If all the
necessary approvals are received and the purchase of the property goes through, then Red Lobster proposes
to take those three lots and consol idate them into two lots and construct a Red Lobster Restaurant
on what would be the western most lot. That lot would be 2.91 acres. The remaining lot would be 1.47
acres.
MR. MARTIN-What were those numbers, again, on the lots?
MR. GORALSKI-2.91 would be the westerly lot.
MR. MARTIN-Okay, on which the restaurant would sit.
MR. GORALSKI-The restaurant would sit, and the remaining lot would be 1.47 acres.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you.
MR. GORALSKI-As I said, the property is currently zoned single family residential 10,000 square feet.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance states that Single Family Residential zones, are established
residential neighborhoods where the character is strictly single family detached residences on
standardized lots. The lots here are well in excess of 10,000 square feet in the neighborhood, and
certainly this property could not be characterized as strictly single family residential. The property
has been marketed, for several years, and they've found the current zoning, that there's really been
no interested parties. We are here for a re-zoning, and a recommendation to the Town Board on that
re-zoning. However, in the interest of keeping the SEQRA process going, we have explained what we
propose to do with the property. The lot to the east currently has no plan. The chances are very
good that the General Mills people will market that property, if they purchase it. The lot to the
west, as I said, is proposed to accommodate, the Red Lobster Restaurant would comprise about 8,300
square feet. They are proposing to provide 141 parking spaces for the restaurant, just the restaurant,
and are also maintaining a 50 foot buffer zone around the parcel. In this corner up here, which would
be the northeast corner, there's currently a house that would be demolished, and that whole property
would be re-planted with vegetation to create the buffer that is not currently there. There are
proposed, currently, to be two road cuts, one onto Greenway North and one onto Aviation Road. The
roadcut on Aviation Road would be a shared roadcut for the two lots, to minimize the impact of cars
turning from two separate driveways onto Aviation Road. The roadcut onto Greenway North was put there
to utilize the signal in front of the Aviation Mall parking lot, and to distribute the traffic more
evenly. We have spoken to New York State Department of Transportation, and as the letter indicated,
they have requested a traffic study. In our preliminary discussions with them, they liked the idea
of the shared driveway. They thought the idea of dispersing the traffic, and they were just interested
in getting a traffic study to more closely analyze the project. That traffic study is being produced
right now. When you look at the re-zoning, there are a lot of issues. Traffic, obviously, is one
issue. Another issue is the economic impact of this proposal, which is something, obviously, a Planning
Board or a Town Board should be looking for. Some of the impacts that this proposal will have, the
Red Lobster, alone, exclusive of the other site, will provide 80 to 90 permanent jobs. It will also
generate in excess, hopefully, if they're successful, generate in excess of $200,000 in additional
sales tax to the community. We have not made a computation of what the property tax revenues increase
will be, but you can be sure that they will be significant, compared to what is being collected now.
Probably the most significant impact that this project will have is the extension of the sewer line.
That's another request that we will be making of the Town Board, that they allow us to extend the Quaker
Road Sewer District to this property. At the owner's expense, or the applicant's expense, they will
extend the sewer line along Aviation Road, from the currently end, which would be Warren Tire, to service
both of these lots. The restaurant itself would produce, by the Queensbury Waste Water Department's
calculation sheet that they gave us, in excess of $24,000 a year in sewer rent. Given the fact that
the Queensbury Sewer District, the Queensbury Consolidated Quaker Road Sewer District, I believe it's
called, is having a rough time paying its way right now, additional commercial development paying into
that will alleviate the problems that the residential property owners in that area are currently
experiencing. Getting back to traffic for a minute. Just a couple of things I want to mention about
traffic. First of all, the peak hour that Red Lobster has experienced, in their 445 odd restaurants,
is lunch time during the week, and dinner time on the weekends. According to the study that was done
for the Aviation Mall, that is directly opposite what the peak hours are for Aviation Road. In other
words, on the week days, Aviation Road's peak hour is five to six o'clock, around dinner time, whereas
Red Lobster would be at noon time, and the reverse is true on the weekend. A couple of other things
that have come to light since we started looking at traffic, apparently, now, we're not sure, and I
think DOT would have to send someone out to look at this, it appears that the tripping mechanism on
23
'-
---
Greenway North, the loop wired through the road, is not functioning. So, if there's a problem getting
out of there now, the problem is because that mechanism is not functioning. That signal is not
functioning. So, that's something that should be looked at.
MR. CARTIER-Is that a State, like, the State owns it?
MR. GORALSKI-I believe it is now. Originally, the Mall operated it, but I think it's been turned over
to the State. So, getting back to the economics of it, what we're looking to do is put in a business
of, obviously, we're there to make money. We know there's going to be impacts and we're trying to
mitigate them. We're leaving the buffer zone. We are trying to disperse the traffic. If the Town
said, we don't want the roadcut on Greenway North, we would consider redesigning, but this property
really can't be used any other way. It's right on Aviation Road. The maximum that could be built
on there, under the current zoning, is 17 houses. Given a selling price, or market price, on that
property of close to a million dollars, with infrastructure and everything, you're talking $60,000
lots facing Aviation Mall. Basically, this property cannot be used as it's currently zoned. I'm not
sure, as you said, Mr. Martin, you don't really have a format for this, but if you'd like, I can go
through these questions you have on your Checklist and give you ~ answers to them.
MR. MARTIN-Anything wi 11 hel p, I suppose.
tries to address the questions in our minds.
Yes. That's an informal format that we've developed that
So, yes, please feel free.
MR. GORALSKI-"What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone?" We will be alleviating
the burden of sewer rent to the residential property owners in the sewer district. We will be creating
jobs that are badly needed in this area. It will be alleviating a residential tax burden, for property
tax, school tax, fire protection, that type of thing. We would be bringing in a national chain that
will attract tourists to the community and help all the businesses in the area.
MR. LAURICELLA-Is that unique to this site?
MR. GORALSKI-What is that?
MR. LAURICELLA-All those answers.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, they're directed to this site.
MR. GORALSKI-I would say, yes. They're directed to the proposal.
MR. LAURICELLA-No, I mean, there's no other site in the Town that would fit.
MR. GORALSKI-That would fit what?
MR. LAURICELLA-If you went to a different site, those answers would still apply, right?
MR. GORALSKI-Not necessarily.
MRS. PULVER-The sewer district might not apply.
MR. GORALSKI-The sewer district.
MR. LAURICELLA-That's the only one, though.
MR. GORALSKI-Possibly. I can say that the reason is attractive to a national chain is its proximity
to the exit to the Northway. I can't really think of where else that's possible. "What existing zones,
if any, can meet the stated need?" Well, we're proposing a Highway Commercial zone because that would
be extending the Highway Commercial zone from the Northway to this property, trying to avoid spot zoning.
The Plaza Commercial zone would also allow the Red Lobster's proposal. It would probably limit some
of the options on the other lot, and that also would not be spot zoning because you'd be going across
Aviation Road. Well, actually, that's not true because now they are an Enclosed Shopping Center.
MR. CARTIER-That's an ESC. That's an Enclosed.
MR. GORALSKI-So, that would be spot zoning also. Well, it could be considered spot zoning. Recreation
Commercial zone allows restaurants, but the purpose of the Recreational Commercial zone doesn't seem
to apply here. The Commercial Residential zone allows restaurants. However, once again, there's no
Commercial Residential zones in this area, and, finally, the Light Industrial zone which, obviously,
doesn't apply. Number Three, "How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones?" As I said,
this would be extending the Highway Commercial zone from the west onto this property, and, obviously,
there are many similar uses in the area. There is a residential zone behind that. However, we are
providing a buffer zone as required in the Ordinance. "What physical characteristics of the site are
suitable to the proposed zone?" The property fronts on a major arterial road. As a matter of fact,
it's probably the main entrance to the Town of Queensbury. It's certainly inappropriate for houses
right on Aviation Road. It's close to the interstate. The property is large enough to accommodate
24
'--
---
the commercial development while still providing the buffer zones necessary to protect the areas around
it. We have more than enough property in the Highway Commercial One Acre zone to provide plenty of
permeable area and buffer zone, and still do our proposed development, and, given that there's an acre
and a half on the other site, there's plenty of room there to maintain a buffer zone. "How will the
proposed zone affect public facilities?" It's our feeling that we have accommodated the turning
movements onto the site with the two roadcuts and the shared driveway onto Aviation Road. We're
attempting to minimize that problem. Obviously, there is a significant volume of traffic that moves
up and down Aviation Road. An 8,000 square foot restaurant, compared to a 300,000 square foot mall
or a 100,000 square foot addition to a mall is certainly not the same impact. Beyond that, though,
once again, the extension of the Sewer District and the money that would be generated from this site
towards the payment of Sewer District is certainly a major impact on public facilities. "Why is the
current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? As I said before, the
Single Family Residential zone, according to the Ordinance, is for exclusively residential areas.
This is certainly not exclusively residential. It's a major arterial with commercial property all
around it. Well, on three sides of it. "What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?"
There are no impacts on drainage. The sites are large enough to provide on-site retentions and
infiltration of stornwater. There's no potential for groundwater contamination, since we're going
into the sanitary sewer system, and we are maintaining a buffer zone around the property to minimize
the visual impacts. Let me skip to Number Nine, first. "How are the wider interests of the Community
being served by this proposal?" Once again, Sewer District, jobs, tax increase, attraction of tourists,
are all Community interests that are being served. Now, Number Eight, "How is the proposal compatible
with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan?" Now, I have a long list here.
I'll try to run through quickly, but to say that this proposal is not addressed, I don't think, is
correct. On Page 40 of the Land Use Plan, it says that one of the priorities for extending the Sewer
District is Aviation Road. Well, we're starting that extension now, by bringing it up to this property.
Obviously, residential sites, the only way to develop them, economically feasible, would be to put
on-site septic. On Page 26 and 28, they talk about limited defined access to commercial property should
be encouraged. That's what we're attempting to do, here, by sharing the driveway with these two lots.
On Page 29, they talk about creating larger lots to discourage strip development. A Highway Commercial
zone, and most of the properties going up north to the west of the Northway, allow for one acre lots.
These two lots are in excess of that. Page 34 tal ks about Neighborhood Number Five, which this area
is in. Neighborhood Number Five, the title is, The Commercial Center. I think this would be an
appropriate use in a commercial center. Page 39 talks about establishing buffer zones, which we are
proposing to do. Page 44 talks about the loss of employment in the Town limiting the residential
(END OF FIRST DISK)
25
"'---
-
capabilities of the Town. This project is proposing to create jobs, not eliminate them. Page 62 talks
about the Intrinsic Development Suitability of the site. This site has limited Development Suitability,
and needs design alternatives. That is the statement in the Land Use Plan. The alternative we're
proposing is to have only two lots and to extend the sewer to protect the aquifer, high perced soils,
and eliminate that border line sUitability, and Page 64 talks about land uses, and it talks about General
Commercial as one of the broad topics in land use, and under General Commercial, it tal ks about the
area encompassing the shopping malls, Quaker Road and Route 9, and I would say that this property is
within that area, and that's my brief list of the areas of the Land Use Plan, that I think apply to
this site and this project.
MR. MARTIN-And does that finish your presentation, for the moment?
MR. GORALSKI-For the moment. All right. I assume the Board, at this time, would like to hear from
members of the public. I imagine most of them are from the neighboring community. So, at this time,
I'd like to open the floor up. Yes, Mr. Schachner?
MARK SCHACHNER
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Martin, I'm here along with one of my colleagues, attorney Sandra Allen, and we
represent, as attorneys we represent the neighbors. I say that, there may be some that we don't
represent, but as far as I know, there are about 25 or 30 here and we represent that group opposed.
MR. MARTIN-I see.
MR. SCHACHNER-I wanted to really just point out, from the standpoint of procedure, I wanted to commend
and compliment the Planning Board for allowing, even though it's not required that this be a formal
public hearing, I wanted to commend the Planning Board for allowing the opportunity for the public
to have their input into the Planning Board's recommendation. We understand, and our clients understand,
that it's not up to you all, as the Planning Board, to make the ultimate decision, here, that it's,
in fact, up to the Town Board, but we really appreciate the opportunity to exercise the opportunity
for public input to you folks, knowing that we'll have that opportunity again at the Town Board level.
What I'd like to suggest, you've already agreed that we can hear from the members of the public, and
I'd like to suggest that we simply do that, and whatever basis you like, as informal as you would like,
and then my colleague, attorney Sandra Allen, I think, would like to summarize our position.
MR. MARTIN-Certainly. Okay. I would suggest a format very similar to a public hearing. Simply come
to the microphone and state your name and if you have any relevant comments regarding this application,
we'll be more than happy to listen.
JOHN HERZOG
MR. HERZOG-Good evening. My name is John Herzog. I live at 12 Greenwood Drive. The only objection
I have for the re-zoning at this time, especially I'm concerned about the traffic. As the drawing
indicates, and what I want to bring out, is from Greenway North, we have a stop sign coming out onto
Aviation Road. On the other side, on Carlton Drive, we also have a yield sign, and we already have
problems crossing Aviation Road. If any emergency ever existed, and if anybody ever took that road,
the Old Aviation Road, there are times that down from True Value, you wait in a line for people to
cross or to go into Aviation Road. In view of the stop sign on Greenway North, people coming out of
the development, there's no way that anybody can go into that traffic to come out. That's a big problem,
and that's why I'm against re-zoning at this time. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public?
WALT HAGEN
MR. HAGEN-Walt Hagen. I 1 ive just about above the 01 d Aviation Road, on 01 d Avi ation Road, 19. I'm
very concerned about the traffic, particularly that traffic which I understand is strictly illegal,
which runs up and down Old Aviation Road, and I'm part of it, because I hate to go out through Greenway
North and go through one of the worst intersections, at least traffic wise, in the world, but it
certainly will increase the traffic through McDonalds and by Kentucky Fried and so forth and so on.
So, I don't think the traffic has been thought out well enough for this thing, at all, and I don't
see any solution to that problem.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to comment?
BRAD PATCH
MR. PATCH-My name's Brad Patch. I live at 20 Greenway North. This proposed development would create
such a hardship on traffic. We already have people coming in our neighborhood and getting lost. They
don't know where they're going. We have tractor trailer trucks, bùses, anybody who's trying to beat
this light on Aviation Road and Greenway North. Now, they propose to exit people out onto a piece
of land, or a road, that holds five cars, tops. Now, can you see, and their proposal stated about
26
...--
115 units an hour going through that proposed strip, and all these cars coming out. Where are 115
cars going to go? How are they going to get out of there? They're going to end up coming through
our neighborhood, and we're going to have so much traffic in there. Right now it's kind of peaceful.
We get a stray car here and there, but now you're going to have more people coming into the neighborhood.
We're going to have to have a new road. We're going to have to have some more cops coming in there
so that people don't get lost anymore, and I just don't think changing the zoning at this particular
time is a good idea, without alleviating the problem of traffic on Aviation Road as it stands. If
you've ever come to that area during a peak hour, say between three and six o'clock. Try to get out
of those roads, Aviation Road and Greenway North, Aviation Road and Carlton Drive. It's almost
impossible. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DANIEL OLSON
MR. OLSON-My name is Daniel Olson. I live at 29 Carlton Drive. I'm here representing myself and my
wife this evening. I just want to reinforce and support what Brad just said. He's absolutely accurate.
The agent representing the developer made a statement that's kind of out of context, I think. I know
it is. The area in which you're talking about, the residential homes are not within a Sewer District.
They aren't served by a sewer. The sewer district on Quaker Road was always intended for the business
community, business area on Aviation Road. X number of dollars that is generated in sewer revenue
isn't going to help the residents who live adjoining this development, because they're not in a sewer
district.
MR. GORALSKI-I never said it was going to help them.
MR. OLSON-It was insinuated, I think, that it was going to be a benefit to the area. It's not going
to be a benefit to the area. It's going to be a benefit to the sewer district, but not to the adjoining
people. Could I go over to the map, please, and point out a couple of things?
MR. MARTIN-Certainly.
MR. OLSON-This particular area, here, of Greenway North, which has been talked about numerous times,
I just want to reinforce the fact that, if you've looked at this or had an engineer look at this, the
grade on this road, from this point here, up to here, is very steep, and an evening like tonight, when
it's sleeting out and a light freezing rain, many cars get stuck or slip, trying to get up to this
grade. They have to stop. The visibility's poor when you get to this section here, to say nothing
of the light. If you go over here, further, where Carlton Drive is, I know a lot of residents and
a lot of people that live in this whole complex. There are people that exit out of Carlton Drive.
They cannot make a left hand turn on Carlton to go east. To go east, they have to turn right and go
west, go to the Queensbury School or the area of Sokols, cross the Northway, make a turn, and come
back down to get down to do their business in here or maybe go to the Aviation Mall. The area is
supported by, and many of the residents that live on Old Aviation Road, Greenway North, Greenway Drive
area, Carlton Drive, June Drive area up here, from the Northway, and many of those people are semi
retired or retired people. They want a little peace and quiet, at this stage in life. Everyone does.
I think when you see the project, and you see another road, which means another project over here,
the whole concept of the project looks worse than what it really sounded like in the beginning, but
the traffic problems are bad here. If you remember a letter from DOT said that the expansion of Aviation
Mall, I don't believe that the Town of Queensbury gained anything from the expansion of Aviation Mall,
such as road conditions. You've got a four lane road, here, and a four lane road the other side of
the Northway, and you've got a two lane, two and a half lane bridge. That isn't good engineering,
when it comes to moving traffic. Something is drastically wrong there. The addition to the Aviation
Mall is going to generate an enormous amount of traffic. I have nothing against Red Lobster, but why
not go down the road further, where you have abandoned stores and an abandoned shopping center in this
area down in here, in the Queensbury Factory Outlet area, maybe recycle some of the existing empty
businesses that are there. I did want to talk about the traffic problems. I think they're terrible,
and I think the location is a poor location for this type of a commercial business. Thank you very
much for your time.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. I believe there was someone else?
DAVE MCEACHRON
MR. MCEACHRON-My name is Dave McEachron. I've been a property owner and tax payer in that area for
the last 20 years, and I'm very much opposed to Red Lobster coming in, and re-zoning that area. Red
Lobster could move into other parts of Queensbury. I'm very much in favor of that.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you.
PAMELA BOYNTON
27
"---
--.-"
MRS. BOYNTON-I'm Pamela Boynton. I live at 9 Birch Lane. We have lived there since 1963. My
grandparents built the house they're proposing to tear down, as well as the two across the road, as
well as the one on the corner. My aunt and uncle built the one in the middle, and we have the one
on the end. We moved in when McDonalds was a Mr. Peanut stand. So, we have seen Queensbury change
quite a lot. I will keep my traffic comments a little briefer. It's the same as everybody else's.
In our case, our location is different. As it is now, we get the people who don't want to fool with
the red light when they're cutting through illegally. They come down our road, floor it, and go down
through. This, to us, is going to get worse. If you have more traffic up there, we're going to have
more people cutting through. Also, there are children living there, and will be living there. They
have to walk up, because the buses will not stop, and they will be coming home, including the
kindergarten kids, at their peak lunch time hours. I'm not so sure that you realize, that, while there
are retirees, there are kids that are now going to be walking to that bus stop, right at that effected
area. I'm a bus driver. I look at that, while I'm going to college, and I kind of feel like we've
been cut off and abandoned. They're leaving a nice buffer zone on those sides. Most people on our
street have long been resigned, watching the way Queensbury's handled the growth, to having to have
something there. We can't keep our own nice little quiet background with nObody there for a long time.
We've accepted that, but they're cutting it off, and there's no guarantee there'll be a buffer zone
down by us. You're essentially, by approving this, isolating our street to where we're going to have
to go. We already have Kentucky Fried Chicken smells all summer long. I've been to Red Lobster, because
I do go to school in Albany. I have worked for North Colony School District for four years. I love
eating at Red Lobster's, but I've also gotten out in the parking lot, both winter and summer, and said,
that smells good. That's not something you want to live next to, though. Down there, they're a little
more separated from the houses. I went down and checked, this last week, just to check. I also checked
with some of the neighbors about their del ivery hours. They're not happy with them, or the dumpster
clearing hours. That you can't isolate it from those noises. We still get them from Aviation Mall
and from Warren Tire. You're, essentially, cutting us off, and it seems like, by allowing that to
go commercial, with that much of a business, you're just pushing the commercial zone in, and you're
going to push the residents farther and farther in, and we're concerned about this. Is this all going
to be black top forever? Are you going to have that major congestion there and push us out? So, those
are my concerns, the traffic, the kids, the cut through on our street. There's no guarantee, for us,
what's going to go in that buffer zone, and it's already cOl1ll1iercial, and you know they're going to
use that the next time they come through. Well it's already commercial on the one side. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else?
THELMA GILHEANY
MRS. GILHEANY-I'm Thelma Gilheany from 23 Old Aviation Road, speaking for my husband who's an invalid
and can't come tonight. We are very much against re-zoning of this piece of property. We have watched,
since 1952, he sits at the front window, sees the cars coming down, hoping we will have no accidents.
We have sort of a little joke between Mrs. Song across the street, and Frank, who's going to be the
first one to call 911. In the morning, the children come up and say, may we sit on your front porch.
We're afraid to wait for the school bus. We have them come and sit there. We enjoy them. They are
lovely. I do hope you will not allow this happen to us. We love our homes.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else? Anyone else at all, before we get to the summary? Okay.
Well, then, I think the summary will summarize.
SANDRA ALLEN
MS. ALLEN-Hi. I'm Sandy Allen from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt. Obviously, we're here, tonight,
representing the opponents to the re-zoning. We have circulated petitions, or I should say, the
opponents have circulated petitions. I was not involved in the actual getting the signatures. We
already have over 150 signatures in opposition to this re-zoning. Approximately 80 of the signatures
are from the immediate homeowners. This new proposal is going to allow for at least two new co~ercial
establishments, and I believe that the basic concern is that this is going to have a significant adverse
impact, due to the close proximity of the project, in relevance to this close knit, residential
community. I went back and I researched what I call the 1988 overhaul of the Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance. This area was considered in both the public cOl1ll1ients and by the Planning Commission. Minutes
from the July 11, 1988 Commission meeting specifically state, this area will be recolllrended to change
to Single Family Residential 10 to protect the single family uses in this area. This includes this
portion of the property we're discussing tonight. It was originally Urban Residential. There has
been no significant change in the neighborhood since 1988. Therefore, we should let the Co~ission's
recommendations stand. Also, obviously, the big consideration tonight is traffic. The Queensbury
Master Plan specifically references a traffic problem in the neighborhood, due to McDonalds and the
Mall, and the drive through traffic. The problem is worse than ever. Neighbors bel ieve that this
is one of the worst intersections in the County, and that there are regular accidents occurring at
this site, and I have to just speak from personal experience. I have seen at least two accidents at
the site, and I don't live anywhere near there and I try to avoid Aviation Mall. So, it probably truly
is happening. Warren County, the New York State DOT, and the Queensbury Planning Department have found
that the appl icant I s traffic study is inadequate, and it is. It only discusses Aviation Road, without
any detail, and it doesn't discuss, at all, the traffic occurring back on Greenway North and Old Aviation
Road, nor does it talk
28
''--
-'
about the buildout of the entire property. If the entrance to Aviation Road through Greenway North
gets blocked off, you're going to have backed up cars which will go through the neighborhood because
they can't make a left out of that entrance onto Greenway North and they'll be going back through our
favorite McDonalds exit, or out onto Carlton and on Birch. The project would cause more traffic.
As we know, there's a 140 car parking lot. You've got to expect traffic with that. These are serious
safety issues to not only the neighbors, but also the patrons of the restaurant. In fact, we might
suggest that there might need to be an Environmental Impact Study done regarding this issue. Aesthetic
concerns, we're talking about a neighborhood with relatively small yards, small front yards, small
back yards. They're going to be overlooking, at least off of Aviation Road and Birch Lane, from the
front yards on Aviation Road, the back yards on Birch Lane, they're going to be looking at a 140 car
parking lot with dumpsters. The setbacks of 50 feet, while they are what's required in the Ordinance
for a commercial zone, are just not adequate in this situation. Next issue about aesthetics is the
concern about odor. The Environmental Assessment Form that the applicant presented says that there
will be no odor. I don't know. I worked at a fish restaurant for a summer. I never came home without
an odor, and if you don't believe me, Mr. Patch now lives close to Long John Silver's and he has an
odor problem, continuously, through the year. This is currently a nice treed lot, mature trees. When
you enter Queensbury, you see the nice big sign, "Entering Queensbury" and then you see that one row
of trees. It seem that this property could be developed in some manner which would allow a considerable
amount of the trees to remain, and would allow that the fish odor would not be permeating the
neighborhood. The applicant states, in their application, that the reason that they have to do this
type of development is because the property is worth one million dollars. Clearly, the property is
only worth one million dollars if it's used in a comwercial manner. It's not worth one million dollars,
and that should not be the basis price for our consideration tonight. Also, they suggest that the
community benefit is jobs, but they don't speak about how many full time jobs, nor do they speak about
how many jobs are going to be above minimum wage. In conclusion, I have to agree with Mrs. York in
her comments for tonight, there is no identified cormr:unity need that will be met by the proposed
development. Unfortunately, considerable adverse impact on an established, viable neighborhood will
be the result of this re-zoning. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think that will wrap up the public comwents, and I think that's a fairly nice
summary. I think the Board has a pretty good grasp on the neighborhood concerns. I think it would
only be fair, though, that we allow, I don't know if you want to call it a rebuttal, but at least an
opportunity for the appl icant to address some of the concerns expressed, and then I think after that's
done, the Board can discuss this and we can come to some sort of consensus, or end result here. So,
please, Mr. Goralski.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay. A couple of things, most of the issues that people brought up, the odor, children
walking along Greenway North.
MR. MARTIN-Old Aviation Road.
MR. GORALSKI-All right. Fine. Children walking around the entire site. The grade on Greenway North,
as it approaches Aviation Road, the odor of this specific restaurant, which, you know, I really don't
think we should be blamed for Long John Silver's odor. Once again, Red Lobster owns over 400
restaurants. In California there are requirements for air filters that filter odors from exhaust fans.
Those mechanisms are available. As far as looking at the parking lot and the aesthetics of that, once
again, it's a site plan issue, as far as the buffers or fences or screening is concerned. So, a lot
of these issues are site plan review issues, okay, that can be addressed at site plan review. I would
like to state that I know that the Greenway North neighborhood is not in the sewer district. However,
the cost to a sewer district is a significant problem for the entire Town of Queensbury, and that's
the issue that I was addressing. In closing, I guess what I'd like to say is that it seems to me that
the major issue regarding the re-zoning is the traffic issue, and we are prepared to present a traffic
study to the Town Board and to DOT, and I woul d request that any recomendation you make to the Town
Board tonight include a requirement that we satisfy those traffic issues, prior to anything going
further. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Mr. Schachner, do you have anything to add, lastly?
MR. SCHACHNER-Just one brief comwent, and that is, we all have to be careful. We do, representing
the neighborhood folks, and I think you, as a Planning Board, to a degree where, of course, we are
talking about Red Lobster, but to an important degree we're not, and I think that's very important,
and it's also, I think at least, for me, very hard to keep in mind. Re-zoning is serious business.
It's different than a variance, where it is specific to a particular applicant and their particular
use, and I think that's very important. I think, to that extent, you all, I'm sure, appreciate the
importance of your role. Although you're not the deciders, the recomwendation is important, and I
guess I just wanted to point out that, at least from our perspective, we think re-zoning is a serious
business, and that most of what we've heard from the applicant, even if it were all true, relates,
really, specifically, to the Red Lobster business, which is understandable, but that we have a real
serious and I think, at least in my experience in Queensbury, somewhat unique situation where there
is this residential neighborhood enclave that would really be detrimentally impacted by re-zoning to
comrrercial, whether we're talking about Red Lobster or some other commercial entity, and, again, the
re-zoning is from residential to commercial, which is sort of a quantum leap, as opposed to from Single
29
"--- ---"
Family Residential One, to Three, to Five, or within cOlllllercial zones. It's sort of a ~uantum leap.
So, it seems like a pretty significant step, and that's our position.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, the hour is past. We have to come to grips with this. So, what I'd like
to do is sort of have an open discussion, here, amongst ourselves, and then maybe I'll just go right
down the road, here, for final impressions as to what we do with this, as we go on to the Town Board
with a recommendation to deny, approve, or neither one.
MRS. YORK-The Board may want to wait for the traffic study to make a recommendation.
MR. MARTIN-Right. So, where would you like to being? Who would like to lead us off, here?
MR. LAURICELLA-One question I have, that was brought up by one of the neighbors, the shopping center,
at the intersection of Aviation Road and Route 9, there is a shopping center there that has quite a
bit of open space, was that considered, at all, in your study?
MR. GORALSKI-The Red Lobster people have been trying to locate in the Town of Queensbury for well over
a year. That particular property, it is my understanding, has very serious ownership problems, and
they have spoken to the representatives there, but there is no 1 ight at the end of the tunnel, as far
as locating there.
MR. CARTIER-Has Red Lobster Corporation come in and tal ked to the Planning Department or anybody in
the Town government about locating some place and finding some place to locate?
MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is that the Red Lobster people spoke to the Planning Department, the
Zoning Administrator, and the Building and Codes people.
MRS. YORK-I didn't speak to anyone. I can't say for the other individuals.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, which goes to your question, I think, why this particular piece of property?
MR. LAURICELLA-Right, when there are other pieces that.
MR. CARTIER-That are already zoned Plaza Commercial or Highway Commercial?
MR. GORALSKI-Well, first of all, we are here stating to you, and I think I stated my reasons, that
we believe this property should be zoned commercial.
MR. CARTIER-I have no argument with that, John. I can see it. My point is, if this piece of property
were not in close proximity to residences, and if we didn't have the traffic problems we have here,
this would be a piece of cake for us. So, the question becomes, how do we mitigate, if at all, if
we can, the concerns raised by the neighborhood, the concerns raised by traffic, and that's what I'm
trying to get at.
MR. GORALSKI-I'm not a traffic expert, okay.
MR. CARTIER-I understand that.
MR. GORALSKI-And the Department of Transportation, apparently, has experts, and they have asked us
to present a traffic study to them, which we will do, and certainly accept their review. As far as,
why this site, the proximity to the Northway, the proximity to the Aviation Mall, the proximity to
the commercial center of the Town of Queensbury are all reasons that attracted them to this site.
MR. CARTIER-Which, unfortunately, ignores the proximity to the residential area, and that's unfortunate.
MR. GORALSKI-I guess the point 1'm making is that, during site plan review process, the Red Lobster
people want to be very sensitive to that, and provide the buffer zones, and, like I say, we provided
two roadcuts because we thought that's what you'd want to see. If you only want to see the one on
Aviation Road, maybe that's something we can look into. I don't know. What I'm saying is, this is
prime commercial location. As far as the site plan issues are concerned, we are certainly willing
to work with the Board to alleviate those problems.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I have a lot of questions in my head, and I don't, by any means, intend to put you
on the defensive. I'm just raising questions that I think, somewhere down the line, for me to be able
to vote one way or another on this thing, I've got to get some answers, too, and I don't expect you
to come up with them tonight. I'm just trying to toss some questions out to you.
30
---
MR. GORALSKI-I think the question of, why don't they go to another site, I guess because they think
this is an excellent site.
MR. CARTIER-And I suppose if I were involved with Red Lobster Corporation, somehow, I would see it,
too, as an excellent business property, but there are some other concerns, here, too, and that's what
we've got to get a handle on, is how are we going to address these, and Mr. Schachner's comments about
the fact that we have to be more than just site specific in thinking about this, in terms of re-zoning,
is entirely appropriate, too, but I'm glad, at least we know, have ~ idea what's going on this site.
That helps. So, for me, I'm just talking for me, the question becomes, do I know enough tonight about
how the neighborhood concerns are going to get mitigated, how the traffic concerns are going to get
mitigated, and those are very much intermixed, to be able for me, personally, to make a recommendation
to the Town Board as to, one way or another, which way to go, and in thinking about it, for me, my
answer's no, simply because I don't have enough information. About the only thing I can do, and this
is the fence sitting position, I think, is come up, in my own head, with a list of things that the
Town Board needs to concern themselves with, or get answers to, in making their decision. I'm glad
you mentioned Plaza Commercial, because in going down the list of uses in both of these zones, and
I look at Highway Commercial and I think, and this addresses Mr. Schachner's comment, I find things
in there like gasoline station, drive-in theatre, amusement center, golf driving range, miniature golf
course, recreational facility operated for profit. I don't find those appropriate in this little chunk,
this little four acre piece, but if we re-zone that Highway Commercial, that's, in a sense, what we
would, potentially, be allowing.
MR. BREWER-I think he stated, though, that it's contingent upon them getting the approvals to put the
Red Lobster there. So, we could stipulate that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes. I would feel comfortable with that, stipulating that either it goes to Plaza
Commercial or they consider Plaza Commercial or that they limit the kinds of things that can go into
that HC-l Acre zone.
MR. GORALSKI-I don't think that the Red Lobster people, within reason, would have an objection to that.
MR. CARTIER-Good. I don't really care, to be honest with you, if they object to that or not.
know. I'm still thinking.
don't
MR. LAURICELLA-The one thing, whether we've got the traffic study or not, there's a curve in that road,
and it is difficult enough coming up that road, without adding a restaurant with traffic coming out
of it. If you come up that very often, as I do, it's not a good road to come up with any traffic at
all coming out of there.
MR. GORALSKI-The location of that roadcut onto Aviation Road is the one we're talking about, right?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. LAURICELLA-Right.
MR. MARTIN-It's kind of blind, there. When we were there to visit, we got out of the car and tried
to look and approximately at the location of the driveway the site distances are blind.
MR. GORALSKI-Currently, the trees come out past the property line, here. If the trees are cut back
to the property line, there will be site distance that meets the DOT regulations for a roadway with
that speed and those lanes and that configuration.
MRS. PULVER-My only concern, and the Town Board makes the ultimate decision, is that the residents,
and I'm trying to remember if there are other residents on the other side of Birch Lane, or does it
go right into Warren Tire?
MR. GORALSKI-There are residents on both sides.
MR. PULVER-There is residents? Okay. There is residents on both sides, is that zoning that corner
property, Commercial, Plaza Commercial, Highway Commercial, whatever, kind of sets the residents off,
as being like an island in the middle.
MRS. BOYNTON-It cuts us off. It abandons us.
MRS. PULVER-Well, it cuts you off, but, again, like I say, the Town Board has the ultimate decision.
If it were to be re-zoned, you people will have a tremendous problem, hardship, trying to sell your
homes. It almost would seem that the whole thing would need to be re-zoned whatever the zoning is.
Otherwise, they're going to be coming in looking for variances for gas stations.
MRS. BOYNTON-If I could just say one thing, this is what the real estate person who was trying to contact
us, and nobody told us, you might as well move, they're going to cut you're only sound barrier. You
might as well sell for what you can get now, so it can go commercial, and we don't want to go.
31
---
--'
MR. GORALSKI-Can I ask who that real estate agent is?
MRS. BOYNTON-I'd have to go look at the letter.
MR. LAPOINT-I guess I know what I don't want to happen, and I wouldn't want to see a traffic study
have to come back before us, before we make our recommendation. I don't need to see the obvious, that
it would create more of a traffic hardship in this area. So, I want to make sure that whatever we
do, we finish up and get whatever recommendation to the Board, tonight, and not have this come back
in this format, to us, at a future date.
MR. CARTIER-You don't need to see?
MR. LAPOINT-I don't need a traffic study to tell me what I already know.
MR. CARTIER-No. I know that, but suppose the traffic study also included mitigation of the property.
You don't need to see that?
MR. LAPOINT-There's nothing to mitigate what a restaurant would do, here. Again, it's obvious there's
going to be an increase in traffic and everything else just confuses the issue, to me. That's the
only thing. I don't think we should go through this entire thing all over again, just because we have
a traffic study that probably none of us will agree on the conclusions of anyway. I know that'll happen.
MR. BREWER-I would like to know if, they say they have no idea what they want to put in the other lot?
MR. GORALSKI-The Red Lobster people don't have any plan for that lot, right now.
MR. BREWER-They just anticipate selling it?
MR. GORALSKI-Most likely, yes. I mean, I can tell you that they don't want to see another restaurant
go there, but that's about it.
MR. BREWER-There's nothing they can do about it, if it does. I agree with Pete. I don't feel
comfortable making a recommendation, only because, I think we should give the Town Board a list of
things to consider when they do make their decision, I guess.
MR. GORALSKI-That..!! a recommendation.
MR. CARTIER-But it's not a recommendation to approve or disapprove.
MR. BREWER-Well, it's not a recommendation, well, it is a recommendation.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I would agree that we pass along. I mean, we don't have to be in favor or not.
We can pass along our, I mean, that's what I would tend to do is sit on the fence, and they're going
to have to review this with the same level of detail, regardless of our recommendation.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. LAPOINT-So, it's more important that we just get them the facts, as we know them, the minutes of
this meeting, all the paperwork we have in front of us, and let it go from there. I just don't want
to see it come back to us, that's all.
MR. CARTIER-Except for site plan.
MR. LAPOINT-Except for site plan. Yes.
MR. BREWER-I think the traffic study, like Ed said, is just going to tell us that the traffic's terrible
there.
MR. LAURICELLA-And we already know that.
MR. BREWER-And we all know that, in this room, but what is going to mitigate it?
MR. LAPOINT-Would it take us off the fence and approve it, or would it take us off the fence and say,
absolutely not? I mean, if you think the traffic study would do that, then it is worth coming back
in front of us, but I don't think it will.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only thing I can think of is if the traffic study came back and said, essentially,
that there's nothing here that has to be mitigated. I would tend to not recommend approval of a
re-zoning. Something's got to be done here. I don't know what it is, but something has to be done.
32
~
----
MRS. PULVER-The traffic study's going to come back and say, the bridge needs to be made four lanes,
and that's the problem of the State and we all know the State doesn't have any money, so it's never
going to be made into four lanes.
MR. BREWER-And the State also said that 149 and 9 is not a real major problem to them, either.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm going to make an attempt to summarize, here, and, please, anybody jump in and
tell me I'm crazy, or whatever. John, you've got a real tough road ahead, here. There's no doubt
about that. I would tend to agree with the outlook that, you know, this is obvious, to me anyhow,
that there's nothing that can be brought to the table that is going to make this much better. I came
in here thinking maybe some real creative measures, like re-opening Old Aviation Road onto Route 9
and establishing that as a through street, and things like that, maybe would help you out, and not
have any access on Aviation Road, but from what I'm hearing from the neighboring residents, that would
be even more of a disaster. So, I think you've got a real landlocked piece of property here, from
a development standpoint, of a commercial property, and I would propose, and maybe this is a 1 ittle
bit unorthodox or out of the ordinary, but maybe it's time we start doing things like this. Whoever
the powers that be with this General Mills Restaurant, Inc., I would be happy to sit down with them,
as I'm sure members of the Town would, and the Supervisor, and lets look through the parcels of property
in the Town and see what can be done to put these people in a building that's vacant and already properly
zoned. I'm sure they have money available to them or resources available to them to retrofit or renovate
a building. We certainly have enough vacant in the Town, and I'd bend over backwards to help them
find a site, because I think it is a wonderful chain. It would be a credit to the restaurant industry
in the Town. That's my feeling, and I mean that in all earnest, and I don't know if that carries any
weight or how much power you have with your client, but I think that's a real viable alternative, and
I think, of all the commercial areas in this Town, something could be found.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. There are always options. There are always options, okay, and I don't think we're
locked into this one particular site, or I certainly hope Red Lobster isn't locked in.
MR. MARTIN-So, that's my feeling, and I don't know if we're coming to a consensus, here, if the Board's
ready to hand down a recommendation. I think, certainly, if the Town Board has got, we've got the
easy out on this one, so to speak. We're only recommending. They have to come to grips with this,
and they certainly know, many of the members are here present. They certainly know traffic is an issue,
and study and all that, but I hope they heard my suggestion, in earnest anyhow, that try and get this
into a building that already properly zoned and it's already existing and vacant, and I don't care
what the ownership problems are, or whatever, but that can cleared up, because those problems are minor,
compared to the problems of with site.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I think there is going to be a problem with that piece of property, as it exists
right now, in the current zoning, and my recommendation to the Town Board would be to look at that
property and the properties on both sides of Birch Lane, and maybe discuss with the neighbors are-zoning
of that whole section, something everyone can live with, because there's going to be a problem with
that piece of property as being residential. I mean, the residents, I don't blame them. I don't want
fish. My daughter worked at Stan's Seafood, and I don't want the smell of fish.
MR. CARTIER-There is another option to all of that, and when you run into a situation where the Town
prevents an owner of a piece of property from doing something appropriate with it, maybe the Town needs
to consider purchasing it, and it becoming Town buffer.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's what this process is meant to serve, you know, every property owner
has his say, what he wants to do with his property, and that's what we're trying to serve here, and
I've got the idea in my mind, I think a recommendation ~ be made.
MRS. PULVER-I just want to make one comment, to that gentleman's statement, that if it is going to
be re-zoned, don't you want to be in on the re-zoning? Otherwise, now it would be a real hardship
on your property.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I feel firm, in my mind, in terms of a recommendation. I'd accept a motion.
MR. CARTIER-Can we just kick around some things we want to include in the motion?
MR. MARTIN-Sure. Lets have a discussion.
MR. CARTIER-I've been trying to summarize stuff. We might want to include in the motion that they
consider looking for a more appropriate piece of property, if that's what you're talking about.
MR. MARTIN-And meeting with Town Officials, Planning Department, Supervisors, the Ward Representative.
Whatever it takes to meet their needs.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
33
'--'
",-,,'
MR. LAPOINT-Just on that. I think that what Jim stated a moment ago hit that nail right on the head.
If we made a motion just to incorporate the minutes of this meeting, everybody, including the applicant,
is served. Again, if we try to craft this too much, we're not going to get an agreement.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, and I don't think that we should be telling them that they should be looking for other
sites. I'm not sure that's our job.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we can tell the Town Board that.
MR. LAPOINT-Well, if they go over the minutes, that's what I'm saying, they see what weight that was
given in the discussion. I mean, we could make it just as simple as these minutes, and, again, to
me, it's fair to everybody. The applicant's had his say. The people against it have had their say.
We have all had our comments, and to leave any of it out, or to somewhat massage it.
MR. CARTIER-But I think it's appropriate to boil it down to a motion.
MR. LAPOINT-True.
MR. CARTIER-So, that they don't have to plow through voluminous amounts of minutes.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, why doesn't somebody take a shot at crafting this.
MR. CARTIER-Well, okay. This is stuff that's coming out of my head. Feel free to shoot it down or
amend.
1IJ1I0I TO RECOMMEND TO THE T(IßI BOARD. WITH REGARD TO THE RE-ZONING AND THE PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF
ZONE PZ-92 GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANT, INC., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by
Number One, aid the Corporation in looking for a more appropriate piece of property in Town. Failing
that, Number Two, consider either, A. re-zoning the property as Plaza Commercial rather than Highway
Commercial, or B. If it is zoned, re-zoned Highway Commercial, consider 1 imiting the uses that can
be applied in that particular zone. Three, consider requiring the applicant to increase the buffer
zone from 50 to 100 feet. Four, require the appl icant to establ ish a service road with a stacking
lane. Five, require the applicant to apply active odor control measures, not only to the restaurant,
but to dumpster areas. Six, require that the applicant provide a traffic study along with mitigation
measures.
MR. MARTIN-How do people feel about those points?
MRS. PULVER-That's good, and I still think, consider re-zoning both sides of Birch Lane, also
incorporating that into whatever zone they do. I mean, otherwise, you've got Warren Tire, and then
the street.
MR. MARTIN-We don't have a motion, yet.
MR. LAPOINT-No. Again, if we get specific about Plaza Commercial and Highway Commercial, you're not
going to get an agreement or talking about buffering, for me. To me, I think we're being a bit over
specific.
MR. MARTIN-I think those six points, raised in the context of the minutes, are sufficient.
MR. CARTIER-I'll withdraw the motion.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. They're all valid, and I think each one of them would come out in the minutes, but
it certainly would be my recommendation that it be re-zoned Plaza Commercial.
MR. MARTIN-And I think, fortunately, we have a majority of the Board here, and I think they're commended
for coming, too. I want to say that much, too. It's good that they witness this thing first hand.
So, I think they have in their minds, by seeing this, what the concerns of the community are and what
concerns we've raised here. I would simply like to see a motion not to recommend re-zoning.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll withdraw my motion. Does somebody else want to make another motion?
MR. MARTIN-So, has anybody got a motion, here, to take us one way or the other on this?
MR. LAPOINT-Again, that, to me, is too decisive. I think that it's their decision, and I would rather
just serve as a fact finding input to them, and what we have as an opinion is too diverse, I think,
across the Board, to say yes or no, unless somebody else, I'm not ready to make a motion not to recommend
the re-zoning. If somebody else is, feel free. I mean, I'm not going to go that committal, that I
would vote no on that recommendation, but that's neither here nor there.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we don't have a consensus.
34
',-
-
MR. BREWER-Make a motion and let the chips fall where they may.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MOTION THAT THE PLAJlI1IIIG BOARD RECOJIEIID TO THE T(I N BOARD THAT THEY COIISIDER ALL THE MIfllTES OF THIS
MEETING AND THE APPLICAIT'S COIIEITS, THE COIIEITS OF THE OPPOSITION. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT
THEY SHOOLD RE-ZONE THIS PROPEm, AIm THE PLAIINING BOARD HAS NO OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.,
Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by
MR. LAPOINT-That's my motion. If nobody accepts it, it just dies.
MR. MARTIN-Mr. Schachner, I'll accept a question.
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I was just wondering what purpose it would serve to simply be a conduit of the
information, in light of our assurance, and we will make this assurance, that the Town Board will receive
every single bit of information from the neighborhood, that you all have received. I bet, but I don't
know, that the applicant would also represent that the Town Board will receive every bit of information
that you all have received from the applicant. So, my question is just, I'm not sure what purpose
it serves? I don't have an objection, I just wonder what purpose it serves?
MR. LAPOINT-Which is why we went through all this, when it's clearly their decision. I know they're
looking for a Planning recommendation from us.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I think we owe it to the Town Board to give them some sort of direction on this,
as the Planning entity of the Town, so to speak. We owe it to them, I mean, we often times complain
that they don't listen to us, and that they look by us, well, here we are. Now, lets deliver, here.
MOTION TO RECOIIEND TO THE TCIIII BOARD DENIAL OF PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF l(IΠP2-92 GEIlERAL MILLS
RESTAURANT. INC., Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella:
Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
NOES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver
MR. BREWER-That's just our recommendation. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what they're going
to do.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I, again, stress that. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Martin, Chairman
35