Loading...
1992-03-24 '............. "'"'" () / ~EENSBURY PLAINING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGUlAR MEETING MARCH 24TH, 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 15-1991 FINAL STAGE Clearview Estates Ronald and Mary Susan Raynor 1. Subdivision No. 4-1992 SKETCH PLAN Guido Passarelli 2. Petition For a Change of Zone PI-92 F.T. and E.P. Collins 21. Freshwater Wetlands Permit FWI-92 Floyd and Margaret Batease 34. Site Plan No. 12-92 James W. Hunt; Frank L. Sears d/b/a Tree Care by Stan Hunt 35. Subdivision No. 5-1992 Sherman Pines Owner: Charles Diehl 38. 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. "............. --- ~EENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24TH, 1992 7:03 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER CORINNE TARANA EDWARD LAPOINT TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES LAURICELLA SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 21st, 1992: NONE IIJTION TO APPROVE THE MIflJTES OF JAflJARY 21ST, 1992, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Tarana January 28th, 1992: NONE IIJTION TO APPROVE THE MIflJTES OF JANUARY 28TH, 1992, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella: Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana OLD IIJSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA CLEARVIEII ESTATES RONALD AND MARY SUSAN RAYNOR (JINER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEARVIEII LANE, OFF OF HAVIlAND ROAD FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.51, 6.1 LOT SIZE: 5.6 ± ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MELANIE FUERST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:03 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 15-1991, Clearview Estates - Ronald & Mary Susan Raynor, 3-13-92, Meeting Date: March 24, 1992 "There are no outstanding issues on this subdivision." MRS. YORK-What I did was discuss the changes with Ms. Fuerst, and suggested that she just bring a plan, put it up, show you that the changes have been made. MR. LAPOINT-These changes are relative to our motion? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-From the Preliminary Stage. MR. LAPOINT-I couldn't remember the motion. So, I just want to make sure of something. MR. CARTIER-I think the only thing was the well location. 1 MS. FUERST-Right. MR. LAURICELLA-There was a question on the strip of land along the road, that that was their problem, right, it wasn't our problem. MS. FUERST-The only change that needed to be made was in a well quantity standpoint, and that was to move this well, still maintaining the 100 foot separation for Department of Health rules, but giving the Purton property a little bit more room. So, it now scales 95 feet from the existing Purton well, and before it was only 35 feet away. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAURICELLA-Regarding that strip, Melanie, did you deed that out to the owner? MS. FUERST-The two 10 foot strips of property are in the process of being deeded out. This strip, here, to the Freibergers. This strip here to this owner up here at the north. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. believe we closed the public hearing on this, right Lee? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right. So that was all taken care of. The SEQRA was done at Preliminary, so with a motion from the Preliminary approval being acted upon by the appl icant, I think we're ready to accept a motion on this, if there's no other discussion. Okay. Does somebody have a motion? IIJTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 CLEARVIEW ESTATES RONALD AND MARY SUSAN RAYNOR, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella: For a 4 lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MS. FUERST-And I have the mylars with me. When do I bring them for signing from the Chairman? MR. MARTIN-You have to bring those to the Planning Office, and they can process those through. There may be some fees involved or something like that. MS. FUERST-Okay. So I just take care of it with Lee, then? MR. MARTIN-Right, and then she'll give me a call and I come by the building at least twice a day. MS. FUERST-Okay. Thank you very much, Board. MR. MARTIN-You're welcome. (7:08 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 SKETCH PLAN TYPE I MR-5 GUIDO PASSARELLI CllNER: SAlE AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD. OPPOSITE WALKER lANE TO SUBDIVIDE 81.86 ACRES OF LAND. PHASE I CONSISTS OF 65 RESIDEITIAL LOTS IN PHASE I AND 76 RESIDEITIAL UNITS IN PHASE II. FOORTEEN COIIERCIAL LOTS WILL BE DEVELOPED ON BAY ROAD. A TOTAL OF 155 LOTS ARE ANTICIPATED. TAX MAP NO. 60-1-4 LOT SIZE: 81.86 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:08 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 4-1992, Guido Passarelli, March 11, 1992, Meeting Date: March 24, 1992 "The Planning Board recommended a change from duplex development to single family residential last month. The staff has some concerns about this. There are 13 zones dedicated specifically to residential use in Queensbury. These zones comprise a majority of the Town. There are 5 areas in Town designated MR-5. They are; 1) on Luzerne Road at the States Avenues and eastward in an area that is very dense and substantially built out, 2) off of Rudley Drive where high density apartments are located, 3) off of Weeks Road where Robert Gardens is, 4) on Glenwood Avenue where Westwood Development is located and, 5) the Bay Road corridor. The Bay Road MR-5 zone is the only area that has substantial amounts of open land. The other MR-5 zones were designated such because of existing densities. Taking a large amount of acreage in the only residential zone out of 13 in the Town which specifically does not allow for single family residential, and dedicating the parcel to single family residential does not seem logical. This area of the community was zoned MR-5 because of the availability of sewer and 2 -- water services, the highway capacity, the proximity to the conmercial hub of the community and the college, and the desire to create a conmunity center. Page 38 and 39 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan details the goals and strategies related to putting higher density housing in this specific area. The highest density allowed for single family residential is UR-I0 where 1 principal building is allowed for every 10,000 square feet. The proposal before the Board is for single family residential units on 8,000 square feet. What appears to be happening is the creation of a new zone. The applicant's agent has stated that they will seek a Use Variance once the Planning Board gives conceptual approval. It has previously been the Boards position not to give approvals when a variance is required. The staff realizes that the applicant wants some assurances prior to a variance request, however, this may be setting a precedent. Also, the Board should review the criteria for a Use Variance which is listed below with the applicant. B. Use variances. A variance to allow a use within a district other than a use allowable as a penlissible use or site plan review use EY be granted only in the event that all of the following circu.stances are specifically found to exist by the Zoning Board of Appeals. and are each so stated in the Board's findings. and no such variance shall be valid unless all of the following circUIIStances are so found: 1) That the strict application of said use provisions of this chapter would result in a specified unnecessary hardship to the applicant ...ich: a) Arises because of exceptional or extraordinary c1rcUIIStances applying to the property and not applying generally to other properties in the SaE district; and b) Results frœ lot size or shape. legally existing prior to the elate of this chapter. or topography or other circUIIStances over ...ich the applicant has had no control. 2) That the property in question cannot yield a reasonable financial return if used for any penlissible use or site plan review use applicable to the zoning district in ...ich the property is located. 3) That the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the SaE as owners of other property in the SaE district posses without such a variance. 4) That the variance wuld not be _terially detrillental to the purposes of this chapter or to property in the district in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the description or purpose of the district or objectives of any plan or policy of the town, and that the variance requested is the .ini.u. variance ...ich would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship fOund by the ZOning Board of Appeals to affect the applicant. It appears that the applicant desires a change in housing type to accommodate the current housing market focus. After reviewing the criteria for a use variance, it also appears that this may not be the appropriate vehicle to accomplish this since a hardship situation will be difficult to prove. If the Board and applicant believe that single family residential units are the best use for this land then perhaps a change of zone should be applied for. Changing the use on approximately 70 acres seems to be more in line with a zone change because of the magnitude and issues involved. The staff agrees with the Board that that the plan presented for construction of duplexes should be modified and an alternative should be presented. We are all aware that the market for townhouses in this area is not great. This may be due to the fact that the townhouse developments have been aimed at middle to upper income groups. There is also a desire to have a traditional single family home. In other areas of the country, however, townhouses provide a step into the housing market for young people and a low maintenance retirement home. The applicant purchased the property on January 1, 1989. The MR-5 zoning on this property made it very valuable and that value has not diminished. As planners for the Town, we have to look at providing for all the desired uses in the Town. If multifamily units are no longer viable then a zoning change should be considered. The staff recommends that an alternative option of a clustering design be developed rather than a traditional layout. This would preserve more open area and perhaps provide more buffering for the subdivisions in the area. The applicant may want to mix housing types because of the lax market. The phasing should be limited to the amount allowed by code to protect both the applicant and the Town in a slow market. The Board may want to allow for greater infrastructure development if that is the reason for the request for the phasing waiver. As time passes and market conditions change, the applicant will be able to more easily modify unbuilt phases. The Board should also request the density calculation for a standard subdivision described in the regulations. This may help in defining whether a cluster design is more appropriate. " MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have the pages from the Master Plan that Lee highlighted in her notes, and then we have Tom's comments, if you could read those. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, March 20, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following comments: 1. According to Zoning (179-60B.) activities requiring vegetation removal (including stormwater management facilities) within 35 feet of a stream or wetlands is prohibited. 2. Stormwater management:· facilities should be located sUfficiently upland from areas subject to flooding to prevent loss of trapped sediments and pollutants. 3. The feasibility of lots proposed adjacent to the stream should be demonstrated with preliminary design based upon projected floodplain, culvert hydraulics, and the criteria of Town Code Chapter 91, Flood Damage Prevention. 4. All intersecting streets need to be laid out to intersect at 900 angles. Intersecting streets should maintain this 900 relationship for a distance of at least 100 feet in all directions (AI83-23I.(3)(a»). 5. A tangent of at least 50 feet is required between reverse curves (AI83-23I.(1)(b». 6. Ownership of the undeveloped areas within the parcel should be clarified on the plan." MR. MARTIN-And we have a memorandum from Dave Hatin. MRS. YORK-This is from David Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement, to Planning Board, dated March 6, 1992 "I have reviewed the proposed drainage layout for Guido Passarelli's Subdivision between 3 --- --- Bay Road and Meadowbrook Road and have noticed that the proposed drainage areas are shown to drain towards the Wetlands area in relation to the stream in the Wetlands. I would just like to point out that I currently have this situation in the Cedar Court Subdivision where drainage was allowed to be established in this manner and during the periods between late fall and early spring when frost is in the ground, the runoff does not percolate through the soils and runs across the top of the soils to the stream discharging silt from the road therefore mudding stream and mudding the adjacent pond associated with this stream. I feel that the drainage for this project should also be looked at by the Town Engineer so that this problem could hopefully be eliminated. Your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated." MR. MARTIN-This is from the Department of Wastewater, Mike Shaw, to Lee York, Senior Planner, March 5, 1992. MRS. PULVER-lOIn reviewing these revised plans I have noticed two separate areas with back yard sewer easements. Because of the problems we have with existing back yard easements, the plan should be changed so that these easements would not be required. If the main pump station was moved from its present location to LoU 117 the easements on lots 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, and 115 would not be needed. The easement on lots 2, 3, and 4 could be done away with if lots 1 and 2 were omitted from the plans. This would save the developer approximately 400' of sewer main, two (2) manholes, 400' of water main and a brook crossing. These are only suggestions, but I do believe that the town should not get involved in this kind of easements. It also should be noticed that this subdivision is not in any sewer district. We should know if Mr. Passarelli is planning to be a contract customer or a district extension. In any case, we are working on a formula which would require a onetime buy-in fee to the Quaker Road Sewer District for service. If you have any questions on this matter, please call me at my office. Thank you." And we have a letter from a concerned group of citizens, to Town Planning Board, March 18, 1992 "Dear Sirs, As concerned citizens whose properties are adjacent to the proposed development, we the residents of Bayberry Drive and Bayberry Court, known as Brookview Acres, would like to express our concerns about the project listed above. The project in question is the old farm which lies between our development and the Bay Meadows Golf Course. The following is a list of concerns the neighborhood has and we would like to have them addressed: 1. At the the last town meeting, held on 3/3/92, the majority of those in attendance were left with the impression that the Town Planning Board may not require an Environmental Impact Statement for a project of this magnitude which contains significant amounts of designated wetland areas. It has come to our attention through conversations with the Dept. of Environmental Conservation's Fresh Water Regulatory Agency that an expansion is being proposed for the existing wetlands. While wetlands are a major concern, Environmental Impact Statements address many other areas which need to be reviewed for a project of this size. Our collective opinion is that the Town Planning Board should give very serious consideration to requiring this document. 2. Attached you will find a copy of Lee York's "Note To File", dated 3/11/92, in regards to this project. In this document, Mrs. York stated that the Use Variance the applicant will be seeking is normally not granted for the reasons outlined in her letter. We are in agreement with Mrs. York that this potential precedent setting action will result in compromising the Town Planning Board's position on future projects of equal or lesser magnitude. 3. The proposal before the Town Board requesting approval for 8,000 sq. ft. lot sizes for single family residential units represents an overutilization for the requirements mandated under MR-5 zoning regulations. As a concerned neighborhood, we feel that 20,000 sq. ft. should be the minimum lot size. The lots in our subdivision are at least this square footage and the utilization of smaller lots will only reduce our property values. If lots of this size will not be considered, then we are in agreement with Mrs. York's staff's recommendation of developing a cluster design similar to the plan which was presented to the town a few years ago. 4. A project of this density will, in all probability, generate a significant amount of school age children. We are aware that the Queensbury school system is already coping with capacity issues. The introduction of more children to the school system will only exacerbate this issue. This is a social issue which is one of the areas to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement. 5. The generation of traffic is another major concern. We, as residents, experience significant difficulty in exiting our development onto Bay Road with the current level of traffic. The developer's agent stated the traffic from the site would move predominantly south towards Glens Falls. While this may be the case, any generation of traffic would only create additional difficulties for residential and commercial properties along Bay Road. This added traffic potential may require consideration for a traffic signal at the entrance to the proposed development. 6. In keeping with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, any proposed commercial development should reflect the high level of architectural design currently in existence for the professional offices located along the west side of Bay Road. The idea of another Quaker Plaza does not sit well with the members of our neighborhood. 7. The Town Planning Board should pay close attention to the parking requirements for each proposed commercial building. 8. Mrs. York's letter stated that the Town Planning Board should give due consideration for a density calculation for a standard subdivision. This was requested to help delineate whether a cluster design is the appropriate use for the property in question. As a concerned community, we are in agreement. 9. A goal of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan states provisions for screening and buffering new commercial properties to enhance and preserve adjoining areas. The current plan shows minimal plantings along Bay Road where the new commercial properties are to be located. This raises a question as to whether the intent of this goal is being met. 10. Has the Beautification Committee made any specific recommendations in regards to plantings around the proposed residences and/or commercial buildings? 11. Will the Town Planning Board allow exterior sheds to be placed on individual properties and if so, what size will they be and what setback requirements must they adhere to? Our development has restrictive covenants prohibiting the utilization of exterior sheds which 4 ---_._.~-~-~~~-~~~-~~- keeps our neighborhood at its current level of high standards. 12. There has been no mention as to the particular type of architecture being considered for the residential dwellings. Are there going to be one or two car garages, one or two story homes, and what type of exterior finish is being planned? 13. As concerned tax payers who have been paying significant amounts of school and property taxes, the development of this property with anything other than properties of equal value will only reduce the values of our existing homes. Since the development is legally zoned to put in houses of lesser value, the concept of 10 foot setbacks and the realization that two to three homes can be built on the same amount of land as one of our homes only serves to further degrade our property values. If this project goes forward, we feel the adjacent properties should be adequately buffered with appropriate screening, i.e.. buffering, of adequate size and quantity. Please keep in mind, there can never be enough physical buffering to compensate for our loss in property values. As such, all of the property owners will in all likelihood seek reassessment. In closing, please believe we are not against having the property developed. We are trying to preserve the present value of both our property and all properties affected by this project. Yours truly, Members of Brookview Acres" MR. MARTIN-Okay. If you would like to begin to respond to the comments. MR. NACE-Okay. I'm not going to take each comment in turn, or we'll be here all night. Let me deal, in a broad brush, with the basic issue at hand, which is the density, land use, and the type of development proposed. Originally, we came in with a plan that you see on the bottom, which was for, I believe, 129 duplex units. That would result in 258 housing units on the land. The land is approximately 82 acres, of which we are allocating the front portion, or about 14 acres, to commercial. If we were to come in under the zoning, the present zoning, with a cluster development, put in townhouses, apartment buildings, whatever, we could develop the back portion of that with a total of 515 units, after deducting for the infrastructure, road right-of-ways, easements, etc. MR. MARTIN-And undevelopable land? MR. NACE-Undevelopable land is not taken into account in your clustering criteria. That's one of the criteria that says you should consider, if you want to reach maximum density for the use permitted, that you should, if you have over 25 percent wetlands I think it is, you should consider clustering, but 515 units is a lot for that piece of land to support, and we're not proposing that. We never even came close to starting to propose that. What we have come back at you with. MRS. PULVER-Tom, could I interrupt you for a minute. Would you just tell me, again, how many was in the first plan, 200? MR. NACE-The first plan was 129 duplexes, or 258 housing units. MRS. PULVER-Okay, 258, that's what I have. Thank you. MR. NACE-After our discussions at the previous meeting, we came to an agreement, we thought, with the Board and with the Planning Department, that it would make much less intense use of the land to develop it as single family. The owner of the land would really prefer that, because that's where the housing market is right now, and that we would come back for a proposal for single family housing units, which would have a minimum, not an average, not an overall area of 8,000 per lot, but a minimum of 8,000 per lot. In fact, we now have 141 single family, okay, whereas before we had 129 lots at an average of about 11,500 square feet per lot. Now we have 141, so the average is probably still above 10,000, and there are very few lots, if you look through it, I haven't counted the number, there are very few that are even close the minimum of 8,000. So, we're still really above 10,000 square foot per lot, on the average, and we are proposing 141 single family units, as opposed to what your zoning would permit, of 515, in a cluster development. I think if I were a neighbor of this piece of land, my perspective would be that I'd certainly much rather see individual lots there, developed with only 141, than to see large, three or four story apartment houses with 515. So, that's where we're coming from on the basic issue of land use and zoning. The Planning Department has, in one breath, recommended re-zoning, after last meeting, concurring with the idea that it could be, the problem of the single family proposal on MR-5 zoning could be handled by a use variance. Now, in one breath they're proposing a re-zoning, and in the next breath they're proposing mixed use, which is not permitted under single family zoning. So, we think the best alternative is what we've proposed, to come in with Phase I as single family units, that we're proposing. If we wanted to, we could still take one or two of those lots and put duplexes on them. It would still be permitted under the zoning, but, moreover, in the second phase, if the mixed use desires of the Town were stronger, and the market was stronger in duplexes, we could come back at Phase II with duplexes, pretty much on the same lots we have, because we'd still have the minimum 10,000 square feet required for a duplex unit. So, that's our feeling, and what we probably ought to do is first get past the issue of land use and zoning before we go any further. MR. MARTIN-I would agree that that is the central issue, here, is what we're going to do, in terms of the single family and multi family, and if you're looking at a variance, here, or a re-zoning, or you want to phase this for single family first and possibly allow multi family or duplex there after. I think, conceptually, that has to be worked out, that concept, before we get into the more technical remarks, here, from the engineer and the Building and Code Enforcement Officer. These comments from them could change substantially, depending upon the configuration of this subdivision. 5 -- MR. NACE-Agreed. MR. MARTIN-So, I think we've got to get the concepts worked out, here, and that's why we're at Sketch Plan. So, I think we have a lot of people from the public here tonight who are neighbors to this project, and it's been our practice, in the past, they've been good enough to come, to hear their concerns even now, while we're still at this conceptual stage. So, is there anything anybody has burning on their mind? I was going to open this up and get their comments now. MRS. YORK-If I could just interject, when you were here last time, Mr. Nace, what I said was you would probably need a use variance, and I suggested very heavily, a couple of times, that you come in and go through their criteria, because even at that point, I didn't feel that this particular site, or a project, might make that criteria, okay. I wasn't really saying this was a good idea or a bad idea. I just wanted to go over the criteria with you. After reviewing that, and giving it to the Board for everyone's review, I still believe it might be difficult for you to meet that criteria. That's all I wanted to say. MR. NACE-Point well taken. MR. CARTIER-Now that I think about this, too, it seems to me maybe, given the size of the parcel, here, re-zoning is much more appropriate than a variance. To me, variance issues deal with relatively small issues, and I think this is beyond the variance approach. I am somewhat sensitive to your problem, here, because. MR. NACE-I don't disagree with you, but that does go, what we're trying to do is to work within, sort of between, what your Land Use Pl an says, and I can understand that there I s so much 1 and set as i de for multi family and no more. We're trying to work within that, within the neighbors concern that they want a nice looking development adjacent to them, without real high density, and the present market conditions, which are favoring single family housing, and we're trying to fit somewhere in between there. We don't want to be caught in the middle with nowhere to go. MR. MARTIN-I guess, at the same time, you want to leave your options open in the future, in the ideal situation. MR. NACE-It seems to me, from what I hear the Planning Department saying, and having heard the Board express last time, is that the more flexible we can be, for the future phases, the better off we are, both from a developer's standpoint and the Town's standpoint. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd like to hear from some members of the public. I would just remind you that this is going to also be noticed to you as a formal public hearing at Preliminary Stage. We're only at Sketch Plan now. This is conceptual. This could change greatly. So, you're going to be noticed again, or you will be noticed, and you will have an opportunity to comment formally, in a formal public hearing. So, that being the case, I'd just like you to, if there's anything new that you could bring forward, that's not in this letter from the community, please come forward and make your comments. I think it is noteworthy that if we do go to single family, we're going to substantially reduce the density, here, and the number of actual units available, which would lower the traffic concern, and maybe that is something worth discussing. MIKE HUTSENPELLA MR. HUTSENPELLA-My name is Mike Hutsenpella. I live at 20 Bayberry Drive. DOUG COON MR. COON-Doug Coon, 32 Bayberry. MR. HUTSENPELLA-My concerns in this letter, and I just want to clarify a certain point, is the idea of cluster housing, as I recall the last meeting or some time just recently in the past, I saw a print that showed a cluster housing development for the previous owners that, to me, looked fairly reasonable. There's lots of green space, lots of open area, in the sense it wasn't nearly as dense as this project that is proposed, and I think as a neighborhood we are all in agreement that something like that, that wouldn't have as much space utilization as this does, would reflect better, not only from our community, but also in keeping with the Land Use Plans of the Town where it talks about openness and preservation of beauty and things of this nature. MR. MARTIN-Even if that, such a plan of cluster design of multi plex buildings needing four, eight, two units per building, in a cluster development, and ultimately resulting in a higher population within that parcel, or a higher number of units, even if that was the case? MR. HUTSENPELLA-Well, I think, again, looking at the plan, the plan didn't really delineate what those buildings were. It looked like two family town homes, something of this nature, and they were fairly well spread out. So, I think that's really where we're coming from. MRS. PULVER-Can I ask you, where did you see, this was this particular site? 6 --- -- MR. HUTSENPELLA-This was this particular site. MRS. PULVER-And it wasn't? MR. COON-No. This was the former owners, the Schutz/DelSignore site. We had looked at that, originally, and that seemed a touch more in line with what would be, it had our development in mind, lets put it that way. Right now, the way things are set up here, it's probably true, I believe it is true, that the square footage is a higher average, but right along our property line, our southern line, they're 8,000 square foot per, and there really isn't any buffer. It's a row of hedges. That's the difference between the one planned and the other, right along that line, and it's like looking out your back yard and you're going to see two houses within the confines of your lot, and with 10 foot setback requirements. They're not set up that way, but they could be. None of us here felt that that land would stay open forever, but we certainly would like to see it more consistent and compatible with our neighborhood, and I think that's where we're coming from, and I know most of it's within the present zoning, and that's what bothers us, really, because it l! within the present zoning, but still it's not compatible and the Master Plan keeps talking, all the way through it, about, it says, loss of rural character and open space are the most important aesthetic issues facing residents. It talks about density, and that should be increased only after you've got water and sewer in place, and it talks about quality of life, maintaining rural and open space, aesthetic qualities, all the way through, in all the sections, and that's what we're looking for. I do have a question on the sewer, because I'm not, I'd like to know if there's a sewer there, if there's one proposed, has there been an agreement to hook in with the one, possibly, Mr. Bowen has, I'd like to know that as well. MR. MARTIN-I believe that was the intention. Mr. Nace can certainly. MR. NACE-Yes. The sewer, we have talked to the Town and worked out a lot of the details already, and it would be proposed that we would connect to the sewer that's already in Meadowbrook Road. As to Mike Shaw's question, while we're on the issue, we would probably propose to form an extension to the existing sewer district, and that would be done at the developer's expense. One other issue that came up with the previous development plans, I don't have them right in front of me, but I believe the overall number of units proposed in that was very close to 300, okay, they were in lots of, I believe, four and six plexes, predominantly, with a few two plexes in it, but the overall number was about, just a little bit less than 300 housing units. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. See, I think the question's got to be resolved, here, do you want to maintain the character, and in what fashion? Is character single family homes that exist, and keeping that character with new single family homes, or do you want to keep more of a character of green space with multi plex buildings or multi unit buildings that allow for more open space but a higher number of units overall on the property? To me, character is, if there's single family homes there, now, and you want to maintain that character, then you want to maintain the single family homes. MRS. PULVER-Within the zoning that's already in place. MR. MARTIN-But the zoning doesn't allow for that. The MR-5 zone for this doesn't even allow single family, and that's why the need for the use variance. MR. LAURICELLA-Or a zone change. MR. MARTIN-Or a zone change. MR. LAPOINT-These drawings can be deceiving at times. If it's true there was almost 300 units in something that looked better on paper, you're looking at about half as many units, here, but with 300 you're going to have twice as many people, twice as many cars. Again, the paper is deceiving. You may have seen one third as many units that looked bigger, on bigger lots, but to me, in my mind, I certainly would want less people overall. MR. COON-I think we do. It's just, we're looking for the single family residences. MR. MARTIN-I want to try and identify what your principal concern is. MR. COON-We're looking for single family, but, with it zoned that way, it's not an allowable use without a variance. So, we would prefer the single family residences. We'd want the lots that are somewhat close to ours. We're looking at 18 to 20,000 square feet in our development. We've been there for 25 years. You people have the power to assist, and that's what we're hoping that you would do, and that's what you're trying to do right now. I know, and the way it's set up, there's no real buffer. There's no green space there. It's just one house, row of corn style, right after the other, 8,000 square foot, right on our line, and I don't believe any of you would like to see that either, and it's not that we're saying, don't develop it. Develop it. Develop it nicely. Develop it in accordance with what's there, but don't drop a monkey wrench in the middle of a nice area. That's all we're saying. We'd like to see it single family residences. We'd like to see them closer. A lot could be done with that, that whole piece of property, but it should be done nicely, and that's where we're coming from, really. 7 -- MRS. PULVER-Yes, but you've got to come up with some good compromises. The developer has gone from, potentially, 515 units to 141 single family. So, he has come down quite a bit from the original density. Now, that's on about, will average 10,000 square foot lots. You want them to go to 20,000 square foot lots, cut that in half again. MR. COON-Well, that's where we're at. mean, a fifth of an acre. MRS. PULVER-But he's allowed 515 units. MR. COON-I understand that, and I think that's where the real problem lies. I mean, a fifth of an acre. We're sitting on almost half acre lots, and now something is going to come in, a fifth of an acre. It's 80 feet across. MRS. PULVER-Well, the power to change that lies within the Town Board, not within this Board. MR. COON-I know, but you people met first tonight, so we had to talk with you. MR. CARTIER-But I think we should be sensitive to the neighborhood concerns, here, and there's certainly nothing to prevent this Board from requiring some buffering between those half acres lots, and whatever transpires here. That's certainly within our power to do, okay. What I'm saying to you, I guess, is I hear you. I hear what you're saying, because I'm sitting here looking at a zoning map. I was one of the people involved in putting this thing together, and one of the things I look at now, and I realize I think we probably should have taken a look at, is we have MR-5 zones, 5,000 square foot lot sizes, bordering one acre zones, and somehow we should have transitioned that a little bit better with UR-I0 or something in there. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm going to throw out a very unpopular question. Is there any way that we can reduce the number of single family? I want to at least have asked the question. MR. NACE-Okay. That's why I got up. The overall problem with reducing to, say a 20,000 square foot lot, which would reduce our number of lots to approximately 70, say, is that the infrastructure cost involved in this project, okay, is astronomical, to put in water, sewer, roads. When their subdivision was developed, there was no Town water there. You could not put that subdivision that they have in, right now, and get the septic systems approved. It would be impossible. They would be all fill systems. The Health Department probably would just say, forget it. If they're all fill systems, we don't want to see it. So, we realize that on this piece of land, we have to put in municipal services. Those costs dictate what you can do. If you go too large with the lot, it's just not feasible. If we go back, and within the existing zoning, we come back with a proposal for multi family residences, and that's really all we can do. We're not playing hard ball. It's just the economics of the situation. MRS. YORK-I have a comment, if I could. You're allowed professional offices, within 1,000 feet of Bay Road. Have you considered more professional offices, potentially, back to within 1,000 feet? MR. NACE-No. We have not, for a specific purpose. We feel that if there's residential land here, there needs to be some buffering between the residential and the offices, and that brook that's in there right now provides, and the buffer that's built into the Town requirements for setbacks along the brook, creates that buffer, and helps us establish a separation of the two types of development, and we think that's good planning. MRS. YORK-It is, but also, the reason I brought it up was because professional offices and residential uses usually don't compete. I mean, when the people are there, the professional offices are closed, and vice versa, and it kind of works out. MR. NACE-Maybe. wouldn't want to live next door to an office building. The other issue brought up about buffering, we're certainly happy to do what we can, but realize that your Code does not even make any hint at buffering between different residential zones. MR. CARTIER-There is no requirement, however, we have to be sensitive. MR. NACE-Yes, I realize, and I said, we will certainly do everything we can. MR. MARTIN-In my mind, I would feel, we're definitely looking at a compromise situation, here, from all parties involved, and in my mind, that would be one of the compromises that I hope to develop, or would offer, would be to meet that, some sort of planted buffering that would be more acceptable to the neighbors than just an open back yard between neighborhoods. MR. LAPOINT-If I look at residential lots 15 through 31, you've got kind of an odd-ball configuration up in the northeast corner, and just throwing out concepts here, if there is any way that you could fix that area so you had bigger lots along that lane. You've got some open space, some dead space at the end of that cul-de-sac, and maybe, and I'm just throwing out ideas, that if you drop one or two of those and re-configure it a bit, then that woul d approach the character, and I'm not saying to match the size of the people along your northern property. It's just those 15 or 16 lots, minus two or three. 8 --- MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think there's some things that can be done, here to meet the concerns of the neighborhood, such as an adjustment like that, or an adjustment in the design. MR. NACE-That could certainly be done. Some of these lots are already, around the cul-de-sac, in the neighborhood of 12 to 15,000 square feet. So, we would be talking, primarily, of these lots in here. Now, the subdivision to the north, I think backs from about here, somewhere in the middle of this row of houses on back, not up in here, but I agree, we could probably do something with that, in addition to some screen plantings. MR. CARTIER-Well, we're still back to the issue, however, of a variance or re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-And as Peter and I were just discussing, even in the context of a re-zoning, with the available districts in the Ordinance, even if you go to like UR-I0, you're still looking at a variance on your undersized lots. So, there's no way you're going to get away from a variance proceeding on this. MR. NACE-And I would still come back to the issue that, instead of re-zoning, a variance on the existing zoning would allow more flexibility in the future, for everybody involved. MR. BREWER-Really, he'd have to get a variance on the whole thing, then, wouldn't he? MR. CARTIER-The variance would address undersized lots. MR. NACE-From the residential, on the residential portion. MR. LAURICELLA-Can you do that, legally? MRS. PULVER-If you could present a good case. MR. LAURICELLA-Well, that's up to him. I mean, as far as us, I don't know that we can do that legally, can we? Can we recommend a variance? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-No, we don't. That's the Zoning Board. MR. LAURICELLA-I know, I realize that, but a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. NACE-Well, we wouldn't be looking for a zoning recommendation from you, but rather your support in the development aspects, the planning aspects of what we're trying to do with that variance. MR. CARTIER-I'm just looking, here, at Lee's last paragraph. MR. BREWER-I'd like to hear what Paul has to say about that variance. MR. CARTIER-"Staff recommends that an alternative option of a cluster design be developed rather than a traditional layout." Clustering's going to give you more green space, and maybe a mix of housing types, some single family, some duplex, and with the phasing in there, you're going to see which way it's going to go. I keep hearing that multiple family housing is a dead issue, and I'm not sure if that's really the case, or whether it's because of the present recession. I can't believe that multiple family housing is completely dead. There has to be some need for it, because, in effect, if multiple family housing is completely dead, then our MR-5 zone is no longer an appropriate zone anywhere in Town. MRS. YORK-And then it should be re-zoned. MR. CARTIER-And it should be re-zoned. MRS. PULVER-Well, MR-5 would be okay if you wanted to use if for rentals. MR. NACE-Two issues. First we're not saying it's dead forever, simply that, presently, there's not a market to build duplexes or multiple family, but what we're asking for is the Board's concurrence with a subdivision that would allow single family units in the same zone that presently exists, so that, in the future, if it does come back, we can go in on one of the 10,000 square foot lots, we can put a duplex, or combine two of them and put a four plex, in future phases, if the need is there. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't want to contradict, right in the, you know, this is like, on the one hand we're saying, single family is great because that's what the neighbors would like to see for sure, lower density is something they would like to see for sure, with it's benefits of lesser traffic and all that. So, maybe I don't want to leave the door open for future duplexes or multi family housing. MRS. PULVER-Doesn't it have to be, though, after the variance, after whatever it was that was needed, and they actually came before us for site plan review, then they have to start to build the project as we approve it. 9 .~ ,,--,,,,,. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-If they decide in the middle, now they want to start building quadra plexes or six plexes or whatever, they have to come back for site plan review. So, it's not like you're approving anything in advance. MR. NACE-That's right. Anything we do on MR-5 is site plan review. MRS. PULVER-Any variation of this has to come back to the Planning Board for a site plan review. So, whatever, initially, is approved is what we expect them to build, unless all these people come back again for site plan review. MR. COON-The thing, too, is right through this document, your Land Use document, it keeps stating that to increase density would require sewers to be in place already, not being talked about, and I'm not sure that sewers are in place, or even contracted for with the Town. MR. MARTIN-No. The way it proceeds is that the sewers are installed prior to the developer being allowed to build any structures. MR. COON-Okay. Is there any indication that Hiland Park would have to have any kind of a permitting process to let them hook into their? MR. MARTIN-It's not Hiland Park's sewer, I don't believe, where they're going to hook in. That's the Town's sewer main, right, on Meadowbrook Road? MR. NACE-That is the Town's sewer main, sewer force main. Hiland Park owns a portion of the capacity in that main. The Town is free to utilize additional capacity, and that's what we've, we've already done our homework with the Water and Sewer Department, to make sure there is additional capacity there that we can use, okay. MR. MARTIN-I remember you stated that at the last meeting. Well, the other thing about are-zoning is, and I think probably everyone would agree that UR-lO is the closest zone to fit, is that if that was the way that this was to proceed, single family dwellings are a permitted use. So, they wouldn't have to come in for a site plan, and you'd have no opportunity to see it. MR. CARTIER-Well, they would for a subdivision. MR. MARTIN-At subdivision, yes. MR. CARTIER-I'm just thinking of procedure, here. I'm sure if this went to the Zoning Board for a variance request, the Zoning Board would kick it back to us to look at, to give them some advice. They have done that in the past. MR. MARTIN-Yes, for SEQRA. I think we've done the SEQRA for those types of things, in the past. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and instead of putting the applicant in sort of a ping pong position, here, it seems like we ought to get this sorted out ourselves, and maybe save that step. I wish I had an answer to how we sort it out. I think it's got to be done. MRS. PULVER-I think the applicant is just asking if the Planning Board would approve this particular concept, in the event they got their variance, is that correct? MR. LAPOINT-Use variance with MR-5. MRS. PULVER-So, that's all we really need to talk about, is, is this acceptable, and if it isn't, what would make it acceptable, and then he'll go off and try to get his variance. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the broad, general concept, or factor with this is that it's single family in orientation, and that's the one thing that we want to see, is that. I mean, we have to get started off here somewhere. MRS. PULVER-Well, certainly the neighbors want to see that. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I'd rather see single family, regardless of what the zone is here. I think it's within everybody's best interest. MR. COON-Single family would be the way to go. The way that's set up, though, look at the. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm not talking about the particular design, yet. I'm just saying, now I want to get to the point. 10 ------- MR. COON-Okay. I'm getting to the square footage point. Especially on the northern end of our property, they're 8,000 square feet. That's one fifth of an acre, and we're living on probably half acre lots. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd like to take into consideration Ed's comments, for re-configuring that whole section of. MR. LAPOINT-If I were to try and make a motion, and I'm already trying to formulate one in my head, I think I would charge the applicant with taking a look at re-configuration along the northern. MR. COON-Okay, and that would be something we would be interested in looking at, too. It's just, when you're sitting on 20,000 acre lots, and you're looking at 8 or 10,000, that, to me, doesn't look it's consistent or compatible with existing neighborhoods. MR. MARTIN-Right. Now, just to be open and honest about this, I don't think you're going to see 20,000 square foot along that boarder, either, but I agree that we can improve upon what's there, but the amount that we can improve upon it is fixed. I mean, you can only do so much, given the space that's there, and what's allowed. MR. LAPOINT-Make it a transition. MR. CARTIER-Yes, right. MR. LAPOINT-Instead of an abrupt 50 percent reduction, you may be looking at trying to re-configure for maybe 75 percent of it, would be just a concept number off the top of my head. MRS. PULVER-Is that possible, Tom, I mean, to? MR. NACE-We will certainly consider it very seriously, yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-In any future design that's brought forward, we'd like to see an attempt made at that, I think, to re-configure that northern boundary, there, the lots along that northern boundary. MR. CARTIER-Lets firm this up a little bit. Are we saying to the applicant, he must provide for a transition in lots and buffering, or do we want him to just try, because he can he go back and try and say, I tried it and it didn't seem to work. Are we saying we're going to require a transitional, I like what you're talking about. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, our motion is really, and this is just talking internally, I guess, to send him for a use variance, based on a recommendation from us, correct, so that they would have to take a look at this use variance in terms of our motion, which would specify some type of transition, and/or whatever the rest of the concerns are, and I think we've still got quite a few more to look at. I mean, we're hitting on the one that's been brought up by the public concern, here, but there may be some other ones that are being overshadowed by the discussion. It's fairly complex, when you look at Lee's comments. MR. CARTIER-Well, keep in mind we are at Sketch Plan, which is about two notches above a bull session. MRS. PULVER-And, again, all the applicant is asking is, do you like this, Planning Board? If I get my variance, can I expect to come before you with this for site plan review, and the Planning Board has now said, so far, yes, but we want a buffer zone. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Well, there's questions of runoffs in different directions. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but that's further down the road. Right now, it's, this is the plan and we don't have to think about the drainage or any of that other stuff. Do you like it or don't you like it, and single family seems to be the one thing we all agree on, and buffering. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Tom, has the developer mentioned what kind of houses he's putting in, whether it's single story, two story, things of this nature? Since we're compromising, we like to know what we have to compromise with. AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-My name is Al Cerrone and I'm a partner in this development, here. To answer your question, it's one story and two story homes. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Particularly along our boarder, what was proposed. MR. CERRONE-No. We haven't really gotten into that yet. MR. LAPOINT-Attached garages? 11 ~ --- MR. CERRONE-Yes, single car garages, two car garages. MR. COON-Price range? MR. CERRONE-Don't know yet. MR. CARTIER-Won't know until all of this is over. MR. LAPOINT-They'll be expensive, by the time you have all this road in. MR. CERRONE-If we have to keep cutting up there, it's going to be more expensive. MR. CARTIER-Just maybe to address a question that I think you started in on, too, with regard to architectural review. That's water we dipped our toe in once and got our toes right back out. We have no control over what these are going to look like, just to make you aware of that. MR. LAPOINT-I'm a big believer in the market driver there anyway. They can't put up awful things and expect to continue to sell. They're going to have to do something that's marketable. MR. MARTIN-This is just my view of things, here. I think the risk you run with a multi family development, here, is a situation where people buy into them, you know, zero lot line, you buy the footprint, and then they can't re-sell them. So, they wind up renting them, and then you develop very quickly a very transitional neighborhood there, no one taking pride in their ownership, because they are simply rent, and so I think that's why you've seen this falling back from townhouses. I'm not saying they're completely dead, but I don I t think that the concept of providing the starter home type thing for young couples, or the low maintenance retirement home for elderly is followed through in the long term. I don't think they're very salable. The only other thing I would offer out here, from a practical standpoint, is these roads and all that will be deeded over to the Town I would imagine, right? MR. NACE-That is correct, yes, the roads, utilities. MR. MARTIN-From a planning standpoint, I think we have to make sure that the Town is going to derive enough tax revenue from these homes, or whatever happens here, that they can maintain and adequately service these roads and adequately maintain the sewers. So that, again, is another ball to keep in the air, in terms of what number you arrive at, here. If you limit him to 70, that may effect the Town's ability to keep up with the maintenance costs in this development. So, that's just something else to consider. MRS. PULVER-Something they had mentioned in their letter, the Beautification Committee usually does not see the plans until the final stage, just before the final stage, and then they review them, as far as plantings and things. MR. CARTIER-And they would be looking only at commercial development on this anyway, not the residential. MRS. PULVER-Right, and as far as the utilization of exterior sheds, that's up to the developer. If he wants to put some covenants and restrictions in there. The Town of Queensbury, if it's a permanent, fixed building, then they have to get a building permit for it. They would have to work within all the zoning, setbacks and so forth for another fixed structure on that property. MR. NACE-I think the other issue there, also, Carol, was the commercial land and the buffering up on the front of the commercial land. That will take place as the commercial land is developed and as site plans are reviewed for each individual lot in there. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. NACE-And not necessarily at subdivision stage. MR. MARTIN-That was my other question. Do you have any idea what the appearance of those buildings would be? Would you make an effort to keep the theme of what's already in place, meaning the huge development across the street? It seems to be acceptable and generally thought to be nicely done. MR. NACE-There, again, the developer owns a large tract of land, here, and that's the entrance to the subdivision. He's going to have his model home up there. So, whatever he does has got to have ~ theme that's acceptable to the community, in order to sell the subdivision. So, it's not going to be a Quaker Plaza. I'll guarantee you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's on the record. MR. CARTIER-Yes, because that addresses a question that I was about to ask, in terms of the theme, with regard to beautification along those lots, too, so that there's some continuum there, in the way that develops. 12 --- MR. NACE-We would obviously want to do that for our own benefit. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Well, there needs to be a lot of configuration re-done on this thing anyway, or re-configuration, if I'm reading, for example, Tom Yarmowich's letter, with regard to. MR. MARTIN-Do you have a copy of all the Staff Notes, Tom? MR. NACE-Sure do. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-There's a number of things, there's a lot of things that have to be re-configured, or we may want to have re-configured, in response to Lee's notes, Mike Shaw's notes, some of the comments we've taken from the public tonight. I don't know. I guess my question is, are we at a point where we can, do we want to approve a conceptual design, here, with all of these? MR. LAPOINT-I don't know if I'd want to put the word "approval", or even "conceptual design", in a motion, but I think we can certainly firm things up. MR. MARTIN-See, I'd personally like to see, you go from here to your zoning review, or zoning variance review, and before we leave Sketch Plan, I would, again, like to see another plan with the northern boundary concerns addressed, as Ed was saying, some allocation of the buffering along that property line, things of that nature, before we leave the Sketch Plan. MRS. PULVER-Well, why can't this just be tabled until he goes before the Zoning Board and come back as Sketch Plan. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's what I mean. MR. CARTIER-In fairness to the applicant, though, I think what we ought to do is get any questions he has about what we're looking for answered. MR. NACE-At this point, mv question is, I'm probably going to be here in September, still getting the Sketch Plan reviewed. I'd much prefer to get Sketch Plan approval, if it's contingent upon changes. I think most of the technical issues that Tom Yarmowich brought out, certainly the ones that Mike Shaw brought out, are things that I am going to be working out with each of those parties, when I prepare the preliminary plans. I think the real issue that needs to be ironed out for Sketch Plan is what we are working on, the overall configuration, and I would be willing to gamble that I can come back to you, and I probably will end up being back to you because of the Zoning Board, with a revised plan which will address your concerns along the north property line. You'll probably see that revised plan at your review of what the Zoning Board is doing. MR. BREWER-Jim, could I just ask a question? Even if this was re-zoned to UR-lO, this couldn't be approved unless he got variances, anyway, if he's got lots that are 8,000 feet. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. NACE-If this is UR-I0, I'd have to re-configure. MR. MARTIN-Right. Those lots would still be nonconforming. There's no district in the Ordinance which accommodates the idea of a 9,000 square foot lot. MR. NACE-That's right. MR. CARTIER-While we're dealing with concerns, without getting back to the larger issue, here, with Lots 47, 48, and 49, not so much 50, that stream setback runs right along, basically, the back of these houses. That does not leave that property owner with a whole lot of space to do things, here, in terms of outbuildings and so on and so forth. I assume these are the setback lines, are they not? MR. NACE-Yes, those are the lot setbacks. This is the stream hard surface. MR. BREWER-So, basically, you have to tell us what you want to do. You want to stay with the 8,000 and then get the variance from the Zoning Board? MR. NACE-We think, without having already discussed it with the Zoning Board, that is what would be preferable for us, yes, is to get a use variance, leave the zoning at MR-5 and get a use variance from the Zoning Board. MRS. PULVER-The approval of this at Sketch Plan stage, with stipulations, doesn't really do anything for the appl icant except keep the whole process moving forward. I mean, he cannot go out and build anything without coming back to preliminary, having gone through the several hours that we've gone. 13 -- -- MR. NACE-If there is a gamble, then it's on our part. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that's right. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, if we give him a conceptual approval, and then we get to preliminary, and we deny him, then he has to come back to sketch anyway. MRS. PULVER-Well, no, then he goes back on to preliminary again, or whatever. MR. NACE- That is correct. If you approve sketch, you can deny at preliminary. If you see preliminary coming. I'm taking a gamble. If preliminary comes back to you and you don't like it because I haven't adequately addressed one of your concerns that you made contingent your sketch plan approval upon, then it's my gamble, and I've got to fix that at a subsequent preliminary submission. MR. MARTIN-I have a question, Lee. Even at Sketch Plan stage, can we approve a nonconforming lot? MRS. YORK-You never have. MR. MARTIN-That's my only. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's a biggie for me, because that is setting precedent, here. I think I'm to blame for that, because I know the last time around Tom asked where would we go for re-zoning and the only thing that popped into my head was between sketch and prelim, and now that I think about that, I think about that, I was wrong. I hate to sit here and say that to you, but now that I read Lee's notes. MRS. PULVER-Where's our attorney? MR. MARTIN-He's right across the way. We can go get him. He's in his office. I just want to, I'm not trying to be unfair; here. I want to try and do it by the numbers. MR. NACE-And, obviously, we don't want to do anything that will make the approvals null and void. By the same token, we do want to keep it moving. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. YORK-What it says on Page 17994 is, "Requirements for approval: In order to approve any Type I and Type II site plan review use, the Planning Board shall find that, A. A site plan review, the use complies with all other requirements of this Chapter, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed." This, however, is a subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's the problem. I know, as a general rule, you're not supposed to approve nonconforming lots, but at final stage, certainly that would be the case. You wouldn't write off on a plan that had nonconforming lots, but. MR. LAURICELLA-You don't want to go that far. MR. MARTIN-Even at Sketch Plan, but I'm sure Paul will be able to give us some. MR. CARTIER-I seem to recall that we raised that question before, and that the indication we've had is that it also, even though it says site plan review, here, it also applies to subdivisions. By approving this conceptually, what we're saying is that we're approving something that does not conform to the Ordinance, and I'll tell you one thing, my own personal opinion is I'm not prepared to do that. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't think it's within our power, is what I'm saying. You, potentially, have an approval that's void as soon as it was made. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. On Page A18306, it says "Conformance with Master Plan Section AI83-3, Subdivision plats shall be coordinated so as to compose a convenient system conforming to the Master Plan. Plots shown on said plat shall conform with the requirements of the zone in which said subdivision is located, and the land shown on such plats shall be of such character that they can be used safely for building purposes", etc. MR. MARTIN-Okay, Paul. I don't know if you've gotten any background on the way over. Basically, the situation is, the applicant has a Sketch Plan before us that has nonconforming lots. They are under 10,000 square feet, and he would like, in order to keep the process moving, for a Sketch Plan approval from this Board with stipulations that he can take to the Zoning Board, acknowledging that he needs a variance, to get that variance, but we have a question as to, even at Sketch Plan, can we approve a nonconforming lot, without a variance approval? PAUL DUSEK 14 --" '- MR. DUSEK-I think the question I could be answered, Ed gave me a tip on the way over. So, I was able to grab the book. Section 183-7 of the Subdivision Regulations Paragraph C indicates that, "the Planning Board shall study the Sketch Plan", which is what you're doing of, course tonight, "and other maps, etc.", and then it says, "the Planning Board shall make advisory recommendations which shall be applicable to the entire area for development". So, technically you don't really approve a Sketch Plan, in any event. What you're doing is making recommendations that they will use that information and come back and develop their ultimate preliminary. So, if part of what your feeling is, is that he needs a use variance, then that would be one of the recommendations. So you could, in essence, get through this Sketch Plan process, at this point, if you think this looks like something that, well, even if you don't think it looks like something you'd like. I think II\Y advice to you would be to put your recommendations, either in favor or against, on the record so the applicant then has that criteria with which to take whatever action he deems appropriate, and then ultimately come back to you with a preliminary plat. MR. CARTIER-So, our motion is not couched in terms of approval, but in terms of recommendations. MR. MARTIN-It's not even an approval. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. MARTIN~Approval is the wrong word. MR. DUSEK-Now, your recommendations will be applicable to the entire area of development, though. That's what this says. MR. MARTIN-Right. All right. So, that's very much enlightening. I think we're drawing closer, here. Would anyone like to take a shot at a recommendation, then, is the word? MR. HUTSENPELLA-I've got some recommendations that you may not like. The thing, just keep in mind that, if you were in this neighborhood, and I don't know where any of you live, but think of what's going to go in behind, especially my house. I've got a lot that I could put three of these units on II\Y lot, and to me that's really dense, and I don't think any of use really want to see anything that dense back there. I don't think you guys would want to see anything that dense behind or next to your houses. So, the point I'm trying to make is, if you're going to make recommendations, at least keep what I'm saying in mind, for our neighborhood, and another thing. I'm not real familiar with the SEQRA process, and I don't know at what point SEQRA kicks in, but if somebody could just let me know along those lines, too. MR. CARTIER-It kicks in at Preliminary, and you'll be publicly noticed for that. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's the time we will have the formal public hearing, but I think we've got to review, this is a Type I, but it has municipal water and sewer, or it will have municipal water and sewer. MR. NACE-If we don't, it won't be developed. MR. MARTIN-Right. So, I know Type I is usually those actions which likely will require an Environmental Impact Statement, and we've got to see if that triggers one of those review criteria. I don't believe we're, it's over 100 units, but when it's over 100 units, and not served municipally with water and sewer that it triggers it. MR. NACE-I don't have it right here, but I think that's correct. MR. MARTIN-We got into this once before on a very famous project, but we can deal with that at Preliminary. The thing, I'm going to get on II\Y stump a little bit while I have the neighborhood's attention, here. Being a planning purest, or whatever, this is an example of, back in 1988, when this re-zoning was done, and there were all these public meetings on the Master Plan and what was being done with the new re-zoning. I've said it enough times. People take this stuff for granted, until it's actually before them and there's something that's going to happen. If you look at this MR-5, there's an island surrounded by one acre residential zoning, essentially, and if something could have been said, prior to, in the Master Planning process, and in the public hearings that developed the Zoning Ordinance, problems like this could be avoided, and public input's the key. So, if you ever see a Master Plan legal notice in the paper, come to the meetings. MR. COON-At that point, though, the dentist had owned the land, and I went to both of them. So, I knew what was being planned for, and that didn't upset me, really. He had told me the amount of green space that was up, and it seemed pretty nice in character. MR. MARTIN-I'm not talking about that particular project. MR. COON-But that's in MR-5. That was part of the MR-5 zone. 15 '''--'" ...-- MR. MARTIN-I'm talking about the process the Town went through to say, yes, we're going to create this new MR-5 zone and it's going to be right in your back yard. They drew the line right at your property boundary. MRS. PULVER-See, you may have liked the project, but you need to consider what the MR-5 really allowed. MR. MARTIN-Always remember that the property rights don't go with the owner, they go with the property. MR. COON-Right. Okay. Point taken. The other thing in your decision, and, again, this does go along with the current Master Plan, which is really the base of Queensbury development, as I understand it, and live taken notes right out of. For instance, it has different Sections, Community Services, Page 44 says, it encourages development of larger lots and require more green space and site plan. Under Demographics, Page 51 says, it encourages the reduction of the overall potential density in the Town to protect the natural resources and maintain the quality of life. Cultural Resources, Page 54, efforts need to be made to accommodate growth and development in a manner which protects natural and built environments so important to the image Town residents have come to identify with as the Town of Queensbury, and that's where all this kind of fits in. We want the lots to be big enough to fit in with what's been there for 25 years, and I've said that four times. I won't say it anymore tonight, but it's all, it keeps getting repeated and repeated and repeated, right through your whole Master Plan. MRS. PULVER-But the developer feels he's doing that. He took a piece of property which he could develop 515 units and cut that down to 140 some units. So, he has decreased the density. Where your houses are today, if that were to be a subdivision today, you wouldn't be able to have them on the lots you have because it's one acre zoning. They'd all have to be one acre, because that was all re-zoned as we 11. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think it would help, too, also to recognize that those issues that you raise were addressed on a Town wide basis, on a Town wide basis. They weren't necessarily addressed on this particular MR-5 zone, but they were addressed on a Town wide basis. MR. COON-Okay. Thanks. MR. CARTIER-My only point, very simply, is that I don't want you to get the feeling that those issues were not addressed. They were. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we've come to the point where we can get a handle on a recommendation, here. MOTION WITH REGARD TO SKETCH PIA. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: To subdivide 81.86 acres of land, with the recommendation: One, that the applicant proceed with Preliminary plan stage development of the subdivision with the following stipulations: That he proceed to the Zoning Board for a Use Variance for lot sizes specified MR-5, for a variance from lot sizes specified in MR-5 for lots under 10,000 square feet and a floor value of 8,000 square foot being the smallest lot, and that the applicant examine residential lots 15 through 32 for reconfiguration to help transition to the existing neighborhood north of the development, with a target of 12 to 14,000 square foot per lot, and the last stipulation, that the Planning notes from Lee York, dated March 11th, 1992, the engineering comments from Rist-Frost dated 20 March 1992, the Building and Code Enforcement letter dated 6 March 1992, the letter from Queensbury Department of Wastewater dated 5 March 1992, and the letter from the concerned citizens, dated 18 March 1992 along with the minutes of this meeting be passed along to the Zoning Board for their consideration in the Use Variance and Area Variances. That he move to Preliminary Stage. That all development in the residential area shown on the figure be single family residence. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-You want the Zoning Board to look at engineering concerns and Dave Hatin's letter and Mike Shaw's letter. You want, I assume, the applicant to also incorporate whatever changes he has to make. MR. LAPOINT-Not part of the motion, but they would probably do that at Preliminary development of the plan, and that I would only have the Zoning Board take them in context of the Use Variance and Area Variance, if any context. MRS. TARANA-Could I just ask, we're not voting on this particular plan, per se? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. LAURICELLA-You're voting on a concept, though. MR. MARTIN-A concept which incorporates themes of that plan, but not that exact plan with that exact lot configuration. 16 '-- -- MR. LAPOINT-My thought is that we're sending him to Preliminary to address all the concerns and to re-configure, to address the public hearing, and we get that back in front of us, to go through Preliminary, in which case SEQRA kicks in and he's going to have to address all the SEQRA concerns. SEQRA incorporates public comment. So, your ideas on environmental impact should come up there. MR. TARANA-Are we recommending single family residential? Is that part of that? MR. MARTIN-Yes, strictly family residential. MR. CARTIER-Do I understand that we are not expecting him to come back in with another Sketch Plan? MR. MARTIN-Right. Is everybody clear? MR. LAURICELLA-The only question, here, is what about the top of Page 2, where it says, it has previously been the Board's position not to give approvals when a variance is required. The Staff realizes the applicant wants some assurances prior to the variance request. MR. LAPOINT-We're not actually going to approval right now. MR. MARTIN-I think that's what Paul addressed for us, that we're not approving, we're recommending. MR. DUSEK-Under the law, you're giving an advisory recommendation. That's all you're doing at this point. There is no formal approval of a Sketch Plan, at least provided under this law. The first approval will come at the time of Preliminary. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MR. DUSEK-But obviously you are giving the applicant some guidance that the conceptual plan is generally along these lines. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Is it my understanding that what you're doing, any Sketch Plan that comes before you people does not necessarily have to be approved or disapproved to proceed? Is that what you're saying here? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. HUTSENPELLA-So, me, as an engineer, representing various concerns before this Board, the Sketch Plan review is just it. We just show up and the next meeting is Preliminary, or variance. MR. CARTIER-Not necessarily. We can kick you back and say, we don't like that concept. Come back with a new concept. MR. HUTSENPELLA-But that's approval or disapproval. MR. CARTIER-Right. These are not, we're not limited to making recommendations only. We can say, we disapprove of this Sketch Plan. Come back with a new Sketch Plan. MR. MARTIN-We can out right deny it, yes. MR. CARTIER-Or we can say, we like some general concepts. You need to modify these things. MR. HUTSENPELLA-So, by you sending us to the use variance, essentially, I'm just confused. Are you approving it, then, to put it the next step up? MR. LAPOINT-He's got to come back with Preliminary plans for the subdivision. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Right. MR. LAPOINT-That's the next stage in front of us, after he's gone through his, if he doesn't get his Use and Area Variance, it stops there. MR. HUTSENPELLA-But with this quasi approval, these conditions, obviously, he has to address, but it just seems to me that the approval. I guess I I m just confused on approval and di sapprova 1. I mean, it just seems like we're moving on to another realm and this is all approved. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think it's based on the concept of Sketch Plan is exactly that. It's conceptual. There's really nothing to approve. It's not a formal action. It's an exchange of ideas, and in this case, there's been need of compromise, then he does come back, at a Preliminary submission, for a plat that is either approved or disapproved. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Okay. 17 "-- - MR. MARTIN-It's an acceptance of an exchange of ideas, concepts. MRS. PULVER-And there's one more stage beyond Preliminary, which is Final. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Queensbury's particular set up is a little unique in that Sketch Plan requires an awful lot and so therefore you have a lot of information, and a lot of it overlaps with what you require at Preliminary as well. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Well, I'm just curious, because there will be a time where.r.n be before you people doing what Tom's doing, and I'd just like to know the process. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You come with a Sketch Plan, and again, if you're doing the exact same thing, you're going to need a Use and Area Variance. You'll get a recommendation like this, if it's appropriate. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Okay. I didn't know if we were setting a precedent here, or that's just the way we always work. MR. CARTIER-I hear what you're saying, Mike, we're doing something a little bit differently than what we're usually doing, but what we're doing is what it really says in the Subdivision, and I would reference that for you on Page A18311, Planning Board recommendations, and that's what Paul is pointing out to us. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Normally I'm sure you've heard us give approvals of conceptual plans. MR. HUTSENPELLA-Right. I mean, like last time you disapproved him and made him come back this time. I'm just wondering, did you really have to do that? MR. CARTIER-Right. That's an option that's still open to us. It was tabled. MR. MARTIN-See, the whole wording, if you look through this Section of the Ordinance, the whole wording is vastly different when you look at Planning Board Review, for submission and review procedures for Sketch Plan, and it makes reference to recommendations and so on. Then when you get to Preliminary review and approval, then the word approval is entered into the wording and all that, and it takes on a whole different flavor, and that's due to the stage that you're at. MR. HUTSENPELLA-All right. MR. CARTIER-Do we want to make any recommendations, should the applicant fail to receive a variance, or do you want to wait? Lets wait. I'm sorry I even brought that up. MRS. YORK-I just wanted to mention that, when this goes for the variances, this Board will be involved, most likely, as reviewing the SEQRA. SO, you may want to consider, at that time, a Scoping Session, or looking at the different criteria, which I think I'd given you on another project, regarding significance. MR. MARTIN-Right. FLOYD BATEASE MR. BATEASE-I didn't plan on speaking, but I can't not say anything. I'm a tax payer in Queensbury, Floyd Batease, and you're talking about site plan review and everything. I assume we have a Beautification Committee? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BATEASE-It has to go before that. MR. MARTIN-The commercial development that's within this subdivision, at the time those lots are actually developed commercially, that will go to the Beautification Committee. MR. BATEASE-Okay, and another question. How about the Highway Department? It looks to me like those cul-de-sacs would be a nightmare to maintain. MR. MARTIN-Staff Review, the Highway Department looks at this, Lee, at Preliminary? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-At Preliminary. So, when he submits his Preliminary plat to the Town, a copy of that will be dispersed to the Highway Department for Mr. Naylor's comments on the highway layout, and he is not a big fan of cul-de-sacs. That's nobody's secret. 18 - MR. BATEASE-Well, I'd like to have a note made of that. That's all I have to say. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. MR. DUSEK-The one question that has come to mind is that if they're going for a Use Variance or whatever type of variance, to the Zoning Board, and I believe that I heard that this is a Type I action, which means there has to be a coordinated SEQRA Review. Is the SEQRA Review going to be done before they go for the variance? Somebody's going to have to do a review before that happens. MR. NACE-May I ask a question, Paul. At that point, for the Use Variance, Use and Area Variance, where we're going from MR-5 to a much less dense use, SEQRA deals simply with the change from permitted use to proposed use, is that correct? It doesn't deal with the whole development. MR. DUSEK-No. SEQRA would deal with any action that you take effecting land, or any approval that you seek from a Board, the Board would first have to evaluate it from the perspective of whether there's going to be an environmental impact, and the Zoning Board. MR. NACE-But what I'm asking, is the impact from what the present permitted use is to what you're proposing to use, or is it from the impact from no use at all, existing conditions, to proposed use, okay? My real question is, we're in essence asking the Zoning Board to allow a less intensive use of the land than would otherwise be permitted. MR. MARTIN-See, this raises the same issue we got into on the Diehl project, where we did a SEQRA Review of the re-zoning, and then the question was asked, do we need, now, a SEQRA Review of the project at subdivision? MR. NACE-Yes, that's it exactly. I look at SEQRA as being two different impacts. MR. MARTIN-I would agree. MR. DUSEK-Well, I guess my only point is that you might be able to justify breaking it apart. My only concern is, so the applicant doesn't get surprised, is that before the Zoning Board, it would seem to me, could give any kind of approval for a variance, they would have to get through the SEQRA process and either demand an EIS or give you a negative dec. MR. NACE-I have no problem doing it either way. I just want to know which way we should do it. MR. MARTIN-And it's been the Zoning Board's practice, in the last several applications, that they send that SEQRA process back to this Board. We do the SEQRA on their behalf. MR. DUSEK-If that's the case, then you may want to give some thought to transmitting that as part of your, or make sure the applicant's aware of that whole process, then, in other words, they would go before the Zoning Board, to maybe introduce it and get a feeling from the Zoning Board, but the Zoning Board wouldn't take any action until the SEQRA process was over. Is that my understanding? MRS. YORK-That's the way it traditionally has gone. MR. NACE-And you would expect the full SEQRA to take place with the zoning variance, and then not with the Preliminary subdivision. MRS. YORK-Well, that's how it's been handled before. If you're doing a SEQRA, we do a public hearing at that point in time and notice the neighbors. MR. NACE-So, then what happens when I come back for Preliminary? Is that the same? MR. CARTIER-That's his question. Do we do two SEQRAs or one? MRS. YORK-One. MR. DUSEK-I think that's an option for the Board. I can see an argument being made. Normally, SEQRA should be done in one step, for everything. That's the best way. That's what they recommend under their rules. However, there is provision that says if you can justify it, you can biforcate the process, or split it up, if you have a good reason, and what strikes me here is you've got a strange situation, that the applicant may not want to invest a lot of money into a subdivision plan until he knows whether or not he has the Use Variance. So, maybe this is one of those cases that it might qualify for to split the process, with the applicant's understanding going through two SEQRAs. MR. MARTIN-It has to be two processes. Take the example, like he is allowed, like in this case, he is allowed 500 units, okay, and the zoning variance is going to take him down from that to a specific number of 141. That, in itself, has an environmental impact. Now, when he goes on to subdivision, say the subdivision occurs 30 years down the road, in actuality, he doesn't do anything with it. At that time, you're going to have to have a second review of the actual subdivision of that land and how does it comply with the criteria for SEQRA, meaning anything over 100 units, the municipal water and sewer issue and all that. So, I think there are two reviews. 19 ~ --- MR. NACE-Yes. I don't mind going through two SEQRA Reviews, but I want the very clear understanding that that first SEQRA Review is from permitted use to proposed use, and in this case it's a positive impact mostly. MR. MARTIN-It's an assessment of the impact of that variance, and that variance only. MR. DUSEK-That's fine, however you want to handle it. I'm just listing in. I just want to make sure that issue wasn't missed. MR. MARTIN-I think, in Ed's motion, he said that he wants these minutes forwarded on to the Zoning Board. They've seen our discussion. MR. CARTIER-Do we also want to ask for Lead Agency status, at this time on that review or not? MR. LAPOINT-I guess I have a problem with doing just one review, because that should be done at Preliminary, when all the facts are in. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And I don't think they can do the use change without it. So, that, by definition, says there's got to be two. Now, just because, just before the Use Variance, I have no problem with the ZBA doing it, unless they want us to do it, and typically they've asked us to do it before, so we've just added another intermediate step in this whole process. So, why don't we let them take a look at the minutes and decide and ask us for a recommendation if they want us to do the first half of a two part SEQRA. You've got to have two. MR. MARTIN-I agree. You have to have two. MR. LAURICELLA-Question. We have another applicant before us tonight, similar to this. What did we do with Diehl's application? MR. MARTIN-He just got out of Sketch Plan. We never got to the point of Preliminary. MR. CARTIER-Are you asking in terms of SEQRA? MR. LAURICELLA-No, in terms of lot size and, did he have to get a zone change, or did he have to get a variance? MR. BREWER-No. That was re-zoned. MR. LAURICELLA-He went through a zone change. MRS. PULVER-But he's also in clustering. So, that's entirely different. MR. LAURICELLA-So, this is not the same as Diehl's, then. MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-He's needs no Use or. MR. LAURICELLA-Well, I'm just trying to say, we're doing one thing with Diehl. We want to do the same here. MR. BREWER-Diehl already has his re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-He handled it through a different vehicle. MR. MARTIN-All right. Any further questions? Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Everybody's been comfortable with the reading of it. It's been seconded. Okay, Maria, would you call the vote, please. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Brewer MR. NACE-Thank you. Now, can I ask one more thing. In order, again, to keep the thing moving, I'm wondering, we have to submit for zoning, and I'm wondering if there's any possibility, without messing up the Planning Department's schedule of things, that we could possibly submit, instead of tomorrow which is the normal deadline, submit by Monday or Tuesday of next week for the zoning variances? MRS. YORK-I don't think this Board has any control over the Zoning Board, their submission. 20 '---- - MR. CARTIER-You've got to go to the Zoning Board and ask the Zoning Board that question, if they're willing to waive deadlines for submission to them. MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. (8:50 p.m.) BREAK PETITION FOR A. CHANGE OF ZONE PI-92 F.T. AND E.P. COLLINS (lINER: SAllE AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: 274 BAY ROAD TAX IMP 10. 105-1-11 CURREIT ZONE: LI-lA PROPOSED ZONE: HC APPLICAIT STATES PERMITTED USES IN EXISTING ZONE ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SURRooNDING AREA. (WARREN coum PLMalIIE) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; FRANK COLLINS, PRESENT (8:58 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, F. T. & E. P. Collins, March 23, 1992, Meeting Date: March 24, 1992 "The request is to re-zone approximately 6.23 acres on Bay Road from LI-IA to HC-IA. The adjoining property (Super Shop N' Save) is currently HC-IA. The property to the south is C.R. Bard which is currently light industrial. The applicant's property currently contains a mix of uses. These include a large warehouse building (36,000 sq. ft.), Brennan's Quick Print (2,600 sq. ft.), a former cleaners (864 sq. ft.), Upstate Tile (1,748 sq. ft.), Cushing's (1,156 sq. ft.), and Queensbury Mini Storage (2,600 sq. ft.)J There appears to be ± 44,968 square footage of building on the property with 12,000 sq. ft. more of retail space proposed (total 56,968 sq. ft.). Highway Commercial 1 Acre allows an overall density of one principal building up to 12,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for one story buildings. A rough calculation would indicate that for the acreage the applicant could have ± 74,760 square feet of building area on site. A site plan concern will be permeable area on site. The site has developed without an allover scheme. Future plans should try and look at the site as an integrated whole. This request was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a change of zone: 1. What need is being !let by the proposed change in zone or new zone? There is no community need which is being met by this proposed change. 2. What existing zones, if any, can .eet the stated need? There is no stated community need for more Highway Commercial property. 3. How is the proposed zone cOllpitible with adjacent zones? The purpose of the Highway Commercial zone is as follows: "Highway Commercial Zones are those areas of Queensbury which have already developed fairly intense and haphazard commercial patterns. The purpose of these zones is to confine development of this type to those areas while providing for minimal expansion primarily through infill". This property has developed haphazardly with a mix of retail businesses and light industrial uses. It appears that the applicant wants to construct more retail space. The northern adjacent lot is highway cOlll1lercial, while the lot to the south would be light industrial. If it is determined that this site should be re-zoned the Board should specifically indicate what uses under Highway COlll1lercial are not appropriate for the site. On site traffic circulation is already confusing and the small businesses at the front of the lot compound the situation. The Staff has attached the listing of uses allowed in the highway commercial and checked the uses that may not be appropriate for this site. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The site has access to a primary traffic artery, and there appears to be space for the proposed and accessory uses. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? The Board should ascertain the traffic from the existing light industrial and commercial uses and find out what the change in zone will mean for traffic generation off site. If the primary use of the property is currently light industrial/warehouse storage this change could be significant. This section of Bay Road has a number of curb cuts in a row which currently lead to confusion. The Board may want to recolll1lend that there be only one entrance to the site and that parking areas be joined and treated as one. In this way planted separators can be installed to break up the large flat areas. Site drainage facilities could also be handled more comprehensively. It appears that the site will be served by municipal sewer and water." Also, when I went to the site today to take another look at it, it might be a good idea, when you get to site plan review, if the site is re-zoned, to look at coordinated parking with Super Shop N' Save, since they're already sharing some accessway there. " 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? In discussion with the staff the applicant has indicated that the development of the parcel to the north has made continuation of the light industrial uses on the property infeasible. This property was reviewed during the 1988 town wide re-zoning effort. One of the concerns at the time was providing expansion opportunities for C.R. Bard and leaving enough light industrial property in town to provide for that land use. This parcel contains a mix of uses currently. A review of the Light Industrial approved uses indicates that some would be inappropriate. Some of the Highway Commercial uses would also be inappropriate. A case for éither zoning on this property could be made depending on the proposed use. A more clear cut decision could be made if a blank slate were before the Board instead of trying to retrofit a zone to a semi developed site with existing nonconforming uses. 7. What are the envirollEntal i.pacts of the proposed change? The Board will have to review the traffic impacts and clearly identify what the allowable uses will be to evaluate this question. 8. How is the proposal cOllpatible with the relevant portions of the COIIprehens1ve Land Use Master Plan? The goals, policies and strategies relating to land use issues are attached. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not appear to address this proposal. 9. How are the wider interests of the C-.nity being served by this proposal? The Board has to review whether the Town desires increased commercial development in this area, or if light industrial uses are advisable. The decision rests on whether the considerations discussed during the 1988 re-zoning are still relevant or whether time has modified the Town's priorities." 21 --- '-" MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have relevant Sections of the Ordinance attached, indicating those uses which we may want to consider as inappropriate. Also attached are relevant Sections of the Master Plan, and Warren County Planning Board returned, "Removed from agenda by Town." MRS. YORK-Okay. I'd like to explain that. When we sent over our list to Warren County, the applicant had, at one time, submitted a change for re-zoning and a site plan review. What happened was, the secretarial staff put it on their agenda for both and then scratched off site plan review and put, will submit at a future date, and I think the Warren County Staff was confused by this, and just didn't look at it. We will be sending it over this coming month for review, and since this is a recommendation only, I didn't feel it was critical. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. I believe we have the applicant here, if he'd like to address the Board regarding some of the comments made. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little and O'Connor, and I'm here to represent the applicants tonight. With me is Frank Collins. We'd be glad to answer whatever questions that you might have. If I might, I might begin with some general comments. I think everybody is, maybe, familiar with the property. You may not be familiar with exactly the zoning that adjoins the property, though, and the property, if you will, on the smaller map, I've shown in black and indicated Collins' property there. Immediately to the north of this property is the Shop N' Save property and the Doyle's store property that has and is zoned Highway Commercial One Acre. Across the street from the property, it is also zoned Highway Commercial One Acre. It is to the south of this property that the LI-IA zone begins to appear, as well as this property, and this is the C.R. Bard property to the south of us. Since the zoning took place, I think there has been some change of circumstance, and one of the big circumstances is the imposition of the sewer tax. There is a very hefty tax now paid on this particular property which demands perhaps more development than what we had in the past. It is not a property that we believe that is developable from a Light Industrial type use, particularly considering some of the development which has already taken place, and it is on premises. It is easier to expand the development in the area of retail or professional offices than it would be to expand the area in Light Industrial use, considering the fact that you have to take into accommodation the existing development that is already there. If you were starting with a complete blank piece of property, you might have some different circumstance, but presently there are at least three parts of the property that are used for Highway Commercial or some portion of them used for Highway Commercial uses. You've got Cushing's Floral Shop building, which is in the front, which also has an architect's office in that particular building. You've got the printing office and, to some degree, even a portion of the large building has some retail in it. If you will recall, we were with this Board some time earlier in the year and obtained site plan review for a wholesale furniture operation in there, and presented it on the basis that, by majority, or 51 percent, it was a wholesale business, but there was some retail, mixed business, that would be visiting the site from that particular property. We had that property available, or that portion of that building available for a considerable amount of time, and weren't able to interest anybody on a Light Industrial basis to go into it, just as an an example of maybe what others think of the property, too. If you look at the site map that we have, there is also another building which is shown as Upstate Tile Company, here. That building has been vacant for almost a year. We have not been able to find anybody who would come into the building within the categories of Light Industrial. Very recently, we've talked to somebody who would come in for the leasing of automobiles, which I think is a use retail in nature and it falls within either Highway Commercial or Light Industrial. It's not a use that is specified in either particular zone. In the Light Industrial Zone, there is a category, under Site Plan Review, for limousine services or something of that nature, and you look in the Highway Commercial, there are a lot of different retail classifications. It is a business that does collect sales tax. I don't know if that's going to be the determining factor, whether you determine that to be retail or not. It doesn't actual sell the product, but it sells use of the product, and I've looked a little bit in the Ordinance, and maybe not as extensive as you want, but if you took a U-Rental or something of that nature, I don't think that there's any place else, even, in the Ordinance that that's specified. So, arguably, I think the one proposed tenant that we have found for a portion of this property over the last year is more inclined to be Highway COlllllercial than he is to be Highway Commercial. A lot of the comments that were made by Staff I think are comments that we really have no objection to. They would be addressed, and we would be happy to address them, in Site Plan Review, if we do get the re-zoning approved, and we come back and say, we are going to build this 12,000 sq. ft. retail space here and this is our parking, and this is how we are going to have our traffic flow. These are going to be our entrances, or this is going to be our entrance, whatever the Board is inclined to think and suggest to us. There was one comment I would address specifically, and that was that, in 1988, a thought was that this might possibly be a space reserved for future expansion of the C.R. Bard operation, which was adjoining us. Over the course of the last year and a half we have made various proposals to them, one of which was to construct a freestanding warehouse on our property for them. They chose otherwise and went to a site, off site from their site and our site, in another part of the Town for warehousing. So, even that does not appear to be a real possibility in the near future. We have canvassed many of the neighbors, just for your information, and I don't know if you're going to be able to see that from here. If this is the Collins property, or the frontage of the Collins' property on Bay Road, okay, we've talked to Mr. Smith, who owns a small piece immediately in front of us, and he had indicated that he has no objection to our proposed zoning request, and probably, and I have a letter from Pat Crayford. You may even want to expand your recommendation and not, your 22 -' -- recommendation to the Town that they consider our request and may consider, also at the same time, making the line straight, if you will, and include that tax map parcel. MR. MARTIN-Where is that, now? MR. O'CONNOR-This is the Smith property, which is 125-5-. MR. CARTIER-That's also zoned Light Industrial? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, 105-1-14, 15, lots 14 and 15. I go back to that. Now, we also have a written consent from Stan's, or the owners of Stan's which is to the north of us, which appears to be Light Industrial by the map, by this map here. The Light Industrial goes a little bit to the north of where we actually own. For some reason, there's a jog there. The restaurant use falls in either category. It can be Light Industrial or it can be Highway Commercial, but we have explained to them what we propose, and he has consented to it. We have also gone across. MR. CARTIER-Excuse me, Mike. Do you have that consent in writing? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You can submit that, not right now. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I just wanted to know you had it in writing. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have a short statement signed by these people. We don't have a signed statement by Mullen, David Mullen who owns this property on the south side of C.R. Bard. He has, orally, agreed by phone, and every time we try and catch the guy, we just don't catch him, but some place along the process, I'm sure I'm going to be able to. MR. MARTIN-That's the brick APMEW building, is it? MR. O'CONNOR-That's Glens Falls Iron Works, is that what they call it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-What's the property just beyond, still going south? What's the zoning? MR. O'CONNOR-This is the railroad, and you have a small piece, I'm not sure, that's where Carusone, Muller, and Carusone is. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's the new law office there, or the new building that's the law office. MR. O'CONNOR-That's professional offices, and I'm not sure if they're there by variance? MRS. YORK-Yes. They're there by variance, in a residential neighborhood. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MRS. YORK-If I could just interject, the gentleman who owns the house adjacent, that you said you might be combined into this re-zoning request, the Town Board is very hesitant to re-zone anything unless the applicant requests it. So, if you happen to see the gentleman, and he wants to join your petition or submit a petition, we'd be very happy to consider it. MR. O'CONNOR-When Frank, in honesty, put together the petition, he didn't want to presume on behalf of anybody, okay, and when I got involved in it, I said, maybe we ought to expand it a little bit, so you don't have a jagged line, and we will try to address that as we go along. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask a question, before I lose that in my head, here. Talking about that property on the edge that abuts the residential zone on which there is a commercial piece of property by virtue of variance, okay. Is he aware of the fact that because he abuts a residential zone, he would be required to provide a 50 foot buffer on his piece of property? MR. O'CONNOR-We're not talking about re-zoning his piece of property. MR. CARTIER-You're not? MR. O'CONNOR-No. We're stopping right here. MR. CARTIER-I misunderstood. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm just trying to give you a feeling of the neighborhood, as to their consent, okay. I apologize if I misled you. This map is my office map of the area, which is maybe clearer. What we're talking about re-zoning is this parcel in here, and 10 and 11 in the front. The Smith property 23 '''"'- -- is right here. The C.R. Bard property is here. This is the Mullen property. I think that other property down here is even on another map. We also have gone across the street. Basically, here, you've got 11, 10, 12, that's what the Collins' own, right here. MR. MARTIN-And you're saying you may want to include. MR. O'CONNOR-You may want to include this one, and you may want to include Stan's, up above, too, by way of recommendation. Whether the Town Board includes that in their notice for public hearing will be up to the Town Board, but I think when a planning concept is presented to you, you can look, and I've seen the Board do this before, you can look at the whole neighborhood and say, this would make a better picture, and we would recommend that this be done, as opposed to may being done piecemeal. We also have gone across the street, and on the properties of Dickinsen, Marcy, Glens Falls Realtor, Hadden, Masa, Brower, those people we contacted. Everybody said that they had no objection to our request for re-zoning. MR. CARTIER-However, what has come through the Department is a request for re-zoning of the Coll ins property only, and it was reviewed as such, and now we're looking at a larger chunk, here. MRS. PULVER-No. I think all he's saying is the people across the street have no objections to it. They don't want to be re-zoned. They just don't care. MR. BREWER-They have no objection to it. They're not asking to be re-zoned. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I've got you. MR. O'CONNOR-liTo Whom It May Concern: We the under-signed would like to see the property at 274, 278 Bay Road re-zoned from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial", and they've signed on that behalf. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mrs. York made comment, referring to the Master Plan and some of the intent that was expressed in the Master Plan, and I think one of those goals was to redefine the Light Industrial zones in areas west and north of Glens Falls to reflect changes in the land use, and she also, or I think Mr. Cartier, read the particular goals for Highway Conrnercial, to maybe take care of areas that have been developed in a haphazard way, and then there's a notation by Mrs. York that this has been developed in a haphazard way in the past. So, I think we fall within what we have for the parameters, and I spoke of a letter from Pat Crayford and, apparently, there was a conference with regard to that, and I will submit this. I'll read it so that I don't summarize it inappropriately, but, "This site would seem to be appropriate for all permitted uses listed in the Plaza Commercial as well as uses in the Highway Commercial zone, with the exception of those obviously not appropriate for the site, gasoline station, drive in theater, golf driving range. The development in this area consists of haphazard commercial patterns and will continue to do so as the east side of Bay Road is zoned Light Industrial and abuts the Highway Commercial zoning of Quaker Road. As Zoning Administrator, I have met with many residents of the Homer Avenue and Bay Road to discuss their current zoning and it's uses. This would seem to be another Light Industrial zone that does not lend itself to the permitted uses in a Light Industrial zone", and I'll submit that as part of the record. This is a letter, and I guess it was from Pat Crayford to the Queensbury Town Board, dated February 12th, 1992. I'd like to get a copy of that. That's the only one I have. So, basically, that's our thought. We looked, particularly, at what has happened with the Shop N' Save property, and what potential uses that we have, and we think that it is more compatible to have it Highway Commercial than the present zoning of Light Industrial. MR. MARTIN-All right. As is the case with these recommendations on re-zoning, where we've got a pretty open format, here, what's the Board's thoughts, here, in terms of the information provided from the applicant, as well as what's been provided, in terms of the Staff Notes? I think something of interest to note is that if we do buy into a Highway Commercial use, the last allowed use states, all permitted uses in the Plaza Commercial zone as well, in terms of what's allowed through a Type II Site Plan Review. So, we're essentially saying Plaza Commercial, too, for all practical. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I was just looking through those. With the exception of, I think the only one that fits under Lee's checked as inappropriate is the day care center, that also shows up in the Plaza Commercial. MR. MARTIN-Right. Again, I just wanted to bring that to your attention. I don't see anything of a real concern there. MR. LAURICELLA-What's the reason, I don't understand, Mike, why do you want to change this? MR. O'CONNOR-We'd like to be able to develop the property, and we don't believe that we can develop it now, with the mix of retail that's on there, unless we were to totally destroy that existing retail, and then it would be very speculative whether or not we could get somebody to come in there for Light Industrial. The other thing that has developed, and maybe hasn't been taken into account before, is 24 '-- - that the municipalities have done a fairly decent job of developing Light Industrial zoning parks, or Light Industrial parks. I think there are even lots still available and vacant in the Town's Light Industrial zone, and the County has done a nice job. I think that I s one of the nicer things that the IDA has done, is to make that land available out there for start up industries at a very nominal or very cost sensitive price per acre, as opposed to maybe the value of this property, which is near the center of the Town. If you take a look at what C.R. Bard paid for some of those small houses, that they paid and put a square footage value on those because they immediately tear down the houses, it really isn't conducive for industry to come in and try and set up shop there. So, this is a little pocket area that maybe has gone beyond Light Industrial zoning and should be developed for other uses. MR. MARTIN-What is everyone's feelings in regard to, if we were to say, okay on the Highway Commercial, but we're going to limit some of the uses that maybe inappropriate. We had some notes from Pat, as well as Lee. MR. LAURICELLA-Can we do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I have asked Paul Dusek, and he said that was within, again, we're only recommending, but the Town Board can follow through on that and in fact actually limit the allowed use. That's his opinion. MR. LAPOINT-Why wouldn't a veterinary clinic be appropriate? I'm just looking down through the list. MRS. YORK-Right. The reason I thought it may be inappropriate is most veterinary clinics have dog boarding or animal boarding associated with them. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And also incinerators, that's not appropriate near a restaurant, I don't think. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and, lets see, here, automobile sales and service. That's not the automobile leasing or renting? You have obvious reasons for each one of these. MRS. YORK-Yes. I was just going down the list with my personal idea of possibly what would be most appropriate in this location. If we're trying to create a sense of what retail you've got there already, and utilization of the structures on site that are there, and trying to, perhaps, down the line, at site plan, coordinate this with Super Shop N' Save. So, there'll be a flow of people, internally. I think putting automobile sales and service there, when we have numerous areas in the Town that are more conducive to it, might be inappropriate. It's certainly for this Board to decide. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I understand the veterinary clinic, now that you put that word incinerator in there. MR. O'CONNOR-We would have a couple of questions on a couple of the check marks. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's why I wanted to have this exchange, here. MR. O'CONNOR-On the permitted uses, day care center, I don't think we have a strong feeling. MR. CARTIER-I'll speak for me on that one. I have problems with a day care center mixed in with a comnercial use. You've got traffic issues. You've got stuff generated in the air. To me, a day care center belongs some place out in the fresh air, some place not smack dab in the middle of a highly. MR. O'CONNOR-Why is it a permitted use in a Highway Commercial zone? MR. CARTIER-I'm talking for me. I don't know. I'm not talking the Ordinance. I'm giving you my own personal reactions to a day care center. MRS. PULVER-Well, with C.R. Bard there, a lot of big companies, now, are going to having day care fairly close to their facility so that they can have, or on-site day care, whatever, and they are incorporating that in, even in those types of zones. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but I'm thinking very site specifically. In that particular area, there's very little in the way of green in that area. It just is not attractive, to me, to be a day care center. I'm just tossing out my own personal biases, if you will. MR. LAURICELLA-It's not a nice yard that you can run kids out in. MR. CARTIER-Not unless. MRS. PULVER-Well, you don't know. Maybe they're going to rip up the macadam. They'd have to come in for site plan review anyway, but certainly with C.R. Bard there, I would think they might want a day care center close by for their employees. 25 ~' -- MR. MARTIN-Well, I know there's requirements for outdoor playground area, a certain square footage, depending on the number of kids that are cared for, and so on. MRS. PULVER-It's not an easy thing to put a day care center some place. MR. LAPOINT-Did you have objections to any of the others? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We would have an objection to the exclusion of amusement center, and I guess that's more a question of definition. If you have somebody who wanted to put some machines in a shop or in a store. MRS. YORK-Right. Yes. I looked up the definition of Amusement Center myself, when I was doing this. "An indoor or outdoor facility which may include structures and buildings where there are various devices for entertainment, including rides, booths for the conduct of games and buildings for shows and entertainment. Now, an Amusement Center. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think we're talking about rides. MRS. YORK-Okay. Well, I just thought that it should be something discussed. If you were putting a video arcade in there it might be fine. If you were putting a small Great Escape in there, you might have a problem. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think that's what Frank is thinking about, and in fact, he has no definite plans. I'm not trying to sandbag something through. I'm trying to leave options open, but you may get into a video game type center. You may get into something where you have one of those practice golf things, which, there's a couple that are very popular down in the Capital District area, and this is a nice center location for something like that, if you had some other activities that would support it. So, we have a question on that. MR. BREWER-I think they're talking driving range, like used to be over on Bay Street. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's the next one down, golf driving range. MR. O'CONNOR-We don't have a question on that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Miniature golf course. MR. O'CONNOR-Commercial boat storage and sales. Possibly you could have boat sales in there, okay, and car wash. Those are the only ones we'd seriously question. MR. MARTIN-So, you've got three there that are not. MR. O'CONNOR-We would question the exclusion of those. MR. MARTIN-You have no problem with us getting rid of veterinary clinic? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I, personally, have a question on your automobile repair, or automobile sales and service. MR. LAURICELLA-Well, if you get into leasing, usually, people that lease also sell the lease cars, don't they? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and we have somebody that would like to set up a leasing operation there. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think we have to, because it says here, under the definition of automotive, auto, or motor vehicle, any use pertaining to motor vehicles, excluding trucks weighing over one and a half tons and any other heavy machinery, auto or automotive may be used to describe as an autobody shop, automobile service station, etc. So, I think it's a pretty open definition, that you could certainly include leasing under that. MR. MARTIN-We've had two different entities come to us looking for leasing. MR. MARTIN-So, I think we've got to discuss that, because leasing would fall in this category of automobile. MR. O'CONNOR-And whatever we propose is certainly subject to your site plan review. MR. CARTIER-Yes. See, I'm looking at this in terms of site specific. We only have one single entrance to this, and it's only a 20 foot wide entrance, and if things go the way you want it to go, you're going to have some pretty high density business in there. 26 -- --- MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think so, Mr. Cartier. You have two separate entrances. MR. CARTIER-Where's the other one? MR. O'CONNOR-You have one here, which is by Cushings, and then you have one up here, which is by Brennan's, or goes past Brennan's Quick Print. MR. CARTIER-But the way I'm looking at that, it looks like it's cut off somehow, that parking behind Brennan's Quick Print. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, then it would be a configuration that you don't like for parking that you tell us to change. MR. CARTIER-That needs to get worked on. Okay. MR. COLLINS-Yes. This parking is going to be changed. This should be all one parking for here. MR. CARTIER-Okay, because we might want to think about, I don't know yet. Maybe we're getting ahead of the game, here. We might want to think about an entrance only/exit only situation here. MR. MARTIN-Well, that was a comment I was going to make, in general. I think a lot of the drawback to this site, in terms of people who are interested in it, it's just a big open lot, where there's any parking, there's no curbing, there's no traffic flow, and I think that would encourage, if that could be resolved, at the point at which you come in for site plan for your new development, that that could be resolved, like here you've finally shown some defined parking, and now it's a big graveled lot, it's kind of hard to get a handle on anything. MR. O'CONNOR-The idea of that showing, as I understand it, was to simply show that we qualify, or have more than necessary parking for the square footages that we're talking about, and still maintain the permeability business. That wasn't necessarily the division of the layout. MR. MARTIN-I understand that, and it's not on the table, here. That was just a comment. MR. O'CONNOR-So, I would have a reservation on excluding amusement center, automobile repair and body shop, automobile sales and service, commercial boat storage repair or sales and car wash. I don't think we have a reservation on you excluding the public parking garage, the gasoline station, drive in theater, golf driving range, miniature golf course, recreation facility operated for profit, as long as that's the outdoor type recreation facility, not the indoor video type that I said is. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think an amusement center would be more of that. MR. O'CONNOR-Hospital, nursing home or health related facility, day care center. I guess we do have reservation to you excluding day care center. MR. COLLINS-The day care center, the age of the children, usually, are from up to, like, four years old, are preschool children, and apparently they do not require a big yard or much of a yard for outdoors. MR. CARTIER-There is no way I would be willing to accept a day care center in that heavily commercialized an area, with all that auto traffic and all the auto emissions and all that kind of stuff. As far as I'm concerned, that's just not healthy air for a day care center. MR. O'CONNOR-You're saying we would have a real difficulty with site plan review? MR. CARTIER-I would have an extreme difficulty with site plan review for a day care center. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no reservation with your excluding the farm and construction equipment sales and service, mobile home sales, or the veterinary clinic. MR. MARTIN-Well, I've got it boiled down to, then, essentially six items that need discussion, here, amusement center, day care center, both auto related uses, 10 and 11, commercial boat storage and repair, and car wash. I don't think anybody has a dispute that public parking garage, gas station, drive in theater, golf driving range, miniature golf course, recreation facility operated for profit, hospital, nursing home, and health related facility, farm construction equipment sales and service, mobile home sales, are all inappropriate in this particular case. MR. LAURICELLA-Veterinary clinic. MR. MARTIN-And veterinary clinic. So, we're boiled down to six issues, here, that we've got to resolve. Amusement Center. 27 '--- -- MR. LAPOINT-Again, you have to cut through a lot of these if we're indeed going to see site plan, is what I'm saying. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-So, you've got to give up quite a bit of leniency just about everywhere, including amusement center. MR. MARTIN-I don't have a problem with amusement center, personally. MR. BREWER-I don't either. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I don't think that's much of an issue there. Day care center. MR. LAPOINT-Kids grow up in Brooklyn and the Bronxs, millions of them. There's no health threat in that area, I mean, realistic health threat. MRS. PULVER-I don't have a problem with it, either. My sister-in-law's opening a brand new day care in Albany, Capital District Day Care, and I know it's taken her two years to get it open, and there are so many rules and regulations and you do have to have X amount of square feet for each child. I can't see where anybody would really want to put one in that location. So, I would say okay, because it probably isn't going to happen. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, if they use such tight standards. I don't think there's a threat to kids being there eight, ten hours a day in that particular location. MRS. PULVER-State run day care has more rules and regulations than the Queensbury Ordinance. MRS. TARANA-What says it has to be a State run day care center. MRS. PULVER-It has to be pretty much approved by the State. It has to meet all the, just like we have to meet all the building codes. MR. BREWER-It would still have to meet State requirements. MRS. TARANA-If they run a private day care, does it have to go through the State? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Anything over, I think it's six, four children? MR. O'CONNOR-Four. Anybody who has over four children, I think, has to be State approved. MR. MARTIN-Licensing requirements. We have a consensus, anyhow, that day care at that site's okay? MR. LAPOINT-For site plan review, and there's specific environmental concerns. MR. MARTIN-And there's licensing requirements. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, if there's a C.R. Bard stack pouring out into there that we ought to know about, right, that's going to come up via SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Peter, do you feel any differently about that issue? MR. CARTIER-Well, you used the right word. You got consensus in there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Auto repair and body shop, automobile sales and service. That's two separate listed uses. MR. LAPOINT-When we did the body shop up on Route 9, we were really heavy on storage issues, exhaust, paint fumes, when we did the Honda, the Jeckle property. He'd have to do the same thing here. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Also, when we had that body shop up there behind the old Garvey Volkswagon. So, what's everybody saying? MR. LAPOINT-I think you'd have to see it proposed. An auto repair, autobody shop is going to be your lowest, probably, traffic in and out of the site, people tend to, you know, as a trip generate, trip destination, those type things that are real low compared to an amusement center, or a car wash. You won't have a lot of coming and going if it's just an auto service. MR. BREWER-You may have a lot of traffic if it's sales. 28 '-- --' MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You may have a lot of traffic if it's sales. MR. MARTIN-Plus a lot of square footage requirement for parking and storage of the cars for sale, and a lease car operation would have probably quite a hefty square footage requirement. What's the feeling? Jim, do you have any thoughts on, any objection? MR. LAURICELLA-No. MR. MARTIN-Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I have a thought on it, and it's not specifically related to these individual uses, but my concern is changing the zoning to Highway Commercial, how that will impact the traffic, which was raised by Mrs. York. It seems to me that if it's Light Industrial, the traffic is kind of in at one time of day and out at the other. All of these uses sound to me like there could be a continuous flow in and out of that property at a really bad spot already to get in and out of, or just to travel up and down Bay Road, and I think, just looking at the bigger picture, I have a problem with changing the zone because of the traffic problem. MR. MARTIN-Good point. Does anybody want to expand on that? MR. LAPOINT-How much of that is occupied right now? MR. O'CONNOR-I would have to agree with what Mrs. York has put forth. I think she's talked to 56,000, total, is what we show on this proposed plan, which includes 12,000 square feet of new additional space, and the total that we could put on would be 76,000. MR. MARTIN-So, you're talking about another 20,000 square feet, approximately, 18, maybe 18,000? MR. O'CONNOR-Possibly. I don't know how it will fit within the parking. Each use will generate different parking. It's going to have different requirements. I don't really anticipate, you know, you've got a four lane highway that we're going to be exiting on. You may end up with left turn, right turn type entrances, or entrance only and exit only, something of that nature. I really don't envision a better street that you would have for traffic, even if you generated traffic. I think that's kind of speculative, as to whether or not we will actually produce more trips, until we actually know what our proposed use is, than what you have. Under Light Industrial, you aren't simply limited to an industry where people sit for eight hours and come out and get their car and drive away. There are uses that also generate traffic, under the Light Industrial provisions. I really don't know until you have a use, a site specific use, which comes under site plan review. Will you require use to put up a traffic light or to get involved with some type of traffic control? I don't know until we actually can tell you how many trips that we're going to produce. MRS. TARANA-Do you already have a plan for this property? MR. O'CONNOR-No, we do not. MRS. TARANA-So, we would just be giving blanket approval to put anything on here, until they come back with site plan? MR. BREWER-Anything that's allowed in that. MR. O'CONNOR-Anything that's permitted, except for. MRS. TARANA-We're changing the zoning so that they then come back for site plan review? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And it looks like we're going to eliminate veterinary clinics, at least, and probably car wash, well, who knows. MR. MARTIN-A number of things. MRS. TARANA-I guess my question would be, why aren't we waiting until there's a site plan review to see if we want to change the zone? MRS. PULVER-Because he's limited as to what he can put on that property right now, without a change of zone. MR. O'CONNOR-If we come in for a site plan review, and Mrs. York can correct me. If we come in with a site plan review for a use that's not permitted, we're told that we have to either go get a variance or get the property re-zoned before the Board will entertain the application. 29 '-- --- MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-You don't give site plan review subject to. MR. LAURICELLA-Aren't you doing that now, though, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MRS. PULVER-He's asking for a change of zone. MR. O'CONNOR-No. We started with the change of zone. MR. LAURICELLA-I know, but you're going through the same type of process, as if you had something you had proposed. MR. O'CONNOR-We could be doing the same process, if we had a tenant in mind, yes we could, okay, but we don't have a tenant in mind. It's very difficult to get someboQy interested in a piece of property where you tell them that, first you've got to go get a zoning change, and then, secondly, do a site plan review. That makes it very difficult to interest people in going through all the studies that they go through to determine that they're going to come onto this site, and then wait and see what happens. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Is that it, Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I guess I would ask him just to address a couple of the questions that were raised in Mrs. York's notes of March 23rd. How the community will benefit, what the community need is for this proposed zoning? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think, in part, I'll answer it by not answering it, okay, and then I'll try and answer it the best I can. The difference between an application for re-zoning, as opposed to an application for a variance, is that we don't have to show a hardship or a particular need for the property, in the sense that the inventory is empty, and you're looking to fill the inventory. What we're looking for is something that just fits within the general scheme and planning of the Town, that it meets the goals of the Town and allows for orderly development of the property. This property, by itself, has haphazardly developed in the past. You've got existing buildings which are in place, which have an economic value as buildings. What we're trying to say is, let us go ahead and finish development of the property without having to destroy everything that's alreaQy in place. It would be an economic waste to do that, and the other thing I would offer is that if we can't get reasonable use out of the property, then we've got to go back and ask for some relief on our assessments, particularly our sewer assessment, which is based on 6.2 acres, which generates a big bill. I think you're going to hear more and more from people in this area, and that corridor that is now paying sewer taxes. The sewer's a blessing, but not a blessing. MR. MARTIN-Is your question answered? MRS. TARANA-Well, I can see why he's doing it. I can't see why the community will benefit, what the community need is for doing that? The questions that are raised, I just would like those answered. MR. O'CONNOR-The community is answered, in the sense that you have a uniform planning. You have a coordinated type site development, as opposed to haphazard development now. When we adopted our Zoning Ordinance, it wasn't site specific to every parcel of property, and there are parcels, like this parcel, that had a very mixed use, that maybe if it was site specific they wouldn't have zoned it, and we're now bringing it to your attention and saying that maybe in considering some new developments, that it should not have been Light Industrial. There's nothing in the Ordinance that says that the zoning, as designated in 1988 is the best zoning for every parcel in the Town. I think that's why you have constant applications, here, for re-zoning, and I don't think you can show me, where in 1988, there was a need to change this, to zone this Light Industrial. The suggestion that was made by Staff was that maybe it was necessary for possible expansion of C.R. Bard. We've tried our best, in the last year and a half, to interest C.R. Bard in the property, and we can't. So, if that was the reason, in 1988, it was based in error. MRS. YORK-Well, too, I would just interject, I believe in 1988 the larger building at the rear of the property was primarily used for warehousing. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I think it was. MRS. YORK-Which was a Light Industrial use. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, and we had a vacancy and we couldn't refill it. 30 --- - MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And you also may have had some attention given to the railroad that was out there, the railroad spur, which C.R. Bard now has a fence across, below our property, so that the trains do not come north, and which I understand D and H is in the process of abandoning, but they had to wait until they got their sale taken care of. MR. MARTIN-Anything else Corinne? MRS. TARANA-No. MR. CARTIER-Just one quick question, correct me if I'm wrong, here. We're talking about Type II reviews, Type II projects. Do they require a SEQRA or do they not require a SEQRA. MR. MARTIN-Likely not to require an EIS. MR. CARTIER-Likely not to require an EIS. MR. MARTIN-They do require an assessment. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we would still do a SEQRA on those? MR. MARTIN-Yes. In each case, you're going to do one. No, not in Type II, though, you don't. MR. CARTIER-That's my question. We've had things, here, that's Type II we don't do a SEQRA on. MRS. YORK-Right. Yes. The SEQRA will be done by the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Yes, on the re-zoning, but he's saying, if it isn't re-zoned, and then somebody comes through with a day care center, then you don't have to do a SEQRA on that. That's correct. That's a Type II use. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Wait a minute. I think you're confusing something, here. You're confusing Type II, and what I've duplicated from the Zoning Ordinance. Type II means Type II review before the Planning Board. It has nothing to do with the SEQRA requirements. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. CARTIER-So, these still would be subject to SEQRA review? MRS. YORK-Right. Usually, most of your reviews are. MR. MARTIN-I stand corrected. All right. So, we're back to auto repair, automobile sales, nObody has a problem with that? Okay. Commercial boat storage repair and sales? Okay. Car wash? MR. LAPOINT-You've got a sewer right there, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, to me that's. MR. BREWER-Car washes recycle their own water anyway. MR. LAPOINT-For the most part. MRS. TARANA-Well, I guess I think of the traffic problem involved with a car wash. Again, I think of that one on Route 9 where they're lined up on Weeks Road trying to get in and out, and back onto Route 9. MR. LAPOINT-Maybe one here would relieve that. MR. BREWER-Yes, but at site plan review, we could make the setback, or whatever, so we could arrange the lines. MR. O'CONNOR-Such a use would be subject to site plan review, and you'd be able to have control. MR. LAPOINT-Right, stacking lanes and all that. 31 "---' - MR. MARTIN-So, we have another consensus on the car wash, is that it? Okay. All right. Well, then, the way I see it here is limited uses, according to the consensus we're getting, public parking garage will be disallowed, gasoline station will be disallowed, drive in theater will be disallowed, as will golf driving range, miniature golf course, recreation facility operated for profit, hospital, nursing home or other health related facilities, farm and construction equipment sales and service, mobile home sales and veterinary clinic. Is that right? MRS. TARANA-What about 16 through 24? MR. MARTIN-They were not indicated by Staff as being. MRS. YORK-The Planning Board can add or delete anything if you feel you want to discuss those. MR. MARTIN-Is there anything else that wasn't indicated, then, as a, is there any red flags there, Corinne, for you? MR. CARTIER-Again, a lot of those are heavy traffic generators, some of those are. MR. MARTIN-Well, lets see what we're allowing, right now in our Light Industrial. We've got freight terminal, extraction of sand, stone or gravel, restaurant, building supply lumber yard and similar storage yard, any light manufacturing, assembly, or other industrial or research operation meeting the requirements of this Chapter, warehouse or enclosed storage of goods and materials, distribution plans for a wholesale business, laboratory, office building in excess of 10,000, truck repair facility, heavy machinery repair facility, television and radio station, construction company, logging company, heavy equipment storage, heavy equipment sales, agricultural service use. MR. CARTIER-That's the unrevised page. I don't know if anything's changed. Has anything changed in here? MR. LAURICELLA-What page is that? MR. CARTIER-17986.1. MR. MARTIN-Do you have the up to date uses there, Lee? MR. CARTIER-I do. Let me just compare, here. They may be the same. MR. MARTIN-Passenger, limousine and/or bus storage and terminal facility added. MR. CARTIER-That's the only difference. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have one addition. I stand corrected. So, in my mind, then, that is interesting to me, because if we're allowing restaurants already and we're allowing repair of trucks and truck sales, we really have a less intense use, here, with auto related stuff. I mean, we're kicking out the truck repair and all that. So, it's really a wash. MR. LAPOINT-Well, less intense. There may be more traffic associated with autos than truck. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, what's the feeling, here? Is there anything else at all that's bothersome in this list, as to what's allowed. MR. LAPOINT-They come up with a fast food restaurant, you have to take that in the context of Stan's next door. Again, a site plan there would be tough, on the traffic end. MR. MARTIN-Right, and remember, again, you have all the uses under Plaza Commercial, which will also be allowed, public parking garage, well, that will be out, commercial greenhouse or nursery, planned unit development, pharmacy or drugstore, stationary store, hardware store, meat or food store, barber and beauty shop, clothing apparel store, music, instrument and record store, multifunction department store, sports equipment store, jewelry store, travel agency, professional office, office or building, restaurant, shopping mall plaza, television and radio station. MR. LAPOINT-It would probably be pretty safe to say it would end up as retail, right, just as a guess, worst case. MR. MARTIN-Are we at the point that we can make a recommendation, here, that. I've got them listed, not unless there's anything else that anybody wants to add. I just have a few of the ones that the Staff has indicated as inappropriate. Other than that, there's no additions. Okay. Ed, do you want to give it a try. MOTION TO RECOIIEND TO THE TCIIN BOARD GRANTING OF PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE PI-92 F.T. AID E.P. COLLINS, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: 32 Applicant states permitted uses in existing zone are not compatible with surrounding area. He's requesting a zone change from Light Industrial One Acre to Highway Commercial, with the following constraints, in terms of use: No parking garage, no gasoline station, no drive in theater, no golf driving range, no miniature golf, no outdoor recreational facilities operated for profit, hospital, nursing home, health related facility, no farm and construction equipment sales and service, mobile home sales, or veterinary clinic. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. PULVER-Just back up to health facility, there, no doctors office, or, what about a technical lab or? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, I think there's a difference between a professional office and a nursing home hospital. I think you can have, like, a lab clinic. You could have a lab clinic. MR. MARTIN-Health related facility, definition, "A building or site used for the treatment of illness, disease, injury, deformity and/or other abnormal physical or mental conditions, including rehabilitation activities and which is operated by individuals in the health industry licensed by the State of New York". MRS. PULVER-Well, you could have a lab there, then. MR. LAURICELLA-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I mean, a lab would be for diagnostic purposes. Then that would fall under it, wouldn't it? MR. LAPOINT-This is, like, no inpatient care. MRS. PULVER-I'm not talking about inpatient care. I'm talking about if they wanted to put a. MR. O'CONNOR-I think under Light Industrial it says lab. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You can have a lab, and you could have a professional physical therapists office, chiropractor, a doctor could be in there, but what you're not going to have is residence for patients, I believe. If we exclude hospital, nursing home and health related facility, the way Jim reads that and the way I'd understand it is you couldn't house patients. MR. MARTIN-Right. Yes, if you exclude that, yes. You're, essentially, saying all medical related facilities are out. All right. That's the recommendation. Okay. Before we entertain a vote, we typically open this up to the public. Is there anybody here from the public on this re-zoning? Okay. There being none, any further discussion from the Board? Maria, please call the vote. AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Cartier MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask you, I understand what you have done, and I thank you for your motion, that you have made a recommendation with regard to the property of Collins as submitted to you. Would the Board have a feeling at all, any different to the Smith property or to the two parcels that are owned by Stan's, which are zoned Light Industrial, but which probably would make planning sense to have a straight line across there, as opposed to two small islands. MR. LAPOINT-We'd have to hear from the owner, and I would be inclined to say yes, we'd want to re-zone that. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, let me ask this, in this sense, would you have any difference of recommendation to the Town Board if the owners indicated that they wished to have or wished to join the Collins in their present application? MR. LAPOINT-I could add it right on, myself, but I'd want to hear from them directly. MR. CARTIER-Well, this discussion is now in the minutes, and I assume these minutes are going to be forwarded to the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's the other thing we'd want to make sure of. MR. CARTIER-So, it's covered that way. If you can get an indication, an informal indication from this Board that we have no objection to including those two zones. MR. MARTIN-Yes, on an informal basis, I'll put on the record for me, personally. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think it makes good planning sense, in this particular situation. 33 ---- ~ MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. 11m trying to avoid coming back here, if somebody says, hey, you've got an island that you're creating that we don't want to create. This property, here, is a1ready used for a restaurant. This is Stan's Seafood. This property is a single family residence, but you take a 100k at even the size of the parce1, there's no way that that's usable for Light Industria1. It's more 1ike1y that it might be usab1e for a Highway Commercia1 or sma11 retai1 operation, which, again, wou1d be subject to site p1an review. So, it does make sense from a p1anning point of view. MR. COLLINS-I did bring it up with Mr. Smith and he wanted to be inc1uded in this, but it was a 1itt1e bit 1ate to go through the wh01e procedure again. MR. CARTIER-Wen, I think it's something you're certain1y going to have to forma1ize with the Town Board, 1etters from them or something. MR. COLLINS-Okay. The Town Board? MR. CARTIER-The Town Board when they re-zone. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I'm just thinking, I'd hate to have them send me back here for your recommendation on those two sma11 parcels. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll add this to the motion, then. MOTION TO _NO RECOIIENDATION TO THE TOIftI BOARD FOR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE PI-92 F. T. AND E.P. COLLINS, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: That if the app1 icant can get written consent from the two adjoining property owners for re-zoning to Highway Commercial, that we recommend that change be imp1emented by the Town Board. Du1y adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the fo110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Cartier (10:05 p.m.) FRESIlfATER WETLANDS PERMIT AI 1-92 FLOYD AND MARGARET BATEASE OINER: SAlE AS ABOVE PROPERTY· INVOLVED: NORTH SIDE OF HAVILAND ROM: GF19 FOR EXCAVATION OF POND, FILL REIIJVE. TO BE USED AS COIISTRUCTION SITE FOR HOOSE AND GARAGE WITH WELL AND SEPTIC. CURRENT ZONE: SR-lA AREA OF PROPERTY: 5.5 ACRES FLOYD BATEASE, PRESENT (10:05 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior P1anner, Freshwater Wetlands Permit FWI-92, Floyd & Margaret Batease, 3-13-92, Meeting Date: March 24, 1992 "The applicant has received a DEC wetlands permit to create a pond and use the excavated fill for construction of a house and garage. The 10cation is a five acre parce1 300 feet from Haviland Road. Since DEC has reviewed this and determined that if the permit conditions are adhered to that there shou1d be no environmental impact, the Board should fee1 confident in approving this." MR. MARTIN-Do we have anybody here from the app1icant, sti1l? MR. BATEASE-I'm Floyd Batease. MR. MARTIN-You don't have anything to add, I would assume? MR. BATEASE-No. I thought maybe I'd 1et you lead me through this, and if you've got any questions. MR. MARTIN-Wen, you're looking pretty good right now. Does anybody have any comments on this? I think this is pretty much straight forward here. We have a favorable comment from Staff. Is there a SEQRA required on this, Lee? No? A11 right. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESlllATER WETINIDS PERMIT AlI-92 FLOYD AND MRGARET BATEASE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: For excavation of a pond, fill remova1. To be used as construction site for house and garage with wel1 and septic, with the fol1owing conditions: That an specifications outlined in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit No. 5-5234-00205/00001-1 dated 15 January 1992 be adhered to by the applicant and his contractor. Du1y adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: 34 '--' - AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (10:07 p.m.) SITE PlAN NO. 12-92 TYPE II LI-lA JAMES II. IIJIT FRANK L. SEARS D/B/A TREE CARE BY STArt IIJrtT (illER: K & B HOLDING CO. 53 BOOLEVARD FOR HEAVY EQUIPlŒffT STORAGE AID REPAIR FOR TREE SERVICE IIJSINESS. RENTAL OF PROPERTY FORMERLY ICNOWrt AS BECKER HEAVY DUTY TRUCK PARTS, RETAIL CENTER. TO LOCATE A TREE CARE IIISIf(ESS FOR STORAGE AND MAINTElfAlfCE OF TRUCK ArtD EQUIPMEIT. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) (WARREN CoortTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 112-1-17.2 LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES SECTIOrt 179-26 KATHY GREEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:07 p.m.) MRS. YORK-Before I get into the Staff Notes, I want the Board to be aware, the Beautification Committee was going to look at this and unfortunate1y, I'll give you the 10ng story. Themai1 at the Town Office Building goes out in bulk form. So, they have to wait until they get enough to make a bulk, and by the time Mr. Hunt received his notification for the Beautification Committee, it was after the date, and they kind of missed each other. So, if you fee1 that Mr. Hunt shou1d go back to the Beautification Committee, you may want to put that in your motion. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior P1anner, Site P1an Review No. 12-92, James W. Hunt/Frank L. Sears d/b/a Tree Care by Stan Hunt, March 13, 1992, Meeting Date: March 24, 1992 "The applicant intends to utilize an existing facility in a Light Industria1 zone off of the Bou1evard. The use wil1 be for tree care services and the only anticipated site change wi11 be to the sign. The applicant has done an outstanding job in the addendum to his p1an in addressing the checklist and al1 possible concerns. The staff recommends approval if there are no other community issues brought out at the public hearing." MRS. YORK-And Warren County recommended approva1. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there someone here for the applicant? MS. GREEN-I'm Kathy Green from Tree Care by Stan Hunt. We have nothing to add to what we gave you. MR. MARTIN-Al1 right. I'll open a public hearing. Is there anyone here from the public in regards to this app1ication? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD BELLO MR. BELLO-1'm Richard Be110. I live at 70 Bou1evard, directly across from the driveway in which is being used by former Beckers and now Stan Hunt, and no doubt I stopped and 100ked at the site p1an review. They did a good job. They p1an on putting fence in and 1andscaping around their new sign and everything, but they've over100ked one major prob1em, with me living across the street, that road creates a 1arge cloud of dust every time somebody pul1s out onto the Bou1evard, and Mr. De Lisle, who lives right next door, probab1y 30 feet from that driveway, when they're pu11ing in, there's a constant c10ud of dust over him. In the summer time you can't open your windows. You can't hang your c10thes out to dry. We have nothing against the Hunts. They do an excellent job, but if they can only he1p us get this road situation cleaned up. I would suggest b1acktop. They have put stone in there for the last coup1e of years. MR. MARTIN-But it hasn't he1ped? MR. BELLO-No. The on1y thing it did do is create a bigger prob1em for Mr. De Lis1e, here. GILBERT DE LISLE MR. DE LISLE-Gilbert De Lisle, and I live right by the road where they're going through. What they created before they came over, they put the road higher, and then in the spring of the year, or when it rains, the water comes down on my property, and around towards, like, I've got a big patio in the back, and it makes a big pond there, and what I'm afraid of, it might go in my ce11ar. MR. MARTIN-Where do you 1ive? MR. BELLO-This is Mr. De Lis1e's house, right here. MR. CARTIER-Did Tom Yarmowich look at this, Lee, do you know? MRS. YORK-No, he didn't, because there's really no on-site changes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 35 "-' -- MR. LAPOINT-So, we're looking to correct and existing situation, if possible? MRS. YORK-That's a good way to look at it. MR. MARTIN-Is there anything the Hunts would be willing to offer to correct this? MS. GREEN-I'm sure that Jim and Frank were not made aware happy to do whatever they can to take care of the problem. what was there, because they're not happy with the way it will impact on what you're talking about. of this situation, and I'm sure they'd be I know they have talked about re-graveling meets the road, but I don't know how th i s MR. MARTIN-How long is that driveway? We're looking at, probably, something that's maybe 60, 90 feet long? MR. BELLO-More like 300, isn't it? MS. GREEN-It's long. It's set way back from the road. MR. MARTIN-I was just thinking of this section that goes along Mr. De Lisle's property. I don't want to sit here and say, well, lets have him pave the thing 150 feet. I mean, we may be talking about several thousand dollars, here. MR. LAPOINT-If they mounded this and they brought this up to create run on to somebody else's property, they can't do that. MR. BELLO-I don't think they created it to make this runoff go on to that property, but with snow plows and crushed stone has leveled it off so it is actually swaling in the wrong direction, where there's nothing to the other side of it. It's a vacant lot. MR. MARTIN-Who owns this site? MR. BELLO-Becker. MS. GREEN-Carl Becker, Becker and Sons, actually. MR. MARTIN-And you're only leasing it? MS. GREEN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, you can't grade your road or plow your road so you create a run on problem onto somebody else's property. You can't do that. So, that's regardless of our approval here, and the dust we can do, we can suggest that he use some type of control measure there. You can get the right mix of gravel. Why it's dusting is you don't have the right mix. MR. MARTIN-The other thing that's relatively inexpensive is, like I know Peckum Materials has a liquid calcium. Instead of oiling the roads, which is no longer acceptable, like they used to do in years past, this is a new method of, and it makes for a relatively firm base and keeps the dust down, and you can do several hundred feet for a few hundred dollars. MR. CARTIER-Liquid calcium? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Does it have any problem for lawns? MR. LAPOINT-It's lime. It's good for it. It's like liming your lawn. MR. MARTIN-Well, I know that's the new method of dust control on back roads now. They don I t use the oil anymore. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, I mean, it looks, right here in these photos that they have either plowed this thing such that they've created a drainage problem for the white house. MR. DE LISLE-I think Frank, he plowed the opposite way. I asked him if he would this winter, and they plowed the opposite way for me. MS. GREEN-Right. MR. BELLO-See, this is going beyond Sears. MR. CARTIER-But the catch is, the owner of the property is the one to best make the correction. 36 ------- MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-And unfortunately we don't have the owner of the property in front of us tonight. MR. LAPOINT-You're not the agent for the applicant, for Sears? MS. GREEN-Sears. We are also the agent for Becker. MR. MARTIN-You are? MS. GREEN-Well, Jim and Frank are. I am the agent for them. So, I don't know for whom I can speak. MR. CARTIER-Let me see if I can solve it this way. Do you have a letter of authorization from K and B Holding Company to speak, before this Board? MS. GREEN-Jim and Frank do, and I have a letter from Jim to speak for him. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then, does that take care of that? MR. MARTIN-I would say so. MR. CARTIER-So, can we tell this applicant, tonight, who, if it's my understanding, is an agent also for the agent of the property, this is what has to be done, can we do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I believe so. MR. CARTIER-I think we've got it covered. I think you're hear representing Mr. Becker, also. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd like to have that into the file. MR. CARTIER-This is from Mr. Hunt. So, we've got a paper trail going here. I think what we can do is stipulate what needs to be done out there and this lady can bring those. MR. MARTIN-I think there's two relatively minor things that can be done, one a re-grading of the road to drain the water away from Mr. De Lisle's property, and you said there was a pine tree area that you could. MR. DE LISLE-Yes. Down further there's pines, but if the dust goes in the pines and all, I don't care about that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's two issues. There's the drainage problem and the dust. The drainage would be solved by re-grading of the road to properly drain the water away from your yard, and secondly a treatment of the road surface, somehow, to keep the dust down, and if we can get into naming a specific treatment. MR. LAPOINT-No. We'll just say implement dust control methods for driveway, and let him specify. MR. MARTIN-And that way, this kicks it into the Building and Codes Enforcement Officer. He'll be down there to make sure that you've done these things, and if they're not, give him a call, and we're trying to not make this a big expense for you or the owner of the property. MS. GREEN-Okay. I have a question. It's the entrance from the road that we're talking about, right? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MS. GREEN-This is a very long driveway. MR. MARTIN-I think with some minor work with a bulldozer or a backhoe, and you could take care of this, and then re-graveling and some treatment on top of the gravel, and you're all set. MS. GREEN-I don't foresee this being a major problem. MR. MARTIN-Well, as long as you agree to that, if it's a problem, you can come back before us, but I want to try and get you going and also take care of them. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-And we have a SEQRA to do. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, we do. 37 --- RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MOE RESOWTION NO. 12-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: WHEREAS, there is present1y before the P1anning Board an application for: JAfES If. WIT AID FRANK L. SEARS, for heavy equf.-ent storage and repair for tree servfce busfness. Rental of property forwerly known as Becker Heavy Duty Trock Parts, retail center, to locate a tree care business for storage and _intenance of trock and equi.-ent, and WHEREAS, this P1anning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is sUbject to review under the State Environmenta1 Qua1ity Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be inv01ved. 2. The fo110wing agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is un1isted in the Department of Environmenta1 Conservation Regu1ations implementing the State Environmenta1 Qua1ity Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmenta1 Assessment Form has been completed by the app1icant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly ana1yzed the re1evant areas of environmenta1 concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmenta1 impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Officia1 Compi1ation of Codes, Ru1es and Regu1ations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi11 have no significant environmenta1 effect and the Chairman of the P1anning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and fi1e as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative dec1aration that may be required by law. Du1y adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Laurice11a, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. Peter, do you have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-92 JAfES If. WIT FRANK L. SEARS D/B/A TREE CARE BY STAN WIT, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For heavy equipment storage and repair for tree service business, to 10cate a tree care business for storage and maintenance of truck and equipment, with the fo11owing stipu1ations: That the property owner re-grade the first 220 feet of the road from the Bou1evard, such that water wi11 no 10nger drain onto neighboring property, and that adequate dust contro1 measures be instituted to e1iminate dust prob1ems effecting neighboring property, and that the app1icant be required to appear before the Beautification Committee and meet any requirements p1aced on this Site P1an by said Committee. Du1y adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the f01lowing vote: MRS. YORK-Excuse me. I received a 1etter just before, from a gentleman who was here, who asked me to read this into the minutes at the pub1ic hearing. It's from Lou Beckmen, Genera1 Manager of Genessee Refrigeration, 39 Bou1evard, Queensbury, New York "Dear Board: Our concern is that this bui1ding and surrounding area wi11 continue to maintain a c1ean, neat appearance, without old unsight1y vehic1es or tree stumps or other appearances that wou1d detract anymore in this area. Thank you. Lou Beckmen" AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Laurice11a, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (10:23 p.m.) BREAK v<'" ) .?j~ SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 SICETCH PLAN TYPE I SR-ZO RE-ZONED 10/9/91 AFFORIMBALE NOOSING SHERIN PINES (lINER: CHARLES DIEHL SOUTH SlOE OF SHERIN AVEflJE, 1,490± FT. EASTERLY OF INTERSECTION OF WEST IDJITAIN ROAD AID SHERIN AVEflJE FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 48.275 ACRES lITO 83 - 10,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING 38 "--" ~ LOTS. APPROXlMTELY 5,400 L.F. OF ROAD IS TO BE IIJILT AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL lULL BE BASED ON THREE TO FOOR RESIDENCES PER DISPOSAL FIELD FOR 83 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES; CUJSTERED WITH HOMEOIߌRS ASSOCIATION TO (IßI OPEN SPACE AND COIIDI AREA. LOT SIZE: 48.275 ACRES TAX IMP NO. 121-1-22.1 CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1990 RE-ZONING RESOUJTION 530 OF 1991 SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1991 WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:30 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior P1anner, Subdivision No. 5-1992, Charles Dieh1, 3-11-92, Meeting Date: March 24, 1992 "The concept on this subdivision for affordable housing has changed from clustered townhouses to sing1e fami1y to a mix of housing types back to sing1e fami1y. The 1ast P1anning Board res01ution is attached. The staff has also taken the liberty of attaching the minutes of the public hearing on the Dieh1 re-zoning to SR-20. The Town Board re-zoned the property from SR-IA to SR-20 to al10w for moderate income housing. It has been previously stated during the re-zoning that the origina1 townhouse concept offered an alternative in the moderate income range. (different than Adams Rich). The applicant was limited in what the first sale price cou1d be by an agreement with the Town Board. The p1an presented is wel1 done from a layout design standpoint. The staff is not sure if it meets the intent of the re-zoning, however. If the intent is to provide moderate income housing then perhaps the deve10per shou1d se11 ha1f acre 10ts with on 10t septic systems and not require payment into a homeowners association, since the design is getting close to a traditiona1 subdivision. This wou1d require modification of the re-zoning approva1, but this may be the appropriate way to proceed. The current submission has quarter acre 10ts with common septic systems in the open space. The Director of Bui1ding and Codes has supplied the Board with input on this situation. It wou1d appear than if open space conservation were a consideration then ha1f acre 10ts with c1earing limits might provide for more area 1eft in a natural state. The Board may wish to discuss the applicant's intent and how this concept is in line with what the Town Board approved. The project has been through a number of concept changes, and, for the benefit of a11 inv01ved, it may be appropriate to discuss which is the best concept for the Town." MRS. YORK-There shou1d be a letter from David Hatin incorporated here. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, March 20, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the f01lowing engineering comments: 1. A conceptua1 grading p1an shou1d be provided (AI83-6.B.2f). In addition to conceptual1y coordinated re1ationships between roads and 10ts, concept grading shou1d demonstrate the feasibi1ity of multi-home sewage disposa1 systems that must be located in areas where existing grade on adjoining 10ts is lower than common areas avai1able for disposa1 system 10cation. 2. Access strips into common open areas shou1d be provided for septic system maintenance and community residents use, especial1y in the two areas bounded by 10ts. 3. The extent of tota1 c1eared area upon project comp1etion appears to be on the order of 24± acres (approximate1y 1/2 of parcel area) based on roads, septic system concept and an al10wance of 6,500 s.f. of 1awns, bui1dings and 1andscaping per 10t. 4. On road "B" near station 21+00 there is a 10w area bounded by contour 434 which appears subject to potential seasona1 ponding. Ponding cou1d a1so adverse1y affect 10ts based on existing grades. This shou1d be addressed." MRS. YORK-Okay. A 1etter from David Hatin, Director of Bui1ding and Code Enforcement, to Planning Board, dated March 6, 1992 "I've reviewed the proposed subdivision 1ayout re1ating to septic for Sherman Pines and have a coup1e of comments to pass a10ng to the Board related to the current sewage disposa1 design proposed by the developer. This design is current1y being used in the Queen Victoria Grant Subdivision where we have two units hooked into one system. The prob1em that has occurred is that if one owner has as prob1em a11 four owners wi11 have the same prob1em if there is a prob1em with the 1each field. There a1so does not appear to be enough room for a rep1acement system shou1d these systems fai1 due to the 1ayout of some of the 10ts with respect to the streets that are proposed. I persona11y prefer individua1 septic systems for each unit, therefore if there is a prob1em which occurs, it on1y occurs for one unit and does not have effect on the other units. I do not know if this is feasib1y practica1 with this layout because you are only allowing a quarter-acre lot for a house to be bui1t on, not 1eaving enough room for individua1 septic systems without effecting the green area as is. Thank you for your attention to this matter." MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a question right now, here? I was under the impression that you cou1d not get a mortgage for a house if it didn't have its own individua1 septic system? That's not correct? MRS. YORK-That's not correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-A11 right. Does the app1icant have anything he'd 1ike to bring forward? MR. MATHIAS-My name is Wi1son Mathias. I'm here on beha1f of Char1es Diehl who's the owner/app1icant. We've been over this project a number of times, so I don't think it's real1y worthwhi1e to go over some of the same materia1 again. 39 --- MR. MARTIN-I agree. MR. MATHIAS-I think, just to try to respond to the cormnents is the best thing, and maybe point out some things that your professionals haven't pointed out to you. I think that the idea of the sing1e family houses has been a process of ev01ution, and it's been as a resu1t of dia10gues with you, with the Town Board, and with both Boards and the applicant. I don't think that this is a question of us coming in to the Town Board and saying, here's one thing, knowing a11 a10ng we were going to come back and give you something else. It's something that's deve10ped. We've adopted the comments that you've made, and come up with a resu1t that makes my c1ient happy and hopefu11y wi11 make you happy. I be1ieve in your attorneys, here, but I be1ieve that if carefu11y review the covenants and restrictions which are fi1ed in the Warren County C1erk's Office, and which were a condition to our obtaining the zoning that we requested, that this project as shown on this Sketch P1an comp1ies in fu11 with those covenants and restrictions, and obviously the portions of the p1an that are yet to be done, such as water saving toi1ets and a traffic study are things that we have to do, but those wi 11 be provi ded. I think that it's important to take a 100k at our c010ring scheme, here, and envision a coup1e of different things. First of a11, the south hundred feet adjoining Sherman Avenue wi11 be left natura1. There'11 be no cutting, no nothing, other than obvious1y getting the road entrances in, but that's not an area for septic rep1acement, and there's, the dark green on the map a1so f0110ws a10ng the boundary line. There's certain1y a buffer area that will remain uncut and it basica11y varies in width. MR. MARTIN-What's the sca1e of that drawing, Wi1son? MR. MATHIAS-I think it's 1 to 50, otherwise we'd need three maps. It's something for you to 100k into in changing your regulations. What we're proposing, I think, is somewhat of a unique situation where we're proposing a series of covenants and restrictions that wi1l 1imit the amount of cutting to be done by individua1 homeowners. In other words, when somebody buys one of these things, they're not just going to be ab1e to cut down a11 the trees and mow 1awn and throw stuff on to keep it green, and that'11 be a function, obvious1y, of the covenants and restrictions, and enforced by the homeowners association. The 1ighter green area, we've c010red it green because there's nothing that's going to be bui1t on it, but it's going to be uti1ized for the septic systems, and that means in certain instances contractors, in insta11ing the systems, are going to have to take down some trees, but there also wi11 be trees that are a110wed to remain within that 1ighter green area, and we're going to specifica11y provide, in our covenants and restrictions, that if a septic fie1d has to be replaced as part of the cost of doing it, they're going to have to re-forest it. In other words, p1ant whatever was on the area that they're uti1izing for the rep1acement area, and I think that we wou1d dispute the engineer's computation of the amount of green area. I think we're certainly more than ha1f, and think we may be even a little above that, in terms of, in the 60 percent p1us range, in terms of what we're going to 1eave undisturbed. We'd a1so just say that, in terms of the Engineering Comments, a 10t of those questions get addressed at the Pre11minary Stage, and if you have to do it now, it's a tremendous amount of cost when somebody says change it, and that's a rea1 good examp1e, if we had to do it. This is our third one of these things for you f01ks. Obviously, we have to address those issues, but I think the appropriate time is at the Pre1iminary review. MR. MARTIN-I don't think anybody wou1d argue with that. MR. MATH IAS- The other rea1 substantive issue, I think, that gets raised is kind of a combination of that raised by Dave Hatin and Mrs. York, and that's the issue of the common septic. We be11eve that if there are prob1ems at Queen Victoria Grant, they're not as a resu1t of the design of the system, but as of the insta11ation. I think that they're certainly many projects, I mean, common septage isn't something that's brand new. It doesn't take rocket scientists to figure it out. Yes, if there's a prob1em with the septic field, it's going to be a prob1em for four homeowners, and yet a11 four of them share in the cost of any type of necessary repair to those systems. I think that if they're proper1y insta11ed, we be1ieve that they're going to work, and I'm not sure that, I wou1d raise some issues in terms of the requiring us to use individua1 septic systems if we can provide engineering data to show that the combined systems work. MR. CARTIER-We11, 1et me ask you a question right here. Suppose I go out there and I buy a 10t and I want to bui1d a house there and I say to you, I don't want to on a shared septic system. I want to put in my own septic system? MR. MATHIAS-Then you're going to go some p1ace e1se. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MATHIAS-That's a11. The carrot is, you want to buy something for $72 to 83,000, you can be out here, and if you want to do the other stuff, you look some p1ace e1se for a 10t. The other thing that I do think is important to mention, here, is the fact, another covenant restriction that we intend to impose, and part of this is a result of, rea11y, the engineering studies to determine the son capacity, here, for hand1ing the waste. Our engineers te1l us we can site 83 units, but that they can't be more than three bedrooms, and what we would do, again as part of our covenants and restrictions, is set up right in it, it's going to be three bedrooms, as a maximum, and I think we'd certain1y want 40 ',,--, --- the Town to be advised of that, so that if somebody came in and asked for a bui1ding permit out here to put on a fourth bedroom or addition, that they wou1dn't give it. We, of course, again, peop1e are going to be paying homeowners association dues and that's the type of thing that that, private1y, wou1d enforce, but I think we'd put it on record, here, so peop1e wou1d be aware of it, and I think that does a coup1e of things. Obvious1y, it mitigates exact1y how much stuff we're putting into the aquifer, or potentia11y putting into this aquifer recharge area, and secondly I think it a1so tends to preserve this issue of affordabi1ity. I think Car01's raised some good questions a10ng the way, here, about what happens to the second guy who, after, 1ets say the first one meets the income requirements, which they have to do, what happens to the second guy? You're on1y going to be getting a three bedroom house, and the second guy's going to buy that, and I think there's going to be a market 1imit on that, as opposed to someone who buys a three bedroom, adds a pooL adds a bedroom, that type of thing, and I think that tends to push forward the idea of the affordabi1ity. The fina1 comment I would have is that, and I don't think, I mean, I think Lee's point is we11 taken, in terms of, you've changed it so much, why not just come in with this standard, conventiona1, ha1f acre lot subdivision. The biggest prob1em with that is that we won't get 83 10ts. I mean, frank1y, that's the rea1 thing. We're not going to get a variance from the Department of Hea1th, we don't think we wi11, to bui1d more than 49 out there. So, that's rea11y the primary reason we're uti1izing this other concept. A1so, I think, with the use of a homeowners association, you get the advantage of dea1ing with the ownership of the common area, and you can be a 1itt1e more creative, in terms of the designing of the 10ts, as a resu1t of uti1izing common area. We're not going to be maintaining roadways or anything e1se. So, basica11y, what the homeowners association's going to be doing out here is paying insurance, paying taxes and having a reserve for the septic maintenance, and I think that the resu1t of that should be that we can keep a very 10w month1y charge, in terms of the cost of being a member of the homeowners association. So, that's rea11y, we're happy to answer any questions you've got. MR. LAPOINT-I've got a quick one, just on your engineering. If you're going to use a common 1each fie1d for three units, you're going to have that number of 1inear feet you require for three bedroom units. Why wouldn't you just run three separate connects to that as opposed to one common connect? I mean, the expense wou1d be 300 feet of PVC pipe and you wou1d have three individual systems, I mean, in the same trench, in the same, I mean, you're going to have to have that number of 1inear feet of 1aterals in your common area. JACK HUNTINGTON MR. HUNTINGTON-That's a possibi1ity. MR. LAPOINT-That's a good idea. It's something to think about. MR. MARTIN-Then you're taking away the prob1em of a shared system. MR. LAPOINT-Exact1y, at the on1y cost, you're going to have the trench there anyway, and the on1y cost is going to be the extra PVC. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Three 1ess tees, just for thought. MR. HUNTINGTON-I'm Jack Huntington. That's a possibi1ity, and as we go down the road with this, that may be something we consider. MRS. PULVER-It does add to the cost, but everything else is a1ready there. MR. LAPOINT-But the idea of having, the benefit of having three separate systems, to me, if I'm going to buy a house, and I've got a septic system in my house, and a 1each fie1d, I can't imagine sharing that with my neighbors, and I know peop1e do it. MRS. PULVER-We11, especia11y if your neighbor has a 1arge fami1y, and there's two of you. MR. MARTIN-That concept is proposed on1y for, what, six units, here, six houses? MR. LAPOINT-No. It's typica1 everywhere. MR. HUNTINGTON-It just typica1. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but just the idea that you could, for a minima1 cost, have everybody on the individua1. MR. CARTIER-That wou1d not be on the individua1 10t. It wou1d sti11 be out in this open space, right? MR. LAPOINT-You'd have the same amount of pipe, actua11y. 41 "--' '-/ MR. CARTIER-But each guy would have his own set of pipes. MR. LAPOINT-Own individual pipe, you'd have the same number of leach feet in the disposal bed. MR. HUNTINGTON-Each system divided by three. MR. LAPOINT-Right, or something along that line. You'd have no more area consumed. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see that possibility explored. MR. LAPOINT-That's my only comment. MRS. PULVER-My comment was, who is going to be responsible for the homeowner funds and disbursement? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think initially the applicant is going to be the person who's in charge of things, because he's the guy, unti1 we sel1 out. I think that probably realistical1y, at some point down the line, we'll need to engage a management company. MRS. PULVER-Of course, then that creates another fee. MR. MATHIAS-It creates another fee, right. We've got, unfortunately I think we're going to have to incorporate rather than being an un-incorporated association, and of course that imposes us certain annual accounting and, fortunately for me, at this point anyway, legal fees, but those would be, of course, reasonable, but I think initial1y, c1early the app1icant's going to be hand1ing that portion of things, and I think that, Carol, you probably know about as much about homeowners association as I do on these things. Sometimes you can get an active group, and you can get someone in there who's wil1ing to be treasurer and wil1ing to put up with the baloney and do a real1y good jOb and make it their career, and sometimes you can't. MRS. PULVER-Wel1, in this situation, I would not rely on anyone of the homeowners to be col1ecting fees from the other 82, only because it's very difficult to get money from your neighbor who you know just lost their job, or whatever. You real1y need an outside source that's going to be responsible for that. MR. LAURICELLA-What would the fees be for, if you had separate septic systems? MR. MATHIAS-Wel1, if you had separate septic systems, I think you'd sti1l have to probably col1ect somewhat of a reserve, a much smaller one, in terms of the septic costs for maybe any kind of disturbance to some common area, but basically the fees that you'd be col1ecting would be for insurance on the common area, the open area, and taxes, because I bet we'll get taxed on it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. That common space, the Town of Queensbury will still have an assessment on. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Have you spoken with the assessor at all, to find out what? MR. MATHIAS-No, because we didn't know how much or what, yet, but that'l1 be something we'l1 need to do when we give you the Pre1iminary, because I think you'l1 probably want to see a budget for the homeowners association. MR. CARTIER-I'm just going back to our original motion, here, the comment that, the protected species issue will be settled this spring, that we had some questions about. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. Well, now, we can certainly, now, I mean, what could we do when the, although even just a very 1ittle bit of snow, but it would have been tough to get any biologist to come and tel1 us, don't worry about it, that would be beneath us to do that. MR. CARTIER-What about the question in reference to access to the open space? MR. HUNTINGTON-There'll be easements provided across the properties, separate properties, to get access to that back part. MR. CARTIER-Within a lot, in other words, I could own a lot where I have an easement across that anybody can cross to get into that, or is it going to be a separate strip? MR. HUNTINGTON-It would be an easement across the property. It would probably be along the property line between two properties. MR. CARTIER-So, it would be sort of a shared easement. Okay. 42 '--' - MR. MATHIAS-Yes. It'11 be some form of a shared easement. I think when we get to the PreHminary Stage and can 1ayout where we've got to do the grading and the c1earing and that kind of thing, we can better provide you with the information, but obvious1y we've got to be ab1e to make sure that someone can get to the back to do whatever they have to do on a septic system. MR. MARTIN-Is there any questions from anybody on the design or the concept of? MR. LAPOINT-No cu1-de-sacs. MR. MARTIN-A11 sing1e fami1y. MR. LAPOINT-No big 10ng driveways. MR. MARTIN-I circ1ed the comment about the green areas being 50 percent. I thought that was pretty good. Even if that ca1cu1ation's right, or you're right, it's 60 percent, a11 the better, but I think 50 percent green area, in this particu1ar 10t, with 83 units, is pretty good. MR. LAPOINT-And I 1ike the idea they're not out on Sherman Avenue, two road cuts for 83 units. MR. W\RTIN-That's the other thing I was going to say. Except for three of the houses there that are ri ght a 10ng a road, on the entry roads there, a 11 the other houses, the wa 11 of the house is goi ng to be nearly 250 feet, 300 feet from the road. I mean, you're not even going to see this p1ace. MR. CARTIER-How restrictive are you going to be as to where a person can 10cate a house on the 10t? Is there going to be some f1exibi1ity, in terms of where, again, to go back to my examp1e, if I buy a 10t out there, how much freedom am I going to have to locate a house on the specific 10t. MRS. PULVER-I think you just have to stay within the setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance, and you can be wherever you want. MR. HUNTINGTON-You've got to meet whatever the requirements are for setbacks, just 1ike you said. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The on1y thing we might consider is a tree c1earing or something Hke that, a 1imitation on c1earing, something of that nature. A fi1tered view type thing that we've heard ta1ked about. MR. BREWER-I think he had that stated when he. MR. W\THIAS-Yes. I mean, that's what I see, and, again, as maybe kind of to go to the unique aspect of being ab1e to point to something and say this is a 1itt1e different than somebody e1se's. MR. W\RTIN-We11, I think you cou1d quick1y remove the so ca11ed affordab1e housing character of this nature. If you 1eft a 10t of trees there, it's going to be very. MR. W\THIAS-Yes, I think so, too. I mean, 1et it 100k 1ike woods. MR. MARTIN-Upper income, 1uxury housing, something of that nature. MR. CARTIER-I'm trying to remember. We did something 1ike that with Northern Homes. MR. MATHIAS-I know you did with one of the Woodbury projects, and I think that's one of the, in looking at their covenants and restrictions, it's that draft. I wou1d say something Hke that wi11 probab1y show up in ours. MR. CARTIER-What we did is, I can't remember the exact numbers, now, but we said, you've got to leave 10 feet or 20 feet of vegetation from your property 1ine or something Hke that. So, each property owner had a pretty good sized chunk. MR. W\RTIN-Granted, you're going to have your c1earing for your septic issues, but beyond that, I'd Hke to see as much retained as we cou1d, and that wou1d be in keeping with the origina1 intent of the green space and the open areas, and a11 that. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, abs01utely. That's a part of what we said from the beginning, and I think we'd like to carry that out. MR. W\RTIN-I persona11y 1ike the design, and I agree with Lee's first sentence of her third paragraph, there, "The p1an presented is we11 done from a 1ayout design standpoint". MR. CARTIER-Are you going to have to run this by the Town Board again? MR. MATHIAS-We11, as a procedura1, I mean, I don't think that we have to. I guess, it's the old, do we want to, I think that everyone has notice what we're going. I mean, I know that Mrs. Monahan does. 43 '-- >--- We've certain1y. I've had some, what I wou1d characterize as very informal, discussions with some members of the Town Board to a1ert them to this because I think we were concerned that somebody on the Board wou1d say, hey, wait a minute. You've done something that wasn't initial1y represented to us. So, I wou1d say the p1an, at this point, wou1d be no. MR. MARTIN-To address that, and maybe shed some light on it, Mr. Dieh1 ca11ed myse1f and we had a meeting with the Town Supervisor, at which time it was asked, what should be done, that was the concept that was coming forth, now, a11 sing1e fami1y, and I said, what came out of the meeting is you should come back to Sketch P1an, and that's why he's back here at Sketch P1an instead of presenting this at Pre1iminary Stage. So, we're right back to Square One, and that's why. So, I mean, it's not 1ike anything's been hid or, we're right back to Square One, essential1y, in terms of the p1anning process. MR. CARTIER-Has Betty seen this particu1ar one? MR. MATHIAS-I know that, we 11 , unfortunate1y, she hasn't seen the green one, but I be1ieve she has seen the other and certain1y, if you direct me to, I'll discuss it with her. Again, I can't speak for her, but I be1ieve that she's going to say, gee, it's not what I thought it was going to be, and I'm going to say, you're right. MRS. PULVER-We11, my on1y comment on this is I think the design is very much a traditiona1 deve10pment. We somehow got away from c1ustering, but I have no prob1em with it as it stands, because the Town of Queensbury real1y doesn't understand c1ustering, what c1ustering real1y is, but as 10ng as we have as much green space as we have and the houses remain affordab1e, I have no prob1ems with it. I mean, I think it does, the houses are off the road. It does a 10t, but it's not clustering as I know clustering to be, and affordab1e housing. MR. CARTIER-No. There's no way you can ca11 this a c1uster design. MRS. PULVER-It's not, we1l, and that was the original intent of the re-zoning was to go to c1ustering for affordab1e housing, but I don't have any prob1em with it as it stands. MR. MARTIN-But, in my mind, I think something is removed from the attractiveness of the homes, when you say, we11, 1ets go to a c1uster design. This, to me, these 10ts and these houses in this configuration in this setting are going to be more appealing than something in a c1uster design. MR. LAPOINT-In a rectangu1ar shape, you've got a11 this extra infrastructure associated with a c1ustering design with the 10ng driveways. I mean, if they 100ked aWfu1, the c1ustering concepts wou1d, there's more road than green space. MRS. PULVER-We11, there's certain1y a 10t of different ways to do it in the c1ustering, and it's just that I think sometimes, as individuals, we want to see what we wou1d prefer rather than what is maybe what these peop1e in the $60,000 price range can rea11y afford, and what would be best for them, but 1ike I say, I think you did a very good job, considering the amount of times you had to go back and forth to the drawing board. MR. MATHIAS-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-We11, I think what's he1ped is we've gone from 100 units down to 83. MR. MATHIAS-I think that's made, obvious1y, that's had a big impact, too. MRS. TARANA-I had a question about, is any of that green space going to be designated recreation area for chi1dren, parks? MR. MATHIAS-Probably not, because, again, once you do that, any kind of insurance costs sky rocket. So that our answer wou1d be, no. MR. LAURICELLA-And you're going to have to pay a recreation fee to compensate for that? Is that correct? MR. MATHIAS-$500, right, per. MR. LAURICELLA-Per 10t. MRS. TARANA-And how wou1d that compare if you absorbed that insurance cost through the homeowners association, and provided park area for children? MRS. PULVER-We11, everyone might not have children. There may be some senior citizens. MRS. TARANA-It doesn't have to be chi1dren. It could be a wa1king trai1 or something 1ike that. just see a 10t of green there, and it seems 1ike it would be a good use for it, if it's a possibi1ity. MR. CARTIER-That's $41,500 we're ta1king about. 44 '''-, "-'''- "- "-- -' " MR. MATHIAS-Yes, that's a lot. MR. LAPOINT-But it's a one time shot, and there's no telling what your insurance would be. I mean, the kids are going to make their own, the best park for a kid is nothing but trees and open, you know, they'll make their own. MR. LAURICELLA-Not necessarily, if they want a baseball field or something like that. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well, they have to either pay $500 a lot, or designate a certain portion of this land, give it to the Town for recreation. Now, it has to be land that the Town wants in that area. Now, what land are you going to give the Town, and it has to be, I don't know how much, what percent, five percent, or, it has to be a certain amount of the property. The problem with the $41,000 is that it's $500 a lot here and it's $500 a lot in Bedford Close. MR. MARTIN-This is going to be considered part of that common area, the light green? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And the homeowners association is going to have a say in what happens on that? MR. MATHIAS-Well, nothing's going to get built on it. MR. MARTIN-Right. So, if the homeowners association, through their monthly meeting, at one of their monthly meetings determined that we'd like to construct a ball diamond on this portion of this common area, and through our fees we will raise the money to pay for the back stop and the bases, and then we will have a ball field for our kids to play on, that can happen? MR. MATHIAS-I would say probably it could. Probably you'd have to come for site plan review in front of you folks, but. MR. MARTIN-I think that's what a homeowners association, in this context, would be involved in things 1 i ke that. MR. CARTIER-That's the concept, and it's a beautiful concept, of a neighborhood park. The neighborhood owns the park. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but then they'd have to, a homeowner, if they have to insure it. MR. MARTIN-Well, they're insuring it anyhow. They said that the homeowners association is going to be paying the insurance. MR. BREWER-Yes, but the cost of a baseball field is going to be more than if it's just vacant land. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, but that's their decision. Maybe they don't do it, but if we do have a predominant number of. MR. BREWER-I think if you've got 83 units there, Jim, with kids all over the place, if they want a baseball field, they'll have one, I mean, whether their parents say so or not. I mean, that's the way ki ds are. MR. MARTIN-We had one in our subdivision and it certainly wasn't part of a site plan review or. MR. BREWER-I don't think that's a big problem. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We can't get into structuring how kids play, here. MR. LAURICELLA-I have one concern on your layout, here. The corner lots, how are you going to get access. I mean, you come right to a point, on your corner lots here. So, you're going to have your septic, whether you have individual or, that to me looks like a problem area, all these corner lots. You come right to a point. MR. HUNTINGTON-The septic will have to come out through here. We'd just have to make a flat spot there to get the pipe through. MR. LAURICELLA-So, you're going to have to change the lot size there. Each one of the corner lots you've got a problem there, am I correct? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. That's a minor change. You mean to make sure the pipe is on the owner's property? MR. LAURICELLA-Well, I'm just saying, you don't have any room to. 45 -- --- MR. LAPOINT-They're 1and10cked. MR. LAURICELLA-Yes, I know, on each one of those corner 10ts. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I see what he's saying. MR. HUNTINGTON-That's not a prob1em, as far as practica1ity of working it out. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay, but it shou1d be considered. PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-Just one issue I think that maybe shou1d just be discussed a litt1e bit more or addressed in some fashion and maybe Mr. Mathias has an answer for this, but the re-zoning did have a provision which said that, to the extent circumstances permit, without obtaining variances, the subject premises sha11 be developed in accordance with Section 179-44, the Code authorizing c1ustering. The on1y concern I have is that if you're saying this is not c1ustering, then is that going to cause a problem with this zone? MR. MATHIAS-We11, a1though, I think it is clustering. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. Let me say what I said before, yes. I think this Board thinks it's c1ustering, and I think Mr. Mathias and Mr. Diehl think it's c1ustering, and so therefore I'll accept it as c1ustering. MR. CARTIER-What Board thinks it's c1ustering? MR. LAURICELLA-Don't speak for the Board, now. I don't think it's c1ustering. MRS. PULVER-We11, I thought you a11 thought it was c1ustered concept? MR. LAURICELLA-No. MR. CARTIER-Not at a1l. MR. LAPOINT-It's better, but it's 100 percent better than 83 clustered. MR. LAURICELLA-Regard1ess of that, it's not c1ustering. MR. DUSEK-I just have a concern, because I just see a 1egal concern may pop up somewhere e1se where we don't want it. MR. MARTIN-What's the Section, again, Pau1? MR. DUSEK-We11, the Code is 179-44, but it's in the Res01ution of Re-zoning as Number Three. MR. CARTIER-And that goes to my question about whether this has to go back to the Town Board. I'm not the guy who wants to say, you've got to go back to the Town Board, but I think you've got some issues you've got to c1ear up with them. MR. MATHIAS-We11, I think that the c1uster definition, it's a Htt1e bit Hke obscenity, right, you know a cluster when you see one. I'm sure that there are good p1anning definitions of that. I think if you 100k at this project as it relates to how the Queensbury Ordinance is set up, I be1ieve we would qualify as a c1uster, under that. MRS. PULVER-I bel ieve that, yes, that there are those that wou1d consider this a cluster concept. MR. HUNTINGTON-You've have a 10,000 square foot lot on each of these 10ts. MRS. PULVER-Right, because the 10ts are smal1, the way they weave around, and they al1 are contained within the property area. MR. MARTIN-See, this is a pretty 100se1y written Section, though, that that res01ution references. The Town Board hereby authorizes the Planning Board simu1taneous1y with the approva1 with the approva1 of a plat or p1ats pursuant to Chapter A183 Subdivision of Land, to modify app1icable provisions of this Chapter sUbject to the conditions herein after set forth and such other reasonab1e conditions that the Town Board may, at its discretion, add there to. Such authorization shal1 specify the 1ands outside the limits of any incorporated vi11age to which this procedure may be app1icab1e. The purposes of such authorization shal1 be to enable and encourage f1exib11ity of design and deve10pment of 1and in such a manner as to promote the most appropriate use of 1and to facilitate the adequate and economica1 provision of streets and uti1ities and to preserve the natura1 and scenic qualities of open 1ands. 46 "--' -- MR. LAPOINT-Sounds 1ike c1ustering to me. MR. MARTIN-That's pretty 100se1y written. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, it sounds 1ike that's what they've done. MR. MARTIN-If the owner makes a written app1ication for the use of this procedure, it may be f0110wed at the discretion of the P1anning Board, if in said Board's judgement this app1ication wou1d benefit the Town. MR. DUSEK-I'm not passing judgement on whether it is or isn't a c1uster. My on1y point was that I heard statements made a 1itt1e whi1e ago that said this is not c1ustering. I just didn't want that 1eft in the record. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think maybe everybody in their idea1 wor1d of c1ustering thinks of this 1itt1e narrow road going into a cu1-de-sac and a11 these houses around it, that's a1ways c1ustering. I don't know if that's. MR. CARTIER-We11, I'm not sure whether the question is c1ustering or not. It's a matter of, is this p1an significant1y different from what the Town was considering when they re-zoned this and is this so different from the stipu1ations that they set on this thing that you need to go back and have them 100k at it? I don't know the answer to that, and I think the on1y peop1e you can get an answer from is the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-See, ~ view of this, and I'll be quite frank about it, is that I think the Town Board over steps its bounds when it tries to, through res01ution, dictate the design and deve10pment of a subdivision. That is going beyond, I don't think that res01ution wou1d stand up, if it was pressed. MR. CARTIER-I guess what's being said, here, is that this P1anning Board doesn't have any, correct me if I'm wrong, prob1em with this design. Some members of the Town Board may have a prob1em with the design, in terms of their origina1 motion, and res01ution, and that's something, as I said, this Board's not going to sett1e. MRS. PULVER-We11, I thought that was solved. The Town Board wanted mu1ti fami1y dwe11ings, and then when we a11 met, they said, maybe fifty fifty. MR. MARTIN-So, the chief concern of the Town Board, at the time, back in, I emphasis the fa11, ear1y winter, was open space, and that was going to be achieved by pods, mu1ti dwe11ing bui1dings constructed and c1ustering and 1eaving the open space, and that's why I made the comment, ear1ier on here, that I think 50 percent open space with 83 units is a pretty good design, and I'd 1ike to pu11 out one of his 01d p1ats and see how much open space there was with the c1uster design, and I'll bet you it wou1dn't be much more than 50 percent. CHARLES DIEHL MR. DIEHL-I think the 1ast comment was 96, which shou1d be no greater than that, and we've done much better than that. MR. MARTIN-We11, in your origina1 p1at we had the 16 unit bui1dings, or whatever they were. I think you wou1d have had e1ements of c1earing that wou1d have been approaching 50 percent, at 1east. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I think that that's possib1e, and the other thing is that, again, in terms of uti1izing the wh01e concept, I think one of the difficulties, again, in is this a c1uster or isn't it, are making a11 of the p1ayers in this thing happy, and at 1east one of them isn't happy with at 1east what I consider to be a c1assic cluster situation, uti1izing cu1-de-sacs, and I think when you say you can't have cu1-de-sacs, and you want to do something e1se, that 1imits the type of design that anybody can come up with. MR. LAPOINT-Are you ready for a recommendation? IIITION REGARDING SICETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 SHERMN PINES, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: For subdivision of 48.275 acres into 83 - 10,000 square foot bui1ding lots. Approximate1y 5,400 1inear feet of road is to be bui1t and sewage disposa1 w111 be based on three to four residences per disposa1 fie1d. For 83 sing1e fami1y detached residences; c1ustered with Homeowners Association to own open space and common area, with the fo11owing advisory recommendation: One, that the app1icant proceed to Pre1iminary Stage of the subdivision process, with the f0110wing stipu1ations: That the app1icant consider engineering comments of Rist-Frost dated 20 March 1992, that the app1icant consider Bui1ding and Code Enforcement comments dated 6 March 1992, P1anning Staff notes dated 24 March 1992, that the app1icant investigate the feasib11ity of sing1e fami1y resident tie in to the 1eachfie1d to see if 47 '-- --- that's feasible, and that would coincide with Dave Hatin's letter, and that the applicant, at Preliminary Stage, provide the necessary configuration for the landlocked corner lots to provide for access to the septic and provide adequate shared easements for access to land locked common areas, that on the Preliminary plan, the applicant show the approximate extent of clearing and/or re-vegetation on the 83 lots and common area to specify re-vegetation plan for disturbed leachfields if necessary, and to be rebul1t, a plan to accommodate re-foliage, disturbed leachfields, that the applicant submit a copy of the covenants and and deed restrictions with the Preliminary Stage, that al1 the stipulations discussed by the Town Board in their Resolution No. 530 91 comply with said motion. Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (11:20 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-We have something that Paul needs to talk to us about. MRS. PULVER-I would just like to make a suggestion that, as Planning Board members, if we deny an app11cation, we cite the Section of the Ordinance that we, as individuals, feel best supports our decision. So, that then we can't be accused of applying our own standards to an applicant, rather than the Town's approved zoning and Master Plan standards. MR. LAPOINT-You want us to reference the Sections? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-We generally try and do that but it's good to be reminded of that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. If you vote no, like, tonight Tim voted no, I have no idea why he voted no, but he voted no. He should cite why, from the Ordinance, he voted no, you know, Article V, Article II. MR. MARTIN-When we're going through the vote, here, don't think that you're bound to one word and that's all you get. I mean, if you want to expound on your reasoning, either yes or no, especially no, Paul's reminded us, several times, that when we do, as a Board, deny we should ground that in some Section of the Ordinance. So, feel free to expound on your vote. MR. LAURICELLA-That's not what she's saying. She's saying, when you vote no, you have to cite the Ordinance. Am I correct? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I'm saying, when you vote no, you should cite the Ordinance, why you're voting against the project. So, it doesn't look like you're just using your own standards or it's your own opinion for the reason why you're voting no. It's not required, but if they ask you, you better have it there, because that's why you're on the Planning Board. You're not supposed to be putting your individual spin on things. You're supposed to be using the Queensbury Ordinance and Master Plan as a reason for approving or disapproving applications. MR. LAPOINT-I think I would disagree, in that, you can always cite something, but, to me, we're supposed to be somewhat subjective about this, too. MR. MARTIN-I think it's only required when the Board, as a majority, denies. Then you have to make sure that you. MR. DUSEK-Maybe just for the record, I don't know that there is any particular legal section some place that says that you have to do something exactly that way, but I will tell you this, that if you should deny a project, that is the time most frequently you would be subject to a court review, and if you're subject to a court review, my defense on your behaH would have to consist of showing the court why it is you can do what you did, and what I'm going to do is I'm going to go through the record and look at what you did, and I'm going to compare it against the Master Plan. I'm going to compare it against the Ordinance. I "m going to try to find some authority, maybe some case law, whatever I can find, to show the court that you had authority to do. What helps in that process, and I've seen this happen, and I think this is what Carol is kind of getting to, is that sometimes things will be said. You may understand, or at least think you understand, what they mean, but then when somebody else reads the record, they don't pick up on the same things, or they can't tie it in, 11ke I can't tie it into the Ordinance, and sometimes it's just a matter of terminology, trying to use terminology as closely as possible to what you see in the Ordinance. For instance, there's provisions under Site Plan that talk about traffic, that talk about drainage, different things, and if you say, I'm denying the site plan because of the drainage problems, and we have that right under site plan to review that, or, there's a whole slew of things, in terms of environmental type things and stuff. I think if you just kind of keep that in mind, or if you're not thinking of the Ordinance and you're thinking of the Master Plan, that it's not consistent, not harmonious with the Town, then you drive at that, but try as much as you can, and, obviously, if you can cite a Section that's in particular, I mean, so much the better. I can't tel1 you that, that's idea!, but you want to just try to cover the bases as much as possible 48 '--' - so that if in fact you don't like something, you're not forced into, later on, accepting it because you didn't have a sufficient denial. That's all. MRS. PULVER-Well, as I started out saying, I was only suggesting that we all do it, and I still suggest that you do it, because when Maria calls the role, you don't know whether you're the first vote or the last vote or how the vote is going to end up, and you vote no, and everybody else votes no, and now we've denied the project. I hope everybody has a good reason, in the end. I'm saying we all can have a fix in our minds what it is. MR. CARTIER-I think we do. MRS. PULVER-What reason, because some day the attorney's going to say, I want to know everybody's specific reason, we're going to run down the line. MR. DUSEK-And the other thing I might just mention to you too, is that watch out for conclusions. Not to pick on anybody, but I just heard one, it's not good planning. That's a conclusion. The court won't buy that at all. If I say to a judge, it's not good planning, the judge is going to say, why. MRS. PULVER-Peter, why did you vote against the re-zoning? MR. CARTIER-Why did I vote against the re-zoning? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Because I think the uses that are in there are not good for that specific site. I go back to mY day care center thing. I think a day care center is not an appropriate, that's not an appropriate place for a day care center. I don't think it's an appropriate place for some of the other uses there. I think that specific site should have had some restrictions as to what goes in there, that's compatible with what's already there, and as far as I'm concerned, that's legally defensible, and, frankly, I don't really worry about what's legally defensible. That's why we have an attorney there, and if he says to me, what you just said it not legally defensible, I'll be glad to listen to him and I'll be glad to change and say whatever I need to say, but I'm sitting here, from a planning perspective, recognizing full well I have to consider legal issues, but that's not Number One in mY head. Number One in my head is planning issues. That's why I'm a Planning Board member. I will defend any time, any decision, any vote I make, based on planning. MR. MARTIN-I've just got one other thing. We've got a memo, I think you got a copy of it, from Lee to Paul, regarding the proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the definition of Subdivision. I think Lee makes some good points, and the definition proposed, I think, is full of problems, and that's a dangerous, Lee can expound. MRS. YORK-Well, what I really wanted to bring to your attention with that was my last recollection, when you met with the Town Board, was you were going to get together and make some recommendations on Minor Subdivisions or streamlining a review process for two lot subdivisions, and if Paul is real serious about doing this at 3:30, having a public hearing on this. MR. DUSEK-No. I just, I'm taking, that's a draft that I got from your agency, downstairs, and I put it into legalese, and I'm going to give it to the Town Board to do whatever they want with it. My plan is to at least give it to the Town Board by the 30th. MRS. YORK-The 30th. You may want to think about, after your meeting on the 1st, talking about it and getting back to the Town Board before they make a final decision. That's why I wanted to bring it to your attention. MR. CARTIER-All right. So, you want something from us prior to, when? MR. DUSEK-I don't want anything from you. MRS. YORK-He's giving the draft from Mrs. Crayford to the Town Board. MR. DUSEK-I'll tell you what transpired. I guess Dave Hatin and Pat Crayford both gave me proposals, and Pliney Tucker asked me where it was at, so I put it into legalese, sent it back down to them, said, is this what you wanted, and Lee got tapped into the process more because of the SEQRA Review than anything else. So, that's kind of where we're at, and I really don't have an opinion, either way on it, at this point. There might be planning aspects, but from a legal standpoint, it's perfectly legal to do it the way they want to do it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's a philosophical question more than it is, so I'd ask everybody to look that over and be prepared with comments at our April 1st meeting, Lee, is that good? MRS. YORK-That sounds good. 49 -- '--' MR. MARTIN-Okay. Pau1, the f100r is yours. I think some of us have a1ready heard this. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Well, I just have one quick question, before we do anything e1se, and that is, I got minutes and a1l kinds of information, recent1y, on Sunset Hi11 Farm, and I saw a motion here that said that we wou1d request that the Staff provide Rist-Frost, our attorney, and a wh01e bunch of other peop1e with copies of Dennis MacElroy's 1etter and stuff. I didn't know if there's anything I'm supposed to be doing with this, or just? MR. CARTIER-Well, that has a potentia1, correct me if I'm wrong, has a potential for a denia1, and I think we were just kind of a1erting you to that, for background. Some of us, and I don't know where everybody stands on that thing, but some of us have some rea1 problems with that deve10pment. MR. DUSEK-My on1y concern wou1d be, as you get into that, that you are very carefu1 on the SEQRA process, and I think, if I reca11 , it's been a whi1e now, but didn't Dennis's 1etter get into a11 that, or did he get into other issues? I think he got into SEQRA issues. MR. BREWER-Most1y engineering issues. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think, that particu1ar one, I'd 1ike to entertain a motion for denia1 on that. MR. DUSEK-Yes, but denia1 of what? Did you get through the SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-No. Denia1 on the site p1an that's gotten through Sketch P1an and is. MR. DUSEK-You can't rea1ly approve or deny unti1 you get through the SEQRA process. MR. CARTIER-Unti1 you get through the SEQRA process. MR. LAPOINT-You got a11 that stuff because we weren't sure whether or not Rist-Frost, the question of the night was, were Rist-Frost's comments based on Mr. MacE1roy's letter. Did he taken into account those comments. MR. CARTIER-That was ~ of the questions. MR. MARTIN-Because he made ca1cu1ations for 1imits of c1earing and a11 that, and he was spouting a11 these numbers at us, and then the deve10pers were sitting there saying, we11 our numbers are substantia11y different, and we needed third party verification. This is 1ike nuc1ear testing. MR. DUSEK-So, where does that 1eave me at this point, then, just wait to hear from you? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-We11, I think we want to give you background, because this has the potentia1 to. MR. DUSEK-We11, where are you in the SEQRA process? MR. MARTIN-We haven't started it. MR. DUSEK-Okay, because that'11 be your first hurd1e. MR. LAPOINT-We've sent them to Pre1iminary, correct? MR. CARTIER-Yes. We tab1ed them once at Pre1im. MR. LAPOINT-The 1ast thing we did was send them to Pre1iminary. MR. CARTIER-They missed public notice. That hung them up. MR. MARTIN-Then they did come before us the other night, at Pre1iminary. MR. CARTIER-And we tab1ed that. MR. BREWER-We 1eft it open. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-The other thing I wi11 mention to you is that, and I guess it's, I don't know why it is the way it is, but the Zoning Ordinance and the review criteria, or much of the review criteria, is quite simi1ar to what is also done on the SEQRA. SO, you've got to kind of watch that. I don't think, you cou1dn't negative dec a project and then start citing SEQRA reasons to deny a project, okay. 50 -- -----' MR. MARTIN-No, no. I understand that, but I'd like the reverse to be true, deny it without getting into SEQRA. MR. DUSEK-The prob1em is that SEQRA says that an app1 ication is not complete unti1 the SEQRA process is done. So, that's why you can't move to deny or approve an app1ication unti1 you get past that point, and of course what that means is that you may need an EIS or you may negative dec it. That'1l be up to you guys to determine, but you're going to have a process to get through before you can even decide whether or not you want to do that, a11 right. MR. MARTIN-A11 right. MR. DUSEK-Another matter that we have, and I've got some information to hand out to you. I don't know that this comp1ete, but this'11 give you, this gives you what I have in my fi1es on this particu1ar subdivision matter. I'll give a copy of this to your clerk as we11. Let me just open up this map, here. This is a res01ution that the worst thing that can happen happened, and that, as I'm sitting here dood1ing on it and decided to change it. So, please excuse my handwritten marks there, but I think it reads better with the change that I hand wrote in on a coup1e of pages, and I'll give a copy of the res01ution to your c1erk as we11. Now, I prepare res01utions frequent1y for the Town Board, but I don't do it as often for your Board, but as a genera1 ru1e, even though I prepare them, they're your res01utions, and you shou1d be sure you're satisfied with what they say, and you can change this thing any way you want to, and I'm kind of jumping ahead, but I just wanted to mention that on the res01ution so you knew up front that you can do whatever you want with that. What we have here, just to give you very brief1y, a history. You have a subdivision that was first approved in 1981. At the time it was approved, the subdivision, I be1ieve, and this is one of the reasons why I think this matter ought to be reviewed with the app1icant a1so to be sure we're accurate, in terms of our information, but at the time, I be1ieve the subdivision was approved, I think the zoning required 20,000 square foot 10ts, and I think you'11 see from a review of the subdivision that there are severa1 10ts that fa11 be10w the 20,000 square feet. So, that's the first prob1em, a11 right, and then in 1982, the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Queensbury changed, and here again, it's my understanding, and if you want to review this matter further, wi11 verify a11 this information, but I be1ieve the zoning changed such that 30,000 square foot 10ts were required. Now, you might say, we 11 , so what. He has an approval in 1981, what matters that the zoning changed in 1982. We11, what happened is that a1though he got an approva1 in 1981, he never fi1ed his map. So, in 1982, when the zoning changed, he was now subject, at 1east that was what the attorney at that point interpreted, that he was subject to the new Zoning Ordinance of 30,000 square feet. So, he had nothing at that point, and he went back to the P1anning Board, who in turn said, we 11 , you have to go to the Zoning Board, first, and get a variance. So, he got a variance from the Zoning Board, and I gave you copies of that in your materia1s. You'11 see it's very genera1 in nature, but as far as I can determine, 100king at the app1ication, it 100ks 1ike the Zoning Board probab1y gave a variance for 20,000 square feet. We 11 , as I just mentioned, the subdivision, though, has 10ts that are under 20,000 square feet, and so he came back through to the P1anning Board. The P1anning Board approved the subdivision in 1983, I be1ieve it was, and at that point, the thing sat dormant for a number of years, and then, and I'm not, at this point, we11, I don't know how it a11 got going again, but it did, and somebody found that there was a bunch of 10ts that were nonconforming, got brought to our attention. I did some research on it. It actua11y started out even before, I mean, this is not recent, just so you know. This started a coup1e of years ago, when it first popped its head, and at that time, I think some of you knew that Karla was with me, and she did some work on it at that time, and we thought that there was going to be a document fi1ed, just indicating, on beha1f of the Zoning Administrator, that some of these lots were nonconforming, and that there'd be a prob1em, in terms of getting a bui1ding permit. That was never fi1ed, apparently, and that's how it got brought back to my attention, recent1y, and I took a 100k at it and did some research, and I fe1t, based on a case that I had read, that it wou1d be appropriate, if the P1anning Board was so inc1ined, to ask the deve10per to come back in and review this matter, and take a 100k at this subdivision and decide whether or not you shou1d a110w this subdivision p1at to stand, with the undersized 10ts on it, because obvious1y the prob1em here is that a P1anning Board cannot, or shou1d not approve a subdivision that does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance, and if that is true, that it doesn't, then it seems to me we have a prob1em with the approva1, and it a1so seems to me, in view of some of the cases that I have read, that a government agency, such as a P1anning Board, or even a Bui1ding Inspector, can recognize a mistake of that nature and bring the matter back before them and reconsider it and try to correct it. So, what this res01ution does, that's before, is just basica11y say that, if there's if a prob1em here, or at 1east you think there might be, and that you would 1ike to consider it, and you wou1d 1ike to have the deve10per come back in before you and discuss it and then decide at that next meeting, after you've given him a chance to come in and ta1k to you about it, decide what to do, and if you'11 notice, I made the res01ution very neutral, in terms of, you may do nothing, you may do something, but at least it gives him an opportunity to be heard on the subject, because maybe he has additiona1 information that we don't know about right now, and that may be something that may be he1pfu1. 51 '--- MR. CARTIER-Well, we're also trying to solve a potential problem for the developer in that he said he can't get building permits for these undersized lots anyway. He walks into the office, and they won't give him a permit to build on a lot. So, there is that, too. MRS. PULVER-Why not, if it's preexisting? MR. DUSEK-It's not preexisting, though. See, that's the trouble. It was never authorized. There was never any authority to have an under 20,000 square foot building lot, as far as I can tell. MRS. PULVER-Never, ever, ever. MR. DUSEK-Right. Now, he may know something or have some additional information that I don't have. I mean, maybe there is some authority some place that we don't know about. Maybe there's a missing variance. We don't know. MR. MARTIN-So, what we're essentially saying is we want you to come in and talk to us about this, present whatever you have, and, based on that, we'll either decide to leave it as it is, or make him come back for a subdivision. MR. DUSEK-Right, or rescind the previous approval or something, but I think that's the only, first of all, I found authority, that when there's a mistake in the planning process, for you do something like this without holding a public hearing or anything, but just to have the guy back in to review it, and on your own initiative, decide what to do with the plat, but it seems to me that it's a fair way of dealing with it, too, because at least everybody gets a shot at talking about it, and then you can decide what you think is appropriate. It's just that the concerns have been raised, and I think that once we see a problem, we ought to just take a look at it and try to address it in some fashion. MR. LAURICELLA-He's trying to build on these lots, now, is that the problem? MR. DUSEK-I don't think so. I don't know that there's been any development over there. MR. LAURICELLA-Well, why are we? MR. DUSEK-Well, because he has a standing approval that he could, at any time, and so somebody could, if he thinks that he can just go ahead and build on it, that wouldn't be fair to him, either, without knowing that there's a problem them. MR. LAURICELLA-Someone recognized the problem and you're bringing it to our attention. MR. DUSEK-Yes. I think, as I'm thinking back on it now, it actually started over a road situation up there, on Sherman Island Road, and that's kind of what got things started, and then it got also brought up on the lots, and in fact, I should also mention, Tim Brewer has had some involvment in this whole thing up there, in terms of the fact that he lives in that area and also I think he had voiced some concerns in the past about this subdivision. I don't know if he was one of the primary moving forces or not, originally, but he knew enough about it and was involved enough with it, and had some feelings about it, that I recommended to Tim that he stay out of this discussion, and in fact when the matter comes up before the Board, he should probably abstain and just not be involved, and I think he's trying to abide by that. So, if you're wondering why he's not saying anything. I should ask him this, though, Tim, just for the record, just so I'm clear, were you one of the primary people involved in this, or the only person, or? MR. BREWER-Pretty much. When he first put the road in, we asked him about extending it to the Corinth Road, and it just snowballed from there. MR. DUSEK-Okay. So, it's better that Tim stay out of it, then. MR. CARTIER-So, all you need is a motion. MRS. TARANA-This will stay on the books forever, right? There's no limitation on this? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, all you need's a motion. MR. DUSEK-Which is before you, if you like that motion. You've got to put a date in there, though, as to when you would like to consider it. You can wait. You don't have to do it tonight. I'm not trying to rush this thing through. If you want to wait until your next meeting. I just wanted to get it to you, so at least it would get the ball in motion. If you want time to look over the paperwork and consider it at your next meeting, I don't think that we're under. MR. MARTIN-Well, this is my second time through on it, because Paul first brought this up at our workshop session that we had last Thursday. So, some of you are reviewing this for the first time tonight. Do you want time to consider? 52 '--' -- MR. CARTIER-Al1 this motion does, or al1 this resolution does, is say we want to get this guy in. That's it. It doesn't mean we have to decide anything about it tonight. MR. LAPOINT-Lets do it tonight. Lets put them right on the first meeting. MR. CARTIER-I agree. What's the first meeting? MR. MARTIN-The regular meeting is the third Tuesday. MRS. PULVER-April 21st is our first meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. II)TION TO APPROVE TIE RESOWTION SETTING DATE FOR REVIEW OF SOOTHED EXPOSURE SUBDIVISION AND PROVIDING NOTIFICATION OF REVIEW, AS SUBMITTED TO US AND AMENDED BY MR. PAUL OOSEK, llIIt ATTORIIEY. WITH A IlEETIIG MTE FOR APRIL 21, 1992, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 24th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricel'a, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 53