Loading...
1992-04-28 '- "--' ".-' ~EENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-1992 SKETCH PLAN Debra Robinson Somerville 1. Site Plan No. 13-92 F.T. & E.P. Collins 2. Site Plan No. 14-92 Tim Barber 6. Subdivision No. 7-1992 SKETCH PLAN Geneva Estates 10. SEQRA Review Queensbury Factory Outlet Plaza 14. Site Plan No. 16-92 Michael Ringer 20. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "--' -....-/ CJjEENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 1992 7:04 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER TIMOTHY BREWER EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES LAURICELLA SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MARTIN-I just want to confirm the agendas for next month. We have regular meetings win be on the 19th and 21st at 7 p.m. That's a Tuesday and Thursday, and a special meeting on May 14th at 7 p.m. So, that lines up all the month of May. IŒIf IIJSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1992 SICETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5 ŒBRA ROBINSON SOMERVILLE OIߌR: SAME AS ABOVE OLD WEST MOUITAIN ROAD TO PLACE THREE RESIŒITIAL UNITS ON THREE LOTS. ONE LOT TO BE SOLD, THE REMAIIING lWO LOTS TO BE FOR THE HEIRS. TAX MAP NO. 32-1-31.1 LOT SIZE: 95 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISIOI REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:04 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 6-1992, Debra Robinson Somerville, April 15, 1992, Meeting Date: April 28, 1992 "The application is for sketch plan approval of 3 lots off of Old West Mountain Road. The zoning classification is RR-5A and the site contains +95 acres. The property has slope constraints and the development of the parcels is limited to the areas close to the road. The plan indicates on lot wens. It appears that this parcel is in a water district. The applicant has to apply to the Town Water Department to ascertain if they can be served. This issue can be settled relatively quickly but contact should be made. This area is heavily wooded and has steep slopes, the Board may want to look at the "building envelope" concept at preliminary to limit clearing and erosion potential. The existing stream bed is over 75 feet from the proposed house, however, it may be less than 50 feet from the driveway on lot two. The app~t may want to consider this in locating the driveway." And the reason I brought this up was concern for erosion into the stream bed, as wen as concern over wa~hing out of the applicant I s driveway, and I've discussed that wi th Mr. Steves, and he's come up wi th a wonderful proposal. "The wa i ver from the two foot contours is not an issue. The stormwater management report would not be an issue except for the slopes. The stream bed on lot two could cause siltation and erosion problems. These can certainly be mitigated by adherence to Section 179-65, Soil erosion standards and the Zoning Ordinance criteria, combined with the building envelope concept. Engineering comments will be submitted at the preliminary stage of review. There are no further planning issues." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Leon, do you have anything you'd like to add? MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is Leon Steves. What Lee was talking about, on two, is the dry stream bed that's there now. Putting a driveway just to the south of that. To protect that, for erosion control or erosion problems, a berm would be built along the side of that for protection. She also talked about the water district, and in the past, talking with Tom Flaherty, the Town water district goes to 550, and that's an they can serve to, in water pressure. So, wouldn't have any chance of serving a second floor of a house. I know that the Department of Health doesn I t li ke pumps drawing into the system. So, that's why wells were suggested. MR. MARTIN-I think if we just get confirmation of that by Preliminary, that will be fine. MR. STEVES-Sure. MR. MARTIN-All right. This is a pretty straight forward situation, here. Has anybody got anything they'd like to add, in terms of the concept? MR. CARTIER-The only question I had, is that driveway still going to be 50 feet, less than 50 feet away from a stream bed? I understand the berming idea. 1 '----' --- MR. STEVES-Yes. I think the question here is that there is a permit, permission in the Code anowing driveways across streams, if you win, so that there is an exception to that. No building within 50 feet of a wetland. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Wen, I think the berm will aneviate the reasons for the driveway being that requirement, keep the runoff out of it. MR. STEVES-Yes. Well, it will be somewhat downhill from it, as well. MR. MARTIN-Is there anything anybody else has? MR. LAURICELLA-The kink in those lot lines is because of the driveway? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. You probably didn't look at the site? MR. LAURICELLA-No. MR. STEVES-To the south, you have site distance problems, and you also have a very steep hill. We searched the area quite a bit to get these two driveways. The applicant wish they could divide it into four parts, but three is about the best they could do. MR. MARTIN-All right, then. We don't have any environmental issues at this time, not until Preliminary. So, if there's no further comment, I guess we can accept a motion on this sketch plan. MOTIOIt TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAit SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1992 DEBRA ROBINSON SOIERVILLE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: With the stipulation that: Number One, the waiver request regarding two foot contours be granted, and, Number Two, that comments by Planning Staff be incorporated into Preliminary Stage, with specific reference to berming the driveway in Lot 2, and grant a request for waiver with regard to stormwater management. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (7:11 p.m.) SITE PLAN 110. 13-92 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA F. T. a E.P. COLLINS (illER: SAME AS ABOVE 274 BAY ROAD AUTO LEASING - ALL USES IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE RE~IRE SITE PLAN REVIEW. <WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP 110. 105-1-10, 11 LOT SIZE: .52 ACRES SECTION: 179.26 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:11 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Okay. I believe, as of last night, this is now not Light Industrial, but. MRS. YORK-No. believe it takes ten days for that to become official. MR. MARTIN-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 13-92, F.T. & E.P. Collins, April 13, 1992, Meeting Date: April 28, 1992 "The application is for an auto leasing business in an LI-IA zone on Bay Road. The Board recently reviewed this site for a change to Highway Commercial. The building in which the office for the auto leasing will be housed is the former Upstate Tile and this is reviewed as a change of use. There are about 21 parking spaces shown on the plat although it appears that these could be extended. An immediate concern which the Board may wish to discuss with the applicant is where will the vehicles receive service and maintenance. Also, where will signage for the business be located. The traffic circulation on this entire site should be reviewed at some point. It appears that there are other plans for the site which will afford this in the future. The applicant should start thinking about the site as a "mall" with consolidated signage and interconnected vehicular access-ways. The Zoning Administrator's determination is attached. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review: 1. The site and building is already developed. The auto leasing business win need visible signage and the Board may want to discuss the location. 2. The primary access-way is at Cushing's Floral store from Bay Road. The access-way is not the best. The site has a number of small businesses on it and traffic flow should be taken care of in a comprehensive fashion if there is any new development. This change of use should not significantly increase traffic. 3. Off street parking and loading appear sufficient. 4. Pedestrian access to the business office from the parking area is not an issue. 5. Storm drainage will not be altered. 6. Water and sewer facilities are 2 ''--' -- existing. 7. When any new development comes in an effort should be made to improve the appearance of the site. The Board may want to mention this to the property owner so that a beautification plan for the entire site could be considered. 8. Emergency access is not an issue. 9. There is no susceptibility to ponding and the structure is existing." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have a Planning and Zoning referral sheet from Pat Crayford for your review, and the Warren County Planning approved, at their meeting of April 8th, and that's all the correspondence. Do we have someone from the applicant who would like to address the Board? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I am here representing the applicant. With me tonight is Frank Collins, one of the applicants, and Paul Crestridge, who is representing our proposed tenant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and we'd be glad to answer whatever questions that you have. As to Staff Comments, I think the question that most needs to be answered is whether or not there will be any service or maintenance of vehicles on premises, and none is planned. We have a brief narrative that they've given us, as to the business. Basically, just for background, I will read it to you. Enterprise Rent-A-Car is a nationwide company specializing in replacement car business. Their sources of business are dealerships, body shops, and insurance agents. A unique part of their service is their capability of delivering their cars to their customers, so as to prevent them the inconvenience of providing themselves to their customers a ride to their office or their facility. Enterprise features only new cars and several makes and models, the most in the replacement business. Typically of their hours, but not necessarily fixed for their hours for this location, will be Monday through Friday 8 to 6, and Saturdays 9 to 12, Closed on Sundays. The business will operate with, perhaps, four employees during peak hours of 8 to 10 on Monday, and 4 to 6 on Friday. The only materials used in their business are office type products and car cleaning materials. There's no unusual waste disposal or water usage, and that will be limited to only office use. Washing of the vehicles will be done at local car washes, not on site. So, there will be no real maintenance or services completed on premises. To the applicants, now, there is no other permit that's necessary, County, State or Federal. We will need some storage area on site, and we have plenty of room on site for storage of vehicles, prior to rental, and in fact there'd some storage of vehicles if they're new, before they're put into service, and some vehicles as they're taken out of service and they're being prepared to be wholesaled, sold at an auction off premises, not on premises. This business has been in business since 1957, and it's just presently expanding into the Tri-County, Tri-City area. They do have a location, I believe, in Albany, at this point, and they're trying to establish more in our area. MR. MARTIN-Well, what's the size of the fleet expected to be, and will it change over time? MR. O'CONNOR-I would just a soon have the tenant representative speak to that. PAUL CRESTRIDGE MR. CRESTRIDGE-For the record, my name is Paul Crestridge. We expect the fleet, probably to max out about 75 cars. MR. MARTIN-Seventy five cars. MR. CARTIER-At this location? MR. CRESTRIDGE-At this location, and that's the truth. Our type of business, it's a wholesale business. To make any money, we have to run at about 90 percent occupancy, and that's our goal, of course. The reason we may need the parking spaces as I I ve shown on the plan are because of the weekends. Most of our rentals go out on Monday and come back on Friday, and that's because people are getting their cars repaired. So, during the week, they're usually running anywhere from 90 to 95 percent occupancy. On the weekends, we may run 85 to 90. So, that means there's not that many cars on the lot, but for this area, I mean, Glens Falls and this whole area, it could be up about 60 to 75 cars, at least that's what we're hoping, to be able to support four people and the amount of money we spend on new furniture and computers and everything inside the office. MR. CARTIER-Is that going to have any effect on future businesses down there, if you're using up what is a very small building. It requires, by Code, very few parking places, but we're uSing up, potentially, 75 parking spaces. Is that going to place any limitations on some of the other things that, eventually, are going to show up on this property? MR. O'CONNOR-We would expect that it would. Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We have to acknowledge that. When we come in with new construction, we anticipate the Board, at that point, will get into a total review of the whole site, all existing uses on site, and we will have to account for each use and proposed new use, and really don't expect otherwise. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 3 "---' -- MR. MARTIN-Just so it's been said, I'd, at some point, like to see the applicant actually install what it shown here. I know, now, this is not the point of it, now, but I'd like to take this opportunity to say I'd like to see this, or some sort of an organized traffic and parking pattern to this whole site, at some point in time. I know, similar to what you had indicated here, and an actual curb cut is shown and so on, because right now it's just a big open area, and there's really no. MR. O'CONNOR-We hope to do that. We have a bui1ding up front which is presently occupied. How long that occupancy is going to remain, we are not sure, but our anticipation is probably that's not going to be a long term occupancy. At that time, when that occupancy terminates, if conditions al1ow, what we probably will do is change, in a major way, the entrance into this property, by removal of that smal1 building, if everything is permitted, and the conditions are right at that time, and we've got some tenants that we can into the back of this bui1ding, or the back of this site. The highest and best uses of this site is a little different than what's there presently, and to reorganize the site, and to organize this traffic and traffic flows in a good manner, a common sense manner, would be to our advantage, as well as to the Town's advantage, because otherwise the site's not going to accommodate much else than what's there presently. MR. MARTIN-I see you have a proposed 12,000 square foot building, here, and I imagine at that point in time, if that ever came to fruition, that would be at the time you would attempt this. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Collins is here, tonight, if you'd like to speak to him, to some degree, to that extent. That was shown on there just to get an idea of the potential, and also all of the parking spaces were shown to see what the site could potential1y a11ow. I have a map, which is an improvement of that, with minor site improvements, even for traffic flow now, which we wil1 implement, but basical1y we've got an 1100 square foot building that we had used before, and we hope to just change tenants. We've gone through a change of zoning which wi1l effect more the other site, or the balance of the site, than this particular building. MR. MARTIN-And I know it was also said at the Town Board about some sort of internalization of the traffic flow, maybe contacting Shop N' Save and see if you can utilize their entry-way there, and I just want to also reiterate that suggestion, on any future point in time, if you can contact them and see if a cut can be made through from your entry, here, and maybe use that one entrance for the site. MR. CARTIER-That's a good idea. MR. MARTIN-That seemed to make sense to me. So, I just offer that for your consideration, in the future. MR. LAURICELLA-This is site plan review. Don't we get into where you're going to park all these cars? MR. O'CONNOR-Basical1y, what we would talk about as part of site plan review, I think, would be the parking for our customers. We are going to park in the front, to the north of the building, and along the west side of the building, and we can put in two columns there. We plan on storage of vehicles behind that. This is an open, paved area. We can also talk about storage of vehicles on a temporary basis over in this area, away from the actual building. A lot of what they do is delivery of vehicles off of site by personnel. The customers don't come into the site, for the most part, and go out and search out the car and drive it off site. So, I've got another map. MR. CARTIER-This is the map that we're going to look at that we're not going to see, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is maybe a better example of what we're doing, and the capability of the site. We have marked on there car storage area, and we also know that if there's additional car storage area needed, we can put it on this side of that building. When we started this, a month ago, we were talking about 40 cars, and now we're all of a sudden talking about more cars. MRS. TARANA-Do you think it'll max out at 75? MR. CRESTRIDGE-I'm saying five years down the road. Like I said, we have to have at least 90 percent. Eighty percent of 75 from the lot, that's the number of parking there. The rest will have to be rented. There's no way 75 will stay there. MR. O'CONNOR-They may have a total fleet of 75, but how many will be off site? MR. CRESTRIDGE-Off site? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, on an average. MR. CRESTRIDGE-On an average, 90 percent. I mean, that's our target. On weekends it coul d be at 85 percent. During the week, it could be up to 95 percent of cars on rent, not on the lot. MR. O'CONNOR-So, if they have a fleet of 75, hopeful1y he is going to have 60 of them off site, just rounding off figures. 4 -' --- MR. MARTIN-I think you definitely have the space, here, to do that with. MRS. TARANA-I have a question about signage, what your plans are for signage. MR. O'CONNOR-We wi1l comply with the Ordinance, as to signage. We wi11 be asking for a sign on Bay Road. As I understand it, there is an existing sign right now, which wi1l probably be removed. This sign that is north of the Feigenbaum's bui1ding. Mr. Co11ins has been talking to Mrs. Crayford and to a sign person in the area to coordinate something that will comply with the Ordinance. If it won't, we'll have to go into the Zoning Board for a variance. MRS. TARANA-For just that one business, you're talking about? The sign would be for just the one business? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The other businesses that are on-site, I believe, have signs on their bui1dings. What we're talking about is a freestanding sign that is on there, and we wi1l use the freestanding sign for this business which wi1l be in the back part of this site, and eventually, as Mrs. York indicated, we probably are going to have to come recognition that we are going to be operating, here, as a plaza or as a strip man, and have the man signs with applicable wa11 signs for each individual tenant, or some type of uniform, coordinated type signage. MRS. TARANA-Just a comment that I would make, do we have your assurance that as you develop this piece of property, you're going to try to improve the appearance of it? MR. MARTIN-Well, they're going to be back before us at every. MRS. TARANA-I mean, the whole thing, the whole big picture. I wouldn't want to see a little piece here and there. I'd like to just see a whole big picture. MR. CARTIER-Yes, master plan for the piece, basically, with Beautification. Yes, at some point, this has got to go to Beautification Committee, correct? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think this is a very pivotal piece of property in the scheme of the whole commercial area there, what's been done at Shop N' Save, now, and being next to a Nursery and Garden Center. I think you have an opportunity, there, to rea11y compliment what's already been done, and I think that's what the Board's trying to get at. MR. LAPOINT-I just think there would be certain advantages to having a business there that really will not generate a lot of traffic, a minimal amount of traffic, and the signage should be a minimum, because you're not depending on walk-in, drive-in type clients, as long as it conforms to the Code, it doesn't matter to me anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think so, because I think, I don't think it depends on the amount of walk-in people, because I've asked the question, how many actual visits do they expect here in the course of a day, and it's some place between 10 and 15. Most of it is done by staff taking vehicles off site. That's part of the convenience, is part of the service that they sell with the cars that they're going to put on the site. MR. LAPOINT-And my last question would be. in what context does the Warren County Planning Board approve this with the condition that the paving be improved in that area? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe that one of the members of the County Planning Board went down there, and we had some cobbles and not very good distribution of the gravel parking that was out there. Since then it has been surfaced with stones, and I think that part has already been accomplished. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-The only thing that I was curious about was the maintenance, and they answered the question. There's not going to be any maintenance there at all, other than maybe cleaning the windows or something like that. MR. O'CONNOR-Cleaning the windows, and maybe cleaning the interiors of the cars. MR. CRESTRIDGE-Vaccuuming them out, and cleaning the windows. MR. BREWER-No oil changing or anything like that? MR. CRESTRIDGE-No. Al1 of our employees are dressed just like we are tonight. MR. MARTIN-Okay. With all that being said, I'll open up the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here from the public who wishes to address this Board regarding this application? 5 -- ----- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMEIT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-And I think we've got enough information to go on to the SEQRA Review. RESOWTION WHEre DETERIHNATICII OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: F. T. AND E.P. COLLINS, for an Auto Leasing - An uses in the Light Industria1 zone require site p1an review, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Any other discussion? Okay. Could I have a motion. IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-92 F. T. I E.P. COLLINS, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For an auto leasing business at 274 Bay Road, with the fo110wing stipulations: That any signage conform with Queensbury Town Code, unless variances are obtained. That all vehicular maintenance, oil changes, etc., be handled off site and not done on-site. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1992, by the fo110wing vote: MR. O'CONNOR-When you say, comply with all applicable Codes, you mean comply with Codes unless variances are obtained? MR. MARTIN-Yes. AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (7:34 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 14-92 TYPE II MR-lA TIM BARBER (liNER: CLAUDE AND FANNIE ABRY JAY R(W) TO RECCIISTRUCT AN EXISTING DOCK. (WARREN COUITY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 43-1-2 LOT SIZE: +5.000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-16 TIM BARBER, PRESENT (7:34 p.m.) 6 -- '-"" STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 14-92, Tim Barber, Meeting Date: April 28, 1992 "The application is for construction of an 8 ft. by 30 ft. dock in a Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. The lot is on a 50 ft. by 100 ft. lot on Glen Lake. The Staff researched this application, since there seemed to be some issues. The Assessor's records indicate that there was once a 3 ft. by 33 ft. wooden dock on this .12 acres. At some time the dock deteriorated and was never replaced. The neighbors in the vicinity speak of it in terms of years. The application states that this will be a re-construction which should probably be considered new construction. The application indicates that the dock will not meet the 20 ft. setbacks on one side. It appears to be ±15 or 16 feet from the property line. The lots illustrated by the tax maps which I've attached show the lot lines are at a skew, and the site plan submitted shows some minor inconsistencies, such as 22 feet is written, and the map scales at 23 feet. These minor variations are only mentioned because the Board would not want to approve a nonconforming structure. When I looked at it, it appears that if the applicant reduced the size of the dock and moved it a few feet north, it might conform and not be within that 20 foot setback. The Board should get details of the construction on the dock and how the shoreline and lake will be protected." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have the Planning and Zoning referral sheet from the Zoning Administrator, and she indicates on the project description, it's just to construct dock, with no reference to new construction or re-construction, and then Warren County Planning had No County Impact, the site plan review to replace existing dock with U-shaped dock that does not meet the required 20 foot setback. MR. BARBER-My name's Tim Barber. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and you're going to build the dock yourself, or? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Can you clear up this question about the difference in what it says on the Environmental Assessment Form and the diagram that's been submitted, in terms of setbacks and variances? MR. BARBER-Is it correct that it's 53 feet on the lakeshore? MRS. YORK-It's about 50. I just used the Tax Map here. Did you get a copy of these notes? MR. BARBER-I didn't get a copy. MRS. YORK-Okay. They're right over here for all the applicants. MR. CARTIER-Basically, Mr. Barber, my question is, which is correct, here? One thing says it doesn't meet the 20 foot setback, and then it shows on the map, this hand sketched map, it does show meeting map. So, we've got to get that discrepancy squared away somehow. MR. BARBER-At first, when we initiated the project, I was lead to believe that it was a 40 foot. MR. CARTIER-Wide property? MR. BARBER-Exactly, and therefore we were going to go for the area variance, and then Mrs. Crayford and I went through the maps, we found that it was a 53, therefore, not needing the setbacks, because we met them, and the new dock that we're putting up will be right in the middle, therefore, not encroaching on either side. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How was it measured? Was it measured off the tax map, or did somebody go out to the property and actually measure the property? MR. BARBER-After we did that, I went up there, persona1'ly, and from corner stone to Mr. Richards property, which would be on the north, north or south, it was 52 or 53 feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-So, that's an actual measurement, right off the site itself? MR. BARBER-Yes, it is. I did happen to get some pictures from the corners, if you'd like to see them. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BARBER-At one time, you can see, I know they're hard pictures to see. This was when the house was red. They had a boat parked there, and you can see the post on the adjacent side. There was two 7 -" -- docks. This one, here, was three to four, and I don't know what the other one was. MR. MARTIN-Yes. They had, like, a little catwalk dock. I've seen those before. MR. BARBER-Yes. The time of construction, I can't tell you. MRS. PULVER-Mr. Barber, I'm going to assume your 22 feet that you say it is, and it scales to 23, is just for a drawing? MR. BARBER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-That you really mean 22 feet, right? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So, what the problem is, essential1y, you did the environmental impact assessment, at one point, and then you did the measurements subsequent to that, and you found out that in fact you were meeting the 20 foot setback. MR. BARBER-Yes. We actually had all our copies of the area variance al1 written up and brought it in and we reviewed it, Pat and I. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Al1 right. Well, does the Board feel comfortable with the explanation given, then, in terms of the measurement taken at the site? MRS. TARANA-I have a question about the dock. Is it going to be a U-shaped dock? MR. BARBER-No, ma'am. It's going to be a straight dock, eight foot wide, and fifty foot long. MRS. TARANA-Can I ask, then, why did the Warren County Planning Board discuss it as a U-shaped dock? MR. BARBER-That might be another application. I had another application in. MRS. TARANA-This is another dock? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. LAURICELLA-On this property? MR. BARBER-No. MRS. YORK-A different property owner, and it was in for a variance, and it was also before Warren County. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. BREWER-So, this is going to be a straight shot? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think any motion we make should state as such, and then that way the Code Enforcement will have something to go by when they go out. MR. CARTIER-We're talking about a straight wood dock, here? MR. BARBER-A straight wood dock. MR. CARTIER-With wood piers. MR. BARBER-Yes. It will have six by six, it will be all treated lumber. It will have two by eight joyces, two by six decking, two by four cross bracing, six by six posts. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It's got to be the type of treated lumber that will not leach anything into the water, correct? MR. BARBER-Exactly. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I hate to dwell on this, but the Warren County Planning Board approval that I've got here says that, Site Plan Review 14-92, for a U-shaped dock. MR. MARTIN-It does say Tim Barber, Jay Road. 8 -- --- MR. CARTIER-That does not meet the required 20 foot setback. MRS. TARANA-And the one for another one is 36-1992. MR. MARTIN-You went before them Apri1 8th? MR. BARBER-That's the other dock. MR. CARTIER-So, you had twoapp1ications in at Warren County? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Both on Jay Road? MR. BARBER-No. One in Lake George. MRS. YORK-Yes. The other one's for Dr. Barber. We11, there certain1y is some confusion. MRS. TARANA-We're discussing two different docks in the same site p1an review. MRS. YORK-Right, and either the County, there must be an error. MR. MARTIN-Mistyped or whatever. MR. BARBER-Because they did deny the U-shaped, and then we obtained the area variance. MR. MARTIN-We11, it doesn't even say they disapprove it. It just says, No County Impact. MRS. YORK-Yes. I think that the Secretary just typed the wrong description. I don't know how they did that. MR. MARTIN-We11, I think the overriding concern here is that we have an on-site measurement done 53 feet. MR. BREWER-But we want to make sure that it's going to be a straight dock. MR. MARTIN-Right, and that's why I say, inc1ude that in the motion. Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing on this app1ication. Is there anybody here from the pub1ic to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMEIT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPOINT-Yes. My quick question is, SEQRA and docks. We don't do SEQRA on docks? MRS. YORK-No. They're considered a Type II, because they're an accessory use. MR. LAPOINT-So, we do do a SEQRA on them? MRS. YORK-No. We do not. MR. MARTIN-A11 right. If there are no other comments from anybody, we can go straight to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-92 TIM BARBER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: To construct a dock, with the f0110wing stipu1ation: That it be a straight dock, bui1t to the dimensions of 8 by 30 feet, and that it meet a11 required setbacks from the side property 1ines. Du1y adopted this 28th day of Apri1, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Laurice11a, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. TARANA-Cou1d we just sent a message to Warren County, that they straighten out? MRS. YORK-I wi11 ta1k to them tomorrow. MR. MARTIN-Okay. (7:46 p.m.) 9 "--'" --...; SUBÐIVISION NO. 7-1992 SIŒTCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA/MOBILE HOlE OVERLAY ZONE GENEVA ESTATES OINER: R. MICHAEL ElII)RE EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF GENEVA ElII)RE NORTH OF RALPH ROAD AND WEST OF HIllARD STREET TEN (10) IIIBILE HOME LOTS OF 15,000 ± SQ. FT. WITH ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND IIJNICIPAL WATER TO BE CWSTERED ON ±1l ACRES. TAX IMP NO. 120-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 10.93 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:46 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdiv. #7-1992, R. Michael Elmore, Executor, Geneva Estates, April 14, 1992, Meeting Date: April 28, 1992 "The subdivision proposal is for 11 lots off of Ralph Road. The plan is to place single and double wide mobile homes in a cluster on 10 lots and maintain + 6.5 acres as common open space controlled potential1y by a homeowners association. Access to the developed area will be from Ralph Road, however, Howard Street also affords access to the area to be undeveloped. One issue regarding this subdivision is that Ralph Road was not deeded to the Town in its entirety. The Highway Superintendent's office has researched the matter and is in contact with the applicant. The staffs' understanding is that the access-way issue will be resolved to allow extension of the road and water service. The project is in an SR-IA zone and also in a mobile home overlay district. The subdivision appears to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in providing moderate income housing, clustering services and providing open space. To the north of the project is Queen Victoria's Grant, a cluster four plex subdivision. The other housing types in the neighborhood are mixed single family homes and mobile homes. The application indicates that the open space may be offered to the Town. This will have to be a Town Board issue as currently the land is required to maintain the density of the subdivision. The staff would urge the developer to begin discussions with the Town Board at his earliest convenience, since this might preclude the creation of a Homeowner's Association document that should be submitted at the preliminary stage of review." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Since we're at Sketch Plan, we have no engineering comments, and we can move right into a discussion with the applicant. MR. MATHIAS-This property has some history, in terms of subdivision, with the Town of Queensbury, in the way distant past, and apparently there's an issue of approximately 20 or 30 feet, as to how far Ralph Road actually extends north of Eisenhower, but whatever the Town has, if we need to extend it, we will. I think the title of it is in the estate of Geneva Elmore who owned all the surrounding property. So, we intend to get a deed of that portion of what will become a Town road, from the estate. The rest of it's real1y straight forward, in terms of what Mr. Diehl is trying to do. The property is within a Mobile Home Overlay zone. He intends to subdivide it, and place either single or double wide mobile homes here, and offer them for sale. Are there any questions? MR. BREWER-This is going to be the extent of the development right here? MR. MATHIAS-Absolutely. We can't try and use any more because it's still one acre zoning, because we're just limiting how many roads, how far the roads have to go. Also, actually, the smaller lots, really, are more in conformity to the neighborhood. MR. LAURICELLA-What's the plan for the rest of this? Do you have any idea? MR. MATHIAS-Well, at some point, we might like to offer it to the Town. Of course, there's the practical problem with that, if we do that, under the Subdivision Regulations, as they're currently written, it would mean that that six acres would have to be taken away from the applicant's holdings. So that actually he'd only be entitled to four units. So, frankly, we may attempt to talk some with the Town about it. If not, what probably will happen is similar to what Mr. Diehl did when he sold off a portion of the Adirondack Plantations. One, we have a conservation easement, and that bulk area would go with one of the lots. MR. BREWER-So, you're going to have a homeowners? MR. MATHIAS-We're not going to have a Homeowners Association. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, that is probably the thing that bothered me most about this, is that I'm not all in favor of homeowners associations, because I feel the Town is going to end up with a nice little development there, and then something going on that no one wants to take responsibility for, because the lots have changed ownership so many times. So, if there's a way to avoid homeowners association and make that all one person's property, that's fine, because they really can't do anything more with it, and maintain that subdivision. MR. MATHIAS-I think that's what we'd like to do. I think what we'd like to explore with the Town is either is a conservation easement, or something, so that the person who gets that extra lot doesn't get a significant amount of taxes to own something that they can't develop. MRS. PULVER-Right. 10 _c '-- MR. MATHIAS-And Mr. Diehl has no problem, in terms, if the Planning Board wants any appropriate notation on the map that says, this can't be used, forever wild, green, or whatever. MRS. PULVER-Well, according to our current zoning, that property would not be able to be developed anyway, for this particular subdivision. MR. MATHIAS-Right, or any other. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I do agree, if there's a way to lessen the burden on someone, like Lot Number 10, or Lot Number Nine, who is going to take this on, only because then we have one person responsible for this forever green property, I would be very much in favor of making a recommendation to the Town Board for doing that. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I know that Mrs. York has looked, at least tentatively, into the possibility of, you know, we know that this fronts into the Queen Victoria's Grant open space, common area, whether it's possible, or if anybody would ever be interested in having that be available for some form of recreational activity. That, certainly, would be something, in the future. MR. MARTIN-I just want to, for my own sake, confirm something, here. It has nothing to do with the applicant. We have 10 acres, here, that's in a Mobile Home Overlay District, and we're saying he can only have 10 lots. MRS. PULVER-Well, it's one acre zoning. MR. MARTIN-I know. One acre for mobile homes? MRS. YORK- Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well, he still has to conform to the zoning, but he can have it whatever he wants, single family or mobile home. MR. LAURICELLA-The point you're making is that we don't need one acre lots for mobile homes. MRS. PULVER-No. He does, but he's clustering. MR. LAURICELLA-I'm just saying, according to the Ordinance, but according to practicality. MR. MARTIN-It just doesn't. MR. MATHIAS-In one sense, and maybe that's something we can talk about, but, I mean, I think that there isn't any question that even if he just gets 10, obviously, if he gets more that's terrific, but if he gets 10, it's a unique, you just can't buy a lot in Queensbury and put a mobile home on it. MRS. PULVER-And you don't want one acre lots for mobile homes. They can't afford the cost of one acre lots to put a mobile home on. MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying, there seems to be an inconsistency, somewhere here, that we're saying, okay, here's a mobile home overlay, fine, but you have to have one acre. MRS. PULVER-Well, this would be a difficult property to develop in one acre parcels, though. MRS. YORK-Yes. The Mobile Home Overlay District was many years ago. MR. MARTIN-I think it's a good idea. MRS. YORK-Well, I think the intent was to provide for different housing types. MR. MARTIN-Right, but I'm saying, it just seems like it fell short in requiring one acre zoning. MRS. YORK-Yes, well, I'm sure when it was passed, the acreage in this area of Town was probably not that expensive. MR. MARTIN-That was my only question. MR. LAPOINT-As we proceed this, if there would be no need to show that road going into the six and a half acres, the sooner it was off there the better, why do we have that dead end? MR. MATHIAS-Only because I believe that that in fact exists. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That exists like that? 11 .....,../ ----- MR. MATHIAS-It's a Town road into the, you're ta1king about on the most easter1y portion of the property? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. That exists, that cu1-de-sac exists? MR. BREWER-No, no. MR. MATHIAS-No. MR. BREWER-You're ta1king about the other end of the cu1-de-sac? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. That exists? MR. CARTIER-Between 9 and 10. MR. MATHIAS-The prob1em, yes, we cou1d make a rea1 cu1-de-sac. That, again, increases the cost of. MR. LAPOINT-No, no. I'm just saying, why are we showing that disappearing off into the six and a ha1f acres? MR. BREWER-Probab1y on1y to service Lot 9 and 10. MR. LAURICELLA-Frontage on Lot 9. MR. MATHIAS-Because I sti11 need to get frontage. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, frontage. MR. MATHIAS-Frontage, and a1so it a110ws the p10w to turn. MR. CARTIER-P1us, that a1so gives everybody, a11 10 10ts, access to that open space. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I was reading too much into it that something was going to happen out there. MR. BREWER-That's the first thing I thought of. Is he going to, five years down the road, come in and make another. MR. MATHIAS-No. We1', we thought about that, but in terms of trying to get something together. MR. LAPOINT-That's fine. MRS. TARANA-I have one question. It might be premature, but what's p1anned for this circ1e, anything in that very center? MR. MATHIAS-As I understand it, Mr. Nay10r doesn't 1ike to have anything in those things, because that wou1d be something that wou1d get offered to the Town. We don't anticipate any, with this thing, there's going to be no homeowners association. So, we're going to dedicate the roads to the Town, and I think, in the past anyway, many, most of the cu1-de-sacs he 1ikes paved, rather than having something that the Town has to maintain. I mean, we're happy, I don't think it's a big. MR. CARTIER-It is within the purview of this Board, if they want to, to have some green space inside the cu1-de-sac for p1anting. MR. BREWER-I wou1d prefer something green in there, not blacktop. MR. MARTIN-That'1' 10wer your cost, right? You're the one who has to insta1' it and pave it. MR. BREWER-It makes it more 1ike a neighborhood if you cou1d put some grass in there and maybe some shrubs or something. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I think we'd probab1y rather put a grass in and p1ant a tree or something. MR. CARTIER-Because if you've got s01id pavement, what you've 10st in there is traffic f1ow. MR. LAPOINT-And runoff. MR. BREWER-It wou1d be nice to see something in the center of that, I mean, grass or anything besides b1 ac ktop. MRS. PULVER-I think we shou1d 1eave it to the Highway Department to decide. MR. LAPOINT-We'11 do that at Pre1iminary, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think that's something we can, to get this off the dime. 12 ---- --' MR. CARTIER-You can specify it now, so that it shows up in the Pre1iminary. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Specified as green space is about as far as I wou1d go with it. MR. BREWER-Yes, and then it's up to him if he wants to put a tree or something in there. MR. CARTIER-I can see the homeowners in that area going out and p1anting f10wers or something out there. MRS. PULVER-I was just going to say, I 1ive in a very nice neighborhood, and we have two entrances, that sometimes peop1e go and p1ant, and sometimes they don't, and we've tried assessing peop1e, and we've tried getting community projects. We've had beer parties. Peop1e are not interested in doing that. I don't care how much money they have to spend on that thing, they don't want to be bothered. They just don't want to be bothered. MR. MARTIN-I remember, in the City of G1ens FaHs, there, on the rai1road track there that crosses Ridge Street, there was a gent1eman who used to go out there and p1ant that thing every year faithfu11y. MRS. PULVER-And after he 1eft, who's doing it now? MR. MARTIN-The City is. MRS. PULVER-If the City wi11 do it. MR. MARTIN-I think, for now, we'H 1eave it at this conceptua1 stage, here. We'11 1eave it as green space if you 1ike, and remember, I think at this point we're on1y recommending, right? MRS. PULVER-I'm against 1eaving it as green space. Who's going to mow it? The Town wi11 not take gang mowers out there and mow that 1 itt1e circ1e, and the neighborhood, you can't depend on them to mow it. MR. BREWER-Car01, it's not rea11y that big. MRS. PULVER-That's not the point. It's what is it going to 100k 1ike. You cou1d have 10 foot weeds out there. MR. LAPOINT-We11, the thing is, to some of us, 10 foot weeds and open fie1d a11 natura1 100ks good, be1ieve it or not. MR. BREWER-It 100ks better than b1acktop, to me. MRS. PULVER-We11, for that 1itt1e tiny circ1e, I think maybe, you cou1d have beautifu11y manicured 1awns a11 around, and weeds in that circ1e 10 foot high. MR. LAPOINT-I 1ike weeds. MRS. PULVER-A11 right. Lets put it 1ike this. Does the Town want a patch of weeds, because that's going to be deeded to the Town. Lets think about what wou1d be good for the Town. I don't think having a patch of green space with weeds or whatever, I think macadam wou1d be much better for the Town, and we need to consider the Town. They're not going to go out there and mow it or maintain it. MR. CARTIER-I don't think we're expecting the Town to go out there and maintain that thing. MRS. PULVER-We11, I don't think we can expect the homeowners to do it. MR. LAPOINT-How about this. Why don't we 1eave it open and see what the app1icant comes up with at Pre1 iminary? MR. MARTIN-Right. Why don't we do that. MR. LAPOINT-We won't put anything into recommendation. The app1icant's heard us out, and then what they come back with. MR. MARTIN-He certain1y has heard some discussion from the Board as a potentia1 green space in that cu1-de-sac area. MR. CARTIER-By paving that wh01e thing over, we're e1iminating options. By 1eaving some unpaved section, whether they ca11 green space or whatever, we're creating some options. MR. LAPOINT-What are we ta1king about? How many feet? MR. BREWER-Making it idea1 for kids to go out there and p1ay on their bikes. 13 -- -- MRS. PULVER-If it were paved, yes. MR. BREWER-If it were paved. MR. LAPOINT-We'11 1eave that up to the app1icant to 1et us know what he wants to do out there. MR. W\RTIN-Yes. I think that's a good idea. He's heard our. Okay. We have no pub1ic hearing at this point. We have no SEQRA Review. I'll entertain a motion for recommendation. MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION ON SICETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1992 GENEVA ESTATES, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: For 10 mobi1e home 10ts of ±15,000 square feet, with on-site sewage disposa1 and municipa1 water, to be c1ustered on 11 p1us acres, at Sketch P1an, the P1anning Board makes the f0110wing advisory recommendation: One, that the app1icant proceed to Pre1iminary p1an, based on the discussions of this meeting. Two, that the app1icant work with the Highway Superintendent's Office to res01ve the access issue, as it re1ates to Ra1ph Road and who owns it, that they're res01ve that at Pre1iminary. That the app1icant propose some type of specification for the center of the cu1-de-sac, for our review, at Pre1 imi nary. Du1y adopted this 28th day of Apri1, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Laurice11a, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (8:05 p.m.) SEQRA REVIEW PC-lA ~EENSIIJRY FACTORY OUTLET PLAZA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 183-1991 THE H(llARD GRoop SOOTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF ROOTE 9 AND (JIAICER ROAD FOR AN EVAUlATION OF TIE ENVIRONMEITAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW AID A DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ON THE ADDITION OF 56,150 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE. TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1 LOT SIZE: ±15 ACRES JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:05 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior P1anner, SEQRA Review on Queensbury Factory Out1et P1aza, Apri1 16, 1992, Meeting Date: Apri1 28, 1992 "The SEQRA is being done at the request of the Zoning Board of Appea1s. The project before the Zoning Board is for an addition of 56,150 sq. ft. which would require setback and parking variances. The primary issue is traffic and DOT has been requested to respond to the traffic study. The issue is whether the additiona1 retai1 area wiH substantiaHy aHer the leve1 of service and, if so, what mitigation measures wou1d be appropriate. The other issues relate to the fact that this is at a major thoroughfare in the Town. Shou1d there be an opportunity to improve the b1ighted 100k of this area it shou1d be done. Should this be approved, the app1icant shou1d provide p1anting p1ans and concept e1evations which wi11 show the Board what is anticipated. The Board may wish to ask for c010r renderings." I did ta1k to DOT about this, and at my 1ast conversation they had not rea11y had an opportunity to review the traffic study at great 1ength. However, given the fact that a 1ight had gone in there in the recent past, and were part of their renovation project, they fe1t that there were probab1y, the traffic wi11 be hand1ed successfu11y through that mechanism. MR. W\RTIN-Okay. We have someone here from the app1icant. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, from Lemery and Reid in G1ens Fa11s. I represent Howard Carr, the Court appointed receiver. If I cou1d just refresh your rec011ection a litt1e bit, for the new members, procedura11y, in order to accomp1ish what we're app1ying for, here, we have to get two variances from the the Zoning Board. One is for the side setback, 75 foot requirement, according to Ordinances, which it's 35 feet right now, and we're asking for a variance to do that, for construction of a new bui1ding. The other variance is for the parking lot configuration. The existing parking lot, we don't want to have to do 100 car pods, separated by green space. We'd like to cluster a11 the green space along Route 9 to make it more attractive. The addition, a1so, of course, this would have to go to the P1anning Board for site plan review, but before we can get site plan review, we have to get the variances, and before that can happen, the Planning Board, is the Lead Agency for SEQRA Review. So, we're asking them to undertake the SEQRA Review. As Lee said, we did a detailed traffic report for DOT. The traffic report was done Christmas week to have the abs01ute most cars, and we have submitted that, as Lee said, and it shows that the addition of this didn't reduce the level of service. The other issue is that this applicant spent approximately $80,000 putting in the traffic light, and the curbing to change the entrance that would match up with the Grand Union entrance across the street. Mark Schachner's engineer te11s us that the capacity that these improvements can handle wou1d be the capacity generated by the additiona1 f10ws of the existing p1aza, even assuming it were a11 1eased, which everyone knows it isn't, at this point. In terms of the 1andscaping issues, that wou1d be a big part, we understand, of site p1an review. It 100ks 1ike he11 now, and we want to change that. We'd 1ike to ask you to review this for SEQRA so that we could get going with the other approva1s. 14 --- "-- MR. CARTIER-We are doing the SEQRA Review just on the variances, is that correct, the variance requests, or are we doing a SEQRA Review on the entire site? MRS. YORK-On the entire site, because you are an involved agency. He'll be back here for site plan review. MR. CARTIER-So, we're not talking about two SEQRAS. The SEQRA we're doing tonight is on the entire site? MRS. YORK-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-So, we will not have to do a SEQRA Review at the Preliminary site plan? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Then I've got some questions, because I'm looking at the conclusion to the traffic study, and this thing is showing a level of service decrease. MR. LAPOINT-What page are you on, Pete, so I can follow you? MR. CARTIER-I'm on Page 12, the second paragraph, level of service of Westmount thru traffic. This is at 100 percent when the site's maxed out, okay. It's going from C to D, and in the next paragraph down, it's going from A to B, which is not a major thing, but the bottom paragraph it's going from D to E, one of them, northbound left turn lane, when this thing's maxed out. I'm trying to frame a question, here, but the first thing that pops into my head, when we have a traffic impact that creates a change in the level of service, that's a major impact. MR. LAPPER-Well, my answer to that is, with site plan review, and the DOT, not that we're trying to hold off for tomorrow, but we're not going to get any approvals until all the impacts are looked at. We've got the facts, here, and if DOT came back, since this is a State highway, and said that even though $80,000 of approvals are already done, that in order to fully develop this site, additional approvals need to be acquired, they're going to require site plan review, and you can make that contingent. So, I don't think that's a SEQRA, that's an impact that's not going to be addressed. MR. CARTIER-That's an appropriate comment. I think I'm running a little bit ahead of myself with those questions. MR. LAURICELLA-All we're doing is the environmental assessment. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but in effect, I think what I'm seeing is that, in the SEQRA Review, traffic's going to be a major issue that's going to have to be addressed, and they're going to have to mitigate that, especially when we're talking about a whole level of service change. Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. MRS. YORK-I was just going to ask one question. I can't recall when the original approval for this was granted. Was the traffic analyzed at that point, and the mitigation, was the traffic light in the improved access point? MR. LAPPER-That's exactly right, and that was for the same square footage that we're at. MRS. YORK-Okay, but at this point, the change in the numbers is due to the increase in traffic along that roadway. MR. LAPPER-The background traffic, yes. I want to add just this, the only reason we're talking about B's and D's is because this was Christmas week. I remember C.T. Male's was out doing traffic counts that week, sitting, I was coming down from Noble's and I went through three revolutions of the light, coming southbound, waiting to get through the intersection of Aviation and Glen Street, thinking, I can't believe they're doing a traffic count today. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and I'm not a traffic engineer, believe me, but extrapolating on Christmas, if you still maxed the site out at 100 percent, even though, if in the summer time, off Christmas season, if you have a level of service C, I would assume that that's going to drop it a level of service anyway, it's going to go from C to D. Do you understand what I'm saying? What I'm saying is, when you 100 percent max out the site, that's a fixed number of cars you're dealing with. It doesn't matter whether you're talking Christmas season, or whether you're talking summer time, or whenever. If you load that max number of cars onto the system that surrounds it, then if it's operating at Level of Service B out there, you're still going to drop it down a level of service. Am I being logical? Does that make sense? CAROLINE RYAN 15 --- --- MS. RYAN-I'm Caroline Ryan from C.T. Male Associates' Traffic Department. We11, what we're dealing with is during the Christmas season, you're having, all of the movements at the intersections are loaded. So, when you load them even more with the traffic from a retail site, you're going to drop in level of service. It doesn't necessarily mean that when you take the traffic off that wouldn't be there, say, summer time conditions that's there during Christmas, that the traffic from the retail site is still going to decrease the level of the service at the intersection. MR. MARTIN-So, what you're saying is, it's the magnitude of the background traffic that impacts that, more than the fact that this is at 100 percent max, is that what you're saying? MS. RYAN-Well, in the before, we show what the existing levels of service are during a Christmas season. Now, those are, pretty much, your worst case scenarios, since that is a high traffic volume area. It's a retail area during a Christmas season. So, those aren't the levels of service. Those are worse levels of service on those existing intersections. So, they're not that low during the summer season, when the traffic is not as heavy. MR. CARTIER-But you're saying, in the summer time, if it's at Level of Service B, and you max all the traffic out at this new site, it doesn't drop it from a B to a C, is that what you're saying? MS. RYAN-You can't say that without an analysis, because you don't know what the volumes are. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, then my next question is, is it possible that, forgetting peak hour Christmas, it's possible that you could drop a level of service when this site is at 100 percent? MR. LAPPER-It would depend on whether or not all the retailers can use up all the parking spaces, that intensity. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All I'm asking for right now is, is it possible, or is it impossible? MR. LAPPER-It's possible. MR. CARTIER-Okay, because all I'm thinking about is this is the major part of Town, and we're looking, up the road, here, at another mall that's going in on the old site that's being torn down, and we've got to be careful, here, I think, of cumulative impacts. MR. LAPPER-Well, DOT will be looking at that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm trying to stay within the SEQRA Review confines, here, and I don't have the answer for this, but I hope we could answer all the SEQRA questions tonight so we can move this thing along. MR. MARTIN-In that regard, then, with SEQRA, one of the things that's always looked at is no action, and in that regard, my question would be, what does this bring to your plaza, here, to your development, adding on all this thousands of square feet of extra space, when you have so many vacancies there now? MR. LAPPER-That's the big question, and that's why we're here now, and the problem with that center is that you've got the Boardmans. You've got an old structure there, which is what you see when you come down the hill from Exit 19. The site needs to be spruced up, and what we're proposing, as we say on the map that we've attached on the site plan, is to put a new structure on the corner, to cap off the end of that Boardmans which looks so bad. What was origina11y approved was a 6,000 square foot freestanding facility, which was nine feet from Glen Street. We're proposing to take that 9,000 square feet and attach it to the Boardmans, but to make it in an architecturally sort of pleasing manner that sort of wraps around and ties that site together architecturally. The other side is to spend all the money to do all this for landscaping improvements to the site so desperately needed. So, we're using this, basically, to revitalize the site. We fully expect that it's going to be leased. The problems, as everyone in Town's heard, is not because of, the reason it's vacant is because of problems with the owners. They've both passed away. MR. MARTIN-Now, is this proposed building to occur right away, also, the new building? MR. LAPPER- The first thing is would be the building on the corner next to Boardmans. The building in the back would not be built until there was more leasing in the plaza itself. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask one more traffic question? Have you got a copy of this in front of you? MS. RYAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm looking at Page 13, I guess what is the second paragraph under the numerical listing, and I have not read through this entire thing, and I'm not going to, and maybe the answer's in there, but maybe you can get a short version of it. It says, the additional traffic volumes from the site will create better levels of service for traffic exiting the site at the Route 9 access. Can you give an explanation for that conclusion? 16 --- '"'--' MS. RYAN-Sure. Right now, the site access drives are traffic actuated, which activates the signa1 to turn green when there's traffic there. There isn't a wh01e 10t of traffic there right now. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. RYAN-So, that vehic1es waiting at the site and trying to exit onto Route 9, don't have to activate the signa1 because there's just not that many vehic1es there. So, the more vehic1es you put on that access, it'11 make it turn green and make it stay green for a 10nger period of time. MR. MARTIN-Having been there, she's right. That's got to be the 10ngest traffic signa1 in Queensbury. MR. CARTIER-So, what we're saying is that you have to wait a 10ng time because there's not a 10t of traffic. MR. MARTIN-Right. She's saying, the more cars that are stacked there, the 10nger it's going to stay green and it's going to turn green more often. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I understand that. Thank you. MRS. TARANA- The December study was done the 18th and 19th of December, which was a Wednesday and Thursday. When was the August? It might be in here, but I can't find it. When was the August study done? What date? MS. RYAN-There wasn't an August study done. MRS. TARANA-I thought that you 100ked at traffic v01umes in August and December? MR. LAPPER-I think that August is discussed as the other peak time. MRS. TARANA-The other peak time, but your study, then just the December. Okay. I'm just curious why you picked Wednesday and Thursday as the peak times? MS. RYAN-Typica11y, about on the road. Monday is a 1itt1e average of. the mi dd1e of the week is a good average for peop1e who are going to be out and Friday is typica11y very heavy, because peop1e are going away for the weekend. 1ighter. We tried to pick a day in the midd1e of the week where we have a good MRS. TARANA-So, this is an average. This is not peak times? When I read this, I got the impression that the 18th and the 19th were two peak days. You're not saying that, then? MS. RYAN-We're saying, this is peak traffic because it's during the December high retai1, the period of time when you're going to have a 10t of traffic on the roadways because of the h01idays. MR. MARTIN-But not necessari1y those days of the week, is what you're saying. You're just saying that period of time in the year. MS. RYAN-They're averages. MRS. TARANA-They're averages. That's what I was getting to. When I read it, I had the impression that these were two peak days. MS. RYAN-No. It's not the peak days. It's the peak hours, a.m. or p.m. peak hour, that the roadway's going to have the most commuting traffic on it, work commuting traffic and potentia1 for retai1 commuting traffic. The days have nothing to do with it. Those are average days. MR. LAPPER-In that season, the week before Christmas. MR. MARTIN-See, I think it's an average period of time during a peak season. MR. MARTIN-A11 right. Anybody e1se? MR. BREWER- I just don't know how we can do a SEQRA and not know exact1y what's going to be there and give it any kind of determination. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the types of stores? MR. BREWER-Exact1y. Everything. MR. LAPPER-We11, I mean, it's 1ike a shopping ma11. You get the zoning approva1 first and then you go 1ease it out. 17 -- --- MR. CARTIER-Are you planning restaurants in there? Does the possibility exist that one of those things will be occupied by a restaurant? MR. LAPPER-It's possible. MR. CARTIER-Red flag. I'm just bringing that up, okay. MR. BREWER-Because that's going to have more of an impact than if you had a clothing store. MRS. PULVER-It's a lot of it based on the parking capacity? I mean, if you can only have so many cars there, you can obviously only service. MR. LAPPER-We can meet the parking capacity, under the Ordinance, for the different types of leases, but, right now, we can't go get tenants in the present conditions. We've got to get through this. MR. CARTIER-Understood. MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to jump back in. I think that the worst thing that could happen here is, A, that this thing stayed vacant like this another year, and I think that if you can fill this, this'll maybe take demand away from other pressures in the Town to expand in areas that are fields and neighborhoods and that type of thing. Here we have a potential for almost 20 new stores, in the heart of Town, right where it belongs, and to see this thing sit empty for another year, for whatever reason, would be, I think, our biggest problem. MR. MARTIN-I would agree. I think what we're looking at, here, in terms of all these considerations, traffic and so on is, we've looked at other areas of the Town, like up near the Northway exit at Exit 19, we have a concern there because we're narrowing down into two lane traffic there, or the Mi11ion Dollar Half Mile, two 'lane traffic there. We're talking about the area of the Town, the business district where we have best equipped ourselves to deal with high volume traffic. This is surrounded by two way traffic in each direction. It's right next to the Quaker Road expansion that's been done. I mean, this is the area, you know, the infrastructure's there, and so therefore this intense development should be encouraged. MR. LAPOINT-And when we do get to site plan, I would have real strong feelings about that very large proposed L-shaped building, and anything going in there, without some type of 75, 80 percent occupancy of existing space, because you've got to remember, if you have this many parking spaces, and 96,000 square feet as your trip generation model, without the draw of this big, proposed building, yet you have stores One through Sixteen there, the traffic pressures are going to be much lower than I think what the model predicts. It looks to me like you're probably increasing, with this proposed building, 40 percent of the retail space, just eye-ba'lling it, and to me, if we're at site plan, and they want to put that building up, and I'm looking at, out of 16 stores, six of them vacant, I mean, that's going to be a prime mover behind my thinking, as to whether or not they can get that other store in. MR. CARTIER-You mean you want to see the existing stuff filled before you build. MR. LAPOINT-Again, without throwing, 75 percent, 80 percent occupancy before you go and occupy space. MR. LAPPER-We'd certainly be available to discuss all those issues at site plan. MR. LAPOINT-I guess the point I was getting at on the traffic thing is you base this on 96,000 square feet parking, the trip generator? MS. RYAN-The trip generator is based on the building area. MR. LAPOINT-96,000 square feet? MS. RYAN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay, if you subtract all that out of your trip generator. MR. CARTIER-The addition you mean? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You subtract, say, 40 percent of that 96,000 out of your trip generator, and all the parking remains the same, and, again, I don't see the pressures of going from D to F. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Until you get further along the way. MR. LAPPER-Until it's fully leased. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. I mean, we're looking at 96,000 square feet, and what is really existing, here, is something much less than that, right now. 18 -' "--' MR. CARTIER-Okay, but my point was, in terms of, if you take a long view, okay, you're still going to have to consider that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. This is, what is showing you for, say, conservatively, to build this, to get this occupied, two years? Of course, the applicant would like to do it quicker, and I hope business is that good. MR. CARTIER-We11, I guess my only concern is that we don't get ourselves boxed in. You don't get yourselves boxed in, a year from now, like we did with the Half Million Do11ar Mile, and, again, as you point out, this is the connnercial center of Town, and if we choked the connnercial center of Town with traffic, then that's self defeating to the whole purpose of what's going on down there. I don't have a problem with your proposal. Please understand me. I just think we've got to tiptoe our way through this thing and do it right, and I think you agree, okay. MR. LAURICELLA-This is the area we were looking at to put the Red Lobster. MR. CARTIER-That's true. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Have you got Red Lobster on your list of potential tenants? MR. LAPOINT-And that takes the pressure off another spot in the Town, where we had a room full of people excited. MR. LAPPER-The site also has the access on Bank Street, as an access-way onto Quaker. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anything, even beyond traffic, since we're looking at the environmental? MR. LAPPER-We're going to hook up to the Town sewer system. Right now, there's on-site septic. MR. CARTIER-That's going. Right. Great. MR. MARTIN-That's good. That'll be a positive impact. besides traffic, any other questions on traffic? Okay. Form? Does anybody have anything else, like I said, Are we ready, then, to try and undertake the MR. LAPOINT-Long Form for this one? MR. MARTIN-I would imagine so. MRS. YORK-Yes. You submitted a Long Form. MR. LAPOINT-Before we go through this, why don't we talk about that traffic thing right now, before we do it in the middle of SEQRA. Lets see what the question is. 1'm just suggesting. "Impact on Transportation". The question's going to be, "Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?" MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and the question becomes, what's the level of impact. MR. LAPOINT-Right. "Sma11 to moderate, Potential Large, or, Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change?" MR. MARTIN-I would say that Impact Can be Mitigated by Project Change, and they've already undertaken several of those steps, with the realignment of the access onto Route 9, and the traffic light. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I guess I just don't want to get in the middle of a debate, when we're going through the Form. MR. MARTIN-I think we, finally, are all in agreement on this one. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm ready. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a SE~ Reviett for an eva1uation of the Enviro.-enta1 Assessnnt Reviett in deterwination of significance on the addition of 56,150 sq. ft. of retai1 space for the ~EENSIIJRY FACTORY OUTLET PLAZA, at the request of the ZOning Board of Appea1s, and MR. LAPOINT-"Impact on aesthetic resources. Will proposed action effect aesthetic resources? MR. CARTIER-Are you going to have a theme out there, an architectural theme out there, when you start designing facades and so on? 19 - '----- HOWARD CARR MR. CARR-The p1an is to merge the facades into one uniform facade, sUbject to the new anchor tenant. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. WHEREAS, this P1anning Board has determined that the proposed project and P1anning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmenta1 Qua1ity Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federa1 agency appears to be inv01ved. 2. The f0110wing agencies are inv01ved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is un1isted in the Department of Environmenta1 Conservation Regu1ations imp1ementing the State Environmenta1 Qua1ity Review Act and the regu1ations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmenta1 Assessment Form has been comp1eted by the app1icant. 5. Having considered thorough1y 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 compnation of Codes, Ru1es and Regu1ations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wn1 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 1aw. Du1y adopted this 28th day of Apri1, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Laurice11a, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Lee, can we have copies of these minutes sent on to the Zoning Board for their review? MRS. YORK-Yes. (8:37 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 16-92 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 MICHIIEL RINGER CllNER: MAURICE LEBCIIITZ 6 IIIUN STREET OFFICE, SH«IIROOII, AND RETAIL SA.LES FOR OVERHEAD DOOR IIISINESS IN AN EXISTING FACILITY. (MARREN coom PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 131-1-16 LOT SIZE: ±14,OOO SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-19 MIKE RINGER, PRESENT (8:37 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior P1anner, S.P. #16-92, Michae1 Ringer, Apri1 15, 1992, Meeting Date: Apri1 28, 1992 "The app1ication is a change of use site p1an review for an overhead door sa1es faci1ity. The former use was a 1imousine service. The 10cation is Corinth Road in a CR-15 zone. The app1icant indicates that there wi11 be no changes to the site. The Zoning Administrator's determination indicates that this is an office bunding. This app1ication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a site p1an review: 1. The 10cation, arrangement and size of the facnities on site are current1y existing. No changes are anticipated. 2. Vehicu1ar access is off the most heavi1y trave1ed road in the Town, however, the project wi11 not aHer traffic patterns. 3. The zoning determination indicates that parking and 10ading meet code. A11 signage shou1d conform to the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. 4. Pedestrian circu1ation is not an issue. 5. Storm drainage wi11 not change. 6. There is an on site septic system and Town water. 7. The site is sma11 and fair1y impermeab1e. P1antings are difficuH to incorporate. 8. Emergency access is not an issue. 9. The site is not susceptib1e to ponding or fiooding." MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have the P1anning and Zoning Referra1 Sheet, and Warren County, again, has No County Impact. MR. RINGER-My name is Mike Ringer. I'm the owner of Adirondack Overhead Doors, and we are proposing to make this a retai1 space. It used to be a 1imousine renta1 service, but I'd 1ike to make note that it was a window tinting p1ace, too. I guess they didn't put that on there. 20 --- '---- MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, this is just like a showroom of overhead doors and then, it says in the zoning sheet that no material or equipment is to be stored on site. So, you're going to have, like, a warehouse elsewhere? MR. RINGER-Yes. We'd probably still be running it out of our existing facility. MR. MARTIN-I see. MR. RINGER-And all we're after here is, like, to be out on Main Street and do a little more advertising. Plus, you have a nice showroom, now. MR. MARTIN-You have some models for display or something like that? MR. RINGER-Yes, something like that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions of the applicant? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Maybe this is unfair. How many park places are needed out here? My problem is two fold. It could be solved very easi1y. The handicapped parking is shown as only a 10 foot wide slot. Secondly, when we were out there, the parking slot closest to Main Street is very difficuH, because there's a pole there. MR. RINGER-We can make spaces back on the other side. They don't necessari1y have to be right there. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's my point. MR. RINGER-There's a requirement of 12 spaces. MR. CARTIER-You're required to have 12? MR. RINGER-We're required to have 12, that's including the handicapped. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we're showing seven on one side and none on the other side. MR. RINGER-Well, I think what happened is that Pat and I, at the end, decided to put them over here, and I thought we made enough, but we might not have. MRS. PULVER-How many employees do you plan on having there at one time, permanent? MR. RINGER-Just myself and whoever works in the office. MR. CARTIER-Does the 12 include employees, or is that? MR. RINGER-No. That's all we're required to have. MRS. PULVER-No. They need a total of 12. Then, really, if there's only going to be two of you there all the time, probably you'd have four people in there. So, I would think seven parking spaces would even be enough. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what my concern is, Number One, the size of the handicapped, plus the one on the end. MR. RINGER-Well, we're planning on putting the handicaps up near the front. MR. BREWER-I guess what he's saying is eliminate this last space, so that nobody can back into that pole. That just solves the problem, that's all. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Unless you're having a body shop there. In which case, it would be appropriate. By eliminating that space by the road, you can then move that out so you can get that handicapped parking space the right size, okay, because it's supposed to be 10 feet with, what, a 4 foot strip, total of 14 feet. MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is site plan. I'll open the public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMII£NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-Lee, we have a SEQRA, right, Short Form? 21 '- MRS. YORK-Yes, we do. MR. MARTIN-Okay. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE RESOWTION NO. 16-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Car01 Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the P1anning Board an application for: MICHAEL RINGER, for an Office, Showroœ. and retai1 sa1es for Overhead Door Business 1n an ex1sting faci11ty, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and P1anning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Qua1ity Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federa1 agency appears to be involved. 2. The fo110wing agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is un1isted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regu1ations imp1ementing the State Environmental Qua1ity Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmenta1 Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the re1evant areas of environmenta1 concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compnation of Codes, Rules and Regulations 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 Planning 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. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1992, by the f01lowing vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-We're ready for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PW NO. 16-92 MICHAEL RINGER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For Office, Showroom, and retail sales for Overhead Door Business in an existing facility, with the following stipulations: Number One, that 12 parking spaces be provided. Two, that the handicapped parking space be expanded to 14 by 20 feet. Three, that the parking slot closest to Main Street be e1iminated. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1992, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricel1a, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (8:47 p.m.) MRS. TARANA-Did you get this 1etter from Pat Crayford, today? MR. MARTIN-Yes, about the Zoning Ordinance Changes. MRS. TARANA-But did you get it today, and the meeting was yesterday? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I got it today also. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. YORK-What changes were made? MRS. TARANA-We got a notice of a meeting. 22 ~ -- MR. LAURICELLA-That was about the amendment, zone change. MR. CARTIER-Can I throw out a comment, whi1e we're doing this kind of stuff? It seems, given the fact that the Town Board is in the process of making some changes in the way things are done, in terms of Zoning and P1anning and so on, it seems appropriate to me that the P1anning Board members and the Zoning Board members be consu1ted, with regard to some of those changes, and I just want that to show up in the minutes. MR. MARTIN-I wi11 request that of the Supervisor tomorrow morning. I think he is the one, he was the driving force behind this new committee being formed, and I'" try and get us some representation on there. MR. BREWER-What was the committee? MR. MARTIN-There was a new committee of seven peop1e formed to review the Ordinance and see how it can be simp1ified. MR. BREWER-Every Ordinance? MR. MARTIN-Zoning, Site P1an Review, Subdivision. That was, I guess, formed out of his office yesterday. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, it's founded in New York State Law, am I correct? MR. MARTIN-A 10t of it is, yes. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, there's not a 10t of f1uff in the Town Ordinance, is there, Lee, I mean, compared to State Law. MR. CARTIER-I think they're ta1king about procedure, more than Ordinance itse1f. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, because, see, there's nothing they can do to make it 1ess stringent than State Law. I mean, they can cut out maybe 10 percent of fat that we added on the top, maybe, or previous administrations, but that's it, right? MRS. PULVER-We11, they can change our setbacks, our own persona1 setbacks. MR. LAPOINT-A11 that sort of stuff. MRS. PULVER-And what good is that going to do? I mean, peop1e are going to be bunding anywhere they want. MR. LAPOINT-I'm just curious as to what the purpose is. I mean, to change the Ordinance is not going to be easy. MR. LAURICELLA-You cou1d change some of the zoning requirements. MR. MARTIN-We", one of the things they're going to 100k at, which I think is worthwhne, is they're going to 100k at the Transient Merchant Law. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MRS. YORK-But that's a Loca1 Law. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-But it's founded in State Law. I mean, you can't do anything that's. MR. MARTIN-WeH, the prob1em with the Transient Merchant Law, though is that it's written to say that the Transient Merchant has to conform with zoning, first and foremost, and that's never been enforced, and that's why you've been getting these fruit and vegetab1e stands in residentia1 neighborhoods. MR. LAURICELLA-The 1ast meeting we had, on Meadowbrook, there was that apartment comp1ex. They didn't need a zone change to put that apartment comp1ex there. MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-That's a110wed within the zoning. MR. LAURICELLA-But that's a residentia1 zone, and we're a110wing apartment comp1exes in there. MR. MARTIN-Listen to what you just said, though, Jim. You're aHowing apartment complexes in a residential zone. Apartments are residences. 23 - '--, MR. CARTIER-You're talking single family. MR. MARTIN-You're talking a single family, as opposed to a multi family. MR. LAURICELLA-Single Family Residential. MR. CARTIER-But that was not a single family. MR. LAPOINT-That was an MR, right? MR. CARTIER-An MR. MR. LAURICELLA-No, that wasn't MR. MR. CARTIER-Well, it could have been SFR, because they're not allowed in SFR. MR. LAPOINT-We made a major blunder, if it was. MR. MARTIN-No. That's an allowed use in that zone. MRS. YORK-Yes. The zoning there is MR-5. I think maybe what should have happened, closer to Meadowbrook Road there should have been a transition area. That's the way I feel about that. MR. LAURICELLA-All right. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 24