The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-08-15 '-' QUEENS BURY PLANNING FIRST REGULAR AUGUST 15, INDEX subdivision No. 10-1995 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 40-95 Subdivision No. 12-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 11-1995 SKETCH PLAN Petition for Zone Change No. 6-95 BOARD MEETING MEETING 1995 Alan M. Perkins Betsy Bueckin9 Leon McCotter (Cont'd P9. 27) Joseph Gross Alan Oppenheiml ACO Property Advisors - 2. 3. 10. 12. 25. 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. '--- --' '--' --' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK JAMES OBERMAYER TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI REQUEST FOR EXTENSION: SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1993 - GARTH ALLEN, BAY MEADOWS REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION. SEE LETTER DATED 7/25/95 FROM MORSE ENGINEERING. MR. PALING-Okay. record, I think. Perhaps that letter should be read into the MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Here's the letter. Regarding Bay Meadows Townhouse project, "Dear Mr. Goralski: It has come to our attention that our approval from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board will require updating. We have been working with the Army Corp of Engineers for some time now, and have recently received a request for more information. (See enclosure). Although we have responded, the notification and review process will take up to six (6) months. Please update our approval for one (1) more year. Hopefully, all issues will be resolved by then. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John Huntington Senior Designer" MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone from the applicant here? I don't think so. No, and then the letter from the Army Corp of Engineers, I guess, Just backs up what Mr. Huntington says. Are there any questions or comments on that from the Board? MR. MACEWAN-My only question IS, wasn't this extension only granted until April the 30th? MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-And they're requesting an extension July the 25th, and here it is August the 15th. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I would recommend that you just approve this again. MR. MACEWAN-Approve what again? MR. GORALSKI-This, whatever the number of the subdivision. MR. PALING-Well, if it expired. MR. OBERMAYER-Didn't expire, though? We got into this last week, I thought, or the week before. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. We ran into this with a site plan, but I don't know how it applied for a subdivision. - 1 - --- -- MR. PALING-Well, maybe we can put it off until Mark Schachner comes. MR. GORALSKI-You might want to ask Mark. Jim's directions were to just approve, if you were comfortable with it, to approve it for one year from this date. MR. MACEWAN-I would like benefit of input from our attorney. MR. PALING-Lets just put it off until our, Mark is supposed to be here tonight. So, Cathy, why don't we go to the next item, please. Excuse me. Just let me say that, on the schedule tonight, that is published, there are two changes. One is the Aviation Mall will not be discussed because that was completed at the last, at a special meeting we had. Unless there's question by anybody about it, they can be answered, but if there isn't, then we'll consider the Aviation Mall closed, as it was last week. Okay, and then the only other item is that an applicant by the name of Thomas will be on the agenda at the end, but it's open to the public, but that'll only be discussion among, the discussion will be limited to the Board. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED ALAN M. PERKINS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: NORTH END OF HOWARD ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND .08 ACRES. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES A VARIANCE FOR LOT SIZE LESS THAN 1 ACRE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 46-1995 TAX MAP NO. 120-1-4 LOT SIZE: 1.8 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ALAN PERKINS, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay, and the variance for lot size was obtained from the Z8A? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay, and there are no Staff comments on this? MR. GORALSKI-All of the issues have been addressed. have any additional comments. We don't MR. PALING-Oka).'. MR. PERKINS-I'm Alan Perkins. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We're in final stage with this. Is there any comments or questions from anyone for Mr. Perkins? MR. MACEWAN-Everything seemed to be addressed at Preliminary. It's pretty clear cut and dry. MR. PALING-Right. MR. RUEL-There's nothing outstanding, that ¡know of. MR. MACEWAN-I'll be more than happy to make a recommendation. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1995 ALAN M. PERKINS, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As noted. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, - 2 - '-' -- '- -..../ Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: 1'10NE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Mark, we'd like to go back to the item that was first on the agenda, Garth Allen, Bay Meadows, and the problem here is they're asking for a one year extension for something that evidentally expired April 30th. Staff has recommended, if we can, or feel comfortable with it, go ahead, but we're not sure we can go ahead with it. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I'm sorry to tell you that I can't really help you here, because although I no longer work for Mr. Allen, a long time ago, when this subdivision was first approved, I was his attorney. MR. BREWER-I can maybe solve that. Last month, we had an application that expired 6/25. We approved an extension after that date. Can we do that? MR. PALING-Was that a subdivision, Tim? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-That was. MR. OBERMAYER-Mark, I don't think we're asking you your feelings on this, but give us, if you were to have an application that did expire, what would be your response? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not comfortable answering that, Jim, because the context is somebody that I once represented. I don't think, I'm ethically not comfortable answering it. Sorry. MR. PALING-Well, what would be the problem with delaying this until the next meeting? It expired April 30th. MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like, what I could do is I could ask Paul Dusek what his opinion is, and next Tuesday you can act on it. MR. PALING-Bring it up again. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that makes sense. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. That's what we'll do. MR. PALING-Okay. It'll be up at the next meeting. Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 40-95 TYPE: UNLISTED BETSY BUECKING OWNER: JOHN BUECKING ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 794 RIDGE RD., DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE ENTRANCE TO BUTTERNUT HILL, EAST SIDE OF RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO HAVE PET GOATS ON PROPERTY. FARM, ALL CLASSES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. (CLASS B FARM SEE SECT. 179-63) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 54- 2-24 LOT SIZE: 7.5 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-63A(2) BETSY BUECKING, PRESENT MRS. BUECKING-Betsy Buecking. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Comments from John. MR. GORALSKI-We contacted Cornell Cooperative Extension. They gave us several pages of information regarding the raising of goats. It appears that this application in general conforms with - 3 - '"-, -- all of those things. It gives some more detailed information that I don't think the Planning Board has to get into, but in general, there are a couple of notes about controlling odor from manure and types of fencing that can be used to contain goats, and I guess I would just recommend that the Bueckings follow the guidelines set forth by Cornell Cooperative Extension. MR. PALING-Okay. In the application, you referred to the number of pet goats in three different ways. In one case it's a few. In the other case it's a couple. In the other case, it just says add pet goats. Could you clarify the quantity of goats you i nti,3nd? MRS. BUECKING-We're intending, we have chosen two does like to have. I would say we would never, certainly than five goats, but sometimes a doe, when it kids, twins, and I would hate to be out of compliance, and intend to keep those. that ~..¡e' d ha\/e more will have ~.Je do n ' t MR. PALING-You're saying, max, five, unless there's a multiple birth? MRS. BUECKING-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and you will do whatever you have to do with goats, right? So you'll keep, ordinarily, a max of five. You're starting with two, max of five. That's a nice looking piece of property up there, and it seems you're way back from anyone else. I don't see any disturbance there. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. How come you are putting them so far out in the corner, and not closer to your barn or something like that? MRS. BUECKING-Well, aesthetically, because ours is a residential property, also, and my husband isn't the type of guy to look at goats. So they're on the property, and actually I've found that it's a pretty hard property (lost words). MR. RUEL-You've indicated a solar electric fence. Is that in the ground or above ground? MRS. BUECKING-That's above ground. Goats wouldn't respond to the sort that you have for dogs. I've researched it pretty thoroughly. I've tried to, rather than showing up with goats at home and saying, well, how are we going to take care of these, and they recommend having the strands closer together at the ground level, going up to four feet. So there'll be probably five strands of electric fence. MR. BREWER-Is the parcel going to be limited to goats? Are you going to have just goats, or are you going to have horses or are you going to have other things other than goats? MRS. BUECKING-I don't like anything that's bigger than I am. So I don't intend to have any horses. Yes, we're looking at the goats, then we do, in the process, when I was talking with the folks at the Planning Office, three years ago, I called the Planning Office because we were interested in having chickens, because Alex wanted to sell eggs. I was told when I called here, I spoke to a woman, I don't remember her name, but that was when I became familiar with the terms "Produce" and "Class B Farm" , and what by her was that it was an approved use and we didn't need variance or anything else to have chickens. Now we do have chickens on the property, and the chicken coop is shown clearly on the map, but when I was talking with the fellow in the Planning Office, he said that we should, after I had gone through this and filled out the application, that that would need approval for that. MR. PALING-How many chickens do you have? - 4 - '''--' ----../ '- .-/ MRS BUECKING-I have eight hens and we have. MR. PALING-No roosters? MRS. BUECKING-Well, we had right now, but we did have neighbors complain that we liked hearing them. roosters. ì·oosters, don't have We don't have roosters and actually I had a few roosters anymore. They MR. BREWER-I mean, we were up there, and I didn't notice any chickens around. MRS. BUECKING-Actually, I was just coming down from tending the chickens when as the car was pulling out. MR. PALING-It's not shown on your sketch, though. MRS. LABOMBARD-The chickens, are they in the barn? MR. OBERMAYER-They're in the chicken coop. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought the chicken coop was by the barn. MR. PALING-Here's goats. Here's the barn. MRS. BUECKING-Here's the goats and there's the chicken coop. MR. PALING-That's it? MRS. BUECKING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. Betsy, is this an invisible fence? MRS. BUECKING-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-How come the goats don't respond to one of those dog fences. I'm Just curious. MRS. BUECKING-It's not a strong enough zap. MRS. LABOMBARD-They're heartier animals. MRS. BUECKING-Yes, and they need to respond visually. I understand that the environmental impact from goats is very similar to that of deer, and apparently the u.s. Geological Survey is now using goats for packing into areas because it's a minimal impact on the environment, and does are virtually odorless. The bucks do have an odor if they're not dissented, and even then during breeding season, they are, but I have no intention of having bucks. We may have a weather, which is a castrated male, and those do not have a scent, because the scent glands are killed when the horns are broken, and then with the castration they don't give off a scent. MR. RUEL-What do you feed the goats? MRS. BUECKING-Hay. MR. RUEL-And you'll keep that in the barn? MRS. BUECKING-That'll be kept in the barn, yes, hay and some grain. MR. RUEL-Yes. Are you going to milk them? MRS. BUECKING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you make cheese or just drink the milk, or what do you do with it? - 5 - .......' --' MRS. BUECKING-The milk, actually, when the milk is quite cold, and especially with, some people say they don't like the taste of goat's milk, and that's generally depending on what they're eating. The taste of any milk, goat milk or any other milk will change based on what you're eating. MR. OBERMAYER-During the winter time, are you going to put them in the barn, is that what you're going to do? MRS. BUECKING-No. MR. 08ERMAYER-No, the stay out there? MRS. 8UECKING-They stay out there. They need to be protected from wind, but they're completely hearty in the cold, and also they create their own bedding. They eat the hay out of a feeder that's up, because they tend to like to browse. They like to eat from above, but whatever falls, then they use (lost word). They're pretty fastidious. I'd also like to include that I do have a letter of support from our neighbor. MR. PALING-Okay. Good. Read it in. MRS. BUECKING-It's dated August 10, 1995, regarding Section 179- 103, Site Plan No. 40-95, applicant Betsy Buecking, "I own the property on the north side of the Buecking property and the closest to their barn or building where said pet goats would be kept. I have NO PROBLEM with Betsy having goats or any other livestock on their property. Thank you, Raymond E. VanGuilder" MR. PALING-Even roosters? MRS. BUECKING-He objects that we don't have roosters anymore. MR. GORALSKI-We have two more letters, Mr. Chairman. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets have them, and then we'll open the public hearing. I'm. GORALSKI-Okay. "As a property o~"ner in the vicinity, I am writing in response to the notice I received in the mail, concerning the public hearing on August 15th, at 7:00 p.m., regarding pet goats on the Buecking property. I will not be able to attend the hearing but want to express my support of the proposal to allow the Bueckings to have pet goats on their property. One of the reasons people live in rural areas is to give their children a wholesome environment and an opportunity to teach responsibility and to experience rural life. This is to be commended! I am 100% in favor of their proposal. Sincerely, Ber net ta ~(. Stokes 11 Chest nut Ridge Rd., Queensbury, NY" "I am unable to attend the meeting this evening, but would like to register my vote as negative. No - re: goats on Ridge Rd. near me. Thank you. Gloria Lapham 64 Chestnut Ridge, Queensbury" MRS. LABOMBARD-Chestnut Ridge, the road that goes behind. MRS. BUECKING-It goes up behind us, but I don't believe that her property is adjacent to ours. MR. PALING-It doesn't abut, yes. BERT MONROE MR. MONROE-She's about 200 feet from me, and I got the letter, too. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any others? MR. GORALSKI-That's it. - 6 - '- ---' '--- ,-" MR. PALING-I think, at this point, we should open hearing, then. Is there anyone here that would like on this application? the public to comment PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOUISE MILLER MRS. MILLER-My name is Louise Miller, and my property abuts the Bueckings, and I am definitely in favor of Betsy's having the goat farm. Number One, I have lactose intolerance, and if she can provide me with goat's milk, hurray! MR. PALING-Thank you. BERT MONROE MR. MONROE-I came here for two reasons. First of all, to complain that I didn't get my letter until yesterday, about the Planning meeting, so I didn't get a chance to come down and find out about anything that was going on. Bert Monroe. So, therefore, my concerns were, perhaps a lot of them, overreactive. She answered a lot of questions, thank you, as far as to where they were going to go with this thing. I was just concerned because a neighbor of mine, who I talked to last night after receiving a message, expressed great concern and said that they applied to have horses there years ago, and it was turned down, and that she had called him and asked him for his support, and he said, I've got no problem with goats, but I didn't have my letter, yet, he said, and I just got ~ letter, also, he said, but there's nothing there indicating as to the number of animals it would be, and to particulars. Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. I think that's been clarified. MR. MONROE-My concern was that. it wasn't going to grow into a love animals. Although I'd like from every morning when I go out My concern was the numbers, that regular animal farm. I mean, I to know where that rooster crows and get my mail. MR. PALING-Well, okay. MR. MONROE-I love roosters. I guess she's probably done 90 percent for me. If everything's the way she says and it's limited to so many goats, and doesn't grow into a regular animal farm, then I'm very comfortable with that, because we are in the country, and I had chickens. I inherited them when I bought my property, and everybody's, you know, doesn't mind. I don't have them now, but I'm just saying. I want to say a vote for her now, after hearing what she said she's going to do, and we are out there in the country, and good luck. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MILLER-I do allowed is because acres in property, she could not have believe that the reason the horses were not there is a Town ruling that you must own seven something more than this land has. That's why 13 ny h01- ses . MR. PALING-Okay. Now I It's an Unlisted Action. think we have to do a SEORA on this. Jim, do you want to do the honors? MR. MACEWAN-Before you do the SEORA, can I ask Staff a question? MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. MACEWAN-John, in the information that you got from Cornell, was there any specifics about how many goats per acre were recommended in their information? MR. GORALSKI-No. They have a square footage per goat, which is. - 7 - "- -' MR. MACEWAN-What's a number you would feel comfortable with? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the square footage per goat was something like 100 square feet. So it wasn't even an issue. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-I can tell you said was stuff that was in Cooperative Extension. that almost everything Mrs. Buecking the information sent by Cornell MR. MACEWAN-Very good. Thank you. MR. PALING-Any other questions before we do the SEQRA? Go ahead. MR. OBERMAYER-This is the Short Environmental. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 40-95. Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: ~JHEREAS , the,- e application for: is presently before BETSY BUECKING, and the Planning Board an 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 F~ESOL VED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. -; 0<:.. 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 15th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Star k, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, 1"11'. NOES: I\jONE MRS. LABOMBARD-We now need a motion to approve. MR. STARK-Rather than limit her to five goats, why don't we say six, a limit of six? Because in case something does happen with - 8 - '---- -' '~ --' multiple births, why would she be under the gun with five, you know, one goat isn't going to make that much difference. MRS. BUECKING-Your question about research, I think it was 20 goats per there are so far below. MR. GORALSKI-It was insignificant calling fOì-. the goats per acre. My acre. The number of goats compared to what they were MR. PALING-Okay. George's point was that we did state earlier that the five would be the limitation, maybe plus one. So maybe it should go to six. MR. STARK-I don't have a problem. MR. PALING-Lets let the motion have six in it rather than five. That's no problem. MRS. LABOMBARD-But wait a minute. Should the motion overrule the law? MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-There is no law. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean the law says you can have up to 20 per acre. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not a law. It's just a guideline from Cornell. MRS. LABOMBARD-A guideline from Cornell. I understand. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse, Mr. Chairman. Two things. One is, I think you should close the public hearing. MR. PALING-Right. MR. GORALSKI-And in your motion formalized. I'm. PALING-Okay. comment, then the the other thing is, you should probably include the existing chickens. So that that's all First of all, thank you, if there's no other public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Then the chicken thing was brought up MR. BREWER-Do we want to include a number on the chickens or? MR. RUEL-I don't see that the chickens have anything to do with this. MR. OBERMAYER-At all. What do the chickens have to do with it? MR. GORALSKI-Technically speaking, they needed a site plan review to maintain the chickens on their property, also. MR. PALING-Why can't we just go ahead with goats? MR. GORALSKI-Because then she would have to come back again for the chickens. MR. PALING-We're being asked to add chickens to the thing, and we can't get away from it, right? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you can, but what you would force them to do is come back, you would force me to go out, as the Compliance Officer, and tell them they need a site plan review to maintain - 9 - ------ "-' -.-/ their chickens. MR. MACEWAN-What's the big deal we can't add them now? MR. PALING-All right. We'll have to put some limitation on the chickens. Does Cornell have any chickens per acre? MR. GORALSKI-I didn't look into it. MR. PALING-I'm sure 10 chickens on that land would not be. MR. OBERMAYER-Why she has right now, number. MRS. BUECKING-If I have to replace chickens, the baby chicks, you have to chicks, because they'll freeze in the, property, we have 24 little chicks. don't we ask the applicant how instead of you just arbitrarily many chickens picking some chickens, when you buy buy a minimum of 24 baby so there's a time, on our MR. PALING-Well, why can't we make the number 24, because I assume there's a mortality rate or something. MR. BREWER-Why can't we just say that she can have chickens there. MR. RUEL-Period. Why do we have to have a number? MR. STARK-She's got enough room for a million chickens there. MR. MACEWAN-Somehow I just can't picture John running around the property counting chickens. MR. PALING-All right. Then may we hear a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-1995 BETSY BUECKING, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded b>' Timothy Brewer: To have six pet goats and chickens on property as indicated in the plan. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling t"'¡OES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LEON MCCOTTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH END RYAN AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.464 ACRES AND 2.548 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43- 1995 TAX MAP NO. 134-1-1 LOT SIZE: 5.22 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. PALING-Is there anyone here from the applicant? There is no one here for the applicant. Does there have to be? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. PALING-There doesn't have to be. any comments? Okay. John, do you have MR. GORALSKI-The only comment that I had is that they did receive a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to have less than 40 feet of frontage on a Town road. MR. PALING-Right. - 10 - "-" -- '--' -' MR. RUEL-What about their request for \.Ja.Í\.lers on this? MR. GORALSKI-If you'r~ going to act on this, I would act on the letter. MR. MACEWAN-Did you receive the cards back that the neighbors L.Jere notified? MR. GORALSKI-No. I don't see any cards. Typically, though, the applicant brings the cards. MR. MACEWAN-I would move that we table this until we have the applicant here. MR. BREWER-I'd make a suggestion that we put it to the end of the agenda, and if somebody shows up, we can still do it. MR. PALING-All right. Lets do that. MR. BREWER-If not, then we can table it. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good idea. MR. PALING-Yes. Lets put it at the end of the agenda, and we will come back to it. MR. OBERMAYER-Why is everybody getting their letters, it seems, so late? I mean, a couple of these neighbors were just receiving their letters in the mail. MR. GORALSKI-They're sent out on time. I'm not exactly sure, off the top of my head, what the regulation is, but we do send them out and publish them in the paper. The only thing I can say is possibly they're not being received on time because of the changing of addresses, but as far as the letters that are sent out by the Town, they're sent out in a timely manner, and it is advertised in the paper in the required, it's either 10 or 14 days. MR. RUEL-What's a timely manner, three, four days? MR. SCHACHNER-Public notice provision in the newspaper is only five days. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So the letters are sent out, typically, so that they're received approximately the same time it's advertised in the paper. MR. RUEL-Which is how many days prior? MR. GORALSKI-Five days prior to the meeting. MR. BREWER-Mark, I know subdivision is a legal requirement. Is site plan? MR. SCHACHNER-Site plan requirement is publication. MR. BREWER-It's not necessarily notification? MR. GORALSKI-There's also a requirement that the Town send letters. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There's not in State law, but there may be in local law. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There is. MR. SCHACHNER-For site plan you're saying? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. - 11 - '- -- MR. PALING-All right. We'll put that off until the end of the meeting and see if there's anyone here. We can go on to the next one, Cathy, if you would, please. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1995 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH GROSS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A/SR-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROADIPALMER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 30.88 ACRE LOT INTO 24 LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE EACH. TAX MAP NO. 144-1-40.1 LOT SIZE: 30.88 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOSEPH GROSS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1995 Sketch Plan, Joseph Gross, Meeting Date: August 15, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to subdivide 30.88 acres into 24 lots. The subdivision will be in two phases. Phase one will consist of eight lots that all will have frontage on Big Bay Road. Phase II will consist of eighteen lots in a cluster design accessed by a proposed Town road. There will also be a large lot in the southeast corner of the property. The disposition of this lot should be clarified. The eastern portion of the existing lot along Big Bay Road appears to be wet. This 1S not a N.Y.S.D.E.C. designated wetland, however, the A.C.O.E may have Jurisdiction. The applicant would be well advised to contact the A.C.O.E. as early as possible. In an effort to minimize driveways on the collector road, lots 5 & 6 should be accessed from the proposed road. If the lots are developed prior to the construction of the road, they should share a common driveway in the location of the proposed road. The location of the proposed road should also be considered at this time. If the road can be shifted to the east it may be possible to provide a vegetative buffer between the lots on Palmer Drive and the new lots. The subdivision is within 1,000 feet of the water district and the applicant should submit a request for extension of the water district per Section 183- 29.. It MR. GROSS-I'm Joe Gross. MR. PALING-Okay. Mark, in the third paragraph, where you talked about a common driveway with five and six, is that just a temporary or a permanent? MR. GORALSKI-Well, what I would recommend is that, it would be a temporary situation until the road is built, and then those two lots would have driveways on the proposed road, as opposed to accessing directly onto Big Bay Road. MR. PALING-And they'd have separate driveways at that time? MR. GORALSKI-At that time, because they'd be on opposite sides of t.he street. MR. RUEL-What.'s the zoning along Palmer Drive? MR. GORALSKI-Waterfront Residential. MR. PALING-Is it. two or three lots that are SR-1A? MR. GORALSKI-Actually, none 1A. There are two lots at. consider it the north of Suburban Residential. of the lots are completely in the SR- the very rear of, I guess you would the subdivision that are partially MR. RUEL-What's that, 17 and 18? MR. PALING-Seventeen and eighteen, yes. - 12 - ~ ~ '-- ~ MR. BREWER-When we come back for Preliminary. the lot sizes will be on the map? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they will. I asked Leon Steves to include that. He'll include the lot sizes with the setbacks and the other information. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is this, I don't knòw what direction is it here. Where's north on the map? The southeast, this portion here, is this just open space? MR. PALING-Where are you looking, Tim. on that triangle down here? MR. BREWER-Yes, on the bottom. MRS. LABOMBARD-The east part, exactly east. Yes. MR. GROSS-At this time, to be honest with you, we haven't really decided what we're going to do with it. It is a little wet in here. So my feelings were just make these lots a little bigger, and they obviously wouldn't build in the back of their lot. So it would just give them some, you know, you can walk back there, but building wise, it wouldn't be a very desirable lot. MR. RUEL-What's this cross hatched area? MR. GROSS-Well, it's just a pond, like water, you know, certain times of the year you've got a little bit of water there. We haven't, to be honest with you, crossed that bridge. MRS. LABOMBARD-Why don't you, I know this is a suggestion, but these lots, obviously, we know there are no dimensions on them, but they all look like they're pretty conformed, and they're all the same size, basically. MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry, they're all under an acre. That's why it's a cluster design. That's why you have this outstanding lot here that makes up the room. MR. BREWER-So, I guess my point is, if he's clustering, he has to provide a certain amount of green space or open space. MR. GORALSKI-This lot here would have to remain unbuilt. MR. GROSS-Okay. Well, if that's the case, in all honesty, I thought Matt was coming tonight, and I was just here to look good over there. and I don't know what happened, but that would become, I would think, more of an issue of Phase II, correct, because we're just. MR. BREWER-Well, we have to look at the whole subdivision as we see it today. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I mean, there's nothing that says you have to, you know, you say, well. I might make the lots a little bit bigger, but they. obviously, they won't build on them. MR. GROSS-Well, then I'm the same idea you do, and the rules are. off base then. Matt has probably got I'm just speaking out, not knowing how MR. OBERMAYER-Isn't there a house back in here somewhere? MR. GROSS-That's the old farmhouse. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, right. MR. GROSS-That used to be the old Palmer Drive (lost word). MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. How do they access their house? - 13 - -- MR. GROSS-There's a driveway about Lot Three. There's a right- of-way to get back to these houses back in there. We're going to maintain a right-of-way to go through. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, and can you show that on the map also, the l' ight-of-~"ays? MR. GROSS-Yes. That'll, I believe, will be shown at the next meeting. I guess the next meeting is the meat and potatoes, and he's going to have all that good stuff for you, topography. MF:. BREWER-Yes. 1'1R. OBERMAYER-Now where's your house in relation to this, right here, this one right here? MR. GROSS-Right where it says drive on Palmer. My house is right where the drive is on Palmer Drive. MR. PALING-Mr. Gross, where you're on the, what would be the east side, the water side, your lots butt up against a whole bunch of lots back there, which other people own, I assume? MR. GROSS-Correct. MR. PALING-What's between your lots and their lots? What will be there when you're finished building, the trees, or what is it? MR. GROSS-Well, in all honesty, what I, befofe getting this letter, I had thought is you would sell the person the lot and you would build within the compliance of the Town. MR. PALING-What's there now? MR. GROSS-Every thing's woods right now. MR. PALING-All woods. MR. GROSS-The whole thing's woods. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would those people in Lots 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, on the west side of your cul-de-sac, these lots here on the top, do you think they would tend to cut all their trees down in the back so they could have a view of the fiver? MR. GROSS-I'd be lying to you if I told you I knew what people would want to do. Most likely, we're going to promote nice homes in there, and I don't think, you know, that's going to be their back yard. If anything, they're going to be looking for the same amount of privacy that the people are on Palmer Drive from their back yard. Some of the people on Palmer Drive have some wooded trees between them and that land, and some opted to have extra large yards, and they've cleared the trees right up to that property as well, and now they have a nice green yard to that property. So for me to say that those people are going to not want a big yard, or they're going to want trees there (lost J..>JOrd). MR. OBERMAYER-It's pretty steep there, too, Cath. I don't know if you'd get a view of the river or not. MR. GROSS-No, you really wouldn't, because we're in a and we're 12 foot above the water level, at a minimum, it goes up as it starts to go up. low spot, and then MR. RUEL-What presently exists along Palmer Drive? MR. BREWER-Camps. MR. RUEL-This is all chopped up into small pieces. - 14 - ,-' ",-,' '--~ -- MR. GROSS-There's some summer camps. MR. RUEL-They're all very small lots, aren't they? MR. GROSS-Yes, they're very small. MR. RUEL-So you have some small buildings? MR. GROSS-Well, on Palmer Drive, but not on this new, yes, on Palmer Drive there are some smaller camps. There's some year round homes. MR. RUEL-Yes. So if you remove this proposed road east, say 30 feet or so, then you could put a buffer zone between that and your properties. MR. GROSS-I suppose it could be done. To be honest with you, I'm not a surveyor, and I don't know, because I don't know if it would cost me five lots. I don't know if it would cost me two lots. MR. RUEL-Well, frankly, you have some extra space over here. MR. GROSS-Right. I just don't know if it's buildable. I don't know. There must be a reason why he's left that that way, and he can give you all those answers for next meeting. MR. RUEL --Yes. MR. PALING-Well, no, we're trying to anticipate it, and that's the pu'·pose of this meeting, and I think where toJe'n~ coming from, or at least L am, is an anticipation of what objection there might be from the people who are on the river, with their back yards to these back yards. MR. GROSS-I understand. MR. PALING-And how they'll feel about it, and if the buffer zone of trees would be better than no buffer zone, that kind of thing. MR. GROSS-I understand, but let me ask you, who would own the buffer zone? MR. PALING-It would be private property, and I may be using the wrong term. MR. GORALSKI-When I suggested that, what I was thinking is that this, the large lot that's left over, in the southeast, that is not numbered, would have to be maintained or owned by some type of a homeowner's association or something like that, in order to satisfy the requirements of the cluster design. What I thought that you could possibly do is, instead of having this large chunk, here, is create a buffer around the entire subdivision that would be owned by a homeowners association, similar to Sherman Pines has one. I throw that out. I haven't done any of the engineering or surveying. I don't know if that's possible. I just thought it was something that you might want the applicant to consider" MR. RUEL-Could the applicant take a large lot and donate it to Queensbury in lieu of the Park fees? MR. GORALSKI-No, they could not do that for the cluster. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-The depth of the lots. What's the depth to these lots, 150 feet also? MR. STARK-That'll be on the map for next time. - 15 - '- - MR. GORALSKI-They're all about 200 feet deep. Mf.'{. GROSS-Yes. MR. 08ERMAYER-You know what would be very desirable home back here, is if you had access to the river. me, that would be a great sale. to have a I mean, to MR. BREWER-Do you have access to the river? MR. GROSS-To this property? is on the river. Yes. If you look at that one lot, MR. RUEL-This one, Lot 4. MR. GROSS-Lot Number 4 has got 200 something If I make that an association, I don't know. all the legalities of doing all that? footage of water. Is it really worth MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It would take a lot of expense to do it, I'm sure. MR. GROSS-A lot of expense out of my pocket, and I can sit on that lot, and the right p(Hson'll buy it. I'll build the right home for them, on the water, something of that nature will happen. Save it for myself. I don't know. It Just seems like a lot of investment, and a lot of red tape, and associations are, maybe work, but they seem like, to me, to be a hassle. There's liabilities. People say, well, gee, I want a nice home on this nice dead end road, but, gee, do I have to pay this association fee, well, I don't really want it. MR. BREWER-Well, they have to have some kind of an Open Space program to meet the clustering criteria. MR. GORALSKI-Right. There's got to be some type of mechanism of ownership of this lot, this remaining large lot in order to satisfy the clustering provision. MR. BREWER-Just so that you know that, because you're clustering, you have to provide that. MR. GROSS-Okay. MR. BREWER-I guess what !1.1L. question is, are )lOU goi ng to provide access to the river for these lots? ~m. GROSS-No. MR. PALING-Well, let me ask you a question, in conjunction with what Tim is asking. How does Palmer Drive fit into this? It looks like it goes into the river. MR. GORALSKI-It doesn't. ~m. GROSS--I\Jo. MR. 08ERMAYER-It wraps around to the right. MR. GROSS-It wraps around. MR. PALING-No, look it. I'm looking right here. MR. 08ERMAYER-Yes. It goes this way. MR. BREWER-It dead ends. MR. PALING-Okay. So it doesn't. All right. Who owns the road in front of where Palmer Drive turns? - 16 - "--- ' ----- "--- --' MR. GROSS-Well, I own 100 foot in front of me. I have the deeded rights. I own the land 100 foot on the other side of the Toad. As a matter of fact, I shouldn't say that. Some people own, from what I've understood, maybe even some people might own property in front of other people. They've run into that issue down the road. MR. GORALSKI-Technically, the way the Town's records read, Big Bay Road actually runs down all the way to the end here, and Palmer Drive actually runs to north. MR. OBERMAYER-That's the way the road side shows. go all the way to the end, and Palmer Drive is on You show, your right. you MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, see, I thought that, too. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's why that was confusing, the Palmer Drive at the end there. MR. PALING-Well, doesn't that make Big Bay Road access to the ì-i\ler? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Could you take a boat and launch it at the end of Big Bay Road, on that 40 feet there? MR. GORALSKI-I'm not positive. MRS. LABOMBARD-You know what I'm talking about? MR. GORALSKI-I know what you're saying, but I believe that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know, but I'm saying, technically speaking, I mean, if you had the. MR. GORALSKI-My understanding, the way the Town's records read, Big Bay Road ends at the intersection with Palmer Drive. It doesn't say anything about it continuing all the way down to the r i \/er . MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-That's all it says in the Town's records. MR. GROSS-I think you'll find that the answer is that that land across the street, where Big Bay ends, is deeded to someone. Whether it's this property, and it's also, but I also believe it's deeded to my neighbor, Laurie Davis. So there is no land available there for the Town to own, I guess is what I'm saying. The Town doesn't own the land. MRS. LABOMBARD-Thank you. That's the answer I'm fishing for. MR. GROSS-I may be wrong. Don't quote me, but I believe that's the way I'm looking at the maps. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Thanks. MR. PALING-Then your layout should answer that question. MR. GROSS-Yes, and again, I know Matt Steves has been out there with his crew quite regularly getting, the second phase map, it has to be quite detailed for you, for the public meeting, I believe, and he told me that this map was sufficient for this meeting, and we would have all the details for you at the second meeting. - 17 - -- MR. BREWER-Well, I guess it's kind of fruitless if we do something different, and he's already got a map isn't it? If we're asking him to pull it back. ask you to prepared, MR. GORALSKI-He hasn't submitted anything yet. MR. PALING-We can offer any suggestions we want, tonight, but then the map that's subject to our approval and all its detail when it's submitted to us. We wouldn't, couldn't be otherwise. MR. BREWER-No, but I guess what I'm saying is, if we're asking him to pull this back, and he can go back to Matt and say, Matt, they're suggesting that we pull this back a little bit, create a buffer around the back side. I guess what I'm saying is, Matt has already drawn up the map. MR. PALING-We're only making suggestions. MR. BREWER-I'm just trying to make it easy for him. MR. STARK-Tim's predisposing that we're asking him to pull it back. You didn't poll the Board to ask them if they want to pull it back or not. MR. BREWER-No. I didn't say I wanted him to pull it back. I said there was conversation of him asking him to bring this back in Staff comments. MR. PALING-It's a suggestion that's been made. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-At Preliminary Stage, that's where we usually do most of our engineering and revisions. So I don't understand what the big deal is if we don't discuss it until Preliminary. MR. PALING-Right. MR. RUEL-I had a couple of questions. This Palmer Drive is a paved road and goes all along the river? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Now, how do these people gain access to the road? It seems that some lots are landlocked. MR. GROSS-You'll find that, the way that that's a tax, he didn't actually survey each one of those lots. Those are tax plotted maps, or lots, and the people in front usually own the land behind. Like the lady right next door to me, she owns two lots. Does that make sense, or not really? They broke it all up in little chunks, the farmer down the road, and you know, this one person might own six little tiny chunks of land, and only sells off one or two. MR. RUEL-Yes. My question is, does anyone gain access to those small lots through your property, now? 'om. GROSS-No. MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. RUEL-No. Okay. MR. GROSS-I've had a couple of neighbors that have expressed an interest in providing more land behind them, which definitely might be detrimental to me, to this idea. Some of the people down at the other end have expressed an interest to buy the lot, which is great by me. MR. STARK-I'd have to echo Craig MacEwan's comments, that if they come in with their map, not pulled back, at Preliminary, and we - 18 - --..,/' ----- --..,/' decide then to have a buffer, for final plat, then you would have it pulled back. They have to prepare another map for final anyway. So we shouldn't even consider the buffer right now. MR. RUEL-That's double work. We could do it right now. MR. BREWER-That's what this meeting's for. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Just to let you know what other applicants have done, is that they, instead of like pulling back your road and minimizing the size of the lot, they've left, like, 20 feet of their back yard as no cut zone. You have to leave those trees along that area back in there. I think I've seen that before. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, I thought the reason for this Sketch level review was to determine or to recommend certain changes which could be incorporated in the Preliminary, rather than to just discuss it and then wait for the Preliminary, and then make changes. MR. PALING-Well, all we can make are suggestions, unless there's something that we know is right or wrong. Everything that we've talked about tonight is a suggestion, except what must appear on the print, and the applicant's going to consider our suggestions, come back, and then we'll get down to the nitty gritty, and we may make firm recommendations then, but right now, everything lS suggestion, as far as I'm concerned. MI-? RUEL-Fine. MR. PALING-Okay. And I think so far I've noted you're going to have lot sizes on the prints. You're going to specify setback. We've been asked for contours. They're on here now, and definitely we need the right-of-way clarified, any right-of-way, whichever it may be. MR. GROSS-Yes. The only right-of-way, would be this suggested right-of-way right here? MR. GORALSKI-I think the Chairman's talking about the right-of- way to the farmhouse should be shown on the plat. MR. PALING-You said there was an existing right-of-way there, I bel iel./e. MR. MACEWAN-Who's going to look to see over the wetlands? Are you going to applicant that will do it? who's got Jurisdiction do it or is that the MR. GORALSKI-DEC does not have Jurisdiction over the wetlands. MR. MACEWAN-The question was raised whether the Army Corp of Engineers? MR. GORALSKI-The Army Corp of Engineers may have Jurisdiction. I'd recommend you contact them. MR. GROSS-I'll have (lost word) take care of that. MR. PALING-Does he have a copy of your? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question, as far as the proximity of these lots to the river and Lot Number 4 actually being on the river. What, this is Just a subdivision, but then I hear the clustering concept is involved in here. Does this have to go through any kind of environmental review, I mean, besides SEQRA? - 19 - ...- ---- MR. BREWER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. GROSS-I'll be honest with you. I'm following Van Dusen and Steves. I'm shocked he's not here right now. I was told this is just the way to go about it. I just saw an attractive piece of land behind my home and I said, gee, lets make some money and take a chance. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, and I have another question. As far as the plans that we're going to see next time, will they have, on each lot, like where the proposed dwelling is going to be and where the proposed septic system would be for that dwelling? Some of them do. Most of them do, have proposed dwelling, septic system. I want to know, are we going to get into that? MR. PALING-Well, it sounds like he's going to sell the lots individually. MR. GROSS-Yes. It would be kind of hard for me because I'm not going to, per se, play builder. along, and wants to buy one of these lots, and Town criteria and everything's great, I'd be. to tell you that, If someone comes they meet all the MR. MACEWAN-I think that's a requirement for subdivision. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it is, too. MR. BREWER-I think, Cathy, I think that when they come in, they'll have to show that that can be done on that piece of land. MR. MACEWAN-Show the proposed house and septic, so you meet all the setbacks. MR. BREWER-In other words, if they've got that for a lot, they'll have to show where a house could go and the septic. They have to provide that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. They has all the rules. Okay. have to show that. Thanks. So he'll do. He MR. GROSS-He knows. Okay. I'm learning. MR. MACEWAN-My only comment would be, going along with what Tim was suggesting, that we, between now and the next visit you come to us for Preliminary, is talk to Matt and convey the idea, how we want to have this buffered and possibly moving the road, and maybe if there's any question about what's transpired tonight, is to have Matt Steves get a hold of John, and put their heads together, so that won't be an extra step in the process for you. MR. GROSS-I'm in full have, and maybe you myself, wanted to own buffer, you know? agreement with you. The question 1 would could answer it. If someone, including the lot behind their lot, how would this MR. GORALSKI-Well, that has to be worked out. is. I'm recommending you look into it. It that's not feasible. I don't know. What may be I'm saying something MR. GROSS-There's going to be a couple of neighbors that aren't going to be happy with this subdivision. MR. GORALSKI-That's right, and that's why providing some type of a buffer may. MR. OBERMAYER-Remember, that's only one or two Board member's opinions. My opinion is that. I don't have enough to look at, to - 20 - '-- --,' ,--,,' see, to tell you whether we would want to shift the road or not. I drove down that area, and I don't necessarily see an issue with having lots behind. I'm only one person out of seven. MR. MACEWAN-I guess the point that everyone was making tonight, though, Jim, is that in order to meet the clustering, you have to have the buffer. It's in the Ordinance. So the suggestion to 3taff L..¡as. MR. OBERMAYER-You don't have to have a buffer. You have to have an area set aside. MR. MACEWAN-No, no. You have to have a buffer. Am I wrong on that? If you have clustering, lS the requirement in the zoning that you have to have a buffer? MR. GORALSKI-No. The requirements regarding clustering are that you have to have the amount of acreage required for the underlying zoning. Okay. So in this case, he has this large lot here, that if you broke that up and put it into each individual lot, each lot would be one acre. MR. MACEWAN-I stand corrected. My apologies. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So something has to be done with that lot. Now there's something else I want to bring up here, and I apologize that I Just thought of it, and in the subdivision regulations, it says that you cannot cluster within 500 feet of the Hudson River. It looks to me like this is 500 feet from the Hudson River. So the Board can grant a waiver from that because it's in the Subdivision Reg's. MR. PALING-This Board? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, the Planning Board, but that's something that would have to be requested at Preliminary 3tage. MR. GROSS-I clustering? guess, John, I don't know. ax e you fully assured that that is MR. GORALSKI-Well, these lots are less than an acre. measure less than an acre. They MR. GROSS-Because that may be rough draft, because I honestly didn't talk about clustering with Matt. It was never even talked about. MRS. LABOMBARD-But if he makes fewer lots and makes them meet an acre, then you don't have to cluster. MR. BREWER-Then he doesn't have to cluster. MR. GORALSKI-Right. If these lots can meet the acre requirement, then he's okay, or he can request a waiver from the Board. MR. PALING-Yes, but there have to be taken care of, still might be common land as subdivision property. that would MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. GROSS-Couldn't that Just be left deeded to me, that one piece of land? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. If it's not a cluster, the requirement of specific ownership for open space land is specifically if there's a cluster subdivision. If you have a standard, what. I call a standard subdivision, meaning the lots meet the minimum lot size, an applicant is allowed to keep a lot or more than one lot that's oversized. That's not a problem. I think that's what the applicant's asking. If it's not a cluster subdivision, there's - 21 - '--- '--' nothing wrong with it. MR. PALING-Right. MR. BREWER-How many acres is this whole parcel? MR. RUEL-Thirty-one. 30.88. here, and nowhere does it When you read this, how do zoning? Now I'm reading the subdivision say anything about cluster zoning. you know the request is for cluster MR. GORALSKI-What are YOU talking about, the agenda? MR. RUEL-Yes. I'm just reading this, or any of the documents. MR. GORALSKI-By looking at the plan. I'm saying this, by virtue of the fact that these lots are not one acre in size. MR. RUEL-Okay, but nowhere do we mention cluster zoning, in any of the documents that the applicant has. It's just the fact that it's under one acre. MR. 08ERMAYER-It might have been a miss. Maybe acre. MR. GROSS-I believe that they're going to That's my intention. I think that was meant. they are one be an acre. MR. PALING-Okay, then clustering wouldn't apply, or wouldn't have to apply. MR. RUEL-It seems to me you could make it one acre. You've got 31 acres. MR. GROSS-That's what the math works out to me, but I could be wrong. Maybe it'll take out one lot, I don't know, but it'll be brought up tomorrow. I'll try to get some answers. MR. RUEL-I was just going to think that maybe yOU should have an optional plan. Everything that we discussed about cluster zoning, and perhaps a buffer zone and moving the road, and also an alternate plan, not cluster zoning, but meet the requirements for one acre. Present that to us at Preliminary. So that we'd have the option anyway. MR. GROSS-My goal is to I'm not asking for any goal. come into compliance with the Town, so special privileges. That's really my MR. PALING-Yes, and I don't think he's going to come with two plans, either. MR. GROSS-No, I don't honestly believe so. I think you're going to see me come with just everything by the book, and I'm not even going to try to come here with anything out of the ordinary . MR. RUEL-Yes, well, initially, you came in with something out of the ordinary, because it's one acre zoning, and you came in with less than one acre. Correct? MR. GROSS-Well, if that map is correct on the second page, and it looks like clustering, we'll have that (lost word), I'll take care of that. I was never applying for that, and I don't mean to be. MR. RUEL-No. It seems that yOU want to meet the requirements of one acre zoning. MR. GROSS-Correct. MR. RUEL-And you want to get out of the cluster zoning. Now, if he goes to one acre and meets the requirements, what about the - 22 - '--' ~ '--' ~ 500 foot? MR. GORALSKI-It doesn't apply. MR. RUEL-That doesn't apply. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-The other thing I plan you're looking at both Preliminary, he's only coming the first eight lots. just thought of is that the Sketch phases. If he comes back for back for Phase I, okay, which is MR. GROSS-Correct. MR. BREWER-Will he show us the whole subdivision, though? MR. GORALSKI-You can request that of him, but he doesn't have to. MR. BREWER-I would like to see the whole subdivision. MR. RUEL-Yes, I would, too. MR. GROSS-Yes. I wouldn't give you a topo or anything like that, due to the cost factor. MR. BREWER-No, but just to let us see the size of the lots. MR. RUEL-Similar to what you have now. MR. GROSS-It's not something that's going to happen overnight, either. Maybe down the road it would be beneficial to make two acre lots. As long as I'm within the Town's compliance, five years down the road, someone may come along and say, I want a two acre parcel. MR. PALING-I think the point is made that the Board does like to see the layout of the whole thing as you visualize it at this time, although you only ask for approval for Phase I. MR. RUEL-Bob, if, at a later date, do something about Phase II, does Board? five years he have to hence, he wants to come back to the MR. PALING-Sure, with a site plan. MR. RUEL-For Phase II. MR. BREWER-Not with a site plan. subdivision. Just for Phase II of the MR. PALING-Well, he's got to come back for Phase II subdivision approval. MR. GORALSKI-He won't be able to come back for Phase II until he has his Certificate of Occupancy for 60% of Phase I. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and at that time, if you complete, you have to come back for Phase II approval by the Planning Board, which is detailed review, Preliminary and Final. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-And if at that time, certain Codes have changed, would he have to adhere to the new ones? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There's a specific section about that under Phasing that says just that. MR. RUEL-The radius of roads and widths and so forth? MR. GORALSKI-Exactly. - 23 - ......- .~.-.- --'" MR. SCHACHNER-What it says, each subsequent phase must comply with any new standards instituted by the Town, since approval of the Preliminary, except for anything that's already under Final plat rev iev·¡ . MR. RUEL-Okay. I just want the applicant to know that. MR. GROSS-I guess I've got a question on that. Maybe, recently, we own some property in Glens Falls, and they re-zoned the two areas to Multifamily, for an example. What would stop the Town from coming in and saying, gee, lets make this a five acre parcel zoning area? Could they do that without my? MR. GORALSKI-They could do it. public hearing. Okay. They couldn't do it without a MR. GROSS-And I would be notified, being a land owner, of that public hearing? MR. SCHACHNER-Not necessarily. It depends. If they do it on a Town wide basis, you wouldn't specifically be notified. There'd be all sorts of public notices, but you would not necessarily receive individual specific notice. MR. BREWER-And that very well could be a possibility. I'm not saying it's going to happen to that particular zone or anything, but the Town is going through the Master Plan right now. MR. SCHACHNER-It happens all the time. MR. GORALSKI-It's something you would read in the paper. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It doesn't happen overnight, you know, one day when it's dark out, all of a sudden you wake up the next morning and it's happened, but it does happen, after a process. MR. BREWER-I would like to see the size of the he knows that, and I also would like to see and what type they're going to have on, just layout of what could be on those lots. That's lots, and I'm sure the septic systems a pure and simple all. MR. PALING-Bearing in mind the septic system would be where they could be maybe changing them later. MR. BREI,..JER-Yes. MR. STARK-I'm sure Leon knows that, though. MR. PALING-Yes, he should. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm fine. MR. OBERMAYER-I think it looks like a great location for a home, especially Lot Number Four. MR. STARK-I have no problem. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we're all set, then. MR. GROSS-I guess I have one more question. This suggestion of Five and Six, if I were to have a buyer of Five or Six, would it be like in my clause that I have to tell these people they definitely have to come off of that road? When people buy a corner lot, per se, it's nice to have the option of saying, well, gee, I'd like the house pointed to the south, I want it pointed to here. I mean, would I be bound? MR. GORALSKI-My recommendation to the Board is that, in an effort to minimize driveways on the collector road that, yes, in fact, they're required to either share one driveway or have the - 24 - '-- -- ......,¡i/" driveways come off when the proposed road is built, onto the proposed road. That's 0l.Z. recommendation. The BOiHd, it's up to them to do what they'd like. MR. BREWER-Well, they couldn't very well have their driveways coming off the proposed road, if they bought the lot now, because the road isn't built. Right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. What I'm saying is, Five and Six should then share a driveway. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. OBERMAYER-There are houses, they are building homes along that road, though, that do dump onto Big Bay Road. There's quite a few developments along there, too. I'm. GROSS-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we've covered it pretty well. I guess you get our suggestions, I hope. MR. GROSS-Now is that it? We're set for next month, now? MR. GORALSKI-You have to submit an application. MR. GROSS-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-There are formal requirements for that, but Sketch plan is just a recommendation stage. MR. GROSS-All right. Well, thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-You have to pass a motion. MR. SCHACHNER-They don't have to. It's helpful if they can. MR. PALING-I didn't think we needed a motion for this. MR. SCHACHNER-You don't. All it says is recommendation. If you have a uniform recommendation, meaning if you all together want to make a recommendation, then you can do it in the form of a motion, that's fine. If you can't, or don't want to, you don't have to. MR. PALING-I don't think we need one. MR. RUEL-Yes. You don't have to. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE 6-95 RECOMMENDATION ONLY ALAN OPPENHEIM/ACO PROPERTY ADVISORS OWNER: HUDSON POINTE, INC. CIO NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. LOCATION: 777 CORINTH ROAD CURRENT ZONING: SR-1A PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST IS TO MODIFY EXISTING SR-1A ZONING TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERMITTED COMMERCIAL USES ALLOWED FOR IN HUDSON POINTE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim disqualifies himself from this because of his, and we have a letter here from the lawyer representing the Brewers and the Akins. In this situation, I got it in the mail today, this afternoon, and let me read it in. I guess you don't ¡-"lave a copy. MR. GORALSKI-The letter? I'm SOTTY. - 25 - ....- MR. PALING-They didn't have a copy of this? MR. GORALSKI-That's probably true. MR. PALING-Lets let Cathy read it into the record. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. It's regarding the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development "Dear Planning Board members: As you know, we represent Robin and Tim Brewer and Roland and Emily Akins who live in the area adjacent to the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development. It is our understanding that the developer has proposed to rezone a parcel of property along Corinth Road to include it in the area designated as Commercial Area No.1 in the Hudson Pointe PUD. It is also our understanding that the allowed uses in Commercial Area No.1 will remain the same. The purpose of this letter is to clarify one matter. The documents attached to the short form Environmental Assessment Form indicate that there will be one 3-acre lot, no more than 16 i-acre lots, no more than 32 1/2-acre lots and no more than 60 1/3-acre lots. This totals 109 lots. However, the documents also indicate that the maximum build out is 96 lots. Likewise, all of the approval documents adopted by the Town Board and Planning Board clearly state that the maximum number of residential lots is 96. Therefore, we merely wish to clarify that the documents attached to the short form EAF for the proposed rezoning do not change this maximum allowed number, and that the total maximum number of residential lots remains at 96. We believe this is the developer's intent but merely wish to make sure that this is so. Assuming that to be the case, our clients have no objections to this most recent proposal. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, P.C. Jeffrey J. Friedland" MR. PALING-I think we all remember the 96 number very, very well. I know that's the intent. Can you answer that in another, from another angle, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I can. I looked into that this afternoon. If you read the letter, he correctly quotes the documents as saying no more than 32 half acre lots, no more than 16 acre lots, no more than 60 one third acre lots. The reason it was worded that way was to provide the developers with some design flexibility, and allow them to basically respond to market demand and that type of thing. All the documents indicate 96 units. This re- zoning does not change that. There are 96 lots on the signed approved plat. There are 96 lots in the original PUD approval. There are 96 lots in the SEQRA findings statement, and this re- zoning does not change that at all. There are still 96 lots. MR. PALING-Okay, and I think the wording that's used in several places is "maximum" also. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. correct, that the Oka,;,. 96 is I don't have any question the limitation on it. that that's MR. MACEWAN-I have one. When the PUD wasn't that parcel up there approved as purpose? was originally approved, part of the PUD for that MR. GORALSKI-No, it wasn't. MR. MACEWAN-It wasn't? MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is it was not controlled. MR. STARK-I was under the impression it was. MR. MACEWAN-Me, too. - 26 - '-/ -- -...." "---' MR. STARK-CLost word) going out to Corinth Road to have a Stewarts store, or they mentioned a stewarts store. MR. MACEWAN-Absolutely, a convenience store was mentioned there. MR. OBERMAYER-I thought it was Lot 97. MR. STARK-That's what I thought, too, a convenience store or something like that, a long, narrow, that's what we approved. MR. GORALSKI-This is the lot we're talking about, right here. These three lots were a part of the original PUD, Lot 97, Lot 98, and then this. MR. MACEWAN-Those three lots were zoned for what? MR. GORALSKI-Commercial, future commercial. MR. MACEWAN-But the one on the Corinth Road was too, I thought. That one right there, I thought, was originally part of it. MR. GORALSKI-Not according to the signed documents. This was not controlled by the developer and was not re-zoned. MR. STARK-Now it is controlled by the developer. MR. PALING-And they want to include it. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know who has ownership of this at this point, but that is, the request is for this lot here. MRS. LABOMBARD-I remember that, because it looked to me like it was a strange shape. I remember that because there was only one part that had frontage on that Corinth Road, and I thought it was strange. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I remember, it, too, Lot 97 and 98. MR. MACEWAN-Is that all there is to it? MR. PALING-Yes, that's all there is to it. Isn't it, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Board. This is just a recommendation to the Town MOTION TO MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO RE-ZONE FOR THE HUDSON POINTE PUD ZONE CHANGE NO. 6-95, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NOt"E ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MRS. LABOMBARD-Are we going to go back to McCotter? -',ere. He's not MR. PALING-Yes. We've got to clarify the McCotter one. MR. RUEL-Do you want to table that? MR. PALING-Wait a minute. We're going to go back to Subdivision No. 12-1995 Leon McCotter, and, yes, I'll entertain a motion to, go ahead, I think we should. We have no, we don't have an - 27 - applicant ahead and to get an okay do it, can't we? from to table it. I think we can go MR. MACEWAN-I'd introduce Town hasn't received the public hearing scheduled the public. So it tells this. So I'd introduce a a motion to table this only because the return receipts back yet and there's a tonight, and there's no one here from me that they haven't been notified of motion to table this thing. MR. PALING-All right and would you, I think perhaps, your motion that the notification to the public checked, to see if it was done. include in should be MR. OBERMAYER-Why do we have to add that to the motion, though? MR. PALING-Well, just to make sure, if we have this thing, and there's no public notification, we're in trouble. MR. SCHACHNER-Are you talking about the public notice in the newspaper or the notice that goes to nearby land owners? MR. PALING-The required notices, if there was a mailing, did it go? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. This is subdivision, and unless I'm mistaken, that obligation rests with the applicant, not the Town. MR. PALING-All right, then we don't have a problem. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we may. We don't know. MR. MACEWAN-But the applicant is required to produce those. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MACEWAN-When he's here, and I feel very uncomfortable about entertaining any discussions about this thing tonight without either, A., having an applicant here, or, 8., knowing that the neighbors were, indeed, notified of that. MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine. just trying to clarify. I have no trouble with that. I was MR. STARK-Going out there, you know, this fellow asked for a waiver of contours and everything. I would like to see a two or a minimum of five foot topography map of the area. I don't want to grant a waiver for that. MR. PALING-He should be here to answer that, but there's no one here. Can we table it without the applicant's consent? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we should. MR. 08ERMAYER-Yes. I agree. MR. MACEWAN-I'll make a motion pending further information notification to neighbors and it with him, I guess. to Table Subdivision No. 12-1995, from the applicant as far as having the opportunity to discuss MR. PALING-Should we put a date on it? MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that you either put a date that you expect them to be back here, or have them somehow re-apply for preliminary, so that we have some way of, you know, we don"t want them to show up, the day before the meeting and say, hey, how come I'm not on the agenda. - 28 - --..' -- ~ MR. MACEWAN-Is he on the agenda for next week? MR. STARK-Yes, for Final. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Right now he's on Item Two for Old Business for Final. Obviously, that won't happen. MR. PALING-He's got to come back on. MR. GORALSKI-And he doesn't notices out. have time to advertise and send his MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. He hearing for the 22nd, next won't have time to schedule Tuesday. a public MR. PALING-Well, could the motion say that the applicant will be notified of what's required of him, and advised to reply by a date, reply to Staff as to what he's going to do? MR. SCHACHNER-If you want. MR. PALING-Well, I don't want them or us left hanging. That's all I'm trying to accomplish. MR. BREWER-If we table this, can't we still have the public hearing next week? MR. SCHACHNER-It's not noticed for next week. MR. BREWER-Well, why can't we open the public hearing and leave it open until next week? MR. SCHACHNER-You can do that if you want. MR. BREWER-And then we don't have to have the guy go through the, assuming he doesn't have the notices. and if he does, in fact, have the notices, then we could have the public hearing next week. MR. PALING-It's obvious that there is no one here, and opening a public hearing, I don't. MR. BREWER-Why? anything. MR. MACEWAN-What I don't neighbors, to OUT knowledge it becaus;e they haven't been You'1-e not making a motion to approve or feel comfortable in is that the right now, haven't been notified of given the return receipts. MR. BREWER-Fine. If that's the fact next week, then we just deny it or make them re-apply. MR. SCHACHNER-I wouldn't deny it, but I would process the application because we didn't have a hearing. Right now, we don't know. It's possible were sent. It's possible that the notifications it's possible that they weren't. say we can't 1 avJ'fu 1 pub 1 i c that the cards VJere sent and MR. PALING-Can we not open the public hearing at the next meeting and still be legal? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. BREWER-You have to open it now, and then just leave it open. MR. SCHACHNER-The public hearing was scheduled public notice of it said it would be tonight. do that and still be legal. for tonight. The So, no, you can't - 29 - '- -- MR. PALING-Well, why should we open a public hearing with no public? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not suggesting you should. you could, and I said you can if you want. Tim mentioned that MR. MACEWAN-Why don't we table it until next Tuesday night which is, what the 22nd, and in the mean time, the Staff can contact him and find out what his position is. MR. PALING-Right, and we can still open a public hearing. MR. MACEWAN-Open the public hearing tonight and leave it open. MR. PALING-Open it tonight. MR. BREWER-What I'm saying is, if you open the public hearing tonight, table it, maybe this is the applicant. MR. PALING-Are you Mr. McCotter? LEON MCCOTTER MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets kind of start at the beginning. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LEON MCCOTTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH END RYAN AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.464 ACRES AND 2.548 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43- 1995 TAX MAP NO. 134-1-1 LOT SIZE: 5.22 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON MCCOTTER, PRESENT MR. MCCOTTER-Leon McCotter, 13 Ryan Avenue, Queensbury. MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you have comments on this, now that we're all present? MR. GORALSKI-The only comment I had was that the variance was received for the less than 40 feet of frontage on the Town road. Otherwise, we really had no concerns. We'd have to confirm that the public notices were sent out and then Mr. Stark had a comme nt . MR. PALING-Yes, well that was going to be the first question, I think. Were the neighbors notified of this? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes, they were. They were here at the Variance meeting, and they had no problem with it. The only thing that they were concerned with, and we put it in the Variance, there would be only one house, if any, on that lot. MR. PALING-On what lot? MR. MCCOTTER-On the vacant lot. MR. BREWER-Lot Two. MR. MCCOTTER-They were concerned that there might be condos or whatever, something like that. MR. PALING-Okay. I understand there was a public hearing at the Zoning Board meeting, but how about this meeting? Was there notification sent to the neighbors about this meeting? MR. MCCOTTER-I presume they were. I don't knoll-I. I don't kno\¡. - 30 - '-'" "-- .-' for i3 fact, no. MR. BREWER-Do you have returned receipts? MR. GORALSKI-I don't think Mr. McCotter understands. MR. MCCOTTER-I got !Jl.l::. notice, yes. MR. GORALSKI-No. For Preliminary Subdivision approval it's the responsibility of the applicant to send notices to all of the adjoining property owners within 500 feet. It sounds like that was not done by you. MR. MCCOTTER-No, it wasn't. Now maybe, Coulter & McCormack was doing the surveying, and he may have, now I'm not positive. MR. PALING-Of course we can't go on that. I think you're actually supposed to have proof of, the returned post cards from them. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Basically, what the Subdivision say is the subdivider shall provide Proof of Notification by Certified Mail on the land owners, receive notice. Regulations Service of required to MR. PALING-And that, unfortunately, you can't do. MR. RUEL-We don't have that. MR. BREWER-So can we still proceed provide us those receipt next week, and table, Mark, and if act? they MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. PALING-And if they don't provide the receipts, what does that do to the applicant? Then he's got to start from scfatch, I assume. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes, you have to re-advertise the public h~3ar i ng . MR. PALING-Okay. Do you understand that? MR. MCCOTTER-All right. So I've got to notify all the neighbors? MR. PALING-Well, if they haven't been notified. If they have been notified, then you can bring that to the next meeting. MR. MACEWAN-For this meeting, though, Bob. notified for the Planning Board meeting. They have to be MR. MCCOTTER-Before next Tuesday. MR. SCHACHNER-If they've already been notified. in other words, if Tom McCormack sent out Certified Mail notifications to all land owners within 500 feet, then he should have the cards, the green cards that are receipts from Certified Mail, and he should give them to you, and you should bring them in to the Staff, and then that's fine. If that did not occur, then that means that this public hearing was not properly noticed in one way. It was noticed in the newspaper, but it wasn't noticed to the 500 foot land owners. In which case, my recommendation would be that you have to have another public hearing at the Preliminary Stage. MR. PALING-All right. Then I'll go ahead and open the public hearing tonight, and then table this, until the next meeting. MR. RUEL-So we're right back where we were a minute ago. MR. BREWER-Shouldn't we make suggestions to him, with the idea - 31 - '--- that the notices have been made. George said that he wanted the contour map. MR. STARK-I have a question for the applicant. Tell your surveyor that a contour map would be nice to have, I mean, at least a five foot contour map of the two lots, or a two foot. He might have even prepared a two foot. MR. MCCOTTER-All right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-I don't have any questions. I just don't know that the contour map is necessary. Did he ask for a waiver? Does everybody think it's necessary? MR. RUEL-No, I don't. MR. BREWER-For a two lot subdivision? MR. RUEL-No. MR. MACEWAN-It's pretty steep in some of those sections back there. MR. PALING-I would agree to the contour map, myself. MR. STARK-If it was level or, you know, sloped a little bit, but this has got a big building on to it. That's the only reason I'm asking. MR. MCCOTTER-The majority of that lot is level. MR. PALING-Unless there's violent objection, would you please do a contour map? MR. MCCOTTER-Contour map. MR. RUEL-No comments. MR. PALING-I have two comments. One is you should clarify the size of the lot, because if you look at what I'm reading, 2.464 plus 2.548 does not add up to 5.22. It adds up to 5.012. So one of the two, it's just a typo, or something similar. You should correct it so there's no problem in the future. MR. MCCOTTER-Okay. All right. MR. PALING-And then the other comment I have is that you realize what the Zoning Board of Appeals has said about the 40 foot frontage on Ryan Avenue? MR. MCCOTTER-Right. MR. PALING-That's alII have. MR. MACEWAN-I think we not leave him guessing. for everyone? should clarify the size of the contours, Is five foot going to be satisfactory MR. STARK-I'd be happy with five foot. Otherwise, you'd have a million lines there, it's so steep. MR. PALING-Five foot, okay. Five foot contours. All right. I think we can entertain a motion to table this. Is it okay with you if we table this until the next meeting, and you also understand that you're going to check on whether the neighbors were notified? MR. MCCOTTER-Notified, and get the contour map. MR. PALING-Right, and clarify the arithematic. - 32 - '---" ---...' '"-- ---' MR. MCCOTTER-Right. Okay. MR. PALING-And we have to have your consent to table it. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes, I agree. I want to do whatever I have to do. MR. PALING-We'll open the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-The public hearing stays open. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1995 LEON MCCOTTER, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Until 8/22/95. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: l\!ot'-lE MR. PALING-All right. See you next week, with maps. We have one more item of scheduled business. MR. STARK-John, how far in advance, say a person has a permit, and it's running out, time is running out. How far in advance do you notify them, if you do at all, that it is running out. MR. GORALSKI-If we, I'll be perfectly honest with you. If we realize it's running out, we try to notify them as early as possible. Honestly, we don't notify everybody. If it runs out, sometimes we just don't realize it's running out. MR. STARK-I know you can't keep track of everything. MR. GORALSKI-What we try to do is if we, as soon as we notice that we notice that there's maybe two months left, we try to notify people, but unfortunately, we don't always catch them all. MR. PALING-Any kind of notice like that, the applicant shouldn't depend on your office for notification. MR. GORALSKI-No, but I mean, just out of courtesy, we do try to keep up on it as much as possible" MR. STARK-Mark, is it ever possible to extension? Is there such a thing or is it grant a retYoactive not legal, or what? MR. SCHACHNER-People do it frequently. legal authority allowing it. I'm not aware of any MR. STARK-I mean, say a guy ran out July 1st. MR. SCHACHNER-I know what you mean, George, and I say people do it all the time. I've practiced before many Planning Boards and other types of Boards, Zoning Boards, that do certain things retroactively, from time to time. The times I've seen things, Number One, I'm not aware of any legal authority to do anything likE? that 1"i::>troactivt:31y. As far as the law that I'm familiar with, once something expires, it no longer exists, and, therefore, it can't be rekindled, so to speak, but let me say that as a practical matter, where I've seøn Boards do things retroactively, and I have not seen challenges or violent objection to this, is whE?n we'rE? talking about a couple of days, - 33 - -- you know, something still in the same month, type thing, but not months later, but I'll give you an example. We were involved in a situation, this Board and myself, you'll recall, where the Great Escape and its attorneys first sat before us, then stood before us then pounded the table before us, then yelled at us, for a retroactive extension, as I recall, if I'm not mistaken, and that one had only lapsed by a few days, I think it was a week, was it one day, whatever it was. MR. STARK-And we could have granted that, then. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, my advice to you then, if you'll recall is that, you know, the thing has expired. If it's expired, it no longer exists, and there's nothing to re-authorize. That's my legal advice. MR. BREWER-So therefore, then, the Smith application is void? That's the one I asked you about. This was back in June. Not tonight. We approved an extension that ran out in 6/25, in July we granted an extension until September, and I didn't think we had a right to do it. MR. STARK-But we do, though. MR. BREWER-No, we don't. He just got done saying we don't. MR. STARK-He says there's no law that says you can't. MR. SCHACHNER-That's true, too. I mean, I'm not aware of any specific law saying you can't. It's done frequently. I'm not familiar with any cases in which it's been challenged or anything like that, one way or the other. What I said is that most of the instances when it's been done, that I'm familiar with, have been when it's been only a short amount of time, as opposed to a long amount of time, but I don't have a rule of law for you to say that, you know, it's not written anywhere, that I'm aware of, that says you can or can't do this. MR. PALING-Mark, based upon what YOU just said, why did you recommend that we not approve the Great Escape? MR. SCHACHNER-Because I gave you my opinion, my legal opinion. MR. PALING-But that was only one day. MR. SCHACHNER-Because I gave you my legal opinion which by, and that is that once something has expired, it no e;< ists . I stick longer MR. PALING-Then on what we did tonight, that's expired. We didn't do anything yet. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I kind of wish I hadn't answered George's question. He was very clever, because I told you I couldn't answer that question, and I was too dumb to realize that he was possibly thinking of that item. MR. STARK-I wasn't even thinking of that. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm kidding, but that's the result we're ending up with. I'm kidding, George, but, you know, I'm not going to advise you on how to deal with Garth Allen's request, because I don't think I, ethically, can. MR. STARK-Well, his ran out a couple of months ago. He should have been on the ball. It's his problem not our problem MR. MACEWAN-If you're going to discuss the thing for a minute, the curious thing about this thing, it ran out a month prior to him even asking for a request on it, and another month passed before it got to this Board to ask us to act upon it. - 34 - "---' -' ,./' '-, MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, if you remember that application, that was not just a real simple application, where that guy's going to go through a lot of expense, and all the hardships going through that again. Do we want to put him through that again if there's no law saying that we can't? MR. MACEWAN-But if we've set a precedent with other applicants that IrJe don't. MR. BREWER-Yes, but yoU have and you haven't, Craig. On the Story town, we denied them the extension because it expired. Two months later, the Smith application, we granted that, and that was expired for two months. MR. MACEWAN-I didn't vote on that one. So, I feel comfortable ~.Jith that one. MR. OBERMAYER-No, we didn't grant an extension on Story town. MR. BREWER-You're right, we didn't, but on the same hand, several months later, we granted an extension on a subdivision application, the Smith application. That's what I'm trying to t.ell you. MR. STARK-Marilyn Smith, the one up on Tuthill Road? MR. BREWER-Yes, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying that I didn't have a problem with granting it., but we've got to do it one way or the other. We can't, one application say no, and then next one yes, and now this one no. MR. PALING-I think we're setting a dangerous precedent if we say we do it this way sometimes, that way sometimes. So we'll wait'll the case comes up and decide whether we do or don't. I don't want to go along with anything like that. I'd rather say, adopt a policy if it's run out, it's run out, and that's it, or grant everybody an extension, no matter what, just grant everybody an extension. MR. RUEL-That's what Tim's saying, one way or the other. MR. PALING-I think that if we it yes to this guy, I think just say, if it's expired, expired. turn Great Escape down and we grant we're wrong, and I think we should we have nothing to act on. It's MR. STARK-Bob, poll the Board and see how they feel about Garth Allen. I mean, you know, whether it should be or not. MR. MACEWAN-What difference does it make who the applicant don't think it matters who the applicant is. 1· <::"? c;;:. . I MR. PALING-Lets look at it from a generic standpoint. Should we grant extensions when the approval has expired? Roger, do you IrJant to start? MR. RUEL-I say, no. MR. PALING-Don't grant it. Okay. MR. BREWER-I think it's something I can't make a decision on right this instant. I think we have to look and see if there's legal ramifications, not ramifications, but if there's nothing saying that we can't do it, I don't feel this Board should be so hardened to say. MR. STARK-Look at each individual one? t1R. BREWER-··'(es. case. I mean, I don't IrJe have know if we should to be consistent. look at it case by I agree with that, - 35 - -- - because I think consistency is proper for this Board, George. I'm saying I think it's a tough thing to, I don't know. We've said no to somebody. We've said yes to somebody. You almost have to look at it case by case. No. I won't say case by case. I'll say. I don't know. I honestly don't know, Bob. It's a tough call. MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel that consistency keeps us out of a lot of trouble, legally. However, if we grant one person an extension and somebody else we don't grant an extension, I think that we can be playing our little politic game here with the people in the community, and that's what it seemed to be the last time. I thought that's what we were doing with the Great Escape, and it probably isn't a very nice thing to put on the record, but I think that there was politics involved in there, favoritism, nonfavoritism. So maybe using some consistency and saying if the applicant is responsible for knowing when in the world his permit expires, then that takes us off the hook. However, I also feel that this is a very friendly Town. I don't think the people that aTe coming in for an extension for their permits are out to screw us. So I think it would be nice to extend their permits due to the fact that they're not asking for blood. So there you go. I'm saying that maybe I can't decide and make a decision on this myself right now. i'1R. PALING-Okay. Jim. There's two I don't knows. Okay. Lets go to MR. OBERMAYER-I'd like to hear Paul Dusek's opinion on it, his legal opinion on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. STARK-I would have to say, there's individual cases, but yet you're setting a pattern of not being consistent then. We give it to Marilyn Smith, we have to give it to Garth Allen. We didn't give it to Charlie, so we don't give it to Garth Allen. I don't know. Get a legal opinion. MR. MACEWAN-My personal voting record says that personal viewpoint is I won't grant an extension site plan or an expired subdivision. I don't, my to an expired MR. PALING-I don't think we have any right to say yes to one person and no to another. I think we've got to be consistent down the line, and I guess that's three of us that say that, and four I don't knows. MR. OBERMAYER-No, that's not true. I'm asking for legal opinion on the matter, and that will dictate which way we go. MR. SCHACHNER-The first item on your agenda was this request from a subdivider. The way I understood you to have resolved that was Staff indicated that Staff, because I can't help you on that, and I apologize for that. It doesn't happen too often, but it happens once in a while, and the reason is because I respect the ethical boundaries of my profession. I don't feel comfortable giving you advice on the Garth Allen matter, even though I'm no longer involved in it. Staff said, as ¡ understood it, or recommended that the way to resolve it would be that he would seek an opinion from the Town Attorney. That strikes me as a very normal, very rational, very appropriate way to answer this question, and when you do that Paul Dusek will tell you, basically, what his legal opinion about this issue, and I think I'm agreeing with Jim and George. To me, this is a legal issue, and it's one that I think you have council for. In this case, you have back up council for, so to speak, and I guess I ¡-Jill give two cents worth. My legal recommendation is that you seek the advice of your back up legal council on the legal issue. - 36 - -../ '-", ...-/ MR. PALING-All right. We will do that. I retain my opinion, but I ~>JÎIl do tha.t. MR. STARK-I have a question for reason it ran out or something. to be here for the next meeting? John. Maybe Ga.rth Allen has a Can you contact him and tell him Maybe he can answer a question. MR. GORALSKI-The reason they haven't filed their plat is because they haven't gotten Army Corp of Engineer approval yet. MR. BREWER-That's exactly what it is. MR. RUEL-It's in the letter. MR. GORALSKI-Now, the fact that that wasn't done, I don't know if Army Corp of Engineer approval was a condition of the Planning Board subdivision approval. I'll have to look into that. I don't know if that was the case. MR. STARK-Yes, but he knew in May that approval. So why didn't he come in in May, in, can you approve it, yes, fine. he didn't have the you know, just come MR. GORALSKI-They dropped the ball. MR. STARK-John Lemery dropped the ball for Charlie that night. MR. GORALSKI-My discussions with them basically were that they for got. MR. PALING-All right. I will get with Paul Dusek and I'll discuss the matter with him, and we'll have a recommendation. MR. GORALSKI-So you don't want me to do it? it? You're going to do MR. PALING-Well, we can both do it, if you want, but I want to participate in this, because I feel rather strongly. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine, however you'd like to do it. MR. PALLNG-I think it's the responsibility of a business man to keep dates, and if we don't keep dates, we don't pay our taxes, if we don't do things in a particular time, we're penalized, and nobody comes forward and says, hey, gee, sorry, Bob, you can pay them without penalty, baloney. Lets cut them off, and make it very plain that that is it. I wouldn't, a businessman should not depend upon somebody else to help him with a suspense stay. They don't have a suspense file, I don't feel sorry for them. MR. RUEL--Right. MR. BREWER-I understand what you're saying, and I feel that way, but you have to also think about what our position is not to be hard asses in this Town. To an extent, we have to have a little bit of leevJi.~Y. MR. PALING-Okay. I'll go with John and we'll talk about it. MR. OBERMAYER-Whatever Paul Dusek says, we'll do. MR. PALING-All right. I think we can go to the last item on the agenda. Lets do this one. Then if there's more, we can talk about it, and I'm going to ask John if he would talk to us about the Thomas submittal so we'll understand clearly what we're talking about here. MR. GORALSKI-The application before you tonight will also Board as a site plan review to the Zoning Board that I put have to come before the Planning because it's an expansion of a - 37 - --../ - nonconforming structure. The complication is that because it's in a Critical Environmental Area, the Unlisted Action has to be treated as a Type I Action. The site plan review is an Unlisted Action and therefore it has to be treated as a Type I Action, as is the Use Variance. In an effort to try and stream line this, so the applicant doesn't have to gO to five different meetings, what we're requesting that the Planning Board do now, is, review it tonight, over the next week, come back next Tuesday, and if you feel comfortable with it, we're asking you to recommend that the Zoning Board be lead agent with regard to SEQRA on this. MR. PALING-Well, in addition to that, we're asking that any comments that we have be passed along with it. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Paul Dusek was involved with that today, and the only thing he added was vJhat I just said, and, Mark, ~'Je v-Jant your input on this, too, that we should do this with comment, also, to contribute to saving time. MR. GORALSKI-The only thing I want to add, now, if you feel uncomfortable, if you feel that the right place to do the SEQRA review is in front the Planning Board, then you can also say that. That's up to you. MR. OBERMAYER-Why are we changing, all of a sudden, having them do the SEQRA? MR. PALING-Okay. Let me answer that question. This came up, originally, from Craig, I forget what the case was we were working on, that we were doing a SEQRA without a public hearing, and because of the questions in there, Craig is right, it isn't right. This has been discussed, now, quite a bit since that time, and we're due to make a final decision on this September whatever, in a few weeks. MR. MACEWAN-Who's "we"? MR. PALING-Paul Dusek, Fred Carvin, Fred Champagne, myself, Jim Martin, okay, and this is a temporary expedient to do it this way, until a final decision has been made or recommendation made, so that we won't get into that problem that we had that night. So this would be, maybe it'll be the permanent way, but this is only so we don't stumble on this case. I'm. BREt.JER-See, it comes right back to ~...¡hat ~\Je ~'Jere doing before, Bob. Now, I'll take the position this application should have been filed the last Wednesday of last month, and we're rushing to do this. MR. PALING-No, we're not rushing. You have a week to look at this. That's not rushing, I don't think. MR. RUEL-How to look at it, what do you mean, site review and every'thing else? MR. GORALSKI-If I could, it was filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. BREWER-It was, but it wasn't filed with us. MR. GORALSKI-It wasn't filed, the site plan review has not been filed yet. The point is, they will require a site plan review. As I'm sure you all realize, the problem is, they can't get their site plan review until they receive all the variances they need. MR. SCHACHNER-They can't get the variances they need until the SEQRA's been complied with, and you have to have what's called coordinated SEQRA review, meaning there has to be one lead agency - 38 - '-- -' '-- -",' for purposes of SEQRA review, instead of separate SEQRA reviews by the two Boards. So what 1 understand, sort of coming late into this, is that this is the ongoing debate about how to deal with a situation where the applicant needs SEQRA review prior to the Zoning Board meetings, but if the Planning Board is the agency that's going to do the SEQRA review, the Planning Board doesn't have an application before it, and, therefore, won't have a public hearing, which is exactly what Bob was saying earlier. MR. BREWER-So, the end result would be. if they have an applicant that requires a SEQRA, they'll do the SEQRA and then we'll do the site plan? So the environmental concerns that we have have to be add)' essed . MR. GORALSKI-That's why we're giving you this application now, is that you can look at it and voice any concerns you have to the Zoning Board. If you feel that, you know, you don't have enough time to do that, then you've got to state that. MR. SCHACHNER-Or if the Planning Board feels that you want to be SEQRA lead agency, John indicated that you should take that position. MR. PALING-I think one of the estimates is where this is heading is that the Zoning Board of Appeals will do a few more SEQRA than have been done in the past, feel more comfortable with them, and it'll end up that SEQRA can be done by either one of us, and whichever is the most expedient for that case is the way it'll be done. ~1R. RUEL,--So we should let them be the lead agency. MR. PALING-Either way, we don't know. It would be either way. In this case, it's most expedient for them to do the SEQRA, but for us to look at it, pass on our recommendations, they'll do the SEQRA, then it comes back for site plan review, but the SEQRA is done, and there's a public hearing. MR. STARK-Why don't you poll the Board to see whether we make the recommendation to the Zoning Board that they be lead agent, and any concerns we have about them being, you know, environmental concerns, and we can pass along those also, right now. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd like to do it in two parts. Number One, I'd like to cover this specific case, and we can do that, and then if you have any discussion about the other end of it, generically, we can talk about that, too. MR. GORALSKI-If I could add one more thing about this specific case. I think once you look at this, you'll see that the construction that's being done is well within the shoreline setback, and really is not going to have any impact on the lake. There are not immediate neighbors behind them that are going to have their view blocked. The expansion of the nonconforming use really doesn't, in the opinion of Jim and Sue and myself, really doesn't have any significant environmental impacts. That's what you'll be looking at. The Zoning Board, on the other hand, will be looking at the Use Variance, the fact that there will be a second dwelling unit on this lot. It seems to us that that's the more significant issue and may raise more questions, and therefore ~.Je thought it was more appropr iate that they be the lead agency, on this particular issue. MR. PALING-John, what would our meeting be called, then? Is this a workshop or a discussion? If it takes place as proposed, and we discuss this at our next meeting, and we pass our recommendations on to the Z8A with the recommendation that they be lead agency, what was that meeting called, a workshop? MR. SCHACHNER-Not exactly. You could do it at your regular - 39 - -' '-'. -- meeting. The SECRA Regulations say right in them that the lead agency can obtain input from what's called the other involved agencies, and that's what we would be. We would be an other involved agency, and we would be passing along our input to the lead agency, namely the Zoning Board of Appeals, and you would do that by, one part would be formal. That would be your resolution stating that you recommend or agree that the ZBA should be the SECRA lead agency, and then along with that recommendation, or consent I should call it, you can make any recommendations you want about the environmental review. It would still be a regular public meeting, not a public hearing. It would be a public meeting. It would be part of your regular public meeting next week, not a public hearing, but part of your regular public meeting. MR. PALING-Yes, right. There would be no public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. ~1R. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Bob, when do we have to make this recommendation, tonight? MR. PALING-Next week. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Board of Appeals will be hearing this application on August 23rd. So in order for them to do a SECRA review on August 23rd, you would have to make, first of all, give your consent for them to be lead agent, and then voice any environmental concerns prior to that. So you have a meeting before then. MR. STARK-Do you want to hash it out tonight, Bob, and then just make the motion next week? MR. OBERMAYER-What are we gaining by doing this, though? I guess that's what I don't understand. MR. GORALSKI-What would happen otherwise is the applicant would have to be tabled at the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals would have to, then, they would have to then submit a site plan review application, and the Planning Board would have to pass a resolution requesting lead agency status, and the Zoning Board would have to pass a resolution agreeing to you being lead agent. Then you'd have to hold your public hearing and have your SECRA review. Then they'd have to go back to the Zoning Board to get their variances. Then they'd have to come back to the Planning Board for their final site plan approval. MR. PALING-And that's what we're trying to avoid. MR. OBERMAYER-That's good. Now the other thing, though, is that we would be doing the, we would be establishing the SECRA and say they're the lead agency at thÜ::; meeti ng. right? t1R. PAL lNG-No. MR. GORALSKI-You could do it tonight or next Tuesday. MR. OBERMAYER-So that's one meeting that the people will have to attend. Then they have to go back to the Zoning Board. MR. GORALSKI-Well, they wouldn't have to attend meeting. Tuesday's MR. PALING-There's no requirements, what meeting, are you talking about the public? - 40 - '-.- ,_/ "'-, '/ MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. PALING-They don't have to attend the next week's meeting. They can if they want to, but it's not a public hearing. MR. GORALSKI-Right. It's not a public hearing. You, as a Board, would simply be listing your concerns, your environmental concerns, that you would like considered by the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-John, you say environmental concerns. Wouldn't we pass on any other comments we've got at that same time? MR. GORALSKI-Well, yes, you could. MR. PALING-Okay, but you're saying it's primarily for the environmental concerns. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's the issue here, is the environmental reviev-J. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I would think if we visited the site and looked at the plans and all, we might have other comments to make at that time. MR. SCHACHNER-You can certainly make them. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Now, would they approve or disapprove the SECRA and the variances the same night for the applicant? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. They don't have to, but they can. MR. OBERMAYER-But that's really the driver behind it, to accomplish both of those things at the same time? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-And then they would come back here for site plan ì-el,/iev.J after? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. PALING-Then we'd have a public hearing. MR. OBERMAYER-That eliminates a step then, really. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-There's a public hearing at the site plan review. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. I'm all for eliminating bureaucracy. MRS. LABOMBARD-It sounds good to me. MR. PALING-All right. Then I'm going to just go visit the site when I can by myself. If some of you want to get together, okay, but it's a little bit, but I would intend to visit it, and we're going to discuss it next week, and then act accordingly. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, we can visit it together as a group anyway, because we'd have to advertise it. MR. PALING-Good point, Jim. MR. BREWER-You can still do that. MR. PALING-You sure can. On motion meeting was adjourned. - 41 - .~ -- '- RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 42 - -..-/ ....-"