Loading...
1996-08-27 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 52-96 Tax Map No. 54-1-36 Stacie A. Hopkins 2. Site Plan No. 14-94 Tax Map No. 110-1-2.63 Gary Cardinale 2. Site Plan No. 46-96 Tax Map No. 107-1-56 Jesse F. Stiles 4. Site Plan No. 45-96 Tax Map No. 11-1-21, 36 Myles Miller 5. Site Plan No. 48-96 Tax Map No. 7-1-3 Rolf W. Ahlers 6 . Site Plan No. 55-96 Tax Map No. 13-1-14 Mitchell Matthews 7. Site Plan No. 43-96 Tax Map No. 110-1-13 Nutech Industries, Inc. ,12. Site Plan No. 50-96 Tax Map No. 135-2-1, 7 Site Plan No. 44-96 Tax Map No. 105-1-3 Brian & Kevin O'Connor 14. Aldi's Stores, Inc. 19. Petition for Change of Zone P6-96 Ronald & Shirley Harris Howard & Barbara Toomey Frank Zverblis (Betty Zverblis) Albert & Eleanor Oudekerk 24. 'rax Map No. 48-3-53 51.1 49.1 51. 5 51.4 46-1-3 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 Meeting 8/27/96) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN DAVID WEST MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MRS. LABOMBARD-The first item on this evening's agenda is something, a little carry over from last week, and we're going to just spend a minute or two on the Lou & Christine Lecce motion that we passed. MR. MACEWAN-Last Christine Lecce. existing deck be to introduce the week we approved Site Plan No. 26-96 for Lou & Our approval lacked in it the condition that removed prior to any construction. So, I'd like motion to rescind that approval 26-96. MOTION TO RESCIND THE APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 LOU & CHRISTINE LECCE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 LOU & CHRISTINE LECCE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To have the application remain as it is, but only to approve in the new motion the sandy beach construction and the retaining wall construction, but to deny the boathouse and the dock combination, and also before any new construction is to take place that the removal of the existing deck take place. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. This evening we're going to go to the last page, if you have this evening's agenda with you, and we're going to do Site Plan No. 52-96. SITE PLAN NO. 52-96 TYPE II STACIE A. HOPKINS OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: LEFT ON QUAKER ROAD, LEFT ON RIDGE ROAD, 4 1/2 MI., 1ST RIGHT, RIGHT ON SUNNYSIDE EAST, .6 MI. RIGHT ON DRIVEWAY JUST BEFORE CREEK OVERPASS. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 1,066 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND 1,066 SQ. FT. LIVING SPACE ABOVE (DUPLEX). WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 54-1-36 LOT SIZE: 4.001 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing last week was left open. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. John, you have some comments on this tonight. MR. GORALSKI-Just to clarify the reason that you couldn't act on this last week is because Warren County had not met. MR. PALING-Okay, and we have been through this already. MR. GORALSKI-Warren County had not aCfed, and therefore you. _ MR. PALING-And they have acted now, and they have approved it. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. PALING-All right. Then I'm going to go right into the public hearing, unless there's other comment. The public hearing is still open. Does anyone have any comment on the Stacie Hopkins application, care to speak about it? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And this is a Type II. There's no SEQRA. We can go right a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-96 STACIE A. Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its seconded by George Stark: HOPKINS, adoption, As is. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 14-94 GARY CARDINALE OWNER: EARLTOWN CORP. ZONE: HC-1A, LI-1A LOCATION: EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN. ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS FOR AN 11,880 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR SPORTLINE HONDA/KAWASAKI. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.63 LOT SIZE: 2.03 ACRES JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-John, do you have any comments on this? MR. GORALSKI-I think Mr. Lapper can explain everything to you. - 2 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. PALING-All right. We'll turn it over to Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Gary Cardinale is here with me as well. Now that we've gotten through the legal and title issues and we're ready to start building, Gary determined that it would be smart to add another 700 square feet, and that's why we're here. I have in my hand the site plan that was approved two years ago. The only difference with the new site plan is 10 feet in the back by 70 foot width of the building, and we added an additional seven parking spaces that are in the back. I want to point out that it should say future parking, because this is not what is deemed necessary, and under the Ordinance there's a provision that you can show it as future parking, and if it's necessary, it'll be built. So that should say future parking. Instead of 25 cars, it's now 32 in the back, and those are the only two changes. MR. PALING-In the back is the long distance, it's on the top of the drawing is the back? MR. LAPPER-Quaker Road is here. Here's the service road. So I'm referring to the back. MR. PALING-Where are you adding the footage? MR. LAPPER-Right there. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Ten feet along the back. MR. PALING-All right. MR. LAPPER-It's very straight forward. MR. PALING-All right. Any comments or questions on this? All right. It seems pretty straight forward. We will open the public hearing on this matter, if anyone cares to talk about it, about the Gary Cardinale application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now this isn't identified. Do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. SCHACHNER-You need to say whether the modification, in your opinion, is significant enough to warrant further environmental review or not. MR. PALING-All right. I don't think it is significant enough to warrant. How should we say that, as part of the motion? Okay. Does someone want to make a motion and include that? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-94 MODIFICATION, Introduced by George Stark adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: GARY who CARDINALE moved for THE its To add 700 square feet to the rear of an already approved building, and also that this modification does not have any adverse effect on the SEQRA that was done. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Rue 1 NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 46-96 TYPE II JESSE F. STILES OWNER: JACK MINOGUE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 266 QUAKER ROAD, PARKING LOT OF MINOGUE'S BEVERAGE CENTER. PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE A VEGETABLE STAND - RETAIL ONLY - IN THE PARKING LOT OF MINOGUE'S PARKING LOT. PER SECTION 179-23 SEASONAL PRODUCE BUSINESS IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-56 LOT SIZE: .67 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 KEVIN JENKS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Site Plan No. 46-96, Jesse F. Stiles, Meeting Date: August 27, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to operate a vegetable stand in front of Minogue's Beverage Center on Quaker Road. The zoning of this property, HC-1A, allows for vegetable stands with site plan review by the Planning Board.·· The stand would be located just off the property line within a green area located on a Right of Way owned by Warren County. Staff is comfortable with allowing the stand in the proposed location and has received comment from Warren County indicating their acceptance. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this request and recommends approval of Site Plan Review No. 46-96." MR. GORALSKI -Just as a technical matter, I believe that this gentleman is representing Mr. Stiles, and he has something from Mr. Stiles indicating that he can speak on his behalf. MR. JENKS-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments at the moment? I think it's, this also is pretty straight forward. MR. STARK-Will this be a permanent stand, or will you take it down in the winter? MR. JENKS-I'm Kevin Jenks, and I help Jessie out on the stand, and the stand will probably be there until the end of September, and then he takes it down completely. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-As a note of clarification however, since he is receiving the site plan review, provided that the stand does not, is not taken down for more than 18 months, he doesn't have to come back every year for a site plan review. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-So long as he comes back every year, he will not have to come back for a site plan review. This is it. MR. PALING-Okay. We don't need a SEQRA. I know we need a public hearing. We don't need a SEQRA on this, do we? MR. GORALSKI-It's Type II. MR. PALING-Okay. Type II. All right. I think we can go right to the public hearing. We'll open the public hearing on this matter, for Jessie F. Stiles and Minogue's Beverage Center to have a vegetable and flower stand in the parking lot, Anyone care to speak on this matter? - 4 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-I think we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-96 JESSE F. STILES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As submitted. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 45-96 TYPE II MYLES MILLER OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: RT. 9N TO CLEVERDALE RD., LEFT @ SIGN FOR LAKE GEORGE BOAT CO., TAKE MIDDLE ROAD INTO CUL-DE-SAC, GRAY CAMP WITH SIGN ON GARAGE "M. MILLER". APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD AN EXISTING PORTION OF HOUSE AND THE ADDITION OF A 8' X 20' DECK. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 58-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-21, 36 LOT SIZE: .20 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-96, Myles Miller, Meeting Date: August 27, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to rebuild a portion of an existing home and the addition of an 8 foot by 20 foot deck. This application has received the appropriate variances from the ZBA. Staff has reviewed this application and anticipates no adverse impacts associated with this construction. The Planning Board may wish to consider a stipulation that some method of stormwater management be shown on any plans submitted for a building permit. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 45- 96." MR. DEAN-Bill Dean, owner's agent. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board said "No County Impact". MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Did you hear the comment about the stormwater, putting something on the submittal for the building permit? MR. DEAN-Yes. What was the basis for that? I guess I don't quite understand that. MR. GORALSKI-Just to handle any increased stormwater runoff from any increased non permeable area, if there is any. MR. DEAN-Which is, the deck you're saying? MR. GORALSKI~Right. MR. DEAN-The ground under it is still permeable. So I don't - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) consider that, we're not paving the earth underneath it. MR. GORALSKI-All right. MR. PALING-That's a deck for a deck, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Well, no, there's no deck there now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Remember the porch is right there. MR. WEST-And they're putting the deck on. MR. PALING-Yes. Then that would be more to the advantage of it, wouldn't it? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. It would be less roof. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, it's going to be the same amount of roof. They're just adding your standard deck to the, they're taking that section that says remove and re-build. That's what they're doing. It's going to be the same as what was there. MR. JENKS-But there really is no net·· increase in non permeable potential runoff. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-All right. Any other questions or comments on this? We'll open the public hearing on the Myles Miller application. Does anyone care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II. So we'll go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-96 MYLES MILLER, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: As submitted. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 48-96 TYPE II ROLF W. AHLERS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: RT. 9 TO ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, LEFT ON KNOX ROAD TO END. PROPOSAL IS TO REPLACE EXISTING GARAGE WITH NEW GARAGE. PER SECTION 179-79 EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-3 LOT SIZE: .34 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 ROLF AHLERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 48-96, Rolf W. Ahlers, Meeting Date: August 27, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to replace an existing garage with a new garage. The applicant has received the - 6 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) appropriate variance from the ZBA for this application. The ZBA resolution limits the height of the new garage to 20 feet from grade to peak. Staff foresees no adverse impacts associated with this request and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 48-96." MR. GORALSKI -The Warren County Planning Board said "No County Impact" . MR. PALING-Would you identify yourself please. MR. AHLERS-Yes. camp. MR. PALING-Okay. The comment about the grade to peak limit of 20 feet, is that a problem? My name is Rolf Ahlers. I'm the owner of the MR. AHLERS-No. Well, I would like it to be higher, but the other Board didn't approve it. MR. PALING-Okay, and that's the way you'll be doing it? MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions? We have a public hearing. It's a Type II. Then we'll open the public hearing on the Rolf Ahlers application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Then we, again, can go right to a motion. MR. STARK-Wait a minute. I had a question. going to be on the garage, the new garage? What's the siding MR. AHLERS-I think the plan is to put stucco on the side, stucco and cedarwood, a combination of both. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions or comments by the Board? All right. We'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-96 ROLF W. AHLERS, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: As submitted, also included is the ZBA variance limiting the height of the building from grade to peak of 20 feet. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 55-96 TYPE II MITCHELL MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LGPC LOCATION: MASON ROAD ON CLEVERDALE - TWO DOORS NORTH BEHIND MOORING POST MARINA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING F-SHAPED DOCK & BOATHOUSE AND RECONSTRUCT U-SHAPED DOCK AND BOATHOUSE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 13- 1-14 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-60 JOHN CREEDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-96, Mitchell Matthews, Meeting Date: August 27, 1996 "The applicant is proposing the construction of a U-shaped dock with attached boathouse and access ramp. The proposed dock would meet the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The dock would be 36 feet in length and would be 657 sq. ft. in area. The new boat house would be 13 feet high and would contain a ramp to access the roof of the boathouse from land. The proposed access ramp would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The dock and boathouse would be built in the location of the current dock. The length of the dock would remain the same as the existing dock. The height of the boathouse will be reduced from the height of the existing boathouse. Staff believes this proposal will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Lake views from the property to the south will actually be improved if this new boathouse is constructed. The applicant is seeking to replace the entire dock at this location. If this were done a variance would be needed to locate a dock closer to a property line than what is allowed by ordinance. The applicant has the option of keeping the section of dock closest to the north property line and building two new sections and a boathouse. If this were done, a variance would not be necessary. The applicant should indicate whether or not he plans to keep the portion of the existing deck at the north end of the property. Subj ect to the resolution of this issue, staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 55-96." MR. GORALSKI-If, for some reason, they need to replace the cribbing on that north side, then they'd have to get a variance before you can approve the site plan. The Warren County Planning Board disapproved. "In the interest of consistency with prior policies of the Warren County Planning Board relating to aesthetics and safety concerns." I believe that has to do with the ramp going from the land directly to the top of the boathouse. MR. PALING-And what's unsafe about the ramp? MR. GORALSKI-You'd have to ask the people at Warren County that. I have no idea. MR. MACEWAN-I think it's, from them, it's more of an aesthetic thing. They just don't like, typically deny any boathouse that has a ramp. MR. PALING-That means that we'd have to, tonight, have a unanimous vote, because we have to have a majority plus one. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. PALING-So it has to be a unanimous vote because there's two missing on this. All right. If that's all we know about it, then we'll go ahead. I wish we knew a little bit more about what their reasoning is when they make a statement like that, aesthetics. We may hit that in the public hearing. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. CREEDE-John Creede. I'm representing Mitch Matthews. MR. PALING-Okay. comments? Thank you. Does anyone have any questions or MR. STARK-The dock that's there now is pretty old. MR. CREEDE-1902. MR. STARK-We were down there walking around. It's a very unsafe dock. The property itself, the way it drops off, you'd be better off with a ramp, you know coming from the property right out to the roof line. Where did he plan on putting the stairs? - 8 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. CREEDE-Well, the existing cement stairs are staying. There's just going to be a ramp, just like you said, the way the property contours, it makes it pretty much just a slight incline up to the boathouse. MRS. LABOMBARD-And that'll have a regulation railing, 44 inches? MR. CREEDE-Forty-four? I believe it's three foot, thirty-six. MR. GORALSKI-Thirty-six inch. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. It's more than three feet. MR. GORALSKI-No. It's 36 inches high. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's all the railing has to be? MR. GORALSKI-That's all it has to be. Actually, I'm not even sure it needs to be that high, but no more than that. MR. PALING-How long is the ramp? MR. CREEDE-I can't answer that questiòn until the exact height of the boathouse is determined, to where it's going to be located on the shore. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have an idea about how long it's going to be, roughly? MR. CREEDE-Fourteen to sixteen foot, give or take. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you check into that height of that railing, because when I built my, when Dan Valente built my deck, he put on a railing that he said, this is regulation, and it's higher than 36 inches. MR. CREEDE-Well, I have New York State rules. MR. GORALSKI-It'll be checked during the building permit application. MR. CREEDE-I did a job a few years ago for an insurance adjuster, and he looked into it for me, because he was, you know, paranoid about it, because he did not want anybody to fall on it, and he got some rules from New York State Regulation that has to be at least 36 inches high. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'd like that height. I think anything higher doesn't look as nice, but I had to get the higher railing, because that was what the Code was. MR. STARK-You know about the 14 foot height limitation? MR. CREEDE-Yes. MR. PALING-The print isn't too clear on that, because I don't, it measures from the bottom, but I don't know what the bottom is. That's supposed to be measured from the mean highwater mark. MR. CREEDE-Which is about a foot Qut of the water this time of year. MR. PALING-Okay. So what is the height of the structure to the top of the railing? MR. CREEDE-Well, it's about 13 feet, give or take an inch or so. MR. PALING-Three, five, well, 13 to the bottom of the, okay, are you saying where that hatched line is, that that's where the water - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) line is? MR. CREEDE-Let me take a look here. MR. PALING-The straight line, but with the black and white line across, where the poles come to a rest right here. This is where he seems to be measuring it from, and that is 13, but I wonder, where's the water? MR. GORALSKI-The water would be below that. MR. PALING-Yes. That's my point. MR. CREEDE-Well, it's not going to exceed 14 feet, okay, from the mean highwater mark. MR. PALING-All right. So that's what, it'll have to meet that provision, because the print isn't clear on that. Okay. We don't need to belabor that point. Any other questions or comments? All right. Lets open the public hearing on this matter, Mitchell Matthews application. Does anyone care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GORALSKI-I have two letters. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-"Dear Mr. Martin: I approve of the latest plan for the new dock and sun deck for the Matthews on Mason Road. I live next to them, to the south. Sincerely, Joseph Haraden" To the Town of Queensbury, regarding public hearing Section 179-103 Zoning Ordinance, Tuesday, August 27, 1996 Site Plan No. 55-96 Mitchell Matthews "We are writing this letter in regard to the above public hearing as we are unable to attend in person. Mr. Matthews is proposing to change his existing boathouse and dock from an F- shaped structure to a U-shaped structure. This is a change in orientation, shape and size. We are adjacent property owners, and as the structure sits now, it is on our very near property line. Any change in the existing structures requires a 20 foot setback from the property lines. As adjacent property owners, we would like this Zoning Ordinance to be adhered to. Thank you for your consideration. Dr. & Mrs. Lawrence Lucino" MR. PALING-What about the setback, John? There's no problem there, is there? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, there is. MR. PALING-There is? MR. GORALSKI-If they are replacing that crib, then they would require a variance, because they would lose their grandfathered right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-If, on the other hand, they're going to re-use that crib and simply repair that from the water line up and then build the new boathouse and dock, then they wouldn't require a variance. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-The same point being, building within the Code, the existing crib, if they chose to leave that portion of it in, is it a safety factor at this point? MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good question. - 10 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. MACEWAN-I mean, is there going to be a situation where because of a potential hazard, are they going to be forced into having to go to get a variance? MR. GORALSKI-I guess, I can't tell you that. I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-I think that's something we need to decide, because I don't want to see us approve something here, under the pretense that it's going to maybe help them get away from a variance and then there comes a time during construction when they have an inspection made and find that the existing crib isn't going to be good enough, and then they're qoinq to be pushed into going and seeking a variance. MR. PALING-Which of these two ways do you want to go? MR. CREEDE-Well, when they originally built this dock, say 100 years ago, they used trees. Everything was all interconnected. If I go cutting off part of this F-shape to meet these rules, I can't guarantee that I can tie this all in together and make it work right. I mean, if this guy is going to have me take this thing apart, being as old as it is, and very fragile, I mean, there's hardly anything holding it together, dharbor wise, underwater to begin with. It should be replaced, you know, with all new cribs. MR. PALING-Well, isn't that saying that the decision is made, as to which way you're going to go, and that you really should go for a variance? MR. CREEDE-Well, if that's what we have to do, then that's what we have to do. MR. PALING-I think that's the only logical way to go, and we can't grant, that's the ZBA that's going to do that, and we'll have to wait 'til that's completed and then come back. MR. STARK-Can we table this application tonight, no action on it, and then when he gets the variance, or makes application for it, then he won't have to go through the whole procedure again. He can just be put on the schedule and so on and so forth. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STARK-That would be the way to go, if I was you. MR. GORALSKI-What we'll do is schedule this as Old Business on the next Planning Board meeting after they're on the ZBA agenda. MR. PALING-Well, then, shouldn't I re-open the public hearing and leave it open? Yes, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-In fact, because we don't know when that next meeting will be, I mean, nobody spoke at the public hearing, but there might be something, well, when they go for the variance, there'll be a public hearing for that also, and there were letters, and , those people obviously are not here to know that this is being kept open, so it might be worth re-advertising. The concern is only that, how will the people know when it's next going to be on. That's my concern. MR. MACEWAN-I think I'd be in favor of that. Lets close off this public hearing. When it comes back on the agenda as Old Business, we'll re-advertise it. MR. PALING-Well, you'd re-advertise it either way, right? MR. MACEWAN-No. You wouldn't if the public hearing was left open. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That's one of the reasons that we sometimes leave public hearing's open is to avoid that, and in many instances that's not a problem. Here, I'm not 100% comfortable with that for the reason I just explained. These people, for example, who wrote the letters would have no way of knowing, if they don't inquiry. MR. PALING-And no one knows, right now, exactly what it's going to look like either. MR. SCHACHNER-And we don't know what day we would be tabling it to. MR. PALING-Then we'll just table it and leave the public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-It'll be re-advertised, and then we'll open a new public hearing at that time. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-All right. Then I'll entertain a motion to table this application. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-96 MITCHELL MATTHEWS, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling MR. PALING-Okay. We'll see you back here shortly. MR. GORALSKI-The submission deadline for September is tomorrow. Considering that this is all part of the procedure, if you could come in tomorrow, and get the paperwork, and we can work something out so you can get on September's agenda. MR. CREEDE-Is it that involved? I mean, could I just fill it out right tomorrow with you? MR. GORALSKI-You're just going to have to make some copies, that's all, but, yes, we can get it all taken care of tomorrow. MR. CREEDE-Okay. Sounds good. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 43-96 TYPE II NUTECH INDUSTRIES, INC. OWNERS: JAMES & WILLIAM BARRETT ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF DIX AVENUE AND QUEENS BURY AVENUE - 437 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REHABILITATE EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 437 DIX AVENUE TO BE USED AS A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 46-1996/AV61-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/8/96 WARREN CO. - 12 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-13 LOT SIZE: SECTION: 179-23 TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 1.73 ACRES MRS. LABOMBARD-The public hearing on July 23rd was tabled. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-96, Nutech Industries, Inc., Meeting Date: August 27, 1996 "This application is for the rehabilitation of an existing site and structure at 437 Dix Avenue. The applicant had proposed to modify the required 50 foot buffer between the residential property to the north. The ZBA has granted limited relief and this application has been revised to indicate the changes. Setbacks and permeability requirements will be met at this location. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 43-96." MR. BARBER-My name is Tim Barber. MR. PALING-You're with Nutech? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Any questions or comments here on this? Now on this one there is No County Impact. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I'm sorry. MR. PALING-But we Committee, approved order, and he has a the public hearing. do have a letter from the Beautification as presented. Okay. So those both seem in ZBA variance. All right. Then we will go to Does anyone care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-You've recommendations. seen the Beautification Committee's MR. BARBER-I don't remember what they were, if could review them. MR. STARK-liThe Committee has the expressed or applied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened and all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted as agreed. II MR. BARBER-I don't remember getting that, no. MR. PALING-It indicates a copy was sent to you. You can have this copy if you want. MR. BARBER-That would be great. Yes. It's not in my file. MR. PALING-And take a look at it and see if you see any problem with it, complying with it. MR. STARK-The last paragraph at the bottom. MR. BARBER-That's fine. I don't remember receiving this. I know we didn't receive it, because I would have reviewed it, but this is fine. MR. PALING-Okay. Anything else? - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, there's a note here that the sign is going to be 10 feet back from the property line. The requirement is that it's 15 feet from the property line. It says 10 on the plan I have here. As long as it's going to be 15, that's all. MR. BARBER-Yes, that's fine. We thought the requirement was 10. MR. PALING-All right. Then that'll have to be part of the motion. MR. BARBER-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. This is a Type II. other questions, we'll go to a motion. a motion? No SEQRA. If there are no Would anyone care to make MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-96 NUTECH INDUSTRIES, INC., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the following two stipulations, to make sure that the sign is 15 feet back from the property line instead of the 10 which is noted on the plan, and that you comply with everything that the Beautification Committee has submitted "and suggested. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 50-96 TYPE: UNLISTED BRIAN & KEVIN O'CONNOR OWNERS: RUSSELL & JAMES O'CONNOR ZONE: LI-1A, SR-1A, WR-1A LOCATION: BEHIND MOBIL STATION ON CORINTH ROAD NEAR EXIT 18. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GOLF PRACTICE RANGE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 49-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-1, 7 LOT SIZE: 17.63 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-19, 179-16 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-96, Brian & Kevin O'Connor, Meeting Date: August 27, 1996 "The applicant is seeking to construct a golf driving range on a 17 acre parcel. The applicant has received a Use Variance from the ZBA to operate this use at this location. Staff has reviewed this application and has the following comments: 1. Permeability, setbacks, landscaping and parking requirements at this location will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Planning and Engineering staff are satisfied that the proposed stormwater management system will work at this location. 3. The driveway accessing this property does not contain an ingress/egress lane as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Staff believes that the lighting proposed for this location will not effect surrounding property owners. If the Planning Board has some concerns they may wish to require some type of lighting shields to better prevent excess light from escaping this site. 5. Engineering comments must be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this application." MR. GORALSKI-And there's a letter from Rist-Frost. "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the site plan received August 7, 1996 for a golf practice range and have the following comments: Usage - 14 - ~ , '---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) variance (49-1996) was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The sewage system proposed appears adequate, however a percolation test should be performed at the absorption field elevation to confirm design criteria. The storm drainage system proposed appears adequate. There are no cross sections or specification notes for parking area or exit/entrance roadway construction. Entrance/exit width should be verified and the need for separation checked. The need for a NYS SPDES Construction General Stormwater Discharge Permit should be checked. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Paul F. Collins, proj ect Engineer" And Warren County said No County Impact, and I believe the Beautification Committee reviewed this also. "Jim Miller covered the site plan. He explained entrance and sign location on Big Boom Rd., driveway/parking area plantings around building, dri ving range and grass tee area. He also explained range would have sand traps like on a normal golf range to add texture to site. He explained 1 ight ing area and sign. Motion made by Karen Dougherty to approve as submitted, seconded by Pat Carpenter." MR. PALING-Okay. please. For the record, would you identify yourself MR. MILLER-Yes. I'm Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. MR. PALING-Jim, have you seen or do you have all the comments that have been read? MR. MILLER-Yes, I do. MR. PALING-Do you want to just comment on them for us? MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, the permeability setbacks, I agree. I'm looking at the notes by the Staff, the Engineering and Planning Staff are satisfied. The driveway accessing the driveway, we've modified that. I overlooked that, that driveway we've added a four foot wide curbed island, which is 20 foot long, which will be, since this is seasonal, will be planted with annual flowers and there'll be a 12 foot ingress and 12 foot exit at the entrance. So we'll comply with the requirements. MR. PALING-Well, what are your curbings going to be made out of? MR. MILLER-Concrete. MR. PALING-Concrete, good, very good. MR. MILLER-The lighting, one of the requirements for this project, since it was a mix between light industrial and single family, when we went in for the Use Variance, was that along the east and the west property lines where we but against the single family residential, although it's undeveloped, we had to maintain a 50 foot wide buffer, planted buffer, which we did, and that is all existing trees. Plus on the west side, there's a deep ravine, which is also mature wood. So the light poles for the range are only 25 feet high. So the trees, all the way around the driving range, are in excess of 50, 60 feet. So, we believe the lighting is not going to spill off of the site, and plus the owner intends to close around 10 o'clock. So the lights are only going to be on for a short time in the evening. MR. PALING-Okay. The lights would be around three quarters of this course, I assume. MR. MILLER-The lights will be located, well, we had some driveway lights, which are cut off fixtures down the driveway, and an accent light at the entrance, but the lights, I suspect that the concern with the Staff was flood lights lighting the range. There's a - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) section, on Page SP-3, that shows the driving range area, and you can see that the lights are going to be a sports type flood light, mounted on a 20 foot high pole, and around the back of the range there's going to be five of them, and they're all aimed toward the center of the range. They're not aimed out off the property. The idea is to focus down in the center, and the reason there's multiple heads, there's different types of fixtures, focusing the lights at different distances, so that the entire range will be lit. MR. PALING-Okay. If those are all directed in and down, which they would necessarily be for a golf course, although you've got to get some lighting up above there, to see the ball. MR. MILLER-Well, what they do, sports lighting is, the manufacturer will send a diagram, and the lower level lights would be aimed at like the 50 yard or 100 yard sign, and then the next level would be aimed at like the 150 yard, and that way they'll get an even distribution, but they're all aimed somewhere along that range at the ground. They're not aimed out at the perimeter or anything. They're aimed down at the center. MR. PALING-When you view these things· from a distance, they do seem, it does seem to have a dark circle surrounding them. The light doesn't seem to escape to any degree. So I would assume it would be the same here. MR. MILLER-That's true. MR. PALING-Comments? Questions? MR. MILLER-Plus this is going to be only used in the summer time, when the trees are effective. So I don't think there's going to be a lot of spill out, and plus the angle, it's not toward the Northway or it's not down Big Boom Road. MR. MACEWAN-How soon, in the spring, would you be open, like the end of April, beginning of May? MR. MILLER-Well, I know they'd like to start immediately, and get the earthwork done and maybe get some seeding and stuff done, but they'd ideally like to be open for the season next year. MR. MACEWAN-You're normal seasonal operation. MR. MILLER-As soon as they can get in and open up in the spring time, April, catch everybody with spring fever. MR. MACEWAN-Right straight through until probably the end of September, October? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-As the crow flies, how close would you be to a potential home that could be built in that SR-1A? MR. MILLER-There's only one house site that actually sets anywhere near here. As you can see, this is a Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. This is that big, deep ravine, and this is more Light Industrial. So there's really nothing here. There's a city street, I forget the name of it now. It comes down and it dead ends right now, or Town road, I'm sorry. It dead ends down in here. MR. MACEWAN-Isn't that Ryan Avenue? MR. MILLER-That's right, and the last house on Ryan is short of the right-of-way, but there's a subdivision that's been approved which has allowed a common driveway across the right-of-way, and there's - 16 - ',-- '-' --../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) two lots here. So there is a building lot that sets right here. MR. MACEWAN-And that's the subdivision that kept coming back to us because he forgot to go up to the County to file it. MR. GORALSKI-Twice. MR. MACEWAN-Twice, because that was really cut up kind of funny, is that the parcel that would be closest to this site, if I remember right, is a pretty much wasted piece of like NiMo land that you couldn't put anything on to begin with. It's kind of an odd shaped pie. MR. GORALSKI-You could fit a house on there, but, you know, there's one location for a house and a septic system. You really couldn't cut any trees or have any lawn or anything like that, due to the topography. MR. MILLER-Yes. It drops off pretty quickly. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. MILLER-The house would have to be r"lght in this area. Theway it's graded, we not only have the 50 foot of buffer, but in that area, if you look at the grading plan, we're cutting, we're going to end up having a bank there so that house lots can actually be sitting up about eight, ten feet above the range. So if any ball is hit in that direction, it will tend to hit that bank and come back in, but that was the only potential, and that's undeveloped right now. MR. PALING-All right. If there are no more questions, lets move to the engineering comments. MR. MILLER-A Use Variance was granted. The sewage system, there was a percolation test done by VanDusen and Steves, the surveyor, at the location of the proposed system, and the perc rate was one inch in 65 seconds, and that's been added onto the plan. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MILLER-Storm drainage system is adequate. The parking area in the entry/exit, in the area where the divide island is, there's going to be an asphalt driveway entering onto the property for about 20 to 30 feet. Beyond that, it's going to be all crushed stone. It's going to be rubble, compacted stone, since it's seasonal and won't be plowed, and we'll add notes to that effect or detail to that effect. The entrance/exit, we added the separation. They're right, and the need for stormwater, SPDES Permit, we're in the process of submitting the notice of intent to DEC right now. We'll submit it tomorrow. I'd like to get this meeting out of the way before we make this submission in case anything changes. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. Basically what they do is they just submit their notice that they have a stormwater management plan, and then they have to implement it during construction. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. That's the end of the engineering comments, staff comments, No County Impact, and we're okay with the Beautification Committee. You've received their letter and you're okay with that? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. This is Unlisted. So we're going to need a SEQRA. Lets go to the public hearing. We'll open the public hearing on the Brian & Kevin O'Connor golf driving range application. Does anyone care to speak on this matter? - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And we need to do the SEQRA. MR. MILLER-We submitted one with the Use Variance, and I think we re-submitted it with the Site Plan application. MR. PALING-Yes, it's a Short Form? MR. GORALSKI-It should be a Short Form. MR. MILLER-It was a Short Form. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 50-96, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning BRIAN & KEVIN O'CONNOR, and 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 RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel - 18 - "'"-' --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. PALING-All right. The public hearing is closed. The SEQRA is complete. We'll go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-96 BRIAN & KEVIN O'CONNOR, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded Craig MacEwan: As submitted, with the following stipulation, that they follow the Beautification Committee's recommendations. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. STARK-John, doesn't he have to change the plan for the final? You have to do that, the final, before Bob signs it, he has to make a change? MR. GORALSKI-Bob doesn't sign it, but before they start construction, we'd require that the changes be made on the plan and submitted. Jim's usually in the next morning with those. MR. MILLER-We'll re-submit the revised plans. MR. STARK-Okay. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 44-96 ALDI'S STORES, INC. OWNER: GROSSMAN'S INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: AT INTERSECTION OF BAY STREET AND NYS RT. 254 PROCEED WEST ON 254 FOR 1/2 MILE. THE EXISTING GROSSMAN'S STORE WILL BE ON THE LEFT. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,300 S.F. ALDI'S STORE ON 2.33 ACRES OF LAND. PROJECT INVOLVES THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING 18,000 S.F. GROSSMAN'S TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW FACILITY. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 65-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-3 LOT SIZE: 2.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JIM KEHRER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 44-96, Aldi's Stores, Inc., Meeting Date: August 27, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to remodel the former Grossman's location on Quaker Road. Upon completion, this site is proposed to contain a building of 15,306 square feet on a 2.33 acre parcel zoned HC-1A. Staff has reviewed this application and has the following comments: 1. Building density and parking requirements will be met at this location. 2. The applicant has received an area variance for one new nonconforming setback at this location. All other building setbacks were established when this site was initially developed. 3. As a part of this application the site will be upgraded with the removal of existing pole barns and the addition of new parking and landscaping. The site plan has been updated to reflect the comments of the Beautification Committee. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 44-96." MR. GORALSKI-Rist-Frost comments, "We have reviewed the site plan received August 7, 1996 and have the following engineering comments: The site is a former Grossman's Lumber commercial location. We did not review the original site plan to determine the variances which existed for that facility. Required variances for the Aldi' s site plan include front and side setbacks and - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) percent permeable area." It should be noted that they're actually increasing the permeable area from the existing condition. "A minimum of 94 parking spaces are required. 101 are proposed to be furnished. There should be a physical barrier between the ingress and egress to the parking areas. The applicant should submit documentation from Warren County that the drainage plans and curb cuts are acceptable. Utility connections for sanitary sewage and water should conform with Queensbury Town standards and be noted on the drawing detail. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P. C. Paul F. Collins, Project Engineer" There's a letter from Warren County Department of Public Works. It's addressed to Clough Harbor Associates "At this point, the preliminary inspection of the plans and report submitted regarding the above captioned, there doesn't appear to be any issues that can't be'dealt with. To continue with this project, please provide to the County details not shown on the drawings now in our possession dated June 24, 1996, showing the entrance and exit curbing, lanes and channelization on both points of access to Quaker Road. In anticipation that these details will be satisfactory, and with a Certification of Insurance naming the "County of Warren" as additional insured (see Item 5 on reverse of permi t), provided either by Aldi stores as the owner, or by whomever the contractor may be, a permit may then be issued. A sample copy of the permit is enclosed for your reference. Please note the Special Conditions on the reverse side. Thank you, in advance, for your continued cooperation in this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, George Van Dusen Asst. Engineer Warren County DPW" MR. PALING-Isn't that all superseded by their August 21st letter? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. I've got an August 8th letter. MR. PALING-I have an August 21 letter that just says, approved. So they must have gone through all of that. MR. GORALSKI-I don't have that in my package. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't, either. MR. GORALSKI-That's Warren County Planning Board. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. Excuse me. MR. GORALSKI-I have an August 8th letter from Warren County DPW. "This letter is in confirmation of our recent telephone conversation regarding the proposed Aldi, Inc. project at the former Grossman's site on Quaker Rd., in the Town of Queensbury. When the revision to the plans, showing one lane in and two lanes out (one left - one right) at the eastern access point to Quaker Road, is provided to us, a permit to work within the County Right- Of-Way may be granted to whomever the contractor for the project may be. Thank you, in advance, for keeping me advised of the progress of this project. Very truly yours, George Van Dusen Asst. Engineer Warren County DPW" Okay. Warren County Planning Board approved, and the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification, "Jim Kehrer presented site plan diagram. He stated site plan increases site planting by 28% from original plantings. Sign location set up next to building planting approximately 15 ft. from lot line. Both entrances will be in and out exit/entrance. Committee members discussed in details gully area planting. Recommendation made for berm planting approximately 3 ft. high on the parking lot side, running the length of gully with mixture of perennial such as hostas, daylillies, peonies etc. and possibly evergreens. The first planting mound upon entering where four parking space area is located, recommended to be increased planting with some evergreens to enhance planting/mounded slightly. Preliminary approval made with recommendations stated above by Pat - 20 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) Carpenter, seconded by Karen Dougherty." And that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. That's it. Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. KEHRER-Yes. Associates. My name's Jim Kehrer from Clough Harbor & WILL CARPENTER MR. CARPENTER-Will Carpenter with Aldi's. MR. PALING-Okay. Have you seen or read or heard all of the comments that were just read by John? MR. KEHRER-Yes, Mr. Chairman, with the exception of the letter from Rist-Frost. Tonight was the first time that we've seen this letter, and if I may, I'd like to just address a few items that they have listed here. MR. PALING-Yes. Go ahead. MR. KEHRER-The first two items we have"no problem with. The third and fourth items, relative to the physical barrier between the ingress and egress and the applicant should submit documentation from Warren County that the drainage plans and curb cuts are acceptable. The package does contain a letter from George Van Dusen relative to the curb cuts and the plans that were submitted based on our meetings with him, which should address those two comments. MR. MACEWAN-The curb cut is the Town Zoning Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-The barrier, you mean. MR. MACEWAN-The barrier, I'm sorry. MR. KEHRER-Okay. I understood this to be one in and one out. I guess I'm misunderstanding what the barrier actually is. MR. MACEWAN-You need to have a physical barrier between the ingress and the egress out of the site. You have to physically separate coming in from going out, with a little island. MR. PALING-I think it's, what is it, four feet? MR. GORALSKI-No. It just says, you know, some type of island separating ingress and egress. MR. KEHRER-On the plans we show a stripe separating the turning arrows. All we'd need to do is just provide a one foot wide strip, concrete, nosed out. MR. PALING-No asphalt, in so far as the curbing is concerned. MR. KEHRER-All concrete curbing on this project. MR. PALING-Okay. barrier. Okay. So you'll do that, lets say, with a one foot Drainage plans and curb cuts. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That was Warren County. It appears that Warren County has approved all that. MR. PALING-Okay. So that one's okay. MR. KEHRER-The utility connections, I've already spoken with Mike Shaw. We're on the same page. He suggested some infrastructure changes to what we have shown. We showed connection directly into - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) a manhole located in front of the parcel, a new manhole with some width about 100 feet of poured six inch line. He recommended we use the existing leader that's tied right into the building right now. The plans reflect that. MR. PALING-The plans reflect it now? Okay. MR. KEHRER-Yes, the plans we have right here. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. How about the Beautification Committee? Are you okay with that one? MR. KEHRER-Yes, and I believe there's further clarification necessary. We did meet with the Beautification Committee. There was a little misunderstanding between us and the Beautification Commi t tee. We understood the agreement to be three foot high plantings to the top of the plantings. There was some discussion afterwards that it was the Beautification Committee's understanding that the berm would be three foot high with some plantings on top of that. I believe the agreement that was reached would be we would provide a two foot high berm and minimum height plantings of an additional 24 inches, or another two feet. MR. PALING-And that would be on the parking lot side of that? MR. KEHRER-That would be right along the back edge, the project edge of the little gully. MR. PALING-And will that be on the print, too? MR. KEHRER-That is shown right now. MR. GORALSKI-Because this print shows 318.5, and then the top of the berm being 320. That's a foot and a half. I've had this problem before, and I don't want to have it again. MR. KEHRER-319 and 321 is the top of the berm. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. berm of 321. Okay. You have a spot elevation at the top of the All right. MR. PALING-Any other questions, comments by Staff or Board? MR. GORALSKI-That 319 is the top of the curb on the property line there? MR. KEHRER-Yes, it is. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. PALING-John, are you okay? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. I think we can go right to the public hearing, and we'll open the public hearing on this matter, Aldi's Store. Does anyone care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And this is a Type II, no SEQRA. motion. Does anyone care to make a motion? We can go, then, to a I can make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-96 ALDI I S STORES , INC., - 22 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As submitted, with one addition/modification, that there be a one foot minimum barrier between the ingress and egress to the parking area. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. GORALSKI-I just want to make sure that we're all talking about the right plan. Do you want to just give us the date and the, just, if you give us the drawing date and the revision date so that we all have them. MR. KEHRER-The revision dates weren't added. They're dated June 23, 1996. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, and they were transmitted by, it looks like a letter, August 16, 1996. MR. KEHRER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. KEHRER-And if you'd like I could leave these three. MR. GORALSKI-I have the plan. I just want to make sure we all have the same one. MR. MACEWAN-What was that letter date? MR. GORALSKI-The letter dated August 16, 1996 from Clough Harbor & Associates. It's addressed to Mary Lee Gosline, Chairman of the Beautification Committee. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, does that contain what we just discussed, does that print contain? MR. GORALSKI-Except for the separation and the ingress/egress barrier. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we modification to the motion. don't need to make It's now on record. any further MR. GORALSKI-Right, as long as you include it, did you include in your motion the ingress/egress barrier? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Did you add that statement from the Beautification Committee? MR. PALING-No. He said, that's what my question was, it's already recorded. MR. GORALSKI-That's all included in this plan. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MRS. LABOMBARD-When are you going to start? - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. CARPENTER-We don't know at this time. The plans are being prepared. We hope to get construction started before winter. MR. PALING-When will you open? MR. CARPENTER-Right now we're projecting, I think, March or April. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CARPENTER-That's hopeful. That's not set in stone yet. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE - P6-96 RECOMMENDATION ONLY RONALD & SHIRLEY HARRIS HOWARD & BARBARA TOOMEY FRANK ZVERBLIS (BETTY ZVERBLIS) ALBERT & ELEANOR OUDEKERK OWNERS: SAME LOCATION: BAY & SUNNYSIDE ROADS CURRENT ZONING: RR-3A PROPOSED ZONING: SR-1A TAX MAP NOS.: 48-3-53, 51.1, 49.1, 51.5, 51.4, 46-1-3 PUBLIC COMMENT: AUGUST 27, 1996 TOWN BOARD WILL HOLD OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. MACEWAN-I'm assuming we aren't having a public hearing tonight. MR. PALING-No. We're allowing public comment, and there has been. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute, there's a big difference. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. public. There has been notification to the MR. GORALSKI~Yes. MR. PALING-And public comment is allowed. MR. MACEWAN-There has been proper notification for the public hearing? MR. GORALSKI - Yes. Not for a public hearing. There's been notification that public comment will be accepted by the Planning Board. MR. MACEWAN-What was the notification? MR. GORALSKI-Five hundred foot notices were sent out, and notice was published in the paper. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-All right, and again we stress that public comment is allowed, but those who are interested in this situation should be sure to go to the Town Board meeting where the official public hearing will be held, but public comment will be allowed tonight. John, do you want to comment on this. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, petition for Change of Zone P6-96, Ronald & Shirley Harris, Howard & Barbara Toomey, Frank Zverblis (Betty Zverblis), Albert & Eleanor Oudekerk, Meeting Date: August 27, 1996 "Current Zoning: RR-3A Proposed Zoning: SR-1A PROJECT ANALYSIS The applicants are proposing to rezone 225 acres of land located off of Bay Road from RR-3A to SR-IA. The property would be used to develop a single family neighborhood. The property is located to the north of Hiland Park POD, to the south of Lake - 24 - -- '-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) Sunnyside, and on the east side of Bay Road. NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS The surrounding neighborhood is primarily residential or undeveloped land. One acre zoning in the form of WR-1A and SR- lA zoning exists to the north and northeast. The property to the northwest is zoned RR-3A while the property to the southwest is zoned SFR-IA. The property to the south is zoned PUD (Hiland Park) and MR-5. Single family homes are located immediately to the north and west of this site. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS This site is relatively level in topography with a slight raise to the northwest. No mapped wetlands are located on this property. A portion of a DEC wetland is located to the south of this property and may have some effect on the development of this property. According to information contained in the Queensbury Comprehensive Plan this area has adequate water resources to serve the proposed development. Soils in this area range from poorly drained soils in the center of the site to well drained soils in the northern section of this property. The soils that are identified as well drained are Hudson Silt Loam and Oakville Loamy Fine Sand. It appears that these soils have the ability to properly filter effluent from ground water resources in this area. The poorly drained soils found in the center of the property are Shaker Fine Sandy Loam and Madalin Silt Loam. Septic systems built in these areas may have a negative impact "on groundwater and nearby wetlands. A site design should be presented which eliminates any potential negative impacts on water resources in this area. Clustering of lots in this area should be explored as one possible design alternative. Clustering would have the benefit of protecting environmentally sensitive areas of this site. In order properly evaluate the impact that septic systems would have on the environmental conditions of this area more information is needed. As a part of the review process the Planning Board should request to see a proposed site plan indicating how many homes would be built. In addition, the board should require soil borings which would more accurately determine soil composition in this area and the full impact on water resources. A site plan would have the added benefit of allowing the applicant, staff and the board to review site design alternatives that could protect the rural viewsheds that currently exist along Bay and Sunnyside Roads. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS This site is bounded by Bay Road and Sunnyside Road. The impact that this development would have on the surrounding road systems ability to accommodate this traffic is uncertain at this time. In order to adequately determine traffic impacts, traffic counts which are anticipated at full build out of this residential area should be submitted for review by staff. As a part of this development a system of local roads will be built which will direct traffic to the existing road system surrounding this property. Staff would recommend that a site plan be prepared showing the layout of proposed roads. This would enable all interested parties to work together to design a road system which would provide for the best possible circulation through this property and allow for connection of possible future roadways in the surrounding area and existing transportation system. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Although this area is shown on the future development plan as a residential area with three acre lot sizes, it would appear that it is in conformance with existing zoning and development patterns in this area. This proposal would have the benefit of allowing development in an area with similar land uses and protecting more environmentally sensitive lands located to the north and east. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the open, rural characteristics of this neighborhood (pg. 31). Any development of this site should be designed as to protect and maintain this attribute of this area. It should be noted that development of this area with moderate density one acre lots would take place in an area that presently contains no water or sewer services within the immediate area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed density would closely conform to existing and anticipated development within this area. Staff feels that a more extensive review with additional information is needed to - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) adequately determine what impact this proposed zoning change would have on all aspects of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff would recommend a more detailed review including a proposed site plan and studies for this proposal. Specific areas of this site should be delineated which would be considered as undevelopable in accordance with the subdivision regulations, specifically Section 183-34. In addition, any design alternatives should strive to maintain the rural character and protect environmentally sensitive areas through clustering of lots. Existing tree hedge rows on this property should be maintained under any design of this area." The Warren County Planning Board approved "With the condition that the Applicant furnish an erosion control plan to the Town and to the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District." MR. PALING-Okay. That's quite a bit. Not for right now. but do you have any letters or anything for later on in the meeting? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, we do. MR. PALING-Okay. You do have. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-You've received all the cards back, right? MR. GORALSKI-The Town sent out 500 foot notices. MR. MACEWAN-Just a regular mailing. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-Would you identify yourself, please. MR. LEVACK-Good evening. My name is Mark Levack from Levack Real Estate, and I'm the agent here this evening, on behalf of the property owners seeking their re-zoning, Ron Harris, Shirley Harris, Mr. Howard & Barbara Toomey, Mr. Frank Zverblis & Betty Zverblis, Mr. Albert & Mrs. Eleanor Oudekerk. MR. PALING-Okay. Were you familiar with the Staff comments before tonight? MR. LEVACK-Yes. I did have an opportunity to review those with George Hilton yesterday. MR. PALING-There's quite a bit there that's going to have to be covered. Did you want to summarize it, just to tell us where we're going, and then we might come back to the Staff Notes. MR. LEVACK-Sure. Absolutely. We can address each one of those Staff Notes, one by one. This property, I have an aerial photograph here of the whole 250 acres that we're seeking a re- zoning on. MR. PALING-Excuse me. Let me just shift you to the other side, and perhaps the people can see, they can see better, if you would. MR. LEVACK-These are all the property owners, and they've seen this. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. LEVACK-If there's anybody else back there. Okay. I'd welcome you to come up. I know it's a small picture. So if you want to come up close. We've taken a street scape picture, and we plan to walk you through the proposed, lets say, near future of this re- zoning. I'd like to start out by saying that this re-zoning, the property owners feel, is right because it conforms with the - 26 - '",-- .- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) neighborhood. It is a one acre zoning, and primarily you have Hiland Park Planned Unit Development here to the east and to the south. The Stonegate Subdivision, the Lake Sunnyside area. Arguably all of these lots in the immediate and adjoining vicinity are on smaller than one acre lots. So we feel that this one acre is not a broad leap. It is a very acceptable zoning for this property. I'd like to point out that it's also the right thing to do for the property owners, and this brings us back to recent history, where in 1988, started in 1986, '87, in the building boom, we feel that the Town had a very reactionary approach to the onset of all this development and all these subdivisions, and, boy, we've got to do something to protect the rural character of Queensbury. Well, what did they do? The Comprehensive Land Use Advisory Committee targeted all these large, undeveloped tracks of land that were these "viewsheds" and really promoted the rural character of Queensbury, and made them, essentially, green space. RR-3A zoning is not conducive to residential subdivisions. It's not economically feasible to develop residential subdivisions, and the Town Planners would also argue that it's not a proper zoning from the Town's perspective, longer roads, more money, more cost to maintain. So we feel that this property was clearly one of those properties that was targeted in a reactionary effort to slow development and create the rural character of Queensbury. I say, I'm a life resident here, and I say, hey, that's all well and good, unless you're one of those four property owners, and the hardship that's been created for these people, they didn't have their property for sale at the time. They didn't fully understand the implications of what a three acre zoning would mean to them, when they tried to go sell their property. Well, Mr. Harris' property has been on the market for over five years, and Mrs. Toomey's property has been on the market and off the market now. Currently, there's only one parcel actively on the market, and that's Mr. Harris' and Mrs. Harris' 50 acres. Mr. Zverblis, who's here this evening, has a 71 acre parcel, has no intentions of selling his property. He's just simply along with this collective effort. Rather than spot zoning out his parcel, everybody thought it was in their best interest to collectively seek the re-zoning. Mrs. Oudekerk and Mr. Oudekerk are here this evening. They own the Berry Farm Bed & Breakfast on Bay Road, and their property is not for sale. They have no immediate intentions of selling the property. Mrs. Toomey, who is not here this evening, her husband and I believe her son is here this evening, and their property is not actively on the market right now, but just to give you a little bit of what these people feel about this area, the Harris property has been in the Harris family for 125 years. These are clearly local Queensbury residents. They've been long standing tax payers in the Community, and they're entitled to a fair return on their land. That was taken away from them in 1988. The re-zoning, I'd like to re-focus on the fact that it really won't change the character of the neighborhood, and if I can walk you through, Tom Nace will be here this evening, and we've developed a preliminary subdivision plan that might reveal what this property could look like if it were zoned under a one acre zoning, and I think that would be enlightening for you to see, and just to see how, driving up Bay Road, it really will be an area that would be largely unaffected by this re-zoning. This is Mr. Zverblis' property starting at the north end of the property. It's currently a farm field, cornfield right now. The property slopes off Bay Road. You cannot even see his home here driving down Bay Road, and, you know, again, he has no plans, immediate or future plans, to develop this property, but if you do, the homes will be low lying in this area, and something that could be covered at site plan, cross that bridge when you get to it. Coming down, further down Bay Road, there's a, the Stonegate Subdivision is in this white section, and that Stonegate Subdivision is developed. There are homes on Bay Road that's developed. It's primarily a wooded area, and then his hedgerow ends right here at the end of his three acre property. Now you pick up the "proposed developed area" and we have a - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) preliminary subdivision schematic here that will show one home in this location, because it doesn't pay to bring a Town road up to Bay Road for the creation of one lot, and this is the deal. This is Ron Harris' property. His property is actively on the market, and we do have interest in this property for a potential development if the one acre zoning is granted, and this particular developer and this property owner had intentions of seeing one home in this field area. Virtually nothing has changed. You come to the Berry Farm location, and you see a big treed area, probably the largest section of treed area on the Bay Road streetscape. This treed area will remain unchanged. The Oudekerks are here this evening. They own the Berry Farm. They own all the barns behind it. They have no intention of selling this property so that trees can be taken down and homes can be built. In fact, their thought process and their conversations have been, well, you know, we are thinking about potentially selling down the road. If we do sell any of our 50 acres that we currently own, we'd like to keep 10 acres out for ourself, and we'd like to put our Berry Farm and our barns and our trees on our 10 acres, and then, sure, we'd like an economic return on our land. Sure we're thinking about selling it down the road, but it won't be this area, Mark. We don't want to sell this area, and then, coming to the end of this hedgerow, you can see some open fields area on the TOomey property. Again,the Toomey's have no plans on selling their property right now. Their thought process and their discussions have been, Mark, if we do decide to sell the property, if we do decide to sell our 41 acres, we want to keep out five acres and the barn. We don't want anybody ever to touch that barn. We don't want these trees to come down, and again, maintaining that rural country streetscape, nothing would change in this area, and this is, coming to the very south side of the property near the cemetery, at the end of Tee Hill Road, and then again, looking up into this field area, one could envision homes under our preliminary site plan. So, Tom Nace is here this evening with Haanen Engineering, I apologize, Tom's with Nace Engineering. I'm sorry. I would like to stress that, you know, we anticipated this request, and while there's no intended development for any sites other than this middle 50 acre site, we though, now that we have the opportunity and that the Town has the opportunity, we could show the Town a potential creative plan that would tie one large tract to the other tract, if and when the opportunity ever arose for this property to be sold and developed. So, certainly Tom, as a subdivision planner, he could speak to the subdivision potential of this property, but again, I'd like to reiterate and remind you that this is not a site specific project. In these Staff Notes, the Staff refers to this project. I don't want to mislead you in that this is what is intended here. It's not what's intended. We just came up with this as a potential concept plan of what it might look like if and when somebody ever decides to sell their property, but, with the exception of this one property in the middle that's currently for sale, this 50 acres, there is no subdivision plan for the other property. TOM NACE MR. NACE-To reinforce that, this was arrived at in filling out SEQRA, okay. In looking at SEQRA for the re-zoning issue, we recognized that, okay, we've got to address the development potential if we're going to one acre zoning, and see what sort of a layout might work here, and what the number of lots created would be. We've done some soils work on the general area. I'm sure you're all familiar with Charlie Main. Charlie and I went out with a back hoe and investigated this property. The front portion, probably the front two thirds of this property, is currently cornfield. We went throughout the cornfields and did test pits to find out what the water table is and what the soils were like. They're a fine, sandy, a little bit of silt, loam, soils, generally up in the upper reaches of the site. The water table is down four plus feet, the seasonal highwater table. As you get toward the - 28 - '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) back, the soils map shows, and just looking at the site, walking the site, it's very evident, that the back of this is relatively wet, okay. There are some hummocks in here of good soils, but with the stream bottom in here, and this stream bottom coming through, the soils around that are fairly tight soils, high groundwater, and in recognizing that, when we developed this, we took a look at the soils map. We had Charlie Main go out, and based on what we had found here, take an auger and the soils map from SCS and go throughout the four properties, investigate the soils, and see how closely that related to the soils map, and it was a fairly good coordination. He found, in fact, that up in some of the higher reaches, the soils were a little better than showed on the soils map. We've confirmed that also with some percolation tests on the Harris property. The soils, up in the portion of the site that we've shown could be developed are in the five to ten minute perc range. So it's certainly feasible that at that rate it would be even feasible to develop half acre lots, but in conforming with the surrounding community and the surrounding zoning, we think that one acre is a more appropriate zone. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Basically, when we developed this layout, we looked at a couple of things. One is getting some circulations through the site, so that you could eventually tie these properties together without having each of them having separate entrances or exits onto Bay Road. We would initially, with this property, look at access off the existing subdivision, and then eventually, as the other properties develop, if they develop, tie that together with an access out onto Bay Road and over onto Sunnyside, but this is only one scheme, depending on how the properties come up, when they come up for sale. I'm sure you could get three engineers and they could come up with at least six different schemes. MR. PALING-The plan you have there now would represent how many lots? MR. NACE-This represents, on all three properties, it represents 91 total lots. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. That includes taking the back of these sites and setting those aside as one lot each, you know, one property, each single lot on each property, and those would, you know, if somebody wanted to spend the money to work a driveway back into some of the good soils, there's some nice home sites back there, but not enough good soils to justify bringing a Town road back in to further subdivide. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tom, the parcel that's for sale now. MR. NACE-This parcel, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Where is the accessibility to either Bay Road? MR. NACE-The existing subdivision, Stonegate. MRS. LABOMBARD-Stonegate. Okay. I guess I missed that. So, that just comes right into the road and then comes up out of Bay? MR. NACE-That's correct. For now we anticipate just a cul-de-sac in here. We'd make provisions, in the layout, with right-of-ways, that eventually that cul-de-sac could be eliminated and worked into a road system tying into the other properties. MR. LEVACK-We should also point out that this first 50 acre parcel has its most immediate and urgent need to sell right now. There's a very bad cul-de-sac right here at the end of Stonegate. It's a substandard cul-de-sac, and what this project would do, it would enable us to eliminate that cul-de-sac to bring it back another - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) 800, 900 feet. MR. NACE-I think it's about 800 feet, yes. MR. LEVACK-About 800 feet into the development, and then put a proper cul-de-sac in. So we ran that one by Paul Naylor, and he seemed to, obviously, agree that this cul-de-sac is very substandard today. MR. PALING-What is your average lot size, again, as you have it here? MR. NACE-I don't know. We just penciled this in. I made sure when I penciled it in that I had at least an acre. MR. PALING-At least an acre, is what you're saying. MR. NACE-A minimum of an acre. Some of these lots where the properties are relatively wide we, because of the minimum frontage, you end up with lots that are bigger than an acre, okay. Likewise, when you get into some of these cul-de-sacs and little short streets, some of the lots in back of those, you know, this is probably two and a half or three acres, but again, this is just a sketch layout of what's possible. There are probably a dozen different ways to cut a pie. MR. MACEWAN-Did you have an opportunity to look at Staff Notes on this? MR. NACE-Yes, I have. MR. MACEWAN-I guess, if anything was to develop out of this, in the future, they're kind of leaning heavily toward clustering. MR. NACE-Well, that could be done. We've looked at clustering with this particular property, and in keeping with a lot of the surrounding, more recent subdivisions out along Ridge Road and out along Bay Road, we felt that maybe the market was more there for one acre lots. I presume if we wanted to cluster and try to make use of some of the developable land back in here, we could justify a few more lots, okay, but that really wasn't our intent. MR. MACEWAN-The impression I'm getting here is four different property owners are all looking to get the SR-1A out of this, but they're all looking, if they ever did decide to develop, they're all going to do it individually on their own. MR. NACE-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Not as a group of them. We have one property owner who adamantly doesn't want to sell. We have one property owner who currently doesn't want to sell but who's open minded in the future. We have one who's toying with the idea and we have one who is definitely on the market. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MACEWAN-Now all four of these want to go to SR-1A? MR. LEVACK-Absolutely. MR. MACEWAN-Why would one guy want to go to SR-1A when he has no intention of ever wanting to sell the property? MR. LEVACK-Because he recognizes that RR-3A land has a severely reduced value, economic value, and the Town took that value away back in 1988 when they reacted to the development, when they asked these property owners to shoulder that burden of view sheds. - 30 - '- -" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. MACEWAN-I don't necessarily agree with the statement that the Town took that away from them. They certainly had their option, at the time, in asking to be zoned otherwise. MR. LEVACK-And what year was this? MR. MACEWAN-It was '88 when they did the master plan. MR. LEVACK-Right. In '88 this was zoned from SR-30 to RR-3A. Some people in the audience here don't even recall that taking place. They weren't part of that process. MR. MACEWAN-They wouldn't have had to have been a part of that process. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure what the question is. There were public notices. There were meetings. There were neighborhood meetings, stuff like that. There were not specific notices sent to every property owner. MR. NACE-(Lost words) opportunity had they been aware at the time. It wasn't like a re-zoning issue now, where everybody involved is notified by certified mail. MR. MACEWAN-I guess you know, as long as I've been sitting on this Board, and when I see re-zoning applications come in, I always kind of tug at them in my own mind, because to me, where do you eventually draw the line? I mean, if you want to keep the rural character in certain areas of the Town that's designated that way, where do you draw the line and to say, we gave recommendation of approval to this one, to say, go ahead and zone it, re-zone it to SR-1A, what's to stop the guy, five miles up the road, to ask for rezoning that way down the road? Where do you draw the line? Where do you stop? MR. LEVACK-Craig, that's where you have to vote on in your conscience, giving the whole history of this project, the whole history of the rezoning, the future of this area, the future of Queensbury, and the consistency of the soils and whether or not it would support something like this. If you talk to the Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury, he'll show you a map of the Town of Queensbury. In that map of the Town of Queensbury, there's a blue line that runs through the Town of Queensbury. Virtually, the development to the north of that blue line is, I don't know what the percentage is, but I think there's over a third of the Town of Queensbury can never be developed, because of the watershed, because of the mountains, because of the Adirondack Blue Line that makes it a little less, a little harder to develop. So the Senior Planner, in his vision, he's not here to confirm what I'm saying, but I've had many meetings with him over this property and this project. He's 100% for it, last ~ spoke to him, because the Town needs this zoning. This property is right for this zoning, and that's what I started this evening's discussions out with, is, don't do it because these property owners had their value taken away and we're trying to get it back. Do it because it's the right thing for the Town of Queensbury and it's the right thing for this area. MR. MACEWAN-The Senior Planner being? MR. LEVACK-Jim Martin, but, you know, I think to answer your question as to why does it stop here, we're kind of saying, well, in this situation it's a little different. They had an RR-30 zone, and we felt that that was taken away as a reactionary attempt by the Town to slow this development. It wasn't a proactionary attempt. MR. NACE-Well, I look at it, Craig, in terms of, what does the land - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) adequately support, and where does it make sense to zone areas of what I call restricted use? Okay, and face it, a three acre zone is, in my estimation, a restricted use. You cannot go in and build roads to develop. It's not economically feasible to develop a piece of land that's zoned RR-3, okay, unless you can build a half a million dollar house and sell it, you can't support the infrastructure cost, but if you look at the zoning map, okay, the only three acre zone contiguous to this sort of little chunk that sits down in here that was zoned three acres in '88 is up toward Glen Lake, and some very hilly, very difficult to develop land that makes sense to restrict some zoning there to limit the size of lots, but here, you know, we're surrounded by one acre. We've got POD, which has, I don't know what the overall density of the POD is, for Hiland. There's another, just a little chunk that sits down in here, and then there's more SR-1A for some extent to the east of that, and, yes, view scapes are important, but I don't think, ultimately, that view scapes across this piece of land are going to be that much impinged from Bay Road. I think you've seen pictures here, and most of. MR. LEVACK-This represents all the blue hedgerows. Blue represents hedgerows and green area. We agree with the Town of Queensbury 100%, that we shouldn't change the hedgerows. We shouldn't change the view sheds. We shouldn't change the rural character of this property. That's the beauty of this location. Everyone's familiar with this land, it's gorgeous land. We want to see the Berry Farm stay. We want to see the barns stay. We want to see the hedgerows stay. There isn't a person in this room that wants to change that, and would encourage you to hold our feet to the fire on seeing that through to fruition, if this 50 acre parcel pops up before you shortly, or any time in the future any of those other plans pop up before you. So we want to maintain this, and if you look at the 250 acres, answering your question earlier, we feel that it is clustered, because you're only developing 91 homes on a 250 acre parcel. To me, that's cluster development, where you're not developing all this blue area, all this green space. It stays the same, as much as it would be possible to balance that, you know, the property's right to get an economic return, and the benefit to the Town for these view sheds. We have every intention of keeping every tree on the property. MR. MACEWAN-What was the zoning of Hiland Park before it got it's POD designation? Do you know, off hand? MR. GORALSKI-I think it was several different districts. I'm not sure specifically what they were, but it's such a large piece, there were several different zoning districts. MR. MACEWAN-What are your thoughts so far? MR. GORALSKI-We've discusses this in the office quite a bit. It appears that, from the information that Tom Nace has provided and, you know, we may, it might be appropriate to have some more test pits done around the site and that type of thing, to confirm the soil types, but it appears that, in general, this land can accommodate one acre lots, from a strictly empirical outlook. Things that we would see as things that should be concerned about is preserving the rural character of the area, preserving the rural character of Bay Road and Sunnyside Road. Traffic access is a concern. You're talking here, this particular plan comes up with 91 lots. That's going to be a significant number of cars that's going to be added to that area. I don't want to get into this specific layout, because, you know, I don't think that's the way this was intended. MR. NACE-No. This was intended for SEQRA purposes of what the potential is. - 32 - " '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. GORALSKI-Right. So I think you have those philosophical things you have to look at. I think if you required a cluster design or a design that would protect the rural character, either by providing buffers from the arterial roads or no cut zones or something like that, if you were satisfied that traffic counts, for whatever the potential development is, indicated that there wouldn't be a problem with traffic in that area, I don't think the proposal is unwarranted, but I think you need to look at those issues really carefully. I think you want to make sure that there's several access points. If you have 91 lots, you want to have a couple of access points to that neighborhood. You don't want to have 91 lots being fed by only one access point, and going back to the whole idea of rural character, I think there are a lot of views there that are valuable views that should be protected, and I think you want to be sure that those views are protected. MR. MACEWAN-From a planning standpoint, it would be difficult, because you're going to be treating this as four separate parcels, instead of one large parcel to be developed, and as you go down the road, and you're trying to set up subdivisions in each one of those subdivisions, it would be a planning, I think, nightmare. MR. NACE-Can I address that? I think that's something that happens all the time, okay, and in the subdivision review process, you're going to see it, you know, come in in pieces. There's no question about that, but I think the Board has, in the past, required developers to put in right-of-way access connections between properties where they think circulation is going to be required between one property that's developing and another property that's yet undeveloped, and you have the tools to require that, and you also have the tools to require when the adjacent developer eventually comes in, to require him to use that connection link, to require him to lay his subdivision out so that it does circulate traffic the way you envision it. MR. MACEWAN-I guess what I'm saying, I don't think I ever recall, as long as I've been on the Board, seeing one this scale, as large as this. MR. NACE-Well, remember again, this is not a proposed subdivision at this stage of the game. This is a proposed rezoning, and we're simply saying, here's what is the potential. MR. LEVACK-Craig, we came to this conclusion as the result of one property owner who is in, is very motivated to sell his property, his 50 acres, and we thought, rather than come in and try to design a 50 acre site, we thought, rather than re-zone one 50 acre parcel, lets re-zone this corner, which ties into the east, south, west and transitions nicely to three acre zoning in the north. So, we're being progressive. We're saying, lets be pro-actionary. Lets not look at this in a microcosm. Lets look at this as a bigger, grander plan. We brought this in front of the Comprehensive Land Use Advisory Committee, and they had a round table discussion on this particular property as it related to its zoning from SR-3A to RR-3A back in 1988. Everybody that was around then recognizes that this property was targeted, but beyond that, they also agree, and while they don't have any findings out yet, we also got a very good, positive indication from every member on that Board that they would recommend in favor of this one acre zoning. So, I know that the Comprehensive Land Use Advisory Committee meeting is thinking this way for this section of, and the Town of Queensbury, and they're taking the encompassing view to say, what's north of the Blue Line. What's going to happen? What's west of the Blue Line? What's going to happen? What land are we left with, and how, properly, should we zone that land, and again, I'm not speaking for them. They're not here to speak this evening, but they're looking for other people that might have been there to support that they were in favor of this. - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. PALING-Okay. Why don't we move this thing along a little bit. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the applicant has addressed, in general terms, the concerns that the Staff has raised, and verbally commented on them, and I think at this point, I'd like to open the public hearing, and then we can come back and resume our conversation on this. I'm sorry, the microphone is open for public comment. MR. LEVACK-Would you like to hear from some of the property owners? Is this time for property owners? MR. PALING-Anyone from the public is welcome to comment, pro or con. MR. GORALSKI-I have letters, too. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Does anyone wish to speak? Yes. MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline. I live on Blind Rock Road, which is on Bay, off of Bay, and if you re-zone this to one acre, what is the guarantee that someone won't come nack and want to re-zone it to one third? Or one half? MR. PALING-Well, there's never any guarantee. These things don't last forever. Requests can be made for anything. I don't think it would receive much sYmpathy. I don't know. MRS. GOSLINE-Because I like the one acre, and I think there's not much of an impact on 250 acres of land, and it seems to keep the character of the neighborhood. The clustering, what is clustering? I mean, would you put more homes in there than 98 homes? MR. PALING-No. It's that you keep the average acreage at one, but you can put the homes in clusters, but overall it's still an average of an acre. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The basic concept of clustering is that you keep the same number of units. However, instead of, for example, if it remained three acre zoning, you would have the number of units that would be allowed under a three acre density, but you would make the lots only one acre lots. Thereby building less roads, creating less infrastructure, and leaving more open, green space, forever wild space, which is similar to what they've done here, in fact, to be honest with you, because they've left quite a bit of undeveloped space here. MRS. GOSLINE-Yes, on the outsides there. MR. GORALSKI-As a matter of fact, the way I figure it out, and I didn't really want to get into the specifics of this plan, if they only cut 16 more lots out of that plan there, they wouldn't even need are-zoning. They could just get a cluster subdivision approval and be on their way. MRS. GOSLINE-Because the clustering, I was thinking there would be more houses on less property. So how would you sell it? I mean, I'd be more apt to buy an acre of land, than a third of an acre of land. Do you see what I'm saying? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but Mary Lee, one of the beauty of clustering, or apparently the new wave of young people coming in, they're working all the time, and they don't want to have the upkeep on a lot of property. So that's one of the new concepts. I mean, you don't feel that way. I don't feel that way, but a lot of people - 34 - '- -..-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) that are starting out, the wife and the husband are both working. They don't want an acre of land to mow on weekends. They go out. They don't spend as much time at home as more traditional people and older people do. That's where the concept came from. I mean, that's my interpretation of how the concept came about is clustering. MRS. GOSLINE-You see my idea with that is that they don't belong living here. I mean, they shouldn't even be here in the first place. They should be in the City. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, they like the ambiance. MR. GORALSKI-You're correct in the attraction of a smaller lot. The Planning concept of clustering was developed specifically to maintain rural character. Instead of taking out huge swaths of trees for roads and lawns and driveways and .stuff like that, what you do in a cluster is you cluster, you literally cluster the houses together and leave large areas of open space around them, tuck the houses in so that you don't see these huge tracts of subdivision. What you see is little clusters of houses with green space around them, in an attempt to maintain the character. MR. GOSLINE-I agree with that, but who owns the land that's around it? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it depends. There are different mechanisms for ownership. For example, at Hudson pointe the Homeowners Association owns a good portion of the land and the Open Space Institute, at this time, owns a portion of the land. Typically, it's Homeowners Association. At times, it's donated to the Town or to the Nature Conservancy or somebody like that to, you know, basically be stewards of that open space. MRS. GOSLINE-See, because in 1988, I went to the meetings that were in the communities, and I went to the firehouses and listened to the people, and everyone said they liked, the reason they lived in Queensbury was the rural character, and that's what I can't understand, like in, over on the other side of the bridge and we're having, what is it, Indian Ridge or whatever that's going on right now. That's why people live here, and we're bringing these new concepts in, but do we want them? Do we want to pay the extra taxes, or do we want to keep the rural character? And I don't know if they're really asking the public and listening to the public on those. This seems feasible and I can appreciate the value of the property to the people and being able to develop it, but this seems very reasonable, and they seem to be trying to keep the character of their neighborhood, which I appreciate. MR. PALING-Well, that's what we're here for, is to listen to public comment, and there isn't going to be very much tonight, I don't think, on both sides, but we're here to pick up whatever we can, and I know the Indian Ridge thing is a very emotional situation. We want to try to avoid that and be as realistic and fair. MRS. GOSLINE-Well, these people seem to be very fair. They're not asking for a third of an acre or a half of an acre, and they want to keep the character and they still love the community. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who else would care to talk on this, pro or con? JOAN BOVEE MRS. BOVEE-My name is Joan Bovee and I live on Lake View Drive, and I have a letter here from just about everybody in the area on Lake View and Sunnyside Road that, I mean, they are opposed to it, - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) people that are opposed to it, but we weren't sure exactly what it was. We figured there was 227 acres that was going to be developed into maybe 200 lots, which, I mean, that's not the case right now. In the future maybe it will be, if it's rezoned. MR. PALING-If this were approved, then it would have to be followed by site plan reviews also, covering exactly how the lots would be laid out, subdivision would be laid out. MRS. BOVEE-Right. Now when will the public hearing be? I thought this was a public hearing. MR. PALING-Well, the next step, ours will be a recommendation to the Town Board, and then they will hold a meeting similar to this, at which the official public hearing will be held, and there'll be notification sent out to those people within 500 feet of this, of all of this land. MRS. BOVEE-Of all of the land? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. BOVEE-Okay, because some of the cortcerns were the traffic, the roads, like the traffic now on Sunnyside Road now is bad. I mean, people speed. There's a 30 mile per hour speed limit, but they go 40, 50, like up around the curb and Bardin's camps and forget it. I mean, somebody could be knocked off the road if they're walking on the right side of the road that they're supposed to be on, because I walk my dog up there, and it's like, I would not walk on the left hand side of the road near Bardin's camps. I mean, one of the concerns that someone mentioned was the school system, if there were 200 homes. I mean, I don't know how many are proposed for the lot that's for sale. MR. NACE-The way we have it set up, the lot that is now for sale, we have divided out into 22 lots. MRS. BOVEE-Twenty-two right now. MR. NACE-That's correct. MRS. BOVEE-Well, whatever the average children are in a household, there's going to be that impact on the school. There's going to be more automobiles, more traffic. The leach fields, Lake Sunnyside is right there, along with Meadowbrook, the brook. I don't know if there'd be any seepage, and then someone said that, I'm the neighborhood spokesman, there's not a lot of industry here. There are a lot of empty homes in Queensbury now. This seems like a large development for people to buy all these homes. There's no industry here. Industries are closing. A lot of people don't have jobs. Now maybe they're going to work in Albany or whatever, but this is just something that was brought up. There is another development which, well, I think it has approval. I'm not sure, on the other side of Bay Road, off Moon Hill Road. Now that is three acre lots, and it's not developed, but it has been partially cleared. Now those haven't been re-zoned. I mean, I don't know if he doesn't want to, but, and I'm not even sure who owns that property, but it's just this past spring and summer been cleared, but I do believe those are three acre lots. MR. PALING-Okay. If they are, then he'd have to build accordingly. MRS. BOVEE-Right. Apparently maybe he didn't ask for a rezoning. MR. PALING-I don't think he asked for rezoning. I can't remember, but I don't think so. MR. GORALSKI-I can give you some information on that. The name of - 36 - .-'~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) that project was Imperial Acres. Robert Lent owned it. It was approved, I believe, in about 1990. It was for three acre lots. Mr. Lent went in there, and he was starting to cut the road in. At this time he's decided that it would be too expensive to develop the property as it's approved and has decided not to continue at this time. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you, John. MRS. BOVEE-That's really all I have, except for, I do have a petition here signed by the people in Sunnyside Estates, asking the Board to oppose the rezoning of that property. MR. PALING-Okay. Why don't you let us have it. MR. STARK-Bob, maybe that should go to the Town Board, also. MR. PALING-Well, it will. What you might do is wait and bring it to the Town Board meeting, if you want. MRS. BOVEE-Okay. Do you have any idea when that will be? MR. PALING-No, I don't. John, do you have any idea? MR. GORALSKI-At this point, no, I don't. prerogative to set the public hearing. It's the Town Board's MR. PALING-There's no way we would have of knowing, but you're on record on the minutes, which they review, when they review any recommendation that we make. MR. GORALSKI-And if you received a 500 foot notice for this meeting, you will receive one also at that meeting. MRS. BOVEE-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MR. LEVACK-I'd like to just respond quickly as a counter comment. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. It's a public hearing, the public. MR. LEVACK-Okay. Sure. MR. PALING-It's the public comment right now. You'll have your chance. Is there anyone that cares to speak from the public, owner, pro, con, whatever? CINDY HUBER MRS. HUBER-I'm Cindy Huber and I live on Bay Road just north of Sunnyside, and I just wondered what price range the houses we're looking at? Do we have an idea? MR. PALING-Okay. You want to know what the price range will be, yes. That will be kind of hard to answer, but we can get the question answered for you. Okay. MRS. HUBER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Anyone else? MR. GORALSKI-I have a couple of letters. MR. PALING-Okay, John. MR. GORALSKI-This one is addressed to Sue Cipperly. "Thank you for mailing the map. We consider the existing zoning requiring one (1) - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) acre for each lot as adequate for the surrounding area. A subdivision 3/4 of one acre, but not less would be okay if all surrounding area owners are giving their consent. Very truly yours, Mr. Tossoyan" I think what he's saying is one acre is accept, one acre zoning is acceptable to him. MR. PALING-Yes. He wants everybody in the area to agree. MR. GORALSKI-Right. "Queensbury Planning Board Members: In reference to the Public Hearing Notice scheduled for August 27, 1996 at 7:00 PM, petition number P6-96, I would like to object to the proposed zoning change from RR-3A to SR-1A. As a result of the recent Indian Ridge ruling, these type of zoning changes will become more abundant as more property owners feel the greed to sub- divide Queensbury's agricultural/rural lands. These lands, as denoted by Tax Map numbers 48-3-53, 51.1, 49.1, 51.5, 51.4, 46-1-3, will indicate an area in which farming has been prevalent for many years and shelters many forms of wildlife that should continue to be allowed to roam freely in their rural habitat. The children should also be allowed to enjoy a 'rural' environment. The Town has attempted to push back or widen portions of Bay Road to try to accommodate the increased traffic flow over the years, but it does not provide school aged children a safe place to wait for a Queensbury School bus. In addition to increased traffic flow on two already narrow roads [Bay & Sunnyside Roads], one must also think of the treacherous corner of Bay and Sunnyside Roads that has been the sight of many serious physical injury vehicle accidents. The Board should carefully review the impact of a proposed zoning change in this area. Agricultural land use, vehicle/traffic, water and septic, wildlife/environmental studies should all be considered before allowing a few people to prosper at the expense of many. I object to the zoning change of the described areas and would ask the Board to deny the request as well. Let's work towards the Master Plan of the 1980's to strengthen the Zoning Ordinances and maintain a quality of life in the Town of Queensbury. Rural Queensbury is 'Home of Natural Beauty....A Good Place To Live'. Respectfully, J. Scott Sawyer" Okay, and then I have another one here, and that's 7 Fieldview Road. "Dear Mr. Martin: This letter is to express my concerns regarding a Zoning Variance requested by Harris, Toomey, Zverblis, and Oudekerk. Please consider carefully how the additional density of houses, each with a septic tank and well will affect the drainage and quality of water to existing homes. My home was one of the last to be built, but my well is more than twice as deep as my neighbors. This area is very wet, and clay soil, and may not be able to safely withstand the higher density of homes. We presently enjoy a quiet place to live where we see wild turkey, hawk and owl and occasional deer. If more homes are built in this area what will happen to the animals? Isn't 'home of natural beauty....a nice place to live' being reduced to just a place to live by all the new housing developments? I understand no plan has been presented, but I will state my opposition to an access road to the proposed development going through the Stonegate and Fieldview Roads. Many of us have small children and enjoy our neighborhood's safety. We bought or built our homes here because of the relative privacy and safety. I do not want to see the quality of life we now enjoy jeopardized by groundwater pollution, loss of natural habitat and additional traffic. Thank you, Christine Purdy" And that's 4 Fieldview Road. That's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else? RON HARRIS MR. HARRIS- I'm Ron Harris, and my property is the one that is presently for sale. The original rezoning that happened back in 1988 happened in a time that, or the process began at a time that my mother still owned the property, and I didn't, at that time, own - 38 - _c ..-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) it, and so I didn' t oppose it, and I knew that eventually the property would belong to my sister and I, but at that time, it didn't really matter because I didn't know what, down the road, was coming, but we've owned this property now for about eight years. It's been on the market for probably six, and no one will purchase it because of the three acre zoning, because it's not feasible to build 17 homes on a property of 51 acres with all the roads and utilities that have to be put in. However, I myself am burdened by the taxes on the property. I can't afford to keep it. I must sell it, and everyone wants the views and so on. If they want the views, I feel that, fine, I agree. I mean, I would like to see the rural character upheld, too, and I like the fact that it's, what they've proposed at this point in time with the property of 22 homes. I feel that everyone who has moved into this area is enjoying the views at my expense and the expense of the other property owners, and I don't believe that is fair, but it's just a case where the property now does belong to me, but I've got to sell it, and I'm not asking for, to get rich or anything else on it. This isn't the point. If I could afford to keep it, I would keep it, and I'm in a situation where I do have to sell it, and I don't think, the proposal on this property, I don't feel, is unreasonable, and I don't know, I guess that's about all I have to say right now. -. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MARSHAL SEELEY MR. SEELEY-My name's Marshal Seeley. I can't really say that I represent my daughter. She's in Florida. However, she did call and ask me to come and I do have some thoughts on this. By the way, my daughter is Mrs. William Shaw, and they own the first house north of Moon Hill Road on Sunnyside. They purchased an acre in there before the zoning was changed. I believe the rest of that area is now in the three acre situation. I'm quite familiar with the area. I worked on Haviland Road, and in fact the other night had dinner at the Hilander, which was right, one of the last time's I was on the property was when I milking cows right next door in the building that's now the Golf Shop. So I'm familiar with open spaces. I think, at the time Hiland Park was developed, three acres was more appropriate. You look at those houses there and they deserve three acres, but we know what happened to Hiland Park. There's not a big market for that costly house anYmore. I think you have a great opportunity, with the four parcels, even though they won't be developed for some time, you have them contiguous on not only each other, but with the one acre zoning on three sides of them. The three acre zoning is kind of up over the hill. I'm sure you're familiar with that corner. Three acre zoning is more out of sight, so to speak. If, as I'm sure you are familiar with driving up or down Bay Road, the area is quite well treed for quite a distance. I built a house, my wife and I, the second house south of the Sunnyside corner on the east side of Bay Road, 1966. We were able to purchase a lot there, one acre. It might have been a fraction over an acre. I'm not sure at this point. That was a while ago, and if you remember the house, I kept the lot as fully treed as possible and still put a house in there. After that, the development was put in south of us, and that was kept quite well treed, putting the houses in. Since you have all of this as possible future development, with the chance to look at it now, that may not be the way it would eventually be developed. It would be up to you and the other Boards as to what they approve. I think we've got a chance for development on one acre lots, much better than you do on three acre lots. For instance, when we bought the lot on Bay Road, anybody venture to guess what we paid for it in '66? One acre? One thousand dollars. Now, to purchase the same one acre lot now it's going to cost considerably more, but you freeze people out of the market with a three acre lot. Considering everything, and realizing that our daughter has a nice house just - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) north of the corner there, and is in the three acre area, although she has the one acre, I don't feel it would be a disadvantage to her to have the one acre zoning relatively close by, because it still is not actually contiguous with her property. I guess that's the limit of my thoughts. I'm sure the engineering will address all of the drainage problems and the buildability of the various portions of it. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who'd care to speak? ELEANOR OUDEKERK MRS. OUDEKERK-My name is Eleanor Oudekerk. I'm Ron's sister, and I'm one of the property owners, and Ron mentioned that when our mother died the property was divided, pretty much split right down the middle. So we became property owners. I might make a couple of comments. From a planning point of view, I think it's good to look at this as a whole piece right now, rather than say individual property owners looking at it as the need arises, at whatever time that might be. The four of us who own the properties, we were blessed with this acreage. We do consider it a blessing, and I know I speak for myself in a way. None of us purchased it to develop it. None of us purchased it to make a lot of money one it. It came to us through our families, and well, in the ideal world I suppose we'd all like to pass it on to our children. In the real world, that is probably not going to happen. We have this acreage which people do enjoy and believe me, we enjoy it very much ourselves, and only at such time as it becomes economically impossible to hang on to it will we probably any of us get rid of it. We love the field. We love the woods. Many people also, even though it's posted lands, walk the fields, hunt in the fields, and the woods and they use it for the personal recreation, all the lands are posted, but it's used anyway. It's not just looked at. I might add that when people speak of farming prevalent in the area, believe me, the only farming that's prevalent takes place because Washington County Farms rent it or lease it to plant the corn. So that is, by the grace of that, we're able to defray some of the cost of the taxes and vacant land. It's not that we're farming it, because farming is virtually non existent in the Town of Queensbury itself, except for crops and a few things like that people sell at farm stands. I can't speak to the issue of traffic or a lot of the technical aspects like that. I guess I'm just speaking to some of the more emotional aspects and the background of it. I don't think any of us are interested in taking away anybody's view scapes. As regard to clustering, the thought entered my mind if everything is clustered, and there is a lot of open land, how will it stay open if there aren't cornfields there to keep it open? If there are restrictions against, say, keeping properties or vacant lands open, how does it stay open, from a planning point of view? MR. PALING-It can be declared forever wild. MRS. OUDEKERK-And then it grows up to trees. MR. PALING-It could, or it could be maintained by a subdivision group. MRS. OUDEKERK-Right. Well, these are things that I really can't speak to, because I don't know the technicalities of how this is carried out, but it's just a couple of things that crossed my mind. I think each of us, if we really aren't in the market to actually sell it right now. I don't think, for most of us, that's not in our minds at the moment, but I think, if you look at us, you may see that eight years ago the situation was different for all of us. In another eight to ten years, many of us will be certainly in our mid seventies, if not late seventies. I think it's important for - 40 - -- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) planning people to, that's one reason why I think it's important to look at this whole thing as a unit. Who knows what may happen in ten years or twelve years or whatever. So, I certainly would urge you to consider that. I think one acre is more than reasonable. I think there's plenty of place for views, the landscape lends itself to that, and certainly there's the area that is all treed and can be made into some sort of recreation area at the south of it. So I really can't speak to any of the other issues, but I think this makes sense to me, and I think to those of us who are property owners. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If not, we'll close the public hearing. Would you want to address some of the questions? . You might include in there if you have a guesstimate on the price range of what the houses might, that's very difficult, I know, but you might hazard a guess or whatever. MR. LEVACK-I'd say probably $100 to $150,000, which is the market right now. We don't propose expensive housing, but we don't want to propose anything that's substandard to the properties across the street to the north or the immediate adjoining subdivision, Stonegate to the east and northeast. MR. WEST-Do you envision any kind of minimum square footage requirements? MR. LEVACK-I think that any developer developing property, from a marketing standpoint, has to put some minimum square footage requirements in their development to help promote sales, and the longevity of the subdivision. I do see minimum square footage requirements in the first. MR. WEST-Do you have any idea what that would be? MR. LEVACK-I'm going to guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 1750 square feet to 2,000 square feet, but the market will dictate that primarily, but they won't be any smaller than that I don't believe. MR. NACE-If I could address, for a half a second, the clustering concept that's been discussed. I think with the open nature of this property, it's a little bit different when you look at the impact of the lot size on the aesthetics of the development. It's not like we say at Indian Ridge that was brought up, not an area where it's treed, where you can cluster, fit your cluster into an area where the trees buffer the views of it. I think with the open nature of this property, the larger lots and the more openness of this subdivision will actually be an aesthetic benefit to the area. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tom, can I just interrupt and ask you a question? Clarify this, as far as this clustering goes. Lets take the property that's for sale. Right now, to me, it looks like there's 21 acre lots that are probably on about 30 out of those 50 acres. Okay. Now, lets say we recommend that this whole thing goes through for one acre. Is it possible that you could keep those 30 acres for, that are, right now that have 20 houses on them, lets just say two thirds, not even two thirds. It's about 60%, three fifths of it. All right. Lets say, in this clustering, could you take three fifths of that land and put three times as many houses on them? In other words, what Mary Lee said, instead of having one acre lots, have one third acre lots? In other words, you're still using the same amount of land, but you're going to put more houses on it? MR. NACE-In my opinion of your clustering regulations, it would be very difficult to justify that. You've got to show a layout for the land, taking into consideration the constraints that the land - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) places on the development, you have to show a layout under conventional subdivision terms that justifies the number of lots you want to get in your cluster. Okay. I would have a very hard time standing in front of you and coming up with a layout that broke all this back portion up into one acre lots, and saying, yes, we could realistically do this, the land would allow us to do this, because I don't think it will. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-You're asking if they can increase the density using clustering. The answer is no. MR. NACE-What you're asking is, we've got 50 acres here. If I want to cluster this with a one acre zone, could I put, the number may not be 50. It may be 45, by the time you take away roads, but could I put 45 houses up in an area up here on one third, one half acre lots, and I think my answer to you is that I would have to stand before you and say, here is an alternative layout using the strict one acre zoning, without clustering, and that I could build that layout on this piece of land, and I can't. I can't come back in here and justify cutting up some of these wet acres with one acre lots and putting roads across it and septic systems in it. I just can't do it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm talking about what's hypothetically proposed right here. MR. NACE-In other words, take these 20 lots and cluster them into a smaller area? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. NACE-I suppose you could. That's why I was saying I think, aesthetically, okay, we were, because of the open nature of this whole area, if you've driven through Stonegate, okay, I'm sorry, Stonehurst, off of Ridge, Charlie Main's subdivision, okay, it's all open area. It was open fields, and with the one acre lots, I think it looks aesthetically pleasing, okay. If you clustered that and put small lots or townhouses in a dense cluster up on top of one of those hills or in an area that was easily visible, that wasn't buffered by a lot of trees and existing forest around it, I think it would have a larger visual impact than the one acre lots that are there. MRS. LABOMBARD-So in other words, like, we're talking about land here that's, we've been there, it's very open, lets say in contrast to Hudson Pointe, which was all wooded. So they put in the cluster on the first part of the POD. MR. NACE-Yes, we used third acre lots. MRS. LABOMBARD-Third acre lots, 30 some odd homes, but because of the trees, and when you drive in there, it doesn't all hit you like that. MR. NACE-That's right. I'm saying, clustering is good, and I think from a planning perspective, it certainly has its place, but I'm not sure that this is the right place for it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand what you're saying now. MR. PALING-And we can specify minimum lot size, too. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. GORALSKI-Can I ask one question? I was just, since everyone's decided that this is the plan. MR. NACE-Well, this is not the plan. I'm just saying how I arrived - 42 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) here. MR. GORALSKI-You have 91 lots there. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. GORALSKI-If you had 75 lots there, and you did a, based on a three acre density, and did a cluster subdivision, you wouldn't need to rezone it. MR. NACE-I don't think so. Don't your Reg's say that I have to show you an alternative straight zone layout which is buildable and would otherwise be approvable? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but if you can show 90, you can surely show 75. MR. NACE-No, but I can show 90 on one acre. Again, if I show you the straight three acre zone subdivision for this, again, I end up having to use some of this back property, which in my estimation is really not justifiable. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Tom's right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, what about the Harris' property that's for sale? Now that is on the market. So shouldn't there be a, don't we have the right, right now, to ask for, you know, what is that really going to look like when it is subdivided? MR. NACE-I have worked with the developer. This is very close to what it's going to look like. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Is there an existing right-of-way on this? MR. NACE-Yes, there is. The cul-de-sac, if you were, like I said, it's a substandard one, but it comes right up to the property line. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then the back parcel will be all open? MR. NACE-This would probably be just broken off into one lot, and if somebody wants to buy this and spend $20,000 on a driveway to get back to some of the good land in back. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. It is labeled 21. MR. NACE-This is Lot 21, correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. nice spacious land. So somebody has the option of owning some MR. NACE-It would be very nice, spacious, but very difficult. You'll see there's a right-of-way penciled in here for a driveway, not a Town road, but, yes, you could. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, lets say Mr. Harris sells this land and the developer will own Lot 21, whoever purchases it. MR. NACE-Whoever, right. MR. LEVACK-It could never be built (lost words) more than one lot. Once the plan was approved, that, in effect, becomes green space that somebody else is paying taxes on. MR. MACEWAN-There was a comment in one of your letters about someone with wells up there. Where does the Town water service end? - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) MR. GORALSKI-Cedar Court. MR. NACE-Which is back a little ways. MR. LEVACK-Craig, we did a little bit of a study to say, hey, does it make sense to bring water up to this development with this number of homes, and the answer to that is, def ini tely not. Fortunately, we're on a great aquifer area there, so that the wells will support this subdivision, but it's too expensive for the minimal lots that we have. In the future, Jim Martin was planning ahead saying, well, if Hiland Park develops out through fruition, we're going to have all these Town roads with sewer, water, power and gas, abutting right up to the back end of this property. Maybe at that time in the future, it might make sense to run the sewer line up into this property or run a gas line up into this property or run a water line up into this property and you know subdivisions are converted all the time. We could only hope that Hiland Park gets to that point where those are available and it does become economically sensible to do that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LEVACK-I have one more comment I'd like to address on a comment that was made this evening. Obviously, we feel what we're asking for here this evening is very reasonable and very fair, and when you make your decision this evening, I'd like to ask that you take into consideration not only the comments of the public, the people that have come here, taken the time to make their comments this evening, and believe me, those comments are very well appreciated, but also take into consideration these particular property owners and what's happened in the recent past regarding this specific rezoning of this property. I'd like to, at this time, put forth a friendly competition to Joan Bovee who is speaking, here, on behalf of the Sunnyside people this evening, to say, often times when these projects come before the Boards, they get to be a very "we", "they" scenario. I heard here that people were opposed to this, yet they didn't even know what it was all about. So I'd like to go on the record this evening as stating, I will personally take the time, and as much time as is required, to meet with each and every one of those participants, those public neighbors that signed that petition opposing this, to educate them on what it is exactly that we plan on doing now and in the future, and I'd like to ask that you, as your spokesperson of that group, get back to that group and put forth an offer and extend the offer, an open offer, that they can call me at Levack Real Estate any time and I'll spend as much time as they need to answer their questions. So it doesn't become, well, they're drawing the battle lines against this, because somebody's circulating a petition in the neighborhood, and they feel that they should sign it because everybody else is signing it. I just, you know, we live in this Town, too. I live right around the corner from this property at Glen Lake. I hope to be a purchaser of one of these lots in this development. I'm a life resident of Queensbury. I don't want to see Queensbury develop in a haphazard manner, anymore than those residents do at Sunnyside. So I'd like to say, I'm going to spend as much time as need be to go over our soil studies that we've had through the engineer and the soil scientist and share with your neighborhood the proposed lots. So I would highly encourage you to have everybody come by my office, take the time to do that. Other than that, the other comments I felt were very well placed. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Now do you have any further comments? Okay, because at this point what we'll do is close all the discussion down here, just within the Board and with Staff. So if that's the case, then we'll do that, and proceed to discuss this and go to a recommendation. Lets start with you, George. MR. STARK-Yes, I'm in favor of the recommendation. I say we vote - 44 - ---./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) on it. MR. MACEWAN-I'm teetering right now, teetering more toward making the recommendation, but I'm still teetering. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a couple of comments to make. Of course, it seems like I always do, but one is regarding so many concerns about the people who are in the opposing, like the "they" people, like Mark was just saying about all this property that's for sale in the Town of Queensbury, and, I don't know, there's like, and I'm not in real estate at all. So I have nothing to gain or lose by this statement. In other words, I've heard that there's over 300 houses for sale in Town, and why in the world are we approving more developments and more subdivisions. Now, what are we going to do, put a moratorium on building? For example, lets say some businesses want to come in, some industry wants to come in, well, we have 300 homes for sale here. So these are the 300 homes that your employees have to choose from, and then finally, so they buy all those up, and now we're down to five or six homes. Now, come on, that's not realistic. So now we only have five or six homes left. Now, if you don't want these, there's nothing, because we're not going to build anything else in this Town until those five or six homes that are left, you know, are sold, like five years ago we had 300, and it's taken us five years to get down to five or six. Now, obviously that sounds ludicrous, but sometimes, you know, when people say that, you know, you're thinking, well, yes, there are a lot of homes for sale. Why are these things coming to us? What do these people think they're going to do, sell this land, I mean, come on, but I think that you can't look at the other homes that are for sale, and you have to continue going on and try to be progressive but also try to be tolerant of everybody and of the environment, too. So, I just wanted to go on record as saying that, and another thing is, it's too bad that, maybe I can be a little empathetic here, as far as, you know, you've had all this land in your family for all these years, and it's really too bad that our country and our whole state of our economy has come to the point where, you know, you have to do something about it, and things are expensive, and I have an open ear there, but also on the other hand somebody could say, well, they inherited all that land. They're going to sell it and make a real killing and put a ton of bucks in their bank account for their children, you know. So, you know, you can look at it that way, too, but I think the humanistic way is land is a wonderful commodity to have, and to have it for many years in your family, and then have to get rid of it probably is kind of an emotional thing for many of you. So right now, I think I'm vacillating toward recommending it. MR. WEST-I'm also leaning toward approving it as well, but I think a bit more work, obviously, needs to go into some of the engineering details with respect to traffic and some of those questions that haven't been answered at this point, but I think a fair amount of work and effort's gone into the proposed layout and the design with respect to maintaining the aesthetics of the area as it exists right now, and based on what 1 see, I think that this could be a viable layout, and I'd support it. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. I think we're all leaning pretty much in the same direction. I lean also toward approval, but with limitation, or quite a number of conditions. You always learn things both from the applicant and from the public when you hear, and I think they put a very nice, realistic spin on the inheritance of land, because you think about that, as Cathy said, sometimes only as big bucks, but it doesn't work that way. I'm leaning toward approving of this because I don't think the opposition was strong and I think their understanding and I think your communication with them will help an awful lot in this situation, and my recommendation for approval would be limited by saying that there should be a limitation on lot size. There should be a - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) minimum lot size, that in depth, and we don't want to do Indian Ridge again, that there be in depth studies taken on traffic, school, soil analysis, the impact of the septic systems, and it should be in accordance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and those, I don't think, are unreasonable things to ask for, but I wish we'd have asked for them in the one before, and I tend to go in the direction of approval, but with a strong message to the Town Board for those limitations or specifications to go with it. MR. STARK-I think you're wrong, and I'll tell you why, because these people, they don't have money now to pay their taxes on the land, and you're asking them, before they go in front of the Town Board, you want them to do a traffic study and perc tests and this and that and everything. MRS. LABOMBARD-He means the developer. MR. PALING-It may be and it may not be that you need it that much in depth, because I look at the traffic here, and I think of what's happening at Indian Ridge, and it's hard for me to see a big problem, except at the Sunnyside intersection. No, I'm not asking that be done in depth right now. It's with the development. MR. STARK-I think the recommendation to the Town Board either be for it or against it, and no anything added to it. MR. PALING-No. That's the mistake we made before, George. I think we should. MR. MACEWAN-I disagree with George. MR. PALING-Yes. I think we very well should put some thoughts in there and not just say, approved as submitted. No way. I don't agree with that. MR. MACEWAN-I think maybe you should consider, too, if where all this is really coming from is the rural aspect of this tract of land, one of the things that Staff was kind of looking for here, if we were qoinq to make a recommendation, which I think is a good idea, is to keep as much of that existing rural aspect that we can, and one of the things that we're looking for is keeping those tree hedge lines in there, make that noted in a recommendation, should you make one, that that's what we'd be looking for to keep some of the rural aesthetics in there, so they can never be lost. MR. STARK-Bob, I can go along with that, the recommendation, the trees, to keep the hedgerows as much as possible. MR. PALING-Okay. Now we don't have to do a SEQRA on this. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-You can't. MR. PALING-We cannot. recommendation, right. Good. We're just going to do a MR. MACEWAN-Before we make any kind of recommendation, I would like to hear if Staff has any closing comments that they want to make on this. MR. GORALSKI-I think that Mr. MacEwan actually just brought up what would be my closing comment, and that is that, reflected in a couple of the letters, and I think even reflected in what the applicants have said, is that there's got to be sensitivity to the rural character of this portion of the community. We got hung up on what everyone's definition of clustering is. Clustering is just one way of attempting to maintain the rural character. I'm not - 46 - '-" --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) saying that you have to cluster, and that's the only way you can maintain the rural character. There could be several different ways to do that, and leaving the undevelopable space as open space is a way to do that. If there's some way of protecting the rural character of the roads, that's the type of thing we're looking to achieve, and I think that's what you want to guarantee, if you're going to rezone this from one acre lots, you just want to provide for the preservation of the rural character of the area. MR. PALING-Okay. Any final comments, one more shot? Everybody satisfied? All right. Do you want me to try a recommendation from what I had? Okay. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE P6-96 RONALD & SHIRLEY HARRIS HOWARD & BARBARA TOOMEY FRANK ZVERBLIS (BETTY ZVERBLIS) ALBERT & ELEANOR OUDEKERK, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: The Planning Board, in general, recommends approval of the change in zoning, but asks that the Town Board, in their analysis of this, give emphasis to minimum lot size, traffic impact, impact on schools, soil analysis, impact of septiê systems on the surrounding area, land and water, and that everything be done in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that overlaying all of this, that every attempt be made to preserve as much possible the rural character of the area. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Does the Town Board get a copy of these minutes? MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. LEVACK-Thank you all very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. Thank everybody. I've got one more item for us to talk about. MRS. LABOMBARD-What's this John Brock thing that I have in here? MR. PALING-That's September at the earliest. MRS. LABOMBARD-Should I save it? MR. PALING-Yes, I would save it. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-How did it get in today's? MR. GORALSKI-We were hopeful that possibly the variance question would be resolved by now, and that did not happen. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. MR. PALING-All right. I have made a suggestion that we have a workshop, and I've run this by Mark. The second item is we're meeting Thursday night, this Thursday. We have four agenda items. You have them now in your packets, and Tim won't be here, and - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) Roger's a question mark. So, please, if there's any chance you're not coming, call either Pam or myself. MR. GORALSKI-What do we have on for Thursday night? Curtis Lumber will not be here. MR. PALING-Curtis Lumber will not be here. Okay. It starts off with BMI Supply, Knights of Columbus, then it goes to Ermiger, and you say no. MR. GORALSKI-Ermiger will be on. Curtis Lumber will not. MR. PALING-We're down to three items, then. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-What's the matter with Curtis? MR. SCHACHNER-Presumably, I didn't know this was still the case, but I assume that if they're not on, it's because their issue with the Karner Blue butterfly and DEC sign off has not been resolved. MR. PALING-Yes, because that got more expensive I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know. I have no idea. MR. PALING-I've heard it's now in the eight to ten thousand. MR. GORALSKI-The only thing I can tell you is if they resolve something with DEC and with the Town before Thursday, we'll let you know, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. MR. PALING-Okay. Let me get to this workshop, okay. What I was proposing, I've run this by Mark, and I've run it by Jim Martin, and they both, evidentally, look upon it very favorably. The basic thing that I wanted to see was, by Mark, was a rundown on sort of both sides of the question, that is the rights of the applicant versus the rights of the community, involving heavily with Article 78, and you have an example of it tonight, and we've had lots of examples, where I think we could benefit from a review of both sides of this issue, when we have applicants before us, that is to say the rights of the applicant versus the rights of community, then also on the, Jim Martin, I believe, wants to talk about redefining the way we handle a meeting like we had tonight in regard to the public hearing versus the public comment, and I think they want to limit the things that we act on, so that we won't feel we need a public hearing. They'll want us to act on more of the technical aspects rather than those involving the public, and I think Jim will make a presentation on that. MR. STARK-When does this take place? MRS. LABOMBARD-When are we having this? MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Now there's also agenda control on there, I think Jim will talk about, and I'm asking maybe we start to think about cellular towers, because we may have more of that come before us. Insofar as a date is concerned, I'm saying that, lets try for the first part of October or the first part of November. How does that strike everybody, and is there anything that you would add, that you would like to have discussed by Mark or Jim or anything like that? Mark, do you want to comment on what part you may play in that? MR. SCHACHNER-My only comment would be, I'm not, as I said when you and I spoke on the phone, I'm still not exactly sure what I would have to say about the rights of applicants and the rights of the - 48 - '- ---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) community. I don't really have anything to say about that. I mean, I can tell the Board anything the Board wants to know about Article 78 proceedings, which we've had precious few of, because Article 78 proceedings, that's a name for a specific kind of court case. That doesn't have much to do, specifically, with the rights of community versus the rights of applicants. So I'm still in the dark as to what you mean about that. MR. PALING-Well, if I come in and you turn me down, and I take you into court, under Article 78, I'm coming in, that's the right of the applicant to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-No, it's anybody's right. Anybody who's affected by a decision, it could be an applicant or it could be an opponent. MR. PALING-It goes the other way, but then the community can rise up and say, I disagree with the applicant, you should agree more with my feelings. MR. SCHACHNER-And can bring this Board into court under Article 78, correct. MR. PALING-And that's the balance that we have to get, and maybe Article 78 is what we need to review and just discuss it. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, what are you worried about? MR. PALING-I didn't think we looked good at all on Indian Ridge. I think we could have given a better consideration to Indian Ridge. I think we might have given different consideration to the dock man, Lecce. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't have any recourse about Indian Ridge. Those facts and figures, I mean, they did an unbelievable presentation, Bob. I mean, heck, I'm not an engineer. I mean, they were. MR. STARK-Those people are hypocrites in Fox Hollow, period. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think that we got suckered into that. They did a great job in that presentation, and I don't think we should have any second thoughts about it, Bob. MR. SCHACHNER-For what it's worth, you also don't have any Article 78 litigation exposure on Indian Ridge or anything else in which you merely make a recommendation. Okay. Whenever this Board is acting just to make a recommendation, as you do for any proposed rezoning, you don't have any Article 78 litigation exposure, because you're not making any binding decision. That's why it merely is a recommendation. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, lets say we hadn't recommended it to the Town Board. That didn't mean a thing. It would still have gone on. MR. SCHACHNER-It certainly can. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, they don't need our recommendation to vote on a POD. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. They do not need it. That's correct. MR. GORALSKI-Well, by the way the law is written, that you need to have had the opportunity to make a recommendation, but you could say, yes, no, maybe. MR. SCHACHNER-Or nothing at all, right, or we're unable to make a recommendation. Right. That's correct. MR. PALING-Well, does anyone feel that a review of Article 78 would - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) be worthwhile or worthless? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, I'd put it down. As long as we're coming, get it all taken care of. MR. MACEWAN-I've been there. Know it. Love it. Seen it. Read it. MR. PALING-Well, I've done the same, but I'd still like some input. MR. MACEWAN-Worst case scenario, correct me if I'm wrong, if an Article 78 was ever put to Indian Ridge, it would nullify what they did if they were found in the opponent's behalf, it would just start their progress allover again, should the applicant want to come back in and start allover again. MR. SCHACHNER-That's correct. Yes. There's no such thing as an Article 78 court decision that says you are forbidden to rezone something. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig's exactly right. MR. PALING-Well, we've only had one Article 78 proceeding against this Board. We won that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there's been more than one over the years, but there's only been one with this Board constituted as it is, I believe. I believe that's correct, and we won that. MR. PALING-Okay. Do we want to work on a date? MR. WEST-You said October or November, right? MR. PALING-October or November, the first part of it is better for most of us I think, because the meetings are at the end of the month. MR. WEST-How about early November? MR. PALING-Early November has been suggested. MR. STARK-We've got two months before this, for crying out loud. We can set a date then. We don't have to set it now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. WEST-Well, you say that, but then things pop up in between. MR. PALING-Why don't we pencil a date in now, at least. How about Wednesday, November 6th? All right. Wednesday's fine? All right. John, the meeting room over at the building would be adequate for this. Can you check out for, tentatively November 6th, 7 o'clock will be the workshop, okay. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I will let you know. MR. MACEWAN-What was that date again? MR. PALING-November 6th, 7 o'clock. Thursday, everybody. Okay, and don't forget On motion meeting was adjourned. - 50 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/27/96) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 51 - '----'