Loading...
1996-10-15 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 67-96 RECOMMENDATION Kevin Quinn Tax Map No. 33-1-3.1, 3.2, 3.3 1. Site Plan No. 61-96 Ronald & Barbara Van Slooten Tax Map No. 42-1-3 3 . Site Plan No. 63-96 Walter C. Fisher Tax Map No. 109-4-1.2 6. Petition For Zone Change P4-96 Frank Parillo Tax Map No. 125-1-28 7 . 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 10/lS/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY DAVID WEST TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 18, 1996: NONE June 20, 1996: NONE June 25, 1996: NONE July 16, 1996: NONE July 23, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 6/18/96, 7/16/96, 7/23/96, Introduced by Roger Ruel adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: 6/20/96, who moved 6/25/96, for its Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 67-96 TYPE: UNLISTED RECOMMENDATION KEVIN QUINN OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9, 1/2 MILE NORTH OF RT. 149 APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE TO ALLOW VENDING AT OUTSIDE PARKING LOT FROM JUNE 2 - 7 - AMERICADE WEEK. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 12 - 95, 12 - 96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-3.1, 3.2, 3.3 LOT SIZE: 1.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 160 NAOMI PALEETO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 67-96, Kevin Quinn, Meeting Date: October 15, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to conduct a transient merchant market which would allow outside sales between June 2nd and 7th 1997. The sale would be in conjunction with the Americade festival and will be held at the nTee-Peen on Route 9. Similar applications for this temporary use at this location have been reviewed in the recent past. The main concerns of those previous reviews seemed to be the use of portable bathrooms and vehicular parking in between vendor booths at the front of the property. Staff would recommend approval of Site Plan 67-96 with - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) two stipulations: 1. The use of portable bathrooms will be restricted on the area of this site that is within the Town of Queensbury. 2. The parking of motor vehicles will not be permitted in the front of the property between vending booths." MS. PALEETO-Naomi Paleeto. MR. PALING-Okay. Are you familiar with these comments that George just made? MS. PALEETO-Yes. This is the same thing last year. We cut out the parking. It was in the tented areas of the vendors and we've never had port-a-jons on the property. It's a battle between Lake George and Queensbury. Everybody keeps on saying, put them on the other side. So we've just never had them. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-They're actually illegal in the Town anyway. MR. HILTON-In Queensbury, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, you can have them, but not in a place like this. MR. HILTON-Not in conjunction with a festival like this, and I don't even think they're allowed, except on construction sites. MR. PALING-Construction sites, yes. Okay. Do we have any questions or comments? There's a public hearing on this. So why don't we go right to it. We'll open the public hearing on the Kevin Quinn application. Is there anyone here that would care to speak about it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now this is an Unlisted. MR. HILTON-Yes. I have a comment, actually. There's a Warren County Planning Board letter in here that I should probably read into the record. It's just dated October 9, 1996. At that meeting, Site Plan No. 67-96 was reviewed, a recommendation of "No County Impact", and it's signed, C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. Unlisted Action. Now the only other thing is that this is an So we'd need a SEQRA on this? MR. HILTON-Yes, but the Town Board is lead agent, and my understanding is when it goes to the Town Board, that they will conduct the, there's a Short Form attached. They will review the Short Form at that time. MR. PALING-Then we won't have to do it here. MR. HILTON-Not this evening, no. MR. PALING-All right. Then I think we're, okay, then we don' t have any further action. If there's no further discussion, then lets go to a motion. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 67- 96 KEVIN QUINN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: - 2 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/lS/96) For a Transient Merchant license to allow vending at outside parking lot from June 2nd through the 7th, Americade Week, with two conditions. One, that the parking of motor vehicles will not be permitted in front of the property between vending booths, and second, that no portable bathrooms are permitted. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. MACEWAN-Just out of curiosity, they were in here last year for this. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-How long is this site plan good for? MR. HILTON-Like any other site plan, it would be a one year time frame on it, and seeing as how they want to conduct the sale in June of '97, they're just coming in early. They won't expire by June. MR. PALING-What's the one that goes for 18 months, George? MR. HILTON-I think 18 months might be just nonconforming uses. I think it's the timeframe for nonconforming uses, that if you have a nonconforming use and it doesn't operate for 18 months, then it looses its previous nonconforming status or legal nonconforming status. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. PALEETO-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 61-96 RONALD & BARBARA VANSLOOTEN OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: FROM COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, FOLLOW TO MANNIS ROAD, TAKE RIGHT ONTO FITZGERALD ROAD AND FOLLOW TO #91, BLUE SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE. PROPOSAL IS FOR ADDITION OF SECOND STORY AND ATTACHED STAIRWELL TO SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE. PER SECTION 179-79 EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 77-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 42-1-3 LOT SIZE: .25 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was a public hearing on September 17th, and it has remained open until tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 61-96, Ronald & Barbara VanSlooten, Meeting Date: October 15, 1996 "The applicant is proposing the construction of a second floor addition and an enclosed stairway on an existing home on Glen Lake. Variances have been granted from the ZBA for the setback of the new stairway and the overall increase in volume at this location. The applicant has submitted drawings which indicate that the height of this addition will conform to the requirements of the WR-1A district. All other zoning ordinance requirements will be met at this location, and staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 61-96." MR. PALING-You do have something from Warren County Planning? - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/lS/96) MR. HILTON-Yes, I do, and on the October 9, 1996 meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, this application was reviewed with the recommendation of "No County Impact", signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. What's the date of that letter? MR. HILTON-Date, October 9, 1996. MR. PALING-Okay. That supersedes the one that returned it to us. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any comments or questions here at the moment? Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. Mr. Chairman, my name is Martin Auffredou. I'm an attorney with the Bartlett, Pontiff law firm in Glens Falls. Sitting to my right is Lee Horning. Lee is the contractor for the project. We both represent the Van Slootens in this application, Dr. & Mrs. Ronald Van Slooten. They're from New Jersey. They own property on Glen Lake. As George correctly pointed out, in August we successfully obtained some variances from the Zoning Board for the project, and at this point, we did have a slight delay because we wanted to make sure that the plans were complete, and that's why we asked that the matter be tabled last month. Any questions that you have tonight are pretty much beyond my realm of expertise, and that's why I asked Mr. Horning to be here. My job was to get the variance through, and we did that, and at this point, I think we're simply just asking for your approval. I think it's a good project. I think it's going to be aesthetically quite pleasing from the lake. There's a lot of angles to the house. Dr. and Mrs. Van Slooten are very nice people. They're very lake conscious. This is going to be a nice addition to the area. At the time of the variance application, we had full support from the neighborhood. I haven't heard any objections from any neighbors since that time. So we're asking for your approval. We think it's a good project. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a question. I see a letter here from Horning Construction, and it has to do with the septic system, essentially. Who requested this? Is this from the applicant? MR. AUFFREDOU-I can tell you how that came about, sir. -That letter was generated as a result of an inquiry that came to mY office by Warren County Planning. When we were at that stage with Warren County Planning Board, the concern that they raised was the adequacy of the septic system. Knowing that that was going to come up at the Warren County Planning Board, not necessarily here, but that was going to be addressed by Warren County Planning Board, I asked Mr. Horning to make a site inspection investigation, and he did that. He's very familiar with the property, and that's basically the background of why that letter is there. MR. RUEL-Is this Mr. Horning? MR. AUFFREDOU-This is Mr. Horning. I introduced him earlier. This is Lee Horning. MR. RUEL-You're a contractor, but are you an expert in the septic area? LEE HORNING MR. HORNING-Well, I've put enough of them in, sir. MR. PALING-There is a bathroom being added, right? - 4 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/IS/96) MR. AUFFREDOU-That's correct. MR. PALING-And you're saying that there's enough capacity in there to take the additional bathroom? MR. HORNING-In my opinion there is, sir. MR. RUEL-But the criteria, I think, is the number of bedrooms, isn't it? MR. PALING-Bathrooms. MR. HILTON-Bedrooms would contribute, but in a case like this, with the upgrade that is proposed, there is nothing, at the time that the application was filed, that would cause us or make us really look at upgrading the septic systelu. If it's functioning and it's not failing, then our Ordinance just says, you know, it's apparent that it still will be operational, and assumes that it will continue with the proposed addition. MR. RUEL-And in your opinion, it is not failing, it is working? MR. HILTON-In our opinion, we have no indication or no record that it has been failing, and the applicant's letter indicates that they believe the system will be able to handle the increased floor area. MR. STARK-Lee, what's the perc rate out there in that area? Not specifically for that house, but the whole area there? MR. HORNING-I'd say three or four minutes. MR. STARK-That's true with that whole street, right? MR. HORNING-I would think so. MR. AUFFREDOU-What are the soils? MR. HORNING-Sandy loam. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. MR. AUFFREDOU-If I could just add here, Mr. Chairman and members, that the Van Slootens are very decent people. If there's a problem with the septic system, at some future date, they're going to correct it. There's no doubt in my mind. They're very good people. I know you may have a concern as to the adequacy, but at this point in time, it's not failing. If there is a problem in the future, they're going to do the right thing and they're going to get it corrected. MR. PALING-I still have one question in that regard. any numbers that say gallons per bedroom or per something, capacity? Do we have bathroom or MR. HILTON-I would have to look at the Code in more detail. MR. BREWER-New construction there is a standard, but if it's existing, I think it states that if it's adequate, if it's working and not failing, then until such time that it fails, they don't have to do anything. MR. HILTON-Right. That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments at the moment? All right. We'll open, or re-open, whichever the proper term is, the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to comment on the Van Slooten application? - 5 - ,.. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/1S/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PALING-This is a Type II, and we do not need a SEQRA, therefore. We can go, then, right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-96 RONALD & BARBARA VAN SLOOTEN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: For addition of second story and attached stairwell to single story residence. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, Members, thank you very much. you. Thank SITE PLAN NO. 63-96 TYPE II WALTER C. FISHER OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: ADJACENT TO WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT ON SOUTH SIDE. PROPOSAL IS TO UTILIZE EXISTING GARAGE AS A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OFFICE. ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 109-4-1.2 LOT SIZE: 19.3 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 WALTER FISHER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 63-96, Walter C. Fisher, Meeting Date: October 15, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to remodel an existing 30 foot by 40 foot building for the operation of a construction company office. This property is zoned LI-1A, and all land uses in this zone are subject to site plan review. This application includes the addition of a septic system and a water line to service this new building. Any concerns from the Queensbury Water Department should be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit for this addition. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 63-96." MR. HILTON-And in a letter dated October 9, 1996, the Warren County Planning Board reviewed this item, the recommendation was "No County Impact", and it's signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Do you have any concerns from the Queensbury Water Department? MR. HILTON-No, and in fact it's a simple connection. I just put that in. I think that, before a building permit is issued, before a co is issued, even, at this location, that any concerns at all, and I expect none, should be addressed at that time. MR. PALING-Okay. please. Would you identify yourself for the record, MR. FISHER-Yes. My name's Walter Fisher. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Any comments, questions? All right. I think, unless you have something to say, I'm just going to open - 6 - '- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/lS/96) the public hearing and keep moving. MR. FISHER-No, sir. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll open the public hearing on the Walter C. Fisher application. Does anyone care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And this is a Type II. No SEQRA. We can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-96 WALTER C. FISHER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To use existing garage as a construction company office, and the septic system and water service concerns from the Queensbury Water Department should be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to say anything. MR. FISHER-Thank you. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE - P4-96 TYPE: UNLISTED RECOMMENDATION ONLY FRANK PARILLO OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONING: SR-1A PROPOSED ZONING: MOBILE HOME OVERLAY APPLICANT PROPOSES EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE - FOREST WOOD MOBILE PARK. TAX MAP NO. 125-1-28 LOT SIZE: 2.387 ACRES PUBLIC COMMENT: OCTOBER 15, 1996 TOWN BOARD WILL HOLD OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AND SEQRA REVIEW JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Because the Town is holding the SEQRA Review and because public comment will be allowed tonight, we will not conduct a SEQRA. We will, however, allow public comment, but caution those who are commenting that they should go to the public hearing and make your views known there. We need the input here, because we need all input, so that we can make as good a recommendation as possible. We won't get into the depth that SEQRA requires, but we'll certainly listen to any public comment, but please, if you're going to comment here, also comment at the public hearing which will be held by the Town Board. MR. RUEL-So this is not a public hearing. MR. PALING-This is, public comment is allowed. MR. RUEL-That's always allowed, right? MR. PALING-It is. Well, not necessarily, but that is the way this is set up. There'll be a public comment at this meeting, and a public hearing at the Town Board meeting. STAFF INPUT - 7 - ." (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/IS/96) Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change - P4-96, Frank Parillo, Meeting Date: October 15, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 2.3 acres of land to a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. The property is located at the northwest corner of Van Dusen Road and Pitcher Road. The property to the east is zoned LI-1A, the property to the south is zoned SR-1A and the property to the north is currently a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. The applicant's proposal is to create 10 new mobile home sites which will be surrounded by a permanent no cut buffer area along Van Dusen and pitcher Roads. A home and garage currently exist within the proposed buffer area. The Planning Board may wish to consider closing the access Point off Pitcher Road and redirecting it to the internal access road to be built as a part of this proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The site is relatively level in topography and contains a somewhat dense cover of pine trees. The site is not served by municipal sewer, but does have the capability of connecting to the Town water supply. According to the Soil Survey of Warren County prepared by the US Dept. of Agriculture, the soil composition at this location is identified as Oakville loamy fine sand. This soil type is a rapidly draining soil which is known for poorly filtering effluent. As a part of this rezoning, the applicant is proposing to include a buffer area along Pitcher Road and Van Dusen Road. This buffer area will be a no cut area that will keep the existing vegetation in that portion of the site. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS This property which is located at the northwest corner of pitcher Road and Van Dusen Road is proposed to have vehicular access through an internal road that will connect with the existing mobile home park to the north. It appears that the surrounding road system has the capacity to handle the traffic that will be produced with the ten proposed lots. As mentioned before, the Planning Board may wish to eliminate the existing curb cut for the house and garage at the corner of Pitcher and Van Dusen Roads and redirect access to the proposed internal road that will serve this site. The elimination of this curb cut would eliminate a curb cut which is about 40 feet from an intersection to the east and would reduce activity in the proposed natural buffer. STAFF COMMENTS This application represents infill development which would create new mobile home lots directly abutting an existing mobile home park. One of the positive effects of this proposal would be the creation of affordable home sites within the Town of Queensbury. Increased traffic, glare and noise associated with this expansion will change from what exists at this location. The result of this proposed expansion would be that Pitcher Road and Van Dusen Road would now be the edge of the mobile home park, separating it from the areas to the south and east. The applicant has proposed a natural buffer to screen this area from surrounding properties. The overall dimensions of this buffer are yet to be determined, and the Planning Board should address what dimensions are necessary in order to adequately buffer this site from the surrounding neighborhood." MR. PALING-Okay. Now do you have any other comments on this one? MR. HILTON-No, we don't. No Warren County or any other agency. MR. PALING-All right. Is there someone here representing the applicant? MR. RI CHARDS - Good evening, my name i s John Ri chards . I'm the attorney for Frank Parillo, the owner and the applicant for this project, and we are here to answer any questions that you may have. If I can just give a little bit of background, we first proposed a Mobile Home Overlay Zone for this particular parcel by an application in 1994. This Board did recommend approval of that application at that time. The Town Board subsequently disapproved the application. There was neighborhood concerns, concerns of some of the neighbors, and after some extensive work here, we have reduced the number of lots to address those concerns and expanded - 8 - '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/lS/96) the buffers and done a lot of work with the Planning Department and come up with what we feel is an excellent plan, and I believe that the Planning Department feels the same way. So we are here to propose something that addresses those concerns, and still utilizes the property. MR. PALING-The last sentence of George's report, the over dimension of this buffer yet to be determined. Do you want to address that? MR. RICHARDS-Well, you know, we've had meetings with the Planning Department and the Planning Committee of the Town Board relative to this proposal. As you can think, I think you should have a map or a layout that shows 10 lots, in particular the buffer area facing pitcher Road is wider than it was in the initial proposal several years ago. We have not put a specific length on any buffer area at this point. We've actually put a designation that the Town Board was to ultimately determine. I believe, and I may be wrong here, but I do believe that was something that some of the Planning Committee members wanted to reserve to them. MR. PALING-Reserve for the Town Board, you mean? MR. RICHARDS-I believe. where it came from. recollection of that. I could be wrong, but I believe that's George, maybe you have some better MR. HILTON-To tell you the truth, I haven't been involved in the discussion at this point, but ultimately if this Board felt they wanted to make a recommendation on the size of the buffer, they could. MR. PALING-Okay. The other thing I remember from your reading here is the existing driveway, the possibility of eliminating that. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. I'm sorry. Mr. Parillo just mentioned. Some of the Board members have been out. These buffer zones are set based upon their inspections of the property and certainly are wider than the buffer in the existing mobile home park. So that's where that came from, that language, I think. MR. PALING-How big is the buffer, how wide? MR. RICHARDS-Well, it varies, as you can see, and I'd have to get out a scale to give you the proposed dimensions. MR. WEST-It looks like almost 50 feet MR. RICHARDS-Fifty, and then it goes up, it's wider on the pitcher Road parcel. MR. BREWER-If that's 40 there, it's got to be 80 there. MR. WEST-That's 55, so that's about 55. MR. PALING-What's the scale? MR. RICHARD-One to thirty. You can see it's wider on the Pitcher Road side. MR. HILTON-I measure it, at Pitcher Road, a minimum of 35 feet, a maximum 70, and on VanDusen Road it appears to be a minimum 50, maximum 63, 64. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-Bob, I'm sorry I interrupted you. about the access, I believe? You were talking - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/lS/96) MR. PALING-Yes. Now the pitcher Road access. I think you said the elimination of that is being considered? MR. RICHARDS-No. I think that came to light really with George's comments. I want to emphasize, there's no Pitcher Road access envisioned under this new proposal. MR. PALING-For the ten lots, that's only for that house. MR. RICHARDS-Well, let me just take a step back. There's an existing access road off Pitcher for the mobile home park, as there is one off VanDusen. This particular extension of the park, these ten lots, are going to be strictly serviced by this internal road that you see here. All right. The only access that's shown here is one that's been here, I don't know how old that home is, but certainly 50 years old, this home on the corner where it says, house. That's the driveway for that house. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. RICHARDS-And no mobile home park use is intended to extend over to that driveway. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Do we have a map that the Town Board ultimately denied before to compare with this one? MR. RICHARDS-Well, it's been through so many revisions. There was a 12 lot. I have one. I'm not sure this was the first one submitted, but that'll just give you an idea of the difference in the buffer. We've dramatically expanded the buffer. If you haven't been by there recently, you have to envision this also that the Town right-of-way, before you even get to the lot, is heavily wooded as well. There's a very substantial amount of woods there. MR. MACEWAN-I guess from Staff, you're commenting here about the soil composition. Would you clarify that a little bit for me. MR. HILTON-Just per our normal review of re-zonings, these lots are going to be operating off of individual septic systems. I just thought I would provide the Board with some comment on what the US Department of Agriculture classifies this soil as, and how it relates to individual septic systems. MR. MACEWAN-Are there any numbers as to how much density that they put on an area with those soil conditions? MR. HILTON-I don't have any numbers and the report didn't identify any numbers. The statement that I've put into my notes is pretty much word for word almost what the report said, and that's the only information that it gave. MR. MACEWAN-Is the entire park that way? MR. HILTON-The entire area is identified in that report as the same soil type. MR. MACEWAN-But the entire parcel (lost words)? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. As a matter of fact, when Mr. Parillo purchased the park in the mid-eighties, he went through and upgraded the entire septics for each one. MR. STARK-Mr. Parillo, what septic system do you put for each trailer, like a thousand gallon tank ~ith one drywell? - 10 - ',,-, --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) FRANK PARILLO MR. PARILLO-A thousand gallon concrete tank for every two lots, with a drywell. Presently, the existing park is 186 lots, some of which there are as many as 10 homes on one septic system. We pump them every 18 months to 24 months. MR. STARK-Have you ever had any of them fail? MR. PARILLO-Very seldom. MR. RUEL-I've got a lot of comments. First of all, I don't think we should make a recommendation without a public hearing, without a SEQRA. We're getting ourselves in the same box that we got in. MR. PALING-No, this is a different. MR. RUEL-I know, but we still, it's still a situation where we really, I don't feel we have all the inputs that we need to make a recommendation. MR. PALING-Let me just comment on that, that there has been a regular notification and mailing to everyone within 500 feet of this job site, and they're given the opportunity to come here and comment. MR. RUEL-Well, you called it a public comment. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. RUEL-It's not· a public hearing? MR. SCHACHNER-It's only a technical distinction, Roger. It's not a formal public hearing because neither State law nor Town law require a public hearing for your recommendation for re-zoning. This Board took the position, and I think it's perfectly fine, that you wanted to have maximized public input prior to issuing any recommendations to the Town Board for any re-zonings. Therefore, as Bob correctly points out, your re-zoning requests for recommendations have now been advertised by public meetings, to the extent that neighbors have been notified and the Chairman has offered them the opportunity to speak and be heard. MR. RUEL-So therefore it's as effective as though it was a public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-That's the idea. MR. RUEL-But it's called something else because the Town Board has the public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Let me also add, Roger, as far as SEQRA Review, you can't do the SEQRA Review. That has to be done by the Town Board, by law, on any re-zoning. MR. RUEL-AIl right. Now, I would vote no on this recommendation, and I'm going to give my reasons. First of all, I feel that mobile homes are a poor investment. They have no equity. Affordable housing is available throughout the community. Mobile homes are not necessary. In my experience, mobile home overlays tend to devaluate surrounding residential areas. Queensbury has too many mobile homes. Other communities have banned future mobile homes as a result of this. Those are my comments and my reasons for voting no on this recommendation. MR. WEST-Just a general question. What are the typical characteristics of a mobile home on the site, in terms of square footage and number of bedrooms, that kind of stuff? - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. PARILLO-Well, all the mobile homes vary, of course. We've got probably eight or nine double wides, which are typically three bedrooms, but your typical mobile home is two or three bedrooms. This is a very old park, when I purchased the park. I think it was built in the 50's. So there are some older homes there that are well maintained. They do have value. When typically a 1970 mobile home costs, new, under $2,000, they're selling, today, for $7,000, $8,000, $9,000, which means that somebody lived in the home for 20 years, is increased value. Some of the double wides are $60,000. A typical lot size is, there's about four or five homes to an acre. You don't want real large lots, because they're very difficult for elderly people to maintain. We maintain the park. We pick up the trash. We own four parks, 500 sites. It's not a hobby for us. We're very strict on the rules. You can ride through the park there right now, tonight, and you'll see one unlicensed vehicle, which they were notified today, and it is a good community for elderly people, for young people starting out. They can buy a mobile home with very little down if they have good credit, and they do have a place to live that's, you know, well maintained. MR. WEST-Are you at capacity now? demand here? I mean, is there a pent up MR. PARILLO-We have probably three or four vacancies, and we could be at capacity, but we're very fussy as to who we accept. We don't take any pets. We have a maximum of four people that we like to keep to, because of the septic systems. We're on Town water. So we don't have a water problem. The roads are all paved. Street lights, and it's a nice community. MR. WEST-Is it generally retired people or young people? MR. PARILLO-Not really. There's many families that have been there 25 or 30 years. We have a list of complimentary letters that I keep a file on, that I'd be happy to share with you.·· We've never been cited by the Health Department, since we've owned it. We've been before the Attorney General once for refusing entry to somebody that had a drug conviction, and we're kind of proud of what we've done. MR. RICHARDS-If I can add one thing, Mr. Parillo is very proud of what he's done, and if you ever have a chance to go through there, I recommend that you do. There's kind of an inherent bias, and perhaps, Mr. Ruel, you feel that way in that you're against any mobile home, but this does serve a valuable affordable housing option, particularly for the elderly. I think there's at least one wing or one street that's virtually all elderly people that work with the small lots. It works well. As Mr. Parillo said, no health code violations, no zoning violations, none of these things. He's dramatically upgraded the property since he's been there. There's a wide variety of people, some very prominent people that live there, and one of the homes I believe won a Beautification award from the Town Beautification Committee. So I really think you have to keep an open mind about that. I'm a little disturbed to hear the kind of comments that you're just viscerally just against a mobile home, because I don't think that's being fair, as an option, and as a permitted option within the Town. MR. RUEL-My comment wasn't specific to this park. It was with mobile homes in general, all the overlays. I mean, I've been in other ones here in Queensbury and other communities, and they're definitely no asset to the community, absolutely not. MR. BREWER-I'll just touch on that for a second. I think, Roger, what you're saying has a little bit of merit, only because it's your opinion, but I don't think we should sit here, as a Board, and say because someone can't afford a new home they shouldn't be able to live in a mobile home park. That's mY opinion. Some people - 12 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) can't afford a new home. MR. RUEL-Well, if you've got HUD homes you don't even have to have any money. MR. BREWER-I don't want to debate it. There is a need for it, but there are mobile home parks in this Town, and I think there are vacancies, and I think the term here used, affordable housing, has been beaten to death in this Town. That's mY opinion. I mean, every time somebody wants to re-zone a piece of property, they use affordable housing. There's plenty of it around. I don't think that's a reason to expand a mobile home park. There's I don't know how many. We approved a mobile home park two years ago, last year, with I don't know how many, 70 lots in it or something I guess, but I don't see a real big need for it now. That's just illY opinion. Along with another reason is, I don't have any determined buffer areas. I mean, that could change to 10 feet. I don't want to go on speculation, I guess. MR. PALING-We can specify that, though, in the recommendation. MR. BREWER-Right. We can recommend anything we want, but I'm looking at a site plan that could be, if the buffer is 60 feet, it could be down to 10 feet, whether we recommend that it be 75 feet. MR. PALING-Well, if we recommend, it's up to the Town Board to either accept it or change it. MR. BREWER-Right, whether we say 75 feet or 50 feet or 10 feet. MR. MACEWAN-On that topic. Along the existing portion of VanDusen Road, the older portion of the park, what's the buffer zone there? What's that, about 30 feet? MR. PARILLO-About 30 feet, or less. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. This buffer proposed here is wider than any other buffer on the mobile home park that exists, and this is logical in-fill. We're not asking for a brand new park, which apparently you all you've already permitted. MR. BREWER-Essentially it is, though, that portion of the land. It's been vacant. MR. RICHARDS-Yes, but it's in-fill. almost surrounded by the park. It's adjacent, and actually MR. PALING-Okay. We may want to come back to the discussion, but for now, why don' t we move to the public hearing part of the meeting. We'll open the public comment on the Frank Parillo application. PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED TOM CONDON MR. CONDON-I have a prepared statement. My name is Tom Condon. I'm an immediate impacted property owner, and I will start right at the beginning. I have a prepared statement. I'd like to stick with that prepared statement, rather than waste time. MR. PALING-Where are you? MR. CONDON-Okay. I'm immediately across the Pitcher Road entrance to the park, main entrance, not the proposed or additional entrances. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. WEST-There is no additional entrances proposed. MR. PALING-Yes, but here's Pitcher here. MR. CONDON-I didn't say off Pitcher, but the access as described by the parties seeking Petition for Zone Change have indicated there will be another entrance coming off VanDusen I believe. MR. WEST-There's no additional. MR. CONDON-Okay. You're not proposing any additional entrances. My property runs from Corinth Road through to pitcher Road. MR. PALING-Okay. You're across the street. MR. CONDON-I'm across the street, correct. I have indicated that I am in opposition to the proposed zoning change. "Good evening. My name is Tom Condon". We were getting to that. "I am an engineer employed by Finch Pruyn. I live at 510 Corinth Rd., Queensbury. I would like to thank the Planning Board for this opportunity for public comment on the Parillo Petition for a Change of Zone. My property runs between Corinth Rd. and Pitcher Rd. and would be directly and adversely impacted by the change of zone if approved. Mr. Parillo's Petition for Change of Zone is self serving and is flawed as he stands to make a substantial amount of money estimated to be in the amount of $2000.00 to $3000.00 per month at the expense of the Town of Queensbury Tax Payers and most assuredly the immediate area property owners. His request is based upon the erroneous assumption that the Town of Queensbury needs and would benefit from more trailer court lots. 1. The Town of Queensbury already has 4 or 5", not 4 or 5, but 5, "separate trailer courts and of these there are a large number of vacancies estimated to be in excess of 80." So I would agree with the gentleman who commented along these lines. "In addition there are in fact a number of vacancies and trailers for sale now existing in Mr. Parillo's trailer court for which he is seeking this zoning change which in fact directly contradicts Mr. Parillo's statement in his petition for change of zone dated February 8, 1996 where he states that the additional mobile home lots will help to meet the tremendous need for affordable housing within the Town." I think that speaks for itself. "Mr. Parillo simply does not have any facts to back up such a statement. In addition the Town of Queensbury has not current studies that demonstrate or indicates that the Town of Queensbury needs or would benefit from an expansion of Mr. Parillo's trailer court. I can tell you that my property values will be negatively impacted. I made a substantial investment in 1992 when I'purchased my property expecting to be protected by the existing zoning laws. 1. There already is and has been real problems created by Mr. Parillo's trailer court by trailer court residents vehicle noise particularly the younger residents that peel rubber, roar engines, or initiate racing at the intersections exiting the trailer court particular at the trailer court Pitcher Rd. entrance, the main entrance, Pitcher Road to Van Dusen intersection and Van Dusen to Corinth Rd. intersection. 2. The litter left by trailer court residents along side the road particularly along the sides of the road by the main Pitcher Rd. entrances is of particular concern, litter which also ends up on the Pitcher Rd. end of my property which I have to pick up and remove as Mr. Parillo and the Town of Queensbury have not addressed even though I raised the concern a year ago the last time Mr. Parillo brought a similar petition for trailer court expansion to the Town. Fortunately his petition was voted down by the Town Board who having heard from the majority of immediate area private home owners outside of the trailer court who voiced their concerns and objections. Over 40 signatures were submitted to the Town at the time in obj ection to the trailer court expansion. This condition will not improve with more trailer court residents. 3. Does anyone on the Planning Board know of any current and - 14 - (Queensbury Plànning Board Meeting 10/15/96) comprehensive study being performed that can demonstrate or prove that this trailer court expansion will not adversely affect my property values or that of the other immediate area private home owners or that in fact that additional trailer court space can be justified by current conditions or requirements of our Town? 4. Are there any Planning Board members or Town Board members who would want this requested change of zone made if they had made a substantial investment as I did in 1992 expecting that the existing zoning laws would be maintained particularly if it was where they lived and was their primary investment? I do not think so. Next let me direct your attention to the erroneous and misleading statements in Mr. Parillo's Petition for Zone Change dated February 8, 1996 as submitted to the Town of Queensbury: 1. Under what need will be met? Mr. Parillo states that this change will help address the continuing need for affordable housing in the Town of Queensbury. " I submit there is no need for affordable housing. The last study that was made was in 1989, when a Master Plan was formulated. "There is no current study or other wise proven need particularly with all the current vacancies." In other words, we're speaking of in excess, right now, in existing trailer courts totally a number five at least I'm aware of in the Town of Queensbury in the area, if not exceeding 80. One of the trailer parks we haven't even been able to look at from the standpoint of vacancies, but of the four, only four of the five, there are at least 80 vacancies now existing. "2. Under what existing zones if any can meet the stated need? Mr. Parillo states: None. I would certainly take exception to that statement in light of the fact that the Town already has, not 4 or 5, but 5 separate trailer courts that have a large number of vacancies and trailers for sale." I haven't even addressed the numbers of trailers for sale, but there are trailers for sale in Mr. Parillo's park currently. .. In addition there is no current study concluding that more trailer courts or capacity is or would be needed or the best way to provide affordable housing in the Town of Queensbury." I would agree with the gentleman that addressed this area. "There are other locations in the Town if trailer courts ever were to be needed or desirable in the future. 3. Under how is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? Mr. Parillo responds by stating that the proposed zone is adj acent to Forest Park Mobile Home Park located in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. He further states that it is a corner parcel and would be a logical in-fill of mobile home use. I certainly disagree with his statement in that it is not a logical in-fill of mobile home use based upon the following facts: 1. The corner parcel is the only effective buffer zone protecting my property value and quality of life of private residences outside the mobile trailer court. The size of which should not be allowed to be diminished at all. The zoning laws should be maintained that existed when Mr. Parillo purchased the mobile home trailer court." In other words, he purchased knowing what the restrictions were, what the existing zoning laws were. He certainly knew because with that kind of investment everybody would check into such matters. "2. It is not a logical in-fill in light of the fact that so many immediate area private property residents outside the trailer court have objected to an expansion and change in zone. Over 40 signatures, I have a copy of those signatures with me, were submitted to the Town Board a year ago in opposition and the Town Board rejected his request for change of zone." There's very little change, in my mind, based on what Mr. Parillo initially offered as support documents and numbers of lots a year ago, which was rejected by the Town Board, and 40 signatures, and a number of people took a lot of time to address this matter, out of real and valid concerns, and in fact, with his petition, submitted February 8th in 1996, this year, and on file in the Planning Department, up until last week, was a map, and only a map, indicating 12 lots. His petition also only indicates 12 lots. He can't define, at this point in time, what the buffer zone is. He doesn't even, he hasn't even taken the time to define it. He's leaving it up in the air. He's saying it's this or it's that. That certainly has to be - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96)- nailed down. "4. Under why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question?" That's another item on his petition that he answers "Mr. Parillo gives no justifying reason rather states simply that no mobile homes are allowed under the existing classification. I would suggest that the current zoning classification is appropriate and in fact necessary to protect the immediate area private resident's property values and quality living. S. Under What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Mr. Parillo responds by stating simply that the applicant anticipates no significant environmental impact. I would suggest there are a number of potential if not obvious environmental impacts: 1. There already is a real noise problem as has already been mentioned and consider the fact that there already is well in excess of 100 mobile homes", I didn't know at the time, he mentioned 180, "now existing on Mr. Parillo's site. The problem could only get worse with more people and a reduced buffer zone. 2. There already is a littering problem which is real and very unacceptable for which Mr. Parillo or the Town has taken no action to correct. This condition would only get worse with more mobile homes if allowed. 3. Mr. Parillo has established a land fill in very close proximity to Clendon Brook. Is it legal and is the clean water of Clendon Brook being affected? Will more mobile homes and more dumping into the landfill affect the quality of water in Clendon Brook?" I would say that's an environmental concern. "4. Is the soil in the existing mobile home trailer court suitable for a land fill that has been established in such close proximity to Clendon Brook?" After hearing the details of 10 or more trailers on one, 1,000 gallon tank, I would say that whoever the responsible bodies are looking into the sanitary and septic systems, not only what is proposed but what the existing is, I would think that it would merit and certainly would have to be investigated before any serious thought would be given to an expansion or a change in existing zoning. MRS. LABOMBARD-He said five trailers, not ten. MR. CONDON-Okay. Well, whatever, the number of trailers being five on a 1,000 gallon tank, most homes have aI, 000 gallon tank. "There are a number of existing mobile homes' located in close proximity to Clendon BroQk. Are their domestic septic systems affecting the quality of water in Clendon Brook? S. Under how is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? Mr. Parillo responds by stating that this proposal increases the availability of affordable and alternative housing choices listed as goals of the Town Master Plan. I respectfully submit that the last time the Town formulated a Master Plan was in 1989 and that the need for or desirability of additional mobile home sites has not been established by the Town. What has been established by people objecting to Mr. Parillo's Petition for Change of Zone is that there is currently a large number of vacancies in the already existing 5 separate trailer court sites in the Town of Queensbury. In addition there are a number of vacancies currently even on Mr. Parillo's trailer court for which he requests a change of zone and trailers for sale. S. Under how are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? Mr. Parillo responds by stating that additional affordable housing provided in an orderly and aesthetically pleasing manner. There is no current established need for more mobile trailer courts and I would suggest that it would not be orderly and aesthetically pleasing. In addition as has been previously mentioned there would be real and severe negative impact on the property values and quality of living of the immediate area private resident property owners. 6. Under Item No.7 statement made in support of this petition the following statement is given: This proposed re-zoning is a logical extension of the existing Mobile Overlay Zone. No change in ownership, removal of existing improvements, or substantial site work is required for the purpose intended. 11 That is the response by Mr. Parillo. This is his - 16 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) addition comment, continuing. liThe additional mobile home lots created will help to meet the tremendous need for affordable housing within the Town. II I think that's been discussed tonight, to the extent that certainly there isn't a tremendous need for affordable housing. Certainly, not in the form of mobile homes. "I find the statement incredible, Mr. Parillo's statement, his response in his petition submitted to the Town, and totally without foundation in fact for all the previous reasons given in this my submittal. Mr. Parillo has submitted a Short Environmental Assessment Form describing the project as being a 12 lot expansion and has also submitted maps for a 12 lot expansion. His revised additional map now indicates 10 lots yet there has been no timely submittal of the necessary support documents indicating a petition for 10 lots therefore his petition is not in proper form is in fact flawed and lacks credibility for all the previously given reasons. I respectfully urge the Planning Board, Town Board, Zoning Board, and Warren County Department of Planning & Community Development to reject Mr. Parillo's request for Change of Zone as submitted to the Town of Queensbury which would allow him to expand his mobile home trailer court designated 'Forest Park' for the following reasons: His petition is flawed and lacks credibility. It is self serving in that Mr. Parillo stànds to make a substantial amount of money at the expense of the environment, immediate area private residents and will not serve the best interests or current needs of the Town of Queensbury. A careful comprehensive review of existing conditions In Mr. Parillo's existing mobile home trailer court should be conducted to assure that existing conditions are not violating existing environmental laws and the existing laws and regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the State of New York. Testing should be conducted on the quality of water of Clendon Brook to determine if the existing trailer park conditions are contaminating or could contaminate Clendon Brook. Respectfully Submitted, Thomas H. Condon 510 Corinth Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804" Thank you for this opportunity. MR. PALING-I'd like to ask you a question, Mr. Condon. I think some of the other Board members might want to, also. In the early part of your presentation, you talked about 80 vacancies. MR. CONDON-Yes. MR. PALING-What's your source on that? MR. CONDON-A run by, by one of the concerned area residents, and telephone calls to the actual parks to determine the actual numbers of vacancies, and furthermore I can give you, I think if anybody on the Planning Board would take the time, that they would confirm that there are indeed 80 or more vacancies within the five existing trailer courts. MR. BREWER-You mentioned a couple of times in here about a landfill. MR. CONDON-Yes. MR. BREWER-Should we and do we know what's in the landfill? MR. CONDON - I have no idea what's in the landf i II . In driving through Mr. Parillo's park and trying to be as far and as open in my comments as I could be, and concerned about the environment as well as my own property, there obviously is a landfill that's been established in very close proximity to Clendon Brook, and I guess that would be on the north or west side of this trailer park. In any event, I think the landfill is known by Town Officials, and my concern would be that the distance ought to be known as to how close it is, in fact, to Clendon Brook and what is in it. Who knows? I saw paper. I saw plastic. I saw a lot of bushes, shrubs, and that sort of thing, in just a quick run by. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. MACEWAN-What makes you think that the Town officials know that this landfill exists? MR. RICHARDS-I would like to address that. MR. PALING-Excuse me. You'll be back up. MR. CONDON-I went to Planning and tried to get information background and as much facts as I could, and I think that someone made a comment that they were looking into the soil conditions and also miqht have a concern about the landfill. MR. WEST-Mr. Condon, you purchased your property in 1992? MR. CONDON-Right. MR. WEST-Did you move to that location? MR. CONDON-Yes. It's what they term, I guess in real estate terms, an owner occupied duplex. It has a large owner section, and it has a rental unit attached. MR. WEST-Did you know that the trailer court existed when you bought your property? MR. CONDON-I was aware that there was a trailer court in the area, but it is very effectively, or has been quite effectively, buffered by the existing buffer zone. So when I drove by and what not, it didn't make a big adverse impression on me at that time. MR. WEST-So did you inquire as to noise or traffic or littering or any of those considerations at the time you purchased your property, to see if there was any adverse? MR. CONDON-I guess I inquired, as you would inquire, about all the things you would normally think of when you purchase property, and with that buffer zone, I guess I wasn't pursuing that as intensely as perhaps I should have. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, do you live, I drive up Van Dusen onto Pitcher into Brickoven at least 12, 14 times a week. Where are you on Pitcher Road? MR. CONDON-Okay. Lets orient ourselves off Van Dusen. third lot in from Van Dusen. I'm the MRS. LABOMBARD-On the left, as you're going west. MR. CONDON-Correct, if you're coming off Corinth and going down Van Dusen, or if you're going down Van Dusen, before you turn on pitcher. On Van Dusen, as you come off Corinth, there are three separate parcels, one of which is occupied and presently, I think Werner is the name of the family that lives there. There's a home. There's a garage. There's a residence. There's a vacant lot between the Werner property and my property. I'm the third parcel down from Van Dusen. It takes me, not directly, at the entrance, opposite to the main entrance, because there's existing house there, a smaller red house that's right opposite the entrance, main entrance to the trailer park. I'm more or less right across from the so called buffer zone, the area that is being proposed for the existing trailer. MRS. LABOMBARD-But your property faces, the front of your house has an address of what? MR. CONDON-S10 Corinth Road. It used to be 3SSA, before the. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe to put it in better perspective, how much wooded - 18 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) area is from your back door, the back of your cleared area on your home site is there to Pitcher Road. MR. CONDON-How much on illY property? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I mean, you haven't got your back yard clear cut all the way to pitcher Road. MR. CONDON-No, but I would certainly like the opportunity to use more of my property. The one reason I haven' t even addressed that, or cut down any more trees is because of my concern for the trailer park. MR. MACEWAN-How much woods do you have standing between Pitcher Road and your wooded area? MR. CONDON-I haven't measured it, so I wouldn't want to hazard a guess, less than 50 feet. MR. MACEWAN-Less than 50 feet. MR. CONDON-I would think. I don't know. I haven't measured it. I would welcome any Board members that want to look at it to come out and tour my property. I'd be very happy to take you through my property, on my property, and you can measure or do whatever you want to do. The point is that my property runs from Corinth Road to pitcher Road. I have every right to be able to expect to use my property, entirely, and not have to hold a wooded area to protect myself from a now expected zone change, or anticipated or requested zone change. I bought the property, not having in mind that I was going to keep that wooded area there forever. I, like everybody else, would like to be able to use my land and utilize it to its full value. I certainly would not be able to do that if this additional trailer court was to go in there and a zone change was made. I bought expecting the zoning laws to protect my property values, as I think anybody else would. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? ROLAND AKINS MR. AKINS-I'm Roland Akins. I'm on the Corinth Road, and my wife and I live on the Corinth Road, and I'll agree with Tom Condon. There isn't much I can add to it, except the buffers. Mr. Parillo's got a track record on these buffers. West of the entrance on Pitcher Road, there was a good buffer there. It's completely cut off. That's one. The Van Dusen Road, he says 30 feet buffers. If it was, that's all cut off. You can see the back of the trailers, the junk in there. Besides this large dump, there's another concern of mine, real concern. I own 2,000 feet on Clendon Brook, south of his property on the other side of the Corinth Road. That's a classified brook, and I've asked the Planning Department before. I've asked, what is the ruling on this? If he's within 30 feet of the Brook of dumping brush at this point, and he keeps adding. You have subdivisions. You won't let them have a stump dump on their property. How can he have a landfill there? It was filled after it was rejected the last time by the Town Board. He filled over the top, but there was bags in there, plastic bags. Who knows what was in them. Maybe they were just needles or something. We don't know. MR. HILTON-Well, to tell you the truth, this is the first that I've heard of this, personally? MR. AKINS-I called Jim Martin over a week ago, and he was going out and check it out. MR. MACEWAN-I might be able to shed a little bit of light on this, - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) from an experience I had years ago. When they were developing the other end of Morningside Circle, they had someone coming in, clearing the lots in there, and instead of hauling away most everything, he was taking it and just pushing it over the bank, right down near Clendon Brook, and he came within 10 feet of the Brook. I called George Steck and he came up to look at it, and he said that they were not violating any DEC law, unless they absolutely put it in the Brook, and I couldn't believe it either, but that's what he told me. MR. PALING-Well, if there is any kind of a dumping violation, this can be taken up separate from what we're talking about here. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. AKINS-Yes, but it's the whole package. It's the expansion of the trailer park. There'll be more brush. Where's he going to dump the brush from this area? Besides that, my wife and I applied for a variance to put a mobile home on 30 acres of land. I live on the opposite side of Corinth Road. I've lived there for 35 years. My daughter, when she came back to this area, we wanted to put her in just a mobile home for a short time, just a temporary, we were rejected. At that time, we were told, put her up a modular. That's what we were told. Mr. Werner lives on the corner of Van Dusen, Pitcher, Corinth Road. He applied for a variance, a short time, two or three years after that, and he was turned down. Now, it would look like it was clear discrimination if you go ahead and approve thi s , or recommend it be approved. It's al ready been turned down by the Town Board. It's come back with very little changes, hardly any changes that I can see. There's no buffer measurements on there. Mr. Champagne gave us a lecture that night. He was the only one that voted for the expansion, and he gave us a lecture that this was an ideal spot for a mobile home expansion, and that's the only reason I think it's back here tonight. MR. PALING-Thank you. Is there anyone else? MR. AKINS-Mr. Werner had to work tonight. That's the reason they aren't here. EMILY AKINS MRS. AKINS-Emily Akins and I live on 509 Corinth Road. I can't really go along with it, that you need more affordable housing for a mobile home park. It's just ridiculous. There's enough mobile homes around here. There's enough affordable housing around here now. Lets put some more modulars up, some real affordable housing that isn't a waste of money~ especially for an older couple that's on a limited income. They need that, instead of dealing out money, after money, after money every month for rent. I'm sorry, I just can't go along with it. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. AKINS-We appreciate this comment period that we didn't have the last time at the Planning Board, but I just, we were the ones that gave him the figures on the trailer. If anyone of you want to go with me, I mean, we counted the trailer lots, in three trailer parks Sunday. There was over 75 vacant lots. It surprised me. I didn't realize there were that many. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. All of the questions and comments have to be directed to the Board, and that's why, but I'm going to leave the public hearing open ask the applicants to come back up. MR. HILTON-Just before, as the applicants are coming up, I have a Record of Telephone Conversation, some public comment that I'm going to read into the record. - 20 - "-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-The date is October 10th. The conversation was held at 9 a.m. between Morgan Combs, who is a property owner within 500 feet, and Pam Whiting of our Planning Office. The only comment that Mr. Combs had was that he had no objection, and that's what this says, and I just thought I'd read that into the record. MR. PALING-Thank you. Would you want to come back up, and what I think is the logical thing at this time is would you address some of the, want to address some of the comments that have been made. MR. RICHARDS-We'd be glad to. There are so many errors and misrepresentations in what we've heard. To try and get some pattern, I think it might be helpful to start off with if I can post this copy of what you already have. MR. PALING-Yes, that's the latest one, the 10 lot. MR. RICHARDS-Let me first say, as far as being, you know, generally opposed or in favor of mobile home parks, I do think, ultimately, that is a judgement that the Town Board has to make, as to whether or not to provide for an expansion, bùt getting into some of the specifics here, first off, this, as I said, is the map that I trust everyone has in front of you, and let me explain. MR. CONDON-Could you identify this map, John. MR. RICHARDS-Well, this was submitted, and I was just about to explain the genesis of this. MR. CONDON-I think you should provide some documentation. MR. PALING-Mr. Condon, would you please hold your remarks as we asked the applicant to hold theirs. You'll have a chance to come back again. MR. RICHARDS-Actually, I don't mind that question because that's just what I was about to say. The genesis, where did this map come from? We submitted our re-zoning petition that you're considering in February, and the map did originally have, I believe, 12 numbered lots, although one of them was just really the house with the number on it. We have had extensive discussions with the Planning Department, with the Planning Committee of the Town Board, and this map is the result of those discussions, it was prepared and reviewed before we submitted our formal letter in August, and reviewed by the Town, by the Town Planning Department. The letter submission, in the form of an amendment, I think my letter to Darleen said, please consider this letter an amendment to our February petition. That was all done at the direction of Jim Martin. Jim is intimately aware of the whole procedure here, and it's not like we're doing anything by subterfuge or anything else. It's been all public and we have submitted just as directed. So, that's where this map comes from, and it does reflect, and I think Tim might have had the old one there, a substantially increased buffer, and let me explain, if you haven't been out there or if you've driven by quickly, you may not have realized exactly what the setting of this corner parcel is. You have to understand, again, everything to the north and to the west is either the Forest Park Mobile Home Park or to the west is the store that pretty much serves the Mobile Home Park that's not owned, I want to add, not owned by Mr. Parillo, but everything else is the Mobile Home Park. Across Van Dusen Road is, there's at least one and I think maybe two auto junk yards. There is a fence running along Van Dusen Road for part of the Forest Park property. Some of the litter that Mr. Condon may be talking about is thrown by people going up and down Van Dusen, which is a main cross road, as you know, and may not be residents, but Frank has no control, Mr. Parillo has no control "I - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) over that. So that's looking to the east. You have several junk yards and vacant properties zoned Light Industrial, I believe. Looking to the south, where Mr. Condon's property is, and you mentioned the Werners. If you look there, it's all wood. There is no house that fronts Pitcher Road opposite this property. There is one house that fronts on Pitcher Road, which is a little to the west, opposite the entrance road, but again, we're not proposing any additional entrance roads here of any nature. When the other gentleman who spoke, I believe his property is down farther down Pitcher Road to the west, and opposite another part of the park toward the western part of the park. So that gives you some setting. If you stand at this house location and look south, I don't think you can see any houses. If you look east, I believe you see at least one and possibly two junk yards, and I may be a little off, but I know that there is at least one junkyard in this area, and I think another one down here. I'm not sure on that, but a lot of vacant parcels, too. So that gives you an idea of the setting here, and one thing that I don't think is being also given adequate consideration is the standards that Mr. Parillo keeps at Forest Park. Not only is it good business to run a park, and a well maintained park, but it's also just the right thing to do. He's got very stringent regulations for the park. I mentioned he put thousands of dollars into upgrading the infrastructures. He paved the roads. He re-did the septic systems for the different parcels. He clamped down on people that 'weren't taking care of their properties, and has managed to gradually, over the years, upgrade those properties. I wasn't familiar with the park before he bought it, but I understand it was dirt roads, and there were some real problems, septic problems and everything else, and he should not be a victim of problems from 10 years ago. He's worked hard to correct those, and it's a very nice park. I mentioned, and we can show you if you need it, there is at least one home in there did receive an award from the Queensbury Beautification Committee, and it serves a very valuable function for elderly people, but on some of the other specific comments they made, I talked about the buffer. Again, the lack of a stated dimension on the buffer is nothing that, again, was subterfuge. It was our understanding of the way the Town Board wanted this print in order to review it for their re-zoning consideration, and they will èertainly make the ultimate decision on to the buffer, and as I think Mr. Schachner said, you're free to recommend whatever dimension you like, but it's certainly not our intention to slice them down. This was the result of a lot of discussions to get to this point. Mr. Condon mentioned a number of owners, 40 owners objecting to this, and he did submit a petition, back when this came up. Many, if not most of those owners do not live anywhere near this parcel. They lived on Amethyst Drive, and properties to the north, which is a separate subdivision. It doesn't come anywhere near this property. We also submitted a petition from a number of people in the park that were all in favor of it. We had people here at the meeting as well, but this is not, I don't think we're here to get into a popularity contest. We're here to talk about, from a Planning standpoint, this re-zoning petition. One thing that does concern me, and I really do take offense at, is the accusations and the throwing words around like landfill and who knows what's there. That' s preposterous. What there is is there's a portion, and it's a small area of the park over on the western part, where they pile up the leaves and the brush from the property. Some years ago, it was inspected by DEC personnel. It has been personally inspected, I understand, by Jim Martin, I believe, Dave Hatin, certainly Town Board members have been out there. There's nothing hidden. There's no hint of a landfill, as we have a connotation of a landfill. It's strictly a brush area. MR. PALING-The statement was made, excuse me, that there was other than leaves and brush there, that there would be plastic pieces and stuff like that, making it look like a landfill. You're saying no on that? - 22 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. RICHARDS-I've personally been out there and I haven't seen any. MR. PALING-And my other question is, what do you do with the brush after you, just keep piling it, or what happens to it? MR. PARILLO-There's an area there that we've used for a pine needle dump, if you want to call it a dump, an area where we've dumped the pine needles, very little brush, basically pine needles and leaves. Jim Martin has been there within the last, I'm going to say the last year. DEC has been there. There's no dump. I wouldn't spend a million dollars and create a dump. Mr. Condon has been very misleading in his comments. He is making a reference to other mobile home parks when we're addressing this park. He's talking about all these vacancies. We have the largest park in the Town, 186 sites. We've got four vacancies. Homestead, which has 134 lots, probably has 40 or 50 vacancies. The park was just acquired by a retirement fund from out of State, and you'll see a drastic change. Homestead does leave a bad taste in someone's mouth about a mobile home park, but the accusations that Mr. Condon is making, first of all his house, if you'll recall his comments, his house faces Corinth Road. Very misleading. It doesn't face Pitcher Road. He said his house was about 50 fèet, but we've got a tax map that shows his parcel to be in excess of 300 feet deep. Now either the man doesn't know what he owns. MR. PALING-No. I think he just said the woods were 50 feet. MR. PARILLO-The woods, and they're over 200 feet deep. So either he doesn't know what he owns, or he's lying. One of the two. It's very simple. A man that's an engineer doesn't know 50 feet from 200 feet? Absurd. MR. RICHARDS-I don't want any of us to start loosing our temper here and getting into accusations, but some of these things certainly do get you upset when you hear accusations of a landfill and other things like that that just are not correct, and just the antithesis of everything Mr. Parillo's trying to do with the property. There was an allegation about stripping a buffer or something along Pitcher Road. The only cutting, other than some dead trees that I think Mr. Parillo took down, or he moved a few trees when he realigned some homes, but the main cutting that I think the gentleman's upset about was done by Niagara Mohawk over some property that Mr. Parillo doesn't own. It happens to be adjacent to the Town, or is part of their right-of-way over the Town parcel. So these things just aren't true, and I think Mr. Parillo is entirely right when he says, lets not talk about other parks. We're talking about this park, what is this park like, what kind of vacancy rate are we talking about, and he's told you that, and is there a need for more spaces in a quality park like this, and I think the answer is, questionably yes. This is a top rate, first rate mobile home park, and to lump it in with any others that may be having problems is just not fair. We talked about the signatures. We talked about the buffer. The litter question, to the extent it's there, it's outside the fence. It's public litter, any more than Mr. Parillo could complain about litter on any adjacent neighbor's property along a public roadway. We'll try and keep it clean. I'm sure Mr. Parillo keeps it clean, but some of it's beyond his property line. The landfill we've talked about. I'm not sure there are any other issues that they have raised. MR. WEST-Drag racing or burning rubber or peeling rubber or something. MR. PALING-That was the noise category, yes. MR. RICHARDS-If there is, have you gotten any complaints from the Town or anything about it? - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. PARILLO-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can I make a comment on that? MR. RICHARDS-Sure. MRS. LABOMBARD-Like I said, I go up that road very often, and there's nobody on that road. I come up from the Super Shop N' Save, up Luzerne, over to Van Dusen up Pitcher and into Brickoven, and I very seldom encounter any cars coming out of that trailer park, and, I'm just telling you the way it is. I live in that area. I'll make my comments later, but I have very seldom encountered any traffic coming out of there, and I know that my children, when they were younger, have ridden their bikes into that store to get candy, and the traffic has never been an issue, and I have never encountered any of that, but again, I could be passing by on good times instead of bad times. I'm saying I haven't seen anybody peel out, burn rubber, drive recklessly, I really haven't, and my kids have ridden their bikes in there and they've never complained about it. MR. RICHARDS-But I just want to keep things in perspective. We're talking about 10 lots on a 186 lot mobile home park and, you know, that's, what maybe a six, seven percent increase. This is a very minimal increase. It is in-fill. Certainly I would characterize it as that. It's bordered by Town roads in the mobile home park. It's supported by the Planning Department. We've been told it's good planning to in-fill this way. I don't know what more we can show you to demonstrate the soundness of this plan, and I'm just asking that as you make your recommendation, you take all the comments on their face value and weigh them against the facts that we know, not allegations of 80 vacancies in some other place or cutting by Niagara Mohawk or landfill accusations. Just look at what's here, what's being requested. It's not a significant variation. We're trying to protect the neighborhood properties and address their concerns. You've got a junkyard there already. I don't really, I'm not a broker. I'm not going to say what impact, if any, this might have, but given the siting of the homes along Corinth Road and the existing conditions of the'property along Van Dusen, it is difficult to see that this would have a tremendous adverse impact on those properties, and I do want to close, on the question of affordable housing. I don't propose to be an expert, and I don't think anyone in this room proposes to be an expert on what is affordable housing, what's the need for affordable housing, other than I think if you got a list of, string of brokers in here to tell you about the current housing conditions in this area and the financial resources of people to acquire properties here, I think we'd all be struck by the need for more quality affordable housing. MR. PALING-Just a couple of questions for you, while we're on the subject. There was a comment regarding the "For Sale" signs within the park. Now could you tell me, do you own a part of the, some of the trailers themselves? How does that work? MR. PARILLO-They're all individually owned. We don't own any. We have in excess of 500 sites, and I own one mobile home. MR. PALING-And so a "For Sale" sign would be the owner selling? MR. PARILLO-The owner selling his own home, or a broker selling it for the owner. MR. PALING-And these are called mobile homes. I believe it's a misnomer. They don't really move anywhere, do they? They come in and pretty much just sit there? MR. PARILLO-No, they move. - 24 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. PALING-A lot of them move? MR. PARILLO-Well, not a lot, but they do move. We have some that move. MR. PALING-You do have some that will come in and move out? MR. PARILLO-Sure. They move in. They move out. MR. WEST-But you own the land, and they rent the land from you? MR. PARILLO-We own the land. We also, we've elected to pay the property taxes, not only on the land, but on the mobile home. There is a choice in the Town of Queensbury whereby each home can be assessed separately, which is done in the mobile home park on Luzerne Road near the Northway, Northwinds. They have a reduced lot rent, but each mobile home owner gets a separate tax bill from the Town. So we include all the services in our lot rent. I would like to just comment on the septics, which was briefly touched on, but the systems that have four and five and maybe six homes on, I'm not sure exactly how many there are, but they are not 1,000 gallon systems. They are 2,000 gallon systems. The new sites will have a maximum of two homes per tank. That's all regulated by the Health Department, and of course we have to, you know, comply with that, but we've spent a tremendous amount of money in this park, and for Mr. Condon to sit there and make these accusations, I would ask that any investigation that wants to be done, for water, for the Brook, for the dump, the septic, and for the electrical, I'll welcome. MR. PALING-Okay.' MR. RICHARDS-I'd just like to close, we want to keep this from getting personal. It does get irritating to hear some of these comments, but we'd just ask that you look at the application, and look at the facts, and I would stress that this has been minutely reviewed by the Planning Department, and the site review itself, and this is a result of that review. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Parillo asked that we do point out that, on that buffer area. There have been Board members out there measuring that and looking at the buffer area, and this is a result of those inspections, and we're certainly not going to go against the inspections and the recommendations of the Town Board. MR. PARILLO-This is the minimum buffer that was suggested by Carol Pulver and Betty Monahan, with tape measures in hand, with Mr. Richards and myself, and that was the result of doing away with this one lot that faces Van Dusen that we thought would please Mr. Condon, but obviously there isn't too much that does, but we reduced the lot. We did away with the lot on pitcher Road, and a tape measure was taken, and the buffer will, this is the minimum that it will be. It will not be any less than what's shown on the map. We want to make, that really clear. MR. PALING-Okay. It's a little unusual to do it this way, but you've had two shots. Now I'm going to give the public comment, but then that'll close off the thing. Okay. Whoever wants to come up first, that's fine. MR. AKINS-Just two or three things. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just have a question. The people that live in the house on the corner of Pitcher and Van Dusen, with the little - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) circular driveway, little U-shaped driveway? MR. AKINS-That's Werner. MRS. LABOMBARD-The one on the sketch right there. MR. PALING-With the U-shaped driveway. MRS. LABOMBARD-Where are they, Tom? MR. CONDON-They're tenants of mine. I own the house. MR. PALING-It's your house. MR. CONDON-Their name is also Werner. That house is owned by myself, and that will be occupied by a Park Manager, if this is approved. MR. AKINS-About the petition that was taken up, somebody said they weren't in the area. The biggest share of, a lot of the people on that petition back the main part of the trailer court. In fact, they're on the opposite side of the Brook from where his brush dump is. They drive by that every day. As far as the location of illY property, and I don't live on Van Dusen Road. I live on the Corinth Road. I've got 30 acres of prime residential land. I can look right in from my land right onto the corner where the house is. So that's the buffer to my land right now, and I know what his buffers look like, and you should know if you go up there and look. MRS. LABOMBARD-What's the buffer to your land, Mr. Akins? The 30 acres of prime residential land that you own borders on what roads? MR. AKINS-The Corinth Road, south side of the Corinth Road. I can look right in Van Dusen Road, right into the corner that he wants to develop. MRS. LABOMBARD-The south side of the Corinth Road, and you can diagonally look into Van Dusen, about a quarter ·of a mile, and see the corner right there where that little white house is. MR. AKINS-I own a white ranch on a separate lot right next to my 30 acres, probably $150,000, $200,000 ranch. MRS. LABOMBARD-And that's where you live, on the Corinth Road? MR. AKINS-That's where I live on the Corinth Road. I bought that property 35 years ago. I expected it to improve over the time. Van Dusen Road has improved, except for the junkyard, and that's the Town of Queensbury's fault that they are in the shape they are. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see an Akin sign on Van Dusen Road. there? Who lives MR. AKINS-That's a nephew of mine. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because they live, like, right between the two junkyards. MR. AKINS-He rents that property. MR. RUEL-That's rented, yes. MR. AKINS-But as far as the junkyard, their permits have to be renewed every year, and I say it's the fault of the Town of Queensbury the way it looks on here. So don't look at the junkyard side of that road when you're recommending this, because that should be improving. The rest of Van Dusen Road has improved. The - 26 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) other thing is, he made a statement to Mr. Condon here about, he didn't call him a liar, but he ought to show him a little more respect. He's got a short memory. I went through his trailer court Sunday, and he had nine vacant lots in there. Who wants to quibble over five lots. I guess that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. CONDON-Well, I, too, would like to keep this discussion, public comment area, civil and I take strong offense to anyone saying that I have made misleading statements or allegations that can't be proven. I've taken a lot of time to try to defend the property that I bought in 1992. Took a lot of time a year ago to come through this process, and let me go directly to the lady who I'm sure is trying to represent the matter that's under discussion as fairly as she can. The noise is not during the daylight hours, typically. It's late at night, after midnight. That's when most young people go out and do their thing, as far as racing, peeling rubber, whatever, the roaring of engines. Unless you're going by after midnight, you probably have not heard it. I would agree with you. Do you go by after midnight? That's my question. MRS. LABOMBARD-Not often. MR. CONDON-Okay. As far as Mr. Parillo's unfortunate comment about me being an engineer, I'm damn proud of the fact that I am an engineer. I didn't offer an exact dimension on the back of my property. Why would I have to? The issue rather is, do ~ have to maintain Mr. Parillo's buffer zone? I stated to the gentleman's question, I believe it was his question, what is that distance? I said, I don't really know. I didn't measure it. That's a specific response to your question. You pushed for a, what is it, this or that. I said, I did not know, and I take offense to Mr. Parillo who's obviously reacting to facts, and I believe everything I've presented is as factual as I can make it, and to take offense, to make a comment about my engineering background is particularly personal and not pertinent to the matter that we're discussing. I should not have to maintain Mr. Parillo's buffer zone. I don't think anybody on that Board, Planning Board, Town Board, Zoning Board would expect me to have to maintain Mr. Parillo's buffer zone. Why can't I cut down all those trees and enjoy it like anybody else does, the full parcel as I purchased. One question came up, did you take the time to look into the existing trailer park? I knew it was there, but there was an effective buffer zone there. I spent my time on getting clear title and going through the normal process of arranging finances and looking at every detail of the purchase that I could. Is everything picked up at that time? I suspect not, but the existing zoning laws were. In fact, I used Mr. Richards as my closing attorney who arranged for my title search. The statements are made by Mr. Richards and Mr. Parillo seem to take great offense to the fact that concerned immediate property owners have taken time to at least find out what the vacancy level is in the Town of Queensbury. Shouldn't the Planning Board, shouldn' t the Town Board, shouldn't the Zoning Board, the responsible officials that are addressing this matter, take similar time and determine that fact? Is it not, in fact, pertinent information for discussion, and why are we then taken b by Mr. Richards and Mr. Parillo, were only addressing this park, when in fact their main premise to justify their zone change, their requesting the change, not me, the immediate property owner, who's taking time to try to protect my property. They're requesting the zoning change, and their main comment was to justify their action, which they want you to approve is that there is a tremendous need in the Town of Queensbury for more affordable housing. Well, I suggest that would tell anybody that doesn't agree with them that we ought to look around and gather as much factual information as we can. That's what an engineer would do. That's what any responsible Town official would do, and I submit, it is pertinent ..' - 27 - .. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) and relevant to this topic that you're discussing, and I take great offense to the, almost like the O.J. Simpson's criminal attorney dream defense and spinning of and trying to be misleading in actual facts, in our attempt to get as close to actual facts as we can. They made the statement that I submitted a petition at the last Board meeting. I never collected the signatures or submitted, in fact, that petition. Another outright falsehood. Not me. Mr. Richards made that statement. I would submit to you that practicing attorneys and responsible people coming to this Board should be more factual in what they are commenting on. He further spins that to try to discredit everything that is brought before you, which is, in fact, if you will take the time to go through each and every point that I raise, I think you will find it to be quite factual. An engineer does that. They try to be as precise, as scientific, as factual as they can. I've spent a great deal of time attempting to do that, and I take great offense at practicing attorneys and officials or people with a lot of money trying to make more money at my expense and the expense of my neighbors. Mr. Combs was on record here tonight as being one party outside the park that was no problem with what Mr. Parillo is proposing, and Mr. Combs, if one were to look at it, has a junkyard, and the Town of Queensbury, or the zoning laws or the responsible officials in the Town are not enforcing existing zoning laws that would have Mr. Combs in compliance. Therefore, what he has represents a real eyesore, and I submit to any of you who are driving by that disagree with me on that point, I have stated in the last time that I had to come before the Town Board, in opposition to Mr. Parillo's application, that you're not even, Town Board, enforcing zoning laws, and yet you're here seriously contemplating relaxing those zoning laws that we are here trying to defend. This makes no sense to me. It really doesn't, and I will contact the appropriate Town officials to see if we can't have existing zoning laws complied with, and we certainly, if we're going to relax any, ought not to relax them at the detriment to the Town of Queensbury, and certainly not at the expense of existing property owners who purchase, what more do they have to depend on than existing zoning laws? It's alleged here that I should maintain that buffer zone, 200 feet, whatever it is. Mr. Parillo, why do I have to maintain his buffer zone? I think it's ridiculous. 'And there's great comment made by Mr. Richards and Mr. Parillo or both, landfill. They take great offense. Well, what would YOU call it? Each and everyone of you go out. You take a look at it. What would be your term? I would refer to it as a landfill. I don't know what in the world is in it. I did, in fact, see plastic and paper on top of it. I didn't go down and poke through it. It's not my property. I drove by. I looked at it, but I submit somebody ought to know what's in it, and it's not just pine needles. I would ask each and everyone of you to go out there and you come back and tell me whether I'm factual or Mr. Parillo is factual. He said just pine needles or primarily, predominantly just pine needles. Go out and take a look at it. It's not just pine needles or predominantly pine needles. Lord knows what there is there. His term was 1,000 gallons. I may have misheard him on the numbers that go into the existing old park, 1,000 gallons, but he said 1,000 gallons. Now he's saying 2,000 gallon. That isn't up to me. It's not up to you. That's in another area of scrutiny, and hopefully it will be scrutinized. I would like to thank the Planning Board for this opportunity. I come across maybe a little bit agitated. It's taken a lot of illY time, but I do respect the opportunity and the way the Town is going that offers to concerned citizens or anyone interested in participating in Town affairs for open comment or public hearing. I thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. Now, ma'am, did you wish to come back? Okay. Then that's the end. We're done. I think everyone has been afforded more than the ordinary time that we do afford, and at this point, we're going to limit the discussion to within the Board and Staff on this, and does anyone care to open comments on this? - 28 - ----/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. MACEWAN-I just have a question for Staff. On Petition Changes for Zone, do you normally send the packets to Rist-Frost for review? MR. HILTON-Normally, we haven't. I think that if the Town Board feels that there's some need for review or even if the Planning Board requested some review, we would do it in a situation like that, but no, normally we haven't. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-I didn't make a comment before, but I've been taking notes like crazy, and I've got two columns here of pros and cons, and we also have to keep into consideration that this is a recommendation only. The last time we made a recommendation, it didn't make any difference. So, don't get too heated up about what our recommendation is going to be. I had absolutely no problem with these 10 lots a week ago, and I think that the fact that we have this public comment is something that we requested because, in the past, we voted on something and we didn't really get the full impact of the people concerned, and I want you people over here to know that what you've said tonight has really made an impact on the way I feel about things. I've been weìghing both sides here, and, at first I thought, this is great. We have a mobile home park. The mobile homes are confined in the park. That's what the park is for, and I know that this is a very good, it's a quality park. I do know that. However, back to where you wanted to put your mobile home up on 32 acres or whatever it was. Again, that's like people with, I can see where you were denied that, because that would just institute a procedure whereby you could just stick a mobile home, anybody could just put a mobile home on wherever they had vacant land, but this is a parcel of land that is designated and is kept for that, and that's why at first I didn't have any problem with it. I do have a problem, this is where I feel, again, the ethics comes in. Mr. Condon bought this land that he put his savings in, where he lives, and he researched and researched, and the zoning was such that this parcel was going to be the buffer. So he sinks his life savings, or a great portion of his money, into his home, and now, 1992, we're talking four years later, well, this old re- zoning thing comes up again. There's a lot of re-zoning stuff coming up in the Town of Queensbury, and I'm beginning to wonder, now, where we should put our foot down here. So here's a man in good faith who puts all his money into his property, thinking that the zoning is going to stay, and now all of a sudden it's coming up to be changed, and I can see exactly where he's coming from. He wants to protect his interest. So weighing both sides, I'm thinking, well, if you don't get these 10 lots in here, it's not going to be a really, I'm saying it doesn't look to me like it's going to present a terrific financial hardship to the applicant. Maybe there's more impact on the neighbors in the environment if goes in. So maybe the neighbors in the environment who are the little guys in this case are going to have the greatest impact by these 10 lots going in, and as far as those junkyards on Van Dusen, I'm thinking, why is all this fervor being raised? I mean, we go by those junkyards all the time. That doesn't seem to get anybody upset, but if they are indeed not in compliance, then something should be done about that, but that, again, isn't in our jurisdiction. I am very concerned about the landfill. I think operating a landfill on one's private property is something that could be done, you know, a little surreptitiously, and I'm thinking, you say you collect all the garbage out of those 180 homes? Well, does that go to the landfill at the Queensbury landfill or does that go to your landfill? MR. WEST-I cannot believe that it goes to the on-site landfill. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I can't believe it does either. However, maybe if somebody said there's other things in there besides brush - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) and pine trees and things like that, maybe, in a pinch you might use it. I'm not saying you're going to use it. MR. RICHARDS-Lets not speculate. That's really not fair. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Okay. I'm sorry, but anyway, you asked me. I'm trying to weigh everything evenly here, and that's where I'm finishing up. Okay. MR. RICHARDS-That is outrageous. I'm sorry. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Now, if that's the end of it, fine. That's good. Thank you. Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-No comment. MR. RUEL-Mr. Parillo's representative, I listened to your response to the various comments from the public comment, and I think you addressed most of them, except I think perhaps you were slightly insensitive to people's property and the zoning. I don't know where you live, but if you have a piece of property and you know what the zoning is that surrounds your property. I'm sure that you would be quite concerned if suddenly next door changed considerably and now you had a gas station or whatever. These things have to be considered. You don't live there. So you don't know. Now, I want to give you another example, and this has to do with. MR. BREWER-You can't ask them questions, Roger. MR. PALING-Yes, please keep it up here. MR. RUEL-AII right. Property values. It's been my experience over the years that adjacent residential homes to mobile overlays are effected, property values are effected, downward. Now, I'll give you an example. That park on the north side is adjacent to Herald Square Village, I think Phase II or III. Now, .when I purchased a house, way down at the other end near Luzerne, I was one of the first few homes in that area, and the value of the homes ranged from $99,000 to $199,000. So I asked at that time, where do these $99,000 homes go? And I was told, they'll go on that road adjacent to the park, the trailer park, because we cannot put expensive homes there, no one will buy them. All right. Now this is a builder that's been in business for many, many years, and it is a known fact that trailer parks do have a tendency to devaluate the surrounding properties. That's about it. MR. WEST-I guess I've got one question for Staff. It's kind of a technicality question. Mr. Condon mentioned that a revised plan showing the 10 lots versus the 12 lots was not submitted. Does that constitute an incomplete submittal? MR. HILTON-It's really not an incomplete submittal. The original discussions were centered around 12 lots. The original application was filled out referencing 12 lots. Through the discussions with the Town Board, what you have, the 10 lots in front of you, is what came about, and if anything, it's obviously, or in my opinion at least, a reduction in intensity from 12 to 10 lots, and it really violates no application procedures. MR. WEST-Okay. Aside from that, in my opinion, the additional 10 lots, based on the fact that this is already existing trailer park, contains a number of 180 other trailers. This six or seven percent expansion, in my opinion, does not represent an adverse impact, although I would say that it would be very important to maintain and make sure that the permanent buffer and the no cut areas that the applicant has proposed to ensure are maintained, are, in fact, - 30 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) well established and don't show a clear cut through to the mobile homes, the new mobile homes in the park. I think that should be an important part of our recommendation. MR. BREWER-Contrary to what Dave just said, I think if this is such an insignificant amount of homes, in comparison to what are there, and I think we have to think about what need is being met by the change. It's such a small amount, how is it going to meet any need to help address the continuing need for affordable housing? I don't see it happening, and I'm not in favor of it. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, my own feeling on this, and again, I'm like Cathy. I've got my list here. In regard to property value, one of the things that I think about when you say that if you put a mobile home park in there, it's going to decrease the property values, and I think a lot of, Roger, what you're saying was true many, many years ago, but mobile home parks have been upgraded considerably in the last quite a few years, and I think they don't do too much harm, although they can do some, but I also think if this isn't used for this, what will it be used for someday? The alternative that might be in there we might not like. If I were running a business and I had a vacancy rate of 4 out of 186, I would think this is a pretty prosperous operation,· and I'd want to open more spaces. If the vacancy rate were 20 or 30, then I'd say, hey, I'm not going to spend any money to do more in this regard, but the landfill bothers me, as to whether it even should be there, where it's pine needles only or not, and anything we do, I'd like to see predicated on the fact that, unless George can tell me in depth that this is an approved, I think, if nothing else I think of fire. Why should you let pine needles be there, even if there's nothing else there with it? And I want that one clarified. The buffers, as I see this reduction to 10 looks like a good improvement, and the buffers are good, but I'd want to classify these buffers, and I think maybe it's already done, but I'd like to see them classified as minimum buffers, that there be no less than what's shown on this print to the scale that we've seen it. I guess that's about how I look at this thing. It's too bad that, there are strong feelings on both sides of the question and the trouble the Board has is that we have to make a decision, and we have to go one way or another. So I'm going to, the public comment meeting is closed, and I think we've all had our say and had our questions answered. I think, then, it's time to go to a motion on this, and remember now, this is a motion in the form of a recommendation only. We are not doing any, nothing official comes of this until the Town Board acts on it. All right. I'll make the motion, then. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD TO APPROVE ZONE CHANGE P4-96 FOR FRANK PARILLO, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the following notations: That the buffers shown on the print submitted by the applicant, dated 10/10/96, that the buffers on that map be considered a minimum. There's been reference to a landfill, and that the Planning Staff clarify whether that is a landfill and if it should exist, and our recommendation is that it perhaps should be done away with. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1996, by the following vote: MR. PALING-There's been reference to a landfill, and that the Planning Staff clarify whether that is a landfill and if it should exist, and our recommendation is that it perhaps should be done away with. MR. BREWER-Bob, can I make a point to that? That you should ask the Planning Department or someone in that Department to look at that regardless of what. ..' - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. PALING-Yes, I agree. MR. HILTON-And if I may just interrupt. Jim may have already looked at this, and made a determination on this, and I will check with him, and I'm just saying that we will look into it either way. MR. BREWER-Yes, just let us know next week or whatever. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Those are the two conditions. Do I have a second? MR. STARK-Second. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Now what did we get on that vote? MR. SCHACHNER-Three, three, and one. MR. PALING-Three, three, and one. Now where are we, Mr. Schachner? MR. SCHACHNER-That's not a recommendation, and contrary to what I think I understood you to say earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Zoning Ordinance does not, nor does any other law, impose an absolute requirement that this Board reach a decision one way or another on the recommendation. Obviously, you typically do, but. MR. PALING-Yes, we have to say something. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the answer is, no, you don't have to say anything. You're supposed to if you can. That was a motion recommending approval. That motion failed to carry because it did not gain a majority of four votes at this Planning Board. If somebody has a motion to make to recommend denial, that motion could be made or any other motion could be made·, but if no motion manages to gather the four vote simple majority, then this Board's recommendation to the Town Board will be that this Board is unable to make a recommendation. MR. PALING-All right. Now do we have to do anything to have that activated, or just, that's the way it is? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, anyone else who wants to make a motion can, obviously, but if no motion carries the Board with at least four votes, then the Town Board will be informed, by these minutes if nothing else, and I'm sure by Staff as well, that the Planning Board was unable to make a recommendation on this requested zone change. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone else wish to make a motion? MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to make a comment as to why I abstained, and the only reason being, it just hung with me all during Staff Notes, the soil conditions. I don't feel comfortable with what Staff has put in here, and I guess I would probably be swayed one way or the other if there were tests done up there to show me that the percs could handle, not only what's existing up there now, but what's anticipated to be added. That's the only reason why I abstained. MR. PALING-Do you want to comment on that, George? MR. MACEWAN-That's why I asked whether it got sent to Rist-Frost for their review. - 32 - ~ '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. HILTON-Right. At this point, you know, if the Board wishes to table this in order to require more information from the applicant, or conditioned that, as it goes to the Town Board, that the soils be investigated further, they can do either one of those. Like I said, we don't usually send these to Rist-Frost, and any review would be done at the Town Board level. MR. MACEWAN-Normally, we don't get input like this that comes in with the notes, either. MR. HILTON-Right, but, you know, those are two things that you can do, and if you'd like to act on either of those. MR. BREWER-We can make a motion to ask the Town Board to do those things and have the information sent back to us. MR. PALING-I don't know. We've certainly covered this. We've gotten as much input as we can take. I'd just as soon let it go. MR. RUEL-Why can't we leave this the way it is, and indicate to the Town Board that they should review in detail the minutes of this meeting, with the pros and cons. MR. PALING-And Craig's comment will be in there, and they should pursue that along with everything else. MR. RUEL-Can we leave it that way? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you certainly can, if you wish. MRS. LABOMBARD-And they don't necessarily have to take our recommendation. MR. BREWER-No, they don't. MRS. LABOMBARD-So why not leave it like that. MR. RUEL-Leave it. MR. PALING-I would like to leave it like that. comfortable with that? Is everybody MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Done. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, could I address the Board on a question of procedure? MR. PALING-Yes. This application is closed. Whatever comes before the Board. Okay. Fine. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. This comes in the latter category. I've always tried to have a cordial relation with this Board and its predecessor members and the Zoning Board, and I was a little disturbed, this evening, to see that some things, I thought, got a little personal, and to the extent I was responsible for that, I certainly apologize and regret it, but as an attorney in the area, and as a resident of Queensbury, I'd really ask this Board that when they get applications, they just deal with the substance of the application, apply your good common sense practical knowledge and the expertise you've developed, but when we start getting into, I won't say name calling, and I regret, Tom, if we got into any with you. I apologize. It shouldn't be that way. We should be able to have an open discussion, but I would really urge the Board to kind of sift that out and keep that to a minimum, and when you - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) do have control over it, the kind of speculation that we had there, and I hope I didn't lose my temper on the question there, but I really am distressed at what I see in the papers and now what I've seen with my own experience with the Boards here, and I just urge us all that we keep a certain cone of civility around here, and keep addressing the facts and not the loudest voices. So, to the extent I was responsible, I do apologize to the Board, but I ask that we keep that in mind in future applications. MR. RUEL-You shouldn't chastise the Board. accusations yourself. You made many MR. RICHARDS-I didn't chastise the Board. I just apologized to the Board. MR. PALING-I'd just like to reply to that a bit, because when a person is addressing the Board, they think they're running facts, and you point out to them that you think they're not, and you're going to get yelled at harder, and it's sometimes better just to let someone exercise their thoughts, get it off their chest, and then we have to separate the wheat from the chaff, or get away from the person. That's part of our job, but insofar as saying to somebody that's talking, I think you're getting personal, that's a tough one, very difficult one to handle. MR. RICHARDS-Yes, but you shouldn't have to put up with it, either. At any rate, that's just my private comments and apologies if appropriate. Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-I have one question before we go. Last week at our workshop, did we not say that we were going to do Cedar Court in two separate meetings? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-And, see, we are going to do it in two separate meetings, and the first one is next week. No, no. Let me correct that. You guys said you wanted to do it in two separate meetings. It can't come before you until next time. You'd still have the option of doing it in one meeting if you want it, I would guess. MR. MACEWAN-It's on the agenda as being on both Preliminary and Final on the same agenda. MR. PALING-Okay. I'm not opinioning. MR. BREWER-Didn't we decide that, George? MR. STARK-What are you talking about? MR. PALING-Cedar Court. MR. BREWER-Didn't we decide that we were going to do one? MR. STARK-Two meetings. MR. BREWER-One part of it one night, the other part of it another night. MR. MACEWAN-We even went on to say that if it was a problem for them we could set up a special meeting for them to handle it. MR. STARK-There's exceptions to that rule, though. Like, if we already had heard it and they had to renew it or something. MR. BREWER-So why don't we set up the agenda as such, well it - 34 - .-. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) doesn't make any difference. They're going to ask us that night anyway. MR. STARK-We agreed, two meetings. Why do you want to talk about it? MR. MACEWAN-The reason why I'm asking is because the agenda for next week shows it on, Preliminary and Final on one meeting. That's why I'm asking. MR. BREWER-So, maybe, George, you could let the applicant know. MR. HILTON-Well, the Board in the past, at one time, has said we can review Preliminary and Final in one meeting on some applications, and at other times they've said, we want to have the Preliminary one month and Final the next month. So we have no direction as to which way you want to go. MR. MACEWAN-But Jim was sitting right there in that meeting and the reason why we said we wanted it two separate meetings is because of the complex interpretation as to what this thing was down there, whether it was a duplex, quadplex or what. MR. HILTON-Right. Well, as far as Cedar Court goes, I was under the impression that the Preliminary was going to be next week and the Final was going to be in November. If your revised agenda indicates differently. MR. BREWER-That's what our impression was. MR. MACEWAN-That's our impression. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. STARK-We could have had the Preliminary tonight and the Final next week. MR. HILTON-Well, we could not have the Preliminary tonight because, I guess with the history of Cedar Court, things that have happened in the past, this section did not have a Preliminary approved. We didn' t realize that until a point in time when we couldn't do anything but put the Preliminary on the second meeting, so the Final had to suffer and go to November. That's why that happened. MR. BREWER-What are you saying, Craig, it's on the agenda next week for Final and Preliminary? MR. MACEWAN-Preliminary and Final. MR. BREWER-So why don't we correct the agenda for next week and have Preliminary only? MR. HILTON-Well, that's the way X understood it to be. MR. STARK-If it's a great hardship for him to wait until November, we'll have a special meeting for him. MR. WEST-Both agendas were revised. MR. PALING-This is the revised agenda. doesn't say anything beside that. Preliminary only. It MR. HILTON-Right, and if you have some serious concerns that you want the Final on November, I will take that, tomorrow we'll address that. MR. PALING-You want to pick up on George's comment, though, if it does create a hardship, a special meeting will be considered. ..: - 35 - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/15/96) MR. HILTON-Well, I think that's already been discussed with the applicant, and I think he's agreeable to November. MR. MACEWAN-Is Jim going to be there next week for that? MR. HILTON-I'm going to be here next Tuesday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 36 -