Loading...
09-12-2012 JOINT PZIRC (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) JOINT PLANNING, ZBA& PLANNING ZONING ISSUES RESOLUTION COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 62-2011 Queensbury Partners, LLC 1. FWW Permit No. 6-2011 Tax Map No.289.19-1-23 through 35 Area Variance No. 61-2011 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 Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) JOINT PLANNING, ZBA& PLANNING ZONING ISSUES RESOLUTION COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 7:00 P.M. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD PAUL SCHONEWOLF BRAD MAGOWAN DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE ZONING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS JAMES UNDERWOOD RICHARD GARRAND PLANNING ZONING ISSUES RESOLUTION COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT RON MONTESI, WARD TWO COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH, WARD THREE COUNCILMAN CRAIG BROWN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR KEITH OBORNE, LAND USE PLANNER TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC SEAR TYPE I AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. FMBF OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION PARCELS ALONG BAY ROAD AND BLIND ROCK ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES A TOTAL OF 56,180 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN FIVE (5) BUILDINGS TO INCLUDE 93 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN FOUR (4) OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 62-2011: MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE OFFICE ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN REVIEW. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 6-2011: LAND DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND. AREA VARIANCE NO .61-2011: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, RESIDENTIAL, SHORELINE, AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONE. LOT SIZE: 34.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTIONS 179-3-040; 179- 4-030; 179-9; CHAPTER 94 MATTHEW FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT COUNCILMAN STROUGH-All right. Well, welcome everybody. You should have in front of you a handout that has at the top a Special Joint Meeting or Workshop, Town of Queensbury Activities Center, and I'd like to go through that with you, and I want to welcome and thank the members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board for coming tonight, and I want to thank the applicant, too, and Staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide the applicant with an opportunity to listen to the opinions of the Planning and Zoning Board members, with the intent of providing some informal feedback and possibly offer the applicant a clearer sense of direction that offers a more acceptable, comfortable level with most Board members. However, I must add that the opinions expressed by Board members must fall along the lines of what they might prefer to see or be more favorably inclined to consider, and I would caution the members of both Boards to avoid more definitive statements such as I or we would approve or I or we would or will accept and the like. Those kinds of statements would be inappropriate. What we wish to gain here tonight is to give the applicant some direction, some parameters, as to what might make this application more acceptable to the Board, as it moves forward in the planning and approval process. What we wish to avoid here is to give the applicant the opinion that merely following the suggested inclinations means guaranteed approval. That tonight we wish to deal with the bigger picture. The offerings by Board members tonight do not negate their right to leave the door open for further discussion, that these and other components remain reviewable, (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) and most importantly, I wish to ask everyone please be constructive and civil. So, I have a six part structure to tonight's meeting, beginning with Keith Oborne giving us a brief history of the project . So if you would, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Brief history. Back in 2010, 9/30/2010, the applicant came before the Planning Board as a discussion item. I think the Planning Board does remember that, and wanted some opinion and feedback, and feedback was forthcoming. On 3/15/2011, so six months later, came back to the Planning Board one more time, and was basically directed to go towards a quasi charette with the public, and that was accomplished on 5/21/11. On 6/14/2011 an application was submitted with the input from the public, with the input from that quasi charette meeting, and on 8/24 we had, at that point, numerous sketch reviews with the Planning Board and Area Variances were, at that point, identified, and put into an application. What followed was a Joint Meeting with the Planning Board and Zoning Board on 9/14/2011, and what followed after that was a request by the applicant to be heard before the Planning Board one more time, and that was not positively a given, and basically we're here now, at this point in time, to, as John said, to move this forward. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, thank you very much, Keith. The next part is we have met with the applicants, we being Ron and I as the ad hoc committee off the Town Board, to try and provide some movement forward with this project in a way that's more acceptable to more people. Ron, I don't know if you'd like to speak to that or you want me to. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well, just, what we asked the applicant to do is that the original plan that they had submitted originally to the Town Planning Board was relatively compliant. It didn't have any wow factor in it, but it was relatively compliant, and we asked them to go back to that plan, and then let's talk about it, and we were able to go back and there were two or three things that we wanted. We wanted to see nothing closer to the Bay Road or the corner. We didn't want to see the building on the corner, and we gave up a little bit of some density, and hopefully they're going to be able to move things around so that there won't be so many variances for the wetland. Some of these variances were only a couple of feet. So they weren't as serious as we first initially thought because there were 37 variances, but, you know, one, four buildings were maybe two or three feet out of line, but in any event, we got to that point. We presented that to the developer, and we said hopefully when we meet with the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and you and the public that everyone would buy into this idea. So that's where we're at at this point. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, and to summarize, there were three things that we preferred to see. Basically two story or keep to the 40 foot Code, keep to the Bay Road corridor setback, 75, and keep to the allowed density of 142 units. We thought those were the big things, and of course that's our opinion, and that's what we prefer to see. So the next step in this meeting is to see what the Planning and Zoning Board members would prefer to say or would be more inclined to consider. So, at this point, anybody who would like to volunteer first to give an opinion or speak to the topic. The next step, before we get to the Planning and Zoning Board, and I should know, I made this up, but, and it's Craig suggestion, is that we have asked the applicant if they'd like to input anything at this time before the Planning and Zoning Board members speak to the topic. MR. FULLER-Sure. For the record, again, Matt Fuller with Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth. I'm here with Dan Galusha and Bob Manz, and first of all I want to thank the Boards for giving us this venue tonight to talk about the project and see where we can go, and, you know, right out of the gate obviously we're willing to work with the Town, you know, to mold the project further so that it works, and I know, you know, that we've got the pending PUD legislation request before the Town Board, and, you know, I have friends that live out here in the neighborhoods, too. So I see the e-mails and things that are going around. They send them to me. So I know the controversy and things that are being stirred up, and it was not, when we went down that path, it wasn't our intent to circumvent anybody or, you know, try to create some sort of deal. We went right to the Planning Board. Last Spring I brought it up to the Planning Board and asked them, hey, what do you guys think, you know, instead of just, we could have legally, I suppose, gone to the Town Board and said, hey, we'd like to have you consider this, but, you know, with the way the project's gone, you know, we went to the Planning Board and said what do you do guys think about this? It's obviously not a done deal. There are no done deals. A PUD doesn't solve every problem. It still has to be engineered and reviewed and a PUD approved. So it's a two- step process, if not more. So, you know, I've seen the arguments out there that, you know, we're trying to do an end run around the zoning and that kind of thing. That's not what we were doing. We've worked hard with the Planning Board. There are actually a lot more meetings. I know Keith went through a history. There were a few more meetings that were in there that we went to the Planning Board and worked on the project in general, and, you know, as it went along actually came out of a conversation last summer that I had with both Keith and Craig about the ZBA. I was kind of keeping track of this as we were going along, you know, going (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) back to the Planning Board with more changes and things like that. I saw the variances starting to pile up, and I knew, I said, we're not going to be able to just spring this on the ZBA. A joint meeting's kind of rare, but I think Staff ran it by counsel and said, actually it came from the idea in a meeting said, hey, we might want to try this joint meeting because of what's going on here, you know, the variances are starting to stack up, and again, you know, it wasn't, you know, create the project to try to circumvent the zoning. It was just the reality of how that planning process unfolded, and we knew some weren't going to be acceptable. It's all, you know, you have project, you've got to work through engineering and things. So, you know, we went through that process and we thought we did it in good faith. We weren't expanding. I've seen those arguments, too in the e-mails that we were, you know, using the Planning Board's willingness to work with us to try to expand these numbers. That's not what happened. You're going to look at a project in one fashion, however it ends up looking, that has to work from a cash basis. Obviously the project has to afford itself, and that's where the residential units started to grow is to drive the rents for the front, for the commercial space and things like that. The residential engine drives that type of project. It's a reality whether it's here, Glens Falls, Saratoga, anywhere, that's how those projects are driven. So that's where those numbers started to come from. Again, it wasn't us saying, woo hoo, we're going to get to some number and the Planning Board's going to let us go along with this. That's not how this happened. Again, I've seen those arguments out there and I just want the Board to know that, that that's not how the project got driven, and the Planning Board can see it. They were part of it. So when we, again, took back, we went to the Planning Board in December, then to the ZBA again in December to make some changes coming out of that August meeting last year, and again, you know, I think the Zoning Board was a little more vocal the second time and let us know exactly what the concerns were, and at that point we said, you know, somebody made the argument, it's not, and actually I think it was an alternate to the ZBA, made the argument, said it's not really fair to lay all these variances at the feet of the ZBA and put it on our plate, if you will, to be the ones that ultimately are going to decide whether this project goes or doesn't go, and 1, you know, obviously I've done this for a while so I know kind of what some arguments are going to be, and that was a pretty well-reasoned argument, and, you know, you get the arguments, you know, you're going to impact the school. The emotional arguments are always going to be there and there's not a lot we can do to deal with emotional arguments, but when you get a good argument, you've got to address it, and as the project started to grow and we worked with the Planning Board and came to the ZBA a couple of times, it struck us that a PUD is an option. Not that everybody likes that option, but it's an option of a project of this sort. We're not dealing with a subdivision of six or seven lots that are going to be individually developed, kind of the way a lot of Bay has been. This project will be one lot, and it'll be phased. We're committed to the corner portion and then back along Blind Rock with the residential portion, so that we don't do the residential and not the commercial, and when you design a project like that, there's a big investment right up front. It's going to be a couple hundred thousand in engineering and plans and archeological and wildlife, the whole nine yards that we're going to go through, and to design a project, and the way Queensbury's laws are written, you know, you can't, a lot of towns you can just come in with a sketch and ask for variances. Queensbury has written its laws that you can't do that. You have to come in with a full blown site plan review application, fully engineered, stormwater, the whole nine yards, and then get to the ZBA, and the ZBA's got to coordinate with the Planning Board for recommendations, etc. So, you know, that process doesn't lend itself to a review of a mixed use project like this, and that's where the concern honestly for the PUD came from, that's where the thought of that's how you review these projects. You've got it in the industrial. You've got it in certain residential zones where the residential density is calculated and you back into the commercial. It worked out with 30 acres and the numbers that are in the residential PUD that if you back into the numbers, you're at where we are on the project. So, again, it wasn't an attempt to end run around setbacks and things like that. PUD's are always a flexibility on setbacks. It allows the Town Board, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board can weigh in on what the density is, the setbacks, all those things, for a specific project. It's legal. We have it in our Town here in Queensbury, and so that's where we came up with the thought that that might be an approach. We asked the Town Board to consider that. The Town Board set a public hearing for later this month. It's certainly not a done deal. We're here. I know at the same, I was out, I apologize for that. I had some family stuff that happened last month, and the Town Board set the public hearing and we appreciate that and that same night I learned after about the idea of having a joint meeting and having a special committee put together to take a look at this stuff. Now we did sit down last week with Mr. Montesi, Mr. Strough, and Keith and Craig and had a good conversation, I thought, about, you know, how to get to this process, how do you, how does it work, what's it going to be like, and as John said, he expressed pretty much kind of what I had thought were the big concerns. We were at the ZBA. You were very vocal and gave us ideas of what your concerns were. So we had an idea of what they were and, you know, with a thought of, can you make this work, do you want to get back to the two boards and have a joint meeting and we said, yes, we definitely want to hear what the concerns are, what we can take into account, so that we can hopefully go forward with a project that works for the Town. I still believe, living on this side of Town myself, that certain uses over here would be good, and I think this property (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) lends itself to that, and I think, in general, the Planning Board agrees. Nothing's set in stone yet. We've got a lot of engineering to do, we've done some already. We are pretty convinced we can fix the traffic issue that everybody's worried about, but there's still work to be done, and we understand that, and I know I've talked a while here, but that just kind of gives you the idea of how we see we got here, why we asked for the PUD. Again, it wasn't, we're not looking for anything untoward. It wasn't try to cut anybody out of a process. It was more of a reality of it's a mixed use project. It's not a four, five lots and we develop them as we go. It's one big lot and we'll develop them as part of a package. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Matt, let me ask you a question. You made reference to something here. If you didn't have to do the full blown engineering or a review by the Zoning Board of Appeals, in other words, if you did a sketch plan or a plan, similar to what John and I set with you and agreed on, I mean, conceptually, where the buildings would be, what the setbacks would be, etc., etc., where the commercial would be, that certainly, that would be, I guess, a compromise on the part of our Zoning Board, our rules and regulations. I'm just not sure, but certainly that might get us off of dead center in terms of avoiding doing a PUD, and making it feasible for you to come in to the Zoning Board of Appeals with your variances, but not a full engineered plan. Is that, I mean, I know they do that in a lot of other towns. Is that something that's palatable to you? And then we've got to talk to the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. MR. FULLER-You touched on one thing that I skipped over, and I don't want to be accused of spinning things. In your law, in the zoning application process, you can request waivers. So that is something that's on the table, and I skipped over that when I was speaking before. I didn't want to do that intentionally. My fear would be, with a project like this, we all know the corner, the past controversy with it. If I came in with a sketch and asked for a bunch of waivers, people are going to be angry. The public's going to come in here and say you, ZBA, are granting all these waivers at this time for this project. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'm not talking about a waiver, multiple waivers. I'm talking about the one engineering, a full blown engineering plan in deference to the conceptual plan that you would have to come in with to get, you know, you're going to put a building here, it's going to need three foot variance. Well, do we need it to be engineered for that review? DAN GALUSHA MR. GALUSHA-Can I speak? I think, Ron, that's a great idea, but I think that that really ultimately puts you in to the PUD. You're really accomplishing the same thing. The PUD still allows all the constraints that you want to have, but it doesn't make you have to try to work around your existing regulations. It allows you to work with the regulations. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I'm trying to make it easy on you. I don't think you could get a PUD passed before the Town Board. So if you want to take that off the table and talk about what can we do here with this group, that's what I'm saying. I think, you know, I understand what you're saying, and we promised you that if we couldn't get some kind of agreement, we would at least deal with a PUD, but it wasn't easy to put that resolution on the floor. MR. GALUSHA-And I think what, if you will, and some of the members of the Planning Board may be able to speak to this. What the PUD allows for is creativity, and what the structured regulations that you currently have don't allow for is that creativity in the design of a complex project like this. What you end up doing is you end up engineering, at great expense, at great risk, going back and having, yes, that's okay, but, no, this variance isn't okay, and, no, this isn't, and then you go back and you have to re-engineer, in a significant manner, and then go back to the Board again. It's kind of like trying to take a complex project down a path without having headlights, okay, so that, and I don't understand why, in many other cities, okay, they have worked through PUD's, and I don't know how many PUD's have been worked through at the Town level here. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well, I worked on two, Top of the World and Hiland Park, and also Oliver Laakso's one that never got off the ground. MR. FULLER-Yes, there's a bunch of them. MR. GALUSHA-And they generally end up being an extremely good project overall, because the creativity of everyone is allowed to be put into the project. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I think we're trying to avoid going the PUD route, but since the top was brought up, we should address the fact that the PUD does ask for a variety of housing that various income levels will be taken care of in your residential. It asks for open space (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) allotment. It says that the density can't be any more than the underlying zoning density allows. So, you know. MR. FULLER-It's not a solve all. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yes, it doesn't solve everything, but, and we might not even need to get there. MR. FULLER-And just to answer your question, Ron, to say are we opposed to one way or the other? No. We'd be foolish to sit here and say we're not going to do one or the other. We're her to listen and to gather information. MR. GALUSHA-Part of the problem, because I've been at this thing since, been at this project for eight years now. I think the Planning Board has some sort of, I think everybody has their own little vision of what this should be. The problem is an applicant, in this situation, I have some sort of vision, and I think everybody does. The problem that I have doing a full set of plans and going through that process, is how do I extract some of those visions out of everybody else until I spend all the money, do it all, and say, we're going to change this. We've been down that road to a certain extent, and I'm just laying it out there. I'm trying to figure out a way that we can build a project that works for the Town and works for everybody there. That's, the Planning Board asked me to do certain things, and I've done everything. I spent a year going down that road, and I'm here today. I need to just get off the dime and move something that's good for the Town, and that's all I'm trying to do. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And that's what the purpose of this meeting is, Dan. Well, thank you, thank you for your input, and let's see what the Planning and Zoning Board members have to say, and let's see if there's some kind of inclination, if you will, to go in a certain direction, to give you more direction, so that, you know, you feel more comfortable when you do do your engineering scheme. All right. Well, let's open the meeting to Planning and Zoning Board members that wish to speak to the topic. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I feel somewhat compelled to sort of open the conversation, and fill in maybe a little more of the history that was summarized by the applicant. The origin of this project was the applicant brought a Code compliant plan to the Planning Board, and we said, you know, we don't like that. We really challenged the applicant to go back and look at the Town Code and look at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and try to come up with something now, and in preparation for the meeting this evening, I went back and, you know, took another look at the Town Code, and, you know, I'm not saying that this plan is perfect, and I'm not saying that this plan is approvable to the desires of the Planning Board, but I think a lot of the concepts, the planning concepts that are in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan are in your design. You have on street parking, you have a walkable community where you can go from residential to commercial and other uses. You have neighborhood uses that are talked about in the Comprehensive Plan. I understand there's some issues to be worked through. I think when the Planning Board was thinking about, and I can't speak for everyone, but I think when we were thinking about a design, we really weren't thinking about the zoning variances that were going to be required, and we really, you know, the intention of the Planning Board wasn't to dump it on the lap of the Zoning Board, and I can really appreciate and sympathize with that opinion from the Zoning Board, and that really wasn't what we were trying to do. So when the applicant talked about going to the Town Board with a Planned Unit Development, that kind of seemed to make sense to us as a Planning Board. I don't remember if we took any formal action on that. It was more of an informational kind of thing. I guess one of the questions that I would have from the Committee is, you know, how you arrived at the setback, you know, the feeling on setbacks, because one of the things that we asked the applicant to do at one of the last meetings was to superimpose the existing buildings just to the north of this property to see how they lined up, so we can see how the existing buildings on Bay Road lined up with the proposal, and we felt that they were fairly close in line with what's already there. We had a lot of discussion about the height requirements and I don't think we ever really, you know, gave the applicant any kind of preference, you know, because some members said, you know, two stories is enough. Others thought three. So I don't think there was any real consensus from the Planning Board on that issue, but I would invite other Planning Board members to chime in, but again, mostly I just wanted to say, you know, it certainly wasn't the intention to kind of dump this on the Zoning Board. That really wasn't what we were trying to accomplish here. MR. TRAVER-I would echo what the Chairman has said. I think that this is the kind of project, and maybe in looking to the future, we can establish some kind of procedure where we collaborate with the Zoning Board and the Planning Board when we have a project of this scope, because I think some of the difficulties, as Chris pointed out, that we faced, was in the absence of all the engineering, in the absence of a formal proposal, in the absence of the ZBA, we were really focusing on the planning issues, and we were looking at, quite honestly, imagining people (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) living there and people working there and so on, and when your original proposal that was completely compliant came in, you know, I think we felt, you know, that this is okay, but it's kind of boring, you know, from a planning perspective, let's see how we can do, let's build a village if we can, and that's kind of where we ended up, but I'm glad to see this process. I commend the Town for, you know, being open to the idea of us all working together because I think there's a solution not only for this but like projects moving forward as we have others, more a dynamic way for both us and the applicants to get to a resolution. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Anybody else? We don't have to go in any particular order. MR. GARRAND-I'll go. A lot of our areas of concern were with keeping the character of the neighborhood. Certainly the heights of the buildings up along Bay Road that were proposed didn't fit in well with the character of the neighborhood, as it currently exists. I'd like to hear some of the suggestions by the Town Board. Some of our other areas of concern were setbacks, front setbacks and wetland setbacks. We don't think, our opinion at the time was, you know, very, very concerned with looking around the neighborhood. A lot of the other business owners have kept within the character of the neighborhood, have maintained setbacks, have gone to great lengths to maintain setbacks, and, you know, to their economic peril have tried to remain Code compliant. We tend to believe that this project, for the most part, could do the same thing, and I'd like to hear some suggestions from the Board members, the four Board members, on how this could be accomplished, or the applicant. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-I think that that was one of the things that John and I worked on where we initially said 75 feet across the front, you know, you can't encroach, and there was, there was a building or two that did. So we said we don't want to see that, and I think we addressed the issue, John and 1, with two story, especially along the front here. The design had some, what did we call these, these berms, and they weren't very good looking, and we thought maybe there could be a better way of doing it across the front on Bay Road, but just so you know, all of these green lines represent a variance on the latest proposal. So we tried to at least look at that and say, well, how are we going to deal with that, how are you going to deal with that. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, and if you don't mind me just speaking a little bit to what Chris and Steve and Rick have brought up so far, Bay Road also has a Bay Road Corridor concept that includes sidewalks and tree lines and it's what we've made Schermerhorn and Valente and other developers, we've made them adhere to this Bay Road concept. So in all fairness, and I do appreciate the dynamics of what the Planning Board's trying to do here. I do appreciate that, but I think that we can accomplish that at the same time as remaining consistent, and keeping the 75 foot Bay Road Corridor setback is one way of being consistent here. Keeping to the 142 units, which is the allowed density, and even a little bit more than the allowed density, because we're considering that the first 300 foot will be residential. So we're including that in the density calculation. So we are compromising the Code a little bit there, and we didn't seem to mind that. We appreciated the Planning Board's concept, but with 142 units, there's room, Rick, to move these units around and maybe mitigate some of the wetland setbacks, and the height requirement, and as Chris had mentioned the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the height requirements mention several times, specifically to Bay Road, at two story, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan also asks for the parking to be in the rear, but we can also be a little open minded and flexible, too. So we said, well, there's three things. Keep the 75 foot setback, the two story or the 40 foot limit that's allowed in the zoning, and keep the density what's allowed in the zoning, and a lot of that, shifting and moving things around, would mitigate a lot of the variances, in our opinion. So that speaks to some of what the Planning Board and the Zoning Board brought up. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. Mr. Strough, do we have an indication of about how many of the variances would be eliminated based on those three areas in which you think could work for the project? COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, you know, Steve, it's not just how many variances. Some variances are more important than others. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So the variances that were more important to us automatically get answered immediately with the three things that we identified as preferable. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Two of the main variances that concerned us was on the corner there was a building that was 38 feet from the road. There was another kind of a maintenance building that was 30 feet. So those are two very serious variances that we considered. (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I don't disagree that a two foot variance of the wetland setback may not be as severe as keeping the 75 foot corridor. I understand that. I was just curious as to about how many would be eliminated right off the get go, and I mean, you're eliminating the big ones. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-And also the height variance. That's another variance, but, so with that thought, I mean, they're going to have to move some buildings around here in order to come in with a plan that some of these variances may still, you know, for instance where the pool is. They're going to be 45 feet from a wetland corridor. Well, that's entirely up to you guys on the Zoning Board of Appeals if you feel that that is a serious encroachment on the wetland. I don't know, but all we did was put a green mark on every one of the variances that we saw. MR. FULLER-If I could pop in on this, we don't have a plan sitting here in the back pocket to bring you out based on the conversation we've had. We haven't gotten back to that point of looking at how things are going to shake out, and I give a couple of examples. We talked about, okay, 75 foot, that seems to be a big issue. I knew that from the meeting we had. So it wasn't a huge surprise. If you look at the plan, we've got some patios for outside seating, you know, people have a restaurant or a coffee shop, we want them to be in one of those front spots. Some outdoor seating with a patio. We had shown on one of the plans a pergola, you know, maybe vines and things that grow on it, as part of a cafe or something, and we talked about, well, if the Planning Board and Zoning Board talked about it, would it be okay to have those improvements in 75 feet, or do you want to go 75 feet, move the buildings back with those things, and there's no commitment. We were just talking about ideas, and that's kind of what we're here today is to talk about those ideas and say, okay, well, maybe that might work. That might be, because the one thing I will say, and I don't want to put words in the Planning Board's mouth, had kind of an idea of that corner kind of, and we talked about it when we met, drawing people in, you know, not making the project so far away from this use right here, the Town center, the uses across the street, not making them so far away that visually you're not going to walk to it. There's a psychological I'll walk to this distance to get something, versus getting in my car and driving across the street. That was some of the ideas we talked about about keeping things a little closer, but we also fully recognize that the 75 thing on Bay is a big point. So that was an idea that we talked about, with the 75, and again, that's not that we're trying to end run around anything or trying to get more. It was more of a reality of how can we stay close to what the Planning Board was thinking and keep within that 75. Another one we talked about was height, and we said, and honestly that wasn't a big deal breaker on our end. The height thing came up at the Planning Board, and it came, as I said last week, it came up when we brought the pictures in, the pictures of the red building, and some of the Planning Board members said, well, we want to see that, and our proposal was well we'll chop that middle floor out, bring the roof down and meet that height requirement, and some of the Planning Board said, well, maybe we might want to kind of see something like that out there, and we said, sure, we'll consider that. One of the ideas we talked about last week was if it works, again, we had to go back and look at numbers and things. If a larger building is still desired there, put it in the back, not way out back, down Blind Rock, but put it towards the back of the front part of the property and kind of have a visual, and what Rich Schermerhorn did down the street, his, the front buildings are all two. There's a couple out back that got height variances, and it created that visual, you know, effect of scale on that development down there, and again, it wasn't, we didn't throw that out there trying to get an end run around the zoning or get more than we should. It was just an idea of I think the Planning Board had some pretty strong feelings, can we work with both, and it might, again, I've talked about it from a financial standpoint, little things like that may drive it, may say, okay, it does become more economical if the building is three out back, again, not way down Blind Rock, but on the back side of that front part of the project. We don't know. Like I said, we have not planned this. We've talked about it, but we've not planned it, coming in. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-But again, whether it's two or three stories, John and I both agreed that, at least with the developer, 142 units is the density that that's what you get. I mean, you know, so you want to put a third story building in in the back, you may have to put a one story building in the front. We just said we don't want to exceed the density. So, again, we just keep going back to the three items that we thought were the serious items and that the Zoning Board and the Planning Board would deal with the rest, but again, as I say on behalf of the developer, to do that plan, to come in and ask you to look at the variances, I don't think takes a full engineering plan. We've got an awful lot of engineering already done here and we've identified all the wetlands, and that's one of the conditions that I personally would give on a little, but it's not my call. It's the call of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, isn't that a Town law, though? MR. FULLER-Well, it's the zoning, but the Town Board adopted the zoning. They don't get to grant the relief on the zoning unless they change the law. That's the ZBA. (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, I might be able to shed a little bit of light on that. It's kind of an unanswered question we had at the beginning of the meeting is no place in the Town Code does it say for the submittal of a zoning area variance application you have to have full blown engineering drawings put together. Basically every application that goes before the Zoning Board is a request, it's a proposal, it's here's what we want to do. Sometimes there's the after the fact applications that people have done something and they have to come and ask for permission after they've done it, but most of the time it's, hey, I want to put my house too close to here, I want to, you know, have too many units on this property. So it's always a proposal. There's really never any defined, you know, engineering done when it comes before the Zoning Board. I think that if the applicant comes before the Zoning Board and seeks a variance for, pick a number, 15 variances, and then when they go back to the drawing board and engineer the project, if they can't engineer the project to match those 15 variances, they have to come back to the Zoning Board. That burden, that's something that they have to bear. So it behooves them to come to you with a plan for their 15 variances that they're pretty sure they're going to be able to engineer because, you know, running the gauntlet twice is probably not something that they would want to do. So, are they required to have a full set of engineering plans before the Board? No. Is it a reasonable request to ask them to do that on a proposal? In my opinion I don't think that it is, but, you know, that's the call that you guys need to make. For sure, 100% of the time before they get through the planning process with the Planning Board, all the engineering has to be flat at some point. It goes to the Town Engineer for review. There's certainly specific comments that the Planning Board has and questions that they have on the application. So, you know, all the engineering gets done. To do it up front just seems a little bit out of order to me, you know, plan the project and then design it to match what you had approved. If you can't match it, start again. So I don't know if that answers the question about, do you need a full set of plans to go to the Zoning Board. MR. GALUSHA-That explains, you explained very clearly the problem. The problem becomes is this, is you have a vision. Everyone here at this table I'm sure has a different vision of this project. You're trying to extract that vision into the project. So if you lay it out, let's say, for this many variances, and then you work with the Planning Board, and we have, and this process is taken in place, they've changed several things as you go, okay, you change them then you've got to come back to the Zoning Board. Before you know it, you've eaten up a year, two years, and that's the problem. MR. BROWN-Well, I think that's the goal here, with this, is to do this three sided spirit of compromise. You've got the Planning Board who's kind of painted a certain picture. The Zoning Board's kind of painting a picture based on what the Code requirements are, and that's where their basis is, that's where they have to start, and you guys have painted a picture as to here's what we want. So, I think everybody has to, at some point you kind did, you kind of either agreed with the Planning Board or you put your own spin on it, but it is what you submitted. So it's what you want. So you have to, everybody kind of has to come together and say, what can I palate, what can I palate, what can I palate, and then, you know, we'll have a project at the end. MR. GALUSHA-How do you that effectively, and in a process that doesn't take you two years? That's all I'm just throwing out there. Maybe you can, maybe you can't, but it's just, this whole process has been very frustrating to try to get, to just try to move it along at any stage. MR. HUNSINGER-And one of the thoughts I was having, and part of the reason why I asked the question of John and Ron, you know, the Committee's recommendations is, you know, I think because of the history of this project it's difficult to kind of step into an understanding of the discussion that we had at length with the Planning Board. In fact, I think we had even asked you to pull building one up closer to Bay Road at one point, and now they're saying, well, maybe further back. So that's the give and take, but, I mean, you can read the minutes of the meetings and you can look at the designs, but without being, you know, a party to those discussions, I think it's difficult to kind of step in in the middle of that. MR. GALUSHA-And what I don't want to happen is the same process, because if you look back the process for eight years hasn't worked for this project, for whatever reason, it hasn't worked. So I think we need to look at how, I think you've got to come up with what everybody would like to see and then you've got to sit there and look, what is the best vehicle to get us there, to get the Town there, not just me, not the Planning Board or the Zoning Board. There's got to be a way that becomes efficient for us and the Town to get through, what works best for that piece of land. It's that simple in my mind. MR. HUNSINGER-You know, and I appreciate the comments that were made earlier about how, you know, the other developments on Bay Road met the requirements of the Code, but nobody came in and asked for any exceptions, you know, I mean, they came in with plans that they felt that they could build, that would, you know, meet their needs. (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) MR. GALUSHA-We did, too. MR. HUNSINGER-And we can pull that plan back out and show to everybody. MR. GALUSHA-No, I think that's a moot point at this point.. I really, it's the corner piece. It is a little unique to the rest of Bay Road, and all I'm saying is I think the Town zoning, planning, Town Board, needs to really think about how you do, not only this project but other projects, and I talked with John about this, in a much more efficient way, so it isn't so negative. Negativity doesn't do anything for any of us. I mean, you're frustrated. The Town Board's frustrated. The Zoning Board's frustrated. We're frustrated, because we can't get anything done. MR. TRAVER-I think this is a good example of one good possibility for a project, I don't know what the threshold would be, but of a certain level of complexity, perhaps the number of potential variances or something, where in a way it's kind of a joint sketch plan type of proposal so you can begin to get, you know, we can begin to get on paper, okay, setbacks, things that we didn't address at the Planning Board in your (lost word) presentation to the extent that we can in this forum because we were not dealing with the zoning. We were looking at it strictly from land use and planning perspective, and in a way also your willingness to be so flexible and to modify your plans as those discussions took place kind of lead us to this point, because it wasn't until before the end and you had a more, I would say a more concrete, what we felt was a more concrete plan, you really got the significant feedback from the zoning. (lost words) starting with a process like this where you could get, again, as a kind of sketch review, more input simultaneously. Then you can go back. MR. FULLER-Yes, I think in hindsight we'd have gone to the ZBA earlier. MR. GALUSHA-Well, we were trying to catch what you guys trying to, it's a little unique to the Planning Board to have turned around and say yes, you're in compliance, but that isn't what we want. That is what we heard. MR. HUNSINGER-No, that's what we told them. MR. GALUSHA-We're disappointed with the word that you couldn't come up with something different. MR. TRAVER-Yes. Well, if(lost words) between planning and the zoning in a sense. MR. GALUSHA-Why? MR. TRAVER-Well, because when you decide what the zoning is going to be, you're not necessarily fully considering all the planning implications, and when you look at the planning, you're not necessarily taking into consideration all the zoning. So it's inevitable that with certain projects and certain locations and certain zoning there's going to be a certain tension between the two where the, you know, it's not intentional, but there's a, there has to be kind of a give and take, as we're seeing here, between what we thought from the planning and aesthetic and all the great pictures you had of the square and all that, and, you know, we were encouraged by that that it was something that could be done, and yet, you know, then we look at the weight of the variances and realize that we have to come up with some. MR. GALUSHA-And that, I think your statement is 100% on point. That is, in a nutshell, the essence of being able to work in a creative manner, but having consistent input as that creative design moves along. So that, you know, that give and take is done in real time, rather than literally almost like the ping pong thing where, okay, we did this, now we go back over and, now we come back to it, we've got to change this. What happens is it becomes disconnected in some form or fashion, and I'll tell you from the beginning of this project to, you know, where the project ended at this point in time, and certainly in our eyes, and I think in the Planning Board's eyes, became a much better project, a much, like an overall for the Town, that was something that I think we felt you could be really, really proud of as a project. MR. TRAVER-From a certain perspective. MR. GALUSHA-From a certain perspective. Now, okay, so you have the zoning things that maybe had to massage these things around some, okay, but if you had that creativity all together at one time, said, wait a second, no, no, no, this has to go here, or, you know, we've been talking with another design assistant that has a huge amount of planning experience, and he has some ideas that can provide more green space and condense things a little, but it's creativity, it's what do you think of this. It's what we did with the Planning Board, but you have to have the zoning involved in that also, and that, in and of itself, is the problem that exists with the structure of the process. (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) MR. OBORNE-1 would like to chime in and say you're here now, and how the process has matured over time is what it is. I'd like to hear from the Zoning Board what their input is on this, because I think that's key. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think one of the things we need to do is, is that we, in reviewing how the whole project came to fruition here and how we got to this point here, we've been doing all these things with one hand not knowing what the other hand's doing, and I think in retrospect if we were ever going to go back and do this again, we would involve everybody right from the beginning, including the public, because I think then we're going to get a result that everybody is comfortable with and that reflects the current zoning, reflects whatever input and creativity anybody wants to put into the project, whether it's the applicants or, I'm sympathetic with you guys at this point because I think that, you know, you've been trying to bend over backwards to do what you were asked to do by them, but at the same time, you know, when we got this and there's 37 variances on here, I'm going like, well, let me just look at it, but just to give you my own input on it, you know, I think we gave you some good feedback the last time, in hearing what the Town Board members have said in reviewing the project with Staff in this smaller forum that they have there, I think that they have dialed in where the project needs to go at this point, and I think that the Travel Corridor Overlay, the 75 foot setback, is very important. I think that we're looking at two story buildings now. We're not going to see the three story, but when I look at the height variances that you need on there, a lot of them are three feet, three feet, three feet. I mean, when Richie has done all of his projects because of the roof truss structures, they stick up three feet, four feet, five feet above, that's not any big deal. We've always granted variances for those, and I don't think, at this point, if a project came in and needed those, that the Board would think it was some major hurdle that you had to jump over to get to that level, but I think the key here is this, you know, creativity is a good thing with you guys, but at the same time, you've got to look at what we did on the whole rest of the corridor and say to yourself, look, everybody else who's done something in the corridor, you know, are we comfortable with what we've created down there, or are we really upset by some of it? Could we have done a better job on that? And I think one of the suggestions I would make is this. We constantly update our Code. We constantly change Code. Sometimes we, the Town Board is put in a position where they have to amend the Code and then, you know, then we have to change our minds about what we've done previously on projects, but at the same time, to be fair to the applicants when they come in here, you know, you guys have spent an inordinate amount of your time trying to appease the Planning Board. I think our Board gave you some good feedback at our meeting in regards to what we thought might have to happen, and I think moving some of those structures back from that corner was a good idea, as suggested by the Town Board members. I think that probably most of us on the Board wouldn't have changed our minds. We would agree with that idea, also. The retail in there doesn't upset me, you know, a little bit of a mix isn't going to upset me because we don't have retail down the whole corridor until you get down to the other end by the corner of Quaker, really, but at the same time you do have the College up there, if it's more convenient to run out and get something across the road, that keeps people from getting in their car and having to drive down to the corner. I mean, I think we can be open-minded about that at the same time, but the residential numbers at 142, 1 think that's reasonable. Just about everybody here, two years ago, went to that Saratoga Planning Conference. Mark, you gave one of the keynote speeches down there, too, but Sonny Bonacio was there from Bonacio Construction. He was the keynote speaker, and one of the things he said to us at the meeting was he said in all the years I've done my projects down in Saratoga County, and he's done some awfully big things, massive, you know, I don't know how many of them were PUD's or if they were all within the parameters of regular projects, but he said I've never asked for a variance ever, and I think a lot of us were blown away by that. So my big question for the Planning Board was, when we first received this was, how could you guys go and listen to somebody say something like that and then even in a sense of creativity create a whole bunch of variances for these guys to have to jump through the hoops with us, our Board. I didn't really think that was fair. I think that all these things could have been drummed out a longtime ahead of time and smoothed over. It could have been a smooth process going through, and we could have come up with some compromise, but at this point, you know, we're in a position where we want you guys to succeed and be able to do something constructive with your time and your money, and not waste more time, and so as far as the engineering goes and stuff like that, as Ron suggested, I think when you come back with your concrete concept as to what you want to do next time, consider what we've said here, consider what you've done. I don't think you have to go back to your initial plan that required no variances, and I would comment and say, yes, it was kind of a mundane plan. It fit in. It would have worked. It would have been up and running right now, you know, but, I mean, at the same time, we have to always consider everything and all the aspects of what we're doing here. It's not just creativity. It is the zoning, and it is what we've done in the zone, and I think then if there's something that really needs to be changed, go to the Town Board, but I think a PUD isn't like some pressure relief valve, that we just, you know, throw it in here, well, we don't want to make the decision, so we'll just make automatically you a PUD, and I think that would be wrong at this point. I think you guys are savvy enough to (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) figure out what you want to do now going forward, based upon what we've said, and just do your plan, throw it out to us, and I think we're going to be reasonable in what we do as far as, you know, if you do need some variances, you know, we'll look at them. We're always open-minded about it. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-1 think one of the important things is Craig sent a letter today to the Planning Board, Zoning Board, or it was an e-mail, and I spent six years on the Planning Board before I got on the Town Board, and I have to tell you, I never asked a guy to re-design. That isn't my job. I mean, I looked to this plan, it wasn't, it isn't the job of the Planning Board to say, hey, you know, let's make a wow out of this, let's make it better. You shouldn't be doing that, but we did. So here we are. MR. CLEMENTS-1 have to agree with Jim, but I come at it from a little different direction here, and I reviewed the notes of the December 15th meeting of the Planning Board, and it seems quite clear to me that the applicant originally, stated by Mr. Traver, "were prepared to develop the property without any variances". We've said that, and "with working with us, the Queensbury Planning Board, in many respects that process drove the project as it exists today", all the variances. In an article in the Post Star, the Queensbury Partners requested a Town change in the law to the parcel as a Planned Unit Development, and I believe that Mr. Montesi agreed with that. I did a little more investigation here and went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and New York State Department of State, the Government Technical Series, and it was re-printed in 2011, and found that they said this, the Board of Appeals does not have the authority to amend the Zoning Regulations or change the boundaries of the districts where they're applicable. Understandably, the distinction between the power possessed by the Board of Appeals to grant variances and the power to amend the zoning law, which the Board of Appeals clearly does not possess, may be a very fine distinction indeed, but it's an important one. An amendment to the zoning requires legislative action by a governing board, that would be the Town Board. The change thus enacted would be supported by the municipality's comprehensive plan, but it requires no proof of hardship or any showing of facts related to a specific parcel of land. Because of the enormous amount of variances needed for the project, I believe the variances clearly shown attempt to amend the zoning law, and therefore, I believe, and this is just my feeling, that the Queensbury Town Board should hold hearings, attempt to change the law, if supported by the public, to re-zone the parcel as a Planned Unit Development, and through due process give the public a chance to be heard on the possibility of that change. Just my opinion. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, in 2007, which isn't that long ago, we held a series, an annual, a year series of public hearings for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. CLEMENTS-Exactly. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And the zoning law reflects that as it is. So there isn't, I don't think, a propensity of the Board to change that. At the same time, I think we appreciate the dynamics of what this project offers, but at the same time, we also appreciate the Zoning Board, the number of variances, and so that's why we offered the three things, the setback, the height, and the density would get rid of those variances. I'm just wondering, if all those variances were removed, that would also enable some buildings shifting around to eliminate some of the wetland variances, that when the project came back to you, it would come back to you with substantially less, fewer I should say, variances. Is that what we're looking for? MR. CLEMENTS-Well, our Chairman has asked about that, and the answer to that is we don't know. MR. OBORNE-Well, it hasn't been quantified. MR. CLEMENTS-Exactly. MR. OBORNE-But it has been qualified. MR. CLEMENTS-Exactly, and I think that's one reason that this ought to be a Planned Unit Development, because then everybody will have their input, and it'll be something that's comprehensive and something that everybody can agree with, not everybody, but in general. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, we've already told them that if it is a Planned Unit Development we want the 75 foot setback, we want the two story limit and we want the 142 density. We've already said, and that would be part of the PUD, but in addition to that, there may be members of the Board that followed the PUD which asked for a segment of open space here, and a diversity of income levels in the residential units and so forth, as the PUD expresses that kind of feeling. So I don't think the mood is to change the zoning. So we're back to what would make this project more acceptable and what would make this project be more preferable. (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-But as things change, you're going to give them the same problem they've had right up to this point. You're going back and forth and back and forth, change here, you know, the Zoning Board likes that, the Planning Board doesn't, or vice versa, and I think, you know, to be fair to them, we ought to, you know, give them the opportunity to do that, through a Planned Unit Development. Tom? MR. FORD-Thanks. As a member of the Planning Board, over the last few months there has been a feeling, I can only speak for myself, but I actually involved in planning. So, guilty as charged. I wonder if this might be the opportunity to hear from the applicant their conceptual reaction to the two story, the 75 foot setback and the 142 units, a little further elaboration as a reaction to those three major items. MR. GALUSHA-I'll say this, is everything that I've done on this project that's asked me to do something, we have tried to do that, and I will continue to try to do whatever is in the best for the project and the Town, that's what I want to do, that's what I was asked to do. I've said it many times, I'll say it here tonight. I don't know how all these individual specific things fall in place, but in general I want to just do it correctly and what works for everyone. That's what I would like to do. We're not sitting here saying I want 200 units. I don't. I want, I was trying to pull out of the Planning Board their vision. That's really all I was trying to do, and as they add things to it, first of all, you've got to have something that works for the Town. Secondly, you've got to have something that's financeable, and that somebody actually wants to buy or build or come there. So the dynamics are huge in today's market to try to accomplish all those things. All I'm asking, and you brought up a good point, you know, if you had to do it over, I can tell you, in the beginning of this process, I did ask, why don't these boards get together and have, I asked that question. I asked, and everybody told me you can't do it. Laws, blah, blah, blah, you can't do it. Well, that doesn't make sense, and it doesn't, because here we are tonight trying to figure out, think we all kind of agree on where we want to go. I think once again we've got to agree on the vehicle that gets the input, that moves it forward in a way that doesn't waste time and my money and your money because this is all costing everybody time and money. I've been here eight years, guys. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well, at least, the one thing that we've established is those three things, plus you're uniquely aware, now, of minimizing the variances. So, your design is going to be built around that. MR. GALUSHA-And I'll bring up another point. A PUD, I mean, it's benefit for the Town. I mean, I brought the sewer and spent $900,000 to bring it up to this Town. I didn't have any project. I had nothing. I paid that money and I brought it up, which solved a lot of problems for the Town above us. To this day I never got a thank you or anything else, and I don't want one. All I'm saying is I'm trying to put my best foot forward to move this project along, and it isn't happening. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well, we thanked you, because we (lost word) Town Hall. MR. GALUSHA-Well, I know you did, but nobody said thank you. So, I'm just going to let my record speak for itself, what I'm willing to do and not do. Because I think the record's clear. MR. FULLER-We talked about it last week. The Town Law and the Town Zoning, Queensbury zoning need to be amended to allow ZBA's to consider sketch review. Right now it's just not there. The Planning Board with a subdivision or a site plan or something you can come in with it, how we did a one page sketch instead of what do you think. If ZBA's adjudicatory they've got to review a record. MR. BROWN-I think the message, hopefully the message has been delivered loud and clear to you guys that the plan that you came before the Zoning Board with is not one that they like. I don't want to paraphrase for the Zoning Board members, but it sounds like their preferences may be a lot closer to the plan that John laid out in the beginning of the 142, the limited, if any, front setbacks or travel corridor setbacks, and some height relief, maybe some minor height relief, based on what I've heard. So, you know, if, that's kind of a paraphrase of the preference of the Zoning Board, that kind of spirit of compromise that we talked about before now is back in your court to compromise and come back in with a plan that is a lot closer to that one than the first. MR. GALUSHA-When you look at the plan that you have there now, the reason it doesn't meet the setback and stuff is because we were asking, if you look at the plan, halfway through the project, those setbacks, they were there, you know, so, I just want to, I'm not blaming you . The trouble that we've had to get there. We're kind of balancing, this one wants this, this one wants that. It's just frustrating. It really is. 12 (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I really think the Planning Board can take ownership of that because we went down that process and that's what, you know, what we thought we had to do and should do. Actually this is a very big project, maybe too big, in that it came in and some of us were not familiar with it, but I think that's history. You've got to forget the history. What you're asking for is how do we get from here to there. What the Town Board's asking for is not, certainly reasonable, I think, in my opinion, and there has to be some way, and I know this is done in cities and counties, but I don't know if it's done in towns, but there has to be some way to, as you go through in steps, have a review committee from both sides. Otherwise you never would have gotten to 32 variances, that's crazy. It should never have gotten to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there is a way, form based zoning. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And give the Planning Board the authority to not look at very rigid measures, and that's kind of how we looked at this. We looked at it from a planning perspective. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know we did, but he's asking for, how do we go forward from here is what he's saying. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think at the same time, you guys have to, it has to reflect the current zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Plan that's in effect. You can't just go around the bend, because you're going to do this again, and it's not really, even though. MR. HUNSINGER-I've got to take a little exception to some of the comments that were made tonight. We gave the applicant concepts. We didn't say pull this building up to 38 feet from Bay Road. We didn't say put four buildings within 75 feet of the wetland. We didn't tell them, you know, we didn't design it that way. We gave them concepts. The plan came in. We kind of said, well, it is what it is, you know, this is close to what we had told you to do, or at least close enough to pass on to the Zoning Board and get that feedback. You guys said no, so here we are. MR. FULLER-That's a good point, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, we'll own part of it, but. MR. FULLER-There were no measuring tapes taken out. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-All right Well, let's wait a minute. I think we've come full circle. The Planning Board has asked for something more dynamic, and I can appreciate that. We're going to have first floor be of various, not just professional offices. It's going to be a variety of commercial enterprises. Second floor will be optional, depending on the market, maybe some professional offices, maybe residential, but that will be what the market will bear, and there's other features, too, that are very likeable about this. So I think the Planning Board did a great job, but in order for this to get through the Zoning Board, we've got to eliminate some of the major variances, and still keep your concept. So it's a win/win, and so I think the consensus, we've come full circle, and from what I'm hearing and what I'm seeing, if you came back with a project that met the 75 foot corridor setback, that met the 142 density, and the two story requirement, and maybe that's not written in stone. There might be some, you know, little variances from each one of those here and there, but like you said, Matt, we're not trying to get around the end, but we'll try and meet the spirit now of where we feel we should go, and that's what I'm hearing. MR. GALUSHA-Right, but what I'm also hearing is this, a desire for the Planning Board to do what they would like. This gentleman over here desire for how he feels the zoning should take place. I think the Town Board needs to look at both of those recommendations, if you will, call it what you will, and decide which is the best way to go about this. That's really what I'm hearing. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, let's stick to what we have now and this project at hand. I think we've got something to move forward with. MRS. HUNT-Yes, Joyce Hunt, Zoning Board. Getting beyond the history, I'd like to just address the issues that the Zoning Board will be confronted with, and I would say I'm very pleased to hear about the two story, about keeping to the 75 foot setback and the 142 density, and I agree with Mr. Underwood, the few zoning variances you would need for height or a few feet of setback, I would have no problem with. (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-The other suggestion, last time when we sat down with you guys and reviewed this, too, is when I looked at the plans in a practical sense, I mean, you have the boulevard running up the center in the back there, and I think if you change the boulevard to a double lane, get rid of the other side, that's going to allow you to pull back from your wetlands, and you're probably going to only need minimal variances, if any, to meet your setbacks, and I think by sliding everything in from the edges, you know, pulling it away from the TACO and everything else, I think that that's going to accomplish, you know, we're going to be able to live with minor variances. MR. TRAVER-Well, I mentioned earlier the tension, sometimes, between the more subjective aspects of planning and the Code based, you know, the zoning, but I think, you know, the other sort of tension that we have to be wary of is this is not our project, and, you know, we have to guard against, sometimes we tend to get very involved in what the applicant's doing and we become advocates, which is really beyond the scope of what we're supposed to be doing, with the exception of, obviously we're advocating for the Town. It's a rare, this is a rare circumstance, perhaps unique, but I think this is the process tonight that is going to generate some good, some helpful information for all of us, including the applicant. BOB MANZ MR. MANZ-1 think it's, again, critical to reiterate what Danny said before, and what I've said at many of the meetings. This is a special piece of property, and it is critical that the input, all the public's and the Boards, and the Town Board, everyone who has to live here, everybody that is, you know, involved in Queensbury, this project, you know, that input helps to mold, really, a project for the future that people can be proud of, and that's why, you know, it wasn't, we weren't taking suggestions from the Planning Board and just putting these in because the Planning Board had the suggestion. It was, you know what, these are things that are creating, you know, they created a feeling to the project, okay. They created a, I want to walk across the street and get a cup of coffee and sit down, you know, out on the patio. These things, this is what the building of a development like this, it is significantly different. You talk about the corridor. There's nothing close to this in the corridor. Nobody wants to go down to any of those office buildings down there and sit out front. I mean, they're 75 foot green grass and a couple of trees, and then a brick fagade or a building fagade. This is trying to create something that is going to be a place where you want, so it's important that we do get, as I think John said, okay, constructive input on this project, because we want to walk away from the project and be, this is a really nice thing for the Town. It's not just about the money. It's not just about being a development that you can extract money out of it. You want to walk, you know, you could put up white shelter buildings and make a lot of money over there, you know, but it's an ugly project. It doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't give you a sense of satisfaction. So I think it is important, you know, that you do continue to get the creative feedback. We're not going to put something in here from somebody making a comment that we totally disagree with, okay. We are looking for the creative input, and I think it has, you know, while we understand clearly tonight that there are some things that we have to do to mitigate some of the more important zoning requirements, there's still a lot of good input that was down there that's going to make this project better. MR. FORD-Will you do those items, will you do those things that need to be done? MR. MANZ-We're going to go back and work to get those assembled. MR. FORD-Good. MR. FULLER-And in that vein, we got some good comments, and I want to part with an idea on my end, because obviously I'm kind of here to help shepherd this project through the process, and I hate to put you on the spot, Craig, but I'm looking at the application, the zoning application, and it's got all these, the checklist that's in here of all the stuff that we've got to have, and all those things are in there, the sewer, elevations, water supply, perc tests, spaces, lighting, utilities, I mean, all these things are engineered plans, and the application says we shall include these items. So, I mean, when I look at the application, I guess from those of us out there on the other side of fence that try to get applications in, I never interpreted this application that these things were permissive. I thought they were absolute required. So much so that you'd have to request a waiver, and I want to just have a sense when I go back to ask them, hey, can we come in with a, not a sketch but the drawing with whatever variances we may ultimately need, how do I deal with that? MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, we've talked about that checklist before. It's kind of a, for lack of a better term, a generic checklist that applies to, you know, we use the same application for mom and pop's boathouse as the 200,000 square foot Wal-Mart. (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) MR. FULLER-Right. MR. BROWN-So there are certainly some components that if they were to apply to one project that don't apply to another project. MR. FULLER-Sure. MR. BROWN-I hope, in my statement from before, that, you know, a full designed and engineered project isn't something that necessarily has to be submitted to the Zoning Board for them to consider a setback variance. If you can't engineer your project after you get your variance, you have to come back, and obviously that's probably one of the lower things on your list of to do items is to come back to the Zoning Board. MR. FULLER-Well, that would be the same with a PUD. If you got a concept approved and you couldn't engineer it, kind of like Hiland has done, you've got to come back and get approved. MR. GALUSHA-But here what happens in that, Chris, I hear you, but here's what happens, especially on this project, because it is unique, is when you get caught into that, instead of doing the right thing for the project, you say I'm not going to go back, so we'll just live with it. Is that what's really best for the project? That's what happens, guys. I'm just being right up front with you and saying, you get to a point where this isn't worth it anymore. Fine, that's what we'll build because I can't fight it. MR. HUNSINGER-Or you go ahead and build it and then come back and ask for. MR. GALUSHA-That's what I'm trying to alleviate. That's all. I understand what you're saying, but I think that's the wrong way of looking at some of these unique projects. MR. FULLER-I guess my end is, if we get to walk away with an impression that we don't have to go bullet this checklist here to get back to the ZBA, because all these things that are on here, we couldn't just have the LA Group put them down on paper. They've got to be fully engineered and specked out. MR. BROWN-Obviously I don't have a vote on either Board, so I think probably, you know, you may want to see if the Zoning Board members have a preference to what they would like to see when it comes to application time. If it's, you know, certainly a detailed survey map with all the setback numbers and heights and all that information that you need for the variances, you know, if they want to see more than that, I don't know what benefit they would get out of, I don't want to speak for them. So I'm going to stop here pretty soon, but I don't know what benefit there is to see, you know, the size of a stormwater basin and make sure the side slopes are graded to a certain amount and that the outlets are lined with rock. I don't know what the benefit of that fully designed engineer plan is to a two foot height variance. So, I mean, if they want to see a full blown set of plans, that's what they want to see. So, I mean, if you can get a sense for what their preferences are, not to try and put anybody on the spot, but that's kind of why we're here, so you guys can get some direction so you can move forward. MR. FULLER-That is, I will tell you from our standpoint, one of the biggest risks, is if you go out and full design a project and then, you know, the Zoning Board says, hey, you've got to move this. You spend $20,000 grand for a change. MR. FORD-Absolutely. MR. GALUSHA-The first project that I did here, I spent $175,000. It never got past the Planning Board, never got to speak. Not this Board but the original Board. If you go back and look, you will see that that's a fact. So, that's what I did. What I came back in and did was something that applied because of that. I came back in and gave them a blah project. The reason I give them a blah project, what else am I going to do? It's what I just said a few minutes ago. You get to the point where this isn't worth it, and that's all I'm saying. There's got to be a better way these three Boards can work together with us to solve this issue. MR. TRAVER-Well, the Town just developed this PZIRC, and I think from now on the Town shouldn't create an acronym unless it's pronounceable, but why don't you do a concept based on what we talked about tonight and perhaps do this again, you know, and see if you've responded to the concerns that you've heard tonight and do it in similar form, then go back. MR. FULLER-It dawned on me here tonight, somebody said could we do different things differently on big projects in the future, and I don't see any prohibition of a planning and zoning board having an actual meeting where decisions are made together. You do it kind of now where a good thing that the Town's done is tried to stagger time so that we can go to the (Queensbury Plan ning/ZBA/PZIRC Meeting 09/12/2012) Planning Board and get a recommendation one night, come back to the ZBA, get a decision the next night. That has been great for us on the outside with our clients to be able to guide that process. MR. MANZ-Instead of a PUD, it should be a Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board approval. MR. FULLER-I think we get into some legal issues with that, though. MR. MANZ-1 understand. MR. FULLER-The constitution gets in the way. MR. MANZ-1 get it, but the concept of working together is the key. I don't know how you do it. MR. FULLER-Well, we're doing it. MR. TRAVER-We actually do work together. Even though, this is a special process tonight that the Town responded to this opportunity with, but we actually do work together pretty well. I mean, the system works pretty well. This is a very, I think this project is extremely rare that we have something like (lost words) and so it calls for a unique response, and the Town has done that I think. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Well, let me ask this question. If the developer puts together a plan that we're talking about, comes in, would it be acceptable to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board to have another meeting like this and just review that plan? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. FORD-I don't understand. If it's acceptable? MR. SCHACHNER-To have another meeting, you're saying it would be acceptable to have a meeting, not (lost words). COUNCILMAN MONTESI-Yes, at least that would give the developer the opportunity to say, okay, I've satisfied your concerns. Now I can go before the Planning Board and then the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. KUHL-That would definitely speed the process and it would help the applicant. There's no doubt about it. This should have been done a long time ago. MR. TRAVER-And they probably won't be able to satisfy all the concerns, but they can at least get to a threshold where it's within the normal review process, and in this format we can't solve all the issues, but we can be aware of them, and you get to the point where none of them, I mean, we've heard that some of the issues cannot be addressed with the plan that's in front of me. So you do a, if you will, kind of sketch (lost words) then perhaps that indicates that you go ahead with more conventional application. That's how I would interpret it if I was you. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, the marriage only works if all the partners agree. Is the Zoning Board comfortable with that? Okay. Is the applicant comfortable with that? If that might help the process, let's do that, then. Okay. Good suggestion, Ron. COUNCILMAN MONTESI-You've got to work on your plan and then give us a date and we'll try to work on getting the two Boards together. MR. FULLER-We'll get a plan together. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay. Well, I think it was a productive evening, in many ways, and I thank you all for coming. MR. FULLER-And we appreciate it, too, we do. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Good night.