Loading...
1993-01-20 - QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20TH. 1993 7:30 P.M. Area Variance No. 127-1992 Peter Sahlke l. Area Variance No. 129-1992 'l'homas Dittus 1. Area Variance No. 4-1993 Joseph W. & Mary Carolyn Shay 1. Area Variance No. 121-1992 Harry Ruecker 2. Area Variance No. 1-1993 Donald Kruger 13. Area Variance No. 2-1993 William L. Potvin 17. Use Variance No. 3-1993 Leemilt's Getty Petroleum 36. Notice ot Appeal No. 1-1993 Appeal by Brewers & Aikens 41. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (rF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '-- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20TH, 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY CHRIS THOMAS ~'RED CARVIN MARIE PALING MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS PHILO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-Election of Officers and approval of minutes we'll take at the end of the meeting because of the applications that we have in front of us. We'll take that business later. We have two applications on the agenda, Area Variance No. 129-1992, Thomas Dittus, and Area Variance No. 4-1993. which are listed as Type II Actions, and if the Board wants to discuss it, it's my feeling that these are Type I Actions and they should go to the Planning Board as Lead Agency for review. Does anyone want to discuss that point? MR. MARTIN-The other item I'd point out, Ted, in all honesty and fairness, if you're going to be consistent, Sahlke is the same case. That's a CEA also. MR. TURNER-I think we, a couple of meetings ago, did refer that to the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-But it's been my determination on all of these. MR. TURNER-You took it off? Okay. MR. MARTIN-That they're all Type II Actions. MR. TURNER-Okay. That would will go, then, also. So then, Area Variance No. 127-1992, Peter Sahlke will also go for SEQRA Review. MOTION THAT AREA VARIANCE NO. 127-1992 PETER SAHLKE. AREA VARIANCE NO. 128-1992 THOMAS DITTUS. AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1993. JOSEPH W. SHAY AND MARY CAROLYN SHAY ARE TYPE I ACTIONS AND SHOULD GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR REVIEW, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo JOHN RICHARDS MR. RICHARDS-I'm John Richards, representing Peter Sahlke. My understanding was this was on the agenda last month for, and had been referred for further SEQRA Review to the Planning Board, but then had been changed, I thought, by this Board's determination, 1 '- and we're here tonight to proceed. MR. TURNER-It wasn't by the Board's determination. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. MARTIN-No. It was my determination as Zoning Administrator. I classified these actions as Type II, in that I thought they were, although they were occurring in a Critical Environmental Area, it was essentially a replacement of a use in kind, and really is not a situation that is likely to require an Environmental Impact Statement, as Type I actions are listed, and the Board has found that to be different. MR. RICHARDS- I don't know about the others, they look 1 ike new construction. Ours is a replacement. MR. MARTIN-No. The other ones are replacement also. MR. TURNER-They're replacement. MR. RICHARDS-When will you put us before the Planning Board? MR. TURNER-It will be their next meeting. MR. RICHARDS-Next week? MR. TURNER-Next week. You'll be back here in February. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 121-1992 TYPE I SEQRA (PB 1/9/93) WR-1A HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LAKESHORE OF GUNN LANE AND WESTERLY OF TOWN ROAD LEADING SOUTHERLY FROM GUNN LANE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A PREEXISTING. NONCONFORMING LOT. REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACK IS 75 FT. PROPOSED SHORELINE SETBACK WILL BE 50 FT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF 25 FT. THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE IS 1 ACRE. THE PROPERTY SIZE IS 0.43 ACRES. APPLICANT IS SEEKING A RELIEF OF 0.57 ACRES. FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 30 FT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 20 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK. APPLICANT IS SEEKING A RELIEF OF 10 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16C. 179-60B(1)(C) WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, they approved, with the comment, Concur with local conditions. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 121-1992, Harry Ruecker, "Applicant is seeking to construct a two story 2887 sq. ft. single family dwelling on less than one half acre in a Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. They're seeking relief that follows: A. .57 acre relief from Section 179-16C which requires one acre for every principle building in the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. The project site is .43 acres. B. 10 feet relief from Section 179-16, which requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Proposed project's front yard setback is 20 feet. C. Twenty-five feet re 1 ie f from Section 17 9-60B (c) ( 1 ), which require s 75 foot setback of all principle buildings from the mean highwater mark of a shoreline. Front yard and shoreline setback requirements leave no space to build a structure that meets dimensional requirements. Because the dimensional requirements essentially reduce this to a nonbuildable lot, it would appear that the minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. Proposed project would be reasonably consistent with the character of the neighborhood which is mostly seasonal camps and other type single family homes and would appear not to have a detrimental 2 '''"- effect on the district or neighborhood or conflict with any plan or policy of the Town. It would appear that the variances would not effect public facilities or services. It would appear that the minimum relief from the required front and shoreline setbacks and the minimum of one acre for the area requirement would be necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. The proposed project is located on Lake George, a designated Critical Environmental Area, and in a Waterfront Residential zone whose purpose it is to protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline. Staff's concern is that the result of the confluence of the various dimensional requirements appear to indicate that the lot is essentially unbuildable, but at the same time this determination would significantly hamper reasonable return of the land." MR. TURNER-We've got to take care of this first. We have a resolution from the Queensbury Planning Board, as lead agent on the Harry Ruecker property, a resolution of no significance is made, and I would move to adopt that resolution. MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE FROM THE PLANNING BOARD REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 121-1992 HARRY RUECKER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Rehm. MR. REHM-Thank you, Mr. Turner. I'm Walter Rehm. I represent the applicant, Harry Ruecker. In addition to the application which was submitted, I submitted a letter to the Town of Queensbury which was dated November 12th, 1992, dealing with a necessity for a lot size variance, and asked that the application be amended for that purpose. I don't know if that's in your file, but I would certainly hope that the application would reflect that letter and also the setback variances that are required. This is in a One Acre zone, and while, it's a prior nonconforming lot which existed well before any zoning in the Town of Queensbury, and while in most of the Town of Queensbury, or a good portion of the Town of Queensbury, this lot would be buildable without a lot size variance, but since it's in a Critical Environmental Area, and also within the Adirondack Park, under the Exception Provision of the Town of Queensbury Ordinance for nonconforming lots, a variance is required for that purpose, and that was the intent of the letter, and I think the Planning Department has followed through with that. This is a fairly large map for the parcel in question. This map includes all of the property owned by Mr. Ruecker. I'll point out that the road at the base of the map is the Cleverdale Road, and Gunn Lane extends perpendicular to the Cleverdale Road in the westerly direction, and then there is another Town road that extends southerly from Gunn Lane. The property in question is this 43 hundredths of an acre parcel which is located on the lakeshore. There's about 155 feet of lakeshore. I think I submitted 14 copies of the map. MRS. EGGLESTON-Fred wants to know. did the Warren County pass the, to modify in there? MR. TURNER-No. That's the three lot subdivision across the road. 3 -- MR. CARVIN-Okay, but this is what I think we voted on in November of '92. That's what went before the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the three lot subdivision. MR. CARVIN-That's this here. MR. TURNER-That's the one across the road. MR. CARVIN-So they didn't really rule on this? MR. TURNER-No. He had to get a variance for that. So they couldn't rule on that. That's not included in that three lot subdivision. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying, but we read this, I believe, into the minutes, but that's the Warren County approval. MR. REHM-The Warren County approval is for this variance. It has nothing to do with the subdivision. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I want to get clear, here, because this has to do with the subdivision. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. went before. This says an Area Variance for, November it MR. REHM-This was some years ago. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, 1992. MR. REHM-Then it's wrong. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That's what we're saying. The Planning Board did the wrong. MR. CARVIN-Unless there's another one. I mean. I didn't find it. MR. REHM-Well, I was at the County Planning Board meeting, and all I can tell you is, that which was presented was the Area Variance. No variance is required for the subdivision. MR. CARVIN-I'm just pointing it out. noted. I think it should be duly MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think we've got it in there, Fred. MR. REHM-Okay. In any event, this is a prior nonconforming lakeshore parcel. There are currently no buildings on the parcel. Just to orient you, the Hans parcel is located immediately to the north, which we dealt with a couple of years ago, and this is, essential 1 y, the same issue, and the parcels are not too much different in terms of size. What Mr. Ruecker proposes to do is to construct a new two story house on this parcel which is located on the map and for which we have submitted architectural renderings and floor plans. Because of the configuration of this lot, it is not possible to construct a house and maintain all of the setbacks which are required under the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and it you'll notice on the maps, there is a dotted line area, which I'll outline on this map in green, but exists, that is the only portion of the lot that would be allowable for building and actually, if the front setback is going to be considered to be 30 feet, it would be less than that. In any event, it's a very small area. The side setbacks are maintained, and Mr. Ruecker moved the house to the south as far as he could and still maintain the setbacks, in order to preserve the views from the various properties along Gunn Lane, and to interfere with those views to the minimum extent possible. The setbacks from the lake, if you include the deck and not the house, and this is all very specific on that matter, would be a minimum of 50 feet, and extending to a little bit greater distance 4 in different parts of the area. There really is no alternative to the construction outside of the setback areas. You simply cannot build a house on this lot and maintain the setbacks. Mr. Ruecker does not own any contiguous property. He owns property across the street, which is not contiguous, and I think the issue has been settled that this is a separate lot, and has nothing to do with these other properties on the other side of the road. One of the issues that is going to come up is, well, he owns this other property over here, is he going to create an association and allow access to the lake over this lot, and the answer to that is, no. This is going to be a separate residential lot. and people that, whether it's Mr. Ruecker or someone elsi that owns this p~operty here will have no rights to access the ake or to use doðKS over this residential lot. This is going to be his residence. Also from a view point of view, you'll see on your map we've located trees in the northeasterly corner of the lot, which to some extent, particularly during the summer months, restricts the view of the lake from the properties along Gunn Lane. There's no problem with any views here, because Mr. Ruecker owns all this property. The sewage disposal is a pump system. Because of the size of the lot, it was not feasible to dispose of sewage on this lot, and so it is going to be disposed of in an area that is located adjacent to Cleverdale Road on other lands owned by Mr. Ruecker and the appropriate easements will be granted. Jim Hutchins, who was the engineer on this project, has submitted the engineering plans for the sewage disposal system to the Town. They have been reviewed by Rist-Frost, and Rist-Frost has approved of those. That also is true with the stormwater management plans, and I think you probably, in fact, I know you have copies of those. but basically what's going to happen is all driveway and parking areas will have trenches along the borders and will be designed so that water will find its way into those trenches for subsurface disposal on the lots. There'll be eaves trenches around the house, so that there will be no additional stormwater runoff into the lake from this lot. What you might want to look at is this print which should be part of your package and was prepared by Mr. Hutchins, and it shows the details of the stormwater management. It also shows that during construction the filter fabric, the silt fences will be around the entire site. Would you like my copy? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REHM-This was originally presented to the Planning Board last month on the SEQRA Review, and last night, as was mentioned, the Planning Board again reviewed the project from the SEQRA point of view and rendered a negative declaration. If you include the size of the building, the lot, the percentage of the lot occupied by the building is between 11 and 12 percent of the lot. As you know, under the new Area Variance Regulations, the task is to balance the benefit to the land owner against the detriment to the community and to the neighbors. Staff has outlined some of that information for you. Other than the fact that we have that which is now a vacant piece of land, which will have a house on it, which I suppose could be argued by some to be a technical detriment, we, at least in our analysis and the engineer's analysis, have been unable to find any detriment of any significance. This house will be setback further than the houses in the neighborhood. The Hans house, as you know, is out on this point. The house to the south is considerably closer to the lake and further to the west, both of which, I suppose, would interfere with the view of this house. Nevertheless, this is the minimum variance that is required. It would be, obviously from Mr. Ruecker's point of view, it would be better to move this house so that it's about 20 feet from the lake so you can see around the house to the south, but that would be unreasonable under the circumstances. Sewage disposal has been deal t with. Stormwater runoff has been dealt with. There's no substantial clear cutting required, and I would be happy to answer any questions which you might have. MR. TURNER-Any questions? I guess we don't have any right at this 5 point, Mr. Rehm, so we'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOAN ROBERTS MRS. ROBERTS-I'm Joan Roberts. I live in Cleverdale, and I just have one question to ask. When you said there's not going to be a homeowners association, that this lot will not be used to funnel, are you saying that several docks are going to be removed? MR. RUECKER-There are no plans to remove the docks or to add any additional docks. What I was saying is that under the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, it's illegal, I believe in this zone. to rent any dock space, and as far as the lots, there's a separate subdivision. As far as the subdivision lots are concerned, those people will receive no rights to use the docks or to use the beach or anything like that. MRS. ROBERTS-A variance was given to Mr. Ruecker, two years ago, perhaps, and at that time he did intend to use that for the. MR. REHM-Yes. I don't think they can be rented, legally. MRS. EGGLESTON-How many docks are there, Mrs. Roberts? MRS. ROBERTS-Perhaps there is five, six, seven. There are enough for quite a few boats. It's a mini marina. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's a mini marina. MR. REHM-Maybe you should know that some number of years ago, an application was before the Planning Board to create a four lot subdivision, four back lots, and to use this lake shore lot as an association lot, and a variance was granted for that purpose, and at that time, the basis for the variance, one of the basis for the variance was that the lake shore lot would remain vacant. but the subdivision was never approved. For some reason they never followed up on the approval with the Planning Board, and everything dies after a year. It wasn't done. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Rehm, would Mr. Ruecker be willing to take out some of those docks? I mean, certainly a residence doesn't need six or seven docks, and it would certainly alleviate his neighbor's fears. I can see their apprehensions. MR. REHM-To be perfectly honest with you, I don't think his neighbors have any fears, and I can't speak to whether or how many the docks, because I don't know the condition of the docks or the size of the docks or what they're currently used for or anything like that. What I do know is that the docks cannot be rented, in this particular zone. MRS. EGGLESTON-But as you and I both know, you can have your friends, or a multitude of friends that use the docks, which would be the same as renting them, even though it could very well be used in that degree. MR. REHM-I'm aware of that in some cases, yes. He's got, I've talked to Mr. Ruecker about the use of the subdivided lots, assuming that those are approved, and the current use of those right now is rental property and he's got a couple of sons, or family members anyway, that use a couple of cottages there, and he told me that he would not want to be prohibited from allowing his kids to use the docks, who probably will have boats, and so that's about all I can say. All I can say is that he is not entitled to rent the dock space, and if he rents a house, and allows the renter to utilize the dock space, I don't know how that comes down in the Town of Queensbury law, to be perfectly honest with you, but I'm not able, at this time, to say that he would be willing or would be 6 '- unwilling. MRS. EGGLESTON-He's not here tonight? MR. RUECKER-He's not here tonight. I think I would say one more thing. You've seen the plans, I hope, of the building that he's going to construct. I would assume that given the financial investment that he's going to make in the residence, he's not going to want to have a "mini marina". MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I guess I can substantial inves:t.UIent-p you wouldn't tront of your reS1denc~. say want to that, if it's seven docks stuck a in MR. REHM- I don't know how many docks. seven docks there. I don't think there are MR. THOMAS-The only thing I'm thinking about is what about Warren County, what their Planning Board has to say about this? We don't have anything from them. MR. TURNER-Yes, we do. MRS. EGGLESTON-We do, but it's based on the wrong information. MR. THOMAS-It's based on the wrong information. It doesn't mention anything about this separate lot. This is based on the other three lot subdivision. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. REHM-The three lot subdivision was not presented to Warren County. That says an area variance. It also mentions the three lot subdivision. I understand that, but it says an area variance. I would appreciate some help from the Planning Department. This presentation was made to Warren County just on the basis of this lot and this variance. Now someone from the County apparently added to that some mention of the subdivision, but if you look at, I think, the title, the first thing that you had submitted that's included on that form is Area Variance, and if I'm not wrong. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-I think it's an error on their part, of including the subdivision question, because we submitted the Area Variance to them. That was it. MR. REHM-The subdivision application was not submitted to the County. MR. MARTIN-Subdivisions don't get County. MR. REHM-That's right. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm totally confused as to what we're looking at, to be honest with you, because I'm looking at the Planning Board minutes, here, of November the 24th, and to be honest, I thought we were looking at the three lot subdivision. MRS. EGGLESTON-And they refer to that in their minutes. MR. CARVIN-Everything refers to the three lots. MR. REHM-The Warren County Planning Board? MR. CARVIN-No. This is the Queensburv Planning Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-The Queensburv Planning Board. MR. REHM-Well, yes. There is a subdivision application before. MR. MARTIN-That three lot subdivision is currently before them as 7 a subdivision. The thing that's confusing about this is that it's really two applications reflected on one plat. MR. TURNER-One lot. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-So how can you be so sure, then, that the Warren County is not their answer to the three? MR. MARTIN-They received the Area Variance application. They did not receive the subdivision. Subdivision applications simply, as a matter of fact, do not go to the County for review. They don't review subdivisions. They review variances and site plans. MR. TURNER-That's in the application that they made out. That's where it's confusing. The only thing that's before us is this lot right here. HR. CARVIN-I guess, this particular lot is the commercial use. That would be what it boils down to. MR. TURNER-Well, the commercial use, the size of the lot, it's under one acre, the setback. He's got to have relief from the front and the lake and the area. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got a letter from Merle N. Fogg, Jr., "Please record my opposition to the application of Harry Ruecker for construction of a single family dwelling on a preexisting nonconforming lot, and seeking relief from shoreline setback, lot size requirement, and front yard setback. One, any dwelling would impair my view of the lake. Two, Mr. Ruecker has already made a marina on his lakefront property. His customers park on his property adjacent to mine. Their activities during the day and at night are a disturbance and an annoyance that I have been forced to endure. Three, in addition, Mr. Ruecker now has four rental properties adjacent to the lot in question. His commercialism in this regard has impaired the area's atmosphere of one family summer camps. Rental customers do not have the same respect for the welfare of the permanent residents such as we have for each other. They are there to party and the devil with anyone else. Four, their creation of another commercial enterprise with additional sewer and boat use contamination of the lake is something our area does not need or want." MR. REHM-Could I just point out one thing? Mr. Fogg's. MR. TURNER-He owns just a little strip down through here. Is that correct? MR. REHM-Mr. Fogg's trailer, mobile home, is located on the corner of Cleverdale Road and Gunn Lane, and while he does have a view, the effort was made to move the house. He is the furthest away, that could be effected, and the effort was made to move the house to the south to maintain the view from his trailer as much as possible. MR. CARVIN-I don't think we can force the issue, I really don't. Joyce was just saying about the dock, and I don't think we can force the issue on the dock. MR. TURNER-No. If they're there, you can't tell him to take them out. It's an enforcement issue. MR. CARVIN-Yes. It would be a goodwill gesture, obviously, but I don't think it's something that we can. 8 MRS. EGGLESTON-We can't enforce it, but we could make it part of a bargain. MR. TURNER-Yes, you could. MRS. EGGLESTON-He gets the house he wants, in turn for removing. MRS. PALING-For removing the docks. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know. How do you feel, Chris? MR. THOMAS-I don't think you could force the issue with the docks. MR. TURNER-No. MR. THOMAS-They're there. MR. TURNER-They're there. MR. THOMAS-We can't make him take them out. MR. TURNER-No. MR. THOMAS-You can. like you said, enforce it through the Zoning Enforcement Officer. MR. TURNER-The last time around, when this four lot subdivision came up, this was part of it, and there was a lot of response from the neighborhood, as to the particulars of this lot, and the action that was going to come about as the result of that· subdivision. So, this time around, evidently. the neighbors are not concerned, because they're not here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, I'm sorry. I've got another letter in here that I've just come across, on fax. MR. TURNER-Okay. Read it into the record. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. This one is from Roland L. Falkner, and his wife Rosemary, It Dear Board Members: Once again Mr. Ruecker applies to the Board for a variance. This is no different than his previous application heard on October 16th, 1985. At that time, I addressed my comments to the Board in writing, a copy of which I enclose herewith. My thoughts have not changed. At that time Mr. Ruecker wanted to build a place for his mother. The request was denied at that time, and I know of no compelling change in circumstance existing today. Additionally, Mr. Ruecker applied, via the Planning Board, in April of 1988, and appeared with his attorney Robert Stewart. My wife and I attended and arrived back home at one a.m. the next morning. It was agreed that Mr. Ruecker could divide the rear lots, but could not build on the waterfront. He was also advised at that time that the waterfront should be deeded over as a common area for the future new owners of the rear lots as subdivided, and that his marina was in violation and must go. Of course Mr. Ruecker has not done any of the above. Again, I stress that Mr. Ruecker bought the entire property, except for the myriad of docks. as it exists today. When his predecessor in ti tIe was given permission to remove the main house from the waterfront to the rear lots, it was stipulated that no new home could be built in the shore lot. I presume Mr. Ruecker hopes that if enough time passes, people will forget. I also note that Mr. Ruecker always times his applications so that they are heard during those seasons when we residents, for the most part, find it most inconvenient to attend due to distance and time." Another one, by Richard Masser, "As a property owner in the immediate vicinity. I must take issue at this time with this proposal. One, a good portion of my direct view to the lake is across the lot being proposed for the construction of a residence. Without more information, I have to assume that this building would significantly reduce the view of the lake from my property. Two, 9 what are the plans for the other two lots? What will be the intended use of the land? Will there still be renters, sales to private owners? Three, as far as shore view of the construction lot, will there still be day boaters renting docking space or will we be restricted to the property owners or renters of same? For the record, I am opposed to granting the variance. Wi th the receipt of more information and getting answers to the above questions, I might consider my position. I would encourage your members to discuss this proposal wi th me and submit some basic plans for the construction lot. It would be the neighborly thing to do. I just hope, based on these comments, the Board will not grant the variance. Gunn Lane Richard Masser" That's it, I guess. MR. TURNER-Is that it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think so. MR. REHM-Mr. Turner, there are a couple of things I'd like to say, if I could. The dock issue, well, the Town of Queensbury has regulations. They're preexisting, so I suppose they're legal as far as the Town of Queensbury is concerned. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REHM-Under the Zoning Ordinance in this zone, I feel confident that this dock space cannot be rented, but there's a whole other issue, and that has to do with the Lake George Park Commission, and Mrs. Roberts was just up here. Under the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, that would be considered to be, and I hate to use this term, but under their Regulations, if we have a docking facility where other people, not the owners of the land, use the dock, it's considered to be a marina, and that would be a Class A Marina, and I feel confident that it's not licensed as a Class A Marina. So there are some real problems with continuing the use of those docks, and I really don't think that that's much of a problem. If Harry Ruecker's going to build a house on this lot, a house of the type as you see, he is certainly not going to have a marina. Secondly, I would like to quote from the minutes, from the resolution of this Board, May 18th, 1988. It says, "One feasible alternative without a variance would be the 3.2 acre parcel that is not associated wi th the lake frontage could be made into three conforming lots. The applicant would then be able to build a dwelling on the lake shore lot, because it is a preexisting nonconforming parcel. Now that's exactly what is planned. While the variance was granted before non-lakeshore came through, it's then reduced to three, and that variance died because it wasn't done within a year. in any event. So I think that this project as proposed. and also, if you take a look at the subdivision, falls squarely within the finding of this Board some years ago, and for that reason, I think that that second letter is really not correct. MR. TURNER-Germane. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, I don't think the issues he agreed to in 1985 are germane. Why? MR. TURNER-It's totally different. proposal last time, and the Board. That was included in his MR. CARVIN-The lot was voted down, so it never really went into force. MR. TURNER-No. It never went into. MRS. EGGLESTON-The one where he applied to build his mother a house on the same lot? MR. TURNER-No. 10 MRS. EGGLESTON-And he agreed to certain provisions there? MR. TURNER-No. I don't recall that. MR. REHM-I have no knowledge of that. MR. TURNER-I have no knowledge of that, either. came out, I don't believe. That never even MRS. EGGLESTON-He says he was here. MR. REHM-Well~ that'fl. what the letter says, but I have no knowledge o~ any sucn a~p~Ica~~o~. MR. TURNER-No. The big concern the last time was the use of that lot as a commercial lot. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Ruecker doesn't live on any of these other lots, does he? MR. REHM-He spends the summer there. MR. CARVIN-Just the summer? house? What, in one house here, the big HR. REHM-Yes. I can't tell you which one. There are four buildings in existence. The proposal is to remove this one so that actually, half of what's being done is one building's being removed and another building, so that the remaining total will be four after the pro j ect is done. I can sympathize with people losing their view, because somebody's going to build on this lake shore lot, but on the other hand, it's a very valuable piece of property, and I think it's being done in an order that mitigates the impact on the neighbors to the extent possible. MR. TURNER-Yes. That was the motion. I remember that, but this is different. This is a different scenario. MR. CARVIN-See, they turned down the original three lots. So that kind of killed that whole proposal, as far as I can tell. MR. TURNER-Yes. We never acted on either. MR. CARVIN-I guess it's been kind of sitting in limbo. privy to the 1988 minutes. I'm not MR. TURNER-It's on the back page. Just for the Board's information, he's got 155 feet of shoreline, and according to the Ordinance, he's entitled to two docks. If he had no docks there, he could have two. This piece of property was going to remain a common area on that proposal the last time around, and this is not the case this time. MR. CARVIN-There is plans to take out one of the camps, right? MR. REHM-Yes, there is, that's shown on the map. This is a more recent copy of the map. You might not have it, but the Planning Board has it, but it shows that this is to be removed. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I assume all the Lake George Associations and all the other environmental concerns have all been address in a positive manner so that nobody got any objections to it? MR. TURNER-They will, but this goes to the APA anyway. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So it's got to go. judgement on it to boot? So they've got to pass MR. TURNER-Yes. 11 MR. CARVIN-Is this the accurate figure. Ted, the .47 acre relief? MR. TURNER-.57 acre relief. MR. CARVIN-They've got .47 acre. MR. TURNER-The project site is .43, right here on your map. MR. CARVIN-Are we granting. what, looking to granting .47? MR. TURNER-No, .57. MR. CARVIN-.57. MR. TURNER-Yes. He needs relief from that and he needs relief from the front yard setback of 10 feet, and he needs 25 feet of relief from the shoreline. What size is the house, other than the 28 for the square footage. How many bedrooms? MR. REHM-Three bedrooms, but as I look at the plans, there's a room that can, theoretical 1 y, be used as a fourth bedroom. Consequently, we had the engineer design the sewer system for a four bedroom house, and you'll see on the plans that it's a four bedroom design, which Mr. Ruecker questioned seriously because of cost, increasing the size of the sewage disposal system, but I've done enough of this to know that many times Boards will look at this and say, that study or den or whatever it is could very well, particularly if it's upstairs, be another bedroom. So that's designed for the maximum. That's what we've done. MRS. EGGLESTON-And how many members in Mr. Ruecker's family? MR. REHM-I have no idea. grandchildren. His kids are grown. I mean, he's got MRS. EGGLESTON-Is he an older man? MR. REHM-Well, that depends, I suppose, on your point of view. I would guess that he's in his mid-50's. His children are grown, and he has grandchildren. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what type rooms are downstairs? MR. REHM-I submitted the plans. I can show you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just to see it. I just wondered. MR. REHM-Okay. Downstairs. Well, let me show it to you. There's a garage and a storage room and a study, and the breakfast room. This is the lakeshore. That's the lake. and this is the so called Great Room, which is the living room, and an entry. MRS. EGGLESTON-A three car garage? MR. REHM-It' s better to have it that way then to have stuff outside, boats and snowmobiles and things like that out and around. See, we don't have any problems as far as side setbacks anyway. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It's just the shoreline. permeability test done, Ted? Was there a MR. TURNER-That was my concern. That house is 40 foot wide and 72 feet long. It's the size of the house and the size of the lot. MR. REHM-Well, I've got the living area. The living area, first floor, is 1,290. The second floor is 904, for a total of 2,194 square feet. 12 MRS. EGGLESTON-The Staff Notes say 2,887 square feet. MR. REHM-This is from the architect. They're including the garage no doubt. HR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. REHM-I think this is, in square feet, smaller than the Hans house. It seems to me that the Hans house was 27 or something. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he had more land. MR. REHM-Did he? I can't remember. MR. TURNER-Yes. I looked at the card, because I was comparing his house with this house, and he had an acre of land, according to the card, but that doesn't sound right either. MR. REHM-I don't think it is. MR. CARVIN-Is a motion still in order, Ted? MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 121-1992 HARRY RUECKER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: That we grant .57 acres relief from Section 179-16C, 10 feet relief from the front yard setbacks, and 25 feet relief setback of all principle buildings from the mean highwater mark of a shoreline. Because of the unusual configuration of this lot, in order for the applicant to conform to the current zoning rules would in essence make this an unbuildable lot. This appears to be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. The proposed project would be reasonably consistent with the character of the neighborhood. It does not appear that by granting this variance that there will be any effect on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Mr. Philo NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1993 TYPE II LC-10A DONALD KRUGER OWNER: SANDRA EGGLESTON FULLER ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT. REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET. PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS FORTY-SIX AND SIXTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (46.62) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIFTY-THREE AND THIRTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (53.38) FEET. REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK IS ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET. PROPOSED REAR YARD SETBACK IS SEVENTY-ONE AND NINETY- SIX HUNDREDTHS ( 71. 96 ) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-EIGHT AND FOUR ONE HUNDREDTHS (28.04) FEET. REQUIRED PERMEABILITY IS NINETY-FIVE (95) PERCENT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY EIGHTY-EIGHT (88) PERCENT PERMEABILITY. APPLICANT IS SEEKING SEVEN (7) PERCENT RELIEF. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 123-1-15.22 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION 179-13C DONALD KRUGER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 13 Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-1993, Donald Kruger, Meeting Date: January 20, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on a vacant lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Applicant is proposing forty-six and sixty-two hundredths (46.62) feet front yard setback and is seeking fifty-three and thirty-eight hundredths (53.38) feet relief from Section 179-13C, which requires one hundred (100) feet as the front yard setback. 2. Applicant is proposing seventy-one and ninety-six hundredths (71.96) feet rear yard setback and is seeking twenty-eight and four hundredths (28.04) feet relief from Section 179-13C, which requires one hundred (100) feet as the rear yard setback. 3. Applicant is proposing approximately eighty- eight (88) percent permeability and is requesting seven (7) percent relief from Section 179-13C that requires ninety-five (95) percent permeability for the Land Conservation zones. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty rests with the fact that this is a preexisting nonconforming lot whose size (.38 acre) prevents placement of the proposed structure within the zoning requirements. 2. IS THIS THE HINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? As the size of the lot prohibits placement of the proposed structure to meet the zoning requirements, it would appear that the minimum variance would be necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty and no other option is available that would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONFLICT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? Applicant believes that the proposed project, which is an expansion of a previous application for a single family home, will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to other properties in the district, nor conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It appears that the variance will not effect public facilities or services. 5. IS THIS REQUEST THE MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? As there is no other practical place to site the proposed project on the parcel in question, it would appear that the relief requested is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The applicant is proposing to construct a single family dwelling which is approximately thirty (30) percent larger than a proposed structure which was recently granted an area variance for this parcel. The proposal will further reduce the front and rear yard setbacks along the twenty (20) foot width of both the front and rear yard porches in addition to reducing the permeability of the lot to eighty-eight (88) percent. Although this parcel is very small for the zone in which it is located, and further reduction of setbacks and permeability criteria are issues the Board should address, the staff is concerned that if the proposal is approved, that this project be the final development of the parcel. ATTACHED TO THIS PACKET ARE COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. The ZBA's previous resolution of Area Variance No. 78-1992 granted to this parcel on October 21, 1992. 2. The previous application's site plan." MRS. EGGLESTON-And I'm going to abstain, Ted. So I'll stay out of the discussion. MR. TURNER-Mr. Kruger. MR. KRUGER-I'm Don Kruger, and I'm here representing Sandra Eggleston. We requested and were granted a variance before, got a building permit, and upon clearing the land and erecting the foundation, we decided that the house that we were proposing to build really wasn't what should be on that piece of property. She has a beautiful piece of land up there, and essentially what we're doing is adding a front porch to it. It's like five feet off the house and 20 something feet wide and we want to cantilever the 14 _. house to off the back of the foundation, so it'll make a 26 feet house instead of a 24 foot width. The length will still remain the same, 48 feet, and we wanted to put a screened porch out in the back. We talked to the neighbors and the objection they had before was the house being too small, and the neighbors that objected before have no objection to it now. MR. TURNER-Okay. regards to this? hearing. Anyone have Okay. All any questions of Mr. right. Let me open Kruger, in the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-We have a letter from Sharon Bailey, .. As I have stated several times in the past, I am opposed to a building on the lot presently owned by S. Eggleston. The lot is so vastly nonconforming to the LC-10 requirements that it takes away from the reasons why others bought property in that area, such as to have some precious space around them. BUilding on a lot less than one acre, in an area that is set up to have one house per 10 acres certainly is 90 percent non-compliant. Another area in question is why the meeting now. Ms. Eggleston has already had the basement of proposed house constructed. It seems as though, on this particular situation, the Town Board has been working for the minority. I understand that the majority of the neighbors oppose this building site and have openly stated to that effect. As the saying goes, is the Board closing the barn door after the horse is out? Does our Queensbury government work on the basis of what your name is and where you work, or is it a government for the general populous in Queensbury? At this point in time, I would shudder to answer this question. based on the past performance of our Town Board. I vote opposed to a variance regarding this substandard sized lot for an LC-10 rated area." MR. TURNER-Who was that? Bailey? MRS. EGGLESTON-Bailey? Yes. They're on that street. I think they were one of the ones. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I thought she sent a letter in support of it the last time. MR. KRUGER-That was Mr. Bailey. MR. TURNER-Mr. Bailey? Okay. MR. KRUGER-I think they're divorced, at this point, and I guess we're kind of caught in a marital dispute. but I have a letter in support from him. MR. TURNER-I know there was a letter in support. MR. CARVIN-That was on the original, right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So that really is irrelevant. in this particular case. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Kruger? MR. THOMAS-Yes. The letter stated that the basement was in. Is it in? HR. KRUGER-Yes. 15 MR. THOMAS-Is it 24 or 26 feet, width. MR. KRUGER-The foundation is 24 by 48 with a one car garage on it. HR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. KRUGER-If we build this house, and you give us the approvals, we're going to just cantilever the back two feet. \ MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Have you looked at any other designs, in other words, that doesn't encroach on St. Andrews on the western side? MR. KRUGER-It does not encroach on Mr. St. Andrews. We're still at the same side yards. We just want a five foot front porch on the front. MR. TURNER-Yes. He's going to cantilever his back. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This has already been approved, this garage? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So we're just looking at this then? MR. TURNER-You're looking at the porches, and the cantilevering in the back to pick up that other additional footage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we're not encroaching, we're not going east or west on this? MR. TURNER-No. I don't think so. Is that correct? MR. KRUGER-Does that show the proposed additions on what you're looking at? MR. CARVIN-No. That's why I'm looking at two drawings here, and I don't know which one is which. See, I thought this was the original. So I thought you were adding a garage here. MR. KRUGER-No. The garage is on it. MR. CARVIN-The garage is already approved. Okay. MR. KRUGER-So essentially that 20 foot side yard. MR. CARVIN-So all you're doing is just adding this little porch. HR. KRUGER-Maybe this is a little clearer than what you have. MR. CARVIN-So these are just the two? MR. KRUGER-Yes, and two feet more on the house. MR. CARVIN-Okay, going back, not towards the sides. MR. TURNER-It isn't going to change much. questions? If not, we'll get on with this. Okay. Any further MR. CARVIN-As long as it's going north, south. It's not going east, west. So it really is not going any closer. They're just going out the back another two foot. MR. TURNER-Okay, a motion's in order, then. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1993 DONALD KRUGER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: 16 To grant relief to the applicant from the front and rear yard setback. The applicant is seeking 53.38 feet of relief from the front yard setback from the requirement, which is 100 feet, and he's seeking 28.04 feet of relief from the rear yard setback, from the requirement, which is 100 feet. This is a preexisting nonconforming building lot and although it is substandard from the current zoning regulations, the applicant has the right to build on this lot, and this would allow the applicant reasonable use of the property while granting relief necessary from the setbacks. It would not adversely effect public facilities and the relief on the permeability is seven percent relief from the required ninety-five percent. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Ted, before you, do you want to address the issue that Staff is concerned that if the proposal is approved that this project be the final development of this parcel? MR. TURNER-I think the Staff has the right to make that comment, but I think the applicant also has a right to further pursue an application if he so desires. and it's up to the Board. at that time, to consider the application and to either approve it or deny it. MR. CARVIN-All right. MR. TURNER-I don't see any further development that could go on on that property. I think it's just a moot question. AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1993 TYPE II SR-1A WILLIAM L. POTVIN OWNER: WILLIAM L. POTVIN MITCHELL L. POTVIN. WILLIAM J. MATHER MARIGOLD DRIVE (LUZERNE ROAD TO LAUREL LANE TO MARIGOLD DRIVE) APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF TWENTY (20) SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON A VACANT LOT. REQUIRED LOT AREA IS ONE (1) ACRE PER PRINCIPAL BUILDING. PROPOSED LOT AREA FOR EIGHTEEN (18) LOTS IS FROM ONE HALF (1/2) ACRE TO THREE QUARTERS (3/4) ACRE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE QUARTER (1/4) ACRE TO ONE HALF (1/2) ACRE. REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET. PROPOSED WIDTH FOR FOURTEEN (14) LOTS IS FROM NINETY-FOUR (94) FEET TO ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE (125) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET TO FIFTY-SIX (56) FEET. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-53.1 SECTION 179-19(A). (C) LOT SIZE: 44.246 MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-1993, William L. Potvin, Meeting Date: January 20, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing construction of twenty (20) single family homes on a vacant lot pending subdivision approval. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Required lot area is one (1) acre for one (1) principal building wi thin zone. Proposed lot area for eighteen (18) lots is from one halt (1/2) acre to three quarters (3/4) acre. Applicant is seeking relief of one quarter (1/4) acre to one half (1/2) acre for applicable lots. 2. Required lot width is one hundred and fifty (150) feet. Proposed lot width for fourteen (14) lots is from ninety-four (94) feet to one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet. Applicant is seeking relief of twenty-five (25) feet to fifty-six (56) feet for applicable lots. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF 17 ---- STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Proposed project site is surrounded on two sides by parcels of less than a half (1/2) acre including a Mobile Home Overlay District, and considered inconsistent for development as zoned. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? As the project is proposed for the site, it would appear that the required relief is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty and it would appear that no other option is available for the proposed project. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONFLICT WITH ~HE OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or district as it is consistent with existing development in the area, and would not conflict with the objectives of any plan or pOlicy of the Town. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES. It would appear that the variance would not effect pUblic facilities or services. 5. IS THIS REQUEST THE HINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? It would appear that the minimum relief is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as project is proposed. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Applicant has presented the Board with three (3) variations regarding the design of the subdivision and the various nonconforming lot widths and lot areas associated with each of those designs. If project is to be approved, degree of relief granted for the area and lot widths will be determined by selection of specific subdivision design." MR. CARVIN-Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask to be excused from this particular. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm here representing the applicant. With me is Leon Steves, from the surveying firm of VanDusen & Steves, and Michael Vasiliou, who is a builder, who I'll call upon as part of my presentation. First, if I can, I would like to kind of set some background for the request that we have before the Board. This is a subdivision which is on the north side of Luzerne Road, and east of West Mountain. It is called Clendon Ridge, and it was developed in 1971, as far as it has been developed to this point. At that time, 49 lots were approved, and at that time, a portion of the land was left vacant, and was noted as being owned by the developer on the subdivision map that was submitted and filed at the County Clerk's Office, and which I believe was passed out to many of the different people that purchased the lots. The parcel that we're talking about in particular is this area right here. which is on the east side of the existing subdivision, lying between the subdivision and Birch Road. If I were to draw Birch Road, it would be over here, and there would be a set of lots along the west side of Birch Road that adjoin the back of this particular property. To get to the property, you go to Luzerne Road, and then come in through the existing subdivision, Laurel Lane and Marigold Drive, and then into what we proposed as our particular subdivision. On the subdivision map, we have shown the area to be subdivided as 44 acres, and I did that because the developer has, in addition to what is the 15 acres over here, 24 acres, I believe, and it's actually 49, I've got the figures on the table there, of other land right here, which it does not intend to develop, and I'm not 100 percent sure, but if we applied, maybe, for relief under clustering, we might not be here, or might not need to be here. '¡'his seemed to be the quickest way to go forward. There's no intention of developing this property over here. Clustering is permitted in this zone. It's not contiguous, and that's a question I've got in the back of my mind, it would maybe call for an interpretation, which would get us into a two month cycle, and I thought instead of doing that, I would come, present the plans as they are and see what this Board's reaction is. If you took the 18 total piece. and this is all one tax map. and I'll show you a tax map in a minute. It's all one parcel on the tax maps, and I showed you our proposed plan, which is either 20 or 21 lots. We would be, on a cluster basis, an average in excess of two acres per lot, as far as density goes. The required density of that zone is one acre. I say that just so everybody gets a feeling of impact that we have or that we propose here. Our thought is, and I'm not sure how we'll work this, we would either offer this 24 acres that is on this side of the development, which would be the west side of the development, which would be the west side of the development, to the Town, as an open space, green area, whatever they, would like ~~e ~o th'J-fl) oÍ1hna ~llrrcfon o~ rð~î t rg& ~ n& r5u ~.u I ~ hneortee itsh~ t d~\}~ 1 oÞ~e fl£ that is being planned on West Mountain Road that adjoins this, which also has a part of that John Clendon Brook. Herald Square Section III, which is on the south side of Luzerne Road, also has a section of John Clendon Brook. It might be an opportunity, from a conservation point, to actually have a good nature walk along that whole section, by the Town or by residents. If the Town does not want that as a parcel for open space or green space or recreation area. it's not something you can build a ball field on, then probably what we would do is offer to just whack it up among the people that live along this. We would extend their building lines back to the end of the parcel, if they so liked it, or so wanted the parcel. We would put covenants in there, and I'd have to work this out, that they could not build or do anything on it, but it would be theirs. Other than that, what typically happens is that the developer lets it go for taxes, and five years from now you have somebody else in with another idea or proposal and it doesn't really give you any finality. I think we can handle that when we get to site plan review or subdivision approval. That's where we are. and that's basically what is in existence right now or approved right now. A little bit of history, too. If you take a look at the first zoning map for the Town of Queensbury, and because of the dating of the initial approval, you go back to the 1967 map. This area, in 1967, was zoned R-3 Residential. The lot requirement, then, was 20.000 square feet. That's generally what was followed when that development was put together. In 1974, as part of the application, it was noted by the Health Department that there were adjacent lands, and that the developer at that point, which was a James VamValis, not the clients that I represent right now, would have to declare his intention as to the balance of the land. and he, in a 1974 letter, indicated that, at that time, he would not develop the balance of the land until water became available and he would, at that point, submit only 49 lots. There is a Health Department rule that if you do not have municipal water, you're not to go beyond 49 lots in a subdivision. Since then, water has become available. The Health Department acknowledged that by a letter of February 4th, 1974. I'll give the Board a copy of the letter that was submitted by Mr. VamValis, and the additional letter that was submitted by the Health Department with regard to that, just for the purpose of your file, for background. I also would like to give to the Board a copy of a couple of the newspaper ads that appeared on June 4th, 1976, and as I understand it, this is the only copy I have. I didn't go research a whole bunch of papers, but this is the general scheme of advertising that was used for this subdivision back then when it was initially opened up. I'll call the Board's attention to the language in the ad at that time. This 80 lot subdivision is nicely treed and many parcels offer spectacular views. That was the indication at that time, that it was not going to remain a 49 lot subdivision as shown here. It was going to be an 80 lot subdivision, and everybody, whether in favor of the proposal or not, could get a little humor on the idea that the lots could be purchased for $4,000 and the houses could be purchased for $36,000 on the lot. As part of the initial approvals and the initial filings, and I think this must be some place here in the Town archives, although we didn't ask anybody to search it out, there was a subdivision map filed by VanDusen and Steves, which shows exactly what we're talking about. In fact, it shows a much greater 19 density than what we're talking about this evening, because these lots in this particular area that were undeveloped, which is from here over, are shown as 100 by 200 lots. There are on here 21 lots. Most of them are of a much smaller size. I don't know if, in 1971, we had a phasing provision in our Ordinance. I don't think we did. MR. TURNER-No. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think that actually came into effect until 1988 or maybe 1992. Also as background, we did a revision of zoning throughout the Town in 1990 and 1982. In 1982, this property did not change in the character that it had before. It was then zoned SR-20, Suburban Residential 20.000 square foot, 100 foot minimum lots. We've got the 1982 map here, as well as the 1986 map, and I'll show these to the Board. I'd like to have these back. I don't have many of these. This is the 1967 map. This is the '82. I won't unfold the '82 map. I'll just show you, I did photocopy of a portion of it for some other application that I had once, and the property that shows Birch Lane right in here, it's right where the SR-20 is. So, up until 1982, at least, everybody thought you were going to have 20,000 square foot lots, in the remainder of this subdivision, if and when the water became available. The problem that we have here tonight did not arise until October of 1988. In October of 1988, this area was zoned SR- lA, which was a requirement of one acre lots, minimum frontage of 150 feet. Clustering is permitted in an SR-1A zone. So we still may very well comply, if you really get to dotting I's and crossing T's, but I'm basically, and will show you shortly, that really what we're talking about here is eight or nine additional lots. I can show, and we've got configurations that show that you could build 12 one acre lots with this parcel that stands to the east of the development. but west of Birch Road. I'll show the Board. and then put on the board, a general tax map of the area. Unfortunately, what has happened is that the development that has occurred really does not lend itself to trying to develop an envelope of one acre lots where this particular parcel is. I've outlined the parcel in yellow. If you look along the west boundary, there are seven lots there that are 100 feet, or seven lots that are smaller than the lots that we actually propose. and this one on the corner is also 100 foot in individual ownership. This one here is 100 foot in individual ownership, and if you take. along Birch Road, and this is a mobile home park overlay area. There are three lots individually shown here, and then if you go up and look up here, there are five more lots, as an insert, which we've put in in one of the exhibits that we attached to the map. We put the insert back down there so you could see it easier. There are actually, I think, eight 100 foot lots. We don't propose any 100 foot lots in our particular proposals that we've made. I'll put this on the board. I've got a blow up, and I guess this was also distributed, actually to the Board members, so I'll put it up here. This is different than the general map, the small blow up which was attached to your map, because it had the insert actually put next to the property, and also the Town Board recently approved a subdivision up here of 10,000 square foot lots. as a re-zoning, I believe, of Mr. Diehl. MR. TURNER-Mr. Diehl, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So we now are surrounded by less than one acre lots, and that's the whole purpose of being here. We don't think, in all honesty, that you can create an envelope in the middle of a block, without access to it, independent of that block, and think that, reasonably, you're going to be able to develop it different than what it's surrounded by. I happened to take a ride up and down Birch Road, and I hope that the Board members did it as a part of their review of the application, and I'm sure the neighbors are aware of it, and I don't say this in a derogatory manner, but it does effect the application. My recollection is, you've got a small house here on the corner. You've got a mobile home on this 20 lot. You've got a house that I would guess, from myoId days of maybe 24 by 24, maximum. It might be a few feet one way or the other on the next lot, 24 by 24 on the next lot. You've got a mobile home. You've got a modular, not a very big modular on the next one. You've got a mobile home, a modular house, which is a little bit larger. You've got four other mobile homes, and on one of these lots, I got very confused. and I think if you look at the insert that was put on there, there appears to be two lots that are back to back. There's one lot that has no frontage at all, and it looked like there might even be double mobile homes, one on the back lot, and one on the front lot. I marked that down on this {~g061ewhrelaedifi~ Vfuy hwiA\liin~h,te~ob%.ß1y ,j ~Jt m~~'t' ~i ¥€i~~ e1.~hèpvã mobile home or a modular home. Those people are, I'm sure, very pleased and very happy with their homes, and I'm not here to speak against the homes, but I think it effects us as to how Mr. Potvin, or the two Mr. Potvins and their brother-in-law might actually be able to develop this particular parcel. When we started this project, we went to the Planning Board for an informal presentation. It's just my manner of doing it. thinking that we're better off seeing what type of support we'd get or not. They, in their comments, indicated, not by formal vote, but by consensus, that they thought that what we were proposing was in character. I showed them three different, perhaps, schemes, or designs. The first two show that you could have 12 one acre lots in there. The first one calls for two lollipop cul-de-sacs. They did not like that at all. There are two cul-de-sacs with two lollipop lots. These would meet the requirements for road frontage, but they'd be long, extended driveways. Along the back of Marigold Road, and I'll show these to the audience, because I think many of the neighbors are here, there would be three lots to those lots that actually front on Marigold Drive. The Board did not like that. We showed another one, just to show that we could do this, before we made the presentation for our suggestion, would they support us for a variance, for 12 lots, with a cul-de-sac all the way around. That's 1400 feet, and Mr. Vasiliou is a local builder. He has supplied me with some figures and some costs, and we're not applying on the basis of hardship. This is not a Use Variance. This is an Area Variance. My position is simply that the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance aren't justified here, and that they should, as a matter of justice, be amended to alleviate how they are not practical, and how they impose unnecessary difficulties upon the developer. If you take a look at that 12 lot, with a cul-de-sac, and you use conservative type construction costs, you're talking about a lot expense of $23,374 per lot. We are thinking in the neighborhood, and any neighbors that are here might correct this, that the selling price for houses up in that area, and maybe the selling prices are going to be a little bit different on this parcel then they are out here, because we are, in fact. the buffer between the existing mobile homes. as opposed to being in the middle of the development, some place around $120,000 to $130,000. If you do the cost of the lot at $23,000, you're beyond what is. apparently, the general rule of thumb of 15 to 18 percent lot cost to total market cost of your property. You're building a development that you're just not going to be able to feasibly do, or economically be able to do. I'm not talking about more profit. There just is no profit in that type of circumstance. You should be able to have a cost of your lot of around $16,000, and you would inflate that, because you're going to have to time value some of your money. You aren't going to sell all 20 lots. You're going to pay insurance. You're going to pay interest on your development costs. You should be able to put into your package, when you build the $120,000, $130,000 house, $22,000, and I can have Mike Vasiliou. Mike, would you introduce yourself for the record. MIKE VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-I' m Mike Vasiliou. I build homes. development in Queensbury, and in other places. I've done some 21 MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Michael, is anything that I've said and related that you've said to me different than what you've told me? MR. VASILIOU-No. I guess I'm in agreement with everything. I think that the lot cost on a one acre, if you went to the one acre scenario, would be too great to support the value of the houses that you might build in that neighborhood. MR. 0' CONNOR-What we did, when we got to this point with the Planning Board, we then said to the Planning Board, what we'd like to do is try and do something that is reasonable, and we laid this on the table before the Planning Board, and said, this is 21 lots. It uses the existing road cuts that are there, the existing property lines. We can't change this property line. We can't change that property line. That would be practical. That would be doable. The Planning Board actually said, at that point, and I don't mean to say this in the sense that they bound themselves to it, but the consensus of the informal discussion, it doesn't look unreasonable, but one of them, I forget who, said we wouldn 't really like to see anything less than 23,000 square feet. We had some lots on there of 20,000 square feet. So where they came up with 23,000, I don't know, but that was the suggestion. The other suggestion was. how about secondary access, can you provide secondary access to that parcel? I just note, if you look at the original subdivision map here, and I go back to my piece, wherever it is, over here, there was secondary access provided that was going to go to Sherman Avenue, and it was going to go through the north end of the project. When the Diehl subdivision was approved, they did not require him to do that, and this was the Town Board and Planning Board together. I believe Mr. Steves was present, and actually asked for secondary access, and for some reason they didn't. So, we went back to the drawing board, and that's where we came up with the three scenarios that we came up with. One other background information I would also put up is I understand that Mr. Miner, at one time or another, who owns the property, we have full development on this side of the parcel. We have full development, or dedication for development, on that side of the parcel. We obviously have full development on this side of the parcel. A Mr. Miner owns from here down to Luzerne Road. We understand that at one time or another he proposed a subdivision of that corner piece, which was originally the Herald piece, something of this nature which would be access from Sherman Avenue Road, with a right hand turn, with a dead end before it got to Birch Road. because everybody seems to be recognizing that you're not going to be able to have a good marketable subdivision if you have access out onto Birch Road, because of the existing traffic. This was turned down because, as I understand it, they didn't want the dead end there. Mr. Miner did build a house, or someone built a house right here. If you go and you look at that house, you will see that it faces east. It looks like it's ready for a road to come right along the front of it. So what we tried to do was, as one of the scenarios, and the first scenario that I think that we have, and it's called Scenario A, we propose simply to pick Laurel Lane, bring it through this parcel. and dead end it at the Miner property, and that would allow for future expansion through the Miner property and future hookup. That would have some, maybe, appeal to the neighbors, okay. It would mean that, eventually, these people would not be coming back through Laurel Lane for access. Eventually, they would have secondary access for emergency vehicles, if there was ever some problem at Laurel Lane, and this is something that the Town, in the later Ordinances, have gotten into, as to secondary access. There are a lot of pluses to it. I don't know if that's the scenario that the Planning Board will actually approve or not approve. That is A. When we did A, and I'll put it up on the Board, I'll just note that on the four lots that back on to existing properties that are on Marigold Drive, the existing properties on Marigold Drive are 23,256, or 255 square feet, 20,000 square feet. 20.000 square feet, 20,000, 20,000, 20,000, 23.346. The first lot that we have, which we numbered lot number 20, and I'm just going in reverse order, I guess, is actually an acre. 22 There is no variance that would be required for that lot. The next lot is 25,900 square feet, almost 26,000. That's larger than any lot to which it backs. The next lot is 31,200, almost three quarters of an acre, as opposed to the less than a half acre lots it actually backs on. The next lot is 32,000, again, three quarters of an acre, as opposed to the 20,000 and 23,000 square foot lot that it backs onto, and I think this is where Staff says we will not have a detrimental impact upon the neighborhood. We're not introducing something new. We actually are having lots bigger than what's there now. to our immediate neighbors, along the lots that back onto the property that are on Birch Road. which is the mobile home oVderlay. I've alsoh l.aid0Qut.. at least tthe.lwidthhof tnose lots, an the maX1mum W1dt 1S -2 ,ø teet, aLmos aL o~ -t em are 100. There's nine 100 foot lots that we actually back on there. The minimum width along the back of there is probably 115 feet, 120. Even to that neighborhood. we're not introducing something new. Now, the second scenario that we present is a combination, if you will, of both, and I'm not going to go through this business. again, about this is 20,000. This is 21,000, and whatnot. We aren't changing our lot sizes greatly. We changed some of the lot sizes. Now, those four lots are all identical to what I said before. One's an acre. One's a little less than three quarters of an acre, and the other two are in excess of three quarters of an acre. but here what we've done is, again, pick up the existing road cut and provided for a potential hookup to the Miner property, if Mr. Miner so desires. I've only had one conversation with him and simply told him I was going to make a presentation to the Boards and I sent him some maps. I have not had any response. He wanted to talk to his attorney about it and whatnot. It's an option. We're certainly willing to make that a possibili ty. The third scenario is back to the original 1971 design, except we take less lots, and that's simply a moon-shaped cul-de-sac, or not cul-de-sac, moon-shaped road, I guess. These lots in here do get somewhat smaller, in order to maintain the same numbering. The first one, instead of an acre, is 33,000. The second one is 23,000, and here we kept to what the Planning Board suggested that we not have any lots less than 23.000 square feet. We presented it in the sense of three different proposals, because I don't think it's this Board's jurisdiction and it hasn't been your practice in the past to say, you're going to approve this subdivision. We would ask for a generic type approval that we not, that we have at least X lots, that no lot have a width less than Y, that no lot have an area less than Z, and something that could be defined, could be worked out, even if you wanted to, be subject to your review after we went through the Planning Board, to make sure that we kept within the intent of your resolution, if you're in agreement with what we've proposed. With every development, you run into rumors, and I've spoken to a couple of people in the neighborhood, and people said that they should get out, somebody else was telling them that they should get out and oppose this because we're going to propose a lot smaller houses in here, a lot smaller lots in here than what is in the other part of the existing subdivision. There are restrictive covenants on the first section, okay. Those are in Book 592 of Deeds at Page 270. I'm willing to stipulate on the record that the restrictive covenants that would be imposed upon the new section would not be any less than those restrictive covenants. There's no intention here to try and change the character or the flavor of the existing neighborhood. There's only an intention here to try and make something that's reasonable, that makes it possible to develop that property. Potentially, we may end up with some benefit, under either of those two scenarios, if the people want that type entrance directly from Sherman, and they want a secondary access. We may have, if Mr. Miner develops his property, some benefit there. We certainly can have some benefit to the people that are along the west side of the property by extending their property lines, if they want some nature land themselves or if the Town wants it. I tried to get the Town to take the property for Herald Square II. and we have a Town Councilman sitting here, and the Town Board didn't want to do it, but maybe if you take, instead of 2500 foot length of Clendon 23 Brook, you now add this length to it and you add the earlier length to it, you get something that's meaningful. Maybe not. That's up to the Town Board to decide, and that's another proposal that would have to be made. So, basically, I think that's what we've got. If you have any questions, I didn't mention for the record, I don't know whether it's of real significance, my understanding is that my clients, and one of them was going to try to be here, but I don't see them here, became involved in the property in 1979, eight years after the original approval, and after all the original correspondence. They became individually owners of the property in a deed dated in, 1979 they became owners of Homestead Village Corporation. They dissolved the Corporation in '89/'90, and became individual owners of the lot. Their involvement with the subdivision has been since 1979, but long after the original approval and the original set up of roads and whatnot. Do you have any questions of myself, at this point, or of Mr. Vasiliou, or Leon Steves? MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any? Leon, on the radiuses, any thoughts given to maybe increasing the frontage on the radiuses? Was there any scenarios done in that respect? MR. STEVES-Yes, and I've looked at it, and it's almost impossible to increase it due to the size of the area that we have to work with. The only way we could do that is by pushing it further to the east, which would reduce the depth of the lots on the east side of that road. The center line radius is a requirement of the Town Code. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. MR. STEVES-So that would mean pushing the lot, really, 100 feet easterly of the road, 100 feet easterly of where it's presently planned. If you did that, you'd only have a lot back there of 100 foot in depth, which then would give you severe problems of both rear and front setbacks, and then of course you have to have a lot, what, 200, 300 feet wide to get any kind of size. MR. O'CONNOR-The radius of the roads are in compliance with what was the design standards in 1971. We have obtained waivers from the Planning Board, and even in that neighborhood, for those type radiuses. because they're not main thoroughfares, and we can bring an engineer who says that they are not a safety hazards. Actually, if you look at that question, Mr. Vasiliou says perhaps it would be better it we made it tighter, and made it a shorter radius to give a better buffer behind these lots from the mobile home existence over here, which maybe from a marketability point of view is a fact, and he is actually involved with that issue, and well aware of it, but I didn't think that would be well with these people who did buy 100 foot lots, 100 by 200 foot lots. So we did not move it wi th that purpose. So we did not move it with that purpose. We left it where it would fall, as it naturally fall, with the prior existing roadway. That's something. I think, that the Planning Board will actually have to go through as part of their review process. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Are you done with your presentation? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm done. MR. TURNER-Okay. Is there any questions from anybody yet? All right. I will now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MAUREEN LEACH MRS. LEACH-Maureen Leach. What happened, about five years ago, there was a gas leak on Birch Road. and the whole neighborhood had to evacuate, and if they did make an entrance onto Sherman Road, we 24 wouldn't mind, and we wouldn't mind, like, a couple. ten houses back there, but if he was going to build 24 houses, it would be too much to entrance all out of Laurel Lane. Because, and this was another thing that happened, it was either last year or the year before, we had two really bad accidents at the end of Luzerne and Laurel Lane. Now, they didn't impair us from getting in and out of the development. but they were close enough that they could have, if it had been another scenario, but the main thing was, if they reduce the lot size, they're going to be able to build more houses, and as I said, we had that one time where we had to evacuate, and everybody in the neighborhood has at least two cars. There are pepple hwi th hthree c.ars J.. and ther.e' s no wavdthafl we 'v if anythina llKè t at appenea a~aln, Ena~ we COUî a e acua~e Ena~ neighborhood. JOHN SPERRY MR. SPERRY-My name is John Sperry, and I live on Marigold Drive, a neighbor in the area. A couple of points. It sounds to me like Mr. 0' Connor would like to turn back the clock to 1970, and reinstate the Zoning Ordinance that was in effect in the 1970's, and I believe the purpose of re-zoning the Town in the 1980's was to reduce the densities and to increase the amount of greenspace available to retain the rural nature of the Town of Queensbury. It's now 1993, and I don't think we want to return to the 1970's. and I believe we should retain the one acre requirement in that area. I believe the Master Plan intended to reduce the densities and increase the green space. MR. TURNER-Okay. CONNIE LITTLE MRS. LITTLE-My name is Connie Little, and I live on Laurel Lane, and when we're talking about, they described all the houses on Birch Road, but there is no access to Birch Road whatsoever. Everything he described in the neighborhood was not anything that is even in conjunction with that. Is there going to be another outlet somewhere that maybe it could go to Birch Road, so that traffic would flow that way a little bit? I don't know. MR. TURNER-No. It's not proposed. MRS. LITTLE-I mean, I don't understand why they didn't do the rest of the development, how that would look. MR. TURNER-There's the proposal. MRS. LITTLE-And they propose to go down through Miner's, you know. If that's the proposal, I don't understand that either. MR. TURNER-Okay. Where do you live, now? MRS. LITTLE-I'm on Laurel Lane. MR. TURNER-Okay. number is? What's your lot? Do you know what your lot MRS. LITTLE-Twenty-four, maybe. twenty-five. MR. TURNER-Okay. MIKE MALLUCHI MR. MALLUCHI-My name is Mike Malluchi. I live at 33 Laurel Lane. As I'm understand, right now, if I hear you correct. Mike, you can put 12 lots there without any approval, is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Without a variance. 25 MR. MALLUCHI-Without a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MALLUCHI-Well, I've heard a couple of different numbers, 18, 20, 21. How many lots are you proposing, or does it depend on which one gets approved? MR. O'CONNOR-Twenty or twenty-one, would be the total, depending upon which the Planning Board wanted to accept. MR. MALLUCHI-Well, in the notes that we had tonight wi th the agenda, the agenda stated 18. I'm a little confused. MRS. PALING-Twenty. MR. THOMAS-Twenty. MR. MALLUCHI-So what was the 18? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-The 18 refers to how many lots would require a variance. MR. O'CONNOR-Of the 21 or 20, some of the lots are one acre. So, I think the notice was only of the lots within that number that actually would require variances. MR. MALLUCHI-The main thing is. because of the development, in the last six, seven years, more people have builtin that specific area. There's a lot of children that are walking up and down Laurel Lane, which at this present time, if you have, lets say 18 or 20 more homes, it would be an additional 40 cars, a minimum of 24 maybe cars going up and down Laurel Lane. I think that's one of the main things, is the access and the availability of only one road. They should be taking care of almost 70 homes. It's on a straight thoroughfare. There's a couple of cul-de-sacs. The big concern of mine, and my concern, is it possible to go through Miner's property. It would make a lot more sense, if you made conditional access, and it would be able to support those people that are in this development, no matter if it's 18, 20, or 21. My main concern is the access of the roads for these people going in and out, and for emergency vehicles. but if you put it the other way, you're going to have people coming up Laurel Lane, going down Marigold, back around the look and coming out the other way. I mean, it's going to cause a bottleneck, and if there is a problem over there, you're going to cause a lot more confusion. Yes, I understand when I built there, this was part of the plot, but it was not, the homes weren't there. The kids weren't there. You couldn't see it. Now I can see it. and it could cause ma j or confusion. If something was able to be done with Drew Miner's property, I don't think there'd be any problem. If you go back to that covenants, on our property, if I'm not mistaken, the minimum square foot of a lot for the homes at that time were only 1.000 square feet. Am I correct, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe they're 1250. MR. MALLUCHI-If anything, I would like to see them increased. That's the only other thing restrictive that I would like to see. MR. O'CONNOR-My copy has 1250. MR. MALLUCHI-Well. even 1250, I would rather see that increased. MR. O'CONNOR-Our indication to you would be that, that would be the minimum, and Michael, in the price range that we're talking about, house, exc I usi ve of garage or porch, what's a ballpark square footage? I've asked Mr. Vasiliou a question. It was not on the tape, and I apologize to Staff for asking the audience a question, but for the record, we're talking 15 to 1800 square foot for a 26 house. Again, we don't intend to change the flavor. We hope that we can do what we propose, by going through Miner. That's something, I've been in the subdivision business for some time. It used to be a requirement that you always show additional or possible access to adjoining property owners. At one time the fellow did have an interest to do it. He built a house that looks like he has an interest to do it. and I wouldn't know Mr. Miner if he were here. Is he here? Okay. 1 don't have anymore control than that. and basically, again, what we're talking about is either eight, and we're not talking 40 additional cars. We're talking about cars maybe from eight or nine homes, in addition to what we'd be entitled to as of right, without the variance. MR. MALLUCHI-No. I'm not saying, but at at it as a resident of that development. I mean, no matter how you look at it, resident, I want to voice my concern of the same time, I'm looking To me, it's 40 more cars. it's 40 more cars. As a 40 cars, not 24. MR. TURNER-All right. Your point's well taken. DENNIS JACKSON MR. JACKSON-My name is Dennis Jackson, and I live at 43 Marigold Drive, property directly adjacent to the proposed subdivision, and I'd like to bring up a couple of points, that are facts. All the homes that are adjacent on that stretch are at least 1500 square feet. Some of them are upwards of 2,000 square feet, that are directly adjacent, and I haven't seen anything, myself, that is going to say. okay. the minimum is 1200 feet, that's not, if you take a ride up that street. Marigold Drive, that would not be conforming to a similar type home in tha~ area, if it was 11, 12, 1300 feet. What type of homes are we proposing here? I've just seen the development built over on Corinth Road, that had to be dropped and all these modular, how do I know what these homes are going to be constructed like? I haven't seen anything as far as that goes. As far as the traffic goes, I can tell you this. the access road from Luzerne Road to Clendon Ridge is in a pretty precarious layout. There are hills on both sides as you're trying to pullout of that road. There's a knoll that cars come down Luzerne Road. not uncommon 55, 60 miles an hour, and all I can tell you is that the traffic that goes in and out of that development, daily, is, a lot of it is in the morning when there's, that's a school bus stop, right there at that corner, and a lot of the people exit that development at similar times in the morning, and I can perceive problems in that area of trying to get more cars in and out of there, in the evenings and in the mornings. The way the development is even laid out right now, I can tell you this, that when people are driving around in the development. the way that those radiuses are shaped in there. it's dangerous. I mean. cars try to cut corners in there. I know that there's been several near mishaps in there, and there are a lot of children in the development, children riding bikes, walking. I foresee a real problem almost doubling the size of the development and the amount of traffic coming in and out of there. MR. TURNER-Thank you. CATHY DUSEK MRS. DUSEK-Hi. I'm Cathy Dusek. I live on 42 Marigold Drive. My main concern is the one access. You're speaking of maybe 60 homes using that one entrance. I think we should be guaranteed a second access, not speculating in the future what mayor may not happen. With that many homes, a scenario of an accident happening, someone needing an ambulance, increases. Luckily, that has not happened in my neighborhood, but it is a possibility, with that many more homes, and with that one entrance, we all have little children, and we don't worry about them very much in our neighborhood. but with construction trucks coming in and out that one entrance, we would be very nervous. The way they come around, there's a curve, the 27 kids, we're very careful on that street. We realize the way it curves, and you may come upon a child on a bike qUickly. Construction works, would they be that careful? I'm really worried about the kids. MRS. EGGLESTON-There are no sidewalks, are there, in that development? MRS. DUSEK-No. M~S. EGGLESTON-They're narrow streets. MRê. DUSEK-So, I think a second access is necessary, should there be something that mayor may not happen in the future. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? JIM ALLEN MR. ALLEN-My name is Jim Allen. I live at 41 Marigold. I heard a lot of things mentioned about the homes on Birch, but nothing mentioned about what the homes look like in our neighborhood. I have a 2800 square foot home up there on Marigold, and the people wi th 1500 square foot homes next to mine, the value of my home drops drastically. I paid a lot of money for it, and I didn't pay a lot of money for it to drop in value. I would like the homes to be comparable to the homes that are up there. so we don't lose value on our homes that are there. We paid a lot of money for those houses up there. You put some nice houses in that area. and we're going to maintain the value of our homes. If you put a 1200, 1500 square foot home up there, the value of our houses is going to drop drastically. We'll never be able to sell them, never be able to sell them. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you say the majority in the area are 2800, or is yours an exception? MR. ALLEN-No. Mine is probably, I can't speak for everybody else. John's is 2700. He's two doors down from me, and to put a 1200, 1250 home in there is ridiculous. MRS. EGGLESTON-But are the majority in there somewhere in the neighborhood, 1500 to 1800 square foot, 2,000 square foot? MR. ALLEN-Two thousand. and I just think 1250 is just way too small. Even 1500 is too small. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, 1250's small. MR. ALLEN-If you turn around and you put comparable homes in there, but I just think that, these people that live on Birch Road, he's talking the trailer, trying to downgrade the area, and the area, I don't know if you've driven up there and taken a look at our area. That's a very nice area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. We've been there. MR. ALLEN-I have a three year old kid that plays out. and I feel very comfortable with him out there. I'm not going to be very comfortable with him now, up in that area. I just think there needs to be some more thought into this, and considerably another exit out of that place. If you're talking about all the developments on Birch Road and you're talking about the trailers over there, then make the entrance come from Birch Road, if that's what you want all the houses to look like. If you want it to look like our development, then put the 12 lots, the 12 homes that you're originally going to put up there to confer with what we have up there now. That's all I have to say. MR. TURNER-Okay. 28 FRED CARVIN MR. CARVIN-My name, for the record, is Fred Carvin. I just want to kind of mirror a lot of the comments that have been made by my neighbors, and I guess I can honestly say I was the original first resident of Clendon Ridge, and over the years, I have seen our development grow into something I'm very pleased to live there. I want to emphasize the one concern that I think I do have, and it's been brought out here, is that one access road. Over the years, we've seen that traffic on Laurel Lane go from hardly anything, obviously, as houses, to something that's really substantial right now. Although my kids are. grown and listartinq io tmo1,le out on thÎir own, I do kn6w tnat our ne~qnnornood- as got a 0 o~ young peop e. I also would like to make reference to a conversation that I had with Dave Miner on Sunday, which I asked him if I could quote him. and I certainly don't mean to pin his wings to the wall, but he has indicated to me a willingness. and I don't want to make a sale, here, for him. but he said. basically, that he would almost be willing to give you the land for the access road. So I would strongly suggest that you follow up on that aspect of coming down through his land. The other thing that I'd kind of like to, I think one of the things that has been overlooked here is the sizes of the houses in our development are fairly large because, and again, I don't have an accurate number, but I think a lot of people bought one and two lots. So, it's not a case were a lot of people just bought a half or three quarter acre lot, but in essence really are sitting on acre or better plots of land. So, to have a one acre zoning out there I don't think would be in keeping with our neighborhood, and I don't have any numbers, but I would guess that a good percentage of the folks are actually on one acre lots. So, I would ask the Board, if you do approve the reduction to the, you know, half or three quarter acre lots, that it really be approved contingent upon a second road being brought through there. Also, Mike, are you just going to develop the land like you have the rest of the development, in other words, just whoever buys the lots can build types of houses, or is it going to be turned over to a developer with a specific type of house in mind? MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's undecided at this point. The Potvins who own the property have not and are not in the building business. With the first phase, which they developed, or ended up developing through the Corporation, they sold lots to individuals. Individuals chose their own builders, chose their own designs, and whatnot. MR. CARVIN-So, at this point, you're not decided whether you're going to continue like that or turn it over to a developer? MR. O'CONNOR-I would say this. I have no belief that the potvins will become builders. Whether or not they sell the whole approved track to one builder and he does all the building in it, or they leave it on the open market and sell it to individuals and have them choose their own builders. I don't know at this point, but they are not builders. One fellow's a dentist. The other fellow's a retired banker, and they just aren't, they're not builders. They never were. They didn't do any of the building in the initial. The initial subdivision was, the first builder was Jack Heck, over in the second row. He built four houses there. In fact, he probably was the first resident in the thing, which I would correct you on. MR. CARVIN-He was the first owner. We were the first residents, by about four or five months, I think, but it doesn't matter. MR. TURNER-Thanks, Fred. Anyone else wish to be heard? Mr. Baker? JOE BAKER MR. BAKER-Joe Baker, Laurel Lane, Lots 9, 10, and 11. I own close to four acres. Everything here is hypothetical. They might do 29 this. They might do that. They might get another access. They haven't got anything confirmed yet. I don't think this Board should vote until they've got a definite plan of action, definite access, and find out what they're going to do with all the property. The property to the west of me, the Clendon Brook area, can't be developed anyway, because it's a watershed area that comes down through. It's all beaver dams. There's no way they could build any houses in there. That's all I've got to say. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? The last time. Anyone else? Any further comment? MR. ALLEN-Jim Allen, again. I'm just curious why this other builder was here. What was his part of this. the guy that builds homes? Is he going to buy some of this land or is he going to develop it himself? MR. TURNER-Could be. MR. ALLEN-They want to know what kind of homes they're going to put in there. If they're all going to make them one way. Why was the builder here? MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess Mr. O'Connor would have to answer that. He brought him. MR. O'CONNOR-He was here, for the record, to establish the cost that we were talking about and the reasonableness of what we've got. I'm an attorney. I have a lot of experience in development and whatnot, but I don't feel as though I should put testimony on record as to what the actual cost would be in a development, and that's the purpose that he was here for. MR. ALLEN-Was he hired by Potvins or? MR. O'CONNOR-He hopes he was hired by Potvins. MR. ALLEN-There's a possibility that he may be developing some of this property eventually? MR. O'CONNOR-He is a very active builder in the Town. MR. ALLEN-I mean, why would a guy come here if he's not making any money on this business, just for the sake of? MR. O'CONNOR-He came here as a witness. MR. ALLEN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And he'll be compensated as a witness. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else, the second time around? Any other thoughts? Anyone? Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got a couple of comments for the record. if you will. I appreciate, very much, the neighbors' attitude, the manner in which they presented their comments, and it does give me some information to think. I'm not trying to get into a they said, I said, or whatever. I purposely didn't ask the Chair to ask people how large each of the their lots were, whether they were talking about a 20,000 square foot lot that they lived on, or whatever, but if you take a look at the map. I think some of those questions are evident. We got off into an aside, here, as to what size house would be built. That's not part of the proposal before this Board. and in fact. it won't be part of the proposal before the Planning Board. We don't have particular requirements within the Town that tells a person that they must build a certain size house on a certain property. It says that we must comply with all applicable setbacks. Now, if these people, and Mrs. Dusek, I think, and Mr. Jackson, they live in some place here on these 20,000 square foot 30 lots. If they've got the 2,000 square foot lots, or 2.000 square toot houses, we certainly can build the same house, because we've got the same. we've actually got larger lots, but the same setbacks on these other things. I don't mean to set what we're going to build. I don't know what we're going to build, at this time. I have a thought of maybe a presentation, and I would bounce this off the Board, that maybe the Board, if it is uncomfortable with the fact that tonight you don't know whether or not we have a secondary access, although I don't think there's any requirement for a secondary access. We've talked to Staff about that. The regulations right now say that if you're developing a parcel of land in excess of 35 lots YOU will have seco~dary accëBs. We do not have 35 lots on the par~el tnat we re develop1~g. we do have, actually, two accesses off of the parcel that we're developing in the U-shaped type thing. or in the T intersection. either of those two particular things. We may end up phasing this. Let us build the first 12 lots, but use this size configuration, so that we have this road expense in proportion to the lots. This expense for utilities, until there is actually a second access built. and then we'd go to the second phase. which would be the other eight lots. Contrary to what might be thought, in this particular setting, because you have a limitation on the outside perimeters, the bigger lot demands that you build a smaller house. If you've got to put more of your cost of your package into the land, you're going to put less into the wood and other materials that's gOing to go into the building. So, it's contrary to what you actually talked about having a desire of, of having larger houses there. The other question that you had was we've said we don't know what we're going to do with the land that's to the west of Laurel Lane. We can stipulate as part of the approval that we will not make any requests for building on that. Now or in the future, and that could be a covenant that could be filed in the County Clerk's Office. It's just a question of whether or not you, as individual owners, if you adjoin it. want to extend your lot lines to the back of the property or you want the Town to get it, or you want it to go into limbo, as an unknown owner because somebody didn't pay taxes on it after a period of time, but we can stipulate that that land will not be built on. I really don't have a strong desire, I had hoped that Mr. Miner would be here. I tried to contact him today, as well as mailing to him. I didn't really want to chase him because he said he was gOing to talk to an attorney and the attorney would get to him. If the Board feels uncomfortable with that issue being unresolved, I don't have a problem with adjourning until we come back to you with a report from him as to what his intentions are at this time. I don't think that should be the critical answer or the actual thing that makes you say yes or no, though, because I don't think, and I've never seen in development, where any developer does anything than lead it to that land, show a cUl-de-sac, a temporary cul-de-sac, a temporary turn around, and have room for expansion. If you take a look at what he filed, when he got his building permit, it looks like, and he even had a map showing a road extending out there. I don't think he ever contacted the Potvins, and I don't recall him telling me that, but that's a good possibility to get into a secondary access. We didn't go along Birch Road to see if we could buy a piece of property there, but that doesn't really work as secondary access, particularly it doesn't work as secondary access to a one acre subdivision. It could work if we come to the Town Board and say we'd like to have you extend the mobile home park overlay zone, because by hardship, we can't develop it for single family residences, and that would get everybody upset, and I'm not saying that as a threat, but I mean, this is an envelope that was left over in 1971. and the only reasonable access is through the existing subdivision. MR. TURNER-When was the last house built in there? MR. MALLUCHI-Within the last year. MR. O'CONNOR-I think there's still some vacant lots. I would 31 --.. differ with people's thoughts as to the fact, you're talking total 70 houses. If you take a look at the big map that we have for the tax map, I think if you actually count the parcels as their shown on the tax map, which generally reflects ownership, although that might even be funny, I think on one, I know, one parcel's in a husbands name and one parcel's in a wife's name. So you'd be counting it twice if you counted it. If you looked at the tax map and added our thing, you're talking probably a total of maybe 60, because some of those people have combined. There's nobody that's combined that adjoins us. The people that have combined are away from us. These lots that we're talking about are 100 by 200. If the Board's uncomfortable, or wants more information as to the Miner possibility, I don't have a problem with that. MR. TURNER-I think I'm not satisfied with the presentation. I think we ought to have more information. If there's a possibility that you can pick up that added ingress and egress through Mr. Miner, it might help your case. I don't know. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would help. too, Mike, I think, if you could say which plan you're going to go with, so these people are going to know, tell what kind of a house you're going to build on it. You can understand, I think, they're apprehension. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm never going to tell them what type of house I'm going to build because I don't build houses. I don't mean to be facetious. MRS. EGGLESTON-You know mean, though. You've got to relieve their fears somehow. MR. O'CONNOR-We will tell them what we will do for restrictive covenants. Right now, they're restrictive covenants, my reading says, 1250 square feet. Mr. Carvin told me that it was changed to 1,000 square feet. So on those existing lots that are vacant still within the subdivision, they have the same unknown possibilities that they're looking at with us, but I have no problem with adjourning this. I will contact Mr. Miner, and to your next meeting. and I'll report back to you as to what we find there. In fact, I'd like to have you keep the record open. the public hearing open, so that if Mr. Philo's here. we can tell him what's going on, so that he can participate and vote and not feel that he can't participate and vote. That's an unfortunate thing, but. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, he can if he reads the minutes. We have, I think I read that in the book. If he makes himself very aware. through reading all of the minutes, we just had that come up, and we got literature on that. If you do your homework, you can. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you're right. that. I don't have a problem with MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Just for purposes of the record, I guess, Leon wants me to remind the Board of the fact that we had shown a secondary access onto Sherman Avenue. If you look at our original 1971 subdivision map. we showed an extension of Marigold Drive to the north, through the lands that were recently approved as being a development for Mr. Diehl. MR. MALLUCHI-So it wasn't going to Sherman Avenue. It was going to the other road, which is presently. MR. STEVES-We can only go to the property line. MR. MALLUCHI-Right, but what I'm saying is, it wasn't going to Sherman Avenue. It was going to that road, then you take a left to go to Sherman Avenue. 32 MR. STEVES-No. MR. O'CONNOR-No. If you take a look at the tax map, Mr. Malluchi, you go right through there. What happened to that secondary access is that the Town Board eliminated it on us. If they had followed what they had done in the past, and Mr. Tucker's here. I didn't attend those meetings, but for some reason, they didn't require that developer to make that extension, and the old way of doing developments, everybody did their roads so that they would extend to the property line, so the adjoining property owner, when they developed, could join on, and I'm just looking quickly. if you take ë¡l look at. bon the þig taxdmap. th.is ""section that caI\l.e in. ~ think :L t was Lam ert Dr:L ve. an tllen:L~ uecame part or lJua:L.L K"un. I think they were two separate subdivisions, but you see how that theory in practice worked. One fellow ran his property. his road to the property line, and the next owner then just picked up on it, but I have no problem, and would ask the Board to table the application, and I will put it back on the agenda when I can resolve the issue. If there is a possibility of something immediately with Mr. Miner for additional access, if I. MR. MARTIN-Why don't we open that up and say also Mr. Diehl. Have you ever approached him? MR. STEVES-Can't. It's an approved subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it can be modified. MR. STEVES-Yes, but then he's got to go through the Planning Board again. If you'll remember. the Planning Board, when I brought that to the Planning Board's attention. that they could make access to these other roads, the Planning Board wished to ignore us. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but as you recall. Mr. controversial subdivision. and we're ultimately approved as it was. Steves. that was a very lucky that design was MR. STEVES-I can only make a statement on my part. MR. MARTIN-And I'm making a counterstatement. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'd like to say to Mike, if you're just going to come back talking about another access route, these people are not going to be happy until you say exactly what you're plan is for how many houses in the development, and what. you can put covenants in your deeds, what size are the homes, what is going to be the minimum, you've heard their fears here tonight, that you're going to let a thousand square foot house or something, which wouldn't be compatible to theirs. They're not going to be content until you come up with that type of information. Am I right, people? MR. MALLUCHI-Absolutely. MRS. EGGLESTON-So I don't know what good it's going to do you to just come back on the access road. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. I'll stand on the record. I don't think they're enti tled to dictate what size house, if it's not wi thin the Ordinance. That you can decide. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you've stressed you don't want to change the character of their neighborhood. You've stressed that. MR. TURNER-Well, that would be the issue before us. If they change the character of the neighborhood, then we can handle that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which he's stressed he doesn't want to do. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me look at that and see. I can't tell you yes or no. I'm not trying to make an issue out of it. I'm not trying to 33 ----~ confront somebody as to it. I think we can take a look at the assessment rolls. and we ~ can see what the square footage is, particularly along, I think what we should be compared to, if we're compared to something, is the lots that we immediately adjoin, and we can look at the assessment rolls and see what the square footage is there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but in the ultimate end. it effects the whole development. MR. 0' CONNOR-Well, I think you're going to have to have some lati tude, or I'm going to ask you for some latitude, maybe for what's on the west side of the road, as opposed to what's on the east side of the road, because I've got a condition here that these people don't have. MR. TURNER-To some degree. MRS. EGGLESTON-You mean in Birch? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that's existing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-There's no way you're going to change that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That's true. I agree with that. MR. O'CONNOR-So I consideration what's also got to take into subdivision. don't have a problem we'll take into existing wi thin the subdivision. but we've consideration what's adjoining us outside the MR. TURNER-Okay. There's some other comments. MR. SPERRY-Again. my name is John Sperry. We live over on Marigold. When I purchased my lot, we own the corner lot, it would be on the corner where the new road would go through. We purchased our lot in 1985, we called the Potvins to purchase the lot and asked them, we were interested in the lot on the corner, and would you mind coming up and showing us where the lot was. He wouldn't even come and show us where the lot was, Number One. Number Two, we unfortunately built a fairly sizeable home. It's 2700 square feet. We knew that there was covenants in the deeds as to square footage. We never asked for any plans for the house, never came around to see what kind of home we were building, was never involved at all in the actual construction or was interested in exactly what was built on that lot. So I have some concerns about the Potvins going forward, as to what kind of homes they're going to allow to be built in the rest of the development, if, in fact, it gets approved. I would encourage Mr. 0' Connor to make sure that, if there's deed covenants built into this, that in fact they do make sure that they're followed. That's been our experience. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. I'd like to ask Mr. Baker a question. You indicated that you own Lot 9, 10. and 11. Are they one lot now? MR. BAKER-No. MR. TURNER-They're all separate? MR. BAKER-They're all separate. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. BAKER-There's only one house on it. on Lot 9. MR. TURNER-Right. 34 -- MR. O'CONNOR-They could build a house on 10 and 11. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, good point. MR. BAKER-Joe Baker, Laurel Lane. All those covenants are renewable on a yearly basis now by all the majority of the land owners in that subdivision. They were in effect for the first 10 years, and for every year thereafter they're renewable by the majority of the land owners. You've done your homework on all the rest of it, why didn't you do it on that? MR. O'CONNOR-Those covenants are not on the property. MR. BAKER-You just said it's based on the whole subdivision, that this was put in the original concept there, back in the beginning. You're talking about Laurel Lane, Marigold Drive. Bellows Circle, and you said this whole thing was part of the master plan in the beginning. MR. O'CONNOR-Those covenants are not applicable to this parcel as of this date. What we said was that we were willing to stipulate that those covenants would be the minimum that we would put on this particular parcel, if this parcel is developed. MR. BAKER-The other thing I wanted to say, if you want to give me that land down along the brook, we'll take it all. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. that would be a good way of maintaining it in it's natural state, and giving it to people who'd care for it. as opposed to the DEC or the Recreation Commission or somebody who really doesn't have the time to take care of it. I don't have a problem, and hopefully that is something we can do, and if there are neighbors that run along Laurel Lane, that actually would want to extend their property lines to the end of the boundary line of the subdivision, you should contact my office. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll leave the public hearing open. The applicant has indicated he will table the application, and provide us with further information. I will make a motion to accept that tabling and we'll get on with the business at hand. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1993 WILLIAM L. POTVIN, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Applicant has indicated he will table the application and provide us with further information. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin MR. TURNER-The public hearing's left open. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Turner, could I just suggest that maybe somebody designate themselves as spokesperson Staff could contact by phone, when it gets back on the agenda, so there isn't an issue later on as to notice of meeting? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-There won't be another public notice, and I don't want to have somebody complaining. MR. TURNER-Fred will take care of that. 35 -- MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 3-1993 TYPE II NC-10 LEEMILT'S GETTY PETROLEUM OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE WITHIN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE PERMITTED USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMERCIAL ZONE. PROPOSED EXPANSION IS ALSO SUBJECT TO A VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE ZBA. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 91-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-25D. 179-79D RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-Warren County? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Warren County is tonight. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's on tonight? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 3-1993, Leemilt's Getty Petroleum, Meeting Date: January 20, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is seeking to expand an eXisting nonconforming use (retail sales carpet store) into a vacant space, (for storage of carpet inventory), within an existing structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Permitted uses within the Neighborhood/Commercial Zone are commercial uses as listed in Section 179-250. Existing use (retail sales carpet store) and proposed expansion of existing use are nonconforming. Applicant is seeking relief from listed permitted uses in the Neighborhood/Commercial Zone. 2. Any nonconforming use may be increased only by a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals as per Section 179-790. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-790. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. IS REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Reasonable return of the land is not possible as zoned as vacant space in existing structure is automotive repair bays (a nonconforming use) and limiting in its possible use. 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LOT UNIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE? This lot is preexisting and nonconforming and partially nonconforming in its use. The preexistence of the automotive repair bays in one section of the preexisting structure limits the options for complying with permitted use regulations. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? It would appear that the proposed expansion (storage of inventory for the carpet store) of a nonconforming use would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood as project is consistent with the character of a Neighborhood/Commercial zone. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: There are four existing uses of this property located within one preexisting nonconforming structure. Two (2) of the uses are conforming (gas station and an apartment on the second floor), and two (2) of the uses are nonconforming (printing shop and retail sales carpet shop). The proposed expansion of the carpet shop will be into an existing vacant space which was originally designed to house an automotive repair facility with attendant repair bays. Current zoning regulations do not permit automotive repair in the Neighborhood/Commercial Zone and therefore the use of the vacant space is restricted. The proposed project will be expanding the use of the carpet store into the vacant space for storage of the carpet store's inventory. Staff is concerned about the possible use of the bay doors for delivery of carpets, posing a traffic problem for customers of the gas station and for delivery of gasoline to underground storage tanks. (see site plan for location of bay doors). The Board also needs to address the question of the 36 proposed project being an expansion of an eXisting nonconforming use which has not received a variance for operation." MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. FORTUNE-My name is Ron Fortune. I'm the authorized representati ve for Leemil t' s Petroleum, with address at 33 Park Plaza, Lee, Mass. The history on this, I was here last summer. the summer of '92, seeking possible expansion of use on the service bays. There was a lot of neighborhood opposition, because of the activity that this would cause, noise level, that sort of thing. and I ~ade severalfstatements concerningbthÏ needhfor usinq this space, necause ot lnanClal reasons. 1 eI eve ~ a~ eacn one o~ you have a fax that I submitted today. We're hoping that the numbers will not be released, but I believe that you can see from our statements. our handouts, that we're not doing that well at that facility. Another one as far as going on, as far as the uniqueness of this piece of property, I think it's very clear that we are paying taxes on a space that we cannot use. We're trying to maximize our return on it and utilize it. Our feeling is that we could not work out the details and even get a, basically, something to work from, as far as the neighborhood's concerns, and in trying to be a good neighbor, maybe that this proposal will be less of an impact on the immediate neighbors. There is definitely some. as your report indicates, there's going to be some traffic, with deliveries at the facility, that it would be no worse than those commercial adjoining properties. as the market, where the rear entrance is right near our property. There are deliveries there, or exiting of those trucks in that vicinity, generally. So therefore that kind of thing, that noise level, for that type of operation, is in fact, in generalized in that particular area. So I feel for that reason that this property is, in fact, unique. As far as the character and it bases. in fact. to the fact that there are, in fact, retail spaces in that area. We abut a retail market, wi th shops across the street. Across Aviation Road, there's a commercial property of sorts. I don't know the activity during the summer. It was, for me, hard to distinguish what. in fact, was actually there. I know there's a couple of garage doors. It seemed like there was a landscaped area or storage area of some type and then maybe some apartments. However, it is somewhat commercial. The immediate, across the other road. what is some houses, again, that area is where the impact and the concern is. Most of the traffic is on Aviation Road and not on the other Dixon Road. I believe that the parking is adequate for the proposal. The carpet business, as we had mentioned. exists there. Their only concern now is to, they've lost their storage space in another facility and desire to put them together, and this seemed to work as a rather holding place, a convenient holding place for the carpet in their sequence of scheduling work. Again, the warehousing, they can order their stock from a warehouse. Again, there is some storage in this. it's a 26 by 28, approximately, area, where there can be quite a bit of carpeting stacked around the walls. There's no question about it not being storage of some, but I would not term it a warehousing situation. It does give them the chance to display, not just in the small 12 by 14 squares of carpet, but also to display or have close to the customer the total length of carpet, so they get a better, a visual impact of what they're sale, in fact, is and how it would basically be presented in the design pattern for their particular use. Again, I feel that this square footage works well for this use. We're hoping that this will increase revenues for our site overall, as far as the breakdown of square footage for each individual space, I'd be happy to give you that. I believe that the apartment is somewhere around 1200 square feet. The carpet place will end up being about 1108 square feet. The attendant.s area will be somewhere around 312 square feet, including the restroom. The gas would be the full serve. We have a dealer in there. Again, it's something that we find that it's hard to keep someone with just gas sales. It's something that I've represented previous to this Board, and you can check, I'm sure, the record, that this is not a favorable situation 37 tor us. I've documented well, mentioned it several times, that we want the bays open, and also wi th the mode, now, of trying to extend the life of the car, the service bays the mode of which we would be rather preferring, preferably, with the convenient store items then to do something like this. However, we do need help at the facility, for financial reasons, and this seems to work well with our present tenants. I would hope that this Board will give us consideration. As far as the particulars on the unloading, tor the carpet and its impact to the gas, I believe that it was mentioned to me the possibility of the drops would be maybe two to three a week. Again, an 18 wheeler would be backed up Just similar to where our fuel truck is dropping product into the tanks, that same unloading zone. They're saying to me that the drop would be for the carpets, would be somewhere around 20 minutes or so, or less, depending on what they order, or how busy they were. The deliveries take place somewhere around 11 o'clock, but then I'm not there. I don't know it this is causing, or if it has caused any impact on the neighborhood presently. I'm only representing to you what I've been told. Our deliveries are somewhat in the same manner, and drop products. It depends on different situations, how much product's being dropped, as far as the gas industry, how long it's going to be, whether or not at some point that they will ever match, as far as time, the sequencing of both the carpet warehouse truck and also a tanker for the fills, that there is a likelihood that, yes, that would happen. I can't represent to you that that will never happen, however. the likelihood of it is, a lot of deliveries are at night, or in the later part of the day. but I am not representing to you any particular time at which the gas tanker has dropped there. The neighbors could tell me better, when, in fact, the tanker dropped. Basically, I feel that there's no, that it's retail space. The adj oining property is retail space, and they use their entire property for it. The noise that's made by the compactor into the neighboring property, I don't believe could be any worse than someone closing the door of a storage facility, but again, I'm not in that neighborhood. My presence is not there 24 hours a day, and if the neighbors have concerns at this time, I'd be glad to listen to them. I hope that this will be less of an impact for them, and don't wish to discourage them. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Do you know anything about the carpet unloading out of the tractor trailer? Do they take it out with a forklift? You don't pick a roll of carpet up. I know you don't do that. MR. FORTUNE-No. He has a forklift over at the other place which he is planning on bringing over. MR. THOMAS-So there's going to be a forklift parked somewhere in that storage area? MR. FORTUNE-In that storage area. MR. THOMAS-Which will be running in and out to unload carpet oft the tractor trailer. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-And loading it back on to something else to take it back out of there, once they sell it. So that carpet will be moved twice, in and out, and that's all I've got for right now. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Where's the carpet being stored right now? Do you know? MR. FORTUNE-Some of it's in there. MR. TURNER-Some of it's already there. couple of months. It's been there for a 38 MR. CARVIN-It's in the bay already? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. I have photos that show the. MR. TURNER-It's been there for a couple of months. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you, a follow up on Chris's question, has he been using a forklift over there? MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. CARVIN-So how are they getting it in and out? MR. FORTUNE-They're carrying it in and out. MR. CARVIN-Just manually? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And how long has that carpet business been there? MR. FORTUNE-I'm not sure. I know that when I started with it, back in '86, 1 believe there was a video tape store in there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, and before that I think there was a barber shop, wasn't there, Ted? MR. TURNER-I think you're right. There was a barber shop there. MRS. EGGLESTON-They're there illegally. They don't have a variance for operation, according to Staff Notes. That's not a permitted use in that zone. MR. FORTUNE-As far as the storage of the? MR. TURNER-Carpet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It's not a listed use in that zone. So, they would have had to come for a variance in order to be there legally. According to Queensbury Zoning. So, for myself, I would think that issue would have to be addressed first. MR. CARVIN-Yes. this one. I think we've got the cart before the horse on MR. MARTIN-That's why if you notice, the notices wording is not a preexisting use, but an a nonconforming existing use. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Did Sousa alter the structure before they sold it to you, as far as the barber shop and the video store? MR. FORTUNE-I can get that information, but I'm not sure of the sequenc ing of the, all I know is that Getty had purchased the property in ' 86, as I had repre sented previous, and it was my understanding at that time that the bays had been functioning, and the only thing I can go by is a photo that I have. When they purchased it, I believe that a video store was in there at that time, and the apartment overhead. MR. TURNER-Was the carpet store there when they bought it? MR. FORTUNE-The way it looks from the photo, no, it was'not. MR. TURNER-I didn't think it was. HRS. EGGLESTON-So shouldn't we start with them applying for a 39 permit, or whatever, a variance? MR. TURNER-They've got to apply for a variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-And not act on it because it's. MR. TURNER-It's the carpet store that's seeking the expansion of the nonconforming use, and they don't have a variance to even be there. MRS. EGGLESTON-So first they have to clear up that issue. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll take care of that one first. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I can't see where we'd grant a storage space for a carpet store that might not be allowed. MR. TURNER-That's not supposed to be there. That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-I do agree with you, though. It's a lot less obtrusi ve than the gas station, and the bay garages you've come before us for and wanted. I mean, the neighbors really objected to all that. This has got to be a quieter operation. MR. FORTUNE-Can I amend the application for a variance? MR. TURNER-Who runs the carpet store? MR. FORTUNE-Again, a lessee with Getty. I can get their paperwork and present it to you. MRS. EGGLESTON-He'd have to apply, wouldn't he, Ted? MR. TURNER-He's got to apply, even though they're the owner. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. before the Board. He's got to pay his variance fee and come MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. FORTUNE-Can I act as his agent for, and attach it to this? MR. TURNER-Well, we want to hear from him, too. We want to hear what goes on there, how much business is going on there, what he plans to do in the future, and everything, because we're dealing with something that doesn't even belong here. MR. FORTUNE-Can you listen to that right now? MR. TURNER-No. It's not advertised right. MRS. EGGLESTON-He's got to go through the proper channels. MR. TURNER-He's got to go down to the Planning Department and fill out an application for a variance, that's a use variance, and then that'll come before the Board. MR. CARVIN-Ted, they could run the two of them simultaneously, if they put this off until February. MR. TURNER-They could. MR. FORTUNE-Could we table this? MR. TURNER-We can table this part of it. He'll have to take care of his end of it. Sure. Okay. We'll table the application. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 3-1993 LEEMILT'S GETTY PETROLEUM, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: 40 At the request of the applicant, to provide the Board with more information as to the relief sought, which is a carpet store in a Neighborhood/Commercial zone, which is not a listed permitted use. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-1993 APPEAL BY BREWERS AND AIKENS. THE APPEAL CONCERNS PROPERTY OWNED BY NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION. LOCATION: STRADDLING SHERMAN ISLAND ROAD. SOUTH OF MCDONALD DRIVE AND MORNINGSIDE CIRCLE. SECTION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH 'fHE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION: SECTION 175-54. .. LAND USE INTENSITIES CONSIDERATIONS". ARTICLE IV. .. SCHEDULE 01!' REGULATìONS". SECTION 179-51 A & B. "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT". WHETHER CALCULATIONS OF ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE (163) UNITS FOR PROPOSED PUD MAY BE CONSTRUED AS ACCURATE. TAX MAP NO. 148-1-2.1 ZONE: WR-1A AND SR-1A WR-3A SANDY ALLEN, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Mr. Chairman, I need to bailout on this one. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is "Re: Hudson Point Planned Unit Development Interpretation. The question presented by the requested interpretation is how do you determine the base densi ty for a Planned Unit Development under Article 179-54. While the requested interpretation will have an effect upon the proposed Planned Unit Development, it would also set a general rule for future Planned Unit Developments. At first, the background for the subject development will be presented, and then the Board will be asked to focus specifically on the language of Section 179-54. The first sentence of Section 179- 54 states ve ry c learl y, 'The land use intensities of the particular zones listed in Article IV of this Chapter shall apply to PUD.' That is not a fuzzy type statement. That is very clear and concise. Applying common sense to the interpretation of that sentence should not be difficult or present any problem. Clearly, all one needs to do is look at Article IV of the Zoning Ordinance to see what Land Use Intensities are allowed, and then multiple those by the number of acres for each parcel wi thin the Planned Unit Development. Common sense and rules of construction do not allow you to go outside of that formula. There is an except that, for Section 179-54, under subparagraph A & B. but nei ther provide for a subtraction from the base land use intensity. In this case, the property is not within the Adirondack Park. So no reference will be made to Section 179-54 B. Section 179-54 A, which is the paragraph that appears under the 'Except that', provides for a bonus to the base land intensity. Same does not subtract or provide for a means of reducing the basic land density. Thus back to the issue presented by the interpretation. It is clear that the first sentence of Section 179-54 is clear and unequivocable. Reference in the request for the interpretation is made to Section 179-51 A & B, and it is noted that those paragraphs provide generic, general type guidelines. Whereas, Section 179-54 is a spec i fic guide 1 ine, and thus is controlling. Even those general guidelines do not, in fact, supply basis for contradicting the land use intensity of the particular zones as written in Article IV. Within Article IV, there is no requirement or discussion of deducting undevelopable land from the permitted use intensity for a PUD. Thus, the principle request of those appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator has no basis in the Statute. Further comment is made as to Parcel C being landlocked. Again, there is no reference in Article IV about 41 -_.....---- whether or not a parcel has road frontage. There is simply an area requirement and an area comparison. Further, the assertion that Parcel C is landlocked is totally incorrect, if one reviews the filed maps. Further, the question was raised as to the status of the McDonald Subdivision. That Subdivision, in its original boundaries, has not been included in any manner in the calculations for intensity for the Planned Unit Development. Simul taneously with the application for the Planned Unit Development, an application for amendment of the prior subdivision approval will be tiled with the Planning Board. Thi s amendment wi II take the traffic of the McDonald Subdivision off the Sherman Island Road, Which is what nei~hbors dhavÎl ~equested dfrom thed.verv lfirst 1nstance, anâ 1t 1S ceI1eve Wl ue ãpprove w1tnou~ 1rr1CU ~y ny the Planning Board, as it will, in fact, provide safe access to the McDonald Subdivision and lessen the traffic burden upon the burden of the balance of the users of Sherman Island Road." MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Sandra L. Allen, of the Miller. Mannix, and Pratt Law Firm, "Re: Hudson Point Planned Unit Development As you are aware, our firm represents the Brewers and Aikens who are neighbors of the Hudson Point Planned Unit Deve lopment Pro j ect Site. On behal f of our cl ients, we hereby request that your determination regarding the permitted density for this project be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with 179-98 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. As you are aware, 179-54 of the Ordinance discusses the permitted density for a Planned Unit Development. This Section states that generally the land use densities of particular zone listed in Article IV of this Chapter shall apply to a PUD. Article IV of the Ordinance sets forth the permitted area densities and lot dimensions. While the purpose of a PUD is to provide flexible land use and design regulations, the objectives include that the development pattern be in harmony with the land use intensity, transportation facilities and community facilities, objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Ordinance 179-51 A & B. However, as your calculations for the basic density for the PUD make no provision for property which is undevelopable, the permitted use intensity for the PUD is actually much greater than what would be permitted for conventional single family use. The applicant indicates that there are 18 acres which are wetlands. These should be excluded from your initial calculations as should any area which is sensitive due to environmental and archeological concerns. If developed independently, Parcel C would only be allowed one home, as it is landlocked, rather than the 10 units credited in your calculation. Hence, your calculation permits more units than would be permitted it the property were developed conventionally. This cannot be the intent of the Ordinance. In particular, 179-54 of the Ordinance provides for a separate density bonus if the open space in the PUD exceeds 25 percent. Any density increase should thus be limited to this bonus. In addition, there remains a question as to the status of the McDonald Subdivision, a portion of which is now to be used as an access road. If the applicant proposes to include this area in the PUD, the density must be recalculated, including this additional acreage." HR. TURNER-Okay. first. We I II here from the attorney for the Brewers MS. ALLEN-Good evening. My name is Sandy Allen. I'm with the Law Firm, Miller, Mannix and Pratt, and we represent the Aikens and the Brewers here who are neighbors of the proposed project. We're here tonight to ask you to review Jim Martin's calculations with reference to the densities allowed in this project. First of all, I wanted to just make one minor technical note. The notice talks about this property being zoned WR-1A. It is, in fact, zoned WR-3A in part. I think that I s very important to note. I think it was summed up fairly well by the Staff, that the issue is, when Jim went through his calculations for this project, the manner in which 42 he started his density calculations was he took the entire parcel, all of the property involved, figured out which part of the property was single family one acre, which part of the property was waterfront residential three acre, and then figured out the acreage in each area and merely divided, as his base calculation for permitted density. He then went through and made a bonus density calculation of 15 percent, based on the fact that there will be over 25 percent open space. Basically, we have a concern about the ini tial calculation. That first calculation was just simple division. I think, if we step back for a second, our concern is based on the fact of what the purpose of a PUD, a Planned Uni t Development, is. I did reference, the pertinent section of the Ordinance, because it talks about being in conformance with the Master Plan, and the densities provided therein. In addition, it does, then, refer to Article IV. Article IV of the Zoning Ordinance discusses both densities and lot areas and setback areas and widths. One of the reasons to develop a PUD is to allow the developer to have a lot more flexibility in the widths and lot sizes of the project. However, by doing it, and this particular pro j ect is a great example of it, the deve loper has managed to develop property that would absolutely not be available for development, not in that they're able to place bUildings on it, but that they're allowed to place units for land which is absolutely not developable. For instance, there is 18 acres of wetlands on the property, according to the developer, 24 acres of bluffs on the property. There's an undetermined amount of area that is habitable by a threatened and endangered species. The applicant says that they searched for, in particular, the Carner Blue Butterfly, but I believe there is now a letter in the record stating that DEC in fact has concerns, and I know there's a letter in the record saying the Nature Conservancy has concerns with the manner of determining that habitat, but our basic argument for tonight is that that habitat should not be considered in the basic development rights of this property. In addition, there is an archeological site on this property which, again, even the applicant has admitted they will not be developing on a certain portion of that property, and we just do not believe that should be considered in the basic calculation. I think our argument's strengthened by the fact that, in Section 179-54A, it discusses a bonus situation, provided to the developer in a Planned Unit Development that allows for 15 percent additional development, provided there's more than 25 percent open space remaining on the project. Our argument is that that density alone should be the one benefit to being able to have a PUD, a not additional development on top of what would be allowed in the conventional subdivision. Our other argument is that, on Lot C, and Jim feels differently and perhaps he can show me differently, we were unable to find any access to Lot C except on one road, which, in a conventional subdivision, would have just enough access tor one lot. Because of that you do not feel that you should be able to have 10 units, because it's a long narrow strip. Let me just show you where it is. This is Lot C right here. There's a long narrow strip right now. I tried to scale it as best I can. I believe it's between 150 and 200 feet wide back there, and our argument is that that is a long narrow strip of property that has road access right here. As far as I can tell, that's the only road access it has, and then it would only be permitted to place one house, perhaps some kind of a foundation for two uni ts, but certainly not for 10 units. Our final concern is regarding the McDonald Subdivision, which I believe actually Jim has finally has indicated what has occurred on that. We were concerned because we had heard conflicting determinations as to how that lot was going to be held. The lot is now going to provide main access to the PUD, and if in fact it was considered part of the PUD, then we believe that the calculation should reflect that. Am I correct to understand that what in fact is going to happen is a new subdivision application? MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. MS. ALLEN-Okay. So we don't have a concern any longer about the 43 McDonald Subdivision, in reference to density. I know it's real late, and I know this is math, but if anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to address them. MR. TURNER-Lets see if we have any. Anything, Fred? Joyce? Okay. Hr. O'Connor. HICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm Michael O'Connor from the Law Firm of Little and O'Connor, and we, and the ~ã~~~cnÎãf þl}î1e~~~ si~riRH <b~~~hh~1.llfef~n&n t~" ðfi'*.per ¡ßf it~li~ representativé from the Michaels Group, which is the developer, and Rob Southerland is a member of the Firm of Saratoga Associates, which is the design engineering and consulting firm part of the development team. The actual site is owned by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, and I'm a little bit between a rock and a hard place here, because I want to do what I think is right, but I also, at the same time, want to preserve our rights. I don't have any problem with actually answering, in a substantive manner, the questions that have been raised. I think Mr. Martin made the correct determination, and I think if you used any of the rules of construction that are applicable, there really is no question, and I'm not sure even how some of the question was phrased, if you look at the Section and you say, what does say to you, but before you get to that, I've got to raise a procedural issue, and I raise the procedural issue not necessarily because I'm afraid of the substantive issue, and I'll give you just a little bit of background as to the attitude the developer of the property and the owner of this project has taken up to this point. When this was first proposed, and even before I became part of the development team, most of the neighbors along Sherman Island Road raised a lot of objections to the potential increase in traffic, because at that time, the primary access to the property was going to be along Sherman Island Road, down through here. There was a secondary access that was going to be provided off of Corinth Road, but it was really secondary access that was going to be provided off of Corinth Road, but it was really secondary access right through here, and it was acknowledged as being secondary access. Everybody had a concern about the additional traffic burden and the effect it would have upon these neighbors, and particularly whether or not the level of service of this entrance to and from Corinth Road would really justify the new developments that we propose in there of 160 some additional living units. The developer. and I say this simply so the Board has a little flavor as to how this particular client has acted. He has spent a great deal of time and made a great commitment to change that, and went to an adjoining land owner, people by the name of McDonald who are present here tonight, and they had a subdivision approved that had preexisting lots that would exit onto Sherman Island Road and through negotiations with them, ended up with a transaction where the access for the McDonald Subdivision, a total, I think, of 31 lots, was eliminated from Sherman Island Road, and we turned our principle access to come through t.he ir property, and el iminated acce ss to the site from Sherman Island Road. So we eliminated the access for the existing 31 lot subdivision that has already been approved. We also knocked out the ongoing traffic for the trucks of Niagara Mohawk that go down to the utility services. the bUildings that they have down there, on a regular basis, and in fact took all that traffic off of Sherman Island Road. What we've done here is really try to meet the concerns of the neighbors, as best as we could. I think most of the neighbors are satisfied with that. I say that simply as background, and we're prepared to make a full presentation to you tonight, but I have a problem, because we do have an Ordinance, and the Ordinance has certain provisions in it, and I know that this Board has enforced them before. I do not believe that the appeal by Mr. Brewer is timely. The decision of Mr. Martin was dated and made December 7th. The Notice of Appeal made by Mr. Brewer or on behalf of Mr. Brewer was dated January 7th. That's outside, even 44 if on a minor basis, outside of the 30 day limitation as provided by our particular statute. If the Board takes a look at Article 179-98. it defines appeals by or appeals of actions and determination of the Zoning Administrator, and it says that they must be made within 30 days of the decision. I refer the Board to some precedent, and in my own recollection, I think that was an issue in the Hogan case on Glen Lake. and there, I have no objection to this happening here, the Board said that they were going to go forward with the appeal, make a determination, but it would not effect the present application. If that's the liking of the Board, maybe that's something they could do, if somebody still has this issue, because we're not afraid of the substantive portions. Beclouding this, and I think why it got on your agenda, is that the Town Board is in the process of changing the 30 days to 60 days, but in checking with the Town Official, that change was not in effect as of January 7th, 1993, when the actual appeal was filed. I'm not sure if it is in effect now. What has happened, apparently, is that some time in November, the Town Board by resolution, changed that particular Section to allow 60 days for appeal, and sent notice of it to the Secretary of State, and provided that that section would become effective upon the filing with the Secretary of State and the publication of notice of that change, the latter of either, and there's no issue as to that. That's simply dates, count, however you want to do it. I don't know, even today, if the 60 days is in effect as of today as of now. MS. ALLEN-I have a question. Report is dated December 8th. that date from. My Hudson Point Housing Project I was just wondering where you got MR. 0' CONNOR-From the letter of Mr. Martin dat,ed December 7th, 1992. That was his determination. TIMOTHY BREWER MR. BREWER-It wasn't made public until the 8th, Mike. Isn't that when you start your date from, when it's available to the public? MR. O'CONNOR-I would defer to the Board. I'm sure I don't want to get into discussion without the Board. I would refer the Board to this Section, it says that the 30 days runs from the date of the decision or action, and I don't think there's any question the decision was made December 7th. In fact, it was circulated at that time, to the Town Board, Planning Board, Allen· Oppenhe im, and myself, and I think, is that letter a part of your record, Mr. Turner? MRS. EGGLESTON-It isn't. From Jim Martin? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. There is not one in this file. MR. O'CONNOR-I would provide you with my copy. I may have to get that back from you. Basically, you have an appeal here of Mr. Martin's decision. I'm not leaving Mr. Martin hanging, but feel free to jump in any time you want if I say something on your behalf that you don't agree with, as to timing, effective statute, or anything of that nature. MS. ALLEN-I think there's got to be some consideration made to the fact that the date that this report came out, it was made aware to our office, was December 8th, and I know that you're saying as of the date of the decision, but I have no way of having known, I wasn't copied on that. There's no way I could have known what this decision was. The date that the decision was made to the public, that the whole report was made to the public of which this decision was included, was December 8th, and that was the date of the report that we were looking for. 45 MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at your Section, your Section doesn't say that decisions are made public, if there's any notice, or anything of that nature. I refer you to Section 179-98, and I will also make a comment to you for the record, and this is perhaps the substantive, which I've said I'm not sure if we'll get into. This question of density was not necessarily Just made that time. It was made in written form as of that date. and if we're going to go outside of the record, this pro j ect has been pending, and that question and determination ot densi ty had been around for some considerable time prior to that, and the particular applicant, in this instance, is a member of the Planning Board, and knew what the proposed density was, knew what Staff reaction to that density was prior to that timetable. MS. ALLEN-I don't know if we want to keep going back and forth with this. If you'd rather just wait and let me make rebuttal. PAUL DUSEK. TOWN ATTORNEY MR. DUSEK-I may be able to help the Board a little bit on this, too, and I think I should advise the Board that this type of issue has been litigated before, and I can't remember now the name of the case, but there was a case where a homeowner, an adjoining homeowner, found out about something that occurred on his property after the 30 days had expired. He then went, made a demand of the Zoning Administrator that he revise, change, whatever, his decision, and it was after the 30 day time period, and later he did appeal, and the court said that even though the statute says you can only appeal from 30 days after the decision, that that does not necessarily apply to somebody who doesn't have knowledge, and if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. If they don't have knowledge, the 30 days would run, essentially. the court felt, from the day they had knowledge, or reasonable time period. In this particular case, because you have that case on the record, so, in other words, the case is important to me because it's surprising because the Statute, although it seems, as Mike is arguing, and I think legitimately so, very clear as to when it runs, the fact of the matter is, the courts have, even in the face of very clear language, have said, well, it means, like for the applicant, for people who definitely had knowledge as of that day, and in this particular case, I'm concerned, because it is only one day, and the fact that we have, even, a document that's apparently dated December 8th. We do have, like I say, a court decision that I have read that has granted some leniency. I would urge the Board to use caution simply denying it strictly on that basis. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no document, that I'm aware of, dated December 8th. MR. MARTIN-The report that's date December 8th is the environmental report that the Staff prepared as it relates to the environmental assessment, and within that, the density was discussed, but specifically. the letter of December 7th was focused on the determination regarding density. The density is dealt with within the December 8th report, but only as it relates to the environmental review that was the focus of that entire report. Read the title of the report. MS. ALLEN-It's called, Background Report on the Environmental Assessment for Planning and Zoning. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MS. ALLEN-But let me just finish, then. In all fairness to Mr. Brewer, he was aware of the density calculations going back and forth, and several discussions being made back and forth, and at one point, there were additional properties, including 99 acres, that were included in the project, included in the density calculation, and in fact, when this came out, which is what we were waiting for, I believe you and I discussed, when are we going to 46 decide what's going to happen with this, and this report came out with this letter, and I think it was my understanding that this is the, I don't know if the word is epistle, of everything that was included, and finally decided on to some extent. what was applied for. So, even though there was some consideration about density calculations prior to this, it certainly got changed, and there was a possibility all along that we wouldn't be happy wi th these density calculations. MR. O'CONNOR-It never was less than what we have here. I don't understand how, in prior consideration, it was ever an issue, to be honest with you. The earlier maps, correct me if I'm wrong, were dated sometime in July. I believe the 94 acres is an adjoining piece that is not in the calculations referred to by Mr. Martin. That's outside of that entirely. If the 94 acres were included in his calculations in that letter of December 7th, there would be an additional 33 development units, or development rights. We can go through that, if we get into the substance, but I still feel that we have set precedent before, by this Board as to this rule, and I ask the Board to consider that rule and act accordingly. MR. CARVIN-Paul, is there any, in this 30 day calculation, because of the fact that there's Christmas and New Years, that these are two legal holidays, that doesn't have any bearing on this, on the calculation of the 30 days? MR. DUSEK-l haven't seen any cases in that regard, and I wouldn't normally think so. based upon just an understanding of what a statute of limitations period usually runs, but here again, I'm looking at that one case that, not looking at it right now, but considering that one case which was an Appellate Division case, I believe, that indicated, you know, it runs from the time the person gets notice, as opposed to the date of the decision, even if the Ordinance says otherwise. So, here again, I would urge the Board to use caution on just using that as your sole point of denying it, and even if you decide that you want to use that as a mechanism of denying it, you may want to get into the substantive aspects of the case, and at least consider that as further support for whatever decision you decide to make. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could I ask Jim, were you aware that Ms. Allen was waiting for this information from you, for you to make this? MR. MARTIN-I wasn't aware of her involvement. I didn't get a call from her, since she was involved in the project at all, until after Christmas or after New Years, somewhere in there. MS. ALLEN-I know that I called you that I called you asking you about this decision. I might not have been real explicit about why, but I know I did. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The course of events that lead to this is there was some back and forth as to what the density would be based on, and my determination was that there is some property, I believe it's still shown on the map that still up there right now. There's approximately a five acre parcel shaded down in the lower left hand corner of the plat there, that's included in the project, and up until just a couple of days ago, the 94 acres, which is further down Corinth Road, was included, and there was some consideration it that would be included in the density calculation, and the Ordinance states that the land must be contiguous to, and it was my determination that it was not contiguous, therefore it was not to be included. They had taken that out of their calculations early in December, and basically it was parcels, I believe, as labeled there, C, 0, and E. That was the project, and once that was agreed upon, I made my determination. That date was December 7th. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, my point in asking that was, if you knew, then she should have been given the courtesy of a copy of this letter, along with these people. 47 MR. MARTIN-I wasn't clear on her involvement in the project. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. That's my question. MR. TURNER-Did you not pick up a letter, or were you aware of it the next day, the 8th of December, I think I heard you say that? MS. ALLEN-The 8th, I got this report, or maybe the day after. MR. TURNER-Okay. So that leaves you a full day short of the 30 days. You've got 24 days in December, six days in January, 30 days. MRS. EGGLESTON-Was that mailed out on the 8th, or did you receive it? Was it mailed from the Town on the 8th? MR. BREWER-What day was the 8th on? I can tell you exactly when. MR. MARTIN-Did you come in and pick up a copy, Tim, that day? MR. BREWER-I don't know what the day was, the 8th. have a calendar? Does anybody HR. 'fURNER-Yes. It was a Tuesday. MR. BREWER-I picked it up Friday morning. That Friday, because you let me take it for the weekend. MR. TURNER-You picked it up the 4th? MR. BREWER-Yes, sir. MR. DUSEK-If you're counting days, you would start with Number One. If you I re counting from the 7th or the 8th, wherever you're counting from. HR. TURNER-The 8th. HR. DUSEK-If you're counting from the 8th, the 9th would be the first day, the 10th would be the second day, etc. So, wherever you end up with 30. MR. MARTIN-I think what Mr. O'Connor is doing, see, he's counting, the determination was made the 7th, and he starts counting the 8th. HRS. EGGLESTON-He starting the 8th, and she starting the 9th. MR. DUSEK-Right. HR. BREWER-The day that I picked it up, if the 8th was a Tuesday, I picked it up that Friday morning. HRS. EGGLESTON-After, like the 11th, or whatever. MR. BREWER-After the 8th, whatever the date was. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm not sure that Tim picked it up the day that it was actually dated. He may have come in a couple of days later. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you just said you picked it up and took it home for the weekend. So, that would be the 4th. MR. BREWER-Right. No. How could I pick it up the 4th if it wasn't ready until the 8th? MR. MARTIN-It wasn't ready. MR. TURNER-That's what you just said. I asked you that. MR. BREWER-I couldn't have gotten it the 4th. 48 MR. MARTIN-If he picked it up on a Friday and got it for the weekend, then it was the weekend after the 8th. MR. BREWER-It was the 11th or the 12th. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. MARTIN-I think, as a matter of fact. the December 7th letter of determination is an attachment to that report, if I'm not mistaken. Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's your thoughts? MR. CARVIN-I think we're splitting hairs on one day. I really do. I mean, again, I know that probably no court of law in the land would ever support the fact that, you know, suppose the 30th day fell on Christmas or New Years or one of these days that there's just no place to file. I mean, we happen to have two holidays that fall between this time frame, and I mean, I'm just saying, hypothetically, lets just say that it fell on January the 1st. I mean, lets says that they waited right up until, the 30 days says that they have a right to file on January the 1st, and if nobody's there to tile it, where are you? I mean, you really don't have 30 days. MR. DUSEK-Well, that's answered in the law, though, and that is, you would file the next day. If the 30th falls on a Sunday or a holiday, it's the next day. MRS. EGGLESTON-But I see why the courts ruled that you can't do anything about something you don't know anything about. MR. DUSEK-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, that isn't fair to the other people who weren't aware or privy to Jim's decision. I mean, he didn't announce it to the world that day. It wasn't a general, common knowledge. So it seems like when the information does get to the people involved, they would have a right to appeal, the 30 days from then. MR. CARVIN-Who's to say that the photocopy is dated December the 7th? There's no time stamp or anything like that. I'm not casting any aspersions here. MR. TURNER-It's marked right there, December the 7th. Do you see it? It's signed. MRS. EGGLESTON-This was from the attorneys. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the appeal, the 7th. That's their appeal. MR. O'CONNOR-Is there question of fact that you actually made it on the 7th? MR. MARTIN-I wrote the letter on the 7th, and signed it. I'll go on the record as stating that much. MRS. EGGLESTON-I believe that. I don't question that. MR. CARVIN-No. As I say, I'm not questioning it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm questioning, how can these people do something about something they don't know anything about? MR. O'CONNOR-The problem that I have is the precedent that you're setting, okay, and I think you have a little bit of distinction from the case that Paul has. I think, referred to, that you had a neighbor that didn't know anything about the project and saw something being built, and then went and said, why is this being 49 built. You're talking about somebody who is actually a member of the Planning Board. He was part of, and privy to the discussion of the densities. This is not an innocent neighbor. We're also talking not necessarily about somebody who found out on the 30th day, and didn't file it within 30 days, or found out on the 29th day, and didn't file wi thin the 30 days. They found out on the 8th. They had a copy of that resolution, or that' determination dated the 7th. The Ordinance has been in effect, very clearly, for some time that says you've got to file within 30 days. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, he could have done it any time within that span, instead of waiting until the very last day, what they felt was the last day, you're saying. MR. BREWER-What I'm saying, in all fairness, if Mr. Martin mailed me that December the 7th, I wouldn't have gotten it until the 8th anyway. I mean, it's within my rights to wait the 30 days, if I so please. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but then you'd have his December 7th. MR. BREWER-If he made the decision on the 7th, and he mailed it to me from the Town Building, I wouldn't necessarily get it the 8th. I might get it the 9th. MR. O'CONNOR-My problem with that is that there's no obligation to mail it. MR. MARTIN-No. There isn't. MR. BREWER-But you stated that it was sent to the Planning Board and you keep insinuating that I'm on the Planning Board, so I should know. I've excused myself from this project, Mr. O'Connor, and if you want to keep making an issue about it, fine, but I don't think that's relevant. MRS. EGGLESTON-I've always fel t that we should take the Town Attorney's advice. I mean, I don't think he normally steers us wrong, and if the courts uphold the knowledge from the time he's, you know, using the date. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't mean to make an overly big deal out of this thing. I think I have to protect the record. I think that the record is clear. That's the problem, Statute of Limitations. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I know what you're saying. Well. how do the rest of you feel? MR. TURNER-I've got to tell you that it goes back, again, to what was just said, this project is nothing new. Everybody's aware of it. Timmy's aware of it. Mr. Aikens is aware of it, and that awareness should be undertaken on their part, and I'm sure, maybe he didn't know, but he should have known, and I feel that, if it's one day. It's not like the case that he stated, the case law that he stated, this fellow didn't know anything about it. They knew everything about it, except maybe this particular change, but they were aware of it. I think they should have taken it upon themselves to find out, and I think that we should not hear it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess I could say that, have 30 days, they did have 20 or more. waited until what you felt was the last day. at least 20 days and no action was taken. even though they didn't I don't know why you I mean, you did have MS. ALLEN-I think I want to go back one step. First of all, you're right that we did know that calculations were going on. What we didn't know was what the final determination was going on, and the determination did swi tch. As for the 30 days, hone stl y, we got this report. We looked at the report, and it said December 8th, and we said, the Queensbury Planning Board came up with their 50 report, finally, and that is the date that we placed it on. That's honest. That's how we did it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you always wait until the last day to file an appeal? MS. ALLEN-Typically not, but I think you hit the nail on the head. It was the holidays. A lot of my practice is real estate, it has to get done by the end of the year. and we all had a get together. and it's a bad time of the year. I think you're correct about that, but I believe that it's fair to state that this determination became public to us no earlier than the 8th. CRAIG MACEWAN MR. MACEWAN-I have one comment I think I could add to kind of help with this. My name is Craig MacEwan and I'm on the Planning Board, and I'm here just to observe, with no connection to what's going on here, and I keep hearing that this report was given to the Planning Board. This report was given to the Planning Board. No one on it has a copy. So that may clear up some conception about people knowing about it. This is the first I'm seeing it here. So we knew nothing about that report, and what the density calculations were. We haven't seen them yet. MR. O'CONNOR-What I referred to as my comment, and I want to be correct on the record, given to the Planning Board, is that there's a cc on the letter from Mr. Martin that indicates that a copy of that went into the Planning Board file. MR. MARTIN-Is that on the bottom? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, cc to the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-Town Board, Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-That's what I was referring to. of the report that Ms. Allen has spoken of. report that she has, that I'm aware of. I honestly don't know I haven't seen her MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it does say, Mr. MacEwan, a copy went to the Planning Board. MR. BREWER-Also, if it was mailed the 7th, it could have gotten to our houses the 9th. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you still had 20 days to. MR. BREWER-I had 30 days, legally, by my rights, 30 days from the day I got it. That was his final decision, and that's what I'm basing this on. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think a day is arguable. I mean, 10 days or 15 days is certainly not arguable, and my position is that I don't have a problem with the one day aspect. I still think that there were two holidays, two legal holidays in there, and I don't know of too many people that were working that day, and is it a full 30 days if you lop out two holidays? Now, I know Paul is going to say that the law says it's 30 days according to the calendar, barring any. MR. DUSEK-Well, there's another suggestion I'm going to make. I really strongly urge the Board to go to the substantive issue, in any event. You can decide both issues. You'll see it sometimes happen in court decisions. They'll address one, and then they'll address the other. They'll say, well, even if it isn't expired, here's what our decision would be. I think it's important, in this particular case, because otherwise, if this thing gets further litigated, it could be back before you anyway. So, I think you're wise to, whatever you feel you want to do on the one issue, fine, !:>1 but I would also still address the second issue. MR. TURNER-Do you feel comfortable with that? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. HR. CARVIN-Yes. MRS. PALING-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. We'll hear it. MR. MARTIN-Are you going to discuss the substance, then, of it? Okay. Well, then in that regard, I want to say what my position was. HR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-If you look through 179-54, Land Use Intensity Considerations, and I'll read, "The land use intensities of the particular zone listed in Article IV of this Chapter shall apply to a PUD,". My thought was that, up to that point is one thought and an end of a thought. That, up to that point, up to that comma, takes care of the approach that you use to make the ini tial calculation. and Article IV simply states the area requirements, or the lot size requirements throughout all the districts, and that's what was applied, and as further evidence of the Town's past history in doing this, both the West Mountain PUD and the Hiland Park PUD were calculated in the same manner, and without any contest of that approach. Now, then, beyond that, after the comma, "except that, where the open space area in a PUD exceeds 25 percent ot the gross area of the PUD, the Town Board may approve a residential use density increase of one percent for each one percent of open space." That exception is then making reference to the bonus, and that's how the bonus is laid out, and then "not including undevelopable land in excess of 25 percent minimum required by 179-55B of this Article". So, to me, the reference to the, "not including undevelopable land", which is broken by commas, applies to only that bonus calculation, and does not apply to the base calculation, the initial calculation that is in the first thought, before the first comma leading into the first sentence of the Section, and that's the approach I took. That's the approach the developer took, and that's when I made my determination, and that was my basis for the determination I made. MR. TURNER-Do you understand what he's saying? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but it goes on to say, "not including undevelopable land". MR. TURNER-That's what he did. He didn't include it. MRS. EGGLESTON-He did, and they say it shouldn't be included in the calculations. Isn't that right? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, maybe, and it's late, and I don't want to take a lot of the Board's time, if it's unnecessary, but we are prepared to give you the flavor of density issue as it was referred to. I think it's a mathematical calculation, the same as Mr. Martin said. We haven't really talked about the proposal and the project. and I don't know what detail you want to get into. that we're talking about 200 some acres. We're talking about 100 acres of open space. We're talking about preserving all the natural features, and we talked, if you look at the PUD Regulations, specifically in the PUD Regulations, it says there shall be no lot requirements for a PUD, lot size requirements for a PUD. It tries to give you the most flexibility that you could have, so that you could do exactly what we're talking about, preserving bluffs, 52 preserving archeological sites, preserving the wetlands, setting up conservation easements above the bluffs so that there's no erosion on the bluffs, setting up conservation easements around the wetlands so there's a buffer around the wetlands. This is done on the highest level, beyond trying to accommodate the neighbors, and ease their traffic problems, and Mr. Southerland is fully prepared and has about a 15 minute presentation. We can give you the background on the project itself, the soils. There's been more studies on this site than I've seen on any subdivision I've been involved in in the Town of Queensbury. Those are issues of merit that actually go to the Planning Board and to the Town Board, but I don't want you to feel as though we're not presenting something to you. We said we're ready to answer the questions substantively. I think it's a simple construction question. That's an exact type thing. It says that the density shall be as set forth in Article IV, and you go to Article IV and you find out what they are, and then you come back here and it says, except that, and the except that doesn't subtract from those base densities, it adds to them, and I did spend some time down stairs, and I looked at Hiland. Hiland has some wetlands. They are actually State classified wetlands. There's never a discussion, in the full drawer of Hiland Park documents here, and all the environmental studies that were done, and everything else, as to deducting anything from their densi ty that they set forth, based upon undevelopable land, and maybe the question of Hiland is not that clear, but West Mountain, which is a PUD which received its final approval in February of 1990, and certainly everybody can see the slopes that are involved in West Mountain, and that's what they seem to be saying that we should be taking out of the base, here, slopes, as well as some other areas. There was no deduct for slopes. They started with 553 RC-3A acres. They divided that 553 by 3 and came up with 234 development units. They started with 40 acres of SR-30, and that's a little bit difficult, because you're talking about 30,000 square feet, but they divided that by whatever the multiple is of how many square feet there are in 40 acres, and came up with 50 units. They said that, in Queensbury, they had 284 units. That was on the very initial submittal that they made. They carried that, that is in the Town of Queensbury. In the Town of Lake Luzerne, they ended up with something like 1309 units, which really are not the issue. I don't know what the Lake Luzerne Ordinance says, but when they got done with their final approvals, which is in February of 1990, under our present PUD, they didn't deduct out of that 284, anything for the slopes that were included, of the lands that are within the Town of Queensbury. Now, this is a construction. or a suggestion that has no support in the Ordinance. ALLEN OPPENHEIM MR. OPPENHEIM-I am Allen Oppenheim. from the Michaels Group. I'd just also like to add, as the applicant who's been involved in the planning process, for almost a year now, that this interpretation is consistent with everything that we've been told, not only from Mr. Martin, but Mr. Parisi, Pat Crayford, nobody has identified this as an issue. So, this is really consistent, the interpretation that we see before us now is consistent with what we've been told during our whole planning process. HS. ALLEN-Two things. First of all, it's my understanding that never were any of these calculations contested. Nobody went beyond the Zoning Administrator, and that is exactly what we're doing tonight, and this is a separate project than the other projects that were referred to by Mr. O'Connor. In addition, we're not having any problem with the Zoning Administrator making a decision different than another Zoning Administrator. What we're having a problem with, we don't think that the decision is being made correctly. I just want to show you one thing that, the practical implications of what we're talking about. This is the most recent revised site plan, I believe, for the Hudson Point project. As you can see from this diagram down here, the top part of Parcel E. which I believe is approximately 66 acres, is single family one 53 acre zoning. The bottom part of Parcel E, which I believe is 90 acres. somewhere close to 90 acres, is Waterfront Residential Three Acre zoning. What in fact is happening, because of the interpretation of this Zoning Ordinance, is that in fact the development is being shifted down to the more fragile area along the Hudson River, and these parcels down along here, which are out along the bluff, right along the river, are becoming one acre parcels. So, by using the PUD, they're not just shifting the development to less critical environmental areas, in fact what they're doing is shifting the development down towards the river, and that's what our concern is based on. That's our practical concern of the implications of the interpretation tonight. MR. MARTIN-The only manner I might respond to that is that's not an issue of this particular interpretation. That's an issue as to whether you should grant the PUD or not. A PUD can transcend that zoning, and that's up the Town Board to decide, in my opinion. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're right. ROB SOUTHERLAND MR. SOUTHERLAND-I'd like to make just one response to a previous comment. My name is Rob Southerland. I'm with the Saratoga Associates. If you look at the plan carefully, there are extensive areas where there's no lots that are developed along the river edge, here, here, along the brook. We worked extensively with the Planning Department in the bluff area. We have modified this plan a number of times, working wi th the Planning Board directly, to establish a conservation easement with no clearing along those bluffs, as well as a 50 foot setback from the top of the bluff that would not be disturbed at all, by any development. So it's a no build zone, 50 feet from the top of the bluff, all the way down to the river. We have sati sf ied, I think, the concerns that the Planning Department had, as far as this particular area of development. I don't feel you really kind of shift the development to the river. In fact, when you look at the plan, I'd say 90 percent of the units are really located to the interior of the site. It's very difficult to take advantage of the river, given the high nature of it, the lowness of the river, so there's not really views out against the river. Again. there's been extensive efforts to really preserve the bluffs. There's documentation of the Planning Board. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets get back to the issue, now. MR. O'CONNOR-Just so you also have a flavor of something else. too. Maybe we ought to actually tell you, although I don't think anybody has actually made the calculations. but somebody has asked you to see if a copy of the formula was used for calculation. When we do the calculation, we then end up with the potential of 170 units. Our actual development is less than 170 units, and there's other factors, I'm getting sort of deep, okay, but we're talking about preexisting lots in the same neighborhood, seven of those lots that are now counted against ours, were already there and were smaller fashion, but were part of the McDonald Subdivision, but they were eliminated because he's allowing us to use part of his subdivision for an access road. We're not overburdening, this is really very well done. If you take a look at the studies that have been made, the responses back and forth before Staff and the applicant at this point have been very extensive. They've raised every concern that you run into, but basically you've got to look at the Section, what does the Section say that you're allowed, this is the calculation that was made, that was referred to by Jim Martin, which he still believe is correct, is that, in Parcel C, which is this parcel, there is nothing in there that says anything about whether or not it has access or doesn't have access, and I still don't understand the comment by counsel that it only has access to Sherman Island Road. It also has access on Corinth Road, and conceivably you could do something, interior, with it. We're staying away from it. 54 '-- There's a parcel in here that is about 18 acres. We haven't included that in our density. We haven't included it within the PUD, because we think the Town fathers want to purchase that for an expansion of the Water Plant. We put that in, that's SR-l. We have another 18 acre density, without any give, take, one way or another, and maybe designate it as potential future utility service area. We're not trying to be cute, and I purposely tried to just make my point on the earlier procedural thing and let you make a decision, because I'm not trying to avoid the substance of question that is before the Board. If you take Parcel C, we ended up with 10 development units out of that, because we had 10 acres, and that's one acre zoning. Parcel 0, which is this parcel here, we have 42 acres, we ended up with 42 development units. Parcel E has two types of zone in it. It has some one acre and some three acre. Out of the one acre, we ended up with 66 acres, which gave us 66 units. and the WR-3, it had 90 acres, we ended up with 30. So, we ended up with 96 out of that. That's how we came to the base of our densi ty of 148. Then you get to Paragraph A, and you talk about comparison of open space as to development space and the bonus. The issue here is, was Mr. Martin correct in making the density. I don't know how you, if you look at Article IV, Article IV does not talk about developable land. It gives you each zone, and it tells you that in that zone, the density is X, Y, and Z. So all you have to do is figure out how many acres you have in that zone, and that gives you the base. I have one other comment I would make, too. For the record, I disagree with Mr. Martin saying that the Ordinance says that all parcels have to be contiguous. If you really get into the PUD Ordinances, it says that to qualify for a PUD, you have to have 30 contiguous acres. Some place or other, now, he's referred that over to the density issue. We haven't argued that, because we're only talking about 163 units, total, including even what we're giving in to the McDonald swamp and what not. So we've never had to get beyond that, but I wouldn't want to, for precedent purposes, say that I have agreed on the record that parcels have to be contiguous in order to be considered in the density calculations, and I specifically make that point because at Hiland they weren't. You had parcels on two sides of the road in the Hiland, and they weren't considered. I think you even have a road, some parts of West Mountain, up at the top, but that maybe a township line, too. The other issue which I would make, because something has been said on the record, is some reference to the Carner Blue Butterfly. We met, this week, with representatives of DEC on that issue. We have satisfied them. We hope to have a letter forthcoming from them that they are satisfied with the efforts that we've made to identify the fact that we do not believe that we any of that species on our si te. There was a sighting, apparently, and the only documented sighting of Carner Blue Butterflies, to the north of this site, in the transmission line area, which is not part of the PUD, and I just raise that because it was on the record. I don't want to be in the meeting and not respond to it. We'll respond to it in more detail when we have the actual response from the DEC, based upon meetings. I think you're asking, did Mr. Martin make the right interpretation of Section 179-54, when he determined what the base. MR. TURNER-Any further comment? MS. ALLEN-I just have one more. In Article IV, you'll note that it specifically talks about the purpose under each Section. The purpose for a Waterfront Residential zone is to protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River, while providing adequate opportunities for development. I think that that is in Article IV and pretty clear that that's the reference. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Turner. I also know that there are some neighbors here that came specifically to support our particular project. I don't know if you want to hear from them or not. MR. MARTIN-You have a public hearing scheduled. 55 MR. TURNER-Yes. We will hear from them. Okay. You people are all done for now? MR. CARVIN-I just have one question. Have you got any figures of how many, under your mathematical equations, that they should be allowed? MS. ALLEN-Well, it's difficult, because we run into two problems, well, more than two problems. One problem is that we're already just relying on the applicant's calculations, which I guess we're willing to do. Another one is, we're not quite sure the exact archeological area, as of right now, nor are we sure, I have not seen that letter from DEC. The last letter I saw from DEC still expressed concern about the Carner Blue Butterfly, and I understood they couldn't even make a decision until later in the year. So, it's hard to say that habitat should be eliminated from this developable land, and also any archeological area, but if you take, just minus the wetland, the bluff, and I gave approximately three acres to the archeological, and I have to admit, that was an arbitrary figure, I came up with as of right, 124 units, and then with the density bonus of 19 units, 143 units there. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask the counsel where she finds the definition that she apparently is using for undevelopable land? MS. ALLEN-I think it's fair to say that wetlands and bluffs are undevelopable land. The archeological is going to depend on where it's shifted. MR. O'CONNOR-Both of those items can be part of the lot, can they not? MS. ALLEN-It's a bigger issue than that, though. MR. O'CONNOR-My comment, I guess, Mr. Chairman, is argumentative. I think she's trying to create an ordinance within the ordinance that's not here, and I make that point for the legal benefit of it. There is no definition that can be referred to. This is an Ordinance that's been enacted under the complete powers of the Town of Queensbury and should be interpreted in accordance wi th the manner in which it is written. MS. ALLEN-And all I have to say to that is that you go through the pertinent Sections with the applicant. MR. TURNER-Okay. I will now open the pUblic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBIN BREWER MRS. BREWER-My name is Robin Brewer. I just want to make a comment to the Carner Blue Butterfly, and how they were discussing the fact of leaving, those areas have to be deducted. Mr. O'Connor has said that as far as they're concerned, at that particular time, there is no sighting. I have a report from the Michaels Group, and it says the project ecologist will take a second look at the open areas on the project site at an appropriate time to be coordinated with the Nature Conservancy to determine if the Butterflies are utilizing any of these areas. I've just spoken to the Nature Conservancy two days ago, and DEC, Laura Sommers, Endangered Species. has also written a letter, and I do have letters, they're probably in my folder somewhere, they do say that another survey needs to be done in the summer of 1993 to find out those areas, and they may not be limi ted to the pole line corridors. There are some open spaces that need to be checked on. and that is a point that I think has to be talked about, that should be taken away from density. TOM FITZGERALD 56 -"" MR. FITZGERALD-My name is Tom Fitzgerald. I live on Sherman Island Road. I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I'd like to state that my ini tial concern was because I was trying to protect my family and my investment on the Sherman Island Road. Initially, the project didn't give us much consideration because the flow of traffic was coming down our street. The Michaels Group did rework the project and alleviate the traffic problem. I'm very pleased with it, as it stands right now, because of the green space, the buffer zones. I do have one concern, and I've addressed Mr. Oppenheim on that, and that was the fact that the road, which the present plan calls for closing the road off at the end of Sherman Island Road. In the future this road may, perhaps, be reopened, but I've discussed that, and my concerns are not as strong as they once were. Legally, the road always 0 f fers the opportuni ty to reopen, but there would be the traffic issue. Again, it doesn't appear logical that it would be reopened. The environmental concerns are our concern, but I feel that the Town Board should be concerned with that. So, I'd just like to go on record as stating that as far as mY family is concerned, the Michaels Group has met my concern. BARRY WHITE MR. WHITE-My name is Barry White. I'm also a resident of Sherman Island Road. I have been for 21 years. There's been a lot of changes in the past 21 years on the Sherman Island Road. I remember when there was three houses there, and a dirt road, no water. There's been a lot of changes. It's grown into a nice little community. Thé integrity of our community is being preserved by the Michaels Group. In fact, things are being enhanced. The McDonald Subdivision, which would have put traffic onto Sherman Island Road, which was our main concern, has now been alleviated. Those people will not be exiting onto Sherman Island Road, which is a very narrow road. I think these people have been more than fair with what they've done, and I'm in full support of their project. I am concerned with the natural habitat, and I think that's being preserved as much as can be expected. With the homes that are in there now, there's still an abundance of wildlife in the area, deer, rabbits, what have you. They haven't been significantly depreciated for the 21 years that I've been there, and I can't see how this project would deter it in any manner. MR. TURNER-Thank you. hearing's closed. Anyone else wish to speak? Okay. Public PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. What's your pleasure? I think he made the right decision. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think he made the right decision, from reading, just from plain reading, digesting the sentence, I truly believe he made the right decision. MR. TURNER-Right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. All of this comes before, and then this gets into the bonus. Do you agree? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I tnink that there seems to be some precedent with the Hiland and with the West Mountain. I don't think Mr. Martin was out of line in calculating it on the total basis, and just because those other plans weren't protested or appealed, he followed a format that I think is pretty clear in the book. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I agree. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MRS. EGGLESTON-All we have to do is say we concur? We don't have 57 to get into why we concur? MR. TURNER-We'll say that we concur, and the reasons are that we agree with his calculations as indicated on Section 179-54. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-93 BREWERS AND AIKENS, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: And concur with Mr. Martin's calculations as they seem to agree and relate with Section 179-54 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ASSENT: Mr. Philo, Mr. Thomas MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Turner. are you going to, for the record, make a ruling on whether the appeal was timely? MR. TURNER-I think it's the Board's consensus that they don't wish to make that determination. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you, Mr. Turner. MR. DUSEK-Could we have a very brief Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas. Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling. Hr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GIVE ATTORNEY DUSEK THE POWER TO REPRESENT AND DEFEND THE QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGAINST THE LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATION ACTION FOR ARTICLE 78 RELIEF, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Hr. Turner NOES: NONE 58 ,-,,' ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. DUSEK-We'll give it our best. MR. TURNER-Okay. Election of Officers. We're doing Vice Chairman and Secretary. MOTION TO NOMINATE FRED CARVIN FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin MOTION TO NOMINATE JOYCE EGGLESTON FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-We won't bother with the minutes tonight. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 59