2009-03-02 SP MTG#9SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING MTG. #9
MARCH 2, 2009 RES. 83
7:00 P.M.
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ANTHONY METIVIER
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
COUNCILMAN MONTESI
TOWN OFFICIALS
Sr. Planner, Stu Baker
Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown
Town Counsel, Robert Hafner
PRESS
POST STAR
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC-Opened the meeting.
ZONING CODE- Town Board Review of Public Comments
SUPERVISOR STEC- The public hearing was closed for verbal comment on February
24, 2009 and we kept the written open until close of business today. All public comment
that we received via email or otherwise has been incorporated and is in the Clerk's
record. We have hard copies here tonight. Stuart Baker created a table with all the
information he compiled from those letters. A suggested staff response and a
recommended action was prepared and will be worked through tonight. Because there are
going to be some things on the list that some are going to want changed tonight and
others are not we are going to start a list to refer back to for changes in six months time.
Refer to: Responses to Comments Table
ITEM #1 Page 9.8, Section 179-9-070 (J)(1)(b): TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-
The use of "shall" is intentional. The referral will be mandatory in an effort to better
coordinate information for both boards before any decisions are rendered. ACTION
None
ITEM #2 Page 14.3, Section 179-14-040(D) and Section 179-9-070(J)(1)(b) TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE- RECOMMENDED ACTION- 179-9-070(J)(1)(b )
refers to the projects that already requires review by both the Planning Board and Zoning
Board of Appeals. 179-14-040(D) refers to projects where the Planning Board does not
have review authority, such as projects that do not otherwise require site plan review.
ACTION- None
ITEM #3- To amend the definition of Building Height in Article 2 TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Recommended by staff. ACTIONChange
recommended by staff. Amend suggested text to read "A detailed site plan, prepared by a
licensed surveyor, with pre-construction grade lines (elevations) marked at 2 foot
increments may be required with building plans so natural grade can be determined."
ITEM #4- To amend the Total Building Floor Area Defintion in Article 2 TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Recommended by Staff. ACTION-Add suggested
language and re-evaluate 5' threshold in 6 months.
SUPERVISOR STEC- The Boards goal is to have a more concrete definition that might
be a little more restrictive in some ways. By adding to the definition "the outside of
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 2
when referring to exterior walls of all structures makes it clearer. We can keep an eye on
this one and refer back to this in six months.
ITEM #5 Amend the Setback definition in Article 2 TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSENo changes recommended by staff. ACTION-None
STUART BAKER, SENIOR PLANNER- The intent of the suggestion was such things as
wing walls would then be considered as part of the structure and has to be down by
setback requirements. We are not recommending that change at this point.
ITEM #6 Objection to change of zoning on parce1289.17-1-1.1 to all LC-42. Current
zoning is portion LC-42A, majority is RC-15. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE
Staff recommended proposed zoning to remain the same as current zoning. Consistent
with 2007 CLUP recommendation. ACTIONChange proposed zoning map.
SUPERVISOR STEC- This person had a specific parcel question. Basically he asked us
to look at changing the split zoning on his property, we removed and we basically
decided to take the whole property in the draft and put it in one of the zoning
classifications. He liked it the way it was. This is the only parcel specific change that's
requested and it's off of Birdsall Road. I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be switch it
back to what it was before.
ITEM #7 Page 10.10, Section 179-10-070 (I) Firing Ranges and restrictions on Sunday
hours TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Hours of operation would be set by the
Planning Board only for those projects requiring their approval. No change in operating
hours would be required ofpre-existing uses. ACTION-None
COUNCILMAN BREWER- Are they allowed to be open on Sunday now?
SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes, their grandfathered
COUNCILMAN METIVIER- If they come in for a site plan, say they want to tear down
their shooting rests and rebuild them at that point do they have to adhere to the new
CRAIG BROWN- They are subject to the new, current standards
ITEM #8 Section 179-10-070(C), Page 10.7; objection to proposed changes in lot size
and setback requirements for kennels. STAFF RESPONSENo changes recommended
by staff ACTION-- Town Board decided to retain the current regulations on kennels and
drop the proposed.
ITEM #9 Section 179-6-020(B): request to reduce sunset clause from 7 to 5 years;
objection to Planning Board having ability to waive lighting standards; suggestion that
auto dealers be required to shut down lot lighting after closing; request for lower foot
candle requirements for auto dealers and gas stations TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSENo change recommended by staff. ACTIONRe-evaluate in six months
ITEM #10 Article 2, page 2.6: objections to inclusion of basement and attic space in the
definition of building floor area; too limiting on small shoreline lots. TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSENo change recommended by staff. ACTION- None
SUPERVISOR STEC- This is repetitive and we will leave this as is for now. See Item #4
ITEM #ll 28' WR height limit too restrictive; more restrictive than APA TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo change recommended by staff. ACTION-None
ITEM #12 Two (2) acre minimum lot size for WR district makes most lots non-
conforming TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo change recommended by staff.
ACTION- None
ITEM #13 WR Side setback requirements would no longer include the sliding scale
based on lot width; unrealistic given existing variation in lot widths TOWN BOARD/
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9
STAFF RESPONSE -Discussion held, Zoning Administrator recommends keeping
sliding scale for side setbacks. ACTION-- It was the decision of the Board to keep the
sliding scale and to revisit this in six months.
ITEM #14 PR-42 zoning district designation on City land is too restrictive and
inconsistent with surrounding residential development densities; would inhibit
development that could benefit both Town and City TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE-Subject of current litigation. No change recommended by staff.
ACTIONRe-evaluate in six months.
ITEM #15 PR-42 zoning district designation is an impediment to the City; both CLUP
and Open Space Plan advocate for dialog between Town and City Issue TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSE-Subject to current litigation. No change recommended by staff.
ACTIONRe-evaluate in six months.
ITEM #16 Objection to proposed 300' setback for residential development in Office
district on Bay Road; district should be commercial development only
SUPERVISOR STEC- We had at least five or six people comment on this one. Further
discussion to be held later in meeting.
ITEM #17 Concern with proposed increase setback requirements for special use permit
approval of kennels-SEE ITEM #8
ITEM #18 PR-42 Acre zoning too restrict on city lands TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE-subject to current litigation. No change recommended by staff.
ACTIONRe-evaluate in six months.
ITEM #19 Objection to 300 foot Bay Road Office district setback-will revisit this topic
later in meeting-SEE ITEM # 16
ITEM #20No Town Board comment-see Items # 14, 15, 18
ITEM #21 Common Open Space definition in Article 2 needs clarification-TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo Change recommended by staff. ACTION-None
ITEM #22 Objection to density bonuses in Rural Residential zoning districts TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Changed in response to APA concern. ACTIONNo
additional action
ITEM #23 Application of enclosed shopping center district requirements to free-standing
buildings is still unclear in the draft code TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Town
Board Discussion
SUPERVISOR STEC This should be clarified that it we are going to allow that in the
definition
CRAIG BROWN- See definition of enclosed shopping center. Current definition does not
refer to separate free standing buildings. If you want to allow free standing buildings in
the enclosed shopping center district you want to revise 179-3-40 to include that within
that zone.
ACTIONRevise 179-3-40(B) to include free standing buildings
ITEM #24 Commercial design guidelines are needed for the enclosed shopping center
district. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Town Board discussion held
ACTION- This will be added to the list to be re-evaluated in six months.
ITEM #25 Highlighted changes version of draft desired- TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSEOn file in the Town Clerk's OfficeNo Town Board comments
ITEM #26 Table of comments needed TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Will be
provided upon approval and publication. ACTION-None
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 4
ITEM #27 Retain the 1000' residential setback on Bay Road. No Town Board comment
at this time.
SUPERVISOR STEC- We will come back to this one
ITEM #28 Amend definition of Large Office to include buildings greater than 10,000
square feet
SUPERVISOR STEC- We did spend some time on this one at a workshop.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Went over the definition and noted that more description
needs to be added to alleviate confusion. This is so condensed it takes out what we are
trying to do and that is to take out some of the misconceptions and give the Planning
Board, the applicant and the public more direction.
ACTION-After further discussion it was decided to re-evaluate this in six month.
Item #29 Prohibit clustering in the Rural Residential districts to preserve open space;
current draft allows open space parcels in cluster developments that may be subject to
future development proposals TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Draft code
provides tools for perpetual retention of open space created by clustering. See Article 11.
ACTION- None
ITEM #30 179-1-010: Remove reference to density of population; Town should not
regulate population size TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESONSENo change recommended
by staff. ACTION-None
ITEM #31 Article 2: museum definition should include gift shop TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSE-Recommended by staff. ACTION-Amend definition in Article 2
ITEM #32 Article 2: clarify professional occupation definition
SUPERVISOR STEC I don't think we need to do that.
ACTION- None
ITEM #33 Article 2 definitions of large and small office should include additional criteria
such as a trip generation
SUPERVISOR STEC- We just talked about this and resolved it
ITEM #34 Objection to increased lot size and setback requirements for kennels
SUPERVISOR STEC- That's a repetitive comment and we discussed that and agreed on
changing that back.
ITEM #35 Reduce allowable lighting levels for commercial development
STUART BAKER- We should re-evaluate this in six months time. During that time we
can take a look at the commercial lighting levels. Staff has not been receiving a lot of
complaints about the lighting levels that have been approved in recent years by the
Planning Board. Most of the concerns have been regarding pre-existing lighting.
ACTIONRe-evaluate in six months.
ITEM #36 Page 3.14: Veterans Field district should include note that this is in the City of
Glens Falls Town Board discussion held and decided to speak to Town Counsel, Mike
Hill regarding adding a footnote.
SUPERVISOR STEC It was written this way because of the sewer deal and we are
going to leave that as is and staff is recommending no change on utility easement
language in moderate density residential.
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9
ITEM #37 Page 4.2, moderate density residential: is a 10' wide easement large enough
for utilities. See comments under Item #36
ITEM #38 Rural residential design standards say nothing about retaining stone walls in
Ridge Road/Chestnut Hill region- Town Board discussion
SUPERVISOR STEC- I don't really think it needs to say anything. I can't imagine
anyone wanting to remove a beautiful stone wall
ITEM #39 Concern that moderate density residential district densities will create many
nonconforming lots TOWN BOARD/STAFF Pre-existing lots are protected in Article 13
ACTION-None
ITEM #40 Support of 300' Bay Road Office zoning district setback proposal TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSETo revisit later in meeting
ITEM #41 Needs stronger language regarding health and aesthetic impacts of wireless
communication towers in residential areas
STUART BAKER- Planning Board already has and will continue to have the authority to
review aesthetics, we can't review health concerns relating to telecommunication
facilities.
ACTION-- None
ITEM #42 Wants 1000' residential setback on Bay Road in office zoning district, similar
to what the CLUP recommended for the I-87 corridor. No Town Board comments at this
time.
ITEM #43 Agree with suggestion to lower large office definition threshold (Article 2) to
10,000 square feet. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-discussed previously
ITEM #44 Supports conservation subdivision standards and the proposed watershed
property zoning TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo comment needed.
ACTION-None
ITEM #45 Does not support proposed office zone; prefers current professional Office
district. No Town Board comment at this time.
ITEM #46 Would prefer smaller office buildings in Bay Road corridor; easier to reuse
once vacated. No Town Board comments at this time.
ITEM #47 Like improvements to surface water quality protection measures. No Town
Board comment
ITEM #48 Does Floor Area Ratio standard include stairways in the calculation? If not, it
should for clarity.
SUPERVISOR STEC- We just agreed to leave that for now.
ITEM #49 How is the natural grade determined for building height measurement in the
WR district
SUPERVISOR STEC- We have already covered this one previously.
ITEM #50 Need to further define what is an impervious surface. Are gravel drives
considered impervious? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE- Consider revision to
definition. ACTION- Revise definition- "... or other impervious surfaces including but
not limited to patios, walkways and graveled areas containing materials small than #2
stone size."
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 6
ITEM #51 Shoreline setback requirements should also be applied to other impervious
surfaces, not just structures. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo change
recommended by staff. ACTION- None
ITEM #52 Conversion of seasonal residences standards should also apply to ownership
transfer for existing seasonal homes.
SUPERVISOR STEC- That's not in our draft code. We can keep this on the list and re-
evaluate in six months.
ITEM #53 Need to clarify where in shoreline areas fertilizers are allowed
SUPERVISOR STEC- We did not take an attempt to try to regulate fertilizers, we may
do that in the future but it's not in this code.
ACTION- Re-evaluate in six months
ITEM #54 Need introductory purpose and intent language for shoreline buffering
standards
SUPERVISOR STEC- Do you recommend some sort of change Stu.
STUART BAKER- Some sort of explanatory language might be helpful.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH- The shoreline buffer is a brand new thing. I think to put a
half of page discussion in there explaining the purpose and the intent of these buffers
isn't going to hurt anything. It explains to the applicant, the public, the Planning Board
Member, the Zoning Board Member why we have this buffer.
TOWN COUNSEL, ROBERT HAFNER- This is introductory language, you can add it.
It's not changing the substance.
ACTION--SUPERVISOR STEC- We will go ahead and add the lift out from the bold
vegetative protective buffer standards to the bottom of that page and put that in as
introductory language into the buffer standards.
ITEM #55 Would like to see an overlay zone requiring site plan review for all structures,
stormwater and septic systems within the Lake George Critical Environmental Area.
SUPERVISOR STEC- Staff is recommending no action and I concur.
ITEM #56 Do we have specific architectural design standards for specific areas of Town?
TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Yes. See Article 7
ITEM #57 Code should require individual residential lot level review of clearing limits,
not just at subdivision review. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-The Planning
Board has the authority to review individual lot clearing limits at subdivision review.
ACTION-None
ITEM #58 Town should purchase some or all of City watershed lands to preserve them
SUPERVISOR STEC- That's another watershed property discussion we're going to have
with the city in the future. ACTIONRe-evaluate in six months.
ITEM #59 Table of contents needed. Discussed previously
ITEM #60 Proposed zoning map does not show lands that extend under Lake George
TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Such lands may not be within the Town of
Queensbury. ACTION-None
ITEM #61 Supports proposed changes in kennel special use permit requirements TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo staff comment, previously discussed
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 7
ITEM #62 Article 2: definition of seasonal use should be based on heating, insulation,
and other construction elements, not length of occupancy
SUPERVISOR STEC- Staff is recommending that we tackle this one in six months.
ITEM #63 Article 2: definition of tourist accommodations is outdated. Most lodging units
today are greater than 300 square feet.
SUPERVISOR STEC- It works for right now.
ACTION-- Staff recommends re-evaluation in six months.
ITEM #64 Use schedule: some uses currently listed in the HI district are not in the draft
code. Intentional? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSEHI uses in the draft code are
as per PORC recommendation. ACTION--- Zoning Administrator recommends
consistency with continuation of current use table requirements.
COUNCILMAN BREWER- The LI zone by the Northway, remember we discussed
hotels, you weren't going to add it only with a special use permit, or you weren't going to
change the zone. Is that so in there.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, BROWN- We weren't going to change the zone but we
are going to add hotel as a special use permit.
SUPERVISOR STEC- We did that.
ITEM #65 It's unclear what if any permits some uses listed in use table need. TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSEAt a minimum, all uses require a zoning review prior to
the issuance of a building permit. No further discussion
ITEM #66 Existing golf driving ranges are left as nonconforming uses in the draft code.
ACTIONChange code to list as a permitted use
ITEM #67 Draft zoning code does not seem to recognize critical environmental areas not
designated by the Town. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-The draft code does not
make any distinction between CEA's based on their origin. ACTION- No Action
ITEM #68 Neighborhood commercial zoning density: Is 1 acre enough land to provide on
site septic and parking for proposed uses? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE1 acre
is the proposed minimum lot size for this zoning district. Projects are likely to be on
larger lots. ACTIONNo Action
ITEM #69 Concerned that some uses listed as permitted home occupations may not be
able to adhere to performance criteria in Section 179-5-070(B) TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSEAllowed home occupations can be changed at any time in the future by the
Town Board if problems arise. ACTIONTo be revisited in six months for changes if
necessary.
ITEM #70 Code should allow beauty shops and barber shops and barbers as home
occupations TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo Town Board discussion.
ACTIONTo be revisited in six months for changes if necessary.
ITEM #71 Norway Maples are permitted in some areas and prohibited in others. They are
an invasive species. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Staff recommends removing
Norway Maples from Article 7 and 8 as permitted. ACTIONIt was the decision of the
Board to strike them from our suggested list of street trees.
ITEM #72 Soil storage piles as construction sites should be regulated to prevent health
hazards such as pollen. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-This is addressed in the
code 179-6-060. ACTION-None
ITEM #73 Residential setback in Office district should be 1000 feet. TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSE-This is repetitive and will be addressed later in meeting.
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 8
ITEM #74 Code should be organized so that all regulations pertaining to a particular
district are found in one section. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESONSE-This was
previously discussed and information brochures may be produced after code adoption
discussing all regulations for each commercial zoning district. ACTION- Re-evaluate in
six months.
ITEM #75 Concern that Moderate Density Residential district will not accommodate
nonconforming uses. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-This was discussed
previously. Nonconforming uses are addressed under Article 13. Section 179-13-060(B)
addresses development rights of lots created by approved subdivisions. ACTION-None
ITEM #76 "Highway" term still used in places for commercial districts. HCI references
also need to be removed. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Staff recommends
correcting these district references. ACTION-Amend code
ITEM #77 Design guidelines are needed for neighborhood commercial uses. TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Staff recommends addressing this proposed addition at a
later date. ACTIONRe-evaluate in six months.
ITEM #78 Travel corridor overlay setback requirements may act as a deterrent to the type
of lot design we want. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo Town Board
discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTIONNo Action
ITEM #79 Page 7.3 &7.4: parking is required behind buildings; page 7.6 entrances in
rear. Consistency? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-The reference on page 7.6
addresses the desired location of delivery entrances, not customer entrances. ACTION
None
ITEM #80 Shooting Range special use permit requirements (Article 10): proposed 1000'
setback for indoor range building would not work for the Dunham's Bay Club. 1000'
separating distance from other uses on adjacent lots is unfair, leaves them at the mercy of
potential changes of use on these lots. Concerned about ability to continue existing use.
TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-This was discussed at an earlier date.
ITEM #81 1 and 2 acre density proposal in the Moderate Density Residential district
would spread development out over a larger area. What goal is this intended to serve?
TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE- Lower proposed densities are offset by higher
proposed densities in the Neighborhood Residential district, as advocated by the adopted
CLUP. ACTION-- None
ITEM #82 Where is the dimensional discussion of what is a large office? TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-See Office, Large definition in Article 2. ACTION--
None
ITEM #83 The Office district on Bay Road is proposing urban style residential densities
without the amenities that make urban living workable. TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE-Public water, sewer and roads infrastructure is all present to support the
proposed densities. ACTION-None
ITEM #84 Article 4: is there a maximum parking standard? Code should allow option for
less parking where the use would permit it. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE
Maximum parking standards are not proposed. Permeability requirements will affect the
maximum parking proposed. ACTION- We would like to retain Planning Board having
the option to go below the minimum. Keep the existing language as far going below the
minimum.
ITEM #85 The zoning code needs to include pedestrian connections between multi-
family developments, not just within separate project sites. TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE- ACTION-Staff recommends amending Section 179-5-050 to include
pedestrian connections to adjacent MFR developments RECOMMENDED ACTION-
Amend code.
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 9
ITEM #86 Gas stations are prohibited within 250 feet of limited access highways. Does
this make sense? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-The standard is in existing code
as well as the proposed zoning. Intent is to protect vehicle use of an emergency vehicle
access to the highways. ACTION-None
ITEM #87 Petition signed by 162 residents against proposed changes to the special use
criteria for kennels in the Rural Residential districts. TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSENo Town Board discussion held previously
ITEM #88 Letter supporting changes to the special use criteria for kennels in the Rural
Residential districts TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSENo Town Board discussion
held previously
ITEM #89 Opposing 179-3-040 2 b vii changes to RR road frontage requirements TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSEA lot of time has been spent looking at the frontages and
the lot width requirements and satisfied with it. ACTIONRe-evaluate in six months.
ITEM #90 179-5-030 Agricultural uses c: would require existing multiple lots to
consolidate to meeting minimum size standards? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE
This section does not require minimum acreage to be on one lot. Use of adjacent lots is
permitted. ACTION-None
ITEM #91 179-5-030 B: 50' setback standards too small TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSENo Town Board Discussion
ITEM #92 179-5-110 (A) does not allow for multiple dishes where they may be
necessary for high speed Internet access. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-You are
going to have some people who are going to have to have two dishes, one for cable and
one for Internet access. ACTION-Amend to read: Not more than two satellite dish
antennae shall be allowed on any residential lot for residential purposes
ITEM #93 Does the zoning code address noise? Does the Town have any regulations
regarding noise? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Town Board does not have a
noise code. ACTION-None
ITEM #94 Supports proposed 300' setback for kennels. TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE- Discussion held previously
ITEM #95 Article 3: Shoreline/wetland/stream setback inconsistence; recommends one
standard of 50 or 75 feet. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSEWe do have a split
standard that APA requires at least up in waterfront residential.
ITEM #96 Change large/small office definitions threshold to 50,000 square feet TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE- No Town Board Discussion, already discussed
ITEM #97 There are no development design standards for Neighborhood Commercial
TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE- No Town Board Discussion, already discussed.
ITEM #98 Article 4: spell out and define DBH. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE
Spell that out. ACTION-Make requested change
ITEM #99 Article 4: bring back Planning Board authority to allow fewer than the
minimum required parking spaces TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Previously
discussed. SEE ITEM #84
ITEM #100 PUD was eliminated from the Urban Residential zoning. TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSEUR is now Neighborhood Residential
ITEM #101 Article 17- imposition of fines was deleted. Asks that it be re-inserted.
TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE- Fines can only be imposed by the Court.
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 10
ITEM #102 Article 19- can roads be listed alphabetically? TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE- Yes, that makes sense. ACTION- Make suggested change
ITEM #103 Article 3 requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre in Moderate Commercial;
cost prohibitive? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Pre-existing lots below 1 acre
are available. Minimum lot size only applies to new lots created. ACTION- None
ITEM #104 Objection to expanded space requirements for kennels. TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSE-previously discussed
ITEM #105 Table of contents missing. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Will be
provided by publisher. ACTION-None
ITEM #106 Related codes list needed. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Will be
provided by publisher. ACTION-None
ITEM #107 Article 2: definition of bedroom needed. TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE-Code staff uses NYS Building Code definition for consistency with
building and health codes administration. ACTION-None
ITEM #108 Definitions of "stream" and "stream corridor" needed. TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSE-They are defined in Chapter 147. ACTION-None
ITEM #109 Use table needs a reference title. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE
That will be provided when it gets published. ACTION-None
ITEM #110 Is WR existing or proposed. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-Draft
code references are proposed. Upon adoption these references become existing.
ACTION-None
ITEM #111 Hunting and fishing cabins removed? TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-
They are treated as a seasonal residence. ACTION-None
ITEM #112 Boathouse height increased to 16' from 14'? TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE- It was decided after much discussion to make it consistent with Park
Commission. ACTION-None
ITEM #113 Class B marinas no longer a permitted use? TOWN BOARD/STAFF
RESPONSE-Town does not regulate Class B marinas. ACTION-None
ITEM #114 Reference 6 NYCRR Part 645 in standards from Class A and Class B
marinas. TOWN BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-That section of state regulations is
administered by the Lake George Park Commission. ACTION-None
ITEM #115 WR-lA and WR-3A district references remain in the code. TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSE-All references will be replaced with WR. ACTION-Amend as
suggested
ITEM #116 Not all lands within the Town have a zoning district classification. TOWN
BOARD/STAFF RESPONSE-NYS APA has requested that state owned land within the
Park have no zoning classification. ACTION- None
ITEM #117 Why consolidate two waterfront districts into only one? TOWN BOARD/
STAFF RESPONSE-Reduction of number of zoning districts was a recommendation of
the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The APA did explain that they ran the
calculations and actually going from two to one lowers the density a little bit. ACTION-
None
OTHER DISCUSSION HELD:
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 11
With regards to Councilman Strough's recent email regarding Floor Area Ratio. He
requested that the intent be listed. Lots that are split by a road cannot be used for a
calculation for a Floor Area Ratio as a whole lot.
SUPERVISOR STEC- Lets put this on the list to be re-evaluated in six months.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Refer to page 7.12. It talks about office standards and then
it changes to Main Street standards, public plaza, outdoor dining, and utilities. None of
that should be in there.
SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- It's not Main Street standards, those are design standards
that were included in the professional office district.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, BROWN- I don't see it in the copy that's being
published.
SENIOR PLANNER, BAKER- Explained that those standards were placed in there by
the Ordinance Review Committee and were in the draft that has been reviewed to date by
this Board and those standards haven't been pulled out by this Board.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH- They don't belong in professional office.
SUPERVISOR STEC- We can argue that it got carried over unintentionally.
COUNCILMAN BREWER- Is this section in our design standards for Main Street?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Yes
After further discussion, it was the decision of the Board to delete this section starting
with public plazas and outdoor dining and all the rest of it.
SUPERVISOR STEC- Please make all changes and print everyone a new copy including
typo's made aware in Councilman Strough's email.
Refer to page 4.10 (E) Add language to incorporate sixty degree angle.
Refer to Shoreline clearing standards. Senior Planner, Baker to add to discussion
disclosure statement along with the clearing standards.
The newly adopted book calls for residential setback from the interstate of 1000' and it's
not in our code.
SUPERVISOR STEC- This is pretty substantial and should be added. Because this
wasn't added in the document that we had the public hearing on. This will go on the list
to look into at a later date, less than six months.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH- Spoke regarding a comprehensive tower program and
directing them away from residential areas.
SUPERVISOR STEC- We can add this to the six month list as well as concerns
regarding a preserve area.
With regards to home office it was the decision of the Board to leave it as is for now.
SUPERVISOR STEC- Stuart Baker will make the necessary changes and then turn it
over to Town Counsel, Schachner who will carry it through the rest of the APA process
and when APA is finished with it and if they approve it then we will have an actionable
document. I think we are looking at a quick peek at on maybe a couple of these things.
Specifically the residential setback for the Northway and any other easy ones that we
have ready to go at that point. We have the other six month list to look at towards the end
of the year.
SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING 03-02-2009 MTG #9 12
TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER- It's expected to be heard by the APA in April
SUPERVISOR STEC- Yes, it won't be on their March agenda, it will be on their mid-
April agenda. We can be looking at adoption the second meeting in April.
RESOLUTION ADJOURNING SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING
RESOLUTION NO. 83, 2009
INTRODUCED BY: MR. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its
Special Town Board Meeting.
Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 2009 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Montesi
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen M Dougher
Town Clerk-Queensbury