Loading...
1991-02-12 SP '-' -- CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 12TH, 1991 INDEX Discussion Regarding The Proposed Changes To The Zoning Ordinance. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ -- CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL JEETING FEBRUARY 12TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES MARTI N EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES HAGAN TONN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-Steve Borgos contacted me, yesterday, with regard to setting up a meeting. He seems to be in a hurry to get to this. I don't know what the time pressure he's under is, but he would like to set up a meeting either tomorrow afternoon or Thursday afternoon with him. Lee. and Paul Dusek to talk about lines of authority. I'm not sure what the issue is. MR. CAIMANO-The issue is, who does Lee York report to. She asked me the question and my opinion is, from a purely straight line responsibility, she obviously reports to the Town Supervisor. She's paid by the Town. She works for the Town. He or she, whoever happens to be the Town Supervisor defacto. is her boss. She takes directions from several different Boards, but who does she work for? She works for the Town. MR. MARTIN-She is Staff to our Board, but that doesn't necessarily mean she works for us. MR. CAIMANO-We have no authority over John or the Planning Department. We're not signing their pay checks. Anyway, that's what he's concerned about. MR. CARTIER-That's the issue. okay. I think maybe they want to get into some other things, too, on the planning process. I'm not really sure where that's coming from. I don't know any details. MR. MARTIN-That's what Lee explained to me, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-When does he want this meeting? MR. CARTIER-We", he gave us some choices here. Number One, again, he wanted to meet with me alone and I said no, for the same reasons I said before, either late tomorrow afternoon or Thursday afternoon or if we can't do that. he said he wanted to set up a Town Board meeting with us, for the week of the 18th, that's next week. Now, I mentioned to him that you wouldn't be available then. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Tomorrow is out, but Thursday I could do it. MR. CARTIER-What time? MR. CAIMANO-The later the better. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to make it Thursday? MRS. PULVER-Thursday afternoon I can make it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What time? MR. CAIMANO-5:30, 6? MRS. PULVER-I'm talking, like, 3. MR. CAIMANO-All right. 1 '----' MR. CARTIER-All right. That's fine with me. I can make 3 o'clock. MR. CAIMANO-As far as I know, right now, 3 o'clock Thursday would be fine. MR. CARTIER-All right. John, would you let him know that we can meet at 3 o'clock, Thursday. You got a letter from Paul with regard to the Agenda Control Law that goes off in April 25th, 1991. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Paul's requesting that we let him know, one way or the other, whether we want to see that continued. I would certainly make a pitch for its continuation, even though the way things are going presently we don't need it. Having been on the Board pri or to Agenda Control, we were going unti 1 midnight, 1 a.m in the morning and it was a disaster. So, that's my thoughts. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. I think we're still doing that. with Agenda Control. MR. CARTIER-I know, that's what scares me. The other thing is, too, that we've lost a Planning Staff member. They're not replacing Stuart. MRS. PULVER-Can't the Planning Board just decide how many Old Business and how many New Business, as it occurs? MR. CARTIER-I don't think you can go meeting by meeting. MRS. PULVER-Well, to have that flexibility, like, supposing there's five Old Business and it's short little things and so you say, well, all right, let's take it? MR. GORALSKI-Well. you can always add more than what the Agenda Control Law allows, but you could take any less and without the Agenda Control Law, as soon as an application is in. there's certain time frames that begin and you have to make a decision within that time. So, you couldn't say. we're only going to listen to eight items, even though we've received 20 applications because those other 12 items. then the time frame starts going. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-That's the advantage of the Agenda Control Law. MR. DUSEK-Yes. What it did was to eliminate the timing that is set forth in both the Town Law and also in your Zoning Ordinance. You've probably noticed in the Zoning Ordinance. I think it's 31 days. For some reason. the Zoning Ordinance even provided for less time than the Law does. The Town Law provides for 45. The Zoning Ordinance reduced that to 31. MR. GORALSKI-Then I would recommend that that be a change we make in reference to the Zoning Ordinance. MR. DUSEK-That could be. to make it comply with the Town Law. I would certainly have no problem with that. The one thing, though, I wanted to point out, with the Agenda Control Law is that one of the provisions of the Law itself was that. or one of the arguments for giving rise to the Law was the fact that it was needed and when we drafted it one of the concerns we had was it's possible challenge by an applicant and so we drew it as narrowly and tightly as we can, one of the conditions being that the Planning Board was overloaded and couldn't handle it. The only concern I have from a legal standpoint. Pete, is when you mention that we don't need it right now. If that's true then that's one of the legs upon which that Law happens to stand. MR. CARTIER-Well. what I mean by that is we're not getting loaded with applications, you know, we're not getting flooded with them and that's what I meant by that. It's not that we don't need it. We need it when we start getting large numbers of applications coming in. The other thing, too. recognize, that we've added since the Agenda Control Law is this expedited review which means we can add more than eight items. MR. DUSEK-If it's under an expedited matter. MR. CARTIER-If it's an expedited matter. MR. DUSEK-The other thought I would just mention. though. to you is that. of course, even if the Law should elapse, and I'm not saying it should or shouldn't. That's not my decision to make, but if it should, there's nothing to say that a new one couldn't be passed at such time that it's needed, just so you know. I mean, no matter what we do. we're going to have to enact a new law. MR. CAIMANO-I think it is political, if I may use that word loosely. We I think it would be very politic of us, under the circumstances, to drop it. I think since, as Paul said, we can adopt one at any time. 2 ~ MR. DUSEK-Well, no. You can't adopt one. The Town Board can adopt one. MR. CAIMANO-That's different. That's a horse of a different color. MR. DUSEK- Yes. MR. CAIMANO-I erase everything I said before that. By the way, just for your edification. Mr. Borgos is not going to be here tonight. MR. CARTIER-Okay, we". what's the Board's feeling on this? Do you want to think about it some more. We have some time. What's the last date you would have to get an answer from this Board by? MR. DUSEK-I did not bring the Law with me. but I believe my memo to you indicated April it expired. MR. CARTIER-The 25th. MR. GORALSKI-And I think you should point out that the Town Board is the one who has to extend it. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-So that you're talking about this Board making a decision and then getting it on the Town Board's agenda. MR. CAIMANO-Well. why don't we wait until after we talk to Steve. MR. DUSEK-I was going to say, if you wanted to make a decision so that the Town Board in turn could react to that decision, I would recommend you try to make a decision before the end of February. if not, maybe the middle of March would be okay still. MR. CARTIER-We can decide by the 26th of February. We can give Paul a decision. MRS. PULVER-The only thing that bothers me about the Agenda Control, and it doesn't bother me that we have agenda control, but what bothers me is that someone might not get on the agenda and it's a very minor, it could be the third stage of subdivision approval or something and at that point, they've been re-worked so many times there's hardly much to even look at and they may have to wait another whole month because of Agenda Control. I would like to know when someone is not on the agenda because the agenda's full. MR. GORALSKI-We can do that. MR. CAIMANO-But you don't do that. MRS. PULVER-No, but I mean I would like John to say. now. look, here we have Joe Blow here. He can not get on this agenda. He's got to wait a whole month and he's third stage or whatever. MR. GORALSKI-We can do that. MRS. PULVER-And then you can make a decision whether or not to add him on, looking at the agenda. MR. CARTIER-Let me play devil's advocate, here, with that idea. I think we might be creating a situation for ourselves where we would be accused of inconsistencies, you know, how come this guy got to get added on and I didn't. It becomes a judgement call. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MRS. PULVER-Then let's make some rules. MR. CAIMANO- There we go with the rules again. I think that the rules have to apply to everyone and I think that's a good point. Whatever we make, whether it's on or off. should apply to everyone and once you go into, we leave ourselves open to somebody saying, you did it for them, but you didn't do it for me. why. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-And there may be a very good reason, but they'd never accept it. MRS. PULVER-All right. understand that and I accept it, then how can we fix it? MR. CAIMANO-I don't know. MR. MARTIN-I have little sympathy for these concerns. 3 -,' MR. CAIMANO-You do? MR. MARTIN-The system works, I don't see where anything's broke. that we need to fix it, I really don't. People are getting through the process. MR. CAIMANO-Well, right now they are because there are fewer items on the agenda. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I mean, even when there's heavy times, I mean, people are getting processed and when there's exceptions to be made or there's a special case where there seems to be an urgency, we always manage to work around it and accommodate the applicant. MR. CARTIER-Yes. This Board's been a lot more amenable to scheduling special meetings than we have in the past. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. At any rate. and some of the people have some concerns about the speed with which things are going through. That's a topic of conversation. Why don't we hold this in abeyance until after we talk to him. MR. CARTIER-There are some misconceptions out there about how long it takes and we do have some numbers, in terms of the '89 year. I went through and analyzed them and the average amount of time, I'm off by a few days here, but the average amount of time, from the time an applicant turned an application in and it got approved by the Planning Board was 55 days, that was the average, and the median was less than 55 days. So. in other words, they were skewed. Even though you averaged, I forget how many items we had. It was quite a few. It was skewed below 55 days. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. CARTIER-And when I did it, I averaged in even things that took six months to get through because the applicant didn't come back for four months. They could have come back for an earlier meeting and just never showed up. So. it's not a matter of it taking several months to get through. MR. CAIMANO-It would be nice to have those numbers because I think you're right. I think there are some perceptions out there and I said that to somebody today who I had a meeting with. that sometimes they look at these things and it's smoke. It's blue smoke. It's not real. but it would be nice to have those numbers. on both sides. MR. CARTIER-They're floating around the Department some place, I know. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that they ever got typed up, because I walked in with them in rough draft form. So, they're still on yellow legal paper. MR. GORALSKI-I'll see if I can find them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I guess maybe if we want to get on to the reason for the meeting. MR. GORALSKI-Can I just jump in with one thing? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. GORALSKI-I have a memo here from Pat Collard to the Planning Board: "This is to inform you that the above referenced application of Robert Northgard. Jr., 2 lot subdivision, has been taken off the February 26th Planning Board agenda for the following reason: The zoning of this property is Light Industrial One Acre, not SR-20. Therefore, this will have to receive an area variance for two undersized lots. Leon Steves obta;ned an application for area variance this morning and will hopefully have this on the March Zoning Board agenda. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The purpose of the meeting, we originally started out with and got a little waylaid was to go through the draft of the proposed changes and share our thoughts with Paul and I think maybe the easiest way to go through this is. instead of jumping around. is taking this page by page and ask for comments that anybody cares to make. MR. DUSEK-Peter can I just say something before you get started? MR. CARTIER-Go right ahead. MR. DUSEK-I just wanted to make sure everybody understood the tenor of what's happening here. We had a meeting back in, I think it was November, with the Town Board and at that time, Lee York was present I think. I don't know if anybody from the Planning Board was present. MRS. PULVER-I was there. 4 MR. DUSEK-Were you there? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. At that point, the goal of the Town Board was to hit upon the major areas of concern in the Zoning Ordinance as identified by Lee, Dave, myself and I think the Board members themselves. Following that time, I was instructed to go back through and in light of the conference that we had that night. go back through and revise certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance and I think in the meantime a couple of others got thrown at me, too, that I went ahead and just threw in. but that's the general tenor of what happened to kick this thing off. Some of the changes in here are changes that were made as a result of the APA's request. So. if they seem really odd ballish, like the first one on Bed and Breakfast, the APA has requested that. All of the changes, though. came as a result of suggestions that were made to me, with the exception of one, well, actually. this was made as a suggestion, too, but the one dealing with variance was one that I primarily was concerned with because it did not. in my opinion, state the Law as it's currently in the State level. So, I wanted to revise that on my own, so I did that, but as to the processes concerned at this pOint, the Town Board has taken no action whatsoever with regard to the zoning changes, pending hearing from everybody. They haven't said they like these changes. They haven't said they don't like these changes. Their first reaction was, circulate it. So, that's where we're at in the process. MR. CARTIER-All right. Great. Okay. So, the only change in Home Occupation is the Bed and Breakfast, right? Yes. Okay, down to Park Space. That just seems to need a little bit of re-wording here, somehow. Going to the second line of that. Parking Space shall constitute an area of not less than, okay. Because they way that thing reads now, it's got to be 200 feet. Maybe I'm talking like a lawyer. Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. DUSEK-So, just add the words, "not less than"? MR. CARTIER-I think so. MR. CAIMANO-Before the first 200? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Or not less than 180 square feet. You know, what goes through my mind with this is cars and trailers and tractor trailers and that kind of stuff. We don't want to tell a guy he's got to have a 10 by 20 for an 80 foot trailer, that kind of thing, and then the last line. too. I'd like to see it accommodate, change automobile to vehicle. Somewhere along the line, I'm going to get hung up. the Zoning Board got hung up on a definition of Corporate Vehicles. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman. could I jump in? MR. CARTIER-Go right ahead. MR. GORALSKI-I very briefly went through this today when I found out I was going to be at this meeting tonight and I'm not sure why there's a distinction of, it seems that if it's going to be 200 feet for residential, 200 square feet for residential uses and 180 square feet for all other issues and in an effort to simplify things. I think it might be easier just to make it 180 square feet for all uses. I don't see why a residential use needs a larger parking space than any other use. MR. CARTIER-And in fact we need less. MR. GORALSKI-In an effort to simplify things and in order to have some consistency. it might be better just to have 180 square feet for all uses. MR. DUSEK-So, you're saying, have no differentiation of parking sizes at all anymore? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. PULVER-Yes. One parking for all. Why should the resident have to have more paving. MR. DUSEK-The change would occur here, but it would also occur in other places in the Ordinance. So. everywhere the 180 and that would be a 9 by? MR. GORALSKI-9 by 20. MR. DUSEK-9 by 20. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. 5 -- MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe that needs to read not less than 9 by 20. too. You don't want to get into some 6 by. you know some strange things. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that would be in Article VII. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. And again, just that last line, vehicle having a maximum overall length of 20 feet. You could get into some guy towing a boat trailer and he's going to have to have two parking spaces. 262, Paul, do I understand that that definition's being dropped and replaced, completely? MR. DUSEK-Right. Anywhere you see brackets, that entire definition would be the lead in, the definition into 263 will be the new definition. MR. GORALSKI-The problem is, there's two definitions for shoreline setback in the Ordinance and I'm not sure why. MR. CARTIER-Because the computer made a mistake. MR. CAIMANO-One adds on to the next one. MR. GORALSKI-Can I make a comment on that, though. On the next page, a continuation there. I'm not sure. Paul. if it's just a typo. It just doesn't kind of flow there. It says, "the size and the shoreline of any lake, pond," I think it should be, river, "and New York State Environmental Conservation classified wetland." MR. DUSEK-I think actually there should have been a comma after river. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and then there should be a "the" there. Should it be a "the? MR. DUSEK-Yes, because then there's "stream" at the end "or stream". MR. GORALSKI-Well, then it should be wetland's', with an~. I mean, we can do this another time. MR. CARTIER-The "the" there should be an "and". You're right. MRS. PULVER-And. MR. CARTIER-It should read "river and New York State Department of Conservation classified wetland." MR. CAIMANO-Wetland~. MRS. PULVER-Wetlands or stream. MR. DUSEK-Okay. I think. MR. GORALSKI-We'll straighten that out. Paul. on our own. MR. DUSEK-Well, let me make sure. Since the Board has raised it, I want to make sure everybody's in agreement. The way I read this to be is you're talking about the shoreline of a lake. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-You're talking about a pond. You're talking about a river. You're talking about a wetland and you're talking about a stream. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. DUSEK-So, if that's the case. it seems like there should be a comma after lake. a comma after pond, a comma after river, a comma after wetlands, and then "or stream". MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. DUSEK-There should not be any. "and" before it says "the". MR. GORALSKI-Right. but I don't think you need "the". MR. DUSEK-Maybe you can eliminate that, too, right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anything else on that Definition? MRS. PULVER-No. 6 "---" --' MR. CARTIER-Okay. Article IV. Has anybody got anything on Article IV? MR. MARTIN-I wanted to know the basis for the 20 percent permeability change. That strikes me as being something that requires some analysis of the physical characteristics of the Plaza Commercial Zone to see if it can accommodate that. MR. CARTIER-I guess I have an aesthetic question about that too. If we only have 20 percent permeable green space, it leaves a kind of a sterile looking plaza. That's what we've got in Town now, very 20 percent. most of it, because a lot of those were built under the old Ordinance and I think the old Ordinance was 20 percent. MR. CAIMANO-I guess we go back to the old question, though. Is this ground, and I hate to bring this up because I know what's going to happen. Are these grounded in any facts? Where are the facts? Where are the numbers? Where are they that say you have to have X amount of permeability in order to 1 i ve? MR. DUSEK-Maybe I can just point this out to the Board. I believe, although I'm not absolutely positive. First of all, this is only a proposal, but second of all. I believe that the only Plaza Commercials in Town are currently down where the Northway Plaza, Sears Plaza that area is, am I correct John, and I believe that they're in a situation right now where they don't meet the 30 percent anyway and I think that was one of the basis for wanting to consider that. It's up to you to decide whether you like or dislike that. MR. CARTIER-Well. to me there are other uses for that green space besides looking for, it's a place to put snow. you know and if we're going to go to a 9 by 20 parking, we're going to have greater auto density in these parking lots and stuff and if they don't move snow, if they don't have a place to put snow, they've got to remove it. So. you're going to have another parking density. I don't know how significant surface runoff is going to be. In this case. the surface runoff is going to be. with a 10 percent change, there might be a cumulative effect, but yes, I'd go along with Jim. I'd like to see that justified. Why are we coming up with the 20 percent here and just Plaza Commercial. MR. CAIMANO-Our question has always been, other than what was the verbiage in the Master Plan, what are we grounded in? MR. CARTIER-I have to go back. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, but we need to know that, though, because sooner or later somebody's going to, I think, rightfully ask the question. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I don't know what it is, at this point. MR. CAIMANO-Right, but I think we need to have those. MR. GORALSKI-Well, we can do a little research. The Planning Department can do a little research also. We can maybe get some input from the Town's Consulting Engineer. MR. CAIMANO-Good. MR. GORALSKI-I think that would be a direction we could go into, back up the number with some facts. MR. MARTIN-Like Paul said, you're really dealing. like Paul said, with very few areas. I mean. it wouldn't take much time to do an analysis of those areas and see can you bear a 20 percent permeability rating. MR. CARTIER-Because I could see, if we're going to do it for Plaza Commercial, I can see Highway Commercial coming in and looking for the same thing. MR. CAIMANO-Sure, or any number for that matter. MR. MARTIN-Or our newly created zone. That's already at 20 percent. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody got anything else on this page? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. GORALSKI-Under Permitted Uses, the way I understand that, that means that there will be no site plan review for a change of use and maybe I'm jumping the gun, going to the, not next page, but the Highway Commercial, but I don't think the Highway Commercial reads the same way. under Permitted Uses. MR. DUSEK-They should be identical. Well, they're identical in terms of the, in other words, if you start with Permitted Uses under the Zoning Regulations for, this first one is Plaza Commercial. 7 ....../ MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. DUSEK-It says, "Uses described below which do not require construction of new buildings or facilities provided that these are located within an existing structure which do not require exterior alteration for this proposed use". and then you go through this list. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. DUSEK-When you go through Highway Commercial, it says, "All uses which are permitted uses in the Plaza Commercial, which are those right there that I just read to you, they will also be permitted uses in the Highway. So, in other words, it's saying these are identical. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So, what you're saying is. if it didn't need review in Plaza Commercial, it doesn't need review in Highway Commercial? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CARTIER-What constitutes change in use? I guess I'm looking for a definition of "change in use". MR. DUSEK-Well. I think that's been one of the reasons that triggered this. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-There's been a lot of discussion over exactly what does trigger that. Right now, the narrow interpretations that I see. that tends to come up quite frequently, as anything does. If a guitar business moves out and another retail business moves in. site plan review is triggered and in many instances it seems like it's not necessary. So, that's what prompted this particular change was that, where the building stays the same. everything's identical, don't bother bringing it back through the process. BETTY MONAHAN, TOWN BOARD MRS. MONAHAN-Can I interject something? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MRS. MONAHAN-Paul, what if everything's identical? Because in Staff Review, they were doing one that they thought was in a Highway Commercial Zone and it turned out to be out in Highway Commercial when they researched it and they all felt there wasn't going to be any significance to it, but actually the business that was there had no traffic going into it and all and the business that was going to go in was going to be a very high traffic area. There wasn't parking space enough. It was going to be on the route of the fire trucks. In fact. it was going for an expedited matter and there were people at that Staff Review who knew that area, who lived in it and said, there's no way they should sail right through. So, you've got to be very careful of something like that. MR. CARTIER-Well, if we do something like this, it seems like there's got to be a mechanism in place to pick up on those kinds of things. because the same basic thing occurs. MRS. MONAHAN-The traffic was going to be a nightmare and the parking. MR. CARTIER-You go from changing a restaurant to a fast food restaurant where you're going to increase traffic or something like that. MR. DUSEK-I just want to point out that the attempt to address that very issue was done by way of listing them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-That's why there's that list that follows. It doesn't appear altogether clear, perhaps, as you go through it because I couldn't get it all on the same page. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I understand that, but... MR. DUSEK-It's thought of that these are the businesses that wouldn't cause the impact. I mean. that mayor may not be. but that's your call. MR. MARTIN-I think when we do this. we've got to attempt to bring together intensities of use, here. and I think in this list, like, you're talking about different intensities of use for a restaurant, as opposed to a hardware store. I mean, the parking regulations even recognize that fact. So, I think 8 '---- ------ to say that a change from a hardware store to a restaurant doesn't require site plan review. that would be a mi stake. MR. CAIMANO-How about a restaurant to a t.v. or radio station. or back and forth? MR. MARTIN-You're talking about different intensities of use, so I think that should be the connecting link as to whether or not a site plan review is required. MR. CARTIER-If you establish a criteria for whatever is determined to be an increase in intensity, is that what you're talking about, for site plan review? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I just think there's certain factors about varying uses that you couldn't lump them together, but I think in this list we have several that cross over. MR. DUSEK-I guess the question I have, at this point, is the answer to make the list a different list or, perhaps as your suggestion to delete or is your suggestion that an entirely different formula has to be developed? MR. MARTIN-I would say delete. I agree with concept. I just think that it's flawed in what's actually shown here. I think there's similarities between hardware store, a meat and food store, clothing apparel store, a jewelry store, that type of thing, but when you talk about day care center. then you're talking about traffic flow being very heavy in the beginning of the day and late in the day, you know. restaurant is going to be different. due to the seating capacities and so on. So, I think an attempt should be made, maybe. to delete. MRS. PULVER-Maybe to delete the ones that cause increase in parking or traffic. MR. MARTIN-Well, just that are inconsistent. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I think parking and traffic, maybe that's a good way to talk about it is what kinds of things, what kinds of changes are we to look at that would kick it to site plan review? Parking's obviously one. If somebody comes in with an application for a change in use and they need double the parking than what the other place was approved for, I think you'd want to look at it. MR. GORALSKI-Well, in that case, as far as parking is concerned, I think that the way it is proposed here, whatever that use is would have to meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-All right. I think you'd see, like that used to sell just snowmobiles and now they effected that site in a very negative fashion. in conflict with each other. an example in reality is the shop there on Bay Road attempted to open up a used car sales and that really I think that's an example of two uses that came qui te MR. CARTIER-My understanding is Pat's dealing with that, or attempting to deal with that and is having some problems with that. MR. DUSEK-Yes. That's not a settled issue right now. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-But I just raised that as an example. MR. CARTIER-So, where are we. here? Do you have enough to go on with that. Paul? MR. DUSEK-Well, I certainly got a sense as to what your concerns are. I guess the only other thing that might be helpful is if you had any proposals on exactly how to handle it. I guess what I'm getting a sense of, one method by which to handle it is say that. I guess. like intensity uses can be substituted for like intensity uses. MR. MARTIN-That's the gist of it, and one other comment in this regard, just as a structural. nit picky thing. I don't like it when Ordinances, all uses which are permitted and uses in the Plaza Commercial Zone shall be permitted uses in the Highway Commercial Zone. Rather than saying that, I would simply like to have that repeated. MR. DUSEK-Where are you? MR. MARTIN-On Section 3. Article IV. That type of language, all though it appears to be fine now, tends to lead to problems down the road. MR. CARTIER-Where is that line? MR. GORALSKI-Number 24 under Highway Commercial, Type II Uses. 9 MR. DUSEK-Certainly. from a legal standpoint, there's no problem in re-listing the uses under that Section. I will say that probably the only reason it was done that way is because that was the way the Ordinance is currently structured. So, it was done to keep in the same styling. From a legal standpoint. my opinion would be. it wouldn't make any difference either way, in terms of future ramifications. If it's easier for you, I don't have any problem with re-listing them. MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying, for whatever reason at some future point the Town Board should feel the need to take a group of uses that are listed there under one zone. but not another and for whatever reason went to amend that Section, then they can go in and do it in that one specific zone, rather than if they do it here. then they impact several other zones throughout the Ordinance. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think what they would do at that time is then probably be forced to list them. If it would be easier, there's no problem in doing that. You have to work with the Ordinance. I'm sure the Town Board wouldn't have a problem with just re-listing that category. MR. CARTIER-The only other thing I had under, and this is nit picky, too, but we're going to get ourselves trapped here someday in this stuff if we don't pick it up. Under Commercial 21, under Type II Retail Businesses. Have we got a definition of "retail businesses"? That's an awful broad category. MR. DUSEK-I believe so. MR. CARTIER-We do? MR. DUSEK-Yes, I think you do. In fact, I'm almost positive. If you didn't, I would have probably recommended one. MR. GORALSKI-The offering for fee of goods and merchandise excluding restaurants to the public and where the providing of services is clearly incidental to the sale of such goods and merchandise. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I did look it up. Okay. Now. we sort of did Highway Commercial too. Does anybody have anything on the Highway Commercial section, or are we done with that? I assume we're onto Plaza Commercial? MR. GORALSKI-I have just one question. Paul, if you go back to Plaza Commercial. which list is going to be in the Ordinance. MR. DUSEK-Everything that you see on these two pages would be in. unless it's in brackets. MR. GORALSKI-But you have a Type II list up here and a Type II list down here. MR. CAIMANO-Right. It doesn't make any sense. MR. DUSEK-Yes. This shouldn't be called a Type II list. That's an error. MR. CARTIER-Which one? MR. CAIMANO-What should it be called? MR. DUSEK-It should probably be called a... MR. CARTIER-Permitted Use? MR. CAIMANO-Permitted Use? How does that differ from the Type II under Permitted with Site Plan Review? MR. DUSEK-The purpose behind that list was to go with this, Permitted Uses without Site Plan and what the goal was is to structure it similar to the rest of the Ordinance so that when you went through it, it wouldn't look out of place. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I understand that. but somebody reading this could say that day care centers don't need a site plan review. except it also appears Permitted with Site Plan Review. MR. DUSEK-Well, like I say. the problem with it, when it got typed out, we couldn't keep it on the same page. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So, what you're saying is if one of these uses changes, it doesn't need a site pl an revi ew? MR. DUSEK-Ri ght. If it's al ready in exi stence. the parki ng lot's there. then you can go ahead and go with it. MR. MARTIN-That was the very Section I was referring to when I said that a restaurant can potentially have a different parking need than a hardware store. 10 --../ MR. CAIMANO-Now I understand. MR. CARTIER-But that will get spelled out in rewriting of the new Ordinance, right? So, somebody who has a minute a this meeting will understand that when they sit down and read the Ordinance. MR. DUSEK-Well, yes, I think I'll have to change the title and also in light of the comments. I may have to see what we can do to re-work this a little bit anyway. MR. CARTIER-All right. Are you taking comments from the Zoning Board too? MR. DUSEK-I have not been contacted by them. I suspect that they will have some though. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Article IV Highway Commercial. Apartments. Under Accessory Uses. Number Four, apartments over businesses do not exceed 50 percent of use. That's the same as the old Ordinance. isn't it, or is it? MR. DUSEK-Which are you looking at? MR. CARTIER-Under the Highway Commercial. MR. CAIMANO-That Section 4.020 k. MR. CARTIER-I remember having some discussions about apartments over paint stores and things like that. MR. GORALSKI-There is some, I think Dave and Pat were going to talk to you about this. There is some question as to, I don't believe that under the New York State Building Code you can put an apartment over most businesses. MR. CARTIER-All right. So there is something on the books to pick up on some of the safety issues? MR. GORALSKI-Definitely. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. GORALSKI-For example. the Docksider Restaurant is still pursuing their building permit, keeping their apartment above their restaurant. MR. MARTIN-Yes. with many of the kitchen fires and so on, it's a concern. MR. DUSEK-There are some businesses that it is precluded, you're right. but there are also some businesses where you can, under the Building Code. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody got anything on that page? The following page, Permitted with Site Plan Review? It's basically the same as what it was, correct? MR. DUSEK- Yes. MR. MARTIN-What about Regional Arterial Roads? MR. DUSEK-What I do is when I'm taking a Section of the Zoning Ordinance to revise it. I try to stick with an entire Section so it's easily readable. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody got any problems or questions or comments on the various roads listed? MR. GORALSKI-Paul. you're adding Bay Road to Section A Regional Arterial s, you have to remove it from Section B. which is Local Arterials. MR. DUSEK-I think that's the problem with this one. if I remember correctly. It was removed from one of the lists at one point and I thought it was removed from B. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Your Ordinance, you probably have the original version. right? Do you have the amendment? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. You're right. It says here. Bay Road to be omitted. Okay. I'm sorry. MR. CARTIER-Anything having to do with the Regional Arterial Streets? Here we go, Section 6, Article IV, Principal Building and Structures. there should be no more than one principal building or structure of any single parcel of land less than two acres in size. I think I understand what is trying to be accomplished there. We get a situation where somebody owns, correct me if I've got this wrong, John, somebody has a large piece of property, let's say five acres in a one acre zone and they're building five houses on it all within the same ownership. What we have on our hands, in that case. is a defacto subdivision, right, that hasn't been looked at and I think that's what this is designed to address. Am I correct? 11 --- MR. DUSEK-Yes. My recollection is. when this was discussed, the idea was to eliminate the multiple buildings being built on a piece of property without subdivision approvals being required or sent to site plan because right now. as I understand our Ordinance and the way it's being interpreted, that you can build almost anything you want and the problem doesn't arise until later when they want to start selling these off. So, I think this was an attempt to allow reasonable use of the property, in terms of adding an additional dwelling such as a mother-in-law unit or whatever. but yet not let it expand into some big projects. MR. GORALSKI-Could I just ask why you pick two acres? MR. DUSEK-I can't recall now. I believe that, unless it came out of the discussions as a number that everybody felt was reasonable. MR. CARTIER-But I think, if I understand that. in effect what that does is kind of create a defacto two acre zone. If a guy's got two acres. what this is saying is, he can only build one house on it. MR. GORALSKI-Unless he subdivides. MR. CARTIER-Unless he subdivides, and I think maybe that's what will help that along. If there's something in there to the effect, that says, unless subdivision takes place or whatever the terminology phraseology. MR. DUSEK-So just put a, maybe a comma at the end and add in the phrase "unless subdivided in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance"? MR. CARTIER-I think that takes care of it. MR. MARTIN-That is something that some day will have heat on it. MR. DUSEK-Absolutely. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Article VII, Supplementary Regulations. We're changing from a 30 percent slope. The old Ordinance did not allow slopes greater than 30 percent. This allows slopes of 50 percent. MR. GORALSKI-With engineers approval. MR. CARTIER-With engineers approval. Who's engineer? Town Engineer? MR. GORALSKI-A certified professional. MR. MARTIN-I think that's reasonable. MR. CARTIER-All right. Okay. Any property owner or developer who upon completion.. the slope. Can we clean that up and say between 30 and 50 percent. Isn't that the same as saying less than 50. but greater than 30? I'm just trying to make this as simple to read as possible. MR. DUSEK-We may be able to do it. I can make a note to read it over. We like to be as legalistic as we can. here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Certainly I can understand. from an easily read for proposition. Let me see if I can change it without effecting anything. Thirty to fifty is what you'd like it to say? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-He wants it less cumbersome. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody got any other questions on that page? All right. How about the next page. Section Eight, Article VII? MR. GORALSKI-Is that the buffer zone? Is that what we're on? MR. CAIMANO-The buffer zone. MR. GORALSKI-Paul, I just, because I know this hasn't been in front of the Planning Board or something, I just wanted to mention. Is that going to get you into trouble in situations like Mrs. Flynn? MR. DUSEK-No. MR. GORALSKI-I just want to be sure of that. 12 MR. DUSEK-No. In fact, that, as well as other situations, prompted this whole clean up of the Ordinance through here. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So what you're saying is the excavation section here only applies to commercial activiti es? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CARTIER-You're a lawyer. You tell me if I'm way off here. I would change the word "contracting" to "extraction". MR. DUSEK-Where are you? MR. CARTIER-The third line of that supplementary. Somehow I think that's, when we talk about sand and gravel in the Ordinance in other places you talk about extraction. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. The best thing is extraction under the Heavy Industry. MR. DUSEK-I think that that's a typo. I don't think that should be "contracting". MR. CAIMANO-You think it should be "extracting"? MR. GORALSKI-Extracting. MR. DUSEK-Probably "extracting". yes. MR. CAIMANO-The other thing is. why not simply make that 7.051 Excavation for..Commercial...so it doesn't become confused with the excavation left by building something else. There's nothing to indicate, before you get there, that you're into anything other than, into anything. Why not simply say. since we sit here at this table, that that excavation means commercial. MR. DUSEK-Which Section are you in? MR. CAIMANO-7.051. MR. GORALSKI-Or actually .0501 MR. CAIMANO-Or .050. for that matter, because you go from cultivation and from animal husbandry right off into something which is commercial and that's all it is is commercial. MR. DUSEK-Well, okay, no it wouldn't be. The Mining, Excavation and Minerals Gravels, the first part of it would apply to anybody. MR. CAIMANO-But .051, you just said, you and Peter, that it's commercial only. MR. DUSEK-No, just the "B" part of it. MR. GORALSKI-Just "B". MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Just "B". MR. DUSEK-No, I'm sorry. 7.052. MR. CAIMANO-I'm sorry, 7.052. MR. DUSEK-That's the Section, and in this case here it says what we're doing is revising just the part "A" of that, to add commercial to just that one feature. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. DUSEK-I don't know if it really is commercial for everything that's listed there. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Well, but something to di stingui sh thi s as commerci a 1 because otherwi se you're readi ng it all and assuming that. you know, if it is commercial,..make it commercial. MR. CARTIER-Suppose I have a pit I want to get dug and I give the sand and gravel away. Somebody comes in and extracts it. there's no exchange of money. 13 --" MR. GORALSKI-If you're doing it for a residential purpose. then this doesn't apply. MR. DUSEK-I'm sorry. Pete. I didn't get your? MR. CARTIER-Well, my point is, I guess I'm hung up on the word "commercial". What I do when I go through this stuff is I look for ways to get around what's written here so we can close those loop holes and what 1'm talking about is the word in there "commercial" sand and gravel extraction. Supposing I need a big whole in my property for some reason and I give it away. MR. CAIMANO-It's not a commercial. You haven't sold it. MR. DUSEK-I think, here again, I think commercial is defined. It gives a definition. Pete. "Meaning any extraction from land of more than 50 cubic yards in any two year period of sand. gravel. topsoil for the purpose of sale or use by persons other than the owner of the land and for the purpose of use by. ." MR. CARTIER-So. it's covered. All right. Okay, Section Nine, Article VII. All we have done is changed. MR. MARTIN-Now. we're going to the 180 only right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARTIER-So. that gets cleaned out of there. MR. GORALSKI-You might want to re-word that whole paragraph. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's going to need some work. MR. DUSEK-Okay. On all of these, this just kind of prompted my thinking on this, but all of these comments, of course, what I'll do is I'll draft these up for the Town Board's consideration that would make, obviously, the final call on this. I won't be redrafting this package that you see here until after I've spoken to the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Was there anything else on that page? MR. GORALSKI-On the next one. MR. CARTIER-The next page? MR. GORALSKI-No. The next Section, whatever it is, Section 10. MR. CAIMANO-Before we go any further, let's get one thing clear regarding this 200 square feet..parking space, back there. we said parking space to 180 feet. MRS. PULVER-Yes, it's going to be changed to 180 square feet. yes. MR. CAIMANO-We said that, right? MRS. PULVER-Yes, and that's all going to be re-worded. MR. CAIMANO-Good. MR. GORALSKI-Paul. we've had. actually, two bed and breakfasts come in and it's not listed in the parking schedule. Would it be appropriate to add bed and breakfast. where it says, rooming house and motel, Item C on the Parking Schedule? MR. MARTIN-It doesn't hurt. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-While we're on this. I might as well introduce my two cents here. Paul knew this was coming and he got the message I was going to wait until this point. To avoid the problems we encountered in the Docksider, l'd 11 ke to suggest some changes that would maybe accommodate the problem that we have with the deck and the two uses which were present, that we couldn't accommodate through the various restri cti ons in the Ordinance. So. therefore, I'd suggest changing the definition for Restaurant, and these are things you can consider. Restaurant currently says, "Restaurant means a place for the preparation, serving and consuming indoors of food and beverages other than a tavern", that's on page 25. I'd suggest that to say, "Restaurant means a structure or an area within a structure for the preparation, serving and consuming indoors of food and beverages other than a tavern." With just that type of language in the Definition Section we would resolve the issue of the deck and we'd allow, by definition. more than one use per structure that is actually and realistically in reality the situation and wouldn't be limited by some nonsense interpretation of a definition. 14 -- -../ MR. GORALSKI-I don't know if you've solved the problem of the deck that way. since it says indoors. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm getting to that, because when you go to that one. well. I'll get to that. and then for Tavern I would do the same thing. I would simply say, "A Tavern means a structure or an area within a structure in which the principal income is derived from the sale or serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises, with or without live entertainment." MR. CAIMANO-That's what it says. MR. GORALSKI-No. Add "area within a structure". MR. MARTIN-In each case, with Restaurant and Tavern. you would take out "place" and change it and you would add in. "structure or an area within a structure". MR. CARTIER-So, in other words, when a restaurant has a deck on it, then you would count the deck in the parking calculations. MR. CAIMANO-No. He's not there yet. MR. CARTIER-But that's the way you're going. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and then also when you get to Section 7.071 we would remove "building" throughout that whole Section and replace it with "structures" and when you get to .071 B. you would say, "floor areas for the purpose of computing parking requirements shall be the sum of the horizontal area within the exterior walls of the several floors of structure or accessory use structures excluding basement. cellar, and attic areas used primarily for storage or service." MR. CAIMANO-On the strength that the deck would be the accessory use structure? MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MR. GORALSKI-Have you got that written down somewhere? Can I get a copy of that? MR. CAIMANO-He's had that in his brain for months. MR. DUSEK-That's what I was going to ask as well, Jim. I've made some notes, but rather than trying to. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I have all the relevant pages with the changes made. I think I found all the spots, and then, just to be more reasonable. I would consider, under Tavern, the parking requirement for Tavern, I would consider changing one space for each linear foot of bar to possibly every two linear feet of bar or something like that. I think that's a little... MR. GORALSKI-Crowded. MR. MARTIN- Yes. MR. CARTIER-I remember when we wrote that, we were driving up Bay Road and they were parked wall to wall out there. That's probably the night we wrote that. MR. CAIMANO-Where? MR. CARTIER-What's the place, across from the Harvest? MR. GORALSKI-The Crocodile Club. MRS. PULVER-The Crocodile Club. Yes, they used to have Happy Hour or something and they used to line up and down the streets. MR. CARTIER-They were parking on the street and everything else back there. MR. MARTIN-But I think those changes there would allow the Ordinance to be employed more realistically with what we actually encounter. MR. DUSEK-At this point, with regard to those remarks. I've got them noted as Jim's. Are they becoming the Planning Board's? 15 -.-/ MR. CAIMANO-Well, I certainly would back them up on the strength of not trying to put an impediment in front of somebody, but the realism and if you look at some place like the Trading Post or the Docksider, you see that. at any given time, you could be a tavern, you could be a deck, you could be a restaurant, or you could be all three happening at once and it's kind of silly. if you're going to have an Ordinance, to have the kind of loop holes we were forced to deal with. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think when we have loop holes 1 ike that, it makes the Town look bad and apparently it causes a problem for the Staff both in the Planning Department and the Zoning Enforcement Department to make some sense out of this. I mean, then you have people at logger heads. MR. GORALSKI-Well, while you're considering that. could you just look at the definition of Restaurant one more time. There are a lot of restaurants. we just listed several restaurants in Town that have seating outdoors. The Restaurant definition in the Ordinance. which typically says "indoors". I'd just like everyone to consider if that is necessary. MR. CAIMANO-You mean to put "indoors" in there? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. PULVER-Or add "indoor and outdoor". MR. GORALSKI-Well. I understand, the reason for that probably was that people didn't want the noise problems of dining and whatnot outdoors. However, there are several restaurants in Town who currently have decks outside. MRS. PULVER-Well. what happens in this case. All right, so they have indoor and outdoor dining, you know. to make them comply all year round with the parking for indoor and outdoor parking? MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's the issue that came up and I don't think it was clearly satisfied one way or another. My point is, if a new business came into Town, you know. a new restaurant, and they wanted to build a deck, they. by this Ordinance, could not do it without a variance because of the definition of Restaurant. MR. CAIMANO-Doesn't taking the word "indoor" out of that definition just by it's very fact include everything. where you're serving and making food? MR. DUSEK-I'd have to read it back over to be sure. I don't want to just fire from the hip. MR. MARTIN-I think in some way you should add language introducing the idea of the accessory use structures. I think that's the way to handle that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The next page. Basically. the only change was the introduction of the word, "leasable" . MR. CAIMANO-Where are you? 7.072? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Do you want to change Retail Store to Retail Business. Item G? Since that's the definition that's in the Ordinance? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Business instead of Store? MR. GORALSKI-Right. because that's the definition. MR. CARTIER-Under Commercial or Shopping. we're changing it from five and a half to five, correct? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Actually. just above that. I know I'm adding things, but they're things that have come up that I know of. Drive in restaurant is kind of an obsolete term. There's drive through restaurants, but there's only one drive 1!l restaurant and that's the Quaker Restaurant. MR. CAIMANO-The Quaker Restaurant. MR. DUSEK-So. you're proposing? MR. GORALSKI-I mean, you could call it a drive through and then change, I mean, right here, it says. one space for every 25 square feet of gross leasable floor area, that's an awful lot of parking spaces. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. Suppose A & W gets fashionable again and they want them on roller skates and you want to have drive in restaurants. 16 -/ MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Why not have both of them? MRS. PULVER-Yes. right. and you might want to (TAPE TURNED) MR. GORALSKI-...to drive through in the case of the doughnut shop. MR. CARTIER-The Dunkin Doughnut shop. That's right. We got hung up on that. I remember that. MR. GORALSKI-And, you know. it's an astronomical number to ask for, one space for every 25 square feet of gross floor area is an astronomical amount of parking spaces. MR. DUSEK-Perhaps you might want to add another definition. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say. add a drive through and leave the drive in. MR. CAIMANO-And we do have one. MR. CARTIER-Okay, what would you establish for parking? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I'd have to resource that, to be perfectly honest. Just off the top of my head, I thought of 100 hundred square feet, but I think I should research that before I come up with something. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but there should be a number there, right? Okay. Anything else on that page? Okay. The next page. Section 11. This is kind of boiler plate stuff, isn't it? MR. MARTIN-This looks like APA stuff. MR. GORALSKI-The top part is the APA stuff about general exceptions. MR. CARTIER-Section 12, Article VIII. below. I believe the top paragraph and substituting the paragraph MR. DUSEK-That's correct. MR. GORALSKI-Paul. I had a question about that. I still don't know what happens to subdivisions that were created prior to 1982. MR. DUSEK-All right. The lots would still exist, but they would be nonconforming lots and in order to build. they would have to get a variance. MR. GORALSKI-They would have to get a variance. Okay. I just want everyone to be aware of that and make sure that's what you want. MRS. PULVER-If they're preapproved, are they grandfathered? MR. DUSEK-No. MR. GORALSKI-No, that's what this is saying. MR. DUSEK-That's what's happening. MRS. PULVER-I know. but why wouldn't they be. MR. DUSEK-Well. 1982 is, I suppose. a cut off that was just picked. The problem is is that we have encountered. believe it or not, subdivisions that are on file from 1909 and in those instances, the lots are far from adequate, in terms of what they can do with them and so the variance provides a check valve procedure, provides a check valve so that they can be reviewed at some proper time, whenever it is they're going to be developed so that the house perhaps is minimal that they grant the minimal variance necessary and septic is addressed, etc. MR. GORALSKI-Isn't a way to approach that, I don't know. it might be a little more clear is to say that any subdivision that received approval from the Town of Queensbury or Planning Board approval or something like that? MR. DUSEK-So, in other words. increase the exemption. MR. GORALSKI-The time frame to whenever the Subdivision Regulations were created. MR. DUSEK-I mean, that's a policy call, to tell you the truth. as opposed to a legal call. I can certainly make that recommendation to the Town Board. if that's your recommendation. 17 --- MR. GORALSKI-I'm just throwing it out for your consideration because what that means is the Planning Board. at that time, considered it appropriate. It was reviewed at one time. It's something to think about. MR. CARTIER-Yes. In answer to your thing. I remember we got into that with the Astro Valcour property that was like a paper subdivision. MRS. PULVER-Right. It's still there. MR. CAIMANO-It's still there. MR. CARTIER-Fifty foot lots or something like that. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think the point there is that conditions change after a number of years and you have to go back and look at some things. What might have been appropriate back then for a subdivision. isn't appropriate now. MR. GORALSKI-I think the question is how far back do you go. That's the decision you have to make. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think '82 goes back, probably, to an Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it does. MR. DUSEK-That was the other point I was just going to mention that whatever the cut off date is, I would suggest it be in terms of either an Ordinance or in terms of when the Planning Board was in existence. In other words. some ascertainable fact that we can go back to. The Ordinance was, to my knowledge, revised in '82. Before that, it was revised in '67. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. DUSEK-So, the next jump back in Ordinance would be back to '67. Prior to '67. I don't know that there was an Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-Paul, now the Subdivision Reg's are dated differently than the Zoning Ordinance, though, a ren 't they? MR. DUSEK-Not the last two, the '88 and the '82. MR. GORALSKI-But I think the original Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Reg's. I don't think they were adopted in the same. MR. DUSEK-You mean '67's? MR. GORALSKI-Right. I don't think they were adopted at the same time. MR. DUSEK-Well, that could be. I don't know. MRS. MONAHAN-There were Subdivision Reg's during the 70's. I can't tell you what date, but I know there were because I went to Planning Board meetings. MR. CAIMANO-Go back to the last revision, the last known change. MR. DUSEK-Well, that was what was picked was the '82. but like I say, that's a policy call. If you want to make it broader, I'm sure the Board would entertain it. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's eight years ago. MR. CAIMANO-I don't think it should be broader. I think it should be narrower. MR. GORALSKI-Well, then leave it the way it is. MR. CAIMANO-The broader you make it. the more subject it is to interpretation by anybody and everybody. MR. CARTIER-Okay, has anybody got anything else on that? The next Section. Section 13, Article IX. MR. GORALSKI-You're taking out "altered" and you're taking out "except by site plan approval of the Planning Board". I think that's just a clarification of the language. isn't it, Paul? MR. DUSEK-Let me just turn to the Section because I've only got part of that here. 18 "'--' -..../ MR. GORALSKI-The reason for the suggestion to take "altered" out is because there was some confusion as to whether or not if someone came in and wanted to put some newer windows in, would they need a site plan review. That's a Building Permit for an alteration, but. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. What's happening here is, the word "altered" is being taken out. So, that means that somebody could conceivably alter any nonconforming structure such as replace windows, etc. MR. CAIMANO-I didn't know that's what the purpose of it was. I would say that that's a dangerous thing to do. MR. GORALSKI-Well, because you have "enlarge or extend". MR. DUSEK-In other words, they can't make the premises bigger. MR. CAIMANO-No, but it seems to me that anything that's already done, of all the things that ought to go before subdivision to be looked at is something that already is nonconforming. MR. GORALSKI-I agree, but I think the word "altered", the problem the word "altered" has brought up is that minor alterations. interior alterations that you couldn't even see from outside could be construed to require site plan approval. MR. CAIMANO-I see that. I understand that. MR. GORALSKI-I think that taking out "altered" and leaving "enlarge or extended" is what you're concern is. MR. CAIMANO-I guess you're right. MR. GORALSKI-Because then you are, possibly, increasing the nonconformity, or at the very minimal. increasing the impact of the existing nonconformity. MR. CAIMANO-Depending on what the nonconformity is, however. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I'm not going to make a big issue out of it. I just think of anything that should come before us, something that should be looked at, it would be nonconforming things. MR. GORALSKI-And I think they still will. MR. CARTIER-Paul. have you gotten anything from Jim Hagan on this? MR. DUSEK-No. MR. CARTIER-Has he sent you anything? MR. DUSEK-Not that I know of. MR. CARTIER-Because I know he would have picked up on that, too. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. He would say no. MR. DUSEK-The only other comment I have with regard to this is that the additional deletion by site plan approval of the Planning Board. I believe that was mentioned earlier. That deletion causes some changes all the way through, in terms of 9.011, a single family dwelling or mobile home could be rebuilt or enlarged up to 50 percent without any site plan review. So that does mean something. I don't want the Board to think that it doesn't. MR. CAIMANO-Why was that taken out? MR. DUSEK-I think it was taken out as part of, once again. discussions that we had as a suggestion to allow certain enlargements, so long as they were controlled. in terms of percentage, to be able to be done without going through site plan process and then at the same time, though, if you'll notice, putting in, if you'll notice under Section, just jumping ahead for a moment because it's all tied together. Section 15. there's a provision specifically requiring site plan approval for enlargements or extensions of nonconforming use if they're in a Critical Environmental Area. Also, if they didn't fall within the catch alls of what was allowed, here, that would trigger a site plan review. So, what is was is an opening, if you will, that was made to allow, in certain instances. people to do things without getting site plan review. I'm just pointing that out to you because I thought I heard somebody here say that they didn't think that that meant anything, but it does. 19 --.......- -....../ MR. GORALSKI-Well, no, what I was saying is that this particular Section has been very confusing, since I've been here, as far as what was meant regarding single family dwellings and the enlargement or expansion of single family dwellings. MRS. MONAHAN-It wasn't confusing to us who passed it and did the Workshop on this many years ago, if you'd have asked us. John, I would ask you, if I could interject something, for you to look at that very carefully. look at any bodies of water where that could be applied that has not been specifically declared Critical Environmental Areas either by us. APA, LGPC. and make sure that we're not doing something that we should, because we've got a lot of aquifer areas in this Town that we could be doing a job on. I think of my own Lake, okay, there's an example, 50 foot lots. They're practically wall to wall now. If you automatically allow up to 50 percent, you're right over in your neighbor's yard, and it's not a Critical Area. What I'm saying is make sure we don't change the whole before we've done the other things that maybe we should do so the impact wouldn't be so terrible. MR. GORALSKI-Paul, a point of clarification. This does not change the requirement that you need a variance for increasing a nonconformity. MR. DUSEK-John. I'm sorry I was talking to Jim. I don't know if I missed a comment? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. In any case, if the nonconformity is increased. a variance is still required. MR. DUSEK-Okay. In any instance where the area. MR. GORALSKI-Where the nonconformity is increased. MR. DUSEK-A variance is required? MR. GORALSKI-That's what it says. MRS. MONAHAN-Well, Paul, what's going to happen, like, in those 50 foot lots up on Main Street in West Glens Falls if they're allowed to automatically increase up to 50 percent? What's going to happen around my lake? MR. DUSEK-It says they can increase 50 percent, so long as.. MRS. PULVER-They maintain their setbacks. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's what I'm asking. Section 9.012 says, "In no case shall any increase or expansion violate or increase noncompliance with the minimum setback requirements shoreline restri cti ons", okay, that's the shorel i nee MR. DUSEK-Maybe I can give you an example. Jim and I were kind of just shooting on this already. What it considers is that if you had a building such as I drew on the paper, here, the setback requirement between the side line is supposed to be 15, the building's only 10, okay. so then you have a building that's technically in violation of the Ordinance. Not in violation. but nonconforming, because they haven't done anything wrong. They want to build an addition over here. The addition does meet all the requirements because it's more than 10 feet from this setback. So. that's type of situation that they're looking at. So, that you could have a situation, I guess in answer to your question. you can have a situation. and there may be some others that I'm not thinking of at the moment, but you can certainly have at least one situation where an expansion of a nonconforming structure could occur without site plan or a variance. MR. GORALSKI-Because all the current requirements. MR. DUSEK-Because what they're doing to it meets the requirements. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MRS. MONAHAN-But you could have a long, long building that doesn't meet the setbacks for a longer distance. .. MR. GORALSKI-No. but it has to meet the setbacks. MRS. MONAHAN-No, because Paul says they're already..by five feet and you can keep increasing it. MR. GORALSKI-No. the addition has to meet the setbacks. MR. DUSEK-The addition has to. 20 ~ -.-/ MRS. MONAHAN-Okay. I thought you were saying they could continue when they were..conforming already. MR. DUSEK-No. The addition has to comply. MR. MARTIN-I think the Ordinance is flawed in that area requirements are not necessarily the same as setback requirements. MR. GORALSKI-That's right, there are other area requirements..setbacks. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so suppose you said. an existing structure which violates only the setback requirements. would that do it? MR. MARTIN- I'd li ke to see them broken out because I don't thi nk you can just say area requi rement automatically including setback requirement, because they can be two different things. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Does that do it? MR. GORALSKI-A nonconforming use maybe altered, enlarged...which violates only the setback requirements? MR. CARTIER-An existing structure which violates only setback requirements of this Ordinance may be enlarged or extended as long as such enlargement does not further violate the setback requirements of this Ordinance, or no. MR. GORALSKI-Does not violate the... MR. CARTIER-Does not violate the setback requirements. MR. DUSEK-I guess I'm missing something here. Where are we? MR. CARTIER-We're in Section 14, Article IX. MR. MARTIN-I still think that sentence, in it's structure, is flawed, because you're saying an existing structure which violates only the area requirements of this Ordinance may be enlarged or extended so long as such enlargement or extension does not violate the area requirements of this Ordinance. In the first half you're saying you're admitting that it violates the area requirements, but then you're saying. so long as it does not violate them, it's allowed. MR. DUSEK-I just happened to get it drawn to my attention, here, as I'm looking at the Ordinance and I'm looking at this, the only reason this was put in here, first of all, this is the same language that appears in the Ordinance and the only reason it was placed in these revisions was to take out, consistently through the Ordinance. the word "altered". It was just pointed out to me that alteration would also be taken out. We should put brackets around that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So. where are we? We're still on Section 14, Article IX. MR. MARTIN-I still think that sentence is somehow redundant. Nick should know. I mean. he's the editor in the group. Does that make sense? MR. GORALSKI-Are you talking about Section 13, now. or Section 14? MR. MARTIN-Section 14, the second one. MR. DUSEK-It's says, "an existing structure which violates", and probably the better word here would be is not in conformance, because it's not violating anything. technically. In fact, I may change that. but it's saying, right now. "an existing structure which violates only the area requirements", which that picture I just showed you a few minutes ago. that's an example of a structure in area requirements and technically, see this is where the Ordinance is a little sloppy. If you look at the definitions, that really should be not requirements, but regulations, area regulations because area regulations, under the definition, includes setbacks. area, everything. So, it's saying any structure which violates that may be enlarged or extended so long as the enlargement or extension does not violate. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. DUSEK-Does that help, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Okay, all right. MR. CAIMANO-Well, the extension taken alone, you mean? MR. DUSEK-Yes, right. 21 "'--' '-/ MR. MARTIN-That's not clear there. but okay, that helps. MR. CAIMANO-The real problem, here. obviously. let's call a spade a spade, is the Critical Environmental Areas and.!! Glen Lake and.!! Lake George. that people are asking to take a real close look at it and if you put impediments to people taking a close look at it, then people are going to continue doing what they're doing. You can't ask governmental agencies of any kind, appointed or elected. to keep watch over things that are slowly deteriorating and then tie their hands. MR. DUSEK-Right. that's one of the reasons why we've got that next paragraph, though, 9.1606. the next Section, Section 15, is that gives you back the ability to review any enlargement or extension within a Critical Environmental Area. In fact, I think that was requested by Mrs. Monahan. MRS. MONAHAN-But the only thing is we've got a lot of Critical Environmental Areas that have not so been designated yet. MR. DUSEK-But that I think goes to partially address your concern that you are maintaining that ability in those areas and that was one of the concerns. Mrs. Monahan raised the same concern so that's why we added that language. MR. GORALSKI-Except for decks and porches. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Let me just back up to Section 14, Article IX for a minute. If I read that and I don't read anything else in the Ordinance, does that mean that I can expand my nonconforming property more than 50 percent even though. I expanded 52 percent even though the expansion. MR. GORALSKI-No, because that's an area regulation. MR. CARTIER-That's covered somewhere then? MR. DUSEK-Well. let me just make sure. MR. CARTIER-Do you see what I'm saying? MR. DUSEK- Yes. MR. GORALSKI-In 9.011. MR. DUSEK-Well, if it says that it's single family. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. DUSEK-Okay, or mobile home, that's the only instance that covers though. Okay. Well, wait a minute, it does say in the beginning language, going back up to 9.010. Peter, it says that it may not be, you're starting off with a negative. You're saying if you have a nonconforming structure or use or whatever, you cannot enlarge it. So. there's the prohibition. Now as you go through you're looking for the exemptions, one exemption being 9.011. The next exemption, etc. MR. CAIMANO-That's why this doesn't make sense, because Section 14, Article IX, "an existing structure which violates only the area requirements". Let's, pick a number, say 1.000 square feet, it's already in violation. As I understood you before, you said it may be enlarged or extended so long as the enlargement or the extension doesn't violate it. Okay, so now the enlargement, that which we are going to put on it, is only 900 square feet. It isn't the 1.000. It didn't violate, but in total, on that piece of property now. you have almost doubled the size of the nonconforming use. MR. GORALSKI-Well, it does because it's more than 50 percent. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Nine hundred is more than 50 percent of 1,000, so it does violate the area requirements. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. GORALSKI-So, what's the problem. MR. CAIMANO-According to this, it doesn't violate it. According to Section 14, Article IX, it wouldn't violate it because it is less than, right? MR. MARTIN-No. It doesn't say that. MR. CAIMANO-"So long as the enlargement or extension", I see. Okay. 22 -- MR. GORALSKI-The enlargement is more than 50 percent of the original building. so it violates it. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MRS. MONAHAN-The only comment I want to make, since this has been such a pain in the neck to the Town, that has got to be written as clearly and as lucidly as possible so that people can't sit there and say, what does it mean, nor can attorneys get in court and each of you take opposite sides and start to argue. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that the problem is, way back in the beginning. I think the Ordinance erroneously lumps together area requirements and setback requirements. Those two things should be broken out because they are different by definition, or can be. I mean, that would be a very complex issue to deal with in the form of a change to the Ordinance, but I think that's a flaw. MR. GORALSKI-Would "dimensional requirements" be a better term? MR. DUSEK-Well, you can use any term, as long as you define it and I think Jim is saying that he feels the area regulation part of this thing ought to be split up into two categories. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-One dealing with setbacks and one dealing with just area and then when you're talking about setbacks. you're talking about setbacks or that type of dimensional. When you talk about area, then you're talking about area. Here, you're lumping them together. MR. MARTIN-What you have right now is you have a basket full of apples and oranges and you're saying sometimes we're going to pick out the oranges and sometimes we're going to pick out the apples. I mean. they're two different categories. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anything else on that one? MR. MARTIN-I think that's the best you can do. given..limitation. MR. DUSEK-I think the other thing I should just point out iSookind of hinted around there a minute ago and said it. I mean, you can always argue, I suppose, over the provisions, to some extent. The goal, however, should be to try to crystallize these the best we can to avoid problems. but I've got to tell you that part of what we're doing, of course, we're trying to work with what we have. So, working within the parameters. we're trying to develop the best language possible without wholesale going back through the whole Ordinance, not that yours couldn't be done. I think yours could be done without doing a wholesale revision of the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-But the other thing is, even when you do your revisions. inevitably you do find out that there's holes and there's things that have to be covered. I mean, I haven't seen a perfect Ordinance or read about one yet. MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. MONAHAN-Yes, but sometimes it's better to amputate rather than put a bandaid on it. So. think of that when you rewrite. MR. DUSEK-Okay. MRS. MONAHAN-Seriously, because sometimes you muddy the water worse when you've got something that's not understandable and you try to fix that. Sometimes you might better throw right out the original thing and start from scratch. MR. CAIMANO-I will say this, though. and I know that we're only oversight and that the Town Board has the final say on this. Since this nonconforming thing comes up so often and we get stuck so much by it. when you do rewrite it, as a request from me, anyway. can we just see it again, because we deal with it so often and I know we have no say so, other than an oversight, but it would be nice to just look at it again, after it's been re-done by you. MR. DUSEK-As part of the process, you will be getting the final. not final. but the next step in the process is for the Town Board, after receiving the various comments, they will go back through the Ordinance and decide, once and for all, how they want to propose it. At that point. as part of the process, it will be kicked back to this Board for review. MR. CAIMANO-I misunderstood you earlier. I thought this was our last shot. MR. DUSEK-No. This is actually a preliminary go through. 23 '---" ~ MR. CARTIER-This will be gone through. probably. four or five times before this gets chiseled in stone. MR. CAIMANO-I don't think there's anything in this whole thing that you're going to redo that's more important than this Section right here. MR. DUSEK-We may have to take the time, I think what you're saying and what Mrs. Monahan is saying. at some point, we may have to take the time to totally rewrite that whole Nonconforming Use Section. To be honest with you. though, I guess the question becomes, do we want to try to do that now and hold up all these other revisions, or do we want to go through with the revisions that we have, the best that we have, and then with this thought of working ahead. I think my proposition has been. in the past for the Town Board. just because I know the lengthiness of the process. how involved it gets, and how long it takes to get through, is to. what they did, pick 10 major issues or so, push them through and then go back and keep working on it and I'm. in fact. as part of this process. developing forms and whatnot that we can use on our machinery. in fact even the style, this is probably the first time you've seen anything like this, in terms of styling for revision work was done by my Office so that when we do these in the future, we have a scheme down, so hopefully that will expedite the process with the thought that we will be in a constant motion towards always trying to work in improving our Ordinance. So, maybe that would help to address some of the concerns that you've raised. MR. CARTIER-Okay. On to Section 15, Article IX. MR. CAIMANO-We did this already. What's been changed? MR. MARTIN-It's all been added. MR. GORALSKI-That's all new. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-That's an addition. MR. GORALSKI-What that says is that if it .i!. in a Critical Environmental Area, it does need a site plan review. except for porches and decks. MR. CARTIER-Except for porches. okay. Section 16. Article IX. MR. GORALSKI-Is completely eliminated. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I guess my question was. why? MR. DUSEK-I can't remember off hand, now, except that I just am of the sense that the Town wanted to get right out of this area. That's the only thing I can remember. When I say, I mean, I think there was a general consensus that was starting to develop that the Town should try to get away from this. MR. CARTIER-From regulating the rental and stuff? Yes. MR. GORALSKI-I think one of the problems was there was really no way to enforce it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. MONAHAN-Wait a minute. Are you..the dock part. Is that the thing that's going up to the Committee first to get their opinion on it? MR. CAIMANO-9.060. MRS. MONAHAN-I don't have my copy with me. MR. GORALSKI-This is the, "no nonconforming use arises from car rental lease, sale, or use of berths or docks, berths for boats of water front facilities and residential zones". MRS. MONAHAN-That ought to get kicked up to the Lake George Committee. too. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think they're working on it. MRS. MONAHAN-I'm talking about our Lake George Committee. We also have a Lake George Committee. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Blazing on. Section 17, Article X. MR. GORALSKI-This is what Paul spoke on at the beginning of the meeting. if I'm correct, Paul, the va ri ances? 24 "--- - MR. DUSEK-What are we on here, Section X? Yes. this is the clean up to the variances I put in and basically this has been modeled after case law. in terms of, what we had is a situation where part of what we had before was causing us a lot of difficulty on the Zoning Board level, because some of the requirements were actually requirements that you're supposed to use for use variances. Some of the language that you use to decide use was put into the area. The problem became is that there were some parts of it that were very difficult to use and there was another part of it that wasn't technically 100 percent illegal to use that. It's just that it's contrary to what everybody in the State is using and when you go to bat on these things or you're trying to advise the Boards. the way we had it written, I had to do a lot of interpretation between the cases and between our Ordinance because there just wasn't, you know, there were no cases on point for our Ordinance because nobody else is doing it our way. So, I thought maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to get us doing it the way everybody else in the State is doing it, in terms of interpreting area variances. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody got any questions or comments on that? Next page, Article 15. We rewrote the whole Article 15, the entire thing got re-worked. Did the Town Board look at it? MRS. MONAHAN-I agree. The Town Board hasn't done their work on it. MR. CARTIER-They haven't looked at it at all? MRS. MONAHAN-No. they have not. They haven't looked at that. They haven't looked at the Sign Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-I'd like to suggest that if they're considering changes in the PUD. that they take a look at the revised version that was done. MRS. MONAHAN-I agree. MR. CARTIER-Before we went belly up, we being the Advisory Committee. MR. DUSEK-Just so you know, all these changes were as a result of the APA. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes. that's what they look like to me. but. MR. DUSEK-The only suggestion I would have here is that, once again, in terms of, not saying that we can't look at the other Ordinance, but just so that I can get my APA part cleaned up, I would like to recommend that these are gone ahead with, just to get the APA out of hair and then we can certainly go on and consider the other provisions. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I don't have a problem with that. I'd just like to know theoohave the Town Board look at the whole thing. Okay. Anything else? MRS. MONAHAN-Peter, I have a question. When you guys did the new PUD thing, and I don't recall it, did you go into Commercial in that. because I think we need Commercial PUDs. too. in this Town. MR. CARTIER-I think we did. I think we set up a residential PUD and a Commercial PUD. It's been so long. I'm pretty sure we did and I remember another major thing we did was change the size. Has anybody got anything else that they want to bring up? I think we can adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 25