Loading...
1991-05-08 SP -../ f ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING K\Y 8TH, 1991 INDEX Zoning Administrator Checklist 1. Subdivision No. 11-1990 Petition for a Change of Zone Pll-90 Whipple Subdivision Kerry V. Girard 12. 12. Petition for a Change of Zone PI-91 Charl es Di ehl 14. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '- ---- QUEENSIIJRY PLAMING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MY 8TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES HAGAN JAMES MARTI N MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER NICHOLAS CAIMANO TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-The Planning Board is concerned that some things are slipping by, okay. It's creating problems for Planning Board, Planning Staff, applicants and that's where I feel the most sympathy for, I think. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree. MR. CARTIER-And, as a result, the Planning Board created a checklist that we thought could be used to help you go through the process. Nobody expects you to remember or have the Ordinance in your head, cold, nobody does. We don't do it. We don't expect you to do it. You have, obviously, some objections to using the checklist. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Whatever comes about, what I'm looking for is a solution to the problem so that we can reduce the number of things that are slipping by and keep the process clean and tidy and straightened out. MRS. CRAYFORD-What are the problems? That's what I wanted to hear from you. MR. CARTIER-Well, some things have come to us that should have gone to variance, the Planning Board first, for example, and we've had to kick them back. MRS. CRAYFORD-See, I don't recall any and that's why I wondered if you had any. MR. HAGAN-The last meeting we had one application, as far as I'm concerned, that had no business even getting to the Board. It was not even, in my opinion, a legal application. MRS. CRAYFORD-Do you know who it was? MR. HAGAN-It was on a Planning submittal on a piece of property that had not yet been subdivided. They were buying, hadn't even bought yet, but they were buying a portion of it. MR. MARTIN-That was the Batting Cage. MRS. CRAYFORD-The Batting Cage, right. MR. HAGAN-And, as far as I'm concerned, I don't know that the checklist would have saved that, but I sat there and listened to the applicant, Number One, in total sympathy with him and, personally, totally confused as to how he could get to the point where he was trying to present a site plan to us that was not even existing, it couldn't exist. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. Well, first of all, he made some accusations that evening that were not true. I'm not even going to get into that. MR. HAGAN-Well, maybe he did, but maybe we did also. MRS. CRAYFORD-When two different people came in to talk with me about this, I took them through the steps, told them what they needed, gave them the applications. There were no variances involved. I explained to them that they had to go through subdivision and then they had to go through site plan review. 1 ---' MR. CARTIER-But it came to us as a site plan review. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, then I feel that should have been caught at the Planning Office, personally. MR. MARTIN-Whoever said what really doesn't matter, I don't think. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree with you. MR. MARTIN-But the mere fact that we're having this discussion gives credibil ity to the request to have some sort of documentation there at the meeting that night, because so many times it's said, well, what did the Zoning Administrator do in this case or what did she think of this, and there's nothing there, and the same thi ng that happened that ni ght, 1 He that appl i cant stood up there and made an incorrect, I don't know if you want to call it accusati on even, but hi s statement was incorrect and there was nothing there to say, well, that's obviously not right because the Zoning Administrator did tell you this. you know, and if we were to have some sort of correspondence to that effect, whether it be in the form of a checklist or what, it would be a lot more helpful. MR. CARTIER-You see. what's going on, I'm, personally, feeling frustrated because we went through the process where, lets get somebody from the Zoning Office here, at the meetings, well, we tried that, then we ran into budgetary problems, time off for not in the office sort of thing, so that went down the tubes and now we're looking for something in the form of a checklist or some information that we're not getting. MRS. CRAYFORD-Lets say, even if I had been there that night, I could not have explained to you why the appl icant was there for a site plan review instead of a subdivision when I have explained to him on the referral slip, the referral sheet that I pulled out, the steps. The steps were, subdivision, site plan review. Now, I really think the applicant messed up on this, too, after reading the minutes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-But, again, I say to you, if a Planning Department, I feel that if this was a site plan revi ew, then in thei r notes they woul d have caught that, gee, thi s hasn't been subdi vi ded. I feel I've done my job. MR. CARTIER-Okay, lets say they go that route and suppose they find something that slipped by through the Zoning Office, something slipped by. How do you feel about them coming back to your office and saying, oops, wait a minute, this is incorrect. MRS. CRAYFORD-I've told them for months, lets catch it before it even gets to the Planning Board. If I miss something and you're writing your notes, come to me and say to me, Pat, I think this needs a variance. MR. CARTIER-Hasn't that been happening? Have they been doing some of that? MRS. CRAYFORD-Once or twice that I can think of. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-What we're dealing with, here, we're dealing with a process that's, by it's very nature, given the make up of the Board being lay people and so on, it's fraught with interpretations and your job revolves around that. I mean, that is the very thing you do, that is the basis of your need is making an interpretation and when you have several, as many as maybe potentially eight different or nine different interpretations between the Planning office. seven Board members and a Zoning Administrator, it's nice to have a complete circle of what everybody's feeling is and why and your decision can be instrumental to a great degree depending on the applicant, and when there's nothing there. there's just an assumed fact or, she obvi ously must have looked at thi s, or statements 1 i ke that are made. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's what my job is. MR. HAGAN-Okay. hold it. May I interrupt here, please? Can we back up here, because something is on the record and it involves a statement that I made, and I still haven't heard the answer to it. I think the Planning Board has made their reasons for wanting this checklist well known. Now, it seems that nobody agrees with us, but I have yet to hear anybody, what the objection is. from you, on following this checklist. MRS. CRAYFORD-Because it's a duplication of, as I explained to you in my memo, you know, I've met with this person. I've completed the referral sheet telling them that they need a certain type of variance, subdivision, site plan, whatever it may be, and so they leave with their applications. They complete their application. They bring it back to me. I review this application with them to make sure it's complete. So that's the second time I've seen the applicant, talked with the applicant, reviewed the application with them. 2 MR. HAGAN-Okay. What I'm trying to do is reach a conclusion, here, because we seem to be on opposite sides of the fence and I'm trying to break it down like you would, grammatically, a sentence. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. HAGAN-All right. You say this is a duplication of efforts? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Okay, we, in details, do not know specifically what your effort involves. Now, if we knew you had a checklist, if this isn't the checklist you want, give us something, because as we analyze an application and have questions about it and say, how could this get by the Zoning Administrator, then we'd know, well, she did check it, but how did it happen? We don't know what your detailed jOb scope is, at least 1 don't. MR. MARTIN-What it results in, by the time it gets to us, that results in another delay, because we have to say, well, she's obviously looked at this, like in the case of the Docksider, if we are at a clash on the interpretation of something, then we have to wait a whole extra meeting to confirm that's true and then we go on from there, if we want to make an appeal or something like that, but I think we could save a step in there if we knew, right from the outset, what your feeling was on a particular issue, and there's no way to tell what issue may be important on a given application until it actually comes up for review. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's not my feeling, it's what the Zoning Ordinance says. MR. MARTIN-Right. Your interpretation of that Ordinance. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. My decision. I don't interpret. MR. HAGAN-Well, wouldn't it be kind of nice to enlighten us as to how you reach certain decision, and that, in my mind, was what I thought this checklist was for. MRS. CRAYFORD-All right. I guess what you need to hear from me, or have in a written form from me, is I've checked the parking. I've checked everything you need to check, what is it, parking, setbacks, permeability, anything that may cause a person to come for a variance. MR. CARTIER-You're reading things from our checklist. You just gave us things off the checklist. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right, but what I was frustrated with the checklist about was, I've done all of this. It wouldn't be before you if I hadn't. So why do you need the checklist? MR. CARTIER-Well, do you do it on paper? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MR. CARTIER-I guess that's what my concern is. MRS. CRAYFORD-Why do I need to do it on paper? MR. CARTIER-Because there's so much in that Ordinance that nobody could possibly remember all the details. I use a checkl ist for my meetings. Everybody I know uses a checkl ist to make sure we've hit all the things, and that's what I think is happening here. MRS. CRAYFORD-See, personally, I don't feel there have been that many items before you that you've questioned. MR. HAGAN-I can't remember the application, but there was one application that came before us. We looked at it, and my fi rst questi on is, where di d the appl icant recei ve hi s vari ance. We don't have anything from the, there was something in there that did not conform to normal setbacks and the applicant needed a vari ance before he coul d come before the Board and he di dn' t have one and I don't know if you. MRS. CRAYFORD-You're talking about, I think, the 50 percent in Hogan's? MR. HAGAN-No. I'll tell you what, I think I'm getting warm. I think it's the dock that they were going to build that was going to be over 50 feet out from the shoreline. Is that the one? MR. CARTIER-Calabrese, Joe Roulier. MR. HAGAN-Right, and we said, first of all, where's his variance, because you can't build over 40 feet out from the shore and he was going to build ~ feet and he had no variance. We threw him out. 3 -~ ---/ MRS. CRAYFORD-But it seemed to me that ended that he didn't need a variance, that it w sn't really an expansion. MR. HAGAN-Well, that was the point. Somebody said he didn't need one and while I'm readin the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-That gives credibility to what I was trying to say earlier about seven diff rent people or eight different people and you may have as many as seven or eight different interpretations and they have to be hashed out that night or as quickly as possible and it just slows the whol thing down when one of the principle actors is missing. That's not to say anybody's wrong or right. MRS. CRAYFORD-But, again, it wouldn't have been before you if it needed a variance. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but, see, you're dealing from the premise that we're only talking about variances, or those cases that come up where you said it doesn't need a variance and one of us may say, gee, this looks like it needs a variance. MRS. CRAYFORD-But I'm the Zoning Administrator. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but you can be appealed. MRS. CRAYFORD-True, and if you really feel I've made that error, then of course you can appeal that. MR. MARTIN-Right, and what I'm saying is that process is conducted at a quicker fashion w en we have some correspondence from you in some form that tells us that. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Because I think if you were to go back and research the number of problems that h ve arisen, it is just that scenario, not so those cases where you have called for a variance and it's been given or looked into. It's those ones that just come through right, clean, so to speak, and t en one of us takes issue with a piece of it. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. Let me ask you this. You receive your packets two and a half weeks before the meeting. If you have a concern, after reviewing your packets, why don't you phone me. MR. CARTIER-Well, part of the answer to that is we're lay people, okay. You've got to remembe that. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. CARTIER-We're the dummies in the process, well, I should speak for myself, here, but you understand what I'm saying, okay, and we're relying on Staff to pick up on these things. In other wor s, by the time they get to us in our packet, we are assuming that everything is in place and at a pint where we can deal with it as a Planning Board. MRS. CRAYFORD-And I would hope that it all is in place. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's my job. MR. MARTIN-We all do. MR. CARTIER-We all do, but what we're saying is that some things are not all in place. e've been missing some things. Some things are being missed in the process, and it bothers me a lit le bit to hear you say, well, the Planning Staff should be picking up on that. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. I don't mean that. Please believe me. I don't mean they should be doing my job. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-Not at all. No. I just meant, in the instance of this particular application that was the Batting Cage's. That, to me, was something that should have happened down there. I did what I could for these people. I gave them their applications. I gave them the guidance and tha 's all I can do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What do you offer as a solution to our concerns? MRS. CRAYFORD-How about my putting a paragraph together stating that the Zoning Administ ator has revi ewed such and such appl i cati on and thi s appl i cati on is in conformance wi th the Town of ueensbury Zoning Ordinance? Would that be too simple? 4 '-- ----- MR. CARTIER-That sounds too generic, to me, somehow. MRS. CRAYFORD-Does it? MR. CARTIER-I don't think this is going to get at the details of what we're trying to get at. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. Each application doesn't warrant a total breakdown. They're all so ver different. Some are very simple. Honestly, I don't mean to stand toe to toe with you on this. I really don't. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't mean to be adversarial in this, by any means, but it just seems to me it's a very simple mechanical effort, here, of, if you are doing these things in such a duplicati n of effort and there's such a detailed review as I'm sure there is, then it looks to me like a ten inute job, here, check, check, check, N/A, N/A, N/A, check, check, check, and maybe a written comment or two about a certain special comment and that's it. MRS. CRAYFORD-But why wouldn't that be accomplished in a paragraph, if I'm just checking checking, checking? MR. CARTIER-Because, for one thing, I think that will help when things get missed, we'll know what got missed, to be very frank about it. MR. HAGAN-Let me say this, getting back to a manufacturing point of view. Sandy Hill as a very complicated organization, but there was many things that they did over and over and ove , the same as you're doing, basically, okay. However, we still had a procedure card that every amn person involved in that particular job had to sign off whether he, you know, but all of a sudden guy would come, gee, I forgot to do that. That can happen to you. That's all this is serving. Now maybe you have something, but I never had a job of any kind, in my life, that I didn't work, and I on't think this man does either, and he's got a hell of a lot of forms to go through, that when he f xes up his bri efs, before he gets through and says he's fini shed, he goes through some kind of a ch ckl i st and no job that I ever performed did I go through it from start to finish without ending up and having some kind of a checkl ist to make sure, because of the repetition, that I didn't just goof and forget something. That's as plain and simple as I can put it, and it's something that we offer, not to be antagonistic, but to be helpful. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-And, you know, any guidelines, and so help me God, compared to the jobs we're oing here, we've all been involved with jobs that are ten times as complicated and everyone of them have some kind of a checklist, every quality control program, and that's what we're saying, to improve he quality of your perform. That's not said in a negative manner, but that's what this would prove to serve, to insure the quality and performance. That's all. End of speech. MR. CARTIER-I think, to me, this checklist would help you do your job. I know you see it as adding complications to your job, but I'm convinced that it will make things easier for you bec use there is a pattern, as Jim has pointed out, established, in going through this checklist, and t's not a matter of going through the entire checkl ist for every item. There are some Sections of that that apply, and there are chunks of that thing that don't apply and you can just DNA whole Sections. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and then the other thing, from a legal standpoint, and Paul can certainly feel free to chime in, I think that if anything ever is brought to issue over the approval or de ial of an application, that it strengthens the Town's case to have a written notation as to a given int rpretation on one of the issues that may come about, I would think. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think, the position of my office is somewhat similar to what you're sa ing, Jim, but I think Karla might have expressed this at the last meeting, hopefully, that, at this point, my office has taken the position that if there's three possible checklists floating around ut there, anyone of them would serve the legal purposes that I would be concerned about. So, yes, to he extent that something in writing should be, I think, circulating because what it does is it crys allizes a date and time and it also crystallizes a project on paper, but that checklist, I think the ttorney's office is kind of saying, well, guys, we'll let you guys work it out. I mean, I don't know how I can be much more helpful because, to tell you the truth from a legal perspective, they all se m to meet the legal criteria. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, wouldn't a copy of the referral form that I have completed at my initi 1 meeting with the applicant? MR. MARTIN-I don't think I even know what that looks like. MR. CARTIER-That's that yellow. MR. MARTIN-That triplicate thing? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. 5 -- MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that that would do it, because that, to me, is the result of, th t's the end product of the revi ew process, and what we're saying is, thi s is the revi ew process. et me toss something out here, as an idea. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Would you be willing to take a couple of months to use the checklist and then two months from now we get back together and we have this meeting again? MRS. CRAYFORD-I will do that. MR. CARTIER-And you can say to us, it's working or it's not working, or I want to make s me changes in it. MR. MARTIN-Yes, you can sit there and say, I told you so. MRS. CRAYFORD-No, I wouldn't do that. MR. CARTIER-Can you guys live with something like that, a trial period? MR. MARTIN-I'm open to any compromise. MR. HAGAN-Hey, if she says she's not going to use it, I can 1 ive with that, too, but I ust wanted to hear some reasoning as to why it wasn't a good idea. MR. MARTIN-The best solution, I think, is for you to actually be present at Planning Boar meetings, but that is obviously impossible. I'm not even going to throw that out on the table, but I think the existence of a checklist is the best compromise and what form that takes is open to int rpretation and maybe that is a good way to reach that ultimate compromise is start out with somethi g and use it in practice and if there is changes that need to be made or alterations or deletions, tha certainly can be worked out. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. Lets do it for a couple of months. You do realize that once a month e meet as a Staff and review these as well? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-So, all of this is discussed at that time, too. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-All right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you guys want to see this? Do you want to see that checklist, as p rt of the package when it comes to us? MR. HAGAN-If we have a copy of it, you know, if we have a question involved, and we go t rough and say, well, she used this. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So there ought to be one in the package. We don't necessarily individ ally have to have a copy? MR. HAGAN-No. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. HAGAN-No, I'm against that. I think that's just increasing paperwork. MRS. CRAYFORD-I am, too. MR. HAGAN-And another thing that would be kind of nice, if in using this checklist it di bring some instances to your attention where it was helpful, it would be nice if you could le because if you repeatedly keep doing, you know, one line, one line, and it doesn't serve an then eventually, you know, well, lets drop that, unless that particular line causes us p the finished product that we see, that's all. actually us know, purpose, blems in MRS. CRAYFORD-I did start with the checklist, when Lee first gave it to me, and I went thr ugh three appl ications with it, and that's when I ju~t sat back and said, okay, well, I've done this ith this, and, what is the point. Again, I'm repeating myself, it wouldn't be before you if all th s hadn't been done, and that's why I just can't understand why you can't accept that. 6 MR. CARTIER-But the fact of the matter is, some things have popped up in front of us, okay, that should have gotten caught and they didn't, and that's the point of it. We're trying to reduce t ose. Hogan was one. MRS. CRAYFORD-Hogan was a total mistake on my part, and there I interpreted. I will agre with you, and that was a total mistake on my part. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Brenneisen, the guy with the private boat launch on Glen Lake. MRS. CRAYFORD-I didn't even know that was in the Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-I didn't either. See, that's what I mean, you know, that's the kind of stuff 'm talking about. MRS. CRAYFORD-That wouldn't have even come forth in a checklist. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, maybe things like that need to be added to the checklist, but here's got to be a way of going through that thing and making sure we cover all the bases. MRS. CRAYFORD-I try to get it as perfect as I can. MR. CARTIER-I know that. Nobody's expecting perfection, here, because God knows we're n t perfect, but we're just trying to clean up this. MR. MARTIN-You're in a tough spot. MRS. CRAYFORD-See, I enjoy my job. I enjoy it very much. There I s no structure to my day whatsoever and that's interesting, very interesting. I guess the other thing I would ask is that, if for some reason I can't get to all this because the day has gone by with people, phone calls, site vi its, etc., that you will understand if I put a note on there saying I was unable to get to this. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-I mean, at least you will know that I tried, and believe me, some weeks go b when it's very tough to sit down and take five minutes with each application. MR. CARTIER-All right. Well, lets try it for a couple of months and figure somewhere in July maybe at a Planning Board meeting or another Workshop Session we'll get together trade war stories here again and see how it's. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay, and, again, if ever you have any questions, call me. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and those are going to come up, it's just that it bothers me if they c me up the night of the meeting in an applicant's name. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't like it either. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-All right. MR. HAGAN-Could I ask you a quick question, Pat, and it's unrelated to the purpose of thi meeting. I was reading over, somewhere, some changes in the Zoning Laws and I just wrote these n tes down. Section 15 Article IX on Nonconforming Structures and it had wording to the effect that p rches and decks not to be included and, boy, that hit me like a ton of bricks as to why we would exclu e, because I think of decks and porches all around me that stop views, and we're going to let them be built without. MRS. CRAYFORD- They would have received, I think this and you can jump in here, Paul, it se med to me this, in the instance of a residence is too close to the Lake. MR. HAGAN-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-And they want to add, they're too close to this property line, they want to a d a porch out to here. Okay. They received a variance for it. MR. HAGAN-They received a variance? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Okay. Well, then that's all right, but the way I read it, it said it could jus be done. 7 --../ MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Are you talking about, decks and porches will not be figured in the square footage calculations? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MR. DUSEK-No. He's talking about the new amendments that you guys all saw a while ago and they still are in the drafting stages. You're talking about that Section under Nonconforming where the nonconforming part's been changed to eliminate some instances in which site plan review will b required, right? MR. HAGAN-Right, and it says, excluding decks and porches. MR. DUSEK-But in those instances, they still would have to get a variance. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. DUSEK-So there still would be a governmental body reviewing the need for that. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. DUSEK-That's my recollection, but when the amendments come back through, please, take a other look at them to make sure, because I'm just doing this off the top of my head, here. MR. HAGAN-Well, I just read it under Section 15 Article IX covering nonconforming, a sUbje t dear to my heart. MR. DUSEK-That's not in the law yet. It'll be coming back and when you see it pop up again ust double check me on it, that's all, but I'm pretty sure that's the way that was. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Just so we're all on the same wavelength here. We're going to use the checklist for the remainder of May, June, and into July and we'll set another meeting up and a copy 0 that will end up in the file when those things come to us, so that the Planning Department gets the file. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right, that way you will have it. MR. CARTIER-We don't individually have to have it. MRS. CRAYFORD-But you will have it in front of you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. Great, and in July we'll get together again. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Great. Thank you. Paul, question for you. I got your letter regarding the questions we have added to the Petition for a Change of Zone, right. MR. DUSEK-Yes. This list. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I read your letter three times, and I'm still not sure I understand you concerns about the Questions 11, 12, and 14. My point in doing this is, philosophically, if you will, I'm bothered by what is a rather nebulous process when we do re-zoning in thi s Town. Now, I kn w there's not a whole lot of laws in the Town about how we do that. This set of questions was an ttempt to de-nebulitize that if you will and get something a little bit more specific because I' somewhat concerned about the way we do things, that we leave ourselves open to legal attack in s me cases. Now, whether or not that's true with re-zoning I don't know. You can answer that and I an't. My point incoming up wi th these questions was that I wanted the Pl anning Board to use these questi ons in going through a recommendation to the Town and I thought it would be appropriate.. is th t we make the applicant aware that the Planning Board is going to be answering these questions and w give the applicant a chance to respond to them. That's where I'm at, and I'm not sure why you have a problem with 11, 12, and 14. MR. DUSEK-May I just take a look at that? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Yes. Well, the concern with 11 could be eliminated. Maybe I could provide n example here. Let me start from the beginning. Re-zonings, or creation of new zones, either one, is 1 gislative act. There is no mandatory application checklist, nothing for legislative acts. Legisla ive acts, however, in the area of zoning, do have to be in compliance with certain things. I mean, you just can't willy nilly re-zone a residential area or a spot in a residential area to industrial, for instance, because you could be accused of spot zoning. MR. MARTIN-Right. 8 -~ ----- MR. DUSEK-You could be accused of not following a Master Plan, problems of that nature. Right after we got done with the big zoning in '88, there's a lot of these re-zonings that started to orne through and we needed some sort of a mechani sm to try to steer them through the process. The ch ckl i st that happens to be being used was developed, initially, by myself and it wasn't anything that I really can take credit for because I took it out of Andersen, Roger Andersen's on Zoning, just basically, it might have been slightly changed from what he had, but it was probably pretty close, but it se med like a good, simple, clean thing. just to kind of steer it through the process. The basics, nam , address, what it is they want to do, etc. Thereafter, Lee, a couple of times added some things whi h I didn't have any problem with. Then this latest set of things that were added to, and I really idn't have a problem with almost anything else that's here because some of these things are certainl relevant. I mean, like, how is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensi e Land Use Master Plan. I mean, that's a very appropriate question, because if we get attacked, from a litigation standpoint, that's one of the things that the Supreme Court's going to be asking me. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. DUSEK-If I'm trying to defending the Town, they're going to say, how is it, Mr. Duse , the Town can do this thing, and there's a lot of, you have to at least have considered it, and if our Master Plan is such that you feel it needs to be extended in that area, well then that's the reason, but you've got to have a reason in that area. That's certainly. The other three question, howeve , are not questions that are commonly looked into or worried about by the courts in New York State. What has happened here I think is these questions were developed through a planning guide. Maybe ou have it here. I don't know. Thi s is the fi rst time I saw thi s, but it's a Pl anners Gui de to L nd Use Law and it seems to me to be a generic, from what I was reading of this anyway, it seems to be relatively generic in coveri ng the enti re United States and they were ki nd of pull ing thi ngs out th t probably the author wrote, and thi s is just my guess, he probably was tryi ng to stay as standard as he coul d and some of the stuff is very basic to law. I mean, Comprehensive Zones, for instance, hat's been pretty well settled across the United States by way of United States Supreme Court decisions. Some of these other things that they've considered, like, in Ohio and wherever else and they ma be bound by in Ohio, we're not. For instance, it says, what physical characteristics of the site a e suitable to proposed zone. From a legal standpoint, in terms of re-zoning, that is neither here no there and the courts don't care about that in New York State. Why is the current zoning classifi ation not appropriate to the property in question. Here again, the courts don't care about that. Wh t they're looking at is what are you doing to the property. Not what it is right now, but what are you doing to the property and what are the effects going to be on the surrounding property and how doe it match up with the Master Plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Those are the big questions that they take a look at. What I was concerned abo tis, but it goes beyond that. It's just not that concern alone. My concern was that if we have a f rm, first of all, anything that's used in the process, ultimately could be the subject of court sc utiny and court review. We have a form in the process that seems to indicate what it is that th Town is considering important criteria in re-zoning. We will be bound and locked into that crit ria or we maybe. I shouldn't say we will be, but we could be. Not only on that particular project, ut on all future projects, assuming we're using the same form. What happens when we re-zone and for s me reason 11,12, and 14 are my most serious ones because those are the ones I don't find a basis n the law for the courts testing these statements. What happens when the court reviews each one of these statements and says, well, Town of Queensbury, you have, on a regular basis, been doing it in this fashion. This could be interpreted to be part of your Master Plan. It could be interpreted 0 overall the way you do things in Town. Therefore, if you don't comply with that, we're going to kick this particular zoning out and I hate to lose a case on a technicality like that when there's othing in the law that says we have to do that. So, like, for instance, 11, it says, how is the pro osed zone compatible with adjacent zones. Is that the one? Yes. On Question 11, for instance, that one could be revised. Instead of saying, how is it compatible, because it doesn't have to be compat ble under the law. An industrial zone sitting right next to a residential zone is not compatible or the ommercial zones we have in Queensbury are not necessarily, I don't know what the word "compatible" eans, but I mean, not compatible in the sense that the same activity is occurring. For instance, you ould say, how does the proposed zone "compare" with the adjacent zones. Okay. That's a way of perhap cleaning that up, to give that kind of information, if that's what you're looking for. MR. CARTIER-Let me see that, and lets write that in right now. MR. DUSEK-The other ones, I couldn't really think of ways to re-frame those to try to get you, you know, that's why I said that with 11, but the other ones were trouble enough, in that, I cou dn't come up with an answer for you on those. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So you're looking at these from a legalistic point of view and I'm glad yo 're doing that. I "m looking at these, however, from a Planning point of view. In other words, before I want to recommend to the Town Board, yes re-zone, no re-zone, these are questions I want answe s to. I want to know this stuff, if I've got to base my decision on some set of information. 9 ---- -.../ MR. DUSEK-Yes, and that may be entirely proper for you to consider that. I'm not sayin ask the question. What I'm saying is that, as part of an overall form, I just don't want a going to, in some fashion, lock me into a given criteria when I'm not locked into that case law. So my thought was, another idea on this is that, if the Planning Board wanted t own questions that you asked, I have no problem with that because then the Town Board's n that. you can't form that's riteria by have thei r t bound by MR. HAGAN-You don't want to be establishing a precedent that you're forced to to continue. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Does all defense have to be grounded in case law? I mean, how does anything innovative or new get done? MR. DUSEK-What do you mean? don't follow? MR. MARTIN-You're saying that none of these can be grounded case law or the New York State court, but what happens if you introduce something that's new and innovative and there's no law for that. MR. DUSEK-You're certainly welcome to do that and that's fine and working in that area, in terms of doing a re-zoning that is innovative and stuff, fine. MR. MARTIN-No, but I'm talking about a form that sets a new innovation. MR. DUSEK-No, but, see, you're not being innovative, here. Here you're being restrictiv locking yourself into a given set of criteria that's narrower than what the courts will pe we get attacked on are-zoning. You're it should MR. CARTIER-I don't see this as restrictive. I see this as some information that we get. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but he does not want to establ ish it as a criteria because in that ess nce it ~ restrictive, and I agree with him 100 percent. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then how do we get what's a process. MR. HAGAN-Well, ask the questions, that's all, but don't establish them as routine thing. MR. DUSEK-Or, even if the Planning Board themselves had their own. MR. CARTIER-You mean, don't make a checklist? MR. DUSEK-You can have your own checklist. I just don't want, everything's fine, actuall , when we get down to it, except for two questions. You have a choice. You can either el iminate those two questions, or you can put them on a separate Planning Checkl ist with just the two questions on it and then I don't care because it's not going through the whole process. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but my question is, how do we get these questions to the applicant pri r to his appearing before the Planning Board? MR. DUSEK-By having your own private... MR. MARTIN-Yes, but what happens if you say, well, we're only going to use these in a plannin Maybe we don't even have them in written form. We just verbally ask these questions and that we're going to not allow a zone change, for example, because it's based on an answer one of these questions. Then what do we do. context. e decide given in MR. DUSEK-Well, you can make that recommendation, because ultimately it's not your choice wether you allow or don't allow. It will go to the Town Board and then they will make the decisio in that particular case based on all the information, but we won't have set up, and Jim said it b tter than I did, I guess just a minute a go, we won't have set up criteria that locks the Board Onto that necessarily. In other words, it's kind of like when you make a logical argument. A logical argument can take you from thi s step to thi s step to thi s step to thi s step and so long as you buy . n on the bottom premise, you'll get there, and nobody can refute you in that chain. Where they've got to refute you is on the bottom chain and that's what I'm saying here. What we're doing is we're setti g up the base and then once we set the base, nobody can refute that, not even me when I get stuck in 0 a, you know, I mean, let me say this, a lot of this is, what if, presumption, etc. I'm being overly p ecautious perhaps. Perhaps with these questions in here it won't necessarily lock me in. I'm not sa ing this is black and white guaranteed, you know, in some fashion this will definitely hurt me. What I'm saying is, I see it as a possibil ity of creating something for somebody to use against me when I m trying to defend the Town in an action they've taken, that's all. One of the beauty's of being a Town Attorney of corporate counsel is a lot of times you're in the ground level and you say, with my litig tion I'm constantly 10 -- ----/ thinking, where do I want to be when I'm in court and what can I do to prevent something hat's going to haunt me later, and this was just a classic case where I said, gee, if I can eliminate that stuff, that will save me some problems. MR. HAGAN-If we put that in the form, that establishes policy and once you, getting away f om the law. Forget we have a lawyer here, but once you establish policy, anywhere, you are stuck with it. I don't care where it is. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but if it's good policy, then it's something that's appropri te to have and having a policy keeps you out of trouble, as far as I'm concerned. It's when you d n't have a policy and you don't have a pattern that you get yourself in more hot water than having a policy. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but you don't always have to publish every policy. MR. CARTIER-Well, at some point, a sharp lawyer is going to start digging around and fi d whatever it is you used for policy in making a decision. MR. HAGAN-But we don't establish policy. MR. DUSEK-I can understand what your reasoning is, Peter, and I have to say that in the ordi ary course of things I would agree that you're better to have a system so you don't get in trouble la er by, for some reason, failing to take a step or whatever, but in this particular case we're talking a out having some voids so that we have a better defense later so that we're not locked in. We don't want to be locked in. This is one of those cases where ÿou don't want to be locked in, I guess. Maybe that helps to explain it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Now, I have no problem if you take those two questions and put them, call it Checklist, and put it on there and the Planning Board wants to look at them, that's fine. Planning MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't have a problem with that either, but then how do we get this to the applicant? MR. DUSEK-Get it to him. MR. CARTIER-When? When does he get it? MR. DUSEK-When he gets this one. You see, then it's yours. It's not the Town Board's an the Town Board is the legislative body. I'm just looking to preserve their rights to be as flexible as ossible. MR. CARTIER-So you're saying, hold this set of questions out. MR. DUSEK-Well, no, not all of them, only the three. I only have problems with the three. MR. CARTIER-If we're going to do it, lets do all of them. It seems silly to give the gu a three question questionnaire. MR. DUSEK-Well, you could do that too. MR. CARTIER-Why not hold this all out, make it a separate form, and attach it to this package. MR. DUSEK-Well, make sure it says on there, Planning Board's Questions Typically Asked or something like that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, here's a title right here, you know, name, date, application number or whatever. MR. DUSEK-Can I make a suggestion? MR. CARTIER-Sure. Go right ahead. MR. DUSEK-Just to keep it a little grey, because you may not, in every case, ask all those uestions. Why do you want to lock yourself in again? Now I'm trying to protect you. I mean, what if you guys slip up and you don't ask the question. Why do you want to say, you have to have done that? MR. CARTIER-Okay. I can live with that, but even though the fact that, verify something for m. Here's the Petition for a Change of Zone, if this is attached to it. MR. DUSEK-As long as it's separately designated because the Town Board has specifically appr ved this checklist. We had a separate resolution approving the checklist. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 11 ~ MR. DUSEK-So, if they haven't approved your questions, then they're not, in my opinion,... MR. CARTIER-But what I'm asking is, if this is a separate set of questions attached to this package, would not another lawyer consider that as part of the package, in terms of potential 1itigati n? MR. DUSEK-Not if it's separate for a Planning Board and if the Town Board, you see, the Town Board is the one that re-1egis1ates. They're the ones that have a form that they've approved, but if the Planning Board, as an advisory body, wants to go ahead and ask some other questions and have a checklist for those questions, I don't think the Town Board, and I don't think anybody can bind the Town Board into being concerned about that. That's certainly within your rights to do that as a P1annin Board. MR. MARTIN-From a practical standpoint, I don't see how Question Number 11, in the contex of, like, if you're trying to defend yourse1 f against a spot zoning c1 aim, you know, how is the pr posed zone compatible with adjacent zones. I mean, that's going to be the question, that's the foc 1 point of a spot zoning. MR. DUSEK-Yes, but a re-zoning that occurs, take a residential site up against a comrnerci 1 area and you re-zone another portion of the residential area into comnercia1. Well, that zone could e arguably not compatible with the residential zone at that point. The residential zone's gone comme cia1, it's not compatible. How does it compare may be a better question because it doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't matter it's compatible. That's what I'm saying. To have a valid piece of 1egi 1ation, it doesn't have to be compatible. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Board mayor will the Planning Board and will consider, have a problem with So, if I re-tit1e this to indicate that it's from a Planning Board, t e Planning be considering these questions, just an explanatory paragraph to the ffect that will be making a recommendation to the Town Board in reference to this pp1 ication in it's review will consider these questions. You may have, okay, and you don't that? MR. DUSEK-No. MR. CARTIER-All right. I'll do that. I'm satisfied. Are you? MR. MARTIN-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Whipple. We don't have any votes on the Whipple thing tonight, do we? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-We do? Should I go call Ed, first, and get him over here? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll call the meeting back to order, now that we have a quorum again. r. LaPoint is present. Thank you for coming. We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO SET A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARDS TO THE WHIPPLE SUBDIVISION. THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE AT THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETIICG OF MAY 231m, Introduced by James Marti who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 8th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-All right. Good. Now, we have two Petitions to Re-zone. The Town Board is requesting lead agency status on both of those. Which one do you want to deal with first? Lets do the easy one first. The senior citizens complex on the Petition to Re-zone Pl1-90. The Town Board has requested lead agency status. We need to entertain a motion giving the Town Board lead agency status. MR. HAGAN-Could we discuss that before we make the motion? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. HAGAN-I think that came up at the last meeting. MR. MARTIN-That was the Diehl one. This is a different one. MR. HAGAN-I thought you had an objection. 12 ~- ---' MR. CARTIER-That's why I said I want to do the easy one first. MR. HAGAN-Okay. All right. I'm mixed up. MR. CARTIER-Okay. This is the senior citizens complex. MR. MARTIN-Remember the one, that's the one. MR. HAGAN-Yes. I know where it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay, MR-5. While we're talking about that, I'll also mention that we got a etter from Karla about that, wanting us to go back and look at that because something had change from our recomrrendation. I don't find anything in that application that had changed, but the Boar wanted us to reexamine our recommendation because the Petition, it was modified somehow, and I don't s e anything in that Petition that was modified. If it was modified, we're the ones who modified it. Remember we changed it to MR-5 in that, plus LC-I0. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. HAGAN-There was something about the parking that was changed, though, the parking requirem nts? MR. CARTIER-That would be under site plan, though. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-No. There was a concern about, because isn't that currently zoned Highway Co ,ercial or Light Industrial, I believe. MR. CARTIER-No. It's SR-l down there. MR. MARTIN-But I thought the swamp behind was, because it buts up against the new concrete pl nt, there, and I think that whole area is Light Industrial, and our problem was it was a wetland and intruding into the wetlands. So that was the reasoning behind the Land Conservation 10 acres, you kn w, in the area around the zone that would be MR-5. MR. CARTIER-But what I understood from Karla was, Karla was saying go back and look at this because it's changed, but we are the ones who changed it and then made a recoDlliendation. MR. MARTIN-Right. That was part of our recommendation. MR. CARTIER-Right. So, what I'm saying is, we don't have to go back and look at it. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-Because as it stands is what we reconurended, right? So all we need, at this point, is a motion to grant lead agency status to the Town Board on that, if this Board is so desired. MR. LAPOINT-On just the SEQRA? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-They make the decision on re-zoning anyhow. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-And they want to include SEQRA so it's complete in one mouthful. MR. MARTIN-No. The SEQRA has to be done first and then if that process results in a neg tive dec, then they go on to the re-zoning. MR. HAGAN-I have no objections. MOTION TO CORSERT TO THE TOI/I BOARD BEING LEAD AGErtT IN REGARD TO THE SE RA REVIEW FOR PE ITION FOR A CHAKGE OF ZONE PII-90 KERRY V. GIRARD, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 8th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano 13 ---- MR. CARTIER-And we have essentially the same request with regard to the Diehl property, whic is PI-91. Do you want to get into a discussion of that before we call for a motion? MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I guess I'm going to be the bad guy in this one. I'm against making the consent and I know you expl ained to me the ramifi cati ons of that, but nonethel ess, I'd sill not be in favor of that. MR. HAGAN-Did you give your reasoning the other night? MR. MARTIN-I gave my reasoning, I guess, after the meeting. My reasoning is, I'm not e actly sure how to put this correctly, the review will be given an objective view, I guess that's th best way to put it. MR. LAPOINT-This was for the increased density change of the subdivision to the low income. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-The request is to give that also to the Town Board in terms of re-zoning? MR. MARTIN-Right. That's the typical course of events. MR. HAGAN-If we all took that same stand, I'm just asking, what recourse would the Town Board ave? MR. DUSEK-What happens is, when there's two agencies that are eligible to conduct a SEQRA Review, if they are not able to agree who should be the lead agent. MR. HAGAN-Did you hear what he said? MR. MARTIN-Yes. He explained that to me. MR. HAGAN-Are you willing to take that chance? MR. MARTIN-I don't see where it's a chance. It's just what's being done is, if two parties c n't agree, then it's deferred to an objective party to make the decision for us. It's like an arbitra or, right? MR. DUSEK-Yes. I wouldn't call it an arbitrator because it has special context. The C mmissioner making the decision. MR. HAGAN-In lieu of the record of the decisions made by DEC, are you willing to live with tha ? MR. MARTIN-They wouldn't have that process if it weren't sometimes warranted. I think t is is one of those times. I mean, sure, I guess history would indicate that they very seldom go a ainst the Town Board being the lead agent in a case like this, but. MR. CARTIER-Would DEC come back, in a situation like this, requesting more information? MR. HAGAN-That's what I'm afraid of, that they wouldn't. MR. CARTIER-Would they base it strictly on the information that they had in them, in terms f Planning Board minutes like this or a Town Board discussion, Planning Board discussion? MR. DUSEK-I've got to tell you, I've never had one. I've got to be honest with you. I mean, 'm looking at the regulations when I tell you how it works. I've never had one go to DEC. So, I d n't know. I presume that both sides will want to make some sort of a case as to why they should be the lead agent and then DEC, at that point, will make their decision. The Commissioner will make a decision. MR. HAGAN-I'm sorry. We're going to be at an impasse because I disagree with Jim. That think we should consent. MR. CARTIER-Well, we'll take it to a vote and see what happens. MR. HAGAN-Well, you're not going to get enough. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, if that's case, then you want to make your case, if we're going t take this to a vote. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You're not going to agree with? MR. HAGAN-No. I'm for giving the Town Board the consent and Jim isn't and there's only our of us here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 14 MR. MARTIN-And they need that by, when, our consent? Is this something we can put off a ain, until the, or then it's automatic, you have a 30 day? MR. DUSEK-Yes. You have 30 days. MR. MARTIN-From the point of when? MR. DUSEK-I 'll have to run up and get the book to check it, but you have a period of 30 ays and if you don't give any response whatsoever, then it's deemed automatic, that they are lead agent. MR. MARTIN-From the point of them making an official request, is that it, or what starts that time clock? MR. DUSEK-From the time that they send you out the notice. It must be, like, either that meting when they first considered it or when they sent the notice out, the 30 days. I can't remember. I'd have to go back up and get the book. MR. CARTIER-I would like to assume it's when they noticed us. MR. DUSEK-Maybe. I can't remember, Peter, I'm trying to recall. There's so many regulat ons there. MR. LAPOINT-So, essentially, this is the same request as we just approved for PI1-90. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. HAGAN-But Jim thinks this requires a little more in-depth. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just think the nature of the appl icant is different and that differenc is going to impact the objectivity of the... MR. HAGAN-I'm not quite sure I understand this. You know, I'm not stubborn. I can be swayed. (TAPE TURNED) MR. HAGAN-..to let them be the lead agency on this. I mean, specifically, what do you think they might not look into deeply enough or objectively enough. MR. MARTIN-Well, not deeply, Jim. The impact of the increased density. I think the densi y that is allowable in that particular lot now as it exists was arrived at by a very thorough and in-d pth review through the Master Planning process and the re-zoning process that was done in 1988 and we've already granted the applicant approval of a subdivision under the existing Zoning Ordinance, correct? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-And you're afraid that they'll just give them approval, and you adversely woul not give them approval. MR. MARTIN-Right. There are some positive advantages to the nature of the subdivision, naturally more development in the Town, increased construction dollars and so on and so forth, but I don't hink those come into play in an environmental review, or shouldn't. MR. CARTIER-Correct me if I'm way off base, here. There are political ramifications to this pplication because it's an affordable housing and I think what Jim is suggesting is that he'd like to remove the SEQRA process from the political field, okay, and I can understand that and I can agree with that point of view. Whatever way we go, here, we've got to, it sounds like a 3-1 vote. MR. HAGAN-I said I'm not stubborn, from what l've heard. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just feel that the best interest of the Town will be served by possibly us acting as the lead agent as the Planning Board. MR. LAPOINT-I would like to think that we would come up with the same SEQRA determination a the Town Board would. I would really hope that would be the same. MR. CARTIER-Or maybe you could turn that around and say that I hope the Town Board would co e up with the same. MR. LAPOINT-The same SEQRA we would have. If their choice was truly to re-zone that, then t at's their option, correct? That's their function. MR. CARTIER-Yes. 15 ---../ MR. LAPOINT-So, again, turning over the SEQRA to them would also give them the opportunity to re-zone it. MR. DUSEK-Maybe I could try to explain the process, just to try to be helpful, here. MR. HAGAN-Before you do, doesn't anyone have the right to challenge the SEQRA determination made by whoever is the lead agency? MR. DUSEK-I was going to kind of lead to that. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Maybe I can hel p with that. There's two things that have to occur before a re zoning can happen. One is that SEQRA is mandatory. It must be taken care of, that whole set of proc dures that we are all aware of well aware of. The second thing that's got to happen is the Town Boa d then has to vote to legislate to redo this, to re-zone. SEQRA, although it's become merged as much s possible in actions, really two things are going on here. What SEQRA says is that the first thing you'll do if you've got a project is you'll agree on who's going to be lead agent. Once that is out f the way, either by agreement or by choice of DEC, the next thing that's going to happen is that someb dy's going to have to undertake a SEQRA Review, whoever that elected party is. The involved agencies h ve a right to comment and they have a right for their comments to be considered by the lead agent. I m an, that's the whol e idea behind being 1 ead agent. You have one body taking care of everybody's con erns. The applicant has a streamlined process in the end, so that they're not trying to run around t different agencies and repeating everything. So the goal, here, is to have one agency, but taking the other agencies concerns in doing this. I know very well of this because this is the big strug le we had with the Earltown situation, okay. That's where DEC said they didn't agree with the way the Town Board did the whole lead agency stuff. Then, after the concerns are all done, the Town Board, as lead agent, must make a decision as to whether there's an impact or not. If they decide that there is no impact, then they do their negative declaration and they issue the decision. This is something imilar to what happened, obviously, in the Earltown case. DEC said, we disagree and a lawsuit ensue. If the Town Board, however, based upon all the information, decides that it shouldn't be a negative dec, then the next step will be to do an Environmental Impact Statement. The project isn't dead ju t because you don't do a negative dec. You go on to the next step. When you do your Environmen al Impact Statement, you go through the whole process. You come up with findings and conclusions w en you're all said and done, after this whole thing, you know, the public hearings and all the oth r gobbledy gook is out of the way, you come up with a set of findings and conclusions relative to the en ironmental impacts. Even if there are negative impacts at that point, that does not pr clude the project. .legislative body to decide, in 1 ight of this, now that we've studied, because, ee, SEQRA wants you to know what the environmental impacts are going to be. It doesn't say that because there is a negative environmental impact you can't still go ahead with the project, but it makes you go through that process so that there's an intelligent decision being made as far as the environmen 's going. So once you get through the process, the statement is done, then we get into the Town Board, nce again, being in that position to be able to legislate or not legislate, as it sees fit. So tha 's really the process. Now, with Earltown, I think I misspoke. I said we got to a negative dec, bu we first went through an EIS on that and then the fight occurred over how much was in the EIS nd stuff, ultimately. We did a full ] on Earltown. MR. CARTIER-I remember that. That was when I first got in. MR. DUSEK-But I mean, the bottom line was, we got to the end of the process and then DEC sid, well, we don't like the way you did the process. MR. CARTIER-No. What I'm surprised at is that there was a negative declaration? MR. DUSEK-No. That's what I said. I misspoke. We got through to the end and did the fi dings and then DEC said, we didn't like the way you did the SEQRA process, but, theoretically, the oth r involved agency could raise that complaint whether you did a negative dec, and that's what I was thinking, in the back of my mind. It could have happened there, or it could have happened at the end of t e process, or it could happen in the middle. MR. HAGAN-What's making my wheels spin a little bit on this. I happen to be the only memb r on this Board who wouldn't vote for a negative impact statement on a certain project and then after the fact, and it was this Board found that there was a negative environmental impact and I was the onl one that disagreed, but when we all got through with the whole damn project. we were all sitting th re saying, how did we ever let this get through SEQRA, and this Board allowed it to get through, even though you did have one objection on this Board and I'm thinking, what's going to be different with the Town Board and this Board? I think the people are qual ified and I think they're honest enough. There's one man on that Board that I know will vote for a negative impact, but I don't think he'll get full agreement, if it can't be truthfully stated. MR. LAPOINT-We will be heard, if it's our option, we would be part of the public hearing rocess or part of the other agency. 16 ------- MR. DUSEK-You would want to be part of the public hearing process, but the most importan thing you have to do, if you want to be heard, is get comments in, just in case it goes to a negative dec, because your public hearings, as far as SEQRA, only occur if you get into the EIS. So you have to give written comments so that you are heard in the SEQRA process and that should come at the time you in icate what your concern is, as far as lead agency's concerned. MR. LAPOINT-So that's as a contributing agency, like you say, if the Town Board is the 1 ad agency, the Board is the 1 ead agency, the Boa rd gets together and has the i r comment on what th fee 1 the environmental impact would be. MR. CARTIER-They set a deadline for comments and you have the option to respond or not respond MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, if it did indeed go to them, we would have to get together and either Oust ignore it or come up with what our feel ings were on that. Now, if we're lead agency, we shoul hear from them, in a similar fashion? MR. DUSEK-Right, it would be the reverse. MR. LAPOINT-And they are making the request to be lead agency, possibly because we may ignor the issue or? MR. DUSEK-No. I think the only reason they are making the request to be lead agent is becaus in zoning matters they've traditionally been. Just 1 ike on a site plan, you traditionally would be lead agent because it's yours. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So that's the way it's been done in the past? MR. DUSEK-Yes, and obviously the law is that either party can be lead agent. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, I guess if that's the way it's gone in previous re-zonings, I gue s I would in favor of letting it go to the Town Board with us giving some type of agency comment. MR. HAGAN-I interpret it as being almost a matter of courtesy that they ask us to agree t let them be lead agency. MR. DUSEK-It's a matter of law. MR. HAGAN-Well, a matter of law and also, because they have to vote on the zoning change, not us, but before they can, they've got to have the environmental thing. MR. CARTIER-Well, I still think Jim's got a valid point here, in that, trying to remove what is a pol itically sensitive issue from the SEQRA process and try to make the SEQRA process as non pol itical as possible. I don't mean to denigrate the Town Board when I say that. It's just a real"ty of the situation and I wish, it's my feeling that this Board is far more qualified to do any SEQ reviews than the Town Board is. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I'm not going to hold it up and be the only one. Do you agree with Jim? MR. LAPOINT-Well, I guess that if we add a general environmental concern and if we were ill ing to express that as a group to them, then I think we're covered. MR. CARTIER-Well, that doesn't necessari ly have to be, we do not have to concur, as a gr up, as to what we are going to recommend. We, individually, can state our case and make that a part 0 a report that's sent to the, it's not as if we have to vote on, we're all going to agree to, this is what we're submitting to the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Right. We all sign a letter or something like that. MR. DUSEK-The other thing is, from a practical perspective, although I mentioned the fac that the public hearing is not usually a part of the SEQRA process, which it isn't unless you get into the EIS and everything. As a practical matter, the Town Board traditionally has not acted on SEQRA ntil after they've held the publ ic hearing on the zoning matter anyway. So you should have two opt "ons. You should have one, to do it right so to speak, you would want to first of all get your writte comments, if that was the concern. The second thi ng is you woul d want to be able to speak at tha hea ri ng. Those are your two options and you can either do that, as you mentioned, individually or c Ilectively as a Board or however you wanted to handle that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so, in terms of the vote, here, we have some other options. We tonight, whichever way it goes, or we can find out from Paul, when the 30 days is up. it in, if the 23rd of May meeting, regular meeting, is within that 30 day time frame. MR. DUSEK-It might not be, I don't think. 17 -../ MR. MARTIN-I don't think it is. MR. CARTIER-If it is, we can do it then, or if it's not, we can wait until Paul gets back to us and let us know and we can call a quick special meeting with the full board to have a vote, whatever is your druthers, here. MR. LAPOINT-I guess we just went on Pll-90 and I just worry about being consistent. because I'd 1 ike to think that my SEQRA Review is independent even of how I feel about the project, you know, independent, objective. So what seems to be our overriding concern, to me, is that we remain consistent in how we handle this. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's a major difference between these two Petitions to Re-zone. One is, on the Girard one, for senior housing, we approved that, we recommended that they approve that, all right. The Diehl we recommended that they disapprove that. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. MR. CARTIER-So there is a, I agree with their consistency point, but these two applications, as far as this Board's concerned, are considerably different. MR. HAGAN-Okay. Make your motion. JlJTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ASSUME LEAD AGENCY STAlUS IN REGARDS TO THE SEQRA PROCESS FOR THE PETlTUII FOR A ZONE CHANGE PI-91 THE DIEHL PROJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: ONE. THAT THE PLMIIING BOARD BEING AN APPOINTED BODY WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO POLITICAL PRESSURE AND ANY SEQRA DECISIONS OR ANY DECISIONS REGARDING THE PROCESS WILL NOT BE GROONDED IN A POLITICAL ISSUE. TWO, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DEALS WITH THESE TYPES OF ISSUES ON A REGULAR BASIS AND THEREFORE THE SEQRA PROCESS WILL BE BETTER SERVm BY THIS BOARD ACTING IN LEAD AGENCY CAPACITY, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 8th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano MR. LAPOINT-I guess I, again, I think I'm going to be totally objective in any case and it just strikes me that we have to think about pol itical concerns in something that should be as objective as SEQRA. MR. HAGAN-Well, we aren't subject to political concerns. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. That's us, and, again. it would be, I mean, does it question any and all SEQRA reviews they do? What I'm leaning towards right now, is that, even on the Girard one I almost wish I had that one back, now, because I want to either remain consistent, if the objectivity is needed, then we should be it, and I agree with your second statement, we can provide that objectivity. MR. CARTIER-I'll keep tossing out options, here. Do you want to consider rescinding the Girard motion and go back. MR. LAPOINT-That one seemed fairly simple and I've got no problems with project either. MR. HAGAN-Well, didn't we feel that we approved of the whole thing? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. HAGAN-But on this one we don't. MR. LAPOINT-I think though, for future reference. for the rest of you, that I'm going to stay consistent in that we should probablY do something. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think it's something we shouldn't just give a rubber stamp to and just have it be a..by any means, even though it results in a lot delays and it's not going to be popular I'm sure. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I didn't hear Ed finish and I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are we talking about requesting lead agency status on all re-zonings from now on? MR. LAPOINT-I am leaning that way, now. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 18 - MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's, again, just the thinking this evening. MR. CARTIER-That might be appropriate. I can't get inside somebody on the Town Board's head, but as far as I'm concerned, if I was sitting on a Town Board, I would much rather have the SEQRA review done by the Planning Board, that let's me off the hook. MR. HAGAN-That's what the Zoning Board of Appeals has already formally stated. MR. CARTIER-What's that? MR. HAGAN-That they want us to handle all SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes, the Zoning Board, but I'm saying the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but Jim brings up a good point. That's the basis for their reasoning. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Well, just keep that in mind because, again, I think we should all try to be consistent. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody have anything else? MR. MARTIN-Yes, you have this little baby. RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE TM OF ~EENSBURY WHEREAS, there has been prepared and published a codification of the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury are included in such codification, and WHEREAS, certain minor revisions were found necessary in the course of preparing the subdivision regulations for inclusion in the codification, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board and Town Board are desirous of amending the Subdivision Regulations to put into effect those minor revisions incorpÖrated into the Code of the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following amendments are hereby proposed to the subdivision regulations of the Town of Queensbury, as contained in Chapter A183 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury: (1) Section AI83-6B(5)(a) [original Section B5 of Article III], § AI83-9K(1) [original Section Bll of Article III] and § A183-12F [original Section B6 of Article V] are amended by changing the words "office of the Planning and Zoning Office" to "Planning Office." (2) Section AI83-13A(1) [original Section Cl of Article V] is amended by changing the words "twelve (12) months" to "six (6) months" in the first sentence thereof. (3) Section AI83-13E(2) [original Section C5 of Article V] is amended by changing the words "office of the Planning Department" to "Planning Office." (4) Section A183-15D [original Section B4 of Article VI] is amended by changing the words "Director of Building and Codes" to Director of Building and Code Enforcement" and by changing the words "Zoning Enforcement Officer" to "Zoning Administrator." (5) Section A183-15I [original Section B9 of Article VI] is amended by changing the words "Town Planning Department" to "Town Planning Office" and the words "Zoning Officer" to "Zoning Administrator." (6) Section AI83-27E(3) [original Section 15c of Article VIII] is amended by changing the words "Building Inspector" to "Director of Building and Code Enforcement." (7) Section A183-30D [original Section L4 of Article VIII] is amended by changing the words "Article VIII.L.I.D" to "this Article." (8) Section AI83-35C and E [original Section D3 and 5 of Article IX] is amended by changing the words "Planning and Zoning Department" to "Planning Office." 19 '---' (9) Section A183-43 [original Section A of Article XII] is amended by changing the words "Article 617 State Environmental Quality Review" to "6 NYCRR 617." (10) Section A183-46 [original Article XIII] is amended by changing the words "Planning Department" to "Planning Office." (11) Section AI83-52C(3)(b) [original Section C3 of Appendix C] is amended by deleting therefrom the words "contained in Section 4.7." and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the proposed amendments may not be adopted until a public hearing is held and Town Board approval is obtained, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that a public hearing shall be held on , at p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, whereat all persons or parties interested shall be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney is hereby authorized to draft a notice of public hearing and provide such notice to any involved agency that may be necessary, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that for purposes of SEQRA, the Planning Board determines this to be an unlisted action and indicates its desire to be lead agency. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay. This refers to the changes, what do you want us to do with this? MR. DUSEK-That's the motion. MR. CARTIER-Where, right down here? MR. DUSEK-The whole thing. MR. CARTIER-So you want us to just adopt this motion. MR. DUSEK-Right. You've all got copies of it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-All we need is someone to introduce this motion, then I guess. JlJTlON TO APPROVE THE RESOUITlON TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE llIIN OF ~EENSIIJRY AS SUPPLIED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 8th day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. One quick question for you, and somewhere in there there's two different sets of numbers showing up on some of these things. MR. DUSEK-On what? MR. CARTIER-"Section AI83-6B(5) A [original Section B5 of Article III]." Has this all been renumbered? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-That's that monster that you got the other night, that you've been working on? 20 ----./ MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARTIER-So are you telling me that the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Reg's that I have in my book right now have all been renumbered? MR. DUSEK-Not yet. MR. CARTIER-We will get copies? MR. DUSEK-Yes. What's going to happen is, I brought it down to show it to you. When we codify, these books will be el iminated, what you have right now, altogether, not only numbers. These things are going to be history. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-What you're going to get is a bound book, this size, with your Zoning Ordinances in it and your. MR. MARTIN-There's code companies that do that type of thing. MR. DUSEK-Right. That's what this is. Now, my understanding is, the way it will work is that the big huge volumes will not be given out to everybody because not everybody needs all those laws and Ordinances, but they will have separate zoning and subdivision pamphlets that are bound with a cl ip binding so that when the supplemental updated pages come out, you simply insert them in and you've got yourself a book. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-But it's about, you know, the page size is about this size. MR. MARTIN-I think the Village of Hudson Falls has that system. MR. CARTIER-Every thing's been done that way, Sewer Ordinance, everything. MR. DUSEK-Yes, and everything has been renumbered because, you know, sort of chapterized. It's all chapters, now. I think you'll really like it. It's going to take you a little while to go back through and get to know where everything is, but I think you're going to like it. MR. CARTIER-Is the Septic Ordinance being re-worked at all? MR. DUSEK-There is an amendment that was proposed and set down for a public hearing for one of the meetings come up, but it's to the extent concerning leachfields, personal home septic systems, and also depth to bedrock, or whatever, around Lake George basin and stuff has been changed and I think the primary motivation behind that was the Lake George Park Commission Reg's and they're trying to bring it into conformity, but there's been some other things added into it. So you may want to look at that. I mean, to be sure if it's anything you're concerned about. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Can I get you on something else? This is something that I got dragged into, so that I reviewed it and then after I've gotten done totally reviewing it, I feel that it's something that I should talk to this Board about to decide how you want to handle it, because there seems to be some options here, and explain what's happening. Maybe you have some knowledge of this already. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you a quick question, here. Is this something that has to be acted on right away, or would you rather have all six members present? MR. DUSEK-Well, I'd 1 i ke to get some input from you now, because you may tell me we don't ever want to do it this way, but, you know, because the guy called me and they want to file an appl ication and we've kind of got to know where you're going, here. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. DUSEK-This concerns apartments called Old Coach Manor. I don't know if you're familiar with these? They're down on Bay Road. They're the old John Hughes apartments. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. The plan is to convert these to condos and when they decided they wanted to do this, they did the next natural, logical thing. They said, call the Town. Do we need any permits or approvals from anybody to do the conversion? If you go to our Ordinance, and they got kind of a fuzzy answer from Pat, initially, because of the Ordinance. So that's why they triggered a call to me and they 21 --' said, well, what do you think. So I pulled Pat and we went through the Ordinance together and therein lies why the fuzziness is there. The Ordinance says, in the Definitions, that the definition of Subdivision will include condominiums and under a Condominium Development is says you will treat this as a subdivision, okay. That's easy enough. Then, though, when you get to the particular zone that this is in, it says that you will site plan review it, okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Your circumstances here, of course, are such that, one, they're already in existence. This is a conversion. Two, it would seem that the subdivision and site plan reviews are going to be dupl icative in nature because anything you could conceivably do under one you're going to be able to do with the other in this type of a situation where they're already in existence. If it were a new project it might be a little different, or if it's a townhouse it might be different because they're going to be owning a footprint, but in a condominium, they only own the interior of their own dwelling. All the property is owned in common. My thoughts on it were this, that you have a choice. You can either go through this, as I read the Ordinance, you can go through the whole thing as a subdivision process, get to the very end of it, and then start your site plan process like you might normally do, or, in the alternative. you could undergo a joint process of site plan and subdivision review as simultaneously, keeping all of your options open under both, and as you go through the process waive those Sections of the Subdivision Regulations that you just don't need to comply with. In other words, keeping total options with you, but making one review process instead of two separate full blown reviews. MR. MARTIN-All of the buildings on there now exist on one lot? MR. DUSEK-Right. It's an apartment complex that was built on, as I understand it, one parcel. MR. CARTIER-So, in other words, there are goi ng to be new lot 1 ines? These thi ngs are goi ng to be broken up into new lot lines? MR. DUSEK-No. MR. HAGAN-No. You're renting an apartment. Instead of renting an apartment, you're going to buy a condo. MR. CARTIER-Then why do we even need to look at it at all, is my question? MR. DUSEK-Okay. Good question. The problem is that they, when they sell the units, want to, and their attorney feels they have to, refer to a filed plat at the County Clerk's office. There's only one way to get a filed plat at the County Clerk's office that's legal in terms of being able to sell units off of and that's with a Planning Board approval. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-Now, as a matter of law, when you sell property, there's essentially three possible ways you can legally describe property soundly. One is a meets and bounds description. The second is by reference to a filed plat at the County Clerk's office and the third is by a system which we don't employ in New York State, but it's where they divide the County up into squares and then they locate the properties. MR. CARTIER-Section, Range, and County? MR. DUSEK-Right. That's it. At least we don't employ it here. Maybe they do somewhere in New York State. I don't want to make that an absolute. So those are your three essential ways. When I evaluated the situation, I said, well, what makes a difference if you do site plan or you do planning or you don't do anything at all, it's because they need that subdivision plat and that's the only thing, a site plan plat is not a subdivision plat and I'm afraid it won't qualify. MR. HAGAN-Strictly for recording purposes? MR. DUSEK-Right. So I felt, if they go through a dual process, it gives you guys everything you want, in terms of being able to review, because you can draw from both authorities and then you go through the process and they go through one process and you get to the approval at the end. I don't know how much your really going to do with something like this. Maybe there's not going to be any concerns. MR. CARTIER-Well, what we're going to do is we're going to go through this process to satisfy the attorney for the applicant. MR. HAGAN-It's a rubber stamp requirement. MR. CARTIER-Are you saying we have to do this, legally? Do we have to do this? MR. DUSEK-Well, the Ordinance says that when you have a condominium or you want to create a condominium, it's treated as a subdivision. 22 '--' ---./ MR. CARTIER-But that's out of empty land. MR. DUSEK-And that's exactly it. The Ordinance, I think when it was written, it never contemplated a conversion, but the problem is that you are now taking a land that is not used for condominiums and converting it to a condominium. MR. HAGAN-May I ask this? Are you aware of how Glens Falls, the City of Glens Falls handled this when, just before you get into Broad Acres, there's an apartment place there, at the end of Horicon. MR. CARTIER-Yes. The English Tudor places. I know where you're talking about. MR. HAGAN-Right. Now they were just apartments that peopl e used to rent and then they just changed them into condominiums and sold the apartments. How did the City of Glens Falls, or how did those lawyers handle that? MR. DUSEK-The problem is that State Law would give some different direction as to how you treat this. MR. MARTIN-In the City than a Town. MR. DUSEK-It may, but the problem we have is that our Zoning Ordinance and the way it addresses it forces the review, because that was my thought, too, well, why not look to precedents elsewhere. In fact, we did. We started to research out how it's normally done on a State level and it doesn't apply because we have a difference in our Zoning Ordinance that says, you will treat these as a subdivision. MR. MARTIN-My question, then, is when you go to file the plat with the County office, what is that plat going to look like? Are you going to show buildings on there with four individual units as lots? MR. DUSEK-No, not as lots. You'll show the buildings and identify the buildings. They're not broken up as lots. It will show on one parcel. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but they're only buying a section of the building in that case. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARTIER-How is that going to be different from what's already on file? MR. MARTIN-Well, there's just the one lot up there, not even buildings. There's just the one lot. Now, you're going to have, correct me if I'm wrong, Paul. If the lot looks like this, this is Bay Road. You have buildings here like this. You're going to have a plat. MR. DUSEK-That's going to break up the buildings. MR. MARTIN-Just like that. Whereas, right now, all you have is this, right? MR. CARTIER-Just one lot with a bunch of buildings on it. MR. MARTIN-Not even the buildings. MR. DUSEK-The buildings probably won't even show up. The problem is our Zoning Ordinance says you will treat it like a subdivision, and the only way I know how to handle it is if you through the process. MR. MARTIN-I think you have to. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I don't think that the Ordinance is remiss in that regard. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-And Warren County's going to have all those extra tax rolls to collect on. MR. MARTIN-So it's no different than the subdivision this Diehl's proposing. MR. CARTIER-So we do a subdivision on it, or it comes through as a subdivision application, right? MR. DUSEK-Well, now, that's the other part that gets a little tricky. Because it's listed as a site plan review and as you know, any conversion of property requires a site plan review if it's listed underneath there. That's been the policy overall that's been adopted consistently throughout this Town, that whenever something changes, like a restaurant to a gas station, they've got to come through site plan review. This is an apartment to a condominium, they've got to come through site plan review. My thought was that you have a lot more leeway in subdivisions than you do under site plan, ironically, 23 '---' -..../ and the reason for that is because you have that big fat waiver provision at the end of the subdivision regulations that you don't have under site plan, because site plan's stuck in the zoning. My thought was, as a way of possibly handling it, to tell the applicant to do a full blown site plan application and then either do a full blown subdivision application to join it or only fill out that portion of the subdivision application that is different than the site plan. MR. CARTIER-Lets be careful, here. I don't like doing a site plan before we do a subdivision. We've run into problems with that before and we've given applicants a hard time about that. It seems to me the thing to do is do the subdivision first. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Then the site plan review. MR. MARTIN-Even if, in fact, the process is simultaneous and the same night you approve subdivision and site plan. MR. DUSEK-But, anyway, you're still saying fill out two applications, then? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-Two full scale applications. Then do the subdivision and then follow it with the site plan, but do them simultaneously, still. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-In other words, do one, then do the other. MR. MARTIN-The only thing you're being a little bit unreasonable about is comparing two applications. MR. CARTIER-What does he come in with? Does he come in with Sketch Plan, Preliminary, and Final subdivision, or where do we start the process? MR. DUSEK-My suggestion there is, as I was saying before, since you have the power to waive the provisions and this is a unique case, I think you could blow through a lot of those Sections without hitting any precedents. MR. HAGAN-Go right to Final. MR. CARTIER-But we still, in the process, have to conduct a public hearing somewhere. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARTIER-In other words, tell the guy to come in for a Final. MR. HAGAN-And public hearing. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Maybe I'm way off, here, but I don't like to set precedent, here. So let me toss this out, and I haven't really thought about this. This is right off the top of my head. Suppose you have the guy come in for Preliminary, okay. You go through that process. You give him Preliminary approval. You hold a public hearing at that point. Then the next time through, and these can be two separate meetings in the same month, the first and second meeting of the month, next time he comes in for Final, and that's when you do the site plan also. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what I would suggest. MR. CARTIER-How does that sound? MR. DUSEK-That's fine. I mean, you've got options, here. As I told you, you could do a full blown subdivision, first, and then do the site plan. MR. CARTIER-Never having gone straight to Final, I'd hate to start doing it because then you open the door. Does that sound reasonable? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, have them both in the same month. MR. MARTIN-Yes, to be accommodating, because he has to go to the Department of State to file the condominium, right? MR. DUSEK-My understanding is that they're working on that now and they anticipate filing that shortly. They've got an offering plan they have to file. 24 "-'" --/ MR. MARTIN-Right. I think you definitely have to have subdivision, definitely. MR. CARTIER-First. MR. DUSEK-Let me make sure, because I've got to let them know in terms of what to file. The idea, then, would be they fill out both applications. They file both applications. MR. MARTIN-On the same day, in complete form. MR. DUSEK-The Planning Board would envision looking at the subdivision application first, at the first meeting, and only that application. MR. CARTIER-For a Preliminary. MR. DUSEK-Right. For Preliminary approval, assuming that it meets it, and if it doesn't then everything's off. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. DUSEK-But if it does, assuming that it meets with the Planning Board's approval, then the same month, at the second meeting, you would do both the site plan and the final. MR. CARTIER-Right. Now, wait a minute. You're talking about three applications. He's going to file one for Preliminary, one for Final, and one for site plan. MR. MARTIN-Just think how much the Town's going to make on Rec Fees. Of course, I don't know, though, if these are existing buildings. That's an interesting one, too. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Our Recreation Law. How's that going to wash against that? MR. DUSEK-Nobody saw that, I'll bet you. MR. MARTIN-Because I remember we went to extensive lengths, at the request of some very community minded citizen at the time, to redo the Recreation Fee Law. MR. DUSEK-That's got to be re-done again, you know, everybody's not happy with it, yet. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. DUSEK-Okay. So, three applications, Preliminary at first, then Final and subdivision, assuming they make it. MR. MARTIN-All submitted on application deadline. I think it's the last Wednesday of that month. MR. CARTIER-Also, since the Planning Department are going to be the ones who are going to be going through all of this, I'd like to hear from those guys, too on what they think of that. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Now, what's the situation? You're saying that you don't want me to call them until, what? MR. CARTIER-Just check with Lee and John and see, let them know what we're talking about, here, and see if they have anything that we may have missed. They may come up with something. MR. DUSEK-Okay. What if they have an objection to this plan? Then you don't want me to do anything on it until? MR. MARTIN-They usually act at our discretion. MR. CARTIER-Yes. No, I'm not saying if they have an objection, but they may pick up on something that we missed, is my only point. MR. DUSEK-How about if we do it this way? Why don't I run it by them. Let them know what's going on. I won't call the applicant yet. I can put that off until I get this cleared up. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. DUSEK-If they have a serious problem with this format, then ask them to call you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 25 ------ ---./ MR. DUSEK-If they don't, and then if they have some other concerns that they might want addressed, then I'll tell them to take it up directly with the applicant and to talk to you too, to let you know what's going on. MR. CARTIER-Fine. MR. DUSEK- But I can call the app 1 i cant and say, we thi nk we've got a reasonable approach, here, set up for you. This way he complies with our Ordinance so he doesn't look at a violation. He gets the map that he wants and you get the review that you want. So, I think it's all right. MR. MARTIN-Yes. At a minimum, based on what I've heard about the project, you need subdivision, at a minimum. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-I don't think you'd want to give up all your rights of review anyway. MR. CARTIER-Right. I mean, he may ask the questi on, why have I got to do Prel im and Final, and you can tell him, as far as I'm concerned, we just don't want to set precedent here by going straight to Final. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He shouldn't mind. We're handling it all in the same month. Within a week's time, he's going to have site plan approval and subdivision approval, if everything falls in line. MR. DUSEK-I think merging the steps, to me, that seems to be a reasonable suggestion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 26