Loading...
1992-09-22 '--- - (JUBENSBURY PLANNING BOARD lIBETING SECOND REGULAR IIEETING SEP'l!E1IBER 22ND, 1992 INDEX Site Plan No. 40-92 Site Plan No. 44-92 site Plan No. 45-92i ~ Site Plan No. 46-92 Dr. Hyung & Eleanora Kim 6. David Brown/Greg Brown 9. Mr. & Mrs. Lee Pike 12. NCR of Queensbury Housing Dev. Fund, Co., Inc. 15. 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. - (JUEElfSBURY PLAlINING BOARD lIEETING SECOND REGULAR lIEETING SEPTElIBER 22ND, 1992 7:00 P.lI. BlIBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL CORINNE TARANA CRAIG MACEWAN BlIBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT SENIOR PLMlNER- LEE YORK PLMlNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MARTIN-A lot of people are here regarding the Raven Subdivision. It was just made known to me today that this item is not going to be heard by the Board here tonight. The Zoning Administrator, Robert Parisi, has determined that this item did not require Board review, and it went right on to approval. He signed the plat, and it's my understanding that it's already been filed with the County. Like I said, the Board has no control over what happened. This is a Zoning Administrator's determination, and this was just known to me today. My only offer is, if you want to get further explanation on this, that you go see Mrs. York or Scott Harlicker in the Planning Office tomorrow and they can give you the details behind it, exactl ywha t happened wi th this applica tion, and there ma y be a procedure that you could follow through the Zoning Board of Appeals, but, again, Lee could give you more insight into that. I apologize for you having to come all the way out tonight, and in this weather and everything, but like I said, we had no knowledge of this until just today, this afternoon. LUCIAN POTVIN MR. POTVIN-Will everybody be afforded this kind of treatment if they submit an application? MRS. YORK-Mr. Potvin, my understanding is and considering it with the Town Attorney. here. the Town Board is now reviewing this I'm not sure what is going to happen MR. POTVIN-Lucian Potvin. I have property on Crownwood, too, and I was told by Mrs. York and Mrs. Crayford and Mr. Parisi that I have to submit 13 copies for three phases of this review. This guy, he goes through, he doesn't even have to appear here. Would you give me the same? MR. BREWER-If you're making a two lot subdivision. MR. MARTIN-The thing that's happened most recently is the Town has just passed a new procedure for dealing with two lot subdivisions. MR. POTVIN-Yes, I know that. MR. MARTIN-Providing that if they meet certain standards and criteria, they don't come to the Board for review. They just go through a technical review with the Staff and they're, essentially, approved, and that was done in an effort to make the process simpler and easier for undertaking a simple two lot subdivision. MR. POTVIN-That was on a ~ ~ lot, not on a 100 by 150. MR. MARTIN-It's also my understanding that this through the variance procedure with the Zoning public hearings and things were held at that time. particular property owner did go Board of Appeals and the proper Is that correct, Lee? MRS. YORK-Yes, that is correct. 1 - - MR. POTVIN-Yes, but the night that we were here, he was refused, and then he came back and there was E£. hearing and he was approved. Why is that? MR. MARTIN-Again, I can't. MR. POTVIN-What do you have, two sets of laws, two sets of rules? MR. MARTIN -No, we don't. MR. POTVIN-Yes, you do, on many things you do. MRS. YORK-Mr. Potvin, I would be very glad to go over it with you tomorrow in the office, and explain what happened. MR. POTVIN-I've been to your office a dozen times. Since January, I've been to your office two dozen times. Mr. Parisi, for eight weeks he's been standing me on my head. All I want is a voucher that I ~ buy that piece of property on Crown wood and I can't get it, and this guy here gets, they pass him without even a review. There's something not kosher in this township. I'm telling you. Now, this thing here about the Lobster there. I'm certain that Mr. Wood's going to get it. There's just a question of battling for a little while, and fooling the public, but I'm sure that he's going to get to sell that four acres for a quarter of a million, we'll say or so. They're just fooling the public saying that he isn't going to get it, but you know as well as I do that Mr. Wood's going to get it. MR. MARTIN-Well, I can assure you especially. that matter is not before this Board tonight, and when it is, that it will be dealt a fair and honest review, by this person MR. POTVIN-Just like this was? MR. MARTIN-I had no control over this one. MR. POTVIN-Did you fire that guy? Is he gone, Mr. Parisi? MR. MARTIN-As a ma tter of fact, he is. MR. POTVIN-But before he went, he did all his buddies favors? MR. MARTIN-I can't speak to that. All I heard this afternoon is this is off the agenda. Again, I apologize. So, the matter will not be heard tonight. Again, all I can offer is that you see Mrs. York in the Planning Office tomorrow and they can help you out. Okay. Like I said, from time to time, we do deviate from the agenda, and we have one such case right now. We have a matter with Queensbury Forest, Phase III. The distinguished, Mr. Paul Naylor is here tonight to address the Board regarding this matter. Mr. Naylor, you have the floor. a"~~ MRS. YORK-"The Staff is requesting a short review of a matter relating to health ~..~~ and safety issues in an approved subdivision. Over a year ago Mr. Naylor requested /'.. that the drainage basins in Queensbury Forest Phase III be filled in and the drainage plans be modified to reflect abandonment of such. The understanding was that the drainage basin off Walton Court was included in the agreement. Unfortunately, this never happened and the development has changed hands. The staff is requesting that the Board grant approval for a modification of the drainage plans for Queensbury Forest to allow the detention pond off of Walton Court to be filled in contingent upon review and approval of an engineer to be hired by the Town Board." And I brought the minutes of April 21st, 1992 with me, and at that public hearing, my notes indicated that there would be two changes to the plans, a modification from the duplex concept to single family residential, made at the request of the Planning ~ Board, and a change in the drainage concept from detention basins to infiltration devices at the request of the Highway Superintendent, and Mr. Yarmowich indicated that the plans should clearly indicate the disposition of the Walton Court Stormwater recharge basin and inlet pipe, and that the Walton Road Stormwater Management Basin is intended to be eliminated under this plan, which everyone agreed to be a positive modification. We would like to request that the Board use the last paragraph to make a motion, and basically Mr. Naylor has indicated that in order to make sure that there are no further concerns with the engineering on this, he wants a further engineering review, and has told the Town Board that is his request. So, we would also like that stated. Mr. Naylor? PAUL H. NAYLOR 2 "-- '- MR. NAYLOR-To make a long story short, I've got a big hole over in Walton Court, and nobody promised to fill it, am I right? MRS. YORK-I recall there was some discussion of who exactly would fill it, and I felt that there was a resolution to the problem when we had the meeting. However, it appears that that was not the case, and so at this point in time, we are re-visiting the concern, because it's still there, and the children are still using it as, basically a recreation area, and Mr. Naylor's concerned that any water in it, any child hurt in it, that it would be a problem for the Town. MR. BREWER-How much are they going to fill it, Paul? MR. NAYLOR-That's a good question. I think in your review, in all the stuff you guys went through, supposedly it shows in there that can be shut off. To1lUl/Y Yarmowich, I guess who worked for us, and the other outfit, came to the conclusion that that water, if it wasn't let to go into that basin, would go through the new system they've designed, and then run off toward Queen Victorias. MR. MARTIN-That was my question. So, there is an alternative method. MR. NAYLOR-There is a throttle. Now to make a long story short, and cover everybody's back side, my suggestion is get another engineer outside of the two guys that worked this job together. Let him play with the numbers. If he says this doesn't need to happen, then when the rest of the job is done, wha t' s this, Joe Armoratti, we had a meeting with him last week. We assumed that Mr. Farone was going to fill this hole. So, Mr. Farone's attorney said, no, that's not the way the game's played. So, Mr. Amoratti had made the statement that if Joe wouldn't do it, he'd do it. So, I told him if nobody did anything, probably about Friday, I'd shut the job down until somebody did something, but Mr. Armoratti assured me, in front of enough wi tnesses, tha t he would fill tha thole, but I don't know if I ought to give it to him. So, Mr. Tucker was there, and Mr. Tucker was supposed to ask the Town Board for some funds to get us some dough for an engineer. Am I right so far? MRS. YORK-Yes, you are correct. MR. NAYLOR-But it didn't happen, because it sounded like it was hot and heavy at the old bar room last night. MR. MARTIN-Why the third engineer? Two people have already looked at it. MR. NAYLOR-Because, it's a long story, but I think, to cover everything, another engineer should take the quotes from the other two and see if they work. So, if we decide, fill this hole up, all right, the Town does, but we still own the easement. I'm the one, no matter what anybody says, that's going to get sued, as the Highway Superintendent. We fill this to a level where it's no more danger. We fill the whole thing, and all our engineers in all their infinite wisdom messed up. We can always go back and dig this down a couple of feet and see if it works. If it doesn't, we go a couple of feet more. Hopefully, we never have to go as deep as, for Lee's words, the Planning Board before these guys said they wanted to go. They wanted to shake hands wi th the devil, and they did. MR. BREWER-Didn't they put some material in there already? MR. NAYLOR-Yes. They covered the water, but in big storms like tonight, mostly in the fall, the runoff goes to about three or four feet deep. It does settle, but there's enough sil t in tha t sand over there to seal the whole bottom of it, and it takes a long time. So, you've got to go over and poke a hole in it and then it will drain off, but you know how kids play in water, and we've got all them, grandchildren and our own. They drown quick, and I'm not going to be the one to carry them home to their mother and father. MR. MARTIN-So, what you need from this Board, then, is approval of a change to the plat to that effect? MRS. YORK-Right. I kind of drafted something in the third paragraph, there, that we'd like approval "for a modification of the drainage plans for Queensbury Forest to allow the detention pond off of Walton Court to be filled in contingent upon review and approval of an engineer to be hired by the Town Board". MR. MARTIN-That sounds pretty good. 3 -' '-'" MR. BREWER-Paul, if you fill that in of the road. up to where the, sa y wi thin a foot or two MR. NAYLOR-I may not have to go that high. MR. BREWER-Or even three feet of the road. MR. NAYLOR-I may not have to go that high. MR. BREWER-Isn't it, on the other end, going to create a big bank? MR. NAYLOR-Well, if you look over there, if you stood on the head of that culvert where it drains, and you looked out and kept walking on thin air, you'd come right out, probably 20 feet above the pole line. So, if you did fill the hole to the slope that everybody else has got, that water would run out on the power company right-of-way. It probably would end up over ground, over the Queen Victorias, and go into that drainage system. Remember we wanted to hook it into that and everybody had a big coronary over it? I guess my question is, Nick started it, for an engineering outfit, then Tommy jumped into the show, and it never got back to me when the final analysis was done. MR. BREWER-I thought a year ago they said they were going to fill it in and it was going to happen, and it just never did. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. NAYLOR-That's the same thing I lived with and heard, and then the other day, all hell broke loose in my office. Everybody played deaf, dumb, and blind. MR. MARTIN-How much fill are you talking about? MR. NAYLOR-I'd rather wait before I made any statements, before this engineer says, maybe both of those guys were wrong. He could come back and say, I've taken Nick's calculations, I've taken Yarmowich's calculations, what they're going to use for drainage, which they've presented to you guys, and I think they're both wrong. Then you guys are going to say, wait, come on back in and lets talk again. Then it'll be a whole new ball-game. It starts allover again, and I guess Mr. Armoratti won't be the gu y we deal wi th. It'll be back to Mr. Farone. MRS. PULVER-Paul, wasn't there another problem over there, at the beginning, in Phase II, with drainage, and they did not get approval for Phase III until Phase II was corrected. Was that corrected? MR. NAYLOR-Right, and then they were going to put in two of these in the next Phase. That's when the Town Board outlawed them, basically, these retention basins. MRS. PULVER-Has Farone corrected phase II? MR. NAYLOR-He sold it. This is what we're talking about, see, he sold the development to somebody else. MRS. YORK-That's the problem, the property changed hands here, and unfortunately, the buyer didn't know the agreements, and so that's when we got involved in it, trying to figure out who's responsibility it was now. MR. NAYLOR-Back in the old days, I can remember one guy buying it, and two weeks later somebody else owned it, and before he got done building the road, six other guys owned it. You never knew the first guy was gone. That's calmed down a little bit because of hard times. MR. BREWER-Well, then, actually, he can't continue with Phase III until Phase II is taken care of, then, can he? MR. NAYLOR-Well, tha t ' s the wa y I look a t the Barge Canal, but tha t ' s not the wa y they look at it. MRS. PULVER-Well, as I recall, Paul had sent a letter to the Planning Board, which, condensed version was, before you reall y gi ve them final approval, I think they should straighten out things, too. MR. NAYLOR-Right. remember right. Everybody had a big coronary over that letter I sent, if I 4 ~ -- MRS. PULVER-And I don't remember exactly what took, but it was to the effect that phase II Phase III can go on. the action was the Planning Board had to be straightened out before MR. NAYLOR-That's exactly the way I saw it. MR. BREWER-Then tha t ' s the wa y it shou1 d be. MR. NAYLOR-Well, the attorney from the other previous guy that had the coronary because I said that came in and said, that's not what we did. Am I right? MRS. YORK-Right. What the Board said was, it's quite a long motion, and it had some contingencies in it which was unfortunate, but it said that the Town Board determined the disposition of the easement for the Walton Court Stormwater Recharge Basin with note that the Stormwater Recharge Basin will remain part of the subdivision. I mean, there was nothing specific to taking care of the whole thing. MRS. PULVER-But there's conversation prior to that motion, you know, what was the Board's intent. MR. NAYLOR-That's exactly what we said. MRS. YORK-That's exactly what we said when Mr. Yarmowich said it is intended, Walton Road Stormwater Management Basin is intended to be eliminated. We all felt elimination meant you fill it in. Unfortunately, that is not what the former owner's attorney said to us. Anyway, we want the opportunity to go back, to modify this plan, because it doesn't show the basin being filled in, although it says it will be eliminated. Eliminated could mean that it's eliminated as its former use, not eliminated as a hole that could be dangerous to young children. MR. MARTIN-Well, for whatever it's worth, and on the record tonight, my understanding of elimination meant filled in, as a member of the Board at that time, that's on the record. MRS. YORK-Thank you very much. MR. NAYLOR-That's what I said. Everybody felt that way. How come he didn't hear it? MR. MARTIN-Well, he's hearing it now. for whatever that's worth. That was !EJl. interpretation of elimination, MR. NAYLOR-I know. That's the way I thought everybody felt, and him, because he got all nervous and jerky because I wrote that letter and said I would like to see that, but you didn't have to do that. We'll talk. Well, I've learned a hard lesson this last week. We'll talk on recorders and everything will be double checked and triple checked and quadruple checked, and when a gentleman like that says you guys don't do your job, that's when you've got to go back to the tapes and review everything and say, see what you said, even though you don't say you said it. MR. BREWER-How long of a time period, now, if we have an engineer look at it and he says it has to be filled in, do we give him a time table, to fill it in before winter? MR. NAYLOR-Well, the way it's got to go, Timmy, it can't be filled in until the project's done, because you don't want to turn the water into the ~ job until it's finished, you know, as drainage, and I would like this engineer to say to me, Mr. Naylor, I've checked both of these guys records. I've checked the depth of the stone. I've checked every way they're going to build it, and there's a good anchor in there to hold a lot of water, so you shouldn't stay up nights and worry about it, but if he says it's that close to failing, then maybe somebody gave us a double shuffle, and I'm not saying either one of those engineers couldn't make a mistake, but I'd like this third guy, just to double, so there is no mistakes, so if, when the job is all finished and all the water's turned into that subdivision, and per se, we, as the Highway Department, have to fill it, because we can't get the developer to do it, when I go in there and fill it, and if somebody does the backstroke because I filled it, I want it on the record that these three engineers said, I'm sure it will work. MR. BREWER-Now give me an English answer. How long of a time table are we talking about? 5 --- -' MR. NAYLOR-I don't know how fast that Amoratti' s going to build that job out. He's going to have to build a road before we even accept him, and we don't want to turn the water into that new drainage system. MR. BREWER-So, if the economy turns sour and he doesn't build tha t out for five years. MR. NAYLOR-Well, you've got to build the road, or he isn't going to build any houses an ywa y. We all know tha t . MR. BREWER-Right. MR. NAYLOR-That comes first. When the roads are done, we'll accept the roads. By that time, we ought to have an answer from an engineer that says that drainage system is sufficient. He could do it, but we can't put him to the block. I could do it, but I'm not going to. You guys can figure it out yourselves, but it's nice to have that stamp, and say, yes, it's going to work, and then if it fails, they all swing from the same tree. That's all I've got to say. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, is there any more questions from the Board of Mr. Naylor, while we have him here to address us? I think we all understand what the issue is. All right. Well, Lee has a draft of a resolution. Do you think that's a good place to start? I think it sounds pretty reasonable to me, from what I heard. Can anybody think of anything else we can add, or do you want to give that a try? MRS. PULVER-Do you think the engineer should look at it first, before? MR. MARTIN-Tha t' s in her reso1 ution. MRS. PULVER-But what if this third engineer says that there shouldn't be any modification? MRS. YORK-We've been assured by two engineers the drainage basin is not necessary. If the third engineer says that it is necessary, then we've got the option of talking to the first two guys. MR. MARTIN-It voids this particular resolution. MRS. YORK-Yes, it does. It would void the resolution. If the engineer that the Town hires says, no, I really think that that drainage basin is necessary, then we go back to the original designer and say, you assured us that this was unnecessary and could be eliminated, and therefore, we may have to look at the drainage in the entire Phase III subdivision, okay. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. has there? So, does someone want to offer Lee's resolution that she MRS. PULVER-Yes, I will. NaTION 'rllAT 7!1lE BOARD GRABT APPROVAL FOR A NODIFICATION OF 7!1lE DRAINAGE PLANS FOR QUBEIfSBURY FORBST m ALLOI1 7!1lE DE7!Blf7!ION POND OFF WAL'l'ON COURT ro BE FILLED IN CONTINGENT UPON REVIBfi AND APPROVAL OF AN BNGIlIlIBR m BE HIRED BY 7!1lE 7!OIIN BOARD., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Rue1, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pu1 ver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (7:32 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-All right. Now we'll get right back to the regular agenda. OW BUSINESS: SI'rE PLAN NO. 40-92 'rYPE I PENDING DBC PERlIIT WR-1A DR. BYUNG & ELEANORA KIll 0IilIER: S1JlIE AS ABOVE LOCA'.rION: FI'rZGERAW RD. ON GLEII LlC. m EXCAVA'rE 25' OF SHORELINE FOR PLACElIENT OF RETAINING WALLS m PROVIDE BEACH AREA. ALSO RBlIOVE S'l'ONE WALL APPROXIllA'rEU 25' FROlI SHORELINE FOR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. (WARREN COUN7!Y PLANNING) (DBC) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-6 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 6 --- ZACK VANNIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:32 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-92, Dr. Hyung & Eleanora Kim, September 21, 1992, Meeting Date: September 22, 1992 "The staff has not received a DEC permit or any plan modifications from the applicant. The Board cannot move on this application until DEC has approved the shoreline modification. Concerns were raised regarding the access-way to other residences along the shoreline during the previous meeting. The Board should have a plan showing all conditions on the site. If the permit is not granted by the meeting the staff would recommend that the Board table this application until the DEC permit is issued - at which time the applicant could get on the next available agenda. This suggestion is so the Board does not have the application on the agenda for tabling every month. Once the permit is received the applicant could then submit the information to the staff for placement on an agenda." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Do we have anybody here from the applicant? MR. VANNIER-I'm Zack Vannier, and I'm representing Dr. Kim. MR. MARTIN-You've heard the Staff Notes, here. Do you concur with that? MR. VANNIER-We11, we don't have the DEC permits yet, but there is one point we'd like to make, and that is, apparently the last time some neighbors had some concern that we were going to block any easement they might have there, and we'd just like to make a point of that tonight. MR. MARTIN-The point being? MR. VANNIER-That we're not going to block that right-of-way in any manner. MR. MARTIN-Okay. a tabling, then? Tha t ' s wha t I wan ted to get on the record. Then you agree to MR. VANNIER-Yes. By next month we'll have the, now, is there still a problem with the neighbors? Do they understand that the easement is not going to be blocked? MRS. that from YORK-I'm not sure what the neighbors understand. showed the easement and everything, to come in, any of the neighbors this month. We were waiting for a plan and I haven't had any calls MR. MARTIN-In that regard, we had a public hearing, it says here, August 25th. Has that been opened and left open? MRS. YORK-Yes, it has been. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Well, then, I'll leave that open until the date at which this is rescheduled, then. MR. VANNIER-We11, the only thing I ask of you is, these deeds are not, I mean, you have to be an attorney to understand these things. I don't understand them fully. There's a deeded easement in here, but it specifies no width, that I can understand. How can I show an easement that has no width? MR. MARTIN-Well, you say you have no plan, yet, Lee? MRS. yORK-No, none that shows the easement. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think a surveyor would be able to offer the easement. MRS. yORK-Mr. Vannier, can you measure the size of that access-way now? MR. VANNIER-The smallest point that is there wall and an existing patio, and the smallest we're proposing, we will maintain 17 feet. that easement at all. now is between the toe existing stone point there is 15 feet, and the beach So, we're in no way going to confine MRS. yORK-Can you show that 15 feet on a plan? MR. VANNIER-Yes, I can. 7 --- MRS. YORK-Okay. That's all we're looking for. MR. MARTIN-We're going to need that on the plan before we can bring this to final resolution, here. MR. VANNIER-So, hopefully next time we'll have the DEC permit and I can show this 15 feet on the plan, and we're all set. MR. MARTIN-You have your DEC permit, and you have a plan showing that easement, and I think. you'll be a long wa y towards dealing wi th an y concern of the Board. MRS. yORK-Do you have any idea, has DEC given you any indication how long they're going to be? MR. VANNIER-No. MRS. YORK-Okay. What my recommendation was, because DEC may take three more months. I don't want to disillusion you, but rather than your application being on the agenda, and you coming here, and your clients paying, and this Board saying, we table this for another month, when you have all the information, why don't you come to the Planning Office. At that time, we put your application on the next available agenda, okay. MR. VANNIER-We11, the only thing, the Kims really want to get this project in this year, okay, and we have a limited amount of time. We really have to push DEC this month. So, we're hoping that by your meeting next month we have that approval. So, we would like to be on the list for next month. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's what Mrs. York is saying. they'll put you on the next available agenda. Once you get the DEC permi t , MR. VANNIER-We11, we would like to be on next month's agenda. If I get the permit after September 30th, then I'm not going to be on the agenda until November the 25th. Well, that's why I'm saying I want to be on the agenda for October. MRS. yORK-It's up to this Board. The Board may also want to consider whether they want to have the neighbors re-advertised. If it goes on for a period of three months, the Board has an understanding that the applicant pays $25 to re-advertise and re-send out notices to all the neighbors so that they can come back, since it's been on the agenda for so long. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-This thing hasn't had a public hearing, yet, right? MRS. yORK-Yes. It has. MR. MAR TIN- It's been left open. MRS. yORK-Last month the public hearing was open. MR. MARTIN-How many days kElS that, 90 days that requirement kicks in? MRS. yORK-Right. MRS. PULVER-If we allow him on the second meeting of next month, and he doesn't have his DEC permit, we really haven't lost anything. He's off. MR. MARTIN-Right. We can just table it again, or pull him off the agenda. MR. VANNIER-Yes. It would be until next spring, if that was the case. We wouldn't be able to get the project in. MR. MARTIN-Well, what I think would be appropriate, though, is if we set a date for the Planning Staff as the last date that they can receive this and still review it and get it on the agenda. That would be easier on you guys I would imagine, right? So, the meetings for October would be, when? MRS. PULVER-The 20th, and the 27th. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Right. What did we say, the 27th. So, Lee, if you had that, in order to review that, when would you need that by, for the 27th? 8 - -- MRS. YORK-It would be fine to receive it the previous week. to take a long time to review. I mean, it's not going MR. MARTIN-We'll say the 21st or 22nd, someth ng like that. MRS. YORK-All right, by the 21st at 2 o'clock. Lets do that. MR. MARTIN-Oka y. MR. VANNIER-By the 21st of October, then? MR. MARTIN-Yes. So, that gives you a lot of stuff, the squeakiest wheel gets the most and my advice, with that type MR. VANNIER-Exact1y. MR. MARTIN-Does anybody have any other qu stions? Okay. Then the applicant's consenting to a tabling until, providing t ey can get the DEC permit and their revised plan showing the easement to the P1 nning Staff by October 22nd at 2 p.m. That would be a Wednesday. Okay. Does s ebody want to offer a resolution to that effect? Until the October 27th meeting, with the plan to the Planning Staff by October 22nd at 2 p. . G & ELEANORA KIll, Introduced by Carol Roger Rue1: NOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-92 DR. Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded all other materials to be submitted Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Rue1, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (7 :44 p.m.) NEfi BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 44-92 TYPE II fiR-1A DAVID OliN/GREG BROliN (}filfER: SAllE AS ABOVE KNOX RD., ASSElIBI3 P'l!., LAKE GEORGE PRQ COIISTRUCTIOII OF A 36' BY 40' U-SHAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AlID BRIDGE DOCK; PROPOSED 0 'STRUCTION OF A 25'6- X 32' (fi/SKIRT) OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. (fiARREN COOlIft PLANNI G) TAX MAP NO. 7-1-14, 15 LOT SIZE: 1.92 ACRB'S SBCTrOW 179-60 JOHN MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7: 44 p.m.) STAFF NOTES Notes from Staff, Si te Plan No. 44-92, Davi Brown/Greg Brown, September 18, 1992, Meeting Date: September 22, 1992 "Pro "ect D scri tion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 36' x 40' U-shaped rock fi1 ed crib and bridge dock with a 25'6" x 32' open sided boathouse with a skirt. T. e dock will be located on a lot known as tax parcel 7-1-15. Project Analysis: The project was compared to criteria found in Section 179-60 of the zoning Cod concerning docks and moorings. 1. The dock is to be U-shaped. The property on which the dock is to be placed, according to the tax map, has 225' of 1in r frontage. 2. The dock will extend 36' from the shoreline; the low water mark was not shown on the si te plan. 3. The dock is 8' in width. 4. with an area of approximately 600 sq. ft. the dock does not exceed the 700 sq. ft. limitation. 5. The dock will have a setback of 122' from the Knox property located to the north. The property line on the south of the parcel is not shown on the p1 n; therefore, it cannot be determined how close the dock is to the south property line." One of the applicant's, on the site visit, he indicated to me that the property line runs down approximately half way between the proposed dock and an existing dock, also on the parcel. Actually, it's not shown on the site plan, b t these are two separate tax parcels, not one piece as shown on the site plan. '6. The dock will not interfere with normal na vi ga tion or access to the nearb y ock. 7. Nei ther the hei ght of the boathouse is shown nor is the water level; t erefore, it is impossible to determine if the boathouse is higher than 14' from the water level. 8. There is no information on the plan that would indicate that the boathouse will be used for anything other than the storage of boats and e uipment." 9 '- -.-' MR. MARTIN-All right, and we have Warren C unty approving without comment. Okay. Do we have someone here from the applicant? MR. MASON-Yes. My name is John Mason, and I represent the Browns. go through the Planning Comments? Might that be that the easiest way? Can I just MR. MARTIN-Sure, tha t ' s where I wa s goin g to That's fine. MR. MASON-Okay. First of all, I think there's some confusion as to the total size of this propert y. There are two tax map rce1s, but they're both owned by the applicants. The applicants own parcel 7-1-14 as well as 7-1-15. MR. MARTIN-Yes, we talked to them when we to be home that day. there, as a group. They happened MR. MASON-Did they really? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MASON-Okay. We don't mind you leaving "t as two separate parcels. They may have told you that. At some point in the ery near future, they're going to be in front of this Board for a two lot subdi v . sion, but as it stands now, they own the entire parcel, right now. It's owned y Greg and David Brown. That's why none of the rest of this information was sho If it's the opinion of this Board that this is two separate parcels, they're m re than willing to go along with that, because they're 63 feet from the proposed dock to the property line. I mean, there's plenty of room there. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I didn't see a problem wit that. MR. MASON-But I guess I would like that c1 rification from the Board. If there is no requirement, because it's two separat tax map numbers, it's two separate parcels, I'd love to know that right now. T. at would save us another trip in front of you. MRS. PULVER-If it is two tax map numbers, i is two individual parcels. Each one will have their own deed. MR. MASON-Wonderful. MRS. PULVER-They wouldn't have to come in :D r a two lot subdivision if they have the two tax maps. MR. MASON-They were concerned that owned by the same set of individuals. the pro erties were merged, because they are It's t separate houses. MR. MARTIN-There's two separate deeds, right? MR. MASON-Yes, but the two separate deeds are till owned by the same people. MRS. PULVER-That doesn't make any difference. MR. HARLICKER-Peop1e can own adjacent proper ies and the lots will separate lots. They don't automatically become merged. MR. MASON-They don't get merged? Well, tha ' s wonderful. That's going to solve one very large problem that was going to r ar it's ugly head here very shortly. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Have they gotten any counsel n that? MR. MASON-Yes. They not only have counsel, I think they're going to be hiring Leon very short1 y. MR. MASON-Well, you may have that problem than one acre. Do you see what the problem ma confusion may lie is the Town has nconformin g lot next to another, you et, those lots automatically, if the ous, and become merged into one lot. MRS. PULVER-Well, you know where I think th as part of their Ordinance, if you have a n know, two 50 foot lots and it went to 75 f same person owns them, become, they're conti because both of these are less 10 l - -- MRS. PULVER-Yes, but, no, this was, we're t lking 50 feet by 75, I think, is what the dimensions was. MR. MASON-Okay, and these are very large 1 ts, lake frontage wise. They aren't even building to anywhere near the capacity of the docks you could build according to the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-It would be my opinion that if the lots exist, the lots exist. don't have to go on. They MRS. PULVER-See, a 50 foot lot would be a n nconforming lot, and if you owned the next lot which was 50 foot which was noncon orming, and you had two nonconforming, tha t ' s when they became one lot, but these ar not nonconforming. MR. MARTIN-If this was one large parcel and y u wanted to draw this line that already exists, then you'd have to go through a va iance procedure and all that, but the lots exist. The line is there. MR. MASON-Well, that line is right there. that line is 63 feet away from the proposed of room on the property for either way you were combined, but we didn't, okay. In case anyone is curious about it, dock. As I say, there's just plenty 'anted to read it. We felt that they MR. HARLICKER-Yes, that's something that I wou d recommend you check into further. MR. MASON-Okay. MRS. TARANA-The one brother that we talked t said that he wants to deed the other parcel to his brother, right? MR. MASON-Yes. There are two brothers and two houses. MRS. TARANA-So, the ti tIe will change on the MR. MASON-Very shortly, what will happen is deed will go on one parcel from Greg and David to just Greg, and the other parce will go from Greg and David to just David, and what they're trying to do, they've ot two houses already on the property. They live in two separate houses, but there s only one dock, and that's in front of the grey house. There's no dock in fro t of the brown house. I think that takes care of many of the questions here, b t let me keep going. The dock will extend 36 feet from the shoreline, but low ater was no shown on the site plan, it was. It's on Page DB3. It shows Mean w Water at 317.74. It takes care of Number Five, that the dock setback, it's g; ing to be fine that way, and as far as the height limitation, the reason we do 't show heights on our boathouses is that I don't know what the definition of Wi ter level is, according to the Town of Queensbury. I've got a problem with tha. Most of the other Ordinances deal with Mean High or Mean Low. Suffice to sa , we can't find a definition of the water level, but the boathouse is less than 2 feet from the surface of the dock. So, unless the water drops two or three feet, we're going to be under 14 feet from any water level as people know it today, but that is a hole in the Ordinance that you may want to address at some point. MR. MARTIN-You may want to consider, as so know you've been before us several times, Planning Office, so that's on record. who deals in this regularly, I a letter to that effect to the MR. MASON-From now on, we'll also do this, we'll so that there's never any question about th t. are less than 14 feet from water level to the op throw 14 feet there to water level, All of these boa thouses, though, of the boathouse. MR. MARTIN-I think that's it, then. That ta es care of the comments. Does anyone else have anything that came to mind? Anyt ing at all? Okay. This is a Type II. I don't believe this requires SEQRA. MRS. TARANA-Just one question, I think we shou d just ask it to get it on the record. Number Eight said that the plan didn't indi ate that the boathouse would be used for anything other than storage of boats or eq ipment. MR. MASON-It will not be used for anything oth r than that. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. All right, then, I'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here to addres the Board regarding this applicant? 11 -- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIIlIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-There's no SEQRA to do, as we indicated earlier, so if someone has a resolution they'd like to offer? NOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-92 DAVID BROliN/GREG BROliN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: For construction of a 36 by 40 U Shaped rock filled crib and bridge dock. Proposed construction of a 25.6 by 32 (w/skirt) open sided boathouse. Dul y adopted this 22nd da y of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pul ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (7:51 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 45-92 'rYPE II fiR-1A lIR. & IIRS. LEE PIKE OIINER: SAllE HILUIAN ROAD, CLEVERDALE PROPOSED 4' X 8' ADDITIONS TO THE ENDS OF EXISTING U-SBAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK; ADDITION OF -r AT END OF EXIS'rING BOATSLIP; ADDITION OF 20' X 23' L-SBAPED ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK; CœSTRUCTIœ OF 36' X 32' (fi/SKIRT) OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. (fiARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-37 SECTION: 179-60 JOHN MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:51 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-92, Mr. & Mrs. Lee Pike, September 18, 1992, Meeting Date: September 22, 1992 "Project Description: The applicant is proposing to build an addition to an existing dock to create a 10' 9" X 32' boats1ip and a new 20' x 23' L-shaped crib and bridge dock. The new dock will be attached to the existing dock. A 32' x 36' open sided boathouse (w/skirt) will cover the 2 boat slips. Project Analysis: The project was compared to the criteria found in Section 179-60 of the Zoning Code concerning docks and moorings. 1. The dock is E-shaped and allowed because there is more than 150' of shoreline. 2. The new dock that is proposed would not extend more than 40' offshore from the low water mark. However, the addition to the existing dock extends the dock to 43' offshore from the mean low water mark thus violating the section which restricts docks to a length of 40' offshore. 3. Both docks conform to the 8' width limitations. 4. At over 1,000 sq. ft. in surface area, the proposal exceeds the 700 sq. ft. limit set in the Zoning Code. 5. The dock is setback only 10' from the property line; the zoning code requires a 20' setback. However, the portion of the dock that is within 20' of the property line is preexisting and is therefore, not an issue. 6. The placement of a dock should not interfere with normal navigation. 7. At 15 1/2' in height, the boathouse exceeds the 14' height limits. 8. It does not appear that the boathouse will be used for any use other than the storage of boats and equipment." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and concurrence of local applicant. we have, condi tions. once again, Okay, and Warren County approving, with we have, again, Mr. Mason for the the MR. MASON-Again, going down through each portion of the Planning C01l/11lents, this one is a little bit different than the last one. This is actual modifications to an existing dock that is already there, and then a new dock being added on, and I think that may be where the confusion is coming in with the Planning Department. It is not an E Shaped dock. Strangely enough it's two U's put together, and while that may appear to be a way to get around an Ordinance, the Lake George Park Commission, through the years, has taken the posi tion tha tit's better for us as applicants to group docks. There's a reason behind that. By putting docks together and allowing us to put an L next to a U, or two U's together, it prevents us from building more and more docks all the way across a parcel. You'd start with a U shaped dock that's on this parcel right now. If they come to us for another four way tie dock, and you don't allow people to group these docks together, you end up with another U shaped dock at the other end of the parcel. This is a discussion that we've had 12 - in front of this Board, in front of the Park Commission, but it always does come up again each time you have one of these grouped. The Park Commission will consider this to be two U shaped docks along a format much like what I'm showing you right here, one dock, and each one of these docks will be under 700 square feet. In fact, one of them is 450 square feet, and one of them is 630 square feet. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I took it as the total of the whole area. MR. MASON-I know right where you're coming from, Scott. this has happened, but I do think the Board should Commission. It's not the first time understand why the Park MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, and I draw attention, though, to a certain Section, the Ordinance seems to be a little tricky here. It says, first of all, E shaped docks shall be allowed only where lots exceed 150 linear feet of shoreline frontage, which this is the case, fine, and then it also says in that Section you're citing for 700 square feet, no F, L, T, or U shaped docks surface area shall exceed 700 square feet. This does not all in that category. This is an E Shaped dock. MR. MASON-That's correct. There is a reason why that's that way. I mean, they were very careful, that Ordinance is constructed the same way the Park Commission Ordinance was constructed, and I'll give you an example why this works to the benefit of the Park Commission, less docks along the property, and they get in extra feet out of the applicants, because they will be charged for two docks from now into history, instead of one E shaped dock. That whole description that we talked about takes care of Number One. MR. MARTIN-I think you're better viewing this, for the sake of making your case, as an E shaped dock rather than two U shaped docks being joined. MR. MASON-If this Board would prefer to do it as an E shaped, that's fine. makes no difference to me. That MR. MARTIN-In ~ mind, it clearly is, speaking for me personally. MRS. TARANA-I don't follow what the difference is between an E shape or two U's put together. How would that plan look different? MR. MASON-There is no difference. This plan is identical to any plan you have ever seen. It is a question of how we interpret the Ordinance. That's all. MR. MARTIN-Right, and I think to interpret this as two U shaped docks joining one another is kind of. MR. MASON-Let me explain to you why I would rather have you, you interpret this as two U' s, we get less docks on Lake George. You interpret this as an E, then the next thing that happens is we have another dock on this property 50 feet away from it. MR. BREWER-What comes in to !!!Jl.. mind is the amount of space that it takes up. If the Ordinance says you can have 700 feet, and you put two U's together, or call them two U's, you can have 900 feet, and still be under the. MR. MASON-But you've put in two docks, and you have, effectively, shut the applicant out from any further dock construction along the property. MR. MARTIN-Right, because it says, feet of lake frontage, 101 to 250 feet, Number of docks allowed is two, whereas if we interpret this as one E shaped dock, then he's allowed a second. MR. BREWER-So, he could have 1400 feet, or he could have, yes, I see what you're saying now. MR. MASON-It's tough being a dock builder and standing up here and saying to you, I'd rather. MR. MARTIN-And then that's why you're saying these are two U shaped docks, neither one exceeds 700 square feet. MR. MASON-Exactl y. MRS. TARANA-One U is already there? MR. MASON-That is correct. 13 - ~ MRS. TARANA-And you're building another U? MR. MASON-That is correct, right next to it. MRS. TARANA-Could you just describe this property? We saw so many docks, I don't remember which property this is. MR. MACEWAN-Corinne, that's the one on the steep hill. Remember walking over to the tree line? MR. MARTIN-Remember, this was the first place we stopped at, where we drove by the house that had the addition put on it that we looked at earlier? Remember we were saying, there's that addition we reviewed? MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. RUEL-Will this be an E or two U's? MRS. TARANA-Two U's. MR. MASON-I can assure you the Park Commission is going to treat it as two U' s. That I can assure you of. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I can understand why. no more docks along this shoreline. If we treat it as two U's, we're saying MR. RUEL-And if you pick it up as an E, then he exceeds the square footage anyway. MR. MARTIN-No. He doesn't exceed the square footage. MR. RUEL-As an E? MR. MASON-No. There's no square footage on an E. MR. MARTIN-No square footage requirement on an E shaped dock. MRS. PULVER-But then he can have another dock. MR. MARTIN-Yes, then he can have another dock, which I think, I'd rather have this be it. MR. MASON-Actually, he couldn't even have another dock, and I'll tell you why he couldn't have another dock, because the Park Commission has a little exclusion that would prevent him from doing it anyway, but your Ordinance. Okay. Number Two, the new dock that is proposed would not extend more than 40 feet, and they talk about 43 feet offshore. I think what's happening is they're measuring the point of this dock along an angle other than perpendicular back to the shore. This dock will not exceed 40 feet from mean low. It's actually less than 40 feet. I think, Scott, you've got to measure from there, right straight out to that point, from the mean low line. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. MASON-If you measure them out at angle you get, of course, much greater dimensions, but it is under 40 feet. At over 1,000 square feet, that's the same issue we discussed a minute ago, and as far as the height is concerned, I'm sorry about the squiggly lines. I know what you are referring to, Scott. That's not the water level, though. We just didn't want to continue. It's just a cut off. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, just a cut off, yes. So, we get back to the same issue as the other dock, is the definition of water level. MR. MASON-That's about five feet below the surface of the dock, those squiggly lines. MR. MARTIN-Well, could you just go on record as saying what the height will be? MR. MASON-Absolutely. The dock will not be more than 14 feet from the water level, at a given period of time, and we will not use the dock for anything other than the storage of boats and associated equipment. 14 '-- ~ MR. MARTIN-Does anybody have anything else they want to question? Again, this is a Type II use. So, we're not going to be looking at a SEQRA Review on this. I don't see anything here, then. He's in compliance with the Ordinance, as far as we can see. However, I would like, I think it would be appropriate to say in any motion that this is going to be it in terms of the docks from this shoreline this property. I think that would be appropriate. MRS. PULVER-Well, we're classifying this as two U shaped docks. MR. MARTIN-That's right. That's what I mean, something to that effect. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here from the public wishing to address the Board regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPElIBD NO COIlJIENP PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAR TIN- If there's no other discussion from the Board, I think we can accept a resolution here for disposition. 1I0TI0I1 PO APPROVE SI'.rB PLAN NO. 45-92 lIR. & lIRS. LEE PIICB, Introduced by Carol Pu1 ver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Rue1: For one U shaped dock as presented on the drawings, 9/22/92, and the addition of another U shaped dock which will be attached to, as well as a boathouse, 36 feet by 32 feet, wi th a skirt, and to be open sided. Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Rue1, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (8:05 p.m.) SI'.rB PLAN NO. 46-92 WPE: UlfLIS7!ED NCR OF (}UEElISBURY HOUSING DEV. FUlfD CO., INC. OfiliER: J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. LOCA'1!IOI1: NORm OF 1UfN0R DR., EASP OF FARR LANE NEW CONS'l!RUC'1!ION OF fWO SPORY SR. CIPIZEIl APP. CONPAINING 41 IJIIELLING UNI'l'S, COIIIIUlfI'l!Y ROCfI, AND 0rIIER ACCESSORY SPACES INCLUDING RBLA7!ED SI'.rB DEVELOPIlElIP. RR-3AjllR-5 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-22.2 LOP SIZE: 5.0 ACRES SECPION: 179-15, 179-18 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8: 05 p. m. ) SPAFF INPUP Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-92, NCR of Queensbury Housing Dev. Fund Co., September 16, 1992, Meeting Date: September 22, 1992 "The Board is familiar with this project as the property was recently re-zoned and subdivided. The proposed use is for a Senior Citizens apartment complex of 41 units. The SEQRA for the project was complete by the Town Board during the re-zoning process and all conditions have been met. The plan indicates that 32 parking spaces will be provided. Since a Senior complex is not an identified use per the parking schedule, the Board has to determine how much parking will be necessary. The staff contacted the Glens Falls Housing Authority to find out what local standards are. Mr. De1Signor, the director, stated that the location of the facility is the critical factor. Stichman Towers which is located in downtown Glens Falls only needs 40 parking spaces for 80 units, however, in areas outside the core, the ratio would have to go up due to the need for transportation. It would appear that the 3/4 ratio proposed would be sufficient with the GFTA buses servicing the site on a regular basis. Also, the Sokol's plaza is in relatively close proximity which would provide goods and services. The Board could make a condition that more parking will be provided as needed since there is sufficient acreage to provide such. 1. The location, arrangement and size of the building is compatible with the area and the site. It is larger than the other apartment buildings in the area, however, sufficient screening should be provided to the south, west and north to limit any concerns. The subdivision plat indicated limited clearing which should be adhered to. The site plan does not indicate the same clearing limits. This should be clarified as the subdivision does show distinct clearing limits which protect the Seniors and the neighbors and creates a pleasant atmosphere. The site plan shows a re-p1anting schedule which replaces large treed areas with 3 five foot high white pines. The 15 "-- -- staff strongly recommends that as much natural vegetation and mature trees remain on the site as possible. Since it is expedient to clear cut an area it should be clearly stated in the motion that trees 6 inches or more within 25 feet of the south and west property line should be maintained. To the east, everything east of the proposed septic fields should be left natural. Outside lighting does not appear to be an issue. Two light poles are indicated at the parking area and entrance road. Signage should be in conformance with the Town of Queensbury sign ordinance. 2. Vehicular access on site is reasonable. 3. Off street parking sufficiency is an issue for the Board to discuss. 4. Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. The engineer will comment on the adequacy of storm drainage facilities. 6. The engineer will comment on the adequacy of the sewage and water systems. 7. Buffering and screening has already been commented upon. 8. Emergency access to the structure will be from Farr Lane which will be an improved town road. 9. The Board should state in the motion that all standards in Section 179-65 (Erosion Control) be strictly adhered to." ElfGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, September 22, 1992, "Dear Mr. Parisi: Rist Frost has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments. 1. Proposed contours 475 and 474 shown for the SWM detention basin southwest of the entrance drive incorrectly tie-in to existing contours. 2. Proposed grading for the SWM detention basin south of the building complex needs to be adjusted to provide at least 1.5 feet of depth in the basin to prevent stormwater from migrating south onto adjoining property. 3. Sediment and erosion control as required during construction, should be stipulated. At a minimum, the plans should have a note referring to New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 4. Zoning Ordinance 1 79-66C. requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. A total of 82 required parking spaces for the 41 dwelling units proposed results. 32 spaces are proposed. Has the project received a variance from zoning Ordinance parking requirements? 5. The proposed SWM detention basins north, east and west of the parking area are very close to the paved area. Snow removal practices that do not interfere with the proposed SWM basins should be addressed. 6. The SWM design concept relies upon a rapid infiltration rate which is characteristic of subsoils. Topsoil and grass placed over these soils to create lawn areas would reduce infiltration rates. It should be addressed how design infiltration capacity of the SWM basin surfaces will be maintained. 7. Depth of burial for water services should be a minimum of 5 feet. 8. Fire hydrants and fire hydrant valves should be anchored to the water main at a tee branch outlet. The arrangement of water main pipe and fittings at the entrance drive should be revised. " MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have someone here from the applicant. MR. STEVES-Hi. architect. My name is Leon Steves, and with me tonight is Bob Kurzon the MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I guess we can start with the staff comments, and I guess that would be the parking. I know we've dealt with this in the past. When the Board's looked at senior citizen housing before it's been an acknowledged or accepted fact tha t ma ybe the parkin g schedule, like we're callin g for two for each dwelling unit. As Tom touches upon in his notes, maybe that's not exactly what we need in this case. So, we can waive that and reduce it. It's just a matter of agreeing upon what might be an appropriate number. MRS. PULVER-Well, they have the ability to put in more parking. National Churches doesn't feel that they need it, from past practices, from what we have had. BOB KURZON MR. KURZON-I'm Bob Kurzon. Mr. Smith has appeared before you previously when the project was proposed over in Cline Meadow. He prepared this particular survey that I'm presenting to you of National Church Residents senior projects, generally in the Northeast, giving the number of apartments and the number of cars, on the average projects which are all identical in constituency to the proposed project. On the average, we're running about 45 and a half percent cars to apartments. In other words, 41 apartments, you'd have roughly 20 cars owned by occupants, and that's borne out in our own experience. we've constructed, well, something over 3,000 units of HUD 202 housing, which is a sponsorship of this project, and that very very typically is borne out, a little more suburban, a little less urban, and pointing out that the residents of the project will not have incomes in excess of 80 percent of median. YOu begin to understand why there are so few cars, especially among seniors. We've found that the ratio 75 percent, given staffing and resident cars, proves to be more than adequate. 16 '- --- MRS. PULVER-well, I don't have a problem with it, because we have to remember what we're dealing with, which are seniors, which are, you know, often have disabilities, can't see, don't drive, and if they do drive, the repairs, if they have an older car, repairs come up, they can't, they're living in this type of housing that's already subsidized. They can't afford the car. The car is the first thing that goes. MR. KURZON-One thing that I do want to point out, which really ties in to the later comments made in regard to stormwater management. We will be moving, or mildly adjusting the location of stormwater management basins on the site, so that snow plowing doesn't fill them, and that in turn will provide future back up, if by some remote chance additional parking is needed, so the provision will be built into the site plan, and we recognize that need. MR. MARTIN-Have you made any provision for handicapped parking? MR. KURZON-Yes, absolutely. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Now, is that something, in your experience with senior citizen housing, the number may go up, as a result of this? MR. KURZON-It's an interesting question. We're required, by Code, to provide no less than the number of handicapped, or spaces equivalent to no less than the handicapped parkings in the building, which would be two. In fact, most likely we will have five on this project. Provision is rather easily made, and I don't know that we designated, in fairness. It's typically been done on an adhoc basis. If you have handicap over and above Code requirements, you make provision for them and you provide for them. MR. MARTIN-Would you then have a problem with the Board specifying a specific number or five, then? MR. KURZON-No, not in the least. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, that gives us a little background history, here, data regarding the parking. It looks like something typically in the approximately 40 or 45 percent, somewhere in that range on the average. know if that helps the Board at all. What's everybody's feeling? Do to set a number now, or hold off until the end? and some range of I don't you want MRS. PULVER-I believe what they have proposed is probably adequate, and leave it open that when there is the need, obviousl y, if there are more cars, they're not going to be thrown around on the street, that they do put in the additional parking, which I'm sure they will, and I just know from my own research, tha t probabl y the day they open, and they have it fully occupied, they'll only have 20 cars, 41 units, they'll have about 20 cars, and then it goes downhill from there. MR. KURZON-You're quite correct. MR. MARTIN-How does everyone else feel? MRS. TARANA-What if they have guests? Where do the guests park? MRS. PULVER-Well, they still have 32 parking spaces, but they won't all be fully, you know, everybody doesn't have a guest on the weekend. MR. KURZON-Although I hesitate to stick my two cents into this, sadly, in a great number of instances, there are significantly fewer visitors than we would like to see, and we found, typically, that a ratio of two thirds to three quarters, other than on the day that there's a ribbon cutting or a dedication of the building, winds up being much, much more than sufficient, including staff, social service visitors, and indeed visitors to residents of the apartments. MRS. PULVER-We'd like to believe it's different than that, but, unfortunately it is that way. MR. KURZON-I would like to, too, but unfortunately it's not. The saddest statistic is a project that we did, completed a year and a half ago in Albany, we have a ratio of one to one. It's 24 units and it's 24 parking spaces. There are four cars in residents, and on a Sunday, which is the most active time, I've counted, because I've been over there, as many as six visitors. 17 - -../ MRS. TARANA-If it should happen that they need more parking spaces, who's going to be made aware of that? How would that work? MR. KURZON-We11, let me take a step back. National Church Residences, which is the housing arm of Northern Baptist Convention, has developed over the years, in round numbers, about 10,000 units of senior housing, and obviously their track record is good. We've done a number of projects for them, and in fairness, they're very, very, very responsive to the needs of their residents. MR. MARTIN-So, they'd be responsible for the installation of new spaces? MR. KURZON-Abso1ute1y. MRS. TARANA-So, the procedure would be that the residents would that the residents would have to request of NCR? I mean, I'm thinking practically of how it would work. MR. KURZON-I think it works more like this, there's a resident manager always in the building. He's always tuned in to what the residents are thinking, what the particular needs are, and in the nonprofit housing sector, there's an inclination, always, a commitment, really, to meet the needs of your residents. They're not deaf to that. Quite the contrary. They want seniors to be comfortable, to be happy, to have their needs satisfied, and there's no hesitation, certainly, in providing for those needs. I can speak to that from personal experience. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody we get into the other issues? be handicapped accessible? have any further comment regarding parking, before So, we're saying 32 spaces, five of which would MR. KURZON-That's certainly appropriate to this particular project. MR. MARTIN-Is that agreeable to everyone? MRS. TARANA-Yes, and I'm sure whoever is managing it is going to be aware, and as long as there's room for, if they have one of those visiting buses, you know, that comes and picks up people and all that sort of thing, and the management is going to have to determine that, I assume. MR. BREWER-How many staff are going to be there? MR. KURZON-There would be a full time resident staff person or couple. Typically on the basis of two to three days a month management relating to rents and financial oversight, is at the project. The remaining staff, if you will, is social service staff, which typically comes from county or local agencies. MR. MARTIN-Was the intention to have the transportation authority buses drive right to the site? MR. KURZON-Not necessarily. The typical arrangement has been with the local senior service center or senior service providing agency to pick up, have small vans to pick. MR. MARTIN-Because my obvious question is the turning radiuses exist for a transportation authority bus in the parking lot. MR. KURZON-For a large bus, yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody else have anything on parking, then? I want to clearly state, though, here in the record that I think it's appropriate for the Board to say that we're deviating only from the parking schedule in lieu of the fact that this is a special need situation for the senior housing, and it's a recognized fact that the demand is lower. Otherwise, we would be sticking to the schedule. Okay. Anything else in the staff comments there? MR. STEVES-I would like to address some of the staff comments, especially about the clearing limits. MR. MARTIN-You're talking about Comment Number One, Leon, in the Planning Office notes? I just want to be specific. 18 -- MR. STEVES-Screening should be provided to the south, west and north. To the south, although this land ownership is all Buck Bryan's today, he's intending to convey this to the Church Residency, and as you notice, this 28 foot strip is there to give him more protection from his own buildings, and all the land in back of the barns and garages back here is all brush now, treed and brush. So, really you've got a 28 foot buffer right there on Buck's property, as well as whatever is occurring on our property. OVer here, perhaps, the property limit of construction could be modified to draw this one line and continue it straight over, so that includes this entire strip that will be a no touch strip, if you will. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. STEVES-Which would help considerably to maintain the buffer that's there. MR. BREWER-The 78 feet. You said how much? MR. STEVES-It's 28 feet wide. MR. BREWER-Twenty eight, and then you've got the fifty from the edge of this line to the buildin g. MR. STEVES-To the building, yes, but there will be some disturbance in there because of the retention area that has to be defined. Again, that's probably a technical question or one that could be overcome with the engineer on the site, but perhaps a blade could just be tipped in there and dug out, because it's only going to go down to elevation 474. It's only a foot and a half down, and if he just tipped it down and just. MR. MARTIN-You're talking about a small swale, really. MR. STEVES-That's all, and then leave the trees around it. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. KURZON-I have discussed that particular issue with Tom Yarmowich, and certainly we have, not only no difficulty, but we're perfectly happy to adjust the dimensions and depth of the stormwater management system, so that we preserve as much natural buffer as we can possibly preserve. MR. MARTIN-Well, maybe we'll make that a point in our resolution. MR. KURZON-It' s a technical issue that I think we have to resolve with engineer. Here's how much we can realisticall y do. We will need to disturb roughl y wi thin 25 feet of the building, just for movement of equipment for construction beyond that. Certainly I not only have no objection, I would much like to preserve everything that's there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Okay. Last week we talked, briefly, about that Blue Carner Butterfly, and the plant that they land upon. One of the sites, there's three sites in particular, one is right here next to the building. There's not much we can do about that, except perhaps try to pick it up with a backhoe and move it to the back end of the site. The second one is right here, right adjacent to the septic system, which may be a little bit too close to it. So, that it would be easier to move the septic system over. That's what we're proposing to do is move it this way. There's plenty of room. There's no problem. That way it will protect that plant. The third area is back here in an undisturbed area completely. A letter has been sent to DEC addressing this, telling them of the three areas that we found the plant, our suggestion of moving this one over. Also the suggestion of maybe taking a brush hog in here, cutting down the larger vegetation, opening it up more for the plan t itself to grow, en co ura ge growth in tha t area, so tha t the ba ck of the area then would be a good place for the. MR. MARTIN-And what was DEC'S reaction to that? MR. STEVES-I don't know. I just sent the letter out. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. KURZON-On a couple of related issues, I don't know if this Board is aware of it. There has been a full archeological dig, level II shovel sampling of the site, 19 -- which this Board mayor may not be aware that roughly a third of a mile to the northwest and a third of a mile to the northeast are archeological si tes, not surprisingly, and perhaps to the disappointment of the archeologists who were involved, there are no artifacts on the site, and there's been a declaration of no impact from the State Preservation Office. I'd also like to just briefly, the comments from Mr. Yarmowich at Rist-Frost, and if I can. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, we're done with the Staff Notes, then. MR. KURZON-I believe so, unless there are comments that you have, or questions that you have. I'd be more than happy to answer them. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, we'll go through and we'll see, again, if anybody has anything. Okay. Go on to the engineering comments, then. MR. KURZON-The first one, there is a drafting error on the drawings, and that will be corrected. I don't know what happened. MR. STEVES-That's very simple. be changed to 475 and 476. The two contours here, 474 and 475, should just MR. KURZON-Grading at the stormwater management retention basin at the south, Leon touched on it, should be increased to a depth of a foot and a half. That's certainly nothing unusual, and it doesn't present any problem. We're very much agreeable. The specifications for the project, in regard to Item Number Three, make reference to erosion and sediment control. That's not been presented to this Board, but that, in fact, is incorporated in the technical aspects of the project. MR. MARTIN-Number Four's already been taken care of. MR. KURZON-That's been addressed. As I indicated very, very briefly, to provide for expansion of parking, we will make a technical adjustment to the stormwater management area to the north, to the east, and, well, to the east not for parking, and to the west so that snow removal doesn't interfere, and in fact, we addressed the potential need for additional parking on the site, should that ever come about. We certainly want to be, not only cooperative, permissive. We don't want to get in our own way. Item Number Six does indeed rely on rapid infiltration, but in our stormwater management report we've taken into consideration already the fact that the detention or recharge basins will be grassed and infiltration rates at those locations will be lowered or lessened from the very high percolation rate that currently exists on the site. Number Seven, no question, water service has to be five feet. I think it's just not indicated on the details. Finally, the comments in regard to fire hydrant and location of water main piping will be revised. I certainly have no difficulty at all with the comments that were made. We discussed this over the phone. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anyone have any questions? MRS. just even TARANA-I just want to go back to the parking. YOU sort of referred to it then. If you had to, lets sa y all these people have cars and visitors and if it's not likely. Where would you put the extra spaces? MR. KURZON-What we're going to do is, there's a stormwater management basin here and here. We'll change the configuration of it. I'm not sure you have access to the site plan. The access drive comes in this kaYo There's a loop to permit fire engines, buses, trucks and the like, to make an appropriate radius. There's no parking currently scheduled to the north of the parking lot, and there's no parking currently designed to the southwest of the parking lot, and those areas wuld be reserved for future parking. In fact, because we've already designed it and worked our way back to what we have here, those two areas alone would be sufficient to accommodate another 18 cars, bringing the total up to 50. So, yes, they will be held in reserve. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anyone have anything else? MR. BREWER-Just a thought. Do you have a picture of what this building is going to look like at all? MR. KURZON-Not with me. I can forward one, I'd be happy to. MR. BREWER-I was just curious, if you ha ve it or not. MR. KURZON-I'm trying to think of the closest project that bears. 20 -- -- MR. MARTIN-There's one in Saratoga. MR. BREWER-Is it going to be brick? MR. KURZON-There' s one up in Whitehall. MR. MARTIN-They're not very interesting buildings. I know that. MR. KURZON-This one's a little more interesting, actually. MR. BREWER-IS it brick, or is it wood? MR. KURZON-It's L shaped, no, it will be vinyl siding. I wish the U.s. Department of Housing would let us put brick on buildings, but they're cost containment guidelines say very modest construction. Perhaps the nearest one similar to this is in the Town of Halfmoon, sponsored by the Alban y Diocese. Tha t ' s about four or five years old. There are a number of scattered around, and I'd be happy to provide a list, locations, pictures. MR. BREWER-Maybe just a picture, if it's not a problem. I'd be curious as to what it's going to look like, that's all. It's not a necessity. MRS. PUL VER- It's goin g to be very pla in. MR. KURZON-I'd like to say that it's extraordinary architecture, but in fact, it's very, very decent housing, and it does it's job. It's certainly not offensive, but publishable, no. MRS. TARANA-Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering about the interior. Is it designed specifically for seniors who might have handicaps, railings and that sort of thing? MR. KURZON-Yes. In fact, just parenthetically, this building will have an elevator capable of accommodating a stretcher, an ambulance stretcher. All apartments are handicapped adaptable, and in fact, lets see, HUD requirements have changed. We're still providing 10 percent of the apartments as handicapped accessible, another two percent prepared for or capable of being adapted to hearing impaired. They have grab bars in all the bathrooms, a full fire alarm protecting system, an emergency call system, an intercom system, cable t.v., a safety system. I mentioned the handrails in the corridors, an entire arra y of features Ptilich the seniors find, handicapped accessibility aside, very, very, enabling, very accommodating, and over the years, this is really what you do without making the building truly an institution, which it's not. This is for independent living. The idea, which really has only been promoted in the last couple of years, is to try and maintain independent living and an independent life-style for seniors, as long as is feasibly practical, which is one of the reasons for building in all of these particular features in a project. We really want it to be their home for absolutely as long as possible. MRS. PULVER-And these people, they will become volunteers in the community. MRS. TARANA-I am well aM'ire. I have a client that's senior citizen. MRS. PULVER-They won't just be sitting in their rooms, hopefully. MR. KURZON-No, they don't. MRS. TARANA-What I was getting to is, obviously, when they go in, they may have one degree of being able to M'ilk and all that, and that changes, and I just wondered, just out of curiosity, what you did. MR. KURZON- It's certainl y a good question. history, quite some years ago now, 12, 14 which is 190 units, Parkview Apartments. age was roughly 66, 67 years old, now, 15, above 75. Just to give you a little bit more years ago we did a project in Albany, When that building opened, the average 14 years later, the average age is well MR. MARTIN-Not to be a butterfly in the ointment, here, Leon, no pun intended, what are we going to do about this no DEC approval of moving these habitats and doing this SEQRA? 21 '--..... --- MR. STEVES-My understanding of it is that DEC is very happy that they have another site identified. I haven't heard anything more than that. That's what Lee told me. I did write this letter. "Enc10sed is the subdivision plans of lands of J. Buckley Bryan who is planning to sell the five acre lot to National Church Residences of Queensbury Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., and also construct a road between the five acre lot and Farr Lane. As you know, Betty Monahan, Margo Burl and I inspected the five acre site and the road in search of the plant Lupine. Several young plants were found, mostly along paths on the north and east end of the said site, and these locations are depicted upon the architect's site plan." The three sites I was telling you about. "We intend moving the tile field south so as not to disturb the adjacent area. However, the site adjacent to the building is to close to protect. So, here we propose re-p1anting of these plants to a spot near the northeast end of the property, where perhaps a brush hog could improve and enhance the area to encourage growth. As this project is scheduled for fall start of construction, anything you can do for us will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, and that's dated September 21st. MR. KURZON-At present, it's not an identified Carner Blue Butterfly preserve site. In effect what we're saying is, Lupine exists. That doesn't mean that the butterfly exist here, that we will make every accommodation, obviously pending DEC response, to preserve the potential for habitat on the site. Dhfortunately, DEC, as we know, is not especially responsive, in terms of timing, but I certainly think it's fair, for this Board, as we must, since it's a federally funded project, to adhere to any stipulations that DEC may make in regard to the development of the site. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I just wanted to, does anybody have any other questions before we get into the SEQRA? MR. BREWER-We don't have to do the SEQRA, do we? MR. HARLICKER-It' s my understanding that SEQRA was completed by the ToM'1 Board during the re-zoning process. MRS. PULVER-That was for the re-zoning only, though. MR. BREWER-Yes, but we went through this before, and what was the last project we did, with Diehl, Charles Diehl. We didn't have to do another SEQRA, did we? MRS. PULVER-Yes, we did. MR. BREWER-No, we didn't. MR. STEVES-I think that the Staff Notes addressed that. MR. HARLICKER-Right, in the second paragraph. MR. STEVES-"The SEQRA for the project was completed by the ToM'1 Board during the re-zoning process and all conditions have been met." MR. BREWER-Right. So, we don't have to. I don't believe we did do another one for Charles Diehl project. We all thought we had to, but I don't think we did. MR. KURZON-If I could make life a little easier for you, under coordinated review, which is required for any federally funded action, I don't want to say DEC has 'Ñ5lived its rights, but they had both the opportunity and in fact the statutory obligation to comment in regard to SEQRA within the 30, or is it 60 day review period under comprehensive review, and there were, at least in so far as the Zoning Board is concerned, no comments received, in which case the Zoning Board not only has the right, but the obligation to serve as lead agency, based on information that they received from allied agencies, and perhaps that speaks to the particular issue. MRS. PULVER-But how could they do the SEQRA, when it comes to the point, are there é;lny endangered species or whatever on the site? How could they answer no to that, on the re-zonin g, I mean. MR. MARTIN-My only question, and this is a question we had before, is the SEQRA done on the re-zoning is the environmental impact of the re-zoning as an action. That re-zoning never takes into account the specific project. MR. STEVES-They did, on this case. 22 '-- ...-' MR. HARLICKER-They do. You're not like that, under SEQRA. It's got review of the project, even if it's supposed to break a project into separate parts to be done under a comprehensive review of the done under re-zoning. MRS. PULVER-But not every re-zoning has a potential project in place. MR. HARLICKER-Right, but in this case, there was. MR. BREWER-Is Paul over in his office? MR. MARTIN-He's here. Paul, we've got a question on the age old SEQRA Review when done for re-zoning, and SEQRA Review now when the actual project's before the Planning Board for site plan review. We're talking about National Church Residence, the Buckley Bryan project. The Town Board did the SEQRA Review, did it, and found a negative declaration, as a result of the re-zoning. It's here in our staff comments that a SEQRA Review by this Board is not necessary because that suffices for the entire project, and we just want to confirm that that is, in fact, the case. We dealt with this question last time on the Diehl re-zoning. PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-Just kind of looking through it here. Obviously, the bottom line is, it has to do, you know, you look at the actual resolutions that were adopted, and the. MR. MARTIN-I understand, it's the staff's understanding, in this case, the SEQRA Review was pretty much project specific, taking into account the re-zoning and the ultimate construction of the. MR. DUSEK-If it was. See, there's two ways, when you have these type of projects, there's two ways it can be done. It can be done that the SEQRA Review is done entirely up front for everything and that is, in fact, encouraged under the law, to the extent that you can do that. The other way you can do it, though, is g:JU can break apart the SEQRA process into the re-zoning, and then later, a site plan or subdivision review stage, but you have to have some really good reasons to do that, and that's generally discouraged by the courts, because then what you're doing is biforcating the process, and they don't like to see that, because they figure if you're going to g:J through it once, you should do the whole thing. with regard to re-zonings of the nature where you're going to have one small, specific project, I have generally recommended to the Town that they do one SEQRA Review for everything. Where you're having a major development, re-zoning like say a large area that ultimately will have maybe two or three subdivisions in it, or different projects, then it seems to me it may be worthwhile to do two separate, because probably they don't know what's going to happen doftll the line. So, like I say, either one, conceivably, could be legal. In this particular case, it really turns on the resolutions that were adopted in the beginning, and that's the only thing, I'm hesitating a little bit because I can't remember the exact wording of those resolutions, and whether or not they did provide for a SEQRA Review altogether. MR. MARTIN-I'm pretty sure they did in this particular case. MR. DUSEK-If they did, then this Board would abide by that SEQRA Review, unless you had new information that was not available at the time, or not presented at the time, upon which a SEQRA Review was EE! done, that gives concern to you now, that you feel that ma y be a potential impact, because I think you then have the opportunity to g:J back into the SEQRA process. That's a very narrow exception. It's not an automatic thing to do a full SEQRA. You have to have a reason. It can't have been there before, and it has to be something that's important, but that's assuming, like I say, the initial resolution's all treated it together or not Like I say, we've done so many of these over the past couple of years. For me to stand here before you and tell you, I can remember that this is an entire project, it's kind of difficult unless I look at these resolutions. MR. MAR TIN- RÍ ght. I understand. MRS. PULVER-Well, Leon, would you just read, again, what Number Five was, on your paper, as far as the butterfly, and the Lupine. MR. MARTIN-I just want to make sure that we're. MRS. PULVER-Yes. They made a stipulation for that. MR. DUSEK-I'll just take a look and maybe see if Scott has anything. 23 '- .......; MR. STEVES-Number Five. It was hereby amended and re-zoned to an MR-5, Multifamily residential zone, one dwelling uni t for every 5,000 square feet, wi thin the zone subject to the conditions which shall be generally as follows. MRS. PULVER-Right. That's what I want to know. MR. STEVES-All right. Five, all practical steps shall be taken to identify and preserve or enhance, to the extent practical, the habi ta ts, if an y, of endangered animals or plants on the premises. MRS. PULVER-Which they have done. protect. Oka y. They have identified, promised to move and MR. MARTIN-Lets just see what Paul comes up with. I think we're going to be all right on this, but I just want to be sure. MR. DUSEK-Scott doesn't have enough information here, in terms of the previous resolutions that were adopted. Like I say, they may have very well treated it as an entire project. It's very possible that they did. I just can't, personally, recollect. MR. MARTIN-Well, wouldn't it, even in this Whereas, Paul, it says, Whereas the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been informed by Mr. Bryan, Jr. that he would be interested in pursuing a re-zoning of only part of the property, afore described, in a size of approximately five plus or minus acres, so that the aforesaid 41 unit HUD Senior Citizens residential complex could be constructed. I mean, that's citing the specific development project, right there. MR. DUSEK-But it doesn't answer the SEQRA question, as to how they did the review. Are we under a time frame here of some kind? MR. STEVES-No, I don't think so. I think what they did, they reviewed the entire site of 28 acres, originally, for a re-zoning, and it was my understanding, a lot of people from the neighborhood, on Fox Farm, didn't want that much traffic coming out there, and so everybody pulled back and said, all right, this is really what we're interested in, this five acre site. Why don't we just re-zone this five acre site and Buck Bryan said, fine. That's fine with me. MR. DUSEK-That's no question. I agree that that happened, as far as the re-zoning. MR. STEVES-So then, in doing that, the staff has attached a resolution amending the Zoning Ordinance. This document allowed for a negative declaration under specific conditions. These conditions include, and those were the conditions I was reading there. MR. MARTIN-So, you think we're okay without doing a? MR. DUSEK-The lawyer in me tells me, like I would recommend to any other client, go back and look at your papers before you give a solid response. It may be, Jim, but I don't want to mislead the Board and sa y, I guarantee there's no problems, because what I would do is I would go back and look at the beginning resolutions. I'd look at the SEQRA resolutions, and I'd kind of just follow the chain of paperwork forward to see if, in fact, it was a SEQRA Review that covered your Board's function as well, and it might not even say it right in the paperwork. It might not say, for instance, this covers the Planning Board SEQRA Review, or the Planning Board will not do a SEQRA Review. I doubt very much if you'd see that, but when you read through the paperwork, you get a feel as to whether the review was of such a na ture, more than a feel, I mean, there'll be enough there to show me whether or not it was of such a nature to do the entire review. I can say this much, I mean, from what Leon says, it was a five acre parcel, etc., most likely they probably did do the entire review. MR. MARTIN-Scott, who prepared these notes, was it you or Lee? MR. HARLICKER-Lee did. MR. MARTIN-Okay, because her second paragraph is pretty well. MRS. TARANA-Are they going to get something from DEC about the butterfly? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's why I was asking about that letter. a response back. He's going to get 24 '---" ....,./ MRS. TARANA-Do we have to wait for that response to come back? MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what I was wondering. MR. BREWER-ENCON has no sighting of the butterfly there. that the butterfly. They found the plant MR. MARTIN-What's that you have, Leon, there? IS that the resolution on the SEQRA? MR. STEVES-It's the SEQRA itself. MR. DUSEK-Well, it's the SEQRA form, but there's not the resolution approving the SEQRA or starting the SEQRA process here. MR. MARTIN-But the listed project on the SEQRA form is the housing development, right, the project description? MR. DUSEK-Yes. No question that it's dealing with the. MR. MARTIN-Okay, then they did, then, they would have to. MR. DUSEK-There's only one way I could give you a guarantee, and that's to go through the records and look at them. I can tell you that chances are it probably would be because it's a small project, but I'm only guessing until I actually see the paperwork. MR. MAR TIN- I understand. For me, persona11 y, since it's here in the Staff Notes, and now with that, I feel comfortable with the review that was done. MR. STEVES-This came from Staff Notes, incidentally. That's where I got it. MR. MARTIN-Oka y. Does an ybody else ha ve an yother question? Well, I'll open the public hearing on this project. Is there anyone here in the public to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COlI1ŒNT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-How does everyone else feel about the SEQRA process? MRS. PULVER-I, like you, feel comfortable with it if Lee usually does not miss that. MR. MARTIN-Roger, do you feel okay with that? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Corinne? MRS. TARANA-Yes. I think that's okay, but if Paul's got a problem with it, if he thinks he should review it, I mean, I think that we should let him review it. MR. DUSEK-Just so you know, I'm not saying I have a problem with it. I'm just saying I can't give you an opinion. You're asking me for an opinion, as to whether, I don't have enough information to render what I feel comfortable with, in terms of an opinion, just by looking at this, and my personal recollection just isn't there on this project, in terms of the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-I think Lee has investigated it. I have faith in that, that she has investigated it and probably it's not necessary. MR. MARTIN-Craig, do you have any thought? MR. MACEWAN-I agree with what Tim and Carol said. MRS. PULVER-She just doesn't miss those things. 25 -- -/ MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, if that's the majority feeling here, or the consensus, I agree also. Do you think we can move this to the point of disposition tonight? I don't see anything here that's of such a nature that a tabling would be requested for further review by the engineer or anything like that. I think these are things that can be mostly dealt with by notations, unless something jumps out as a condi tion . MR. BREWER-The only condition that I know of is 32 parking spaces, five handicapped. MR. MARTIN-Yes, 32 and five are handicapped accessible. MRS. TARANA-The mature trees. MR. MACEWAN-Well, what's the situation with the butterfly and the flowers and the plants, as far as your letter that you wrote to DEC? MR. STEVES-Well, it was dated the 21st. MR. MACEWAN-And you haven't heard a reply from them yet? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MARTIN-They probably just got it. MR. KURZON-If indeed ENCON responds, we will adhere to whatever their wishes are. We have a desire to do that because this is, in part, a Federal action. We would be obligated to respond to them appropriately. So, whatever might be required, over and above what Leon stated, which we're just going to do as a matter of course, whatever else might be required, certainly we would be obligated to address. The project doesn't move ahead without that happening. MR. STEVES-I talked with Al Koechlein before we looked at the site, and asked him to renew the parties tha t were visi tin g the si te and he did. He did sa y he'd be surprised to find anything out there. MR. MARTIN-I remember that they were pleasantly surprised to find that the lupine was in existence there. MR. STEVES-Exactly, and I did ask him who, ultimately, has the final say in this, and I don't know if he knew that, but he thought that perhaps he did. So, that's vily I addressed the letter to him. MR. MACEWAN-But the letter that you sent to DEC, was that a proposal to them to relocate these plants and things? MR. STEVES-Yes, it was. MR. MACEWAN-What would happen if they said they didn't like your proposal and they didn't want them touched? MR. STEVES-I don't know. Would the entire project come to a halt because of that? I don't know. I really don't. MR. MACEWAN-Because one of them is directly involved you said, right where your exca va tion ' s goin g to be? MR. STEVES-It's too close to be protected. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. you said the other two you could work around. that one, they say, don't touch it? What happens if MR. STEVES-You got me. MR. KURZON-Well, I'm going to stick my two cents in. I've had a little, maybe not the most pleasant experience with lupine and Carner Blues down toward Albany, and it appears, and I'm saying this just for ~ information. Apparently, the way stations need to be roughly 3/Bths to a quarter mile apart. My suspicion is that, if indeed DEC responds, that they will be more than happy with our active, or rather aggressive posture in preserving the potential habitat, and again I stress it's potential habitat. We don't know if it's Carner Blue habitat, but there is lupine there. I can't speak to the future, but certainly insofar as that particular si tuation is concerned, we have every intention, this is both personall y and for NCR, to take every measure short of shutting down the project, obviously, to a ccommoda te 26 '-- - whatever natural but my suspicion proposin g. resources there may be on the site. I can't predict the future, is that they'll be delighted rather than critical of what we're MR. MARTIN-Oka y. Does anybody have anything else. MRS. TARANA-When are you anticipating beginning the project? MR. KURZON-There are two outstanding items, approvals, required. One is DEC, in regard to septic system. That was submitted in August to DEC. I can't tell you the status of it, but based on our review and I'm certain you know the people, Tom Nace of Haanen Engineering is actually doing the engineering work on the septic system. That approval is required, and then final approval by u.S. Department of HUD for the project. Taking a step back, the funds are committed, or obligated to the project by HUD and in fact it is technical processing which has to take place, and is in process. I haven't spoken with HUD in roughly a week, in regard to the progress, but they are, by all telling, extraordinarily desirous of having the project in the ground this fall. Today being the second day of fall, the first day of fall. MR. MARTIN-So, you're looking at, in the next 60 days, breaking ground? MR. KURZON-I would trust, all of the approvals pending. Those are really the only two major stumbling blocks for a project we've been dreaming about for three and a half years. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? I think we can move to a point of disposition, then, maybe, with some conditions. Does anyone have a resolution they'd like to offer? lIOTION '1'0 APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-92 NCR OF OUUNSBURY HOUSING DlfV. FUND CO., INC., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a 41 unit apartment complex with the following stipulations. That there be 32 parking spaces, five of which will be handicapped. That future parking will be put in place as needed. That all the engineering notes be addressed in the Rist-Frost letter dated september 22nd, 1992. That trees six inches or more within 25 feet of the south and west property line should be maintained, with the exception of the area which will be disturbed by the detention area, to be submitted to the Planning Office by October 6th at 2 p.m. Duly adopted this 22nd day of september, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (9:09 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Everyone, I think, got a note from Pam Whiting today, a request, I guess she's saying from Paul Dusek, requesting a discussion on the Sherman pines project, and we could hear it at eight o'clock. So, you've got the information there. I think Paul can bring us up to speed as to what the specific issues are regarding this. MR. DUSEK-This shouldn't take very long, and Wilson, if I say anything wrong, please correct me, but Wilson contacted me, what was it, last week some time, or maybe the week before even, and he asked me a question about the resolution that you had adopted, given the final approval to the Sherman Pines subdivision, this is Mr. Diehl's subdivision, and in the resolution that you adopted, you indicated that, it says, well, it starts off, it says that the letter of Rist-Frost dated July 17th, that all comments be addressed. These were the conditions. Second, that these comments also be added to the motion, which is that, Mr. Diehl has the responsibili ty to inform all contractors/builders, prior to construction, that 50 percent shall be the affordable housing things and 50 percent will be another issue. The question that arose in regard to that language is, what if Mr. Diehl should sell the subdivision? Would he still be obligated to notify the contractors if that event happened, and as I understand it, it's not that you're saying it will or won't happen, at this point. It's just, that's the question that's being raised, that if it should be done. Am I correct on that, Wilson? WILSON MATHIAS 27 "---"" ~ MR. MATHIAS-Yes. We don't know whether Mr. Diehl's going to develop this on his own or whether he's going to sell a portion of it or all of it. Who knows what will happen with that. I think that, as the question came up, because, as part of our filing with the Attorney General's Office, they require a copy of the final approval, and the person helping us with our application said, well, what does this mean, and do you want to create a situation where this is a personal obligation of this particular person, what happens to him? I mean, I've written you a letter and facetiously say, what happens if Mr. Diehl dies? Does that mean nobody has the obligation? We're looking, really, for some clarification. I don't think it's, it's just not a big issue. I mean, it seems to me you don't want make it a personal obligation, because in the event of his demise, or leaving the area, then who do you look to do it? I think you want, it's not unreasonable to say, somebody has to do it, and I don't think it's unreasonable to have you say, the owner's got to do it, but I think it's a more generic requirement than an individual one, and that's what we ask you to clarify. MR. BREWER-Could we stipulate that the owner of the piece of land, the only reason I'm saying that is because of, the subdivision tonight that we talked to Leon about, Queensbury Forest. We had a situation there where we made an approval with the condition that something be done. Now the owner of that project has sold it. The new owner says that he's not responsible for it. The old owner says he's not responsible because he doesn't own it anymore, so who does it? That's, I think, what Carol was trying to protect. MR. MATHIAS-Well, that's why I'm saying, you extend that by saying Mr. Diehl, his successors or assigns, and that means if he does get rid of it, they have the responsibility to comply with it. MRS. PULVER-Well, the only problem I'm having with this right now is that many times, or I can think of a couple of times, okay, Inspiration Park was one. We're now in the midst of this Red Lobster thing. The re-zonings are done specifically for a specific project with certain people spearheading this project, okay. Now this re-zoning was done, in my mind, for Mr. Diehl to build an affordable housing project, and if he is not going to do it, then I think it should go back to the original zoning, because my mind was for him to do this affordable project, not to sell it as affordable housing land that other developers can build on and make money on. MR. DUSEK-I picked up on that might have been part of your concern, in reading through the resolution, and I think what was also mentioned here, in terms of the security for the Town, in the event that something goes wrong or a new buyer comes in and says, hey, I don't have any responsibilities. A couple of concerns that l.. had when I was going through it, and I'll just share these wi th you. First of all, I recognize those concerns, and I also recognize, though to myself an ywa y, I said, when you re-zone land, just like when you grant a variance, it runs with the land. It's really not an item that's dedicated to a particular individual, and then also questions of constitutionality, in terms of, once you have re-zoned something, we have certain constitutional rights, in terms of alienability of real property or property, and the government's restriction in not being able to tell people you can't do what you want to with your own property, and in a sense, if you re-zoned and then told the guy you couldn't sell it to anybody, you'd be doing just that, on that type of restriction. What I came up with, and I came up with this earlier, and then I rewrote it again, here, while I was waiting to talk to you. I think I came up with perhaps something that may address all of these issues and still satisfy your concerns, and I'll just bounce this off of you. What I think you could do is adopt a resolution which indicates that Mr. Diehl will have the obligation to furnish a copy of the re-zoning resolution, a copy of the final subdivision approval that you gave, and a copy of this resolution, if you were so inclined to adopt it, to any party that may take any kind of interest, through sale or otherwise, whether it's partial or whole, and secondly, furnish the Town with the name of the party who will be buying an interest, whether in whole or in part, prior to the consummation of the sale, so that the Town may, if it desires, also furnish that same information to the new seller, so the new seller, before he even buys the property, is aware of what the conditions are on the property, most importantly, of course, being that it has to be affordable sales, and then the last element being that the previous resolution would then be amended to include these items, you know, the previous resolution that you adopted, to include those items I just mentioned, and then also say that with respect to the obligations concerning the property, it's meant to be imposed upon Mr. Diehl, his heirs and successors and assigns, but in the first instance, these notification provisions that are set forth in this resolution would be Mr. Diehl's obligation, obviously 28 '- -' he'd have to notify. What that does, I think, that kind of a resolution, it first of all brings us into full compliance, as far as the law goes, I think. Nobody could raise any constitutional issues or anything of that nature. Second of all, it also gives you, I think, more ability to control this project, in terms of a future potential party that could come in. For instance, as Mr. Mathias has pointed out, what if Mr. Diehl dies? Then you're still going to have a problem of an heir coming in, and if you said, well, he doesn't get the re-zoning, then, I don't see anything in either the re-zoning or the law that would support that conclusion. So, as a result, now, you're dealing with an heir, and you've been forced into that situation by a set of events. This solution that I'm proposing actually gives you a chance to notify the purchaser in advance. They're going to notify him. Everybody's been put on notice. I think we've got both parties, at that point, in terms of enforcing those conditions, because that, to me, is obviously critical, because if you can't enforce those conditions, you're going to have a problem wi th the project. MRS. PULVER-Well, the problem with the project, going back with that, I mean, I have seen, I've been involved with developments where we have a developer, like Mr. Diehl, who owns the property and he's going to do a project and he starts selling off lots, and builders, contractors, whatever they want to call themselves, come in, by the lots, now they're going to build, yes, it's going to be affordable, but, yes, well, maybe they'll upgrade this. They'll put in that, before they know it, Mr. Diehl has lost control of his project, because he has now sold the lots. Now we have builders, contractors, developers whatever, building houses in there where the cost has exceeded what we consider affordable housing. Who do we go back to? Do we go back to Mr. Diehl, now, or do we go back to who he has sold the property to? MR. DUSEK-Well, at that point, everybody would be liable, and you'd also have a stop belt, because I noticed that, I thought that it was a good idea that there's no CO's issued until it's proven. So, lets assume somebody builds a house there and it doesn't comply. The Town doesn't issue a CO. I mean, we've got our enforcement mechanism right then and there, and if the person moves into the house without the CO, we can have him put back out again because they can't do that, because they're in violation of the zoning, and if it turns out that there's going to be another situation or it looks like it's going to keep repeating itself, you take everybody to court. You take the contractors to court because Mr. Diehl should have put them on notice when he sold to them, or if it's another buyer in the future, you're going to take that other buyer, you're going to take the contractors to court, and you're going to enforce it through either an injunctive type measure to prevent them from selling to people other than who they're supposed to under the zoning, and you've set it up in advance because of the recommendation I've made that the buyer, the new guy coming in, if there should be a new guy, he can't plead ignorance at that point. He can't say, well, gee, judge, I didn't know. First of all, he knew. Second of all, he was given notice through Mr. Diehl, because he was obligated to, third, that's why I put the protection in for the Town, even if the Town gets noticed before the transaction, they can serve notice. I don't know how this gu y is going to come to court and sa y, well, gee, I didn't know I had to comply, and then we've stopped it before he even gets the people into the house. So, if he takes a financial loss, that's his problem. That's what it would really boil down to, I think. MRS. PULVER-So, you think if a contractor, after building the house, and the cost has exceeded what would be considered affordable at that time, and was noticed and the whole thing, and if he stood before the judge, and he said, gee, Judge, I'm sorry. I am a contractor. I've been in business, but I don't have a high school education. I have on the job training. I didn't read the papers, blah, blah, blah, it wouldn't hold up? MR. DUSEK-No. I mean, anybody who signs contracts, you're presumed to know, you've heard the old story, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and when you sign a contract. The only time you can get out of contracts is if you can show that it's unconscionable in some fashion. That the party who you contracted with, in some fashion, exercised just phenomenal bargaining power, and you had just no bargaining power whatsoever with that person in the contract. That's the only time you're really going to run into a problem where somebody would do that or be able to get out from under a contract. In this type of instance, though, anybody who's a builder and who buys a lot, I mean, I find it very hard to believe they're going to be able to argue an unconscionable contract, especially when they've been put on notice of what the conditions were. Now, could they ever attack the basic underlying zoning itself and that whole concept? That's always possible. I don't give you any guarantees on that, but as far as, if they didn't do that, and they just simply said, gee, 29 '-- -' Judge, we built the house, we made a mistake, and we don't intend to comply with the zoning, we can't because we're going to suffer a $10,000 loss, my position would be that would be too bad, because they knew about. They should have done it, and this was a re-zoning with conditions. They had to comply. It's no different, my position would be to the court, it would be no different than if the house was built 10 feet too close to the boundary line. They'd have to move it. Right? MR. BREWER-I can picture what Carol's saying is it could happen, and I can't see somebody, a judge or anybody else, making somebody take a $20,000 loss. I suppose it could happen. MR. MARTIN-I've heard of it happening, in a practical matter. There was a community out in the middle of the State, that exact thing happened. As a matter of fact, it was an attorney. He bui1 t a house, and he never bothered to get a building permit or check with the Planning Board, and he was within the setback. He had the house bui1 t, and they made him tear it down. MR. DUSEK-That's right. I remember seeing that myself. MR. MARTIN-The law is typically on your side, clearly in those instances. MR. DUSEK-Especially when everybody has notice and they're dealing up front and they know that they've got to comply, and that's why, with the additional provisions, I feel comfortable wi th it, but it's your decision, u1 tima tel y, but I would encourage you, though, to give some thought. The one thing that did bother me is that if you say it's Mr. Diehl, personally, if something happens to him, that's one problem. The other thing that does concern me a little bit is that the re-zoning, as a general principal of law, a re-zoning or a variance or anything of that nature runs with the land. It's not something that's keyed in to the individual, and in fact, if you try to make it personal, courts have struck down those types of conditions. MRS. PULVER-But if you say the re-zoning runs with the land, and this was re-zoned for affordable housing. So, the affordable housing runs with the land, right? MR. DUSEK-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-That's what he's trying to enforce, and what Paul's offering us tonight. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's what I want to happen. I'm just worried that if we lose Mr. Diehl, I'm going to have to track down his heirs. MR. MATHIAS-The problem, from our standpoint, is the Attorney General's Office says that's exactly the question we have. Who's going to do that if Mr. Diehl isn't around, and it looks to us, when we read this thing down in Manhattan, which is where those guys are, it says that this guy's got the responsibility. Well, so does that mean we've got to now go out and get a life insurance policy on his life, get a performance bond to make sure that someone's going to live, you know, I mean, that's the kind of stuff. I think that you're right in saying we want somebody there, right, instead of everybody going, hey, we didn't know anything about it, and Mr. Diehl says, he, tough, I don't own it anymore. I mean, let me just show you, all of this stuff gets to the, is part of our offering plan, and this is the thing we file. We've got copies of all of this, including your approvals. If you look through there, you'll see tha t some place in there is a copy of your approval. I mean, Mr. Dusek says he wants to read that to make sure we're not going to try to pull a fast one on you. MR. MARTIN-The other thing, I think there was a typo in this, in that the both cite 100 percent of median. MR. MATHIAS-Right. One of them should say 120. MR. MARTIN-Ri ght . MRS. PULVER-Yes, right. I would feel so comfortable if Mr. Diehl had already put up two or three affordable houses in there which sets the trend. You see, that tone, sets the trend. MR. MARTIN-I understand what you're saying. MR. MATHIAS-So, waive his requirements to cough up all the dough that he's got to before he can do tha t . Tha t ' s the ca tch. 30 '--- ...-- MR. MARTIN-You have some contractors out there who are willing to buy these lots and build the houses on spec, and you've got to be able to transfer the property to them in the interim. That's pretty much, in a simplified manner, that's pretty much what happens, and then the actual sale is between the contractor. CHARLES DIEHL MR. DIEHL-I may even subordinate the properties until the closing, not for any reason that they're talking about here. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. There are New York State tax consequences that come into play here, too, and in terms of when he deeds the property over, and that type of thing. It really doesn't impact the Planning Board. MR.' MARTIN-Well, I think the language Paul offered us seems appropriate, and there's enough measures in there to ensure that the affordable standards are met, and that gives you any tools you need to take into court with you, if this does go awry in any instance. MR. DUSEK-But what I've learned is building the case in advance, so that if you do have to go to court, you have it, and to me, first of all, if your re-zoning's going to hold, it's going to hold no matter what, and it doesn't matter who's owning the property. That's the key, and so if somebody came in and just simply said, well, gee, Judge, I didn't know, it's not going to work because of what's put into place. He had to have known because the notices would have been given, and if he didn't, then there's always a claim over against Mr. Diehl, still, because Mr. Diehl didn't notify him, well then most likely we'd have a claim against him. MR. MARTIN-And like you say, it actually improves our situation because now it deals with the contingency that if he does walk out of this building and gets hit by a truck, we still have. MRS. PULVER-We have his heirs at our mercy. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think, probably it would have happened that way anyway. When Wilson called me, he said, well, gee, do you think that that's a reasonable interpretation, and after I read through the minutes, though, I became concerned because I could see the slant that the Board had taken when they adopted it. So, I said to Wilson, we reall y ought to go back to the Board and talk it over with them to make sure they're in agreement, or they're not seeing something else here that I'm not seeing, but it's your motion, your resolution. I thought it was clear on the record, as far as what you intended, and now it's up to you whether or not you feel it's worthy of modification. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, if we do intend to modify, do we have to rescind the existing motion and then. MR. DUSEK-I think you can move to amend it. MR. MARTIN-Move to amend, oka y. MRS. TARANA-Let me just ask, practically speaking, how would this work? Lets say the two of you, he's selling, you're buying. He would present a paper to you. You'd read it, and it gives you all these restrictions, and you sign it so there's an actual record that he gave it to you, and that you were aware? MR. DUSEK-Well, he could do it any number of ways. I mean, I think, and I don't want to tell Wilson how to do his job, and I'm sure, but he probably, chances are, when you usually do a closing, and you're buying and selling real property, you usually put everything into a written contract, and I've got to believe that Wilson will probably make sure he puts this stuff right into the written contract to the guy and say, here, attached hereto are exhibits such and such, and pursuant to the resolution of the Planning Board, you are hereby notified of these conditions, and then likewise, as soon as he enters the contract of sale, he would send a notice off, under this proposal that I got, to the Town of Queensbury that so and so is buyer under contract to buy the property, and then once the Town of Queensbury gets that notice, if they want to, I left it optional, because you may feel comfortable at that time that it's not necessary, but if you do feel it's necessary, you can, in turn, send the proposed buyer the additional information on the subject. I might add we do the same thing, not quite the 3l '-...-- -- same thing, but we do a similar thing with regard to PUDs right now. When somebody sells a Planned Unit Development project that's been approved, they are to notify the Town Board of that transaction so that you know who, in fact, owns the property. So, this is really stealing an idea from our current PUD Ordinance. MRS. TARANA-So, it's not just a verbal thing. So, there can be no question about it in the future. MR. DUSEK-Well, it's in writing, first of all, giving him the directive, and then he has to, in turn, notify us, and you can say, in writing, in this resolution too, and that's why I'm saying, if it so happens. I can't believe he would do it that way, but if he did, say they just handed the documents across the table and said, by the way, you've got to comply with the zoning thing, and there's no written record, because we're getting written notice, we can serve him with written notice, if we wanted to, and ma ybe that'll be what the Town decides to do. MR. MARTIN-And then naturally your ultimate safeguard is the building, or the CO. MR. DUSEK-Right. Well, yes, your real enforcement mechanism in this whole process is the CO. This other stuff that we're talking about is the builder of the case, so to speak, so the guy can't plead ignorance, should he go before the court. The zoning is the zoning. The problem with the zoning is, if you opened up the books that we have, you might not see this. So, that's my biggest fear, that they're going to say, gee, Judge, you look through their Ordinance, you don't see anything like this, and then all of a sudden there's some weird thing on the property that says I've got to sell houses for X number of dollars. We get by that two ways. One, I think you could still argue to the court, Judge, it was a re-zoning and they knew that, and there's all kinds of records, even though it's not in the book, but the second way you argue is, hey, by the way, he had all kinds of notice. How can this guy come in now and cry to the court that he can't be covered by this, and as Jim mentioned, if they take a loss, they take a loss. There's a bui1din g down in New York City, I love this case, it's the one with the six floors on the top of the building were knocked off, and that was a case where the building inspector made a mistake. He issued a permit to start with, and then somebody picked up on it and they revoked the permit and they said, take the top six stories of your building off, and the Court of Appeals said, you've got to do it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-So, see, there are ways of enforcing these things. MRS. PULVER-Well, part of my intent, too, for phrasing this this way was to protect, I mean, I want to protect Mr. Diehl. I certainly don't want him to lose any money. He's got enough invested just coming back and forth here in legal fees, but also to protect the builders. I didn't want them to get out there and start hammering boards and nails and find out that they had twice as much into a house than they should have. So, if you feel what you're proposing is just a further protection of all of us, the Town, Mr. Diehl, the builder, everybody's going to get to know, I would agree to it. MR. DUSEK-I think actually what I'm proposing to you is going beyond what you did in the resolution. In exchange, you're really just saying, yes. you're adding the heirs, successors, and assigns, but in return, these guys are agreeing to give you even more than what you originally had in your resolution. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, do you have something there we can read from? MR. DUSEK-Well, I don't think you can read this. If you want, I can read this into the record for !pu again. MRS. PULVER-You can read it into the record and use my voice. IIOTION ro AIIEBD 'I.WB PREVIOUS RESOLU'rION ISSUED BY 'r1lIS BOARD GRAlI'rING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ro 'rIlB SBBRIIAN PINBS SUBDIVISION, 'rlIA'r SUBDIVISION BEIIIG OF RECORD AS ONNBD BY IIR. CBARIBS DIEHL, III 'I.WB FOLUJliIIIG RESPEC'rS: 0lIB, III ADDI'rION ro ALL OfiIER CONDI'TIONS 'rlIA'r HAVE BEEN PLACED ON 'I.WB FIliAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, IIR. DIEHL SHALL FURNISH ro AllY PARrY WHO PURClIASBS AllY III'TBRES'r III 'I.WB SUBDIVISION, EI'rIIBR IN WHOLE OR III PAR'r, A COpy OF 'I.WB RE-ZONING RESOLU'TION OF 'I.WB 'l!OIiN BOARD, 32 .---- -- A COpy OF 7!IIB PL1JNlfING BOARD' S FINAL SUBDIVISIOlI gPROVAL RESOWfiOll PREVIOOSU REFERRED TO, JUID A copy OF mzs RESOLU'J!IOlI. lIUIIBBR 2'fiO, lIR. DIBHL SHALL FURNISH 7!IIB NAIlE, ADDRESS, JUID PIIONB NUlIBBRS OF ANY PO'rBlfTIAL PURCHASERS OF ANY IN'rERES'l!, IN WlIOLE OR IN PAR'}! OF 7!IIB SUBDIVISIOlI, TO 'l!1lB '1'OIIN OF (JUBBNSBURY ZOlIING ADlIINIS'l!RATOR AT SUCH TIllE AS A CON'l!RACT OF SALE IS EN'rERBD INTO BB'lWEEN 7!IIB PlUlTIBS, AND UPON RECBIPT OF SUCH NO'l!IFICATIOlI, THE '1'OIilII SHALL, AT ITS SOLE DISCREfiOll JUID OP'l!IOlI, FURNISH TO 7!IIB PO'l!BNfiAL PURCHASER OF ANY IN'rEREST IN 7!IIB PROPBRTY, A COpy OF 7!IIB ORIGINAL RE-ZONING RESOWTION, A COPY OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLl1'l!ION, JUID A COpy OF THIS RESOLl1'l!IOlI, Jam A LE'l".rBR. OF BXPLANATIOlI AS TO 7!IIB INTENT BEHIND THE SERVICE OF 7!IIBSE DOCUIIBlI'l!S, AIID lIUlIBBR 'l!llRBB, THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS IIBRBBY FURTHER AIlB1IDBD TO IIIDICA'rE THAT 7!IIB PREVIOOS PROVISIONS JUST OU'1!LIlfBD ARB INCUJDBD THEREIN AIID 'l!IlAT THE REFBRElICES 'l!O lIR. DIBHL SHALL ALSO BE 'l!O HIS HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, JUID ASSIGNS, BXCEPr IN 'l!HB FIRST INSTANCE OF lIR. DIBHL' S RESPONSIBILITIBS UNDBR TllIS RESOLU'J!IOlI TO NOTIFY 'l!HB 'l!OIiN OF HIS INITIAL SALB OF ANY IN'rEREST IN 7!IIB SUBDIVISIOlI. lIU1IBBR FOOR, TO FUR7!IIBR MEND 'l!1lB PBBVIOOS 1I0000IOlI WHERE IT STA'rES 50 PBRCBNT OF 7!IIB HeMBS IN 7!IIB SHBRllAN PINBS SUBDIVISION JaLL BB APPR.(JVBD FOR PMILIBS HAVING ANNUAL INCOIIBS NO GREA'rER THAN 100 PERCBNT OF IIBDIAN FAlIIU INCOIIE FOR 'l!HB '1'OIIN OF ()UBENSBURY, AND THE O'l!HER 50 PBRCENT OF THE HeMES BUILT WILL llAVB A SALB PRICB 'l!IlAT CAN BE APPROVED FOR FAlIILIBS HAVING INCOIIB NO GREA'rER 'l!1l1W 120 PBRCBBT OF IIBDIAB INCCJIIB IN THE '1'OIIN OF ()UBENSBURY, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 1992, by the following vote: MR. DUSEK-I would suggest just one thing on the record. Mr. Mathias, of course, has been here, and Mr. Diehl has been here during this evening and participated in the discussion, but for the record, do you have any objection to the conditions that have been added by virtue of this proposed resolution? MR. DIEHL-No. AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Rue1, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. MATHIAS-Mr. Chairman, we have one other matter that we ask the Planning Board to consider, and that's to extend the time within which we have to file this mylar, and also the Geneva Esta tes mylar. Basica11 y, the grounds we have are probably what most people have. It takes a lot longer to get the Department of Health to go through. We're now at the point where DEC, in the Sherman Pines one, we're in a situation where, to get our SPDES Permit, we have to have our homeowners association, an offering plan completed, and they wouldn't even look at it until we at least had a draft, and then once we get that approved, we've got to gi ve them a copy of it. DEC won't give us approval of the SPDES permi t, we now understand, for 60 days. It just takes them that long to get it. MR. MARTIN-sixty days from? MR. MATHIAS-From when they get it, and it'll be tomorrow when they get the application. So, we're just running into the fact that things take a lot longer to get things approved. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's understandable, to me, anyhow. All right. So, we need a resolution extending the approval. MRS. PULVER-For Geneva Estates? MR. MATHIAS-For Geneva Estates, too, because we're really in a similar situation with that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So, we would have to do them separately. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So, how long? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I hate to keep coming back, and I also don't know what a. MR. MARTIN-I would think 90 days would be. 33 ---" MR. MATHIAS-Yes. If we get 90 days on both of them, we should be in pretty good shape. MRS. PULVER-And when, exact1 y do the, when does Geneva, I have this September 18th. When does Geneva Estates? MR. MARTIN-The 16th day of June, within 90 days. September, again, so maybe it has. So, you had, July, August, MRS. PULVER-It expired. Yes. MR. MARTIN-It expired. MR. BREWER-So, what do we do in that case? MR. MARTIN-You have to have a whole new motion, right? MR. DUSEK-You kind of caught me off guard, and I can't give you an answer off the top of my head, I guess. I know you're referring to that language in the statute that says they automatically expire, or something like that. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but if the Board wasn't convening and meeting. Well, it becomes a timing issue for them. extension if we're not having a meeting. this is our first regular They can't ask for an MRS. TARANA-Yes, but he would have had to ask for it before our last meeting. Why can't we just make another motion that would cover it? Wouldn't cover it? MR. BREWER-But if it's expired, how can we extend it? MR. DUSEK- I guess, just so you know, just as a practical ma tter, usua11 y when things have time-frames on them, there's, obviously, two things that are going to happen. You either have to go back through the approval process or you grant an extension, and I just can't, right now, in this type of instance, I know, like, in a variance, for instance, it's nothing to get an extension, because the courts have held that they're generally extendable, but in this particular case I don't know that I've ever really taken a hard look at it. I would say that you could either wait for an opinion from me for your next meeting, or else you can just go ahead and take action, and if we have a problem with it, you'll have to come back and redo it. MRS. TARANA-Can you give us an opinion by Thursday at our work session? MR. DUSEK-Yes, I should be able to. MRS. TARANA-And then if you give us an opinion and we act on it Thursday, then you could just tell him on Thursday, right? MR. MATHIAS-Right, unless he says you can't do it. MR. BREWER-Well, if he sa ys we can't do it. MR. DUSEK-Then you've got to go back through the process. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MATHIAS-That's absurd. We go to three meetings on that thing. How were we supposed to know? Believe me, if I thought we were going, you know, if everything came together, we got everybody signed, all the bucks came together and we paid up on this little dinky 10 lot trailer subdivision that went through in three meetings, no sweat, no opposition, no nothing, I would say, hey, but we didn't foresee that, and as you sa y, you get kind of caught in between meetings. Now, we're here on this big one ahead of time, and that's okay, but it seems to me an absurd proposition to come out and say, sorry, start allover again. MRS. PULVER-I tend to agree with you on this, but if that's what has to happen, that's what has to happen. Since, you've done nothing out there, nothing has changed, right, since your approval? MR. MATHIAS-Right. 34 '---" ..,....., MRS. PULVER- I mean, we're just in thi s wai tin g process. crazy that you may have to go through it again. It does seem kind of MR. DUSEK-What he's saying makes sense. The problem is, though, that as an attorney, you're asking me to formulate a legal opinion. I'm not going to give you a legal opinion until I have a chance just to read the statute again and maybe just do a little quick research to make sure of my case authorities. I know of no particular case, right now, that addresses this issue, unless Wilson has a case handy. MRS. PULVER-well, I don't see any problem, then, of doing what you suggested, was to go through and give an extension, and if there's a problem, then we'll have to deal with it at a later date, since they're not doing anything out there. We're in the waiting process. MR. DUSEK-Or you could wait until Thursday night. MR. BREWER-It's only two days. MRS. TARANA-It's only two days. MR. DUSEK-I could have an opinion for you by Thursday night. Is that going to make that big of a difference? MR. MATHIAS-I'm just saying, why not do it now? I know I didn't make the request today. You got a request in writing that predates today's date. MR. DUSEK-Is this for this one, Wilson, the Diehl propert y? MR. MATHIAS-For both of them. MR. DUSEK-No, but which one are you? MR. MATHIAS-Both of them. I asked for both of them, in the same letter. MR. DUSEK-All right. So, the Diehl's property is okay. toni ght . You could move on that MR. MARTIN-Yes. Lets get that one out of the way. We have to do two separate ones anyhow. Lets just do Sherman Pines. IIOTIOlll TO BX'J!1l1III 'l!1IB lfIiI1iROVaL FOR S1lBRIIM PIlI/BS FOR » MiDI"2'IOU,L 90 MYS, TO JIIlIIDNlY 3152', 1993, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timoth y Brewer: Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 1992, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-Lets just be a little smart about this this time, and say the last day of January, so if we have our meetings at the end of the month in January and something happens, and we don't get caught with this ridiculous time-frame business, say January 31st. AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. RUel , NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin MR. MARTIN-Now, Geneva Estates. MR. BREWER-If we can wait two days, Paul can give us an answer. MR. DUSEK-Nothing's going to change in two days, and then I can give you a, I may very well come back and say, no problem, do it, but I just can tell you right this minute. I mean, I'd hate to go back and all of a sudden open the books and sa y, my God, they can never do it. You just never know, sometimes, about these thin gs . MR. MARTIN-We'll take you right away first thing Thursday night. Two days isn't going to kill you. 35 --- MRS. PULVER-Right, and as I recall, Wilson, somewhere along the line, I'd forgotten you have to put it in writing. We had this happen before, and because they date and everything, and the Planning Office, it was in there before the deadline, and again, you were caught into when we were going to be meeting. I think that's the circumstance that makes it okay. MR. DUSEK-Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't even think there's a need for Wilson or his client to even show up there Thursday night. MR. MARTIN-No. You don't have to be there. MR. DUSEK-So, save him the trouble, and we can notify you Friday. MR. MATHIAS-Why don't you notify me of your opinion Thursday. MR. DUSEK-I have no problem with that. Sure. MR. MARTIN-That would be appropriate. MR. DIEHL-We'll be here. MR. MARTIN-So, we'll table that matter, so to speak, until the Thursday meeting. Okay. We have one more. We've got George J. Zurlo, on behalf of Claude Charlebois, requesting yet another extension, and I think if Paul will recall, this is a unique situation in that it was a subdivision dating back to 1988, and he's got Sketch Plan approval, and it predates the new Ordinance, and he's been hanging on. I'm telling you, he's been hanging on. We last did this the 15th of October, 1991. So, we gave him a whole year, and it's up again. MRS. PULVER-Well, I hate to say this, but there's no one here, probably, but you and I, that have ever seen this. MR. BREWER-I remember when we gave him the extension last year. MRS. PULVER-The extension, right, but you've never seen the project. MR. BREWER-I think there was a sketch of it or something there, but I don't remember anything about it. MRS. PULVER-I saw the project in '88, but I don't remember it. extension on something I don't even remember. To gi ve another MR. BREWER-He's a t Sketch Plan? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and see the thing why this is so important is because, if he can keep this alive, he is then under the requirements of the subdivision review of the old Ordinances, which are less stringent and more relaxed than what the new Ordinance is. MR. DUSEK-Actually, I think, though, the under the zoning of the old Ordinance. than he is the subdivision rights. biggest benefit is the zoning. He stays I think he's more concerned about that MR. MARTIN-Yes, and it keeps the old zoning, I believe it was, what? MR. DUSEK-What it was ~s the parcel was split zoned, and he keeps the. MR. MARTIN-Light Industrial and Highway Commercial or something? MR. DUSEK-Yes. It's a combination of uses out there, and I think it remains split zoned under the new Ordinance, but it's like a different configuration, and in one sense he can claim he's benefited by that '88 Ordinance. He slipped in that window during that time period, and he's been extending it ever since. Now, whether !pu have to grant an extension or whether it's optional, I'd have to take a look at that, too, for !pu, but. MR. BREWER-He's ~iting for the sewer to come doM'} through there? MR. DUSEK-Well, it was my understanding that that was one of his arguments. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's mentioned here in our last. MRS. PULVER-He could be waiting forever. 36 '- -- MR. MARTIN-The motion should show that we approve an extension through October 17th, 1992, in lieu of the applicant's decision to continue based on the sewer hookup, and that the applicant at least give consideration to the buffer zone in developing the two parcels, and I think that's the buffer zone requirement that goes with the new Ordinance and the new zoning. MRS. TARANA-I'm wondering if we would have the vote? I, personally, won't vote on it. I'll abstain because I don't know anything about the project. I don't know how the other people feel about it. MRS. PULVER-Well, I tend to think that, I don't even remember it now. I mean, and the last time I wasn't here. MR. BREWER-Have him come in and let us look at the project. He's got until October 17th, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes, but we're not going to be meeting again. What I might suggest is that we give him just a short 30 day extension and request that he come in in October and have a talk with the Board. MR. DUSEK-That's a good idea. Then!pu kind of preserve all rights, and then if you decide, for whatever reason, it's not appropriate to extend it, you can just. MR. MARTIN-Just let it lapse at the end of October. MR. DUSEK-But this I1BY you're also not hurting him. doors open. So, I think tha t ' s good. you're leaving all your MRS. TARANA-That would be better. MRS. PULVER-I think it would be a good idea, for everybody to be familiar with it, and I'm looking at this, when he was in, I was absent the last time. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, I would ask, with that intention, that someone offer a motion for an extension through October 31st, 1992, and have the Planning Staff notify the agent for the applicant that the Board would like them to come in and speak wi th us. MR. BREWER-As a workshop, or on a regular basis? MR. MARTIN-Just as an agenda item. application. I don't think we're goin g to revi ew an y MR. BREWER-Well, if we're g~v~ng him, we should give him, when's the deadline for next month? We're only giving him 30 days. MRS. PULVER-But the project doesn't have to be reviewed by the Staff. MR. MARTIN-He doesn't have to do any new work. MRS. PULVER-He just has to bring the project in as. MRS. TARANA-But he's got to bring it in before this extension. MR. MARTIN-What I'm saying is, extend it to the 31st of October, and he can bring it in prior to the October meetings and talk to us at the October meetings. MRS. TARANA-Okay. you're giving him a two week extension, in other words, to make a presentation. MR. MARTIN-SO, in effect we're extending him a tkO week extension. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-SO, if someone would offer a motion with request to the Planning Staff to. lIOTIOB TO GRM'.r AN &'PIØISIOlII UlITIL OCTOBER 31ST FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 88-1 DIX AVBNUB INDUSrRIAL PARK CLAUDE CIlARLllBOIS AND RlJ:COIfIIERD filAr IIR. CIIARLIlBOIS COIIB IN AND lfAIŒ A PRBSIINrArION t'O !'JIB PLANNING BOARD Ar OIIB OF 2'_ twO lIIlIffiNGS mAr fiILL BE HELD IN OC'l'OBER, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: 37 '--.. ~ Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. pul ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint az motion meeting ¡;"as adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 38