Loading...
1993-04-20 '-..." QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20TH. 1993 INDEX Subdivision No. 15-1991 Clearview Estates Ronald & Mary Susan Raynor 1. Subdivision No. 15-1992 P~ELIMINARY STAGE Harry Ruecker 20. Subdivision No. 5-1993 FINAL STAGE John L. Polk, Jr. 25. Subdivision No. 1-1993 FINAL STAGE Edward & Mary Cardinale 26. Subdivision No. 8-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Donald Harvey 27. Subdivision No. 9-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Hollister's Plumbing and Heating. Corp. 31. Subdivision No. 10-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Gerald & Roger Hewlett Stephen Bishop 38. Petition No. 4-93 ZAREMBA Group Incorporated 40. 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. ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20TH. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL CAROL PULVER GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 17th, 1993: NONE February 23rd, 1993: NONE March 2nd. 1993: Page 33. Right-of Way. sib right away March 16th, 1993: Page 24 is missing March 23rd. 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: MRS. PULVER-I will abstain from the March 2nd and February 23rd minutes. MRS. TARANA-I'll abstain from February 17th, because I was absent. AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Next, I'd like to welcome aboard George Stark. who's the newest member of the Planning Board. I wish him good luck. Okay. We'll get right on with the agenda. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 CLEARVIEW ESTATES RONALD & MARY SUSAN RAYNOR DISCUSSION OF THE TWO 10 FOOT STRIPS OF LAND THAT WERE TO BE CONVEYED AS PER FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 3-24-92. RONALD & MARY SUSAN RAYNOR, PRESENT - 1 - ~ MR. BREWER-Okay. We have a letter here from Judith Freiberger. Corinne, would you care to read that. and I'll put this map up. MRS. TARANA-Okay. This is addressed to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, April 20th. 1993, regarding Subdivision No 15-1991, Clearview Estates. "Dear Planning Board Members. I am writing to state my position regarding the above-mentioned subdivision which is scheduled to be discussed at your meeting on 4/20/93. When the subdivision was initially considered by the Planning Board. we examined the subdivision regulations, the Town zoning ordinance and the Town Planning Board application process. We determined that the eXisting regulations. ordinances and procedures would. if followed, protect my interests and my property. Because of that determination. I raised no objection. nor interfered in any way with Raynor's subdivision application. My analysis of the situation proved correct in that the final approved subdivision plat and the requirements placed on the developer did indeed satisfactorily protect my interests. The problem is that the Raynors never complied with the requirements placed on their subdivision by the Planning Board (specifically regarding the transfer of two ten-foot strips of land to the adjoining property owners) . The Raynors indicated their acceptance of the Planning Board's requirements during the approval process and they indicated their acceptance by incorporating those requirements in the final subdivision plat as filed with Warren County. I believe that 13 months is far more than sufficient time to allow the developer to comply to the agreed-to requirements. The only question of fact here is whether or not the applicant has complied with the requirements placed on them by the Planning Board. I submit that the irrefutable answer is NO! Since the developer is not in compliance, I believe that the Planning Board has only one remedy, and that is to rescind the approval of Subdivision 15-1991. Clearview Estates. Therefore, I hereby request that the Planning Board rescind approval of this subdivision. Thank you. Judith A. Freiberger" MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess you know why we asked you to come back to this meeting. I guess the problem was that the 10 foot strips were never conveyed, or nothing was ever done with them. MR. RAYNOR-We did attempt to convey the strips according to your outline. They were not accepted. We have not. as yet, heard from the person who owns the other piece of adjacent property. We did it according to what you told us to do. I feel that this thing has gone on long enough and we should be approved. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess the problem, as I understand it, we approved it as long as these strips were going to be conveyed, and they haven't been conveyed. MR. RAYNOR-We have no choice, if the people do not accept them. MR. MACEWAN-Why didn't they accept them? MRS. RAYNOR-Our problem, at this point, is that we have deeded the strips to both the parties, and they have. one has not even answered, the fact that they've even received it, and the Freibergers did not like the terms of the deed. Now, when we were told that we had to convey the 10 foot strips, there were no rules of how we had to do that. Unfortunately. they don't like the rules that we've set up, and that's, we've deeded it without road access. which is totally legal to do that, and they don't like that fact. I have been willing to change that, and I'd like to work with them, but we had to meet all the Town's requirements and a lot of expenses to put in the road according to the way the Town wanted, to also spend a lot of money on getting all the paperwork done and we have spent over $30.000, and they would like us to deed that strip to them, so they can sell the lot that is typically their back yard at this point. which I don't have a problem with at all. I have offered to sell them that strip. and they do not want to buy - 2 - .,..--....., "'- ---- it. I am willing hold a mortgage for them. or whatever terms they would like. if they would like it with road access. When we were told that we had to convey that, there were no restrictions being told to us of how we had to convey that, just that we did have to deed it to them. which we did. So now that we have done what we were expected to do, if they refuse it, where do we stand? MR. BREWER-Well, I guess the resolution was kind of loose when we did it, as I recall. Just as you've stated that fact, I think, in conversation. there was some conversation about, the reason you did that with those 10 foot strips was to regain some of the funds that you put into the road. and I don't know, myself. I guess it's legal, I guess, isn't it, Paul? MR. DUSEK-Well, there's any number of solutions. here. I think, that are potentially legal. The problem that the Board as well as the applicant has. I think maybe I can sum up at this point, is you have a subdivision on file, a subdivision plat, that is not legal, and it's not legal because it's not in compliance with your subdivision as well as your zoning regulations for the Town. The reason it's not legal is because two small parcels. or at least one of the parcels. I'm not sure what the status is on the other parcel. but there's one small parcel that stands in isolated ownership which does not conform. The Planning Board doesn't have the power to create a small lot that's not conforming. They have to follow the Zoning Ordinance, as does the applicant. The si tuation here is such that the applicant wanted to keep those strips. and you're certainly free to do with them whatever you like, but you have to bring your subdivision into compliance with the law. If you can't, it seems to me that the Planning Board has the ability to rescind its approval, and move for revocation of that subdivision on file at the County Clerk's Office. So it's really up to the applicant to do whatever they want to do to bring it in to legality. Now that could mean transfer. That could mean attachment to one of the other lots. There's any number of solutions here that, to me, stands out. but it should be corrected. MR. RAYNOR-By attachment to one of the other lots, what are you saying, attachment to the Freiberger's lot? MR. DUSEK-I mean, I think that's up to you to decide. the best way. I'm suggesting that perhaps, I mean, I don't know if it's possible or not. but if it is possible. it seems to me that may be an alternative the parties wish to explore. MR. RAYNOR-It is right now attached to all the lot. MR. BREWER-And as I recall, I think we asked them to convey the land because we didn't want to create flag shaped lots. I think that was our intent. MR. RAYNOR-But it is illegal to have a flag shaped lot? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-I don't think it's illeqal. MR. RAYNOR-It's not absolutely illegal, and I don't understand why we're being put through this. MR. BREWER-Well. because as I remember, something with those strips because it was created them to prevent anybody from using wanted to regain money from it, and we didn't and we asked you if you'd convey the land. we asked you to do our understanding you your road because you think that was right. MR. RAYNOR-Would you like to sell your property, if you owned some? MR. BREWER-No. I wouldn't. - 3 - ........." --- MRS. RAYNOR-The problem is, is that the road that we built really has nothing to do with their property. It does not run against their property line. If they would like to build a road to get to their property. then they're more than welcome to do that, which they had told us before that's what they would do, rather than buy it. I have a requested a price of $3.000, which is less than one fifth, or one fifth of what it cost us to do this. It's almost half of one fifth of what it cost us to do, which would be five lots, that we would have out of that, and so I cut that in half. and put a price of $3,000 on to it, and I'd be happy to sell it to them for the $3,000. which would make their property worth from 0 up to $25,000 to $30,000 in fair market value, and I'd be willinq to hold the paper until they could sell the property. if they chOSê to do that. I think we're more than willing to be fair about it, but I don't feel that we should give our land away. Nobody gave us anything, and it cost us $30,000 to get here, and because a 10 foot strip. We're looking to go nowhere. MRS. PULVER-Lot Number Three is still vacant? MRS. RAYNOR-Yes. They're all vacant. MRS. PULVER-Yes. It's possible to attach this 10 foot piece to Lot Number Three? MRS. RAYNOR-That would be possible. Yes. MRS. PULVER-I agree with you. I don't think you should have to give away your property. I really don't. I don't believe that. I wouldn't want to do it. I wouldn't expect anybody to do it. MRS. RAYNOR-And I don't have a problem with that, if they want. I mean. and I don't want to gouge them or anything else. I think $3,000 for them to net $25,000 to $30.000 out of it is more than fair, and we're willing to hold the paper. We're wi lling to do whatever. They don't like the fact that we deeded that land to them with no road access. The man from England doesn't seem interested at all, on anything, and if we resolve this with the Freibergers. what do we do if he says that he is not interested at all. he doesn't want any part of it? Then where are we? We're right back here again, and he's not saying that he wants it. doesn't want it. He's not answering our letters. MR. BREWER-Well. I'm just reading through this for a quick second to see where I can, it talks about the, Mr. Cartier says. it may have been legal then. and Mr. Raynor says, nobody had brought it up at that point, and then Mr. Cartier says, well, it may have been legal then. Is it legal. now. Paul, to create a lot like that? MR. DUSEK-Are you talking about this little strip lot? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-That's the problem. I don't think it's allowed under your Ordinance. and I don't think the Board has the authority. MR. BREWER-How did he ever create it? MRS. PULVER-As a separate lot. MR. BREWER-How did he ever create it before the? MR. DUSEK-I don't know what he's referring to. MR. BREWER-I believe he's talking about the 10 foot strip that goes. I guess it would be north and south? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. RAYNOR-Initially, the property on the map as one and two, and - 4 - --...; it would be three. This whole strip was bought as one parcel. I buil t the road and donated it to the Town, leaving the 10 foot strip on the other side of the road. and a 10 foot strip at the end of the road, isolating the road from access by other parties, because of the intent, originally. I then purchased the land on the other side of the road. lots three and four. I'm not a lawyer. I assumed that because I bought lots three and four. the adjacent 10 foot strip would be as part of lot three. The end of the road would be as part of lot four. If it has to be redescribed in a different deed, the property is still mine. It can be described in lot three has having the 10 foot by 400 foot strip along Clearview Lane, as well as lot four can be described as having the other strip. MRS. PULVER-We can't create a 10 foot by 450 foot lot. That's not a buildable lot. and that's illegal to do. However, we can have that 10 foot by 450 foot strip added to lot three. It becomes an irregular shape, however. you can't build on that. The only reason to discourage flag shaped lots is for future subdivision. They take one lot and they end up dividing it in half and having two separate lots, but in this case, that 10 foot strip. if that were divided off, would not be buildable anyway. It seems it would be an easy solution to this problem. You would still have your own property on lot three. MR. RUEL-Well, the Freibergers would not have any access to Clearview Lane. MRS. PULVER-Well. they don't anyway. MR. RUEL-They don't anyway? MRS. PULVER-They don't anyway, as it is, no. but what the last Planning Board. and I say the last because I think there's only two of us that were on the Board at that time. and this is the strip we're talking about right here. MR. RUEL-Yes. I see that. MRS. PULVER-And the Planning Board said to give it to this property owner right here. which now this property owner can subdivide his land, using this road that they have built, and actually, so that we don't take this man's property. which I don't feel we should be doing anyway. That's not our purpose. If he deeded this 10 foot strip to this lot right here. So not everything is cut up in cute little cubicles. MR. RAYNOR-As it stands right now, that's a weird lot. I just want to make two out of that. MRS. PULVER-But it solves the problem, and we're not taking his property and telling him what to do with it. MR. BREWER-We're not taking it. MRS. TARANA-You're not taking property when you're selling it. MRS. RAYNOR-And we're also only talking about Freiberger's property. We also have the property to the end of the road, that is also an issue. MRS. PULVER-Yes, you've got another 10 foot strip down there. MRS. RAYNOR-Right. and this could go with lot four, because if I give away the 10 foot strip to the Freibergers, and I can't. and the people from England don't want the strip at the end of the road, I'm right back here again, and we're right back where we started, and I still don't have a subdivision. MR. BREWER-How can we get out of this, Paul? We'd have to rescind - 5 - - ~ the motion and make a new motion saying that those lots are okay? MR. DUSEK-Well, I think the thing to do would be to have an amended plat prepared showing, if that was the Board's choice. showing those lots, basically just removing the line, showing the lot as part of the other lots. and then you could approve that amended plat and order it be filed at the County, and that would clear up the County records as well as your own, as far as what your intent would be. Your resolution would actually be two steps. It would be amending the previous one. as well as approving the amended plat. MR. BREWER-Okay. There is somebody here that would like to speak, and if anybody's got any other questions for the Raynors. I'll let him corne up and speak. It's not a publ ic hearing, but I guess you're representing Freibergers? Come on right up. State your name for the record. DANIEL R. GEALT MR. GEALT-Sure. My name is Daniel R. Gealt of ?5 Haviland Road. speaking on behalf of Freiberger. Regarding the proposals that have been made, there is a subdivision that has been approved by the Town of Queensbury. and at this point, as was mentioned in the letter, there is only one question of fact. has the developer, has the applicant complied with the restrictions and requirements that have been placed on them? The answer. at this point, is definitely no. If you say that is okay for the applicant to sell off the 10 foot strip, then what you have done is created a nonconforming lot and allowed an applicant to sell that nonconforming lot. and I believe that that is not within the law. If you say that we have a subdivision application and it's been through all the public hearings. and now we're going to amend the entire subdivision. we're going to change the entire intent and remove the requirements that were placed on the applicant. I believe that you can't do that without saying this is a new subdivision application. I don't believe that you can go back and say, well. the compliance wasn't forthcoming and so therefore we're now going to give another opportuni ty to revise that. I think that what was done by the Planning Board originally was that they. within their view of the law and the Zoning Ordinance and the requirements, they said. here is what we will do to give the developer the approval for the subdivision. and I don't see how you can, at this point, say, well, that wasn't satisfactory. Why wasn't it satisfactory. why was it satisfactory a year ago? Why are you going to change it now. and Point Number Two is that Clearview Road has nothing to do with Raynors. Clearview Road has nothing to do with Clearview Estates. Clearview Road has nothing to do with Subdivision 15-1991. Clearview Road is a public right-of-way and has absolutely nothing to do with this conveyance, with this subdivision whatsoever. This is a public highway. and how it was paid for. how it was obtained has nothing to do with this subdivision, anymore than how Bay Road was obtained, and whether or not Raynors paid the money to develop that road and how they chose to lay the lot out at the time has nothing to do with 15-1991. You have an approval for a subdivision based on a certain set of requirements, and if at this point, a year and change after you gave that applicant approval. they have not complied. then you've got a real problem, a legal problem as a Planning Board. to say that, well, hey, we're going to change this. You can now go back and change Hiland Park. MR. BREWER-I don't think we said we were going to do that. MR. GEALT-No. I'm just saying. regarding Mrs. Pulver's suggestion that you modify this. I don't believe that that can easily be done without another subdivision application. and I really think that the point here is that if someone tries to convey a piece of property, as Raynors intended to do, and regarding their intent to deed those parcels, our attorney had to request, on the 18th of February, from their attorney, a copy of a proposed deed. There - 6 - '- --./ has been no deed forwarded by their attorneys to our attorney or to us regarding that, and we had to actually ask them for some copy of it. which we finally got by fax. We have not seen any proposed actual deed, and the point is that if they would like to deed the property without access to a public highway, I don't see how that is a legal thing for them to do, but that's a question that our attorney has been involved in. and it would be like. it would be just about like saying, I'm going to deed you the piece of property from here to Bay Road. but you may not step onto Bay Road from it, and that's not within their right to restrict us from leaving a piece of property they have deeded to us and stepping onto a public right-of-way. Clearview Road is not Raynor's property. It has nothing to do with this subdivision. It is a public highway. and has been so for at least a decade, and whatever they spent on it, they spent on it, I be lieve. I don't remember the year now. However. it was in the 1970's at some point, that they spent that money, and they chose, at that point. to leave that 10 foot strip. and at this point, I think the Planning Board has done the proper thing. with respect to approval of the subdivision. MR. BREWER-I understand, but if we told them to convey that, and you two never come to terms, and it never gets settled, then they never have a subdivision. You never have the property. You never have access to Clearview Road. What do we do, let them stay in the air forever? MR. GEALT-Right. You told them to convey it. MRS. RAYNOR-Which we did. MR. GEALT-It has not been conveyed. It has been attempted to be conveyed maybe once with restrictions. and we won't accept the restrictions because if we end up taking a piece of property which now looks, to the Assessors and everybody else. like a corner lot. where we do not have corner lot rights, which I don't believe they can restrict us from, but all that notwithstanding. MR. DUSEK-Legally, it's their property. When you transfer a piece of property, you can restrict it any way you want to. MR. GEALT-You can't restrict leaving of the property, Paul, I don't believe. MR. DUSEK-You can tie up property to somebody. if you convey it. reserve easements and right of way. MR. GEALT-But you can't prevent the owner from leaving the property. MR. DUSEK-I disagree. property you want. You can save whatever rights to that MR. GEALT-All right. In that case. that's a matter that would end up having to be litigated, and that's a question of how much do you want to spend to litigate it I guess, but the point is that the Planning Board told them to convey it. to deed the property to the adjacent land owners. MR. BREWER-But we never told them they had to give it to you. That's the problem. MR. GEALT-Yes. you did. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-No. The minutes here don't say that. MR. GEALT-The thing is, you can't allow them to sell it. MR. MACEWAN-But the minutes specifically say. - 7 - -- MR. GEALT-Because to allow them to sell it means you have created and given them the authority to sell a nonconforming lot, which is in violation of your Zoning Ordinance. MR. BREWER-Is that so, Paul? If we told them to convey that land. are we creating a nonconforming lot by telling them, then. to go ahead and sell that? MR. DUSEK-I don't believe that that's what was done. I'm looking at the minutes here, and there was a Miss Fuerst speaking, and they indicated, or actually Mr. Lauricella said, regarding that strip. Melanie. did you deed that out to the owner, and Miss Fuerst said. the two 10 foot strips of property are in the process of being deeded out. This strip here to the Freibergers. This strip up here to the owner up here at the north, and Mr. Martin said okay, and Mrs. York said okay. I guess, and you moved on through your approval process. So it seems to me that this was something that was in the works at the time, that apparently the applicant either agreed to or initiated or in some fashion was responsible. I don't know that the Planning Board said you had to definitely do it that way. MR. GEALT-The approval and the final approved plat, indicates that the two strips are to be conveyed. and indicate anything else, and I don't believe you, as Board. can allow them to create 10 by 400 foot lots, like that, and then allow them to sell them. as filed, it doesn't a Planning in an area MR. BREWER-That piece of property was already created. there. It was MR. GEALT-That's correct. MR. BREWER-And I think we tried to get him to convey it to you to eliminate that flag shaped lot. Whether he sold it to you or gave it to you or what he did. I think it was our intent not to make you $20.000, I'm just using that as a number. MR. GEALT-If your intent was to pay $20, it's not even relevant. because if you created a lot for them to sell. MR. BREWER-We didn't create a lot. If he conveyed that to you, it would be a lot line adjustment. MRS. PULVER-It was already preexisting. MR. GEALT-It was a portion of the property to be subdivided. and if you say that you're going to allow them to create X number of building lots and two additional lots. which you will allow them to sell, then you have created nonconforming lots for them to sell, for their benefit. for the purposes of a subdivision. MR. BREWER-That's not what we did. That lot is shaped like this. okay. We told him, as I remember the meeting. if you want to put a building on this lot, convey this land, this 10 foot strip. to this landowner here. and eliminate this part of this lot. That would be a lot line adjustment, to me. MR. GEALT-AIl right. Then back to the question of fact. have they done that? MR. BREWER-No. they haven't. MRS. PULVER-They say they attempted to do it. However, the owner of the lot would not accept the conditions. MR. GEALT-I have not yet seen anything in writing sent by the applicant to either Freiberger or the other people who I'm familiar with. There has never been anything sent, in writing, in any way, shape, or form, offering to deed that or offering any particular - 8 - arrangement by which that can be done. There has been nothing in writing and if they can produce it, then possibly there's a whole different point of view here. However. at this point. they are not in compliance, and therefore, they don't have a subdivision. MR. BREWER-You're right. They don't. MR. RAYNOR-We received a letter from the Town of Queensbury telling us that you had denied acceptance of that property. MR. GEALT-You have not offered anything. MR. RAYNOR-Why are we here? MR. GEALT-Because you have not offered anything. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. I think that is something that you two have to work out, and can we give them some time to work it out, a month or whatever? MR. RAYNOR-We actually do not like time at this point. MR. BREWER-Well, we have to do something. MR. RAYNOR-We'd like to have this Board give us a decision whether that can be conveyed to Lot Three or not. Then we can decide if we have to give it to the Freibergers. We will have restrictions on land. If they don't accept it. MR. BREWER-What happens if they don't accept it, Paul? MR. DUSEK-It stays with Lot Three, if that's the Board's choice. MRS. PULVER-I think it should just stay with Lot Three. MRS. RAYNOR-Our lawyers sent a deed to them. They did not accept that. but we got a letter. our lawyer called us up and said they said it was unacceptable because of the restrictions on it. We did have a deed drawn up, and it was sent to them. and it was sent to the people in England. and if we resolve this strip here, and the man in England doesn't want it either. We've got to come to some. MR. RAYNOR-Then we've given our piece of land to them. MRS. RAYNOR-For nothing. MR. RAYNOR-And we still don't have a subdivision, because this one is not in compliance. if this one decides not to take it. MRS. TARANA-Can I just ask why you don't want them to have access onto Clearview? MR. RAYNOR-We would like to be paid for our efforts in obtaining this property. We paid for this property. MRS. TARANA-But this is now a public road, that you don't want them to have access to. MR. RAYNOR-Clearview Lane is a public road. That property is still our property. MRS. TARANA-Right, and if you sell them that 10 foot strip, you're going to get money for that 10 foot strip. MR. RAYNOR-Okay. We have offered it to them for sale. MRS. TARANA-You'll get the money, but you put a restriction on, the land is totally useless. MR. RAYNOR-No, no. The restriction is if we give it to them. As - 9 - ',,- ~' far as I know. if we sell it to them, that restriction will not apply. in any way shape or form regarding this piece of property. MRS. TARANA-That was not my reading. in this. MRS. PULVER-Yes. That's exactly what they've been saying. MRS. RAYNOR-The strip of land was conveyed to them without road access. It was just given to them without road access. We were asked to them to deed it over to them, which we did. They did not want to accept that because we deeded it. which we were told was very legal. and has been done many times. without road access. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess now. the big question to me is, why is it so important you have road access? MR. GEALT-Because if we get a piece of property with restrictions on it. then to everybody, including the Assessors. it will appear that we have a piece of valuable corner property, whereas we won't have that, and therefore we will end up paying taxes. additional taxes, because of the improved value of the property. So that they can have their subdivision and sell their lots. and we don't see that there's any reason that we should pay additional taxes so that they can sell their lots, and that's the problem. that we talked about the possibility of subdividing that back piece. At this point, I understand the Town of Queensbury has now made that impossible, and so it's actual irrelevant as to whether or not we had any intent to subdivide that piece. which there was an intent several years ago. MR. RAYNOR-So what you're saying is then you really don't want this piece of land? MR. GEALT-No. That's not the case. MR. RAYNOR-Well, then what is your purpose in wanting it? MR. GEALT-The Town Planning Board, the Town zoning law. the Town processes are set up to operate in a certain way and we felt that they would be protecting our interests if they did sell them, and according to the approval of the subdivision and the final map that was filed. the processes work appropriately, and at this point. now, a year after the fact, the deed. the proposed deed. which was never sent to us, we had to have our attorney request it. That was dated in February. almost 11 and a half months from the time they got their approval. and what we say is that that puts a burden on us for the benefit of the applicant, and we don't find that the Town Planning Board should modify the subdivision at this point. and we don't find that we should be willing to pay more taxes for their subdivision. MRS. PULVER-Well, Dan, just to ease your mind, here, as far as the assessment goes, that if you were to produce a deed that said you could not have access to that road, that would not increase your assessment. MR. GEALT-Right. Thereby putting the burden on us. of proof. MRS. PULVER-Well. no. They're having the deed, it just would be a question of you coming in to the Assessor's Office and showing that piece of paper. MR. GEALT-One way or the other, is the applicant in compliance? Yes or no? MRS. PULVER-As I'm reading this, they've asked for a four lot subdivision. That's what they originally asked for. If we have them deed that 10 foot strip to Lot Three, and that other strip to Lot Four. they would still only have a four lot subdivision. - 10 - -' MR. BREWER-I don't think they have to deed anything. Carol. because that is part of Lot Three right now. MRS. PULVER-Well, it is. MR. BREWER-We asked them to deed it to the Freibergers. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Right. Just leave it as is. MRS. RAYNOR-That has been originally part of Lot One and Two. That was never part of Lot Three. In the original deed, it was part of Lot One and Two. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. right now. Those two strips aren't attached to anything MRS. RAYNOR-These two right across from the road. They went from One and Two. is what that strip originally was attached to. and then the road cut it down the middle. It was never attached to Three and Four. Three and Four were bought at a later time. MR. BREWER-So, then it wouldn't be a flag shaped lot. then, if this strip here went to One and Two. and this strip went to where. Four? MRS. RAYNOR-It would be to Four. MR. BREWER-Is that legal right now the way it is, Paul? MR. DUSEK-The plat itself, if the Board's intent is to have the small lots attached to Lot Four and Three, respectively, you need to get an amended plat submitted to you. MR. BREWER-No. One. Two, and Four. MR. DUSEK-Why would something be attached to Two? MRS. PULVER-No. Nothing is attached to Two. MR. BREWER-I thought, originally, you said they were attached to? MRS. RAYNOR-Originally. it was attached to. it was attached to One and Two. That was the original. the original right hand side. it depends on how you're looking at it, where Number Two is. that was all one strip from the front of the road all the way to the back. and the road went in on that land. and then Lots Three and Four were bought at a separate time. That 10 foot strip of land actually is also in front of Lot Three and Four, if you really look at the original, probably the original deeds, because they were done in two separate deeds. so there was a strip in front of Three and a strip in front of Four also. MR. DUSEK-Well. it seems to me that if you're going to attach it, you might want to think of continuity in terms of, crossing the road doesn't seem to be a practical solution to attach it to the' lots across the street. MR. BREWER-How does everybody feel? MRS. PULVER-I just want to be sure that I have this clear. If they were to take this 10 foot strip and attach it to Lot Three. and the other 10 foot strip and attach it to Lot Four. we would need an amended plat. MRS. TARANA-How can they attach it to Three? MRS. PULVER-And then we would need an amended plat, and we would consider it a lot line adjustment? It would still be a four lot subdivision. MR. DUSEK-The process. if that was what the Board wanted to do. - 11 - it's my opinion that the process would be submission of a plat in that manner to the Board, at whatever next meeting that you consider it at, the Board reviewing that. and then amending and modifying its previous resolution. and then directing the filing, and as long as that's done. that's all you'd have to do. I do not believe you'd have to go back through the entire process. for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's an amendment. It's not an entire new application. Second of all, if you look in the Ordinance under 183-13, it makes a general reference to amendments and doesn't set up an entire procedure, and then lastly, further support for the position that you wouldn't have to go back through the process is the fact that you have the ability, under your own regulations, to waive, in special circumstances, any of the regulations. So, it seems to me that if a Board found. was so inclined, it could waive going through the entire process. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'm going to go right down the Board, thank you, and see what we want to do. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I think we ought to amend the plat. we're going to get any place here tonight. I don't think MR. RUEL-I'm not involved with it. even going to talk about it, I don't have any background. since I wasn't MRS. PULVER-I think we should amend the plat, as Paul suggested. MRS. TARANA-Well. I'm having a problem with this, and I'll tell you why. The road could have been built within that 10 foot piece of property. right, which would have created no problems at all? MR. BREWER-Right, and I think there was conversation about that. after the fact. MRS. TARANA-I wasn't on the Board at the time this was discussed. and I don't understand why you would build a road and keep a little hunk of your land over on someone else's, right next to someone else's property. MR. RAYNOR-The people that we bought the land from were previous owners of the Freibergers property. We built the road, cutting up our property, to prevent someone bUilding houses along this side of the property, since we paid for the road. The Town of Queensbury did accept that road as was laid out with that 10 foot strip. Apparently at that time there was no problem with us owning both sides of the road. MRS. PULVER-Was that before 1988? MR. RAYNOR-That was 1979. ~ MRS. PULVER-Okay. So that was before 1988. MRS. RAYNOR-We had also, there were about eight lots that were, as a proposed subdivision at that time, and we were young, and didn't realize the rule s. and did not get it sealed, and did not go through the finalization, but we originally had eight lots, and thought we had done all the things for the eight lots, and then found out, at a later time, when we went to se II it, that we hadn't, and then found out that it cost us 10 times the money, but because we were young we did not realize that we had to do all the things that, the finalization, but it was originally broken into eight lots. MRS. PULVER-So it must have been. was it half acre zoning originally? MRS. RAYNOR-Yes. That's right. and we didn't realize that conceptual didn't mean we were approved. - 12 - -- ...-- MR. RAYNOR-We thought we had approval at that point. MRS. RAYNOR-Which cost us at least three lots. MRS. TARANA-And why would it be a problem. I guess I just can't understand why it would be a problem to allow them access to Clearview Lane? MR. RAYNOR-This property is ours. This 10 foot strip is ours. MRS. TARANA-I understand that. Do you want to charge every car that uses Clearview Lane because you built the road? MR. RAYNOR-No. We have no problem with the road. MRS. TARANA-I mean, I just don't understand that. MRS. RAYNOR-Would you be willing to give half of your backyard to the neighbors. because they didn't have a large enough backyard? MRS. TARANA-You're not giving half of your backyard, but you're holding up a process whereby if you just convey them this, if you have to convey it or sell it or whatever. with access, there's nothing even built there. If they built something. there'd be one house there. MR. BREWER-They couldn't build anything there, on that 10 foot strip. MRS. RAYNOR-This is only their backyard. their backyard. This is just strictly MRS. TARANA-So you're worried that they're going to drive onto Clearview Lane? MRS. RAYNOR-No, no, no. Anybody can drive wherever they want. What they want is, that 10 foot strip is right beside their house,l which has always been there. and what they would like. at one point, what they wanted the 10 foot strip because they wanted to subdivide their backyard, and years ago they asked me, they put that lot for sale. and I found out that it was for sale, and I called up and said, you know, that's not a salable lot. They don't have any road access to Clearview Lane. That's just someone' s backyard. They don't own that property onto Clearview Lane, and since then I believe that. I'm not sure what their restrictions are right now whether they can build there or not, but that is strictly someone's back yard. That's all that is. and for many. many years, it's only been a backyard to someone's, to property that they own. MRS. TARANA-Then what is your fear about access? MR. BREWER-They don't want to give something up that they own. is the bottom line. MRS. RAYNOR-Would you give up part of your yard because your neighbor wants it? MRS. TARANA-Well. I think what it comes down to is, if I had a subdivision where I might make a lot of money, because I could sell the lots, yes, I might give up 10 feet of useless land. What are you going to do with it? Whereas. you're holding up a subdivision where you could make some big money. MRS. RAYNOR-But why should I? MRS. PULVER-Why should they pay for someone else to subdivide? MRS. TARANA-You don't have to, obviously. but you've created this situation. - 13 - ''- MRS. RAYNOR-And I think that if I'm asking $20.000 for that strip, I think then that would be unjust, and I would be gouging them, but to say that I would be willing to sell it for $3.000 and hold paper or whatever they want to do. I think that's more than fair. I mean, there is no way, for $3.000, they could even begin to do anything with their land. and, I mean. my husband helped dynamite the stuff out of there for that road. and we worked for 10 years. We had to borrow money to get the subdivision through. and we worked for a long time to do what we've got, and nobody's given us anything. I don't understand why I should give my land to someone else. MR. RUEL-Why haven't you submitted a document to the Freibergers in writing? MRS. RAYNOR-We did convey a deed to them. They did not accept it. MR. RUEL-This gentleman said they never got it. MRS. RAYNOR-They sent a letter back rejecting it. So I find that hard to believe. but we did convey it. They did not accept it. They did not like the terms. MR. RUEL-You say you conveyed it. He says they. MRS. RAYNOR-Well, it's not conveyed because they did not accept it. So nothing is ever conveyed unless the two parties sign. I believe. I'm not a lawyer. I may be wrong, but I believe that. MR. RUEL-He said they never received it. MR. MACEWAN-A proposal for it. MR. RUEL-They didn't say anything about accepting it or rejecting it. MRS. RAYNOR-And we received a letter back from their lawyer telling us that it was unacceptable. MR. BREWER-Are both of those 10 foot strips on a deed with another piece of land right now? Because in the minutes I'm reading right here. the problem is that one 10 foot strip is not a separate deed at this point. MRS. RAYNOR-The 10 foot strips were on the deed of, Lots One, Two and Three, or One. Two, and the one that's not marked were all one particular lot at one time. MR. BREWER-Neither one of those two 10 foot strips are separate pieces of property? MR. RAYNOR-I believe that the 10 foot strip is part of Three, Four and the 10 foot strips are one piece of property, at this point. MR. BREWER-So now where does that take us, Paul. if those 10 foot strips are a separate piece of property? MR. RAYNOR-They're not separate. They're all on with Three and Four. Someone drew an unnecessary line when they were drawing this. MRS. TARANA-You're saying the map is wrong, that we're looking at? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RAYNOR-Apparently. MRS. TARANA-This is the map on file in Warren County? MR. RAYNOR-The one that I have in front of me. - 14 - -----" MRS. TARANA-If the map is filed incorrectly at Warren County. it makes the whole project null and void. MR. BREWER-What do you want to do. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I think it's a self-inflicted problem, and I'm not in a position to solve it. but I do want to know if this is the correct map. Does anybody know? MR. BREWER-This is the final plat. right here. MR. DUSEK-When you say. is this the correct map, do you mean is this the map that the Planning Board approved? MR. BREWER-Yes. This is it, right here. MRS. TARANA-But he's saying. MRS. RAYNOR-There may be an old map. Is that what you're talking about? MR. BREWER-This is Town of Queensbury rece i ved April 16, 1992, final plan signed. right here. This is it. MRS. TARANA-What line are you saying is incorrect? MR. BREWER-This line right here. MRS. PULVER-Well, this is the map that was submitted, and that line would be there, because that's what the Planning Board approved. was this 10 foot strip to be deeded to somebody else. MR. RAYNOR-That line was there because you people insisted that we give that land away. MRS. PULVER-Right. That's why it was there. So this is the correct map. because this piece of property was going to be deeded to this piece of property, at the time. So that's why the line was drawn. However, the deeds haven't been changed yet. So according to the deeds, this is still part of this here. MRS. TARANA-Can I ask just one question of Paul, or Scott. or whoever knows. If this piece, this 10 foot strip, either of these 10 foot strips, are deeded to these properties. these people pay taxes on that deeded property, am I right, because they own it. MR. DUSEK-Whoever has the title to it will pay taxes. That's correct. It will be assessed as part of their overall property holdings. MR. MACEWAN-None of these four lots have been sold yet, right? MRS. RAYNOR-No. MRS. TARANA-So, on one side, we don't want to take their land from them for nothing. On the other side of it. if they give it to them. They have no access. They're going to pay taxes on land that's totally useless to them. So there's an injustice on both sides. MR. DUSEK-Well. no, we should make a correction there. The property owners will pay taxes on their property. to the extent of its value. Obviously, property that's not useful for some purpose or has wetlands or has any number of problems with it will be decreased in value in the assessment process. So those owners would get a reduced value. They wouldn't pay the same. in other words, as if they had it totally free and clear. MR. BREWER-Do you want to make a motion? - 15 - --' MRS. PULVER-All right. MR. DUSEK-We ll. I think what you'd want to do, if the Board's interested in pursuing that. is that your motion would be just simply to ask the applicant to resubmit. Otherwise, his original plat will be pulled in a certain length of time. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So if he were to resubmit another plat for our next meeting? MR. DUSEK-That's up to the Board. Whatever the time period is that you want to set. MR. MACEWAN-How long would it take you to get this thing adjusted? MR. RAYNOR-What's the process? Do we have to go back and have this all surveyed again? MRS. PULVER-No. You just have to take off this Ii ttle line, I think. Whoever drew the original map. just have them take it out. take out that and make that 10 foot strip part of Three and make this 10 foot strip part of Four. So just erase on the original, they have the original mylars. So you just have them erase the original mylars. and then corne back. MR. MACEWAN-Carol. make it so that they have 60 days to do it. That's enough time. MR. BREWER-Is it legal for us to create that flag shaped lot, Paul? MR. DUSEK-I would defer to Scott on the Subdivision Regulations. I don't know of anything that prohibits it. off hand. MR. HARLICKER-No. It's not real good planning practice to do something like that, but I don't know if there's, I haven't seen anything that prohibits the creation of something like that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I thought I read something about. when they discussed this originally. they discussed flag shaped lots. MRS. PULVER-So 60 days would be long enough? So this is April. May, June. MR. MACEWAN-Just call the Planning Department and have them put you back on the agenda. MRS. PULVER-It would be next month's agenda. So if you could get it, I would find out, when is the submission deadline? MR. HARLICKER-I think it's the 28th. MRS. PULVER-The 28th of this month? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's the last Wednesday of the month. MRS. PULVER-The submission deadline for May is the 28th of this month. So if you get it in before the 28th. you'll be on the meeting in May. and that's all it would be. is two 1 ines. So, should I make a motion to table this until? MR. DUSEK-I think the motion that the Board wants. here, is to indicate that the Board will entertain an amendment to the plat, so long as it's submitted within 60 days, and that a failure to submit an amended plat within 60 days will result in the Board moving to rescind it's original approval, and then taking the appropriate action that may be necessary to have the plat removed from the Clerk's Office. or voided at the Clerk's Office, one or the other. - 16 - --' MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION TO ENTERTAIN AN AMENDMENT ON THIS SUBDIVISION IN 60 DAYS. FAILURE TO PRODUCE A NEW AMENDED PLAT WILL RESULT IN THE BOARD ENTERTAINING A MOTION TO RESCIND THE ORIGINAL PLAT. FOLLOWED BY SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EITHER REMOVE OR VOID THE PLAT THAT'S ON FILE CURRENTLY AT THE WARREN COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mrs. Pulver NOES: Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. MACEWAN-It's a dead issue. MR. RAYNOR-Where do we go now? MR. DUSEK-You just ended up not doing anything. as a Board. MR. BREWER-Right. If somebody wants to make a motion to, I guess my reason for voting no, I'll tell you the reason, because when we first discussed this, we thought we could get this straightened out. and you were agreed to do something with that 10 foot strip, and I think you created the problem yourself. by putting that 10 foot strip there. You could have moved the road over. We talked about deeding the property to the Town, and I just don't think it's fair for somebody to use a Town road. to make them pay for a road that you built. When you made that subdivision. you knew what it was going to cost you to do that, and you created a hardship for other people, and I don't think that was right. MR. RAYNOR-I don't see the hardship anywhere. I've been told tonight that a flag shape piece of property is not illegal. I would really like to know where this Planning Board stands, what they're standing on to tell me that I cannot have this subdivision. Mr. Dusek himself has said that a flag shaped piece of property is not illegal. I was told that because it was a flag shaped property, I had to give a piece of it away. I had no intention of gi ving it away, until I was told I had to give it away. I attempted to give it away. I've done everything this Board has asked me to do. MR. BREWER-Well, the party that you said you tried to give it away to. or se II it to. or whatever. said they have not received anything. I don't know that for a fact. I don't know whether they have or not. MR. RAYNOR-How could they possibly turn it down. if they have not received anything? I don't understand that. MRS. TARANA-The bottom line is, they don't want it. and you can't force people to take land. either. MRS. RAYNOR-So then what are you telling us to do? MR. GEALT-There has been no submission of any offer whatsoever. If they can produce a letter in writing indicating that, then I will certainly. MR. MACEWAN-An easy way to do this is put together a letter which you feel is a good proposal to the Freibergers to settle this whole thing. Send a copy of it to Jim Martin in the Planning Department, so that a copy was. and a letter was sent to them. and lets take it - 11 - from there. MR. RAYNOR-You must have a letter on file from them, because the Town of Queensbury sent us a letter telling us that they had denied acceptance. That was on the Town of Queensbury letterhead. MRS. RAYNOR-That's why we're here. MR. BREWER-Do we have that on file? MR. RAYNOR-So that letter has got to be in the file. MRS. RAYNOR-I got a letter from Mr. Martin. and I called him up. and he said that they will not accept it. MR. GEALT-We have received a copy of the proposed deed which would convey the land. However. Mrs. Freiberger has indicated the deed restrictions are not acceptable. MR. BREWER-The deed restriction denying access from Clearview Lane. MRS. RAYNOR-Would it be better off for the Board not to have any of these properties. rather than to worry about that 10 foot strip? Should we just not sell anything? MR. RAYNOR-The Planning Board is defeating itself, here. by not allowing us to own property. MRS. TARANA-No. I think the problem I have with this is you're trying to hold the 10 foot strip as blackmail. That's almost like what it seems like to me. MR. RAYNOR-No. That's not at all. MRS. TARANA-Let me quote your words. MR. RAYNOR-It's blackmail for me to be forced to give it away. MRS. TARANA-Let me quote your words. .. Actually what I was doing when I did this.. .this 10 foot strip of land. because I put so much money into that property, and I knew there was available property back here and back here. I didn't want people to be able to access it without at least contributing to me some part of that road, and that's the reason I kept that. and I didn't know I was breaking any laws." Well, you weren't breaking any laws. To me, you created your own situation. in that you could have built the road 10 feet over. You would have had no problem with your subdivision at all, but you were trying to get some money. You were trying to hold these people. MR. RAYNOR-These people weren't even there. MRS. TARANA-Well, whoever owned One and Two, that was not you. Am I right? MR. DUSEK-Can I make a suggestion. perhaps, to the Board? It seems to me that maybe the parties need time to think out things and make a resubmission to the Board, and I think that they can, the parties, the applicant is certainly able to make another submission, if it wants. The Board can do whatever it wants. once it receives a submission. It seems to me. as a Board. you're at a point where you're going to do one of two things. or actually I guess three potential things. You're either going to amend this. or accept an amendment of some kind. They're either going to carry out the terms of the previous conditional approval. or you're going to move to rescind the plat, and it may be worthwhile, just to give everybody, you know, you meet again. I believe. next week, anyway. right? It may be a good idea just to give everybody a week to think about it, and get back with each other just to go over this thing. In the meantime, that'll give the applicant time to decide - 18 - -- what course of action they would like to take. MR. BREWER-Would that be sufficient? You can talk with the Freibergers and see if you can work something out, and if not. then they'll. hopefully Ed will be here. MRS. RAYNOR-We only talk about the Freibergers here because of Mr. Geal t. and his position, but Mrs. Freiberger's never shown up. It's always Mr. Gealt who seems to have the interest here. because he's dating her, and what about the man from England? Nobody ever mentions the man from England. What if he just flatly says no? I've got road access from both ends. I have no desire to take this land ever. ever. What does he need it for? He's got access on Ridge Road to his property. access on Rockwell Road to his property, and after all of this for Mrs. Freiberger. MR. BREWER-I thought you said none of the lots were sold? MR. RAYNOR-No, but in essence what she's saying is if the gentleman from England doesn't want that property, we still don't have a subdivision because we wouldn't have complied with your request. He's never responded. MRS. RAYNOR-And Mrs. Freiberger is the only one that we are discussing at this point. and we have two people. and this man has not even given us any indication that he would accept any terms. He doesn't need it. He may not want the extra taxes. He just doesn't care about it, and then where are we? MR. BREWER-What happens. MRS. RAYNOR-We're right where we are right now. MRS. PULVER-That's the problem with having you convey property to other people. MR. DUSEK-I think we've been over all the solutions. The one solution. I guess. that we really haven't looked at. and that is the do nothing solution, but I don't think that's advisable, because you've got an improper plat on file. and I don't know that that's advisable to leave that in the shape that it is. as a Board. MRS. RAYNOR-It seems to me. no matter what your personal feelings are about whether you like that strip of land or not. it's a legal issue. here. Are there any legal issues of why we cannot do what we're doing? We have been told there are no legal issues why we cannot be doing this. MR. BREWER-As of right now, because we made a motion that you convey those pieces of property, and so therefore it's illegal. MRS. RAYNOR-Conveying means that they have to accept. MR. DUSEK-That's true. You cannot just forcibly force somebody to take a piece of property. MRS. RAYNOR-We have proposed that. They have not accepted. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we get that in writing, and offer it to them? If they refuse it, then we'll corne back. We'll make a decision. and we'll just have to. MRS. RAYNOR-Isn't that what that letter says. that they have refused it? MR. GEALT-Yes. Let them produce the paper that they sent to us. MR. BREWER-Is Mrs. Freiberger here? Maybe we can do this right now. Did you refuse this offer they made you? - 19 - --- JUDITH FREIBERGER MRS. FREIBERGER-They did not make me an offer. I asked my lawyer to contact their lawyer and fax my lawyer a copy of what was happening, because nothing happened in a year and three months. MR. BREWER-Could you do something for this Board? Could you get together with them and talk about it. Never mind faxing and lawyers? MRS. FREIBERGER-If they'll put it in writing. anything they want to put in writing, I'll be glad to look at. MR. BREWER-Okay. decision. You'll do that for us? Next week we'll make a MR. RAYNOR-Could somebody tell me where that letter originated? Is someone using the Town of Queensbury letterhead to send me letters? MR. BREWER-Jim Martin. MR. RAYNOR-Then someone must have contacted Jim Martin. MR. DUSEK-There is a letter on file, Scott has located here, from Mr. Backus to Mr. Martin. Lets see. It should be noted Mr. and Mrs. Raynor created the 10 foot strip. Whether this was by design or inadvertence, is not an issue. Mr. and Mrs. Raynor have requested Mrs. Freiberger to purchase the 10 foot strip and the right-of-way on Clearview Road. Originally, they requested $10.000. and later reduced it to $5.000. That's February 22nd. MR. RAYNOR-That's before the subdivision application was made. MRS. RAYNOR-Right. There should be a letter pertaining to this letter, after that. MR. RAYNOR-This information is Mr. Backus. our legal counsel, requested from Mr. Nikas, their legal counsel. in February. a copy of the proposed deeds, and after several days. they received by fax a copy of the proposed deed. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we just end this right now. Can you two just talk to each other before next Tuesday. and come back to the meeting, and we'll end it right then and there? Is that satisfactory? Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I WR-1A HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE C.E.A LOCATION: WESTERLY OF CLEVERDALE ROAD AND SOUTHERLY OF GUNN LANE. PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. (APA) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-18 LOT SIZE: +3.289 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WALTER REHM. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Note s from Staff , Subdivision No. 15-1992 - Pre liminary Stage, Harry Ruecker, Meeting Date: April 20. 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is before the Board for preliminary plan approval. He is proposing to subdivide a 3.28 acre parcel into 3 lots. The property is located on Gunn Lane across from Lake George. The parcel currently has four structures on it. Lots two and three will each have a house on it. Lot one has two houses on it. one of which will be removed. The remaining houses will be sold with the lots; it will be up to the purchasers to keep them or remove them. The houses are currently seasonal structures. The lots will be serviced by individual on site septic systems and water. The proposal also ties in with a proposal to construct a single family house on an adjacent parcel. The septic system for the house is to be located on lot one. The subdivision is located wi thin the - 20 - "- Adirondack Park and the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. Pro;ect Analysis: The proposal was compared to Article IV of the Zoning Code which includes regulations relating to preliminary plan submission and review. The project is a Type I Action under SEQRA because it is within the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. The SEQRA review will be completed during preliminary subdivision review. There are no new streets proposed in this subdivision. All lots will front Gunn Lane and one lot will be a corner lot. Each lot has its own eXisting septic system which services the existing dwelling and a new system which is to service the proposed house across Gunn Lane. The condition of the existing systems is unknown at this time nor is it known if they are capable of handling year round use. However, there appears to be enough room on the lots to accommodate new systems if they are needed. Water service will be from Lake George. Accessibility does not appear to be a problem. The lots all front a town road and should not impose any new hardships on emergency accessibility. The lots are all over one acre in area and, therefore, meet area and other dimensional requirements. The existing dwellings are situated so that setback requirements are met. The topography of the parcels is flat and should pose no developmental problems. Rist-Frost Engineering has reviewed the proposed septic system and indicated that the project is feasible, well conceived and should not create any significant environmental problems. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: There does not appear to be any outstanding issues or problems associated with this subdivision proposal. The planning staff can recommend preliminary approval of this subdivision." MR. REHM-My name is Walter Rehm. and I have met with you on prior occasions in connection with this subdivision. The Sketch Plan approval was. I think. either in November or December. This public hearing was originally planned for February. and we had a snowstorm, and the meeting was canceled. and I was away in March, and so now we're here in April. This property is located on Cleverdale. It's surrounded, on three sides. by Town roads, Cleverdale Road on the east, Gunn Lane on the north, and a Town road that runs to the northerly and southerly direction from Gunn Lane south. It is a 3.3 acre parcel. and the proposal is to divide this parcel into three lots. There is no lakeshore associated with this parcel. No rights will be given to any lakeshore. There will be no docking rights granted. or anything of that nature. There are currently four bUildings on these lots. This is in a one acre zone. a Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. It will be necessary to remove one of the buildings on Lot One, in order to comply with the Single Family Residential requirements. In all respects, as far as I know, this complies with the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury. The proposal is, in the short term. for Mr. Ruecker's family to use at least two of these dwellings. but in the long term, the proposal is to sell these three lots. There are currently no pending deals for sales. Each lot will be Single Family Residential with separate sewage disposal systems. Water source will be the lake. They are all existing structures. No modifications are planned at this time. These are seasonal. This is capable of year round occupancy. It is really a no change proposal, with the exception that one building is to be removed. I'd be happy to answer any questions, in the interest of time. I would hope not to occupy quite as much as the previous submittal. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public that would like to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM HAGEN MR. HAGEN-My name is Jim Hagen. I live at the end of Gunn Lane. I served on this Board, and somewhere I'm missing something. There's no explanation given about the lakefront lot. Originally. - 21 - -- '~ Mr. Ruecker proposed to build a house on there. He was turned down twice. He made two other applications to subdivide the land where he was making overuse, and not concurring with the Town Zoning Ordinance. Now. I think, to put it bluntly. that Mr. Ruecker is showing this Board how many different ways you can skin a cat. because now I see a proposed house on that lakefront lot. I see nothing about the illegal marina that the applicant now operates. and, it's rather distasteful to describe this. but one morning when my wife and I were taking a walk, we go by our neighbors and we get his newspaper and put it on his porch. We witnessed two female occupants of cruisers moored on his lake front relieving themselves on the front lawn. Now~ I don't embarrqss easy. but my wife does. Nevertheless. this kina of operation does not add value to our community, and first of all, maybe I missed the application that gave them approval to build the proposed house on that lot. Has he received approval? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The applicant received the required variances to build a house on that lot. I'm not sure when it was. I think it was back in November or December. MR. HAGEN-Well, I missed then. because this Board turned him down at least twice, previously. So one way or another. Mr. Ruecker is going to get his way. Now, there's no mention about the illegal marina he now operates. I'd like that to be put on the record. He's not going to convey any waterfront rights. He doesn't have to. because those people go ahead and use it, but he charges them, and if he's going to operate a marina. it ought to be done legally. In order to operate a marina, you have to have facilities. You have to have a pumping out equipment. and many other items. and I'd like this all to become part of the record, before any further approval is given for development of this land. MR. BREWER-Okay. speak on this? Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Is there anybody on this Board that has any comments? MR. MACEWAN-You said that the water for the three lots was going to be gained from the lake. Is there going to be a right-of-way given for those three lots? MR. REHM-Yes. It's depicted on the map. lines. where they cross the road. You can see the water MR. BREWER-I guess I'm confused. because this subdivision. was it not going to have a house here, with a septic under the road. or that was a different application. isn't it? MR. REHM-What you're thinking about is the lake shore lot. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. REHM-And the sewage disposal area for the lakeshore lot here. That's all been approved. and that shows on that map. MRS. TARANA-That's not this application. MR. REHM-That is not this application. That's all done. MR. BREWER-That's all done? All right. MR. REHM-That's all done. That's allover with. The only application that's before this Board is the three lot subdivision. which completely complies with all of the requirements of the Town. MR. HARLICKER-Do you have something from Paul Naylor regarding running the sewer line underneath the road there? - 22 - --- MR. REHM-Yes. He said that when we wanted to bring the sewer line under the road. to file an application with him and go and sit down and talk with him. I do have a letter from him to that effect. MR. HARLICKER-Okay, system on Lot One? shows? and what about the easements for the septic Do you have anything Preliminary drawn up, that MR. REHM-No. There's no need to do that until that is created. but those easements, obviously, have to be drawn. I don't think those are matters that the Town legally needs to review. Those are legal matters. MR. HARLICKER-Well, I think it is a concern, because you're talking about putting a septic system from another property on this one. Putting the septic system on this parcel. I would think, is part of this subdivision. MR. REHM-I'd be happy to draw the easements, but there's no need for an easement as long as this property is owned by Mr. Ruecker. At the time that this lot or this lot is sold. then it would be necessary to draw the easements. If you'd like to have me do that, I'd be happy to give you a proformer easement so Paul can look at it. but it's really a legal issue. It's not a planning issue. MR. BREWER-But we can ask you to have that in there. I think we did that with another application last month. didn't we? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-About an easement or whatever. MR. DUSEK-Well. you could just make it a condition of the approval, that there will ultimately be a space left on that property for the easement. I think what you want to do is address the subdivision that is in front of you and focus in on that lot, and make it as part of your approval, because you do have that power to condition it and say, there will be a space left on that lot for that septic system. MR. REHM-Specifically as shown on the plat. Yes. I'd be more than happy to draw the easement. except that we have no plan to use, to file an easement for, perhaps, some period of years. Who knows. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I guess what our problem is, suppose he goes and sells that'before he builds the house, and then he wants to put a septic. and he has no place to put the septic, because the guy that owns Lot Two, or whatever number it is, says no. MR. REHM-Yes. but you have to have some confidence in the intelligence of people. They're just not going to do that. I mean. they just wouldn't do that. MR. BREWER-Were you here an hour ago? MR. HAGAN-I think our zoning laws are losing all their integrity. because that other variance was given. and his two neighbors that never any public notice of that hearing. MR. BREWER-Before we get into that, do we have proof of. because that's why we tabled this, wasn't it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We've got the Certified Receipts for this, but he's talking about notification for the variance procedures, for the waterfront lot. MR. BREWER-That was during the winter, right? Were you in Town? MR. REHM-May I explain this to you, and I think Paul will bear me out on this. I'm not trying to be difficult with you at all, but - 23 - -.. as long as Mr. Ruecker owns this property. and as long as Mr. Ruecker owns that property, no easement will exist. He has a right to create this on his own land. MR. BREWER-Right. I understand that. MR. REHM-In the event that he sells either this lot or this lot, then it would be necessary to define that easement and grant it to this lot. which would be the lot that benefitted from it. and reserve it from this lot. but that's something that doesn't occur now. It's something that occurs only in the event of a sale of one of these two lots. MR. BREWER-Okay. I understand that. MR. REHM-So that's my only thing, but if you want a draft easement for review. that's no problem. MR. BREWER-Okay. We do have to do a SEQRA on this, right? A Long Form. Type I. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-1992, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before A subdivision. and this Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark - 24 - --../ ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Before anybody makes a motion, I'd like to ask that we ask for no water rights be in the application before final. and that you use erosion control when you take that structure down. Is that a problem? MR. REHM-That' s no problem at all. On the variance, we have represented to the Board that there'd be no rights granted on the lakeshore lot, and we'd make that representation again. In fact, I'd make that representation now. on the record. MR. BREWER-Okay. and you will use erosion control measures? MR. REHM-Erosion control measures. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we incorporate that in the motion? somebody care to? Would MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 HARRY RUECKER, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: With the following stipulations: There be no water rights with the lots, and that erosion control measures be used while removing the existing building on Lot One. That the approval is also conditioned upon the developer leaving a place on the Parcel Number One for a septic system for an off site parcel, and also contingent upon, at the time of the sale of that first parcel, an easement be reserved. noted in Map No. 81207. Duly adopted this 20th day of April. 1993, by the following vote: MR. REHM-Why don't I have Coulter & McCormack define on the map, by meets and bounds. an easement area, and mark it, speci ficall y, Easement Area for the lake shore lot. I'll do something like that. MR. DUSEK-That's even better than what I just proposed. applicant's willing to do it. I f the AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint ø ~? SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE I WR-1A JOHN L. POLK. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY PT.. ON EAST SIDE OF CANAL BAY AND HARRIS BAY PROPOSAL IS TO DIVIDE EXISTING LAND INTO TWO CONFORMING LOTS, WESTERLY LOT WILL CONTAIN TWO EXISTING COTTAGES AND APPLICANT WILL CONVEY A LOT TO DAUGHTERS OR OTHER PARTY. EASTERLY LOT WILL BE RETAINED BY APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: AVI8-1993 (APA) TAX MAP NO. 6-3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1993, John L. Polk, Jr. - Final Stage. Meeting Date: April 20. 1993 "Pro; ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.14 acre parcel into two lots. One lot will be 1.0 acres and the second will be 1.14 acres. The property is located off of Assembly Point Road on Harris Bay (Lake George) and is zoned WR-1A. The subdivision required several variances. The smaller lot received a variance to allow two principal buildings on it where only one is allowed and received relief to allow for less than a 75' shoreline setback for the two - 25 - ~- principal buildings. The larger lot required variances to allow a lot with less than 40' of frontage on a Town road and to allow less than 75' shoreline setback for the principal building. Pro;ect Analvsis: The main issues regarding this subdivision were addressed during the variance proceedings and preliminary approval. The Board determined that the existing access easement was sufficient and the applicant did not have to provide access from the Town road, and the variances granted were described above. Recommendation: During preliminary approval the Board requested that the applicant confirm the location of the septic system for lot two. Providing this is done. there does not appear to be any outstanding p'roQleIlls or issues ¡ela.ted tOdithisi subdivt' sion. Staff can recommenä flnal approval 0 tn1s sub V1S on app lcatlon. MR. HARLICKER-We received a letter, I don't know if it's in your file or not, from Van Dusen and Steves who did the plat. dated April 7th, and it says that, II At the last month's meeting. a question came up regarding the placement of a septic system on our map. These systems are plotted accurately from the supplied information. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Signed, Leon Steves Van Dusen and Steves" MR. BREWER-I guess what the question was that Mr. Polk stated that the septic was not where it was located on the map. It was up closer to the house. I believe. JOHN L. POLK, JR. MR. POLK-I was wrong. MR. BREWER-You were wrong? MR. POLK-I can't remember back to 1900. MR. BREWER-Okay. As long as we have that straightened out, does anybody else have any questions? Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 JOHN L. POLK. JR., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: For a two lot subdivision. One lot will be 1.0 acres, and the second lot will be 1.14 acres. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. HARLICKER-I'd like to just make a mention on this. Regarding recreation fees, it was determined by Mr. Martin that no rec fees are due with this because there's no new construction proposed along with the subdivision. MRS. TARANA-I meant to say, before we started, Scott, that I. for one. really appreciated getting your notes. I know it's not easy to get them on time to us, or early, but that was really good. Thank you for that. o\~?J }\\/ SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A EDWARD & MARY CARDINALE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: PEGGY ANN ROAD. 200' NORTHERLY OF WINTERGREEN ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 119-6-34 LOT SIZE: 7.88 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - 26 - '- STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1993, Edward & Mary Cardinale - Final Stage. Meeting Date: April 20, 1993 "Proiect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to divide a 7.9 acre parcel into three lots. Lots one and two will be 1.0 acres in area and the third lot will be 5.9 acres. The project is located on Peggy Ann Road and just west of Wintergreen Road and is zoned SFR-1A. Each of the lots will have frontage on Peggy Ann Road. Lot one will have 49 feet of frontage, lot two will have 40 feet of frontage and lot three will have 75 feet of frontage. Access to the three lots will be via a common drive with branches off of the main drive to service lots one and two. Project Analysis: During preliminary subdivision review it was found that there were no significant problems associated with this subdivision. As indicated during preliminary subdivision review, should the remaining 5+ acres be subdivided further, there is wide enough access to the interior of the property to allow construction of a road to service the new lots. It appears that lot 3 is large enough to be further subdi vided into three more lots for a total of six lots. The applicant is also required to pay a recreation fee of $500 per lot prior to the signing of the final plat by the Planning Board Chairman. Recommendation: It appears that the proposal follows accepted planning practices, and Staff recommends final approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Would somebody care to make a motion. We should stipulate, you don't have any problem paying the rec fees before signature on the final plat? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 EDWARD & MARY CARDINALE, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: The applicant is proposing to divide a 7.9 acre parcel into three lots. Staff Comments have been addressed. Duly adopted this 20th day of April. 1993, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Scott. we do have that letter of intent for the roads on file for this? Didn't he submit that at Preliminary. maintenance of the road? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A DONALD HARVEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 2 MILES NORTH OF RT. 149 ON BAY RD.. STARTS AT INTERSECTION OF LOCKHART MT. RD. & EXTENDS 1,500' NORTH ON WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. <APA) TAX MAP NO. 25-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 16.91 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DONALD HARVEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Note s from Staff . Subdivision No. 8-1993 - Pre liminary Stage. Donald Harvey, Meeting Date: April 20. 1993 "Pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 16.91 acre parcel into - 27 - ---- three lots. The lots will range in size from 5.0 acres to 6.2 acres. The property is located on the west side of Bay Road at the intersection of Lockhart Mt. Road and is zoned RR-5A. Lots two and three have existing dwellings on them. The applicant is proposing to construct a house on lot one. Lots two and three have on site wells and septic systems, the same is proposed for the new construction. Pro; ect Anal vsis: The proposed subdivision does not involve the construction of any new streets. Lots one and two will have access from Bay Road and lot three will have access from Lockhart Road. Lots two and three have existing on site septic systems and lot one will also have an on site system when it is developed. Water service will be from on si te wells. Accessibility does not appear to be a problem. The lots all front a Town road and should not impose any new hardships on emergency accessibility. The lots are allover five acres in area and, therefore, meet area and other dimensional requirements. The existing dwellings are situated so that setback requirements are met. The topography of the parcel is fairly steep. However, with proper erosion control and limited clearing of vegetation there should be few developmental problems. The applicant has received a driveway permit from Warren County. Summary /Recommendation: There does not appear to be any outstanding issues or problems associated with this subdivision proposal. The planning staff can recommend preliminary approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Does anybody here have any questions? MRS. TARANA-Did we get the surveyor's report? MR. BREWER-On what? MRS. TARANA-I had surveyor's report. a note that we were supposed to receive Do you know anything about that, Scott? a MR. HARLICKER-A surveyor's report? MRS. TARANA-Showing a septic system on lot 2? made that. do you remember why we had that note? on Lot 2. there was a question about it? I don't know why I The septic system MR. BREWER-It doesn't show on the map. the middle one. It doesn't show on Lot 3, either. MR. RUEL-It only shows on Parcel One. MR. BREWER-The new one it shows. MR. RUEL-Yes. MRS. TARANA- I had a note about it, but I don't know if it's necessary or not. MR. RUEL-If you recall at the last meeting we asked him to note the location of the septic system in Parcel Number One. MR. BREWER-He did. MRS. PULVER-Yes. It's there. MR. RUEL-Yes. We didn't ask for the other ones. MR. HARVEY-They're existing. MR. BREWER-Maybe it wasn't on the map at Sketch. MRS. TARANA-Maybe it wasn't on our first map. MR. RUEL-Is it necessary? MR. BREWER-No. It should be on for the ~ lot. but not - 28 - '- necessarily the other two lots. MR. RUEL-Yes. It is. There's no problem. MR. BREWER-I guess, when we were up there. We were up there last week. We went up to your driveway. it looks like that's going to come right into the garage. and the house is going to be above that? It isn't? That's what it shows. MR. HARVEY-The driveway isn't starting there. It's going to be changed. It's going to be brought to the right, and go right onto the flat. MR. BREWER-It's above the flat right now. isn't it? MR. HARVEY-Yes. MR. BREWER-So you're going to come back down with that driveway? MR. HARVEY-Where that driveway goes up, it's more in the location at the top of that driveway, the location of the house. MR. BREWER-Because that was like that. I don't know what the slope was. but it was pretty steep. MR. HARVEY-The driveway is coming up and cutting to the right and going on the flat. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Wasn't there a slope from where the garage is going to be to there? MR. BREWER-Well, he's going to cut the. like where we went up, it would be like this. He's dropping it back down. to come out even with the slope. MRS. TARANA-And there's no slope between here and here? I thought there was a slope? MR. BREWER-Well, if he came down, like, say, this is where we went up right here. and stopped right here. Forget this, okay. If he comes back down where the flat was and cuts across to where the. that's going to be his garage. and the house is going to be, are you going to have to cut any of that bank out to put the house in there? MRS. TARANA-That's what I was getting at. You couldn't be perched way up. You'd have no way of getting up there. MR. HARVEY-It's going to be set into the hill. MR. RUEL-What's the proposed elevation of the garage over the road. roughly, 30. 40 feet? MR. HARVEY-I would say probably about 20 feet. maybe. MR. RUEL-It'll be tough in the winter. MR. HARVEY-Well. that's why, I was going to go up higher. That's why I'm cutting back down. so I won't have that problem. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT - 29 - "--' -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Now we can do the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-1993. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before the Planning a three lot subdivision, and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got a letter here, Scott. Do we have to grant him a waiver for the layout plans, construction details. landscaping plan, clearing plan, grading and erosion control plans? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You should do it formally. MR. BREWER-I would go along with all of it, except for the erosion control, because we asked, last week. about the erosion control for the brook, or whatever it is there. Okay. Everything, excluding, we should put that in the motion. MR. HARLICKER-So you want him to show erosion control on the final plat? MR. BREWER-Just where he's going to be building, highballs or whatever, to stop anything from going down that slope. - 30 - '-- ..- MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE DONALD HARVEY. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: A three lot subdivision. The Queensbury Planning Board will grant a waiver for layout plans. construction details, a landscaping plan, and a clearing plan. However, we will require erosion control methods be used during construction. and waive the drainage report. Duly adopted this 20th day of April. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HOLLISTER'S PLUMBING AND HEATING CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 4 HIGHLAND AVENUE NAME: KELLOGG/POTTER/HOLLISTER'S PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. SALE OF IMPROVED PARCEL TO WAYNE KELLOGG & GERALD POTTER. VACANT PARCEL WILL BE OFFERED FOR SALE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES TO BE DETERMINED BY EVENTUAL PRUCHASER. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 185-1992 TAX MAP NO. 110-7-1 LOT SIZE: 2.05 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BRUCE JORDAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-1993, Hollister's Plumbing and Heating Corp. Pre liminary Stage, Meeting Date: Apri 1 20, 1993 "Pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.05 acre parcel into two lots. The property is located on the northeastern side of Highland Avenue north of the intersection with Warren Street and is zoned LI-1A. One lot will be 53,680 square feet in size and is improved with a commercial structure used for the heating business. The other lot will be 35,975 square feet and is vacant. The applicant received a variance in 1992 to allow for an undersized lot. The property is serviced with municipal water and on site septic systems. pro;ect Analysis: The proposal does not involve the construction of any new streets. The site is level with some vegetation around the perimeter and would lend itself to commercial development. Accessibility should not be a problem with access to the property from Highland Avenue. The existing structure is serviced by municipal water and an on site sewage disposal system. On site sewage disposal will also be used on the vacant lot when it is developed. Percolation tests should be done to insure that the lot is suitable for on site sewage disposal. Recommendation: Other than the issue regarding the suitability of the vacant parcel for on site sewage disposal, there does not appear to be any outstanding problems associated with this proposal. Providing it is shown that the vacant parcel can accommodate an on site septic system Staff can recommend preliminary approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Can I ask you one question? They did get a variance for the undersized lots? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, they did. No. 85-1992. It was August 19th, 1992, Variance MR. BREWER-Okay. So that's not an issue, I guess. plans for this vacant lot at the present? There's no MR. JORDAN-For the record, my name is Bruce Jordan. I'm an attorney with offices in Glens Falls, and I represent the applicant. The only plan, as such. is to offer that property for - 31 - '-- -- sale. the vacant parcel that we're now going to create by virtue of this application, to an owner, who is yet undetermined. Obviously, without the benefit of the approval of this Board, the property has not previously been offered for sale as a separate parcel. So it would be difficult for us to say. we anticipate a use of this or that or the other nature at this time, because we don't know who the eventual person for that might be. For that reason, essentially, we're here, having the benefit of the previously issued variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. seeking to draw a line and create a separate vacant lot, and that's all. It is represented in the application, and I guess. in light of what I just said to you, what I could ~epresent is that any .iQt~nded use by an eventua~ purchaser. we w1lr have to assume. ~111 be a use that will be in other respects compliant, in so far as setback is concerned. in so far as on site sewage disposal and so forth. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess what I don't understand, Scott, is how did they get a variance for a substandard lot, when the land wasn't subdivided? MR. JORDAN-Do you want to address that Scott? MR. HARLICKER-No. Go ahead, because I wasn't around when the variance application was reviewed. MR. JORDAN-It's a little bit of a chicken or an egg question. I mean, if you go to a Planning Board and you say we'd like to have an application for a subdivision and they say. well, you can't do that until you get a variance. MR. BREWER-I understand that. but. MR. JORDAN-You go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, they may say similarly. but you have to start somewhere. So. I would submit to you that the Zoning Board of Appeals gave my client the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Rozell. on behalf of Hollister's Plumbing and Heating, went to the Board and said, I'm in a somewhat difficult situation with regard to this business property. I have to pursue the options that I have available to dispose of the property. One option is to sell the property for a price that he had in his mind was fair market value, as a piece in its entirety. The other option that may make it easier for him. from a business point of view, to liquidate the property, is to sell a portion, the improved parcel. to Buyer A. and the unimproved parcel to Buyer B. So you might say he was looking to expand his options, which he did. and in this case, Buyer A happens to be Potter and Kellogg, and Buyer B is undetermined. So that's why it was done like that. MR. HARLICKER-I think it could be similar. compared to what Polk did. They went and got the variances prior to their subdivision approval also. for the houses and things like that. setbacks. MR. BREWER-I guess, this was eight months ago, right? I suppose you have that right to wait. MR. JORDAN-Well, the reason for the time period, very simply, was I think my client didn't want to incur the additional expense of resuming a subdivision application if he didn't have a buyer, and the buyer came on the scene, virtually. we're talking a matter of two months, perhaps, ago. So, theoretically, I have to agree with you. You could have had the two applications running concurrently. before the two Board, and then simultaneous review. simultaneous approvals. and the new buyer could have bought the whole parcel. could have bought both parcels, instead of just the one, but you would have had a fair amount of expense in surveying and so forth. associated with that, that might have been wholly unnecessary. I didn't participate in that decision. That was done before my involvement on behalf of this applicant. MR. RUEL-You talk about two parcels. What two parcels are you - 32 - ~ ~ ~. talking about? MR. JORDAN-Well, there is a parcel that contains the improvements, which is on the southerly side. and this area on the north. northeasterly side is the vacant parcel that we're talking about. As a matter of Town records. there's one parcel there. currently, but we would like to make it two. one improved and one unimproved. MR. HARLICKER-Can you tell us what the proposed use is for the building? It says it's going to be, purchased by Kellogg and Potter? MR. BREWER-It's in use now, isn't it? MR. JORDAN-It's in use currently. by CamTec, who is a tenant under a one year lease. for office space. MR. HARLICKER-Is there any proposals for changing the use. that you know of. to something else, down the line? MR. JORDAN-That I'm not really sure. I know Mr. Potter wants to use, and in fact I've been in touch with Mr. Hatin in the Zoning Office concerning the use of a portion of the bUilding. I stand corrected. Kellogg has been in touch with Mr. Hatin, concerning the use of a portion of the building for tire operations. and I know some modifications were made. in respect to a fire wall for the warehouse portion. already. at Mr. Hatin's request. MR. BREWER-It will be used as a warehouse. then? MR. JORDAN-A portion of it, I believe it is. I don't have anything to do with those folks, though, in so far as what their intended use is. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? MRS. TARANA-What's a pipe rack? MR. JORDAN-Well. it's actually what it sounds like. The Hollister operation is plumbing and heating, and they had to store various quantities of pipe. and it's a steel frame structure and you just. it's like a lumber rack. except you put pipe on it. and what we did, and the reason it's identified there, is during a contractual discussion, we tried to locate the line by specified distance from the pipe rack, which we interpreted as the point from which we had to determine setback, and that's why it's indicated as such. MR. RUEL-Would you identify that Section B. I see a 35 foot strip in the center. What is that? MR. JORDAN-That's the setback line. I believe. MR. RUEL-Not, in that vertical strip between the two lots. What's this? What is this section? MR. JORDAN-I think what you're pointing to is this map is overlayed on some previous surveying work that was done. okay. The copy of the map that you have is not as dark. The lot line that is approximately 35 feet to the north of the proposed division line is actually a record title line of a prior conveyance, because if you look at the attachment to the application where I give you some historical background of the title, this parcel was acquired by the Hollister Corporation by virtue of two deeds. One included. I believe, this parcel and this parcel. and the other included this parcel, and what the surveyor has done. for the benefit of all of us, including the title people, is to show how this entire parcel is compromised of the three record title parcels. Now, it looks like I've confused you, rather than answered your question. MR. RUEL-No, but that vertical section. you're telling me that the - 33 - ""- '... line on the left is the proper line, right? The one on the right is, it's not the proper one? Yes. Okay. That's the proper line. MR. JORDAN-That's the line. for division purposes. The other line is for. MR. RUEL-Who set that line? MR. JORDAN-Mr. Steves. or one of his people. MR. RUEL-The surveyor? MR. JORDAN-Right. MR. RUEL-Why wasn't it moved over a little more so you wouldn't have to get a variance? MR. JORDAN-Well, then you'd have a setback problem. MR. RUEL-Then you would have had to have a variance for that, right? MR. JORDAN-Right. MR. RUEL-Right. MR. JORDAN-I don't know if crowding the pipe rack. for example, would have given us the extra square footage. I didn't do the mathematical computation to get that answer. MR. RUEL-You had to get a variance because it's under. what. 40.000 feet? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-AII right. right? So it's only, what, 8 or 900 feet under. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-So, you mean to tell me, if you hadn't moved that line another five feet. you would have had it. MR. HARLICKER-No, no. It's closer to 10,000 feet. MR. JORDAN-Well, an acre is 42,560 square feet, I believe, 43. I misspoke. I've got 36,000. I don't know. I've got a calculator. Do you want me to do the math? MR. BREWER-No. He's already got the variance. So it doesn't make any difference whether he did or he didn't. MR. RUEL-AII right. Forget it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Could you address the concerns that the planners have. regarding the percolation tests? MR. JORDAN-Well, I didn't, because of the nature of this site. and the prior history of this site, think it was, nor as a result of my discussions with Mr. Martin, think it was necessary to do a perc test on a site of this nature. I suppose one could be done. I suppose it could be argued that a proposed buyer would want to know if he could put an on site sewage disposal system, and then. not being an engineer, but I see there are some people in the audience who cover that category. I think the level of the perc test may depend on just how extensive a system you might want to use on the si te. So, if it was a house, if we were here for a residential lot, I'd say, we could do a quick perc test and we'd know what - 34 - ~ ''''" we're talking about. but depending on the intensity of the use. I don't know what level of perc test would be required. MR. BREWER-I would presume any commercial use that goes on the property will have to come in for site plan review anyway. right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. JORDAN-That's what Mr. Martin tells me. MR. BREWER-Then we could request that then. protected there. So I think we're MR. JORDAN-Our thought is that you'd have to look at the architectural issues. the screening. erosion control and what have you, depending on the type of commercial use that was intended. MR. BREWER-Okay. hearing. Anything else? Okay. We've got a public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NANCY RUSHLOW MRS. RUSHLOW-I'm Nancy Rushlow, and I own the property adjoining Hollister's. and I'm curious as to what is going in that building. I sat here a few years ago, when Webb was in. and demanded something be done about the water situation there. and nothing has been done, and as far as a perc test. we're floating in water up there right now. I've got three sump pumps running in the cellar. MR. BREWER-Okay. The only thing I can assure you of, if something does go in this vacant piece of property, they will have to supply the Town with proof that it can maintain a septic system. If not then it will have to resort to something else, or any commercial entity that goes in there will have to come for site plan review. You'll know ahead of time what it is, before it's there. MRS. RUSHLOW-I knew about Webb going in there, too. Now I have a river. I've had a river for the past three years because of all the development on Quaker Road, and that river, all this Spring, has gone more than half way across Highland Avenue. The State has been down there trying to reroute some water to an existing well. They actually put sandbanks up this Spring, to keep the water out of the road, and I'm sitting in it. I'm not complaining about, I know things are happening out there that I have no control over. That's why I am here. I know that you're going to put something in there, and you're going to continue to commercial develop that land. I sit on 61 foot of land there, between that and Warren Street. and my taxes have just been reassessed $36,000 more on my home. I feel that I'm paying for all these developers. and as you. the Board here that's permitting all this stuff to happen to me. I would appreciate it if you'd talk to those new Tax Assessors. I've had no results. MR. BREWER-This Board has no control over the Assessors. MRS. RUSHLOW-I know. MR. BREWER-The Town Board has no control. MRS. PULVER-Have you notified the Town Assessor about your problem? MRS. RUSHLOW-I've been in to talk to them. with no response. I have a house sitting on 61 feet of property. that I can't do anything with. It's floating in water, and I'm paying tax for $89,000. The land that you see with the house isn't mine. They've surveyed it down there. They went looking for the pipes, and the pipes are like 15 feet into my yard that I mow. I just want to know what's going in next to me. I figured. with Wayne Kellogg. I - 35 - ~ "- was going to have another garage. MR. BREWER-I think what he's going to use is warehouse space. MRS. RUSHLOW-I just know that Warren Tire has developed. and tire changing next door. MRS. PULVER-Well. you won't unless you know about it. because it will have to come in for. MRS. RUSHLOW-Even if I know about it, it won't do any good. right? MR. BREWER-Don't ever say that. MRS. PULVER-That's right. We are the Board. then. that you can come and complain to. if that happens. You'll be notified. MRS. RUSHLOW-I never started complaining until about four years ago, and I've done this three times, and gone before the Assessors and everything, and I have not once gotten results. I didn't see any results. Unless you go down there to Highland Avenue and check that situation out, at my home. MR. BREWER-If Mr. Kellogg does have plans of putting another Warren Tire annex there, he will have to come in for site plan review. MRS. RUSHLOW-He would have to come back? MR. MACEWAN-And you would be notified. MRS. PULVER-All owners within 500 feet would be notified of any change that would go on down there. MR. MACEWAN-Any development on the property. period. MRS. RUSHLOW-And I'm worried about the water situation also. That was my big concern. at this point. It has cost me a fortune in the last three years. MRS. TARANA-Who would she go to for that, Paul Naylor? MR. BREWER-If it's. well, Highland Avenue, that's a Town road. right? State road? MR. HARLICKER-State. MR. BREWER-Then you'd have to talk to the State. MRS. RUSHLOW-I've talked' to the State people. They went down and. like I said. put sandbanks up to block the water out. this Spring. MRS. PULVER-Did it help? MRS. RUSHLOW-Nothing's going to help there, at this point. the way everything's been routed through it. All water's draining right down. MR. BREWER-Well, if some business does come in and wants to put something there. other than what's there now. or something that is vacant land. we can make sure that they have drainage or runoff, so that it doesn't go to your house. MRS. RUSHLOW-Because it is all coming from that top land. all the way from Quaker Road down. You can see where it's gullying up in there. and then it's just one little river coming right down through. It is coming off that top, mainly it comes in across from the auction place there. All on this side of Quaker Road. That's all. I came up just to say. I sit down there in the middle of a junk yard. You let Jerry Brown do what he wanted to do. - 36 - ~ MR. BREWER-I didn't. MRS. RUSHLOW-Well, the Town Board did. That's all I have to say. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Carol, do you want to take us through the SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-Short Form. RE.ßO~YTI9Jl_WHEN QETERMI~~TIºN OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-1993, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before a subdivision, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency is involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed project considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1993 HOLLISTER'S PLUMBING AND HEATING CORP., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: For a two lot subdivision. - 31 - ~ -/ Duly adopted this 20th day of April. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT/STEPHEN BISHOP OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-IA LOCATION: DIX AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY IN HALF, CONVEY 3.35 ACRE LOT ON DIX AVE.. RETAIN 3.43 ACRE LOT. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.22 LOT SIZE: 6.78 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AGENT FROM COULTER & MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1993, Gerald & Roger HewlettlStephen Bishop Preliminary Stage, Meeting Date: April 20, 1993 II pro i ect De,liÇ.riPti.on: The applicant is propos ing to subdivide a 6.78 acre parcel into two lots. The lot will be 3.35 acres and 3.43 acres respectively. The lots are located on Dix Avenue approximately 2,000' west of Quaker Road. They are zoned LI-1A and contain commercial structures. Each lot has frontage on Dix Avenue; the lot to the rear is a flag lot with a 50' wide strip that serves as access to the back part of the lot. The front lot has an easement to use the 50' wide strip as access. Pro i ect Analvsis: The proposal does not involve the construction of any new streets or utilities. Both the lots are currently commercial uses and there is no new construction proposed. The lots are serviced by municipal water and sewer. Future development of the site is limited because of the existing commercial uses. Recommendation: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this proposal and Staff recommends preliminary approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-One note. before we go further. have you got the Certified Mail Receipts. for people within 500 feet? AGENT-I think I have them in my file. back at the office. I forgot. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Are they supposed to be received by you guys? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-He's coming back for Final next week? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. but if we have the public hearing tonight, we can leave the public hearing open, can't we. if he brings in proof next week? MR. MACEWAN-The thing to do is open a public hearing tonight, table it until next Tuesday. bring the receipts in to the Planning Department before then. MR. BREWER-No. What we can do is, open the public hearing, leave it open. and approve preliminary, if we so desire, approve preliminary, and then go to final next week, provided he has the receipts. Can we do that? MR. HARLICKER-I think so, and if he can get them to us tomorrow. - 38 - '\...... AGENT-Yes. I'll be back up tomorrow. MR. BREWER-Okay. simple. Does anybody have any questions? It's pretty MR. MACEWAN-It's pretty simple, cut and dry. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll leave the public hearing open. MR. RUEL-How can we have a public hearing. when he doesn't have the receipts? MR. BREWER-Well, if we leave it open, and even if he comes back next week. and he doesn't have proof that they were distributed, then we just. MR. RUEL-Yes, but it should be opened again, at the next meeting. MRS. PULVER-It is going to be opened again. MR. BREWER-It will be. I left it open. MR. RUEL-All right. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So do we need a Short Form SEQRA? Long Form. MR. HARLICKER-They filled out a Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-1993, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the a two lot subdivision. and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the - 39 - - -' Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1993 GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT/STEPHEN BISHOP. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For a two lot subdivision. All Staff concerns have been addressed. With the following condition: That on the meeting of April 29th. thee applicant will submit the Certified Mail Receipts. Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993. by the fOllowing vote: MR. BREWER-He's going to submit them tomprrow, I think. aren't you? AGENT-Yes. I'll have them tomorrow. MR. BREWER-So we have them by that meeting. MRS. PULVER-Yes. We will have them prior to that meeting. AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint PETITION NO. 4-93 RECOMMENDATION ONLY ZAREMBA GROUP INCORPORATED PROPERTY INVOLVED: +35 ACRE PARCEL BOUNDED BY DIX AVE.. QUAKER RD. & WARREN STREET. CURRENT ZONE: PC-1A. HI-3A. HC-15 PROPOSED ZONE: PC-IA TAX MAP NO.: 110-1-2.1. 21, 22, 30 TIM MORGAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF NOTES Notes from Staff. Petition No. 4-93, Zaremba Group, Inc., Meeting Date: April 20, 1993 "A. Pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is seeking a rezoning of approximately 40 acres located along Highland Avenue, Quaker Road, Dix Avenue and Warren Street to Plaza Commercial (PC-1A). in order to allow construction of a 162,598 square foot retail building. The lots involved are tax parcels 110-1-2.1. 110-1-21, 110-1-22 and 110-1-30 and are owned by three different owners. Lots 110-1-2.1 and 110-1-30 are vacant and covered with some brush and trees; lot 110-1-21 is commercial and contains Livingston Furniture; and lot 110-1-22 contains a vacant commercial building that used to be a bar. There are also wetlands located on the site. The property is currently zoned LI-1A; however, because the owner has a pending application, the zoning districts that existed at the time of the initial application are also applicable to this property; those districts are PC-lA, HC-15 and HI-3A. B. Existinq Land Use Characteristics The property involved in the rezoning is a large tract made up of four separate parcels with both existing and vacant commercial structures as well as vacant land. The maj ori ty of the land is vacant with some wetlands on the largest parcel which is approximately 35 acres. The surrounding properties include a mixture of industrial and - 40 - ',-, --- commercial uses as well as vacant land. Most of the uses on the adjacent properties are industrial related (see attached map). C. Zone Chanqe Analysis: 1. What need is being met by the proposed changes in zone or new zone? The applicant is seeking a rezoning to allow for the construction of a retail store. specifically K- Mart. The applicant states that the need being met by this rezoning is allowing the site to be developed, as the applicant desires, without requiring a use variance. 2. What proposed zone. if any. can meet the stated need? Highway Commercial and Plaza Commercial are the zones that allow this type of retail use. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The adjacent zones include Highway Commercial and Light Industrial. The proposed rezoning to Plaza Commercial would allow uses that are less intense and intrusive than those allowed in the adjacent zones. The proposed zone would be very compatible with the Highway Commercial zone because of the similar uses and arealdensi ty requirements of each zone. The PC-1A zone is also compatible with the LI-1A zone. but some of the uses allowed in the Light Industrial zone may not be compatible with the PC-1A zone. The uses that are allowed in all three zones require access to major roads. so in that respect they are compatible. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The majority of the site is relatively flat and should pose no problems for development. However, bedrock is quite close to the surface, and the site is not very well drained; these factors will influence development of the site. There are also several acres of wetlands on the site that will require investigation by the USA Corp of Engineers and possible mitigation measures regarding developmental impacts on them. 5. How will the proposed zoning affect public facilities? The proposed rezoning should have a reduced impact on public facilities. The PC-1A zone allows for less square footage of development per acre and less intense uses than the HI-3A zone. which is currently in place on part of the parcel. 6. Why is the current classification not appropriate for the property in question? The zoning in effect on this particular property was grandfathered in. It has since been rezoned to LI-1A as a result of the Master Plan that was approved in 1988. Therefore, the HI-3A and the HC-15 zones currently in place on the property could be considered inappropriate at this time. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? An increase in traffic is the main environmental impact of this rezoning. The use proposed. if the rezoning is approved, will probably generate more traffic than would the uses allowed under the zoning currently in effect on this property. The mix of traffic would also be different. A large retail center would generate more automobile traffic and the uses allowed in industrial zones would probably generate less total traffic but more truck traffic. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The Town Master Plan indicates a desire to be able to expand the existing technical park that is adjacent to this site. The natural direction of expansion would appear to include this property. By rezoning this, expansion of the park in this direction is essentially limited. This property also satisfies one of the policies that relate to industrial development. The policy recognizes a desire to identify areas of the town that are easily developable, accessible to major roads wi thout impacting residential areas, and do not compromise the natural resources of the Town. Therefore, it would appear that rezoning this property would not be compatible with some of the relevant portions of the Master Plan. However, the proposal is compatible with other relevant portions of the Master Plan that relate to commercial development. The Plan indicates a desire to locate commercial development along the major roads such as Quaker Road. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal. There is no doubt that the interest of the applicant is being served; there is some question as to whether those interests translate into the best interest of the Town. It is apparent that this property is well suited to both industrial and commercial uses. However. the land use policies and neighborhood strategies were developed in consideration of the - 41 - "- '--' wider interests of the community. If an action is in conflict with those stated policies and strategies, it is likely that the action is not serving the wider interests of the community. D. Summary and Conclusion: The proposed zone change for this property will allow for uses that are less intense than those uses allowed under the current grandfathered zoning. The proposed use. a large retail store, would not be in conflict with any of the adjacent existing uses. There does not appear to be any physical constraints on the site. The site is serviced by municipal water and municipal sewer is available on adjoining property. Municipal services should not be a limiting factor in future development of the site. The rezoning is both compatiþle and in~ompatiblelwith the Master Plant The neighborhood strategles tor thlS área cal s for ~he aeve opmen of commercial uses along Quaker Road and for the expansion of the technical park. The rezoning of this property is compatible regarding the commercial uses and is incompatible regarding the industrial park and the location of industrial development. The area is a high traffic area and the rezoning would allow for a use that would generate higher levels of traffic than those allowed under the current applicable zoning. This is a main environmental factor that requires consideration. This rezoning could have major ramifications on the future development in this area. It is probable that the construction of the proposed large retail center, that would be made possible by this rezoning. will be a major catalyst for future commercial development in this area. Industrial development in the area could be forced out by the demand for commercial properties. Properties along Dix Road. Highland Road and Warren Street that are currently zoned LI-1A could be up for rezoning as the demand for commercial properties increase. The Board has to make a policy determination as to whether it wants this area to remain industrial or would like to see it change to commercial. Staff believes that this rezoning could determine which direction future development will take. Should the Board decide to rezone this property, consideration should be given to rezoning alternative areas of the town to make up for the industrial properties that will be lost as a result of this rezoning." MR. MORGAN-Tim, I think the easiest thing to do, first of all, my name. for the record. is Tim Morgan. I'm the Director of Retail Development for the Zaremba Group, based in Cleveland, Ohio, and I know a number of the Board members were present here last week, for a joint presentation. but for those that were not, possibly we could repeat. in brie f form, a general overview of the proj ect, including utilities, zoning, and project description, etc.. etc.. so that everyone is equally informed as to what's going on here. The first thing I'd like to start with is to pass around an aerial for the Board, so that they can get a little bit better idea of where exactly the site is located, the adjacent arterials. etc. While Craig is passing that down. why don't we start wi th the zonings on this property. This particular plan. which I believe all of you have in your packages, designates the existing grandfathered zoning on this property. Now, it's important to note here that we are, at this time, not only considering a project site, but we are also attempting to rezone the adjacent lands currently owned by Mr. Charlebois. The grandfathered zoning includes a major portion of Plaza Commercial, as you can see, and also what would generally equal a heavy industrial area. Now on this next plan which, again, is marked and designated Z2 in your books. is the current zoning designation of the property which, as you can tell, is Light Industrial. MR. BREWER-Okay. Livingston's Furniture. that is Light Industrial, at the present? MR. MORGAN-That is correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MORGAN-As is this Rumors Bar property. - 42 - / -- MR. BREWER-Okay. that brings me to another question. Was Mr. Whipple. or the owner of that property, ever approached about being included in this rezoning? MR. MORGAN-You should have his authorization. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We've got that. the adjacent parcels. We received them today. for MR. BREWER-Okay. It just stuck out in my mind that you would leave that one piece of property out. MR. MORGAN-That's what, Mr. Whipple's authorization form is in there. as is Mr. Mitchell's. and obviously Mr. Charlebois'. So, once again, this is the current zoning designation. The map designated Z3 in your books shows the proposed zoning designation we proposed this evening. Obviously, this portion would not only encompass the project site. excluding Mr. Whipple, but he would be rezoned. and the adjacent lands, as I have previously mentioned, that are owned by Mr. Charlebois at this time. I think maybe the most advantageous way to discuss this is to take it in general issues. So if there are any questions on the zoning, maybe we could just start there, and move to ancillary issues. and I'd be happy to flip back to any of the plans. as questions arise. MR. BREWER-I guess my question would be, why is all the other property in for the rezoning also? It's not all contiguous, is it? MR. MORGAN-Well, it is, generally speaking. There is aNiMo easement here, but it is generally contiguous, and Mr. Chairman. that request was made by Mr. Charlebois back when we had originally begun speaking with him, and I believe it's a personal desire of his. So. at this time, we are trying to work with this. MR. RUEL-That upper portion. Is that something new? MR. MORGAN-When you say new, in what sense? MR. RUEL-I don't recall that on the last meeting. that section. Was that in there. too? MR. MORGAN-Yes. These were actually the same plans that we used last week. Possible I didn't clear, show it to you. MR. RUEL-And you have two wetland areas, right. at the bottom? MR. MORGAN-What I can do is I can go to the wetlands, briefly. and if there's any questions, again. on zoning. At this time, these are general delineations of what we believe currently exists on this property. The reason that we do not have an exact acreage figure at this time is that these wetlands are currently under the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of Engineers in the New York Office. Their requirements for delineation require that the ground soil temperature be at 41° or greater. Up until this time. we have not been able to reach that goal. These lands are going to be delineated on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of this week. So at this time. and in subsequent meetings, we will be able to provide all the Board members the exact acreage figures that exist here. as far as wetlands go. Now. the Army Corp of Engineers will require a mitigation effort on any wetlands that are destroyed or hampered in any way, shape. or form. As you can tell from your site plans that you have, a number of these areas here will be impacted. as well as a portion of this for parking. Again, if you go back to your site plans, you will note that there is an entrance drive off Quaker that roughly bisects this area. A larger four acre parcel here. and a smaller, general, 1.1 acre parcel there. Our current greenspace is at 36%. which I believe exceeds your Town requirement of 20%. We have room out here not only to conduct our stormwater detention, but also to include any mitigation of the wetlands. We have gone above and beyond what we believe is here, so that we have - 43 - ~ .- made appropriate remedies to take care of that problem. As we progress further and that delineation comes in, we'd be more than happy to sit down, again, with the Board, in subsequent meetings, and clearly define to them that that problem has been taken care of. to your satisfaction, and more importantly, to the Army Corp of Engineers. MRS. TARANA-Does that mean that DEC is not involved in these wetland determinations? MR. MORGAN-DEC has, I believe, a 12 acre threshold, in which, anything below that amount does not pertain to their jurisdictiont So, in this instance, you can use any number you want. I mean, don't want to represent a number until we get the delineation in, this is certainly below that DEC threshold. So therefore the jurisdiction and mitigation involved in these circumstances fall solely to the enforcement efforts of the Army Corp of Engineers. MRS. TARANA-We' ve seen other properties that DEC had to give permits for. JIM CONNERS MR. CONNERS-My name is Jim Conners. I'm with C.T. Male Associates. We're the engineers for the applicant. DEC. we have received a letter from them indicating that they do not have any jurisdiction whatsoever over the wetlands associated with this site. In instances in the past that they may have been before you, they. for wetlands that may not be 12 acres in extent on a particular property, but 12 acres in extent over a number of properties. Those wetlands are regulated under their jurisdiction. In this instance. it is not. MR. MORGAN-That particular letter, excuse me for interrupting, but Jim is mentioning. is not included in your books. and Mr. Chairman. I'd be more than happy to provide it to Scott, whatever number of copies were requested. so that you could feel comfortable with that. MRS. TARANA-I guess I don't understand. How many properties would have to be involved? MR. CONNERS-You would have to have a wetlands area that is greater than 12 acres in extent. It doesn't matter the amount of properties. It's just the total. MRS. TARANA-But we have seen projects where it hasn't been, I mean. I'm just confused about why we've seen projects, I mean we were an acre. MR. CONNERS-Are you considering the APA Regulations? MRS. TARANA-No, DEC permits. MR. BREWER-I know that for a fact, because another project. wetlands has to be 12 acres or more. for ENCON to jurisdiction. The have MR. CONNERS-Right. MR. BREWER-If it's not 12 acres, they won't bother with it. MR. HARLICKER-It might be only one acre on that particular lot that's being looked at, and then spread out over several other adjacent properties. MRS. TARANA-Okay. because I am thinking of some people who've been here. and their property has had to get a DEC, okay. that makes sense. - 44 - '-" -- MR. BREWER-You're talking about. like. Rowe. MRS. TARANA-Okay, because his property is surrounded by a lot of other wetlands. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. TARANA-Okay. That's fine. MR. RUEL-Do you want to talk about sewer conduction? MR. MORGAN-I'd be happy to present it in any way that the Board is comfortable. MR. RUEL-Yes. I believe there were several alternatives. One was to connect to adjacent, adjoining property. Another one was to go out to the road, and you would have to put a pipe in quite a distance? MR. MORGAN-In your books, there entitled Sanitary Sewer Options, here, I'd be happy to discuss options. is a plan that's specifically Jim. if you want to put one up the different impacts and the MR. CONNERS-It's the last map in your packets. MRS. PULVER-I want to say. my comment was. I was very impressed with this packet. MR. BREWER-Yes. I was, too. It was very well put together. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MORGAN-To address your comments, sanitary does exist for this project. A lot of it depends on from what angle you look at it. As you will see on the plans, this is the general outline of the project site, Quaker Road. Dix Road, and the existing Progress Boulevard. This road that is delineated here on this plan is planned, but is not existing. These lands comprise Queensbury Technical Park, which is controlled by the QEDC, to my knowledge. The easiest option for us to gain access to the existing sanitary line, and this is the extent of it, to this point, is to sit down with QEDC and the Town Board and the Planning Board, and work out a compromise through which we would agree, in some fashion, to extend the line to where it's currently planned, we would obtain, from QEDC, an easement, in which to extend that line to the rear of our building. That is the easiest option for us at this time. Whether or not we are able to consummate that relationship with the Town and QEDC remains to be seen. MR. RUEL-Is that land occupied now? MR. MORGAN-No. To my knowledge, it's currently vacant. MR. RUEL-And has a road in it? MR. MORGAN-No. This road does exist, Progress Boulevard. to this point. This road you see. it may be misleading, is planned, but is not in right now. MRS. PULVER-There is a couple of buildings, a couple of businesses there. in the technical park now. MR. RUEL-Is the sewer line of proper dimensions, or adequate to supply with your needs? MR. MORGAN-I would let Jim address that, but generally speaking, this existing line would be adequate to service our proposed development. - 45 - "'--' - MR. RUEL-Now, if that's not possible, what's the alternative? MR. MORGAN-Option Number Two is for us to run, I believe, approximately. 1900 feet of linear main down Dix Avenue to a point, right here, and then install a pump station. in that Option Number Two. we would not require any easements from QEDC whatsoever. We could access the existing sewage area. MR. RUEL-How many feet would that be? MR. MORGAN-Nineteen hundred, ballpark. MR. RUEL-Versus? MR. MORGAN-Versus 1700, approximately. MR. RUEL-You mean it's only a 200 foot distance between the two options? MR. BREWER-Yes, but you would have a pump station also. MR. MORGAN-We would save a great deal of distance with Option Number One. MR. RUEL-That's what I thought. MR. CONNERS-And it would also benefit the technical park, in that sewage would be installed on that property. MR. MORGAN-Which would hopefully facilitate the sale of that land. Now. again, that's an issue that has not been broached with the Town Board. It has been discussed with both the Supervisor and with Jim Martin, but it has not been an issue that has formally reached with QEDC. The third option is to, in most part. mimic the second option. and run down here to this sanitary, which is approximately 2100 feet, I believe, and change, and again, we would be able to provide ourselves with sanitary, and not have to work with QEDC. Those are the three options that currently exist. MR. CONNERS-And the third connection would be connecting to a sewer system which is currently under the control of Glens Falls. MR. BREWER-My preference is One. I mean. it just benefits the Town of Queensbury, rather than the City of Glens Falls. MR. RUEL-Well, it sounds like, tonight. we have to make a determination, not only on that, but on parts of the Master Plan. MR. BREWER-We don't make a determination. We just, we're recommending whether we think this should be rezoned or not. is what we are doing, because we, ultimately, will not rezone this property. The Town Board will. MR. RUEL-I see. Just make a recommendation? MR. BREWER-Right. They mayor may not go along with us. MR. MORGAN - I'd be happy to jump around, presentation, with any questions that you have. throughout the MR. RUEL-Is the technical park next to it? MR. BREWER-Yes. It abuts it. MR. RUEL-And this was promoted by Queensbury to sell areas to, what. technical development? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, to try to pull in some sort of high tech development. Yes. - 46 - '- -' MR. RUEL-Has that been very successful? MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. HARLICKER-Now I think there's two or three businesses that are located down in there. MR. MACEWAN-There's two businesses in there. they're both commercial. In my opinion, MR. RUEL-It looked like a wide open area to me. MR. BREWER-NAMIC is not commercial. MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. BREWER-Isn't NAMIC in there? MR. MACEWAN-No. They're up in Glens Falls Tech. The only two that are in that Tech Park are NDP and Northern Mechanical. MR. RUEL-It looks vacant to me. MR. HARLICKER-For the most part. it is. MR. RUEL-And I was wondering why the Planning Staff was concerned about changing the Master Plan. and the movement of that type of an area to another section of Town? MR. HARLICKER-Well, it's not just. the Technical Park is not to be rezoned, but you're talking about another 40 acres, ad j acent, that's to be rezoned. and then the impacts that that rezoning will have on all the adjacent industrial zone that surrounds it. The Staff's concern is that if you put a 162,000 square foot major retail center in that area, what's it going to do to the other industrially zoned properties adjacent to it? MR. RUEL-It'll make a lot of people ask for rezoning. MR. MACEWAN-I took your map, here, and I kind of went around it and looked at it today, and I came up with 19 sites, right around this vicini ty, that are commercial. I came up with three sites that were Light Industrial. and one residential site. MR. BREWER-What were the Light Industrial uses? MR. MACEWAN-The Light Industrial I had down there as the auto repair. There's Light Industrial over here on the Quaker Road. which is probably the. MR. BREWER-Who's the auto repair? MR. MACEWAN-That would be Scorencio's place down there. The three Light Industrials that I came up with was the auto salvage place, Brown's Junkyard. MR. BREWER-I would say that's more so heavy industrial. know. I don't MR. RUEL-What, junkyard? It depends on whether they have trucks or cars. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll go along with that. MR. MORGAN-On Map Z3. there's a key that I believe. Mr. Chairman. you're looking at right now. that encompasses the adjacent uses. I don't know if that's what you're considering. MR. MACEWAN-No. You put this together, didn't you, Scott? - 41 - ,-"....--- -- ,/ MR. HARLICKER-No. This was taken from their application. MRS. PULVER-Well, I, too, Craig, have been down and about there the last couple of days. and most of it is. I would consider most of it commercial. MR. HARLICKER-Commercial? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I mean, there was a couple of Light Industrial classified places right on Dix Avenue, but they were distributors. of one kind or another, and I don't know if you really could classify them as Light Industrial. MRS. PULVER-I mean, without knowing, if I were to drive down there. I would think that was zoned commercial. for commercial business. Yes. MR. RUEL-That's the layout you had last week? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's why I asked the question about that section way up on top. It's not even designated. MR. MORGAN-Well, it is misleading because it's the project site only that's colored uP. but if you'll note, the designation on it, is Plaza Commercial. MR. RUEL-Do you also want that changed? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. RUEL-What are you going to use that section for? MR. MORGAN-Well, actually, sir. that's not going to be utilized whatsoever in our development. That one will be retained by the original land owner, both of this piece. and that piece. So, I would feel it would be reluctant to me to discuss the future development on this. MR. RUEL-It won't belong to K-Mart? MR. MORGAN-I can't even guess anymore. This will not be owned by the Zaremba Group. which will be the title owner of that property. MR. RUEL-NiMo has an easement through there. Is that high tension lines? MR. MORGAN-Exactly. MR. RUEL-You're not concerned about the radiation? MR. MORGAN-They're not high. What I did want to illustrate. though. to you, is, you had brought up an issue about the wetlands. This plan addresses that a little better. It may be a little tough to see, but on here are delineated the major wetland areas? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MORGAN-So as you can see, this will be impacted. This will, for the most part, remain in its natural condition. A portion of this will be impacted by the parking lot, and, again, this will show you in a much clearer manner the area that we have retained in our site development plan, that would not also encompass our stormwater detention. but we'll also have plenty of room to mitigate any wetlands that this Board will require of us. MR. RUEL-There will be no runoff. in other words? MR. MORGAN-We'll address storm as a separate issue. We'd be happy - 48 - '--~ - to answer all your questions. MR. MACEWAN-How does Mr. Charlebois' wanting that other piece retained by him, but also being rezoned, tie in to you guys getting what you want? MR. MORGAN-Well, Number One. and foremost, it was a wish that he requested of us, in our negotiations. and at this point. obviously, we are moving forward with that, based on his desire. As far as what he would anticipate doing with the land that he retains. again, that would hardly be my place to comment on. MR. BREWER-Why was a variance not sought? MR. MORGAN-Well, what we did is we sat down with Jim and with the Supervisor and we went through the pros and cons in both fashions, and I believe Paul Dusek was also in with us on that meeting, and there was a consensus of opinion between all three of those officials that they would prefer if we would move forward with our plans based on rezoning and not a use variance. We actually came in with both options. Now exactly what their reasoning is, I'd be happy to sit down with all three. and with you, Hr. Chairman, and we could talk about it. MR. BREWER-No. I was just curious why you didn't. MR. MORGAN-That's actually why we're moving forward, based on this. at their request. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I have one question of Mrs. Rushlow. property zoned right now? What is your NANCY RUSHLOW MRS. RUSHLOW-I'm commercial. MR. HARLICKER-That's Light Industrial. MRS. PULVER-That's what I meant. You're LI-l acre? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MRS. RUSHLOW-I only have about a quarter of an acre. MR. MORGAN-I'd like to point out, Livingston's Furniture is currently zoned Light Industrial, as well, and that is strictly commercial use. It is grandfathered. It originally was zoned as Plaza Commercial. The Town went through and rezoned it. They made a nonconforming use within that current zone. MR. BREWER-It would be the same as if you rezoned all this Plaza Commercial, and left him Light Industrial. That would make no sense. MR. MORGAN-He would have to come before the Board if he had any plans in the future for doing any type of work, requesting a variance, as a nonconforming use, because it was originally Plaza Commercial. MR. BREWER-That's why I asked about the letter from Bob about going to Plaza Commercial. MR. MORGAN-What we have here is a general rendering of the Super K- Mart concept. Again. this is a stock rendering, just to give you an idea of what the external facade would look like, and in addition to that, what I'd like to circulate is a cover sheet of that rendering, as well as photographs of the first Super K-Mart that our company developed in Dyne, Ohio, which is a suburb to the - 49 - ..-.- south of Cleveland, Ohio. Now, there was some discussion at last week's meeting as to exactly what this bUilding will entail, and at that time. we discussed that this particular K-Mart concept will be a combination of not only the stereotypical discount store, but of a grocery component as well. MRS. PULVER-Is that going to be open 24 hours a day? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-The whole thing will be. right? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Including the K-Mart portion, or just the grocery store? MR. MORGAN-Well. the K-Mart store is not divided in any way, shape, or form by any kind of a wall. So to say that they're actually two separate stores is misleading. They're actually two stores under one roof. So there would actually be no way to shut one down and leave one open. MR. RUEL-But all stores are not open 24 hours, right? MRS. PULVER-Yes. This one will. MR. BREWER-It's only one store. MR. MORGAN-See. that's what I'm saying. MR. RUEL-All of them are open 24 hours? They're one store. MR. MORGAN-Excuse me. sir, all of what stores? MR. RUEL-AII the individual shops or stores. MR. MORGAN-It's a department store. all part of one eXisting store. but dividing that store into two major components, a grocery and discount. MR. RUEL-Okay, because you had a pharmacy, and you had an optical. MR. MORGAN-Envision your supermarket, your current supermarket. They have bakeries. They have pharmacies. They have opticals. They have florists. MR. RUEL-Yes, and they're all open 24 hours? MR. MORGAN-I'm sure that they would staff them appropriately at three in the morning. I believe in these pictures that are coming around. there is one of the optical department, and again, I thought that that would give the Board a flavor of what it is we're proposing, that's from an existing store. So that the Board also has a good idea of the exterior, this board here represents pictures of the first Super K-Mart. That will give you a better idea of what it is it looks like. MR. MACEWAN-That typifies the facade that you will be using? MR. MORGAN-Yes, it does. I would not want to speak identical detail until we got into site plan approval, should we progress that far. Obviously, these designs and external facades would come before you for your review and approval at a subsequent date in the future. MR. RUEL-You seem to have adequate lighting in the parking lot. What do you propose, as far as security. if any? MR. BREWER-That's something I noticed about here, Roger. I see no - 50 - ""..'-........ "--- -/.. lighting in this parking lot. MR. RUEL-On the ones he just showed us. MR. MORGAN-That's a generic rendering. It's just meant to give you an idea of what we're talking about. MRS. PULVER-I imagine the lighting would be on the islands. somehow. MR. MORGAN-If I can go back to this, that has actual lighting on this, that you can see in the picture. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. CONNERS-We will be complying with all the Ordinances of the Town. MR. RUEL-How about my question about security in the parking lot? MR. MORGAN-Security is a little bit more of an operations question. What I can do is I can assure you, from a lighting standpoint, late at night, that not only is that important to the residents of Queensbury, but it's important to the insurance carrier for the K- Mart Corporation. MR. RUEL-Do you have any security guards, or a roving? MR. MORGAN-I'm sure that there actually I do not know exactly how many. what time it's more of an operations question. process, I would be more than happy information. are guards in the store. they would be on. Again, As we progress in this to supply you with that MR. RUEL-It's been a problem in the New York area, in the New York City area, and I know it hasn't been a problem up here, but parking lots are dangerous places. MR. MORGAN-I would stress the fact that this is not New York City, but again. I realize that a parking lot this large. that's open 24 hours, it does raise a safety issue, and I'd be more than happy to address that. MR. RUEL-Yes. People are moving up from there. there. It's getting dangerous around here. I came up from MR. MORGAN-Again, this is a somewhat shortened program from what we went through last week, in the joint meeting with the Town Board and the Planning Board. I certainly don't want to short change any new members here this evening. If there are any questions of any facet of what we talked about, or that exists in the packet, we'd be more than happy to address it. MR. RUEL-I assume you'll have a traffic study? MR. MORGAN-A traffic study will not only be done internally, but it will be done at Jim Martin's request, and there are specific provisions in that that he has asked us to comply with. Primarily, he would like a 10 year projection of the major corridors, so that he can gauge the approximate traffic volume, and that's something we'd be more than happy to comply with. MR. RUEL-Yes. Good. Okay. Fine. MR. BREWER-The Highway Commercial was never considered, as a zone? MR. MORGAN-Well, in sitting down here with Jim and Mike. they preferred the Plaza Commercial. MR. BREWER-Plaza Commercial. less intense. The only other question - 51 - '- ----' that I had was the retention area, the retention area in the front portion of the building, that you mentioned the other night for stormwater. Do you have any rendering of that. In the green area out in front? MR. MORGAN-It's exactly designated stormwater management, right now. We have not yet submitted our plans to Tom Yarmowich. for his review, and we'll do that, in the near future, should we progress. As a general overview. maybe what I could do is turn that issue over to Jim, and he could enumerate the possibilities. MR. BREWER-I just wouldn't like to see a great big pond there. MR. CONNERS-The intention right now, obviously, is the wetland designation will be in that same area. So you will have wetlands. There will be adequate storage volume provided to keep flows generated from the site, meeting all the Town's requirements. In general, you are not going to see a water surface elevation with ducks swimming around. and fish breaking the surface of the water. It will be intended to mitigate any of that, down stream facilities. As far as the extent of that, most likely the size of that basin will be dictated by the wetland, stormwater volume requirements. Ultimately, we will be looking to retain and keep grades to that as it currently exists. MR. RUEL-Are the dark green areas existing vegetation, trees? MR. CONNERS-Yes. MR. RUEL-The ones that are there will remain there, right? MR. CONNERS-In as much as possible. yes. MR. MORGAN-We have done our very best to preserve, obviously, what can be saved. areas such as this. There's nothing we can do with the park area. That has to be there. We have met all the Town codes on landscaping and greenspace. We've even exceeded by 16 percent the greenspace on this plan. So the areas that do currently exist as heavy vegetation have had great efforts to maintain them. MR. RUEL-And there's parking facility for over 1,000 cars? MR. CONNERS-Correct. MR. BREWER-If I remember, it's almost 1200, right? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-And that exceeds the parking requirement for the Town? MR. MORGAN-By a great deal. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-And the separate access road for trucks, for loading and delivery at the rear. MR. MORGAN-What we've proposed is one here on Dix Avenue, and one here on Highland, in great method, so that we can, to the greatest degree possible, keep all the truck traffic completely out of the primary flow. MR. RUEL-And no connection between the parking lot and that road? MR. MORGAN-No. other than right there. MR. CONNERS-Limited access. MR. MORGAN-And that's due to the fire engines. - 52 - '-- '-- MR. RUEL-I see. MR. BREWER-You will prevent any water running down Highland from that lady's front yard. right? MR. CONNERS-We will be maintaining the existing drainage patterns that are out there at this point in time. We will not be diverting flows that don't go where they currently go. In fact, we will be diverting some flows away from that house? MR. BREWER-You will? MR. CONNERS-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. CONNERS-Practically half of the site, from here down. drains from Highland. We would be taking that and bringing it over to an area. and running it down to the current point of discharge, which is a culvert located on Warren Street, near the intersection of Highland and Warren. MR. RUEL-And who's responsible for maintaining the NiMo area, NiMo? MR. CONNERS-Niagara Mohawk. MR. BREWER-Okay. I know this presentation is for this Board, but does anybody have any objection to taking any questions from people in the audience? LADY IN AUDIENCE LADY IN AUDIENCE-I have two questions. One, you talk about the possibility of putting a pump station down Dix Avenue. Is that down towards the City, or down towards the Town? MR. MORGAN-Actually. what that would be, I can try and show it to you here. We wouldn't be building a pump station down Dix Avenue. It would be located on our property, because there's an elevation change between our proposed sanitary tie in, and the actual elevation of Dix and the alignment in Dix Avenue. So the proposed pump station, should it be required, would be located in here. It would not be off of the existing project site. LADY IN AUDIENCE-And my second thing, earlier in your speech, you said something about an entrance on Quaker Road? MR. MORGAN-Yes. Right here. LADY IN AUDIENCE-If I'm not mistaken, when Mr. Charlebois requested a plaza a few years ago. and then the plan was dropped. it seems to me that the County said at that time, it would never allow a driveway between Dix and Quaker because of the crest of the hill. MR. MORGAN-We met with both the State and the County. LADY IN AUDIENCE-I thought they wouldn't allow any driveways because of the crest of the hill right there. MR. MORGAN-We have met with both the County and the State and talked about this location, and in fact, we're not even at a crest of a hill there. MR. BREWER-That's between the two lights, isn't it? MR. MORGAN-Yes. It's between the two lights. MR. CONNERS-Site distance will be investigated. I would say the County and State won't approve it if there's a problem. I believe, Claude, you also had your intersection coming in right at Dix - 53 - -/ Avenue and Quaker Road intersections. MR. BREWER-Does anybody on the Board have any other questions? We're just looking for the other Light Industrial areas of the Town. There's not a lot of it left. It's all Light Industrial out by the airport. Okay. Would somebody care to make a recommendation? MRS. PULVER-Is everyone in agreement? MR. MACEWAN-I guess I don't have a problem with it. MR. RUEL-It's okay by me. MRS. PULVER-It's okay by me. MRS. TARANA-I have a problem with some of these issues that Scott raised. We know that the intent of the Master Plan, we're going against the intent of the Master Plan, to some extent. MR. MACEWAN-What specific areas do you feel we're going against? MRS. TARANA-Well, the Land Use Plan established that zone. and put the Technical Park there for the purpose of attracting Light Industrial business. I think the point that Scott's making is if you take all that Light Industrial away. where do you compensate. I don't want to speak for you, Scott, but isn't that what you're saying? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That's pretty much it. Once you get that, you know, you're taking away. directly, 40 acres, and indirectly. the other commercial businesses that are going to want to locate near the K-Mart store. So you're going to losing quite a bit of industrially zoned land in that area. Consideration should be given as to, how can you make up for this loss of industrially zoned property. MR. BREWER-Is that our decision to make? MRS. TARANA-This is not our decision anyway. MR. STARK-You have better than half of the Industrial Park, now. vacant. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, there doesn't seem to be a need for that zone. MR. BREWER-On the same hand, because of all the vacant land in the Town of Queensbury. should we rezone all that land to something else, so it'll be used? That's the big question. MR. RUEL-I brought that up earlier. and you said it wasn't our decision. MR. BREWER-Well, no, they want our recommendation, what we feel they should do, but I mean. it's, ultimately, not our decision. We have to go with what we feel, and if we feel they shouldn't do it, then we've got to say that. If we feel that they should, then we've got to say that. MR. HARLICKER-Or you could say, yes. we recommend it, with considerations. or conditions. somehow. too. MR. BREWER-Consideration to looking into other areas for Light Industrial zoning. MRS. TARANA-Yes. The Town Board has made the point, several times, that they are trying to attract Light Industrial business into the - 54 - ..-' --' Town. Am I right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Haven't they done that, and it seems like we're defeating that purpose by removing 40 acres of land that could be accessed for that. MR. HARLICKER-It appears, from a planning point of view, that the site that they're proposing to rezone is very desirable land. It's easily developable, except for the bedrock and the water, for both industrial and commercial uses, and I think it's. somewhere down the line. a determination has to be made as to what do you want this area to go for, whether it's going to be commercial or industrial, and I think Staff thinks that this is probably going to be the turning point. If this rezoning is allowed. it'll direct the growth either towards commercial, or if you leave it as industrial. it'll remain as is. and hopefully some sort of industrial development will go in there in the future. MR. MACEWAN-You know, you could go on the other side of the coin and say that the Tech Park that's right next door to this proposed land was set up approximately 10 years ago by both the Town and the QEDC to attract Light Industrial businesses, and the only two tenants they have are a commercial and office space that's in there, and they've never been able to attract anybody else to it. MR. BREWER-How much land. in that Industrial Park. is vacant right now? MRS. PULVER-I think originally it was 20 acres. MR. MACEWAN-Ninety percent of it. MR. BREWER-How big is the parcel? Can we determine how big the parcel is. and how much land is vacant? MR. HARLICKER-You can. MRS. PULVER-I think it's about 20 acres, and there's about 15 acres that's vacant, and they've been actively trying to pursue business in that area, for the last five years. MR. MACEWAN-And I guess you have to look at it from this standpoint, too. It seems like, in the last 10 years, that the Town has had a lot better success in tracking Light Industrial oriented businesses all up along the airport. which that's all Light Industrial up through there. and that's been building up like crazy the last 10 years, and that seems to be the place where a lot of Light Industrial businesses want to be. There's got to be a real good reason why nobody's too interested in wanting to be Light Industrial in the Tech Park, and they haven't been able to push it. MR. BREWER-What did you come up with, an idea, rough? MR. MORGAN-Somewhere between 25 to 30. if you used the whole thing. MR. BREWER-If you used the whole thing, 25 and 30. MR. MORGAN-We're about 13500 wide by 12500 wide. MR. BREWER-And how much is developed? MR. MORGAN-There are two, probably, three and a half acres. MR. MACEWAN-I know NDP sits on two acres, and Northern Mechanical's probably about on two. MR. BREWER-So, the way I have to look at it, just because it's zoned that, is that appropriate for it? - 55 - - ~~ MRS. TARANA-I don't know. I don't have an answer. MR. BREWER-In my opinion, if we're going to promote business in the Town of Queensbury. this is a sound business. MRS. PULVER-This is certainly a very good business for the Town. MR. BREWER-For the Town. MRS. PULVER-It's a clean business. MR. MORGAN-Mr. Chairman, you would probably see somewhere in the vicinity of 445 jobs. MR. BREWER-Personally, as a tax payer, I don't like rezoning, but this. I think, is a good plan. It's been well prepared. MRS. TARANA-Four hundred and fifty full time jobs? MR. MORGAN-The exact breakdown of what that would be, part time and full time, I think is more of an operations question, and it's suitable, be able to address. I'd be more than happy to supply all that in site plan approval process. MR. BREWER-I, personally. think it's a good use for the property. MR. STARK-I think it's fine. MRS. PULVER-I think it would be good for the Town. going to stimulate some activity. I mean, it's MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It'll be a good commercial anchor for that end, if that's what you determine you want this area to be. You couldn't probably ask for a better commercial anchor than what's probably going in there. MR. MACEWAN-I guess that's why I brought up earlier, in my little survey I did of all the sites that are right around this proposed place, and it's more commercial than it is anything else in there. I mean. you could probably go back and look at the history of that whole area down there, probably over the last 20 years, you probably saw more industrial facilities move out of there than moved in. MR. BREWER-I don't recall any industrial facilities ever being down there. MR. MACEWAN-I mean the area as a whole. Cieba Geigy was probably one of your largest ones down there. MR. BREWER-Well, I mean, in this particular Industrial Park. Hercules is the only one. MR. MORGAN-Is the purpose for creating the Light Industrial for the purpose of creating jobs? And if so. how many jobs are there now in the Light Industrial Park? We're going to generate 450 some odd jobs. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. MR. MORGAN-And it'll be a lesser use than Light Industrial. MR. BREWER-You don't have to convince me. I agree with you. MRS. PULVER-Well. the comment was that the original Master Plan zoned this area for a particular reason, but a Master Plan is always under construction, and should always constantly be changing, and just because it was originally zoned for a specific purpose, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed, because possibly, when that zoning took place in 1988, the fathers of the - 56 - ....- -- zoning said this was a perfect spot for whatever, but as we all know, we've just gone through a recession, and are still in it and trying to pull ourselves out of it, and possibly that area is never going to be Light Industrial, and will be commercial, and Light Industrial will be in a Plaza Commercial place, elsewhere, and maybe the Master Plan needs to be updated and changed, at this point. MR. BREWER-I think we are undertaking that process right now. MRS. PULVER-Yes, right, we are, but I mean. this could be one of the first steps of changing that. MR MORGAN-And perhaps when the Master Plan was developed. instead of looking at the area of the Town as being sui table for Light Industrial, they looked at it and said. well. Glens Falls Technical Park is right there. Lets just rezoning everything up to Quaker and Highland and say that's Light Industrial. because that's what Glens Falls has. MRS. TARANA-I think the other thing is, if that zoning does change in there, the whole traffic situation changes in there. that that's got to be addressed. MR. BREWER-It will have to be addressed at site plan review. MRS. TARANA-I'm not talking about just their project. I think if you rezone for their project, you're talking about rezoning the whole parcel of land there, eventually. MR. BREWER-Well, their project will take up that whole parcel. MRS. TARANA-Let me start this again. Looking at the long term effects of rezoning this piece of land, you're probably going to drive out the commercial and it will become Light Industrial, or just the opposite, drive out the Light Industrial, it will become commercial, Highway Commercial, Plaza Commercial. whatever. That whole traffic situation down there is going to change, and I think if the Town Board chooses to do this rezoning, knowing that the whole area is going to change, they've got to look at the traffic, or else we're going to end up with the same kind of traffic problems we've got down Quaker, down 149 and Route 9. MR. BREWER-I think Quaker Road is involved in a corridor study right now, isn't it? MRS. PULVER-And didn't you say Jim Hartin wanted a 10 year traffic study? MR. MORGAN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-So he's going to do it, they're going to do a 10 year traffic projection. MR. CONNERS-We're working with the County. We're actually exchanging data. because they are currently in the process, as Mr. Brewer indicated, that they are doing a corridor study, and we have already contacted them, and exchanged data. and they are projecting traffic for this entire area. A traffic study had been done back in 1988, and traffic has significantly increased since that time. without any development whatsoever. MR. BREWER-Do you plan any improvements on Dix Avenue? MR. CONNERS-At this point in time, those improvements will be indicated in the traffic study. The County indicated possibly at the intersection of Quaker and Dix it would be necessary to do some improvements. MR. MORGAN-It's tough to speculate to a traffic study. - 57 - ~ MR. BREWER-Yes, because that is, if you come down Dix Avenue and try to take a left hand turn, it's terrible, just the way the road is designed today. Well. Dix Avenue, I can remember when I was a kid, there was no traffic on Dix Avenue down that way. I mean, it was just nothing. MR. STARK-Back in the 50's, Quaker Road was a dirt road. MR. BREWER-Yes. One more question. DAN GEALT MR. GEALT-It's not really a question, it's just regarding those intersections. discussing this difficult you've got with traffic signals and traffic patterns there are primarily due to the conflicting jurisdictions. and that the reason the intersection of Quaker and Dix is the intersection of two County roads, all the geometric improvements will be the responsibility of the County. All the traffic signalization improvements that will be done at that intersection, because it's the intersection of two County roads, is the responsibility of the Town, and there's not much that you can do. as a Planning Board, to address those issues. or to address the question of coordination of traffic signals. MR. BREWER-I think. like, if you look at Dexter, we had things done there that are going to ease the problem up there, that this Planning Board had Dexter do. So I think that things can be worked out. MR. GEALT-Yes. I'm just trying to point out what the different jurisdictions are, that the intersection of two County roads. for example. the County has no legal authorization to install traffic signals. You, as a Board, can require a developer to install a privately owned signal, but only the Town can install one on its own. So you've got jurisdiction problems, and that's something that's very difficult to deal with in an issue like this. So I just wanted to bring that up. MR. BREWER-Thank you. recommendation? Okay. Does anybody want to offer a MRS. PULVER-Do we have any stipulations? MR. BREWER-The only reservation I have is the other pieces of property that are not. Well, no, I won't take that uP. because it's eventually going to end up. MRS. PULVER-It ends up in the lap of the Town Board anyway. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. PULVER-All right. HOT¡ON:_ RE~AlmINGh_PETI..1-ION~:::-93 ZAREMBA GROUP INCORPORATED TO REÇOMMEHD TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD TO RE-ZONE THE APPLICATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF NOTES, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Could we, I don't know that Livingston's is included on the application. Could we ask them to? MR. MORGAN-It is. MR. BREWER-It is. Okay. MR. MORGAN-The maps that you have should have been replaced. I submitted that to Scott. Could you circulate that to them. - 58 - ¡'~ ~' AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-One last thing, before we go. Does somebody want to make a motion that we ask Dave Hatin to go up and check Harry Ruecker, the marina up there. that Jim Hagan was talking about? MRS. PULVER-I don't think we have to make a motion. MR. BREWER-Could we just ask him? MRS. PULVER-Could we just ask the Planning Department to ask Dave Hatin. Tell him that we've had a complaint about a possible marina misuse up at the lake. MR. MACEWAN-Before everybody scatters out of here, I talked to Scott about this the other day, and Jim about this the other day. I think maybe we should start doing it, effective Thursday night. When we approve any kind of plat or anything, site plans, preliminary, sketch, we tie it into a map that the applicant has, state the map number and the map date, and we'll never have a problem again, ever, in the future. MRS. TARANA-I think that's a good idea. MR. MACEWAN-Secondly, I would urge everyone to start making site visits, please. It's important. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 59 -