The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-09-21 ",', ~'-:.'@. . ' ---_..._.--~- -'<11&,-_.- "-'A:.~..__...".",' -- --.,/' QUEESBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21ST. 1993 INDEX Resolution Fence Ordinance Revisions 1. Resolution Sign Ordinance Revisions 2. Site Plan No. 36-93 John McCall 3. Site Plan No. 11-93 Richard Eggleston/Thomas Stimpson 4. Subdivision No. 14-1993 FINAL STAGE J. Buckley Bryan. Jr. 7. Subdivision No. 15-1992 FINAL STAGE Harry Ruecker 8. Subdivision No. 4-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Guido Passarelli 19. Subdivision No. 18-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Douglas & Debra Petroski 22. Subdivision No. 13-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE James Girard 25. Site Plan No. 45-93 Drew Monthie/Tracy Tabor 29. Petition for Zone Change P6-93 Charles and Barbara Seeley 33. 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 SEPTEMBER 21ST. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK CAROL PULVER MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-The first item I'd like to talk about with the Board is about the letter Jim wrote us about the Teleconference. Well. no. it's not a Teleconference. MR. MARTIN-No. it's really not. It's a special conference that our office and the Count:y Planning Office organized. getting Mr. Boos up here. I originally asked for just the benefit of our own Board. and his travel restrictions with the State now require that he come to service more than one community. So. it's going to be like a County wide event. MR. BREWER-I think it's a great idea. and I think we should schedule a meeting so that we can go to thi s. I don't know how everybody else feels. MR. STARK-It's fine with me. MRS. PULVER-I agree. I have been at a couple of functions where he's talked before. and it's very enlightening. MR. MARTIN-He's the best. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then you can. as far as signing everybody up. MR. MARTIN-There's ÇJoing to be an official notice sent out by the County. I believe. around the 1st of October. 1st week in October. I think there's going to be a minimal fee of like $10. The Town will pay for that. and that will be it. MR. BREWER-All right.. Then I guess everybody. we don't have to do anything formally? MR. MARTIN-We'll probably. at least initially you ought to agree on a meeting night for that second meeting. Maybe the following Thursday or something like that. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say. can we have the room on Wednesday or Thursday? MR. MARTIN-Well. Wednesday is Zoning Board. usually. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So we could have it the 28th? MR. MARTIN-Yes. that following Thursday. - 1 - --- ~'" "-..- -" MR. BREWER-Yes. October 28th. Just let Pam know. Okay. The first item on the agenda. RESOLUTIONS: FENCE ORDINANCE REVISIONS - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE. MR. BREWER-And do we have those here. we can read? MRS. PULVER-I didn't have that. MR. BREWER-I didn't get a resolution. either. MR. MARTIN-Well. it's not a resolution. We did. I believe. give you the draft change to the law regarding fences. it's the one with the diagram. It's just a matter. if the Board wants to accept those as written. or if you have any comments you'd like to suggest. they can be passed along to the Town Board before they formally consider it and adopt it. MRS. PULVER-Didn't the Town Board just have a public hearing on that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's three requirements in terms of actions prior to. one is a public hearing. and then second and third are review by this Board as well as the County Board. MRS. PULVER-Well. is the public hearing still open. that they'll take comment on? MR. MARTIN-No. They'll accept comment from this Board as a separate function. as a separate body. MRS. TARANA-So our resolution is just to accept the changes? Is that what you want today? MR. MARTIN-Yes. or if you have any further suggestions or what your opinion is of them. It's really an advisory recommendation type of a function. MR. BREWER-Does somebody want to make a motion to accept or deny or whatever? MOTION TO MAKE A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REVISIONS TO THE FENCE ORDINANCE. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Changes to the Sign Ordinance Revision. SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS ORDINANCE. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CHANGES TO MR. MARTIN-I think Corinne can probably fill people in on this. She's on that Committee. MRS. TARANA-I wasn't there. MR. MARTIN-You were there for that one. Weren't you there for that one? - 2 - ---. - - '-c::...------- MRS. TARANA-I don't have all those. you mean the revisions that they brought to the Town Board? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's mostly to the temporary sign ordinance. MRS. TARANA-But then the Town Board sent it back. and I wasn't at the meeting where they were supposed to update it and. remember they had all those questions? MR. MARTIN-There were some other small minor changes made. MRS. PULVER-Yes. and I sent mine to Ken and Holly Wheeler. MR. MARTIN-Yes. She's on the Committee also. MRS. PULVER-To look it over again and see what changes would be good. because I don't have to put up these signs. so I felt they would be good ones to have input from. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Again. it would be just a resolution agreeing with the. or accepting. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 36-93 TYPE II JOHN MCCALL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A. C.E.A. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT.. LK. GEORGE MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL PER LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION PERMIT #5234-17-93 AND NEW PROJECT PLAN DATED 8-30-93. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 7-14-93 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: +1.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 D 3 JOHN MCCALL. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. McCall is here. Maybe you'd just want to explain the changes you're going to make. Do we have to have a public hearing on this? MR. MARTIN-No. it's a modification. MR. BREWER-Maybe just for me. anyway. why you're changing it. MR. MCCALL-At the meeting that I was given permission. you have the plan showing where the existing dock was. there was a proposal to put a dock on the right hand side of the property and the left hand side of the property. After we pulled out the old cribbing of the original dock and seeing what took place. the dock on the left hand side really effects a couple of my neighbor's views of them going out to the end of the property. So what I'd like to do is take the same exact size dock. no changes to the dock at all. which shows on the plan as being on the left hand side. and just move it over to the right hand side. MR. BREWER-Same size. same everything. MR. MCCALL-One hundred percent. everything you say. MR. BREWER-He meets all the setbacks and everything? - 3 - -;- -- ~-'-- MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-He just had. a further reason was the old sand pier there. or something like that. also restricts access to that dock in the old location. didn't you say. John? There's a sandbar there or something like that? MR. MCCALL-Right. but there is the basic sandbar. We could still go to the left of the sandbar. The sandbar itself is. removed. just by the washing of the waves will knock that down. So that really isn't a problem to me. There's enough depth there for the water. but it's just the fact. the visual effect to the neighbors and everything. I'd just like to move it over to the right. I have already. I believe attached to your paperwork. I do have already from the Park Commission a letter from them. giving me their amendment to this project. because they came up and inspected this property before. MRS. PULVER-What about your neighbors? Have they any comment on this? MR. MCCALL-They're just happy to see it. It effects two neighbors on the left hand side. The old dock was blocking them. and they just thought it was nice of me to move the dock over. If I did. I did. if I didn't. I didn't. but it was just me volunteering to do something to be a good neighbor. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anybody on the Board have any questions? Would anybody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-93 JOHN MCCALL. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: For a modification to an existing site plan approval. per Lake George Park Commission Permit #5234-1793. and new project plan. dated 8/30/93. Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 TYPE: UNLISTED STIMPSON ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN TO (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. D(3)(b) RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PARKING. 59-1-1.1 SECTION: 179-23 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 11-93 Modification. Richard Eggleston/Thomas Stimpson. Meeting Date: September 21. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to modify the previously approved site plan to allow for additional parking and storage of cars that are or have under gone work at the shop. The previous application allowed for the parking of 12 cars along the south property line: the modification would expand the parking along the south property line to 15 cars and allow for the parking of 10 cars on the grass area on the north side of the building. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff does not see any problems with the additional 3 spaces on the south side. However. the zoning code requires off street parking spaces to be 9 feet by 20 feet. not 9 feet by 18 feet as proposed. If the unsurfaced area on the north side of the building is to be used as a storage area. it should be properly screened from the adjacent property as well as the street. - 4 - ---'-.'-... - .,-- The screening might include coniferous landscaping. to provide year round screening. in addition to a stockade fence." MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have someone here from the body shop? MR. MARTIN-Not yet. MR. BREWER-Is he presumed to be coming here tonight? MR. MARTIN-As far as I know. He called me. He called me about a week ago. MR. BREWER-There are people here. but we'll take comment from. Mr. comment? There is not a public hearing. Hart. do you want to make any PHILLIP HART MR. HART-I'm Phillip Hart. and I own the Harvest Restaurant. adjacent to the shop. The cars are now. he does have too many. and we are concerned about it looking like a junkyard. and we have a right-of-way. going to the back of that. The smell from the paint is unbearable in the Restaurant. MR. BREWER-Is he painting outside? MR. HART-No. He's seems to be painting in the booth. he says he is. but evidentally it's not vented right. When he paints. we have to shut all the doors and windows. MRS. PULVER-Wasn't he supposed to have an inspection of that paint booth? DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-The paint booth. according to. that doesn't deal with air quality. What Mr. Hart's complaining about is air quality. and the building code doesn't address that. MR. BREWER-I thought when he. his first application he told us he had a State of the Art paint booth that was going to be put in. MR. HART-They made their own. MR. BREWER-Well. it's probably not fair to continue until he gets here anyway. so he can answer some of these questions. MR. MARTIN-I understand he's coming. MRS. PULVER-Can I mqke a statement? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. HART-The right-of-way is on the south side. which. remember I pointed it out? MR. BREWER-Yes. and you can't get through there? MR. HART-There isn't much room to park cars and a 25 foot right-of- way also. MRS. PULVER-His right-of-way comes through here. MR. BREWER-We don't have any idea how big that is between the line and the building. do we? I think originally. when we talked about it. he did have room to leave you the way to go through there. MR. HART-Well. he put a fence up already. on one side. one corner. MR. BREWER-On the south side? - 5 - --- /- - MR. HART-Yes. I'm not trying to be a bad neighbor. but I just don't need the aggravation. MR. BREWER-I understand. MR. HART-Especially. the paint smell is more my concern. I mean. I have to close all the doors and windows. because the paint all hours of the day and night. Last time I had to call patrol. Warren County. They wouldn't answer the phone. They wouldn't answer the door. The patrolman finally got in. This was 7:30 at night. MRS. PULVER-I suggest we table this. as long as the applicant isn't here. and we take the next application. MRS. TARANA-But can't ENCON test the air quality? MR. BREWER-I've got to believe there's got to be some kind of a standard. MR. HART-I called OSHA. They said that DEC. I think. is the one. MRS. TARANA-Well. then why don't we call DEC and get them down there to check the air quality. MR. HART-I've called them. and they said. they're supposed to have a permit and they never got the permit. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that's really our jurisdiction. MRS. TARANA-Well. how did they get a CO if they don't meet the requirements? MR. BREWER-Well. it's like David Barnes got a site plan approval from us for his paint booth. and I mean. he just said that he was going to have a. I don't know. I guess Kip Grant had to inspect it and make sure it met some standards of the paint industry. MR. HATIN-The National Fire Protection Association Standard is the standard we go by. and the spray booths do meet them. but it doesn't address air quality. and as I told Mr. Hart several weeks ago. that does fall under ENCON. They are the ones that control air quality. and you should call them. You said you did. and I don't know where it went from there. MRS. TARANA-We discussed this because of it being next to a restaurant. the concern we had. MR. BREWER-Well. I think that we can ask that ENCON be contacted. can't we. Jim? MR. HART-I did contact them. MR. BREWER-What did they do? Did they come down? MR. HART-Well. they just told me that they were going to write them a letter. because they were required to get a permit. which they probably shouldn't have had the occupancy without the permit to begin with. MRS. PULVER-Do you have documentation of that? I mean. when you called. did they say they'd send something to you? MR. HART-I spoke to him on the phone. MR. BREWER-Well. I. personally. would feel better if we had somebody contact him and ask him if they have to have a permit. If they have to have a permit. then everybody in Town has to have a permit. right? I would say. I don't know. MR. HART-It has to do with the air quality. - 6 - MR. BREWER-Well. do we want to table this for a little while. and see if Mr. Stimpson comes in? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. HART-I just know that business and the restaurant business is not a good mix. not next door. MR. BREWER-Do you mind if we just put this on the back burner for a minute and see if he comes in. and we'll go to the next one. MR. HART-No. MR. MARTIN-While we've got Dave right here. Service Master on Corinth Road? MR. HATIN-He's been written a letter. given a compliance date. I have a court summons ready. MR. BREWER-Pardon me? MR. MARTIN-He has written a letter by Dave for a compliance date and he has a court summons ready if he doesn't comply. MR. BREWER-When's the date? MR. HATIN-The date was up last week. Nothing happened. so as soon as I get the court summons. it will probably be next week. it will be in court the next couple of weeks. MR. BREWER-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: J. BUCKLEY BRYAN. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NORTH OFF AVIATION RD. ONTO FARR LANE. PROPOSAL FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 18.97 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX (6) LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-22.1. 22.3 LOT SIZE: 18.97 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 14-1993 Final Stage. J. Buckley Bryan. Jr.. Meeting Date: September 21. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 18.97 acre parcel into 6 lots. Five of the lots will have frontage on a newly created cuI de sac at the end of Farr Lane. the sixth lot will have access and frontage on Fox Farm Road. The lots will range in size from 3.53 to 3.0 acres. The property is zoned RR-3A and is serviced by Town water. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The applicant has addressed the issues raised during preliminary review. A note was placed on the plan regarding the location of the Blue Lupine and a soil study was done to ascertain the possibility of PCB's on the site. The tests show that PCB's were not a significant problem. RECOMMENDATION: It appears that this subdivision follows accepted planning practices and staff can recommend approval of this subdivision." MR. STEVES-I believe you kept the public hearing open. I think one order of business tonight should be to close the public hearing. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well. we'll close it. Okay. Does anybody have any comments at all? Would somebody care to make a motion. Wait a minute. I have to close the public hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on this. before I close the public hearing? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT - 7 - ------- . .- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Are we going to give these numbers. Jim. or not? That would be their number. 14-1993? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's listed at the top. It's also in the text of the resolution. I think it has to be noted. in the third paragraph from the bottom. you should. you have to approve conditionally. or approve. or deny. You should indicate which it is. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1993 J. BUCKLEY BRYAN. JR.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: The resolution as prepared and written: WHEREAS. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final subdivision application. file # 14-1993. to subdivide an 18.97 acre parcel into six lots: and WHEREAS. the above referenced final subdivision application undated consists of the following: 1. sheet 93107 subdivision map. revised 7/27/93 2. sheet 93107B Adjacent Owners and Location map. revised 7/23/93: and WHEREAS. the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes dated 9/21/93: and WHEREAS. the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment: and WHEREAS. any modifications and terms contained in the preliminary subdivision approval have been complied with. Therefore. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve final subdivision plat J. Buckley Bryan. Jr.. file # 14-1993 Let It B Further Resolved. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Town Planning all appropriate fees shall be paid and that within 60 days of the date of this resolution the applicant shall have the signed plat filed in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County. Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 FINAL STAGE REVISION TYPE I HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NORTH OFF AVIATION RD. ONTO FARR LANE. PROPOSAL FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 18.97 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-22.1. 22.3 LOT SIZE: 18.97 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN RAY. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 15-1992 Modification to Final Approval. Harry Ruecker. Meeting Date: September 21. 1993 "The applicant is proposing to alter the approved lot line between lots two and three. The original approval had lot two configured so that there was a jog in the back of the lot that incorporated the area of standing water into lot two. The revised plan has eliminated that jog in the lot line: the line now goes straight back from Gunn Lane to Cleverdale Road and the area of standing water is now part of lot three. The other modification involves the existing structures on the property. In consultation with the Town Attorney. it was determined that the best way to deal with the existing nonconforming structures on the property would be to - 8 - ---- consider this a two lot subdivision with the third lot to be condi tioned on the removal of the southern most structure on proposed lot one. The lot line between lots two and three would be permitted but the lot line between lots one and two would be condi tioned on the removal of the structure. Wi th the above modification. the existing nonconforming situation would be allowed to remain but no new nonconformities would be created." MR. RAY-That pretty much sums it up. MR. BREWER-I don't understand this about the lot line between lots on~ and two would be conditioned on the removal of the structure. They can't have that lot line unless he removes that one story camp? MR. RAY-My understanding is that there's language on the new plan. and there's a declaration of covenants and restrictions and conditioning which indicates that neither lots one or two can be sold. they can't be separated. unti 1 such time as the offending structure is removed on lot one. MRS. TARANA-Why isn't the offending structure removed then? MR. RAY-It's a matter of economics. What he's looking to do is essentially sell off lot three. to give him the money to make the al terations and remove that other. what I call the offending structure. MR. BREWER-Which one is he going to remove? Probably the closest one to the lot line? MRS. PULVER-Yes. It says on mine. that's to be removed. MR. RAY-Yes. It says one story frame camp to be removed. The one closest to lot two. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. MACEWAN-It seems like we had discussions about this in the past. didn't we. Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The problem was originally discovered when they came in for their approval before. and I interpreted that the approval was that that building be removed before the subdivision was to be approved. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I thought. as well. MR. MARTIN-And they wanted to leave the bUilding. as he stated for economic reasons. and that's when the need for a modification arose. So that's why we have this solution before us tonight. to reduce the number of lots in the subdivision on essentially a temporary basis. MR. BREWER-How long is temporary? MR. MARTIN-Well. how long is the building that? MR. RAY-I don't view this as a reduction in the number of lots. It's still a subdivision approval for the three lots. It's just specifically conditioned. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well. it's a matter of semantics. MR. RAY-I mean. the map would still be filed indicating three lots. It's just it's got the restriction on the map. and there's also a filed declaration at the County Clerk's Office. which would prohibit the sale of either one of those two lots. MR. MARTIN-Right. - 9 - MR. RAY-How long? Lot three is presently under contract right now. I should say. we have traded contracts back and forth. We have not come to a final agreement on that. but there is a sale that is in the pike. so to speak. Beyond that. I really can't give you any specific date. The only thing I can tell you is that those two lots will remain. will not be able to be sold until such time as it's removed. MR. BREWER-The deed cannot change? I mean. he can't give it to his daughter or his son or whatever? MR. RAY-No. MR. BREWER-He can't do anything with it until he removes that building? MR. RAY-He can't do anything with those two lots until such time as he removes that building. The main thrust of the declarations that would be on file. I'd have to put everybody on notice that this cannot be done until such time as that is removed. MRS. PULVER-Do we have something in our Ordinance that says only one residential dwelling per lot? Is that what the problem is? MR. MARTIN-Well. it's right in the beginning. right after the Definitions. 179-12C(5). Principal bUildings in residential zones. there shall be no more than one principal bUilding in a residential zone on any single lot less than two acres in size. and that's why. if this is only a two lot subdivision at first. this will be a conforming situation. because it's two acres or more in size. So he's allowed to have more than one principal building. and Paul looked at this thoroughly. and he thought it was a good solution. We met that day. what. for about an hour and a half on this. MR. BREWER-Any further comment. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Not at the moment. MR. MARTIN-What I might suggest is that. if the applicant would be willing. because I know what the current opinion is of conditional approvals. is that he notify the Planning Board in writing of the date of. when you tear the building down. just to notify them. so they're on notice of it. MR. RAY-No problem. MR. MARTIN-That might be helpful. so we were aware that the building is in fact torn down. MR. BREWER-That could be five years from now. though. MR. MARTIN-But the subdivision approval doesn't fully kick in. then. until that happens. MRS. TARANA-He can sell lot three without subdivision approval then? MR. RAY-No. MR. BREWER-He's got to have the subdivision approval to sell lot three. and what they're doing is temporarily. MRS. TARANA-But you've got something in the works right now. MR. RAY-That's pending subdivision approval. MRS. TARANA-I guess that's why I can't figure out why you don't rip that building down and be done with it. MR. RAY-We can't afford it. You have to sell the lot. I guess. we - 10 - have to have subdivision approval before the lot can be sold. okay. and we can't get subdivision approval. as it stands right now. while that offending structure is still there. Even if he sells. okay. we get subdivision approval. as it was explained here before. with lots one and two. that is they are conforming when they simply regarded as one lot. when they're still in the same title. and what we're doing is eliminating the possibility of either one of those lots being sold off. and then creating a nonconforming lot. MR. BREWER-In essence what he's doing is he's selling lot three to get the money so that he can afford to tear down this building. If he tears that building down. then that kicks into that three lot subdivision. MR. RAY-Exactly. MRS. TARANA-I noticed in your letter. that you said you had submitted the declaration of covenants. conditions and restrictions. Did you get that? We didn't get that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It was a four page document. MRS. TARANA-I was just wondering if somebody received it. because we didn't. Usually it would be in our packet. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And we didn't get it to see it. so I just wondered if you got it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. we did. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-So Paul Dusek did look at this. and this was the solution that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. well. what kicked off the problem before was that if you did do the three lot subdivision right away. then you're creating a nonconforming subdivision. which you're. by the regulation. not allowed to do. because then you'd have two principal uses on a parcel less than two acres in size. but with this provision. now it's a conforming subdivision. MRS. PULVER-Okay. but my question was. Paul Dusek did look at this. This is his idea. so that if we. as a Board approve this. MR. MARTIN-Yes. As a matter of fact. I think this was his idea that he proposed to you. MR. RAY-Yes. He basically generated this. something that was used prior. It was based on MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Does anybody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE REVISION SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 HARRY RUECKER. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: A modification for final approval. The modification involves the existing structures on the property. The Planning Department has consulted with the Town Attorney. and it was determined the best way to deal with the existing nonconforming structures on the property would be to consider this a two lot subdivision. with the third lot to be conditioned on the removal of the southern most structure on proposed lot one. The lot line between lots two and three would be permitted. but the lot line between lots one and two would be conditioned on the removal of the structure. - 11 - Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-No action. Does somebody want to make a motion to deny. or. what do we want to do? Right now it stands at no action. MR. RAY-Could I ask something? What is the main objection to this? MRS. TARANA-It's a conditional approval. basically. for me. it's a problem to have a conditional approval. I think we don't have any indication of when this other option might take place. MR. RAY-Would it help to put some time limitation on this? MRS. TARANA-See. I just can't figure out if you can put. okay. Try it. See what happens. MR. RAY-Well. I don't want to put you through something that isn't going to work. We'd like to make something work here. if at all possible. If a time limitation would help. we could discuss a time limitation. I hope you understand the problem. You'd like to see this all approved and the building down. but you can't sell a lot until it's all approved. What we've put forth is a way that will enable us to sell one of the lots. so that we can move on and remove the structure which is obviously what the Town desires. I don't think there's any objection to the three lot subdivision. I mean. that's pretty much straight forward. You've got three one acre plus lots. decent setbacks and so forth. The only problem is the one building on that one lot. MRS. TARANA-I'm just not in favor of conditional approvals. I like to see everything all set. especially at this final stage. and I don't like to see the precedent set that we give conditional approvals. That's just my own feeling about it. MR. STARK-Sometimes there's exceptions. though. Corinne. This here. I mean. he can't sell that until the building's down. MRS. TARANA-He can sell lot three. Am I right? MR. BREWER-With our approval on the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-But what if I was to suggest the two lot subdivision. and have him re-appear before this Board to create lot one. for further modification? MR. RAY-That's an awful burden for something that's already been gone through. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't mean to start from Ground Zero. I mean. to pick up right from tonight. but just. I think. and correct me if I'm wrong. the level of discomfort here arises out of that you don't know what happens. You just dispense with this and you don't see it again. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. MARTIN-I think what they'd like to do is just have you re- appear and say. yes. the building is down. now could we have lot one. MR. RAY-Can't we limitation on us? address that just by. again. putting a time With removal to take place by a certain period - 12 - of time after sale of lot three. MR. BREWER-Then what happens if the building is not torn down? MR. RAY-Then he can't sell lot one or two. MRS. PULVER-Right. He has to come in. MR. RAY-I mean. I know that conditional approvals are a little burdensome. but they are. I mean. they're one of your options. approve. disapprove. or approve with conditions. I mean. the subdivision has been approved. Then after the approval. this issue came up with the one remaining building. MR. BREWER-Do we have our motion for final approval? MR. HARLICKER-No. not here tonight. MR. BREWER-I'm just wondering if it was approved with the condition that that building came down? MR. MACEWAN-I think the final approval on that subdivision was granted when Mr. Rehm indicated to this Board that all those vacant cottages were going to be taken down. on everyone of those lots. because that was up in discussion both at Sketch Plan and Preliminary. and that's what we based. pretty much. our approval on. Now the game plan changes. MR. RAY-I'm sorry. I wish he was here. I don't know what was said. I can go by what's here. I mean. we've got a map that indicates all the way along that that one story is to be removed. I guess the question is when is that to be removed. Put a time limit on it. Give us a year. To be removed within one year. MR. BREWER-It's up to you. Corinne. MRS. TARANA-No. It's not up to me. There are other people on this Board. MR. MACEWAN-No. not from me. MRS. TARANA-You're saying that he can't take the cottage down. the camp down. until he sells lot three? MR. RAY-That's correct. MRS. TARANA-He needs the money from the sale of lot three to take down the camp? MR. RAY-Right. MRS. TARANA-And now you're saying that you would like a year from that sale to take down the cottage? MR. RAY-I suggested a year. Less time? MRS. TARANA-Well. I think if the only thing that's holding up removing that cottage is the sale of the property. it should be almost immediate. All you've got to do is close the deal. MRS. PULVER-He can't sell it. Corinne. unless he gets approval tonight. MRS. TARANA-You're not following the conversation. What I'm saying is. if you sell lot three. you only need a very short time to remove the cottage. don't you? MR. RAY-It depends on when. Right now. we're in the process of working this. Lets say the sale of lot three comes about in November. I think it's unreasonable to try and. the day before - 13 - Thanksgiving we close on lot three. Where does that leave him with removing the cottage on lot one? MR. BREWER-I think I'm more inclined to go with Jim's idea. that when you sell that lot. We've got a two lot subdivision now. When you sell that lot. after you tear the building down. come back for a modification. and you've got a three lot subdivision. and it's done with. It would mean just coming back and asking for a modification that that building is gone. and you have your third lot. MR. RAY-Yes. but that isn't just going to be a modification. That's going to be another subdivision. You've got a two lot approval right here. You're going to have one two acre lot that we're going to be back before you. MR. MARTIN-I don't see where that's another subdivision. because you've got all the technical information submitted. the topo. the surveying. and all that. I don't see why the Board can't. essentially what you're asking for tonight is a three lot subdi vision conditioned upon certain events happening. What I think Tim is saying. one more event would be for you to come back before this Board. report that the building. is. in fact. torn down. and that removes their discomfort. MR. RAY-What's the difference with that? MR. MARTIN-Because that way they've got. they have testimony to the fact that the building is torn down. and that removes the problem with the condition. MR. RAY-It's still a condition. the condition being that we come back. MR. MARTIN-Right. but it doesn't happen until you're back. MR. BREWER-For the third lot. It happens right now for two lots. the way I see it. MR. RAY-Okay. Right now. you're going to approve a two lot subdivision. and then. MR. MARTIN-They're going to approve a three lot subdivision. with two of the lots actually created. The third lot will not be created until such time as you come back and report that the building is. in fact. torn down. MR. RAY-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It'll be like a phased approval. MRS. TARANA-I don't see how that's any different. either. MR. RAY-Well. I guess the condition then is. not that we just tear down the building. The condition is that we come back. report to the Board that the building has been torn down. MR. MARTIN-Yes. and they'll have verification from our office. MR. BREWER-And then you can do that within a year. because that's when your permit will run out. within a year. MR. RAY-Do that within a year from when? MR. BREWER-From the approval date. right? MR. MARTIN-You can set that time frame. MRS. PULVER-Well. approval is for one year. though? - 14 - MR. BREWER-Right. So it's automatic. MR. STARK-Maybe he won't sell it for a year. MR. RAY-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Then you have to come back and ask for an extension. MRS. TARANA-They have to come back anyway. Subdivision approval runs out. MR. BREWER-Right. If he doesn't subdivide it within a year. he has to come back and get an extension anyway. MR. RAY-But if we're approved. MR. BREWER-You're really not approved. for three lots. You're approved for two lots. When you come back and that bui lding' s gone. then you'll be approved for three lots. MR. RAY-Is that what YOU said? MR. MARTIN-I know we've done this before. like. if you recall. Leon can help me out a little bit. Remember Herald Square? Herald Square picked up at Preliminary. because Sketch Plan was already done. and what I'm essentially saying here. is say Preliminary is done. and you've got Final on the two lot. You've just got to come back for final. It's essentially a resolution for the second lot. no new cost. or anything like that. Just come back for final on the three lot. MR. RAY-Okay. He's approved for the sale of the first lot? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RAY-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I'm just looking for creative ways here to get this guy a lot to sell his property. MR. BREWER-That's fine. if somebody wants to put that into words. MRS. TARANA-I think first you have to make a motion to deny the other. don't we? MR. BREWER-No. we don't. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-No. You've got no action. MR. BREWER-No action on it. MRS. TARANA-Okay. That's right. MR. BREWER-Unless we come up with a new motion. or a motion to deny. MR. MACEWAN-How close are you to selling that third lot right now. do you feel. in your gut instinct? MR. RAY-Very close. What we've done was. one party has signed the contract. okay. the seller. The purchaser has signed a contract add an addendum. with a number of conditions about what can ha?pen on. basically. the first 30 feet of lot two. okay. Our client and seller has some difficulties with restricting lot two in that fashion. So as soon as those are ironed out. MR. MACEWAN-Within 30 days. 60 days? - 15 - -- MR. RAY-I would hope we would sell within 30 days. Right now. basically. it hasn't moved forward because nothing can happen until we have some form of subdivision approval. If we were to. within a year's time. MR. MACEWAN-It's my position. I'm not willing to wait a year. We've given conditional approvals before with year stipulations on them. only to start seeing these applicants have to come back in front of us because nothing's been done. That's my personal opinion. and I'm not going to go for that. Now. we have an applicant who'll be going to court here next week if he doesn't conform with the conditional approval we gave him about. what. a year and a half ago. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It would be almost that. MR. MACEWAN-And we've been chasing him for a year and a half to meet the conditions of his approval from this Board. and I'm just not in favor of doing that. Would you be in favor. if you're that close to selling that third lot. if we granted approval tonight. would you be in favor of tearing down that camp in 60 days? Is that doable? MR. RAY-Sixty days from the date of the sale? MR. MACEWAN-Sixty days from the date of the sale. There's no foundation. It's sitting on piers. It's a camp. MR. RAY-I don't know. I'll be honest. I don't have my client here. and I'm sorry. but that's a tight time frame. That really is. MR. MARTIN-The answer may be to grant such an approval. and if he doesn't get it wi thin 60 days. he's got to come back. and you consider an extension. MR. BREWER-But then 60 days. you're into January. and you're going to come back in Mayor June. So why don't we just do the two lot subdivision. if he tears it down. sells the lot and tears it down. and comes back. we give him approval for the third lot. and he says goodbye and we never see him again. MR. STARK-Then there's no time frame. MR. BREWER-There's a year time frame. MR. STARK-Well. I mean. yes. but there's no. MR. BREWER-Either way. if he sells it and tears the building down. he'll be back. If he doesn't tear the building down. he'll have to come back to get an extension. then we can say no. if he doesn't do it within a year. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-I'm sorry. He wouldn't have to. If he sells off lot three. he doesn't have anything anyway. He has one lot left. and until such time as he tears that building down. MRS. PULVER-But what does our Ordinance say about three buildings on one lot? MR. MARTIN-No. He's all right there. because it's two acre s or more in size. Lots one and two add up to two acres. and at that size. he's permitted more than one principal building. MR. MACEWAN-How many buildings is he allowed? MR. MARTIN-It doesn't say. - 16 - MR. BREWER-Does that sound like a solution? MR. HARLICKER-We II. right now it's a nonconforming use. because there's four buildings on their now. So they're not creating any new nonconformities. They're allowing the existing nonconformity to remain. until such time as they want to create that third lot. tear down the building. MR. BREWER-Well. what do we want to do? MRS. TARANA-We've had other people come and change the number of lots in the subdivision without doing another subdivision. So I don't think that's a problem at all. MR. BREWER-Yes. I think he can do that. That's not a problem. If we just make a motion and let him do it. MRS. TARANA-Does that sound okay? everything? Are we within Code and MR. MARTIN-For what. the two lot. and then come back for the third? MRS. TARANA-Then he comes back. and subdivides into two more. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-The one big one into two. MR. STARK-You would just have to come back and ask for it. MR. RAY-But are we talking? MR. STARK-Two lots. MR. MARTIN-The only thing you're doing different than the motion that just received no action is it's adding an additional step of having you actually come back before the Board and report that the building is torn down and you'd like your third lot. It's the exact same thing. only with that added step. MRS. TARANA-Except you're only granting a two lot subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-Creating a two lot subdivision with a modification for the third lot when the building is torn down pretty much says the same thing. only different words. Do you want to make a motion to that effect? MRS. TARANA-Okay. Should I be making this motion this way? We don't need a request from him or anything? MR. BREWER-No. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE REVISION HARRY RUECKER. Introduced by Corinne adoption. seconded by George Stark: SUBDIVISION NO. Tarana who moved 15-1992 for its To create a two lot subdivision. with the stipulation Three is sold. the applicant will return. at which request that one lot be subdivided into two lots. subdivision application is not necessary as long as application remains in effect. and all you're doing that lot line between Lots One and Two. that when Lot time. he may That a new the present is creating Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-I would be sure to reference the lot numbers as indicated on the plat. - 17 - MRS. TARANA-Okay. To create a three lot subdivision. then. is what we have to say. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. TARANA-You have to. You just told me you're letting him create a three lot subdivision. MR. BREWER-We're creating two lots. because lots two and one are going to become one lot. This is going to become the second lot. MRS. TARANA-So. we're creating a two lot subdivision. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. TARANA-So he has to come back after the building is torn down to request that one lot be subdivided into two lots. That's the point where he gets his three lot subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-When that building is gone. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. RAY-Again. we're talking about a whole new subdivision approval? MRS. TARANA-No. MR. RAY-Or we come back. we report. if the building's down. the result of that. MRS. TARANA-And then you would request that lots one and two. which are now combined. would be subdivided into lots one and two. MR. HARLICKER-You might want to note. are you going to put any time. like a one year? That's what's normally. MRS. PULVER-Well. they have to submit a new plot. MR. MART¡N-Well. there's really not a need for a time limit. He gets those two lots. and if he never tears down that building. that's all he ever gets. MRS. TARANA-Then he always just one lot. until he tears down this building. Well. he has lot one and two. which is one. and lot three. and if you want the three lot subdivision. you have to tear down this building. come back and request that the large lot now be subdi vided into one and two. So there's no conditions on it because it's back in his ballpark. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. RAY-My fear then is that that leaves us in a situation where we have a whole new subdivision approval. MRS. TARANA-No. MR. MARTIN-Put that right in the motion. MRS. TARANA-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel - 18 - MR. BREWER-We'll see you when you want to get another lot. MR. RAY-Okay. and I appreciate your patience. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 GUIDO PASSARELLI PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I RC-15. WR-3A OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: FROM GLEN ST.. TURN EAST ONTO ROUND POND RD.. APPROX. 7 MILES TO BIRDSALL RD. ON LEFT. PROPERTY IS NW CORNER OF ROUND POND & BIRDSALL. SUBDIVISION OF A 18.9 ACRE PARCEL INTO 23 LOTS. LOTS WILL RANGE IN SIZE FROM 18.000 SQ. FT. TO 59.000 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1 LOT SIZE: 18.9 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT: TOM NACE. PRESENT MRS. TARANA-I will recuse myself from this discussion. as I did in the past. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 4-1993 Preliminary Stage. Guido Passarelli. Meeting Date: September 21. 1993 "The applicant provided revised plans in response to engineering. staff and public comments. Staff will defer to the engineering regarding whether the grading. drainage and soil erosion plans will work. However. it seems tha that there is excessive clearing proposed along Round Pond Road. An effort should be made to retain existing vegetation along the road. If future owners want to clear off the trees they have the option as do owners that like trees have the option to keep them. Regarding the common drives on Round Pond Road. the site plan note indicates that their use will be encouraged: in order to limit the number of curb cuts on this arterial road their use should be required. Doing this will also reduce the need to cut down trees. As a means of reducing the impact of the Great Escape on those lots that abut it. landscaping should be planted to increase the screening between the two properties. Because of the steep slopes and the bowl shaped configuration that they create. this is a difficult parcel to develop. The proposal requires an enormous amount of fill and grading which will substantially alter the character of the site. Clustering development in areas that will not require substantial filling and grading is a method of allowing development and working wi th the land instead of reconfiguring the land to conform to development. The issue of the bike location is still unresolved." MR. BREWER-Okay. and Tom Yarmowich has got to go over all these. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a letter from him that was handed out tonight. MRS. PULVER-I'll read it. It says. "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost has reviewed revised project drawings and letter furnished by Haanen Engineering. 9/14/93. the revised project information satisfactorily addresses previous engineering comments. With regard to final plat review. the drawings have been reviewed and are acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Should the Planning Board grant final approval. the Chairman should make sure that all sheets bear the engineer's or surveyor's seals and that the required agency's approvals. Highway Department. Town. Water. DEC. etc.. etc.. have been given. Yours Truly. Tom Yarmowich" MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom. I've got a little list of stuff that we talked about. that you were going to do. and I was wondering. how did we make out? MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. The first item I believe we addressed at the last meeting. That was the 50 foot buffer requirement. and Jim. you addressed that at the SEQRA meeting. The second item is was the letter from Paul Naylor on the roads. I talked to Paul. finally. this afternoon. I was able to talk to him. and I believe Jim was - 19 - with him at that time. Paul had misunderstood the original intent. and he was under the impression we were using a retainage basin for handling the runoff from the roads. which we are not. and he has no problem with what we had proposed. MR. MARTIN-Yes. that is correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. The third issue was the letter from Tom Flaherty on the water. I've talked to Tom a couple of times. He's still trying to sort out what pipe size he is going to want out on Round Pond Road. as part of the water district extension. So. I haven't gotten a letter from him yet. We will certainly have that by Final. The fourth item. the fill cut on Round Pond Road for site distance. we have taken care of. That's part of the package of plans. The fifth item is the common driveway. and Kip Grant has addressed that. I believe we discussed that during SEQRA Review. Kip has no problems with it. as long as we put the notes on the plan to maintain that to minimum open width with further access. That note is on the plans. and the sixth item. doubling up of dri veways on Round Pond Road. We have put a note on the plan suggesting strongly that the property owners who have lots do that. MR. BREWER-Okay. not? Is there any way we can make them do that. or MR. NACE-I don't know if there's any legal way to make them do that. no. We've suggested it. I noticed in your comments from Staff that they ask that that be a requirement. I'm not sure if there's any real legal basis for doing that. I'm not a lawyer. MR. BREWER-Well. I think if you make restrictions on your subdivision. they have to adhere to any restrictions you make. I would presume. MR. NACE-I think I'd want a. before we propose that. I think I'd want a lawyer to tell me that we could actually do that. and make it stick. I'm not sure that it is really what we want to do. If an individual is putting a driveway in. I'm sure you've all seen hill side developments where you can take the driveway back in. bring it in 25. 50 feet. and turn it around. wind it in. so it doesn't present an open site to the house. If you make a common driveway. you're going to make a wider driveway at the entrance. and then you're going to have to open up a wider area where the driveways split. which is actually. I think. in my estimation. been a requirement of clearing. As you can see. if you use a common drive. then you've got to open up the parking area. and an access to each house. It almost mandates. on this slope here. mandates that the houses be set closer together. I think you're going to open up a wider swath there that's more noticeable than individual driveways. which would be a little more. and maybe do something with them on the lots. to make them less noticeable. I think I'd discourage that as requirement. I'd encourage it. but not to make it a requirement. and the other issue that's addressed there is the possibility of clustering. On this site. the only way to really substantially reduce the impact by clustering would be to take this area back here and create townhouses around it. a small cluster. and there's no market for townhouses right now. The market's for individual lots. I don't think you can keep individual lots in there and really reduce the impact. Along the road here. there's absolutely no way that you could take those lots and cluster. because of the way the silt runs off. The other issue is that this bowl. the maj or grading we're doing is back in here. and over around the side this bowl in here. Most of that grading is going to be sheltered. or non visible from public accessways. That's sort of a bowl in here. and even from out on Birdsall Road. it's not going to be real visible. So. I'm not quite sure what we could accomplish. or if it would even be practical to cluster. The issue - 20 - -~ /' --" of the bike path. we are working on that. At present. we're trying to get the right people at Niagara Mohawk to work on the idea of taking the bike path up the existing power line there. Jack Lebowitz has looked at. in the organization have looked at that path. and they feel that it would be most advantageous to them. So we will work with them on that issue. MR. MACEWAN-Have you. at this point. opened up any dialogue with Niagara Mohawk? MR. NACE-No. Unfortunately. the person that I needed to get a hold of at Niagara Mohawk has been out of access for a couple of weeks. MR. MARTIN-Tom. do you think there would be a willingness on your part. as agent for the applicant. to see the Recreation Commission about this. and get their opinion. as they are the. really the. well. they have a lot of say as to how the recreation money is ultimately spent. and I think that would be an appropriate action. between now and final. for them to go to the Recreation Commission with this proposal and see if. in fact. they would be willing to expend a portion of the recreation fee for the creation of this path up through the NiMo right-of-way. If you recall at our joint meeting. that was discussed. The Rec Commission didn't have any knowledge of the project or where it was located. and if you could take them through a presentation. MR. NACE-Certainly. I think we'd want to do that jointly with the. I've forgotten the name of the bike organization. MR. MARTIN-Yes. invite them to the meeting 'as well, maybe. who's the guy at the County. and I could talk to Harry Hansen and have the Recreation Commission actually go visit the site. prior to their meeting. MR. NACE-Maybe a meeting at the site would be appro. MR. MARTIN-Yes. if you don't mind scheduling that. I think that'll be a big step in getting that resolved. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there any other comments. concerns? MR. STEVES-I would like to make one comment. On the agenda sheet. both last month and tonight. did it say we're in the zone RC-15. and WR-3A? That's not so. I'd like to clarify the record for that. so someone looking at it in three years won't think we're in an RC-15 zone. MR. BREWER-Didn't we do that last month? MR. MARTIN-That's so noted. for the second time. MR. BREWER-All right. Maybe I'll ask the public if there's any comment on this project. before we do the SEQRA. We did do it. at the last meeting. MRS. PULVER-That's right. the special meeting. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll still ask for public comment. Is there anyone here from the public who would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 21 - " -----' MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can make a motion. if we want. For Final. he will have a letter from Tom Flaherty. and we have to grant. at some time. a waiver for lots eight and nine. I've got that noted here. also. and I don't think we've done that yet. MR. NACE-For the access. MR. BREWER-The access. MR. MARTIN-I would hold that off until Final. MR. BREWER-Until Final? All right. Well. maybe we can just make a note of it. MRS. PULVER-You wanted them to meet with the Recreation Department. MR. MARTIN-The Recreation Commission. They meet once a month. Tom. I don't know when their. MRS. PULVER-Well. that doesn't really need to be in the motion. then. MR. MARTIN-No. They meet once a month. Tom. I don't know when that is. I think it's usually before Planning Board meetings. I think it's some time the second or third week of the month. and if it's a situation where we can get you on the Final. like. meeting next month to accommodate that meeting. we would do that. or the first meeting. if it's prior to that. depending on where it falls. MR. NACE-Okay. I'll call Harry tomorrow and try and set that up. MR. MARTIN-He's on vacation. I think. this week. Sorry. MRS. PULVER-Okay. and so for Final you're going to have a letter from Tom Flaherty? MR. NACE-Yes. MRS. PULVER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 GUIDO PASSARELLI. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: For a subdivision of 18.9 acre parcel into 23 lots. Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS & DEBRA PETROSKI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: CORNER OF HOMER & EVERTS AVE. PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.305 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV #68-1993 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-4.1 JIM LAPANN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. Douglas & Debra Petroski. Meeting 18-1993 Preliminary Stage. Date: September 21. 1993 - 22 - - "" "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 56.844 square foot parcel into two lots. One lot will be 28.359 square feet and the other will be 28.485 square feet. The property is located on the southwest corner of Everts Avenue and Homer Avenue. is zoned LI-1A and is serviced by municipal water and sewer. The property has two existing buildings on it. one is vacant and the other houses a gymnastic school and day care center. The subdivision will create two lots with a single building on each lot. The applicant received variances for lot area. lot width, lot depth. side yard setback and pool setback: the applicant also has a use variance that had been previously granted. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The proposal does not involve the construction of any new streets or utilities. Both lots will have existing structures on them and there is no new construction proposed. The existing parcel is serviced by municipal water and sewer. According to Mike Shaw's memo of 9/8/93. each building will have to have its own lateral. 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. BREWER-Okay. Corinne. would you read Mike Shaw's letter in. MRS. TARANA-To Jim Martin. from Mike Shaw. dated September 8. 1993. regarding the September 21st Planning Board meeting Subdivision of Parcel 107-1-04.1 "It may be noted that this parcel currently has two buildings on it. (Adirondack Gymnastics and Child's World) These two buildings are served by one sanitary sewer lateral. If this parcel is so divided that each building is on its own parcel. they will need separate sanitary sewer laterals. If you need additional information on this matter. please call me at my office." MR. BREWER-Okay. Jim. would you like to make a comment to Mr. Shaw's letter. or is that fine with you? MR. LAPANN-That's fine with us. yes. My name is Jim Lapann. I'm here representing the applicants. I believe that that's anticipated. and I will discuss it thoroughly with the owners and the potential purchasers. and if you would like. we could send a letter to that effect. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here from the public who would like to comment on this subdivision? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Are we going to do a SEQRA on this? MR. HARLICKER-Short Form. They submitted a Long Form. unlisted action. so a Short Form would have sufficed. submitted a Long Form. It's an but they RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-1993. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 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. - 23 - -.../ 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 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 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. I just have one comment while I'm looking at this map. Jim. before we go on to a motion. There's no handicap indicated on this parking. and do they meet the parking requirements? MR. MARTIN-I'm fairly certain they do meet the parking requirement, but handicap spaces should be indicated. Jim. can you put that on there for Final? MR. LAPANN-Certainly. we will do that. MR. BREWER-For both lots? MR. LAPANN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. and this dumpster. you're going to screen that. on lot. there's no numbers to these lots. I'm looking at the map on the right hand lot. MR. LAPANN-Yes. MR. BREWER-You're going to screen that. anyway. That's a requirement MR. LAPANN-Yes. I believe there's a stockade fence right there. MR. BREWER-Okay. here. Well. it just doesn't show a fence or anything MR. MARTIN-Well. it should be indicated that if the fence is in place. indicate that also. - 24 - ----_._--..""" ..- MR. LAPANN-We'll indicate that. and the handicap parking on the survey map for Final. MR. BREWER-Okay. motion? Anybody else? Would somebody care to make a MRS. PULVER-We have a prepared motion. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Can I just make a couple of suggestions on modifying it. On the third Whereas. add a Number Three. a memo from Mike Shaw regarding sewer laterals dated 9/8/93. and then under the modifications. that each lot have it's own sanitary sewer lateral. Number One. Number Two. that handicap parking is shown on each lot. and Number Three. that a fence around the dumpster be indicated. MR. BREWER-For both lots. with the dumpsters. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Or are they going to share a dumpster? Well. it's going to be two different entities. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1993 DOUGLAS & DEBRA PETROSKI. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Corinne Tarana: As amended: WHEREAS. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application. file #18-1993. to subdivide a 1.305 acre parcel into two lots; and WHEREAS. the above referenced preliminary subdivision application dated 8/23/93 consists of the following: 1. Map of Lands of Douglas and Debra Petroski. dated 8/16/93; and WHEREAS. the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes. dated 9/21/93 2. Long EAF. dated 8/23/93 3. a memo from Mike Shaw regarding sewer laterals. dated 9/8/93; and WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on 9/21/93 concerning the above subdivision; and WHEREAS. the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and WHEREAS. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and WHEREAS. the proposed subdivision is subject to the following modification and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form. 1. That each lot have it's own sanitary sewer lateral. 2. That handicap parking be shown on each lot. 3. That a fence around the dumpster be indicated; THEREFORE. Be It Resolved. as follows: The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby moves to approve preliminary subdivision Douglas and Debra Petroski file # 18-1993. Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-IA JAMES GIRARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF CRONIN RD. 1.100' EAST OF BAY ROAD. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 5.81 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) LOTS. DEC CROSS REFERENCE: AV # 39-1993 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.1. 5.8 LOT SIZE: 5.81 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK BOMBARD. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 25 - Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 13-1993 Preliminary Stage. James Girard. Meeting Date: September 21. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.81 acre parcel into four lots. Three of the lots will be for single family homes. the fourth is proposed to be conveyed to the Town; it is adjacent to Halfway Brook and is mostly wetland. The buildable lots will all be approximately 1.1 acres in size and the parcel to be conveyed to the Town is to be 2.42 acres. The applicant received a variance to allow for lot 1 to have less than double the lot width. Lot two has an existing house on it; lots one and three are vacant. There will be a shared drive between lots two and three. The lots will have municipal sewer and water and is zoned SFR-IA. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project does not involve the construction of any roads and the lots will be able to tie into the existing services along Cronin Road. The subdivision cleans up an undesirable situation by creating three lots of approximately one acre in size out of a split frontage parcel. The Town also gets the opportunity to obtain 2.42 acres of land along Halfway Brook. It appears that the subdivision involves a DEC designated wetland; the applicant should have the wetlands delineated and flagged. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends preliminary approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Scott. I've got a question. How come we're doing the Long Form. or you reviewed this for a Long Form. and it's an unlisted action? MR. HARLICKER-I just happened to catch it as it came in. MR. BREWER-Okay. I didn't know whether we were going to do a Long Form on this. MR. HARLICKER-No. A Long Form with unlisted is optional. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. BOMBARD-Mark Bombard from Coulter & McCormack. I was going to do a Short Form. and I called somebody. and the reason they told me is because it involves wetlands. MR. HARLICKER-The wetlands. yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. recreation land? of that. Jim? Did you submit a letter about the wetlands for We had discussion about that. Do we have a copy MR. MARTIN-Yes. and you and I drafted the letter that day. Remember? MR. BREWER-Right. I remember drafting the letter. I just didn't know whether Jim signed it and we had it. No. We drafted a letter to the Town. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He already submitted his letter requesting the dedication of the land. I don't think we have any formal response back. yet. from the Rec Commission or the Town Board. We'll try and have that in place by Final. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MARTIN-I would also recommend that this applicant also contact the Rec Commission and make sure that that's on for discussion at their next meeting. They've been notified of it and have all the maps and everything. MR. BREWER-They're aware of it. When we had that joint meeting. we discussed it a little bit. MR. MARTIN-I'd just make sure that you're on their next meeting. so you don't get delayed. - 26 - ----~--~--,... - '-- JAMES GIRARD MR. GIRARD-Mr. Hansen did contact me. MR. BREWER-He did? Okay. Does anybody have any questions that we didn't ask before? MRS. TARANA-I just wondered. it said that there were three future sites that can be developed. Where are those? MR. BOMBARD-Actually. I think there's just the two. has the preexisting house on it. One of them MRS. TARANA-Is that the one that's on the map here. that says one story. existing? MR. BOMBARD-Right. Yes. that's an existing house. No. this is the existing house here. and this is the proposed house. and the proposed house here. This is lands of Rozell. here. MRS. TARANA-So where is the land that you can still develop? MR. BREWER-I don't think that they can still develop. I think they may be talking about the land that was offered for dedication. MRS. TARANA-Is that what this means? MR. BREWER-That's going to be tied into possibly the other parcel that the Town owns. Is that adjacent to it. Jim? The parcel that they're offering for dedication. is that adjacent to the land the Town owns now? MR. MARTIN-Yes. just. there's a small 20 foot piece. I believe. that adjoins the Town parcel. MRS. TARANA-Okay. That was my only question. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. We can do a SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-So. are we going to do a Long Form. because of the wetlands? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. because of the wetlands. MRS. PULVER-All right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-1993. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 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: - 27 - ''--... 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 have 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 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993 JAMES GIRARD. Introduced by Corinne Tarana. seconded by George Stark: That the wetlands should be delineated before final. Duly adopted this 15th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: MR. BREWER-And they're going to have to have their permit from ENCON before Final? Is that so. or not? MR. MARTIN-That's been the practice of the Board in the past. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you have any idea whether that's in the works. or? MR. BOMBARD-We need a permit from. or do you just want it flagged? We're not doing anything with the wetland. MR. BREWER-Delineated and flagged. MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's all you need. There is no permit. MRS. TARANA-So that should be done before Final. and we should have approval from the Town. MR. MARTIN-Well. you'll have recommendation from the two Boards. as to their opinion on the offering of the land. MR. BREWER-Now. we make their decision based on their notes. or do we make a decision or don't we? MR. MARTIN-You make a decision to accept it. and then the Town - 28 - '- Board will formally do so. as they're the only body who can do that. ,MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-It's kind of funny the way the law is written. At first you get their recommendation. then you make the decision to accept or deny, and then they ultimately have the approval authority. MR. BREWER-But pretty much they go with our recommendation. though. as if we accept it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's why you get it at this early stage. prior to you making your decision. MR. GIRARD-I had them flag the wetlands. It wasn't this year. It was about a year ago. When I first started this. I had them come down and flag the wetlands. The flags are still there. MR. HARLICKER-Could it be delineated. shown where the boundaries on the subdivision plat? MR. MARTIN-Yes. If the flagging is there. that's sufficient. but it would be nice to have the boundaries shown on the plan. MR. BREWER-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 45-93 TYPE: UNLISTED DREW MONTHIE/TRACY TABOR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-IA LOCATION: WEST MT. ROAD BETWEEN INTERSECTIONS OF SHERMAN AVE. & LUZERNE ROAD. PROPOSAL IS TO ADD A 8' X 20' GREENHOUSE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 9-8-93 TAX MAP NO. 123-1-43.3 LOT SIZE: 5.58 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 D TRACY TABOR. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 45-93. Drew Monthie/Tracy Tabor. Meeting Date: September 21. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 160 foot greenhouse. The property is Northland Gardens located on West Mountain Road between Luzerne Road and Sherman Avenue. is zoned SR-IA and is considered a Class C farm. The property has an existing greenhouse and this project is a proposed addition to it. This addition will be located to the rear of the existing greenhouse. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A.. the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter. including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B.. the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, and it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C.. the proposal was reviewed by the department of transportation regarding its impact on the highways." It wasn't reviewed by the Department of Transportation. It was reviewed by Staff. "There will be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrangement. size. design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs; The project will have the same design as the existing greenhouse and - 29 - ~ should be compatible with the existing structures. No lighting or signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: This is not an issue. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading: This is not an issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: The site is flat and the area of the proposed greenhouse is currently used as storage and display area. There should be no impact on drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; This is not an issue. 7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; This is not an issue. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of f ire hydrants: Thi s is not an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County reviewed it and found "No County Impact". MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Form. Short RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 45-93. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 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. - 30 - ~ '~ 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of 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 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. MACEWAN-Would the applicant like to make any comments? MR. TABOR-My name's Tracy Tabor. The only comment I have. and this is with no respect to the Board. the Master Plan that was done a few years back. it seems that you have a very intelligent staff working for you. and I guess this is probably just for the future. Those who ears are the ones who make the laws. or the ones who inspire to make the laws. might look into something like finding a way to give a little bit of these regulations and powers that could be just kind of slid by. Maybe to save a little bit of time for all of us. It seems like a long process to go through. I think at the beginning Mr. Martin had said. we don't see a problem with this. and then the flag went up when we saw Class E Farm. you know. So. it seemed like it was basically. we knew we had to come here and go through it. which I agree with the regulations and the laws in the Town. You've got to. you said you've been talking about building 27 houses or 17 houses on 18 acres. You've got to talk about stuff like that. I guess my suggestion is just maybe we could limit. or give somebody some more authority somewhere down the line. and they might be able to approve it. Thanks. MR. BREWER-Does anybody want to make a comment to that? MRS. PULVER-Yes. My only comment. I made a note before he said it was that. I thought we were going to do something less than two hundred square feet was not going to have to have site plan review. We talked about that. probably about two years ago. before you became Executive Director. I know. MR. MARTIN-Well. we're doing that with County review right now. As a matter of fact. I'm going to be taking it up with the Town Board Monday night. about trying to relieve the number of applications that get sent up there. but I mean. I agree. MR. TABOR-I could probably re-state it a little more forcefully. For someone in my position. we're sitting here. we waited now. of course very ignorant of the laws that had changed from the Master Plan. When we first went through the process for the first greenhouse. it was. boom. boom. boom. There was nothing to it. The structure was built well. It was aesthetically pleasing. of course. the landscape. and there was no problem. So we just assumed. out of ignorance mostly. we're not going to have much of a problem. MR. MARTIN-Yes. something. He built the first greenhouse. like. in '85 or - 31 - .-- MR. TABOR-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Or it was prior to the new Zoning Ordinance. MR. TABOR-New zoning. but anyway. mostly due though. there'll be no problem. Well. me and my MR. MARTIN-This was caught as a building permit. permit. He had a building permit submitted. and was discovered. that it would need site plan. to ignorance. we foresight here. He had a building this was when this MR. TABOR-Due to this process here. I went ahead and. (was inaudible on tape) to Japan which is a very hard process to stop. Now tomorrow morning my product arrives at my door. I'm kind of stuck with 160 foot of greenhouse that's not there. and no place to put four or five thousand dollars worth of trees. Again. no fault of the Board sitting here. I mean. it's just something I think that was overlooked. You have so many laws to make and do. but I think maybe 200 square feet. especially when all setbacks and everything are met. would be a good idea. MR. BREWER-But where does it end. though? If you put 200 foot on. and I'm not sticking up for anybody. or trying to deny anybody. but if you start with 200 foot this year. next year you put 200 more. There has to be a line somewhere. I agree with you. but. MR. TABOR-I guess what I'm saying is if there seems to be. where he's coming up with his reading that there are a few disputes. then probably yes. come here and talk about those disputes. To me. we have no setback problems. We have no water problems. We have no drainage problems. We have no wetland problems. We have no problems. The basic problem we have is there's no minimum. or these gentlemen aren't. in my view anyway. aren't allowed to be able to use the knowledge that they know. I mean. I think it would save you time. It certainly would save people like me time. I'm not saying just because of me. I think four or five years down the line. it might save a heck of a lot of people a lot of time. I'm not saying make the minimum go up and up. By all means. if this gentleman. or Mr. Martin. or someone was to say. they've got some questions we've got to answer. then they should come up here. whether it's 100 square feet or 50 square feet. You can't impact someone else. and you can't do things that are going to adversely effect other people. MRS. PULVER-I agree. If you have a staff. and if you say 200 square feet. and the staff looks at it. and it's in a Critically Environmentally Sensitive Area. they're not going to approve 160 square feet. They're going to send it to the Board. MR. TABOR-Yes. The staff has been very helpful. MRS. PULVER-Yes. and I think you have to trust sometimes. that they're just not going to do it. that responsibility. Number One. They'll send it something where 200. where they can meet all whatever. then sure. why not. their judgement They don't want to the Board. but the setbacks or MR. TABOR-I think what we've almost faced here. and which was real scary to me. and I remember conversation trying to get on this Board's agenda for this month. We almost faced missing this meeting. If that had happened. and we had missed this month. my personal I iabi Ii ty. out of ignorance. again. would have cost me about five to ten thousand dollars in product for Christmas. which is. again. my livelihood. to keep three or four people employed throughout thé winter and to keep myself stocked. That would have cost me. to protect it from frost without the greenhouse. and it would be kind of hard to put it any place else. I guess I want to compliment you guys and say thank you. because Drew went in and there was like no problems. and then all of a sudden we say Class E Farm. and there was a problem. and I think the only problem was that it had to go through the kind of a process. but there really - 32 - ----- wasn't a problem. MR. BREWER-The process was pretty fast. though. comparatively. I mean. I remember the conversation. and we got you on the agenda in the first meeting. you're in and out. MR. TABOR-No. I agree that it's been a fast process. with what you have to deal with. With what I have to deal with. it's three four hours. three weeks of waiting. My product's in. and again. there really wasn't a problem. MR. BREWER-Well. if you get up there right now. you've got until probably eight o'clock. nine o'clock tomorrow morning. you could have it up. MR. MARTIN-It all gets back to this idea of maybe establishing a threshold. where if it's crossed. then you do come to the Board. and if it's under that. and the requirements are met. then he can go through a Staff review and to a building permit. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-But we're all working for that. MR. TABOR- I think it's something to talk about. It's something that you've certainly probably given enough mind to put together. to word it some way where they're comfortable with saying. okay. this is fine. This meets the law. They can go. Lets not hold them up. MR. BREWER-Agreed. Now we have to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-93 DREW MONTHIE/TRACY TABOR. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: To construct an 8 by 20 foot greenhouse. Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE - P6-93 RECOMMENDATION ONLY CHARLES AND BARBARA SEELEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: 49 GLENWOOD AVE. TAX MAP NO. 105-1-37 CURRENT ZONING: SFR-IA PROPOSED ZONING: HC-IA WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 8-18-93 PROPOSED REZONING OF A .64 ACRE PARCEL CHARLES AND BARBARA SEELEY. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. P6-93. Charles and Barbara Seeley. Meeting Date: September 21. 1993 "A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is seeking to have a .64 acre parcel of land rezoned from SFR-IA to HC-1A. The property is located on Glenwood Avenue. is within Quaker Road Sewer District and municipal water district. The property is currently a mixed use. residential and light industrial. it contains three structures: a house that is currently used as the Seeley residence and as the office for Seeley Machine. a garage which houses lathes and milling equipment and a smaller building utilized as a machine shop. B. EXISTING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS The property is bordered on the south by a residence. on the east by vacant land. The property to the north - 33 - is commercial and used by several different businesses. Across the street to the west is Quaker Road and Hovey Pond. C. ZONE CHANGE ANALYSIS 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant states that the zone change will better reflect the use of this property. However. the current use of the property as a machine shop is industrial in nature and nonconforming. With the proposed rezoning. the current use will still be nonconforming: therefore. the rezoning will not reflect the existing use of the property. The proposed rezoning does not better reflect the existing uses on most of the adjacent properties. Most of the adjacent properties are zoned residential; the only commercially zoned properties are those fronting Quaker Road. and this property does not have any frontage on Quaker Road. 2. What proposed zones. if any. can meet the stated need? The applicant states that only highway commercial would suit the stated need. Staff does not believe that the applicant has addressed the question of need adequately enough to answer this question. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone is not compatible with the adjacent residential zones. Any expansion of the commercial zone south along Glenwood Avenue would come into conflict with the existing residential zone. However. it is compatible with the existing commercial zone along Quaker Road. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The physical characteristics of the site are not entirely suitable for rezoning as highway commercial. The existing structures are more suited for conversion to professional offices or dwellings than structures generally associated with highway commercial uses. The site is atop a small hill and the intense development allowed in highway commercial zones could cause drainage and runoff problems on the property to the north. 5. How will the proposed zoning affect public facilities? The proposed rezoning would have an adverse impact on the adjacent Hovey Pond Park. The rezoning would allow uses that are inharmonious with the park. It does not seem prudent to approve a zone change that would allow uses that would spoil the atmosphere that the Town has been trying to create with Hovey Pond Park. 6. Why is the current classification not appropriate for the property in question? The current zoning of the property as single family residential could be considered inappropriate given its proximity to the highway commercial zone. However. it is not good planning practice to just shift a bad situation. By rezoning this property to highway commercial. the bad situation. that of a residential zone abutting the most intense commercial zone, is just shifted down Glenwood Avenue. An appropriate rezoning may be to rezone to an MR-5 zone which would allow limited commercial/office development or multifamily development and would act as a buffer between the highway commercial zone and the residential zone. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The environmental impacts associated with rezoning this property to highway commercial include increased traffic. both automobile and truck and an increased noise. The rezoning would also have a negative impact on Hovey Pond Park. The Town has spent a great deal of time and resources developing this park. Most of the uses allowed in a highway commercial zone would have significant adverse impacts on the park. as well as the adjacent nearby residences. Most highway commercial uses are not compatible with residential and park uses. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? The proposed rezoning is in conflict with several sections of the Comprehensive Plan. as well as the zoning code. One of the transportation goals is to reduce truck traffic in residential zones. This zoning would increase truck traffic in the residential zone along Glenwood Avenue. The water resources section states that Hovey Pond is an important water resource for the town and its development as a park confirms that. The impacts that are generally associated with highway commercial zones. increased traffic. noise. odors as well as the aesthetic impacts would have significant adverse effect on the public's enjoyment of the park. The land use goals and policies reflect the importance of requiring buffers between commercial and residential zones. in order to preserve the - 34 - ~."'f.-- ',-- neighborhood integrity. The proposed rezoning would not allow for the creation of any buffer between the commercial uses allowed in a highway commercial zone and the abutting residential and park properties. Land use strategies include limiting highway commercial zones to arterial roads and to reduce densities in areas of environmental sensi ti vi ty. The rezoning would allow for the expansion of the strip development currently confined to Quaker Road. To begin expanding down Glenwood Avenue. It would also conflict with the stated strategy of reducing densities in areas of environmental sensitivity. Hovey Pond is an area that is environmentally sensitive. The Zoning Code also states that highway commercial zones are for areas that have already developed intense haphazard commercial development. Glenwood Avenue does not fall into this category. The Code also states that the purpose of highway commercial is to confine development and allow for minimal expansion through in-fill. The proposed rezoning does not conform to the stated purpose of the highway commercial zone. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? The wider interests of the community will not be served by rezoning this property to highway commercial. The land use plan goals. policies and strategies along with the zoning code. were developed in consideration of the wider interests of the community. If an action is in conflict with those stated goals. policies. strategies and purposes. it is likely that the action is not serving the wider interest of the community. The negative impacts on the adjoining residential zone and the park are major concerns and those impacts outweigh any personal interests of the applicant's that will be met by this rezoning. A reasonable use of the property can be realized wi thout rezoning this residentially zoned property to highway commercial. D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The proposal for a zone change for this specified piece of property from SFR-1A to HC-IA requires careful consideration. The zone change will allow for a much more intense use of the lot. and this new use will allow for a much more intense use of the lot. and this new use will be in direct conflict with many of the existing neighboring properties. The property is wi thin the Quaker Road Sewer District and the municipal water district so those are not limiting factors. The major factor in this rezoning is its impact on the neighboring residential properties and the park. The rezoning of this property could have a domino effect on the neighborhood. Each adjacent property could be subject to the same circumstances. being located adjacent to a highway commercial zone. as the lot that is proposed to be rezoned. The rezoning would not bring the current use into conformance with the Zoning Code. The machine shop would still be considered a preexisting nonconforming use. The property is less than an acre in size (.64 acres) so the rezoning would be creating a nonconforming lot. Because of the size of the lot it will be difficult to develop the property and still meet the setback requirements. The Zoning Code Section 179-72 requires a 50 foot buffer between any commercial use and any abutting residential use at the lot line. It appears that commercial development of this parcel could not be done without violating the previously quoted section. The Planning Board. along with its recommendation. should consent to the Town Board being Lead Agency for the purposes of SEQRA. Taking into account the above factors as well as the stated goals. policies and strategies for preserving buffer zones and neighborhood integrity. the importance of Hovey Pond as a water and recreational resource. the reduction of traffic in residential zones and the limiting of highway commercial zones. as outlined in the land use plan . it does not appear that this rezoning is in accordance with the planning objectives of the town." MR. HARLICKER-The Warren County Planning Board reviewed this. and they disapproved. with the comment. "The Board feels that the Highway Commercial designation be restricted to only Quaker Road and that this property be rezoned as transitional such as Neighborhood Commercial or Commercial Residential." MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Seeley. would you like to comment at all? - 35 - '- '- MR. SEELEY-I'm Chuck Seeley. they're considerations. I'd have to read the two over. if MR. BREWER-Do you want to read the two zones that are proposed over? MR. SEELEY-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The CR-15 and the. MRS. TARANA-The Neighborhood Commercial. MR. MARTIN-I think of the two. I just read them. and I'm reading the purpose of the CR-15. First of all. it requires a minimum lot size of 15.000 square feet. which Scott's comment on the HC-IA is well taken. There's. ideally. a minimum lot size requirement of an acre. Here it's 15.000 square feet. and the purpose is. Commercial Residential zones are those areas of Queensbury which are transitioning from Residential to Highway Commercial uses on narrow arterial roads. The purpose of this zone is to allow for this transition in a manner which permits the widening of the arterial route. and encourages safe traffic patterns and an aesthetically pleasing environment and safe pedestrian circulation. MR. BREWER-Is his use allowed there. or not? MR. MARTIN-Well. no. I think. and the Seeleys can correct me if I'm wrong. this was discussed many months ago. They're looking to move their business. They have been talking to the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation about potentially buying a lot in the industrial park to move the business there. or maybe even another area in the region. They've also talked to Saratoga County. but the thing that they're up against is. Washington County also. The thing that they're up against is. in order to finance this move. they need to sell the existing property. and their feeling is. with their proximity to the business to the north. the Plaza. that really splits their lot there. to some degree. the Queensbury Plaza. It's really not very viable as residential property. So that was the reasoning for the change. I think the shift from SFR. our most restrictive residential zone. all the way to the most liberal commercial zone is a bit of a reach. I think it is a reach. but I think the CR-15 zone is maybe something worth considering. because the Neighborhood Commercial zone is really. the purpose for that is designed to enable residents of Queensbury in outlying areas to obtain staples. necessities and other goods. I don't see this as an outlying area of the town. by any means. It's really adjoining the central business district. really. if you want to call it that. MRS. PULVER-So you're saying Commercial Residential. rather than? MR. MARTIN-I would say. of those two. if you were going to do any commercial activity on this lot. that would be the one. MRS. SEELEY-The reason we had said Highway Commercial. MR. MARTIN-Right. You're concerned about the spot zoning issue. MRS. SEELEY-Yes. plus the fact that the golf course property next to us is up for sale. and perhaps someone might want just that little extra. for whatever they're going to do there. I have no idea what they're going to do there. MR. MARTIN-Well. if you look at the allowed site plan uses in CR- 15. you have office building. social club. hospital. nursing home, day care center. restaurant, banking facility. gas station. home occupation. hote I /mote I. retail busine ss and veterinary clinic. Between retail and restaurant. you're probably going to dove tail with any use on that lot to the north. - 36 - -- MRS. SEELEY-Just for the record. when we bought the property. it was light industrial. with resolution number 155, which made it an M-2 district for CR Bard. So that's why the machine shop is there, and now. of course. they've rezoned it. it's nonconforming. As a residence right now. we'd invite you to spend the night with us. You open the window Thursday. Friday. or Saturday. come spend the night. You can't open the windows. The noise is just horrendous. It's just a matter of. as a residence. we couldn't sell it for its use. MR. BREWER-Would you object to the recommendation of CR-15? MRS. SEELEY-I don't have a problem with that. MR. SEELEY-The only thing I'd be concerned with is if somebody bought the Saw Horse. now they couldn't use ours in combination with it. That would be the big concern. MR. BREWER-Well. they could always get a variance. MR. MARTIN-Well. they could. though. if it was a retail business proposed for the two properties. That's an allowed use. It needs site plan review from this Board. and that would be it. MR. MACEWAN-Have you been approached by a potential buyer who's interested in the Saw Horse and your property as well? MRS. SEELEY-No. We haven't even discussed putting on one. MR. MARTIN-There is somewhat of a grade change. too. between the two lots. You're a little higher up. MR. BREWER-I think that if anybody was interested in the Saw Horse property. there. probably the main use would be on that property. Because of the size of your lot. I don't think they would buy that and yours and plan to use all of your property to provide their service. or whatever it might be they want to put on that property. So I think that that piece of property is. the use could continue on to that property. and I don't think they'd have a problem. I guess is what I'm trying to say. If there's a use there. Charles. a commercial kind of a use. they're going to have to have a buffer between that and the residential zone. So. if it's 50 foot. they're going to be on the other side of your house. Do you see what I'm saying. with their buffer. If your property is incorporated into the other piece. so it's all one piece. they're going to use part of your property for a buffer. So your house would be gone and you'd use that portion of that for the buffer. So their use is not going to be right up to your line. in other words. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I was going to say that could be done is. if such a thing was to occur. where both lots were developed under one use. maybe the buffer zone could even be widened further. in this particular instance. So. I mean. if you made it a 75 foot buffer. that would even improve the situation over what it is today. MR. STARK-Make the recommendation to approve the CR-15. MRS. TARANA-Yes. asking for now. I would not approve the request that they are MRS. PULVER-No. I think Highway Commercial is too intense. but they cannot be a Single Family Residence. Obviously. they have to be something other than that. MR. MACEWAN-No to the HC-IA. I'd go with a transitional zone. but not Highway Commercial. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a recommendation? - 37 - '- - MRS. TARANA-I'll make a comment first. I think this is that same kind of situation that we've had before where we need something called a transition zone. MR. MARTIN-Well. I think that the closest thing we have on the books now. and it's. I think. somewhat fairly well written. is this CR-15 zone. The other experience where we've had this recently is the Juckett property over on Ridge Road. The request originally came in for Highway Commercial. and it was taken down to Neighborhood. or I think it was Neighborhood. wasn't it? MR. MACEWAN-I think he ended up pulling it anyway. I don't think he went with it at all. did he? MR. MARTIN-No. he did. He got approved for it. but it was a Neighborhood Commercial. or this CR. I think it was Neighborhood. in that case. MRS. TARANA-Is the applicant in favor of this CR-15? MRS. SEELEY-I don't have a problem with it. MRS. TARANA-It sounds like you're not going to get the zone that you requested. and you need the super majority anyway. and you're not going to get that. So you better try to get whatever you can get here. MRS. PULVER-Well. and if you do find a buyer for the property. or if someone does come and approach you to buy two of them. you can come back and maybe they just want to use your property as a parking lot. or whatever. so there would be no problem having a buffering and so forth. or if the zone needed to be changed for whatever reason. MR. BREWER-Then again. though. we'd be looking at one big parcel rather than just a small parcel. MRS. PULVER-Right. a different situation than what we're looking at now. MR. BREWER-That maybe would change it if somebody did buy it. in conjunction with the other piece. MRS. PULVER-Right. It's liable to be a better situation to have it all Highway Commercial. depending on if there was a buyer or something. than right now. MR. SEELEY-We sell it and then get a variance. MRS. PULVER-Well. you do have other options. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THE PROPERTY OF CHARLES AND BARBARA SEELEY AT 41 GLENWOOD AVENUE BE RE-ZONED FROM THE CURRENT ZONING OF SFR-IA TO CR-15 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel MRS. PULVER-I have one item. Okay. I received this letter. I - 38 - think we all received this letter. from Miller. Mannix and Pratt on the Hudson Point issue. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. It was in our last packet. MRS. PULVER-My question. one question for you. has it been determined that you can have a PUD in a waterfront area? MR. MARTIN-The attorney is looking into that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Now. speaking for myself. as a Planning Board. I was unaware of that when we looked at this. Also. as I was going down this list. there are some things that I don't find real important and some things I do find important. On Number Three. it is our understanding that there were no docks included in this project when the Planning Board reviewed it. The project proposal now includes two 40 foot docks on the Hudson River. I don't remember any docks being in there. MR. MARTIN-Well. if you look at the Section of the Ordinance that deals with your report to the Town Board. and you're determining that this is in a form now ready to be reviewed by them. for consideration as a PUD. I think that was meant. and changes such as this. MRS. PULVER-You mean. they were meant to have docks? MR. MARTIN-No. There were minimum standards that had to be addressed per the Ordinance. in order for this to proceed on as it did. Those were met. and in the context of it being reviewed at the next level. more details about the project came out. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So we didn't have all the details. MR. MARTIN-And therefore. it just came out in that context. but you're going to see it again at site plan. MRS. PULVER-I believe that. but what I'm also saying is that. most of the time. the applicant is very up front with us. So there are no surprises at a later date. My question here is. why are they having two 40 foot docks. I didn't even know they were having 40 foot docks. and who's asked for 40 foot docks? MR. MARTIN-The applicant has. I know. but I mean. do we do it? Do we allow these things because the applicant asked for it. or do we wait until maybe the residents ask for it? MR. MARTIN-No. no. These are meant to be docks. my understanding is. under the ownership of the Homeowner's Association. as a limited means of providing water related recreational activities to the members of the Association only. MRS. PULVER-All right. Well. I don't care how they plan to use it. I'm just saying. I didn't know anything about it. I think they're trying to put one over on us. Then. on Number Four. the project proposal now includes a boat storage building and boat launch area for canoes on the Hudson River. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Again. who's going to going to maintain this? I didn't know anything about it. I'm not sure we should be doing this on the Hudson River. and especially in that area. I'd like to re-Iook at this. Number Six. there will be a parking lot for 10 cars near the top of the bluffs for those people using the proposed picnic and boat complex on the River. The way this is worded to me. and the way I see it. anybody can go up there and park. Anybody can use this use this picnic facility. Anybody can run up and down those bluffs. Anybody can drag their canoe down in the water. I mean. we could have another Lake George down there. Number Seven. - 39 - a trail has been added along the bluffs to provide access from the parking area to the proposed picnic and boat complex. I think they're going to be coming up from South Glens Falls. I don't know that for sure. and I'm sure they're not. but the way it is. now they're just going to run all up and down the River. The primary access road for the project has been changed from Sherman Island Road. no. I knew that. Several lots on the point have been increased to three acres and the area covered by the conservation easements has been expanded to include the bluffs. I thought that was going to be separate? I thought the bluffs were going to be separate? MR. MARTIN-No. The conservation area has been increased to include the bluffs. so they will be protected by the conservation easement. That's the steep slope part. from the base to the top. MRS. PULVER-Okay. All right. I understand that. Then why are we having. at the top of the bluffs. okay. we're having. how are we going to keep people off there. is what I want to know. We're having this picnic area here. and we're having the bluffs here. and you think those people aren't going down there? MR. MARTIN-My understanding is it's for access only by the members of the Homeowners Association. How they accomplish that. whether it's permitted parking. locked. MR. MACEWAN-Why would people who live in that development need to drive their car a matter of 300 feet to park to go down to the bluffs? MR. MARTIN-Well. I think there's longer than 300 feet from the beginning of that development. MRS. PULVER-Who are they building this for? See. my whole point is. I don't really care what's on here. What I do care is that I think one has been put over on us. or they're trying desperately to put one over on us. MR. MARTIN-What I was saying earlier is. that was not a matter. they did not have to get into that level of detail at the time at which this Board looked at it as reporting to the Town Board. saying this is ready for your review as a PUD. This. you're going to see that level of detail and much greater. quite frankly. at site plan. MR. MACEWAN-Who determines whether this meets the PUD status now? Will that fall to the Town Board or the Planning Board? MR. MARTIN-The Town Board. MR. MACEWAN-Whether they meet PUD criteria or not. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Yes. but I was under the impression that when it came to us for a recommendation. that the property itself was within the criteria of being a PUD. In other words. there was enough acreage. MR. MACEWAN-You're forgetting two significant factors in this whole thing. the 94 acres have been taken out. and the interlocking bike trails and trail systems will be taken out. MRS. PULVER-Well. but that's what I'm saying. When it came to us. it had all the criteria for a PUD. MR. MARTIN-I assumed that as well. MRS. PULVER-We made a recommendation on what was given to us. then when it went to the Town Board. with our little recommendation. okay. before it even got to the Town Board. it had changed. There - 40 - was 94 acres. the night it was presented to the Town Board was no longer in the package. MR. MACEWAN-I agree with you. one hundred percent. MRS. PULVER-Then it also has gone to. where these other things are added. and whether we knew about it. and we didn't know about it. and maybe it was at the advanced stages or not. I know of no applicant that tries to hide things from the Planning Board. They're usually very up front. They want you to know everything. They don't want you to be surprised because you might get mad. and like you say. who's going to park their car there? I want to know what they're building. I'm seeing this as something entirely different as a PUD. I'm seeing. we could have bus loads of people. MR. MACEWAN-Well. what would you like to do? MRS. PULVER-Well. as I read this letter. and it's from an attorney. and I'm not an attorney. I don't know. and it says. we believe the Board should re-review the project. My question is. has the determination been made about whether or not it's a PUD? If it's not. if it doesn't fit the criteria for a PUD. it's dying right at the stage it is right now. and it'll have to come back for something. MR. MARTIN-Well. the problem is. and I talked with Paul about this today. the Ordinance is in conflict with itself. again. it's poor structure to the Ordinance. It's saying throughout. in many of the districts. except for. I believe. three or four. PUD's are listed under allowed uses. How can a district. a zoning district. be a listed use? It's a conflict in term. and secondly. the whole PUD Chapter. which begins in Article VIII. it leads one to believe that it's a separate and distinct planning tool. which it typically is. and should be available anywhere in the Town. and it's irrelevant to say. the Town Board always has the power to change zones. and this is a district. and why it's listed as a use. in the use tables. is beyond me. I always wondered about that. MR. MACEWAN-I understand where Carol's coming from on this. because it almost seems like that we were. obviously. we were hoodwinked. in my opinion. When this proposal was put to us. in the very beginning. with the nice chart. the maps. and the colored schemes and everything. they had. were going to have this. this. this. this. and that all one part of this PUD proposal they were going to take to the Town. that they wanted us to pass a resolution of approval on. By the time it got to the Town. and after the Town Board went through it. and they started going through this EIS bit with them. little bits were taken out here. Little bits were added here. and before you know it. in a matter of months. it wasn't even the same picture we saw to begin with. MRS. PULVER-The Town Board has the right to make it. what I consider. better. In other words. they take it after our recommendation. and they should be making it better. okay. than it is. and then it comes back to us. In this case. it never even got to the Town Board the same way that it left us. it had already changed. and then. in mY opinion. in a Critically Environmentally Sensitive area. which I consider any waterfront area. where there's bluffs and can be erosion and so forth. we now are finding our we're going to have tourism or something going on there. I don't know what we're going to have. MR. STARK-So you're saying they should just come back to us? MRS. PULVER-I'm saying that this letter is from an attorney who says. as a Planning Board. you have the right to call this project back. and I'm saying. as a Planning Board. maybe we should call the project back. - 41 - MRS. TARANA-But has the 30 days passed? MRS. PULVER-Well. I don't think 30 days has anything to do with it. MR. MACEWAN-The 30 day comment period won't pass until. like. the middle of October. right? He was given until the 15th of October, Jim? MRS. PULVER-No. it's the 30th of. well. no. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'll tell you. here's the action that was taken that kicked this. MRS. PULVER-Here's the thing. We have to know whether or not it is a PUD. Okay. Jim. MR. MARTIN-Here was the action taken to kick this on to the next level of review. The Chairman of the Planning Board shall certify to the Town Board and the applicant when all necessary application material has been presented. Necessary application material. Now at the time when this Board reviewed this. I don't know that location of docks and canoe storage areas was a necessary element to a Sketch Plan application submitted on to the Town Board for consideration. MR. MACEWAN-But wait a minute. lets take it a little bit at a time here. The 94 acres and the interlocking bike trails/nature trails ~ part of it. They're no longer there. So that was necessary information that we used to judge that on. They're no longer there. So if you're saying that we don't have to include something. but yet we have something excluded after it leaves this Board. that's a significant part of it. isn't it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. but how does that impact the decision you made? MR. MACEWAN-Because that fell under the criteria we needed to judge whether it was a PUD or not. MR. MARTIN-It still met it. whether that 94 acres was in or out. or whether the boat storage was in or out. it still met that criteria. MR. MACEWAN-Not once you pulled it out. did it? pretense that they put it in front of this Board. Not in the MR. MARTIN-It still met the criteria. Why didn't it? MR. MACEWAN-Because it wasn't part of the package anymore that they presented to this Board as their plan. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but there's listed criteria. Why doesn't it meet it? MR. MACEWAN-I guess. you could argue that back and forth until you're blue in the face. Take the example of K-Mart. Here's a place that came and told us that they were going to do all this massive tree planting in this thing. We gave them approval of it. Preliminary Stage. They go back to K-Mart. and they say. no. we don't want it. Cut that right in half. Now we gave approval on something under the pretense of what they presented to us. Now they've changed the game. MR. MARTIN-Yes. and within the same stage of a review. site plan. There's a limited set of criteria that's needed to be met here for the Chairman to make his report. that's met. MR. MACEWAN-But what she's saying is that these guys came in front of us. they made a proposal to us. said they were going to do this. this. and this. This is what we want to do for our PUD. It looks good to us. Move it on. We'll recommend you take it to the Town Board. and by the time it gets to the Town Board. this is out. - 42 - ~ that's out. this is out. this is in. It's not the same plan. You're saying the criteria is there for them to meet that. What I'm saying. it's not the same plan that was presented to us. MR. STARK-What's the matter with having them come back to us? MR. MARTIN-We can. Make that a resolution. MR. STARK-That's what I thought we were talking about. MRS. PULVER-Well. my point. before they even get back here. is I need to know what the PUD status is. I know that that's kind of in limbo right now. MR. MARTIN-It's going through the SEQRA Review. The EIS is in the comment period. MRS. PULVER-No. no. I mean. whether or not they determined that this is even eligible for a PUD. MR. MARTIN-Certainly part of it will be. researching that now. The WR-3. Paul's MRS. PULVER-Well. if only part of it is. I think they have to come back to us anyway. because then again. it's just a whole different ball game. MRS. TARANA-Don' t forget. this all goes back to the Southern Exposure. where we were snookered on that one. MR. MACEWAN-Which wasn't part of the original program either. MRS. TARANA-I mean. the whole thing has been. MR. MARTIN-Make a resolution. pull it back. MR. STARK-Make the resolution. Carol. Have them come back. MRS. TARANA-Yes. but now we couldn't even go back and consider. I think. from what the Town Attorney said. it was because our decision was beyond the 30 day limit. So what happens with this? MR. MARTIN-Well. it does say here. if no report has been rendered after 60 days. the applicant may proceed as if a favorable report were given to the Town Board. I don't know what kind of standing that gives you. but you can give it a shot. MRS. TARANA-So are we beyond the 60 days? MR. MARTIN-Definitely. MRS. TARANA-See. we're caught in the same thing. like when we discovered this thing with Southern Exposure. We couldn't do a thing about it because it was beyond the time limit. and that's what Paul said. and now. from what you just said. he's going to give the same advice. MR. STARK-We have standing to bring this back. MRS. TARANA-The main thing is. the 60 days are passed. That's what he'll say. MR. MARTIN-I don't know whether that applies or not. I honestly don't know. MRS. TARANA-Can the Town Board kick it out? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They can send it back to you. I guess. I don't know. MRS. TARANA-I don't know either. - 43 - --- MR. MARTIN-That's a legal issue. MRS. PULVER-Where's our attorney? MRS. TARANA-And maybe that's a question to ask of the Town Board. will they throw it back to us? MR. STARK-Why don't you ask Dusek and get back to us Thursday. Why don't you ask Dusek if we have standing to bring this back. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I can do that. MR. STARK-And then we can make a resolution Thursday night. MRS. PULVER-That's right. Two days can't hurt us. MRS. TARANA-Or. does the Town Board have the power to say. this is changed. I want it to go back to the Planning Board. MRS. PULVER-Right. back? Do we have to ask the Town Board to send it MR. MARTIN-My only question. as a practical matter, what's going to come of this? What good does it do? I mean. you're going to see it at site plan. I mean. what good does it do? I mean. is it going to make things better? MRS. PULVER-Well. as you know. Mike O'Connor's the attorney. that if the Town Board approves it. and the Town Board gives them their docks and whatever. he will fight to his death for his client to have every dock. every boat. every parking space. every whatever. because the Town Board is the legislative body in this Town. and they gave it to him. and we really. you might as well hang us up right now. because we won't be able to. can't take it back. MR. MARTIN-Well. then pull it back. MRS. PULVER-Well. that's what we're trying to find out. How do we do that? MR. MARTIN-I'll try and get Paul here. if he'll come Thursday night. first thing. and we can discuss this. because it's not going to work. me going back and forth between him. because something will come up and I won't be able to answer it. and just get him here personally. MRS. PULVER-All right. Get him here personally. MR. STARK-And we can handle that the first thing. and then he can go. MRS. TARANA-But I think on an even broader perspective is that at some point people have to realize that they're accountable for the information that they send. to bring to us. , MR. MARTIN-I think on a much broader perspective this PUD Ordinance needs to be worked on. because if is this the way that PUD's are going to be done. this is not working. MRS. TARANA-I'm not even talking PUD. I'm talking any applicant. MRS. PULVER-Of course. if Mr. Dusek determines. before Thursday. that this is not eligible for a PUD. as it stands. Now we're not saying that some of it wouldn't be. but if some of it would be. then I would expect the Town Board to kick it back to us for review again. If he decides that. then of course. we have nothing to discuss. because we're going to get it back again. right. for review. MR. MARTIN-I'll tell him that you would like him to be here - 44 - Thursday to discuss this. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That was my one thing. MR. STARK-Jim. when Mr. Tabor was up there. I happen to be in agreement with him. as far as some of his concerns coming in front of this Board. MR. MARTIN-So am I. MR. STARK-From personal experience. I had to come in front of the Board for a 108 foot storage shed. you know. I mean. for a big project. you don't mind. but for an expected use in a business. to ut up a 108 foot storage. now. you know. it didn't cost me anything. Everything went through bang. bang. bang fast. No big deal. No hardship was incurred or anything. MRS. PULVER-We were nice to you. too. weren't we. George? MR. STARK-Yes. but the thing is that. you've got to have the power. I think. I wouldn't mind relinquishing the power to him. to use your head. to. you know, this is not going to effect anything. okay. fine. go ahead with it. If it's a major project or something. fine. MRS. TARANA-The same with the whole dock issue. MRS. PULVER-I'll tell you what it's been. In the four years that I've been on. every time we have tried to give power to the staff. you bring it up. we ha five other people. or whatever. that would say. no. they don't want to do that. MR. MARTIN-I don't mind power to the staff. as long as that is not involving discretion. because I don't want to be in that business. MRS. PULVER-And that has always been the problem. that the Board itself never wanted to relinquish anything to the staff for them to do. MR. STARK-Something like this. I would relinquish to the staff. no problem. MRS. PULVER-Yes. See. I would like to see something in our Ordinance less than 200 square feet. not in an environmentally sensitive area. and you can meet all setbacks. and there'd be a few other criteria that go with it. that you have only staff review. MR. STARK-Timmy. what do you say about that? I mean. do you want to make a resolution for that? MR. BREWER-I agree with you 100 percent. MR. STARK-I mean. not tonight. but at some point in the future. MR. BREWER-But you have to have some kind of criteria. 200 feet. 3Ø0 feet. MR. STARK-Well. you know. I don't care if it's 200 feet. 150 feet. or something. I mean. if a guy wants to put up a shed. he shouldn't have to come in front of this Board. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. MRS. PULVER-But it has to be something that is compatible with that zone that it's in. whatever they want to expand for. that they can meet the setbacks. It's not. you know. MR. BREWER-How about accessory uses? MRS. PULVER-There's a whole separate little thing. - 45 - '--, --,' MR. BREWER-Couldn't we do something we accessory? MR. MARTIN-That's what I just said to Craig. Like docks. for example. I have reviewed dock applications since '90. both on that side of the table and over here. and I have yet to see one be denied. that met the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. It's just a matter of meeting that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. and they're a pain to go up and see in the winter time. They make their application in the winter. and you need combat pay. getting down there. MR. MARTIN-You can't find them. That was the other thing Tim was supposed to take up with you. In light of this new meeting on the 26th. I was hoping that we could send one person as like a representative to take notes and report back to the Board. if somebody would I ike to do that. because it's really kind of an excessive cost this year. To send the whole Board would be like $4.000 or something like that. MRS. TARANA-Well. I remember it was a lot of money. MR. BREWER-Does somebody want to go to that? Where is it? MR. MARTIN-It's down in the Catskills somewhere. MR. BREWER-It's a three day thing. stay. MR. STARK-What day is this? MR. MARTIN-It's October 13th through the 17th. or something like that. MR. BREWER-Corinne. do you want to go? MRS. TARANA-I can go. but I have to know. because I've got places scheduled. MR. BREWER-You can go. MR. MARTIN-Go ahead. MR. HARLICKER-Before everyone table Eggleston and Stimpson. goes. you didn't make a motion to No motion was made to table that. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Until Thursday. the 23rd of September. Duly adopted this 21st day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-What are these. acknowledging lead agency status. Jim. that I've got in front of me. Johnson and. MRS. PULVER-They're for next time. MR. BREWER-They're for another time. MR. MARTIN-It interconnection seems to me is softening. that the the K-Mart connection stance on the with Livingston - 46 - ---. - Furniture. staff show showed them lot line. They requested. and I did so reluctantly. that the them a place for the interconnection to occur. and I my. would be the easterly most end of Livingston's rear MR. STARK-Why did you want it down there. instead of the west end? MR. MARTIN-Because if you put it on the west end. you're going to create another straight shot alley for people to drive through. and we want them to make that. we don't want it to be a straight shot through. I don't think. MR. STARK-We want them to drive behind it? MR. MARTIN-Right. I mean. if they want to go to Livingston's. they can. but not to make that like an alternative drive. Tim Morgan said. he said to me on the phone the other day. he said. well. I hope nobody has the impression like we're using this as leverage. like we're going to pull the project if we don't do the interconnection. MRS. TARANA-I thought that's what he said? MR. MARTIN-He did say that. MRS. PULVER-So. wait a minute. So he is going to do it now? MR. MARTIN-Yes. See. the little thing that's yet to be overcome is. Zaremba is accepting of it. They are the developer. Now they have to get K-Mart' s approval. because Zaremba is into this for some big money. They're the ones that are going to pay for the traffic signal. all the traffic improvements. and all that. MRS. TARANA-Before everybody goes. I just want to Hudson Point for a minute. How did we leave that? resolution from this Board? get back to Do we need a MR. MARTIN-Well. you're going to make one Thursday night. after Paul comes. MRS. PULVER-The Attorney's going to come counsel us. and then. MRS. TARANA-And then Thursday a resolution may be made. Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 47 -