Loading...
1993-09-28 -r--- ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28. 1993 INDEX SEQRA Review Ann and Irwin Johnson 8. SEQRA Review Charles Graves. Jr. 12. SEQRA Revie\.¡ Gertrude Young 16. Subdivision No. 22-1933 PRELIMINARY STAGE Gertrude A. Young 19. Subdivision No. 20-1993 FINAL STAGE Dr. Koock Jung 21. Subdivision No. 21-1993 Final Stage Garth Allen 26. Site Plan No. 42-93 Robert Jacobs 29. Site Plan No. 43-93 Avalon Associates. Inc. 37. Site Plan No. 41-93 George & Catherine Ryan 49. Petition for Zone Change P7-93 Richard Schermerhorn 55. 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY GEORGE STARK CAROL PULVER CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL MEMBERS PRESENT EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MACEWAN-Our first item on the agenda tonight is a discussion regarding the Hudson Point PUD. with the Town Attorney. Mr. Dusek, thank you for coming tonight. We've got a few questions, I think. to ask you, some of the Board members do. and I think it's primarily circulating around the letter that the Board members received from Miller. Mannix and Pratt. and I think we'd like some questions answered. if we could. and give us some guidance on this. MR. DUSEK-Is this the letter dated August 26. 1993? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. that's the one. MR. DUSEK-I've read it and done some research. So whatever I can do to help the Board out with this. MR. MACEWAN-Well. I guess we'd be interested in starting off with what your comments are on it. MR. DUSEK-We II. if you'd like. you know. I read through the minutes. as well as the letter. and it seemed to me that the Board had a concern about the letter. in terms of whether they. One, had to response. should respond. could respond. I guess would be the. or should. could. or would pull the project back for review. I can understand the concern of the Board members. It's certainly legi timate enough. because sometimes you do have the right. of course. to re-review the resolutions or approvals that you've given. In this particular case. however. I don't think that you can recall this particular matter to you on your own initiative. and I don't think you have any legal obligation to. but also I don't think you have any jurisdiction to. and I'll tell you why. The Hudson Point Planned Unit Development is part of the process. It started when they first filed an application with the Town Board. and it continued up to the point where we all know it is now. which is currently going through SEQRA Review. ultimately to be considered by the Town Board. There's a number of steps that have to be taken through that process. In the end. when you get to the end of that process. it's either going to be a complete and good process. and result in good legislation. or it's not. and the issues that have been raised in the letter are certainly worthy of consideration. but I think they're issues that the Town Board has to consider. in terms of whether or not it should enact the legislation or whether it should send the project back. I think maybe if I could draw an analogy to another type of situation which may help to explain my reasoning. the Town Board frequently will enact legislation. but before they do. they have to hold a public hearing. Sometimes when they hold a public hearing and they get - 1 - ---- .....-r all said and done. they find that they have to make further revisions to the legislation. At that point, the Town Board has to determine whether or not the revisions they are making are so substantial that they need to make another public hearing in order to validate their legislation that they're about to undertake. I think the situation with the Planning Board review is the same type of thing. The Town Board has to decide whether the process. whether the review that has been conducted by the Planning Board. is sufficient so that they may. in turn. enact their legislation. If. for the sake of argument. lets assume that everything in the Miller Mannix letter is true. their recourse will be to attack the legislation. not to attack this Planning Board. because this Planning Board has no obligation to go back and take a look at it. Your position in this whole process is that of advisory. and that. I might add. also adds a further question in my mind. which. quite honestly I haven't resolved. in terms of the Town Board's review of this. but the question becomes. if it is advisory. and assuming the project is changed. is it necessary for the Town Board to send it back. in that instance. I don't have the answer to that yet. I have the answer as far as this Board is concerned. that I'm convinced that it's not something you would call back. but as far as their concerned. whether it's advisory or whether your approval is tantamount to the public hearing example that I just gave is something I think still has to be considered and weighed when this matter gets to the Town Board. Now as far as this Board's concerns. you certainly have a right. as an involved agency. in this whole review. and ultimately the Board that will be doing the SEQRA Review. or the site plan review. to give the Town Board input. and you do have that ability to do that. I don't know if this helps at all. in terms of trying to explain what I see in the whole process. MRS. PULVER-Well. here's my comment. Paul. When an engineer stamps a set of drawings. and he sends it out. and the contractor builds the project. he expects the contractor to build it exactly the way the engineer has designed it. We put our stamp of approval on that project. and before it ever got to the Town Board. it was a different project. MR. DUSEK-And that's what the Town Board's going to have to take into consideration. is whether or not that project has changed so substantially that it's going to. like I gave you the example of the public hearing. whether or not that will interfere with the process. but before they make that consideration. they also have to make the decision. I think. whether or not the advisory role of the Board is tantamount to that public hearing example. In other words. if it's changed from the time it went to the Board. substantially enough. is it going to be something that you would draw the same analysis at the public hearing. or would you just say it's advisory and it doesn't matter? That's a decision that they have to make. MRS. PULVER-Well. my only other comment is. I know long after Hudson Point is approved or disapproved or whatever. somewhere someone along the line is going to assume the Planning Board gave their advisory opinion that it was a good idea when it went on to the Planning Board. or got to the Town Board. and they are going to totally forget that it was an entirely different project when it hit the Town Board. Maybe I. as a Planning Board Member. would not have made a recommendation to re-zone that property had I known the full extent of the project when it was presented before me. MR. DUSEK-I think. but your approval. as a Board. will stand on the record as to what it was you approved. right? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I'm just saying. yes. but it goes back to. is anybody ever going to dig that up? Is anybody ever going to remember that? Does anyone know who the second Miss America could have been. you know? - 2 - '- --' MR. DUSEK-Well. I think this letter has raised the issues. and it's certainly issues that. I'm indicating to you tonight. that I'll be reviewing on behalf of the Town Board. because it obviously goes to the heart of the validity of their legislation. MR. MACEWAN-So I guess the question that I would have for you. what would have been the purpose of them coming to the Planning Board to begin with. from the beginning? It was an unnecessary step that they had to take. MR. DUSEK-I didn't say it was unnecessary. MR. MACEWAN-Well. basically. that's what the bottom line comes out to be. because they came to this Board for an approval. or a disapproval. based on an idea and a concept they have. We gave them an approval on that concept. They took that concept to the Town Board. and in that period of those months lapsing. by the time it got to the EIS stage. it had changed several times. So it's no longer the same plan that was presented to us. So my question is. what's the point of coming to us to begin with? MR. DUSEK-We II. I think you hit upon. I think. Craig. something that's a very important distinction. here. You did not issue an approval or disapproval. What you issued was an advisory opinion. or recommendation or not to recommend. MR. MACEWAN-A recommendation to the Town. yes. MR. DUSEK-And under the Statute. under our local Ordinance. if you check it. it says that even if you didn't recommend it. they could still go ahead and take action and do what they wanted to wi th regard to the project. So your role in this is advisory. Your role. though. is important. because the law says that they had to steer it to you first. There's no question about that. and in fact if they hadn't steered it to you at all. I would have no qualms in saying to the Town Board that you can't pass this legislation because you've missed a vital legal step. The problem here is that they have. in fact. steered it to you. You did. in fact. give a recommendation on a particular project. The project. albeit. was changed. the question now for the Town Board is. does that affect their legislation. or can they go ahead and enact it. because you are. One. advisory. or. Two. they feel the changes aren't substantial enough to warrant them redoing the process. but there again. it goes back to their decision on whether or not they want to take this chance. this ultimate chance. with the legislation. because they're the ones that ultimately give the approval or disapproval. MR. RUEL-This letter. then. should have been addressed to the Town Board. rather than the Planning Board. MR. DUSEK-That would seem appropriately so. MR. RUEL-AII we can do is read it. We can't take any action. It's up to the Town Board. MR. DUSEK-That's mY feeling about it. Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well. I also have. I requested some of the minutes of the Planning Board meeting to re-read some of them. and. you know. looking back at the project. I see Mr. Brandt has commented several times about how important it was to have that ninety plus acres in the pro j ect. and before the pro j ect ever. and whether I was influenced or not. and I can't tell you whether or not that influenced me. however. he was speaking to this Board about how wonderful it was going to be for the Town. and before that project ever got to the Town Board. that ninety some acres had been withdrawn. It wasn't even there. So we have. you know. much of the minutes is consumed of talking about how wonderful that property was going to be for the Town. and it was gone. - 3 - ..../ MR. DUSEK-Well. here again. it's an issue for the Town Board to take into consideration. MRS. PULVER-What about the determination about whether or not it's in a Waterfront One Acre zone. is compatible with the PUD? MR. DUSEK-That's another issue that we're currently researching. That's a question that has been raised. whether or not they can do that. but here again. it'll go to the Town Board to ultimately decided whether or not they can do it. MRS. PULVER-And when are we expecting to have a decision on that? MR. DUSEK-Tentatively. we plan a discussion with the Town Board on Monday. MR. MACEWAN-This coming Monday night? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well. then possibly we should just. as a Board. address a letter to the Town Board, just expressing our feelings. that. MR. DUSEK-We ll. you have. as a Board, as I started off. you certainly have a right to indicate whatever it is your feelings are. with regard to the project. you know. nothing can stop this Board from expressing an opinion. but to actually say you have to come back. I just don't see any legal authority for you to make them come back. That's the problem I see in this whole thing. Now if the Town Board decided they wanted them to go back through the process. that would be their prerogative. MRS. PULVER-Although. like Craig said. why bother? MR. MACEWAN-I guess. you know. I find a part in the Zoning book, too. that raises some questions to me. and it's specifically 179- 57 (5) in their. regarding. where it says "The Chairman of the Planning Board shall certify to the Town Board and the applicant when all the necessary application material has been presented". Not all the material was ever presented to the Planning Board. MR. DUSEK-That certification was. in fact, given. MR. MACEWAN-How could it have been given. when all the material wasn't presented? MR. DUSEK-My understanding was the Planning Board did act on it. and the Chairman of the Board. at that time. did indicate his approval for it to pass on. I mean. the problem is. as you go through the steps in the process. it's just like the public hearing. the Town Board then has to make a determination. was it good enough. was it substantial compliance. or is it fatally flawed. and they should go back through the process? MR. MACEWAN-But once they make their Sketch Plan and their plan made known to us. and once they get our stamp of approval as an advisory Board. then they are. the door's wide open for them to change it or modify it as they see fit. without coming back to this Board for their approval. MR. DUSEK-I'm not saying that. I'm saying that's a question that the Town Board has to decide. MR. MACEWAN-Because in my mind. that's exactly what is happening. MR. DUSEK-I think the concerns that you have I understand. but I think that the issue has to be before the proper agency. and that's the problem. it's not properly before your Board. It's more properly before the Town Board. because they're the ones that have to make the decision. because lets assume that all the arguments - 4 - .'-- -- that are raised. every possible thing against the project was correct and it was fatally flawed. all right. I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying lets assume that. What would happen? The challenge would have to be against the legi s la tion i tse If. It can't be against this Planning Board. It's going to be against the legislation. That's what they're going to challenge ultimately. because that's what is going to be faulty or not faulty. So I think. that's the problem. I think. unfortunately. this is added. in my opinion. this has confused the situation by addressing this letter to this Board. because I just don't think you have the jurisdiction to review it. Forgetting about commenting on the merits of it. MRS. PULVER-Well. I'm just feeling that I've had something put over on me. whether it was intentional or unintentional. and I'm not sure what it was. but when I read this letter. and I've been to the Town Board meetings on most of this. and I've gone through the minutes. I don't ever remember docks being discussed during the Planning Board meeting. but I do remember a lot of talk about not having boats. not specifically docks. but not having boats. and I just really feel that what I approved or what I recommended to the Town Board is not actually what ended up there that particular night. MR. DUSEK-Well. you know. the answer there. of course. is you do have the right to communicate that to the Town Board. MR. RUEL-Well. we should do that. as a Board. in unison. MR. MACEWAN-Has anybody else got any questions? So I guess at this point we need to either put a resolution together and send it on to the Town Board. expressing our disapproval or knowledge to talk it over. bring it back to us. or whatever. At this point. I really don't know what to do. I guess I feel like I've been hoodwinked as well. and I'm not happy about it. at all. Has anybody got anything else? MRS. TARANA-I just want to get this clear in my head. The reason that we wouldn't re-review it. if we wanted to re-review it. is because we made a recommendation only. we didn't do any approval? Is that right? MR. DUSEK-Yes. That's one of the basis upon which I'm making my decision. As I started off. I think usually if you have an approval. you have more authority to go back and re-visi t that actual approval. For instance. frequently administrative agencies. which is what I feel you would fall in that same classification. once they make a decision. they would have a right to go back and review that decision. if it effected a permit that was issued. typically. and. under certain circumstances. and if they met those qualifications. they could possibly go back and re-upset their decisions. Generally speaking. however. you're not supposed to go back and review decisions. Whatever they are, they are. and they stay that way. unless they're challenged or appealed. but in this particular case. the problem you have is that the way this is structured. first of all. under the law itself. forget about the Zoning Ordinance for a moment. When there is an amendment to a Zoning Ordinance. which is essentially what this is. there is no obligation whatsoever to send it to the Planning Board at all. all right. and in fact under the ordinary Zoning Amendments, they are sent to the Planning Board because of what's written in this particular Ordinance of ours. not because of State Law. The Ordinance here provides. as part of the process in the PUD. that there's an advisory process. So they have to engage in that process. What you're saying. well. what if that process is faulty. then what I'm saying to you is that that becomes an issue for the Town Board to wrestle with. in terms of. do they want to go ahead with that legislation. or do they want to make the applicant go back. - 5 - ,r- J '- ... MRS. TARANA-And to take it one step further. if there were litigation brought against the Town. it would be brought against the Town Board. and not against the Planning Board. The Planning Board is absolved from any? MR. DUSEK-Well. that's always a loaded question. I'll tell you why. because a lawsuit can be started against anybody at any time. all right. and I can't guarantee you that nobody'll bring a lawsuit against the Planning Board. However. my position is that if they did. it would not be properly brought against the Planning Board. and there would be a good case to move for a dismissal on that basis. The Town Board would be the proper party in any litigation. Now. later on. when you get into site plan review. that'll be a different issue. You will have involvement in the project. if it goes that far. because then you are faced with issuing an approval. or disapproval. MRS. TARANA-I just want to ask a couple of questions in general. which are not Hudson Point. If we. at this time. wanted to call it back. could we? Are there any 30 day. 60 day. any of those kind of limits at this point? MR. DUSEK-I didn't even look to see if that was a road block. MRS. TARANA-Because we can't call it back. MR. DUSEK-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Lets pretend that we could call it back. that we did the approval. not the recommendation. okay. At this point. with a DEIS filed and everything. could we call it back? I guess what I'm getting down to. and I want to make it real clear. it's not Hudson Point. it's not NiMo or anything. but this Board often feels that it's been given misinformation after a project has come here. and we've approved it. disapproved it. whatever. and I feel like we're at the mercy of the people that present the information, but what is our. what can we do when we do find out that information has been incorrectly presented to us? What recourse do we have? MR. DUSEK-Well. that's a tough que stion. because a lot of it depends on the particular case. For instance. if there was information that lead to a faulty SEQRA determination. for instance. maybe you go back and you rescind your negative declaration that you issued in the project. and if you did that. of course. that upsets everything else. then they had to go back through the pro j ect. In another instance. you could have a situation where your decision is final. and there's nothing you can do about it. except that the. except one of the parties. perhaps. could challenge. or somebody that was interested could challenge the decision in court. take it up on an appeal and have it defended there. A lot of it depends on the particular situation. There are cases where once an agency makes a decision. they can't go back on it. even if it's wrong. There were some cases that I read not that long ago with the Attorney General's Office. it happened to them. They were reviewing some kind of a homeowners association type of operation with the. I forget the name of the booklet that they have. a prospectus on that. and they felt that they made some errors. and they went back and reversed themselves. The courts ultimately said. no. you can't do that. You've made your decision. You're subject to the doctrine of what we call Res Judicata. and you're bound by that. So that's why I say every case is unique. The only reason. I'm pretty up on that stuff because we've had some situations with the Zoning Board lately. that involve those type of issues. So. that's the problem. and you really have to look on each decision. and the advice I would have for you there is if you feel that you have that happen to you on a particular case. don't hesitate to give me a call. and I'll come over to a Board meeting. and we'll talk about that particular case. MR. MACEWAN-Is there something that we can put into a. you know. - 6 - because we're starting to use these blanket resolutions. so to speak. where you just kind of fill in the blanks. Is there something that we can put in there. like a clause that says. based on the information of the applicant being accurate or correct. we grant this approval? MR. DUSEK-Well. anything of that nature is going to help. That the approval is conditioned upon the following information. MR. MACEWAN-Don't say conditioned. That's a no-no. We don't do condi tions. but if we put something like that in there. I mean. that would be a safety net for us. MR. DUSEK-It's certainly going to help. Sure. MR. MACEWAN-Because we have called site plans back. as you know. We've had a few of them here recently that we've. one on the agenda tonight that we're calling back. Well. I guess at this point we need to discuss. I don't know whether it's necessary to do it tonight or not. with the Board. and see if they want to put together a resolution to the effect. MRS. PULVER-Send a letter. I think we just send a letter. MR. MACEWAN-Well. it would have to be in the form of a resolution to them. MRS. TARANA-And doesn't it have to be within the response period for the DEIS. or is that? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. We should. MR. DUSEK-October 15th is the cut off date. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. DUSEK-If you want. I heard one of the ideas. I heard a letter of resolution. You could do a letter and just approve it by resolution. That's another possibility. MRS. TARANA-And shouldn't this letter. then. be sent to the Town Board. rather than to us? I wonder if the people who drafted this letter have done that. or should we just send it? MR. DUSEK-I don't know if it went to the Town Board. MRS. TARANA-It did go to the Town. Yes. there's a cc on the back. So the Town Board. at least. is aware of the same things that we got in this letter. MR. MACEWAN-But at this point. I don't think the Town Board is aware of our "unhappiness". I think we need to wrestle with what we want to do. MRS. PULVER-Why not do that at the end of the meeting. MR. MACEWAN-Have we got any more questions? Comments? MR. RUEL-I'd suggest a letter. We could do that later. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. you. All right. With that. we'll move on. Thank MR. DUSEK-You're welcome. (Mike 0' Connor was in the audience. and al so the writer of the letter was in the audience. but they were not allowed to speak. as it was not a public hearing) MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Next on the agenda. Corinne? - 7 - "- ---- MRS. TARANA-Can we do minutes? Get them out of the way. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 22. 1993: Page 59. typo. first sentence. am I write. sIb right: Page 80. Mr. Ruel was quoted as saying something. but was absent from meeting June 29. 1993: Places with little dots. missing words? Page 52. Oswego sIb?: Page 54. typo: Page 61. some words missing in a quote; Page 63. Jean Olsen. and if that's referring to the County Supervisor. sIb Jean Olson: Page 64. typo. Mr. MacEwan's first quote: July 20. 1993: NONE July 26. 1993: NONE July 27. 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CORRECTIONS THE MINUTES OF JUNE 22. JUNE 29. JULY 20. JULY 26. JULY 27. 1993. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer SEQRA REVIEW SEQRA REVIEW: ANN AND ERWIN JOHNSON - AV I 52-1993 RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF MR. MACEWAN-Carol. do you want to take us through it? MRS. PULVER-Yes. Are we going to do the Long Form. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-There's Staff Notes. MR. HARLICKER-There was also a letter from Rist-Frost. He reviewed it for both the variance and for the SEQRA form. That should be in the packet that you got there. dated September 21st. MRS. TARANA-Do you want me to read that. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I don't know if you need to read the whole thing. MRS. TARANA-Yes. It's fairly long. MR. HARLICKER-Maybe just address the part about the Full Environmental Assessment Form. He has. "Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - A. Site Description Item 3 - The soil type is not indicated. Warren County Soil Survey Maps indicate that the probable soil type is a Shaker fine sandy loam. shallow and poorly drained. This is consistent with other reported site features. Item 4 - If rock outcrops exist then the depth to bedrock should be reported as 0 inches minimum and unknown maximum. Item 5 - Not complete. The assignment of slope areas should total - 8 - 100%. Item 8 - Depth to the water table will be significantly less than the 200 feet reported. Depth to seasonal high groundwater is probably zero in the existing drainageway. Item 11 - The source of the applicant's information is not stated. Item 19 - The site is located in the CEA designated by the Lake George Park Commission. The Lake George CEA is established as all areas within 500 feet of Lake George and its wetlands. This variance wi II be a Type I action due to the CEA. Part 1 - B. Project Description Item 3 - It is presumed that all areas filled will be restored with a vegetative cover or structurally stabilized with driveway or building. Item 16 - The project will generate small amounts of solid waste. Item 22 - Information absent. Part 1 - C. Zoning and Planning Information Item 11 -The project is of residential nature and can be expected to create some demand for community services. which should be met by existing capacities. The proposed project does not appear to have the potential for adverse negative environmental impacts. However. the project feasibility is dependent upon using a sewage holding tank system. Sewage holding tanks for this project are not acceptable according to the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance. A variance from the Local Board of Health (Town Board) would be required to construct a sewage holding tank system for this project. Very truly yours. Thomas M. Yarmowich. P.E. RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C." MRS. PULVER-I have a question. agencies? Who are the other involved MR. HARLICKER-Up there would be the APA. MRS. PULVER-Just the APA? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We did not hear anything back from anybody. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-And there was also a letter in your packet from a Francis Koenig. That should probably be read into the minutes. also. MR. MACEWAN-Corinne. would you read that in. please? MRS. TARANA-Yes. "Attention: Tim Brewer. Chairman RE: SEQRA REVIEW FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1993 ANN C. & ERWIN H. JOHNSON HANNEFORD ROAD To Town of Queensbury Planning Board Members: I am a property owner on Hanneford Rd.. said property being just North and to the West of the Johnson property. On Wednesday. July 21. 1993 I attended the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting but did not get an opportunity to speak as the matter was referred to the Planning Board for a SEQRA review. The purpose of this letter is to advise the Planning Board that I am opposed to the Town of Queensbury allowing the construction of a single family dwelling on the property in question. as said property is a ponding or holding area for an intermittent stream. I will not be opposed to this construction if the property owner or the Town of Queensbury can find a solution to the stream problem which will insure that those property owners located along Pilot Knob Road who enter their homes and summer dwellings by way of Hanneford Road and its extension will not have their property flooded. damaged or destroyed. since in many cases these properties a~tually sit lower than Hanneford Road. I AM CONCERNED AS THIS STREAM GOES DIRECTLY UNDER OUR DWELLING! ! In filing the application for an area variance. the Johnson's property sketch shows in the upper right hand corner. "Spring Run-Off". Their application also includes a "Full Environmental Assessment Form" on which question #15. page 3 asks. "Streams within or contiguous to project area" and the question was answered NO. In connecting the map of Lake George Quadrangle. New York. 7.5 Minute Series with the map of the Putnam Mountain Quadrangle. New York. 7.5 Minute Series (see attached). and lining up Washington and Warren Counties in the Hanneford Road area. a review shows an intermittent stream coming off the mountain to the - 9 - '- East. The stream appears to be coming from the "The Three Ponds" with drainage directly to the property in question and neighboring properties as well. A walk of the area shows that most of the property. includinq building lots in Washinqton County and much of the vacant land abutting and to the North and South of the property in question serve as a ponding or holding area for the stream and are situated lower than Hanneford Road. I am not opposed to new construction and welcome it as it will help the town's tax base. but I must protect my legal rights. I would suggest the construction of a ponding area with a valve or gate to control the flow of the water----not just for this proposal. but in order to help develop other vacant property in the area thus increasing the town's tax base even more. If you would like to contact me. my home telephone number is 914-331-9470 and my work number is 518- 266-3051. Sincerely. Francis R. Koenig 51 Fairview Ave. Kingston. NY 12401" MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Scott. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. AV # 52-1993. Ann & Erwin Johnson. Meeting Date: September 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a single family house on an undersized lot. The lot is 10.000 square feet and is located in the WR-IA zone. The property is located on Hanneford Road. The applicant requires variances for lot width and lot area. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposal will result in a physical change to the project site. The granting of the variances will allow the construction of a house on a vacant parcel. The proposal also involves the filling in of some of the low areas on the lot. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will affect drainage flow or surface water runoff. The proposal will slightly alter existing drainage on site. There is an intermittent stream that traverses the property. This stream will be channelized as a result of this project. The stream currently is spread out over a broad area of the property. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? The project should not affect any non- threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricul tural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect any aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic. prehistoric. or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse effect on open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be - 10 - ~'.' obj ectionable odors. noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise. odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not effect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment: therefore. the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Carol. do you want to take us through SEQRA? MRS. PULVER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 52-1993. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before the new construction. and Planning Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: Adirondack Park Agency 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Do we have a resolution for Lead Agency status? - 11 - - ----.., MR. MACEWAN-That's next. MRS. PULVER-Okay. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Area Variance No. 52-1993 Ann & Irwin Johnson RESOLUTION NO.: 21-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS. in connection with the Ann and Irwin Johnson variance No. 52-1993. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated review. and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for the purposes of SEQRA review. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows; 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. That's done. Next item. SEQRA REVIEW: CHARLES GRAVES. JR. - AV # 69-1993 - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. MR. BREWER-Okay. We want to do the Lead Agency status first and then do the EAF? MRS. TARANA-Yes. - 12 - MR. BREWER-I think we should do it that way. Does somebody want to make a motion to acknowledge lead agency status? MRS. PULVER-Okay. Well. how can you do this first? MR. BREWER-We have to be the lead agent before we can do the SEQRA. don't we? Scott. don't we have to be the lead agent before we can do the SEQRA? MR. HARLICKER-They kind of go part and parcel with each other. MRS. TARANA-Yes. but look at the statement that they put in there. that we've already determined. MRS. PULVER-Yes. see we have to go through that first. MR. BREWER-All right. Lets do the SEQRA first. Okay. Do you want to go through your notes first. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 69-1993 SEQRA Review. Charles Graves. Jr.. Meeting Date: September 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a year round home on Glen Lake. There is currently a summer camp on the property that will be removed. The applicant requires variances for lot area and width. shoreline setback and a greater than 50% expansion. The property is .14 acres (7.000 sq. ft.) in size and is zoned WR-IA. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposal will not result in a physical change to the project site. There is presently a house on the site and there will be one if the variances are granted. The new structure will be slightly larger. approximately 6 feet longer. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will not affect drainage flow or surface water runoff. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quali ty. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not significantly impact any aesthetic resources. The existing structure. which is one story. will be replaced by a two story structure. The shoreline setback will be the same. 35 feet to the lake. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse affect on open space or recreational opportuni ties. 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors. noise or vibrations as a - 13 - ¡ result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable odors. noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment; therefore. the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Do you want to go through it? MRS. PULVER-Yes. Scott. are there any other involved agencies? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We also contacted DEC and they sent us a letter saying they don't care. We never hear back from the APA. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So there's no other involved agencies. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MRS. PULVER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 69-1993. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before the Planning a proposed two story building. and Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. - 14 - Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can acknowledge that we're lead agent. MRS. PULVER-Yes. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Area Variance No. 69-1993 Charles Graves. Jr. RESOLUTION NO.: 22-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Craiq MacEwan WHEREAS. in connection with the Charles Graves. Jr. variance No. 69-1993. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review. and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows; 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Scott. I've got to ask you a question. Is this going to come back to us for site plan? The reason I ask that question is because you've got. on your notes. that it's going to be over 50 percent in construction. and anything over 50 percent addition in construction would have to come back for site plan. but is he going to be tearing down the camp. and he's going to be tearing down the camp. - 15 - -- MR. HARLICKER-The applicant's here. if you want to. MR. BREWER-Okay. The reason I'm asking this question is because we had a. and I can't remember the applicant's name. but it was in the spring. up in Lake George. Walter Rehm was his attorney. and we thought that he was coming back for site plan review for the house. and it was determined by Jim that he didn't have to. because he was taking a house down. therefore. the lot was vacant. MR. HARLICKER-Vacant. MR. BREWER-So it's not an additional 50 percent increase in the building. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-I didn't think it was right. but I think if we're going to do that. that should set a precedent. and he shouldn't have to come back for site plan review. MR. HARLICKER-Site plan review. of the existing structure? leveled. Are you going to be utilizing any Everything is getting flattened. MR. BREWER-So then he wouldn't have to come back. or he would? MR. HARLICKER-It seems that way. I can't give a definite answer. I'll have to run that by Jim, also. In order to be consistent. MR. BREWER-I think if he was adding on to the house. then he would have to. but seeing as how he's taking that house down. he shouldn't have to. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's all I have to say. Okay. Next item. SEQRA REVIEW: GERTRUDE YOUNG - SUBDIVISION t 22-1993 - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 22-1993 SEQRA Review. Meeting Date: September 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.3 acre parcel into 2 lots. The parcel is currently divided into three lots. The two new lots will be 1.01 and 1.29 acres. The property is located at the end of Brayton Lane and is zoned WR-IA. The property currently has several summer camps on it. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposal will not result in a physical change to the project site. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected. The proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non- protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwate r. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will not affect drainage flow or surface water runoff. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non- threatened or non-endangered species? The pro j ect should not affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Will the - 16 - '~ --'" proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse affect on open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's energy or fuel supply. The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors. noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise. odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment: therefore. the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions on this? Okay. Do you want to go through the SEQRA? MRS. PULVER-No other agencies. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-The same as before. just the APA. MRS. PULVER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 22-1993. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before the a two lot subdivision. and Planning Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that - 17 - ----' 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 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Subdivision No. 22-1993 Gertrude Younq RESOLUTION NO.: 23-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS. in connection with the Gertrude Younq Subdivision No. 22-1993. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conducted a coordinated SEQRA review. and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that the identified environmental effects will not be significant. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer - 18 - --../' NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I WR-IA GERTRUDE A. YOUNG OWNER: GERTRUDE A. YOUNG JOHN WALLACE TRUST LOCATION: BRAYTON LANE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE 3 LOTS TOTALING 2.30 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV # -1993 TAX MAP NO. 6-3-15.1. 32. 33 LOT SIZE: 2.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARTIN AUFFREDOU. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have brief notes on this. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 20-1993 Preliminary Stage. Gertrude Young. Meeting Date: Septembe r 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.3 acre parcel into two lots of 1.01 and 1.29 acres. The property is currently divided into three lots. The property is located at the end of Brayton Lane and is zoned WR-1A. No new construction is proposed and there are three structures on the property: all of them seasonal. Two of the structures are located on the smaller lot. The applicant received variances for no frontage on a town road and lot width. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The proposal is cleaning up an undesirable situation. Two of the existing lots are nonconforming because they are too small and do not meet other dimensional requirements. The new lots will meet the area and the other dimensional requirements except for the lot width and frontage." MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have someone here from the applicant. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman. my name is Martin Auffredou with the law firm of Bartlett. Pontiff. Stewart. and Rhodes in Glens Falls. here tonight on behalf of the co applicant. the John Wallace Trust. To my right is Charlie Young. Also here tonight is Gertrude Young. sitting in the front row. I really don't have too much to say. Mr. Chairman. about the application. I really think the map that we've provided speaks for itself. We're simply taking a two nonconforming sized lots. and making. taking three lots altogether. two of which are nonconforming. and making two conforming lots. The obvious reasons. you can see the reason why we need to do it. One of the lots. there's a camp right on one of the lots. and just. I think. general purposes. the applicant would like to clean up the situation. and have done their best to make these lots as conforming as possible. The variances that we needed we've received. I didn't see any resistance or opposition from the Board whatsoever. MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got one question. Is there still a cabin on that lot. where the camp is? MR. AUFFREDOU-Although it's called a cabin. it's really. for all practical purposes. it's a storage shed. It is not a principal structure. MR. BREWER-So by final you'll call that a storage shed on the. because if it's called a cabin. it's two principal buildings on the lot. and it's nonconforming. MR. AUFFREDOU-Well. it's a cabin. there electricity? I believe that there is a. is - 19 - ',-- -- CHARLES YOUNG MR. YOUNG-There's no plumbing. MR. AUFFREDOU-There' s no plumbing. There's electricity there. There have. in the past. been people who have slept there at night. when there's a lot of people visiting the camps. but right now it's my understanding that's being used for storage. MR. BREWER-And it will be used for storage? MR. AUFFREDOU-I don't know if I can. I understand what you're saying. I just don't know if we can call it a principal structure. MR. BREWER-Well. if it's a cabin and people are sleeping in it. I mean. MR. AUFFREDOU-But it's not. I mean. really. there's no plumbing. there's no bathroom facilities. It's really just a play house. MR. YOUNG-The size of it is 9 by 11. MR. BREWER-Okay. Just for our benefit. when you come back for final. can you change that on the map. and call it a storage shed? MR. AUFFREDOU-The John Wallace Trust doesn't have any opposition to that. I think that's up to Mr. Young. MR. YOUNG-Can people sleep in storage sheds. MR. BREWER-People sleep in tents. To avoid a problem. is all I'm trying to do. MR. YOUNG-Just to give you a little background. directly across the driveway is a larger camp. which is Gertrude's camp. That's 63 feet. Before the camp was that large. it was a studio. and when our children started to arrive. we had no place to put them. so we had a little cabin outside. right within three or four feet of our studio. Finally. I guess it was about several decades ago. we said. we've got to enlarge. and we built it larger. and we had people come in and use it. It hasn't been used as a studio for a long time. I would not like to say we can't sleep in it. MR. BREWER-I didn't say that at all. I just said. if you show on your plan a cabin and a camp. then that's two buildings on one lot. two principal buildings on one lot. I would like you to put on there. storage shed. whatever you want. Don't call it a cabin. MR. YOUNG-Don't call it a cabin. MR. BREWER-I'm trying to help you. Okay. For final you'll call that a storage shed. or whatever you want to call it. You can sleep there. I don't care what you do there. MRS. PULVER-Annex storage or something. MR. BREWER-Yes. Okay. I guess I have to open the public hearing. Does anybody here care to talk about this. or speak about it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? We did the SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-You might want to modify it to make it a condition that they change the wording from cabin to storage shed. - 20 - --'"' MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE GERTRUDE A. YOUNG. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. secGnded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application. file # 22-1993. to subdivide three lots totaling 2.3 acres into lots: and WHEREAS, the above referenced preliminary subdivision application dated 8/25/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1. Map prepared for Norlander. Wallace and Young. revised 8/20/93 WHEREAS. the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 9/28/93 2. Long EAF. dated 8/30/93: and WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on 9/28/93 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 modifications and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form: and that the cabin be relabeled storage shed. THEREFORE. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision for Gertrude Young file # 22-1993. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Hal Raven's off. Remember. he didn't have the notices out? MRS. TARANA-I remember. MR. MACEWAN-Tim. what's going on with Stimpson and Eggleston? Are they on or off tonight? MR. BREWER-Off. MRS. TARANA-Stimpson is off. too? MR. BREWER-Yes. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DR. KOOCK JUNG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: BAY RD.. NORTH OF CANTERBURY WOODS DRIVE. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 38. 5 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS - ONE LOT OF 36.81 ACRES AND THE SECOND 1.69 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP # 39-92 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-5.1 LOT SIZE: 38.5 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - 21 - -/ MARK LEVACK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 20-1993 Final Stage, Dr. Koock Jung. Meeting Date: September 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision of a 38.5 acre parcel located on Bay Road. One lot will be 1.69 acres and the other will be 36.81 acres. The larger parcel has an apartment complex on it and the smaller parcel will have an office on it. The property is being subdivided in order so that the office will be located on it's own lot. Both lots will remain in the ownership of the applicant. PROJECT ANALYSIS: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision. Providing the conditions listed in the resolution for preliminary approval are met. staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-And they did submit revised drawings today. and there's. included in your packet. there's a listing of the conditions and how they were met. Also. on a separate sheet that was handed out to you. was a written description of the easement, as well as it was shown on the subdivision plat itself. MR. BREWER-These were Tom's comments last week? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Those were the Engineering's response to his comments. comments from. Morse MR. BREWER-Okay. I have a question. Carol brought it to my attention that there was somebody noticed on this application that the public hearing was tonight. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Tina. did your notice say the public hearing was tonight? TINA MARSHALL MRS. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Could we just see the notice for a minute. please. because if it is noticed for tonight. I opened the public hearing last week and closed it. September 28th. MRS. TARANA-Just open it again. MR. LEVACK-I have no objection. if anybody'd like to get up and speak. MR. BREWER-Okay. I can re-open the public hearing. MRS. PULVER-Mark. do you have a map with you? MR. LEVACK-Yes. I do. MRS. PULVER-Do you want to just put a map up. How did that happen? MR. BREWER-I don't know. How did that happen? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. MR. BREWER-Does that do anything to our Preliminary approval? MR. MACEWAN-I would think we would have to go back. and this would have to be Preliminary Stage tonight. and go back on the agenda next month for Final. MR. BREWER-We don't know that. MRS. TARANA-Does that mean that the September 23rd notice didn't go out. and only the 28th went out? - 22 - - -../ MR. HARLICKER-Well. the notice should have read September 23rd. I don't know why it read September 28th. MR. BREWER-Well. I guess I don't know what to do. I mean. She has as notice that clearly says the 28th. MR. HARLICKER-The 28th. MRS. PULVER-No one spoke on this the last time. because maybe they didn't have the right notices. MR. BREWER-No. but I guess I want to question the legality of the Preliminary approval. MRS. TARANA-You have to notice the Preliminary approval. MR. BREWER-Mark. could you answer that question for us? Would you mind? We just have a question. Last week we had this applicant in for Preliminary. We opened the public hearing. approved it. closed the public hearing. MR. MACEWAN-It answers it right here in the book. A public hearing within 45 days of the day the official submission of Preliminary plat. MR. BREWER-No. but I guess the question is. we have a neighbor that got a notice saying that the public hearing is tonight. I can re- open the public hearing without a problem and close it again. Does that do anything to the Preliminary approval? MARK SCHACHNER MR. SCHACHNER-You granted it last week? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-When was the public hearing notice dated for? MRS. PULVER-For tonight. MR. BREWER-For tonight. the 28th. MR. SCHACHNER-No. not when. Preliminary approval. Final approval. or doesn't it say? MRS. MARSHALL-It just says a public hearing on the subdivision. MRS. PULVER-But see it was noticed. it would have been in the paper and it would have been noticed. for 10 days or whatever. MR. SCHACHNER-You should have your proof of publication. MRS. PULVER-That's not our job. MR. MACEWAN-It says it has to be at the Preliminary stage. It says so right here in the Ordinance. It says a public hearing within 45 days of the day of the official submission of the Preliminary plat. The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing which shall be advertised at least once in the newspaper of general circulation of a town at least five days before such hearing. The Planning Board may provide that the hearing be further advertised in such a manner as it deems most appropriate for full public consideration of such Preliminary plat. That means Preliminary. right. not Final. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don't disagree with that. That's exactly what that says. I don't think that addresses the question. You're saying that that's what it says about when to conduct a public hearing. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. but the notices are supposed to be sent out at - 23 - ',-- -- Preliminary stage. not at Final stage. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The initial notices have to be sent out at Preliminary stage. correct. MR. MACEWAN-Which they weren't. MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea. MR. MACEWAN-They were sent out for Final stage. which is tonight. MR. HARLICKER-The 28th. An option might be to rescind the older Preliminary approval and go through it and do Preliminary and Final tonight. and make a new motion. have the public hearing. close the public hearing. and make a new motion for Preliminary. and then address Final. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we want to rescind the Preliminary approval right now. Then we'll have Preliminary. open the public hearing. and we have to do SEQRA allover again? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. RUEL-Who sent out the notices? MR. BREWER-The applicant. out. The applicant has to send the notices MR. LEVACK-I delivered the return receipt requested last meeting. MRS. TARANA-So he must have put the 28th. The applicant had to put the 28th on. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. because these things are supposed to be done at Preliminary. from what I'm interpreting from this. MR. BREWER-You wrote the 28th instead of the 23rd. or whatever date. MRS. PULVER-Or whoever typed it. It's typed. Mark. MR. BREWER-Well. it doesn't make any difference. MRS. TARANA-I think you still have to do that rescinding. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion to rescind our motion? MOTION TO RESCIND THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 20- 1993 DR. KOOCK JUNG. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: Because of the error in public notification for the public hearing which was dated for September 28th and should have been dated for September 23rd. 1993. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we have to go back for the SEQRA again? MR. HARLICKER-No. I think just the public hearing. - 24 - "- -- MR. BREWER-All right. the public hearing. Now we're back at Preliminary. I'll open PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TINA MARSHALL MRS. MARSHALL-We just bought this property. and got the notice a couple of days later. and I came more out of curiosity. to find out what was going on. I talked to Mark out there. My concerns were that the building's going to be too high. and he has informed me that that's not the case. and it looks quite acceptable to me. MR. BREWER-Okay. Could you state your name for the record. please. MRS. MARSHALL-Tina Marshall. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion for Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 DR. KOOCK JUNG. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Final? Now would somebody care to make a motion for MRS. TARANA-Well. I have some questions. There were things that we wanted to see. for Final. and I thought maybe you could just point them out to us. Mark. You have this letter. don't you? MR. LEVACK-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Can you just go through those? One. two. and three were supposed to be done. Scott. have you seen what was supposed to be done for Final? Have you looked at that? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. and they're on there. MRS. TARANA-Okay. That's fine with me. MR. BREWER-Okay? MRS. TARANA-Fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. Now would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. JUNG. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved seconded by Roger Ruel: 20-1993 for its DR. KOOCK adoption. WHEREAS. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final subdivision application. file #20-1993. to subdivide a 38.5 acre parcel into two lots of 1.69 acres and 36.81 acres. and WHEREAS. the above referenced final subdivision application dated 8/25/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet Ml. 1 final subdivision map. dated 5/25/93 2. Sheet 2 Sl as revised 8/26/93 - 25 - ---- -.../ 3. Sheet 3 Dl undated : and WHEREAS. the documentation: above file is supported with the 1. Staff notes. dated 9/28/93: and following 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 for Dr. Koock Jung file #20-1993 Let It Be Further Resolved. 1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be paid and that within 60 days of the date of the resolution the applicant shall have the signed plat filed in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on the compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint tIlag~ SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE I GARTH ALLEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: NORTHSIDE OF CRONIN RD.. APPROXIMATELY 1200' EAST OF BAY RD. /CRONIN RD. INTERSECTION. A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 27 ACRE PARCEL INTO 91 LOTS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 90 TOWNHOUSES AND A COMMON AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. # 12-1993 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5. 10 LOT SIZE: +27 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 21-1993. Garth Allen. September 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 27 acre parcel into 91 lots. The subdivision will be for the construction of 90 townhouses with footprint only lots and the remaining property will be common land owned by a homeowners association. The project will require the connection into municipal sewer and water systems. Construction of an internal private loop road is also part of this application. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The applicant has complied with the conditions of preliminary approval. Including identifying the area designated for playground equipment and showing a connecting walkway to the adjacent golf course and the realignment of curves on the roadway." MR. HARLICKER-There's a letter in here from Mike Shaw. One dated September 27th. it states "Dear Nick. I have reviewed the sanitary - 26 - ---- sewer connection plans for the above subdivision. and as long as my August 9th comments have been addressed. I find these plans to be acceptable. Once again. this parcel is not within the Quaker Road Sewer District. A district extension must be established before any sanitary connection is completed. We must have a map plan and report. signed contract. a public hearing. DEC plan approval. and a one time buy-in fee for the treatment plant. If you have any question on this matter. please call me at my office. Michael o. Shaw" Another letter from Mike Shaw the following day. September 28th. it says. "Dear Nick. Thank you for your prompt attention to the two remaining comments on my August 9th letter. At this time I find the plans for this sanitary sewer connection to be acceptable. The only remaining issue is the sanitary district extension. Michael o. Shaw" MR. BREWER-We do have a letter from Tom Flaherty. Corinne. if you want to read that in. MRS. TARANA-Regarding Bay Meadows. this is addressed to Jim Martin. Senior Planner. dated September 29th. 1993 "Dear Jim: The preliminary plans for water mains and appurtenances in Bay Meadows have been reviewed by this Department. If the installation of the water mains and appurtenances is carried out as presented in the plans. this project will meet the requirements of this Department. subject to the regulations and general requirements relating to water mains and hydrants in the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely. Thomas K. Flaherty" MRS. TARANA-What about. did you go to the Rec Committee? MR. SCHACHNER-We didn't go to the Rec Committee. but we went directly to the Recreation Park. MRS. TARANA-I thought I. is there a letter from Sharon Simmons? I saw something floating around. That wasn't for you. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I don't think it was about us. DICK MORSE MR. MORSE-I met with Harry Hansen of the Recreation Park and reviewed the issue with Jim Martin, also. and spoke with Harry. Harry thought that $5.000 would be a equitable amount of money. that he would take it to his Board to see if they would release that for the developers to spend. In light of that. what I presented to you tonight is this. which is a xerox of a catalog, cut. and it's the lower piece of apparatus. the larger one. wooden structure. We have specified. it will be located in this general area here. The value of that piece of apparatus. freight on board. at the factory. is $2538. and when you get it. ship it. and install it it will be approximately $5.000. MR. BREWER-Do you have it located on the map? MR. MORSE-Yes. I located it here. It's nearest the large green area. We do have a thick hedge row that's going to stay here. to keep kids out of the traffic. and I felt this location. which would be nearest the first phase. second and third. and it's off the beaten path of circulation that's on the other side of the golf course. I just thought it would be good if it's high and dry. the flood plain or the wetlands. Do you want me to review the other comments? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MORSE-We've realigned criteria. We've installed more than 35 units in a conditions and the permit. cart that extends over this curve. so that that now meets the additional phase lines. so that there no phase. We've attached the DEC permit We have shown a proposed gravelled golf to the boundary of the homeowners - 27 - ''"-"'~ ~ association. from this wooden area, or from the drive. The reason I selected this point was Phase I. eventually use this in all other phases. and congregate to this point. and it's the largest facing that we have between units. Other issues that you requested. plan apparatus. we've talked about. The various names for the streets have been shown. I think that's. MR. BREWER-All right. the only other question I have is Mike Shaw's letter. the sanitary sewer district extension. MR. MORSE-Correct. MR. BREWER-That's the only outstanding item? MR. MORSE-Well. that will take. you know. if we get through this process. we'll start working on the next. MR. BREWER-The Town Board does that? MR. MORSE-Yes. When we talk to the Town Board. we've got to go back and research that file. but right now the Clubhouse is an out of district user and I think we had talked to the Town Board. I'm not sure that Mike is 100 percent correct on. that we have to be in the district. We might be an out of district user. MR. BREWER-Does anybody else on the Board have any questions? MRS. TARANA-Just one quick question. The cart path. where does it go to. right to the golf course? MR. MORSE-No. It goes up to the fairway. near the 9th green. MRS. TARANA-By the Clubhouse? Yes. I know where. I guess I know. MR. MORSE-But it ends at the homeowners, because I don't want to push it over that way. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. RUEL-In the playground area. you'll be sure to use impact resistant material? MR. MORSE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. ALLEN. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for seconded by Roger Ruel: 21-1993 GARTH its adoption. WHEREAS. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final subdivision application, file #21-1993. to subdivide a 27 acre parcel into 91 lots to allow construction of 90 townhouses and a common area: and WHEREAS. the above referenced final subdivision application dated 8/30/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet SP 1. site and utilities plan. revised 9/27/93 2. Sheet SP 2. site and utilities plan. dated 6/17/93 3. Sheet Gl grading and drainage plan. revised 9/27/93 4. Sheet G2 grading and drainage plan. undated 5. Sheet P1 roadway and utilities profile. revised 9/27/93 6. Sheet P2 storm drainage profile. revised 9.27.93 7. Sheet D1 details, revised 8/13/93 8. Sheet D2 details. revised 8/13/93 9. Sheet S 1 survey and zoning. revised 9/27/93 10. DEC wetland permit attached to SP1. dated 8/25/93 WHEREAS. the documentation: above file is supported with the 1. staff notes. dated 9/28/93: and following - 28 - -- 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 for Garth Allen file #21-1993 Let It Be Further Resolved. 1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board 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. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on the compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-93 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA ROBERT JACOBS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: BOX 356. SUNNYSIDE RD. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 18' X 22' FAMILY ROOM DOWNSTAIRS AND A 13'6" X 22' ART ROOM UPSTAIRS. TAX MAP NO. 54-6-18 LOT SIZE: 10.18 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 TODD DELSIGNORE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Jacobs is off. MR. HARLICKER-AII we could do. the advertising went out for public hearing. If we could open the public hearing and let them speak. and then just table it until. let me explain what happened. It turns out that this project is on a County road. and it was not sent off to the County for their review this month. So it's got to go back next month. So. if we could just. the public hearing was notified. There might be people here who'd like to speak on it. MR. BREWER-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 42-93. Robert Jacobs. Meeting Date: September 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct an 18 foot by 22 foot addition to an existing apartment building. The property is located on Sunnyside Road and is zoned SR-1A. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179- 38 A.. the pro j ect is in compl iance with the other requirements of this chapter. including the dimensional regulations - 29 - --- of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance wi th Section 179- 38 B.. the pro j ect 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 regarding its impact on the highways. It was found that the project will have no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the pro j ect 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 addition will be on the rear of the building and should not have a significant impact on the site. The applicant should describe what the addition will look like. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: The project will not impact vehicular traffic access. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sUfficiency of off- street parking and loading: Off street parking will not be impacted by this project. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traff ic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: pedestrian access will not be impacted. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: Drainage facilities will not be impacted by this project. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities: The proposal will not impact water supply or sewage disposal. 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: Vegetation will not be impacted. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: This will not be impacted. 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 recommends approval of this site plan." MR. BREWER-Does anybody on the Board have any questions at all? MRS. TARANA-I'm just a little confused. addition? Is that it? Is it an 18 by 22 foot MR. HARLICKER-Well. the base is. and the upstairs is smaller. MR. DELSIGNORE-Right. Delsignore. There's two stories. My name is Todd MRS. TARANA-Okay. So the 13 foot. 13.6 x 22 is above the 18 x 22? MR. DELSIGNORE-Right. MRS. TARANA-Just one other question. Are you an artist? Is that what the art room is for. or is it for commercial purposes? MR. DELSIGNORE-No. It's not commercial purposes. The owner of the property is a former school teacher. and he wants to use that room to draw. MRS. PULVER-I guess my question goes down the same line. is I know Mr. Jacobs. He's not going to use this for at all for any sort of retail sales. He's not going to give classes. It's going to be strictly for his own personal benefit. Make that part of the motion. MR. RUEL-How many stories is the apartment building now? Two. And it'll be just about the same height? - 30 - - MR. DELSIGNORE-It will be a little. not quite as high. MR. RUEL-A little less. and the exterior. architecturally. will be compatible with the rest of the building? MR. DELSIGNORE-Yes. MR. RUEL-What is the exterior? MR. DELSIGNORE-Right now it's aluminum siding. MR. RUEL-And you will continue that? MR. DELSIGNORE-Yes. ~ctually it's aluminum siding upstairs. the second story is stucco. on the bottom. MR. RUEL-The same type of roof? MR. DELSIGNORE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RALPH VANDUSEN MR. VANDUSEN-My name is Ralph VanDusen. I own the property at 269 Sunnyside Road. I have a couple of questions about. to clarify on this project. I share your concern about the future use of the art studio. With the parking lot that's there currently for the bar and the golf course. there are numerous cars. Parking is a problem now. The parking lot is not sufficiently large to handle cars that are there some times. It's common. especially in the winter when they're playing broom ball. The people park both sides of the street. and two way traffic is simply not possible. It's very important to the neighborhood to get the parking off the road. and make sure that nothing that they do on the property is going to make that situation worse. Do you know how many parking spaces there are currently available? MR. DELSIGNORE-Not exactly. Probably roughly around 35. MR. VANDUSEN-So. parking for the golf course. current bar would be like. 35. 40. One of the things that concerns me. when the bar was built. originally. the bar was where the apartments are. The older bar was converted into a apartments and the new bar built. and the people owned it at the time had a variance to put the bar back there. and one of the conditions. or one of the things that was stated. I should say. by the applicant. the previous owner indicated they would maintain parking for 100 to 150 cars. to ensure there would be no impact of people parking along the street. okay. Obvious I y. it hasn't happened. So. the property has a history of people not necessarily complying to what they said they were going to. So. I just can't say strong enough that I would please request that if you do approve this. that it does remain a private studio for his own use. and no way does it become a public or commercial studio. MR. MACEWAN-How has the parking situation been in the summer time with the golf course open? MR. VANDUSEN-It's pretty good. It's not too much of a problem. and occasionally on certain nights somewhat full. Winter time it might bother people. MR. MACEWAN-How many do they exceed. do you figure. on an average during the winter time. than what the capacity of the parking lot - 31 - '- can hold? MR. VANDUSEN-I've ce rtainl y seen. easi I y. 30 or 40 cars in the street. MR. MACEWAN-Plus 30 or 40 in the parking lot. and that doesn't happen during the summer. MR. VANDUSEN-They own 10 acres of land. There's certainly plenty of land to spread things around. but they just aren't. They aren't complying with what they promised. Not the current owner. the previous. MR. MACEWAN-Unfortunately that's probably the biggest part of the problem. is that whatever the original owner complied with and was willing to do with a condition of approval is not necessarily what the current owner would have to follow under. MR. VANDUSEN-So if he sold it. someone else could convert the private art studio to a commercial. and do come back? MR. BREWER-I don't think so. MRS. PULVER-They'd have to get a variance. MR. DELSIGNORE-Can I say something? Probably even art studio is the wrong name for this upper story. It's just like a second living room for the owner to draw. Art studio. the only reason why it was called that is because that's what he plans on doing is drawing. He has no plans on opening up for business. MR. VANDUSEN-Personally. for his own use. I applaud that. I think it's wonderful. I'm just concerned that that's not what it's going to stay. It is a beautiful location from the golf course. It faces the golf course. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm not really clear on what. if this Board was to put a restriction on. to what the uses could be for that. for his approval. I don't know. personally. whether that could be held to another owner. if someone was to buy the property and he decided that he wanted to open up a commercial gallery up there and have paintings on display. the only thing I would see him having to do. at this point. would be get the necessary permits that we'd have to have from the County. MR. VANDUSEN-He'd have to apply for a variance. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's zoned residential. So something like that would not be allowed. They'd have to go for a use variance. MR. VANDUSEN-If someday whether it's the current owner or a future owner wants to make it a commercial studio. he has to go through the variance procedure. that's fine. That's what it's for. but I'm saying that's not what happened with the parking lot. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I would suggest that we have the minutes to the. was it a ZBA meeting? What meeting are you talking about. Ralph. that he had the parking come up. the question of parking come up? MR. VANDUSEN-It would have been. probably. 20 years ago. 25 years ago. MRS. PULVER-Our records are not that good. MR. VANDUSEN-I have a copy. MRS. PULVER-You do? All right. Good. Great. MR. VANDUSEN-This was made from your records. - 32 - ---/ MRS. PULVER-Okay. Great. MR. BREWER-Yes. but what they're going to say is they had a meeting. and it was. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I know. but we can just re-discuss it. MR. HARLICKER-Is there anything substantial in the? MR. VANDUSEN-Mr. Bacas was representing the owners at the time. Requesting permission. stating that there would be parking for 100 to 150 cars. He was here. He said there will be parking for 100 cars. and then it goes through to describe the thing. and the Board unanimously approved the variance. It's just my feeling. if a representative is going to say. I will have parking there for 100 cars. and you. as a Board say. yes. that's a good project. Then it's the owner's responsibility to stick to that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Well. now. that's what would have to come in for a CO. the parking the landscaping is checked. and all that investigated prior to getting a CO now. I procedure was 20 years ago. would happen. if he would be checked and sort of things are don't know what the MR. VANDUSEN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-And then when he's in violation. if the neighbors call. then we send out the Building and Codes Supervisor to go out and get him. but if you could give us a copy of that. MR. VANDUSEN-Sure. I'd þe happy to. MRS. PULVER-Actually. if you can give it to Scott, and then Scott will give us all copies. MR. BREWER-Okay. GERTRUDE VANDUSEN MRS. VANDUSEN-My name is Gertrude VanDusen. and I'm probably going to say pretty much what my son has already said. but I live on the property next door to this golf course property. and I wouldn't feel right if I didn't come and tell you what I want to say tonight. okay. I live at 359 Sunnyside Road. next door to the Par 3 Golf Course property. in fact. my home adjoins the parking lot where I live. The VanDusen family has lived at this site for 47 years. During these years. I've seen the growth of the Par 3 Golf Course. the apartment house. the bar/clubhouse. and the three car garage with an outside stairway to an upstairs room on this property. I remember coming to a hearing. the hearing that my son has mentioned. for permission to move the bar from its existing building. and the restaurant was granted. We had questions. and we were assured by the owners at that time that the bar/clubhouse was for the convenience of the golfers. and will only be opened during the golfing hours. also that the sign and the lighting would not change. but with the present owners. the bar hours have changed. It's a year round business. We now have traffic in and out. sometimes very noisy. until the early hours of the morning. At times. there's very loud music. late in the night. too. and sometimes firecrackers wake us up. and it isn't always the Fourth of July when that happens. either. Sometimes during special events at the Golf Course. the parking space is not sufficient and patrons park on the road. Minutes from the aforementioned variance indicate that the parking for 100 to 150 cars. I question that that many parking places have been maintained. and now for the last two winters. broom hockey has arrived on the Golf Course. I don't know how that happened. but it happened. okay. and the parking was even a bigger problem for this. The snow banks. with cars parked on both sides of the road. Sunnyside becomes a one lane road. in the vicinity of that property. and the Sunnyside Road is not a - 33 - --",' particularly wide road. I know this hearing was called because of an application to construct an 18 by 22 foot family room downstairs. and 13 foot 6 inch by 22 foot art room upstairs. and according to the map plan. the structure wi II be added to the eXisting apartment house. All of the buildings all seem to be right together. except for the bar room. The word art room scares me. I believe that Mr. Jacobs is a retired art teacher. and upon his retirement he was involved with an art business on Thompson Avenue in Glens Falls. and I don't think that is any longer true. as far as that's concerned. but with the problems that the growth of the present businesses have created for the neighboring residents. what security do we have that this "art room" will not become another business venture on this property. creating still more problems. Again. I say I have great concern about the proposed addition. and I would prefer that this request not be granted. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-Thank you. MARY REESE MRS. REESE-I'm a neighbor from across the road, Mary Reese. and my concern is parking. It's very difficult in the winter getting in and out of our driveway. when they have broom baIlor hockey. and the noise is a big concern. too. but that has nothing to do with the addition. I just want to know if it's going to be their addition. or is it going to become another apartment? That's my concern. MR. DELSIGNORE-Excuse me. It's an addition to an existing apartment. It's a small apartment where the Jacobs' live in the summer time. and it's an addition onto that apartment. It's not going to be an additional apartment. MR. RUEL-I have a question for one of these ladies. Over the years. have you registered any objections to these violations. or is the first time? MRS. REESE-No. MRS. VANDUSEN-That is our fault. We recognize that's our fault. but from now on. you'll be hearing from us. because we try to be good neighbors. okay. I pick up beer cans. beer bottles all the time off my property from the Golf Course. I assumed that you had to drink your beer inside. but apparently you take it on the Golf Course. okay. We listen to the loud music. We are awakened many times. We have another neighbor that lives a couple of houses down. I have a neighbor that lives next door to me. I was talking to her tonight. She said. I don't want anything more on that property. MR. RUEL-How many years has this been going on? MRS. VANDUSEN-Since the new owners particularly had bought in. MR. RUEL-How long is that? MRS. VANDUSEN-They purchased in 1977. The last two years have been the worst. when we've had the loud music and all this going on. MR. RUEL-Yes. The music is changing. It's getting louder. MRS. REESE-It's difficult when you have someone that has to go to work at 2:30 in the morning. and at 12 o'clock. you're awake from 12 until 4 with music. MR. DELSIGNORE-I'd like to say something. I've also lived there since 1977. the year they bought it. and you hear it. once in a - 34 - -- while they do have loud music on weekends. in the bar broom ball is an experience. You'd have to see that. how that ever came about. but there is a good amount that. but in general. the Golf Course is quite year area. and the I don't know of people for round. MRS. REESE-The Golf Course is quiet. MRS. VANDUSEN-We're not objecting to the Golf Course. happens after the people get through playing golf objecting to. It's what that we're MR. RUEL-What do all these objections have to do with Mr. Jacobs? MR. BREWER-Well. we have to let them speak. MRS. REESE-Well. no. it has nothing to do. as long as that's not going to become another business or another apartment. I really don't care. if they've got parking space for everybody. but I just want you to be aware of what's going on over there. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. VANDUSEN-So what happens. can somebody. they can start broom ball there. or hockey. can they start another business on that Golf Course. too? MRS. PULVER-I think that needs to be looked into. I think the parking situation, this is a good time to look into that. when they're before the Board with another application. It's a good time to look in to see how many parking spaces they actually do have. and what exactly is going on up there. MR. BREWER-What we're going to need. probably. is the size the building seats or whatever. I don't know. How do we determine that? MR. HARLICKER-Bar/restaurant. I think it's one space. either square footage or else per seats. whichever's greater. MR. DELSIGNORE-I live there. and as far as the parking spaces for the Golf Course. or the bar. I live in the front part. and the parking spot usually only take up the sides. There's usually not enough cars to fill the front. Sometimes there is. sometimes there isn't. but most of the time I drive right in there. no problem. MRS. PULVER-What about broom ball season? MR. DELSIGNORE-Well. broom ball is different. That lasts about a month in the winter time. towards the end of the month. MR. BREWER-All right. anyway. Well. we can find out about the parking MRS. REESE-But do they need a permit to do broom ball. or can they just move it in? MRS. PULVER-That's a good question. I don't have the answers for you. but we will have the answer. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it. ladies? MRS. REESE-Yes. Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-You're welcome. MRS. PULVER-You're welcome. MR. BREWER-Is there anyone else who would like to speak? A NEIGHBOR-One night. during that broom hockey or whatever you call - 35 - '-- --/' it. I happened to be getting ready to go to bed at eleven o'clock. I thought there was an accident outside there were so many cars out there. people stopping let other people go by. There was only room for one car to go by. It's going to get worse if it doesn't get better. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. MRS. TARANA-My question about this in particular is this map. It doesn't show elevations. It doesn't show anything. It just shows an apartment building with a little rectangle coming off the back. Now my concern would be. is there outside access from this addition? This addition has it's own entrance? MR. DELSIGNORE-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Why would that be? MR. DELSIGNORE-Because the addition is going right over the front entrance of the existing apartment. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. DELSIGNORE-In other words. where the entrance door to the apartment is now. the addition. that's where the family room will be. MR. BREWER-Okay. So what are you asking. Corinne? You want a better drawing of what this building is going to look like? Can you provide us with that? MR. DELSIGNORE-I have a drawing in my car outside. if you'd like to see it. MR. BREWER-Well. maybe you could bring it in to the Planning Office and they could put it in our packets for next month. Okay. Anything else? MR. MACEWAN-Personally. I think I'd like to see the owner come here. Mr. Jacobs. next meeting. because I've got some questions I'd like to ask him. MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll look into the parking. Can we have you look into the parking? And as far as the studio for a business. we can make a stipulation that that won't happen. as a retail business. MRS. PULVER-The addition is going to be just for a private studio. personal use. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion to table this? We need your consent to table. MR. DELSIGNORE-Sure. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-1993 ROBERT JACOBS. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint - 36 - -..-/ MR. BREWER-Okay. and we're going to ask Mr. Jacobs to be here at the next meeting. MR. MACEWAN-And drawings in our packets before the next meeting. You probably won't be on until the first meeting of next month. which is. what. the 19th. or something like that. So. before the 19th. if you could get a copy of the elevation to the Planning Department. so we can have them in our packets for that month. so we can review them. You supply them with one. they can make the copies. MRS. PULVER-And. Scott. you're going to go uP. look at the parking spaces. what you see. how many occupants the bar/restaurant. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We'll check on that and compare it to parking. MR. MACEWAN-We'd need to have that by the 8th. that drawing. so that they can get copies and get the packets to us. Okay. MRS. VANDUSEN-May I just ask. this has to go before the County. right? MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. VANDUSEN-Will that go before the next hearing here? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. it will. I think it's the 13th of October. I'm not sure of the date on the County review. MRS. VANDUSEN-Okay. MR. BREWER-All right. SITE PLAN NO. 43-93 TYPE: MR-5 UNLISTED AVALON ASSOCIATES. INC. OWNER: PHILIP A. SMITH LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WESTWOOD DR. & GLENWOOD AVENUE 82 GLENWOOD AVENUE. PROPOSAL TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE USED AS A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - 9-7-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 9-8-93 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-26.1. 26.2 LOT SIZE: .537 ACRES PHILIP A. SMITH. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 43-93. Avalon Associates Philip Smith. Meeting Date: September 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to convert an existing single family home into a professional office to house his business. The project includes the construction of a six space parking area and exterior renovations to the house. The property is located on Glenwood Avenue and is zoned MR-5. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179- 38 A.. the pro j ect is in compl iance 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 regarding its impact on highways. It was determined that there will be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance wi th Section 179- 38 D.. the pro j ect 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 only new construction proposed is the parking area. Signage is subject to a separate permit and no new lighting is - 37 - -- -- proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: Vehicular traffic access is acceptable. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sUfficiency of off-street parking and loading: Off street parking is acceptable: six parking spaces are proposed. No handicapped spaces are shown on the plat. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: Pedestrian access is acceptable. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: It is the intent of the applicant to grade the parking area so that runoff flows on to the rear yard area. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities: The property is serviced by municipal water and sewer. 7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other sui table 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¡ Additional landscaping should be provided along the perimeter of the parking area in order to screen it from the adjacent townhouse development. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: This 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 recommends approval of this site plan." MR. BREWER-Okay. We al so There's No County Impact. questions? have Does a letter from Warren County. anybody on the Board have any MR. MACEWAN-The only thing I'd like to see them do is the comment Staff made regarding the addi tional screening. I'd like to see them. if it's at all possible. in the resolution. that we have them continue the. just like the hedge row you have on the easterly side. the drive separating your easterly property line. just continue a hedge similar to that along the north and the west side of the parking area. Do you follow me? MR. SMITH-I think I follow you, but the hedge on the east side is about eight feet tall. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I realize. it has a few years to catch up on growth. I'm not looking for you to put in an eight foot high hedge. just something similar to it. cedar or something that's relatively quick growing and is a good screening. MR. SMITH-I guess the only concern that I've heard so far is this screening. It's something that did occur to me when I was looking at the property. I guess I'm not clear on what the concern is. because if you've looked at the prope rty in the back. what's proposed as a parking area is right behind the house. and that needs about 150 feet of this lot that is completely open behind. in the back end of this property. and then as I understand it the lot directly behind that is the septic system for the rest. that's another 100 and something feet back there. I'm looking at 200. 300 feet of open area which now separates us from. behind us. and I guess I'm unclear. MR. MACEWAN-I think staff was just looking to get that parking lot screened from view. MR. HARLICKER-You had mentioned. earlier. about the planting of some pines or something. along the back. MR. SMITH-The discussions we had with staff. there was a suggestion of a concern for screening. and my concern on the other side is that. screening. if you're talking about Austrian Pines. that's manageable. If you're talking about a hedge row that would become - 38 - -' like this size. it would seem to me that we're probably talking a significant expense. I'm concerned about that. I guess I'm unclear what you're looking for. If it's what we were discussing before. Scott. talking about two or three Austrian Pines and things to break up the appearance. not to hide it. I don't think that's significant. That's easy enough to do. MR. MACEWAN-Are you looking to have the whole parking lot screened? MR. HARLICKER-I think the issue. and it was raised by several of the neighbors that came in also. was the visual impact of the parking area. not so much from the property behind it. but as you come in and go out of the development back there. on Westwood Drive. MR. MACEWAN-So it would be the westerly side of the parking lot. MR. HARLICKER-And if you notice there are currently. what is that. an Aspen that's there? MR. SMITH-I was told by an architect friend that that's an Aspen. MR. HARLICKER-And several other trees that are already there that do break up the visual impact of the parking lot somewhat. MR. MACEWAN-What would ~ like to see done? MR. HARLICKER-I think. probably. the main impact comes as you're dri ving out. and you're looking at it. You're looking at that northwest corner. is probably where the greatest impact is. So something along there. not necessarily a full length hedge like is on the other side. but some sort of Evergreen screening. not necessarily just. something to break it up. MR. MACEWAN-Would the corner be acceptable to you? MR. HARLICKER-That would be fine with me. MR. MACEWAN-How far would you want him to go either direction. 10 feet either way? MR. HARLICKER-I guess a lot. you know. like we said. along the back. maybe space three or four trees along the back. and maybe a couple of them along the corner. MR. SMITH-I'm at a loss here. I don't know the procedure. Is this something that Scott and I could work out separately. or is this something? MR. MACEWAN-Well. I guess if it was approved tonight. that would be one of the stipulations of approval. I would think. I'm speaking for myself. I mean. if the rest of the Board decides what you've got's fine with them. so be it. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. There was comments from the Beautification Committee. It states that "Philip Smith was unable to attend. Margaret Smith attended and made a list of our concerns. We will have him send our Committee a letter. No changes to existing building. Committee concerned with screening near back property line to screen business from residential area. Recommended Evergreen hedge or berm. No dumpster needed. Shed in back yard to remain for storage. Property will be maintained." MR. BREWER-Okay. Roger. what do you think? screening. or any other questions? Some kind of MR. RUEL-Landscaping? MR. BREWER-Yes. - 39 - MR. HARLICKER-I guess maybe the question is the intensity of the landscaping that you want. Whatever you're comfortable with. MRS. PULVER-The Beautification Committee is going to get back to the Committee? Was that the way it was stated? I'd much prefer to have them decide what the screening should be. since that's kind of their job. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We II. they'd recommend an Evergreen hedge or berm. That's as specific as they got in their comment here. MR. BREWER-Are you acceptable to three or four trees around that corner area? MR. SMITH-I think three or four trees is manageable. MR. BREWER-That's fine with me. MRS. PULVER-My other question is. what is your business? MR. SMITH-I have a small consulting business. Planning and Community Development. most of my work is with towns and villages some distance from here. So. we don't get traffic in the office. I have three people in the office. MR. RUEL-Has staff checked the adequacy of the parking. based on the Ordinance? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They have enough. MR. RUEL-And is their requirement for handicap? MR. HARLICKER-They could modify it. and make it a little bit larger, and expand one of the six spaces into a. make it a handicap space. MR. RUEL-But is it mandatory. based on the Ordinance? MR. HARLICKER-I believe the Handicap. whatever. the Disabilities Act requires one space for twenty-five parking spaces. MR. RUEL-But not over twenty-five? necessary? Under twenty-five's not MR. HARLICKER-It said one space per twenty-five spaces. MR. RUEL-What about six spaces? MR. MACEWAN-I would think zero to twenty-five. you'd need one. MR. HARLICKER-You'd need one. need two. More than twenty- fi ve, you would MR. RUEL-And that's a larger space. right? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. RUEL-If you do that. then you won't have five others. MR. HARLICKER-Well. there's room on the site to modify the parking area. to expand it the required couple of feet. in order to. MR. RUEL-Well. if he has the space. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. there's room. to modify it. to include a handicap space. He wouldn't lose any spaces. MR. RUEL-Are you saying. then. he needs a handicap space. or not? MR. HARLICKER-I would say yes. - 40 - MR. RUEL-So the plan should show that. and should modify the other spaces. because the handicap is wider. right? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. RUEL-And the others are nine feet? MR. HARLICKER-Nine by twenty's. MR. RUEL-And handicap is what? MR. HARLICKER-I' m not sure. positive on that. I think it's 13 feet. I'm not MR. RUEL-Because that's going to put a dent in his five other spaces. MR. HARLICKER-Well. he can add the extra four feet out to one side. and he wouldn't lose any spaces. MR. RUEL-I' m looking at the plan there. I don't see any space. It's not a very accurate. detailed plan. MR. BREWER-He can always put one space right where the walkway goes into the back of the building. Why couldn't he put one space right there? It's not that complicated. Instead of having. you can still leave those six there. and just put one handicap parking place right there. and that would solve the problem. You wouldn't have to go. do anything but that. MR. RUEL-If it fits. it's great. It's right next to the entrance. MR. SMITH-Another option is moving it closer to that. this is pretty carefully measured. I scaled it off. It's a pretty accurate presentation of that site. If you look at the Aspen. it's pretty bushy. So in order to get up closer. you'd have to trim branches. MR. BREWER-Okay. So you'll accommodate that? It's not a problem. Anything else? MRS. TARANA-I'm just curious as to what's going to be stored in the storage shed. MR. SMITH-The concrete pad. storage shed today is a framed Right now it has a lawn mower. structure on a MR. BREWER-Is that it? Okay. So you're going to accommodate the parking for the handicap. that's the only thing we really have a. and you're going to plant. you're willing to do the three or four trees. MR. RUEL-What are the hours of business? MR. SMITH-The office is generally open from 8:30 to 5:00. I own the business. and I am often there a number of times. I'll be there other hours when staff isn't there. MR. RUEL-The reason I ask is that there's no lighting in that parking area. MR. SMITH-That's correct. There is a floodlight on the back. If you look at that. there's a little porch in the back with a flood light. MR. RUEL-That's sufficient for the parking lot. right? MR. SMITH-It is to me. MR. RUEL-Okay. - 41 - MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. here that wishes to speak on this? Is there anyone PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DOUGLAS WRIGLEY MR. WRIGLEY-My name is Douglas Wrigley. I'm appearing as the President of the Westwood Homeowners Association that owns the grounds north and west of this property. I believe you've answered most of our questions. except that we definitely would like to see more screening on the north and west side. In addition to our comments. I have a letter from Dr. Bob Westcott. Robert Westcott who lives next door at 84. and I will read that. regarding his comments to us. but first I'd like to correct one thing. The property behind the. directly behind this property. Mr. Smith's property. is no longer a septic system for the Association. We are tied in. with great expense. to the Quaker Road Sewer System. So that is not a septic system. We've left a berm there. and we plan to add trees. over time. to that property. We'd like to see more than three or four trees. Things like arborvitae. and things like that. on both the north and the west side. and as you'YI see. Bob Westcott would like to see some more on the east side as well. Because that is a large parking area. which mayor may not be enlarged over time. we need screening. The second point is that Westwood Drive. which is our inlet road. when they were moving things out of the building. they used our road and backed the truck in across the land into the house. to unload some of the furniture. We definitely don't want to see that. in terms of access to office. So we would like to see a sign attached to the sign. whatever sign goes up. if he makes a sign or shingle for his property. parking in the rear. or something like that. which would definitely steer the people from Glenwood in alongside the existing structure to the back. The drainage was mentioned. which was the third item. and that is the drainage will go north onto the existing land. We want to. again. make sure that this surfaced. such that the drainage doesn't go west onto the road. We have about 15 feet alongside the road. The road's about 30 feet on each side of the road. and then the road is about 30 foot. So there's about 60 feet. 61 feet. So those three things. but especially the screening. Again. working out something. and we'd be happy to work with Mr. Smith. and work out something. but three or four pines seems rather sparse. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WRIGLEY-I have one other question. Mr. Chairman. regarding this Board will make the final decision on this? There is no further steps to be taken? MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. WRIGLEY-This is merely a site review? MR. BREWER-Yes. it is. MR. WRIGLEY-We have other people here. wish to speak or not. I don't know whether they MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we just ask you to give me that letter. and we'll read it into the record? MRS. PULVER-There is no curb cuts on Westwood Drive. off the property line? MR. MACEWAN-No. MRS. PULVER-So. you couldn't go. I mean. he can't go over from his parking lot. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll ask Corinne to read that letter in. and then - 42 - we'll take comment from anybody else. MRS. TARANA-Mr. James Martin. Executive Director. "Sirs and Madame. I write in reference to the property at 82 Glenwood Avenue. As an adjoining property owner at 84 Glenwood Avenue. my concern is that any parking area that may be created behind the existing structure should be properly screened by means of a hedge or appropriate trees and shrubs on the easterly. northerly and westerly boundaries. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. Robert C. Westcott. DDS" MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? WALTER WALKER MR. WALKER-I live at 36 Lyon Court. and I'm also one of the members of the members of the Westwood Homeowners Association. and one of the concerns that my wife and I have is the negative impact the change in this variance would create with the general effect of the property. Right now. we have at Westwood kind of a park like setting. When you drive out. it's very nice. and when you come in. it's even nicer. and the idea of looking at the back of a building with a parking lot that's only going to be screened with a few trees is really not that interesting for me. What we need there is a full screening that would cover the entire rear parking and both side parking area. and what also should be stipulated is that once a screening is put in. it has to be maintained. because plants/bushes die. and in many cases they are just left to die. and they're never replaced. and this would also create additional problems with the screening. Basically. I agree with all of the points that Doug Wrigley has brought forth. and I give him support. and that's bas icall y all we have to say. Al so we're conce rned about drainage. and that there will not be a spillover of parking from the using tenant to the private road that Westwood has now. That's my main concern. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. speak? Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to do a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 43-93. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an appl ication for: proposal to convert an existing single family residence to be used as a professional office. and 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. - 43 - 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MRS. PULVER-Well. I think we should discuss with the applicant the screening situation. MR. BREWER-Okay. What do you want to discuss? MRS. PULVER-How much are you willing to do? MR. SMITH-I'm sensitive to the concern. I understand the concern for screening. There seems to be some fear of a significant change to this property. I guess I don't see that what we're proposing is a significant change. A six space parking area isn't significant. We came in to the Planning Board saying we need three parking spaces. but since we've got the room for it. we'll put in five here. You look at the local Ordinance. and the Ordinance requires six by the square footage. There will never be six cars there. There will only be three most of the time. Some of the time. Occasionally there may be a few more. We don't get drive in clients. So. I guess I don't see the concern that the residents fear with the parking area. I am concerned. since we are talking about a significant investment here. I'm concerned about how much I may have to invest in plantings. It sounds like a sizeable investment. and that does concern me. MR. MACEWAN-What do you think a re~sonable investment for plantings would be? MR. SMITH-I don't have a number. I think that my own feeling is that the proposal for three or four Austrian Pines breaks up the view. It does not hide cars. I'm not going to pretend it does hide whatever is in the back yard. cars or a picnic table. or what's there now. which is a laundry. There's a laundry drying yard where the cars are proposed. So the existing use is laundry hanging in the back yard. To me. that's a more objectionable use than two or three cars. I'm simply proposing that there be two or three or four Austrian Pines that would break up the back visually. MRS. PULVER-This paving isn't all done yet? MR. SMITH-There is no paving. MRS. PULVER-There is no paving. What about. we have done this in the past. I'm not sure with all these Board members. but you only need three parking spaces. One would have to be handicap. You'd - 44 - have to have a handicap parking space and two other spaces. We only would require them to pave the six. if you needed more cars. we can waive that for six cars. Why would we have him. again. why do we want to pave from here to kingdom come if it's not necessary. and he doesn't need it. It would help with the neighbors. They wouldn't have to look at a back yard full of blacktop. It would be easier to screen three parking spaces than it would. MR. STARK-Why don't you just require spaces for three parking places. and one handicap. MRS. PULVER-Well. that's it. MR. HARLICKER-Excuse me. professional office. He needs. he's got 880 square feet of MR. BREWER-By the Ordinance. he's got to have six spaces. MR. HARLICKER-He's got to have one space for every 150. MR. MACEWAN-We can't do that. He'd have to go get a variance. MRS. PULVER-We did it for the Northway Plaza. We did not require them to pave all that extra paving for the addition that they're. you know. the Plaza that's empty. They have the additional parking. You know where it's going to be. until it was needed, because there's no point in having all these extra parking spaces. MR. BREWER-I don't think we waived it. I think that we said that they didn't have to pave it. didn't we? You mean. where the other building they're going to build. we asked them to leave it green. or gravel? MRS. PULVER-No. with the parking that's down towards the bank. MR. BREWER-Yes. we asked them to leave it gravel. MRS. PULVER-And also with Blockbuster. not Blockbuster. Empire. They did not. I mean. they have the space. but we didn't make them rip up the lawn. because they said. we really don't need the parking space. MR. BREWER-That mound you're talking about in the back. MRS. PULVER-Yes. He has the space. but he doesn't need parking. He has the space to put them in. but if he doesn't he needs them. why should we make him do it? Why should we him pave. make him do it. and creat:e a bigger area for neighbors to look at. the feel make the MR. BREWER-Well. lets find out if it's sufficient for him first? MR. SMITH-My original suggestion. when I brought in the first plans, had a parking area that if you measure out nine foot spaces. it would fi t five cars. That was my original proposal. The reasoning was. I'd need three. I ought to have some extra room. I went larger because the Ordinance required it. not because I needed it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-So you would be willing to go with three parking spots? MR. SMITH-I have no objections. MR. BREWER-Four. MRS. TARANA-Four. three and a handicap. MR. SMITH-Three and a handicap. - 45 - MRS. TARANA-So. where the clothes lines are. you could leave it green. and basically people going alonÇJ the road are not going to see much of that. I was thinking of leaving it green along their drive. the road. Westwood Drive. put the parking on the other side. MR. SMITH-That is the way to do it. MRS. TARANA-The other thing is. it appears that Westwood could also put more screening themselves. couldn't they? President of Westwood. wouldn't that also be a possibility. that you could also put more screening. if you chose to? MR. WRIGLEY-We have. on that side. we have three flowering crabapples. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I can see those. MR. WRIGLEY-And then we begin the Maples. and the Maples run up. so that I don't think that Evergreens on our property. next to those. I guess the Maples are 25. 30 feet. the crabapples are less. and there's three on either side. and then there's about four Maples on down the road. and two on the other side. I don't think sticking is something we would want to do. MRS. TARANA-How about on the back property line. where it says grass/lawn areas. Where is your line there? MR. WRIGLEY-Well. referred to as a there's a rise. referred to. and our line is right behind the tree. which has been possible Aspen. I don't know what it is. Then which is where the septic system was that I that is gone. but we've left the rise there. MR. SMITH-The circle in back is a tree. The line's some 10 or 15 feet behind that tree. and then the land rises. and that provides good screening on that corner. What ,.¡e' re talking about is the parking lot is almost halfway down the property. The area of the parking is where. you add screening around that parking area is what we're concerned about. The rest of the property would remain the same in the back. MR. BREWER-So we. as a Board. have to decide what we want. and we can waive the parking requirements. Page 18040. Number Six. I don't think we should make him put a screen all the way across here. MRS. TARANA-I don't think he has to put more screening here. MR. BREWER-Yes. just eliminate this. Well. I guess. lets iron out what we want for screening. Craig. what do you want? You want three or four trees around the back side of that. if he only makes? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it's going to be enough. MR. BREWER-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-What's the proposal here? MR. BREWER-In my mind. I think if he puts three or four or five trees back here by the parking, reduces the amount of paved area for the parking. it'll be sufficient. MR. RUEL-Still take the clothes lines out. though? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. still take the clothes lines out. MR. RUEL-What's the width of the driveway? MR. SMITH-The driveway is approximately 10 feet. To this line to - 46 - -' the back end of the house? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. SMITH-That's the existing drive. point. Everything beyond that line drive was left. from the street up to that is not there. The existing MR. RUEL-This states 20 feet wide. MR. BREWER-What does? MR. RUEL-The driveway. MRS. PULVER-Each parking space shall be reached by access driveway at least 20 feet clear in width. Well. it says 20 feet clear. MR. BREWER-Yes. cleared. that's just got to be clear. so that a fire truck can get through there. It doesn't have to be a 20 foot wide driveway. MR. RUEL-Even if it goes over the lawn. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-Does that seem fine to you? MR. RUEL-Yes. fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. Carol? We're talking about moving the parking over to here. put the trees there. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Corinne? George? MR. STARK-Fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion? MR. HARLICKER-You might want to get kind of specific as to how much paving you want him to put in there. because when he comes in for a CO. and we've got to go out and look at this. to make sure the site plan is accurate. MR. BREWER-All right. Thirty-seven wide by twenty. MR. HARLICKER-Something like an area equivalent to four parking spaces. something. MRS. PULVER-Well. I'm thinking three spaces. and make one handicap. What does everybody else think? MR. BREWER-Yes. three plus one. MR. SMITH-One of those three. MR. BREWER-Thirty-one by twenty. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Yes. and then the screening would come over this way. MR. BREWER-Lets make a motion. Okay. The public hearing's closed. we're going to make a motion. and you're going to have to live with it. I guess. Okay. Anybody? - 47 - MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-93 AVALON ASSOCIATES. INC.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. The Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 43-93 to convert an existing single family house to be used as a professional office: and WHEREAS. the above mentioned site plan application undated consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1 site plan. dated 8/24/93: and WHEREAS. the documentation: dated 8/24/93 9/27/93: and above file is supported with 1. Staff notes. dated 9/29/93 3. Beautification Committee the following 2. Short EAF. comments. dated WHEREAS. a public hearing was held on 9/28/93 concerning the above project: and WHEREAS. the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning): and WHEREAS. the Planning Board has factors found in Section 179-39 Queensbury (Zoning). considered the of the Code of environmental the Town of WHEREAS. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered. and THEREFORE. Let It Be Resolved. as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board. aft:er considering the above. hereby move to approve site plan # 43-93 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature within 30 days of the date of this resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on the compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. That there will be four parking spaces. One will be a handicap parking space with the proper signage. 8. That screening will be to the northwest corner of the parking area. and the pavement shall accommodate the four parking space s mentioned. Four tree s. minimum. three foot high. 9. Parking in rear. a little directional or something. just to keep cars off of Glenwood. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Did you want to say something. ma'am? NEIGHBOR-I just wanted to say somethinçr to the cost. We are also homeowners. We bought about 12 trees and bushes. We paid $280 to have it done. So it's not such an overwhelming cost. MR. BREWER-Thank you. - 48 - / SITE PLAN NO. 41-93 TYPE: UNLISTED GEORGE & CATHERINE RYAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-IA LOCATION: FARM TO MARKET ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ONE 24' X 30' BARN. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - 9-7-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 9-8-93 TAX MAP NO. 27-1-28.1 LOT SIZE: 5.06 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 D(3) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 41-93. George Ryan. Meeting Date: September 28. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' x 30' barn. The proposed barn will be 30 feet from the west property line. 20 feet from the front and 204 feet from the rear. 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 regarding its impact on the highways. It was found that there would 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 barn should be compatible with the existing buildings. No new lighting or signage is proposed. Elevation of the proposed barn should also be supplied. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: The pro j ect wi II not impact vehicular trêlff ic. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading: The project will not impact off street parking. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: The project will not impact pedestrian access. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: The project will not impact stormwater drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities: The project will not impact water supply or sewage disposal. 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; The project will not impact vegetation. Some landscaping around the barn would aid in screening it from the road and ad j acent properties. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: The project will not impact emergency access. 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 Planning Board disapproved. "The WCPB cannot locate the structure on the drawing provided. The Board will re-hear the application if/when the Town provides the information." MR. MACEWAN-Why disapprove it? information? didn't they Why didn't just they return it? just return Why did they it for lack of MR. BREWER-Is there someone here to represent the applicant? MRS. TARANA-No one? - 49 - ----,"'- '~, MR. HARLICKER-I don't see him around. MR. BREWER-He's not here. MR. RUEL-I can't figure this thing out anyway. MRS. PULVER-Well. we've had this be1:ore. remember? This is the pigs. MR. MACEWAN-Seems like there was a lot of unresolved issues on that one. MR. BREWER-Okay. There's nobody here to ask any questions. I guess I've got to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BLANCHE SMITH MRS. SMITH-Hi. I'm Blanche Smith. Co-owner of Queensbury Country Club. immediate neighbor of George Ryan. We are concerned that he still is illegal. He's still not complying with the mandate you gave him in July. as far as I know. I'm not a know it all. I'm only a neighbor. He told this group that he would see that he stopped selling Snapple. that he stoppE!d selling gas. and that he removed the pigs. and he was given a notice to remove the pigs. HE was pretty slow about doing it. He did get them off by the 15th of September. The meeting you held here was July 22nd. So they were gone in a little than two months. We just don't know what he's doing. He came here five years ago and got permission to put up one small fruit stand and one small greenhouse. and promised not to upset his neighbors and to screen everything road side. so that it would not be unattractive. and have you been by there this year? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Are you still experiencing the erosion problem? MRS. SMITH-He's planted the back slope of his five acres with some kind of buckwheat. so that we don't know until we get spring runoff whether it's going to be sufficient. SCOTT SMITH MR. SMITH-My name's Scott Smith. and I'm Sissy's son. and I'm also a Co-owner of Queensbury Country Club. The only time the erosion problem is a problem is in the spring t:ime. when we have a spring thaw. MR. MACEWAN-All these rains we've been having lately haven't shown any sign? MR. SMITH-No. We've allowed the veçretation to grow up. that borders his property from our property. We've allowed that to grow up. as a buffer. filter. whatever you want to call it. MR. RUEL-I want to hear about the pigs. MR. BREWER-Well. the pigs are gone. Roger. MR. SMITH-The pigs are gone. The day after the pigs left. he filled up the whole pig pen with manure. Now he's piling junk. on the corner of our property. MR. RUEL-Odors? MR. SMITH-Well. that pile is just about gone now. yes. MRS. SMITH-But I don't see where, I don't know where he's going to put this barn on the plot plan. I can't see where it's going to - 50 - be. MR. HARLICKER-It's to be on the. I guess it would be the southwest corner of the property. 30 feet from your property line. and 75 feet back from the front property line. MR. SMITH-When you guys were just talking. isn't something not submitted. or something like that? MR. HARLICKER-Well. no. the County got the same information that this Board has. I suspect Mr. Ryan wasn't at the meeting up there. and they couldn't figure out. from looking at the map. where it was. MR. MACEWAN-We need a majority plus onE~ now to move this. because the County disapproved it. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-I'd just like to make one statement. Scott. This map is absolutely terrible. the worst I've ever seen in my life. MR. RUEL-It's useless. MR. BREWER-And I don't know how we even accepted it. MRS. TARANA-Yes. My question is, how is this a application. a blank paper with a little box right here. seen the property several times. but it doesn't even tell it is. what it is. nothing. That just is not a application. complete and we've you where complete MR. SMITH-My biggest concern is that he hasn't complied with his first agreement. the setback from the road. and the other things my mother has spoken about. His barn was supposed to be setback. It's supposed to be screened from the road. He also has a temporary greenhouse. I know greenhouses are temporary structures. but he has one. and it can't be more than six feet from the road. MR. BREWER-I think what I'm hearing from everybody on the Board is we're going to end this discussion. I've got to let you speak. if you want to speak. JOHN WALKER MR. WALKER-My name is John Walker. I border Ryan's on the easterly side. I'd like to know what the purpose of this new barn is. MR. BREWER-Johnny. we can't answer you because Mr. Ryan's not here. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's my understanding he's going to use it for storage. That's what he told us. MRS. PULVER-Storage of what? MR. WALKER-Storage of what? MR. HARLICKER-Whatever equipment he has on site. his Bob Cat. trailer. MRS. TARANA-But how do we know it won't be livestock of some sort? MR. WALKER-Right. How do we know it won't be livestock again? MR. HARLICKER-He's mandated that he can't put livestock in there. MR. RUEL-Isn't it an open structure? MR. HARLICKER-No. It's about the size of a two car garage. - 51 - MR. RUEL-And has walls? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Big enough for pigs. MR. WALKER-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-What is the status of the Snapple and the cooler? MR. HARLICKER-It' s my understanding t:hat the propane has been okayed. and that the Snapple is. as far as Jim could determine. is gone. He removed the sign. and it was his understanding that the cooler was out of the facility also. MR. RUEL-It's still there. MR. HARLICKER-The sign is still there. Okay. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. WALKER-Who okayed the gas after it's been there illegally for I don't know how long? MR. HARLICKER-It was told to me that it was approved. I don't know what the process was. I asked before the meeting tonight, and that's what I was told. that he had the proper permits for the selling of the propane. MR. RUEL-He sells propane there? MR. HARLICKER-That's what that big tank is out there. MR. RUEL-That large tank that he fills smaller tanks? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. WALKER-The thing I wonder. too. is has Mr. Ryan ever submitted an actual site plan. an actual artist's conception of what this property may be tomorrow. a year from t:omorrow. three years, five years? Has he ever submitted anything like this? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. WALKER-What are you going to do. have the guy in here every month with a new site plan? Gee. I'm going to build an outhouse tomorrow. MR. HARLICKER-There's no requirement that says we have to make him come up with a five year plan for his property. MR. WALKER-And how much density are you going to allow this? MR. BREWER-John. we asked for a determination from the ZBA. We got it. I brought it with us tonight. I'll have Corinne read it into the minutes right now. about the farming and the commercial use. Remember we discussed that? MR. WALKER-That's all I have. MR. BREWER-No. that's fine. I just wanted to let you know that we did get a determination. and we'll read it. MRS. PULVER-I will share with you. this is his drawing. This is. like I said. we've never seen anything like it. but. MR. RUEL-It's useless. - 52 - MRS. PULVER-You may look at that. and make some comments. MR. BREWER-Okay. Corinne. you want to read that in? MRS. TARANA-Yes. "MOTION THAT WE INTERPRET SECTION 179-63A NUMBER 3 CLASS C AGRICULTURE TO MEAN THAT AN APPLICANT MUST HAVE IN EXCESS OF FIVE ACRES USED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. AND ESPECIALLY FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. AS DISTINGUISHED FROM GRAIN AND OTHER STAPLES. FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF CLASS C AGRICULTURAL USE FARM CLASSIFICATION, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 25th day of August. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo" MR. BREWER-Okay. was there. That's from the minutes of the ZBA meeting. I MRS. PULVER-I will be glad to share this site plan with anyone else who would like to look at it. MR. WALKER-Is that five open acres. or is this four acres that are closed up with other buildings being housed? MR. BREWER-Got to have five acres of land. plus. to be classified as a Class C Farm. is what I read this. FRANCIS MARTINDALE MR. MARTINDALE-Five tillable acres. MR. BREWER-It doesn't say tillable. An applicant must have in excess of five acres used for the production of agricultural products. That means. to me. he's got to have more than five acres to farm on. MR. MARTINDALE-According to that, then. he would have to have five tillable acres. MR. MACEWAN-Right. that's produceable acreage. MR. BREWER-Now. therefore. that means that he is not a Class C Farm. So that means he cannot have the pigs there. He's got a permit for the commercial purposes on his property. He can do that. He's allowed to do that. but what I assumed that he wanted was he wanted to be classified as a farm and he wanted to have his commercial business. That's what prompted this whole thing. We asked. what could he do. He either has to be one or the other. and that was the outcome of it. I think. CAROLYN MARTINDALE MRS. MARTINDALE-How did he get a permit for a single family residential? MR. BREWER-That was back in '88. I have no idea. MRS. MARTINDALE-How did he get a commercial permit? He never got a variance. MR. BREWER-I don't know. I don't know the whole history of it. and I can't tell you in detail. You just have to ask Jim Martin or somebody in that office. According to the Staff. he has permits - 53 - for the stuff he's doing there now. Everything else was supposed to be removed. That's all I can tell you. I don't enforce anything. I just. that's all I can tell you. I wish I could tell you more. but I just can't. MRS. PULVER-And Mr. Ryan did not notify us or the staff that he would not be here tonight? MR. HARLICKER-No. he didn't. MR. RUEL-Did you notify him? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He's aware of the meeting. MR. BREWER-Does anybody else want to speak before I close the public hearing? MRS. PULVER-So. what are we going to dc), deny? MR. BREWER-Whatever anybody else wants to do. deny. I'd just as soon JOHN BOWMAN MR. BOWMAN-My name is John Bowman. I live right across the street from Ryan's business. This building is 24 by 30. Is it two story? Do you know the height of it? MR. BREWER-It doesn't say. MR. RUEL-It doesn't say. MRS. TARANA-We don't know anything about it. MR. MACEWAN-As I recall. it originally did have a loft in it. I think from ground to peak was about 18. 19 feet. MR. BOWMAN-And what's the distance between the west side of the building to the property line? MR. BREWER-Thirty feet. MR. HARLICKER-Thirty feet. MR. BOWMAN-Thirty feet. building. or? Is he going to have water in that MR. RUEL-We can't tell. MR. MACEWAN-We have no idea. MR. BREWER-All we have. John. is just a square drawn on a piece of paper with the dimensions. 30 feet from the west boundary. 204 feet from the back boundary. 75 feet from the road. The building is 30 by 24. and that's all we have. MR. BOWMAN-Because the Country Club has a well. that would be within that 30 feet. not within. at the 30 feet. The line's there. and the well's right there. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. BOWMAN-And this business of cleaning up his property. It is cleaned up a little better. Any time he has a dead tree, a row of plastic is just thrown right out there. That's the first thing you see. and this other. we were wondering if he had a permit. He's been hammering a way and running his machines half the night. pounding nails. I mean. he's putting up a structure. MR. BREWER-He's putting up a building right now? - 54 - '~ MR. BOWMAN-Yes. it's in process. MR. MACEWAN-Does he have a building permit? MR. BOWMAN-Hey. you guys have got the records. MR. MACEWAN-We don't have building permit records. MR. BREWER-Well. we can ask Dave Hatin to go out there tomorrow. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BOWMAN-The other thing that bothers me. every time somebody comes in here for something, they've been here. years past. they must have a file. but nobody seems to look at their files. That's all I've got. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. PULVER-I'll introduce a motion. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 41-93 GEORGE & CATHERINE RYAN. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: Because of insufficient information at this time. before this Board. construction of a 24 by 30 foot barn. The location is Farm To Market Road. Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. MACEWAN-Do we need to just have Dave Hatin check into that tomorrow. MRS. PULVER-Send out the posse tomorrow. PETITION FOR ZONE RICHARD MACDONALD MEADOWBROOK RDS. PROPOSED ZONING: TO REZONE A 5.63 CHANGE - P7-93 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN OWNER: PROPERTY INVOLVED: NEAR CORNER OF CRONIN & TAX MAP NO. 60-2-7.1 CURRENT ZONING: SFR-IA SFR-IA WARREN CO. PLANNING - 9-8-93 PROPOSAL IS ACRE PARCEL FROM SFR-IA TO MR-5. MIKE O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Petition for Change of Zone 7-93. Richard Schermerhorn. Meeting Date: September 28. 1993 II A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to rezone as. 63 acre parcel from SFR-IA to MR-5. The property is located near the corner of Cronin Road and Meadowbrook Road with frontage on both streets. The applicant would like to construct apartments on the property. The rezoning would allow for the construction of 49 apartments. B. EXISTING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS The property is currently vacant and is surrounded by property zoned for one acre residential. The property is bounded on the west by a single family house and Halfway Brook: to the north by single family houses and the Girl Scout camp. The parcel is adjacent to four single family residences. Across Meadowbrook from the parcel are single family homes; across Cronin Road is vacant land. The Regency Apartments are located on the southeast corner of Cronin and Meadowbrook which is in the vicinity of the parcel. Co ZONE - 55 - CHANGE ANALYSIS 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant states that the need being met by this rezoning is the ability to build some apartments. This need could be met in other areas of the town that allows apartments without rezoning this particular parcel. An implied need is the fact that the applicant will get a higher return on the property if it is rezoned for multi family than he would as presently zoned. The need for rental housing could be met without rezoning this particular property: there are other parcels in the town that can be developed as multi family without requiring any rezoning. 2. What proposed zones. if any. can meet the stated need? The stated need can be met in UR-10. WR-1A. MR-5 and all SR and UR-1A zones. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone is not entirely compatible with the adjacent SFR-1A zone. The SFR-1A zones are established residential neighborhoods where the character is strictly single family detached homes on standardized lots. The purpose of the MR- 5 zone. on the other hand. is to provide for an increasing demand for high densi ty residential housing and professional office buildings. These two purposes. even though they both provide for residential uses. are not altogether compatible. The proposed MR-5 zone is a little more compatible wit the SR-IA zone. which the adjacent golf course is zoned. The Suburban residential zone allows for multi family dwellings at less density than allowed in the MR-5 zone. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The site is mostly flat with about 665 feet of frontage on Halfway Brook. There is some flagged wetlands along Halfway Brook and the property is in the 100 year floodplain and part of the site is within the floodway of Halfway Brook. The property is low and level and these two characteristics make the property prone to flooding. The depth to water table (0-18") will be a hinderance to large scale development of the property. 5. How will the proposed zoninq affect public facilities? The property is serviced by municipal sewer and water. The rezoning of the property should not be an undo burden on those facilities. 6. Why is the current classification not appropriate for the property in question? The applicant states that the reason the existing zone is inappropriate is that it would only allow five homes. Additional information in support of this answer is required. The property is in the middle of about nine single family homes. Staff believes that rezoning this property to MR-5 would not be in character with the existing single family homes adjacent to the property and would allow density that is inappropriate considering its proximity to Halfway Brook. the DEC flagged wetland and inclusion in the floodplain. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed chanqe? The Halfway Brook and the associated wetland. the inclusion in the 100 year floodplain and the floodway for Halfway Brook and the fact that the property's low elevation and flat topography make it highly susceptible to flooding are environmental factors that will impact development of the property and will be affected by the re zoning. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The proposed rezoning is in conflict with several sections of the Comprehensive Plan. According to Section II B. of the Comprehensive Plan. flooding is a concern along Halfway Brook north of Glens Falls. this area includes this property. The goals. policies and strategies of the water resources section calls for the preservation of the wetlands and limiting development in flood prone areas. The proposed rezoning would not be compatible with this section of the plan. The goals. policies and strategies of the Terrestrial and Aquatic section calls for the protection and enhance of wetlands. The rezoning of this property may not be compatible with this section. 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 multi family residential. The land use plan. goals. policies and strategies along with the zoning code. were developed in consideration of the wider interests of the community. I f an action is in conflict with those stated goals. policies. strategies and purposes. it is likely that the action is not serving the wider - 56 - --- interests of the community. The negative impacts on the adjoining residential zone and Halfway Brook and the environmental concerns that relate to development along wetlands and in areas that are highly susceptible to flooding 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 without rezoning this residentially zoned property to multi family residential. D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The proposal for a zone change for this specific piece of property from SFR-IA to MR-5 requires careful consideration. The zone change will allow for a much more intense use of the lot. and thi s new use wi II be in direct conflict with many of the existing neighboring properties and some of the physical characteristics of the property. The property is within the municipal sewer district and the municipal water district so those are not I imi ting factors. The ma j or factors in this rezoning are its impact on the neighboring residential properties. Halfway Brook. and the land along the brook. At 5.000 square feet per dwelling unit. which the MR-5 zone requires. 49 apartments could conceivably be built on this property. This density is not suitable considering the adjacent single family homes. Halfway Brook. and certain environmental constraints. A more appropriate rezoning would be Suburban Re sidential (SR-20 or SR-15). These zone sallow mul ti fami I y projects at a less dense level than the MR-5 zone. At 15.000 square feet per dwelling unit. which SR-20 and SR-15 require. about 16 apartments could be built. The Planning Board along with it's recommendation. should consent to the Town Board being Lead Agent for the purposes of SEQRA. Taking into account the above factors as well as the state goals. policies and strategies for preserving wetlands. limiting development in flood prone areas and retaining neighborhood integrity. as outlined in the land use plan. it does not appear that this rezoning as proposed is in accordance with the planning objectives of the town." MR. HARLICKER-I'd like to add another consideration that the Board might look at is the possibility of some sort of restrictions on the MR-5 zone. conditioning the rezoning that they only put so many units on the property. That's also an option. not one that staff favors. but it's an option that should be considered. I guess. MR. BREWER-What would be the purpose of zoning it to MR-5 if we put restrictions? MR. HARLICKER-We ll. if you zone it to SR-15 or SR- 20 . it would allow about 16 units. At the other extreme. I guess. would be the 49 apartment buildings that allow full blown development in the MR- 5 zone. There might be some sort of area in between that the Board might like to consider. MR. BREWER-Okay. We've also got correspondence from Warren County. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman. I don't believe that this is a Warren County project. I don't think staff agrees with me. I'm not sure why. We had no notice of it being referred to Warren County. There's nothing within 500 feet of any portion of this project that may have triggered any Warren County referral. MR. BREWER-Why did it even go to them. then? MR. HARLICKER-I can't answer that. Like you said. it's not on any County roads. I'll check into that. and find out. MR. BREWER-All right. Well. then I won't mention it, then. We got a letter from the Girl Scouts. Corinne. do you want to read that? MRS. TARANA-Yes. "Dear Friends; The council's board of directors has asked me to write you regarding the effect on us of the development in our area with specific respect to that proposed by Richard Schermerhorn at the corner of Cronin and Meadowbrook. We are concerned about intrusion of any kind onto our camp property - 57 - '. '-..-/ which is used year 'round by our girls. The camp could become a recreational area for those living nearby. Liability and vandalism are concerns. but our major problems could well be the safety of the girls and the integrity of our program. Should those problems materialize. we could be forced out of the camp. We have spent a great deal of our cookie sale proceeds on improving and maintaining this multi-purpose site and have' enjoyed this neighborhood for nearly fifty years. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Sincerely. Sharron Simmonds President" MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record. I'm Mike O'Connor from the firm of Little & O'Connor. and I'm representing the project sponsor. and with me is Richard Schermerhorn. who is the project sponsor. and Matt Steves. from VanDusen and Steves. who's been hired as the surveyor consultant for this pro j ect. We are here with a site that we know has some constraints on it. on the site. We also recognize that some of the neighbors have some concerns. and we're going to try to accommodate those concerns the best we can. We're not here trying to railroad something down anybody's throat. or past any Board or whatever. I would like to go through the staff comments a little bit. Unfortunately. and I said this to Scott. staff comments weren't available until some time this afternoon. When we got them. we were a little bit surprised by them. We haven't had a chance to go back and forth a little bit. which I think was a little bit of input. we may have a little bit different attitude. and a little bit different feeling towards what we have proposed. We've tried to show you the site. I can show you a map over here. and the constraints that we're talking about may not even be shown on the map that was submitted. but this is the site. Meadowbrook is here. and everybody in the neighborhood knows what it is. This is Cronin Road. This is Meadowbrook. Bay Meadows Golf Course. There's Halfway Brook that comes through the westerly boundary of the site. and what we've done on here is shown on our map the edge of the wetland that's flagged by DEC. We have superimposed on this copy of the map. and I think the map that was just submitted to you. what we understand would be the 75 foot setback for buildings that's supposed by the Town Wetland or Stream Corridor regulations. So basically what we're talking about building on is this portion of the site right here. and a little portion of the site over here. okay. We played with buildings and with parking and everything else. and to actually abide by all the setbacks that we see here. we don't think that when we get the site plan review. we will be able to justify more than 30 to 36 units. and this is what I said to Scott when I read his initial comments. that we were looking for approval for a blanket zoning change that would give us permission to have 49 units. That's not the case. We asked for MR-5. because that would be the only classification that would get us up to that area that we think that we could actually build on the site without being intrusive and without violating the impact on the stream corridor and the floodplain. anything of that nature. What I would suggest. and what I'm going to ask you to do. is that if you do get to a point where you're going to approve this. or recommend approval. because this is a recommendation to the Town Board. that you recommend a density. not to exceed X. as supported in site plan by engineering and proper documentation. This is basically a zoning classification change. at this particular point. You are within your bounds to condition it along the lines that I'm talking about. and let me begin. if you will. the first paragraph I tried to answer. we're not looking for 49 parking spaces. We would like to have a density of 30 to 36 in an MR-5 zone. We differ a little with the characterization of the present land use. Scott makes reference in there to nine single family homes on conforming lots. MR. HARLICKER-I didn't say conforming lots. MR. O'CONNOR-Standardized lots. - 58 - MR. HARLICKER-Okay. I'm just saying. that's what SFR zone. that's what the purpose is. I made no reference to any lot sizes or anything. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. when you say standardized lots. I take it to mean conforming lots. That's not the particular case. We have, if you look. we have consents by these four owners right here. that have four of the residences that I believe Scott was referring to. saying that they have no objections to the proposed change. In fact. they are going to join the petition for the Town. and ask that they're property be changed as well as our particular property be changed. MR. MACEWAN-Have they given you a letter or something to that. that states that effect? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is a letter, the first one I would submit it by MacDonald. which is on the corner. MR. HARLICKER-He also owns the property that's to be rezoned. right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. He owns the parcel that we're purchasing. but he also has his own residence there. and will have his own residence there after we build the project. The next one is by June West. which is on that property. The next one is by Jenny Sellick. which I understand is her maiden name. It was Kruger. but the name now she signs by is Sellick. and the next one is lands of Colangelo. MR. MACEWAN-Is the applicant considering purchasing those other three remaining lots. those home owner's lots? MR. O'CONNOR-No. They have single family existing homes on them. They are approved. and there's no intention to buy those particular sites. In our discussion with those sites. and maybe of interest to some of the neighbors. there is a 50 foot strip here between the lands of Colangelo and Kruger. and we've indicated to them that we would not have to build on that or improve it. It's the same for the lands that lie behind Kruger. We do not intend to try to build a building there. So actually the site that we have begins at the south end of West. and comes down to MacDonald's property. and let me come back a minute. if you will. Scott referred to nine single family homes. I think you were referring to the one that's on the lands of Gallagher, which is on the west side of the property. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-On the west side of the pond. west side of the wetland. some distance away from where we're talking about. You have a letter from the Girl Scouts. and they have a building to the north of the site. okay. If you take the actual distance. what we're proposing for the building will be some 300 feet south of our property line. and south of their property line. So we are not going to be immediately upon them or effect them. In fact. the apartment building that Mr. Schermerhorn has built across the street are closer than what we propose on this particular site. He has permits to build. I believe. 18 units across the street. He has eight units occupied. He has eight units under construction. and he has a duplex that he will build an addition to that. which will give him the total 18 units. When you talk about neighborhood. there's a real mix of neighborhood. There are. and I don't mean to minimize. There are four single family homes across the street from us. two of which we will not be fronting on. as far as our development goes. There are two here. and then there is a garage. The last structure on the south side that we have here is shown. I believe is a garage. It's not a residence. It's not? It is a house. We have five houses over here? Okay. You have four houses and one garage. I'm mixed up as to which is which. The last structure on the south is a garage. What we had talked about was trying to accommodate that at site plan review. - 59 - which again is before this Board. if we get to that process. the entranceway to this project in a manner that would make the project least obtrusive to those that are across the street from it. with planning. going to the Planning Board. or the Beautification Committee. whatever recommendation that this Board makes. to have our site blend in with the neighborhood. if you would. I've got a couple of pictures of the existing unit that's built across the street. if you take a look at it. As I understand it. all the plantings are not in there. because it was built. or is being built in a phased in way. that the final paving and drywells won't be put in until the second building is built. the last building is built. and at that time. then there's additional plantings that go out into the street. You will see. next to the buildings. that there are some plantings that are near the buildings presently. MR. MACEWAN-Just out of curiosity. is that prior to getting a CO on the last building? RICHARD SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-On the last building. it would be. but Scott and Jim Martin have been out there. They're fully aware of what's going on. I did tell them before the last building. the last CO is issued. the whole project will be paved. and the only part that's not landscaped. that's on the plan. is just out by the road, and we can't do that until the whole parking lot's done because there's only one entrance. and right now we've got separate entrances coming in. but then going with Jim and Scott. as per plan. as we've been speaking. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We've been out there to check it out. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-So. basically. as I said. if you get into development of this site. and if you take a look. I think. at the plan that's right in front of Mr. Brewer. it's going to be in this area here that we actually are going to be placing the buildings. We may be able to place a building. at site plan. over here. but if we do. we would have to come off of Cronin Road for access. because. in addition to the 75 foot building setback from the stream. there's a 50 foot setback for paving. and if you scale it out. you come right across the corner of MacDonald's property. There wouldn't be room to put a connecting road from this portion of the site over to this site. So this would probably have to be accessed out on to Cronin Road. I started to talk about the mix of the neighborhood. This is our site up here. in the corner. and this is the tax map that we've done. This is the Golf Course property. which you have recently approved. even tonight I think you approved 90 units on 27 acres. or something like that. based upon cluster design. allowing them credit to the part that's used by the Golf Course. The actual dwelling units and the lots that they convey cannot be. probably. as large as what we build. to our particular units. when we built our buildings over there. If you come down from that. you've got your MR-5 zone. and that is the Passarelli property. Guido Passarelli's property. If you go beyond that. you've got the PUD from Hiland. As I understand it. that is multi family that was planned in there for senior citizen type housing. Your MR- 5 is here. I think that's mainly the College. well. I think it's MR-5 all the way up to the Blind Rock Road. If you go across the street from our site. this isn't exactly. this is kitty corner. This is. as everybody is aware of. Regency Park Apartments. and you've got probably 300 apartments in there or better. I'm not exactly sure what the count is. approximately 300 apartments in this complex right here. We're talking about building on this site right here. We're talking about trying to establish what is the given character of the neighborhood. If you come down this way a little bit. you've got the on-site storage lockers on Meadowbrook Road. You've got the excavation site for Ed and Tom O'Connor. I'm not sure. He used to have a riding stable for that. but it's just vacant on the - 60 - corner there now. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The site's right here. Park. Cronin Road. and Meadowbrook Road. This would be Regency MR. O'CONNOR-So I differ a little bit with Staff's comments. as to what is the given characteristic of the neighborhood. and particular we have written consents from four out of the nine single family residences that are there. saying that they have no obj ections to the proposed change. One thing unique about the site. and I think it actually lends to having a multi family type development. is that it is maybe a tough site to develop into single family homes. If you go back to the site plan. I believe that this is a corridor road. or collector road. whatever they want to call it. and your actual site frontage on there. you have to have twice the width for the zone. and SFR-IA. it's 150. So if you're going to build this site into single family homes. you would have. you wouldn't have room for two lots with adequate sitage. or frontage on that highway. because you need 300 feet per lot to meet the particular zone requirements. MR. RUEL-So how many homes are you saying you could put there. under the present zoning? MR. O'CONNOR-Right now, without a variance? One. MR. RUEL-How many? MR. O'CONNOR-Without a variance. one. You'd have to get a variance from the. when you went through it for subdivision approval. you would have one lot that complies. Okay. Let me step that back. We could do one on this road. and then we could do one on this road. I don't know if you would accept this 50 feet as being part of a lot over here. if we did it by ownership. and then a horseshoe lot. and it had 30Ø feet. You might. conceivably. do three. MR. RUEL-And with a variance you could get more? MR. O'CONNOR-With a variance. you apply for whatever you apply for. but you would probably talk maybe five lots. with variances. MR. RUEL-Five maximum? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-Single family? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-Versus, what. 30? MR. O'CONNOR-Thirty to thirty-six apartments. that you would have with single family homes is recognize the fact that you are. I didn't mean don't you finish the question. The other problem that you've got to to interrupt. Why MR. MACEWAN-The question I had was. you said you figured a maximum of 30 to 36 units. apartment units on that. and he originally. in his notes. said up to 49 units. MR. HARLICKER-That was based on the total acreage of the site. in that 5.000 square feet per unit. because of the wetlands. with the wetlands and everything. unless they stacked them up three stories high. They couldn't do it. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for you. Mike. I'm curious as to why are those other three homeowners applying for a rezoning? Do you have any idea? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn. I know why. Two of the - 61 - -- homeowners now. I believe it's lands of West right here. she's just concerned because her driveway. I believe. is on the property that I'm going to purchase. and lands of Kruger. I guess she is going to move. apparently. but she'd like that option to maybe put a garage on it some day. but with the current zoning now. she doesn't have enough room. I offe red to give her. to do something with thi s center parcel. to protect the people. So. there's something in it for all three of these people I believe. and this house on the corner as well. because I have no intentions of doing anything with this 50 foot strip. Basically most of the people are mowing this now as lawn. and that's it. MR. MACEWAN-It would seem to me that both the West and Kruger would be able to go to the ZBA and get a variance for what they wanted to do without having to get it rezoned. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I'm not sure they have the proper amount of land to do what they want. MR. MACEWAN-What would rezoning accomplish. by moving the driveway? MR. 0' CONNOR-I don't think it does anything. except that they understand that we've got to come by site plan review. and we've indicated to them that we will. in our site plan review. build in a buffer that would protect their back side. if you will. and not have any buildings immediately behind them. MR. MACEWAN-But why did they need to be part of the rezoning application? MR. O'CONNOR-We wanted to show their consent to the application. that they didn't have any reservations. MR. MACEWAN-These letters also said they planned on being included as part of it. So they are looking to get their properties rezoned as well. MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. I think. I'm very reluctant to put in a sawtoothed type parcel for rezoning. If I can include everybody and have a neat line. instead of having. what would they remain? Would they remain SFR-l in those two little lots there? It wouldn't make a lot of sense. basically. is what I'm saying. So if we include them. if you take a look at a couple of things. okay. to have multi family. even in what we're talking about. you've got to have 10.000 square foot minimum lots. I don't think there's any great potential use that they're going to have of that. other than what they already have. MR. MACEWAN-The only thing I can see. Mike. is that if they want to be included in part of the rezoning here. that the only avenue that they're pursuing is looking to sell the property. That's the way I see it. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no information to even indicate that. because they have not indicated that to us. MR. MACEWAN-I can't see them wanting to rezone for any other reason other than that. MR. O'CONNOR-It gives them an option. They have a preexisting. MR. MACEWAN-An option to what? MR. O'CONNOR-Well. it gives them an extra option. maybe. for use of the property that they presently don't have. They would become nonconforming single family lots in a multi family residential zone. They would have the possibility. if they could comply with the dimensional requirements. maybe they'll try and do something on the site. I also don't think it's critical to them that they be included. - 62 - MR. MACEWAN-All four of those letters said that they wanted to be included in the rezoning application. MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. That's something that the Town Board has to decide. but I don't think that they have any objection to our pro j ect. whether they are or they aren't inc I uded. and maybe I should have them come and speak, so that you don't have an issue as to what their intentions are. if that's a possibility. MR. RUEL-Yes. We should ask them. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I don't want to speak for somebody else. I haven't spoken with them. I didn't get the signatures on the letters. There are tight soils on these sites. okay. and there is a high water table. We disagree with what Scott has indicated. Scott thought that high water indication was 18 inches. If you take a look at what it was on this site here. it would tend to lead us to believe that it's higher there. but it is such that we would submit that you are going to build on here with a slab. You're not going to have a cellar. You're not going to be able to put a cellar in. because of the water conditions. We don't think you can sell single family homes on slabs. That's a real restriction on sale. That's another reason that maybe this site lends itself more to multi family. which is rental property. than on a slab type operation. We are fortunate in that we do have sewer. In fact. this is one of the few sites. another comment that Scott made. he thought that there were a lot of other sites available in the Town where a developer could find lots with sewer to develop. MR. HARLICKER-No. I said there was other properties that are zoned MR-5. I made no reference to whether they had sewer or water going to them. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well. I would distinguish from that. because you say the stated need can be met in UR-10. WR-IA. MR-5 on the basis that. from what. Mr. Schermerhorn has looked for. and I had somebody else looking for apartment property. too. There isn't a lot of property that's available where you have sewer and gas and water. This happens to be one of the few areas. and mainly because you've got the force main. well. you've got the force main down to. up this point. I guess. it's a force main down to Hiland. and then it goes from gravity down past there. If you look at the Master Plan. and you look at a lot of the precepts of the Zoning Ordinance and whatnot. they are talking about dense development where we have sewer and water and utilities. So. again. that's another reason that maybe this area would be better classified multi family residential. I'm not trying to take issue with your comments. but I think. you've got to have other considerations than simply just the zoning classification. You can go over on the west side of Bay Road. and you can find a whole big track of land that's UR-5. Most of it's wet. Most of it's not available if you don't have sewer. You're going to have septic problems from Day One when you start over there. It just is not developable. like this potential site is. MR. RUEL-I have a question. How many curb cuts do you propose? MR. O'CONNOR-I would think. at maximum. two. MR. RUEL-Two. On Meadowbrook? MR. O'CONNOR-No. one on Meadowbrook and one on Cronin Road. MR. RUEL-Yes. Are you planning any traffic impact study? MR. O'CONNOR-We don't think we would be required. If you take the typical denominator. 1.2 trips per hour. at peak time. per residence. and if we've got our 36. you're talking not much more than 45 or 50. or something of that nature. and as I understand it. there's some rules of the traffic study engineers. and we talked to - 63 - somebody. that if you're talking less than. how many trips? MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-Less than about lØ0 to 150 an hour is basically what they consider a minimum effect. MR. O'CONNOR-Anything that you apply will come out as a minimal type impact. I think what the Golf Course did. when they did their 90 units. and I'm referring to the traffic study that Hiland Park did. and there apparently was a lot of room left in the Level of Service for those intersections. the same intersections that we're going to impact on that study. MR. BREWER-Does that include the Passarelli development and this proposed development. the Bay Meadows development. all of those combined? That's something that you have to consider. also. MR. 0' CONNOR-Then you're getting back into your corridor issue. and I think Scott. you're talking about a corridor issue. as opposed to a developer study. There is a corridor that was done recently by the County on Quaker Road. I don't it extended up Meadowbrook at all. study study study think MR. BREWER-No. This Board asked for a study to be undertaken. when Passarelli first came. in for the Bay Road corridor. Meadowbrook. and Cronin. and so far we've heard nothing from the Town Board. MR. O'CONNOR-That's something that's going to come. I think. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well. it's going to have to be done. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's something that's going to come. but if you're talking about 30 apartments. you're really not talking a significant impact by this project. Cumulative. I can't stand here and say. MR. BREWER-No. I understand that. here for, to look at. Cumulative. that's what we're MR. 0' CONNOR-Yes. I can go through the comments. I just have a difference of opinion as to a lot of them. If you actually. in my opinion. get into a multi family area. we can abide by the setbacks. We are willing to try to work with you. okay. We think that we can do a better job with the stream management. with the multi family zone than we can as a single family homes. We are a contract vendee of the property. Our contract is subject to us purchasing it. with satisfactory zoning. I'm not coming in here arguing to you the hardship or something of that nature. We just think it's a good use of the site. It's got sewer. It's got gas. It's a neighborhood that's already had apartments well introduced into it. We're not introducing something new to it. If you have some conditions. when you get to the site plan. as to how we are going to introduce ourselves into the neighborhood. certainly we would listen to those. If you wanted to. we can jump ahead a little bit now and talk about. we would be amenable to seeing. you could say. yes. we would stipulate to that. as far as recommendations to the Town Board. As far as impact goes, and I don't know what other people within the sewer district. and I'm not sure. we can be serviced by the sewer. I don't know if we are in the sewer district right now. Are your apartments in the sewer district? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The ones that are now. yes. MR. O'CONNOR-There's a difference. some impact on a positive basis to the district as a whole. When you have single family homes, you're charged $367 a year. We. on this site. would be charged $367 for the main hook uP. plus $122 dollars per unit. plus addi tional operating and maintenance. It's going to be some - 64 - benefit to the sewer district or to those who are part of the sewer district. That's basically it. We'd be glad to try and answer specific questions. It looked like. when Scott made his recommendation. Scott was saying. maybe residential apartments of some nature. and he had a question of density. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. just the number. MR. O'CONNOR-Our suggestion would be to allow us to have MR-5 zoning. but put a maximum on it. that you are comfortable with. as far as your recommendation. and then even when we come back for site plan review. we would have to prove that we could qualify for that. I didn't see any real big difference in the setbacks between multi family residential zones. or suburban residential. or urban residential. The Urban Residential I had a problem with. because they call each apartment a principal dwelling. and that's 10.000 square feet per principal dwelling. That's the only one that seems to say principal building. as opposed to dwelling unit. MR. HARLICKER-What sort of configuration are you looking at. say. 30 to 36 buildings. like four 8-plexes? What sort of? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well. you have the pictures now. right? MR. MACEWAN-Right here. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It would be the same design that I just did right across the street, made it look more like big colonial homes, I guess. rather than apartment. or motel style. I guess. and the one common entrance into each building. I'd like to say it's going to look like the same thing. so I keep everything looking the same. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. MACEWAN-I guess the only question I have that's in my mind. if you were to develop this site, it would require a lot of fill? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. That's the other reason that the site is better for me. is right now the elevation is 304 and the site that I developed down the road. I believe. started at 302 and it was quite costly. and everybody probably saw it. This site \<'lOn't require as much fill. and I will be above the floodplain. MR. MACEWAN-It won't require as much fill. but it will require fill. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Right now we are at the floodplain elevation at 304. as you can see on the map. I will build the buildings up by 12 inches above that or 18 inches. whatever's required. and the only fill would be that goes inside the slab itself. just builds it up off the ground so it's not sitting on the ground. MR. BREWER-Okay. It's not a public hearing. but I think it's only fair that we should let them speak. Some brief comments. JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-First of all. my name is Jim Piper. I live at 143 Meadowbrook. not right across from the development. I would be the guy on the end. I live just south of the apartments. the pictures you've been viewing. First of all. I'd I ike to ask a question. The question being. what are the dates on the request for the variance changes that Mr. Schermerhorn submitted? He just sent around some papers that June West signed and Mrs. Sellick. requesting that they be included in this. MRS. PULVER-July 23rd. and July 14th. MR. PIPER-I have a letter here dated today. from Jenny Sellick. and I'd like my wife to read it. because I think it ought to show on - 65 - '- the record. because I think that she was explained something that she had no idea what was going to happen. MR. BREWER-And who is this from? MR. PIPER-Jenny Sellick. Her property is right here. MRS. PULVER-Okay. SHARON PIPER MRS. PIPER-This is dated September 28th, 1993. "Attention: Queensbury Town Planning Board This written statement entrusted to my neighbors the Pipers is to cover my grievance in rezoning the land adjoining my property. in my absence. Early this summer I had both talked over with and signed papers with Mr. Schermerhorn regarding his building project and understood that any complex would be built facing Cronin Rd. and would be one unit similar to the t\'10 units al ready constructed on Meadowbrook Rd. Now I understand that further plans are included for much denser housing in the entire tract of land. In this case. I have to object to any 2 story units adjoining my property with multiple rental capacities as my house and June West's (my neighbor) are single family ranch homes and this will seriously effect the value and sales potential of my home. However. I do not object to a single story duplex type unit by my property. Sincerely. Jenny Sellick" MR. MACEWAN-Have you spoken with her? MRS. PIPER-Today. MR. MACEWAN-Has she given you any indication that she wanted to be included as part of the rezoning? MRS. PIPER-Absolutely none. What she indicated to us was that. in fact. she came over the other evening when we were gathering our ne ighborhood thoughts. and she said. you know. I talked to Mr. Schermerhorn at some point this summer. and she said. I really wasn't sure exactly what I was signing. and we said. well, you didn't sign anything did you? And she said. yes. I did, he told me that there would be one building. and it would be on Cronin Road. They wouldn't do anything behind my house. and she said. I had no objections to that. She said. but now if you people. meaning us. were telling her that the proposal was for multiple units. and much closer to her home. she didn't want any part of that. could not attend the meeting tonight. She called me th~s evening and asked me if I would bring this letter. and this is the original. You may have it. MR. PIPER-I also have a copy of a protest petition. You will also see June West's name is on this. These are all dated September 17th. September 19th. The dates are all on here. Apparently, these people were all given misinformation before. I don't know by who. It was my understanding that there was also going to have to be a presentation to the Town Board, and I understand the presentation that Mr. 0' Connor made. that there is MR- 5 zoning north of us. with Guido Passarelli. My major concern is. we're a residential neighborhood. well. we're trying to be. The property north of us was zoned. Apartment complexes were built. The area there. I think to put more apartments in there. when they're not required. Regency Park is at, what. 50 to 60 percent occupancy. They run specials daily. The hardship. on this property. they say that this is a hardship case. this piece of property. you can't sell it. The major problem with this piece of property is that it's in Glens Falls School District. There's been several people that have been interested in buying this property. but as soon as they find out it's Glens Falls School District. they want no part of the property. That's the major problem. I can sympathize with Dick and Cel MacDonald. They have been great neighbors for years. I'd love to be able to see them develop that property. I'm just - 66 - opposed to apartments going in there. I've got apartments to the north of me. and I must say that Richie Schermerhorn builds a nice place. It looks real nice. but just the fact of living next to an apartment. It lowers the value of your property. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. JANE POTTER MRS. POTTER-My name is Jane Potter. and I'm the first house directly across the street from this. Originally, when I talked to Mr. and Mrs. MacDonald. they told me they never wanted to sell this property. and they planned on donating it to their children. Since the sewers went in. they are being swamped. It's like $360 per acre. that they are being charged. and they are retired people. and they cannot afford it. That's why they're selling this property. and I can understand why Mr. MacDonald has signed this letter. I spoke to the Manager of Regency Park just this afternoon. She had no idea about this meeting. and neither did any of us. If I hadn't picked up the itinerary. we wouldn't know it. There was no public notice. no nothing. This would have been rezoned without us. MR. BREWER-No. we're not in a position to rezone this tonight. We're just the recommendation. MRS. POTTER-If there was anything going on that we would have been able to speak to. Anyway. when I spoke to the Manager at Regency. she told me there were 296 apartments there. and she would not tell me the number of vacancies. She says we have a lot. She also had called Mr. Schermerhorn. acting as a potential renter. and he ran down Regency Park Apartments. said that they were 20 years outdated. they had old apartments and so on. He did take some residents from her building over to his. The problem we're having now is. the children that are in his apartment building are all going back to Regency. because there is no provision for recreation. There's no pool. There's no playground. There's nothing. So they're all walking back over to Regency. and as of this summer. she putting a stop to it. There will be no children allowed. That's going to happen if you build more apartments here. They're going to be right back over to Regency. When I moved into Meadowbrook Road. almost five years ago. I moved there because of the setting. because it's almost rural. but you're right next to everything. and I'm sure that everyone else did at that time. As far as building. I have no ob j ections to single fami I y homes. Instead of changing the zoning on the entire parcels, why not change the frontage requirements. and put in four or five homes. Why is money always Number One? Why does every builder have to believe he has to make a lot of money? Why can't he go in there. buy the property. and build five nice homes? MR-5 is allover the area. The whole end of Meadowbrook. from Passarelli to Hiland. they can build there. They could build in all these other places that they pointed out. That can be apartments. because the people aren't already there. If they want to live next to apartments. let them go move next to them. but we don't want to be next to apartments. and I don't care how much trees are left. the people are still there. The kids are still there. If there are children at this apartment complex. they would go to Jackson Heights School. In order to get to Jackson Heights. they have to walk the entire length of Meadowbrook Road. which means they have to cross a four way intersection at Cronin and Meadowbrook. They'd have to cross at Quaker Road. and plus Meadowbrook and Ridge Road itself. Now, they don't want to do a traffic impact study. but I would request it. Since they paved the road from Cronin to Haviland. it has become a drag strip. Mr. Piper can attest to this. He's a police officer. When they hit the corner. they slow down. From that corner. they fly. They see a bumper. and they just go. He does his best to stop them. but it's not possible to be there every day. So as far as the traffic impact study. I think it's required if you decide that you want to zone this property. simply because I don't care if there's 30 apartments and two cars per apartment. it's the - 67 - fact that we are across town. You have to get all the way from downtown. all the way to Exit 20 by cutting right straight through Meadowbrook. hitting Haviland. and going across. Basically, we are objecting to multi family. not to development. We would like to see the frontage changed from 300. whatever it is. change is to 100 or 150. Make it a nice building lot. Also. I spoke to DEC. and this is wetland. and the 5etback is not 75 feet from that Brook. it's 100 feet. so that already takes another 25 feet off all of the land area. I understand this was also refused by Warren County Planning Board. So maybe that's why it's not been read into the minutes. but if somebody has already refused it. maybe there's a problem. I think it's time to stop zoning in the Town of Queensbury. We went through all the rezoning allover the area, and some of us are having to live with the new ones. I lost a piece of property on Sherman Avenue because of the zoning changes. It became unbuildable. and I had to sell it to my neighbor at a loss, a big loss. and I'm living with it. but I can't live with this again. I mean. change something. but not spot zoning. Change the frontage. and make these nice homes in there. and they would be nice homes. They would be on slabs. and I don't agree with the fact that slabs are not saleable houses. Sellick's and West's. I think. are built on slabs. and they're either second or third owner. in both cases. So homes on slabs do sell. As far as not needing much fill. if we have to put up with the trucks that Mr. Schermerhorn had going to those other apartment houses again, I think we'll all go crazy. They run day and night. The roads are a mess. We just got repaved. and it would destroy the roads again, the weight of those trucks. but you would have to put in some fill to build. even on slabs. and I would challenge anyone here to walk on that property tomorrow. You cannot do it. It's marsh. It's swamp. It's not conducive to building in this amount. I mean. you fill one small area and put in one small house. that's one thing. To bring in the amount of fill it's going to take to build these amount of parking. it's going to disperse the water table. like I mentioned before with the Bay Meadows project. The more fill they bring in. the higher our water table. and this past spring. again. Halfway Brook became Halfway lake. It just overran the road. The road washed out. right at the Brook. You had to have been down there. I'm not going to go on and on. There are a lot of reasons. but it's not. that's all I can say specifically. but I do want, before anything else goes on with this project. we want to be notified. I don't care if it's a phone call to one of us. If you don't want to spend the postage. fine. We want to know what's going on there. MR. BREWER-Thank you. TED TURNER MR. TURNER-My name is Ted Turner. I live the second house from the corner of Cronin Road and Meadowbrook. and I would be directly effected by this project. which is directly across the road from me. You just got done with the final stage of Mr. Allen's proposal for 27 acres and 91 lots. 90 townhouses. when this proposal came up initially. I asked if the Town Board was going to rezone this side of Meadowbrook. or Halfway Brook. and they said no. Now we have a proposal in front of us for the very thing that I didn't want. This is certainly going to effect me economically. I have lived there since 1957. The Pipers lived there five or six years before that. We're all neighbors who have been there for a long time. This is a single family residential zone. Where do we stop? Do we keep intensifying the use of the land? This land is not conducive for that kind of use. Now Mr. Kruge r, who was Mrs. Se llick' s former husband came for a variance for a duplex on the house that she owns now. That was denied. The very owner of the property who owns it now. Mr. MacDonald was against that. because his intention was to put single family homes on that lot. and again. his reason for the rezoning now. the tremendous cost of the sewer district that's imposed on that property. nothing else. This is a high water table. and this spring. when we had heavy rains. the Halfway - 68 - Brook floods. behind the Girl Scout office. and right up to the road. It floods behind Mr. Steel's house. We had to fill his property, in the front yard. to keep that away from his house. MR. BREWER-Where's Steel's property. Ted? MR. TURNER-Across the bridge. going north. MR. BREWER-Over here? MR. TURNER-Yes. I've seen the water, before they did the bridge over. I've seen the water from Halfway Brook go across the west side to the east side. in a stream 50 feet wide. This is clearly spot zoning. for the benefit of the proposed owner. rather than pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan for the general welfare of the community. This is strictly a business deal by Mr. Schermerhorn. personally. period. He can buy the land cheap. and it's a good deal for him. He's going to come out a winner. We don't need that development there. There's no community need there. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL BOARD MEMBER-I'm a member of the Board of Directors for the Adirondack Girl Scout Council. As a member of the Board of Directors. I'd like to voice my concern with regard to the rezoning request proposed for the property at Cronin and Meadowbrook Road. I had made a concern to the safety of our girls that utilize that camping facility on Meadowbrook Road. The current trend for rezoning variances in this area may force the closing of this facility. We have invested heavily in this camp over the years. in the hope of providing quality programs for the girls in this community. I am also concerned that the lack of playgrounds and other activities in the immediate area could find our multi purpose facility being used as a recreational area for neighborhood children. The traffic through the property could cause damage. which we cannot afford to repair. Vandalism could cause us to close the facility. due to a lack of funds to make needed repairs. An area which draws children. too. such as an all day campsite. could become a major liability problem. We are an organization who receives its major money through donations and fund raising activities. Over 100.00Ø girls use these facilities yearly. The change in the rezoning and the building of these properties could change all of our activities and programs that we offer our girls and our adult volunteers. It has become increasingly difficult. over the years. to provide programs of interest to our members. This job has become easier due to the adaptability of our facili ties on Meadowbrook Road. and the loss of use of these facilities would be a deep loss to the Council. MR. BREWER-Thank you. CINDY HESS MRS. HESS-I'm Cindy Hess. Executive Director of the Adirondack Girl Scout Council. and I really don't have much to add to what has already been said. other than property is our home. too. just as it is my neighbors. and we want to protect it and we want to protect the children who are our responsibility. I don't think there's anything more important to anybody than their children. and we are not exactly the same position that other homeowners would be. in that. if it's your own home, you may just decide that you're going to live with what you've got. and put up with it. but we can't do that when we have other people's children that we're responsible for. Any questions? Okay. MR. BREWER-Anyone else? MRS. POTTER-Jane Potter. again. When you do SEQRA evaluation. do - 69 - - you visit the site? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. POTTER-You do? Okay. I would say. if you didn't. if you were just told about it. I'd like to request that you actually walk it. MR. BREWER-Hopefully. every Board member goes to every site that is on our agenda. MRS. POTTER-I wasn't sure. because. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. and in addition to that. the Town Board will be doing the SEQRA on this. not the Planning Board. MRS. POTTER-The Town Board will be doing the SEQRA? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. POTTER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-But still. we always visit the sites. MRS. POTTER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I was up there before this rezoning. MRS. POTTER-I'm sure. but if you just park on the road. it's not easy to see what's in there. I mean. there's a huge pond. MR. BREWER-You should ask the Town Board to go in there. before their meeting. MRS. POTTER-Okay. All I want to know is when that meeting is. MR. HARLICKER-There will be public notices sent out for the Town Board meeting. MR. TURNER-Ted Turner again. In reference to Mrs. West's letter to Mr. Schermerhorn's application. she stated to me. and I indicated to her what was going to happen. and she said to me. well. he said he would put a buffer along my driveway to keep that view restricted from the apartments. When I told her how many were going there. no. I totally disagree. and her name on this petition. he lies. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-We have a problem with what we've presented. to the extent that I will. before I even conclude my remarks. ask for a tabling of the application. I didn't speak directly with Mrs. West or Mrs. Sellick. and I want to do that. I'm not sure. necessarily. whether. in fact. I'd like to persuade them. if I could. to get them to come to the Board meeting. so that somebody else isn't telling them. maybe. that there's 49 units going in there. when. in fact. we're talking probably 30 to 36 units actually. So we aren't talking about building behind them. and somebody might be saying that we're building right behind them. I think their input's important. Apparently. there's some change of opinion from the time they signed something for us. which we thought. in good faith. they were signing to acknowledge what we were doing. and what they signed very recently. So I would like to. I will follow that request with them. A couple of comments I'd make is. basically. as I understand all of the Halfway Brook flooding that has been talked about. regard to the site. is not on our site itself. I just want to bring that to the Board's attention. The site has been flagged by DEC, and my experience with DEC is anything that appears to be a wetland is well flagged by them. They're very conservative when they make that type flagging. The site that we've shown actually shows. the map that we've given you. actually shows the flagging by - 70 - " -- -.... DEC. The other question. Mr. Turner talks about a variance being denied. maybe it was some type of precedent. The variance is on a different basis than what we are here for tonight. We're not here on the basis of hardship. Somebody referred to the fact that this is a business transaction for Mr. Schermerhorn. We admit that it is. We think that we can make this project into an attractive use of property that will be beneficial to the Town. and benefit the sponsor himself. We're not here looking for some type of relief on the basis of hardship. We're here simply on the basis of planning. As to the question of whether Regency Park is full or not full. I don't really think that's germane. We have got a waiting list of the existing from the existing building that we built. That's why we've gone into construction on the second building. As to whether or not we have recreation facilities available for children. Mr. Schermerhorn tells me he paid the Town of Queensbury the princely sum of $9.000 on the last building. or last site. So I don't know what the Town of Queensbury. but they are collecting dearly sums. Maybe they ought to get out and do something on a neighborhood basis. when they collect those sums. if there's a potential problem. As to our impact upon the lands of the Adirondack Council of Girl Scouts. I don't think we're any different than any other neighborhood. what we're proposing is residential use there. We are some distance from them. if somebody tried to come along and tried to squeeze a bunch of single family lots out of that. Basically. though. I understand the record has a direct conflict as to the express opinion of Mrs. Sellick and Mrs. West. and I do not want to leave the record in that state. with the application that we're presenting. and I would respectfully ask the Board to table this for your next meeting. which would be your October meeting. We will try and persuade those people to come. because we have a different understanding of their recollection. MR. BREWER-What happens if they won't come? MR. O'CONNOR-Then we will report to you. okay. I will probably get Mr. Piper or Mr. Turner to maybe go visit them with me. so we don't just come back in here with. I said. he said. whatever. that everybody says at one time. As I started to say. we would like to come in and try and do something that is maybe not totally pleasing. but somewhat pleasing to everybody involved. and try and make this a project that works. I don't think we can quantify the fill amount. I don't know if there's anything else. specifically. that was raised. but we could actually give more information to the Board. at this point. MR. STEVES-My name is Matt Steves. with VanDusen and Steves. As far as the concern is of the flooding in the area. if there's no question there was some flooding down at the bridge. where Halfway Brook crosses Meadowbrook. I have a letter here dated April 7. 1993. from VanDusen and Steves to Allen Koechlein. to ask him to flag the wetlands. to verify that DEC did flag the wetland. I, myself. performed the field work on a Saturday. and it was about the second or third week in April. right after a heavy rain storm. right after they located the wetlands. and so that the concerns of where the actual boundaries of the wetlands are. they are depicted correctly. There was considerable flooding to the north of us. but this particular parcel. as you get closer to the Brook. and around that pond area. some low lying areas. but up closer to Meadowbrook Road. it is a fairly good soil. and also. I think Mrs. Potter brought up a point of 100 foot setback. You're absolutely correct. with septic systems. but there is only a 75 foot building setback as far as DEC. MR. BREWER-Okay. How does the Board. what do we want to do? Do you want to table it? MR. MACEWAN-I don't see any need to table it. I have enough information to make an informed decision tonight. For me. I don't need to see it tabled. I don't think there's anything those other three people can add or take away from the scenario. - 71 - '-- '- MR. RUEL-Why can't we vote on it? MR. BREWER-Well. that's what. I'm just trying to get an idea of what we want to do. I'm asking everybody. MRS. PULVER-I have enough information, but I would let the applicant bring back whoever they would want to bring back, just to give them a fair hearing. MR. RUEL-I don't need any more information. MR. BREWER-Do you fee I that we should let him bring the people back. and get it settled? MR. MACEWAN-What's there to settle? MR. BREWER-Well. if there's opposition or if there not opposition. That's in my mind. MRS. TARANA-I just want to say something. I don't know these people. the Wests and the Krugers. these people who are involved, but it seems to me like we're putting pressure on those people to send an attorney over and say. we need you to come to this meeting. I mean. maybe they don't want to come to the meeting. I have a problem with putting those people in that situation. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'm just asking. MR. O'CONNOR-I have a problem with the fact that we thought that they had one set mind. and then we come in and find out something different. and didn't have any knowledge of that at all. I think it's of benefit that we put as much together as we can. and maybe we can even get together with the neighbors and a little bit between now and then. As I said. this is not something that is cast in concrete. when I began the presentation. It's something we would like to be able to go in with a favorable recommendation to the Town Board with something that everybody has some liking of. everybody's not going to be completely happy. but we aren't going to be happy if we don't get the 36 units. They aren't going to be happy if we build anything more than five units. Maybe there's something in there that sometimes. when you have a rezoning thing. that affects people. you can agree upon conditions that make it not as offensive as it otherwise would be. That's the only opportunity I'm looking for. I don't see the harm to this Board or the Town or to the neighbors by actually having that. MRS. POTTER-Are any of the three of you going to live there? Are any of you going to benefit. other than monetarily? You're going to walk away. We have to live there. and we don't want them. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Have I made it a bad environment already with the? MRS. POTTER-They're ugly. They're huge and you've taken every tree and stripped the beautiful woods like what's across the street and you put up these. they're ugly. property with from me right and all now. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well. I apologize. The people that have gone by. they've all been saying they've liked the project. MRS. POTTER-They don't live next door. MR. BREWER-All right. what do you want to do? do you want to do? That's enough from everybody else. George. Do you want to vote on it. come back. what MR. STARK-There's a lot of reasons not to do it. Having Mrs. Kruger. okay. Mrs. Sellick. and Mrs. West here isn't going to help anything. - 72 - ..... ....... MR. BREWER-So that means? MRS. PULVER-You want to vote on it. or you want to table it? MR. STARK-Yes. I would vote on it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-I want to vote on it. MR. BREWER-I guess we're going to vote. problem waiting. Well. I don't have a MR. RUEL-Why put the voting off? I don't understand it. MR. BREWER-I'm not trying to put anything off. I don't have a problem waiting. and I don't have a problem voting. I think I kind of agree with Corinne that we're putting pressure on the people. and I don't think that's fair to do. If they wanted to be here. they would have been here. I suppose. MR. STARK-Maybe. you know. the vote isn't going to hinge on what Mrs. Sellick and Mrs. West say. but to be fair to the applicant. maybe they can work something out. I don't know. MRS. PULVER-Well. earlier tonight. Board. this is only advisory. We went through that This is only an advisory opinion to the Town MRS. TARANA-They could come to the Town Board meeting. I mean. you could straighten that out with them at that point. MR. O'CONNOR-You have a whole gamut here. We've asked for. or are willing to stipulate 30 to 36 units. Scott has recommended that we go to something that would allow 16 units. but I'm not sure if the neighbors have given a definitive area as to what they would feel comfortable with. MR. BREWER-Well. I don't mean to cut you off. Mike. but I think the consensus is that we're going to vote. MR. O'CONNOR-That's your prerogative. MRS. TARANA-I' II tell you one of the problems I have. I have a problem. other than the neighbors and the traffic and anything else. and that is because this is a recommendation only, and what I heard tonight from the Town Attorney is. they can tell us. 36 max. We can say. great. we're going to go with an MR-5, 36 max apartments. and then they have every right to go to the Town Board and say. we got MR-5. and they don't have to stick with the 36. They can go with the 49. and Paul told us. that's okay. We're only a recommending board. MR. O'CONNOR-You're mixing apples with oranges. when talking about a PUD recommendation. and a recommendation on zoning. MRS. TARANA-Well. why isn't this the same thing? recommend an MR-5 zoning. that allows the 49. Because if we MR. O'CONNOR-No. You can recommend conditions on those. MRS. TARANA-But you don't have to take it to the Town Board that way. Isn't that what they told us? MRS. PULVER-The Town Board can take it as a condition. but the Town Board does not have to enforce it. MRS. TARANA-That's right. That's absolutely right. So it's still going to go to the Town Board anyway. - 73 - --,~_._-_._._--_._------_.._---_. ------~._-~ - -- ".- '-. .....J MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets do what we're going to do. MRS. PULVER-Well. I would like to have everyone's opinion of what they'd like for zoning. before we even get into a motion. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I'll start. I would only possibly. myself. personally. would be in favor of SFR-20. which would be half acre zoning. which would mean the lots would be 100 feet wide. as many as you could cram on there. which would probably be five or six. possibly Suburban Residential. However. I would want stipulations on it. I usually look at a rezoning to fill a social need. and I don't see any need being filled here with rezoning this particular property. I'm not looking to rezone this to make money for any developer. and I do realize that this particular property has some problems. as far as development and everything goes. but I think the area. the location of it. I just can't see 39 dwellings on it. I would much prefer to see it kept as it is. single family residential. and that's. SFR-20 is what I. MR. RUEL-I have some comments. too. MR. O'CONNOR-If you did Suburban Residential. SR-20 or SR-15. that is something that could be used. The only reason Mr. Schermerhorn is here is to build multi family. okay. MRS. PULVER-I realize that. and I said. I would consider rezoning this. not. I mean. I don't care who's sitting there. Mr. Schermerhorn. Jim Brown. or whatever. MR. O'CONNOR-Multi family is not permitted under SFR. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. PULVER-I realize that. I looked in the book. MR. BREWER-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-Comments? Yes. I am not in favor of rezoning for the following reasons. and I made some notes. The MR-5 zone is not compatible with the area. The property is surrounded, 350 degrees. by residential zones. The rezoning is not an advantage for Queensbury. There are many other MR-5 zones available in the Town. It will add to adverse traffic conditions. and it does not meet the intent of the Town Master Plan. and therefore I would vote against it. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not in favor of giving an alternate zone when we make a recommendation. I'm either in favor of approving or denying on the face value of the zone that they're requesting. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-So. how do you feel. are you in favor. or denial? MR. MACEWAN-Denial. MR. STARK-Well. it's already zoned SR. single family. right? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. STARK-And he would have to get a variance for smaller lots. if anybody wanted to build there. or MacDonald wanted to sell it. MRS. TARANA-Or change to another zone. they could petition for another zone. MRS. PULVER-That's what I said. SFR-20 is half acre zoning. That would be lØ0 foot frontage. There would be four in one front. and - 74 - I _/ two on the other. MRS. TARANA-I will vote either yes or no on the project. and I wouldn't recommend another zoning. MR. BREWER-I would recommend another zone. and maybe utilizing clustering. but I don't think a multi family is appropriate for the zone. So. with that. would somebody care to make a motion. or a recommendation? MOTION TO DENY PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P7-93 SCHERMERHORN. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: RICHARD for its Duly adopted this 28th day of September. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. HARLICKER-Before everybody leaves, we've got to set up a date for the second Planning Board meeting for next month. The 28th, you guys want? MR. STARK-That's what Carol said the last time. MRS. PULVER-The 28th. We've done it. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-What happened with Stimpson and Eggleston? they off again tonight? Why are MR. BREWER-Mike Muller called and said that Phil Hart's out of Town until the end of the month. and wanted to know if we could wait. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 75 -