Loading...
1993-11-23 " QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23. 1993 INDEX SEQRA Review Variance for Joyce Folsom 1. SEQRA Review Variance and Site Plan Review 2. for Rita & Robert Whiteman SEQRA Review Variance for Thomas R. Bolen 3. Site Plan No. 56-93 Quaker Village Development Corp. 4. Subdivision No. 24-1993 Garfield Raymond/Ronald Newell 8. SKETCH PLAN Petition for Zone Change Robert & Carolyn Martindale 14. No. 8-93 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 NOVEMBER 23RD. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER CRAIG MACEWAN EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-Do we have prepared resolutions for these, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, for Folsom. Whiteman, and the new one, Bolen. RESOLUTIONS: SEQRA REVIEW: RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF VARIANCE FOR JOYCE FOLSOM. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to introduce that? RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Area Variance No. 100- 1993, Joyce Folsom RESOLUTION NO.: 27 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: George Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS. Joyce Folsom has submitted an application for a variance in connection with a project known as or described as construction of a residential dwelling on a vacant undersized parcel, and WHEREAS. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and - 1 - BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for the purposes of SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Jovce Folsom for a variance; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired: 3) a lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review: and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall mail a letter of explanation. together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor. or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 23rd day of November, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint SEQRA REVIEW: RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF VARIANCE FOR RITA & ROBERT WHITEMAN. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to offer that? MR. HARLICKER-You might want to note that this is also, on the agenda it says it's just for a variance. The resolution also includes, they'll be in for site plan review also. MR. BREWER-Whiteman? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Anybody? RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Area Variance No. 101- 1993 and Site Plan Review for Rita and Robert Whiteman INTRODUCED BY: Georqe Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS. Rita and Robert Whiteman have submitted an application for a variance and site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as proposed addition of a qaraqe. lifting and squarinq off existinq cottaqe over qaraqe to fit cars, and - 2 - WHEREAS. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Rita and Robert Whiteman for a variance and site plan review: 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired: 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days: and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review: and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED. that when notifying other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution. the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 23rd day of November, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Next, Thomas Bolen. MR. HARLICKER-It's a resolution of intent of the Planning Board to be Lead Agents in the review of a variance for Thomas Bolen. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Area Variance No. 98- 1993 for Thomas Bolen RESOLUTION NO: 29 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Corinne Tarana WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, Thomas R. Bolen has submitted an application for a variance in connection with a project known as or described as ª- proposal to build second principal building on a preexisting nonconforming lot and expand the existing footprint to the rear by 17 feet. and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to - 3 - commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE BE IT. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Thomas Bolen for a variance: 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired: 3) a lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days: and 4. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for the purposes of SEQRA review: and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that when notifying the other involved agencies. the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution. the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate. the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 23rd day of November. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 56-93 TYPE QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: LARRY DICKINSON ZONE: HC-IA LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY & QUAKER PROPOSAL IS FOR A CHANGE OF USE OF A 1.300 SQ. FT. AREA OFFICE SPACE TO A FELLOWSHIP MEETING SPACE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 11- 10-93 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-16 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-23 BOB SEARS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 56-93, Quaker Village Development Corp., Meeting Date: November 23, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to utilize 1,300 square feet of an existing building as a fellowship meeting place. The building is located in Quaker Village at the intersection of Bay and Quaker Roads. The applicant is not proposing any structural changes for modifications to the site. It is a change of use. 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 - 4 - 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 project was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. There was found to 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; No impact. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: No impact. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading: No impact. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: No impact. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities: No impact. 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; No impact. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: No impact. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. No impact. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott, you don't have it listed as any, whether it's an Unlisted, or Type II. MR. HARLICKER-It's an Unlisted action. MR. BREWER-So there is a SEQRA? MR. HARLICKER-A Short Form SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is the applicant here? Maybe you could just put a sketch up so the public can see it. and maybe you could fill us in on what you're going to do. MR. SEARS-My name's Bob Sears. I'm the realtor involved with the proposal. What we are doing is Building Number Five at Quaker Vi llage, and we're proposing to use 1.300 square feet for the Fellowship. The building is approximately, if I remember right. 5600 square feet of building. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is this going to be a weekly gathering? MR. SEARS-Yes. It's going to be Wednesday nights, and also Sunday mornings. There was a notation on the proposal that. when it's being used typically no one else is in the Quaker Village. as far as the offices. MR. BREWER-There's no problem with parking or anything like that? MR. SEARS-No. It's got upwards of 30 spaces allotted for their particular uses. MR. BREWER-And how many members do you have? MR. SEARS-Twenty-seven members. MR. BREWER-Okay. So if everybody drove, you still wouldn't have a problem. MR. SEARS-We wouldn't have a problem. - 5 - MR. RUEL-You said the membership is 27. What's the maximum number that the space could occupy? MR. SEARS-I think it's around 55. MR. RUEL-And then would the parking be adequate, if you were successful? MR. SEARS-Well. I think with the Ordinances in Queensbury. you're allowed, for every 200 feet of space. you're allowed. you have one parking space. MR. RUEL-Is that next door to Temploy? MR. SEARS-Temploy is right around the corner. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Just one quick thing. They wouldn't have any, they wouldn't hold sales of any sort there during the day? MR. SEARS-With the lease. the way it's drawn up, they're allowed to use it as a Fellowship meeting place. There was nothing specified in the lease as to sales. My assumption is they would not. MRS. TARANA-Any day time activity is what I'm thinking of, that might interfere with the other tenants that are in that. MR. SEARS-The parking area is very adequate. There is office space, that's all office space, and some minor commercial space in there. There is allowed parking for everybody concerned. The only reason why we're here tonight is because it doesn't fall under the Ordinance in the speci fied area. If we had 50 people here for office space use five days a week. every week, we wouldn't be here. So I guess, to address your question. there's plenty of parking for everybody. MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott, I don't see on this plan parking for handicapped. Is it required? MR. HARLICKER-It should have been. MR. STARK-They've got so much parking over there, a total excess of parking. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, but still if it's supposed to be marked and supplied. MR. STARK-It was there before the Ordinance. All the parking was there before the Ordinance. MR. BREWER-This use isn't, George. MR. HARLICKER-The use isn't, though. MR. BREWER-Would it be a problem to put one handicapped parking place in, dedicate one space to handicapped parking? MR. SEARS-We'd be glad to. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-We'll note that before your CO is issued. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. resolution. Make that one of the conditions of the MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone - 6 - here to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Do you want to do the SEQRA, Short Form. MRS. TARANA-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 56-93. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before the Planning Board QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORP.. and 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 23rd day of November, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-93 CORP., Introduced by Roger Ruel who seconded by George Stark: QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT moved for its adoption, To allow for a change of use of an office space to a fellowship meeting space, with the condition that a handicapped parking area - 7 - be designated. Duly adopted this 23rd day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 24-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE GARFIELD RAYMOND/RONALD NEWELL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SFR -lA. MR - 5. UR -lA LOCATION: BETWEEN COUNTRY CLUB RD. AND BAY RD. OPPOSITE SWEET ROAD SUBDIVISION OF FOUR (4) LOTS TOTALING +30.81 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS OF 14.9 ACRES. 14.91 ACRES AND 1 ACRE. CROSS REFERENCE: Pl-93 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-16. 17. 41.1 & 44 LOT SIZE: +30.81 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS GARFIELD RAYMOND AND RONALD NEWELL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 24-1993. Garfield Raymond/Ronald Newell. Meeting Date: November 23, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to take four lots totaling 30.81 acres and subdivide them into three lots of 15.72 acres. 14.09 acres. and 1 acre. The property has a large DEC flagged wetland on it. Lot 1 will be 15.72 acres: 14.09 will be zoned UR-1A and 1.64 acres fronting on Country Club Road will be zoned SFR-IA. Lot 2 is 14.09 acres and is zoned UR-IA and MR-5. The MR-5 zone includes the land within 1,000 feet of Bay Road but excludes the land located within the flagged wetland area. The UR-IA zone includes all the land within the wetlands and that more than 1.000 feet away from Bay Road. Lot three is one acre and zoned MR-5. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The following modifications to the plan should be made prior to preliminary submittal: 1. The zoning districts have to be shown on the plat. 2. The 1.64 acre parcel on Country Club Road has to be combined with lot one otherwise lot one will be landlocked. 3. Because lot three fronts on Bay Road double the lot width is required. The lot width has to be 160 feet. The interior of lot one could be difficult to develop because it is isolated by the wetlands and access to it will require wetland permits from the DEC and the town. Furthermore. because this subdivision involves a wetland and a subdivision is considered a regulated activity and any regulated acti vi ty wi thin 100 feet of a wetland requires a wetland permit. when the applicant applies for preliminary approval he should also apply for a wetland permit." MR. BREWER-Okay. We have a letter from Jim Martin to Tom Flaherty, reference Raymond/Newell Subdivision, "The above application was submitted and will have no effect on the water district and as such will require no further action of this office at this time. Tom Flaherty. " MR. NEWELL-Do you want me to put a map up? MR. BREWER-Would you, please. MR. NEWELL-Here's lot one, lot two. and lot three, which is the smallest of the lots on Bay Road. My name's Ron Newell. I'm the co-owner of the property in question, and as I stated. Lot One is the 14.08. Lot Two is the 14.09. and Lot Three is the one acre lot which is fronting Bay Road. As stated. this is the MR-5. There's a wetland designated by DEC. This is the UR-IA, UR-IA. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. If you're going to subdivide this. how can Lot Two, or I guess this 1,ØØ0 feet back from the road? MR. NEWELL-Right. - 8 - ----------- -- -- --- - -~----- '- MR. BREWER-How can one lot have two zones? MR. HARLICKER-It happens all the time. situation, but it happens quite frequently. It's not the best MR. NEWELL-The problem was, you had the wetlands. and when the property was re-zoned a while back, this was all MR-5. MR. BREWER-I remember. MR. NEWELL-When it was re-zoned, they slipped us into UR-1A. Then we were before you a couple of times with this. MR. BREWER-Wasn't it UR-1A and then they re-zoned it to MR-5? MR. NEWELL-That's right. but the condition was that they would re- zone it, but only the front part of it. MR. BREWER-The front 1,000 feet? MR. NEWELL-That's correct. and that's why it is as it is, and getting to this point was no easy task, I might add. I think it was a compromise by all concerned. recognition that the wetlands were there. and had limited use. and what Mr. Raymond and I are just trying to do now is for him to have, I guess we could call it equal. division of the property, and I can have an equal division. Right now we own it together. We could either separate it by way of partition. which is not going to serve anybody's purpose, or we can agree on how to divide it. So basically Garfield's going to have three, one. and I'm going to have two, and that's basically what this subdivision's all about, not that we have anything planned, not that we have anything sold. It's just, he and I are dividing the property between us. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Would you care to comment on some of the modifications to the plans? MR. BREWER-Who owns this lot over here on Country Club Road? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That's going to have to be incorporated into Lot one, otherwise Lot One's going to be landlocked. MR. RUEL-You're talking about just this? MR. BREWER-No. I'm talking about this whole piece here. MR. RUEL-Yes. He said it's got to be incorporated in here. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. line wasn't there. map, and when they there. On the original plat that was submitted, that We requested that the wetlands be shown on the came back with the revised map. that line was MR. NEWELL-The reason that that is there is to designate that that is a separate parcel coming into the main property. This was obtained from Wheeler, three, two, and one came in from Wheeler. This was a separate deed in from LaRose, and that's why the line is there, to designate the separate sources of title. MR. STARK-Mr. Raymond owns that land already, though. MR. RUEL-But Lot One is landlocked, unless you pick up that small lot on the end. MR. RAYMOND-I own that. MR. BREWER-Wait just one second. If he owns that lot, even if it is a separate lot, how is anybody going to get to Lot One? - 9 - ""'-------- MR. NEWELL-Raymond owns this small acre, 1.64. and Raymond will own Lot One. So Raymond will own them both. MR. HARLICKER-Well, lets suppose Raymond sells the 1.64 acre parcel to another party. how do you get to Lot One? MR. NEWELL-Well. I would have to suggest that that wouldn't be the smartest thing in the world for Raymond to do. MR. HARLICKER-Well. I don't think the Planning Board, from the Staff's point of view, cannot recommend the creation of a landlocked parcel, even if both lots are bwned by the same owner. MR. NEWELL-Well, that's your area. How do you feel about that? MR. RAYMOND-I'm Garfield Raymond, the co-owner of the property. and I have no problem with making that a condition. because we're just going to be merging those two pieces anyway. The point is. is that the original application only dealt with the Wheeler property. It did not deal with that other piece that came in from LaRose. It never has been. They continually make it a part of it, and it has never been a part of any of the applications or any of the re- zonings that were here before. If you want to make that a condition, as part of it, that's fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. Put that all aside. Even if you put that all aside. Say your cousin owns that lot, how is anybody going to get to Lot One? MR. RAYMOND-Through the Country Club Road lot. That is going to be a part, they're merging. MR. STARK-He's going to combine the lot he owns with Lot One. MR. BREWER-Then why don't they combine them. MR. RAYMOND-I just said we would do that. MR. HARLICKER-On the Preliminary plat it will be shown as one fifteen plus acre lot. MR. RAYMOND-It will be shown as just one piece. as I'm indicating to you, was never part of the original application. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RAYMOND-So if they want to make it as a condition, that's fine. because that's how we're going to do it anyway. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. STARK-Mr. Newell. you said you were going to get Lot Number Two. According to Coulter & McCormack's licensed survey, it says you're going to get Lot Number Three. MR. NEWELL-No, Two. I get Two, Raymond gets One and Three. MR. STARK-Then this is wrong. MR. NEWELL-That's correct. He drove a much harder bargain than I did. MR. STARK-I see. Okay. MR. NEWELL-I get Two. MR. STARK-Fine. So you're getting Lot Two? - 10 - ------------------- F-~-- --- MR. RUEL-On your Lot Three, one of the conditions is you'll have to add eleven feet frontage on Bay Road? MR. NEWELL-I went through this before, with the Town Attorney, and I think you'll find that there is no requirement that I have that addi tional footage. When we were before the Town Board before, this, there's a section in the Town Law, I know what you're referring to, that calls for so much footage on the Bay Road. I believe you can make this subject to an interpretation from the Town Attorney who I've gone over this with. and this one acre lot is consistent with Town Law. MR. HARLICKER-The Zoning Code says residentially zoned property, which this is Multi Family Residential, but it's still a residential lot. need double the lot width on roads such as major arterial and collector roads. That's Section 179-60. I think. So that's what I was referencing. MR. NEWELL-I know the section you're talking about. but I can tell you this, you can make whatever you do tonight conditioned upon it being consistent with the Town Law. MR. BREWER-Well. this is not going to be an approval of any kind. MR. NEWELL-I understand that, but I just want to clarify that point. We've gone over to the Nth degree with your Town Attorney, and I can assure that we're in compliance. MR. RUEL-You will comply? MR. NEWELL-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Where is that, Scott, 179 what? MR. HARLICKER-I think it's 60. abutting collector or arterial 17989. No, that's not it. 179-30, Lots roads, and then it's C, on Page MR. BREWER-Okay. Then we can ask for determination from the ZBA. or Zoning Administrator. MR. HARLICKER-I guess the Zoning Administrator. MR. BREWER-179-30C. Okay. That comment's taken care of. MR. NEWELL-Perhaps at the same time, if you're going to make a formal inquiry to the Zoning Administrator. I would like to write directly to the Town Attorney, so that we're doing it at the same time, so that any interpretation of that particular section would be in synch. MR. BREWER-It's not up to the Attorney, though. Zoning Administrator. It's up to the MR. HARLICKER-It's up to the Zoning Administrator. MR. BREWER-It's not up to the Attorney. MR. NEWELL-But if it's in compliance with the Town Law. MR. BREWER-Well, if Jim has a problem with it. I'm sure he will contact Paul, and you're free to write a letter to Paul. Okay. You will note the zoning districts on the plat? MR. NEWELL-Yes. MR. BREWER-I'm just going down through the comments, and you're going to do Number Two. You're going to combine those two lots. Three we've taken care of. - 11 - ......."c MR. RUEL-There's not too much dry land on Lot One, is there? The wetlands extends almost three quarters of it. MR. BREWER-Yes. Okay. Would you care to address the last paragraph of Scott's comments? MR. NEWELL-I don't have what you're referring to. MR. HARLICKER-The comment was that the interior of Lot One would be difficult to get to because it's surrounded by wetlands, and you'd need DEC Wetlands Permit and a Town Wetlands Permit to access it. It's just a comment and an observation. MR. NEWELL-That's true. MR. BREWER-You have no plans at all for this land? MR. NEWELL-Not at all. We've had no offers, no inquires. We've not been able to market the property in its current state. Rather than just sit on it the way it is, Garfield's going to go his way, and I'm going to go mine, and what he's able to do. he's able to do. and what I'm able to do, hopefully I'll be able to do. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NEWELL-But there's not been a lot moving on Bay Road. for a variety of reasons, at least in our area. MR. BREWER-Does anybody else have any questions? MRS. TARANA-I just want to make it clear, when you apply for the Preliminary approval, that's when you'll apply for the wetlands permits? MR. NEWELL-I don't think that we're required, at this point. to apply for a wetlands permit. MRS. TARANA-Am I reading that incorrectly there, Scott. or do we wait until something is planned? MR. NEWELL-I think you have to wait until we're actually starting to do something. To just apply for a wetlands permit at this juncture. when we're merely dividing the pro~erty, without putting it to any particular use, is premature. MR. HARLICKER-Well, it just says a regulated activity, and it's defined as any portion of a subdivision of land that involves any land in any freshwater wetland or adjacent area, which this does, and any regulated acti vi ty according to the Town Zoning Code requires a wetlands permit. Granted. this was written back in 1970 something, so it's a bit outdated. but it's still what we have to go by. MR. STARK-Do we have the right to waive that requirement, because nothing's going to be, if something ever gets done. if he wants to do something on Lot Two. then he has to get a wetlands permit, but not now. MR. HARLICKER-I don't know if the Board has the ability to waive this or not. MRS. TARANA-But what they're saying is a regulated acti vi ty is subdivision of land. MR. HARLICKER-Is subdivision. the action of a subdivision. MRS. TARANA-That's the activity. Subdivision is the activity. MR. HARLICKER-It's a regulated activity. just like construction of a house, or a road or anything like that. It's in that same - 12 - -- .......,' category. MR. NEWELL-With all due respect. I would submit that trying to divide the property shouldn't put us through the task of having to apply for wetlands permits. MRS. TARANA-Well. maybe that's another interpretation he needs to get. I mean. this is just what it says. That's what we're being told. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Anything else? Okay. So we're going to ask Jim to make a determination on 179-30C. also the wetlands. and you will come back with Lot One combined with the lot on Country Club Road, and erase this from the map. area 1.64 acres Other lands of Raymond not included in subdivision. Maybe you could just eliminate the "not". and erase that line, or whatever you want to do. The zoning districts. you're agreed to do that, for Preliminary. MR. NEWELL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Anything else? Okay. recommendation? Would somebody care to make a MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 24-1993 GARFIELD RAYMOND/RONALD NEWELL, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: For the property between Country Club Road and Bay Road, opposite Sweet Road. for subdivision of four lots, predicated on the following conditions: One, indicate zoning districts on map dated, March 17th. 1992. Two. combine Lot One and 1.64 acre lot on Country Club Road. Three, the lot width of Lot Three conform to regulations subdivision 179.30-C. Four, request Jim to give us a determination on the wetlands issue, whether a permit is needed or not. Duly adopted this 23rd day of November. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 8-93 RECOMMENDATION ONLY ROBERT & CAROLYN MARTINDALE OWNER: WILLIAM & MARION MELLON. ERNEST & CHARMAINE BARNELL. RONALD & JUDY BARRETT. FRANCES & CAROLYN MARTINDALE. ROBERT & LORI MARTINDALE. FRANCIS MARTINDALE. JR. PROPERTY INVOLVED: RT. 149. APPROX. 1 3/4 MI.. EAST OF RT. 9. EXTENDING APPROX. .7 OF A MILE. CURRENT ZONING: RR-3A PROPOSED ZONING: CR-15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11-10-93 TAX MAP NO. 30- 1-20. 19. 18. 17.2. 17.1. 16. 13. & 14 CAROLYN & ROBERT & FRANCIS MARTINDALE PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Petition 8-93, Robert & Carolyn Martindale, Meeting Date: November 23, 1993 "A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of 103.45 acres from RR-3A to CR-15. The property is located on Route 149 near the intersection of Martindale Road. The proposed rezoning involves eight parcels along the north side of the road with a stream flowing through them. The properties are not serviced by municipal sewer or water. The properties are adjacent to the Adirondack Park and land that is zone LC-10 A. B. EXISTING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS Land use in the vicinity of the rezoning is primarily residential. On the - 13 - - -- south side of the road is a single family home with an old motel that appears to have been converted to apartments. Agricultural uses as well as vacant land exist in the area. The area to the north of the rezoning is land conservation and is vacant. C. ZONE 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 the proposed rezoning is that it would allow them to develop their property as a retail and restaurant business. It would also allow them to subdivide their land into smaller lots that the 3 acre size currently allowed. The need for property that allows retail and restaurant uses can be met in other areas of the town. Specifically along Route 149 there is land that is zoned HC-IA that allows both restaurants and retail and there is land zoned RC that allows restaurants and other assorted commercial uses. An implied need is that the applicant will get a much higher return on the property if it is rezoned. It seems that the needs to be met are for the benefit of the property owners and not for the general welfare of the community. 2. What proposed zones. if any. can meet the stated need? Other zones that allow restaurants and retail are Plaza Commercial. Highway Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and Commercial Residential. Recreational Commercial allows restaurants and other commercial uses. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone is not compatible with the adjacent zones, RR-3A and LC-10A. The CR zone, according to the stated purpose in the zoning code, are areas which are transi tioning from residential to highway commercial uses. This is not the case in this area. This area is residential and not transi tioning to highway commercial. The area along Corinth Road and Main Street is a typical transition area. The adjacent LC-10A zone are areas that. due to serious physical limitations or unique characteristics require restricting development to very low densities. The CR zone allows for relatively intense development that would not be compatible. The purpose of the adjacent RR-3A zone is to enhance the open space and rural character by limiting development to sparse densities. Again. as with the LC-10A zone, the CR zone allows for relatively intense development that would not be compatible with the RR-3A zone. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? According to the Town Comprehensive Plan Maps, the percolation rates are 6 inches per hour to greater than 20 inches per hour with a development rating of limited to unsuitable. Because of the lack of sewer and water service and the fact that the property is located over an aquifer recharge area. percolation rates are an important characteristic to consider. Slopes range from 3% to 25% which have a development rating of high to low. The stream that flows through the property is classified as BT which means it can be utilized for swimming and trout habitat: it is also listed in the Comprehensive Plan as a regionally significant ecological area. The proposed CR zone, because of the intensification of runoff and sewage disposal, could have a negative impact on the stream. 5. How will the proposed zoning affect public facilities? A rezoning to CR-15 would intensify development over the existing RR-3A zone. Municipal sewer and water are not available. The increase in the number of curb cuts would negatively affect traffic flow in an area that has a history of accidents. 6. Why is the current classification not appropriate for the property in question? The current zoning is appropriate for the property in question. The property is surrounded by residentially zoned property and property zoned land conservation. A rezoning of the property to commercial residential would be very inappropriate. The property was included in a recently completed corridor study. Some relief for lot size was included as part of the study. One of the recommendations of the study was to retain the rural residential zoning but reduce the minimum lot size to one acre. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The uses allowed in the CR-15 zone would permi t development which could have significant environmental impacts. The commercial density allowed is the same that is allowed in the highway commercial zone. At 12,000 square feet of land needed for every acre and 500 square feet of land needed for - 14 - - -~ .~ -- every additional 150 square feet of commercial space, the potential total commercial development is more than 1,3Ø0.0Ø0 square feet. Traffic impacts as well as other environmental impacts would also be considerable. The CR-15 zone also allows for residential lots of 15,000 square feet. This is far too dense for an area without sewer and water service and with percolation rates that have a development rating of limited to unsuitable. 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 as well as the zoning code. The geological resource section includes goals to encourage development of less steep slopes. Portions of the land proposed to be rezoned have slopes of 25% which create severe restrictions for development. Policies include protecting the aesthetic character and maintaining the visual image of the Town as a rural community. The CR zone would allow intense development at a level that is not compatible with the rural image of the area. Strategies found in this section include developing land use densities based on soil and slope characteristics whereby areas with soil limitations or steeper slopes receive less development. Water resources section includes goals to protect public health from contamination of the groundwater and the aquifer recharge areas. This rezoning would allow intense development in an area without municipal water or sewer service and with high percolation rates. thereby creating a situation where the potential for adverse impacts on the groundwater and aquifer recharge is increased. Policies include assurances that development does not degrade the quality of streams and does not aggravate flooding and the problems associated with flooding. The level of development allowed in the proposed zone would adversely affect the stream that traverses the property to be rezoned. Ecological resources section includes goals to protect, preserve and conserve animal habitats and unique environments for the benefit of Queensbury's ecological diversity. The proposed rezoning would allow densities and uses that will adversely affect the unique ecological habitat identified on the properties. Transportation resources include goals to limit driveways on arterial and collector streets. The commercial development and small lot sizes allowed in the CR zone would permit. and in some cases necessitate mul tiple driveways. This would create a very dangerous situation on a heavily traveled road. Avoiding strip development and limiting access to commercial properties from major highways is another goal. This rezoning would be in conflict with this goal. Policies including restricting strip commercial and residential development along collector and arterial roads. This rezoning would allow development that would be in conflict with this policy. Land use goals include locating higher density housing in areas with adequate sewer and water services. The CR zone allows for intense residential development with a minimum lot si ze of 15,000 square feet. Thi s is far too dense for an area without sewer or water services. Locating lower density housing in areas without adequate sewer or water service to protect the town's natural and cultural resources and values is another goal that would not be met with this rezoning. Land use policies include reducing densities in areas of environmental sensitivity without sewer and water. The proposed rezoning would be in conflict with this policy by allowing intense development in an area unable to support it. The Zoning Code states that the commercial residential zone are areas of the town that are transitioning from residential to highway commercial uses on narrow arterial roads. This is not the situation in this area. This area is residential in character and is not transitioning to highway commercial uses. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? The wider interests of the community will not be served be rezoning this property to commercial residential. The goals, policies and strategies of the comprehensive plan, along with the zoning code, were developed in consideration of the wider interests of the community. If an action is in conflict with those stated goals. polices and strategies and the zoning code, as identified above, it is likely that the action is not serving the wider interests of the communi ty. A reasonable use of the property can be realized - 15 - '- - wi thout rezoning the rural residential property to commercial residential. D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The proposal for a zone change for these particular properties from RR-3A to CR-15 requires careful consideration. The zone change will allow for a much more intense use of the properties that will be direct conflict with many of the neighboring properties. The rezoning will also have significant adverse impacts on traffic in the area because of the curb cuts. A recent study of accidents along Route 149 shows that from 6/88 to 6/92 this area had the third highest number of accidents along the road. The properties are not serviced by water or sewer which greatly increases the potential for adverse environmental impacts and places severe limitations on development. The 15,000 square feet required per dwelling unit is very dense for an area without sewer or water and is not suitable considering the environmental constraints and rural single family character of the area. As indicated previously. the rezoning would allow for a total development of over 1,000.000 square feet of commercial space: this dense a development would result in significant problems and is totally out of character with the nearby properties. The property included in the proposed rezoning was included in a recent corridor study completed for Route 149. The study, among other things. looked at expanding the commercial land along the road. The desired expansion of commercial uses could be accommodated by expanding the existing commercial nodes at the major intersections: a new rural commercial zone was proposed to meet those needs. The study also recommended that the minimum lot size in the area be reduced to 1 acre with the creation of a new rural residential zone. The issue of spot rezoning has also been brought up. In determining spot zoning the size of the area subject to rezoning. the character of the area that surrounds the parcel, the nature of the uses permitted by the amendment and the benefit or detriment to the owner are all factors considered when determining spot zoning. These factors are weighed and a final determination is made as to whether the rezoning is in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the general welfare of the community." MR. BREWER-Okay. I'm sure you have some comments. MRS. MARTINDALE-Carol Martindale. I'd like to ask. who wrote the all the stuff that Scott just read? MR. HARLICKER-I wrote the stuff I just read. MRS. MARTINDALE-You wrote everything? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. Now. what reasonable use can you foresee on that property by the way it's currently zoned or proposed zoning? MR. HARLICKER-Residential use. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. We have a deed restriction. Did you know that? The land cannot be used for subdivisions of homes. You can't subdivide this property. It has to be remain intact, part of this land. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Twenty acres has to be left intact. MR. HARLICKER-What about the other 80 acres? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-The other 80 acres is some other people's property. That's not all ours. MR. HARLICKER-So that's suitable use as residential is. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. but if you say out of 10Ø acres. you're going to rezone this to one acre. That means you could put 100 houses in there? - 16 - '- ~ MR. HARLICKER-Run that by me again? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-What the corridor study is saying is that they were going to rezone it to RR-1? MR. HARLICKER-That's the proposed. yes. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Proposed. Okay. Now what is worse, having 100 houses in there. or having the houses that are there, which is Billy Mellon's. which is one. Ernie Barnell's, which is two, my house. MR. HARLICKER-You rezone that to Commercial Residential. the potential is there for many more than just 100 houses. The minimum lot size for residential uses. MR. BREWER-No disrespect to you, but that's what our job is to do. If we change this zone to the zone that you're asking. if Barnell's sell. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-We're not asking that. MR. BREWER-No, I understand, but they're part of the application, Fran. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-But they're asked to be rezoned. which the corridor has, to make them into a lesser lot size. so that they could give each one of their kids property. MR. BREWER-That is. potentially. going to happen, the smaller lot size, but on this application. all those names want to be rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial. MR. HARLICKER-Commercial Residential. MR. BREWER-Commercial Residential, whatever, but if we rezone yours, and I understand what you're trying to do, and I have no problem with that. If we rezone yours. and all these other people on this application. no matter what Fran Martindale does, these other people have a potential to have commercial development on their property. So we can't. we have to look at the whole application, not just yours. You have to understand that. It's not to pick on you. It's the potential for development on every piece of property that's being asked for. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. applicants? Timmy. so. could you deny the other four MR. BREWER-No. We either have to approve this application or deny it. MRS. MARTINDALE-You can't approve it with stipulations that only this parcel here. Tax Map No. 30-1-13 and 30-1-16 be approved. with the other ones not being approved for the CR? MR. BREWER-Well, if they're here to say, yes, lets do that, then I don't. MRS. MARTINDALE-I am their agent. They gave Bob and me permission to speak for them. MR. BREWER-Permission, or is it on the application? MRS. MARTINDALE-It's on the application. speak as their agent. We have permission to MR. BREWER-We're making a recommendation. If you walk out of here tonight. and we approve you, doesn't necessarily mean you get what we say. - 17 - ~ -- MRS. MARTINDALE-Right. but you could approve with recommendations that 30-1-13 and 30-1-16 only be approved, denying the other four land use occupations. the other four. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Because they're going to get picked up in the corridor study anyway. to make it RR-l. MR. BREWER-All right. Let me ask you a question. and you might not like the question. but I'm going to ask anyway. Why don't you try to get a variance for what you want to do? MRS. MARTINDALE-We were told we couldn't. Ted Turner said no. MR. BREWER-Ted Turner is not, any more than I'm the commander of this Board. They have to be fair to everybody. Fran. and I don't want to argue with you. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Timmy. if anybody knows the bullshit that we've gone through in the last three years in this Town you know. You've been to ever damn meeting. MR. BREWER-I know. Don't get mad at me. I'm just trying to find a solution for you. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I'm frustrated as hell, and I'm trying to make a living. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. Let me go and refute the things that Scott Harlicker. MR. BREWER-I just want to get something straight. I don't know how, if I go meet with an applicant. like I did yesterday, and say, no. you've got to do this. I don't have a right to say that. because I'm not seven votes. If I had control over seven votes. then I could say that. but I don't. I have one vote. MRS. MARTINDALE-Tim, we realize that. Lets get on with the rest of it, okay. MR. BREWER-Well, did you try to get a variance? Did you try that process? MRS. MARTINDALE-We did with Pat Crayford. MR. BREWER-Don't look behind you. Look ahead of you. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Well. we went for a variance for some of the vegetable stuff that you know of. and they denied us. MR. BREWER-They denied the variance? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied us, saying that we can't bring things from our other farm in Fort Ann, as far as vegetables. MR. BREWER-That was a determination that the Planning Board asked for a couple of years ago. I remember that. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-This is the direction that Jimmy Martin told us to go. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I went in to Jim Martin and asked him what we should use for a zone. and he said, CR zone. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 18 - ~ MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-And we went to the Warren County Planning Board. and they're wondering why, they used CRt the same thing what he's saying. CR-15. MRS. MARTINDALE-But in December Jim Martin asked us to try CR-15. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I went in and I asked, what zone should we use? I don't know anything about. We went through the book. and he said, the best zone for us, for what ~ want, which is a restaurant. and we want to have maybe a meat and cheese shop, that type of thing. and that's what he said the zone should be. MR. BREWER-Lets go through them quickly. MRS. MARTINDALE-All right. It is my understanding that the land use is primarily residential because of the zoning restrictions. I have a summary here of going through all the responses. 30-1-14 wanted it residential and commercial. I don't know where the Town Planning Department came up with what they came up with. but when I go through these, I have a whole copy of the 149 Corridor Study here. 30-1-26.1, 30-1-33. and 36-2-12, residential and commercial that will illude a quality image. The majority of the responses here say commercial or residential commercial, but they want to bring out a good rural atmosphere. which is totally what we want to reflect. It's nothing contrary to what would be under rural commercial. as now depicted by the Planning Department, but I have a whole list here, and there's only three that I can see that actually say no commercial. and that is basically Jimmy Weller. who presently has commercial on that road. MR. BREWER-All right. Lets not talk about anybody else. Lets talk about what you want to do. MRS. MARTINDALE-Other uses on this road. in this immediate vicinity. are auto body repair shop. recreational vehicles, camping. which is quite intense during the summer. We have mobile home recreational parks, camp sites. restaurants, architectural and construction business. plumbing business, gift shop, antique shops, commercial greenhouse. nurseries. gas stations. These are all things located right there. MR. HARLICKER-Within 4Ø0 feet of the property? MRS. MARTINDALE-On 149. here. You've related the 149 Corridor Study MR. HARLICKER-Yes. but we're talking about the. even the application says uses within 400 feet. Those uses aren't within 400 feet. MRS. MARTINDALE-The auto body shop, okay, is further than 400 feet. All right, then. MR. HARLICKER-The only real commercial uses was across the street there. It looks like that used to be an apartment. or a motel. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It was a floor covering store. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-It was never an apartment. It's apartments now. but it was never a motel. How could you say it was a motel? It may look like a motel, but if you. MR. HARLICKER-I said it appears to be used. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. The CR-15 zone was suggested by Jim Martin in December of 1992. This is when this application was first presented to the Town. The implication that the needs to be met are for the benefit of the property owners and not for the general welfare of the community are ridiculous. There is a need to promote and instruct people on agriculture. Nowhere in the Town of - 19 - -- --./ Queensbury do we presently have agricultural, as we would promote it to benefit the community, fresh vegetables, on-site, and within our properties. which is, by the way. deemed by the highest court in the United States to promote the general welfare. There is an educational need that would be met there. Jobs would be provided to the general public, recreation. tourism, picturesque early American setting in covered bridges, tax dollars to the community. That certainly is a benefit to the community. MR. HARLICKER-The problem is all those are your specific project. Those are not associated with the CR zone, which is what we're discussing here. Your particular project would be subject to those sort of things would come up during site plan review, or a use variance. not for a rezoning. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes. but how by putting another house in there? provide busing and road service and help? does RR-3A help the community, All it does is make you have to everything else. How does that MR. HARLICKER-That was deemed to be appropriate when the Town did the rezoning on the Master Plan. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-How is anything going to help the community if you go in that respect? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It was, now it's changed. MRS. MARTINDALE-All right. Let me continue. To buy other land that are so zoned within the Town would create a financial hardship. not only on us. but on anybody trying to, that would be forced to purchase property to do what they wanted to do make a reasonable living. This land was purchased for the purpose stated. The view on this property is unequaled throughout the Town. No other zone on 149 has the view for the project that we want to commence there, as this area does right here. this one particular spot. It has the maple trees, everything that is most desirable and what we need for our project to create the rural, rustic. early American theme that we have designed for this property. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-And the educational part is people can actually go out and see maple syrup made and the whole process of the trees and the lines and the buckets and everything else. MRS. MARTINDALE-The rural clustered uses as proposed to the Town would enhance open space and rural character of the area. The agricultural uses are in character with residential. MR. BREWER-I don't mean to interrupt you, but how much area would your proposed project take up? MRS. MARTINDALE-About three acres in the front. MR. BREWER-Three acres out of what? MRS. TARANA-One hundred and three. MRS. MARTINDALE-It would also be clustered to the front. three or four acres in the front out of the 37. approximately 40 acres, clustered all in the front. as you would like in a Highway Commercial. or Commercial Residential, retaining the back area for the maple trees and the beauty. MR. BREWER-Potentially, if you did your three acre thing. whatever you're going to do, and I know your land's been in your family a long time, and I understand all that, and I don't mean to be short with you. but I've heard it all before. You could sell the other, say 30 acres. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. It can't be subdivided. It's in the deed. - 20 - -- MR. BREWER-None of it can be subdivided? MRS. MARTINDALE-It can't be subdivided, none of it. acres cannot be divided. The twenty MR. BREWER-It says 29.09 on the map. and you're showing 14 acres up here. MRS. MARTINDALE-One parcel is 20.02. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-The new survey is 29. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay, and then the other 14 acres would, is on another deed. MR. HARLICKER-Can that be subdivided? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I have no need. It wouldn't meet my purpose at all. MRS. MARTINDALE-But we bought it for residential purposes. and that's what we want it. MR. STARK-Mrs. Martindale, could you please come here and show me exactly. You're talking. here's your property. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay, where the barn is. MR. STARK-Okay. I know where the barn is. Here's the barn, where you sell the fruits and vegetables. MRS. MARTINDALE-Right. So all the area right here where the barn is. MR. STARK-Wait a second. Okay. All of this. MRS. MARTINDALE-All the front acreage. which according to Scudders, would be approximately three to four acres of development on the whole frontage. MR. STARK-Okay. but now. who's this? That's you. Okay. MRS. MARTINDALE-This is the other parcel here, which is 14. MR. STARK-Okay. So where's the restaurant going to be? MRS. MARTINDALE-The restaurant is going to be right in the front here. MR. STARK-Right here. Here's the restaurant? MRS. MARTINDALE-Right. MR. STARK-Okay, and this guy has no objection? MRS. MARTINDALE-No. They're part of our application. MR. STARK-Okay. So you've got road cuts here now? MRS. MARTINDALE-We've got three road cuts presently. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-This way, this way. There's a road that we have in now, and there's this dirt road here that's a way to get in there. MRS. MARTINDALE-But we told DOT that we would substitute this one - 21 - - -- --' here for this one. No, this one here is current, which we got in 1990 or '91 from DOT. We told them that we would not use this road here. They looked at the site and they said this is better than this right here, because of the way the land is contoured. MR. STARK-So you just want an approval for the proper zoning for this piece. this piece, and this piece? MRS. MARTINDALE-For just these two here. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-The reason why we put it altogether is because everyone is going to say this is spot zoning, if we just went for our parcel nere. MR. BREWER-But potentially that's what it is, because you're saying to us these people don't want to be it now? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-No. they do want to be it. because Ernie Barnell wants to have a little woodworking shop. MR. BREWER-So then that's what comes back to our main question is the potential for the development on that land is over a million square feet of commercial building. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. MR. BREWER-Yes, it is. How can it not be? MR. STARK-Bill had a sled sharpening business there for I don't know how many years. MR. BREWER-You have to understand what's allowed in the zone. George. Bill's not going to live forever. MR. STARK-No. I'm not talking. Bill's father. MR. BREWER-Whomever. Do you understand what I'm saying and what the Staff is saying? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Timmy, the other two people are looking for relief, Billy Mellon is trying to get from the three acre zone to one acre zoning. so that he can give his four kids. MR. BREWER-He's going to. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Right. This is being handled. Everything is being handled except us. We're getting manhandled. MR. BREWER-I understand that. I'm trying to. but you can't go and take all these pieces of property and say they want to be all commercial 15. Ø0Ø square feet. Why don't you try to get a variance? I don't think you ever really tried to get a variance. and I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm just trying to give you the best route to go. MRS. MARTINDALE-I had a card. I had it all filled out. and we were told it would be denied. Pat Crayford. by everybody in the Zoning Office. MR. BREWER-She's not here anymore. MRS. MARTINDALE-I know. but they said that Mike O'Connor and all of them would be right there to fight it and that we would not get it. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Do you feel we could show hardship for a variance? I mean, off the record. MR. BREWER-I don't think that's the case. You don't have to show a hardship. - 22 - MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-You don't have to show a hardship for a variance? MR. HARLICKER-You have to show an economic hardship for a use variance. MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. you do. MR. BREWER-I don't think you do. There's five or six criteria you have to meet. and I don't think that's one of them anymore. MR. HARLICKER-You have to show you can't get a reasonable use of the property. and that's been translated to mean an economic, some reasonable economic return. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, if we can't subdivide it, is that. would you say, if we can't subdivide it, it's in the deed restriction that that's an economical. for a variance? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but then the argument comes back then, is it self-created? Did you know that when you got the property? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-When we bought the property. this zone was not in effect. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then that's not a problem. MRS. TARANA-That may be a reason to give a variance. That may be it. MR. BREWER-Don't get mad. Try to talk to us and think about it. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-We've done this. We've come to the Planning Department, when this first went up through. Dave Hatin says. go through site plan review, and we'll get this all taken care of. Every time we've gone from a recommendation from the Planning Department. all we've gotten is referred to another thing. MR. BREWER-And what's that tell you? Don't go to the Planning Department. Go fill out an application for a variance. apply for it, and you get it or you don't get it. Then you don't have to run around in circles. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-And then we go for a zone change? MR. BREWER-No. What I'm saying is, if this study goes through. you can talk to Jim before it's through at the public hearings and say. why don't you include me in the RUC-1A. That's Rural Commercial. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But they won't do that. MR. BREWER-How do you know? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-He won't. MR. BREWER-He doesn't make the rules. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-He's made the whole study. MR. HARLICKER-But it's the Town Board that has the ultimate decision as to what portions of the study are actually adopted. These were simply recommendations by Staff. MR. BREWER-This RUC zone, if this thing is approved, and it's not in stone yet, come here, I'll show you. Your property's here, okay. RUC ends here. There's several owners. They're all your neighbors. If they extended that down to this Mobile Home Overlay zone, there's nothing so obtrusive in here that's going to create - 23 - -' that much commercialism as the zone you're asking for now. So.if you ask the Town, say, gee, this zone is right here. a stone's throw from our land. Why can't you extend that. There's deed restrictions. We can't subdivide the land. Include us in the RUC. Don't think everybody's against you. Fran. you've asked all the wrong people. because Scott can't tell us what we want to do. anymore than we can tell the Town Board what we want to do. We make the recommendation. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-You made the recommendation on this Corridor Study? MR. BREWER-No. We're making a recommendation on this change of zone to you. and I can tell you right now that I won't vote for that zone, not with all those pieces of property in there. MRS. MARTINDALE-We are willing to exempt those, and they gave us permission to do so. MR. BREWER-Then they're going to come back and say that it's spot zoning. MRS. MARTINDALE-No, it's not, because if they can do it at Bay Road and Ridge Road. which is less than 40 acres. MR. BREWER-It encompasses the arterial and the cross section here in a big area. to allow for the commercialism. MRS. MARTINDALE-On forty acres? Tim. There's not forty acres there. MR. BREWER-There's not forty acres right here? I don't know. MRS. MARTINDALE-There isn't forty acres, and that is spot zoning. If they apply at all intersections. we are at the intersection of 149 and Martindale Road. It goes right to the barn. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-It comes to 149, not to our barn. MRS. MARTINDALE-It's the intersection of Martindale Road. That's where the barn is. Our own property is right across from that. So. if they were to extend the Rural Commercial at all intersections. we would be part of it, but they wouldn't listen. We asked them right at the 149 Corridor Study. They are totally ignoring everything we ask. This is why we're here for the CR-15. You can exempt the other people from it. MR. RUEL-Tim, this recommendation is to who? MR. BREWER-The Town Board. The Town Board ultimately makes the decision, not us. They can take our recommendation for what it's worth. If they want to ignore it, they can ignore it. If they want to. MR. RUEL-When do you think this will be in effect? MR. BREWER-I would say the first part of the year. got to have some fine tuning, like these things. people up here want to be in the RUC. Maybe the whole be RUC. I don't know. I mean, it's Maybe the se thing should MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-That's what we wanted. the whole thing from. that's what we asked for. to have the whole road Rural Commercial, and then, because. MR. BREWER-Not strictly Rural Commercial, RUC is different than RR, isn't it? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-What's RUC? - 24 - .L , ----" MR. BREWER-RUC is Rural Commercial. MR. HARLICKER-The Rural Commercial, yes. That was primarily the expansion of the existing commercial nodes. MR. BREWER-And that makes. for sure. for buffers? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's one acre lot size. and principally commercial uses that are consistent with the Rural area. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Parking in the back of the building. MR. BREWER-Where does it say there's going to be parking in the back? MRS. TARANA-In architectural review. yes. it's all in there. MR. BREWER-It says parking in the back of the building? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Why don't you want the parking in the back of the building? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Because there isn't room. MR. BREWER-Three acres isn't room? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-When you put the parking in the back of the building. you're putting the parking in the scenic part. which would be the brook, the mountain areas that you're trying to dress up and make look nice. MRS. MARTINDALE-And we don't want people falling over or anything like that. MRS. TARANA-Well. that's a recommendation in that zone. doesn't mean that that has to be, but that is recommended. That MRS. MARTINDALE-You have to go for a variance. MR. HARLICKER-You' re putting the court of three miles ahead of everything else. MRS. MARTINDALE-No, we're not. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. MARTINDALE-I can show you where we've been to eight different meetings and been tested right down to the english language usage itself. MR. BREWER-Yes. but what I'm saying is, you have no active plan right now. I mean. you do, but you don't. No active application for your restaurant or whatever. You don't have any application in. so nobody knows. I mean. everybody knows that you want to put a restaurant. They don't know what it is. They have no idea. MRS. MARTINDALE-The Town Board has seen it, and the Planning Board has seen it. two years ago. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Tim. during the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Cartier says. I want to see a conceptual drawing of this, and I said, what do we need a conceptual drawing of a restaurant for, when all we want to do is sell vegetables. MR. BREWER-I remember it. I was here, but Pete Cartier's not here anymore. is he? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I know, but why did we have to go through - 25 - -- -- that? MR. BREWER-I don't know. everything. I can't give you an answer for MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-The other thing is, why should we spend more money just to have somebody sit there and say no? I've got over $20,000 tied up in this project. and all I've got out of it is. no, no, no. Go to this agency. Go to this committee. Go to this Board. Do this. Do this. I have not been able to walk to one person, find the right direction, here again I'm in front of you. and now I'm told I'm in the wrong committee. I'm on the wrong Board. I should be applying for a variance. What am I paying these tax dollars for for people to be telling me what to do that's supposed to know what to do in this Town, and they're not. MR. STARK-Tim. I have something to say. You know. the new Town Board, not the incoming Town Board, but this Town Board was supposed to make everything more user friendly. okay. The guy's jumping through hoops for the last two, three years. What's the matter. she's willing to exempt everybody else except her pieces of property, okay. They can't be subdivided. So you don't have to worry about 50 houses in the back of all these acres and all this stuff, you know. She's willing to stipulate that. We can stipulate that in a motion of the recommendation that it's just for this piece of property and this piece of property. She has on file the right to speak for these other people. They could care less. What's the matter with making a recommendation for that? Then it goes back to the Town Board, and they can do with it what they want. What's the matter with that? MRS. MARTINDALE-That's all we ask is for you to please listen to us and work with us, and give us a chance to do something for this Town, that you'd be very proud of. MR. STARK-I'd like to comment, too. Tim. it seems that the needs to be met are for the benefit of the property owners. You bet ya. That's why they're property owners. You know. Scott, I don't think that was very appropriate, and not for the general welfare. They don't care about the general welfare of the community. They're trying to run a business, the same as I'm trying to run a business. MR. HARLICKER-Well. rezoning should reflect the general welfare of the community. and not just the benefit of the property owners, and the general welfare of the community has been, not by myself, but generally corresponds with going along with the Town Comprehensive Plan, or a municipalities comprehensive plan. MR. STARK-Tim, if you've got a chance to help somebody in the community. I think you, you know. we're not breaking any laws or anything else. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-And it's tough enough to try to start a business in this day and age. and even risk going into business in this day and age. MR. BREWER-I understand that, Robert. and I'm not trying to prevent you from doing that. I really am not. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I know where you're coming from. MR. BREWER-But if you're agent for all these people. and I know, as I sit here tonight, people are going to give you a hard time. They're going to say it's spot zoning. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Good. time. Let them sue us and give us a hard MR. BREWER-I'm not saying they have to sue you, Fran. - 26 - ,.,----.;~ ---' MR. STARK-Who's going to say something? MR. BREWER-Well, whether anybody says anything or not. in my opinion. it is spot zoning. That's my opinion. Maybe you might not like it. I'm sorry. but, and I'm not trying to prevent you from doing anything. I think you have a wonderful plan, but I think, in my opinion, the process should be. you should get a variance. Tell them it's a hardship because of the reason you can't subdivide it. No other acti vi ty can go on there but the restaurant. There could be stipulations made to that. I just think, in my opinion, it went around the wrong way. I don't think all those properties should be zoned that. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. So we're just asking you to exempt them and recommend it for us. We would be wi II ing to stipulate that the area in front. the first 500 feet from the road or whatever. whatever it is that we need, according to the architects, they know how it has to be done to put the project together, and leave it to their discretion. They had told me, verbally, that's three or four acres. and out of the total acreage in question, that's certainly not unreasonable. It's just the road frontage. We want the back to remain rural. animals, everything. We need it. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-We were thinking about having sleigh rides through the sugar bush. I mean we're not going to wipe it all out and put houses in there to have that. MRS. MARTINDALE-And picnic table for people to sit out there and have fun eating lunches and watching the animals. MR. BREWER-Hypothetically. what if the guy down the street from,you wants to come in and put a junk yard in there. and wants it zoned Highway Commercial? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It's his property. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-It's his property. He can do what he wants. MR. BREWER-You think he should be able to do that? In the middle of a rural residential zone you think a guy should have the right to put a junk yard in there? I don't. MRS. MARTINDALE-Timmy. we're not asking for that. MR. BREWER-I know you're not, but suppose somebody does, is what I'm saying. MRS. MARTINDALE-They won't if you exempt them from it, and just give us ours. MR. BREWER-Just give you yours and give nobody else the right to put a junk yard or anything else? MRS. MARTINDALE-No, no. The ones on the application. They've been taken care of. the Board. the rezoning. MRS. TARANA-It hasn't been passed yet. the new rezoning. MR. BREWER-I know it hasn't. get a variance. That's why I'm saying he should go MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I have one more question. Scott, you're saying with 400 feet. all this depends on 40Ø feet from our property, what it does. or what were you saying that for? When we were saying. well, there's other commercial businesses around you said, within 4Ø0 feet? MR. HARLICKER-I was just, the deemed adjacent nearby areas. application asks. that's what is That's what they're looking for. - 27 - -../ MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But they're looking at 400 feet? They don't care if it's 600 feet? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. or a mile down the road at Bay or whatever. They had to set a cut off. I didn't do up the application. They had to set a cut off point somewhere. It was done at 400 feet. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-And your study said about these accidents. Can you read that again. please. MR. HARLICKER-That was the third highest. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Okay. From where to where? MR. HARLICKER-From your property up to OxBow Hill, documented from DOT. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-DOT? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Okay. I'd like a copy of that. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RUEL-But can't a recommendation be that we just want to take the package and give it to the Town Board. and let them look at it? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. STARK-Why don't we make a recommendation for approval. with the except that. with the stipulation that these two parcels are going to be zoned such and such. MR. RUEL-Well. you can put some conditions in it. but it seems to me that we can just recommend to the Town Board. let them take the action, and they have the option to say, well. you should get a variance, if they want to. MR. STARK-Is the Town Board aware of the fact that Ted Turner told you. forget about coming in for a variance. you're not going to get one? Did you go in front of the Town Board, the whole Town Board. and say? MRS. MARTINDALE-I mentioned it in several meetings with the Town. MR. STARK-And what did they say about that? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-We don't want to get into it. because that's not our decision at this point. MRS. MARTINDALE-I have openly stated that there's been too much poli tical behind the scenes actions of certain people, that we would like the Town Board to take. the present Town Board. to take action right now. to rezone it, rather than wait. This is what we've been back and forth for the past two years. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-What has happened, in January of '92. we came to the Town Board for a rezoning, and they said. well. we're going to have a Corridor Study. So we'll put you off for three months. They asked. can you get this done in three months. and they gave them a time limit, three months. We II, it's been eight, nine months now and it still hasn't been done yet. So we're saying, we can't wait any longer here. We've given them a reasonable amount of time, triple the amount of time of what they were allowed to begin with. How long is it going to take to get this done? There's nobody saying that January 1st, this is going to be done. MR. STARK-What's the harm in making the recommendation to the Town Board? Then it falls on the Town Board's shoulders. - 28 - -- MR. RUEL-That's what I said. MR. BREWER-It's going to fall on their shoulders anyway. MR. RUEL-Scott, I've got a question. Was all of this known when the Corridor Study was being made? Was it taken into consideration? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, it was looked at. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Why was this Corridor Study started? Wasn't one of the main reasons why was because we had a workshop. and Jim Martin was there. and he said. well. we're thinking about doing a Corridor Study, and we're the ones that kind of implemented this to get going. You weren't around here at this time, and that was one of the reasons why, because the Corridor Study really got into full phase. is because we wanted to rezone this, and plus we went into a workshop to begin with, and it seems like. on our application. if you look at our application. everybody on our application, this Corridor Study. is served what they want. except us. MR. RUEL-Well. apparently they took into consideration your requirements during the study. They must have, and if they did nothing. it's obvious that they didn't want to grant that. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But there's only three people in the area that are against this. and we had a petition for selling our vegetables and everything else that we presented to the Board, over two hundred people in the neighboring area. This isn't people from South Glens Falls, that are for it. MR. RUEL-I've only been on the Board for a year. So apparently a lot of this transpired before I came here. So I'm trying to evaluate it on the basis of the Corridor Study and what you're saying. MRS. MARTINDALE-According to the Corridor Study, if you were to take into consideration the things I was reading to you, out of the 49 people that responded. like approximately three people responded no commercialism. They wanted it retained residential on the road. MR. HARLICKER-And we are expanding the commercial zones, just not your particular piece of property. You're not getting what you wanted, and now it sounds like it's sour grapes. and I'm sorry. MRS. MARTINDALE-Scott. you don't even reside in the Town, and you're using our tax dollars to make a living to benefit yourself. You refuse to buy land in the Town claiming it's too expensive. We own land and we're paying those expensive taxes. and you shouldn't even be making the laws. MR. HARLICKER-I'm not making laws. , i ¡, MRS. MARTINDALE-You shouldn't even be recommending anything. MR. BREWER-All right. Lets not get personalities involved. please. MR. HARLICKER-The Staff took an objective look at the corridor. MR. STARK-I'd like to make a motion that we recommend it to the Town Board with the stipulation that. blah. blah, blah. MR. RUEL-This can go on all night. MR. STARK-Either you do it or you don't. I'm all for it. MR. RUEL-Well, I'm in favor of it. but based on some of the conditions that you mentioned a moment ago. MR. STARK-Well, you know, they're just going to put a restaurant in - 29 - -~, "- '/ and forget everybody else. MR. RUEL-Yes. certain limitations. MR. STARK-The land can't be subdivided. that. So that takes care of MR. BREWER-I think what you're saying. George. is fine. but suppose. and I'm not saying it'll ever happen. suppose they don't end up putting a restaurant there? Suppose they put some of the other I isted use s in there? You have to consider that. in all fairness to the people that live next door. George. MR. STARK-I don't know Mr. and Mrs. Martindale. You know Mr. and Mrs. Martindale. MR. BREWER-And I think they're honest people. MR. STARK-Okay. They're telling you something. You know. if she told me, I'm going to put a restaurant there. maybe she would and maybe she wouldn't. because I don't know Mrs. Martindale. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-We went to the expense of doing this, to put a restaurant in. MR. BREWER-I understand that. and I'm not saying you're going to change your mind. MRS. MARTINDALE-There's $7,000 in that one, alone. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-There's $7,000 sitting right here on the table that never should have been done. MR. STARK-You know, if they're telling you they're going to do something. you know the people. I believe them. Have they ever given you a reason not to believe them? MR. BREWER-No. MR. STARK-I go by you. MRS. MARTINDALE-A man's word is his honor. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. STARK-They're not going to put a car lot there. or something. MR. BREWER-It doesn't matter what we decide, right here tonight. it does not matter what we decide. MRS. TARANA-Remember what other people have told you. You've got to look at the big picture of what you're approving. and forget the personali ties, forget the proj ect that may come down the line. That's not what we're being asked to act upon. We're asked to act upon this rezoning for all of these properties. MR. STARK-Well, she's willing to stipulate. MR. BREWER-She's willing to stipulate that the other properties will not be involved, and I just don't think that this Board should recommend. in my opinion. and it's nothing to do with anyone of you people. I like you all. but I think. in my opinion. that's spot zoning. I'm sorry. I mean. that's just a fact of life. MRS. MARTINDALE-Wouldn't that be up to a court to decide? In other issues, Tim. MR. BREWER-I'm not going to recommend to do that. From what I've read, and what I've heard on this Board for the last two and a half years. that. to me. from what I've been explained by attorneys. by - 30 - --",' other Board members, by Planning Staff. by going to seminars. that is spot zoning. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But would a variance be spot zoning. Tim? MRS. MARTINDALE-Mike O'Connor. MR. BREWER-I'm not talking about Mike O'Connor. MRS. MARTINDALE-Just listen one minute. MR. BREWER-I've been fighting with Mike O'Connor for two years now. I don't care what he says anymore. I never did. MRS. MARTINDALE-At our Planning Board meetings. when Mike O'Connor was there, he openly stated to my brother that we should seek a zoning change. He was on the opposite side, against us. and he said that we should seek a zoning change. and this is one reason why we applied for a zoning change. is listening to him. Also. in previous Planning Board meetings, when we've attended. and one was Wal-Mart. There was a medical petitioner there. and he claimed that you should not grant the Wal-Mart to go through because he personally had a business there. and he had a lease. and you said the legalities of it do not pertain to this Board. and this is one thing I'm saying to you. MR. BREWER-Of that lease. MRS. MARTINDALE-Of that lease. yes. but the legality. that's a legal question. The legal question of whether this is spot zoning should not concern this Board. That is something that the Town Board and the Town Attorney should discuss. MR. BREWER-They're asking us for a recommendation on changing this zone. and if I think. and I really don't want to argue with you. I really don't. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Would a variance be spot zoning, though? MR. BREWER-A variance is exactly what it says. It's varying from the zone. or the setbacks. or whatever you're varying from. You see, if the variance says you can put this here, on this piece of paper. and you want to put it here. you get a variance. and you vary from the law. saying that you can't put it anywhere but there. That's what I'm saying to you. and I think that's more appropriate. MRS. MARTINDALE-George. did you make a motion. or a recommendation? MR. STARK-What does the vote have to be, on this Board, right now, tonight? Three to one would pass it? MR. BREWER-No. Four to nothing. recommendation. It doesn't mean anybody else is going to vote. and it's not a vote. It's a anything. I don't know what MR. STARK-Well, you just said you were against it. but how are we helping the people of this Town? MR. BREWER-I think what should have been done is when they went to file this application they should have been told to go get a variance. That's my opinion. Whether they were or they weren't, that is my opinion. I think they unjustly directed these people to us to get a change of zone. MR. STARK-Well. the Town Board has seen fit to send it to us. MR. BREWER-The Town Board doesn't send it to us, George. MR. STARK-No. They sent it to us. They did. - 31 - --- MRS. MARTINDALE-They made a resolution to send it to you. MR. STARK-Look at the Town Board's resolution in here. Board made a resolution to send it to us. The Town MRS. TARANA-They do that every time there's a zone change. though, they do that. MR. BREWER-But when they go in to make the application, the people helping them make the application out should have told them. I think you should get a variance. That's. again. my opinion doesn't mean anything, and I don't want to create anybody a hard time. I just th~nk tnat this is the wrong way to do it. Where does it say that. George? MR. STARK-Right here. Resolution authorizing the Town Clerk to submit petition for change of zone. blah. blah. blah. to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. MR. BREWER-Any time anybody comes in for a change of zone, they have to give them that. They have to do that. MR. STARK-But the Town Board voted on it. MR. BREWER-To send it to us. because somebody applied for that. Anybody. I can go apply for the zone change myself tomorrow. and they have to let me. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. If the Town Board chooses not to let it go forward. it's dead, right there. MR. BREWER-I think anybody can apply for anything. have a right to apply. You have to MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-If the Town Board would have said no. not to send it to you. then we wouldn't be before you. MR. BREWER-Maybe the Town Board did you an unjust service. MRS. MARTINDALE-No, they didn't. MR. BREWER-I'm anybody else. just speaking for myse If. I'm not speaking I think you should get a variance. Fran. for MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-You aren't going to get it. MR. BREWER-How do you say. you know. if you think you're not going to get it. you're never going to get it. You've got a hardship. MRS. MARTINDALE-Tim. we've wasted so much time in the past three years. They won't listen to that. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Who does anybody. if I was just starting, brand new, I would say. I would go to the Planning Department. and ask. what should I do? I know nothing about anything. Why should I have to spend money on a lawyer to tell me what I have to do and we're paying tax dollars to a Planning Department to tell us what to do. MR. BREWER-You shouldn't. I'm not saying you should have to spend money on a lawyer. I'm saying you should get a variance. MRS. MARTINDALE-That's not what they told us. That's not what Jim Martin told us. MRS. TARANA-I thought he didn't advise you at all on this project? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes. He did. MRS. MARTINDALE-Jim Martin advised us, in December of 1992. when we - 32 - '-- '-'" filled this out. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I talked to Jim to see. what zone do I need to get into here. to get what we want, and that's what he said. MRS. MARTINDALE-There was no 149 Corridor Study at that point. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-There was no 149 Corridor Study when we first started out. MR. BREWER-As I remember. you came in to us about the vegetables and whatnot at the barn. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right, and then we had a workshop. MR. BREWER-And I remember it. and somebody asked you about. well, what are you going to do with that property. and it ended up you bringing us the plans of what you want to do. and I think it's a wonderful plan. but I think the procedure to go. in my opinion, is to get a variance. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-But the procedure we were told to do. after all those meetings. MR. STARK-They're doing what they were told to do. MR. BREWER-All right. Can't I have a right to my opinion? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes. You've got a right to your opinion. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But I just want to finish this one before starting another one, because we never finished with the Planning Board. MR. BREWER-Okay. No matter if we say no tonight. it still goes on to the Town Board. and they make the ultimate decision. MR. STARK-Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD TO APPROVE PETITION FOR A ZONE CHANGE NO. 8-93 ROBERT & CAROLYN MARTINDALE. Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: With the stipulation being only Mr. and Mrs. Francis Martindale's property. two pieces of property. be changed to CR-15. not everybody else's. Duly adopted this 23rd day of November. 1993, by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-I'm voting no, and I just want to point out that I don't believe to go for a zoning change. I don't believe it meets any of the criteria that are required to get a zoning change, and I agree with Tim. that they probably should have been directed to a Zoning Variance. AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Ruel NOES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. I truly am sorry, but. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-It's your opinion. Everyone in this world is entitled to their opinion. That's what we wanted. MRS. TARANA-I think that you've got to understand that we have to - 33 - make the zone change according to criteria. None of them are here. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-If this doesn't go through. then we'll go for a variance. I guess. That's the next step. MRS. MARTINDALE-Thank you very much. MRS. TARANA-I don't understand Jim being part of this project, and being dropped out. in and out. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Well, he's not in because he lives on 149, and he doesn't want to get in the Corridor Study because it could be the ethics. and. MRS. TARANA-But he shouldn't be advising you at all. MR. BREWER-That's right. He shouldn't tell you what to do. then. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes. but see he advised us before this Corridor Study started, because this actually went through before the Corridor Study was even initiated. MRS. TARANA-He's still got a conflict of interest. MRS. MARTINDALE-So doesn't Betty Monahan. MRS. TARANA-That could be. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Betty Monahan owns property down there. and she's working on it. (Discussion on Al Cerrone's project) MIKE O'CONNOR MR. 0' CONNOR-AI Cerrone is, by contract. taking over Potvin's, Clendon Brook. We've met here a couple of times. One time when we were talking about density. We were talking about layout. and you sent us to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We got a variance so that we would have 16 lots there. We made an agreement with the neighbors. We then came back and got concept approval, and what we're asking for tonight is simply permission to clear the road. to begin clearing the road. Tomorrow. we have a map here for preliminary approval. Everything will be filed for preliminary approval and it will be on your agenda for preliminary approval in December. MR. RUEL-And dedication of land. in lieu of recreation fees? MRS. TARANA-I'm lost. MR. STARK-Just draw us. what you want to do. I'm lost, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. fits into this. Right here is this piece right here, and it MR. STARK-Okay. This was the piece that went on the corner. they were going to put a road. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It's this piece right here. MR. STARK-Okay. Yes, because Timmy and I went out there. You want to come in here? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Come in this way and come around the loop and come back out. It's a little different than most subdivisions. even before Preliminary approval. because the road is dictated by what's there. MR. STARK-These houses are there? - 34 - .~ '-- -- MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. they are. MR. STARK-Okay. Timmy and I walked back in through here. MR. RUEL-But these houses aren't here. MR. STARK-Yes. They're all here. Here's the new development right here. MR. RUEL-Is that it there? MR. STARK-Yes, way up here. Okay. MR. RUEL-Is this road in? MR. STARK-No. That's what he wants to do. He wants to cut a road here. MR. O'CONNOR-I want to begin clearing the road. MR. RUEL-Just clear it? MR. O'CONNOR-Clear the road. and we're going to come through with the regular Preliminary. regular approvals. MRS. TARANA-And when are you coming? MR. 0' CONNOR-This December. tomorrow. This month. This will be filed MRS. TARANA-And when are you going to do this? MR. O'CONNOR-We'd like to start next week. as soon as it's staked out. It's in the process of being staked out by Van Dusen and Steves. MR. STARK-Okay. and you're going to have a buffer between the road and this guy here? MR. O'CONNOR-No. That's this side line. That's his side line. MR. RUEL-Where's the Brook? MR. O'CONNOR-Clendon Brook? Way over here. This is Clendon Brook right here. and we're over in this piece here. I've given you the map for the second letter that I've gotten. and that's just to get it on record. When we went to the Zoning Board. they told us to offer this parcel over here in lieu of recreation fees. So we want to get that process started. You approved the concept. MR. STARK-Yes. I know that. What's the problem? You can't clear cut? MR. O'CONNOR-In the Subdivision Regulations. if you clear cut a parcel. you cannot subdivide it for five years. MR. STARK-You're not going to clear cut this? MR. O'CONNOR-No. Well. if we do the road. that's considered clear cutting. MR. RUEL-It is? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STARK-Who said that? MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the interpretation of clear cut, that's what I think it is. - 35 - ----- -- MRS. TARANA-Wait a minute. I'm really confused. You got approval for this subdivision with no road? MR. STARK-No. with the road. These plans came through. MRS. TARANA-We voted for sketch. road showing. You've gotten sketch, with no MR. O'CONNOR-No, with the road showing. MR. STARK-With the road showing. We've seen these plans. MR. O'CONNOR-And, in fact. we got a waiver from this Board for this radius as part of the concept approval. MR. STARK-Remember we were talking about. the road's going to end here, instead of here. and all this stuff? MRS. TARANA-Right, but you can't do this road until you get Preliminary approval? MR. O'CONNOR-We can't clear the road until we have. if you read the Ordinance, we can't clear the road until you have final approval, the Subdivision Ordinance. MR. RUEL-Tree cutting. 183-30? MR. O'CONNOR-A182-2. MR. RUEL-182? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STARK-I don't see how. if you clear out some trees for a road. they consider that, you can't subdivide that. MR. BREWER-What do you mean? subdivide it. If you cut trees. you can't, you MR. STARK-That's considered clear cutting, and you can't subdivide the property. MR. BREWER-He's not going to clear cut it. MR. STARK-Well. that's what I said. He's going to clear off the road, but he said it's clear cutting. MR. BREWER-Clear cutting is clear cutting. MRS. TARANA-Putting a road through. MR. BREWER-Is not clear cutting. MR. O'CONNOR-The Subdivision Regulations use the definitions out of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance says. if you take all the trees off the parcel. it's clear cutting. MRS. TARANA-But you're not taking all the trees off. MR. O'CONNOR-I asked Jim. Jim said it would be better to come to you. so that we don't have a problem when we come in. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Jim asked me to express his concern about this. He believes that it probably shouldn't go through. There's variables that are involved. MR. BREWER-Clear cutting. the definition is. the cutting of more than 50 percent of any trees over six inch in diameter. four and five tenths feet above the ground level. over the entire area of the cutting. - 36 - ',--- -- MR. O'CONNOR-Of the cutting. So if we clear cut the road. MR. RUEL-And you have trees that size. and you have more than 50 percent. MR. BREWER-So if you cut 10 square foot, that's clear cutting? MR. O'CONNOR-Of that piece. It should not be of the cutting. It should be of the parcel. MR. HARLICKER-Of the parcel, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And that was an interpretation Schermerhorn got from somebody when he clear cut, or almost clear cut. over next to the Northway behind where the Glens Falls City Dump is. He's got a Light Industrial parcel in there. off Luzerne Road, and they took off 80 percent of the trees and were told that was permissible. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. Would you consider this opening up the clear cutting as used for inspection? Well, the reason I mention that is it says. except. all right. The exception is for vegetation removed in connection with required surveying, engineering tests. and inspections. Clear cutting for inspections is okay, according to this. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There's another provision in here. though. Roger. that says you can waive these rules and regulations to the Subdi vision thing if it's not going to effect the health and welfare of the Town. okay. and I'd rather have you do it, and then not have a problem at the end of the month. MR. RUEL-Did you know about this. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I found out about it today. MR. O'CONNOR-Jim told us to come last week. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. He just asked me to say that, in his belief it kind of sets a bad precedent. MR. BREWER-Now. let me ask you this. if you cut them. that's what you're going to have is 14 lots. not 16, not 20? You're going to have the 14 lots? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is what we agreed upon with the neighbors. and you're going to get this exactly done tomorrow. The only thing they're going to do. when I looked at it today. I tried to get a set to bring to you today. This thing here should. this line's got to slide this way a little bit so that it's a full acre. It's 43,256 square feet, and I think it's got to be 43,480 square feet. So. I've got to slide it this way. We've got a variance for one through thirteen. with this configuration, with the widths and everything else. We did not get a variance on these. and this was just drawn in wrong. So he's going to change that tomorrow morning. MR. BREWER-Why would you need a variance, if you're just going to adjust? MR. O'CONNOR-Because it's less than an acre. It's one acre zoning. MR. BREWER-Yes. but if you adjust this line so it is an acre. MR. O'CONNOR-We won't. MR. BREWER-You don't want to adjust it? MR. O'CONNOR-I am going to adjust it. so I don't need a variance. MR. BREWER-Right. - 37 - MR. STARK-And this already is an acre. and an acre. and he's got the variance. MR. O'CONNOR-It's unique in the sense that we can't really build the road some place else. and that's why I don't think we're really setting a bad precedent. There's no other way of building that road in there, and if you had a question in your mind. and if at a Preliminary approval you're going to change your road or change the configuration of the road. I could see where you might not want us to clear cut. because what we clear cut then might become part of the lot. MRS. TARANA-The only risk I see. and it's more a philosophical one. is to be allowing the project to go ahead. only at sketch plan. is a little bothersome to me. because we could have applicants coming in and wanting to do something before they've even gotten preliminary, and they shouldn't be doing anything until they've gotten final. I mean. that's the bottom line. MR. O'CONNOR-Except that we've been here three times already. MRS. TARANA-I know. but you've only got sketch. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. but I mean. this thing has been planned three different ways. with this being the final plan. There aren't alternatives. if you're going to suggest an alternative to us, that's. we're willing to stipulate this is what we're doing. We're stipulating, we're coming in tomorrow with a full set of plans for preliminary approval. MRS. TARANA-What if somebody else comes and tells us this plan is no good? I mean, I'm just concerned that it's only at sketch. MR. 0' CONNOR-They've already looked at it at the ZBA. and they looked at it before it went to concept. MRS. TARANA-I mean. preliminary and final? way it will be. if that were the case. why even have Because you're saying this is exactly the MR. 0' CONNOR-When I come in on the corner property across the street. okay. there are 15 different configurations. There are 15 different road cuts that could be made. and that is a little bit more meaningful than this thing here. where you've got a tail end of something that somebody else already. MRS. TARANA-Yes. but I don't know that there can't be 15 here. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. let me show you. MRS. TARANA-Well. what I'm saying is. what if a planner. somebody else. says, there are other options there? I don't know that there aren't other options there. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think there are. MRS. TARANA-I don't know. I just worry about doing this at sketch. MR. O'CONNOR-We will not get final approval on this until probably January. if everything falls. if we get the right timing on the meetings and notices and all that stuff. So we wouldn't be into this until some time in late January, as opposed to now. It's just an ideal time to do it. MRS. TARANA-But how long ago did the sketch get approved? MR. BREWER-It was under different ownership then. MR. O'CONNOR-It was in July that we got the sketch approval. and since that time. we've negotiated with a couple of different - 38 - -- '-- -- builders. and I've asked both prior people and present people. We were. in fact, doing business with another builder before Mr. Cerrone signed a contract. put $5.000 down. and gave everybody the go, and that was done. if you want. just as a reference. that was done wi thin the last 10 days. I'm sorry. It was done November 9th. MR. STARK-Suppose we stipulate that this road has to be kept here for any development? MRS. TARANA-Well, once it's put there, it would have to be kept there. There's no changing it anyway, once it's there. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no problem with that stipulation, if you want to make it. Most front yards are clear cut anyway to some degree. So even if you shift the road a foot one way or the other. you're not going to prejudice somebody. MR. BREWER-What do you feel about it, Scott? Did Staff look at it? MR. HARLICKER-In this particular situation. there's not a whole lot of different ways the road's going to be configured. It might be off a little bit. and then you would have the clear cutting on somebody's property. but I'm like Corinne. it's just. it seems a bit premature to let somebody cutting in for a road cut prior to even preliminary approval. This particular case. maybe not so bad. It's a philosophical. somebody comes in on a different situation, and they point to this and say. well. you let him do it here. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think you have a precedent problem. If you take a look at the actual waiver section. and you talk about requirement. you have to determine whether it's a requirement required in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. Should we wait in the interest of one of those items. I don't see any purpose in waiting. because we're trying to come at this in a business like manner. MR. HARLICKER-But then you're tying yourself into a plan that you might not. in the future. turn out to be the best for the piece of property. MRS. TARANA-Well. that was my question. MR. O'CONNOR-We've been here three times. Two Boards have told us that this is the best for the property. Now. if they tell us it's not the best for the property. then I'm going to be upset wi th them. MRS. TARANA-But it's at preliminary where they could change it if they wanted to. could change it. MR. O'CONNOR-You. this Board. as the Board. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you going to change it? MRS. TARANA-I don't know. I can't speak for anyone else. MR. O'CONNOR-Why did you give us concept approval? MRS. TARANA-Getting concept approval is not final approval. MR. O'CONNOR-I know. but you should be able to rely upon it. MRS. TARANA-You can rely upon it through the sketch process. to get to preliminary. I mean. putting the road in would seem to me like a final. MR. O'CONNOR-We've gone out and gotten the roads engineered. We've - 39 - --- -- got the contours on the roads. MR. RUEL-Aren't you here just for one request? MR. BREWER-Yes. How did we give you a waiver at sketch? MR. O'CONNOR-We asked for it. Because I knew that the configuration of the roads was tight, and it was going to have to be fixed early on. You, in fact. set that road when you gave us that waiver. because we can't make that turn into three hundred degree radius. If you remember right at sketch, the only issue you had was whether or not we had shown this road to be 40 feet, and your approval says it should be 60 feet. MR. BREWER-Yes. I remember that. MR. O'CONNOR-And that was what the issue was. That was the only issue. I've been trying to do this thing since the early part of the year. by get this guy here to give us a road through him to get back to Luzerne Road. and never was able to. MR. BREWER-Yes. because we wanted to have him at least 60 foot to get to his lot. didn't we. for a driveway or something? MR. O'CONNOR-You just weren't comfortable with 40 feet. MR. RUEL-Aren' t we supposed to just discuss the clear cutting tonight? I mean, you're getting into other things? MR. BREWER-No. We're just talking about what was previously talked about. How long is that total length? MR. O'CONNOR-Sixteen hundred and fifty feet. MR. BREWER-What time would the trucks be pulling in and out of there to get rid of the trees? MR. O'CONNOR-Usually by eight o'clock in the morning they'll start? MR. BREWER-Start cutting you mean? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BREWER-Because I wouldn't want to see trucks come out of there at eight o'clock in the morning when everybody's going to work. or at five o'clock at night when everybody's coming home. AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-No. They won't start until that time. and three thirty. four 0' clock it starts getting dark anyway. It's just conducive to do it now because the leaves are off the trees. It's a lot easier. MR. STARK-I don't have any problem with that. because they're not going to change this next month. He'd submit the same plan, except with this line going this way five feet or something. a couple of feet. MR. BREWER-I wouldn't have any problem if it was stipulated that you don't do any cutting any earlier than eight o'clock. and you wouldn't be coming out of there with trucks when people are coming home from work. MR. CERRONE-That's no problem. MR. BREWER-I mean, that would be the only consideration for the people that live there. ' MR. O'CONNOR-Truck traffic limited from 8 a.m. until 3:30. - 40 - ----- -- ~--~ MR. RUEL-Four. MR. STARK-Where do these trucks go? MR. CERRONE-They're going to, grinding of the stumps and everything. and we're hauling it out of there. to McLaughlin's. MR. O'CONNOR-McLaughlin's Landfill. MR. BREWER-You don't have any intention of paving at all? You can't anyway because the plant's closed. Just cut the trees. How do you feel. Roger? MR. RUEL-We're talking about clear cutting? MR. BREWER-We're talking about cutting a 50 foot path. cutting. to me. I think that definition is wrong. Clear MR. RUEL-The roadway. the proposed roadway. Yes. MR. BREWER-It's all surveyed and everything? MR. O'CONNOR-It will be. MR. BREWER-And we can get verification before you cut a tree? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We don't want to cut more than we have to cut. Particularly the lots along the back. we want to keep as many trees as we can because you're backing on Birch Road. MR. BREWER-Did Queensbury Forest cut the road there. before they got final, in Phase III? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. MR. BREWER-I think they did. MR. RUEL-How wide's the road? MR. O'CONNOR-Fifty feet. MR. BREWER-Not the paved part of the road. It's going to be. MR. O'CONNOR-No. You have to clear the whole. by Town specs. you have to clear the whole 50 feet. MR. RUEL-Yes. even if the road was only 30. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the road is 28 feet, 24 foot with a two foot shoulder. MR. RUEL-The right-of-way. Town property. MR. O'CONNOR-No. it's 50 feet for the Town property, but we put in a 28 feet wide pavement. MR. RUEL-You're going to take stumps out and everything? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-Level it out? MR. CERRONE-Yes, somewhat graded. MR. RUEL-So you can drive through it. Yes. MR. BREWER-Did you think about preparing any comments at all about it. Scott, or not? MR. HARLICKER-On this? I really didn't find out about it until - 41 - - --- just recently. Jim had just asked me to express his concern that he's not really for it. but it's up to you to decide. MR. BREWER-He called me and asked me if they could come in and talk to us. and I said sure. under items of other business. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-It's a request for waiver. right? MR. BREWER-Does it have to be a formal application for the waiver. or not? MR. O'CONNOR-Some place in the Subdivision Reg's it says you have to apply in writing for. MR. BREWER-Did you do that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It's right there. That's the letter. MR. BREWER-This is the letter. When's that dated? November 23rd. Today. Okay. So. answer my question. Roger. what do you think? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STARK-Fine. MRS. TARANA-I really have a number of problems with it. One is getting something on the day of the meeting. I'm very uncomfortable with that. with that kind of a procedure. and I'm also very uncomfortable with granting permission for a waiver at sketch. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-What would happen if you didn't get it? Then you'd have to wait until final. and you'd start in January. when all the snow's. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. TARANA-But there's not going to be any building taking place now anyway. Is there? MR. STARK-Well. he's not asking for building lots. asking to clear cut a road. He's just MRS. TARANA-Then why does the road have to go in there? MR. STARK-It's available now. He can do it. final approval. he can start in on the lots. Then when he gets MR. CERRONE-If you own a piece of property. and you're not going into the subdivision situation. and you went out in the back and just cut a few trees down, you wouldn't need permission. MR. O'CONNOR-My reading is that. I agree that there's a problem with the definition. Maybe that ought to be looked at. but given the definition the way it's written now, we'd have a prohibition. We couldn't subdivide the rest of the parcel for a period of five years, if you held us to it. We'd be prohibited from subdividing. There's a penalty built into the Ordinance. If you clear cut a piece of property without this Board's permission. by waiver. we can't subdivide that parcel for five years. MR. RUEL-Yes, that's right. It's in there. MR. BREWER-But the thing that bothers me so much is you're not clear cutting the parcel. The parcel is the whole parcel. to me. - 42 - -- MR. 0' CONNOR-I agree. but it's just one of those things that nobody. maybe nobody has focused on it before. MR. HARLICKER-It hasn't come up. Yes. MR. BREWER-I think that's the problem. If I wanted to go out, I've got two and a half acres of land. and if I wanted to go out and cut a half acre of land on my property. I have a right to do that. MR. STARK-But then you wouldn't be able to subdivide it for five years. MR. BREWER-If I own two and a half acres. and I cut a half acre. that's not clear cutting to me. George. Lets decide and vote. MR. RUEL-It's just a matter of accepting a statement in there. and saying, yes. it may be in effect. and we better give him a waiver. That's all it is. We're just voting on a waiver. granting a waiver. MRS. TARANA-But maybe what the waiver should be is that they could subdivide within five years, or whatever. MR. BREWER-If they cut. MRS. TARANA-If they cut this, they will not be penalized the five year time period that they can't. MR. RUEL-Well. we'll put that statement in the resolution. MR. BREWER-I don't think that's the waiver we have to give him. We have to give him a waiver to cut the trees. The definition has to be changed in the Ordinance. MR. 0' CONNOR-I'm going to come back to this Board in the next couple of months. It's going to be this Board who's going to penalize me. So I'm comfortable with you giving me what you think is necessary. as long as you know that. hopefully Monday, if this thing is staked out. we will have people up there cutting out the road. MR. BREWER-After we have our verification of it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don't mind that. MR. BREWER-I mean. only so that it matches the map within. give or take. MR. O'CONNOR-Staked out. and we're going to have somebody from the Building Department come and look at the stake out. MR. BREWER-I would feel better if we had a verification of where it is. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That's not a problem. MRS. TARANA-And if something changes at preliminary. you have to change the road? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. When's your first meeting in December? MR. BREWER-We haven't set it yet. What's the third Tuesday? The third Tuesday usually. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. it will be cleared. MR. BREWER-And we'll go out and see it. MR. HARLICKER-There's a nice little system of trails you can walk through back in there. with gorgeous and nice views of the - 43 - -"- property. MR. BREWER-Lets decide what we're going to do. MR. RUEL-Grant them a waiv~r . MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. RUEL-Do you want me to read what I have. and see if you agree with it? MR. BREWER-If you'd like to. sure. MR. RUEL-AII right. The motion would be to allow clear cutting, proposed road area, of Al Cerrone property, subdivision known as Clendon Brook Phase II. and grant a waiver from. and then I would quote. "No parcel of land may be subdivided which has been clear cut within the previous five years". Section A183-2 of the Subdivision of Land Code, on Map 92121. with a condition about cutting to be limited from the hours of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. MR. BREWER-They can cut at eight. but I would rather not see any trucks going out of there, until. like. 8:30. MR. STARK-They're going to be cutting for two days. MR. RUEL-Eight thirty. MR. BREWER-All right. Two days. Fine. George. how would you like to come out of your place to go to work in the morning and get behind three truck loads of stumps? MR. STARK-For two days. it's not the end of the world. MR. BREWER-All right. Well. it's not the end of the world for them either. and he agreed to it. MR. BREWER-All right. A motion's been made. MOTION TO ALLOW CLEAR CUTTING PROPOSED ROAD AREA OF AL CERRONE PROPERTY SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS CLENDON BROOK PHASE II. AND GRANT A WAIVER FROM ·NO PARCEL OF LAND MAY BE SUBDIVIDED WHICH HAS BEEN CLEAR CUT WITHIN THE PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS· SECTION 8183-2 OF THE SUBDIVISION LAND CODE. ON MAP 92121. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: With a condition about cutting to be limited from the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. Duly adopted this 23rd day of November, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint MR. 0' CONNOR-Thank you very much. There's a second thing there which I just filed with you. Okay. Under the Parks and Recreation business. under our variance. we were going to ask to request that the Town accept the 29 acres, which is to the west of Phase I, in lieu of recreation fees. MR. BREWER-That's over by the Brook. MRS. TARANA-We haven't made a determination yet about these recreation fees. MR. BREWER-Yes. we did. We accepted Jimmy Girard's land last week. - 44 - '- ....------ Jim is getting that for us. MRS. TARANA-He's getting a determination? MR. BREWER-Yes. Does Al own that? MR. 0' CONNOR-Yes. He's going to buy these two in one piece. They're the same Tax Map Number. MR. BREWER-Just to call to everybody's attention. December 6th. it would be a good idea if we all attended the Town Board meeting. I think it's going to be a regular Town Board meeting. Hudson Point. MR. HARLICKER-Before everybody take~ off. there was one thing held over from last week. the Route 149 Corridor recommendation. We have to take care of that tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm also trying to meet with Fred Champagne and Carol Pulver, just for your information, first. MR. BREWER-When was that on? MR. O'CONNOR-Next Wednesday. MR. BREWER-And I'm invited to that with Jim? MR. O'CONNOR-Sure. You're invited. It's not a public meeting. MR. BREWER-No, I understand. but I think Alan asked me if I would go, also. MR. O'CONNOR-I should have. at that time. an actual map showing the reduction, showing the road configuration. MR. BREWER-Can I get an extra copy of that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. if we have it. MR. HARLICKER-There was one item from last week that has to be cleared up, the recommendation on the 149 Study. MR. RUEL-Just the modifications? MR. HARLICKER-Well. the whole thing. The Town Board is looking for your input. for your recommendation. After you make a recommendation. it goes to the Town Board for their review. It can be done in a motion. and there'll be more modifications once it gets to the Board. It just means that. it furthers the procedure on, and if you have anything of substance that you'd like changed, now's the time to speak your mind. MR. BREWER-Can we do that. Scott? Do we have time? If we get everything in and done. could we have our meetings the 14th and the 21st next month? MR. HARLICKER-That would be fine with me. because I won't be here the 22nd. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we schedule that way, so that we can get our notes and everything by the 14th? MRS. TARANA-The 14th and the 21st. MR. BREWER-The deadline's tomorrow. So if we have our meetings the 14th and the 21st. it keeps it back from Christmas. and then after Christmas. we won't have to come back. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We'll have to check to make sure the room's available. and that sort of thing. - 45 - '-' -' MR. BREWER-Yes. Let me know. MR. STARK-And the site visits are the 8th. MR. BREWER-The 8th. MR. STARK-Now, what do you want to do with the Corridor Study? I'm going to vote against it. MR. BREWER-Okay. approve or deny. We've got to have a motion to recommend to MRS. TARANA-What I wondered about that. was there a very specific, architectural review and all that for that zone? MR. BREWER-We can still make written comments to the Town Board, can't we? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. This is just the Board's recommendation. There'll be a series. I suspect. MOTION TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE ROUTE 149 CORRIDOR STUDY, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption. seconded by Corinne Tarana: Duly adopted this 23rd day of November, 1993. by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-I have questions I'd like to raise about it. MR. BREWER-You still can. There's going to be a series of public hearings on it. MRS. TARANA-I want to just make a statement about it now. There are very specific things in there. like the parking in front of the building and everything. that we don't have in any other zones. which I feel we should have in other zones, and I don't know that that's appropriate for just that one zone. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Fine. When can we make the recommendation? MRS. TARANA-I'm going to go to the public hearing. MR. HARLICKER-Nothing's been set yet. MR. STARK-So we don't have to approve anything tonight? MR. HARLICKER-Well. it was on your agenda last week. The Town Board is looking for input from the Board as a group. similar to what you do with the rezonings. MR. STARK-Well. we're not happy with the way it is. MR. BREWER-And there can ultimately be changes made. MR. RUEL-It's a start. of course. It's very flexible. and there'll be many changes before finalized. MR. BREWER-I'm sure there will. That's why I would say to approve it. MR. RUEL-It's a good starting point. MRS. TARANA-Well. that's why I would say to disapprove it. because I think they got very. very specific in that zone, where it is not in any of the other zones. MR. BREWER-Maybe in certain things. but if you want to stop and - 46 - - ...,.., fine tune it. MR. HARLICKER-You're talking about the Rural Commercial zone? That was the intent. to be very specific in that zone. It was written to be similar to the other commercial zones. with the same. AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana NOES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 47 -