Loading...
1993-08-17 SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 17,1993 5:00 P.M. MTG#61 RES#463-464 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Supervisor Michel Brandt Councilman Pliney Tucker Councilman Nick Caimano Councilman Susan Goetz Councilman Betty Monahan TOWN ATTORNEY Paul Dusek TOWN OFFICIALS Jim Martin PRESS Post Star, Moreau Sun DISCUSSION HELD REGARDING RED LOBSTER MAP OF PROPOSED PROJECT PRESENTED TO PUBLIC Supervisor Brandt -Called meeting to order. There were a lot of questions had as we've gone along here, some technical questions and we asked Jim Martin to see if he could bring us answer to those. Jim are you prepared to take it on? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-As, I recall approximately about a week ago when we last spoke of this really the questions revolving around the new road revolved around, I would think two central themes. One of those being the technical aspects and merits of the road or disadvantages of a new road and the actual funding of such an undertaking therefore the so to speak guarantee of such a road being built. I will do my best to answer the technical aspects of the road the new information we've gotten since the last meeting. We have Joanna Brunso here from the New York State Department of Transportation and then also the Glens Falls Transportation Council who, I think will be in the best position possible anyhow to answer any questions regarding funding and that type of thing and there realness of the road and the bridge for that matter so, I'll lead it off. As you all recall we've got a little bit better rendering of the project here in terms of the road. (MAP SHOWN) This is Aviation Road, Route 9, with a major intersection down here. This is Old Aviation here, okay and Greenway North currently comes in here like this. Now, as you may recall my last rendering of this we had Greenway North connecting in here and there were some concerns and justifiable ones on the part of the neighborhood on how are we going to get out of there, and isn't that to short of a distance, and that type of thing with the stacking. We looked at the possibility and again, in keeping in line with one of our goals as, I stated last time and that was protection of this as a single family neighborhood and preservation of that. The buffer is still here, but now we would use the existing right-a- way of Old Aviation bring it in here bringing the intersection essentially into the center of the road between the two traffic lights. Now, the possibility of this working better than this is certainly evident in that it is in the center of the road and quite frankly DOT is going to want to leave green space open on Route 9, and 254, those are the major arterial. The red light allowed here will be long in a nature and the green will be shorter so there will be an opportunity to enter and exit through this road. Quite honestly the expected level of service at this intersection even from the beginning is a level of Service E, but that does not take into account the impact of these traffic lights. As I said, creating gaps in the traffic to allow people to get in and out. There is a left hand turn lane provided here, and there will be here although not shown here there was discussion of providing a right hand turn lane here, and a left hand turn lane here, and a right hand coming in. So, you have a little bit wider throat here so to speak or mouth to the road here, and wider here to accommodate right hand turns, and you would have that left hand turn land here as well. Now in terms of volumes on the road. At day one if this were to open up today the expected volume on the road would be 693 cars by directionally at peak hour. It would break down essentially with 480 coming this way and 213 proceeding the other way. That's the best estimates we have so that essentially 700 cars by directionally today. Now try to project that out as we would have to qualify for State and Federal funding of this road to a twenty year design taking it to the year 2013 the by-directional movement on this road would increase probably about a thousand cars total. That would break down 720 this way and 280 moving this way so that's basically taking into account a 2 or 2 1/2 percent background growth in the traffic along that road. That answers the question as to the volume that this road might be expected to take. The other change I had shown previously a five lane road going through here this has ben reduced to a three lane. At those volumes certainly a three lane is all that's warranted. I was told that you don't really cross a threshold, if you will into a five lane road until your in the neighborhood of a 1800 cars per lane per hour. That trips you in to having the need for a five lane road so certainly that's 1800 per lane. If we're looking at 1000 cars by directionally that's on the average 500 per lane that certainly does not warrant a three lane road through this section.... Unknown-Five lane. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Or a five lane so there would be a three lane through this section. Now this is shown at a 30 m.p.h. design speed. We did look at a 40 m.p.h. design speed and the impact of that is the radius has to be straightened out to permit the higher speed. If that were to occur you would render this house on the end of Old Aviation Road essentially useless as a single family home it would be right in your front yard. As a planner of this process for the Town we're violating one of our stated goals and that is trying to protect and preserve this area as a viable single family neighborhood without excessive amounts of traffic. For that reason the impact to the residential neighborhood that design was thrown out and this is the preferred alternative with a lower design speed. It should not be to much of a concern in that this would be limited to 30 m.p.h. in any event. I think I've addressed all the questions that were asked of me. If there are any that I have left out, I would be more than happy to try and answer those at this time based on the new information we have. Councilman Monahan-Jim where does Greenway North come out now? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Greenway North you probably can't see it runs along here comes out at the same location, but it runs right in through this here. Councilman Monahan-Are you talking about doing away with part of Greenway North? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes, right in this area here. Councilman Monahan-So your talking about closing off Greenway North that area? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That section of it. Now, traffic would flow down Old Aviation. I think this would result in an actual net reduction in traffic on this road over what's there today given the cut through traffic utilizing McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken that open area there. Councilman Monahan-Your bringing out the proposed road on to Aviation Road. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Right, right here. Councilman Monahan-At the same place Greenway North comes now or a little different location or what? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It has essentially the same curb cut, but shortly thereafter it goes off on a totally new profile. Greenway North is in this area now, this comes over this way. It is really thereafter that it goes off into a different angle. This is an attempt to keep this buffer area here at it's narrowest point which is right here 45 feet it widens out to almost 65 feet in this area here. Councilman Monahan-That's the land that's wooded at the present time? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Right. Councilman Monahan-The other leg of that road is still coming out by the traffic signaL... Executive Director, Mr. Martin-By the hardware store. Councilman Monahan-The other one on Aviation Road. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-This here? Councilman Monahan-Go down further. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That would continue to be at the light. This continues to be shown as a right hand turn in and a right hand turn out only. Councilman Monahan-So, again properties your talking about with this plan would be part of Mr. Wood's land, part True Value's land, and then your still talking about having to take the same houses on the other leg of it on Aviation Road. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Right. This design here from my previous design has not change. However, again this is thought to occur as redevelopment of this area would occur. It would not be taking of the right-a-way as it would be in these two cases that would occur as that property changes hands potentially. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Any other questions from the Board? As, I see this thing it started as an application for a rezoning and that's what we are formally addressing. But, it's developed into an identification of a traffic situation in Queensbury that has gotten the Board involved in looking as a total traffic plan for the intersection of Route 9 and Aviation Road. We're really looking at one quadrant of four quadrant's to that plan. The reason we're looking at that one quadrant and focusing is to see how it impacts this particular application for rezoning so everybody understands that. executive Director, Mr. Martin-The other thing, I want to say in align with that is the reason why this is getting attention from a technical standpoint is this one improvement alone has the greatest amount of benefit of all the combined improvements. As, I said before we're speaking of taking nearly a thousand cars out of this intersection with all the improvements. This one alone will contribute to approximately a third of that if not more so that is why this has the greatest technical benefit. I think Joanna can speak to any questions that the Board may have. We had a carry over from last week in terms of the funding not only of this, but the bridge as well and they may be of even more principal concern. If you don't mind I'd like Joanna to speak to the Board on those issues. Supervisor Brandt-We'd be delighted. Joanna Brunso-I thought we just start here and finish up this discussion. In traffic planning you have as something known as a level of service. A level of service is essentially a measurement of delay. Therefore, if you have a stretch of road or intersection that's moving absolutely at it's design speed it's level of Service A. Then if you begin to experience a little congestion it may move to a B or C. Now, this intersection here at nine and two fifty four is operating at about a level of Service D. Wal-Mart which is going to be located right up here was asked to do some forecast for this intersection here. With the traffic brought about by Wal-Mart in five years this intersection will move to a level of Service F, which means that it's going to be a much bigger headache then it is today. It will be what we consider a failing intersection. As far as GFTC (Glens Falls Transportation Council) is concerned this is one of our major intersection and major problems in the Glens Falls area. So, that's how this whole study came to be. (Presented Board members with letter) This is was as a result of a letter that the Town wrote to Robert Hansen who is the Capital Program Coordinator. He wrote it as a result of that letter and as a result of Jim Martin and Mike Brandt's request. Having in writing the fact that the reconstruction of Exit 19 is a fact. It says: Dear Mr. Brandt: I am responding to your July 20th letter to Mr. Hansen sending a copy of the Town Board resolution urging us to proceed immediately with the subject property. The subject property being Exit 19, Aviation Road. I can tell you that this project is on our five year capital program and that we have committed funds to retain a consultant to assist with the design of the new structure in ramp reconfiguration. The contract is currently scheduled for fall of 1997, construction completion would be in 1999. Obviously both you and we would like to this project progress more quickly. We will look at this project closely to see if we can accommodate your request. Before we can commit to any acceleration of the letting there are a number of concerns we must address. When our design consultant begins work we will complete a reassessment of the project issue and the schedule. We will require and provide project status to all interested parties through our participation in the Glens Falls Transportation Council. FurtlIer, our project manager George Hodges can also answer questions as we proceed his number is, etc. Councilman Caimano-Can I ask a question? Ms. Brunso- Yes. Councilman Caimano- Third paragraph. Before we can commit to any acceleration of the letting there are a number of concerns we must address. There is a large pregnant pause there, are you not going to tell us what those concerns are? Ms. Brunso-I think I was just getting a breath. Councilman Caimano- They are not listed in there either. Ms. Brunso- They are not listed in there because we don't know what we're going to get into. Councilman Caimano-Okay. Ms. Brunso-What they have done is they ordered maps of the area probably aerial photography. They don't know what they are going to get in as far as ramp reconfiguration. What they do know what we suspect if going to be a five lane bridge with two lanes in each direction and a continuous turning lane in the other one. We're not quite sure what the configuration will be and how wide this whole intersection will be. Therefore, we may get into taking a property, we don't know where that property might be taken and then again it might not. There are just two many mights in this project at the moment. Supervisor Brandt-That's an analysis of Exit 19. Ms. Brunso- That is an analysis of Exit 19. Supervisor Brandt-What we're saying is that right now it's scheduled for project completion in 1999, I'm not sure any of us will be alive by then, but if we are we might enjoy the benefits meanwhile we'll all push to accelerate that. Councilman Monahan-Mike, excuse me if I could ask JoamIa a couple of questions. Supervisor Brandt-Sure. Councilman Monahan-Joanna you say it may result in some taking of property. I would assume that would be along Aviation Road and we do not know where, which side or how deep that will be at this time? Ms. Brunso-That's true. Until they come up with.... Councilman Monahan-So we may lose some of this property that we're looking to service right now we don't know? Ms. Brunso- The property that they might be taking would be the property immediately on the four corners of Aviation Road. Councilman Monahan-But, if your having a five lane bridge, I'm assuming your going to have five lanes going into that bridge your not going to have a three lane or four lane road going. Right now we have one lane turning into the Northway going north... Ms. Brunso- Yes. Councilman Monahan-And, you know we have many almost near misses on that construction. Your going to have to widen the number of lanes approaching that bridge. Ms. Brunso-I don't think so. Just before you get to the bridge what you'll have is a lane, say your coming from the Route 9 side of that bridge. As you come up right now your right there are only four lanes. Councilman Monahan-And two go across the bridge. How are your going to feed what we've got there now going into five lanes? Ms. Brunso- Those are the questions that the engineers are going to have to ask and they are going to have to come up with a solution to it. Councilman Monahan-That's what I'm saying it's probably going to mean some taking of land for quite some distance from that bridge. Councilman Tucker-That right lane coming up now why can't it be a right hand turn in a through lane? Ms. Brunso-Because we need two lanes going over to the west side of the Northway. Councilman Tucker-You'll have two lanes. You could come up in that right lane now and you turn north. Other people come up in and cut back in front of whoever is waiting to go. Ms. Brunso- That's right. Councilman Tucker-Why couldn't when the bridge becomes four lanes that lane be a through lane and right hand turn. You could come up and if you want to turn right you turn right. If you don't you go on right across the bridge. Ms. Brunso- That may be entirely possible. I don't want to second guess the engineers. I think what they want is an exit or what they are now calling an interchange that will work for at least twenty to thirty years to come. They want an interchange that's safe and they want it to be at the minimal cost because we have lots of places to use that money. They will try to design something that will take the least amount of property possible. Councilman Tucker-They are only about thirty years late right now. Councilman Monahan-Joanna, I have another question you weren't here the other night when I raised this. This is an article July 22nd in the Post Star an Associated Press release out of Albany. A key Assemblyman said Wednesday that future road and bridge projects across the State could end up being delayed because of talks of where to spend the money have bogged down. Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman Michael Bragman said, legislative leaders and Governor Mario Cuomo have so far failed to agree on which individual highway projects to fund with 9.6 billion from a massive four year transportation plan. Without an understanding among the three parties regarding the projects that will be funded there will be unconsciousable delays when the monies become available Bragman said. My question is, is the 9.6 billion he's talking about is the money for this bridge and reconstruction within that 9.6 billion dollars? Ms. Brunso-I don't know. I honestly don't know, I have not seen that article otherwise I could have come up with an answer to that. This money is already committed.... Councilman Monahan-Committing it and having it are two different things. Your not going to spend it until you have it. Ms. Brunso- That's right. I really don't know, but my feeling is that this bridge is not involved in that money. Supervisor Brandt-Joanna we have never, at least in my experience applied for money through the State for this quadrant fixes around a major intersection. What's the sequence? How long does it take? It's my understanding that the State has said this is the kind of project that they would look at funding with federal and state dollars. If that's the case how do you go through that process. Ms. Brunso-Ifyour talking about a federally funded road that road has to have a functional classification and a federal aid classification before it can even be considered for funding. The proper sequence of events is for this study that's now underway underling the funding of the Glens Falls Transportation Council the GFTC, is for that to come to a completion. The GFTC both Technical Committee and Policy Committee must agree to accept its findings. The road must then be put on the federal aid system and then when the next years Transportation Improvement Program comes around for development which is next January the Policy Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee vote to put this road on the program. Realistically, I think that this is highly unlikely that the GFTC would turn down this road. I feel fairly confident by going ahead and filling out the paperwork to get this proposed road on the federal aid and functional class system and I can start doing that right away. The next thing to get is the GFTC Study, which is Corridor Study #6 finished and having both the technical and policies groups accept it. Supervisor Brandt-Is that something in your estimation is doable between now and January? Ms. Brunso- Yes. Supervisor Brandt-We're saying that it would get on the list and probably the Glens Falls Transportation Council would accept it in January? Ms. Brunso- Yes. Supervisor Brandt-And then what? Ms. Brunso-We begin to really sort things out. We propose it in January the analysis goes on up through February and early March. We take all of the projects that come into region one remembering that region one starts with Essex County takes Washington, Warren, Saratoga, Rensselaer, Albany, Schenectady, Green Counties, that's eight counties. All the roads within those eight counties that are funded with federal dollars as well as those that are funded with state dollars, and some roads that are funded with county dollars are now eligible for federal funding. All of those goes into the mix and we have to decide where we get the best cost benefit. I think this study ought to prove pretty conclusively that this is a very cost effective road. I think it's a good probability that we'll get in on the program whether it's in the six year or five year. As roads go it's not a terribly expensive road, I know it's going to cost somewhere between five hundred thousand and one million five hundred thousand. The reason I say it's going to cost that is because construction along will probably be five hundred thousand. But, by the time you get through with the grading and the right -a-way and all of the other small details that get into this it could raise it anywhere from another five hundred thousand to a million dollars more. Councilman Monahan-Joanna, when you say, the road are you referring to just the main three lane that's going from the Aviation to Glen Street? Ms. Brunso- Yes, the cut through. Councilman Monahan-Thank you. Supervisor Brandt-Am, I detecting though that we're saying construction if we went through that process is something that would take place many years from now? Ms. Brunso-That's not entirely, what I'm saying is if we put it on the tip and we put it behind everything that's already on the tip right now, the tip being the Transportation Improvement Program. We have some major projects in the capital district particularly in the area of the Airport and also in the area of the Rexford Bridge corridor those are very big projects. We may have to slip those a year because we just are not going to be able to get all the funds together. If that happens it's the perfect opportunity to get this road slipped in there as long as there is an advocate for that road sitting there and waiting and as long as we have data to justify the building of this road. It might get in there sooner than say 1998 or 1999, but I'm not prepared to say that it will. Supervisor Brandt-The outside in 1998, 1999, perhaps it's sooner, but it's certainly not 1994. Ms. Brunso-It's certainly not 1994. Supervisor Brandt-These are very difficult things for all of us to understand, I appreciate your willingness to go through with us. I am on that Transportation Council and I go through these meetings every so often. I've been basted in this many times, but I never do comprehend it all, I'll have to admit that. When I listen to Technical Advisory Committee's, I think even some of them don't understand all of it. Ms. Brunso-It's fairly complexed. Councilman Monahan-Mike may I ask Joanna a question, please? Supervisor Brandt-Sure. Councilman Monahan-Joanna when does the design phase of this road come into be in this sequence of events and how long will that take? Ms. Brunso-Jim, is that part of the scope of services of our study? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. We're going to have the study to the point where we have preliminary engineering done. We'll have a propose location of the road very similar to what's there as well as profiles and all that and a cost estimate. Councilman Monahan-Your talking about that by the end of 1993 is what your looking at for that to get this on in January of 1994? Ms. Brunso-I think so. Councilman Monahan-And then how long does it take to do the kind of design drawings and do the spec's and put this out to bid, how many more months are we talking about to do that? Ms. Brunso-I have no idea. Councilman Caimano-Remember the first sentence they don't even know the problems yet. Councilman Monahan- I mean I'm figuring if we solve all this stuff in that time frame. Supervisor Brandt-Any other questions? Thank you. Ms. Brunso- Y our welcome. Supervisor Brandt -So everyone understands if we can set some ground rules. I would like to hear from the Attorney's from both sides and I'd like to let a very free interexchange take place between the board members and anybody they like to question because in the end they are the ones that are going to have to make the vote and they are the ones that are going to have to make the decision here. I like to keep a pretty open dialogue and fairly informal and everyone will have a chance to speak that is the Attorney's from both sides not necessarily the public at this point. Who wants to start? Mark you've been picked on in the past would you like to start first? Attorney Schachner-I assume someone else represents the applicant he can go. Supervisor Brandt-I want to keep the rules fairly rigid. Attorney Lemery-Mr. Supervisor, members of the Town Board, my name is John Lemery. I appear this evening on behalf of Charles R. Wood the owner of the site which has been for sometime under contract with General Mills the company that owns the Red Lobster Restaurants. I think everybody's forbearness has been exceptional here. This has gone on for several months this whole issue about this little piece of land. We've all read in the papers month after month about when we've come here what the issues were a lot of speculation in the press about what the problems are. The one thing that has troubled me the entire time has been the sort of perception that this has taken on a life of its own as opposed to a request for a rezoning. It's not a Red Lobster issue it's a rezoning issue and it always has been a rezoning issue. We've heard about whether or not it would have been smart to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals originally, in fact Mr. Schachner suggested that might be a better approach. Our position was always that this was something that had to go to you the legislatures of the Town because it was a critical issue and it involved a Town wide situation. This little piece of land was originally under the 1967 Zoning Ordinance zoned commercial. Sometime between the time it was originally zoned commercial and the reconfiguration of Aviation Road and the development of Pyramid Mall it became a piece of land which under the 1988 and prior to that Rezoning Commission the land was changed from commercial to residential. One hearing here last year Joe Carusone stood up here who was the Chairman of the Planning Commission and he was followed by Mr. Kinney who was also on the Zoning Commission and said, well we really don't think it should be developed commercially, but we really didn't know what to do with it. We recognized that there needed to be a buffer so we left it alone and recognized that some future board or some future agency would have to deal with it. Since the original application was put before you there has been all kinds of discussion regarding the traffic in the area of where the site is located and the protection of the neighbors who live in the area called Greenway North. If you talk to people in the Town about this rezoning most of them somehow think that this land is sort of a little forever wild piece of land that can be kept forever wild in the Town as sort of an entrance to the Town, wooded and never be touched and never be dealt with in any kind of commercial or residential way. In fact, the lady who spoke at the last meeting said, we don't have enough trees in Queensbury and we need to protect the trees and we need to protect the things in Queensbury, well she is right. If this piece ofland had been zoned or had been acquired by the Town or had been put in some way where it was in some sort of a land bank then the neighborhood could sit back and say, we don't have to worry we're not going to rezone this, we're not even going to consider rezoning because it can't be used for any other purpose. What I've tried to do over the several months that we've been before your Board and speaking with others is for people to please, please, recognize that the way it's zoned now 10,000 sq. ft. residences it's zoned for between 12 and 14 single family residences. I have spoken to most of you on the Town Board and I haven't talked to anyone who believes that this land should remain residential and is properly something that ought to be kept residential. There are all kinds of uses proposed by people in the area including Senior Citizen housing and things of that nature, but I can't believe that is really what is in the best interest of the Town in terms of the overall location. Whether we like it or not it really isn't even suited to an office building or something of that nature because it's really a piece ofland where there is the highest density commercial traffic in the Town of Queensbury. Leaving it the way it is does not protect the neighbors. It doesn't protect them, it doesn't provide them with the buffer. The best plan is to provide some sort of use of this land that provides protection to the neighborhood and recognizes what's an appropriate use for the front of it and focuses and looks out on to Aviation Road. When this application was originally presented to you it was for a much larger parcel that was going to be developed for the restaurant. It became clear that the neighbors had a serious issue and it became clear that the applicant had to address it and deal with mitigation of the concerns. I like to just run by everyone of these mitigated issues and everyone of these issues that have cropped up meeting after meeting and new ones have cropped up about the problem. The application for the rezoning as it now sits before you would in effect rezone roughly two of the four acres. We're proposing that there be a 100 foot buffer along the back which we would either give to the Town by way of conservation easement or deed it to the Town in a way that the Town could then put it in the land bank. If you decide later that a road makes sense for that area of the Town you now have the property to deal with it. If you decide that a road is not going to make sense or you can't get it funded or that's not what the people want you have a piece of land that is a permanent buffer for the resident's who live on Greenway North. Not the case today, not the case the way it's zoned, and not the case if you leave it residential. The issue of traffic was raised. I've had a devil of a time going back and explaining to my client about all the problems we've had with this application and this rezoning. We all of a sudden see Wal-Mart come up and we've got the Ames Store which is there. Wal- Mart is not replacing Ames, Wal-Mart is an addition to Ames. The Kmart application is somewhere in the planning process and negative declarations are issued and it's not perceived to be a traffic problem. We don't understand that we don't understand how that works when the traffic consultants stand up here and say, that in five, six, seven years the intersection at Route 9 will fail, so we recognize that traffic is an issue. The people on Greenway North said, we don't want the traffic. We think that if we build a Red Lobster there your just going to increase traffic on Greenway North and it's going to be a worse problem. The traffic consultant that we retained and the traffic consultants that you later retained made it pretty clear that really the issue is not an 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant the issue is tlIat this Greenway North is used as a cut through area for people trying to avoid exactly where the problem is the Route 9 intersection so they use it as a thruway way going back and forth through Greenway North. McDonalds has since our last appearance before you come in an have closed off or effectively made it very difficult to get two-way traffic through there and that has caused a reduction in the traffic. I'm not saying that's the end all and be all, but it's clear if it was closed off it would reduce the thruway traffic through there. We we're told that the bridge at Exit 19, was a bottleneck and the people on the western side of the Town some of them we're opposed to the rezoning of this parcel because they thought it would increase the traffic on the bridge. Your planner was asked to talk to DOT, talk to the people there and find out whether or not the plan for the bridge is really in the works and if so when might it get funded. I have to say to you if the people on the west side over there believe that this 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant is such that it would effectively block up that traffic so that the bridge is further congested, what that in effect says you really ought to take a very tough look and decide to stop development on Aviation Road. You really ought to stop development on the Route 9 corridor and on 254 until you get that bridge fixed. To say that it is a Red Lobster or a two acre parcel problem in my judgement would be unfair and unreasonable and believe the facts which are that the Town is growing. You have 200 hundred houses going into the Town a year a lot of which go into the west side. Are you going to say, how are we going to tell where the traffic comes from? Does it come from another 200 houses? Does it come from an 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant? Does it come from people from Vermont, the south, people from the north coming down to go to Wal-Mart, going to Pyramid, going to other areas. It's pretty much impossible to determine what kind of real affect this restaurant would have on that bridge. But, if you believe that it does have an affect then, I don't think you can in fairness approve anymore development until you fix the bridge. We have three interests which we've all talked about during this whole time. There is the interest certainly of the neighborhood group to be protected so that there homes are not subject to that Aviation Road visually and all the other things that come with it. There is the right of the people in the Town of Queensbury to look at long term master planning and do its best for the Town and that's your obligation, too in my judgement as Town Board members. Then there is the interest of Charles R. Wood, who has been a resident of this Town for all his adult life who has made major contributions to this Town and who deserves to be treated in a fair and equitable manner by you in connection with how you look at this piece ofland. I heard, well Charlie Wood has a lot of money we shouldn't worry about Charlie Wood. I don't believe any member of this Town Board sees that. I know all of you and I know all of you have operated businesses and you know how tough it is to earn a living and accumulate capital and do things. But, you have in your mites today a man who have given this Town many things over the years and deserves you to take a good hard look at this and be fair. He deserves fairness and to be treated the way you would expect to be treated if you had this site. As your planner says the intersection down at Route 9 is going to fail and if you believe it is in your interest to look seriously at putting this road through here then you have to look at seriously what the applicant here is offering to you today. The reason we're here today is that our options expire the Red Lobster will look other places it will go other places. I have no personal knowledge as I stand here tonight whether they'll locate in the Town or whether they won't. I don't know, but I can this. If your plan is to take a very hard look at putting this road in at some point in the future then you have a Town wide issue to look at. What your being offered tonight is the opportunity to get the land which would make up what appears to be to me to be almost half of the road free. If this request is turned down and the land remains residential then you have to take it and pay for it. But, what we're saying to you tonight is if you can approve this piece of land in the front for the rezoning then the back piece of land you have to decide with what you wish to do with it including using it for this road at no cost to the Town of Queensbury. I think that's a very significant contribution and something that the taxpayers in the Town would want you to think seriously about as opposed to taking if you believe that this road is something that needs to be accomplished. If you do believe, also that the road needs to be put in there then are you further demeaning the value of this piece ofland as residential. If your planners say, we really need to do this because we need to move this traffic around then this can't very well be continued as residential property because you'll in effect be putting a three lane road through the north end of it. Some of the neighbors have said traffic was an issue. Some of the neighbors have the bridge is an issue. Some of the neighbors have said we like to keep it forever wild. I submit to you that its taken on a life way beyond that which you ought to really look at which is a rezoning on Aviation Road on the busiest piece the land looks out on the Pyramid Mall. You have already approved a 100,000 sq. ft. addition to Pyramid Mall, I understand that site plan review has already been approved. It's not like to can set conditions or mitigated measures with respect to the Pyramid Mall. If they come in and tell you that they are ready to do with their 100,000 sq. ft. addition there you go. What does that do to the Route 9 intersection? What does that do to the bridge? What does that do to the people who live back here who are then going to be faced with all that additional traffic trying to cut through there unless something is done here? We have said to you in terms of the conditions you impose on the use of the land as a rezoned parcel that we would agree to condition that would in effect impose a highway plaza use which would be a lesser use than what was originally proposed here. We're agreeable to reasonable conditions that you would impose that would allow an effective use of this site. One of the people who spoke here the last time said, well if you put this road in and you put the Red Lobster in the buffer here goes below the 75 foot. We've reconfigured this so that the 75 feet that, the gentlemen, I can't recall his name is retained. We moved the restaurant is such a way that the 75 feet remains that we originally proposed. Councilman Goetz-I have a question. It's about the dimensions of the 100 foot buffer. Can you outline that on the map. I think to see it in conjunction with this map. Outlined the 100 foot buffer for Councilman Goetz. Councilman Goetz-So the 100 feet is just what's proposed to be the buffer for the residential area not the road on that map? John Goralski-This road the 100 feet runs through the middle of this particular road. Councilman Goetz-Because in my mind, I don't want to think that there is going to be a buffer of 100 feet of forest if part of it is really going to be part of the road. Mr. Goralski-Based on this drawing there will be about 60 feet of actual wooded area and a 50 foot right-a- way, 110 feet actually from Old Aviation Road to the edge of this right-a-way. Supervisor Brandt-It will be a little narrower as you get to the center of the property. I think I heard 40 feet of buffer. Mr. Goralski-Based on this design there is about 60 feet of wooded area then a 50 foot right-a-way. Attorney Lemery-You have to keep in mind Sue when we originally proposed this the 100 feet didn't take into account any road, that came from the Town Planner. Whatever road you put in there if you put in a road presumably would reduce that buffer. The natural tree buffer by whatever you take for the actual road. If you decided not to put the road in you could retain that land as a natural buffer for the Greenway North. I'll conclude my remarks sir, with the right to have a small rebuttal after Mr. Schachner speaks. The one thing I want to keep in mind which is the zoning as it exists now doesn't work. To delay it to say we're not going to do anything with it now we're just going to sit we'll see what happens is not fair because it's not going to go away. It cannot be used that way it can't be used effectively. Here is an opportunity to fix it after several months of considerable work by everybody on the board by your planners, and by the applicant, and designers. The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury voted to rezone this and voted to rezone it in the manner that we request. We thank you for you consideration. We appreciate the time and forbearance you've given us. Supervisor Brandt-Do you guys want to ask questions? Mark do you want to talk to us next? Attorney Schachner-Mike, I liked what you said about the informalities so I'll try to stay pretty informal. I like to use Yogi Berra quotes on every possible and I can't think of an appropriate one here. But, what I do think of and what does come to mind is a couple of cliche' so to a degree I'm going to apologize in advance for speaking in cliche'. The two cliche' that come to my mind are apples and oranges and putting the cart before the horse. In terms on apples and oranges, the applicant would have us believe that the traffic mitigation plan and the rezoning are linked hand in hand and you can't really have one effectively without the other. That it's a marriage deal that the traffic mitigation plan is part in parcel the rezoning and vice versa. It's our position that it's simply not the case. Mitigation of traffic in this area is definitely a worthwhile goal there is absolutely no question about that. We think that the potential traffic plan that's been proposed has certain problems that may make it not a great plan, but it may be a good plan, you know we're not really prepared to say that it's not a good plan. Just very briefly, I'll outline some potential problems, but frankly these are just potential problems these may not be a big deal. It looks to us as though there is a very substantial possibility that there will be an awful lot of traffic at what I'll call the Greenway North-Aviation Road intersection. The reason being is that two things are happening. One it's obvious which it's proposed to have sort of a thoroughfare through here that will obviously have a fair amount of traffic, Jim mentioned already that it would have a fair amount of traffic. But, the second reason is something Mr. Lemery touched on which is that as we understand that Aviation Mall has been approved for a substantial addition as we understand it from the State and Town traffic folks. There is a substantial possibility that when the Aviation Mall expansion occurs your actually going to have in excess of 300 cars per hour wanting to turn left coming out of Aviation Road to go up to the Northway. If that happens your going to kick in a need to have not one, but two left turn only lanes coming out of that area. That's just a potential problem with this intersection, again we're not traffic experts and we're not sure that's right, but that's our understanding. The internal flow within the neighborhood of this traffic proposal might work and there are definitely certain advantages to this traffic proposal over current existing conditions there may be certain disadvantages. Jim was very candid in indicating that there may be some waiting time difficulty on this intersection within the neighborhood in that already at the outset have a level of Service of E for people that are trying to make the left turn from the neighborhood if they want to go up onto Route 9. I think Sue hit a very important point that should not be glossed over which is that in fact the proposed buffer which has at various times ranged from 100 feet to 110 feet to 120 feet. If this happens, I got the same number as you got Mike, between about 65 feet at the wider area and about, I heard 45 feet in fairness, I thought it was not 40 feet at the narrower area so the buffer is a little bit reduced. Those are potential problems, but again, I don't want to be misunderstood there may be a lot of advantegous to the traffic mitigation plan. However, regardless of the conceded by everybody need to have traffic mitigation proposal implemented here the applicant proposal is to add an extremely intensive in more ways than just traffic, but including traffic intensive use to this particular area. The applicant's representative just a few moments ago said this is the highest density commercial traffic in the Town of Queensbury. Your trying to take some steps to alleviate that situation and the applicant's proposal calls for adding one of the most intensive traffic uses possible to the very same area. First of all, it's apples and oranges and that the rezoning is not necessary for this traffic mitigation proposal to be persuade and we believe the traffic mitigation proposal should be persuade. The take it or leave it offer from the applicant that says, look I'll give you this land for this particular traffic mitigation proposal if, but only if my property is rezoned commercial to allow a specific type of restaurant we believe is unreasonable. The applicant has portrayed our position as an all or nothing position as saying, look we don't want anything there at all. The applicant has freely admitted that their position is an all or nothing position. We will give you the land if you rezone this commercial for the Red Lobster Restaurant, we won't give you the land if we don't. Our position which has been stated time and time again is that this property can be beneficially used in a number of ways. It zoned single family residential for what it's worth our research as well as Lee York, your former Planner and Pat Tatich the current Director of the Warren County Planning Department their research says that this property has never been zoned anything other than residential. We heard tonight for the first time a statement that it was once zoned commercial. I don't think it's critical, but just for your record our information from those two qualified people is it's not been zoned anything, but residential. But, regardless of that we have said time and time again it may be appropriate, not a maybe, it is appropriate to consider allowing certain alternative uses at this property. We've said this at public meetings. We've said this at private meetings and said it in our correspondence. Multi-family residential is perfectly acceptable and probably appropriate. Certain types of commercial uses would be appropriate professional offices, certain types of health care things. Professional offices comes to mind as a real easy one cause it's so much less intensive not only in terms of traffic, but in terms of noise, odors, lighting, and operation late into the night. Again, we have to make our position clear we don't believe the traffic is the only potential problem with the Red Lobster Restaurant here. This exercise, a beneficial exercise in looking at traffic mitigation obviously focuses on traffic. It's our position that traffic is not the only issue. We're not the only ones who say, that other uses might be appropriate in this area. Some of the other people that say that are the Town of Queensbury own planning staff. The planning staff said in it's memorandum to the Town Board when this was considered, I want to say six months ago, I assume I'm in the ball park anyway. The planning staff said, rezoning to allow different types of uses is appropriate here, but it said that different types of uses other than one this intensive should be examined. That's all we're saying, we're not saying forever wild, and we're not saying only single family residential. We're saying there is a range the proposal is one extreme end of the range in fairness to the proposal it's not the most extreme end to the range. The most extreme end to the range would be some heavy duty industrial use that spewed forth all sorts of pollutants into air it's not that bad an animal. But, let's face it within the....on this range it's a pretty darn intensive use. It's our position that it's apples and oranges pursuing the traffic mitigation proposals is a good idea and we support it. To say it has to come with this rezoning that it means we have to rezone this property to allow an 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant with that kind of traffic generation, that kind of noise, those kinds of odors, and that kind of lighting we think is inappropriate. That's the end of apples and oranges now let's talk about the cart before the horse. I think that Mr. Martin and Ms. Brunso have been extremely candid and we appreciate their input in describing the potential time frames for implementation of these traffic mitigation proposals. I think just about every single board member asked a question or two on this point. I think all your questions were appropriate and I think you got all the right answers. The bottom line is we have two many "mights", meaning this might be, that might be. We have the notation that the bridge which is sort of the most certain of the traffic mitigation measures the bridge contract is proposed to be lead in the Fall of 1997 and proposed to be completed in 1999. I don't share Mr. Brandt's despondent note that none of us will be alive by 1999, but I certainly agree that's an awfully long way in the future. I don't share that view, but obviously I certainly share the sentiment that it's an awfully long way off in the future. That's the more assured of the traffic mitigation improvements. The proposed collector road is obviously must less certain than that because it does not yet appear on the Transportation Improvement Program list. It has not yet been approved by the Glens Falls Transportation Council. It may well be approved and I'm not sitting here saying it won't be by any stretch of the imagination, but it hasn't been approved by the Glens Falls Transportation Council. It hasn't been approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. It hasn't been approve on the Transportation Improvement Program. My understanding gained mostly in the last two weeks to be honest from speaking to DOT Officials and the local DPW Superintendent is that once all the steps happen that we're described and assuming best case scenario this all proceeds nicely the Glens Falls Transportation Council accepts this and approves it and recommends it for inclusion of the Transportation Improvement Program list and the Metropolitan Planning Organization agrees and put on the list it then goes on what I understand to be called the Unmet Needs List. There is some competition as Ms. Monahan points out, I think quoting from a newspaper article there is some competition to get these funds. Right here in our own community there is going to be competition, I predict because we're talking about as I understand it, Jim correct if I'm wrong hoping that GFTC recommends improvements here. Also, in what some people call the Miracle Half Mile on Route 9, 149. Route 149, itself as I understand it is subject of some possible recommendations and I'm just glancing over to Jim and he seems to be nodding. That's only within our own Town some of the improvements that we understand are likely to be recommended by GFTC. It's our understanding that nobody can guarantee that they are going to happen. In fairness to the people who have answered your questions they certainly have not guaranteed that they are going to happen, far from it. I only heard tonight for the second time our region that we're situated in runs all the way from Essex County to Green County that's a heck of a large area and one of the counties in there is Albany County. The DPW Superintendent told me that Albany County seems to command some reason more attention from the funding people, I think we know why that's the case. Supervisor Brandt-Actually we ought to put that on record. The reason that takes place they are good at generated plans and having a solution in hand that's designed and we aren't. We have learned that and that's what we're trying to learn. Attorney Schachner-Good point. Supervisor Brandt - I think that we can get up on the list a lot better if we generate these kind of plans. I, also think Route 149 is a different system, but your point about competing funds probably we'll see competition from things in South Glens Falls, Hudson Falls, so your point is valid, correct. Attorney Schachner-I think yours is as well. I was told that the competition obviously would not be necessarily on a Town by Town basis. That we're going to have recommendations from GFTC for improvements of the Route 4, Burgoyne Avenue area in Washington County. GFTC, of course, is not just Queensbury nor is it just Warren County as you know Mike it's parts of Warren, Washington, Saratoga Counties so even within our own GFTC there will be some unhealthy competition. Bottom line best case scenario we're talking about allowing an extremely intensive commercial use to come in, I guess perhaps, I don't if it could be built this Fall, but it certainly could be built by next Spring one would anticipate. We're talking about a five to six year gap at a best reasonable guess. Is there a possibility in the world that it could be less sure there is, there is a possibility that it could be sooner. Again, we have a candid statement that it sure as heck won't be 1994. Reasonable guess are five or six year gap during which what we've done here is we've not alleviated any traffic problem whatsoever. We've rezoned property and allowed construction of an incredible intensive commercial use that's going to have a huge impact on the Greenway North- Aviation Road intersection as well as further aspirate the problems on the Route 9, Route 254 intersection which is, of course, the most overriding concern, that's the best case scenario. The worse case scenario is we allow the project to go forward allow this incredibly intensive use to take place the intersections are flooded and there are no traffic improvement ever. They don't happen because the funding falls through or GFTC doesn't agree with this or the NPO doesn't agree with this or everybody agrees that we should do this, but the State runs out of money. Mike, you and I and Paul perhaps are closer to this than anyone else, but think of the Town landfill context. Our Towns in Warren County all signed contracts with the State three years ago, Paul correct me I'm wrong. Attorney Dusek-This Town signed just recently. Your Town signed.... Attorney Schachner-My Town signed three years ago by which we're referring to the Town of Lake George that I represent. We signed a contract with the State that said, we'll reimburse the Town, this is Lake George that I'm speaking of, we'll reimburse the Town 50 percent for monies that the Town expends in closing and capping the landfill. There were a lot of pressures on us to sign that agreement or not sign that agreement and I'm not going to belabor the point, but the bottom line is we signed the agreement. We had a signed contract we still have a signed contract, I have it here with me and the past Legislature the session that ended June, July, whenever it ended they nullified the funding that was going to supply us with that money. When we talked to the State Representative about that they also are going to try to come up and they think they are going to come up with new money by the way, but they are not sure. When we talked to State Representative about that they looked me in the eye along with some of my colleagues Attorney's and said, look you have a contract maybe you should sue the State. My client the Town of Lake George is not happy with that advice by the State Representatives. The only reason I tell that little tale is because, I think we all know that there are no guarantee's in life and there sure as heck aren't any guarantees that this funding is going to happen. I think I've already described that traffic is not the only issue let me just make a few factual comments. I believe that last week when this was discussed there was some discussion about whether there are any restricted covenants on the properties in question currently. I believe that the applicant's representative stood before you and said that there were no restricted covenants that is not correct. As of today or I should say as of yesterday the deed that's on record in the Warren County Clerk's Office for one of the three properties owned by the applicant specifically states that the use of this property is for residential purposes only. Now, the applicant can refute that with any number of esoteric legal argunIents about why that restricted covenant mayor may not be enforce. The applicant can also tell you that the particular one of the three parcels that it involves is one that really isn't one of the key ones for development and that's correct. It's one of the ones that is partially buffer and partially road on the new plan although the parking kind of hedges into also, but the bottom line is the restricted covenant is there. As far as fairness and who the applicant is we don't care who the applicant is we believe that the applicant has the right to develop this property no matter who the applicant is. We believe that the Town does not have to knuckle under to a threat that says, I'm only willing to develop it this one way and if you let me do it I'll give you some property, if you don't I won't. As far as reasonable return on the property our review of the Warren County Real Property Records indicate that the applicant is paid approximately $100,000 for a series of parcels that include this property or these properties and has already made close to a million dollars or more in selling some of those parcels. That's really an argunIent that is more appropriate for the Zoning Board of Appeals, but since the applicant's representative mentioned the fairness and the reasonable return, I thought I mention it, too. The applicant's traffic study is seriously flawed and I've already discussed that at length with you and I'm not going to go back into that. I'll answer questions about it, but I'm not going to bore you with the details about that. I'm also not going to belabor the point about is it speculative that the traffic improvements will happen cause I think we got very candid answers from the representative here to discuss that. I don't think the moratorium discussion is appropriate. I think that the Planning Board and you all as a Town Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, especially the planning staff is deluge, frankly with a number of applications for appropriate development at appropriate locations. Obviously this particular propose development has a far more significant impact than 99 percent of the other proposals. I don't think in analyzing this to the need to impose a moratorium Town wide on a development of single family homes on the west side of the Northway is a reasonable analogy, I don't think it's worth belaboring. Likewise the applicant is now saying in effect only two acres will be rezoned that's news to us we understand all four acres will be rezoned. The applicant is also saying that in effect that the rezoning will be plaza commercial not highway commercial that's not our understanding. I want to give the applicant's representative a lot of credit, I should say that again, I suppose. I want to give the applicant's representative a lot of credit for candidly stating that he's not representing that Red Lobster will necessarily go elsewhere outside of the Town of Queensbury if this proposal is not approved. He has candidly stated he doesn't have any idea of what they'll do. I sure as heck don't know what they'll do, but I do know there are lots of spots in Queensbury that are totally appropriate for this sort of development. I believe and if anyone knows differently I'd like to hear this, I believe that General Mills is the parent company of Red Lobster. I believe that General Mills is also the parent company of the Olive Garden Restaurant and I believe that the Olive Garden Restaurant is coming into the Town of Queensbury is an extremely appropriate location. There is plenty of room in Queensbury for Red Lobster and nobody that I represent hopes that they don't come to Queensbury not one person. We think that as more information has come out about this proposal and about the traffic mitigation we think two things. We think number one it's a real healthy approach let's focus on traffic mitigation. We think number two it's a much easier decision than it might have been at one time on the rezoning because the traffic mitigation proposals all be it potentially good ones are far off in the future and very uncertain. The applicant's not being very reasonable in suggesting it's got to be this one use or I'm not playing ball. Our position is it doesn't have to stay forever wild it can be used as multi-family, it can be used as professional offices, it can be used as a whole variety of things. But, it doesn't have to be a highly intensive commercial use major traffic generator, noise, lights, odors, in addition to traffic out there for five, six, seven years or god knows how long before the traffic mitigation measures are implemented. We don't think this is that tough a call. We think you should vote against the rezoning. Councilman Goetz-Could I just address one of your comments? It was way back in the beginning when you said that the land... Attorney Schachner-Interrupt, please. Councilman Goetz-God forbid, I should interrupt Mark Schachner. Attorney Schachner-Please do. Councilman Goetz-Now, how about that point that you said the land had never been zoned commercial. I saw a map where it reported to be zoned, it was when the zones were like just commercial.... Attorney Schachner-I attributed that to Lee York and Pat Tatich. I do have their statements with me and I had never heard before that it was ever zoned commercial. As I said, if it's true so be it. Councilman Goetz-When I first heard it I wondered if it was the truth and I asked to see the map. Attorney Schachner-Lee York and Pat Tatich both did this research and assured me it never had been but, I'm not sure myself. Councilman Goetz-John is that the map? Supervisor Brandt-To me that's not much of a point. Councilman Goetz-I do. I don't think it's critical to the decision, but I think incorrect information shouldn't be given. Supervisor Brandt-I like to move this thing along a little bit. One of the things I'd like to do, well you guys have each other for a while you can go back and forth a little bit and that's fine. But, understand one thing I want to do, I want to hear this Board talk to themselves within themselves and really discuss this. I think there is quite a bit of intuition within this group in the year and a half I've served with them. I marvel at the depths of their knowledge of the community and of the issues so I like to have them do that. We have never done that we do it in public session and it maybe a little funny to watch from the outside, but I'd like to let that happen. I like to let us talk about it the what ifs and who are we serving and are we not. My habit in thinking is to try and look at the positive and lay them all out before you hit the negatives because there are lots of negatives in everything you do. If you don't look at all the positives you get hung up on the negatives to where you never really see all the positives. I like to look at the positives and then tear it apart and look at the negatives and I'd like to see if we could come to a decision. John, you asked for a brief rebuttal. Attorney Schachner-If you have to ask for that sort of thing, I guess I'll ask, too. Supervisor Brandt-We have another meeting coming here at seven or seven thirty. Attorney Lemery-I'll be very brief. That's only because I went first again and we sort of go first every time. Just a couple of things. We never tried to mix the traffic issue with the rezoning. Supervisor Brandt-I did that. Attorney Lemery-That's not something that Charlie Wood did. That's something that came after and so there is no attempt here to say, you need to do this or we won't do this or you'll do this and we'll do that. The traffic plan was not part of the rezoning the rezoning was always the rezoning. With respect to the comments about what this land could be used for. I called Mr. Schachner many months ago and I asked him if there was some way that this could be resolved with the neighborhood group, I was told there was no way to resolve it you want what you want and we want what we want. Charlie Wood did make an attempt to see if there was anything that could be done. With respect to the restaurant. Now, I understand that maybe the buffer is not the issue anymore maybe it's an alternate use. I just want to make one more comment to you. Yes, to the extent that this is a restaurant it competes with other restaurants and it particularly would compete with restaurants that might be close to it. But, you heard Steve Sutton and others come here any say you can't zone the Town and you can't deal with Town planning on the basis of competition. All I've heard is this incredible high use, incredibly intensive use. I'm having trouble with that, I don't understand it the restaurant is not open for breakfast it's a lunch and dinner restaurant so I think you need to take a look at that. None of us know when and if the road might be put to use. None of us know when and if the bridge might be put to use. I agree with Mark there is always a problem with what you can expect or can't expect by way of State funding. To leave the land zoned the way it is does not protect the neighborhood. It leaves the neighborhood at risk and it leaves the neighborhood hostage. I don't think it's suitable for multi-family housing are you going to put something like the Henry Hudson Townhouses there that's not suitable it doesn't help anybody. I don't think it's suitable for an office building because it would not be in the best interest of the Town to do that. In any event when you make your decision we appreciate it if you would debate it, we thank you for debating it, it needs to be debated. Thank you for giving the time to response. Supervisor Brandt-I want to lead off the discussion between ourselves. I want to move this now to a discussion with the Town Board between ourselves and you guys will have to watch and enjoy. Councilman Caimano-Or not. Supervisor Brandt -Or not. From my viewpoint I saw an application for a rezoning and at the same time I learned from not only this, but other applications that we had a pretty major traffic problem that was getting worse all the time. I don't see the traffic being from my viewpoint, I'm talking about Mike Brandt being very much added too from this particular application in the context of all the traffic we're dealing with. However, I think that the way the traffic from this potential use comes in is important and has to be designed correctly. Also, in looking at the overall of mitigated the problem with this can we do something at the same time that would help us as a Town? Help us with public funding help us obtain what we want for the community needs and protect the neighborhood at the same time or can we not. That's a question we're going to wrestle with now and see if we can come to a head on it. A thought that occurred to me. Really what you've got here is an account coming to Town that has fairly deep pockets and they like this piece of land. That creates some problems for some people and some opportunities for some people. I'm looking at it from the Town viewpoint does it create the opportunity for us to ask for something. It may be the construction of a part of this road to the standards that are necessary. Let's say you built a segment of the road that served this property and at the same time served the neighborhood and four years later whenever it is the rest of the road gets built. You solve the whole problem thereby us not having to condemn or buy the property we could get that up front and us not having to build part of the road we might be able to get the applicant to do that. I don't know that the applicant is willing to or wants to, but I'm talking between us guys right now. From my viewpoint what's been discussed in designing this road the way it's designed it was meant primarily to give a buffer and all that we could to these people. On the other hand we have this group of people over here that are also neighbors. We focused primarily on the fix here we haven't focused primarily on this part of it. I open it up to you guys now and let's go right at it and talk it out. Councilman Caimano-First of all, I'd like to ask Joanna a questions just to tie up one loose end here. I know you may not be able to answer it, I'll ask you anyway if you can't answer it I'll certainly will understand. In terms of probability what do you think the probability is of getting this done faster as opposed to not done at all or put back a lot, about fifty fifty? Ms. Brunso-About fifty fifty. Councilman Caimano- Thanks. Fairness, I guess I have to say at the risk of sounding self serving this Supervisor and this Board have been unfailing fair in this issue as far as I'm concerned. John Lemery, I think hit the nail on the head and has for several weeks except we keep falling into our trap. He said he was troubled by the perception of the Red Lobster taking on a life of its own it's really a rezoning issue and he's right. But, every time we try to tackle that issue we get backed up into Red Lobster. Your case in trying to come up with a solution instead offollowing through with what is our responsibility and that's to follow through with a plan for the future we're trying to jury rig in order to make this thing work for one venture and I think that's wrong. I think we need to answer the traffic congestion problem. I think we've taken great strides toward that end, but we need time to put that plan together. We're not putting anything off we're not trying to say that this shouldn't be rezoned. What we are saying here is at least, I am until we can see our way clear we have no idea what the zoning of this piece of land should be. Whether it should be highway commercial, plaza commercial, neighborhood commercial or some zone we haven't even thought up yet in order to make it work for both the applicant and for the people of the neighborhood, the people of the third Ward. Each side here had a major negative. The landowner is caught at least temporally. My impression is that the land will become more valuable with time if we're allowed to follow through with this plan, but that's just a personal opinion. The current homeowners are being held hostage if you will. If we vote no tonight to rezone and move with this plan there will be changes down the road and we can't foresee what those changes are going to be we cannot do that. For a practical matter, I looked over the SEQRA form question 16, 18, and 19, we couldn't get by 16, 18, 19. If this issue if we voted on it tonight and went to the SEQRA form I can't see how we could neg dec it, it would have to go to environmental impact in my opinion. Supervisor Brandt - I have to say that my understanding of the process, if I'm wrong please correct me. Is that we have to define the project define what it is we're doing and then we have to do the SEQRA form. Your point is valid we have to answer this either as a negative or as a positive. Councilman Caimano-I guess, I feel a little trapped here. I think you and Jim Martin have done a danm fine job in coming up with a long term answer at least a potential long term answer to some serious problems. We keep falling back into the trap of Red Lobster even though John rightfully says, we shouldn't talk about Red Lobster we should talk about the traffic problem. We are trying to do that that's why this Board took a no vote the first time we have a right not to hear this. The reason we did it is because there is nothing to hear we still have nothing to hear. There is a plan on the table to mitigate the problem. There is a plan on the table to help the applicant. There is a plan on the table to help the people from the neighborhood. There is a plan on the table to help the people of the Third Ward. But, we're hearing 1999, he'll be ninety, I'll be forty five we're a long ways away. That's what I have to say. Councilman Goetz-I have a few questions. Nick you don't think we should vote on this? Councilman Caimano-My opinion? Councilman Goetz-Yes. Councilman Caimano- There are people out there that are going to say, what a chicken liver son of a gun he is, but the answer is, I don't think we have anything to vote on. The Planning Department and Supervisor have come up with a traffic plan a potential traffic plan to solve the issue. We don't know if it's going to solve the issue. We know for the first time since I've lived here there is a long term plan. Now, does that make the applicant feel better, no. Does that make the neighbors feel better, no. Supervisor Brandt-Let me for purpose of discussion throw something at you. So that there is something to vote on and only for discussion purposes to keep this thing moving. I might even offer it a resolution saying that we would rezone this as the applicant asked for, I'm just saying we're just going to define this thing. In that rezoning we would stipulate that one, he build a piece of the road whatever the amount of that road is that would properly serve this area to the standards of the design that is generated by our engineers. I assume that will happen the design would be forth coming fairly, we're talking about this fall put that in as a stipulation. Put in a stipulation that we would require that this applicant meet certain clean air standards because they have represented that they can. They would put out an exhaust from their hoods that would be clean and appropriate for the neighborhood. If we made that some kind of a resolution now we would have something to vote on and we ought to debate that. To look at whether that serves us a Town, Community, Neighborhoods, properly or whether it doesn't. For the sake of discussion let me throw that on the table. Councilman Caimano-By doing that we do something that you personally have spoken against. We are going down the road with a long term answer to a problem and we're going to sidetrack it for a spur of the moment answer to a very specific problem. I think that's how we always get into trouble in planning that's exactly how we always get in trouble. You and I go and we debate in political arenas the fact that our Planning Department isn't working properly, our Town Board does not work properly. Here is a situation where we are beginning to work properly. We are finding an answer for an entire area of the Town and yet we keep backing away and wanting to short circuit that for a short term answer and that's my problem with it. Councilman Goetz-How does it sidetrack it? Councilman Caimano-We don't know what that should be now. We don't know where it should go. I don't have the answer to this problem yet. It's only on the drawing board, but I don't have an answer to this problem yet. Councilman Goetz-I don't think of it as Red Lobster, I just try to block that out of my mind. I don't see it when you say sidetrack it, I don't see that as trying to decide if this particular project is good or bad. I think that even the fact that we have this traffic study is the first step. I don't see how your making it sidetrack. Councilman Caimano-Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If you didn't have an applicant, neighbors, and this Planning Department, and this Town Board just decided to take up this issue of solving this traffic issue are we ready to vote on anything today? Councilman Goetz-But, what would we be voting on? Councilman Caimano-Without trying to be funny that's my point. Councilman Goetz-But, the fact is we don't usually vote on traffic plans. Councilman Caimano-I don't deny that. Councilman Goetz-But, Mike wait a minute. My point is that we don't usually vote on a traffic plan as such. To me, I don't think of it as a vote. Councilman Caimano-I know that. What I'm saying is that for once this Planning Department that we have put in place has come up with an all encompassing plan not only for that side of Aviation Road, but on the other side of the mall to solve what has become a monumental problem for the people who live on the west end of Town and for the people who live in that area. We have a plan in place and I would perfectly willing if Red Lobster and highway commercial fit into that plan if it was the right thing to do, I'd be perfectly willing to vote yes on that. But, I'm not sure of it, I don't know what the whole plan is yet. Councilman Goetz-I like your suggestion in letting us talk like we really talk. Think of this do you connotate these two things together. The fact that when that expansion of Pyramid Mall was approved that they were never requested to make certain improvements, do you think like this in the same kind of mistake or could be because I think that was a mistake? Councilman Caimano-I think your right. I think if you look back on the minutes of the mall you'll find, I was on the Planning Board then that we did ask then. As a matter of fact we made it a condition that the traffic problems around the backside had to be followed through and so far that hasn't been done. I keep hearing about the mall, but if you go back and look at the minutes of it you'll find that there was a condition in those minutes. I can't think of his name he was an italian fellow, Lou Gagliano continued to work towards an alternative egress and entrance to that mall. Councilman Goetz-What about widening of the bridge at that time should that have been considered? Councilman Caimano- Yes. Councilman Goetz-Because I think you and I have a lot of experience in this type of work. I'm interested that you think we might make the same kind of mistakes. Councilman Caimano-I think we will. Supervisor Brandt-My view is you can take this out of context and say in pure thought we ought to rezone, redesign, but the problem is life goes on and we're just part of a process and it always will be. I saw one Board in the past put a moratorium on growth, I think that's irresponsible in my view. I think what we have to do is respond to the needs of the community in a responsible manner and there are never perfect solution and never perfectly fair, but you do your very best at it. I haven't spoken a lot about this in a negative way. I've looked at it tried to be very positive about it and say, what can we gain, what can we glean. Can we benefit as a Town, neighborhood, as an applicant all at once? Can we find a common thread that can work for all of and that's what my proposed resolution was. I have a reservation about it, I'll tell you my reservation. My reservation is Birch Lane. Birch Lane the residents there are all individual small property owners. I believe, I really don't know the exact, I mean there are a lot of residents there I think they are almost separately owned, do you know that? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I'm fairly certain they are. There may be one or two rentals in there, but the clear majority is single family homeowners. Supervisor Brandt-At some point we have an obligation to make sure they are able to assemble their land or that their land can be sold and they get fair use out of it. If we're doing a rezoning, I'll tell you my thought is that you put this piece of road through someday you really have changed that neighborhood a great deal. In the process of solving a traffic problem at Rt. 254, and Rt. 9, your going to do that in several places. When you do that you really are probably going to rezone from that cross road down to the intersection everything in there. You made the point Nick that we don't know what the best use of that is. It's a big piece ofland actually I walked the piece that's proposed to be rezoned in the rain today in itself it's a good size piece of land. All the property along Birch Lane is a pretty big piece. If you sell off the piece that's ask for rezoning to one user what have you done to the people on Birch Road for assembling all that for another user? Are you limiting the uses to where your not being fair to them, I don't know I'm putting that on the table, I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Councilman Caimano-But, think how far even though the people think that we have, I almost said a bad word there we have set on our hands, think how far we've come with this. That doesn't make the applicant feel any better it doesn't even make those people feel any better. This Board has come a long ways and I submit its going to go a lot further and faster. The total problem will be solved and not just one small aspect of it which is bound to create another problem. Supervisor Brandt-Anything else? Councilman Goetz-Did I say, I think it should be zoned for commercial use. Supervisor Brandt-No. Councilman Goetz-Well, I do. I've been thinking it so much that I didn't know if! said it. Councilman Monahan-I think Mike you when bring up Birch Lane and my comment on that is has anyone on Birch Lane asked to be rezoned or are we playing big brother in telling them what is the highest and best use of their property? Some people the highest and best use of the property is the home that they've had for many many years. They will fight hell and high water in order to keep it because they feel that strongly about it. Nick is right about one thing. For years Boards in this Town have talked about the terrible problems there is up in that area. It's been talked about problems rather than solution. There has been one good thing about this application and it has kicked the Town Board and Planning Department into high gear looking for solutions. The problem right now is that we're at a stage when we've got problematic solutions we don't have a definite solution. We've got plans on paper it's kind of like playing with paper dolls. Maybe this is going to have to be moved this way or that way or whatever way. What we need to do first is we have to look at what we should be looking. I agree we are not looking at Red Lobster we're looking at what should happen to this land. What should happen to this land right now in my opinion is that we do put the horse before the cart. We solve the traffic problems and we get a plan not on paper, but out there in asphalt, concrete, and get it where it needs to be and then we follow to the next step. Supervisor Brandt- Where do you want to go? Let me ask you Jim your the planner. Let's just scale off roughly if we talking the blank piece of land that the application is for is about four acres is that correct? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Right. Supervisor Brandt-Then is the piece of Birch Lane, we're not talking about rezoning that's got to four, four and half acres is that about right? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would say in total approximately about the same. Supervisor Brandt-What uses and what effect would we have on that four, four and half acres? At some point to be fair to those people, yea it is big brother zoning is big brother there is no doubt about that. I don't like zoning from day one, I'm not an advocate of zoning cause that's what's wrong with it. In the end you do make decisions for the communities benefit. If you just put that cross road in there you are affecting that forever. The fact that the growth has occurred here when the Northway was put in when Exit 19 was put in you affected forever and as the growth continues your affecting it. So, what's the responsible answer for the people that live there can we create a zone there eventually that would help assemble that land so they got a good price and produce something that was commercially viable. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I think the responsible answer for the people that live there is to try and meet as best we can there needs and desires. Their needs and desires is to keep their home that's the answer I've heard from the people who have attended the meetings that I've overseen and they want to keep that. Some people on that road have been living there twenty, thirty years and are very happy there. To me as a planner for this Town that's my concern to address the needs of the community and you do that through plans and ultimately zoning. If the need is to leave that a single family use they should be allowed that. Now, zoning comes into play. I don't think in the long term that's single family property, I'll be honest about that. I think that's commercial property, but if the people who are living there now are happy with that it should be allowed to continue as that. Rezoning it commercial does not change that it will not become commercial until they say so until they want it to happen. Councilman Monahan-It can increase the tax burden though Jim. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Taxes are tied primarily to the use of the property not the zoning. I would like to see this plan in terms of Birch Lane implemented in such a fashion that those people have the opportunity to naturally change that use if they want to. I don't know that zoning necessarily impacts that one way or the other. I think in fairness to them it's not fairly valued as single family property as another single family home somewhere else in Town. I've said that and said that to them in the meetings. I think it's commercial property and it should be commercially zoned. Maybe that can be done in an innovated manner that it kicks in at the time that a sales does or something like that. But, I think it's commercial property, but on the other hand I don't think those people should be forced by any means to leave their home that they've had for a long time. Like, I said if it can be accomplished in an innovated manner fine or if you rezone it now, but clearly with the understanding no forcing or condenmation or taking of property because that's not meeting the needs of the community. Councilman Tucker-Your talking about the property that's on Birch Lane? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Yes. Councilman Tucker-Let's go back to the beginning of time, I believe. Sue and I made the suggestion that the people on Birch Lane be polled by Jones Associates, I guess. John you did the research? Mr. Goralski-As far as polling them? Councilman Tucker-On Birch Lane whether they wanted their property rezoned commercial or not. Councilman Goetz-I got some hate letter about even suggesting that. Mr. Goralski-Now, I remember. No, because of the letters you started getting. Councilman Goetz-What it was I was looking at it purely from the zoning aspect. I thought that it made sense to zone the whole thing possibly. Mr. Goralski-To be honest with you, I think Jim has spoken to most of the people. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The people who are living there many of them have lived there a long time and are happy with their homes. They are fully aware of the traffic problem and they are fully aware of the commercial uses across the street, but none the less my understanding is that they are happy with the way things are. However, in terms of value I don't know if it's fair to them. Even if it's not them specifically if it's somewhere down the road that they want to sell it or people who inherit this property want to sell it, it's not going to bring the value that it should as a single family home somewhere else. Councilman Tucker-The thing Stu and I were looking at the time is this particular piece of property was zoned commercial and the properties to the east of these homes is zoned commercial that they would be in a squeeze. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I think certainly to rezone the property to the west of them and leave them just essentially what it would be an aisle of single family zoning that's making the situation worse. Councilman Tucker-I would think. It wasn't the idea to zone it commercial and have them all move out, zone it commercial let them do what they wanted with their property. Councilman Caimano-Mark you have something to say? Attorney Schachner-How are the rules.... Supervisor Brandt-I really want to keep it here, I really do. I think otherwise we'll be here for three days and there is another meeting breathing right down our necks. I had proposed a resolution and I just formulated it in discussion. I don't want to propose it per say, but I want to keep the discussion on that propose resolution because I don't see any other resolution. Does someone else see a different way to formulate that resolution that might solve more of the in ambitions that Board member seem to have. Councilman Caimano-Do you want to go back over that again. Supervisor Brandt-Go back over it and say, rezone the property for the applicant as the uses that we had said. We require the applicant to build a section of this proposed road to service that property. I have no idea if they are willing to or not, I don't even care at this point. I wanted to put something on the table so we have something to discuss and restrict that if it's a restaurant operation that they would have to meet strict air cleanliness standards. Now, with that said where would we go? One thing we have to do is SEQRA. You mentioned in the questions there are some questions you could not see a no answer, too. Councilman Caimano-Sixteen, just for the sake of talking about it. It says noise and odor impacts. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? I suppose you could work that around to a mitigation circumstance. Eighteen. It says impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. Will propose action affect the character of this existing community? I don't know how we could vote no on that. Certainly nineteen is the most troublesome. Is there, or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? I think before we know the full scope of the problem and the solution, I don't see how we can answer these questions. Councilman Monahan-We can't. Councilman Caimano-Jim do you agree or disagree, I don't want to put you on the spot if you don't want to say so. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I think certainly nineteen, there has certainly been public controversy. Impact on growth and character of the community. Councilman Caimano-Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The propose action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Propose action will cause a change in the density of land use. Propose action will set an important precedent for future projects. Those are all tough questions. Councilman Monahan-And those are only examples. Councilman Caimano-We don't have the total package put together so we can't even honestly answer those questions at this point. Councilman Goetz-When we approach the SEQRA review it's project specific as opposed.... Councilman Monahan-Rezoning. Councilman Goetz-Let me just finish. Remember we got into a big discussion when we did Kmart. When we did the SEQRA review we did it for just for the rezoning and not for the specific applicant so I just want to review that. If we we're to do it this would be? Supervisor Brandt-It came out we had to do the project. We had to talk about the project the.... Councilman Monahan-The maximum that could happen under that rezoning. The maximum impact that rezoning could have. Supervisor Brandt -You couldn't take it out of context with what was being proposed? Councilman Monahan-Anything that's highway commercial anything that was in that impact we have to consider. No matter even that nineteen cannot have a no answer. It says, if any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact you have to proceed to Part 3. Supervisor Brandt-The applicant has told us many times as a customer and it says customer driven and the customer is going to go away, I'd like to put something to a vote so that we can give the applicant an answer. It's my understanding that you have to have four positive votes to get the rezoning that's correct isn't it because of the history..... Attorney Dusek-Because of the denial by the Warren County Planning Board the State Law would require a successful legislative action to have four votes. Councilman Goetz-Does your motion have all the uses in highway commercial or is it going to be defined differently? Supervisor Brandt-It would be defined to be the lesser one which would be the plaza commercial as the applicant has accepted. Councilman Goetz-All the uses listed presently in plaza commercial? Councilman Monahan-Can you do that when this has been advertised highway commercial? Supervisor Brandt -You can restrict, I think. Attorney Dusek-What you've done is you advertised this as a highway commercial zoning. Whenever your in the process of going through public hearings and things of that nature your certainly allowed to add for instance restrictions to the rezoning which has arisen because of the public information that you've received. For instance the buffer is a classic example where, I don't think anybody could argue that your somehow changing the significance of your legislation of what you advertise by simply adding a buffer. When you start eliminating uses here again, I think your on safe ground except that I will say this. When your looking at legislation and making that determination that's your judgement call that rides first as to whether you feel the public notice in the first instance would have been sufficient. In other words would people generally if you start with a highway commercial and then you say, okay we're going to add a buffer zone take away these uses do you think that the original notice is still sufficient. In other words is this a minor change to what the character of the zoning has been. I think your certainly in a position to say so if you wanted, too. Councilman Caimano-I'm more concerned with our Planning Board and the County Planning Board. I know for example there were some comments made by our Planning Board both may have very well have been different because there were people who felt strongly that another zone might be better. Of course, it changes everything here if in fact the vote in front of the County is now tainted because we've change is that so or not so? Attorney Dusek-I don't that the vote in front of the County or the Planning Board is tainted because it's my understanding the subject matter that came before them was this type of proposal with a highway commercial zone. My understanding is that your Planning Board voted in favor of it and Warren County did not. Councilman Caimano-But changing to from highway commercial to plaza commercial in midstream is not going to.... Attorney Dusek-I don't know if your changing really from highway commercial to plaza commercial. But, rather what your simply doing is taking the highway commercial zone and eliminating certain uses that are allowed in that zone. Supervisor Brandt-That's what I would intend in that motion. Attorney Dusek-It would still be a highway commercial zone. That means that you have to pay attention to the setback and what not that are applicable in the highway commercial that may not be applicable or maybe different then those set forth in the plaza commercial zone. Councilman Monahan-But, Paul as a matter of procedure can the zoning be voted on before we give a neg dec to the rezoning? Supervisor Brandt-What I like to do just so we don't bog down in detail is get a sense of the Board. In other words, I'm proposing this verbally and if the Board is interested in doing it then we need to set here and do all the little things. But, I'm sensing there isn't a four one vote anyhow. I'm saying let's put in on the table and let's poll and see where we are so we see which way to go here. Attorney Lemery-We have an application before the Town Board. You can either vote it up or down. You can't by the way give an additional negative declaration. We discuss that at length with the Town Attorney today...... Please vote it up or vote it down. Attorney Dusek-There are a number of ways the Board can proceed at this point. Obviously the procedurally correct and normal way that you would proceed is you would first of all go through your environmental assessment form, check the boxes and then make the determination if you need to go on and complete Part 3. Then after you've done that if that's successful in terms of a negative dec or a conditional negative dec, it is my opinion that you have the ability to consider a conditional negative dec. In this case which means you could perhaps find some impacts, but you feel that they are sufficiently mitigated to warrant a conditional negative dec meaning if those impacts are taken care of you could then proceed. But, once you get through that part of the process, like I say if your successful with either a conditional or negative then you would proceed to the rezoning. If you declare it a positive dec then what would happen is a positive declaration would have to be drafted and the matter would be turned to an EIS before you went ahead with the rezoning. The rezoning itself would then be a second step. I can understand that the Boards concerned as voiced by the Supervisor that, I don't think you want to spend a whole lot of time looking at the SEQRA statement to find perhaps whatever happens with it happens, but then in the end the rezoning doesn't make it. As a matter of law, of course, your not required to rezone this is a legislative enactment by the Town Board as to whether or not it wants to entertain this application. It seems to be if the Board wanted to take a consensus type of vote first to see if there anything you would be allowed to do that. Supervisor Brandt-We're at this point let's just do it. If it takes an extra half hour it takes an extra half hour. That means we have to do SEQRA let's go through it. Do you want to lead us through the SEQRA form? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Will the propose action result in a physical change to the project site? We have the typical examples. Construction of a paved area for parking of more than 1,000 vehicles. Construction to be longer than one year. Construction of land where depth of water table is less than three feet. I don't know if any of those examples are... Councilman Monahan-But, they are only examples Jim. You know that this is going to result in a physical change to the project site. How can we say that it not so that's crazy. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-You going to have clearing of the trees and so on. Councilman Monahan-It's a potential large impact. Councilman Goetz-I don't think we need to go through those we know it's going to change it. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-What would your response be then? Councilman Tucker-Yes. Councilman Goetz-Yes. Councilman Monahan-Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-And of what nature? Councilman Caimano-A potentially large impact. Councilman Monahan-Potentially large. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Consensus on that is potentially large. Supervisor Brandt-I want to get a handle on that. I don't understand it potentially large of the site is that what we're talking about? Attorney Dusek -Your talking about a physical change to the project site you've already said yes there would be. The next question is though is what nature of a change and is it a big change or a significant change. In other words is it a small to moderate impact on the environmental or large? Councilman Caimano-Potentially large impact. Attorney Dusek-What is the nature of the change? Councilman Monahan-Taking raw land clearing the land, putting a lot of it under roof. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-That's of a potentially large impact. Councilman Caimano-It cannot be mitigated by the project change that's the nature of the beast. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Two. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on water. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected. Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Four. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Five. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? Supervisor Brandt -Your going to have more surface water runoff, but that can be addressed. Councilman Caimano- That has to be addressed under site plan review. Supervisor Brandt-That can be mitigated, I'm not worried about that. Attorney Dusek-Is that small to moderate or potentially large? Councilman Monahan-It can be potentially large, but it can be mitigated. Councilman Caimano-It's potentially large, but is going to be mitigated by the project. They can't have the project without it. Councilman Monahan-We have the whole drainage basin go down to Halfway Brook. With all our rules and regulations now can you keep this out of Halfway Brook and keep it from affecting the flow rates of Halfway Brook? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It would have to be dealt with on site. Councilman Caimano-You can't increase the flow on site so it's mitigated by the project change. Councilman Monahan-But, it can be done that's what I'm saying. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would assume so given the soils in the area. Six. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Councilman Goetz-Yes. Councilman Caimano-But, again it can be mitigated. It's the same answer. Supervisor Brandt-Same answer. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Is that of a small to moderate.... Councilman Monahan-Potentially large. Councilman Caimano- Whatever it is it's still going to be mitigated. You got to keep it on the site. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It matters how we answer tlIat. Councilman Monahan-I think it's large impact when you put that much land under roof. Councilman Caimano- That's a debatable issue. Supervisor Brandt-To me your going to mitigate it so it ends up small to moderate. Councilman Monahan-You've got to figure small to moderate as of what the impact is before it's mitigated. Then you say can it be mitigated you have to do your impact before you mitigate. Councilman Tucker-If your going to mitigate it what different does it make. They cannot have the project unless they take care of it. Councilman Caimano-Fine, then put potential large impact. Supervisor Brandt-Potential large, will be mitigated. Attorney Dusek - I just have to stop the Board for a minute. You went into number six which is drainage flow pattern, surface water runoff. If you look back at number five, I think that's really referring to surface water such as bodies of water, lakes, ponds etc. and groundwater. I think what you did is when you were looking at five you were treating it as you did six. Supervisor Brandt-So the answer to five is no, and the answer to six..... Councilman Monahan-Why are you saying that Paul? Attorney Dusek-If you look at all the listings there they are referring to wells, contamination of water supply systems groundwater, bodies of water. Councilman Monahan-Propose action will adversely affect groundwater and that doesn't say when you get down under construction or operation causing any contamination of water supply system. The next one says propose action will adversely affect groundwater. Attorney Dusek-I think there is a difference between the two. Supervisor Brandt-To me, five is no, and six is yes, with mitigation. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-So the consensus answer on five is no? Councilman Caimano-I would agree with that. Supervisor Brandt -Sue where are you on that? Councilman Goetz-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Seven. Impact on air. Will propose action affect air quality? Councilman Goetz-There is the potential which they said could be mitigated. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Small to moderate, potentially large? Councilman Goetz-I don't know they have a lot offish. Councilman Monahan-That's not your noise and odor, Sue. Noise and odor is sixteen. Councilman Caimano- This is more of an industrial. I would say, no. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-We're all set on seven. Supervisor Brandt-Seven is no. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Eight. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? Supervisor Brandt-No. Councilman Monahan-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Nine. Will propose action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? Supervisor Brandt-No. Councilman Caimano- No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Will proposed action affect agricultural land resources? Supervisor Brandt-No. Councilman Monahan-No. Councilman Goetz-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Eleven. Impact on aesthetic resources. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? Supervisor Brandt-Yes, somewhat. On the other hand the community doesn't own the resource so it's going to affect it. Councilman Caimano- The second headline there. Proposed land uses, or project components visibly to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource, obviously that's going to happen. Councilman Monahan-So it's a yes, that's a large impact. Councilman Caimano-Also, there will be elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. They are certainly important to the people that live there. Supervisor Brandt-But, we are also asking that there be screening 75 feet to the Birch Lane. Councilman Monahan-That screening won't really do that much good, Mike. Supervisor Brandt-But, it's there. Councilman Monahan-It's a partial mitigation, but it's not a true mitigation. Supervisor Brandt-They are asking for a change in land there is no question there is a change in land. Councilman Monahan-You could tighten up that buffer zone by making it be under planted and so on and so forth. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The answer is it yes, with potentially large. Councilman Caimano-But, there is a project mitigation. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-There is a project mitigation? Councilman Caimano-- The buffer zone. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Okay. Impact on historic and archaeological resources. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on open space and recreation. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Councilman Caimano- No. Councilman Monahan-Wait a minute. You are going to do away with a existing open space. Supervisor Brandt-That's not a recreational opportunity. Councilman Monahan-It says, and recreation. I'm not sure how they want that interpreted. There is a difference between open space and recreation. Councilman Caimano- I would say no on that. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The consensus is no. Supervisor Brandt-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on transportation. Will there be effect to existing transportation systems? Councilman Monahan-Absolutely. Supervisor Brandt-Look at the project. Councilman Monahan-Will rezoning this to highway commercial and that's not the project there will be an effect to existing transportation systems, there certainly will. Supervisor Brandt-There will be some no question of that. Councilman Caimano-Propose action will result in major problems it will certainly will result in some. I say, the potential is large. Councilman Tucker-Can be mitigated? Councilman Caimano-It could be. Councilman Monahan-But, it isn't mitigated right now. Councilman Caimano-It hasn't been mitigated at this point tlIat's what your plan is all about. Councilman Monahan-Nor can it be by the project change. Councilman Caimano-But, that's what this plan is all about. Councilman Monahan-But, it's not there. Ms. Brunso-Can I say something since your dealing with traffic. We don't look at mitigation as a change of the project unless you need the mitigation that is done to channel the traffic one why or the other or put in a light or build another road. I think what Betty is saying nothing that this project can do will not bring in fewer customers. The customers will be attracted to this site. We in the Department of Transportation look at the mitigation as changes to the road system to adjust for the traffic. Councilman Caimano-Right, there aren't any. Ms. Brunso- There are two definitions there of mitigation. Supervisor Brandt-The application as it is does not provide that. Councilman Caimano- That's what we're saying it doesn't provide that. Supervisor Brandt-The plan could. The propose resolution that I had outlined in discussion could, but as the application is now it doesn't. Councilman Caimano- That's what we're saying. Supervisor Brandt-Is that a fair analysis. Ms. Brunso- That's true. But, when you dealt with drainage issues you were able to mitigate those. Councilman Caimano-Because you have to in our Zoning Ordinances. You have to maintain everything on site. You cannot take your water and throw it on somebody else's site, it has to be taken care of. Ms. Brunso- The Planning Board can say, yes there is an application here it will generate so much traffic, but as a condition of our approval of your building site you must mitigate your traffic at this and that way. Councilman Caimano-Maybe. Councilman Monahan-But, your making it project specific. This is a rezoning environmental impact statement that we're doing. We're not doing a Red Lobster impact statement that would be done by the Planning Board. Attorney Dusek-I think we're at an important juncture here when your looking at the mitigation measures. One of the comments that we're made by Mr. Caimano which, I think is entirely correct that some parts of your Ordinance already have mitigation measures. He was quick to point those out and say, okay they can be mitigated. But, I think an equally important thing is when you do a rezoning your in the luxury of being able to order conditions which can mitigate problems. You can consider here whether or not a condition that you can attach as part of this rezoning will in fact mitigate. That's up to you to decide, I'm hearing both ways that it will mitigate or it can't be mitigated. But, I wanted to point out to you that if your question is, if we put in a condition as part of a rezoning that affects the traffic and mitigates it can we say, here that we mitigated it, I think you can if you want. Councilman Monahan-But, will there be an effect to existing transportation systems. No matter what we put in this we're not affecting the bridge or any of that type of stuff and this is what this says, an effect to existing transportation system. We can mitigated one little tiny area, but we can't mitigate the whole problem. Councilman Caimano-Actually we can and it's on the Board there, but we're not going to get that far. Councilman Monahan-But, we don't have that. Supervisor Brandt-This is something we have never done. That's what went wrong in the view of Board with other rezonings that were done, people didn't have to contribute to solving a problem. Councilman Monahan-What I'm saying Nick, even if that spare road goes in you've still got the problem with the Northway and the bridge. There is nothing we can do right now that we can cause that to happen. Supervisor Brandt-I don't see that's reasonable to expect. Councilman Monahan-That's how they did all those changes down in Wilton. Councilman Caimano- The point is that your plan can be used as a mitigating measure as far as I'm concerned right? Councilman Monahan-As a partial. Supervisor Brandt-I propose building a section of that road which would in effect mitigate it and that's a new step that Queensbury could take. That's a piece that this Town Board and the Planning Board, Zoning Board, should all work together on to see as we do more traffic planning to put it right into the process and demand it as we go otherwise we're going to be drinking a lot of canal water, I think. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-But, in fairness we have to have these plans is place in order for these board's to site them. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Councilman Monahan-Right. Councilman Tucker-Is it no? Councilman Monahan-It's a no. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The consensus view is, no. Impact on Energy. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Noise and Odor Impacts. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the propose action? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Supervisor Brandt-There can be objectional odors and that can be mitigated. Councilman Monahan-Are you sure of that? Councilman Caimano-We're, that it can. Councilman Monahan-We're told that it is, but what evidence do we have to support it? We're not suppose to be taking hearsay so what evidence do we have to support that? Councilman Caimano-Don't know that. Councilman Goetz-They said they had the state of the art. Let's face it Long John Silver doesn't have what is available now maybe that is something we should look into, too. But, I have to take their word for it that it can be mitigated. Supervisor Brandt-I say that it can be mitigated, also. Councilman Tucker-It can be a condition of the project can it not? They can't build the thing if its going to stink or whatever. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on public health. Will propose action affect public health and safety? Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. Will propose action affect the character of the existing community? Board Members-Yes. Councilman Caimano-For a number of reasons. Supervisor Brandt-Don't we have to go through everyone of those? Councilman Monahan-They are just examples Mike. They are not the only thing that can be there. Supervisor Brandt-I understand that. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I'll go through all of them and any other ones we can think of, the permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more that 5%. Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Propose action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Councilman Monahan-I'm not sure because of how the Master Plan is worded there. I'm not positive of that Jim. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I don't think you can derive a specific answer out of the Master Plan. Councilman Caimano-I don't think you can either. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Propose action will cause a change in the density of land use. Councilman Monahan-Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Potentially large? Councilman Monahan-Yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Propose action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Board Members-No. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Councilman Monahan-It will be additional community services. Councilman Caimano- Why? Councilman Monahan-Your going to have to have sewer that's now there. That's an additional community service it still creates the demand for it. Supervisor Brandt-That's knit picking. It's small very small. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Propose action will set an important precedent for future projects. Councilman Caimano-Actually it will. Councilman Tucker-How? Councilman Monahan-Putting the cart before the horse. Supervisor Brandt-It's not fun to do this let me tell you. Attorney Lemery-If you shot us now you would put us out of our misery. Supervisor Brandt-We know that and it's slow death so relax. Councilman Caimano-Okay, no. I can see the point, no. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Propose action will create or eliminate employment. Councilman Caimano- Yes. Councilman Monahan-I don't know one way or the other. Supervisor Brandt-It certainly will create some employment. Will it eliminate some, certainly. I don't know if we're in a very good position to make an overall judgement of exactly what it's going to do. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I don't know in the context of rezoning that we have a good handle or data on that. Councilman Monahan-I don't think we do. Councilman Caimano-Yes, we do because he has a business plan which tells us how many people he's going to hire. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-We don't know the residual effect of elimination. Supervisor Brandt-That gets into competition for services. Councilman Monahan-We need some other impact. Will propose action affect the character of the existing community. It's really the other impact how do you work that Nick your good at that stuff. Councilman Caimano-It's obviously going to change it. Supervisor Brandt -Other impacts it will change who wins their elections. Councilman Caimano-It will dramatically change the neighborhood. Councilman Monahan-Did you say it will dramatically? Councilman Caimano-Sure. I'm not making a moral judgement it's just going to change it obviously. Councilman Monahan-Yeah. I think that's your answer Jim, it's a potential large impact. Supervisor Brandt-Explain that again, how do you see that? Councilman Caimano-Right now you have a wooded green area that people look at. Tomorrow morning if the Red Lobster goes up or if any commercial goes up it's going to change what people on that street perceive as their residential community. Supervisor Brandt-Fine. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Nineteen. Is there, or is there likely to be public..... Councilman Monahan-Excuse me. Jim can impact be mitigated by project change, I think you have to put a no there. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Got it. Nineteen. Is there, or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Board Members-yes. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-We certainly have Part 3 to undertake. I've handed out what was a first cut of this, Scott Harlicker did that this afternoon. I don't know that it's all inclusive, I don't think it certainly is given the answers that we're just gone through. Councilman Monahan-Jim, I can't go with most of this that's on it to be honest with you because it talks about propose and should reduce. It's all a matter of supposition and we have to deal in hard facts. Frankly, what I've got in my hand doesn't answer much of a question to me. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Let me go through Part 3. Evaluation of the importance of impacts. Discuss the following for each impact identified in Colunm 2 of Part 2. Briefly describe the impact. Describe how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a smaller moderate impact by project changes. Three. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance consider: The probability of the impact occurring. The duration of the impact. Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value. Whether the impact can or will be controlled. The regional consequence of the impact. Its potential divergence from local needs and goals. Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. Councilman Caimano-Didn't we do that already? Attorney Dusek -You've kind of done it in part. Really what's in question at this point is whether or not you need an environmental impact statement before you can proceed which is really the basic issue, should this project receive a negative dec? Should it receive a negative conditional declaration? Should it be given a positive dec so you have an EIS completed to review all of the large impacts. Supervisor Brandt-Sure wish I knew. Councilman Caimano- The truth of the matter is you could if you really worked at it come up with, what was your second terminology? Supervisor Brandt -Conditional. Councilman Caimano-Conditional neg dec. But, it may not get answered for years. Supervisor Brandt-I can see you could do a conditional neg dec on this thing, but it's worth some discussion before you do it that's for danm sure. Councilman Caimano-Impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood. There are mitigating circumstances that could be taken care of. We have plans on the Board you have proposed plans. If those plans are part of the condition, I could see that as a conditional neg dec. The problem is that those plans are many years away from completion. How will we honestly answer that? The same thing with the controversy. It isn't until all those things are answered that we could then answer, yes. So, going through Section 3, which we've already really done in our minds when we answered these things, I mean I could go with a conditional neg dec, but can the applicant. Councilman Monahan-I don't think, you can't the public controversy. Attorney Dusek-I don't think your required to find eventually that there is not going to be any public controversy in order to give a conditional negative dec just so you know. That's a statement so that's in the record and you know that there is controversy concerning the project. But, you don't have to change that controversy somehow in order to conditionally negative dec the project. Councilman Monahan-I don't see what you can put on a condition negative dec that is going to change the overall traffic condition the problems in that area. You can affect one tiny small portion within one little tiny area, but it's not going to do anymore than that. Councilman Caimano- That major plan plus the bridge with five lanes... Councilman Monahan-But, we don't have it. Councilman Caimano-Let me finish, though. That major plan plus the bridge with five lanes could do it, bit it's eight years away. Councilman Monahan-If they can't build until a bridge is there, yeah you could give them a condition negative dec. Supervisor Brandt-That's almost going to a moratorium and I don't want to get into that. I don't think that's the answer at all. Councilman Tucker-If we use this type of reasoning on this project here haven't we got to use that type of reasoning on any project that comes in front of this Board? Councilman Monahan-I can't answer that question Pliney until I see the project. Supervisor Brandt-I can't buy the argunIent that Exit 19 controls Queensbury. It's a fact and it's an important fact, but it doesn't control the whole thing. I have a hesitation in my own mind. I wouldn't vote for this unless it was understood that we we're going to make some kind of continuation of this road as part of our adopted plan to handle this traffic. If you do that you are affecting Birch Road and that's a fact and that's not minor either. Unknown-Mr. Brandt who are.... Attorney Schachner-What's the rules Mike? Supervisor Brandt-You guys are out of it that's the rule. Attorney Dusek-I think the real issue is at this point whether you can put together a conditional negative dec. If you can that conditional negative declaration can be anything. For instance the proposal this is just going back to the proposal that the Supervisor had originally made. One of the proposal is that you allow certain uses within the highway commercial zone you build a piece of the road (applicant) and you use clean air standards as far as your exhaust systems are concerned. Those are examples of conditions and if he meets those conditions then the negative declaration is issued. On the other hand a condition for instance could be that the entire road has to be built before that will be satisfied. It's up to you to determine what it is that warrants a negative declaration. If you can agree on what the conditions are you insert them right into the resolution and then you could entertain it. Supervisor Brandt-I think that's what I tried to do right at the very beginning. If we incorporate it that discussion superimpose it here without having to go all the way back through it, I think that does it. Attorney Dusek-Your resolution has a spot in it. It says the change of zone has been proposed to be subject to the following conditions. One. It would be a highway commercial zone, but only the uses that are the same as allowed in the plaza commercial zone would be allowed in the zone. Two. That the applicant would build a section of the road off of Aviation Road, how long Mike? Supervisor Brandt-That's exactly what I just asked. We just defined 450 feet oflinear road that would have to be built the estimate is that it would cost about $168,000. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-It should be pointed out that it does not include grading. Councilman Goetz-Does that mean the Town will be paying for some of it? Councilman Caimano-Not according to him. Supervisor Brandt-What I'm saying is let the applicant pay. Councilman Tucker-What is the next step in this process? You made a motion does it have to be seconded and we take this thing to a vote, or what's the next step. Supervisor Brandt-We have to mitigate the SEQRA before we can put the danm thing on a vote. Attorney Dusek -Your working on the resolution for the SEQRA conditional negative declaration and you've so far come up with two conditions. One, is the limitation on the zoning, this one if the 450 feet of linear road that would have to be constructed by the applicant. The third one as I understand it the application of clean air standards the highest quality would be mandated for the exhaust systems in the restaurant. Councilman Goetz-Would the linear road be to the Towns spec totally done? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Joanna help me out? Councilman Tucker-Let me ask you a question. What happens to it then who does it go to, anybody? Attorney Dusek-Ultimately there will be a Planning Board review of the site plan for the project. But, if you rezone it with these conditions nothing happens until the conditions are fulfilled. The rezoning stays in limbo until the applicant can satisfy them. Supervisor Brandt-Joanna do you have something to share with us? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-She just handed me a copy of the ... standards for an urban collector road. That's what this would be considered as to qualify for the federal and state funding. Supervisor Brandt-Joanna let me ask you a question. We're looking at $170,000 somebody has to clear the site. I don't know what $168,000 consists of. Mr. Goralski-That's building the road with base courses and what not. How far as how much grading is involved in this particular site it's probably not a lot. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I think it would be significant your going to have significant fill brought it there to establish better grades for that road. Mr. Goralski -You can't put a price on it until you design it. Councilman Caimano- That's right. Supervisor Brandt-Is any of this reimbursable from the State at a later date? Ms. Brunso- The Marshelli rules which are State Rules say, the only that is given by the Town in kind services are right-a-ways and preliminary engineering. Councilman Caimano-It really doesn't make any difference for us at this stage of the game for SEQRA. All we have to do is say that we're going to or not going to do it. Attorney Dusek-The issue is whether or not that is a condition that will satisfy. Councilman Caimano-How it gets paid for is really.... Supervisor Brandt-Secondary. You answered what I was looking for. Thank you very much. We're talking 450 linear feet of road as part of... Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Plus dedication of the associated right-a-way. Councilman Caimano- That's part of the mitigating circumstances? Supervisor Brandt-Yes. Is that agreed? Councilman Caimano-Fine. Make it a conditional neg dec. What else do we have to do? Attorney Dusek-The clean air standards has that been agreed to? Councilman Monahan-What are you writing down for clean air standards? Attorney Dusek-The highest standards under Federal Law. Councilman Monahan-I don't know if odors are under Federal Law. Odors are what are concerning the people. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I would say language to the effect state of the art odor control equipment. Councilman Monahan-What is it to achieve? I think you should put down what that state of the art equipment to achieve. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-No odors to leave the site. Supervisor Brandt-I don't think we're going to write an odor control law here. Councilman Tucker-Jim isn't that part of the record already? That the applicant has brought forward that it's going to be the state of the art as far as odor and stuff are concerned? Councilman Caimano-I remember hearing that from the applicant. Supervisor Brandt-I think that was stated and included. Councilman Monahan-But, your SEQRA says you have to put all of those in your SEQRA. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I'm just attempting to response to the potentially large impact that was indicated under odors and noises. Attorney Dusek-The next one I had written down was the buffer zone would constitute a condition. Supervisor Brandt -75 foot on the side towards Birch Lane as shown on the map where the road exists period. In other words the buffer that's shown on this map.... Executive Director, Mr. Martin-A buffer ranging in size 65 to 45 feet as shown on the map. Councilman Monahan-What is our definition of buffer? Executive Director, Mr. Martin-Buffer is totally undisturbed area. Supervisor Brandt-Between the propose road and Old Aviation Road. Attorney Dusek-That one would read, a buffer zone of total undisturbed area as shown on the map consisting of 75 to 100 feet as various intervals. Supervisor Brandt-Right. Attorney Dusek-I didn't have anything else. Did you have any other conditions? Councilman Caimano- The only other one is nineteen and that's a non-issue. Attorney Dusek-That's your resolution if you want to entertain it. The following resolution was brought forward. IT WAS DEFEATED RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. CHARLES R. WOOD FROM SFR-1O TO HC-IA RESOLUTION NO.: 463,93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the application for a change of zone by Mr. Charles R. Wood requesting that certain parcels of property owned by Mr. Wood bearing Zoning Map Numbers 98-2-1, 98-3-1, and 98-3-5, be rezoned from the current zoning of SFR-1O (Single Family Residential- 10,000 square feet) to HC-IA (Highway Commercial- 1 Acre), and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is being treated as an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and WHEREAS, the change of zone has been proposed to be subject to the following conditions: 1. Highway commercial zone, but only the uses that are the plaza commercial zone would be allowed in the zone. same that are allowed in the 2. That the applicant would build a section of the road off of Aviation Road 450 feet of linear road cost $168,000 does not include grading, plus dedication of associated right -of- way. 3. Clean air standards the highest standards under Federal state of the art odor control equipment shall be used. Law. Language to the effect 4. Buffer zone of total undisturbed area as shown on the at various intervals. map consisting of 75 to 100 feet NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board after considering the action proposed herein, the conditions to be imposed on the rezoning, the proposed development of the property and action, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the Negative Declaration presented at this meeting is hereby approved and the Town Attorney's Office is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt NOES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD Supervisor Brandt-That's defeated which means you have to have a full environmental impact statement. Attorney Dusek-That's the next step. You would have to entertain whether or not your going to issue a positive dec at this point. Based on your discussions it seems like you might obviously you defeated the negative dec. Supervisor Brandt-How do you want to proceed? Councilman Monahan-I don't even know if the applicant wants to do one. Supervisor Brandt-I think basically we said no to the project haven't we? Isn't that what we just did in effect? Are you satisfied or do you want to carry it out all the way? Attorney Lemery-I like you to have a motion to rezone it.... Supervisor Brandt-But, you can't.... Councilman Caimano-We didn't neg dec it. Attorney Lemery-Then somebody ought to propose a motion to deny it. Attorney Dusek -Your at a point right now that if you can't get by the SEQRA proceedings there is no way you can entertain the legislative motion. Mr. Goralski-They can vote to deny. Attorney Dusek-If they deny the project they don't have to do the SEQRA at all if that's what your referring, too. Supervisor Brandt-I want the applicant to know and the community to know that this Board is working hard on solving this problem and to rezone this area and wants to do it in a responsible manner. I know that may not be the news your looking for, but I think we'll do it and continue to do it in a responsible manner. I don't want to in effect have people walk out thinking that we've casted in stone that this property we expect to be a park, I don't expect it to be a park at all. I think you have a right to use the property. I think we have an obligation to rezone it correctly. I think if we do a proper plan here it can be rezoned to have a very good value. I think we need to do that and I'm certainly willing to work on it and I believe the rest of the Board is. I don't want to speak for them, but that's the sense I've gotten. I also want to tell you that the Board has worked very hard to move us into an era of planning of activist planning and we're going to continue that and try and be responsible to all the people here. But, clearly the Board isn't going to pass this rezoning. Attorney Lemery-You've cast a burden on this project that you have not required of other project of hugely greater size. Councilman Monahan-Some of those have been other Boards not our Boards. Supervisor Brandt-This Board has tried to be responsible and I do want to wear all the sins of the past. Councilman Monahan-I'm talking about something that's not even Town Board. Supervisor Brandt-I have issue with some of the past Boards, too that's life those are personal. Councilman Monahan-Mike, I want to commend the work that's been done on this traffic problem. I hope that everyone involved will keep working very diligently and we will get this traffic problem solved. Executive Director, Mr. Martin-I can assure you that will be the case. Supervisor Brandt-I also want to say that the State of New York has been extremely helpful with us as the Glens Falls Transportation Council. We have moved into a whole new phase of education for the Town of Queensbury in this process. It's hardly a failure it's a beginning as far as I'm concerned. Councilman Monahan-I think it's a very big positive step. Supervisor Brandt-Motion is made for adjournment. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 464, 93 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 1993, by the following vote: Ayes: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Brandt Noes: None Absent:None No further action taken. On motion, meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury