Loading...
1997-07-22 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1997 INDEX Site Plan No. 24-97 James Polunci 1. Tax Map No. 39-1-55 Craig Seeley/Charles Seeley 3. Tax Map No. 135-2-2.1 Site Plan No. 33-97 MODIFICATION Site Plan No. 22-97 Double A provisions 16. Tax Map No. 134-6-1, 14, 2 Site Plan No. 23-97 Exit 18 Business Park, Inc. 22. 137-2-4.1 Subdivision No. 5-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE The Michaels Group 30. Tax Map Nos. 48-3-31, 33, 39.1, 39.2, 43 & 44 Site Plan No. 76-97 DISCUSSION ITEM evs, Quaker & Bay Roads 32. Tax Map No. 105-1-4.1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ...'-. "--- -..--' '---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JOHN GORALSKI TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 20, 1997: NONE May 22, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES DATED MAY 20TH AND MAY 22ND, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-97 TYPE II JAMES POLUNCI OWNER: JAMES &: VALERIE POLUNCI ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: 17 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 300 SQ. FT. 3 SEASON PORCH ON AN EXISTING CEMENT BLOCK FOUNDATION. PER SECTION 179-79 SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OR EXTENSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. TAX MAP NO. 39-1-55 LOT SIZE: .3625 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JAMES & VALERIE POLUNCI, PRESENT MR. POLUNCI-My name is James Polunci, and this is my wife Valerie. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-97, James Polunci, Meeting Date: July 22, 1997 "The applicant proposes the construction of a screened-in porch on an existing foundation. The applicant should indicate what the height of the porch will be. The height limitation for the WR-IA zone is 28 feet. The Planning Board should consider including some method of stormwater management in - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) any approval of this application. II MR. PALING-Okay. Are you familiar with the two questions that Staff raised about the height and the stormwater, would you care to comment on that please. MR. POLUNCI-Sure. The height of the building from ground level in the front will be approximately 18 feet. We're looking at the foundation will emerge from the ground at five to six feet, and then we have eight foot of wall and we have a six/twelve pitch roof, on a building which is 20 feet wide. So we're looking at about 18, 19 feet max. In terms of the stormwater management, we plan on putting gutters on both sides, on both sides to control the flow of water off the building. The supports itself will be tied in to the existing building, and will maintain the existing roof line. The existing building is 20 feet wide and 34 feet long. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. The roof line, is it a shed type or is this a peak similar to the existing house? MR. POLUNCI-It's a peak similar to, the existing house has a six/twelve pitch, and it will be a truss roof with 5/8th's inch plywood on top of it, and the trusses will be two feet on center. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, you mentioned two gutters on each side there. Originally, I had visualized a shed type roof. MR. POLUNCI-No. It's going to be a six/twelve pitch, trussed roof. MR. RUEL-And that's an existing foundation. MR. POLUNCI-Existing foundation. I estimate the foundation is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 years old. I took the top cap locks off the foundation, filled the foundation solid full of concrete, placed up a full eight inch block and a new cap lock on the top, and the foundation will be treated with block and bond on the outside. MR. RUEL-You increased the height of the foundation? MR. POLUNCI-By one block. MR. RUEL-One block, yes. It looked like new blocks around the top. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. I took off a new eight inch block and a new cap lock. I did that in order to bring it up to the level, so we could tie into the main roof and maintain the same roof line. MR. RUEL-Was there a response to the stormwater management, the gutters? MR. POLUNCI-I don't know exactly what you would be looking for here, but the gutters would be, the stormwater management corning off this addition that we have on there, I would probably put a gutter system in, and then if need be, put some type of a crushed stone or something, drain it into some type of receptacle where it would drain into crushed stone and then be allowed to dissipate through the ground without causing any erosion. MR. RUEL-You would have leader pipe on each one, on each gutter? MR. POLUNCI-You would need a pipe on each gutter because you're corning off in two different directions. MR. RUEL-Right, and then at the base of the leader pipe you would put stone, crushed stone? MR. POLUNCI-Something like a pit of some sort filled with crushed - 2 - --- -- -' '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) stone, so that the water would come in and not cause any erosion to take place. MR. RUEL-Does that meet the requirements? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Do we have a depth we'd ask for that? MR. GORALSKI-You'd probably want about two feet of crushed stone. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you be willing to commit to that, to put guttering on both sides, and that the downspouts would then lead into crushed stone two feet deep on each side? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions? Comments further on this? Okay. Lets open the public hearing on this. The public hearing on the James polunci matter is open. Does anyone care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And this is Type II, so we can go right to a motion in this case. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-97 JAMES POLUNCI, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As written, with a couple of conditions. One, that the gutters on each side of the roof be placed with leader pipes, draining into crushed stone approximately two feet deep, to take care of the storrnwater management, and the height not to exceed approximately 18, 19 feet. Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. POLUNCI-Thank you very much. Have a good evening. MR. PALING-You, too. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 33-94 MODIFICATION CRAIG SEELEY/CHARLES SEELEY OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 75 BIG BOOM ROAD MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION INCLUDES REVISION TO LIMIT OF CLEARING AND RELATED MODIFICATION TO GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN. TAX MAP NO. 135 - 2 - 2.1 LOT SIZE: 7 + ACRES SECTION: 179-26 CHARLIE SCUDDER & BILL NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was a public hearing on the 25th of - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) February and March, and May 22nd, and June 24th, which was tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you have comments, please? MR. GORALSKI-I just saw this today, but after looking at the plan briefly, and reviewing Mr. Scudder's letter, it appears that all of the issues that were previously raised by the Board have been addressed, at this point. MR. PALING-All right. I haven't had a chance to even read the letter. Do you want to read it into the record, and we can then. MR. RUEL-One question. We have a revised letter, right? And that essentially is to, what, eliminate the revegetation of the buffer zone? MR. PALING-Well, there's more to it than that. MR. RUEL-More to it than that? Okay. MR. GORALSKI-IIWe're pleased to submit this second revision to the modification plan showing, at 30 scale, Mr. Seeley's design for the future development of his Big Boom Road property. The finished grading is to be accomplished without entering the buffer zone. The maximum finished grade will be 1 on 3, i.e., 1 vertical to 3 horizontal. LAYOUT The four new building sites are numbered 1 through 4. Access is from Big Boom Road along the existing crushed stone drive which is extended to a cul-de-sac. The maximum driveway slope will be 10 percent. BUFFER ZONE Whereas, in the earlier revision of the plan, an area of 21,000 SF was to be regraded and revegetated in the buffer zone, we have managed to reconfigure the grading to stay out of the buffer zone. We would make a possible exception with respect to vegetation. It seems to us that, if needed because the tree cover is inadequate to achieve effective screening, everyone will benefit if we improve the vegetative cover in the buffer zone. The planting schedule will include suitable indigenous tree species for the buffer zone, e.g. Oak, Pine, Beech and Birch, acceptable to the planning board and planning staff. SITE PLAN REVIEW We understand from recent talks with Mr. Goralski and from our experience with other projects that each of the four new building sites will require a more detailed design for Site Plan Review as a condition preceding acquisition of a building permit. SITE DEVELOPMENT In general, for the site as a whole, slopes between terraces are limited to 1 on 3. Mr. Seeley wishes to begin regrading as soon as pqssible and as suitable fill material becomes available from off the site. As stated in our earlier report, the existing grading in the low area (SE corner) will be raised some 15 feet. DRAINAGE The natural drainage pattern of the site will be maintained. Runoff is to the southeasterly corner of the property. Each new building will have a site-specific drainage design. Suitable conduits will be installed beneath the fill to maintain the existing drainage regime. EROSION CONTROL Erosion and sediment transport will be prevented by methods set out in New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control (blue book). The guidelines provide that silt barriers be placed at 75-foot intervals down the slope where the gradient is 1 on 3. We have shown on the revised plan the emplacement of hay bales and silt fences in accord with this criterion. The primary objective is to intercept sediments that might otherwise be transported to the watercourses in the southeast corner of the parcel which drain to the Hudson River. REVEGETATION The ground will be bare as earthwork progresses. Mr. Seeley will spread topsoil, if necessary, to establish new ground cover. Irrigation will be provided and maintained sufficient to establish the grasses, trees and shrubs. The whole process of regrading, building site development, and planting is to be done in stages over an indefinite period. WATER SUPPLY The Seeley parcel is served by the Queensbury Consolidated Water District. Water - 4 - '--' '-' --' '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) service will be extended to each building as may be required. All water services will comply with Standards of the Queensbury Water Department. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL Each new site will be served by its own septic system designed in accord with the Queensbury Sanitary Code to meet the requirements of each building. We already know from extensive earlier investigations that well- drained soils are found on the parcel. COMMENTARY This revised modification plan shows the intent of Mr. Seeley to regrade and revegetate his lands in preparation for future development of four new building sites. He wishes to proceed in stages as materials become available and as events may evolve. The environmental concerns both of Town officials and of the neighboring residents are also our concerns. It is our intention that this project be carried out in such a way that the interests of the community will be protected as Mr. Seeley develops the full potential of his parcel. As stated above, each new building site in the development is subject to Site Plan Review by the Queensbury Planning Board and the planning staff. Very truly yours, SCUDDER ASSOCIATES Engineers & Planners Charles H. Scudder, P.E. Principal MR. PALING-And do we have any engineering comment on this, not from the applicant, but from us on this, further? MR. GORALSKI-Just, as I said, we reviewed this, this afternoon after we received it. It appears to address all of the issues that were brought up earlier. It meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to buffer zone and maximum slopes, and as Mr. Scudder stated several times, any additional development of the site will require individual site plan reviews. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I do have several questions here. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. SCUDDER-I'm Charlie Scudder, Consulting Engineer. MR. NEALON-I'm Bill Nealon, Mr. Seeley's attorney. MR. PALING-Now we have a new print in front of us. Is this the final grading of the overall lot? It is the final grading? Now what we see, when we go up there, especially on the back side, which would be, what, the south side, is a very steep grade. Now that isn't, you've got the finished grade on here, rather than what we're looking at? MR. SCUDDER-That's correct. MR. PALING-And you'll do it according to this print? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-Now, you talk about the planning schedule will include "suitable" indigenous trees. Do we have a planting plan or what is your intention to do this? How are you going to handle that? MR. SCUDDER-Well, as we go along, we're going to submit a site plan for each of the four sites, and we're going to submit a tree schedule to the Planning Staff, and they can refer it to the Planning Board as required, but I suggested that the trees that are going to be planted, and we don't know exactly how many there'll be or where they'll be, but that'll depend on how things go along, but they'll be trees that are suitable for that site, similar to the ones that are there now. MR. GORALSKI-I might also add something, that they don't need any plans from anybody to go and plant more trees in the buffer zone. The only thing they need approvals for is to remove trees. So if they want to go in and plant more trees in the buffer zone, that's great. - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. PALING-Well, I have trouble with the term II suitable" . When somebody says we're going to do a "suitable" thing, I don't know what I've agreed to. MR. GORALSKI-I agree with you. I just wanted to make that clear. MR. PALING-Okay. I understand what you're saying. I think my question then becomes, what are you going to do about erosion while waiting for these four lots to be built on? MR. SCUDDER-Well, this is going to be a stage development. In other words, the whole site isn't going to be torn up at once. I tried to make that point in my report. MR. PALING-Okay, but it's mostly torn up now, and there's no vegetation or root structure to stop it from eroding. MR. SCUDDER-I don't know if I'd agree that it's mostly torn up. Some material has been brought in and stockpiled, and that needs to be pushed around, but I don't think it's mostly torn up, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that's. MR. PALING-All right. Maybe I'm using the wrong term, but I'm referring to the, lets say call it the loose dirt that is on the south side, has that steep bank to it. MR. SCUDDER-All right. That's material that's been trucked in. MR. PALING-Now what's going to stop that from being washed away? MR. SCUDDER-Well, we have provision for silt fences and hay bale dikes, and once that's pushed around to come to finished grade, then it'll be revegetated. There'll have to be some topsoil, I expect, and some grasses and trees. MR. BREWER-Will the haybales and what not be put into place before you start moving things around? They'll have to be, won't they? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I would say probably. MR. PALING-Am I saying the wrong direction on that? MR. BREWER-Well, the south is toward. MR. SCUDDER-I don't think so, south and east. MR. PALING-South and east, okay. Then under "Drainage" again, I have trouble when you shoot a word at me like "suitable". What's suitable to you may, and you're talking about suitable conduits. MR. SCUDDER-When I said suitable tree species, I meant we're not going to plant palm trees or something like that. That's what I meant. MR. PALING-Well, it says "suitable conduits will be installed beneath the fill to maintain the existing drainage regime". Shouldn't we actually see a plan with pipe size and that kind of thing? MR. SCUDDER-You did have a plan earlier. It was this sheet which was submitted some time ago, before X got into the act. MR. BREWER-I thought we were going to get a whole ~ plan? MR. GORALSKI-That's what I thought this is. MR. BREWER-As far as the drainage. - 6 - '-, '-' '-'" ""--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. STARK-The drainage is here. MR. BREWER-Well, it shows a line on the paper, but we don't know what he's putting down, George. MR. GORALSKI-What you're looking for is, it says "Proposed Drainage Conduit". Now, are you putting some type of a pipe in there? MR. SCUDDER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-What size pipe are you putting in? MR. SCUDDER-Well, it'll probably be 24 inch. MR. PALING-Well, shouldn't we know? It says suitable, but. MR. BREWER-I would agree, too vague. Should we get a plan like you're saying and let our engineer look at it? MR. STARK-Bob, where does it says "suitable"? MR. PALING-In the letter. MR. STARK-In the letter, okay. MR. PALING-"Suitable conduits will be installed." MR. STARK-What pipe is there now? MR. RUEL-Would this be part of the site application or not? MR. BREWER-But there's no fill there either, George. Do you know what he's saying? He's going to put drainage underneath the fill. How much fill is going to be there? It could be up to 15 feet. What size pipe is he going to put under there? Is he going to put three inch, eight inch? MR. STARK-He said 24. MR. BREWER-Well, we don't know because we don't have it on the print, is what Bob is saying. MR. STARK-He just said so. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, we'll stipulate to 24 inch. We think that's the size. MR. BREWER-Perforated or solid? MR. SCUDDER-Solid. There's no need for it to be perforated. MR. BREWER-I don't know. That's quite a big pipe, 24 inch pipe. MR. SCUDDER-A lot of water comes down, a lot of water comes off the Town road and down across that lot. MR. BREWER-Right. I guess if you're saying that, what mY concern would be, is if that's corning down from these two points into a 24 inch pipe, and it's going to be 25, or thereabouts, from the property line, boy, that's a lot of water to throw down that hole. I think X would want our engineer to look at that. MR. PALING-That tapers 20 feet. MR. BREWER-Thirty feet, doesn't it? MR. PALING-Three hundred to three twenty, and I'm looking at the lower part of it. Now where does the pipe end? The pipe ends in - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) the buffer area? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, at the confluence of those two existing ditches. MR. PALING-And that's going to be an open 24 inch pipe? MR. SCUDDER-Well, it will have an outfall in the buffer, in the stream line. MR. PALING-In the stream line. Explain that. MR. SCUDDER-These are existing water courses now, Mr. Chairman. MR. PALING-John, are you going to weigh in on this thing? We've got two 24 inch pipes intersecting 25 feet from the boundary line. MR. GORALSKI-I know there are existing watercourses there. However, I don't know what the effect of concentrating them into a 24 inch pipe is going to do to that. It may be. MR. BREWER-You're going to create a river down there. MR. GORALSKI-If you want to have Rist-Frost look at it. MR. SCUDDER-We can't create anything that doesn't exist, Tim. There's a lot of water that crosses there now. MR. BREWER-Agreed, but that's all open, and if that water goes down in a sheet, some of it's going to go into the ground. If you concentrate that water into a 24 inch pipe, you're going to have a river down through there. MR. NEALON-That's not so. MR. BREWER-Well, I would like our engineer to find out if it is or not. I mean, we don't have engineered plans here. I would like to know what we're dealing with. MR. GORALSKI-Is the purpose of putting the pipe in to provide a level area on that site four? Is that what the purpose of that is? MR. SCUDDER-That's exactly right. MR. GORALSKI-Well, could it be graded to maintain the existing swales that are there, and then if, when you come in for Lot Four, if you wanted to fill that in, then you'd have to engineer the size of the pipe and everything else? MR. BREWER-Yes, but aren't we, John, aren't we taking care of the drainage, the natural drainage, on this thing now, as they fill and push stuff around? Not more so for a specific building. This is going to handle all the drainage from after they get done filling or whatever. Isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but they're not changing the, they shouldn't be, or the increase in volume of runoff should be minimal, because they're not creating any impervious surfaces. MR. PALING-But are you saying a 24 inch pipe is there to level the ground and not to transport water? MR. GORALSKI-What I'm saying is, they're putting that 24 inch pipe in so that they can create a level area on site four above it. If you weren't creating that level area, you could simply maintain the stream line that's there now. MR. SCUDDER-If we put a 24 inch pipe in, or a 36 inch pipe, or a 48 inch pipe, it doesn't mean that more water is going to go through - 8 - '-.- '--' ''--' "'---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) it. MR. BREWER-No, not more, concentrated flow, isn't it? MR. SCUDDER-It concentrates now. I see water as it, just a for instance. If it rains, it's going to go down as a sheet. Isn't it? MR. SCUDDER-No, it goes into the stream. There's a gully there. It goes into a stream. MR. STARK-Tim, remember when we went up there? MR. RUEL-And they're going to replace the gullies with pipes. MR. PALING-With pipe. MR. SCUDDER-Because we're going to fill there. MR. GORALSKI-If you're uncomfortable with this and you want to have Rist-Frost look at it, we can do that. Like I say, we just received it this afternoon. MR. PALING-I think I'm beginning to understand what they're doing. Let me ask a dumb question. Why aren't, if you're trying to raise the level and just keep the same water flow, lets say, why don't you just fill it in, rather than put a pipe in, because the pipe will wear out some day. MR. BREWER-No, because it'll be too high. MR. SCUDDER-I don't see how you could do that. MR. RUEL-Where would the water go? MR. PALING-Keep flowing right down the hill. MR. RUEL-Over the top? MR. PALING-Well, it's flowing there now. culverts. You've got these two MR. RUEL-You can't just put fill over it. MR. BREWER-Because there's nothing holding it on the other end, Roger. MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, what we're trying to do is maintain the existing drainage regime, in other words, the drainage pattern, and if we're going to fill there, we have to put a conduit in. So we can fill over it. So we're not going to change anything, except we're going to pipe it instead of letting it flow in a deep ditch. MR. RUEL-To allow you to put fill over it? MR. SCUDDER-Sure. MR. RUEL-Otherwise, that would build a bridge. I have a question for the Planning Staff. I wasn't present at the last meeting that this was discussed, but we have site plan applications. We have subdivision applications. What kind of application is this? MR. GORALSKI-This is a modification of the previous subdivision approval. MR. RUEL-Okay. Sò we're talking about subdivision. MR. BREWER-No, site plan. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry, site plan, yes, a modification of the previous site plan approval. MR. RUEL-But there will be individual site plan applications for the four lots, right? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. RUEL-AII right. Should any of these things be discussed when they make these various applications, or should all of this be resolved now? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I see Mr. Brewer's point here, that you're going to have two 24 inch pipes. I'm not an engineer. I don't know if having two 24 inch pipes meet at one spot is going to have any impact. That's why I do know that if you simply graded this area instead of putting the pipes in, that it would be basically the same as the existing condition. So if the applicant wants to put two 24 inch pipes in, and you're not comfortable with that, because I can't give you a definite answer, I would recommend that you either approve this on the condition that Rist-Frost approve it, or table it, I hate to say it, table it again until Rist-Frost looks at it. MR. PALING-I think at the beginning of the conduit, you're not funneling that, or making, you're not creating any more water runoff into that pipe. Am I saying that correctly? MR. SCUDDER-That's correct. down there now. We're handling the water that goes MR. PALING-Yes, right, and instead of going through a culvert, it's going to go through a pipe, and you're going to fill over the. If that's the way it is, I don't think I have a problem with it. MR. RUEL-I would rather have Rist-Frost or somebody look at it. MR. BREWER-I would think that we should have somebody, and this is a lot of dirt they're moving around and what not, and I thought we were going to get the plan two weeks ago. MR. RUEL-Why can't we have engineering look at this? MR. BREWER-I don't know why we can't, either. MR. RUEL-X would rather have them look at it. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions about it, that we want asked? MR. BREWER-X was wondering, how long of a process is it going to be? I understand you're, as fill becomes available. Five years, two years, a year? MR. SCUDDER-I have no idea. I've no idea. What difference does it make? MR. RUEL-There's no limit, right? MR. BREWER-I'm not saying there is. I'm just curious. MR. STARK-If he puts up the silt fence, you know, and the haybales, nothing's going to run in. MR. SCUDDER-And it's going to be revegetated. MR. NEALON-It's the intention of Mr. Seeley to develop this in an orderly fashion. There is no advantage to him in having to appear - 10 - "--- "-' '-- '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) in response to some concerns that either the Town Engineer has or a member of the general public might have as this project goes on. He's going to do it in an orderly fashion using good common sense. Mr. Scudder has laid out a plan which tries to address some of the existing surface and subsurface conditions. There is not, as John indicated, any current impermeable material that is being laid down on this site in its current configuration. As sites are developed and they become occupied by buildings and other impermeable structures, there is going to be provision made to deal with stormwater management and the like, as those individual sites are developed, but we don't know, as we speak, what type of building or size of building or other configurations might go there. We're trying to be prudent and reasonable and work with the Town in developing a site that has been zoned light industrial, and trying to do that in an orderly fashion. MR. BREWER-And I don't think anybody has a problem with that. I just was curious. You must have some kind of an idea, is all I thought. That's all. MR. NEALON-Well, you know, if someone would tell us they had so many cubic yards of fill, we would be able to tell you. MR. BREWER-No, I understand that. MR. NEALON-We just, if we knew, we would, but we don't. MR. STARK-Why don't we let, or go ahead with the process, and let Rist-Frost look at it. If they have a problem, they can address it through John, you know, Levandowski can tell John, tell Charlie, and I'm sure it can be addressed. That's not an earthshaking thing. MR. PALING-Right. No, if that's the only item in question, I'd be agreeable to that. MR. RUEL-I have a question. John, does Queensbury have any standards on the quality of the fill, and do we have, do we monitor the fill? MR. GORALSKI-There can't be any orqanic matter. burying stumps or. They can't be MR. RUEL-How do we know that? MR. GORALSKI-How do we know that? MR. RUEL-Yes. He's going to go ahead and fill it, right, over a period of time. How do we know what goes in there? MR. GORALSKI-Basically from periodic drive bys. That's about the only way. I mean, we're not going to check every load that goes in there. If these lots are going to be developed, there's no point in them putting any organic matter or rubbish in there¡ to build on it. MR. SCUDDER-It would be foolhardy to put lumber or organic matter, stumps or anything like that, in a place where you're going to put a building. MR. RUEL-Yes. I remember about a year ago we visited the site, and then at one end, where you were dropping fill, big pieces of concrete tar, but there were also a lot of stumps down there. MR. STARK-I don't think that was on Seeley's property. MR. SCUDDER-No, I don't believe so. - 11 - ,--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. BREWER-That was over on the other side, Roger. MR. RUEL-But it's just that I'm wondering if Queensbury monitors the filling of land. MR. GORALSKI-As best we can with the resources we have, yes, but I can't be on every site every day of the week. MR. BREWER-Well, what happens is, Roger, if you have a concern with that, when he comes in for a building, you have the compaction tested. MR. RUEL-We don't normally do that. Do we? MR. BREWER-Well, we're talking about a lot where there's going to be 15 feet of fill. We could certainly mention it in our motion, so when it comes back, for whatever reason we're not here, the flag goes up and somebody knows about it. MR. SCUDDER-There's no motive to bury organic materials here. It would be foolhardy. MR. PALING-Well, it would be self defeating. MR. RUEL-Yes, but there have been areas in Queensbury where they've had sink holes, and areas that just suddenly dropped because the developer apparently put a lot of organic material in there, and obviously, no one was checking it. MR. GORALSKI-At the time that that was done, there was no regulation in the Town of Queensbury that said you could not cut stumps, cut trees on your site, and bury the stumps on your site. MR. RUEL-Okay. You've answered my question. standards, right? Then we do have MR. GORALSKI-You cannot bury stumps on your site. MR. RUEL-This is written somewhere? MR. GORALSKI-In the Zoning Ordinance. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Even though it's been done many times in prior years. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments by the Board? Okay. The other lingering question we have is, we do see stored vehicles and buses and stuff on the property which seems to be not in keeping with what should be done there, an old school bus and like that, and I think we have the answer that it's going to be cleared out, I believe that's what we've been told. MR. GORALSKI-It will be. MR. PALING-Okay. Now you're committing to this. specifically to a yellow school bus. I'm referring MR. STARK-Charlie Seeley said it's used as storage. MRS. LABOMBARD- It's storage. They need that for storage. That was the answer I got a few months ago. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Is that an allowable storage shed, John? MR. GORALSKI-That would be considered, I assume it's unregistered. - 12 - -- --- '-' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) That would be considered an unregistered vehicle. MR. PALING-And not a storage shed. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. PALING-But it is a bus, though, although the color, I may not have the color right. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, it doesn't matter what the color is. A bus is a bus. MR. PALING-Yes. Unregistered vehicles are not supposed to be stored, and like that. MR. GORALSKI-You can have two unregistered vehicles on your property. MR. STARK-You're allowed that many. MR. PALING-Well, can we let that be a matter for the Compliance Officer, whoever he may be, some day, to police that? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, absolutely. MR. PALING-All right. Then why don't we just make it a provision of the motion. We'll have two provisions in the motion now. MR. RUEL-What's one of them, removal of unregistered vehicles? MR. PALING-Well, compliance with the Town Ordinance in regard to unregistered vehicles. MR. RUEL-We have an Ordinance? MR. BREWER-Yes, we've got an Ordinance, Roger. MR. RUEL-There are unregistered vehicles allover this Town. MR. BREWER-He just got done saying you can have two unregistered vehicles on your property. MR. RUEL-I see six, seven, eight cars on a property, with no plates on them. MR. RINGER-It just seems like we're putting these people through an awful lot of stuff that really, if there's an Ordinance that says they can't have more than two vehicles, then it's up to the Town to enforce the Ordinance. MR. RUEL-What he's saying is that it should be a condition of the application, right? MR. RINGER-But it's a law anyway. condition? Why do we have to make it a MR. RUEL-Why do we have to repeat it here? MR. RINGER-Right. I mean, if it's already in the law, why are we forcing them into. MR. PALING-I think when we make site visits, we point these things out, and I see nothing wrong with that. MR. RINGER-But, Bob, I don't understand why we would put it in the motion. If there's a law that says they can't, why we would make a motion that you can't. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. RUEL-I agree. MR. PALING-Because the law hasn't been complied with up until now. We're asking for it to be done. MR. RINGER-He doesn't have two unregistered vehicles. He only has one unregistered vehicle. If he had more than two, then it seems like a citizen could complain and say, hey, they've got more. MR. PALING-He's got two or less, then he's in compliance and has no problem. MR. RUEL-So it's not part of the motion. MR. RINGER-Right, that's all I'm saying. MR. BREWER-It depends on who makes the motion, whether it is or it isn't. MR. PALING-Well, we've got history here, too, gentlemen. We've got history here. MR. RUEL-Question. Should the Beautification Committee be involved in this or in the individual applications? MR. GORALSKI-No. I think at the time of the individual site plans. MR. RUEL-Not at this time. MR. BREWER-No. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-They did have the opportunity to look at it, and they felt they would wait. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing on this was tabled. It is open, or we'll re-open it, whichever. Does anyone care to speak on the Craig Seeley, Charles Seeley modification? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a modification. So there is no SEQRA, and we can proceed to a motion, which I believe now has one condition. MR. RUEL-What's the condition? MR. PALING-Are we asking Rist-Frost to review this? MR. BREWER-We certainly are. MR. PALING-Pending their approval, then we approve it. MR. RUEL-On drainage? MR. PALING-Well, yes, on the two pipe. MR. RUEL-How about the whole plan? MR. BREWER-Yes. I would want them to look at the whole plan, before X would give approval. MR. PALING-How does everyone feel? Do you want them to review the whole plan? - 14 - - '-" "---' '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. BREWER-We typically do that with all of them, don't we? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. If we're sending it to them, they can. MR. PALING-All right. Then Rist-Frost's approval of their. MR. RUEL-I'd like to have Rist-Frost review this plan for grading and drainage. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 33-94 CRAIG SEELEY/CHARLES SEELEY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written, with the condition that the engineering firm of Rist- Frost review the plan, the modification plan dated, revised July 18, 1997 for overall grading and drainage. That this modification does not effect the previous negative declaration, pending engineering review. Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-No, with the proviso that I'm not comfortable approving without even engineering looking at it. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. GORALSKI-We will send that to Rist-Frost, and they should get back to us within a week. MR. PALING-Right, okay. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. PALING-John, the next item, Leo Lombardo, there is no public hearing. So can we just let it go? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-And they'll just be back. MR. GORALSKI-They'll be back MR. BREWER-Do they have to re-file or anything? MR. GORALSKI-They'll have to notify us when they'd like to be back on the agenda. MR. BREWER-So we should save this stuff? MR. GORALSKI-You should save it, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Should we save all our information? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you should. I can tell you that what's happened is, I don't know if you've received a letter from DOT or not. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-They received that letter and are now consulting with DOT to work out the issues that DOT raised. MR. BREWER-They probably should come and talk to us, I think. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) We're the ones that made the idea, didn't we? MR. GORALSKI-Well, DOT liked your idea. SITE PLAN NO. 22-97 TYPE II DOUBLE A PROVISIONS OWNER: BEN ARONSON ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MEAT DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS FOR A DRY GOODS WAREHOUSE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 18- 1997/AV 19-1997 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/9/97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/11/97 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-1, 14, 2 LOT SIZE: .21 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 FRANK LEO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was a public hearing back on June 17th which has been left open until tonight. MR. GORALSKI -Okay. What happened was it was discovered last Wednesday night at the Zoning Board that our Staff had made a mistake, that the zone line from the CR-15 to the SR-IA, runs right along that property line that the addition is abutting, and because that zone line is there, they're required to have a 50 foot buffer between zones. So they also need the variance for that. So we need to re-advertise that variance for the buffer zone. MR. PALING-Then we don't need to open the public hearing up. MR. GORALSKI-Well, it was advertised. I'd recommend you open the public hearing. You left it open last time. So I would leave it open. MR. RUEL-But we don't take any action on this, do we? MR. GORALSKI-No. You can't take any action on it now. Just so YOU know, the Zoning Board is going to have a special meeting at 4:30 on Wednesday July 30th to act on it, because this has been going on for so long, and because we made a mistake. If you folks would be willing to have a special meeting at 5:00 o'clock, just to look at this one item, they could be done July 30th. MR. BREWER-What day is that on? MR. GORALSKI-It's a Wednesday. MR. PALING-What does that do to the public hearing? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the public hearing's been opened. So it doesn't have to be re-advertised. MR. BREWER-But should we, if we're going to have a special meeting, just put that something in the paper, so that if anybody wants to comment? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We would advertise the special meeting in the paper. Yes. MR. RUEL-And we'll leave the public hearing open. MR. GORALSKI-Leave the public hearing open. I would take any comments, if there's anybody here who wants to comment this evening on it. MR. PALING-This evening. All right. Yes. Lets cover that part first. Is there anyone here that wants to comment? Please come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN - 16 - "--- -' '---' ...- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MARGARET MCCLURE MRS. MCCLURE-I'm Margaret McClure, and I own property at Number 9 Second Street, and I received a notice. My concerns are trucks. He has his provisional little trucks that take things out to places. They're not quite as bad as semi's that come in, and back in. They can't get in and out. So the first question is egress, ingress/egress from this property, and whatever he's got planned. I can tell you coming in, you come up Main from downtown, lets say, and you want to turn left into Second, if there's a semi working its way into his lot, and you've got a chance to turn into Second, which is hard, and there's a big truck there, it's very difficult. I can maneuver, but I can tell you we have a number of aging neighbors. So I'm concerned for the safety there, and what's going on with that corner. My other concern is that the lot that he has right now, parking lot, whatever it's called, is not paved, and so when it's storming, like the past couple of weeks, all that sand washes out of his lot and down Second, and it's now allover the middle of Second. So that's just another little thing that maybe if he could pave. The buildings I know I've, I had this site, this survey that he did. You probably have that some place in your packets. So the concern is he's adding out, he wants to add out on this warehouse, and make an office, and that property belongs to Whitmore's. I understood the Whitmore's are going to still live in that house. He's buying that property, but they're going to live there until they're deceased, is the arrangement. I don't know what the, I haven't heard it from Mr. Aronson, but that's what I've heard from neighbors. So my concern is, if he builds out into their property, that's okay, if it's an arrangement with them, but what about the Whitmore's septic system? Where is that? MR. PALING-Now, where do the Whitmores live? Locate them for us. MRS. MCCLURE-They're on Main. MR. GORALSKI-I had no idea that the Whitmore's house was going to stay there. MRS. MCCLURE-Well, now, that's just word from people that know the Whitmores pretty well. I know they're elderly. So that's just a concern. I know that a person's entitled to have a just business, run a business. So it's not that. It's just these little issues that I feel like I'm representing some of my neighbors also. MR. PALING-Will you go to the Zoning Board? There'll be another Zoning Board meeting on this. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. These are all site plan issues, though. MR. PALING-But, well, the concerns of the neighbors, though, they express them there, also. Don't they? MR. GORALSKI-They can, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, is the house going or not going? We don't know that, I guess. MR. GORALSKI - I thought it was going, but we'd have to ask Mr. Aronson. MR. PALING-But you say it isn't going. MRS. MCCLURE-Yes, and then the property below that, it belongs to Jim Fisk. I understand he's buying that little white house, that property which is on Second, next to Jim's shop. Whether those people there are going to have the lease they're on now, or if he's tearing that down, I don't know. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. GORALSKI-The house immediately adjacent to his property is going to be removed. MRS. MCCLURE-So those people won't be able, they're leasing it (lost words) . MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Aronson's buying the property. MRS. MCCLURE-Okay. So that's part of it, and the other concern is, right now, the trash is not really enclosed, and there's meat products, there's meat wrappers. There's washing off of the deck, the dock where the trucks come and go. So where is that going? That causes a health hazard and that also causes odor for more immediate neighbors. So the idea's okay. Just lets get this tidied up, and keep it from becoming a real danger. I understand it's commercial, but my, of course, big issue is that it's starting to encroach on residential. Now there's several of us that have bought houses, gone into preservation of the houses farther down on Second and around the corner there. So it's just a matter of, hey, how far, and then especially with the trucking company. I mean, you know, if it was a shirt design company or something, but that's just the way I feel. MR. PALING-Do the Double A people know of your concerns? MRS. MCCLURE-No. I haven't met Mr. Aronson. It's just that I came one night, way back to zoning, and you were dealing with The Michaels Group and you never got to Mr. Aronson. MR. GORALSKI-That was because they changed the plan. MRS. MCCLURE-There wasn't anything at in the public time, but then the other day I thought, you know, I'm curious about this, especially since I've spent a lot of time, and I know a number of neighbors have, on their property, and we've got a great old residential area there. I invite you to come over and see us. MR. BREWER-Bob, can I make a suggestion? Why don't we ask Maria to take these minutes concerning this application and forward them to Mr. Aronson? MR. PALING-Good idea. MR. GORALSKI-I'll be talking to Mr. Aronson tomorrow. MRS. MCCLURE-And I don't mind discussing it with him. MR. BREWER-I'm sure he'd be open to that. MRS. MCCLURE-Because one thing I learned, at that last meeting, I saw how Mr. Michaels works with the people in the neighborhood that are already there, and I'm thinking, hey, maybe that could happen over in our neighborhood. MR. PALING-I don't see why it couldn't. MRS. MCCLURE-So that's why I'm here, and I appreciate. MR. BREWER-I think if we forward a copy of these minutes to him, and you contact him, he'd probably be more than willing to talk to you. MRS. MCCLURE-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. RANDY WINSLOW - 18 - '",--- '~ ~ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. WINSLOW-My name's Randy Winslow. I own 60 Main Street, which is adjacent to the Whitmore's, which is adjacent to his, what he's proposing. I would like to know which direction off his building he is proposing this addition. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you want to see a plan? MR. WINSLOW-Yes. What I would like to know is if it's going east. MR. GORALSKI-A portion of it is. MR. WINSLOW-Okay. MR. PALING-There's this, and this. MR. WINSLOW-This is Whitmore's house here, up in here. Okay. That does concern me. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to give us your reasons for that? MR. WINSLOW-This is, I just about my house about a year and a half ago. This is what I see of his building now when I'm in my back yard, where I entertain. That's it. That's all I see of it. MR. PALING-And you're where? MR. WINSLOW-I'm 60 Main Street, which would be right about here. I'm the wrong way now. Okay, Main. You have this building, and then you have Whitmore's, and I would be the next one. MR. PALING-Okay. You're over here. MR. WINSLOW-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-So according to this plan and this picture, where is the addition going? MR. WINSLOW-Sticking right out of the side of his building into my, and then most likely he bought the building on Second Street. I've talked to the people that live there, that rent it, and they've got a two year lease, and they'd have to leave after that lease, and that is when he's going to start with whatever he's doing. My concerns are, now, with his property, he has me in an "L". Because he bought Whitmore's and he bought the one from Fish. He has me in an ilL" out there. I'm waiting for a big parking lot built around my yard. I bought this property because it had a nice, quiet back yard, and I really don't like the idea of trucks driving through my back yard. I mean, I've got beautiful berry bushes out here and all kinds of things. MR. PALING-The zoning allows the use that they're putting it to. MR. WINSLOW-Right. MR. PALING-But maybe we could get them to, with plantings and trees and what not, to minimize. MR. WINSLOW-Right. What's this going to do to illY property values? I mean, I'm stuck living here for 10 years. I have to live here at least 10 years. I mean, in 10 years, he could have this place, I mean, I could be surrounded by a concrete parking lot or something. That's illY concerns. I bought my yard just for the simple reason that it was this nice out there. I mean, it is, like, beautiful out there, and very quiet. You can barely hear a truck go by when you're out back in the yard. MR. PALING-Okay. Well this, again, will be in the minutes, and I'm - 19 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) hoping, the zone permits certain things. I'm sure you appreciate that, but we can also encourage them, I'll bet they will go along some kind of a buffer. MR. STARK-Have you talked to Mr. Aronson? MR. WINSLOW-I haven't yet. MR. STARK-Why don't you? MR. WINSLOW-I really wanted to do this a little different, because I've heard a lot of people tell you to your face, they talk to you. They tell you they're going to do this, they're going to do that. Then you don't go to a Town meeting, and then they don't get told they have to, and then the next thing you know you've got concrete all the way around your yard. That was my only concern. MRS. LABOMBARD-This is good. Now it's public. MR. PALING-Your concerns will be relayed, and your name again? MR. WINSLOW-Randolph Winslow. I live at 60 Main. MR. BREWER-At the site plan, that's when they'll be addressed. MR. RUEL-John, what zone is he in? MR. GORALSKI-CR-15, Commercial Residential 15. MR. RUEL-CR-15. Is that like a transitional zone? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. That's exactly what it is. MR. RUEL-And beyond him is residential? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-So he bought a lot in a semi commercial zone? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Now the public hearing will be left open still. So come back to the next meeting, too, that we have on this. MR. WINSLOW-And I will get a paper in the mail on that, right? MR. GORALSKI-It depends when you have a special meeting. If you have a special meeting, we're not going to send out mailing notices again. MR. BREWER-See this almost isn't fair. I mean, these people aren't even, well, unless they read the. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, this is the third meeting. third meeting. This'll be the MR. BREWER-We've never seen Mr. Aronson, John. He's never been here with the plan, we've never had any discussion with him. MR. GORALSKI-Well, if you don't want to have a special meeting, that's fine, too. MR. BREWER-No, I don't mind having a special meeting. MR. PALING-Well, lets cover that in a separate issue. MR. GORALSKI-But if you have a special meeting, I don't have the time to mail notices. - 20 - .............. ~'" '-' ,--",' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. WINSLOW-That's basically mY concerns, and I also, X get runoff from his parking lot that drowns my driveway with dirt. I mean, it covers my driveway with dirt, and we ride motorcycles, and that makes for kind of a dangerous situation. Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else that cares to talk on this matter? MR. STARK-I would leave it open. MRS. LABOMBARD-Leave it open. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-How about, Bob, can we make it a point to contact one of those people, John, when we're going to have the meeting? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. We can decide tonight, if you want to. MR. PALING-No. All right. Now lets address the issue of, are we going to have a public meeting. You say the ZBA wants to have it, when? MR. STARK-July 30th at 4:30. MR. PALING-At 4:30, all right. agreeable? Now, is the time and date MR. STARK-That's fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but they'll never be done in a half hour. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with it. MR. RINGER-No problem. MR. RUEL-And what are we going to do at this meeting? MR. GORALSKI-You'll review the Site Plan Review for Double A Provisions. MR. RUEL-And we will have ZBA input? MR. GORALSKI-Will have acted by then. MR. RUEL-They will have acted by then. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Now, can we at least have Mrs. McClure and Mr. Winslow notified about this? MR. GORALSKI-I'm telling them right now. It's going to be July 30th at five o'clock in the Planning Office Conference Room. MRS. MCCLURE-Okay, and that will be for what purpose? MR. GORALSKI-For the Site Plan Review, the same purpose as tonight. MRS. MCCLURE-He was supposed to bring that plan, right? MR. GORALSKI-The problem is that he hasn't received the proper variances that he needs from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals is going to meet at 4:30 on that same day. MRS. MCCLURE-I understand. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-In the same spot? MR. GORALSKI-In the same spot. MRS. LABOMBARD-They'll never be, will they be done in a half hour? MR. GORALSKI-I would think so. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I just don't want to wait around for another half hour for them. MR. GORALSKI-It's the only item they're going to discuss. MR. PALING-And all of these items that have been brought up tonight by the two. MR. GORALSKI-Will be given to Mr. Aronson tomorrow. MR. PALING-Okay, and I would encourage him to contact both of them and talk it over directly with them. I hope we put a note in there to that effect. MR. GORALSKI-I will do that. MR. PALING-All right. Then we'll meet on the 30th, which is a Wednesday, at 5:00 o'clock. Cathy says we'll have a little wait. In the conference room. All right. The public hearing is left open. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-And we want to table this. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. We need a motion to table? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-97 DOUBLE A PROVISIONS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until July 30th, for site plan review with ZBA determination. Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 23-97 TYPE: UNLISTED EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC. OWNER: DOUGLAS L. MABEY ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 24,000 S.F. ADDITION TO WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 200' X SO' SELF-STORAGE BUILDING. PER SECTION 179-26 ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD CROSS REFERENCE: SP 15-89, 62-89 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/7/97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-4.1 LOT SIZE: 5.066 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 GIFFORD HARVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 22 - '-' -- -- --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-97, Exit 18 Business Park, Inc., Meeting Date: July 22, 1997 "The applicant proposes the construction of a 24,000 square foot warehouse addition and a 200 x SO square foot storage building at an existing industrial property on Big Boom Road. Along with the proposed buildings, a new access point will be created off of Big Boom Road at the intersection of Twin Channels Road. A landscaping plan should be submitted indicating the location and type of vegetation that will be planted at this location. The proposed access drive would create an intersection at Twin Channels Road and Big Boom Road which did not meet at 90 degree angles. This alignment could create access problems in this area and staff recommends that the Planning Board look into the possibility of relocating this drive elsewhere on the site or having on site traffic directed to the existing curb cut which is shared with the property to the south. All comments from the Town's Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this site plan." MR. GORALSKI-I gave you the latest Rist-Frost letter. Rist-Frost, "We have reviewed Gifford F. Harvey, P.E.'s letter of July 21, 1997, responding to the items included on our letter of July 18, 1997. The applicant's engineer plans to meet with the Town Highway Department concerning the access road configuration and drainage modifications within the right-of-way. The requirement for the Highway Department will be acceptable to this office. Traffic and sewage system responses are satisfactory. It was reported to us that the applicant's test pit data only goes to the depth of four feet. Test pit data showing no groundwater or mottling to a depth of two feet below the bottom of the drYWell should be submitted. The response on filter fabric on the infiltration trench is satisfactory. Yours truly, William Levandowski" MR. PALING-Would you identify yourself please? MR. HARVEY-Yes. I'm Gifford Harvey. I'm Consulting Engineer representing Mr. Maybe, Exit 18 Business Park. MR. PALING-Okay. Are you familiar with the Rist-Frost letter? MR. HARVEY-Yes. I have a copy. MR. PALING-Do you want to comment on that? MR. HARVEY-No. Mr. Goralski said it all. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we've got some items pending here then. MR. GORALSKI-I would say you have a meeting with the Highway Superintendent, and additional test pit data. MR. PALING-Yes. Items One and Three. MR. RUEL-One and Three. MR. HARVEY-I met with the Highway Superintendent this afternoon, and his only comments were that he doubted that an existing catch basin, which is going to be below the new curb cut we're planning, was actually a structural, concrete basin. I've since checked, and it's not. It will have to be replaced, at the property owner's expense. Secondly, he cautioned that we shouldn't create a situation that will cause that catch basin to silt up, which we agree wi th, and we'll not do. He al so recommended that we re loca te a drYWell that we had planned on the south side of the curb cut, to slightly northwest of an existing berm. To move that new drYWell. MR. RUEL-Will the existing curb cut be closed? - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. HARVEY-No. Our objective is, since we're expanding the warehouse, we expect more truck traffic, as opposed to smaller vehicles, and we're trying to create a one way pattern, so that we don't have a lot of congestion in the parking area, with trucks having two way traffic. MR. RUEL-This new access road will be one way you said? MR. HARVEY-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Just in. MR. HARVEY-Out. MR. RUEL-And I don't see the existing curb cut here. Do yOU see it? Where is it? MR. PALING-I think this is it here, isn't it? MR. RUEL-No, on this one. M~ GORALSKI-Right where it says Big Boom Road, on Cl. MR. RUEL-That's the ~ one. Where's the existing one? MR. HARVEY-The existing curb cut is not on this piece, this parcel. MR. PALING-Would you want to corne up and mark it on this, please. MR. RUEL-Shouldn't it be on here? MR. GORALSKI-It is on there. MR. HARVEY-It's on an adjacent parcel that's owned by the same party. Here's the edge of the berm. There's the existing entrance. MR. RUEL-So this is it, here. All right. So the traffic would go this way. MR. HARVEY-That's correct. MR. PALING-So this would be in, and this would be out. MR. RUEL-This is two way, though. MR. HARVEY-It is currently. MR. RUEL-And will be, right? MR. HARVEY-We'd like to make it one way traffic. MR. RUEL-What about people who go back here to these? MR. HARVEY-They can corne out this way. MR. RUEL-They will have to go out that way. They can't go out this way? MR. HARVEY-They do currently. MR. RUEL-Yes, and in the future? MR. HARVEY-Well, like I say, we're trying to make this one way traffic, but we don't have a traffic policeman or anything. We do plan lights or anything to prevent them from going that way. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know, but you haven't indicated any lines or - 24 - '-" --...- '--, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) anything here. MR. HARVEY -Right, agreed, we haven't, because this is on an adjacent site. I was unsure how to handle it. MR. RUEL-Well, if you haven't indicated, this, to me, means that this is two ways. All right, and this can be one way, but this is two ways. MR. PALING-Now when you sayan adjacent, does he own that property? MR. HARVEY-Yes, he does. MR. RUEL-Is this the line here? MR. HARVEY-That's the boundary of the property. He has a moving van service on this site. The access to these self storage building is through this site. This is a new self storage building. MR. RUEL-Well, this is going to be a larger ramp? MR. HARVEY-Well, we're going to add an additional ramp. Actually, one of these is grade level, and one is a ramp. MR. RUEL-Don't you have two entrances here? MR. HARVEY-The main office entrance is here. There is another, a tenant. Yes, there is a tenant. MR. BREWER-Bob, do you remember that, why we restricted Seeley's property from corning out on Twin Channels because of that hill? Is that going to be a problem? MR. PALING-Well, there was one comment here that this wasn't a right angle approach, but it's about as close to a right angle as you can get. MR. GORALSKI-The comment is that the intersection of Twin Channels and Big Boom is not a right angle. MR. PALING-That, there's nothing we can do about that, though. MR. GORALSKI-No, but you can exacerbate the problem by adding an additional road cut there. MR. PALING-Corning out there. Now, who's looking at moving this access? Did I hear somebody say that it's being re-investigated? MR. GORALSKI-No. We suggested that, at a minimum, he speak to the Highway Superintendent. MR. PALING-And what has his comment been regarding this? MR. HARVEY-It was that we should have a minimum sight distance of 300 feet in each direction, which will mean that we'll have to remove part of a berm, and some brush that's on the north side of where we're proposing that curb cut, but that's ,not a problem, for J.Y! . MR. PALING-So it's a minimum of 300 feet in each direction. MR. HARVEY-Correct. MR. RUEL-But you can meet that by reducing the level of the, the height of the berm. MR. HARVEY-Yes. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. RUEL-Would that meet the requirements, John? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MR. RUEL-Who made this comment? MR. PALING-The Highway. MR. GORALSKI-Well, we made the comment, and Rist-Frost made the comment, but I don't know if removing the berm is going to get you 300 feet of sight distance. MR. PALING-Well, this is what the Highway Department requested. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's what we're being told. I haven't spoken to Paul about this. MR. PALING-Okay. Then that would have to be at least part of the motion. MR. RUEL-That it meet the Highway Department requirements, right, be part of the motion? MR. GORALSKI-At least. You have a couple of other issues here. MR. PALING-All right. What are they, John? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the test pit data. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. RUEL-Right. MR. PALING-Now, do you want to comment on that, the Item Three, about the test pit data? MR. HARVEY-It's Item Three? MR. RUEL-Yes, on that letter. MR. PALING-The Rist-Frost letter. MR. GORALSKI-On the July 22nd letter of Rist-Frost. MR. HARVEY-Item Three of his letter has to do with sewage system. MR. PALING-No. It was, the applicant's test pit data only goes to a depth of four feet. MR. HARVEY-Correct. We hadn't planned to dig another pit, because in view of the percolation data, which was magnificent, and the test report that we had from 1988, plus the fact that existing d~ells have not caused him any problem, that's why I haven't dug a pit, but we'll do it if you'd like. That's no problem. MR. PALING-Well, I know what X think, but I'd like to know what Staff would say about that. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that additional test pits be done. MR. PALING-Yes, I would, too. MR. RUEL-So we'll make that another condition. MR. GORALSKI-You're starting to get into a lot of conditions. - 26 - " '-- '-.-' "--- '--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. RUEL-Well, that's two of them. MR. STARK-How come we got this stuff, the letter comes out the 22nd? I mean, you know. MR. GORALSKI-Well, typically what happens is Rist-Frost reviews the application. They send a response to me and a copy to the applicant. If the applicant has time to respond, they do. Hopefully satisfactorily to all of Rist-Frost's comments. In this case, they didn't satisfactorily address every comment. MR. BREWER-So we should table it until it's satisfactorily. MR. STARK-Can he respond to this by the 30th? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. You'd have to ask him. MR. STARK-No, I mean. MR. PALING-Then become part of the special meeting. Sure. MR. RUEL-Why can't we make it a condition of the? MR. BREWER-Because it's too many conditions, Roger. MR. RUEL-Just two conditions. Say that we okay this on the basis that he meets these two requirements. MR. BREWER-The point of it is, when we sit here, we're supposed to be looking at finished plans, and that's not what we're doing. We're conditioning on somebody else's approval, in my mind. You guys do it if you want to, but X don't want to be part of it. MR. PALING-We're not going to cause the applicant much delay if we talk about it at the 30th meeting. We may have questions what the Highway Department says, is what I'm afraid of. MR. GORALSKI-Right. See, a couple of things. I believe you should get the additional test pit data. We've run into trouble before with test pit data that's been too old. Secondly, you know, Mr. Naylor has indicated that, with some modifications, this would be okay, but there's several modifications. We're talking about moving a drywell, reconstructing another drywell, moving a berm. Without having something either in writing from Mr. Naylor or a revised plan, I don't know what all those things are. MR. PALING-No, I don't, either. MR. BREWER-Those changes that he suggests should be on the plan, shouldn't they? MR. STARK-How about a response from Mr. Naylor? I don't see any. MR. BREWER-We don't have any. MR. PALING-Well, that's what we'd be asking for. MR. RUEL-Naylor had comments? MR. BREWER-Like you said, George, we just got the letter today. MR. PALING-Could that be put together by the time of the 30th? MR. HARVEY-I'm sorry. I'm going to be out of town for the next 10 days. MR. PALING-Well, I don't think there's anything we can do with the condition that this is in here tonight. There are too many - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) provisions to just table it and just wait for it to be done later. We would like to see a plan with this information on it, and that's going to take some discussion and revision of plans. I think I speak for the Board on this. MR. RUEL-You don't speak for me. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-I don't agree. MR. PALING-What do yOU say? MR. RUEL-I don't agree, because I think the applicant understands what the requirements are. He says, I think he says he will meet the requirements of the Highway Department. If the Highway Department says he must reduce the berm X number of feet, he'll do it. That's one item. The other item is this test pit data? MR. PALING-Roger, go back up to Item Number One. There's about three or four provisions in there that we're looking at. MR. RUEL-Where? I only see one. MR. PALING-Well, John, go through that list again. MR. GORALSKI-Just from what I've heard from the discussion tonight, Mr. Naylor, at a minimum, would like to see the existing drYWell reconstructed, another drYWell moved, a berm moved. At this point, I can even add some other stuff. I don't see a landscaping plan. MR. HARVEY-That hasn't been prepared yet. MR. BREWER-So it's an incomplete application. MR. RUEL-It doesn't meet all the requirements of site application at this stage? MR. GORALSKI-I'm just telling you the things that X see that are missing. MR. HARVEY - I don't do this very often. When I read the regulations for making the submittal, I was submitting a preliminary site plan for preliminary approval, and a week later I was asked to appear before the Beautification Committee. I arrived and they said, where's your landscaping plan, and I said, I haven't done that yet. So I really planned to submit a full set of complete documents with all these changes made on it. MR. BREWER-That's what we should have in front of us. Because a site plan doesn't have a preliminary and a final. It just has a site plan. MR. HARVEY-I can't change that. I just got the request from Rist- Frost yesterday. MR. PALING-Okay. What we're faced with is we can't act on it or we're not going to act on it tonight, and it appears it's going to have to go into August. We will open the public hearing tonight and leave it open, but then table this matter, and then revisit it in either the first or second meeting in August, whichever you can arrange. We'd be glad to meet with you on the 30th, but evidentally that's impossible. MR. BREWER-Do we still have a checklist, John, that we hand out? MR. GORALSKI-As part of the application, yes. - 28 - '""'"'-", ~ ',---" "--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. PALING-All right. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to talk about Exit 18 Business Park, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Okay. Do we have any letters, John, any letters on Exit 18? MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe so. Let me just check. No. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll leave the public hearing open, and we will table this. Do you want to table it to a date in August? MR. STARK-The first regularly scheduled meeting in August. MR. PALING-Is August 19th okay with you? MR. HARVEY-Fine, whenever your next regular meeting is. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 23-97 EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Until the next meeting, dated August 19th, at which time we expect to receive comments concerning open items in the Rist-Frost letter dated 7/22/97. Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote: MR. GORALSKI-As well as a landscaping plan. MR. BREWER-It has to be done, doesn't it? I mean, if it's not done, then we're going to do the same thing again. Everything has to be in. When should we say everything has to be in, so this gentleman doesn't get in the same spot he's in right now? MR. HARVEY-It'll be in by the 5th of August. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I can live with the 5th of August. MR. BREWER-The 5th of August is fine, as long as he has everything that's on that checklist, John. MR. PALING-For the meeting on the 19th. information in by the 5th. He's got to have his MR. BREWER-And that gives us time to review it. MR. GORALSKI-That'll give us time to distribute it to Rist-Frost, the Highway Superintendent. Get it to you guys. MR. RUEL-John, does this gentleman have a list of the information that was required for this application? MR. GORALSKI-It's on the application. If he's got the application, he's got the list. MR. BREWER-Don't we typically go over and make sure everything's there before we put it on our agenda? MR. GORALSKI-We try to, yes. MR. PALING-If he hasn't done it before, you might give him a little help, a little coaching, because it can be intimidating if you haven't done it before. - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. HARVEY-The owner would like to go on record on one point. We met with the Beautification Committee and verbally described to them what the existing landscaping was like and how we plan to continue it, at which time that Committee gave us their verbal approval, but in the minutes from that meeting, they used the phrase regarding a portion of the site that's not being developed as being held forever wild. Now that phrase wasn't part of our meeting, and it's got kind of onerous implications. MR. PALING-I don't think that's within their authority to say forever wild. I doubt it. I don't know. What part of the letter is that in? MR. HARVEY-It's in the center of the first paragraph. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Forever wild, area between site and Kruger Concrete is forever wild and will remain so. MR. PALING-Well, that's something that you would have to tell us you're going to do, and we'd accept. That's not something that would come out of Beautification. MR. HARVEY-Well, it did. MR. PALING-That's an item that I think can be settled by the Planning Board, but we're not asking for. MR. GORALSKI-Anything the Beautification Committee does is a recommendation, and it's up to the Planning Board to either choose to implement that or not. MR. PALING-Okay. A motion has been made, and we have a second? MR. RINGER-I'll second. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-And the public hearing, as we noted earlier, is open, will stay open. Okay. We'll see you on the 19th. MR. HARVEY-Very good. MR. PALING-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED THE MICHAELS GROUP (UNDER CONTRACT) OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD BETWEEN BLIND ROCK & TEE HILL ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 43 LOT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 17-1997 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/7/97 TAX MAP NOS. 48-3-31, 33, 39.1, 39.2, 43 & 44 LOT SIZE: 84.55+ ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAP PER , REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Before you start the public hearing, when you schedule that for next month, I request that it be on the second meeting, because I'm going to be away on the 19th. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. - 30 - -.' '-"'" '---" ...-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. GORALSKI-We can do that. MR. STARK-Okay. John, you won't have the public hearing tonight for this? MR. GORALSKI-The public hearing's been advertised. So you should at least open the public hearing, yes. MR. STARK-Okay, as long as everyone knows that this is being tabled to the 26th of August. We'll open the public hearing and leave it open until the 26th of August. If anybody would like to speak, pro or con, toward this application, please corne forward, identify yourself at the table, and state your comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-My name is Paul Derby. LORRAINE STEIN MS. STEIN-And my name's Lorraine Stein. MR. DERBY-And we're probably jumping the gun, because they're not here to answer questions, but I looked at the site plan on that, and The Michaels Group bought quite a chunk of land behind where the subdivision's going to go. Part of that land goes right up very close to Glen Lake. We're Glen Lake residents, and we were concerned, if there was ever going to be any possible access to the lake, or what impacts it would have on Glen Lake. MS. STEIN-Yes. If they had any intentions of buying any property that had lake frontage and lake access. MR. STARK-Okay. We can't answer your questions. They're not going to answer them either. MR. DERBY-I know. MS. STEIN-Right. MR. STARK-What we're just going to do is take your comments. MS. STEIN-That's our comments. MR. STARK-They'll be answered at the next meeting. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, Lorraine, just to make sure I understood what you're saying. You were asking if The Michaels Group has any intentions to buy any properties that access? MS. STEIN-Or has purchased any property already that has any lake access or frontage. MRS. LABOMBARD-From this subdivision? MS. STEIN-Not necessarily from this subdivision, but that can be connected to or? MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I'm saying. What you're saying is maybe down the line, you could see that this subdivision could have a root, a pathway or something where they could go from there to the lake. MS. STEIN-Correct. MR. DERBY-Exactly. - 31 - - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. GORALSKI-Jon can probably address this, since he's here, but they're using up all their density in that area along Bay Road. So they're not going to develop that 50 acres in the back. So they can't build a road through there or anything like that and corne out to Fitzgerald Road, but Jon can answer the question of whether or not they own any other property. MR. BREWER-Can I ask a question of you? If they did have access to the lake, what's the problem with it? MS. STEIN-Because the lake's crowded already. MR. BREWER-So you don't want anybody else on it? MS. STEIN-No. I mean, obviously, well, there's a public access, okay. I mean, it's not like no one can get on the lake. There's a public access. You're talking, if they're putting 43 homes in that area, plus additional homes in any other property that they may have purchased, you're talking a lot of extra people on the lake, possibly that many boats. You're talking watercraft, right now, on a busy afternoon, especially in the afternoons, it's crowded. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Ordinance wouldn't allow that. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying it would, but I just have a problem, if it's a public water, I mean. MR. DERBY-We don't have a problem, per se, with the development. We were curious what their plans were going to be, and, frankly, I do have a problem, it is a crowded lake, and putting 43 boats on it, if it were possible, we don't know. That's why we're here to ask. MR. BREWER-I understand your question. MS. STEIN-You're talking, I'm sure you've been to Glen Lake. You know that the houses are one on top of the other. I mean, it's not like it's not a crowded lake already. I mean, it's not that big of a lake. MR. BREWER-Agreed. MR. RUEL-Isn't this a modification? Wouldn't they have to come before the Board for a subdivision modification? MR. GORALSKI-If they were going to do that. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-My point is, they can't do it. Zoning Ordinance to do that. It's illegal in the MR. LAPPER-I can put their concerns at ease. The purpose of doing this as a cluster subdivision was not only to put everything by Bay Road, but also to stay out of the 500 foot buffer area from the lake. So no part of this is going to be within 500 feet of the lake. It includes no access to the lake, nothing that they're purchasing has access to the lake, and no development will be done even within 500 feet of the lake, and we're using up, as John said, all of the development rights by clustering this. So there's no potential of doing any other development, even within that 500 foot buffer. MR. RUEL-You're safe. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're safe. That's the whole purpose of a cluster. - 32 - '-, '-' '-' '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. STARK-Anyone else? Okay. We'll leave the public hearing open until August 26th. That's the second meeting in August, and go on to the next item of business, then. DISCUSSION ITEM: SP 76-96 - CVS, QUAKER & BAY ROADS JON LAPPER & TIM TRAYNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-John, we're just going to turn this whole thing over to you to set the tone and all for this, please. MR. GORALSKI-What's come up here is, as you are aware, as part of your motion, you required that during construction of the CVS Plaza that there be archaeologists on site and that a protocol be set up in the event that any archeological artifacts are found on the site. There have been some artifacts found on the site, remains that will be described by the applicant and his consultants, and as a result of that, there are some modifications to the plan that will be required. With that, I'll turn it over to the applicant and they can explain what's taken place on the site thus far, and I'll fill in wherever necessary. MR. PALING-Are we looking at a modified plan tonight? MR. GORALSKI-I believe so. MR. LAPPER-We have a small modification that we'll explain, and then present to you. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and I'm here on behalf of Berkshire-Glens Falls, L.L.C., which is the entity that owns the former Doyle's site. Next to me is Tim TraYnor from Berkshire. We have two archaeologists who have been working very closely with us on this, and who have been before the Board, from Collamer and Associates, Jeannette Collamer and Sarah Majot, and they will make a presentation about exactly what they found, and what we propose to do about it, and Matt Steves is here, who has surveyed what's been found, and he will show you exactly what we found in relation to what the Doyle's had constructed on the site. To begin with, just to refresh your memories about the setting of the approval, when we first carne before you for site plan review, we learned for the first time from MarilYn VanDyke, the Town Historian, and members of the Quaker community, that what we saw on the tax map as the corner parcel that is the Town cemetery, that that was actually a 200 year old Quaker Cemetery, and that, in 1960, there was a lawsuit that none of this, we had known about before we contracted to buy the site, that there was a lawsuit between the Society of Friends, the Quaker group, and the Doyle's, when the Doyles purchased the site, and as a result of that lawsuit, this corner parcel was conveyed to the Quaker community first, and then ultimately to the Town, and what the record showed at that point was that some members of the Quaker community questioned whether or not that the boundaries of the site were properly delineated, and whether or not there might be remains or artifacts elsewhere on the site, because this was the location of the original Quaker meeting house, and the Quakers were the original settlers of the Town. As a result of that, during the approval process, we retained the services of Collamer and Associates, and they went and performed 30 some odd shovel tests which were done on a grid, throughout the site, to see if there was an evidence of any artifacts or remains at all, and their results carne back and said that there weren't. Now, what they did was that they looked at areas of the site which were not previously disturbed, because the testimony on the record and correspondence - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) and what we've been told by the representatives of the Doyle's company, from whom we purchased the site, was that the site was previously heavily excavated, previously disturbed because they had constructed the main building and then the out buildings, and also the site was crossed by a large sewer main that runs along the back and along the Hannaford site, water lines, gas lines, electrical lines. So the premise that we were under, from representations from the Doyles, was that there was very, very little chance that anything would be uncovered in the area that had been disturbed, because it was already disturbed, and if anything came up, they would have known about it at the time, and they told us that certainly nothing carne up, and that's something that we've looked in the records that we got from the Planning Department, and there's a letter to that effect from one of the people from Doyles, that nothing was found, because MarilYn VanDyke had said that there were rumors at the time that bones were uncovered in 1961, after the lawsuit was settled, when they built the Doyle's site, and as we will present testimony from the archaeologists, it turns out that that was not the case, and as a result of that, after we will present you the evidence of exactly what we've discovered, and as a result of that, jumping ahead, we are proposing tonight to modify the site, because we had provided more parking spaces than were required under the Ordinance, and by eliminating only six parking spaces, as I'll show you, and actually three potential ones, because we had to show, you had said that along Quaker Road you'd rather see grass, so this is under the provision of the Ordinance where as long as we could show it, we don't have to build it. We had 11 extra sites, and we're taking off six actual sites and three proposed sites. So we're taking off a total of nine. So we still have two parking spaces more than we need, and by doing that, we're able to include the entire area where the remains and artifacts were found, in the area that is the grassed buffer area, and we've also contacted the representatives of the Quaker community, and we expect to meet with them next week, and we want to make sure that what we have proposed, not in terms of the buffer, everyone's going to be happy with grassing rather than putting paving over this area, but just in terms of an ultimate solution to this, that we want to hear what éverybody has to say, but we've had in-depth meetings, discussions with New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, the State Archaeologists from there, the Town Historian, John Goralski, the Town Attorney we contacted when we first found, the first indication was it was a bone which had been severely weathered, which indicated that it had been exposed to the elements. It was actually on the site, exposed to the air, which was a curious thing to uncover at first, and it was an indication that something, that there had been some disturbance. We contacted the State Department of Health, the County Coroner, the State Police and the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. Everyone has reviewed our plan and we've corne up with a protocol which goes beyond the initial protocol that you all approved in terms of what to do now with what we've found, and we will now get into that and give you the details and ask you to take a look at the proposed site plan modification when we're done. Tim, is there anything at the beginning that you want to add? MR. TRAYNOR-I think just to keep in mind that from Berkshire's standpoint, I think John has aptly represented that we proceeded with this project based on representations that were made to us, and that, from the seller. It is real important for this group to, and it will be further explained and delineated by our archaeologists, that the issues that we're dealing with were issues that took place 36 years ago, disturbances that we found, and evidence documented are issues that took place well prior to our getting involved in this project, and on the front end, and we'll certainly have some things to say at the end of this process, but on the front end, Berkshire has taken, and hopefully the Town will attest to that and those, all the people that have been involved, - 34 - '--' c"---' ~ ---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) Berkshire has taken a very strict approach to following protocol. We've allowed our archaeologists to really run this process, rather than us running them. We have exercised extreme caution. We've exercised, I believe, good judgement, and whatever reverence that we could, under the circumstances, our company finds ourself in an extremely difficult situation, and, frankly, we're a bit outraged by finding ourselves in this position, and that was, I guess, our first reaction, as events began to unfold. I can say this, that there is a commitment from our firm, individually, rather than talking about us as a corporation, the individuals involved in our company, to do the right thing in this process, as we believe we have all along, and to continue to exercise a great deal of patience and understanding and compassion, to handle the situation with great dignity, and under the proper protocol that certainly is necessary here. This is an issue that is probably everyone's nightmare, when you get involved in a situation where you've been mislead, and the only way for us to react is to follow specifically the protocol that's been established here by our archaeologists and with the State operation with the Town. I just want to let you know that our company is committed to that process, and we will, in fact, resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction, but keep in mind, this is a situation that we're dealing with that happened well before our presence here. The things we're dealing with have been pre-disturbed. There's nothing that we did ourselves. I just want to set that as the tone for the conversations. MR. LAPPER-With that, we're going to ask Jeannette and Sarah to make a presentation about what we've discovered. I'm going to hand you, now, copies of the proposed modification of the site plan, which shows the location of what we found, as well, and then the archaeologists will explain what it is. JEANNETTE COLLAMER MS. COLLAMER-My name is Jeannette Collamer, and I'm a professional archeologist. I've been contracted by Berkshire Acquisitions to assist with the excavations and development of the corner of Bay Road and Quaker Road. I was here last winter when we discussed the field procedures for the Stage lB, the initial investigations, and we began with shovel tests in areas that were not paved early this spring. At that time, we did not find any evidence of human remains. We found several historic fragments, nothing of terrible significance at that time. Prior to any demolition of the structures, we were called to a pre-construction meeting on the site. I attended and Dr. VanDyke was there also. We established that the archeologist would be monitoring any demolition and any excavation which took place. The archeologist would also have the ability to control the rate of excavation and the depth. So that if anything was found, we could stop them or we could examine the soils, as things are coming out. At that time, MarilYn VanDyke and I both asked if we could examine the cellar of the Doyle structure, because sometimes you can tell by looking at the cellar walls earlier construction or repairs or things like that. However, it was all concrete block, and there was nothing that we could really identify. Excavations began, I don't remember the date, June. We had the archeologist monitoring the excavations, and the demolition. The initial finding was a foundation near the. MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-What you don't have on those plans there that you're looking at, for the record, I'm Matt Steves, with VanDusen and Steves, is this red outline was the Doyle building, the main building. What I have outlined in red on this map was the existing Doyle building, before it was demolished. The areas that were noted as Site Five, Six, Seven and Eight are right along the interior foundation walls. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MRS. COLLAMER-We're going to our initial findings. Our initial findings was the foundation remains, fieldstone foundation, which we evaluated. It was southern, southwestern part. MS. MAJOT-My name is Sarah Majot. I'm Project Coordinator, Crew Chief for Collamer and Associates (lost words). I was part of the excavations that were conducted in the field, and what Jeannette was talking about was our initial find was a 19th century foundation, which was very similarly aligned to this structure here, however, it was not perfectly aligned. So what we needed to do was we needed to (lost words) the foundation to try to determine a precise date on it, to determine whether or not it might have been (lost words), but we didn't know exactly where, and that was the initial finding that we thought may lead us in that direction. However, upon cleaning up and identifying the foundation and mapping, we determined that this is clearly a 19th Century foundation, and therefore not of a great amount of significance. MR. BREWER-Would that be Site Number Nine? MS. COLLAMER-No. It's an existing foundation that when they (lost words). This is our initial finding, and it was not deemed as a significant find. We recorded it. We documented it. We evaluated it. Ms. VanDyke came out to the site, looked at it. We all agreed that it was not something that should stop construction, because it was 19th Century remains. So we continued in the area. Throughout the excavations, we knew there was a potential of finding human remains because of the associated cemetery. However, we did have a 50 foot buffer on the west side, and we had the driveway, the existing driveway, south of the cemetery. So we thought we were fairly well protected. MS. MAJOT-Subsequent to this, activity began on this site, demolition of these structures, the existing Doyle's structures. These had already been, when we first started work was in the southern part of the site. These structures came down. We identified the foundation. Then the structural remains up here were being taken down, and we were examining them as they were being torn down, because in the event that they were pulling off any of the wall lines. We would be able to see what was behind the wall lines and try to interpret any of the deep stratification across the site. MR. PALING-How deep was the foundation you found? MS. MAJOT-The foundation here was on the surface. much right at grade. It was pretty MR. PALING-This was know. This wasn't unknown. MS. MAJOT-No, this was an unknown. This barn had been brought in and had been built on top of it. Another foundation had existed prior to the reconstruction for this foundation. So it was interlaid. It was a component structure, and we were able to tell the difference because the alignment of the one underneath was slightly askew. It was running more in a generally, a magnetic north direction than this would have been, and this was set in later, but the foundation, because of the different types of components of the foundations, where we had later brick that was actually mortared in with the stone, and the fieldstones, and the type of artifacts that were being recovered near the building (lost words) clearing indicated that it was a later date. It pre-existed this, but it was not at such a point that it was of a great deal of significance. It was not unique or unusual, and therefore we determine that it would not have been a meeting house. MS. COLLAMER-Basically, we evaluated it, documented it, and continued on. Our initial significant find was a bone, tibia, near - 36 - '-- '-- '--' '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) the surface, right near the cellar hole. At that point, we called in a Physical Anthropologist to have him evaluate this bone fragment that we found. We had found a number of animal bones on the site as well. He looked at it and he asked, obviously, was there any grave goods associated, can we determine, could we determine that it was identified and located and associated with the cemetery, the Quaker Cemetery, or was it a Native American remains? We had found no coffin remains. We had found no beads or teeth or anything of that associated nature. So all we had was one bone, in a disturbed context. MS. MAJOT-So the investigations proceeded, with due caution being in this area, re-examination of, in particular, the wall line areas. Now this is sand, bear in mind, there's a lot of slumping. So when a wall's been removed, you have some slumping of (lost words). The next significant part of the construction that began was the retention basin. That was to be located in the front part of the site along Quaker Road. Now, at this level, we've always found that it's very effective to use, using heavy equipment, particularly like a bulldozer, we can take down levels in incremental portions, actually, within a six inch level. Now that was carefully monitored by four Archaeologists traveling behind it. At this point, we started recovering fragmented bones in this area. Work was halted, and again, a Physical Anthropologist was called in to make an evaluation as to their nature, whether they're human. We had a good indication that they were human. I mean, we're not Physical Anthropologists, but we do have, we have had a great deal of experience with human remains. So we can pretty much tell, but we needed positive confirmation. MS. COLLAMER-We're required to call in a specialist, at that point. They were still in a disturbed context. We contacted Mr. Lapper and they were going to evaluate the site and decide whether they could change construction plans, whether this needed to be excavated, where to go from there. We also didn't want to do anything more until we had contacted the State or the Town. So that area was secured, and we did nothing more. MS. MAJOT-The next phase, in order to try to really define what was trying to happen over here, again, this material appeared to be corning out in a very, very disturbed context. There were no indications of grave shafts, and you could see by (lost words) that we were missing a block of the strata that should have been there. It was gone. It had been replaced by a level of fill which was mixed condition, and it was within that level of fill that those remains were found. MS. COLLAMER-They were also jumbled together. MS. MAJOT-And mixed. In one area we had the remains of at least three individuals within a three foot area. Now these three individuals, we can tell, because one was a child, one was a man, and one was a woman. So we had different components. We had small fragments of each in this small area. So it was a clear indication that they had already been probably mixed, but again, this area, work was halted and the area has been secured. Now, back against this, in order to figure out what was happening here, stratographically, they had removed the wall line from the inside part of the foundation. You've got to get a better understanding of what's underneath. Now Jeannette had gone in and looked at the basement and the foundation. The whole structure did not possess a basement. This area over here was partially slab on grade, which means it's just a concrete platform placed along a supporting wall, and then built up from there. So while this area had been excavated out completely, this area was still up and hadn't been. They had stopped the excavations there, and it became clear why. MR. TRAYNOR-If I could just interrupt, the "they" who stopped the - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) excavation was the people who built the Doyle's building, not us. I just want to make sure that's clear. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MS. MAJOT-As we proceeded with the investigations, we requested that where the foundation edge stopped (lost words) that we clean back the wall line, and as we cleaned back the wall line, within here you'll see, it says on your plans, "Stakes for Site Three". Within that area, we encountered grave shafts, the outlines of grave shafts, in profile view. MS. COLLAMER~Basically that's where you dig a grave. You can see the outline in the sand and at the bottom of it, you will see a stain where the coffin is. MR. PALING-You say a shaft. That doesn't mean vertical, does it? MS. MAJOT-Yes. MR. PALING-It does? MS. COLLAMER-You can see the sand will be undisturbed on one side. Then you'll have a pit dug and undisturbed on the other. MS. MAJOT-They buried them horizontal, but the shaft, as they dug down, when they dug the hole out for the coffin, that's what we're calling the shaft. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LAPPER-They were looking at it from the side, because when they removed the building foundation, they were looking at the side of graves. MS. COLLAMER-There was a concrete block foundation, and when we took them down and scraped down the side to look at the profiles of the soils to tell how much was disturbed, that's when we identified these three shafts. MS. MAJOT-Right. We could see them, and there were three in a alignment. This represents the line, and from what we can tell, these three shafts, two of the shafts were not effected. What we believe is we have the front portion of the coffin. They were heads facing east. Okay. So these, we believe, were the heads of the coffin. Two were undisturbed, as I said, but the third one, which if you'll notice on this is sitting right here, part of the concrete beta block wall had gone through and truncated the individual. So we have clear evidence that when they laid up the concrete walling for the slab on grade for this foundation, they went through that one grave, but that doesn't end the story. MS. COLLAMER-Well, at that point, we also consulted with Mr. TraYnor and said, you know, we have a very big problem here. We decided to secure this area, which we did. We secured it and we backfilled it so there would be no further disturbance to those remains. MS. MAJOT-They were stabilized along the wall line, and they were marked physically in the field along with being surveyed and plans and profiles done of what we could see of the shafts. At this time, the other two were pretty well intact. There were no bones that were hanging out. We were seeing a stain. We weren't seeing truncated coffins. So, in other words, they just missed them with the excavation in here. Now, then we proceeded to, well, when we have shaft lines here we have to identify what we have going on over here, as far as what else remains. So at this point, we (lost words) that we had established to try to define, see if we had any - 38 - '''--'" .~ '--'..,~. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) other shaftings that may be within the area which was to be effected by the proposed construction at that time. We began a series of stripping, carefully hand stripping fill levels off of the top of these. The upper overburden was removed with a bladed bulldozer to clean it down to the level that we knew we should begin to look at. During this process, at about a foot above where we expected the initial grave shafting to show, we encountered other materials within the fill level. Again, we're finding a lot of fragmented, broken bones interspersed within a fill that has been the result of the previous construction done by Doyles. So, basically, we've been hand screening and clearing back this area within their parking lot limits. Now, to date, we have identified approximately 10 potential grave shafting there. Now, the main concern about this is that we have, the one that you see in Site Five, Site Six, Site Seven, and Site Eight. You will notice that the wall, as Mr. Steves has placed on with the red diagram, the wall line that's identified there, that wall line goes through all of those individuals. MR. LAPPER-If you look on the blow up at the corner of your map, you can see clearly, that's the part of the wall that has not been removed. So that's there right now. The wall, and you can see the grave site where you have both ends of the grave site with the wall in the center. That is what is most disturbing about our investigation. MS. COLLAMER-This wall clearly went through these graves. MR. BREWER-So what did they do when they built it? pushed everything back? They just MS. COLLAMER-Well, some were on one side of the wall, and some were on the other. We have several disturbed graves. MR. BREWER-How did they put the wall down through the center without? MS. MAJOT-They dug through it. MS. COLLAMER-They just dug through it and laid a concrete block wall. MS. MAJOT-The thing is we have indications that, in particular with the grave shafts identified in Site Number Five. We have part of the gentleman's skull in the builder's trench for the wall on one side of the wall, and the other part of his cranium on the other side of the wall. So they obviously, somebody who's hand placing concrete block had to have seen that. MR. LAPPER-In order to put this in context, you have to remember that this was right after there was a lawsuit and there was a settlement of this lawsuit by deeding over this land. So the fact that this was an area that the Quaker community at that time was saying, look, you have to be sensitive to this. We're not sure about the boundary of the grave yard, and, you know, this is within the next year after this was, in 1960 was the lawsuit. In 1961, MarilYn VanDyke has told us that that's when the construction was undertaken. What we see is that they turned around and blew through three grave sites, and the reason that there are fragments in this area on the site are they're fragments of these skeletons, because they were just dispersed in the fill in that area. MR. BREWER-What date, period time is this from? MS. COLLAMER-Well, earliest use is 1763. MR. BREWER-Well, these grave sites. - 39 - - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MS. COLLAMER-1700's, yes. Now, aside from the known graves and the shafts that we have found, we have found fragments of bone, in different areas, well, in this general area. Possibly as many as 25 individuals just small pieces. So what we're trying to do, when we even took up part of the asphalt for the road, for the driveway, where they had to remove part of it, there was bone right beneath it, stuck to the asphalt. MS. MAJOT-It seems that in the areas that we've looked at, that pretty much the areas that have the fragmented bones have been areas that they have covered up even with concrete, asphalt, or some other situation, on the northwestern area. MS. COLLAMER-This was one of the reasons we didn't find anything with our shovel tests. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MS. MAJOT-Yes, that's a big part of that. Well, in part there was a series of shovel tests that were excavated on that side, but what we're finding two, with the limited amount of work that we have done right now in exposing this, that we're having very irregular (lost words) of the graves themselves. In other words, we're having skips. We have like one here, and then we have a couple in here, and then we have a skip here, and then we have skips in here. So, although they align, although the head alignments, the base of alignments are there, the spacing intervals between them seem to be different a little bit, but of the three shafts that we got the profile look on, they appear to be relatively consistent, as far as (lost words), but what we have here is we have a great deal of pre- disturbance that's existing in an area, which is kind of co- mingling a lot of materials, and, you know, I'd kind of like to say, too, that, you know, all this is being done with a lot of help and aide of some of the construction personnel, as far as like operating machines, so that we can get some of the overburden off so that we can get down to look at what we need to look at, but it was at this point that where we identified shafting sequences that we have. MS. COLLAMER-We've really stopped all work in the area. MR. LAPPER-At that point, we had been in constant contact with the Town, with John Goralski, with New York State, and what we determined, once we knew, we saw from the discoloration that there was most likely shafts here, but of course we haven't dug down to determine it. All we know is where there are the disturbed ones, which can be seen from the pit where the wall was built. We ceased all work in that area so that we could get a consensus from the State, from the Town, and from the Quaker community, as to how this area should be treated, and just to jump ahead for a second, at this point, if you'll just look at the site plan, on the big picture, and this was a suggestion that after, we talked about the possibility of whether it would be most appropriate to remove these remains and reinter them either in an appropriate place that the Quaker community designates, either in the cemetery next door, or another cemetery has been proposed on Ridge Road, the Friends Cemetery. After speaking preliminarily with everybody, and we certainly don't have a solution at this point, in terms of what the Quaker community would prefer. What we're here to talk about tonight is, I just want you to see now what we've proposed, the site plan amendment is this entire area which would have been under pavement will now be additional green space, because we have the extra parking. So if you look at the big picture, you can see the light outline of the island and then the six spaces. Those would all be eliminated, and the edge of the green area, the grass area, would be moved 28 feet over, so that this entire area would be in the grass area that would look as a continuation of the grass area on the Cemetery and our previous buffer. - 40 - "-- '- ~~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. STARK-That's the end of your presentation, right? MS. COLLAMER-Well, I think we've found disturbed graves. We've found graves that are intact, and we've found fragments that are scattered, and at that point, we have done nothing more. We've stopped work in the area until we've heard from, as you say, the Quaker community, the State and the Town. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, it appears that you're in agreement with Tim TraYnor, at least between the two of you, that this is new border, the new grass boundaries, is what you'd like to see, and there's activity going on in the balance of the site, under archeological supervision, and nothing has been found, it's all within this new border line that we're talking about. MS. COLLAMER-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. MAJOT-The thing is (lost words) this very small area that is actually contained within this portion up here. The majority of the site down here and through this area was closely monitored during all phases of the construction. MR. LAPPER-There's still one area which she's saying hasn't been finished because this all came up and we've been dealing with protocol. So we have to get back in and examine one other area where there mayor may not be remains or artifacts, but except for that area, all of the site excavation work is done now. MR. PALING-Did I hear right, when you said it was right close to the one you've already bordered? It's right adjacent to it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MS. COLLAMER-It's part of the set up on our protocol. We've had initially designed a second protocol to further address the different issues that we had encountered. Obviously, when we get to this point, we've got conditions that, you know, Berkshire had no idea it was there. We had no idea this was going to be a case scenario for this particular site. I mean, even if anything, we were expecting to find aligned shafts, to talk about avoidance rather than to have to deal with scattered remains as a result of somebody else, as a result of construction of Doyle's structure. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we see a very good explanation, very clear. I think we see the situation we're faced with. Now with this, a modification doesn't require public hearing, but I think with the interest in this, we should allow public comment tonight. MR. LAPPER-We'd like that also. MS. COLLAMER-Could I say one thing? We are very much concerned about the security of the site. We've had a fence erected. We have locks on the gates. We have people patrolling it, and checking to make sure that no one comes in, in the night, but we are very concerned about the security of the site. MS. MAJOT-What happens is, even though the site has been sealed, we have indications that people have been in, even (lost words), and combing the fence. This is something you frequently see, archeological sites that people, you know, they jump right in, and you can't have any control on it, even though you have somebody monitoring the site and somebody there. MR. BREWER-I just had one question. Is this curbed line, Jon, where you have drawn here, do the archaeologists believe that that's the extent of the area you should explore? - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. PALING-Except for the lower corner, I think that's right. MR. TRAYNOR-I think what we've come to our conclusion, through John's request, John Goralski asked us to come here and kind of bring people up to date, because we have a concern of rumors and things getting around the Town here. We have descendants of the Wing family and people, the Quaker community, that obviously have people from years, the pioneer people that occupied this area from years past. Because of the nature of what we're dealing with, we felt that it was appropriate for us to corne this evening and certainly let everybody know exactly what we're doing. The concerns I've had throughout this is what's already been talked about, people similar to the people who did what they did back in '61, coming on the site and being relic hunters or whatever you would call it. However, as a result of us coming here this evening, we have, based on the knowledge that we have, the small area that remains, what is probably a good solution to this situation, we have proposed the plan that we think functions well. Certainly, it's not what we planned for when we first came in here, but it's something we can certainly live with, and what it would allow is, as the conclusion of the investigations that Collamer and Associates are going to be doing over the next week, we feel that this plan will work. Obviously, if we encounter further remains in this 20 by 60 foot section that still is adjacent to these sites, we are going to have to be talking, again, to the Town, to the State, not necessarily this Planning Board, but to the Friends and the Quaker community, and we'll have another proposal to deal with those issues at that time, but from a logistic for this site and what we have in known data, we feel that this is the most appropriate way to handle it, and we've been hearing that from many of the people that are involved, both at the State level, here at the Town level, and some preliminary results from the Quaker community. So what we propose here tonight we believe will address that. If we find something in the next week. We're going to have to take, again, we'll have to take another look at what some of those possibilities are, but we really believe that this is the proper solution, and again, I would like to have waited another week or two to come here and talk to you, so we had very conclusive information for you, but because of the nature of what we're dealing with and not wanting to send a false message to the community about our activities on the site, we thought it was imperati ve that we corne and get this story out, so everybody understands it. MR. BREWER-I just want to tell you that, in business at work, I've been in contact with people that are involved with this project, and just so you know, you've gained a lot of respect, and I've been told that you have been very professional in the way that you've handled the situation, all included, and you've done a very good job. MR. TRAYNOR-Thanks. I appreciate that. MR. PALING- I think actually before we go into an actual public hearing, perhaps we should hear from MarilYn VanDyke on this subject. MARILYN VANDYKE MRS. VANDYKE-I'm MarilYn VanDyke, the Town Historian, and I've been very involved with the project for the last couple of weeks, as the excavations have begun, and I have to say that this is an extremely sensitive issue in the community, because we do have here the single most significant historic site in all of Warren County, as well as the Town of Queensbury, because it contains the graves of the pioneer settlers who first came to this community in 1762, and settled here, made their lifestyle here, and died and were buried in these graves, and it's very important that we treat this with a - 42 - ~ '-' '--" -,~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) great deal of reverence and respect, and I feel that at this time, working with the principals that have been involved, especially the Berkshire-Acquisition Corporation, their attorney, John in the Planning Office, and with the other agencies across the State, that everyone is handling this in a very professional manner, and it's a credit, I think, to all these people that they can all pull together to try to look at the best possible solution that we can come to, and we will be meeting, as Tim mentioned, with the Quaker community that have been notified of these findings to try to make the best possible decisions and resolution to this sensitive issue. MR. PALING-If there were no further evidence found, would this be a satisfactory plan in your mind to finalize? MRS. VANDYKE-I think that we're working toward trying to resolve exactly what we will do with the remains, and we want the input from the Quaker community to do that. MR. LAPPER-I think what Bob is asking, in terms of including this in the grass area rather than paving, is that something that you think's acceptable? MRS. VANDYKE~Including the entire area as a grassy area, yes, and defining these boundaries as best we can now, and considering that, in essence, is an extension of the cemetery, which it really is. We now know, definitely, that the cemetery, it was broader than it's originally determined lines. MR. PALING-Okay. A disposition or leaving them there would be a separate question. MRS. VANDYKE-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, but you would be satisfied with the boundaries. MRS. VANDYKE-At least with the planning aspect, as we look at it right now, which would release, parking areas would be given up, and this area would become grassed. MRS. LABOMBARD-Dr. VanDyke, are you at liberty to say or speculate as to the original excavators of this site, back in the 1960's? Do they have any recourse or any restitution? I mean, we're talking 36 years ago, but, from what has been uncovered in these past two weeks, it seems like things weren't right on the legit 36 years ago. I mean, if you can say or speculate, can you go back and do anything about this? MRS. VANDYKE-Well, I think that the Berkshire-Acquisition company, in good faith, purchased a piece of property with certain beliefs about it at the time. They now know that that was not the fact of the matter, and things are changed. So they will have to be the ones that will determine what they might do. MR. PALING-That's a legal question, I think. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know it is, but I'm looking at it from a standpoint of your being the Town Historian, and things look like they were covered up 36 years ago. Something happened out there on that site that the people that were running the Town were not made aware of. MRS. VANDYKE-I think we had a discussion about this when we were first looking at this site plan, to the effect that times have changed, and people look at it differently, when we were talking about bringing in the archaeologists, and I think that was one of your concerns at the time. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, it was. - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MRS. VANDYKE-And I believe, yes, that they perhaps did not look at issues the same way 30 years ago that they did today. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought that there was still some kind of law on the books. MRS. VANDYKE-There are laws concerning desecration of graves. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know we're getting off the topic, but I never get a chance to talk to Marilyn. I just wanted to ask her a couple of things. MRS. VANDYKE-Come in and see me. MRS. LABOMBARD-Thank you. MR. TRAYNOR-I would just say, whether there was a law or there wasn't a law, what was done there was improper and, under any circumstances, unacceptable, whether there was a law in place or not. You just don't do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I mea~, I think that's good to be said for the record. Thank you. MRS. VANDYKE-My major concern is, as a Historian, too, is to preserve history and to preserve a site such as this in our Town which is very unique. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. the public comment is open. Who else would like to comment? Now John, do we have any other letters? MR. GORALSKI-There are no letters. Just so you are aware, what happened was, after discussing things with the developer, Mrs. VanDyke put together a list of people that she knew of that would be involved with the Quaker community, the Abraham Wing Association, anyone that we felt would have some relationship to this cemetery, and those people were notified and only recently notified by Federal Express in the last day. So I don't know how many people actually have received that notification. MR. PALING-Okay. So further comment could be corning. Okay. BOB EDDY MR. EDDY-I'm Bob Eddy, and I'm a descendent from Edward Wing, Jr., who was a brother of Abraham Wing, and I came here to a previous meeting, and gave my opinion, and insisted that this archeological survey be made, and I'm pleased that I did what I did, but I frankly am shocked at what they found. I never expected anybody, under any condition, would do the things that they did. I just can't believe it. I knew Mark Doyle, and I didn't know that he was that type. I don't know the contractor, but certainly they shouldn't have ever done what they did. I am just absolutely shocked, but I am pleased that I insisted and that you went along with the idea of having an archeological survey made, because I think it's important, and these people, they got caught in that thing, it would have been a wicked proposition. They find themselves on the other side of the fence fortunately. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else would care to speak? MARIE ELLSWORTH MS. ELLSWORTH-My name is Marie Ellsworth. I'm a member of the New York State Archeological Association, and a resident of the Town of Queensbury. My concerns here are that the boundaries of the cemetery appear to have not yet been determined and construction is - 44 - ~ -- -- ''---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) still continuing. Also, it seems to be a little unclear what is going to happen. You have established a boundary, which is correct for the existing grave shafts. It seems to be a little unclear as to what, there seems to be some question about removing the remains or keeping them there. Also, my understanding is that the archeological survey was done not out of the goodness of everyone's heart, but due to, it's the law. I'm sure Berkshire is a very conscientious company, but it is the law. The archeological survey was required by law, and they didn't do it because, I'm sure they would have done it anyway, I hope, but I think it should be pointed out that it was done because it's the law, and not because it's an option. Also, I would like to ask what the, I guess you can't answer questions tonight, but I think it could have been stated what the grid intervals were on the shovel tests, it would have been important, and what the first date was that remains were actually found, since the Quakers appear to have been notified just within the past day or so. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else care to talk? MR. EDDY-I omitted one thing from my statement, and that has to do with the disposal of the remains that have been found. Now, my ancestors on this site were buried, now the rest of them are all buried up on Ridge Road, all of them, on both sides. My personal opinion is that what should be done is to replace the scattered bones that they found, and place them in this site. Perhaps there's an area that the archeological people would suggest, but it seems to me that there's a space between where those bones have been found and the caskets have been found to the north where they probably could be placed. I don't think that they should betaken up to the Ridge Road landfill or burial ground. I think they should be kept right where they are, that is, I mean, in the same area. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? you'd like to comment on anything that's been especially the questions that Ms. Ellsworth raised. I wonder if brought up, MR. LAPPER-We figured, like usual, that we would get all the comments from the public, and then we would respond, but we're happy to respond at this time. The archeologist will talk about the protocol and exactly why everything was done. We believe that we were very careful and very up front and have dealt with everybody. The one issue I'd like to respond to, when Bob Eddy was talking about reinterring the remains on this site, MarilYn VanDyke has made a proposal which it's premature for us to answer. We want to hear from the Quaker's next week, and we expect that we'll have a meeting with everybody interested next week, but she has proposed that perhaps Berkshire should dedicate this additional parcel so it would be added to the cemetery and it would be part of the Quaker cemetery parcel, and that's something that Berkshire would certainly agree to do, if that's something that the Quakers think is appropriate, and the Town thinks is appropriate. John Goralski told us today that he thinks that may be an appropriate thing to do, but it's just, at this point in time, we want to change the site plan to say that this is not going to be a paved area, and if it's appropriate for this to be added as a bigger cemetery parcel, that's certainly acceptable to Berkshire. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we can't determine tonight for final until the tests in that 20 by 60 foot area are completed, is my understanding. MR. LAPPER-Well, almost all of the site work that, the area that's going to be excavated has been done, and that's a small area of the site that has not yet been excavated, but regardless of what happens there, our proposal for tonight is appropriate, and is the right answer, and we believe, and we hope You'll agree, in terms of - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) the area where everything's been found should be part of the grass area and not part of the pavement. So we would ask you to address that now, and if something else is found in the next week, that would require another change. MR. PALING-Be part of the resolution. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-And I think we don't have to address any part of the remains themselves. That's a protocol is kicked in that's being looked at, and that's not this Board's decision as to what happens to the remains. I would assume that's going to be done by others. So our decision is in regard to the boundary line only. MR. STARK-A modification, that's all. MR. PALING-Modification to the boundary line. MR. LAPPER-We would still like the archaeologists to respond to the issues. MR. PALING-And then the one condition that would be attached to that. MR. TRAYNOR-I would like to clear the record. Prior to, the one comment about it being the law that we had to have an archeologist in place and we were following some law, we were compelled by some law to do these things. The record is very clear on this. It was a proposal that we made. Frankly, in early discussions with the former planning director, and what we said is he raised, in our preliminary discussion, some concern about this. He was here one night and was very eloquent about his concern, and prior to him coming that evening to talk about, and prior to our first meeting with you, and at that first meeting, without knowledge of the law, it was something Berkshire suggested, that we hire an archeologist, have them on staff to watch and monitor the construction as we went forth, and I think that's real important to note, and it's not necessarily we're trying to pat oursel ves on the back, but we thought that that was an appropriate measure to take and a reaction to a concern that was brought to our attention, and I think that's very important for us to note. MR. PALING-I think you've done a very commendable job, and I was glad to hear Tim's comment down there, and I think you've gone beyond the letter of the law, and done a heck of a good job, and it's good publicity for yourselves and the Town, and I think it's all been kind of a positive effect, the way that this has been handled, and I'm sure it's going to be continued in that manner. MR. TRAYNOR-I appreciate that very much. That is an important comment for us. We have put in an awful lot of our own personal energy into this. The owner of our company has some very deep religious beliefs of his own which are very personal, but he has expressed to me that my single task in a very busy company that we have, my single task is to make sure that we're addressing this to everybody's concerns, both the Town's concerns, the general public's concerns, our own personal concerns, those concerns raised by the archeologist's, and most important the descendants of those individuals that were interred in that cemetery a good long time ago, and we do appreciate those comments. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. COLLAMER-We briefly wanted to discuss Ms. Ellsworth's concerns regarding the archeological survey. I wanted to point out that prior to any investigations we submitted a proposal according to the Standards of New York State Archeological Council. These were - 46 - -- -- -.-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) reviewed by, I think we sent them to the State as well as the Town. You reviewed how we were going to proceed and what excavations and how they would be conducted. We also suggested at that time that we do some infrared or resectivity to establish the boundary of the cemetery. However, the State and the Town both agreed that since we were leaving a 50 foot buffer on one side, and were leaving the pavement on the other, there was no need to take up the pavement to look for graves, since it wasn't proposed to take it up for the new construction. So they felt that it was not necessary to dig further and look for the boundary of the cemetery. MS. MAJOT-I can address the issues as far as (lost words) strategy. Because of the way the site was laid out, what we have is we have a network of buildings, and also a network of asphalt and concrete that was through the site. The shovel test interval ranged from 50 to 25 feet throughout that area. Areas tested reflected construction limits as they were shown upon the plan, and we did not test areas that were obviously under asphalt. What we were engaged in while we were beginning this initial investigation, was the fact that we were also in a Stage IB protocol throughout this period. As part of the 1B protocol, we were also required to do a monitoring sequence, which would involve monitoring any kind of excavation that occurred on the site. That was the catch to get the material that had been covered up. Now, as far as the limits of the cemetery that we've identified, we do have a basic understanding of what the approximate limits can be, based on what the (lost words) is and what we've identified. Now, we do know that we have shafts in here. We do know that this part of the cellar is gone. Obviously it's gone to a depth that is well below what these individuals are. So we're not going to be finding any bodies over here. Now, the other part that we did have is, with the pavement edge here, we monitored carefully any stripping and hand excavation that occurred on this side of that paved edge. No grave shaft was shown in this limit here. So we can be reasonably assured that we have limits that are extending in here. This is to be left up and not be ripped up. So we're pretty sure, fairly confident that our levels are going to be here up. All right. With regard to direction this way, we have identified shaftings in here. As we have pointed out, we are still in process, under a second protocol establishment, to look at areas this way. Now there's only one area in here where this was slated up, where there is any potential of finding any intact shaftings, and given the amount of disturbance that we've already exhibited through this side, we have examined this area too, and there was nothing over here. So, once we get through this block, we'll have a pretty good idea what our limits are this way, what our limits are this way. This area down on the bottom part, on this section, was also hand stripped, before any work was being done in it. It's not a point of, at this location, it wasn't a point of having them go through and then watching. It was having them take the burden off, hand (lost word) it down and carefully screening the materials that were coming off of it. So we have a reasonable outline of what approximate limits of this could be. with the definition of the retention pond in this area, what we have here was a pre-existing condition, where we had an area that was a low area that had been filled, and it's clearly evidenced on the profile on the side. Now, on this side, we have a gap space between here, where the plateau, the original plateau that was here prior to any construction, either by the Doyle's or by Quaker Road, we had like an elevated plateau that comes this way, with a small (lost word) corning out here. In comes in this direction. All right. So we have a (lost word) area that came out around, cuts through the back of this, and there's a depressed area in here. The shaftings, there were no shaftings identified over here. Everything that was encountered was in a bulldozed fill level that we can see actually where the push levels came from, where it rolled over. Now, that is probably the result of construction here. So, in essence, what we have here, when we had this area investigated, we will have a - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) very reasonable idea of what our limits are, or at least what the limits are now. I mean, I can't attest to the fact, I know there were no grave shaftings over here, when we examined this, but I can't tell you what was in here, because (lost words), but we will get an indication of how far this carne by examining this area. MS. COLLAMER-The other thing I wanted to say is in regard to why we didn't notify people earlier is the first bone that we identified had to be evaluated by a Physical Anthropologist to confirm that it was human remains and not animal, because there were a number of animal bones on the site, and we're required to bring in a specialist at that point. The other thing is that it was one bone, and we have found several bone fragments, but we couldn't attest to the fact that, were they Quaker or were they Native American, and until we found some evidence of historic graves, we spoke with Marilyn VanDyke, and it was decided not to notify the Quaker community until we were sure that they were Quaker graves. That's about all I can say. MR. PALING-All right. Does anyone questions? The floor is open. Okay. public hearing, and then I'll ask for Any further comments or questions? else have any comments or If not, then we'll close the any comments from the Board. MR. STARK-I think the proposal that they've got, that they put forth is going to resolve it. I think Marilyn VanDyke is happy, and you're losing six parking spots, fine. They don't need them. They have excess anyway. MR. PALING-Okay. Can we, for tonight, ignore the deeding part of this? That might be a question for Mark. MR. GORALSKI-You mean what is going to happen with? MR. PALING-Yes, eventually it would be deeded. Can we ignore that for tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the short answer is yes, in that tonight I think what's proposed is one particular aspect of a site plan modification. I think, if I'm understanding this correctly, the applicant is not suggesting that this is necessarily the last appearance before the Planning Board in this proj e,ct, because there is additional information to be gained, at the very least, about the ultimate resting place of some of these remains, and that may or may not involve further site plan modifications, but I think the applicant has indicated that it will come back to the Planning Board and provide with the update as to that issue as well, and to gain additional information which I believe principally will corne from the people they've contacted that may have an interest in those remains. MR. PALING-And also the 60 by 20 foot area which is being worked on now. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. There may be additional information from that. MR. PALING-Which will all be done at a later date. MR. STARK-You've just got to move on this modification tonight, Bob. MR. PALING-Yes, right. MR. BREWER-Well, my only question would be, any maybe it's not going to be a popular question, but what does this have to do with SEQRA? Do we feel that it's okay? - 48 - - -- -' '-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. SCHACHNER-You're asking the right question. One of the things that the Planning Board has to do, in evaluating the new information that's been provided thus far, is determine whether that changes your response to the question that you addressed when you addressed, in the Long Form Environmental Assessment Form, the issue of impact on Historic Resources. John and I looked at that a few minutes ago, and it appears, and I'm not quoting verbatim, lets quote it verbatim. What you said at that time, and I think this was a reasonable answer then. I think it's a responsible answer now, the question is "Will proposed action impact any site or structure of Historic, Pre-Historic or Paleontological importance", you said yes. Under "Other Impacts", you wrote, "Construction will occur on and in immediate vicinity of site of significant local historic value. You checked small to moderate impact. You checked impact can be mitigated by project change. You checked yes for that, and what you wrote under that was, entire excavation project will be conducted under direct on-site supervision of qualified archeological consultant from New York State approved list, and proper protocol will be followed in the event of any archeological discovery. As I read that, it sort of comes back that I think I said that at the meeting, and somebody said, yes, lets add that as a proposal. I think that was a responsible way to address the issue then. I think as a Planning Board you have to decide whether you're still comfortable with that response, that's up to you. MR. BREWER-I'm comfortable with that. response. I think that's a proper MR. PALING-Okay. Roger, are you comfortable with that? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-That's fine. MR. PALING-Okay. I am, too. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So if you decide to move on the proposed site plan modification tonight, it seems to me that, as with any other site plan modification, there are certain threshold determinations you have to make. First, you have to make a determination whether you feel it's a major modification or a material modification, or a non major or non material modification, so that you don't require another public hearing. The second thing you would need to determine is whether you feel the new information presented in any way changes your SEQRA determination, and if you can make the favorable decisions on both those elements, that you don't need a public hearing because it's not a material modification, and that you don't believe that this is any new or significant different environmental impact requiring further SEQRA review. Then if you wish you could then go on to rule on the proposed modification. MR. PALING-By the way that it was worded in the previous meeting, I would think that it wouldn't be significant enough to hold, and I'm just talking to myself now, significant enough to hold another public hearing, and that we could go ahead tonight and still on the same basis that we started with, and approve the new boundary line. MR. BREWER-Can I offer a motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 76-96 CVS, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) by George Stark: That the modification would not require another public hearing. We've had sufficient input, and that it would not significantly change our SEQRA finding, approve the modification which includes the parking boundary. Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote: MR. PALING-Tim, would you want to add, this could be modified based upon ongoing testing to the 20 by 60 foot site? MR. BREWER-Well, if it is, then they have to corne back. MR. TRAYNOR-We'll come back. MR. BREWER-That would be another modification. MR. SCHACHNER-I think what you said earlier is there may be further modification. MR. PALING-All right. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. The next item we'd like to discuss, John, just I guess as an update, would be the go kart track, the Errniger situation. Would you update us on that, please. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. The last I knew about the go kart track was that we met with Mr. Ermiger, his attorney and apparently his partner, and that he was going to put some mufflers on the go karts. He was confident that that would alleviate the noise problem. I was not around last week. My understanding is you went out there and that that had not satisfactorily addressed the problem. MR. PALING-Well, at one point George and Roger and I were there. At another point, George and I were there, and at the last time we talked with them, they had modified one car, and we listened to one car run by itself and then another one that had not been modified run by itself and the noise was a bit different, but I couldn't say quiet. Then they said, all right, we think what we'll do is two things, put on the new, bigger muffler, and put a directional pipe to direct the noise and exhaust down from the engine. They felt that would help the noise situation. They were going to modify 10 cars, and then call in and let us. MR. STARK-The four by eight sheets of plywood in the front. MR. PALING-And, right, and then they were going to put three sections of plywood, as a temporary measure, because they felt that that particular point on the track, this was on the south side facing the, on the street, the southern most part of it. MR. GORALSKI-The east side? MR. PALING-No. Well, it would be the part of the track that faces the street. - so - --- '- -.../ "----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. GORALSKI-Is the east side. MR. PALING-Okay, but I'm talking about the south end of that, left hand, if you will. They're going to put three plywood panels to see if that might help alleviate the sound. Then we're supposed to go over and listen to it, and I have not heard from them. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I tried to call Mike Stafford yesterday and couldn't get through. He's the attorney for Mr. Ermiger, and I did not hear anything today from anyone. MR. PALING-Okay now, John, there's a court order, I believe, involved, isn't there? MR. SCHACHNER-Court order for what? MR. PALING-To close, an eleven o'clock? MR. SCHACHNER-A court order? MR. PALING-Well, what is the order then? They refer to it as a court order. I'm quoting Ermiger when I say that. MR. GORALSKI-No. X sent him a letter, stating that based on the representations of his engineer, it was my opinion that if there were complaints from the neighbors, that they would have to close at eleven o'clock. MR. PALING-And where do we stand on that? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the next step for us would be to take some type of leqal action. MR. BREWER-Is that in our motion or anything for them to close? MR. GORALSKI-No, it's not in our motion. MR. BREWER-How can we enforce that, then? MR. PALING-I think we're hoping, Tim, that these modifications quiet the cars down enough. MR. STARK-Ermiger's working with McDonough. MR. BREWER-No, modifications? them? I understand that, but who required all the I didn't hear anything about it. Did ~ require MR. PALING-Well, the history of it, if you will, is that we've got very strong complaints about this, mostly from the motel across the street, and three of us visited, again, and I think agreed that the noise level that we anticipated is not what we're getting. It's more than, and it's noisier than the other track. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Errniger has been voluntarily cooperating to this point, in doing what he can. However, he has not, at least in the McDonough's opinion, he has not rectified the situation. MR. BREWER-So did we formally make a request for him to do anything? MR. RUEL-No. MR. STARK-Tim, by the way, just for an aside. Ermiger was telling us that his busiest time of the day is between 11 and 12 at night. MR. BREWER-But if we didn't put any requirements or anything on his time. - 51 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. STARK-I'm not saying that. I'm just telling you something that he said. That's all, and he's working with McDonough. He's going to put the plywood in the front. He's going to get the mufflers. He's putting directional spouts down. I mean, how much can the guy do? MR. RUEL-What time does the other track close? MR. PALING-Midnight, I believe, Roger. midnight. I'm pretty sure it's MR. STARK-But it seems like from 10 to 12, they're very, very busy. MR. PALING-We're hoping the problem will be solved by what doing, modifying the cars, and the whole thing will go away. modifying the loud speakers. The direction was already there, YOU talked about, but they are toning those down. he's He's that MR. RUEL-It should all help. MR. STARK-Okay. That's enough of that. MR. GORALSKI-That's the status right now. MR. PALING-Okay. I sent you all a letter, and a copy of a boos and bravos article, and you, I wrote the letter, and there's no signature on it because I want to see how you all feel about everyone attesting to this. I do add one sentence to it, however. Go down to, fourth paragraph, the last sentence, said five members of the public spoke, three saw no problem with extended hours. Two were against. I have added, two letters were also received, both in opposition to the new operating hours, and I think that makes the story complete. I just felt that the boos was a very incomplete explanation of what went on. I'm not afraid to take a rap or be called on judgement, but I think if the Post Star is going to do something like that, they should tell the whole story and not just a piece of it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'm glad you wrote it because it saved me from writing it. So, I will put my name on it, if you don't mind. MR. RUEL-Yes, I agree with the letter. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-The first MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. one and the second one, and the third one. Larry? MR. RINGER-As I told you before, I'm certainly going to go along with the majority. I don't necessarily believe in writing letters, one way or the other. MR. BREWER-I don't want to write a letter. MR. PALING-Then you're saying no. MR. BREWER-I'm staying neutral. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, you're saying you don't want your name on it? MR. BREWER-Yes. - 52 - "--- '-' ---' "-, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) MR. RINGER-No. I would say that. MR. BREWER-That's just their opinion, Bob, and I would take it at face value. MR. PALING-No. I'm not quarreling with their opinion, Tim. I'm saying, if you're going to criticize, then have a complete story. I'm not questioning their judgement or their opinion. I've never said that. MR. BREWER-No, I know that. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-Is this a letter to the editor? MR. PALING-This would be a letter to the editor, yes. MR. RUEL-Don't wait too long. It happened a month ago. MR. PALING-But the meetings don't happen that often. This is the first meeting I could get it to. All right. Then I will go with five signatures on it. Okay. MR. RUEL-Fine. MR. PALING-I think that's all. Now the meetings we've got coming, I think we all know, are the 19th and the 26th, would be our regular meetings, if there's enough activity. MR. BREWER-I won't be here the 26th. MR. PALING-All right. Tim, you won't be here, there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait a minute, you're talking about August? MR. PALING-August, right. MR. RUEL-How about site? MR. PALING-The 19th and the 26th are the meeting nights, assuming we have enough activity. MRS. LABOMBARD-And when are the site visits? MR. PALING-And the site visits will be Thursday the 14th at four p.m. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. If I'm not there, I'll call you. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because I usually do. I didn't this time. MR. PALING-All right, and any items that may come before the Board. BARBARA SEELEY MRS. SEELEY-Barbara Seeley. I have a question. I have no idea what the site plan looks like for O'Connors over there, but I do have a concern. It looks like the proposed driveway is coming out right on the turn. MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean for the driving range? MRS. SEELEY-Yes. I know anyone corning off of Big Boom Road does not hit that driveway until they're right on it, unless they plan on clearing that buffer zone, enough to be able to see from around - 53 - --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) the corner. That's an accident waiting to happen. MR. PALING-Were you here earlier, or you just carne in? MRS. SEELEY-No, I've been here all along. MR. BREWER-You're talking about the golf course? MRS. SEELEY-The golf course. MR. GORALSKI-The driving range. MR. BREWER-She's not talking about the one across the road. MRS. SEELEY-No, no. Not that, the driving range. MR. GORALSKI-I can look into that and just make sure that, actually, I haven't been out there since they cut it out to the road. MRS. SEELEY-It's a blind drive. MR. GORALSKI-But I can go out and, first of all, make sure that it's where it's supposed to be located, and then if there is a site distance problem, we can have them trim back the trees on either side so that you can see the entrance. MRS. SEELEY-You're going to have to. You're going to have a heck of a mess there, but that's all I wanted. MRS. LABOMBARD-Why is there a For Sale sign up there? wondering if they were still going to do that. I was MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know they're still doing it. MRS. LABOMBARD-The entrance is off Big Boom. MRS. SEELEY-Yes. There's quite a turn corning, when you go past UPS, before you get to Carl R's, there's quite a little turn there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MRS. SEELEY-And it appears that that driveway is coming out on the Carl R's side of that turn. So if you're coming up Big Boom Road, you wouldn't see anybody corning out of there until you're in their side. MR. STARK-That's a horrible intersection anyway. MRS. SEELEY-Well, everybody thinks that Big Boom Road is part of Carl R's parking lot, to begin with, but that's all I had to say. MR. GORALSKI-I'll look into it and, first of all, make sure the road cut is where it's supposed to be, and second of all, if there's a site distance problem, we can have them trim back the trees so that there's better site distance. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-That's a crappy intersection. can't do anything about it. MR. GORALSKI-There's a study right now, the State is for improvements to that whole Exit 18 interchange. know what the result of that's going to be. I scheduled for about 2003, but they're working on it. What can be done? You doing a study So, I don't believe it's MR. BREWER-Didn't Pliney say last night they were going to do it - 54 - '-- --- '"--..-'" ',,-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) next year? MR. GORALSKI-No. year. They're not doing that Main Street thing next MR. BREWER-I know that. RICHARD DALLEK MR. DALLEK-Richard Dallek. I live right up here on Bay Road. Again, with Big Boom Road, I had to wait to the last second here until everybody else was done. I've been driving on that thing for about 10 years, going to the UPS office, and I want to identify two problems with it, which I think everybody's apparently familiar with. First of all, you can't make a left turn from Big Boom onto Main Street or Corinth Road, whatever you call it. There should be a light there, obviously. Now, I think that might be accomplished by moving the light back from the intersection to Big Boom, and making the traffic stop there, unless there's a light required at the highway intersection by some law. In which case, they'll need an additional light at Big Boom Road. Okay. The second problem is that Big Boom Road is really seems to be carrying a lot more traffic than it's configured for, and it's curvy and it's narrow. There's UPS trucks, there's cement trucks. There's all kinds of tractor trailers and all kinds of other things going on that road. It's dangerous in the winter when it's slippery, and what I recommend is straightening out the curves right next to Carl R's Restaurant and the motel there by just buying a piece of that adjacent property, which is available next to the road there, for a Mobil Oil, which Woodland Real Estate says is available. All you'd need is a sliver of it, straighten it out from the current intersection with Corinth Road, right up to where the UPS office is, and you could eliminate those curves there, and that would make it an awful lot easier, because when you're pulling out of the UPS office, people come flying by there, and you can hit them, and also when people pull into the Restaurant, you go awful slow looking for the parking lot and all that, and you get close to rear ending people, etc. So, improvements are needed there for the amount of traffic that road is handling. MR. PALING-Okay. What I would strongly suggest to both of you is that you go to the Town Board. MR. DALLEK-This is not it? MR. PALING-No. We're the Planning Board. MR. DALLEK-Okay. That's the one I should have gone to? MR. PALING-You should really, I can understand what you're saying, and I sYmpathize with it, but this Board has no, we can't do anything, but the Town Board sure can, and I think that's where you should go with your comments. MR. DALLEK-When's the next one, next Monday? MR. PALING-It's Monday night, I believe, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-No. The next regular meeting would be. MR. SCHACHNER-August 4th. MR. GORALSKI-The 4th, at seven o'clock. MR. DALLEK-I'll keep it on my calendar. MR. PALING-Okay. - 55 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/97) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 56 -