Loading...
2008.02.20(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2008 INDEX Sign Variance No. 56-2007 1093 Group, LLC/Rite Aid Store 8. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 Area Variance No. 59-2007 Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P. 8. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-63 and 64 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. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES MC NULTY, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to call the February 20 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order. I’m not going to bother with the usual spiel at the beginning of the session because I don’t think we’re going to have applications that it applies to. So I guess the first thing is. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have an administrative thing. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I would like to make a resolution relative to procedures. I’d like to move the following resolution. MOTION REGARDING SETTING OF THE AGENDA AND ZBA PROCEDURES, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: One, setting of the Final agenda will be a committee of three consisting of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary. In the absence of a member, a volunteer permanent member may participate. Setting of the Final agenda will require a unanimous consensus of the committee of three. In the event there is no consensus, the committee will immediately inform the permanent members for a final decision. If necessary, a special hearing will be ordered to discuss the issues and set the Final agenda. There will be a maximum of five cases for each hearing date. Any recommendation to exceed five appeals in one evening requires a unanimous vote of the permanent members. In the event of special circumstances to be determined by the majority of the ZBA, it may be necessary to consider the complexity of a unique appeal separately, the Chairman will coordinate a meeting of the committee of three to review completed appeals and set the Final agenda. Timeliness of Notice. Section 267 of the New York State Town Law requires a public notice of hearing be published well in advance of the hearing date. On setting the Final agenda, the Chairman will ensure that the public notice of the hearing dates meet the requirements of New York State Town Law 267. Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dates will be on Wednesday of the third and fourth week of each month. Appeals will be heard between seven and eleven p.m. The cancellation of a hearing on a Wednesday of the third or fourth week of each month may only be with the approval of a majority of the permanent members. In the event of unique circumstances which did not allow the Board to have access to timely information, or in the event of the lack of such information, the committee of three, on a unanimous vote, is authorized to cancel the hearing and will inform the Board. The cancellation of any hearing scheduled by a majority of the Board members requires a unanimous decision of the permanent Board members. Section 267 of New York State Town Law requires that the Zoning Board of Appeals meet at the call of the Chairman or at times designated by the Board. As such, the Board will meet at the call of the Chairman or at the request of the majority of the Board. All questions regarding procedures or any other issues of the Zoning Board of Appeals will initially be addressed to the Board for review. The final decision on seeking advice from the Town Attorney will be decided by a majority of the committee of three. The attendance of the Town Attorney at any hearing of the ZBA will require a majority vote of the committee of three. th Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2008, by the following vote: MR. ABBATE-I’ll second it. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) MR. BRYANT-Can we have a discussion? You don’t want a discussion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we need a discussion first. MR. BRYANT-Go ahead. MR. MC NULTY-Any comments? MR. GARRAND-Yes. I’ve got one here. The three members of the Board, Secretary, Chairman and Vice Chairman, are going to meet together and do the completion reviews, set the agenda? MR. BRYANT-No, they’re going to set the agenda. MR. GARRAND-Set the agenda. When are they going to get together and meet? MR. BRYANT-That’s up to them. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and there’s time for the three of them to get together during the week? MR. ABBATE-Well, that has to be coordinated with Staff, too. Because there are deadlines for Staff. I think you do, what, the last Thursday of the month or something like that? Yes, the last Thursday of the month is pretty much, Rick, how it’s been done in the past. MR. BRYANT-Now the reasoning behind this thing, let me just explain that, and I’ve said this a hundred times. When Mr. Abbate was Chairman, okay, Mr. Abbate had all the time in the world to do all this stuff. Okay. He was doing completion reviews and scheduling projects and doing all this stuff, and there is nobody else on the Board that has the time, and it’s not fair for anybody, regardless of who’s the Chairman, to expect him to do all this work, and to rely on Staff to do the scheduling is improper. It’s very clear in 267, and so what I’m attempting to do is avert this discussion that, this ongoing discussion about tonight’s meeting, about the possibility of canceling it and so forth and so on, by instituting a structure whereby a meeting can be cancelled if it needs to be cancelled, without coming before the Board, or if a meeting has been scheduled, and for any reason that we want to shuffle the agenda, the Board can do so, you know, with a unanimous vote of the permanent members, and that’s the intent of the motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s not intended, as you said, this is so we come up with a reasonable number of agenda items at a meeting? Is that essentially what you’re worried about also, so that we don’t overload our evenings with, you know, say like five big cases, and split them up accordingly between the two meetings? MR. BRYANT-I’m worried about that. Well, you know, I’m worried about overload, Number One. I’m also worried about individuals that have to dedicate so much time that it’s impractical, okay, because everybody works, and I really don’t want to get back to the old days that we were before Mr. Abbate was Chairman, you know, to where we basically came to the meeting and the agenda was set and all that. I want us to do what we need to be doing, by law. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to query the Board as to if they think that the system as we’ve been doing it most recently has worked better than what we did in the past? Because, I mean, that might be worthwhile just to ask the Board members. MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand the question. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, over the past two years we’ve kind of adapted this thing where I think we’ve had more, a more reasonable number of agenda items on each meeting. I think that we, when necessary, we’ve scheduled other meetings for, you know, like very controversial subjects, etc. MR. BRYANT-Well, we’ve had that because we’ve had an individual who had the opportunity, he had the time, and he also had the expertise, and he was able to do whatever he had to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-But in other words, I’m just thinking, in this case here, do we, in other words, how are the other two members of the executive, of the Board going to 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) make, aid in that decision making process? Are we going to look at all the cases, read through them, as if we were the Chairman? MR. ABBATE-No. No, Jim. I don’t perceive it that way. What I did, we don’t do completion review. That’s up to the Staff to do that. They present to us a case, a box of cases that have already theoretically been complete. We would then sit down and determine, based upon the complexity of those cases, where we should spread those during the month. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m just thinking in the sense of, you know, like what if when you’re doing the completion review thing there’s some minor thing missing or something? MR. ABBATE-Well then we can’t hear it? What do you mean, minor? Either it’s complete or not. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s another issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s another issue, but at the same time, I’m just saying, in other words, we want to keep things moving along so we’re not holding people up. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s true, but that’s not our job. That’s Staff’s job, okay, they complete all these. Let’s be very frank, okay. We had this discussion about cancelling this meeting between Staff, between the Chairman and Staff, and it went back and forth and around and round. There was no authority to cancel this meeting, except by this Board that’s sitting here tonight. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ve had about enough of this. None of you read the initial e-mail I sent out. It said if the applicant withdraws the request it’s gone. MR. BRYANT-But that doesn’t cancel the meeting. MR. MC NULTY-You’re going to come to the meeting, you’re going to charge the Town for the sake of coming here and saying, let’s not have a meeting. That’s not responsible. MR. BRYANT-That’s not the issue. MR. ABBATE-That’s not the issue. MR. BRYANT-That is not the issue. MR. MC NULTY-That’s not responsible, and while I’m on it, what you’re proposing is extremely complicated. This is not a boy’s club. This is a unit. MR. ABBATE-Chuck, I seconded the motion. We need a vote. MR. MC NULTY-I’m done. MR. ABBATE-I seconded the motion. Let’s have a vote. Okay. Call the vote, please. John, no. MR. BRYANT-It’s not that complicated. It’s really not that complicated. It’s just a safeguard. MR. MC NULTY-I’m not going to play games. MR. ABBATE-Maria, would you please call the vote? MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. URRICO-I want to discuss this further. I mean, there’s several issues on the table, and Number One, it’s not just the agenda. You talked about an attorney as well. I mean, how do we determine if we’re going to need an attorney without first having the agenda set? You know, and without the agenda being set and knowing what the cases involve, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) how can we judge? I mean, we’re not going to be, the only people that are going to see the agenda are the three people that have met. So the full panel or the full Board here is not going to see the agenda or have the opportunity to vote on it until we meet. Is that too late to ask for an attorney if we need it, or now we’re tabling that meeting, or that application until we get an attorney here, which delays the process. MR. BRYANT-Well, what’s the alternative? MR. URRICO-Well, I just don’t understand why the attorney needs to be here. MR. MC NULTY-There’s no reason for anybody except Staff and the Chairman to set an agenda. It’s also commonsense. Instead of playing with this, the law says this and the law says that, and everybody should vote. MR. ABBATE-We are a quasi judicial Board, Chuck. We have to comply with the law, and the law says the ZBA sets the agenda. It doesn’t say the Chairman, it says ZBA. MR. BRYANT-It doesn’t say Staff. MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t say Staff. I have it right here if you want me to read it. It doesn’t say the Chairman. It doesn’t say Staff. It says the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. That’s it. I’m done. Dan will have my resignation tomorrow. MR. ABBATE-Then I’m leaving, too. If you guys don’t have the courage to do it, the hell with it. I’m going to resign. I’m leaving as well, Chuck. You’re not the only one. The Board, apparently, doesn’t want to make a decision. MR. URRICO-I think there are issues with that motion. MR. ABBATE-Whatever you say. MR. BRYANT-Well, let me ask the question. Do you want me to withdraw it? This was only to. MR. URRICO-I have a problem with the attorney and everything else being rolled into it. MR. ABBATE-Well, then leave the attorney aspect out of it, then, if that’s the only thing that’s bothering you. If that’s the only thing that’s bothering you, that’s okay. MR. BRYANT-I’m only concerned that when you get into this discussion. MR. URRICO-I know what you’re concerned about. MR. ABBATE-You told me you were going to support this, Jim, and now. MR. UNDERWOOD-All I said was I want to discuss, just like Roy does. I don’t think there’s any harm in discussing what’s going on. MR. ABBATE-Well, did we discuss it? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know, we seem to have ruffled some major feathers. MR. BRYANT-Why don’t we do this, can I make a suggestion? MR. ABBATE-I’m leaving. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think in the interest of the long term of this, we should probably just take that motion, distribute that to everybody so they can actually look at it and make a decision. You can’t just throw it out. MR. ABBATE-What do you mean let everybody take a look at it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Take a look at it. I mean, if we’re not going to discuss it. MR. ABBATE-Whatever you say, Jim. Chuck was right. I’m leaving. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s not going to solve any problems. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) MR. ABBATE-See you next time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’m the only one left running the show. MR. BRYANT-There you go. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to vote on this thing, or do we want to just put it on the back burner? MR. ABBATE-I seconded it, Jim, it has to go to a vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, you seconded it. MR. ABBATE-Whether it’s approved or not, it still has to go to a vote. I don’t understand, you know, if you don’t want to do it, say so. MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Urrico has said he takes exception to certain things. I can answer why I put that in there. For obvious reasons, we have a conflict in this thing with Schachner, okay. Schachner can’t represent us when it comes to certain cases, and if you look in 267, we have the right to select our own attorney. MR. ABBATE-That’s right. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that was the issue. Now you bring a very good point, you know, at what time are we going to actually know that we need an attorney? Are we going to have to postpone it? That’s a good issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, and based upon, I think Roy, too, based upon what we got tonight, our confidential memorandum that we received this evening. Number One, we’re not going to discuss what was in that confidential memorandum that we received, but, as a Board, you know, the Chairman, I guess, obviously he was the one that requested it from the Town Attorneys, and I think that puts us in a position where, oftentimes, we’re at loggerheads with the Town Attorney, you know, and the basis of the Town decision making process. So, I think we’re going to need our own attorney at certain points in time. So, who determines that? MR. ABBATE-We do. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, it would be up to us. MR. URRICO-I guess I’m going to play devil’s advocate here. I’ve been on this Board for almost 10 years. When has there ever been a case when we’ve needed an attorney to represent us? This most recently, once. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, once. That was it. MR. ABBATE-Let me put it this way. Would you support the resolution if he took out that sentence dealing with the attorney? MR. URRICO-I’m not sure. I’m not sure, because there were several things rolled into that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I’m leaving. MR. URRICO-If we can’t discuss it then I’ll be against it, because I’m not going to vote for something just for the sake of voting for it. MR. BRYANT-Let’s discuss it. Yes. MR. URRICO-If we can’t have a civil discussion, then I’m not going to vote on it. It’s as simple as that. If this issue is that important, it needs to be discussed and not voted on a whim. MRS. HUNT-Mr. Bryant, I have a question, too. MR. BRYANT-Go ahead. MRS. HUNT-About the three. Is that kind of cumbersome to get three people together? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) MR. BRYANT-It is, but it alleviates some of the pressure on the Chairman, Number One, and, you know, I’m not going to pick on Staff, okay, because that’s not the intent, but, you know, the Chairman indicated before he left that, you know, it’s between him and Staff to set the agenda, and that’s not the way it is. It’s very clear in 267, it’s up to the Board to set the agenda. Now, prior, Abbate did all the agenda setting and he did all that stuff and he was able to do that. It’s very difficult for anybody else sitting on this Board to do that and we had this discussion about cancelling this meeting simply because we had already voted on the record to have this meeting, and even if there were no cases to hear, okay, because of some unusual circumstance, we are still required to show up. Do you follow what I’m saying? MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And this would give them an opportunity, because, to cancel it in a special condition without having to show up. Do you follow what I’m saying? MRS. HUNT-Yes, but my question was about the three people. Is that more cumbersome than delegating it to one person to make an agenda? MR. BRYANT-The problem is it depends on who you’re going to delegate it to. If Mr. Abbate was Chairman, I would delegate it to him without any problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys want to go ahead and have the vote, then? That’s where we’re at. MR. URRICO-Read the motion again. I want to hear the various parts of it. MR. BRYANT-If you want me to withdraw the motion, I’ll withdraw the motion. Then you won’t have to vote. MR. URRICO-No. It’s not a question of that. It’s a question of being able to talk about it. MR. GARRAND-I’m satisfied with it. It’s pretty straightforward. MR. UNDERWOOD-Most of the things are in play. I don’t see that there’s anything that we’re not doing already, for the most part. I mean, that’s essentially what we’re doing now. MR. BRYANT-What’s your pleasure? MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other discussion from the other Board members? MR. GARRAND-No, you answered the question I had. MRS. HUNT-No. My question’s been answered, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Maria, do you want to call it? MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Are we taking out the Town Attorney part or no? MR. BRYANT-What does everybody else think? MR. UNDERWOOD-For me, that’s essentially what we’re doing now. Unless we request the attorney, but that would be the full Board request of the attorney? MR. URRICO-Well, that’s what it’s saying. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what it’s saying there, yes. MR. URRICO-And I think that’s going to extend the process. That’s just my opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-It could possibly. MR. URRICO-Okay. Take a vote. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) MR. URRICO-No. MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to find out what I’m taking out here first. MR. UNDERWOOD-The full vote of the Board for an attorney, is that what you’re taking out? MR. URRICO-See, I think that can be left up to the same people who are setting the agenda. If they see a reason for the attorney. Coming up, if there’s an issue that needs the Town Attorney, you know, whether it’s a case involving the Zoning Administrator or involving a specific part of the law that we need to have the attorney here. MRS. HUNT-Right. They would be the ones who would know. MR. BRYANT-The final decision on seeking advice from the Town Attorney will be decided by a majority of the Zoning Board of Appeals, that’s the sentence you want out? MR. URRICO-Yes. MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just have it by the Executive Board. That’s all. MRS. HUNT-Right, the Executive Board. MR. BRYANT-You want to change the majority of the ZBA to the committee of three? MRS. HUNT-The committee of three. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, a query of the committee of three. Yes. MR. BRYANT-Will be decided by a committee of three. Is that okay, Mr.? The following sentence reads, the attendance of the Town Attorney will require a majority vote of it says of the ZBA. What do you want? MRS. HUNT-The committee. MR. URRICO-I’m sorry. Read that again. MR. BRYANT-The attendance of the Town Attorney at any hearing of the ZBA will require a majority vote of it says of the ZBA. MR. URRICO-Well, I think you can leave that to the committee of three. MR. UNDERWOOD-The committee of three, the executive committee. MR. BRYANT-Well, what you did, the committee of three seeks advice of the Town Attorney. MR. URRICO-And also I would extend that to that, I mean, I think at any point during the hearing, while we’re hearing the case, if we’re tabling it and we see a need to have the Town Attorney at the next meeting, then we’re going to raise that issue at that point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, we’re only going to be fulfilling your desire for the attorney to attend. MR. URRICO-Right. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So the last paragraph is going to read, All questions regarding procedures or any other issues of the Zoning Board of Appeals will initially be addressed to the Board for review. The final decision on seeking advice from the Town Attorney will be decided by the majority of the committee of three. The attendance of the Town Attorney at any hearing of the ZBA will require a majority vote of the committee of three. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I’ll go along with it, and that’s the last paragraph. Does that satisfy you? MS. GAGLIARDI-Do we need another second? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll second. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re going to move on to the, anything else anybody wants to add prior to this? Okay. We’re going to go on to the first item on the agenda tonight, which was a tabling. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC/RITE AID STORE AGENT(S): BLAIR COMPANIES OWNER(S): 1093 GROUP, LLC ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 724 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON THE FAÇADE OF THE RITE AID STORE. ALSO THE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION 140 MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re going to need a tabling motion for Sign Variance No. 56- 2007, the project applicant is the 1093 Group, the Rite Aid store, and their location is 724 Glen Street. The applicant is proposing construction of an additional freestanding sign and multiple additional wall signs. The note here says revised information has been th submitted for this application on February 15 of ’08 for consideration of placement on the March 2008 ZBA agenda. So there is a letter here that says, Following up on the February 7, 2008 voice mail message, please be advised that we intend to submit our client’s application on or before February 15, 2008, and that’s John D. Svare, representing Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes on that project. So, I guess I’ll make a tabling motion. MR. URRICO-I have a question. Have they submitted their application? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you know if they want to be first meeting or second? Probably earlier the better for them, I would imagine. We may as well put them on the first meeting in March, then. So, do I have a second on that? MRS. HUNT-Second. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC RITE AID STORE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 724 Glen Street. Tabled to the first meeting in March. th Duly adopted this 19 day of February, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/MILLER & ASSOCIATES/NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P. ZONING: PO LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GURNEY LANE & WEST. MT. ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2- STORY OFFICE (85,340 SQ. FT.) OFFICE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SITE PLAN NO. 48-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.90 AC.; 16.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-63 AND 64 SECTION: 179-4-040 MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. The other one that we’ve got here is Area Variance No. 59-2007 and that’s Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, L.P., and that’s at the corner of West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane. The applicant is proposing construction of an 85,340 square foot two story office building as well as associated site improvements. As most Board members are aware, they did meet with the Planning Board and the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) Planning Board adopted a SEQRA Positive Declaration of Potential Significant Impact. So at this point in time, because they’re going to have to do an EIS, the pending variance application, we’re not going to be able to act on that until they make their determination, their final SEQRA determination. I’ll just read into the record the motion from the Queensbury Planning Board. “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ACCEPT THE THREE DRAFTS AS AMENDED FOR OUR PART THREE IN REGARDS TO SITE PLAN NO. 48-2007 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by Stephen Traver who th moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan NOES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger”, and secondary to that, the Planning Board did take Lead Agency Status on that. I think that this is part of the past record that we have. I think that’s already been read in. All right. Essentially at the last Planning Board meeting, and that was on February 7, 2008, they also made a motion, and that’s the one that, you know, we’re going to have to wait on, and that is the motion that “MOTION THAT, BASED UPON THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD’S PART THREE EVALUATIONS AND DRAFTS THAT HAVE BEEN PREPARED, THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN ONE OR MORE LARGE AND IMPORTANT IMPACTS THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE A POSITIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED FOR SITE PLAN NO. 48-2007 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L..P., Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas th Seguljic: Duly adopted this 7 day of February, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic NOES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger” I think that what happens as a result of that is that at some point in the future there is going to be a re-opening of the public hearing at that point in time, where the public will make commentary. I think on that evening, I think some of us were in attendance at that meeting, and at that meeting new information was provided by the opponents of that project, another traffic study, and I know the traffic study was one of the things that our Board was concerned with that was going to have an impact on possibly the Planning Board’s ultimate decision, but because all those new things, when they come in in the EIS, in the draft EIS, you know, at whatever form it comes back to the public in, there will public commentary allowed at that time by both the proponents and the objectors of that project. Also at that time, in the scoping session I think that even our Board is allowed to make comments, you know, if we have questions that we want answered, you know, in regards to the EIS at that time. We have deferred to the Planning Board and so I think it’s up to our Board to make a decision here tonight whether or not we want to do anything more this evening with that or just simply postpone until we get information back as to when and where that’s going to be finished up by the Planning Board. What’s the pleasure of the Board? MRS. HUNT-I think we should wait for the Planning Board. That makes sense. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think any new information that comes in we’re going to be privy to, the Planning Board’s going to be privy to. There will be public comment at that point in time, and, you know, not knowing what the future of the project is at this point in time, I know the major people that were going to be involved in that project are now going Downtown. So that may affect the project even continuing. I’m not sure what the status of that is in the future. So, do you guys have any comments? MR. URRICO-What does the attorney ask for in this case? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that they just want a tabling motion until such time that the, I’ll read their letter in, if you want. I can do that. MRS. HUNT-Yes. Maybe you should. th MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter is dated February 15, it’s to Mr. Charles McNulty, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: the Schermerhorn Residential Holdings. MR. GARRAND-Are you reading from the Miller, Mannix, Schachner, Hafner letter? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m not. MR. GARRAND-Okay. All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-“I am aware that the Zoning Board of Appeals continues to have the th above referenced project on its agenda for the February 20 meeting. As the ZBA is aware, on February 7, 2008 the Queensbury Planning Board, acting as lead agency, 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) issued a positive declaration under SEQR. Until the SEQR review is completed, it is not necessary or appropriate for other involved agencies to continue review of the project. Therefore, on behalf of the applicant, I hereby request that the ZBA’s review of this project be tabled indefinitely at this time. Additionally, as next week is the school vacation week, both I and Rich Schermerhorn will be traveling with our families. If this matter remains on your agenda another attorney in my law firm will be present. Finally, as the Board is aware, upon the issuance of the positive declaration by the Town Planning Board, the proposed tenant for this project, Travelers, determined that it could no longer wait for the project to be approved and elected to relocate some of its employees to an alternative site. By this letter, you are hereby notified that the applicant intends to continue to pursue the requested parking variance on the basis that a replacement tenant or tenants will also need the additional parking spaces requested.” And that’s signed Jon Lapper. So I guess what we need to do is to either make a tabling motion, an indefinite tabling motion is what they’re requesting from us, and it’s up to us to decide if we think that’s appropriate or not. MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Secretary, I’m of the same opinion I was at the last meeting where the Board voted against opening the public hearing. I think the public should be given every opportunity to express themselves, especially if they have new information. I mean, you have new information relative to the traffic study, and because we don’t have 500 people sitting here, it might be beneficial just to let the couple of people that are here, if they’ve got something new that they want to add, we don’t have to respond to it, and just move on, and give them the motion that they want. MR. URRICO-I agree, as long as everybody understands that the evidence is going to change, that we’re going to hear different, even though they say this is going to continue with the applicant, that it’s going to have different caveats in it. So we’re going to have to re-hear just about everything that we’ve heard before. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I would say, too, since we’re not going to render any decision here, we can always listen to anything at any point in time. We don’t know what the ultimate disposition of the whole thing is going to be anyway, or whether we’re even going to be part of that process. So I think, I don’t have a problem with listening, if anybody has anything to add as far as the public goes tonight. MR. GARRAND-Well, I’m just wondering about the letter we received from the Town Attorney and the correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, that was for our basic information. Read into it what you want. I mean, I think we had, in the initial meetings that we had on this project, the applicants didn’t show up for that one and we let the public, I mean, it was a scheduled meeting at that time. I think we allowed the public to speak. The last time, though, we voted on the Board whether to open up the public hearing and I think it was a four to three vote, no, we did not open the public hearing. All the new information that’s been forthcoming for those of us that went to the Planning Board meeting, we’re aware of it. If you weren’t there, you didn’t get that information because you had to be there firsthand to hear it, but I would think at some time before we render our decision in the future, we’re probably all going to be privy to that information. The thing that we were, the stage that we were at was the SEQRA review process, which we sent to the Planning Board, and so until that comes back to us, I don’t think that we can act anyway. MRS. HUNT-I have a question about that first paragraph, about opening the public hearing again. MR. GARRAND-The second sentence in the first paragraph. MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re talking their letter, right? MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. GARRAND-I think this is what she’s referring to. MR. BRYANT-That’s his opinion. MRS. HUNT-Yes, right. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) MR. BRYANT-That’s his opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s his opinion. We didn’t ask for it. MR. BRYANT-We don’t have to accept it. MR. BROWN-I think if you’re seriously considering re-opening the public hearing, you want to put in the record what new information’s been submitted by the applicant that’s triggering your re-opening of the public hearing, since it has been closed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, why don’t we do this. Let’s query the Board. How many of you want to re-open this public hearing tonight? Because I would rather go with your decision making process. I’m not going to make the decision for you. So why don’t we just go down through? MR. URRICO-I think if there’s somebody here that wants to speak, they should be given the opportunity. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I’ve always been of the opinion that anybody who shows up at a public hearing, regardless of what the dispensation of the meeting is that night, that they ought to be allowed to present whatever they want. I mean, we don’t have to agree with it or disagree with it. We’re not going to render a decision. MRS. HUNT-I agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you want to open up the public hearing? Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak this evening? MR. BRYANT-Five minutes, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador, and I agree with Mr. Brown that you should state why you’re opening this public hearing, and the fact that by the applicant’s own admission there’s new information. MR. BROWN-It hasn’t been presented to this Board. MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. BROWN-It hasn’t been presented to this Board. MR. SALVADOR-That letter. MR. BRYANT-The letter that he submitted said. MR. BROWN-Please table me. MR. BRYANT-No, but it also said because there’s a new tenant, or something of that nature. Read it. MR. BROWN-And who’s that tenant? MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t know. MR. BRYANT-We don’t know. MR. BROWN-So you don’t have the information. MR. BRYANT-That’s why we’re tabling it. MR. SALVADOR-All right. Let me continue, then. MR. BRYANT-Can I, just for clarification? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) MR. BROWN-No, thank you. I’m all set. MR. BRYANT-You’re all set. The last paragraph is very clear on it. MR. BROWN-You’re fine. MR. SALVADOR-There’s no question that this project has taken on a different scope and an all together different flavor since you gave up your lead agency status to the Planning Board. Now, I would like to read to you a paragraph from the SEQRA Regulations, and then I’d like to talk to it. This is Section 617.1D. It was the intention of the legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environment, human and community resources, should be given appropriate weights with social and economic considerations in determining public policy, and that those factors be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities. Accordingly, it is the intention of this part that a suitable balance of social, economic and environmental factors be incorporated into the planning and decision making process of state, regional and local agencies. It is not the intention of SEQRA that environmental factors be sole consideration in decision making, and that’s exactly what we have done. This project has been fostered based on economic and social factors, and the ability of that Planning Board to come to the realization that there are also environmental impacts was a tough pill to swallow, but the whole process has been driven by social and economic factors, and those have changed. How many Travelers Insurance Company employers are around the countryside? What do you think, they grow on trees? He’s going to find another tenant? Maybe he’ll need four more tenants in there to equal all of this, and it’s all speculation. It’s all speculation, and that’s not a basis on which to move forward in the SEQRA process. I’m saying in the SEQRA process. So, I really believe that this is a new project. This is a new project, and these, maybe these economic and social considerations are no longer such a strong factor. Travelers is staying in Warren County. The Town Supervisor said he’d be pleased with that. So, we’ve arrived at that, but, frankly, I believe that just by that letter it’s a new ballgame, and maybe that’s a basis that should be considered. Into the Scoping Session, I’d just like to make a comment here. Fortunately the Planning Board did vote to have a Scoping Session, and from the SEQRA law, this is the definition of Scoping. It means the process by which the lead agency identifies the potentially significant adverse impacts related to the proposed action that are to be addressed in the Draft EIS, including the content and level of detail of analysis, the range of alternatives, the mitigation measures needed, and the identification of non-relevant issues. Scoping provides a project sponsor with guidance on matters which must be considered and provides an opportunity for early participation involving agencies and the public in the review of the proposal. The proposal, the applicant is to put up a proposed scope of work. The scope is changing. The scope is changing. So, anyway, it’s a quagmire. It’s a real quagmire, and as John Strough said at the Town Board meeting the other night, they’re driving a square peg in a round hole. That’s all I’ve got to say. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else wishing to speak? Okay. MR. BRYANT-Are you going to leave the public hearing open? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I will leave the public hearing open. What’s the pleasure of the Board? Do you want to just postpone this indefinitely until we hear back at some future date? MR. URRICO-What if we closed the public hearing and then re-open it at a future date, if it’s deemed necessary? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to close it for the evening? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Why don’t we close it. MR. URRICO-I would close the public hearing tonight and if we need to re-open it again, we can. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, at the next meeting. All right. So do we want to do a tabling motion, then, for this project, until we hear back from them? I guess we’ll have to because we’re out of the loop at the present time. MR. BRYANT-Yes. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) MR. URRICO-So are we going to close the hearing? We have to close it, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-This evening’s hearing? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All right. I’ll close the hearing, then, this evening. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll put forth a motion to indefinitely delay the Area Variance No. 59-2007 until such time as we hear back from the applicants as well as the Planning Board with their ultimate. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2007 SCHERMERHORN RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, L.P., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Southeast corner of Gurney Lane and West Mt. Rd. Tabled until the second meeting in August, until we hear back from the applicants that they’re going to pursue the project in its present form, as well as the Planning Board issuing it’s Draft EIS. th Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2008, by the following vote: MR. BRYANT-I don’t know that we should table it indefinitely. MR. URRICO-Can we indefinitely table it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s what they asked for. I mean, who knows when they’re going to be done. It’s probably going to be six months. MR. BRYANT-Leave it on the record. MR. URRICO-Can we indefinitely table it? MR. BROWN-You guys can do whatever you want to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you expect like six months? MR. BROWN-I’d be surprised if they come back. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So why don’t we table it for six months from now. So we’re almost into March. So say August. MRS. HUNT-Late August, September. MR. UNDERWOOD-The second meeting in August. Why don’t we table them until then. MR. BROWN-Unless they come back sooner. MR. UNDERWOOD-Unless they come back sooner. Does somebody want to second it? MR. GARRAND-Second. MR. BRYANT-Shouldn’t you say in your motion why are we tabling it? We’re tabling it at their request, but also the resolution of the SEQRA, is that correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we’re tabling because we’re, I said, until we hear back from the applicants that they’re going to pursue the project in its present form, as well as the Planning Board issuing it’s Draft EIS, right? Because that’s going to be the next time that we would have any information. MR. BRYANT-Okay, as long as we’re clear on that. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/20/08) ABSENT: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other information anybody else wants to add? Anybody want to speak at the end of this meeting? Anybody in the public wishing to speak at the end of the meeting on any other subjects? No? Okay. Then I guess we’ll end the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles McNulty, Chairman 14