Loading...
1997-12-09 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY CRAIG MAC EWAN ROGER RUEL LARRY RINGER TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE STARK CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CHRIS ROUND PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 16, 1997: NONE September 23, 1997: NONE October 7, 1997: NONE TH MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 23 & OCTOBER 7 , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: th Duly adopted this 9 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Stark OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1997 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CRAYFORD & HIGGS OWNER: STANLEY RYMKEWICZ, JR. ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE RD. & COUNTY LINE RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A 12 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 74.89 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-1997, Crayford and Higgs - Final Stage, Meeting Date: December 9, 1997 “The applicant proposes to subdivide 74.89 acres into 12 lots. The applicant has received preliminary approval with two conditions. One condition is to add to the plans that the lot grading shall conform to Section A-183-25 of the Town’s Subdivision Regulations, and Condition Two, that the existing stone walls to be preserved, except for opening for two driveways on Lots One and Two. In addition, the Board granted the requested waivers for, Section A-183-9A (scale of drawing), and Section A183-9A1 (2’ contour lines). The applicant has included a Final 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) Subdivision Plan and Details Plan. The Final Subdivision Plan includes the note on lot grading, required by Rist Frost engineers. The Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. PALING-Okay. Is there someone here representing the applicant? MR. NACE-Yes. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing Crayford & Higgs. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to update us on this from the last time, please. MR. NACE-The only real update is that we’ve added the notes that you’ll see at the bottom of Sheet One, regarding the grading on the lots conforming with the Town standards and regarding the preservation of the stone wall where possible. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments on this from the Board? Okay. This is Unlisted. The public hearing has been held, and did we do a SEQRA on this? MS. NOWICKI-You already did a SEQRA on it. MR. PALING-So we’re okay. I believe that’s what we asked for, that we can go right to a motion for this. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1997 CRAYFORD & HIGGS , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: th Duly adopted this 9 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to put anything in there regarding the stone wall in the motion? MR. BREWER-It’s noted on the map. MR. MAC EWAN-On the plat is fine? MS. NOWICKI-It’s also noted in your first resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1997 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED BAY WEST OFFICE ASSOC., L.L.C. OWNER: MICHAEL & RALPH WOODBURY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE BAY ROAD, NORTH OF GLENWOOD & SOUTH OF CRONIN APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF 4.05 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS - 3 COMMERCIAL AND 1 COMMON AREA LOT. TAX MAP NO. 61-1-38.1 LOT SIZE: 4.05 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And because this is a Sketch Plan, there is no public hearing scheduled tonight. STAFF INPUT 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1997, Bay West Office Association, L.L.C. - Sketch Plan, Meeting Date: December 9, 1997 “The board is to review this application as a sketch plan subdivision, the use of the parcel will be reviewed under site plan. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.05 acre parcel into four lots - 3 commercial and 1 common area lot. Lot One is 10,230 square feet (footprint of building), Lot Two is 9,450 square feet (footprint of building), and Lot Three is 9,450 square feet (footprint of building). For finance purposes, the applicant has requested that this be reviewed under the Town’s Cluster Regulations, Article IX and Article VII. Staff’s evaluation of the project included the review of Article IX Cluster Development and Article VII Clustering. The project appears to be consistent with both of these Articles. Under Article IX the applicant has requested one waiver from Section A183-34.C that there be a minimum of five lots in the subdivision - the applicant has four lots. The applicant has also requested zero lot line setbacks under Clustering. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the parcel is actually 61- 1-37.3, not 61-1-38.1. The applicant has been made aware of the split zone of the parcel and that the tree line on lot three is within the footprint of a building. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the Buffer Zone Regulations (Section 179-72) does not apply to this project because the commercial use is allowable in both zones.” MR. PALING-That’s a little puzzling. Excuse me, would you identify yourselves, please. MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing Bay West Associates. MR. MILLER-And Jim Miller. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. NACE-One correction. That should not be commercial use in the MR-5. It’s only Professional Office use. MR. PALING-In the last paragraph? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Professional Office. Well, I think this question is mostly to Staff. On the rear of this lot, there is virtually no cover between it and a residential subdivision. There’s homes back there. MS. NOWICKI-Well, he has a split zone on this parcel. MR. PALING-Yes. What I’m getting at is that the buffer has got me confused. It kind of buts commercial buildings right in view of a residential subdivision without anything in between. That is from a view standpoint. MS. NOWICKI-Correct. MR-5 still allows a Professional Office in it. That’s why the buffer zone doesn’t apply. MR. NACE-If I could add some clarification. If you would consider in any MR-5 zone, for instance, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the parcel we originally subdivided for Guido Passarelli on Bay Road. That would have included residences in the back of the parcel and Professional Office lots in the front of the parcel, and, you know, there was no setback within that zone for the two different uses. MR. PALING-I would like at least to see some vegetation back there, to cut the view. MR. NACE-We’re not proposing to build right up to the property line by any means. I think, we have 45 feet. MR. MILLER-Yes. The rear of the property there now there’s a group of existing trees, and I think our setback, we’re setback about 47 feet from that rear property line now. MR. PALING-From the property line to there, 47 feet. MR. MILLER-That’s right. To preserve those trees along there. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. RUEL-See, your plan shows a substantial amount of vegetation there. Actually, we only saw two large trees, and they’re so large that the branches start up about 12 feet or so. So that it’s absolutely clear, you know, between one property and the other. MR. MILLER-You’ve got to look underneath. MR. RUEL-That’s deceiving, that plan. I mean, you’ve got a lot of green stuff over there, but it doesn’t exist. There are only two trees there. MR. MILLER-They’re mature trees. MR. MAC EWAN-This is all site plan stuff. We’re doing subdivision. If we’re going to talk about, you know, making sure that there’s screening between properties, any time, should this ever come in for site plan is when we talk about grading and landscaping and such. MR. PALING-Well, okay. I’m not sure it is allowed or disallowed in either, well, in this case I thought it was allowed, but if it isn’t, then it would be sort of a forewarning that it sure is going to come up at site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Whichever way we handle it. MR. BREWER-I think it’s appropriate now because it is Sketch. So he knows, like you said, what he’s got. MR. NACE-I think we’d rather have comments now. I think, you know, we are providing almost 50 feet back there, and I think that if we do a good job of landscaping, and I would hope we could do a good job of landscaping. MR. PALING-Landscaping and planting. MR. RUEL-It would be nice if you would modify that to reflect the way it is today. MR. PALING-Are those supposed to be any kind of particular tree there on the drawing? MR. MILLER-Well, at this point, we haven’t really specified anything, in concept. What the proposal is, there’s narrow frontage along Bay Road, and the concept was to just leave that frontage along Bay Road as green space, with maybe some area used for stormwater detention, but generally just create a nice entry to the office part with signage and divided entryway coming into the property, and then creating this central courtyard. This would be, there’s parking lots and there’s some telephone switch gear equipment and things to the south. So there would be a landscaped hedge and shade trees along that side. There’s some existing trees out in here now. Some of those will be saved and some will probably be planted, and some of the birch trees. The concept is to develop three one story brick buildings facing out into the common parking area, and along the fronts of the buildings, there’d be sidewalks, 10 to 12 foot high traditional style street lights, not the higher cutoff type commercial lights, with individual entrances to the building. So these would be multiple tenants. So each tenant, rather than having a common hallway, would have common entry, where the entire fronts of these buildings would be landscaped, facing out onto this public courtyard. There are hedgerows and some existing trees along the property. Anything to the rear would be preserved. There’s no entrances or service areas or anything along the backs of the buildings. So for example along the back of the building here on Westwood, all there would be would be office windows along the back there, and maybe there’d be a fire exit or doorway where people might go out there and have a picnic table or something, but there’s no service areas, no pavements to the rear of the site, and the intent was to have aisles down the parking lot with shade trees, most of the planting along the front would be smaller trees, flowering trees, more to scale with the entrance, quite a few shrubs and flowering ground cover. MR. PALING-How are we going to make out for permeable area? MR. MILLER-There’s sufficient permeable area. MR. PALING-There is? There will be? MR. MILLER-There is, yes. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Are you going to tear up the current asphalt at all, or just go over it? MR. MILLER-Pretty much. If you look at it, a lot of it is cracked and vegetation is growing through it. We’re going to try to utilize the existing entrance and some of the pavement as much as possible, but that original concept was for a high rise building in the center, so it was the exact opposite of what’s proposed here. So a lot of the pavement is around the outside. What we’d like to try to do is utilize the water connections, the sewer connections. The storm drainage, some of the storm drainage that was in came out and connects to Bay Road along this, along the south side of the property, so we tried to utilize the existing utilities as much as possible. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-I just have one question. How do we consider this clustering? Explain to me. MR. NACE-Okay. It’s a way to be able to have a commercial property that is treated like a homeowner’s, like a condominium project. You’re Town Code does not allow condominiums or condominium subdivisions for anything other than residential use, okay. So this cluster is the only way that we can do it, footprint type of lot, within the Town Code. MR. BREWER-So does it meet the definition of clustering? MR. PALING-Evidently, yes. MR. BREWER-I don’t know. In my mind, clustering would mean to me is clustering, not using every piece of the property. I mean, where’s the open space? MR. ROUND-The problem is this type of project conforming with the Code. If allowed under condominium, by definition, condominium does not allow for professional use. It’s more of a condominium type development, but because of the definition contained in our Ordinance, this would not be allowed under Condominium. So they’re looking to fall under the clustering definition. Granted, it’s not clustering in the concept of clustering. It doesn’t provide that, but it meets all the requirements of the Ordinance. MR. BREWER-That’s where I’m lost. I mean, I understand what you’re doing, but if it doesn’t meet the definition of clustering, how can we? MR. ROUND-No, it does. It does not meet the definition of Condominium. It’s not an allowable use under Condominiums. MR. BREWER-But these aren’t condominiums. MR. NACE-Well, they’re footprint lots, yes. That’s the real definition of a condominium, is that you’re selling a footprint of the unit, whether it be a commercial unit or residential unit, and then have common open space that’s held by a homeowners association of property owners. MR. BREWER-Which would be where? MR. NACE-The entire lot is the HOA, okay, and then the footprints are the individual commercial lots. Unfortunately, your zoning definition of condominium says residential only. MR. BREWER-You’re innovative, Tom. MR. NACE-Well, there’s a will there’s a way, I guess. MR. MILLER-The primary reason for that is just so each of the buildings could be separately mortgaged and tied to a separate deed. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-You will need a couple of waivers? MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-Lot line, and the four instead of five. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. NACE-The zero lot line setback, and, what was the other one? MR. RUEL-Requirement for five, and they have four. MR. BREWER-The stormwater detention basin, there’s no stormwater facilities out on the bay that you could push the water out there? MR. NACE-There are some shallow drywells, okay, and we will probably, although they probably are not in the locations that we’ll be able to use them, when we do any re-piping, we’ll do as much infiltration as we can, but not having done the stormwater complete calc’s yet, we’ve provided an area where we can have a shallow detention. MR. BREWER-A couple of feet deep? MR. NACE-Probably not even that, probably a foot and a half, just so it’ll be a low landscaped swale that’ll be available for some infiltration area during very intense storms. MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is a Sketch Plan. So we don’t have a public hearing scheduled, but there will be one later. Do we need a motion on this? MS. NOWICKI-You can make a motion. MR. NACE-I don’t think you can approve. I think you can just recommend whether or not you like the idea. MR. PALING-Yes, right. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO MOVE TO THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION ON BAY WEST OFFICE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. NO. 11-1997 , Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: th Duly adopted this 9 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P1-97 RECOMMENDATION ONLY CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE OWNER: DOUBLE “H” HOLE IN THE WOODS RANCH, INC./CHARLES WOOD LOCATION: CORNER OF AVIATION RD. & GREENWAY NORTH CURRENT ZONE: SFR-10 PROPOSED ZONE: HC-1A APPLICANT REQUESTS REZONING OF A 4.377 ACRE PARCEL FOR A CRACKER BARREL RESTAURANT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/10/97 TAX MAP NO. 98-2-1/98-3-1, 5 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was public comment on November 18, and there will be this evening, and Mr. Paling has a few things to say before we get into this. MR. PALING-Okay. We have a very important decision to make tonight in regard to the recommendation, and there’s a lot of detail that’s involved with it, from an input standpoint, not only from the applicant themselves, but from the public yourselves, and what I’d like to do is just to take a minute and get this together. Now I think we have two petitions. One of them has 300 signatures. I have another petition here which has a lot of signatures. I don’t know how many, many. It looks like 100 anyway in this, and what I’d like to try to do tonight is to limit it to new items for us to consider, new considerations. If you’ve told us about something before, I think 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) we’ve heard you well, and are trying to consider it. So I’m going to break for a moment and try to put all of these inputs together, and they’re going to be read. Now does anyone else have any further written petitions and that kind of thing that they want read before, they want to read themselves? All right. Then lets just break for a couple of minutes until we organize these, and then we’ll proceed with the meeting. All right. I believe that the applicant has a request, if you would make that now, please, for the record. MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Lemery. I’m counsel to Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, the applicant here. I think a lot of information has been presented to the Board tonight, from I guess the residents of Greenway North, which we haven’t had time to look at. So I guess I’d like to table this until the next meeting, so I have a chance, and my clients have a chance to look at the information and determine how we best could respond here. So, I guess we’ve not asked at all for any kind of response to this, I guess I would ask that we respectfully ask for a tabling. MR. PALING-All right. We thank you for your request. My thinking on the matter is that we continue with the hearing now, and go through all of the public comment that has been submitted to us, and then make a determination at that time. If there is items here that have not been considered before and need to be studied, we can table it, or if we think that we have enough information here to act upon them, then the meeting would continue. Does the Board concur? MR. RUEL-What about his request? MR. PALING-Well, what I’m saying is I don’t think we should table it right now. I’d like to go through what, we don’t know what’s here either, but I’d like to go through it, read it into the record and find out what is here, to see if there is enough new questions raised or however you’d categorize it, to postpone. I’d like not to postpone the meeting. I’d like to proceed, but if there’s something new and different, then we’d have to table it, but we will never know until this stuff is read, and that’s why I’d like to have it read tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-It’s got to be read sometime, whether it’s tonight or we go home and read it on our own. So, that doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll proceed. Lets just go and do what you said. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of being tugged both ways here. This is the first I’ve ever heard us ever denying an applicant the opportunity to table his application. We’ve never done it in the almost six years I’ve been on this Board. I don’t understand why you’d want to change that in mid stream tonight. MR. PALING-Well, regardless of that, Craig, it is the prerogative of the Board to do it that way. MRS. LABOMBARD-Lets say we table it, but can’t we still read this, get a public record of it? I would like to read it now, myself. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s going to become public record sooner or later. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s right. That’s why we waited two weeks from the last time. MR. BREWER-We got a 17 page fax today. I don’t know what you’ve got there. MR. PALING-That’s a traffic study that the applicant submitted, that we received today. MR. BREWER-Do you have all your people here, John? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. BREWER-Lets start and see where we go on this. MR. LEMERY-Well, the last time we had the meeting, I had called the Planning Department and everybody was extremely helpful and got me the letters and correspondence that came in. I called again this afternoon, and there were some phone calls that had come in, but there was no correspondence, and I said, fine. Now I get here tonight and there’s reams of correspondence in here, petitions and all the rest of it, and I think we need time to look at this and decide whether or not we want to add any people to our presentation relative to trying to respond to some of the 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) comments that people have made that may be different. I mean, I see, so I have no idea, Mr. Chairman. MR. PALING-Well, why can’t we hear the comments first. You could go through them all right now and make that determination. MR. BREWER-And then if you need time to come back with answers, then we’ll certainly give it to you. MR. LEMERY-I don’t understand the reluctance to table an applicant’s request, you know, table an application. I don’t understand it. MR. BREWER-Well, last month we decided we’d have a special meeting so that we could take care of this one issue. We set the agenda. Here’s our special meeting, and now we want to table again. MR. LEMERY-Well, this is very important to the applicant and the Double “H”. This is not, and I’m sure you recognize, and involves a serious planning issue. I don’t have any idea what’s been brought in here tonight. MR. PALING-We don’t, either. MR. LEMERY-Well, so in that regard, I think we all ought to have time to look at it and see what’s there. MR. PALING-All right. I still say we ought to read it into the record and then make a determination after that. MR. RUEL-Fine, but I don’t believe we have answered the applicant’s request. We haven’t denied it and we haven’t accepted it. MR. PALING-No. We’re just saying what I would like to see is that we go over the information, read it into the public record. It’s got to be read into public record anyway, whether it’s tonight or later. MR. RUEL-I’m talking about the applicant’s request. It requires a yes or no. MR. PALING-I don’t think it requires a yes or no. It says, we’re not going to act on it right now. We’d like to look at this first and then we’re going to act on his request. That’s all I’m saying. MR. RUEL-Okay. You’re going to postpone his request. MR. PALING-Yes, postpone an answer to his request. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. Well, that’s the answer I was looking for. MR. PALING-Okay. All right, then unless there’s an objection here, I’m going to have all of this read into the public record. There are actually six different pieces of correspondence. Then these represent hundreds of signatures which we have. So the actual material we’re going to go through tonight is in six documents, not too long. MR. RUEL-It’s been condensed, in other words. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay, Laura, go ahead. MR. RINGER-I have a question before Laura starts. I don’t think we’ve treated John right either. I think we should ask John if we read and then give him another chance to ask to table it. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s what I thought we were going to do. MR. RINGER-No, I don’t think we did ask him that. MR. BREWER-He just said he wanted to table. We didn’t say yes, no, or whether he agreed or disagreed. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. RINGER-Could we ask him? MR. PALING-Well, I’m not sure that’s the way it should be done. Because I think it’s the prerogative of the Board to decide that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I would like to read all this into the record right now, so we can just get it out, the people here put a lot of time into it, and then if Mr. Lemery feels that he needs extra time to give them a, you know, satisfiable answers, then he should request whether or not it should be tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then we’ll proceed with the reading. MR. RINGER-Is that the way John feels? I’m asking a question, him being the applicant. I guess I just want his opinion on that. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. No, I really don’t think that’s proper. It is the prerogative of the Board to do it. MRS. LABOMBARD-But wait a second, it’s also the prerogative of the applicant to, once he hears something new, to also have, to be able to take it home and study it to give a good answer. So why don’t we read it and let Mr. Lemery decide after whether or not he needs more time to prepare a statement. MR. PALING-Exactly. Okay. MS. NOWICKI-A letter from Erma E. Carter, “Members of Queensbury Planning and/or Queensbury Town Board: I am totally against the re-zoning of any part of the property known as “Greenway North” for the purpose of allowing commercial development. Erma E. Carter 213 Assembly Pt. Road, Lake George, NY” The second one from Laurel Martzinek, “To the Town of Queensbury Planning Board: My name is Laurel Martzinek. I reside at 14 Old Aviation Road with my husband & 2 children. I very much oppose the re-zone of said property (4½ acre tract). This land is right next to us. Right in back of where our children play. My son is 4½ with asthma, also he is deaf & has vision problems. This would severely hamper his breathing, i.e….pollution from more cars & buses. This would also increase traffic around our house increasing the danger of him being hit. My daughter’s bus stop is right on the corner of Greenway North & Old Aviation. This is a very congested & dangerous spot right now. We do not need more traffic in this area. My children & my home are all I have. Please do not re-zone this property for their sake and the sake of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Laurel Martzinek” Another one from Dianna Allstadt, “To Robert Paling and Planning Board Members: I have been following with interest the issue of a Cracker Barrel restaurant and gift shop locating on Aviation Road. I realize that businesses are important to our community by contributing to our tax base and providing many services, but when will our priorities become clear? How much land must we level for new construction? Just look around at all the empty buildings, ventures that justified leveling untold acres of our “Adirondacks”, that somehow never reached their potential. Cracker Barrel alleges that they must build within so many yards near an interstate. Why? Are we willing to sacrifice the last buffering zone on lower Aviation Road to a business that cannot make it a mile down the street? Deja-vu, is not that what Red Lobster claimed when they wanted that same spot? Aren’t they proof that customers will go that extra mile to frequent an establishment they enjoy? Just because this is a convenient place for Cracker Barrel to build on doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the only place. Many residents of this area reside here for the bucolic atmosphere represented by the Adirondacks. We are in danger of losing the very qualities we love and respect to more and more raising of our land. Lets not turn our backs on new business but rather encourage them to move onto land already zoned for the purpose intended. Save the greenlands to shelter birds, allow a place for runoff, provide clean fresh air and bestow a legacy for our children. Respectfully, Dianna Allstadt” Another one, Mary Russell “To the Planning Board Members:” December 8, 1997 “I can’t believe that at 83 I’m still trying to keep what our deeds term “one family residential” area. We lived through the Northway, the mall & new Aviation Road, when the houses on the other side were moved back over here onto School House Road and the end of Carlton Drive. All of us now, most times, in order to get onto Aviation Rd. have to go down Greenway and up to the light across from the mall. When I go to the “Y” for 9 o’clock class, I meet the school bus coming off Aviation Rd. to pick up the Queensbury school children who are standing out along the road (small ones with a parent). The bus continues on up around Carlton Drive for those children and stopping by the Silo so that the children from Schoolhouse, Vista Court, and June Drive can get on the bus which then enters Aviation Rd. and on up to Queensbury School. I cannot fathom cars and buses coming up or down Aviation to turn into the Cracker Barrel Restaurant 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) from the Aviation Rd. or Greenway entrance! There is no objection to having a Cracker Barrel Restaurant and Old Country Store in the area. When going on Senior trips to Myrtle Beach or Virginia Beach, we always stopped in Fredericksberg, VA - stayed at Day’s End and walked next door to The Cracker Barrel with a veranda with rocking chairs - get in line because there were other buses usually with 48-50 aboard so the line was long but the foot good after a long wait. Why have to crowd this into a residential spot that must be rezoned to commercial? Why not into one of the vacant spots that is already commercial? At the last meeting one of the Board members said: “Let’s do something for Queensbury instead of dealing with just this one little section.” We are Queensbury pioneers who have fought to retain the second development in this area. That’s why the young couples buy starter homes here so their children can go Queensbury School. They will pay their taxes just the way many of us have done for years. This is still a great place for kids to grow up - near the school so they can attend the various activities. On our street, we have hockey, bike riders, roller blades, tennis, and football - even 2 little girls with pink helmets riding three wheelers. Let’s keep dumpsters and buses and traffic where it belongs. What a wonderful opportunity for the new owners (Double H Hole in the Woods) ranch to make this property a park in memory of the children from the ranch who have died! Mary Russell (Over 40 years at 9 June Drive)” MR. ROUND-Do you want to read this, your supposition into, why don’t we read the note that goes with the petition and then you could read this into the record. Is that feasible to you? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Lemery is going to wait for his presentation at a later date. Maybe I should wait for my presentation at a later date. MR. ROUND-That’s your prerogative. MR. PALING-Okay. Why don’t you go ahead and read everything else but that one. We’ll come back to it. MS. NOWICKI-This is a petition. It has 300 signatures. MR. PALING-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “We, as residents of the Town of Queensbury, and non-residents that must travel to Queensbury for purposes of business, shopping, or employment, oppose the proposal to rezone parcels 98-2-1, 98-3-1, 98-3-5 from SFR-10 to HC-1A for numerous reasons, which include: 1) Increased traffic flow on Aviation Road. 2) Increased traffic flow within the Greenway North neighborhood. 3) Increased risk to safety of the children within the Greenway North neighborhood. a) vehicular danger b) increased potential of molestation c) increased potential of abduction 4) Increased decline in the property values within the Greenway North neighborhood. 5) Diminished quality of life for the residents of the Greenway North neighborhood. a) Increased noise b) obtrusive commercial lighting c) Reduction of safe play space for neighborhood children d) Removal of existent privacy e) Increased dust f) Increased exhaust pollution from idling trucks and buses g) *Applicable to restaurant existence Food odors Trash odors Vermin associated with food trash Airborne grease particles 6) Tremendous decrease in the buffer zone. 7) Increased potential for vandalism and other crime. 8) Irrevocable adverse impact upon natural environment. 9) Decline in town image. Greenway North neighborhood is comprised of the following streets: Birch Lane, Old Aviation Road, Greenway North, Greenway Circle, Greenway Drive, Carlton Drive, Schoolhouse Drive, June Drive, Vista Court” MR. PALING-Okay. Now you have the one left, is that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-Is this not going to be read into the record? MR. PALING-Yes, it will be read into the record. That’s the one that’s left, right? MR. ROUND-Right. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets ask the submitter how he wants to handle it, and identify yourself, please. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. STROUGH-I’m John Strough. Yes. I was planning on presenting this tonight, and I thought we could come to some kind of closure on this tonight, but it might not be so. If Mr. Lemery wants more time to take a look at our material and make his presentation, you know, I feel at a disadvantage because it’s highly unlikely I’m going to get any of his arguments to counter our arguments, so I can counter his arguments. MR. PALING-Yes. We could go on forever. MRS. LABOMBARD-But, John, this is your material, right here. In other words, this is the new stuff that Mr. Lemery hasn’t seen. So if you don’t read it, then how is anybody going to know what it says and make a statement on it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I can read it. I just don’t want to take the gas out of my car and be sitting nowhere. MR. PALING-I don’t think it’s going to work that way. MRS. LABOMBARD-But somebody’s got to start here. Mr. Lemery was ready to go. It’s just that now this came up. So don’t you think we ought to all hear it. MR. PALING-Why don’t you go ahead and read your, I don’t think it’s going to be that much of a cat and mouse game. We’re going to try to stop it from being that. Okay. MR. BREWER-Do we have a handout? MR. PALING-Well, he’s going to read it anyway. MRS. LABOMBARD-Here, Tim, I have another copy. MR. STROUGH-Again, even though I do this every day, I’m not comfortable with this. It feels like when I was going for my hernia operation. As a matter of fact, I’d rather have the hernia operation. The first page basically discusses a notation from New York State, in discussing local planning and zoning, and it states that “Local planning and zoning are functions delegated to municipalities for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community while restricting and confining land use for the betterment of the community at large”, just my introduction there, and then I have a few things about having citizen input and it says it enhances public trust and accountability “Competence and responsiveness to citizen’s needs and concerns”, and that’s why we’re here, I guess. So basically I think that we feel that this 4.4 acres should not be re-zoned Highway Commercial. It should not be zoned Plaza Commercial, right now, and I’ll explain why as we go along. Certain enterprises that would have a high impact on neighborhoods should not be located on this property, and by high impact, I mean certain things that I’m going to mention in a minute. Impacts that are not mitigated by a 100 foot buffer. I have a home that’s in excess of 100 feet from West Mountain Road. I can hear all the traffic. I can even hear a jog swish by. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I interrupt just a second? Is he going to read this as verbatim in this, or is this a presentation? MR. STROUGH-It’s a presentation. I said that it was a presentation. MR. MAC EWAN-I disagree with that. This is information, this is public stuff that we’re supposed to be putting into the record, and if this is what we’re going to put into the record, I don’t want a presentation in the record. I want this in the record. MR. LEMERY-That’s my understanding, that it was just to read what was in the record. I had not agreed with a presentation. I had asked for a tabling, not a presentation, and I understood from the Chairman that it was going to be read into the record. MR. STROUGH-And I called it a presentation. MR. PALING-Well, I’m going to try to avoid getting into that kind of a contest. Is there anything wrong with you just going ahead and reading that? Isn’t that what your presentation is based on? MR. STROUGH-Well, yes, then I’ll sit down and just read it. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. PALING-There you go. MR. BREWER-Are we going to allow it at the next meeting, Bob? MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Lets let the gentleman read it. Reasons why we should not rezone the Aviation Road 4.4 acre MR. STROUGH-Okay. “ parcel:It’s not in this community’s best interest to rezone Highway Commercial or Plaza significant Commercial because: 1. This would allow certain enterprises which would have a adverse impact on the neighborhood adjacent to it. These impacts would not be sufficiently mitigated by a wooded 100-foot buffer zone. Residents would suffer hardships, such as the degradation of their quality of life and property values. Furthermore, a rezoning as proposed would corrupt our right to a reasonable degree of serenity and security. A. Noise pollution: a. Traffic - patrons going to and from the “too-intrusive” commercial enterprise. b. Delivery trucks tour buses - air brakes, loud engines, air conditioning and refrigeration units. Some of these noises are not interrupted by moments of quiet. c. Restaurant refrigeration system, cycling of ventilation fans, miscellaneous “restaurant” noises, e.g. d. Garbage trucks - boom, boom, beep, beep. e. Clanging of dumpster lids f. Snow plows and parking lot cleaners/sweepers. g. False alarms, i.e. security or fire. B. Odors/air pollution: a. Airborne grease particles. b. Food preparation. c. Garbage. d. Additional cars. e. Delivery truck and tour bus diesel engines. C. Light pollution: a. Auto headlamps. b. Elevated high-intensity parking lights. c. Restaurant signs. D. Other: a. Windblown trash and debris. b. Garbage scavengers - like pigeons and cockroaches. E: Safety: Children a. Extended endangerment caused by increased traffic: , leisure walks, joggers, bicyclists, pets. b. An increase in population density and an increase in the transient population only enhance the potential for vandalism, mischief and other criminal activities. F. Ingress and egress to the Glen Acres development: a. Will be severely hampered and aggravated by both Reasons why we should not current traffic flow problems and the increase in traffic numbers. rezone the Aviation Road 4.4 acre parcel: It is not in this community’s best interest to rezone this property Highway Commercial or Plaza Commercial because: 2. The residents of the our community adjacent neighborhood, other members of , visitors to our community and patrons all sufferhardships. to the proposed commercial establishment would traffic and other A. Community safety: a. A greater threat to pedestrian crossing Aviation Road and Greenway North. b. An increase in accidents. Please note: current traffic accident numbers in this area are already have yet to be effectively addressed alarming and , much less the increases this proposal will cause. B. Traffic flow. a. Traffic flow along the Aviation Road corridor would be severely hampered because of the combination of increased traffic and current road configurations. Please keep in mind we cannot use “possible” or “potential” future road and traffic light recombination to roadcut support a request for rezoning. Would NYS DOT allow an Aviation Road ? If NYS says no “”, then what? b. There are incompatibilities with this site and the increased traffic flow created by the type of commercial adventure being proposed. Incompatibilities that cannot be sufficiently mitigated, given the current traffic/road setup. Note that a parcel cannot be rezoned based on what “might” happen; i.e. someday restructure the road(s) to mitigate problems that would be caused by the proposed development, as an argument to accommodate a proposed rezoning change. c. The road widths of Old Aviation Road and Greenway North do not meet current standards. How will this affect traffic flow? C. Aesthetics. a. This commercial proposal would not enhance our town’s landscape advantage over other over-commercialized areas. Let us guard our town’s natural beauty and balance commercialism with preservation. b. Maintaining our community’s aesthetics is important, it serves to stimulate both the tourist and retail trades. Sensible planning is important, it serves to stimulate both the tourist and retail trades. Sensible “Good Place to Live”. planning ensures that Queensbury will continue to be a c. Let us be careReasons why we should not rezone the Aviation conscientious and not throw to the wind. Road 4.4 acre parcel: It is not in this community’s best interest to rezone this property Highway Commercial or Plaza Commercial because: 3. Rezoning of this parcel is not in accord with our current Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The intention of the original/current zone classification was to: 1) enable and afford some protection for the Glen Acres development. 2) Avoid further aggravation of the traffic situation along Aviation Road corridor, i.e. that portion between the Northway and Route 9. A. Rezoning this parcel HC would in effect degrade our CLUP’s integrity and intent. a. Property owners have rights, but so, too, does the community. Zoning this property as proposed ignores overall community interests. b. The inherent interests of the community, such as public safety, etc., may, and should, override the interests of the individual property owner. c. Rezoning as proposed upsets the comprehensive nature of CLUP’s, which were meant to ensure and assure maintenance of a community’s qualities and standards. d. Thoughtful planning allows for transition zones between residential areas and commercial zones. Transition zones create real protection for residential areas. A 100-foot buffer is not a transition zone. e. Unfortunately, we have examples of bad planning in our Town of Queensbury, let us not 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) suffer one more. Let’s be mindful that, once rezoned, a change is permanent. It is difficult to correct residential and commercial mistakes. Let us pursue and attain a well-planned community. f. A CLUP is a serious community instrument, which is used to ensure sensible future growth. Spot zoning should not be a capricious event. Zoning changes to the CLUP should only be achieved after a grave and hard inspection of the comprehensive effects that a change would have on the community and its future. B. Our town is on the verge of releasing to the public a new and updated CLUP. We, the citizens of Queensbury, have a right to assess the proposed CLUP. The Do not citizens have a duty to ensure that their town of the future is in everybody’s best interest. bypass the public’s right and opportunity to have input by placing a stamp of rezoning approval . Why don’t we form an “Advisory Committee”, made up of Glen Acres residents, Town Reasons why we should not rezone the Aviation officials, and the landowner’s representatives? Road 4.4 acre parcel: It is not in this community’s best interest to rezone this property Highway Commercial or Plaza Commercial because: 4. Other miscellaneous: A. Generally the town does not notify property owners of zoning changes, if the zoning changes occurred as a result of the implementation of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Furthermore, we can not find any evidence that this property was ever zoned commercial. The only records we found, with the help of town officials, show a change from MR 5 to SFR 10 in 1988. The record does state (Advisory “This area will be recommended to change to SFR 10 to Committee Meeting #41 7/11/88), protect the single family uses in this area.” B. This site is steep-sloped. Fill would have to be brought in to make a suitable grade for development. How would this impact the buffer zones, storm water runoff, etc.? What about damage done to buffer zones as a result of excavating construction? C. A rezoning would break the faith the community has that their government is representing their best interests. A rezoning would only confirm the community’s suspicion and realization that all too often special interest groups are given precedence over community interests. As one Planning Board member said, “It’s time we listened to the people”. D. IF a connector road is built from Aviation Road to Route 9 then the residents of Glen Acres would lose 50 feet of buffer and be left with a mere 25 foot buffer. E. There currently exists several other sites in Queensbury that would be suitable locations for this type of commercial enterprise. F. The people who live in the Glen Acres neighborhood are not millionaires, and for most their house is their primary asset. Locating a “too-intrusive” commercial enterprise here, jeopardizes the value of adjacent homes. G. The people of Queensbury want to make clear to the Cracker Barrel people that we hold no animosity towards your restaurant/shop. We welcome you. However, this location is not the best location for you or us. H. There are just too many drawbacks, downsides, and negative results if this property is zoned Highway Commercial. Too many ifs, ands, or buts! SUMMARYReasons why we should not rezone the Aviation Road 4.4 acre parcel: It is not in this community’s best interest to rezone this property Highway Commercial or Plaza Commercial because: 1. The rezoning would enable a commercial enterprise to be located on this too intrusive 4.4-acre lot that would be upon the community and adjacent neighborhood. 2. not in accordComprehensive Land Use Plan. Rezoning of this parcel is with our current 3. Do not bypass We, the citizens of Queensbury, have a right/duty to assess the proposed CLUP. break the faith this opportunity with a Planning Board stamp of approval. 4. A rezoning would the community that this local governing body is representing their best interests. 5. Residents suffer hardships would degrading their quality of life, property values, serenity and security. 6. upsets Rezoning as proposed the comprehensive nature of CLUP’s, which were meant to ensure community’s qualities and standards and assure maintenance of a . 7. Aesthetics are important. Sensible planninga good place in which to live, visit ensures that Queensbury will continue to be and do businessTraffic flow, traffic safety and pedestrian safety . 8. along the Aviation Road severely hampered and made more dangerous corridor and adjoining neighborhood would be because of the combination of increased traffic and current road configurations. 9. Thoughtful planning allows for transition zones between residential areas and commercial zones. Transition A 100-foot buffer is not a transition zone. zones create real protection for residential areas. 10. we sayissues pertinent One might say that these are site plan issues, but these are to the rezoning 11. PLEASE VOTE NO TO RECOMMEND REZONING. issue. ” MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. I think it appropriate to ask Mr. Lemery to come back to the table, please. I have a question for you. You’ve heard the public input that we are going to have tonight, as far as I know. Have you picked out items there which you haven’t heard before which are new, that you need time to study? MR. LEMERY-The answer is, there are not a lot of new items, but there are a lot of mis- statements and untrue statements in here that relate to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the Town and other items, and we want time to have a thoughtful response. Trying to do some sort of off the cuff response tonight would not be in the best interests of our client. So, I’d ask that you table it, and you might want to, since we’re reading, Mr. Chairman, you might want to read the 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) traffic report into the record, so at least the residents here have an opportunity to at least hear the traffic report and think about that before the next meeting. MR. PALING-Well, there’s a lot of charts and graphs in that traffic, I’ve been through both traffic reports, and one is that thick, and the other is an Executive Summary, but it still has graphs, which would be rather difficult, but let me ask you another question. Would you be willing to tell us now what you’re going, you have a traffic study. Would you like to read that into the record tonight? I want to avoid this getting to be a real swap back and forth kind of a thing, and there’s no need to do that. If we can both present, you know, present your complete case, and then lets get on with it, and would you like to go ahead and read your, the report you submitted to us today? When you said traffic study, were you referring to your letter? MR. LEMERY-Right, yes, sir. MR. PALING-Okay. I’m sorry. I thought you meant the New York State traffic study. You’re talking your own. MR. LEMERY-I’m talking the traffic study we provided you. I don’t know if you want, since you’re reading what was provided today, whether you want to read that today. I don’t care if it’s read or not today. You may need some time to look it over. MR. PALING-Well, I looked it over. MR. LEMERY-I’m not prepared to proceed tonight. I am not prepared to proceed with this transaction. MR. PALING-All right. I would, however, like to have it read into the record. Okay. All right. Do you have that, Laura? MR. LEMERY-Sure. I’ll be glad to read it in to the record, Mr. Chairman. MR. PALING-All right. Go ahead. MR. LEMERY-This traffic report was prepared by Creighton Manning Engineering, Inc. They’re out of Delmar, NY. Their business is transportation and engineering consultants. This report was prepared at our request. It’s titled “Proposed Cracker Barrel Restaurant, Glens Falls, NY Site Location”. That’s what Cracker Barrel refers to it as a site location. It’s addressed to Mr. Anthony, Jeffrey Anthony of the LA Group, one of our consultants. “As agreed, we have evaluated the traffic impact of the proposed Cracker Barrel Restaurant on Aviation Road in the Proposed Development City of Glens Falls, New York. This letter summarizes our findings. The project consists of a 185 seat restaurant with attached gift shop/retail store. The overall building totals 9,600 square feet of which 4,000 square feet is kitchen, 2 to 3 thousand square feet is for the gift shop/retail store, and the remaining square footage is for the restaurant itself. The gift shop/retail store provides an area for restaurant patrons to browse while waiting to be seated at a table. According to Cracker Barrel officials, over 90 percent of the site traffic is restaurant related, and very few people visit the gift shop/retail store alone. The site is located within the northeast quadrant of the Aviation Road/Greenway North/Aviation Mall driveway intersection. A site plan was not available as of this writing. A discussion with a project representative indicates that access to the restaurant is proposed off of Greenway North. No driveway access is planned Existing Highway Conditions directly to Aviation Road. The Aviation Road/Greenway North/Aviation Mall driveway intersection is a signalized 4-way intersection. Aviation Road (State Route 254) is a five lane arterial that extends in a general east-west direction through the area. At the intersection, Aviation Road provides left turn lanes and two through lanes in each direction. The eastbound approach also has a right turn lane that is separated from the signal by a raised divisional island. Greenway North is a two-lane local road that serves a residential area bounded by the Northway, Route 9, and Aviation Road. Greenway North is on a 5 to 6 percent southbound upgrade and provides a single approach lane at the intersection. The northbound Mall driveway approach consists of an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Based on peak hour signal timing observations conducted on Saturday, February 8, 1997, the traffic signal operated under a 4-phase fully actuated cycle. Phase one permits eastbound and westbound through traffic while the Aviation Road left turns rest under a red arrow. Phase two is an eastbound protected phase and phase three is a westbound protected phase with a northbound Existing right turn overlap. Phase four allows all north-south traffic under permitted green. Traffic Volumes The turning movement volumes at the Aviation Road/Greenway North/Aviation Mall Driveway intersection were obtained from two sources - 1) the PM peak hour volumes were 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) obtained from turning movement counts conducted on Tuesday, November 25, 1997 from 4:00 to 6:00 PM, and 2) the Saturday peak hour volumes were obtained from 1992 count information conducted as part of the Aviation Road Corridor Study performed by Transportation Concepts. A comparison of the PM peak hour count data between 1992 and 1997 showed a close correlation between the two years. The PM peak hour volumes observed in 1992 were actually slightly higher than 1997 traffic volumes. Therefore the 1992 Saturday Peak hour volumes can be used to represent a realistic estimate of 1997 conditions (see Figure 1).” I might point out that between 1992 and 1997 the MacDonald’s two way access was closed off, which has resulted in a net Future Traffic Volumes decrease in the traffic. “ The NYSDOT recently completed a Design Report for improvements to Aviation Road over I-87 at the Northway Exit 19 (P.I.N. 1027.08). The Design Report contains PM peak hour design hour volumes for the estimated year of completion for the project which is 1998. The existing 1997 PM and Saturday peak hour volumes were increased by 17 percent based on the 1998 NYSDOT design hour volumes for Aviation Site Road. The resulting 1998 No-build turning movements are shown on the Figure 2. Generated Traffic Trip generation is the amount of traffic expected to travel to and from the site. The following Table summarizes the trip generation for the Proposed Cracker Barrel restaurant th based on rates contained in the February 1995 Update to Trip Generation, 5 Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE Land Use Code 832 (High Turnover (Sit- Down) Restaurant) was used. ITE data from six High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurants showed an average observed pass-by percentage of 40 percent. For this study, pass-by trips were assumed to be 20 percent of the total.” And then next to that is a trip generation summary, and we can make this report available if any residents would like to see it. We can make some copies for them, Mr. Chairman. “This table shows that the maximum trip generation for the site will be 91 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Comparable trip generation is expected during the Saturday peak. Separate trip generation for the retail store/gift shop portion of the project was not included because nearly all of the activity at the retail store/gift shop comes from the patrons of the Trip Distribution/Traffic Assignment restaurant. Any external trip generation will be nominal. The trip distribution percentages were developed by considering the proximity of the site to the Northway, Aviation Mall, and residential population centers. The majority of the site traffic (60 percent) is expected to travel to/from the west and the Northway, 30 percent will travel to and from points east, and 10 percent of the site traffic is expected to and from the Mall. Pass-by trips were assigned based on the predominant traffic flows on Aviation Road (see Figures 3 & 4). The site traffic was combined with the 1998 No-Build traffic volumes to produce 1998 Build traffic Analysis volumes with the restaurant constructed and fully operational (see Figure 5). The peak hour operating conditions were calculated using the latest version of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS). The HCS automates the procedures set forth in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. This analysis assumes all site traffic will access the Aviation Road/Greenway North/Aviation Mall driveway intersection via a new driveway onto Greenway North. The following conclusions are evident from this analysis: The intersection of Aviation Road and Greenway North currently operates at LOS B in the PM and Saturday peak hours. Minor signal timing changes will allow the intersection to continue to Other Considerations operate at LOS B during the 1998 No-Build and Build conditions. The NYSDOT project for improvements to Aviation Road over I-87 at the Northway Exit 19 (P.I.N. 1027.08) is slated for construction during 1998. The improvement will provide a five-lane cross section on the bridge along with intersection improvements at the ramps. Currently, westbound traffic on Aviation Road queues from the Exit 19 northbound ramps to the study area intersection at Greenway North. This was confirmed during the field reconnaissance when the westbound traffic extended to the Greenway North intersection 10 times during the 2-hour count period. The NYSDOT project will provide ample capacity at Exit 19 and will eliminate the existing congestion Conclusion in the vicinity of Greenway North that is caused by the Exit 19 intersections. The peak hour trip generations of the proposed 185 seat Cracker Barrel Restaurant will be approximately 90 trips during both the PM and Saturday peak hours. The impact of these trips on the traffic operations of the Aviation Road/Greenway North/Aviation Mall driveway intersection will be negligible. Overall intersection LOS B will be provided through the completion of the restaurant project. No mitigation is necessary at the intersection. Access to the site should be provided via a full access driveway that intersects Greenway North and maximizes the distance between the site driveway and Aviation Road. The NYSDOT’s Exit 19 improvement project scheduled for construction during 1998, will eliminate the vehicular queues that currently extend from the interchange to the Greenway North intersection. Please advise if we can be of further assistance in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Creighton Manning Engineering, L.L.P. Mark A. Sargent Associate John M. Tozzi, P.E. Partner” MR. PALING-I’d like to ask you one specific question if I could, about the report. I had a chance to look at your report and compare it with the New York State, and for the most part the figures seemed to come out about the same, the ones I looked at, at least. The one I did kind of take a 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) second look at where the ’92 volume was slightly higher than the ’97 traffic volume on your page three. That was the only one that didn’t seem to kind of fit with whatever else I’d seen. Okay. All right. We’ve had both inputs now. Do you want to have more time to look, do you want to table it and have more time to consider this and then come back? MR. LEMERY-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-Okay. How much time would you like? When do you want to? MR. BREWER-Are we going to allow other input at the next meeting, or are we going to do it tonight? Now that we’re doing input. I mean, there’s got to be an end to it somewhere. MR. PALING-Well, we’ve got to end it somewhere, but by the same token, we don’t want to cut it off either. I would appeal to everyone here to realize that giving this repetitive stuff doesn’t accomplish that much. We’ve got the inputs. I think we understand them, and we’re trying our best to act on them in a fair way, but if you come back and load us up again with a whole bunch of stuff, to be fair, we go through it, but it’s not a good use of anyone’s time. So I’m asking you to please, if you’ve got something new, great, but if you haven’t, we have your record. So, I don’t want to cut anybody off, but by the same token, the site plan issues we’ve got to get away from them, and then the repetitive things, we’ve got to get away from that. We understand. Okay. I’ll comment no further. Any other questions by the Board at the moment? Okay. When would you want to reconvene? MR. LEMERY-We only need a few days. A week would be fine, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if you can do this between now and the holidays. MR. PALING-We’re trying to stay away from Christmas week, but I think we have time on the th 16, don’t we? We don’t have a heavy night. MR. RINGER-We’ve got eight items I think. MR. PALING-We do have eight items? MR. RINGER-And we’ve got Lowe’s also that night. MR. PALING-No, not with, Lowe’s will take quite a while. All right. Laura, what do you have th for an input on this? Anything where, the 16 is out. MR. RUEL-How about the week before? th MR. PALING-Well, the week before is the week we’re in. It would appear that the 16 is too ththth crowded. I hope we don’t touch the 17. I could do it the 18. The 18 is a Thursday night. MRS. LABOMBARD-I won’t be here. MR. PALING-You won’t be here. MR. LEMERY-I’m unavailable that night. th MR. BREWER-How about the 17? th MR. PALING-I can’t be here the 17. MS. NOWICKI-Bob, is there additional information that Do you want to have more time to look, do you want to table it and have more time to consider this and then come back? MR. LEMERY-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-Okay. How much time would you like? When do you want to? MR. BREWER-Are we going to allow other input at the next meeting, or are we going to do it tonight? Now that we’re doing input. I mean, there’s got to be an end to it somewhere. MR. PALING-Well, we’ve got to end it somewhere, but by the same token, we don’t want to cut it off either. I would appeal to everyone here to realize that giving this repetitive stuff doesn’t 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) accomplish that much. We’ve got the inputs. I think we understand them, and we’re trying our best to act on them in a fair way, but if you come back and load us up again with a whole bunch of stuff, to be fair, we go through it, but it’s not a good use of anyone’s time. So I’m asking you to please, if you’ve got something new, great, but if you haven’t, we have your record. So, I don’t want to cut anybody off, but by the same token, the site plan issues we’ve got to get away from them, and then the repetitive things, we’ve got to get away from that. We understand. Okay. I’ll comment no further. Any other questions by the Board at the moment? Okay. When would you want to reconvene? MR. LEMERY-We only need a few days. A week would be fine, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if you can do this between now and the holidays. MR. PALING-We’re trying to stay away from Christmas week, but I think we have time on the th 16, don’t we? We don’t have a heavy night. MR. RINGER-We’ve got eight items I think. MR. PALING-We do have eight items? MR. RINGER-And we’ve got Lowe’s also that night. MR. PALING-No, not with, Lowe’s will take quite a while. All right. Laura, what do you have th for an input on this? Anything where, the 16 is out. MR. RUEL-How about the week before? th MR. PALING-Well, the week before is the week we’re in. It would appear that the 16 is too ththth crowded. I hope we don’t touch the 17. I could do it the 18. The 18 is a Thursday night. MRS. LABOMBARD-I won’t be here. MR. PALING-You won’t be here. MR. LEMERY-I’m unavailable that night. th MR. BREWER-How about the 17? th MR. PALING-I can’t be here the 17. MS. NOWICKI-Bob, is there additional information that you need as well? MR. PALING-From my standpoint, I do not need any additional information. I think we have sufficient. MS. NOWICKI-Is that agreed with the rest of the members as well? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I have some problems. If there are, indeed, some inaccuracies in here that are slanted, I’d like to make sure that we get the, you know, the discrepancies cleared away, and I also have a problem here with, it sounds like it’s coming from the citizens of Queensbury. Well, there are, you know, 30,000 citizens of Queensbury, and whatever the population is, but I think that that has to be made clear, too. MR. BREWER-What’s that, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, right there, I forgot what page it was on, but I caught it. In other words, it says, it makes it sound as if like the citizens of Queensbury have written us. Now, citizens of Queensbury have written us, but the citizens, when you put a “the” in front of it, it makes it sound like it’s the entire population of the Town that has put this forward, and that’s something that I think that should be. I don’t have all the information. Now that this has been presented to me, and if indeed there are some inaccuracies in here, then I would like to have Mr. Lemery bring those to our attention. MR. PALING-All right. Well, that’s what he will do in the time between here and the next meeting. All right. Craig, any comment? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-I need a response from the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. Larry? MR. RINGER-I’m set. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim? MR. BREWER-I don’t have any questions. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we’ve just got to select another date, and I think December’s out. We’re going to have to move into January, and the first Planning Board meeting in January is on th the 20. Now, is this satisfactory with you, or would you rather? MR. BREWER-I’d just as soon get it over with. MR. PALING-I would, too. MR. BREWER-Lets try it next Tuesday. th MR. PALING-Tuesday, what, the 30 you’re talking about? th MR. BREWER-No, next week, the 16. There’s not that much stuff on. There’s eight items, but the Newman thing is two of the items, one of the subdivisions, preliminary’s at final. MR. PALING-Well, predicting those things, I think, is tough. I think we’d all like to see it that way, but sometimes it just doesn’t happen. I think we’re running a risk to having it Tuesday. rd MR. BREWER-Do it the 23? rdrd MR. RINGER-We didn’t want to have a meeting on the 23, but we have the 23. MR. MAC EWAN-Instead of maybe trying to come up with a date tonight, why don’t you just get together with Staff and come up with a date that may be appropriate, and make sure that the residents are notified and make sure that the applicant’s notified. MR. PALING-All right. Now what form does this notice have to take? Can we do it newspaper only, or have we got to mail? MS. NOWICKI-It depends on your date that you choose, because a certain amount of time has to be recognized before a public hearing can be announced. MR. ROUND-There’s like a three or four day lead time you need in order to publish something in the paper, and then it’s how much courtesy you want to extend to the public, how many days in advance of the meeting you want. There’s no public hearing requirement, as we discussed last time. It’s all at your discretion. MR. PALING-All right, and this can be a newspaper notice, because we’re going to fight back and forth on this date here tonight and never get anywhere. I think we can safely say we can’t hold it in December. There seems to be too much conflict, especially with the holidays coming. Then we will, can we table this and leave it that we’re going to select a date in early January? How’s that? th Any problem with that anybody on the Board? How about the week of January 5? Is there any dates you can’t be available? Everything okay? MR. BREWER-The week of the fifth? The ninth. MR. PALING-You can’t be available the ninth. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-I think whatever you do, it’s important that we make this on an agenda all by itself. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) th MR. PALING-Yes. How about January 13, a Tuesday night? Everybody okay with that? MR. RUEL-It’s okay by me. MR. PALING-All right. MR. STROUGH-Can I just ask Mr. Lemery one question? MR. PALING-Wait a minute. About his presentation? No, absolutely not. We’re not going to get into that. DONNA HARRIS MRS. HARRIS-We started to gather signatures on our petition only a week ago. Does this allow us to continue getting signatures that don’t already exist on this petition that Mr. Lemery has (lost words). th MR. PALING-Well, that’s plenty of time. If we go into January 13, that’s plenty of time. MRS. HARRIS-(Lost words) signatures, given that we have now more time. MR. PALING-I don’t see anything wrong with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, do you know how maybe we can help everyone out here in this room? If th you, what’s the date we’re looking for, the 5? th MR. PALING-The 13 of January. MR. MAC EWAN-If you set a day that anybody who has any additional information with this application, put a deadline date on it. Nothing else will be considered after that date. MR. PALING-Good suggestion. Can we make that part of the public notice? MS. NOWICKI-I can try. MR. PALING-All right. Lets make it part of the public notice, and I think everyone would agree to the practicality of Craig’s suggestion. That we just can’t let this thing go on forever and ever. th So, tentatively, we’re saying January 13, seven o’clock here, okay. MS. NOWICKI-And when are you suggesting that public comment stop coming in? MR. BREWER-The fifth. thth MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s any additional Staff notes that we would get for the 13, the 13 is a Tuesday. We could have it the previous Friday, which would be, what? MR. PALING-The ninth. MR. MAC EWAN-The ninth. So make any submittals that anybody wants to get there no later th than say the 8. th MR. PALING-Well, how about the 5? Because that gives them time to get them to us for review, th which is much better than sitting here, that same night of reception. So lets make it the 5. That’s th the cut off date for public input, January 5. MR. MAC EWAN-All input or public input? MR. PALING-That is the cut off for, well, all input, okay. You can meet this date? MR. LEMERY-Sure, no problem. MR. PALING-Okay. It’s agreed then that the cut off for all input is at the close of the business th day on January 5. Anything received after that will not be part of this hearing. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. LEMERY-I’m assuming, Mr. Chairman, that that then will be a continuation of the public hearing, and we get a chance to respond to these comments and anybody has any questions about the traffic reports and those kinds of issues will be addressed at the meeting. MR. PALING-Yes. That’s the way I look at it, yes. All right. We agree on that, then, that what th we’re going to do is we will allow public input through the close of the business day on January 5, th that we’ll have another meeting here, hopefully it will be right here, on the 13 of January at seven o’clock, and we will make that the only item on the agenda. We should be fine because we’ve got other meeting dates. So it’ll be the only item on the agenda, and then there will be, understand, there will be no additional input that night, except for what the candidate will present to us. I think I’m saying that right. I’m sorry, the candidate, the applicant. The public hearing is still open. NICK CAIMANO MR. CAIMANO-You cannot, they can have comments all the way up until the time you close the public hearing. MR. BREWER-That’s right. th MR. PALING-Then we’re going to close it January 5. MR. CAIMANO-They can make a comment up until the time you close it. MR. PALING-That’s right. MR. BREWER-Then that means we’ve got to have a meeting to close it. MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to anybody coming in to the next meeting and saying whatever they have to say again. I mean, we don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know about your constitution, but we’re okay with it. So we have no problem. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, it’s not a matter of constitution. MR. LEMERY-In terms of time frame, but everybody ought to have a right to say what they have to say about it, as far as we’re concerned. MR. PALING-Well, I hope they would also listen to the plea of site plan items and repetitiveness. MR. LEMERY-It’s not a site plan issue, and it’s not currently a buffer zone. MR. PALING-All right. Then the final irrevocable not to be changed set of rules is that we will th have a meeting on January 13 at seven o’clock. The public notice will go out. We’ll have the public hearing comment will be extended into that meeting, you say what you want, but again we plea with you, and we may say, hey wait a minute, if you do it again to us, lets be practical. th MR. RUEL-And December 5 is the cut off. MR. PALING-And December. MR. RUEL-January. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, we can’t do that now. th MR. PALING-The only date we’re looking at is Tuesday, January 13 at seven o’clock in the evening. MR. BREWER-Well, I think we can do that, Nick. I think we can receive written comment until the fifth, if we want, if we include that in our motion. We do it all the time. MR. CAIMANO-You opened the public hearing, though, and you’d have to close that public hearing. MR. PALING-Sir, I know we asked you, but you’re going to have to come to the microphone and I think what, please identify yourself for the record. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/9/97) MR. CAIMANO-Nick Caimano, Queensbury resident. You opened the public hearing. Until you close the public hearing, the comments are allowed. Are they not, John? MR. PALING-And this is what we’re doing. MR. CAIMANO-That’s right. MR. PALING-All right. Lets let it be. The public comment will be allowed into and through the th meeting on the 13. Okay. th AUDIENCE MEMBER-Are you still requiring submission of new information by the 5? MR. PALING-No. That’s out. MR. BREWER-That was what my point was, but, Bob, if you’re leaving the public hearing open, th they can comment. They can submit new information right up until the 13. MR. PALING-That’s right. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then we can just turn around and do this again. MR. PALING-That’s right. MR. LEMERY-Yes, that’s entirely possible, depending on what shows up. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. MR. PALING-That’s right. MR. BREWER-Why don’t we make a motion tonight? MR. PALING-Well, that’s where we’re headed. Okay. All right. We need a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P1-97 CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig Mac Ewan: th To the date January 13, whereby we will leave open the public comment until that evening. th Duly adopted this 9 day of December, 1997, by the following vote: MR. PALING-Chris, now, there’s no notice required if we do it this way? MR. ROUND-There’s no notice required whatsoever. Your considering, it’s not a public hearing requirement. You’re making a recommendation to the Town Board, and so there’s no, it’s all at your discretion. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you all. We’ll see you. Have a Merry Christmas. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman 21