Loading...
1997-11-25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL LARRY RINGER TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MAC EWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -JOHN GORALSKI PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 50-97 TYPE: UNLISTED DEBORAH M. SKINNER OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: WESTERN SIDE OF CLEVERDALE RD. OPPOSITE LAKESIDE CHAPEL PROPOSAL IS TO EXTEND KITCHEN 3’ X 13’9”. ANY EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 71-1997 TAX MAP NO. 14-1-7.2 LOT SIZE: .33 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-97, Deborah M. Skinner, Meeting Date: November 25, 1997 “The applicant proposes to construct an addition to their home. An expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires site plan approval. The addition would be used for kitchen appliances. The agent has indicated that the addition would extend to the current roof line by three feet. The drip edge that exists now will be moved with the new roof line and stoned accordingly for drainage. The existing roof line is eight feet in height and the new roof line edge will be at seven feet in height. There will be no windows and no entrance to the addition. Area Variance No. 71-1997 th was granted on Nov. 19 for relief from the side setback requirements of Section 179-16. Staff recommends that the resolution indicate that the addition be consistent with the rest of the house.” MR. PALING-Okay. Is the applicant here? Please come up and identify yourself. MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, agent for Mrs. Skinner. MR. PALING-Okay. Did you know about the last comment in the Staff comments regarding the addition be consistent with the architecture of the rest of the house? MR. MATTHEWS-I don’t see why it wouldn’t be. MR. PALING-Okay. How will that be accomplished? MR. MATTHEWS-The same siding, the same trim, the same color on the paint. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-There are no existing plantings that have to be moved. MR. STARK-Why would that be a comment in this? That like when people put on second story additions and this and that, it never came up before. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. PALING-It may be more obvious in their plans, George. This one just, I don’t think we know what it’s going to look like except for the little blue drawing on the side. MR. STARK-These people have added on before and you’ve seen the prints. MR. PALING-Lets ask Laura. Laura, the question is, why was the comment made regarding making this consistent with the rest of the house, the architecture of the house? MS. NOWICKI-Because there was no visual reference of the actual building. He just drew lines on the pictures. So it was just a comment. It’s more of a comment to the architect. It’s not something you have to include in your resolution. Because of the last time, the Board indicated that they didn’t like that wording. So I will change that in the future, for consistency. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Comments, questions? Okay. Lets open the public hearing on this, then. The public hearing on the Deborah Skinner application is open. Does anyone care to talk about it? Pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II? We don’t need a SEQRA on this. MR. STARK-No. MS. NOWICKI-You need a Short. MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. We were just talking about that. That’s actually a mistake. It’s really an Unlisted Action. It’s not Type II. You need a Short Form. MR. PALING-A Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 50-97 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DEBORAH M. SKINNER , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Now we need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-97 DEBORAH M. SKINNER , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 51-97 TYPE: UNLISTED MYRON RAPAPORT OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION TO LIVING ROOM AND ADDITION TO EXISTING DECK. PER SECTION 179-79 ANY EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 865, VAR. 915, VAR. 1046, AV 55-1991, SP 47-91, AV 63-1997 TAX MAP NO. 5-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.4 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-97, Myron Rapaport, Meeting Date: November 25, 1997 “The Planning Board requested to hear this application in November so the applicant’s variance would be heard previous to the Planning Board meeting. Area Variance No. 63-1997 was granted th on Nov. 12 with the condition that the addition to the deck would not be constructed. The applicant proposes an addition to the living room. An expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires site plan review. The expansion may cause a visual interference with neighbors to either side of the proposed project. The proposed expansion would decrease the buffer, from building to shore, to about forty five feet (fifty foot setback is required). No vegetation within the thirty five foot buffer will be removed to complete this project. The applicant has applied and received approval for the following - Site Plan No. 47-91 to construct a 13.6 x 24 foot bedroom on the south side. The applicant has applied for the following variances and received approval for: Var. 915, 6/20/84 to place two additions to the dwelling less than the required setbacks from the lake shore off Route 9L on Lake George; Var. No. 1046, 12/18/85 to construct an addition to the dwelling with a 45 foot setback from the lake shore in lieu of the required 75 foot setback from Lake Shore Residential 1 Acre; Var. No. 55-1991, 10/16/91 to construct a 13 foot x 24.6 foot bedroom, relief requested for a 55 foot setback in lieu of the required 75 foot setback and 50% expansion.” MS. NOWICKI-I’m amending my first sentence in the second paragraph. I talked with the agent. The expansion will not cause any visual interference with the neighbors to either side of the proposed project. MR. PALING-Okay. We’ve got the ZBA. Is there anything else? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MS. NOWICKI-I don’t have anything else. MR. PALING-No. So that’s all there is. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. CUSHING-Yes. Mr. Chairman, Paul Cushing, Architect. I’m the agent for the owner, Myron Rapaport. MR. PALING-Okay, and had you seen the Staff notes, Paul? MR. CUSHING-Yes, I had. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments? MR. CUSHING-They’re fine. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions of the Board? MR. RUEL-Would you consider the statement that there be no addition to the existing deck part of the motion? MR. BREWER-Well, that’s part of the Zoning Board variance, isn’t it? MR. PALING-Yes, that’s part of the Zoning Board variance. MR. BREWER-So he can’t do that anyway. MR. PALING-And you’re not in for a deck now anyway. MR. CUSHING-No, sir. MR. PALING-You’re in for the other three items. MR. RUEL-It’s just that it’s shown on the plan, that’s all. MR. CUSHING-That’s correct, and it was recommended to me not to change the drawing because everybody had had it previously, and it would be less confusing to explain it at this point, as a result of the variance hearing. MR. PALING-But it is part of ZBA variance. So we’re protected in that regard. MR. RUEL-Even if it’s on the plan? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Well, it’s a good point that you’re making, that it’s on the plan. MR. PALING-Our lawyer says we’re protected. MR. FRIEDLAND-Well, you’re protected. If you don’t feel comfortable with it, you can certainly ask for a revised plan, or you can just make it clear in your resolution. MR. PALING-So if we want to put it in the resolution, okay. MR. FRIEDLAND-Right. MR. PALING-But lets not ask for a revised plan. MR. RUEL-No, no. I just want to put it in the motion. MR. PALING-All right. MR. BREWER-If a building inspector goes up and sees it on the plan and he starts building it, I’m not saying that he would or wouldn’t. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. RUEL-Lets put it in the motion and we’re covered. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments or questions? Then we’ll open the public hearing on the Myron Rapaport addition. Is there anyone here that would care to talk about this matter? Pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is Unlisted. Short Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 51-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MYRON RAPAPORT , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. We can go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-97 MYRON RAPAPORT , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) For an addition to a living room, with the condition that the addition to the existing deck not be built. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. CUSHING-Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. SITE PLAN NO. 52-97 TYPE II MR. & MRS. SAM LIGHTBODY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 13 TUSCARORA DRIVE, CLEVERDALE PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD SECOND STORY ADDITION CONSISTING OF 2 BEDROOMS AND 1 BATHROOM. ANY EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 72-1997 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.15 LOT SIZE: .052 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 52-97, Mr. & Mrs. Sam Lightbody, Meeting Date: November 25, 1997 “Applicant proposes to construct an addition to their home. An expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requires a site plan review. The use of the addition will be for th two bedrooms and a bathroom. Area Variance No. 72-1997 was granted on Nov. 19 for relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of Section 179-16 and Expansion of nonconforming structure requirements of Section 179-79. The proposed addition appears to be consistent with the other homes in the area. The resolution should indicate that the proposed addition is consistent with the architectural drawings.” MS. NOWICKI-And I’ll amend my last statement, and not read it. MR. PALING-Okay. So you want to just cross that out. Okay. Is there someone here representing the applicant? Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. MASON-Bill Mason. I’m the contractor, owner’s agent. MR. PALING-Right. Two bedrooms going in? MR. MASON-Yes. MR. PALING-How is the septic system? MR. MASON-The septic system is a, I believe, a 750 gallon metal tank with an orange berg drain field. I’m guess, it’s 1960’s vintage. MR. PALING-How many bedrooms now? MR. MASON-There are two now. MR. PALING-Two going to four. MR. MASON-Well, not really. It’s two, one of them downstairs is going to, one of the bedrooms becomes the stairwell to give the access to the upstairs, and the other bedroom downstairs becomes a den. MR. PALING-Okay. Then you’re going from two to three. Did you check, Laura, did you people consider the addition of the bedroom regarding the septic system? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MS. NOWICKI-When he gets his building permit, they will discuss it then, as far as I know. That’s a condition of his building permit. They will determine if his septic system needs to be upgraded. MR. PALING-Yes. Three bedrooms, 750 gallons. I don’t know. MR. RUEL-Well, somebody should check it, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-Bob, they’re not increasing the number of bedrooms. MR. PALING-Yes, they are. MR. STARK-No, he didn’t say that. You didn’t listen to him. MR. PALING-He said from two to three. MR. MASON-No. The bedrooms downstairs, one becomes a stairwell, and the other becomes a den. It’s the same family. MR. PALING-I said two becomes three, and you said yes. MR. MASON-Well, I thought that you were, I mean, the den is also, there will be a sleeping couch in there, but it really is still a two bedroom home. It’s a small two bedroom home. MR. PALING-I stand corrected. There is, okay, two bedrooms. Then just erase the conversation. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s predicated on him getting a building permit, that Building and Codes checks the septic system to make sure it’s adequate for his proposed addition, and if it isn’t, he’s not going to get a building permit, nor is he going to get a CO. MR. PALING-Well, we check them, too, but, no, he’s fine as far as I’m concerned. MR. RUEL-I have this. I can’t find it. MR. MASON-On that map? It’s right in the center. MR. RUEL-In the center? The one with the dimensions around it? This one here. I see. What’s this? MR. MASON-That’s the drainage field. This is from a map that shows the proposed area. MR. RUEL-But you don’t know whether it’s there or not? MR. MASON-The tank is there. The drain field is somewhere in here. MR. RUEL-Somewhere in that area. All right. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments, questions? Okay. Lets open the public hearing on the Mr. & Mrs. Sam Lightbody application. Is anyone here to talk on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Again, we need a Short Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 52-97 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MR. & MRS. SAM LIGHTBODY , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. We need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-1997 MR. & MRS. SAM LIGHTBODY , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To build second story addition consisting of two bedrooms and one bathroom. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. MASON-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CRAYFORD & HIGGS OWNER: STANLEY E. RYMKEWICZ, JR. ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE RD. & CO. 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 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-1997 Preliminary Stage, Crayford & Higgs, Meeting Date: November 25, 1997 “The applicant proposes to subdivide 74.89 acres into 12 lots. The applicant received Sketch Plan review on August 19, 1997. The Planning Board generally approved and endorsed a 14 lot subdivision with comments in regards to shared driveways on County Line Road. The applicant has included shared driveways on County Line Road and has reduced the amount of lots from 14 to 12. The applicant submitted a sketch plan drawing and application for the August 19, 1997 meeting. The current submittal includes a short environmental assessment form, a preliminary subdivision plat drawing, and a lot detail drawing. The application is missing a grading plan, or clearing plan. The agent has indicated that a grading plan may not be needed since the grade is at 10%. The agent has indicated that no clearing is anticipated. Staff is awaiting information regarding percolation tests. The wetlands are regulated by Army Corps of Engineers, the Town of Queensbury enforces the DEC wetlands code. The application was sent to Rist Frost engineers for review and comment.” MS. NOWICKI-And I have Rist-Frost comments. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you read those, please. MS. NOWICKI-“We have reviewed the documents forwarded to us by your office for this application. We also received supplemental perc tests and a drainage report on November 24, 1997. 1. We have no objection to the requested waivers. 2. The water and sewer systems proposed are subject to approval of the New York State Department of Health (Short Environmental Assessment Form should be revised). 3. We recommend that notes be added to the plans requiring lot grading conforming to Section A183-25 of the Town Subdivision Regulations. Please call if you have any questions.” MR. PALING-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-Would you like me to list the waivers that the applicant has requested? MR. PALING-Yes. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. The applicant has requested the following waivers, “Section A183-9.A requires the preliminary plat to be prepared at a scale of 1” = 50’. Due to the size of the parcel being subdivided, the size of the proposed lots, and the fact that no new Town roads or facilities are being proposed, we believe that the use of a scale 1” = 100’ is adequate and allows the plan to fit on a single sheet. Section A183-9.A(1) requires that existing contours (at 2’ contour interval) be shown on the entire site. Since the proposed lots are very deep and the rear portion of the lots can not be utilized for development due to steep slopes and existing wetlands, we have shown existing contours only on the portion of the lots which can reasonably be developed.” MR. PALING-Does anyone on the Board have any problem with that, accepting those? MR. RUEL-Will you also need, still need the grading plan and clearing plan or not? MS. NOWICKI-Not a grading plan. He needs to write the notes on the grading plan that he’s going to do for final approval. I talked with the agent, and he’s indicated he’ll make those notes when we come in for Final approval. Because all they are is notes. They’re not a new grading plan or anything. MR. PALING-All right, but on Tom Nace’s letter, there’s no objection to dropping the two requests he has there. Okay. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. Another comment, the agent has filled out a Long EAF, which I submitted to you. MR. PALING-Is it required in this case? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-In this case it is, okay. Was I supposed to have had a Rist-Frost letter? Okay. It isn’t in my packet. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. RUEL-Here it is. It came today. MR. STARK-Yes. It’s right here. MS. NOWICKI-I just passed it out this evening. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you like to update us on what it was and what it is now, the changes from 14 to 12 and all? MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, my name is Tom Nace. I’m not listed on your form as authorized applicant, or agent for the applicant, but the applicant and the owner are here tonight. So, Van Dusen and Steves were listed as the agent. What we have done is reduced the number of lots primarily down on County Line Road. We now have four lots, four new development lots. This, even though it’s a 12 lot subdivision, there is one lot, number three, which has an existing house on it, which will be used as a single lot. There are two parcels, one on the west side of Chestnut Ridge and one over on the southeast corner of the property, that will be retained by the present owner, and then actually nine lots that will be developed as new houses eventually. At any rate, over on County Line Road, we have finally gotten the wetlands flagged by Singer Roberts and located, and that has sort of dictated where the lots can go and how big the lots have to be in there. So we’ve ended up with five lots on County Line Road, and we will share entrances because it’s a collector road. We will share entrances, or share driveways, on these two and on these two, and this one is 300 which is the double frontage. MR. RUEL-How about driveways on Chestnut Ridge? They’re not shown. MR. NACE-Chestnut Ridge is not a collector street. So each lot would have its own driveway. With the grading plan, you know, how the lots are graded will depend upon where people put the house and how big of a house or what shape of a house they put. So we will simply stipulate on the plans as Rist-Frost suggests, what the Town regulations are and that they have to comply with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, the note you have on Lot 3, where it says other wetlands in this area not mapped. I’m assuming that the back portion of that? MR. NACE-That’s in behind here, yes. It’s not, I’d say this slope comes down and flattens out down about in here somewhere, and from there down it’s wetland. So it’s not this whole piece back here, but simply areas in that. MR. MAC EWAN-How much of the top portion of that lot could potentially be developed? MR. NACE-This? MR. MAC EWAN-Could that ever come back in for another subdivision (lost words)? MR. NACE-Probably not because of the frontage? The developer could probably speak to what his plans are for the lot, but I don’t believe they include any future subdivision, do they? DAVID HIGGS MR. HIGGS-No, they don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Any more questions, comments? Okay. If not, then lets go and open the public hearing on the Crayford and Higgs Preliminary Stage application. Is there anyone here to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HELEN RANDOLPH MRS. RANDOLPH-Hi. I’m Helen Randolph, and we live at 251 Chestnut Ridge Road, and this is my husband Clarence Randolph, and we were out walking the other day and just happened to notice the sign in front of the barn on Chestnut Ridge Road that there was going to be a public hearing, and I called some of my neighbors, and they were all kind of concerned about the 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) scheduling of this hearing because it is so close to the Thanksgiving holiday. Many would have liked to have come, but weren’t able to because they’re either traveling with their family or whatever for the holiday. MR. PALING-Okay. They received notice? MRS. RANDOLPH-A few did, yes. I don’t know how many. I know Barbara Carlson said she had received notice, but her husband is very ill at this time and I don’t know, you know. MR. BREWER-Don’t we have to get receipts, or do we have them? MR. STARK-They only have to notice 500 feet from the property. MRS. RANDOLPH-Yes, but I think that we’re all concerned. We have some concerns about what’s going to happen here. First of all, if the developer could tell us about what kind of residence he’s proposing for these lots. Most of them are going to be on Chestnut Ridge Road. He, I hope, is not thinking of townhouses, condominium clusters. MR. PALING-I should have told you initially, please direct your questions to the Board, and then we’ll get them answered for you. Okay. MRS. RANDOLPH-This it the first time I’ve ever been to a Planning Board, okay. MR. PALING-I should have said it earlier. MRS. RANDOLPH-Okay. That is the question that I have. The type of residence that is being planned for the lots on Chestnut Ridge, and of course on County Line Road, too, but being from Chestnut Ridge, I guess I’m more concerned with that. Second concern is, on Chestnut Ridge Road, there are many old walls, stone walls that were built in the 1800’s by Reverend Peter Brown, and if we do have increased traffic up there and eventually have to have that road widened, we’re concerned about the endangering of these walls that do have a historical significance. CLARENCE RANDOLPH MR. RANDOLPH-Also those walls, what you see on Chestnut Ridge, may run down in through the field, because when they were, when he was collecting his rocks, he used some to set off the fields down in the property. So they don’t necessarily run up along the road. They run back down in the fields. MRS. RANDOLPH-The other thing, too, is being that I am a retired school teacher, and I always think of, if we’re going to have maybe nine new families on Chestnut Ridge Road, and say each family has two children, we’re putting 18 new students in the Queensbury school district, and, you know, that’s a consideration there, too. There is some wildlife up there that has to be taken into consideration. There’s deer. There are wild turkey. There are some rare bird species up there, such as Indigo Bunting, and having seen what happened further down on Chestnut Ridge Road this fall with a new house that was put up and trees taken down, total deforestation, actually, we do have some concerns about what’s going to happen to the wildlife up there, and I guess that ends my list at this point. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else that cares to comment? Okay. If not, then the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. My notes say four comments. Would you care to comment and I’ll just kind of, okay? MR. NACE-Sure. The first comment would be, just for the record, there are only four lots, new building lots, proposed on Chestnut Ridge Road. Five lots are on County Line Road. Then, lets see, I guess I’ll let Mike Crayford with me speak to the type of houses that he would anticipate or envision in the development. MR. HIGGS-Surprise, I’m not Mike Crayford. MR. NACE-I’m sorry. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. HIGGS-I’m David Higgs. We don’t have a proposal for particular buildings on these lots. These are residential building lots. We presume that, with the price that will be asked for those lots with consistent with the price of lots along Chestnut Ridge Road. Anyone who’s buying them is going to want a substantial house, upscale building, but we don’t have models or anything like that that we’re proposing. We will offer the lots for sale and the negotiate with whoever the perspective purchaser is as to what to build. MR. PALING-There’s little the Board can say beyond that, but all of these are subject to site plan review, also. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. BREWER-No. We don’t review a house. MR. PALING-No, I’m not saying about the house, but I’m saying these are, the site plan review will come. MR. BREWER-No, it won’t. It’s a subdivision. That’s it. MR. NACE-Okay. Maybe to clarify, the question had come up about cluster or multifamily housing. If that were to ever occur, then there would be a site plan. MR. PALING-That’s right, yes. MR. NACE-So any duplex or multifamily that might be permitted in this zone would require site plan. MR. PALING-There’s nothing we have to say about it. MR. RUEL-Just get a building permit. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HIGGS-We don’t anticipate anything that’s inconsistent with the zoning of the parcel. MR. PALING-Yes. We can’t do anything on that tonight. MR. RUEL-Or any other night. MR. MAC EWAN-If you did anything other than a single family residential, you would need to get a variance. MR. NACE-It’s SR-1A. I think that does, if I remember right, SR-1A, yes, and this is SR-1A, permits duplex, I believe, but it’s a site plan review for that use. It’s a permitted accessory use. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you this. Is there going to be anything like deed restrictions for minimum square footage? MR. HIGGS-We don’t anticipate any deed restrictions. MR. MAC EWAN-So someone could build a 1,000 square foot house and someone could build a 10,000 square foot house? MR. HIGGS-I would not expect someone to pay the kind of money they’re going to have to pay for a lot and build a 1,000 square foot house on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe someone would spend all the money on the lot and couldn’t afford to build a house and start out with a little one and want to add on. MR. HIGGS-There you go. MR. PALING-Okay. The second one I had is the stone walls and the historic significance, and related to road widening is the total question. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. NACE-Okay. For Sandford Ridge Road, or Chestnut Ridge Road, we’re proposing four new residents possibilities. That additional traffic would amount to four additional cars an hour, at peak. That’s certainly not going to trigger any road widening work by the Town. MR. PALING-How about the historic stone walls? They’ve asked for comment there. MR. NACE-It would depend upon, I presume most of those walls are probably on Town right-of- way. So other than putting a driveway through them, they wouldn’t be the property owner’s walls to do with anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t Chestnut Ridge Road a road by use? MR. NACE-I don’t believe so. If you’ll notice, the surveyor has actual meets and bounds on the right-of-way. I believe it’s a road by deed. MR. MAC EWAN-But some of the neighbors were discussing there were stone walls that went down within the development, not necessarily right along the edge. MR. NACE-There may be stone walls on the property, the extreme property lines here. I don’t recall, when we did the test pits out there, I don’t recall any stone walls actually through the property, but again, that would be something for the individual homeowners to. MR. HIGGS-That is correct. There are stone walls on the perimeter lines. MR. PALING-But are you saying most of them are on the right-of-way? MR. NACE-The ones along Chestnut Ridge, yes, they’re within. MR. PALING-But there are others that would go? MR. HIGGS-If there are any stone walls that go down into the property, they do so on the perimeter boundary lines. MR. PALING-Okay. Are stone walls protected in any way? MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, remember when we did the Cerrone up here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, right up here on Bay. MR. MAC EWAN-We put it into the subdivision, as a matter of fact, you were on that. We put it into the approval that the mature hedge rows were going to be preserved along with any stone walls, and I think it was like one stone wall. It was kind of the idea of (lost words). MR. PALING-Okay, but let me get my question answered first. What is, how do stone walls fit into our, what we can do? MR. FRIEDLAND-As far as I’m aware, they’re not protected at all. MRS. LABOMBARD-Craig just answered that, though. I mean, like we put it in. MR. PALING-Well, I wanted an answer to my question, which I received. Now we can act upon what Craig is saying, because if they were protected, it would be a different ball game. All right. Then we should consider that for inclusion in the resolution. MR. RUEL-What? MR. PALING-That stone walls. MR. RUEL-Be retained? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-How can we do that? MR. PALING-Well, the same way we’ve done it before. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. MAC EWAN-I just got through explaining, Roger, how we did it up on Bay Road. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know. MR. PALING-It’s not a requirement. We’ve established that, and whether it’s in the resolution is a matter for the Board to decide. MR. RUEL-The applicant seems to have some doubt as to the location of these walls. MR. NACE-No. The residents provided some picture for us to look at, and it’s really difficult from the pictures to try to tell, but I have been on the property. MR. RUEL-Do you know where the walls are? MR. NACE-The only walls I recall are along some of the frontage, along Chestnut Ridge Road. I haven’t been at the extreme property lines at the north or south boundaries of this parcel, but in between, I don’t know that there are any. MR. RUEL-If you don’t know where they are, how could you agree that you will maintain them? MR. NACE-I didn’t say we would maintain them. MR. PALING-Well, could we have further comment from the owners? Are there walls? MICHAEL CRAYFORD MR. CRAYFORD-Okay. My name is Michael Crayford. I’m the other half of the partnership here, and I have walked the property and I can show you on the map where the existing. Okay. Along Chestnut Ridge, there are stone walls that go from this property line here, up to where the existing old farmhouse is, and then beyond that there are no stone walls, until you get to this further property line, at which point the stone wall goes down into the woods here on the northernmost property line. There are some remnants of stone wall here, but beyond that, I didn’t go any further down in here. So the only stone walls that are impacting on the road is a short section that meets the old farmhouse here. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I take it that no one has actually seen any stone walls beyond what you’re pointing out? MR. CRAYFORD-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay, and those are primarily on the right-of-way? MR. CRAYFORD-I believe from what I’ve observed of the survey markers, they are somewhat into the right-of-way. Whether the stones are falling down to the right-of-way it’s hard to determine, but as far as I’m concerned, I’m going to be restoring the old farmhouse, and I would plan to maintain that wall, as far as aesthetics are concerned. MR. PALING-When you say “that wall”, you’re talking the one? MR. CRAYFORD-The one that’s existing now along the. MR. PALING-Right in the road. Yes. Okay. MR. CRAYFORD-Yes. Right now it’s completely buried with undergrowth and you can’t even see it hardly, except for now the leaves are off. MR. RUEL-How high is this wall? MR. CRAYFORD-It’s probably three to four feet high. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a real old section of the Town up there with a lot of, I don’t know how you want to label it, historical flavor to it. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. PALING-Okay. The load on the school I don’t think anyone can comment on that. With all the building we have going on, this wouldn’t be that much of effect on the Queensbury school system. Wildlife. I don’t know. There’s been nothing identified that’s critical that I know of. MR. NACE-No. We’ve contacted DEC and they have nothing mapped on the endangered species list that gets into this area. I would comment that these lots are all rather large and rather deep, and because of the topography and the site conditions, only the very frontage along the roads is really going to be developed as lawns and yards. There will still be plenty of area in the back for wildlife to survive. MR. PALING-Okay. Comments, questions? MR. RUEL-So does the applicant agree on the stone walls? MR. PALING-Okay. We’ve had the public hearing, and I think the type of houses has been identified as much as it can be, and the only thing we seem to be lingering on is the stone walls and what comment we might have there, where we don’t have direct any required jurisdiction over that. We can ask for the applicant, and maybe the thing to do would be to just repeat what you said, put in the resolution what you said, that you would preserve the wall along the border of your property. MR. HIGGS-We certainly don’t have any interest in taking down walls, and Michael intends to restore and live in the house, and wants to maintain that essentially in the form that it is now. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then we could say that nothing will be done to destroy it. It’ll be left in its present state, or improved. MR. NACE-I would say as much as practical, okay. Obviously, for these two lots on the south end of Chestnut Ridge frontage, we’re going to have to get driveways through those walls, okay. So as much as practical, we will agree to maintain the walls or improve if possible. MR. PALING-Okay, with the exception that there will be two driveways. MR. NACE-That is correct, two. MR. PALING-Two driveways. MR. HIGGS-To serve lots numbers one and two. MR. PALING-Lots one and two. Okay. We’ll go to the SEQRA now, but this is a Long Form that we need to do here. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-1997 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CRAYFORD & HIGGS , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Then we can go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1997 CRAYFORD & HIGGS , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For a 12 lot subdivision, with two conditions. One condition is to add to the plans that the lot grading shall conform to Section A183-25 of the Town’s Subdivision Regulations, and Condition Two, that the existing stone walls to be preserved, except for openings for two driveways on Lots One and Two. That the requested waivers are granted. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Tomorrow’s submission day. Is there any chance, I think we can get it in tomorrow, but in case we run into a snag, is there any chance that it could get in Friday for Final? MR. BREWER-Yes. I don’t see a problem, submission for next month. MR. NACE-For submission for next month. MR. PALING-Yes. Talk to Staff about that. MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. This is a discussion item. DISCUSSION ITEM: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1997 MICHAEL SUNDBERG OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 204 MEADOWBROOK RD. DISCUSSION CONCERNING PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. MIKE SUNDBERG, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled tonight. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. PALING-Okay. This is just for discussion only. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1997 Sketch Plan Discussion Only, Meeting Date: November 25, 1997 “Michael Sundberg’s Subdivision Application No. 7-1997 was before the Board on September 23, 1997. The Planning Board made a motion “to return application to the applicant because it is an incomplete and inaccurate application”. This resolution ended the review of the Subdivision No. 7-1997 application. The applicant was made aware that the original application was no longer being reviewed. The applicant submitted a sketch plan application on November 7, 1997. The applicant was notified that the application would be on the November 25, 1997 agenda. The applicant received Area Variance No. 51-1997 on 09/17/97 for two times the lot width for a residential lot on a collector/arterial road on parcel 46-2-9.7. The applicant’s purpose is to explain the proposed subdivision. The Planning Board purpose is to guide the applicant. The Board is to discuss the requirements of the subdivision regulations including items of drainage, sewage, water supply, grading, filling, utilities, etc. The Planning Board should make recommendations to the applicant in regards to what will be required for the next stages. The Board should also consider if the application meets the goals and objectives for Town Planning, (flag shape lots are undesirable). Staff would recommend that a new drawing be prepared for the next stages of application, considering the original drawing brought forth a lot of confusion with Staff and the Board. Staff has included a letter that was sent to Michael Sundberg in regards to his application.” MS. NOWICKI-Do you want me to read that letter? MR. PALING-This is from you. Yes, please. MS. NOWICKI-“When the Planning Board met on September 23, 1997 a motion was made “to return the application to the applicant because it is an incomplete and inaccurate application”. This resolution ended the review of the Subdivision No. 7-1997 application. It is my understanding that you spoke with John Goralski on November 6, 1997. We received your sketch plan application on November 7, 1997. Your sketch plan application with the drawing from your original application is on the Agenda for November 25, 1997. The Planning Board meeting beings at 7:00 pm. For building purposes tax parcel 46-2-9.7 must meet Town Zoning requirements. The proposed subdivision line that you have drawn meets the code. If subdivision approval is granted you will be creating a new tax parcel according to the County Tax Office. The portion located solely in the life estate will be billed separately and the portion in your property will be build separately. In the future of the property in life estate we would recommend that you coordinate with the Town of Queensbury before filing deeds. If you have any questions regarding your application please call the Town of Queensbury Community Development Department at 761- 8217.” MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all you have there. Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. I’m Mike Sundberg, the owner of the property. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUEL-What’s a life estate? MR. SUNDBERG-I bought the property from my grandparents. MS. NOWICKI-What happens is that whoever is the owner of the property, his mother or his father owned it, and it was granted life estate on that parcel, and his mother, on certain parcel, or a certain, his mother can grant him a portion of that parcel. Does that explain it? MR. FRIEDLAND-Let me try it. Trust and Estates wasn’t my strong point, but a life estate means that the property goes to somebody for that person’s life. When that person dies, it goes back to the first person, and then it goes on to somebody else. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-And there’s something that you should understand, everyone should understand. The life estate is simply a form of ownership. It has nothing to do with the Subdivision 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) Regulations. It has nothing to do with the Zoning Ordinance. It has nothing to do with why you’re here tonight. MR. PALING-Good for you. Glad to hear it. MR. STARK-Has the land been conveyed to Piper? MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. MR. STARK-He owns the land? MR. SUNDBERG-He owns that land. MR. STARK-All right. So it’s a two lot subdivision. MR. PALING-Okay. No question about that. MR. BREWER-What land of Piper? I wasn’t here the last time. MR. STARK-Do you see where Piper lives now? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. STARK-That land right behind him right there. MR. BREWER-That square right there? MR. STARK-Just about a square, yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-It’s 125 by 145. MR. BREWER-.42 acres. MR. STARK-Lot 24 it says, that’s Piper’s now, according to the applicant. MR. BREWER-I see. It was going to be a three lot subdivision, that was going to be a lot? MR. SUNDBERG-It was never going to be a three lot. MR. GORALSKI-No, that was simply a lot line. Well, you need to understand, there’s a lot going on. That was basically a lot line adjustment. They just moved the lot line. It didn’t create a new lot because Piper combined that with his existing lot. So therefore it’s not a subdivision. MR. PALING-Have you read the Staff comments that Laura had? MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. MR. PALING-And we might discuss the one about flag lots. You’ve really got a double mast on this one. Any reason for that? MR. SUNDBERG-The long edge there. MR. PALING-Well, why don’t you put your print like we’ve got up so we can all see it on there, and you’re going to have to take the mike with you. MR. MAC EWAN-While he’s doing that, can I ask Staff a question or two? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-This whole thing stemmed from a subdivision that was done through the County without Planning Board approval, right? Correct? The parcel that ended up with Jim Piper, can that be done without Planning Board approval? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. GORALSKI-As long as it’s combined with his existing lot, with Piper’s existing lot, then you’re not creating any new lots, and the resulting lots conform to the Zoning Ordinance. So it does not meet the definition of a subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that done, initially, by itself, then these other two lots were created after the fact, or were all three of them done at the same time? MR. GORALSKI-That I don’t know. MR. SUNDBERG-I can tell you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SUNDBERG-What happened is I did a two lot subdivision to create this lot, right here. From this big property here, I split off this acre parcel. At the same time, I knew I was going to sell this little piece to Turner and this piece to Piper. I wasn’t sure how much of it Piper was going to want. So what I did is I got my grandmother to give me a Quit Claim Deed to give me complete ownership of this whole section, rather than do three Quit Claim Deeds, one for this one, one for this one and one for this one, and I just drew a line straight across there, without realizing that the County was going to say, now this is a new lot because it’s separate ownership, but they created this tax map number, and it had the same shape as this, but it was only from this edge all the way up. So there’s this little tiny flag here. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you not realize when you created all this that it should have appeared before the Town Planning Board? MR. SUNDBERG-I had no intention of doing anything with this at the time. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter. You’re creating an illegal subdivision. MR. SUNDBERG-Well, I wasn’t. I didn’t know that was going to happen, and I didn’t worry about it until all of a sudden I got the assessment, that they’ve now assessed me this as a lot. So I could either go back and try to get that changed or I just figure I’ll go ahead and do this subdivision because eventually I’m going to want to anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-Have these lot changes that you made been filed with the County? MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-As deeds. MR. SUNDBERG-As deeds, yes. This has now got it’s own separate tax map number, different from this. Anyway, that’s why I wanted to do the subdivision now, even though I have no immediate plans to do anything with this. MR. PALING-What will you do with that strip adjacent to the Piper property? MR. SUNDBERG-That was just there to get the full acre. I mean, it has no real value. I didn’t want to add it on to the back of here because then it gets into my garden and into my blueberry bushes, from this lot, and I needed a full acre. I needed width. I already had the piece of property, if I were to do it this way and go out straight, then I’d still have this little tiny rectangle that would be a new tax map number. MR. PALING-We could perhaps limit the access of that so that the flag wouldn’t be of any significance then. MR. BREWER-I wouldn’t be anyway, Bob. You couldn’t do anything with it. MR. PALING-It’s too narrow. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. SUNDBERG-You can’t do anything with it. MR. STARK-Any comment from Piper or Ted? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. SUNDBERG-Piper spoke on my behalf at the zoning. Ted didn’t, but I talked to Ted. He doesn’t have any problem with it. I sold him this piece of property. That’s what he wanted. MR. STARK-What’s Flynn think? MR. SUNDBERG-Flynn was surprised to find out that they didn’t own, they thought they owned all the way out into here. They’re going to sell the thing anyway. That’s my understanding. MR. MAC EWAN-So actually what you’ve done is you’ve cut off a piece of property. Lot 24 you’ve deeded to Jim Piper, but a small portion behind Ted Turner’s lot you deeded to him. MR. SUNDBERG-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s two lots. MR. GORALSKI-No, those are not lots. MR. SUNDBERG-They don’t create any lots. MR. GORALSKI-It’s not a subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-See, this is the confusing part. MR. BREWER-It’s a lot line adjustment, Craig. MR. SUNDBERG-They just made Turner’s and Piper’s lots bigger. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Exactly. MR. SUNDBERG-They didn’t add any lots. MR. STARK-This seems okay, John. If he comes in next month, say, for the subdivision, we don’t need anything else from him, do we? MR. GORALSKI-Well, first of all, he needs a surveyor to properly draw a map that meets our subdivision requirements. That map does not. That’s a map that was drawn on, and used for different purposes. So he needs that. He needs to talk to you about waivers from two foot contours, grading plan, erosion control plan, location of dwellings, sewage disposal systems, those are all requirements of Preliminary. If that’s something that you don’t feel you need, then you can instruct him that you would intend to grant waivers from that at Preliminary, or I think you should tell him now that you may need some of those things. MR. PALING-Well, I think he’s got to do the surveyor thing. MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. PALING-That’s got to be a stamped print on that. MR. GORALSKI-Exactly. That’s got to be done. MR. PALING-And so the lot lines are clearly identified, and officially identified. Now the contour lines. MR. RUEL-Yes, two foot contours. MR. BREWER-Do you think we need them? We know it’s wet there. What do we need them for? MRS. LABOMBARD-I don’t think we need them. MR. STARK-There’d be one line on the whole property. It’s so (lost word) over there. I don’t think that’s necessary. MR. PALING-Yes, I agree that that’s not necessary. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. RUEL-How about the water table? The water table is pretty close to the surface. MR. SUNDBERG-It’s a very high water table. Yes. MR. BREWER-Lets put it this way, he probably doesn’t have to water his garden. MR. SUNDBERG-Actually, the garden dried up the summer before last. You don’t need to water it I the spring, that’s for sure. Now you couldn’t put a cellar in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to have the surveyor delineate the wetland boundaries? MR. SUNDBERG-It’s been done. MS. NOWICKI-It’s done. MR. GORALSKI-That should be shown on the Preliminary plat, yes. I believe it’s been done. MR. SUNDBERG-It’s been done. It’s on the drawing, along the top edge. MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re really looking for is an updated survey map to start off with. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-John, what shouldn’t we grant in a waiver? MR. SUNDBERG-I asked for a grading and an erosion control waiver, because it’s basically a flat lot. I’m not going to do any grading. MR. BREWER-At most he’s going to put up a house. MR. SUNDBERG-I’m going to put up a house. That’s right, and erosion control, I mean, there really isn’t anything to speak of. MR. PALING-Drainage, I think, should be included. MR. GORALSKI-Are you doing any filling to put in a driveway? Are you going to be doing any filling raise the house up when someone goes to locate a house there? MR. SUNDBERG-It would depend on what house you’re going to put in. MR. BREWER-How about we do this? We make a requirement that at any time when he wants to build that house there’s a requirement if there is fill brought in that he come in for site plan. Can we do that? MR. GORALSKI-Well, either that or you could put a requirement that erosion control measures in conformance to New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. MR. MAC EWAN-Put it right on the subdivision plat. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, put it right on the plat on that lot. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s doable. I’d like to see, since we’re going to do an update to the survey, I would like to see the delineation of the wetlands. MR. BREWER-It’s been done, right? MR. GORALSKI-That’ll be on there. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but this has got to be updated so that it’ll be out there, so just have him re-do it, that’s all. MR. BREWER-Well, if that was done, they should have a map of that anyway. MR. GORALSKI-Right. They have a map of that. They can show that. That’s not a problem. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. RUEL-Did Planning Board put this document in with this application? Final Plat application required items? MS. NOWICKI-That was previous, the first time that you’ve seen it I put that in there. Is that what you’re asking? I didn’t put it in for this application, no. MR. RUEL-You had a whole list of items here. MR. GORALSKI-Those are the items that are required by the Ordinance. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. Ask him which ones he wants to waiver or. MR. RUEL-Does the applicant have one of these? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MR. PALING-You’ve got sewage in there, John. MR. GORALSKI-There’s Town sewer. MR. PALING-That’s Town sewer. We wouldn’t have to, there’s nothing we can do with sewer, and you have water supply. That’s Town water. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. PALING-Why would we have that? MS. NOWICKI-I just wanted you to make the applicant aware that he has to indicate which waivers you want. He needs to indicate to you which waivers, on the list for Preliminary and Final, that he wishes to be waivered from. MR. BREWER-Doesn’t he make that request at Preliminary? MR. MAC EWAN-She gave him the laundry list out of the Subdivision Reg’s. MR. GORALSKI-Right, but because of the confusion that’s gone on with this application, he’s here at Sketch Plan and we want to get all these issues out on the table now. MR. SUNDBERG-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-That’s the list of items that he’s required. Is there anything that you could right away say, wait a second, we can’t give you a waiver on that particular item? MR. BREWER-Did we all get that list, John? MR. GORALSKI-That was last month. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. STARK-All we need is a new map and a surveyor, and the wetlands delineated on that map. That’s it. MR. RUEL-You need more than that. MR. PALING-But if he’s going to do any amount of grading and filling, then we want to know about that. MR. MAC EWAN-We said we were going to have it noted on the plat that it will conform with. MR. BREWER-New York State Guidelines for Erosion. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, New York State Guidelines. That way no matter who is going to develop that property, that they would be notified on that plat that that has to be done. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. BREWER-I don’t think that’s such a big deal. I mean, Schermerhorn just built, what, three or four houses across the street, the same type of thing, and we didn’t have any problem with that. MR. STARK-He filled them all, too. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, he filled them, yes. Okay. All right. Then I think we’re at the end of that list, erosion control, wetland delineation, and then New York State Guidelines. Is that for grading, what are those guidelines for? Grading and Erosion control? MR. GORALSKI-New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. MR. RUEL-No landscaping now? MR. BREWER-No. He’s going to build a house, Rog. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-All he needs is a new map. He needs waiver, a letter to request the waivers. MR. STARK-That’s it. MR. BREWER-And you want the wetlands delineated on the map. MR. RUEL-And didn’t you want filling and grading? MR. PALING-Yes, well, that will come under New York State Guidelines for Urban Sediment and Erosion Control. MR. STARK-Is there any problem with doing Preliminary and Final next month? I don’t see a problem with this. Why make them come back another time. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. BREWER-Yes, that’s fine. MR. PALING-Now, this is a discussion. Do we need a motion on this or just to let the applicant know? MR. BREWER-Just let them know what we need, Bob. MRS. LABOMBARD-No motion. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we’re not going to have a motion then. MR. BREWER-All right. Do you understand what we need, Mike? MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Then lets be specific. We need a new print done and stamped by a surveyor, and on that print you will delineate the wetlands. Then you’ve got to have a note on the print that any building or grading will be done in accordance with the New York State Guidelines for Urban Sediment and Erosion Control. Okay. What am I leaving out? MR. BREWER-He’s got to have a letter for the waivers. MR. PALING-A letter requesting the waivers. MR. BREWER-And we should probably extend the deadline for filing, because you won’t have it done tomorrow, will you? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. If he calls us tomorrow, we’ll work something out with you and your surveyor. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. BREWER-So you can be on next month. MR. PALING-Okay. Anything else? Okay. Good luck. MR. SUNDBERG-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 TYPE I NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.L.C. OWNER: QUAKER VILLAGE DEV. GROUP ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NE CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/8/97 JON LAPPER & MARC NEWMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was on October 28, and did we leave it open? MR. PALING-No, it was closed. MR. GORALSKI-It was closed and the public comment period on the DEIS ended, and if you want, when you consider the site plan review, you can have a public hearing. You don’t have to, but you can. MR. PALING-Okay. Tonight we’re just looking at the acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and when this is done, tonight, hopefully it’ll be done successfully. Then John, in conjunction with legal counsel, will come up with a Findings Statement, and that’s the one that th we’ll be using as a guideline at the next meeting, which is scheduled, I believe, for the 19, and at thth that time we’ll review the Findings Statement for approval, the 16. I’m sorry, the 16. We’ll review that and hopefully approve it, and we will also have a site plan review in that same meeting, and then that would complete the process, if we could get the site plan review, after the Findings Statement is reviewed. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. RUEL-Would you elaborate on this Findings Statement? MR. PALING-The Findings Statement will be the result of tonight’s meeting. We’re going to go over the Final EIS. We’re going to make comments. We’re going to ask questions and anything that we want or agree to will be incorporated into the DEIS, then it will be part of the Findings Statement that will be put together by John and I think Mark Schachner or Jeff, whichever, and then that is what we will use as the, that will be the SEQRA. MR. GORALSKI-That is, the Findings Statement is your final SEQRA determination. It’s your findings on what the environmental impacts are and how those environmental impacts will be mitigated. MR. RUEL-Just the environmental impacts? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Because that’s SEQRA. MR. RUEL-So the result of the Findings Statement may, in fact, modify the FEIS? MR. PALING-No. I don’t think so. Any modification is probably going to take place tonight. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And the Findings Statement is only going to be a summary of the, detailed summary of what we do tonight. MR. RUEL-Who prepares this Findings Statement? MR. PALING-John, in conjunction with either Jeff or Mark. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. FRIEDLAND-We’ll draft the Findings Statement for you to look at. It’s your decision whether or not to adopt it, but we’ll take a shot at coming up with one. MR. GORALSKI-And I’m sure Mr. Lapper will offer his assistance in that also. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, we will go to, well, do you have Staff comments now tonight? MS. NOWICKI-I had new Staff comments from 11/25/97 that I made today. Did you want me to read those? MR. PALING-Right. Yes, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 29-97, Newman Development Group Lowe’s Home Improvement and Garden Center with Retail Space, Meeting Date: November 25, 1997 “Members of the Planning Board have received a copy of the document. The Board should determine if the FEIS document is complete. The Board should consider if the document addresses the comments. If the Board believes that the document addresses all of the comments then they should consider the FEIS complete by resolution. Planning Staff has reviewed the FEIS and feels the document is complete. If the Board does not feel the document is complete… Does the Board have new questions about the project? Does the Board feel the new questions should be part of the FEIS? (New questions do not have to be put in the FEIS) If the Board has new questions they should be SEQR related versus site plan. Does the Board feel the document does not address the comments fully? What else is needed to adequately address the comments? If the FEIS is accepted as complete, Planning Staff, Newman Development Group, and other interested/involved Agencies will develop a “Findings Statement(s)”. The purpose of the “Findings Statement” is to cover all essential points of the project. The essential points should be included within a resolution. By including them in a resolution it will help the evaluation of site plan review, as well as enforcement of mitigation measures. The finalized “finding statement” could be prepared by the December 16, 1997 (first regular scheduled meeting). The Planning Board is encouraged to contribute to the “finding statement”. “ MR. PALING-Okay. I think tonight, the format we’ll follow tonight, if I understand this, is we’ll use the DEIS and starting with, go right through all the comments and answer, and comment on each one. MS. NOWICKI-FEIS. MR. PALING-Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and I’m here with Marc Newman, and we have our consultants with us as well. We are certainly prepared to go through the whole FEIS, if that’s what the Board wants, question by question. MR. PALING-We can either go through question by question or we can go through with any questions we have. MR. GORALSKI-What I would recommend, I think it would be pretty arduous to go through every single comment that’s addressed. What I’d recommend is that the Planning Board bring up any comments or any questions they have regarding the responses to the comments, because, you know, there are a lot of them that are very obvious responses, and we don’t need to go through those. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets not jump around. Lets start at the beginning of the document, and we’ll bypass where there are no questions, but then let the questions go where there are questions. MR. RUEL-Before you go on, I’d like to know, is this plan, Sheet C-1 through C-10, part of this FEIS? MR. LAPPER-Well, yes. That is the site plan, and that was submitted, and we modified the site plan a couple of times to get more specific, as we made changes to the project, and that represents the site plan to which the FEIS is directed. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. RUEL-Yes, but this document alone isn’t the whole thing? This goes along with it, right? MR. GORALSKI-Technically, I think the answer is that those plans are actually part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is simply the comments that were made, and the responses to those comments. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-It incorporates the draft by reference, and that is included as part of the draft. MR. RUEL-Yes. I have questions that relate to this. MR. LAPPER-Are they SEQRA related questions or site plan? MR. RUEL-But not necessarily to this. th MR. GORALSKI-Well, it sounds like those questions are site plan issues. Okay, and on the 16, we will have site plan issues. MR. RUEL-Not some of the questions I have. MR. GORALSKI-All right. MR. PALING-Well, lets follow the format of the document, because we don’t want to jump all over the place. MR. RUEL-Well, that’s why I asked. I mean, this isn’t picked up in there anyway. This is not picked up in this document. MR. LAPPER-Well, the whole document is about the site plan. MR. PALING-Well, why don’t we go through it, and then if we haven’t answered your questions, then have at it. MR. RUEL-I read this. There are no answers to the questions I have. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think the majority of us would like to go through this and then lets go to your questions afterwards, okay. MR. RUEL-Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one preliminary statement. We think that we did an exhaustive job of addressing all of the comments. If, on a few of the questions, the Board doesn’t agree with our answer or thinks that we should be changing a mitigation measure that we’ve proposed, that doesn’t mean that this is not a complete FEIS. That means that in the Findings Statement, there may be some issues, but we think that this is complete. The Planning Staff has said this is complete, and we hope that at the end of the night you will say that this is complete. MR. PALING-I agree. Yes. All right. I’m on Page I-1. It’s not because I have questions. I’m just saying that’s where I’m starting on this. It’s right after the summary table, index, public comments, and then starting there, and I’m just going to go through this, and I won’t even read them, but is there any questions on that page? Okay. I have no questions, myself, on that page or the next page either. Now, on Page Three, I think that we need some clarification. We’ve got a guardrail situation that is close to the road, and one that’s away from the road. The one that’s close to the road is, whether we like it or not, going to be metal. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. PALING-And then how about the one now, we should have some discussion on the one within. MR. LAPPER-Well, we don’t have to have discussion because we, after we submitted this, after speaking to Staff, we are agreeable to changing the guardrail from the bridge north. It will be a wooden guardrail rather than a metal guardrail. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. PALING-Okay. So that’ll be a wooden guardrail, and then that should satisfy. MR. LAPPER-We don’t have to change anything here, but that will be incorporated in the Findings Statement. Here we said we’d look at it very carefully. We’ve looked at it, and now we agree that we can do that. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, the next one is, and I’m onto Page Four, and now I’m on Page Five. Is there any comment regarding the bus shelter from anyone? That it’s proposed that it be on the applicant’s property? It would be right up near the store itself, main store. MR. RUEL-I agree with the applicant in his response, that they don’t think it’s necessary. I mean, it’s difficult to handle two by fours in a bus stop. MR. RINGER-They’re not going to get the walk in traffic. MR. RUEL-Yes. Usually people are there with station wagons and pick ups. They don’t usually go to these places with a. It’s hard to handle sheet rock. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. Then I’m okay on Page Six. Page Seven, I’ve got a comment that says “Good”. Crosswalk markings. I agree with that on Page Seven. MR. RUEL-What’s that? MR. PALING-The crosswalk markings at Glenwood and Bay intersection. Okay. Page Seven. Eight. MRS. LABOMBARD-Bob, are we going through every page? MR. PALING-Well, we don’t have many pages. The part we’re going through, Cathy, isn’t that much. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because I was wondering, like I see those little yellow markers. MR. PALING-No. I was having a hard time following the index, so I marked it back there. Okay. Page Nine. All right, Ten. I’m on Page 11. I’m going ahead, and I have no other comments on this. MR. RUEL-I don’t know what page or where it is, but did you respond to a Dr. Welch and to a Mr. Weller? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Will you respond to these people in a letter or will you give them a copy of this document? MR. LAPPER-We actually brought all the wetland consultants and met with Dr. Welch’s committee, since we were before the Board last time, in detail, for probably two hours, and we went over everything, and they were very supportive when we got done, and that’s where we came up with the mitigation measures of shading the stream and including all the stuff that the DEC talked about and Laura talked about with the 2,000 specimen plants and not mowing within 10 feet of the brook, so we would create a buffer. Those were all issues that we discussed with Dr. Welch’s Environmental Committee. MR. RUEL-So he’s satisfied with all of these then? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and Laura can confirm. MR. RUEL-And Mr. Weller, is he satisfied with your flood plain arrangement? MR. LAPPER-The engineers from C.T. Male have talked to him personally, and what we’ve proven here is that there is no, there will be no upland flooding, and that actually because of removing the existing bridge, which acts as a dam on Quaker Road that we would be alleviating that, because the water will be able to be less restricted after development. So we’re helping the situation. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. RUEL-But there’ll be some obstruction because part of the bridge will be retained, right? MR. LAPPER-Much less than what’s there now. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Now I’m on II-12, and this has to do with the bicycle lane. Newman Development Group is prepared to construct an alternative bicycle lane in this area on its property. I agree with that, but down below, I agree with that. I agree with their disagreement, that the crosswalk should be provided on all four corners of Glenwood Avenue and Bay Road. I disagree with the recommendation and agree with Newman Development on that. MR. RUEL-Where’s this crossing? MR. PALING-Bay and Quaker. MR. RUEL-For bicyclists? Where is this bridge going to be constructed? MR. PALING-Are you talking about the bicycle bridge? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STARK-Over Quaker Road. MR. PALING-Across Quaker. MR. BREWER-By where Grossman’s used to be. MR. PALING-Hooking up to the old railroad there. MR. RUEL-You’re not talking about that here. MR. LAPPER-We are addressing that here. MR. PALING-They are addressing it, but they’re addressing the make up of the intersection, and if no one else disagrees, I agree with what they’re saying. MR. RUEL-It sounds good to me. MR. PALING-Okay. Then on Page 13. MR. RUEL-I like that statement about signaled timings. I hope you’re successful in that area. MR. LAPPER-Well, what we’ve proposed on that is that we would contribute money to a fund for the Town to conduct that kind of a study. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. RUEL-And that new signaling on, your new signal device will, in fact, incorporate the circuitry for a timing? MR. LAPPER-It will be capable of being controlled by a master computer along with all of those intersections, but that’s something that has to be done by the Town or the State. MR. BREWER-Does the Town take care of those or Warren County? MR. LAPPER-The Town takes care of, the Town owns the traffic lights. MR. BREWER-The Town owns them. MR. GORALSKI-It’s been an education. MR. LAPPER-For all of us. It is confusing. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. GORALSKI-They are County roads, but the lights, the traffic signals are all owned and controlled by the Town, except for the one in front of Shop N’ Save, which is a permit signal. The permit is issued by Warren County DPW to Shop N’ Save, Hannaford. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, who does the maintenance on that particular signal? MR. LAPPER-Dennis can address that. DENNIS O’MALLEY MR. O’MALLEY-Dennis O’Malley, Transportation Concepts. I can explain that. Vehicle and Traffic Law in New York State is specific about who owns and operates different kinds of traffic control and who can establish certain types of traffic control on what kinds of highways, and for whatever reason, the Vehicle and Traffic Law of New York State states the only agencies that can install traffic signals are villages, towns and cities, and unless, a County can do it if there is a functioning traffic engineering agency, and if the towns or cities or villages want to give up their responsibility for the traffic signals to that agency, but that is what the law of New York State says. Counties cannot put in traffic signals, nor can counties establish speed limits. Speed limits are established, again, by towns, villages, cities on County highways. The only way the County can do it is on a bridge, if they had a bridge that was a sufficient width and they wanted to reduce the speed for whatever reason, counties can establish a speed limit on a bridge. MR. BREWER-I thought speed limits were controlled by the State? MR. O’MALLEY-Not in cities, only in towns above a certain size. If it’s below a certain size, and a Town will request to have a speed limit, it must go to the State Department of Transportation for review, but the legal authority for that speed limit reduction still lies within the Town. Now you ask the question about who maintains the traffic signals. My understanding is that there’s some kind of an agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls for doing maintenance, electrical maintenance. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I was getting curious, because if the Town takes care of all the traffic signals say along Quaker Road, right? MR. O’MALLEY-Not all of them. There are certain ones, for example, from, I believe, Meadowbrook toward Lower Warren Street, and from Quaker Road north it’s State highway. Those signals are owned and operated by Department of Transportation. In between, that section of Quaker Road is not a State highway. It’s a County road. Therefore, those traffic signals are owned and operated by the Town of Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-Who maintains the one at Shop N’ Save? MR. O’MALLEY-It’s a permit signal, put in by the County because they’re the one that provided the permit to get access to Quaker Road, since it was their highway. Under that agreement, Hannaford is required, this is the usual procedure, to go and hire an electrical contractor to maintain that traffic signal at his expense. In other words, the bulbs need to be replaced. The controller goes on fail for some reason and goes into flash, it’s Hannaford who’s notified. He has to contact his electrical contractor to come and fix the signal so it’s back in operation. So that the burden of maintenance for that permit signal doesn’t fall on the Town of Queensbury. MR. MAC EWAN-Does that particular traffic light have to fall into synch with all the other traffic lights? MR. O’MALLEY-Well, it’s a whole complicated question. There’s nothing that has to about coordination at all. In fact, one of the questions that we asked was whether or not the signals that existed for some time, in fact, are equipped to be coordinated. It requires a certain control device to be in the control cabinet in order for a signal to be able to be coordinated, and I don’t know. I can tell you I’ve never opened the boxes to know whether or not the equipment is in each of those controllers that makes it capable of being coordinated. So I can’t tell you. Is there a requirement? It sounds, to me, and as I’ve said to all of our parties, and I think to everyone else, is there a definite benefit to be derived from coordination? Absolutely. Now saying that, how difficult is it to do? Well, unfortunately, a lot of people agree that coordination may be of some benefit, but it could be a difficult, at least could be a fairly expensive proposition to do if the equipment isn’t in the existing controllers to make them capable of being coordinated, and it certainly takes an effort to be able to know what to do in order to set up coordination plans, to put them in the cabinets, and 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) then to adjust them so that they work. You usually use computers in order to come up with these plans, but fortunately computers don’t drive cars. People drive cars, and you can tell the computer, please give me a signal timing plan for some speed on Quaker Road, but ultimately what we always do is put the timings in the controller, then go out in a car and drive it and find out whether or not the greens are coming up at the right times, and if not, they need to be adjusted. So there’s a multi-phased approach to making coordination work, but what we’re saying is that for our project, we’re going to ensure that the equipment we provide is capable of being coordinated, and we believe that there’s a benefit to be provided by coordination, and we will provide some funds that will go into looking at the overall system because obvious coordination is benefited by being part of a system, and I guess we can define or somebody can define whether that’s all of Quaker Road between Meadowbrook Road. Does it include all of those signals which may be State all the way through, so you go all the way up to the Northway at Exit 19? What signals does it include off of both the County and State highway, for example the signal at Bay and Glenwood or any other signals that may be in the vicinity of Quaker Road that might benefit from being coordinated. So it’s a complex question, and that’s part of the reason that I think vehicle and traffic law and the legislatures have been trying to provide this opportunity, so that as counties become more concerned about these traffic signal questions, you know, Warren County isn’t alone. Albany is the same, the Town’s of Queensbury, Bethlehem, Guilderland, all of them have traffic signals. Many of them are probably in the same boat that you are with respect to operating and maintaining them, staff to know what to do as far as signal timing is concerned. The only county that I know of outside of the metropolitan area that has, that’s taken on that function is Monroe County around Rochester, where they have a traffic engineering function at the County level that does all of the signals in the City of Rochester, Monroe County, and have even taken over signals that the State of New York owns because they have a system that they’ve put in under computer control, and maintenance, in order to make maintenance easier, they’ve decided which signals to be included, and they’re all under one ownership. MR. PALING-There seems to be quite a bit of sentiment, I’m talking now in regard to the Bay/Quaker intersection. I’m talking about west bound traffic on Quaker Road turning north on Bay. There’s a curbing at that point, and if there was a, so that you can only have two lanes, and anyone that’s going straight ahead blocks the traffic that would like to turn north at that intersection. MR. BREWER-You’re talking about going south? MR. PALING-It’s north. MR. O’MALLEY-No. He’s talking west to north. I know where he’s talking. MR. PALING-And now I think that’s going to aggravate this application because the traffic backs up there. It’s going to back right up to their driveway, if there was a right turn lane, that right turning traffic, north turning traffic, would be out of the way and gone. It seems to be resistance to doing that. MR. O’MALLEY-Well, as I indicated at the last meeting, in my professional opinion, I didn’t think there was a need for a right turn lane. Further, from our site perspective, we have no traffic that would use that since we’ve provided the right turn into the site. My observations at the intersection, a fair number of people use the shoulder to make that right turn. MR. PALING-No, they don’t. MR. O’MALLEY-Well, I have seen them do it. Whether they’re squeezing in or not, I don’t know, but I’ve seen them do it. MR. PALING-There’s a granite curb there. MR. O’MALLEY-The sidewalk wraps around that corner, and then you go over the bridge that goes over the Halfway Brook. MR. PALING-No, no. We’re at the traffic light. MR. O’MALLEY-Yes, but, John, doesn’t it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. You don’t see a bridge there, but there are culverts that go under. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-I see what you’re saying. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. O’MALLEY-Yes. There’s three culverts that carry Halfway Brook underneath Bay Road. MR. PALING-Well, all right. Still, though, the description we’re using is accurate, and I think the condition we’re telling you is accurate, too, and I experience it, personally, and I know others do, too, and I think the consensus of ourselves is that we would like to see an other lane there, for north turning traffic going west on Quaker. MR. BREWER-But is there room there, Bob? If you eliminate that sidewalk, what do you do? MR. O’MALLEY-Well, there are a couple of questions. Like I said, I guess my position is that, in looking at it, I don’t see any need for the right turn lane, and I don’t think our site is contributing to that volume of traffic and is going to make it any different than the condition is today. The second thing is, I’m not sure because I haven’t looked at it, what would happen as far as the construction of a right turn lane if you do get into those area where those three culverts are? That was one of the issues that came up, or one of the questions raised about widening the lanes on Bay Road to 14 feet from Quaker Road north to Glenwood Avenue. There’s only limited distance between where Bay Road goes over those culverts, and if you widen the road or you adjust that, you’re getting into the culverts, the slope, it looks like the slope on the inside is a fairly steep one on one slope that goes down to the top of those culverts. It may create a whole series of situations that become very complicated. We didn’t look at them in any detail other than to look on the road and see the position of that Bay Road over the culverts. MR. PALING-What would it take to take a look at that to see, if there is that kind of problem, I think we’d all back off, but if not, maybe it could be done. MR. LAPPER-Bob, we just have two general comments on that. One is that people that are going straight on Quaker Road, because there are two lanes that go straight because there’s a left turn lane in the median. So that people who are going straight still have the middle lane. So they don’t have to wait behind people that are making a right turn to go north on Bay. MR. PALING-Yes, we know that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. In terms of the right lane itself, our position is that that is a County DPW has said that they’ve looked at it and that they agreed with our comment that it’s not necessary, and it’s their jurisdiction. So we think that that’s pretty much the end of the discussion because County is in control, and they say it doesn’t have to be done. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we’ll see. MR. LAPPER-It’s their road. MR. GORALSKI-Let me just clear something up. It may be the end of the discussion as to whether or not a right turn lane can be put in. If the County says they don’t want a right turn lane there, obviously the Planning Board can’t force anyone to put a right turn lane in. However, the Planning Board could say that without that right hand turn lane, this project is not approvable. MR. STARK-I’m not prepared to say that. MR. PALING-No, I’m not prepared to say that. However, I just sense that there isn’t that in- depth investigation of this by the County or anybody. MR. GORALSKI-I think you’re right. MR. PALING-I think everybody including myself is just giving it an offhanded opinion and mine is better because I go through that intersection a lot, and if the County had some kind of a study or what not and stated that, that’s fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, what happens if in the future, this goes up, and then there is a real visible problem in the future? Won’t something be done to rectify it? Wouldn’t the channels, through the proper channels? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. GORALSKI-Well, the whole point of this is that, yes, if they build their building and there’s a problem, and we don’t make them put that lane in now, then the County’s going to have to go in and pay to put that lane in. MR. O’MALLEY-Let me put an alternative on the table. If the Town feels strongly that that right turn lane is a significant benefit, does it make sense at that point in time then to reconsider the position of the right turn lane in advance of that intersection, remove the bridge, take all the traffic that’s going to the site to turn right at Bay Road and go up and go into the main entrance. MR. GORALSKI-I think you’re missing the point of why we feel that the right turn lane is necessary. What’s happening is, right now nobody comes up, well, not nobody. Very, very, very few cars come off of that site today and make a right hand turn lane, make a right hand turn onto Quaker Road, okay. MR. O’MALLEY-A right turn onto Quaker or a right turn onto Bay? MR. GORALSKI-A right turn onto Quaker. Very few cars (lost words) and make a right hand turn onto Quaker Road. MR. O’MALLEY-Existing. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-After you build your project, and you have that right turn in and right turn out, there will be more cars making that right hand turn off of this site onto Quaker Road. MR. O’MALLEY-Okay, of which none of them should be turning right at the intersection of Bay. MR. GORALSKI-It doesn’t matter where they’re turning right. What’s happening is now you’ve got all those cars in the right hand turn lane, even if they’re going to go straight, what they’re doing is they’re coming off your site and stacking in that right hand lane. Okay. MR. O’MALLEY-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-And that’s exacerbating the problem that’s there already now, in that that lane stacks up because people who want to go north onto Bay Road can’t do it if that first car is going straight. So you’re going to have more stacking than you have now. MR. RUEL-Grid lock. MR. STARK-If I’m coming off the site, and, you know, I’m taking a right, that means I’m going west on Quaker. I’m not going to be taking a right again to go up Bay because if I was doing that. MR. GORALSKI-My point is, you’re going to have the cars stacked on Quaker Road. MR. PALING-You’re not going to be able to get out of the site as easy as you’d like to. MR. MAC EWAN-Cars are either going to go west bound on Quaker Road, or turning north on the Bay Road, are in one lane. MR. GORALSKI-Are all in the same lane. MR. BREWER-Right. So if somebody ahead of you comes up that road, George, before you pull out of the site, there’s nothing you can do about it, in other words, if they were coming from Della or wherever and wanted to go north on Bay. MR. STARK-What’s the distance between? MR. O’MALLEY-About 400 feet. MR. STARK-That’s an awful lot of cars. MR. O’MALLEY-I mean, I’ve seen traffic back up at the intersection for some time. I can’t tell you from where I was sitting, looking at how far back it went with reference to where the existing driveway is and where this site is, but I’ve watched that intersection operate, and I know that it cues up for a while, but those vehicles are able to get through that intersection when that signal 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) turns. They rarely have to wait more than one green cycle to get through there. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case where they don’t get through in one cycle. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re saying it’s 400 feet from the intersection to? MR. O’MALLEY-To the approach where we’re doing the rights in and rights out. MRS. LABOMBARD-I kept thinking it was closer than that. MR. O’MALLEY-This is the site. This is 50 scale, and here’s the intersection, and here’s down here. So I think I just scaled it off quickly. It’s about eight inches from there to there, which would put it at about 400 feet. MR. RUEL-Twenty cars. MR. O’MALLEY-Well, there’s 25 feet per vehicle in a lane. MR. STARK-Sixteen cars. MRS. LABOMBARD-Sixteen cars. MR. STARK-I don’t think I’ve ever seen 16 cars there. MR. RUEL-But as John indicated, you keep talking about a situation the way it exists today, but he keeps mentioning the fact that once you have that building in there and once you have all that traffic coming out, over the bridge, it’s going to be an entirely different situation. MR. O’MALLEY-If I remember right, I thought the volume coming out, would project out of there was like 70 cars an hour. MR. MAC EWAN-But we also know that Quaker Road is going to, for all practical purposes in the future, going to have a lot more traffic on it than there is now. It’s always going to get more traffic on there, not less. MR. O’MALLEY-I guess, I don’t know. If you look at history, you can ask that question and see whether that may be true for the future. I would tend to probably agree with you that you can expect some traffic to increase. MR. MAC EWAN-A lot of traffic. MR. BREWER-Is there any way we can look into it? MR. PALING-Yes, well, that’s what I think. MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that you want to do, Bob? MR. PALING-What I’d like to do, now, is have the County look at it, and don’t give me an offhanded opinion. Given a considered opinion as to whether a new traffic lane is warranted or not, and if it’s somebody’s opinion, phooey, but if they’ve done it with some study, then fine. MR. RUEL-Considering, and take into consideration the new traffic study associated with this development. MR. PALING-And the new business, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is this something, John, that has to be generated from the Planning Board or can the applicant? MR. GORALSKI-Well, what we can do is we can get Warren County DPW to give us a written determination as to whether they think it would be appropriate to put the turning lane in there. I mean, I can tell you that they’ve read their responses to the comments and they’ve said they don’t have any problem with them, but if you want, we can get from Warren County DPW a specific explanation of their position on this issue. MR. PALING-I’d be comfortable with that. Is that the consensus? Is that okay? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. MAC EWAN-Fine. MR. STARK-That’s fine. MR. PALING-All right. Then can we make that request through you, John, that we get that information? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. LAPPER-One thing we want to point out is just attached to your Staff notes was the letter from DPW where they say that they have reviewed our answers and that all of their concerns were th addressed, which is what we’re basing the fact that they agree with us on. That’s a November 24 brand new letter. Procedurally, whether or not you agree with us on that answer doesn’t mean that the FEIS isn’t complete and we still have, we’ll have 20 days now to get the Findings Statement together before the next meeting, and that would be something that could be done in the Findings Statement. MR. PALING-I have no problem with that. That could even be a site plan issue. Okay. All right. MR. O’MALLEY-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but just so, the traffic study which has been generally accepted, the estimate of traffic coming out of that driveway, the afternoon peak hour is 26 vehicles in an hour. So you’re looking at one vehicle about every three minutes. So, you know, I would be hard pressed to think that it’s going to add substantially to the cue that’s there. MR. PALING-One vehicle every three minutes at rush hour in that lane. MR. O’MALLEY-Yes, sir. MR. RUEL-You mean coming over the bridge? MR. O’MALLEY-No, coming out of the site and turning right. MR. PALING-Coming out of the site, as it is today. MR. O’MALLEY-No, with the new site. MR. PALING-With the new site. MR. O’MALLEY-Most of the traffic goes out to Bay and Glenwood and comes down to the intersection, either goes straight or turns right. MR. BREWER-Don’t you think if most of the traffic goes out Bay, that you’re going to create some sort of a bottleneck and people are going to want to go out the other way to eliminate that scenario? MR. O’MALLEY-I don’t think there’s a bottleneck. MR. BREWER-Well, I’m not saying a bottleneck, but more traffic. MR. O’MALLEY-To go to the other location to where the signal is? I think it depends. If they want to go on Quaker Road west, I think their location of choice to exit would be out that driveway. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the resistance to want to ask the County? MR. O’MALLEY-There isn’t any. We’ve talked to the County to ask them specifically, after the last meeting, about this question about did the County think there was a reason to have a right turn lane at this location, as part of this project, and they’ve come back and essentially told us that they don’t believe it’s required as part of this site. MR. PALING-And what we’re saying is, we disagree. Would you please give it another look. MR. STARK-I don’t necessarily disagree. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not that we’re disagreeing. We just want them to tell us they don’t need it. MR. RUEL-What activates the signal on Bay, if you’re on Bay going south? Is there something in the road? MR. O’MALLEY-What activates it? MR. LAPPER-Is there a trip? MR. O’MALLEY-Roger, are you talking about here? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O’MALLEY-I think that there are loop detectors in the pavement, it’s wire, turns wire. MR. RUEL-Yes, so that when the cars appear there, then the signal changes, right? MR. O’MALLEY-Well, it knows there’s a vehicle there, when the first opportunity to come over that phase is there, it does so. MR. RUEL-Okay. So now if there’s a lot of people coming out of your main entrance, if they’re coming down that way, now they’re all going to trigger that light. That light’s going to be very long, because there’s going to be a lot of cars, which means that the traffic piling up on Quaker will be even more substantial. Yes, no? MR. O’MALLEY-None of the analysis suggests it’s going to be more substantial. Those signals, first of all, you have to understand that, you know, ever interval or every minute that traffic is arriving at this intersection it arrives in different demand. I mean, it’s not uniform. We aren’t always going to see three cars arriving every so often. We see five cars and then we see one car. Sometimes there’s no demand on a particular movement. So sometimes a phase is skipped or I’ll just use an example. If there was no demand for that left turn, and the detector saw no car, it wouldn’t give any left turn arrow. It then gives that green time to some other movements. It’s so variable that, and so vehicle sensitive. MR. STARK-There’s not going to be any more cars coming out of that than when ACC lets out, 12 o’clock noon? Okay. Have you ever been up there when all the traffic is coming down? MR. RUEL-What about ACC on top of this traffic? MR. LAPPER-That’s in our study. MR. STARK-It’s inconceivable that they’re going to have, have you ever been up on Bay Road when ACC lets out at noon time? There’s 100 cars coming south, and people on Quaker Road still can get through the light, either going west or east. MR. RUEL-Okay. All right. MR. PALING-The condition isn’t that bad, I don’t think. MR. RUEL-Okay, because there isn’t anything to activate the light on Quaker, right? MR. O’MALLEY-Yes, there’s detectors. MR. RUEL-I thought it was only on Bay. MR. O’MALLEY-It certainly appears as if they are, and watching the traffic signal work, as the vehicles clear out. What happens in the signal is the signal is told, here’s a minimum amount of green time to give to the cars, and here is the maximum amount of green time, and once you get past some point in that range, the signal can change if there’s no vehicles present. So lets just say the minimum was 10 seconds and the maximum was 30 seconds. When there’s a vehicle present, it’ll start the timer, and the clock tick down to 10 seconds. Then it looks to see if there’s any more cars there. If there are, it continues to add green time until past, say, the 20 second mark. It then continues to look, and if no cars, it’ll clear. In some cases it’s been told, no matter how many cars are present, you have to give at least a minimum of say 15 seconds. There may be three cars that 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) gets through in six to ten seconds. Vehicles will get through in 10 seconds. The last five seconds it will still remain green, and if no more cars are present, it’ll clear. MR. RUEL-I just had the impression that, traveling on Quaker all the lights were green unless someone was coming out of a side street. MR. O’MALLEY-That’s not always the case. In fact, they today’s signals operate better if it has detection on all approaches. MR. RUEL-You mean you have to stop even though there’s no cross traffic? MR. O’MALLEY-No. It rests. Lets say that the traffic on Quaker late at night, okay, and it’s not in flash. The traffic on Quaker Road has gone through the signal. There’s no more demand either way, and there’s no traffic coming on Bay Road at all. It rests in the last phase that it was called to that traffic signal until such time it gets a demand to go to another movement. So it’ll say green on Quaker Road until another car comes on Bay Road. MS. NOWICKI-Dennis, how will the traffic light be set up on Bay and Glenwood? Will that be a trigger? MR. O’MALLEY-Yes. All of the approaches, Laura, will be a detector, and what we’ve done is we’ve put in the types of detectors that will vary. I think in some cases we have microwave detectors, and in some cases loop detectors, and the reason for that is a microwave detector is, we call it a point detector, that is if it sees a car, it locks in that there’s a car there, no matter whether that car stays there or not. The right on red, for example. You’ve seen frustrations where a car comes to an intersection and he sits there for a minute. Then he turns right on red. Then the green comes after he’s gone. Well, if a detection isn’t right, if a detector can’t say, once I see a car, and then once the car releases I can lose that call, then the call is always there and the signal responds to it by giving green time. In the case where we’re going to have movements that will be in all directions, for example like Glenwood, we put a microwave detector in there, because there are chances for left turns to be there and through traffic. In some of the other cases, for example, like this right turn, we’ll put a loop detector in there so that if a car turned right on red, and the call would be skipped and then the phase would never be called, but there will be detectors on all approaches. MR. PALING-All right. I think we’ve done enough on that particular subject. Do we have any new questions or comments? MR. RUEL-Yes. I have some. They have to do with the plan. You’re familiar with the plan? MR. LAPPER-Very. MR. RUEL-All right. I don’t have too many, and I don’t know if it’s even relevant to the final EIS. MR. PALING-If it isn’t, then we won’t discuss it. MR. RUEL-Well, on Sheet One, for instance, there’s a map note, map note three. It says, This survey was prepared without the benefit of an abstract or up to date title report, and is therefore subject to any easements, restrictions, covenants, or any statement of facts that such documents may disclose. Now, my question is, when does this get resolved? MR. LAPPER-That goes to title issues. When we close on the purchase of the property, we’re going to make sure that there are no title problems, that we have all of the rights that the sellers own. MR. RUEL-Title search? MR. LAPPER-Title search, but in terms of the site plan, everything that we’ve shown you is what we’re buying. That note is just a note saying that the surveyors are not certifying that they’ve done the title search. So that there could be, somebody could have a right-of-way, could have a driveway easement or something. MR. RUEL-That’ll be documented by after the title search? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay, all right, and on Sheets C-2 through C-9, the 100 year flood lines are not shown on these sheets. Is there any reason for that? MR. LAPPER-I think it wasn’t necessary on those sheets. It’s on the other sheets. MR. GORALSKI-Right. It’s shown on the sheets where it’s relevant. MR. RUEL-Well, then there aren’t many, because most of them don’t have it. Only a few. MR. LAPPER-Right. We showed it so that it’s on the site plan where it’s necessary, where you’re dealing with issues that have to do with the floods. MR. RUEL-So where they’re not shown you feel it’s not relevant? MR. LAPPER-Right. For example, on the landscape plan. MR. RUEL-Okay. Next, on Sheet C-4, I had asked for this before, and maybe you will be doing this, but a grading plan cross section, with the before and after, it has to do with fill, I guess. MR. LAPPER-There is a grading plan. MR. RUEL-Does it show before and after? It shows the existing property and how much you’re going to fill in and where. Is that shown? IVER ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON-Iver Anderson. I’m a landscape architect with C.T. Male Associates, and I was involved with the preparation of the site engineering and the grading plans. Typically what we show is the existing survey conditions. It’s like a finer dash contour line, and then we’ll show the solid, the proposed contour lines over the top of that. MR. RUEL-What sheet is that? MR. ANDERSON-This particular rendering doesn’t have the grading, but if you. MR. RUEL-It should be on C-4, grading plan. MR. ANDERSON-Yes. Okay. This would be existing grading. The contour’s here. It’s a little hard to see. You almost have to go back to the first sheet to see the existing contours. The solid ones are proposed. MR. RUEL-The solid line is existing? MR. ANDERSON-The solid line is proposed. MR. RUEL-And the dotted line is existing? MR. ANDERSON-And the dotted is existing. MR. RUEL-They’re hard to see. MR. ANDERSON-That’s right. MR. RUEL-All right. It’s there. MR. PALING-Roger, these aren’t environmental questions. Lets get back to the subject at hand, and then if we want to, we’ll come back here. Now, do we have any other questions and comments by Staff or by the Board? Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing. MR. PALING-George? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. STARK-Nothing. MR. PALING-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-My comment is I read this whole thing and I agree with it wholeheartedly. MR. PALING-Okay. All right, then if there are no further comments, which I’m surprised. MR. GORALSKI-At this point, Mr. Chairman, I think you have two things you need to do. One is, if everyone agrees that the FEIS is complete, you should pass a resolution stating that. Secondly, we need to know if you wish to hold another public hearing for the site plan review on th the 16. It’s not necessary. It’s not required by the Ordinance, and you’ve already had a public hearing where there was very little comment, but it’s up to you. So you need to do those two. MR. PALING-Yes. What you say is right. We tend to be as liberal as possible with public hearings, but there was such little interest in the first one, and we’re not required to have one. MR. STARK-I don’t think it’s necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-It certainly wouldn’t hurt. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don’t think it’s necessary. MR. RUEL-No, I wouldn’t have a public hearing. MR. RINGER-No. MR. BREWER-At minimum we should advertise that we’re having the meeting, and if people show up, then we should let then speak. MR. GORALSKI-It’ll be advertised. MR. BREWER-That’s all. MR. PALING-I agree. All right. Then we’ll go with letting it be advertised, but without calling a public hearing, because I think we heard from everyone, and there was very little comment, and I think all the comments have been well answered here anyway. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. RUEL-All right. Well, then we’ve taken care of the second part. The only thing we have to do now is to have a resolution regarding the completeness of this statement, and it is complete. However, we are asking the County, still, for a comment. MR. GORALSKI-Right, but that can be done separately. MR. PALING-Separately. Okay. MR. RUEL-So we can make a motion then? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE ON SITE PLAN NO. 29-97 FOR NEWMAN DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF QUEENSBURY, L.L.C. , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Tim, any reason for abstaining? MR. BREWER-Only because I wasn’t here for any of the meetings pertaining to this. MR. PALING-Not enough information. Okay. MR. BREWER-Well, I had the information. I just didn’t read it because I wasn’t going to be here. th MR. PALING-Okay. Then we’ll see you on the 16. MR. LAPPER-Sixteenth of December, and we’ll address that last issue at that time, in the Findings Statement at that time. We’ll address the issue of the turning lane in the Findings Statement at that time. MR. PALING-Yes. Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. th MR. PALING-Okay. Lets talk about dates in December. Saturday, December 19, 9 am, site visits. MR. STARK-The thirteenth? ththth MR. PALING-The 13, Saturday the 13, and we have then, the 9, we have the Cracker Barrel, th Tuesday the 9 at seven o’clock. It is the Cracker Barrel meeting, and that’s the only subject. Number One, you’ve all got all that we’re going to get in regard to the notification and comment regarding re-zone. There is no more information in that regard, okay. I’m talking about now re- zoning information. You’ve got all the information you’re going to get on re-zoning. All right. Now the traffic study is what I requested, and I’ve got it at home. It’s this thick. If you want me to, I’ll pass it on to you. The only one, when we left this meeting, that was concerned with the traffic study was me. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-Craig was concerned with the notices. MR. MAC EWAN-I asked Staff to see the traffic survey, or it was a traffic analysis what the State was going to get out of this bridge widening. MR. PALING-I didn’t realize. I have that at home. I’m reading it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you told me, the other day when you called me, you said that Staff hadn’t gotten it in yet. MR. PALING-That’s correct, but they got it in, and there’s only one. I have the only study. Who else wants to look at it? You do. MR. MAC EWAN-I do. MR. PALING-All right. Who else wants to look at the traffic study? All right. I’ll get it to you in a few days, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any time, after Thanksgiving. th MR. PALING-All right. So that’s the ninth, and then we have regular meetings on the 16. Do rd you think we’ll have a meeting on the 23? MR. GORALSKI-I haven’t seen all the applications we have. MS. NOWICKI-I haven’t seen anything. MR. STARK-I would like to not have a meeting. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-I would like not to. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. We will do what we can. ththth MR. BREWER-The 18, if we have to have another one, the 16 and the 18. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let me ask you a question. Are we obligated to have two Planning Board meetings a month? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we already will with the special meeting on the ninth. MR. GORALSKI-No. You need to, what is it, 45 days from when the application is determined to be complete? MR. PALING-Yes. You can’t stop the process now. MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes, I think that’s right. MR. GORALSKI-And, you know, what we usually do is Staff determines it’s complete and puts it on the agenda. So, technically speaking, you’re the only ones who can determine it’s complete. th MR. STARK-Maybe the 16 could be a little long then, maybe. If you do need a second meeting, th can’t we have it the 18? MR. GORALSKI-We can try, yes. MR. STARK-I mean, there’s only seven or eight things. rd MR. GORALSKI-I guess what you’re telling me is you don’t want a meeting on the 23? MR. STARK-Right. MR. GORALSKI-If we need a second meeting, why don’t we, we’ll poll the Board and try to talk to Bob. MR. PALING-Stay away from Christmas week. That’s what we’re telling you. MR. GORALSKI-Right. If we can load up the one meeting, we’ll do that, or if we can, we’ll see what’s on the ninth, maybe stuff that doesn’t have to go to Warren County we can advertise right away and add some things, add a couple of small things to the meeting the ninth before you get into the Cracker Barrel. MR. PALING-Okay. Try to avoid Christmas week. All right. Now the last item on the agenda is the election of officers for next year. We elect tonight and the new officers take their offices in January. Cathy has asked to make a comment before e have the election. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I’ve been thinking about it, and what we used to do, when we did parliamentary procedure, years ago, and for class meetings or for Girl Scouts or whatever that people, I’ve never seen it done the way we’ve been doing it. People would make a nomination, and then you would second it, somebody else would second it, and then somebody else would make a nomination, and another person would second it, and then after maybe two or three nominations or, I’m talking about a case where you have a lot of people in the organization, somebody would say, I move to close the nominations at this point, and now vote, and then we would vote not by a show of hands, but by secret ballot, a piece of paper. MR. BREWER-Can I speak to that, Cathy, before you go ahead? We used to do it that way, and I think three or four years ago John Salvador was at a meeting where we did that, and he made a big stink about it, and I think Paul Dusek was the attorney at the time and said we couldn’t do it that way any more because of the Open Meetings Law. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe Jeff can address this, but you don’t appoint, that may be true if you appoint, if you’re appointing the Chairman, but you don’t appoint the Chairman. MR. RUEL-The Town Board. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. GORALSKI-The Town Board appoints the Chairman. You’re just simply telling them who you’d like to see. MR. BREWER-We were told by Paul Dusek that we couldn’t do it that way. I don’t care either way because I’ve done it both ways, but that’s what told. MRS. LABOMBARD-So you were told that because this is an opening meeting, that the only thing about my suggestion was that you could not vote secretly. MR. BREWER-By secret ballot. MRS. LABOMBARD-But you could have more than one nominee. I mean, to me, I mean, this was crazy one other time where you vote for somebody, or you would nominate somebody, and then you have to second the nomination, and then people go along the thing and, okay, we don’t want this guy. MR. GORALSKI-And whoever gets the most votes wins. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. So the thing is I think that maybe two people should be, I move to have two people maybe be nominated in this case, and then maybe it would be a little more democratic in the process, too, but that’s my suggestion. MR. RUEL-I agree with her. MR. PALING-I think it’s the proper way to do it. Believe it or not, I was going to make the same suggestion, only I was going to wait until after this election and make it, and say that all future elections should be held the way Cathy is saying, because I don’t even think the way we do it is right. MR. RUEL-But we’re not going to change it now, are we? MR. PALING-Well, that was my, I was going to just let this one go and then say, but look, lets talk about it. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you can change now, as long as everyone agrees. There’s no reason you can’t do it that way. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. PALING-Okay. What’s the consensus? Tim, we’ll start with you. MR. BREWER-I don’t care, either way. MR. PALING-Either way. Larry? MR. RINGER-Either way. MR. PALING-Roger? MR. RUEL-I like Cathy’s idea. MR. PALING-Cathy’s idea. We know how Cathy votes. MR. STARK-Cathy’s idea. MR. PALING-Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Any way, do what you want. MR. PALING-Well, you’ve got, well, the most are going to be for Cathy’s idea. So lets do Cathy’s idea, and I will open the floor for nominations. MOTION TO NOMINATE FOR CHAIRMAN TIM BREWER , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: MR. PALING-All right. Do we have any other nominations? MR. STARK-Lets close the nominations. MRS. LABOMBARD-I move that the nominations be closed. MR. STARK-I’ll second that. MR. PALING-Nominations are closed. MR. FRIEDLAND-John asked me if you could do a secret ballot, and I don’t know the answer to that question, to tell you the truth. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember actually, going back, even Mark, I think, said that we couldn’t do that. MR. GORALSKI-Then I would recommend you simply vote. MR. PALING-All right. We’re going to vote. MR. RINGER-Bob, wouldn’t you want to hear from either Craig or Tim as to if they want it or not? MR. PALING-No way. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I think that’s a good idea. That’s good, Larry. MR. PALING-All right. Tim, do you accept the nomination? MR. BREWER-Yes, I’ll accept it. MR. PALING-All right. Craig, do you accept the nomination? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I would. MR. PALING-All right. Any other conversation regarding the nominations? MR. RINGER-Have they got anything to say? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I think that’s good, Larry, if they have a little campaign speech or sales pitch. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve campaigned hard and heavy for five months. MR. PALING-All right. Maria, you call the role for a vote. MR. RINGER-I’ll abstain. I haven’t been on the Board really long enough to know. MR. PALING-You can’t abstain. MR. RINGER-I can abstain any time I want to. MR. PALING-No, you can’t. You’ve got to have a reason to abstain. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, I do have a reason. I really haven’t been around that long to vote for either one. MR. PALING-But you seconded the motion. MR. RINGER-I seconded the motion because I wanted to get the name onto the floor. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) MR. RINGER-But that doesn’t mean I have to vote on it. I don’t think that six months being here, or actually five months, because I was on vacation for a month entitles me to really know the two people that well. MRS. LABOMBARD-And Tim was out like two months of that time. MR. RINGER-Bob asked me for a reason and I gave him a reason. MR. STARK-That’s a fine reason. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to abstain. I feel uncomfortable voting for myself. MR. BREWER-I do, too. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don’t. AYES: Mr. Ruel ABSTAINED: Mr. Ringer MOTION TO NOMINATE CRAIG MAC EWAN FOR CHAIRMAN , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling ABSTAINED: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Maria, change my vote. I’ll vote for myself. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. He just voted for himself. Craig wins, three to two. Good night. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Tim was Chairman, Bob was Chairman, now, since I’ve been on, now Craig’s turn. MR. PALING-All right. At the risk of being here the rest of the night. MR. FRIEDLAND-You understand, though, you didn’t just vote him Chairman. The Town Board still. MR. PALING-No, his name goes to the Town Board for consideration. All right. The floor is open for nominations for Vice Chairman. MOTION TO NOMINATE GEORGE STARK FOR VICE CHAIRMAN , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling MOTION TO NOMINATE CATHERINE LABOMBARD FOR SECRETARY , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Taking effect, when? MR. PALING-January. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/25/97) st MR. GORALSKI-January 1. MR. MAC EWAN-I just want to say, I’m glad C-Span wasn’t here tonight. MR. STARK-I would like to find out when Craig’s potential nomination goes up in front of the Town Board, because I want to be there. MRS. LABOMBARD-I want to be there, too. th MR. GORALSKI-We will give it to the Town Board and schedule it for the December 15 meeting. MR. STARK-I wanted to be the there, that’s the only reason. MRS. LABOMBARD-I want to be there, too. MR. PALING-So that’s the old Board. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-That’s the old Board. They’re right in there until the end of the month. MR. GORALSKI-They are. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman 44