Loading...
1997-09-23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL CRAIG MAC EWAN SENIOR PLANNER -SUSAN CIPPERLY PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-97 TYPE: UNLISTED NAOMI POLITO OWNER: NORTHEAST REALTY DEV. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1652 STATE ROUTE 9 TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET TO ALLOW VENDORS AT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREA. THE PROPOSED MARKET IS FOR SALE OF MERCHANDISE ASSOCIATED WITH AMERICADE - 6/6 - 6/8/98. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/10/97 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-3.1, 3.2, 3.3 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 NAOMI POLITO, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing last week was tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. Sue or Laura, do you want to comment on this? MS. CIPPERLY-I guess the only comment, I guess it was Warren County made was something about having, the Warren County Planning Board said this had No County Impact, but they said with the stipulation that the applicant coordinate and satisfy concerns of the Highway Department, Sheriff’s Department, and New York State Department of Transportation for on-site flagmen. I believe the applicant has spoken with the State Police and the Sheriff’s Department, and the State Police say you can’t put a flager on the road, and the Sheriff won’t put a Sheriff there, and as far as our Department is concerned, we have not had any complaints about this activity in the three or four years that it’s been taking place now. They can have somebody stand in their driveway and waive people in or something, but as far as this Warren County condition, especially when they said it had No County Impact, it’s not something that the applicant is necessarily able to do. So, that’s our only comment. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself for the record, and also comment on what you’d like to do now, based upon what you’ve been told and written about. MS. POLITO-My name is Naomi Polito, and the only thing I can say I’ll do is I’ll guarantee to have the same four people I’ve had there the last five years now controlling traffic in the parking lot. I guarantee I’ll do our no vendor on site parking again this year and do some sort of shuttle bus and park them somewhere. I mean, that’ll alleviate 20 large parking spaces. Other than that, I can hang the signs up along the back sides of the tents for no parking, but other than that, I mean, I’m pretty much held up against the wall legally, as to what I’m able to do. MR. STARK-In light of the fact that there has been no complaints, you know, no accidents, no incidences, what more can they do? MR. PALING-What she’s saying, I think, is what she can do. You said no parking signs you can put up in the back. MS. POLITO-Right. Well, last year, the people didn’t like it very much, but I stapled them to everybody’s tent, on the road side, but other than that, both New York State DOT and the Sheriff’s unit have both said to me anything to do with traffic or any kind of signs or cones, if it’s off of my 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) line, my property line, they said I’m legally responsible for any accidents that could occur in the road, also. MR. PALING-Now did you say you would have someone there to direct traffic, did I understand that? MS. POLITO-We’ve had four guys that have been working for us for the past seven years I’ve been here, and every year they’re up there controlling the traffic and parking everybody. They walk everybody down throughout the parking lot. MR. PALING-I think we could make that part of the resolution, then, the no parking signs and the traffic direction that you’ve had before. Okay. Any other comment? MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, do you consider the Sheriff’s Department letter to satisfy the Warren County comment? MR. PALING-I think so, yes. I don’t know what else we can do. Is there any disagreement with that? MR. RUEL-And these no parking signs are, where, at the rear of the property? MS. POLITO-No. They’re right along Route 9. MR. PALING-At the back of the displays. MS. POLITO-Yes. They’re on the back side of the tent along the road. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing was tabled. So it is open. So the public hearing on the Naomi Polito application is open. Is there anyone that cares to comment on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And, what else had we done on this? It’s Unlisted. We need a SEQRA then, don’t we. Is the Short Form okay? MR. SCHACHNER-The Short Form is fine. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Mark, how come this is a Type Unlisted? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s just not one of the things that falls on what’s called the Type II list. The Type II list being the things that are so minor that they’re deemed to not have environmental impact and therefore don’t need an EAF review. I mean, if we were the authors of the Type II list, this is the sort of thing that certainly might fall on it, but it just doesn’t happen to. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 32-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NAOMI POLITO , 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: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) 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. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. I think we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-97 NAOMI POLITO , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: As a transient merchant market to allow vendors at an existing commercial area, with the stipulation that you will install parking signs at the rear of the display, and that they will have the traffic directors as they have had in the past four years. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Thank you. MS. POLITO-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-97 CURTIS LUMBER OWNER OF PROPERTY: ND FRANK PARILLO ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD, 2 LOT EAST OF INTERSECTION OF BIG BAY ROAD AND CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE TWO 3’ X 3’ OFF PREMISES SIGNS LOCATED ON CORINTH ROAD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/10/97 TAX MAP NO. 136-2-2 LOT SIZE: .39 ACRES SECTION: 140-6B(5)(c) CARLTON GRIFFEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) Notes from Staff, Off Premises Sign No. 1-97 Curtis Lumber, Meeting Date: September 23, 1997 “An off premises sign is allowed in any zone subject to the approval of the Town Planning Board. The size of the sign - 3 ft. by 3 ft. is acceptable per Section 140-6B(5)(a). The visual aspect and the wording may cause some confusion. On the left side of the sign the visual arrow appears to be pointing at an awkward angle and may be construed to be pointing in the wrong direction. The Zoning Administrator has indicated that the wording on the right side is not allowed according to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 140-5G, page 14009. This wording on the right side may be a potential hazard. The word “back” may indicate to patrons that they are allowed to back up on Corinth Road. Please note the requirements for maintenance of signs, Section 140-9D. I talked with the applicant about the sign. The applicant indicated the arrow on the left side would be changed to face the other way. The applicant also indicated that the wording on the right side could be changed.” MR. PALING-Okay. Before we go further, Sue or Laura, can you clarify the County Planning Board’s position here? MS. CIPPERLY-I called this afternoon and talked to the secretary up there, and she said the Board basically felt that all the other businesses had to comply and just have on site signs, and they thought that this applicant should have to comply with the Sign Ordinance, and I pointed out that it did say that you could have off premises signs with the approval of the Planning Board, and she just said, well, that’s how they felt about it. So I thought it first that maybe they thought this was a variance that they were considering. These don’t come along that often. So it’s kind of unusual. MR. PALING-Well, I think it’s a misunderstanding, but it makes us, on paper, require a super majority. So lets hope we don’t run into trouble. We’ll go ahead and work with it. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Sue. Why is this application before the Planning Board, in this particular case, for a sign? MS. CIPPERLY-Because it’s off their own property, and the Planning Board has jurisdiction over that kind of sign. MR. RUEL-All off premises signs must go through the Planning Board? MS. CIPPERLY-I think there have been about three of them in the four years that I’ve been here. That’s how often it comes up. You did one for CVS which was a little bit different because they had one building owned by two people and they sort of traded signs on either side of the building. That was, technically, off premises. MR. PALING-All right. We’ll proceed anyway. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. GRIFFEN-Certainly. I’m Carlton Griffen, General Manager of the Curtis Lumber Company. MR. PALING-Okay. I think the thing to do is, you know about the Staff Notes that were just read. MR. GRIFFEN-Yes, I do. The arrow’s already been changed on the sign that was. MR. PALING-Okay. The arrow has been changed, and the word “back” has been removed, or how did you handle that? MR. GRIFFEN-Well, they’re actually laminated on the sign. So they just tear off, okay, when they’re made by the sign company, okay, so they can be removed. MR. PALING-Okay. So it will be as we are looking at it now. MR. GRIFFEN-You just pass Curtis Lumber Company, Big Bay Road, period. MR. PALING-No “Back 100 feet”? MR. GRIFFEN-No, sir. MR. RUEL-And the last line is out then? MR. GRIFFEN-That’s right. That’s what you requested. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. RUEL-And what about the arrow? MR. GRIFFEN-The arrow’s just got to be reversed, which has already been done. MR. RUEL-The one we have, this one. MR. GRIFFEN-That’s right. The sign, this arrow is taken off, turned around. MR. PALING-Turned around, okay. MR. RUEL-This one should be turned around? MR. GRIFFEN-Yes. MR. PALING-Because then it points back to Big Bay. MR. GRIFFEN-That’s correct. The big confusion here is that everybody thinks between Big Bay and Big Boom, okay, and this is one of our problems, okay. Everybody thinks that we’re on Big Boom Road. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GRIFFEN-Don’t ask me why, but the two roads come so. MR. RUEL-Are both these signs on Frank Parillo’s property? MR. GRIFFEN-Yes, they are. MR. RUEL-They 100 feet apart? MR. GRIFFEN-No. MR. PALING-No, they’re joined. MR. GRIFFEN-They’re joined. It’s going to be a “V” like this. MR. RUEL-I mean, you just see the sign, you see an arrow and immediately you’ve passed it? MR. GRIFFEN-No, no. One faces so that when you’re coming from one way and one faces if you’re coming from the other. They’re on an angle right there. I put it in the picture this way so that you could see both signs. MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. It’s on an angle. MS. CIPPERLY-So if you were going west, you’d see the one with the arrow on it. If you were coming east, you would see the other one. MR. GRIFFEN-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions or comments on this? Now there is no SEQRA on this. At least it isn’t classified or listed. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m pretty sure it’s Type II, which would mean no SEQRA review. MR. PALING-All right. I’ll open the public hearing on the Curtis Lumber sign application. Is there anyone here to comment about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Type II okay? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. RUEL-Nothing. MR. SCHACHNER-Staff says it’s a Type II. I have no problem with that. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then we can go directly to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-97 CURTIS LUMBER , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: With the stipulation that some changes be made to the sign. Number One, reverse the arrow on the left sign, and, Two, delete the last line, back 100 feet, from the right side sign. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. You’re all set. MR. GRIFFEN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 35-97 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD MEYER OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 1512 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF GREENHOUSES IN PHASES, UP TO 10 GREENHOUSES - FOR GROWING PLANTS FOR WHOLESALING TO OTHER RETAIL OUTLETS. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/10/97 TAX MAP NO. 28-2-3 LOT SIZE: 76.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-15D(3) RICHARD MEYER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-97, Richard Meyer, Meeting Date: September 23, 1997 “This falls under site plan review because the applicant would like to conduct wholesale greenhouses. The RR-3A zone allows commercial greenhouses. The project is 400 ft. from an intermittent stream (75 ft. is required). The entrance to the site is a gravel road meandering through the woods. The project is suitable for the area on the parcel. The applicant may have to cut down a few trees to accomplish the project. The site has access to well water and any drainage that occurs would not have any apparent impact on the intermittent stream. The applicant will want to put up a directional sign to indicate the business and location. The Board may want to refer to rules about signs (Section 140-3, page 14006, Signs without a permit, On Premises directional signs may not exceed four square feet, etc.). The applicant at this time has no plans for retail business. The applicant’s product will be transported to retailers. The applicant will have materials delivered to the site. The Board may want to know “What type of vehicles will be used for transport and delivery?”, “What type of vehicles will be used to bring in building materials?”, “What type of vehicles will be used to deliver materials to maintain greenhouses, materials like manure or tools?”.” MR. PALING-Okay, and we have a County Planning Board, no impact. Would you identify yourself please. MR. MEYER-My name is Richard Meyer. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments so far here? Did you know about the Staff comments? MR. MEYER-They were just handed to me. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to comment on them. Lets see. You will have to cut down a few trees, but that’s not, that’s to give you access. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. MEYER-That’s for sun, right. MR. PALING-Is it access, or the sign? MR. MEYER-Sun, the sunlight. MR. PALING-The sun. MS. CIPPERLY-We went out on the site yesterday and talked to Mr. Meyer about his project, and he indicated that in order to get enough sun on the greenhouses in the second and third phase, really, he may have to clear some additional area, but it wasn’t going to be a significant amount of clearing. The sign thing, that was really at our suggestion, because it was hard to see where the driveway was, in the event of things being delivered, and this would just be a little, with his name on it or something. MR. PALING-I would think you’d want to do that. MR. MEYER-Sure. Although it wasn’t thought of before. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. We almost got run over stopping to go in there. MR. PALING-Yes. It’s not easy. MRS. LABOMBARD-I still don’t know how to get down into there. MR. PALING-I went by it. I didn’t go down in. MRS. LABOMBARD-We could not find the drive, and it seemed like it was such a drop off down there. MR. MEYER-Not really. MRS. LABOMBARD-In other words, you had to, it wasn’t on the same level as the road, the same grade as the road. It seemed like you had to go, really go down, but I’m sure that’s the right spot. MR. MEYER-It might not be the right spot. MR. RUEL-It might have been the wrong place. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, Sue has been in there. Is there a drop off? MR. MEYER-There is a slight decline. MS. CIPPERLY-There was one place that looked like it was the driveway. It’s just kind of a little patch of asphalt north of your driveway, and that could be construed it. MR. MEYER-Okay. That’s for the drainage, for drainage off the road, perhaps. MRS. LABOMBARD-We were at the right spot. We were there, and there was a barn closer to the south part of the property, like almost off the road, like right off the road, I mean. MR. MEYER-To the south? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, the property frontages, there’s a northern part and there’s a southern part. Because the road runs north and south. MR. MEYER-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Isn’t there a little white barn right there? MR. MEYER-Okay. No, you’re down farther. You’re down too far. You’re down toward Pickle Hill too far. That’s Mrs. Lucia lives there. It has “The Shop” written on it? MR. STARK-You have to go south of that. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. MEYER-This side of that, just this side of that. It’s directly across from, Brian Douglas just put up a two story garage, the driveway’s directly across from that. MRS. LABOMBARD-We were. MR. MEYER-You were too far north. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. MEYER-There’s a large barn there, and then there’s a small garage. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. I wish there had been a sign up. Because we really, we went back and forth and back and forth a couple of times. MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff still handing out those site plan/subdivision signs? MS. CIPPERLY-I’ll mention that to our person who’s supposed to send those out. I know she sort of stopped doing that. MR. MAC EWAN-Aren’t they supposed to be in their packets when they pick them up? MS. CIPPERLY-I’ll have to ask. It’s been helpful, I know, at least to the Zoning Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Then we were a little too north. I see where were. George is pointing out where we were. MR. MAC EWAN-How many trees do you think that you need to cut down? MR. MEYER-I would say probably eight or ten in a row, pine trees. MR. MAC EWAN-And how many greenhouses do you want to put up to start with? MR. MEYER-One. One to start, see how it goes. MR. MAC EWAN-And do you need to cut down any trees? MR. MEYER-Not for that, no. Nothing for. MR. MAC EWAN-At maximum build out, 10 green houses, and you figure the most trees you’d have to cut down is somewhere between eight and a dozen? MR. MEYER-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-And you’ll have well water. MR. MEYER-Well water. It’s a heavily forested area. MR. RUEL-This plan shows phase one, two and three? MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-And it shows eight greenhouses. You say there’s 10, or will be? MR. MEYER-The plan is 10. The other two is not on that drawing. It would be to the west side of that. So away from the property line. MS. CIPPERLY-It would be toward the house, right? MR. MEYER-Toward the house. MS. CIPPERLY-Away from the stream. MR. MEYER-Toward the driveway. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. RUEL-What are all these “X’s” here, existing well? MR. MEYER-The existing well is in the corner there. Probably in the upper corner. X is probably just where I put the gravel, where the gravel will be. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, that is the gravel. MR. RUEL-These X’s mean gravel area. MR. MEYER-Graveled area. MR. RUEL-And what sized propane tank is that? MR. MEYER-For the one greenhouse, I don’t know, to be honest with you. Whatever the furnaces demand. There’ll be two furnaces in each greenhouse. MR. RUEL-Do you need a special permit for that or no? MR. MEYER-No. MR. PALING-This is a Rural Residential area with the permitted use of a commercial greenhouse. MR. MEYER-Right. MR. PALING-But there would be some sensitivity, if you were to all of a sudden go into the retail business, and are you willing to state that you won’t, unless you come back for review. MR. MEYER-I have absolutely no plans of doing anything retail. My house is right down there anyhow, so I don’t want the. MR. PALING-Okay. We’re going to make it part of the motion when we do. So that there’s no mistake in the future. We got caught on that enough. MR. MEYER-Okay. Great. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. In our discussions with the applicant, he indicated he may have some, a buyer, like a quantity buyer or something come in and look at the product, but it wouldn’t be on a, you know, daily basis. MR. PALING-Well, we’re talking about opening up a normal retail greenhouse. MS. CIPPERLY-I just wanted to put that on the record in case somebody asked in the future. MR. RUEL-It’s confusing, because the way it was written, it says, for growing plants for wholesaling to other retail outlets. It sounds like he’s already a retail outlet. MR. MEYER-I think it means off premise to other retail outlets to be sold. MR. PALING-But that makes you a retail outlet. You mean to retail outlets. MR. RUEL-Yes, without the word “other”. MR. MEYER-Right. MR. RUEL-Because it makes you a retailer. MR. MEYER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be doing those deliveries yourself? MR. MEYER-Most likely, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What about deliveries coming in? There was a question raised by Staff, is the access good enough for large trucks to come in, if large trucks are indeed coming in? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. MEYER-I would say large trucks as far as, most of the product coming in would be pick up truck loads of soils or whatever’s needed. I don’t think a flat bed would have a difficult time getting down the driveway. MR. PALING-What is the maximum height of any greenhouse you’re going to put up? MR. MEYER-The maximum height I believe would be 16 foot. MR. PALING-Okay. So the 35 foot limit, you’re not even close to that. MR. MEYER-No. MR. PALING-Okay. What other comments questions do we have here? MR. RUEL-Your property goes all the way to the lots on Sunset Trail? MR. MEYER-No. There’s a buffer. MR. RUEL-There’s a lot before that? MR. MEYER-There’s a piece of land, Mrs. Lucia, again, owns a strip of land between me and the Sunset Trail. MR. RUEL-Between the stream and the property owners on Sunset Trail? MR. MEYER-Right, basically. I own the other side of the stream, to a certain amount, but there is a lady who owns a lot in there. MR. RUEL-That’s a wooded area? MR. MEYER-That’s all wooded. The whole thing is wooded, actually. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. This is the Richard Meyer site plan application. Is anyone here to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BETH SWEENEY MS. SWEENEY-My name is Beth Sweeney, and I live up on Sunset Trail, and I had gotten the notice in the mail. I live at 80 Sunset Trail. My only concern was, in reading it, that Bay Road, I travel Bay Road every day, and people fly down Bay Road, and if there was going to be significant traffic coming in and out of the driveway, it was just a concern to me that it didn’t cause potential accidents, because it’s hard coming up, if you’re coming up Pickle Hill onto Bay Road, it’s hard to see in both directions, and if I think I know where Mr. Meyer’s driveway is, that it’s a little bit secluded. You can’t really see it, and that was my only concern. MR. PALING-Okay. As a commercial business, I think it’s one thing. That’s why we’re talking retail. If it were to change to retail, we’ve got a different ball game, from a traffic standpoint. MS. SWEENEY-So that was it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else care to talk about this matter? All right. If not, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is Unlisted. The Short Form should be okay, I would think. MR. RUEL-Environmental Assessment. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 35-97 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD MEYER , 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. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr.Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. We can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-97 RICHARD MEYER , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To construct greenhouses in three phases, up to 10 greenhouses, for growing plants, for wholesaling only, to retail outlets, and the greenhouses will not consist of retail outlets, no retail activity at this location. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. MEYER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL SUNDBERG OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 204 MEADOWBROOK ROAD, 655’ NORTH OF CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 51-1997 TAX MAP NO. 46-2-9.1 LOT SIZE: 7.47 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. PALING-Okay. Is there someone here representing the applicant? All right. Well, we’re proceed anyway. I think we ought to proceed with people here. There may be, are there people here to comment on this, on the Sundberg? Yes. Okay. Lets go right to the Staff comments on this. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1997, Preliminary Stage & Final Stage Michael Sundberg, Meeting Date: September 23, 1997 “The applicant is requesting waivers from the list of requirements of Sketch, Preliminary and Final subdivision review. Attached is a checklist for a Final Plat application, not all of these items apply to this subdivision. Many of these items may be verbalized. On a site visit the area appears to be flat so the request for waiver of elevation notation on the map is within reason, along with the waiver request for a drainage plan, and erosion control measures. The applicant indicated on the application that water and sewer hook up were accessible. Concerns with clearing, filling and landscape of project should be addressed (ex. Filling for the driveway). Note that the back part of the parcel is located in DEC Wetland GF-15. An area variance was granted for relief from the requirement for two times the lot width for a residential lot on a collector/arterial road.” MR. PALING-Okay. Now there’s no one representing the applicant here, but what I would like to do is open the public hearing and get their comment, and then just table it I guess. MR. STARK-Did you hear from the applicant? MS. CIPPERLY-No, we didn’t. MR. RUEL-Yes. That’s a good way to go. MR. PALING-I think we should open the public hearing, and is tabling it proper then? MR. SCHACHNER-Or taking no action, either one. MR. PALING-Okay, or taking no action, and then it’s up to the applicant to take it from there. MR. SCHACHNER-No. You have 62 days in which to take any action. Now, I’m not sure if you’re proposing to close the public hearing. You’re proposing to open the public hearing. That makes sense. I’m not sure if you want to close the public hearing or wait and see if the applicant will be coming to a future meeting. That’s up to you. MR. PALING-My inclination would be to leave it open. MR. RUEL-Leave it open. MR. SCHACHNER-In which case there’s no clock running on your decision. So you’re fine. MR. PALING-Yes. All right. We’ll open the public hearing on the Michael Sundberg application. Who cares to talk about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN BORDEAU MR. BORDEAU-Hi. I’m John Bordeau, basically just a new homeowner in that neighborhood, as with the people that are behind me, and we’re just concerned at what we was proposed for our neighborhood and how our property values were going to be effected. MR. PALING-Where do you live, John? MR. BORDEAU-177 Meadowbrook, the second house on the east of Meadowbrook. One of the four new homes, yes. MR. STARK-By Schermerhorn? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. BORDEAU-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. On the other side of the road? MR. BORDEAU-Yes, opposite side. I haven’t seen any activity over there at all, other than the real estate sign. MR. PALING-Okay, and you’re more curious as to what they’re going to do. MR. BORDEAU-Exactly. MRS. LABOMBARD-Have you seen a plan? MR. BORDEAU-No, we have not. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you like to see the plan? You’re welcome to. MR. BORDEAU-Yes, that would be wonderful. MR. PALING-And that isn’t going to tell you too much. MR. RUEL-It’s not telling us a lot. MR. BORDEAU-Basically, one of the main questions was, why do they want to subdivide it? Is he considering putting apartments in there? Trying to get it re-zoned commercially? MR. PALING-Well, there’s no reference to re-zoning. MS. NOWICKI-This is where he’s proposed a house. MR. BORDEAU-Okay. So we’re looking at one house on the seven acres? MR. PALING-Yes. We can’t answer that question, with any kind of. MS. CIPPERLY-The lot that he has proposed is one acre, and then there’s a remainder of land that he could do something with in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-Sue, how familiar are you with this? MS. CIPPERLY-Mr. Sundberg has been coming in over a period of years and he’s, there are two other lots that were divided off. He also owns frontage on Cronin Road. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the 6.47 acres, right? MS. CIPPERLY-I don’t have the map in front of me anymore. MR. MAC EWAN-One of the questions, George and I were just discussing this, and one of the things we see up here that, proposed to be conveyed to James Piper. Has that already been conveyed, or is that part of this project, or is that a future thing of this project? MS. CIPPERLY-The land owners along that road, a couple of them have had, always wanted some additional land, and he was willing to sell them some. That little square really should be merged with the Piper property, if it does take place. MR. RUEL-This one here? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my question. Has that taken place? MS. CIPPERLY-The history on this is that somehow the applicant went up and filed deeds with the Warren County Tax Map Office for lots here which didn’t conform with the zoning. Warren County is usually very good about getting documentation from people before they file the deeds. So they showed up on our tax map as new lots, and Pam Whiting actually caught what’s going on here because she’s the one that puts corrections on, and they were undersized, and didn’t have the right width and all that. So we’re going through this process in retrospect because those lots really 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) aren’t legal. So he’s been to the Zoning Board to get a variance, on Meadowbrook you’re supposed to have double the lot width, or shared driveways, which the people across the street have shared driveways, and also for lot width. You’re supposed to have double the lot width. So that’s why he’s got like a long leg sticking out in the back there, to get the average lot width. MR. MAC EWAN-That was going to be my next question. If this parcel hasn’t been conveyed already to Mr. Piper, it’s a nonconforming lot, and he’s already created a flag shaped lot, which is not encouraged in the ordinance, or the subdivision reg’s, how does this fit in with being a simple two lot subdivision now, to a potentially complicated three lot subdivision? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the term “two lot subdivision” is a little misleading, because it’s not our administrative two lot process. It has to come to you because that larger piece has been subdivided before, and in that case, the two lot subdivision thing doesn’t apply, but what he is saying, I guess, was that he was going to have the larger lot and then the smaller, the one acre lot. MR. PALING-Sue, did you say that he was going to go to ZBA? MS. CIPPERLY-He already has been there and received a variance, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Received a variance for what, this one acre lot? MR. RUEL-Two times the lot width for a residential lot. MS. CIPPERLY-In order to divide this lot, he needed at least 300 feet of average lot width. He only owned, what is it, 50 feet on the road. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’m with you on that. Where it’s really throwing me here is that you just said that this wasn’t a two lot subdivision, per se. Right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s creating this lot because that’s the avenue he has to pursue because the lot doesn’t conform to the Subdivision Reg’s. Therefore, he had to get a variance. Is that correct? MS. CIPPERLY-Normally, if he didn’t need a variance, if the lot conformed, and if nothing had ever been subdivided before. MR. MAC EWAN-Stop right there. Did this Board do it? Or is it a case of him going up there and doing it himself, up to the County, and filing his own deeds and creating this? MS. CIPPERLY-In this instance, he did. There are parcels on the tax map right now that should be erased, and he’s going through this process as a remedial thing, and then he’s going to have to go and re-file deeds and do it right. MR. MAC EWAN-Help me out here. Unless I’m really in the dark, looking at this, I’m looking at three lots on this map. Is everyone with me on that, that that’s what we’re looking at? MR. RUEL-It’s very confusing. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at a six acre one. We’re looking at a one acre one, and we’re looking at the one to be conveyed, whatever the size of that is, to Mr. Piper. MR. PALING-That’s a one acre, too, isn’t it? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. That’s only .42 of an acre. MR. MAC EWAN-If I’m following this correctly, the .42 acre lot and the one acre lot, he took it upon himself and went up to the County and filed his own deeds, correct? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So this isn’t a two lot subdivision, per se. It would be a three lot subdivision. MS. CIPPERLY-If you count that little square that he’s giving Mr. Piper, yes. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. MAC EWAN-You’d have to, because he subdivided the property, for all practical purposes, illegally, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So this is a three lot subdivision. MS. CIPPERLY-He’s creating one new lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you see where I’m coming from on this? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I sure do. MS. CIPPERLY-But the square that says to be conveyed to Piper. MR. MAC EWAN-For this Board’s review, the lot hasn’t been created yet. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t convey something that hasn’t been created. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Your action would be creating that little square to be conveyed to Piper, which should be merged with Piper’s, or else you’re creating a landlocked parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-And the part that concerns me about this is this flag shaped portion behind the Piper property as well, because don’t our Subdivision Regulations say that, they encourage not to create flag shaped lots? MS. CIPPERLY-It’s discouraged. MR. PALING-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-That’s up to you. That was an attempt, really, to get the lot width, by going behind the other. MR. STARK-Bob, why don’t we leave the public hearing open and just table it? MR. PALING-Well, I’m not even sure we want to table this. Don’t we want, we may want to have it corrected to make the submittal correct. MR. RUEL-Shouldn’t we have the applicant here? MRS. LABOMBARD-He has to re-word it if he’s got three lots there. MR. RUEL-If this is unsatisfactory, if there are to be changes, etc., then the applicant should be here so that we can tell him what we’re looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-My question, before maybe we get too far down the road here is, Mark, what’s your opinion and interpretation of all this? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, for starters, it sounds like a three lot subdivision, to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-So right off the bat, I’m not sure we have it properly advertised, and it sounds like there may be some clarification of the application needed. It’s a little difficult without the applicant, of course. MS. CIPPERLY-Another thing that maybe we should get cleared up tonight, he had asked for several waivers. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s another monkey wrench in the whole thing here, is the fact that we’ve gone from what he interprets as a simple two lot, now a three lot, sitting in a flood plain. He wants 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) to make a nonconforming flag shaped lot. He’s trying to give land away already that he’s tried to deed that, he can’t subdivide yet. MR. PALING-And then he wants a string of waivers on top of that. MR. MAC EWAN-What Mark has said kind of hits the nail right on the head. I mean, if this is a three lot subdivision, it wasn’t advertised correctly, to begin with. MR. RUEL-The water table is one and a half feet. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I don’t think we can do anything until we talk to him personally, like you said. MR. STARK-Bob, just deny it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just deny it. MR. PALING-Either deny it, or maybe there’s a different way. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, maybe you could ask him, Mark I’m referring to, that the scenario here may not be so much as to deny the application, but to reject the application. MR. PALING-Yes. That’s what I think would be better than, if we deny it, then he’s got to go to court, but if we reject it, then he can re-apply. Lets see what Mark says. I agree with Craig completely. MR. RUEL-I certainly would not have both Preliminary and Final at the same time. MR. PALING-Well, we normally don’t do that, and we normally don’t waive all of the. MR. RUEL-Yes. See, if it was a simple subdivision, then sometimes we go to Preliminary and Final, but this case, definitely not. I think it should have Preliminary and separate Final. MR. BORDEAU-Excuse me, Mr. Paling, when you’re looking at the waivers, as Mr. Ruel noticed, we do have a very high water tablein that area. We already have a system of ponds throughout the road that already exist and a water runoff waiver. I’m not really sure what that involves, or how that involves water runoff, but I would hope that that’s something that gets highly looked at. MR. PALING-That would involve drainage. MR. STARK-Bob, what happens is, they submit a stormwater drainage report. It goes to the Town Engineer, which is Rist-Frost looks at it. He comes back with his recommendations. You the applicant, your engineer has to address those concerns to the Town Engineer, then if he doesn’t address them properly, they don’t get anything. If they’re addressed properly, if the engineer is satisfied, we’re satisfied. MR. BORDEAU-Okay. So it’s basically Rist-Frost takes a look at it and makes an evaluation based on their knowledge and expertise. Okay. MR. PALING-Laura, did you hear his comments in regard to the water that’s present on the land, and that would be suspect in the area of drainage or runoff and that kind of thing. So that’ll have to be pointed out to the applicant. MR. BORDEAU-Just a concern. We have a rainstorm in the middle of winter, it’s going to be an ice sheet. MS. NOWICKI-I wrote that down. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets hear from Mark before we do anything final here. MR. STARK-Lets see if we’ve got any more public comment. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BORDEAU-Thank you. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else care to comment on this? I think I can assure you there’ll be another public hearing on this. MR. RUEL-We’re going to leave it open, or we may have to re-advertise, depending on what Mark says. MR. PALING-We may have to re-advertise, but lets wait on Mark here. They should re-advertise right to the beginning of the whole thing, as far as I’m concerned. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m in favor of rejecting this. MRS. LABOMBARD-Lets reject it, yes. MR. PALING-We’re talking about rejecting, rather than denying this, but in doing so, we think he should go back to Square One, in effect, including advertising the whole thing again, and start with the right print with the right request, and another public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-What does “rejecting” mean? MR. PALING-Well, the application is not complete. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, then you would be deeming the application not complete. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Not complete and maybe not correct from the standpoint that I think, correct me if I’m wrong, I think it’s a three lot subdivision, not a two lot subdivision. MR. PALING-It is. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So we can call the application inaccurate and not correct. MR. PALING-Inaccurate and incomplete. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. PALING-And we then would reject it, and ask that the applicant go back through the whole process again, including a notification of the neighbors. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and I’m comfortable with everything you said except to me rejecting sounds too much like denying. So I would just suggest that you, by resolution, if this is how the Board feels, deem the application inaccurate and not complete, or not complete for reasons including inaccuracy, however you want to phrase that, and indicate the other things you said are fine. MR. PALING-All right. I’m going to close the public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Just make the motion, then, make a resolution that this application is not complete and accurate. MR. PALING-All right. MS. CIPPERLY-When we tell Mr. Sundberg this, I was just wondering if you had any input on whether those waivers would be appropriate or whether you do want that information so we can tell him that up front. MR. STARK-You’ve got to have a stormwater drainage report. MR. RUEL-I wouldn’t even talk about waivers now, until we get a complete accurate application. MS. CIPPERLY-I was just wondering, as part of the complete accurate application, do you want to tell him two foot contours, the whole ball of wax? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. MAC EWAN-I would leave it at this. If he’s looking for waivers from this Board for any other application he wants to submit, tell him to put it in the form of a letter asking for those, grant those waivers to it, and we’ll take them on, on a case by case basis. MR. PALING-But assure him that his request does not mean that do it. It means he’s only requested us, and if he comes in here thinking we’re not going to require it and we do, he’s going to be sent away. So we ought to be very careful in doing that. MR. RUEL-Well, the Planning Staff will advise him as to the number of items that he requested for waivers that should be put back in, considering that we feel it’s an incomplete and inaccurate application. Correct? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I just didn’t want the Staff to be in the position of saying, you know, you need this or you don’t need this, if the Board hadn’t said that. So if you had any feeling one way or the other. MR. MAC EWAN-You know, the difference here, the scenario is that this came in tonight assuming that it was a two lot subdivision which would not have probably a lot of issues around it or very few issues, that you can do it in one night. My guess is the fact that, if it comes back here again in front of us and it’s a three lot subdivision, it probably won’t be a two step process done in one night. MR. RUEL-No, it will be separate. There’ll be a Preliminary and then later on a Final. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. PALING-And I don’t think he’s going to hang the Board up by listing a bunch of things that he thinks he doesn’t have to do, different than most all other applications here. MR. STARK-You want to get an engineer to do the thing. MR. PALING-Well, it’s not up to us to pre-judge something and say he can or cannot do. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. If he was going to sort of start from Square One, I just didn’t know whether you wanted to say yes, we’ll need this or that, or if you just wanted to wait until you get to the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-For me who’s going to be looking at a whole bunch of different information, for all practical purposes, a new application. Let it goes its normal course. MR. RUEL-In the Ordinance, the way I read it, is that for subdivision, when you have a simple two lot subdivision, that you can request certain waivers, and I think they’re even listed. We don’t consider this to be a relatively simple subdivision, at this point. MR. SCHACHNER-Roger, you can request the waivers for any subdivision. MR. RUEL-You can always ask. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. PALING-But we don’t have to act in advance. MR. RUEL-No. We shouldn’t take any action now. MR. PALING-No. Okay. Is this a motion? MR. SCHACHNER-You should make a motion. My recommendation, if this is how the Board feels about the application, your decision to deem it incomplete and all the things we talked about, should be made by motion, seconded, and voted on. MR. RUEL-Yes, but what do you want to call it, a rejection? MR. PALING-Incomplete. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. RUEL-Postponement? MOTION TO RETURN THE APPLICATION TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IT IS AN INCOMPLETE AND INACCURATE APPLICATION , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-And we require a resubmittal. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s up to the applicant. MR. PALING-That’s up to him. MR. RUEL-And a public hearing. MR. STARK-That’s up to him whether he wants to. MR. RUEL-Okay. All right. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. That’s it for it, and nothing will be done until he goes through the entire process again, and you’ll get a similar notice to what you got before. MS. CIPPERLY-If he wanted to come in for Sketch and discuss this with you, that would be all right with you? MR. PALING-Sure, no problem. MR. STARK-Sketch Plan. No problem. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Sue, that might be the preferable way for this guy to go. Come in for Sketch Plan, unofficial, and then submit his application then. MR. PALING-And then he could discuss the variances, the waivers he’s looking for, too. MR. STARK-Mark, before we get going on Newman, what’s the outcome of the Ermiger deal? You went to court on Ermiger. You didn’t go to court on Ermiger? MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. STARK-He’s going to comply with the 11 o’clock next year? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know the answer to that. MR. PALING-It’s pending, right? MR. SCHACHNER-I think thought he was served with an Order to Remedy, which is the first step in the process. That’s not yet starting a court action. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And I don’t know, I think that John Goralski, if I’m not mistaken, told me that either he or Chris Round or both had been in touch with either Mr. Ermiger or his counsel or both, and they were still in the process of some kind of dialogue. I think that’s where that’s at, but I’m not certain. It’s not been to court. I am certain of that. MR. STARK-Okay. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. PALING-Okay. We have a letter here from Jon Lapper of Lemery & Reid regarding Newman Development Group. I can read it in. To John Goralski, from the Newman Development Group “Dear John: Pursuant to our discussions, please accept this letter as a formal request for th the Planning Board to schedule a Special Meeting for Tuesday, October 7 to determine whether the DEIS is complete for the purpose of review and to schedule a special meeting for Tuesday nd December 2 to issue the statement of findings and review and presumably approve the site plan. The following is the anticipated schedule for the review and public comment period for the project: th 1. September 25 submittal of ten copies of DEIS for preliminary review, by you, the planning th board, the town attorney and the town engineer. 2. October 7 planning board special meeting to determine completeness of DEIS for review, set public comment period and schedule public thth hearing. 3. October 8 thru November 7 public comment period;” That seems a little strange. MR. SCHACHNER-I can explain that if you like. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA Regulations, separate or in addition to having a public hearing, there must be a minimum of 30 days to have a public comment period, during which time people can submit comments in writing if they wish. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That would appear to me to be that minimum 30 day public comment period. thth MR. PALING-Yes. Right. Okay. “4. October 28 public hearing; 5. November 11 submittal th of FEIS; 6. November 18 planning board meeting to determine FEIS as complete; and 7. nd December 2 planning board special meeting to issue statement of findings, review and approve final site plan. Please discuss these dates with Bob Paling and call me with any comments. Of course, these dates are requested and subject to approval by the planning board. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” Okay. That’s kind of a different letter, requesting two special meetings. They want to accelerate this. I can’t argue with it. nd MR. STARK-Why does it have to go to December 2? Why can’t it be the second meeting of November? th MR. PALING-The 18 is the first meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-You can’t do that legally. MR. STARK-Why? MR. SCHACHNER-Because you have to have a minimum, again, under the SEQRA Regulations, you have to have a minimum 10 days between acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the approval and the SEQRA finding. MR. RUEL-Yes, and we only have one week. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then, he knew his rules. He did his homework. MR. PALING-What does it cost the Town to have a special meeting? MS. CIPPERLY-It costs salaries for Staff, in some cases, and it costs for you, and it costs for somebody setting up the room, and notification. MR. PALING-Does the applicant pay for any of that? MR. SCHACHNER-I think they’re asking does the applicant pay any of the extra cost for a special meeting, and the answer, as far a I know, is no. MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. SCHACHNER-It typically has not. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. STARK-Why don’t we, when the applicant requests a special meeting, pass the costs along to the applicant? Let him pay for it. MR. PALING-What are we talking, $500? I don’t know. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. RUEL-I would say, four or five hundred anyway. MS. CIPPERLY-I don’t know about the mechanism for doing that. MR. STARK-Neither do I, but I’m just saying, that’s logical. I mean, you know, they want a special meeting, let them pay for it. MR. PALING-Especially when they come in and nail you so far in advance. This is only September, and they’re nailing us for special meeting in, over this period of time, which I sympathize with them, but you’ve got to have. MR. RUEL-I agree with George. They want the meeting, let them pay. th MS. CIPPERLY-Well, my initial reaction to this really was, just between September 25 and th October 7, I didn’t know if you’d have enough time to review this document and determine whether it’s complete or not. thth MR. PALING-September 25, submit 10 copies, and then we would be meeting on the 7. MS. CIPPERLY-And since we haven’t received this yet, we have no way of knowing. MR. PALING-Yes, and I’ll have one day to review, because I’m not going to be here. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, for what it’s worth, as far as the counsel, I mean, I can’t come to either of the proposed special meetings because I have a conflicting Town meeting. I can have somebody come here, but. th MS. GAGLIARDI-Unfortunately, I’m on vacation on the 7. So I won’t be here either. MR. STARK-Well, it doesn’t have to be on those dates that he requested. It could be on another date. MR. PALING-Well, I wonder if. MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing is, just a real quick review, and I hadn’t seen the letter before I got here tonight, but real quick review, this would seem to pick up a whopping, all this special meeting stuff would seem to pick up a whopping two weeks. I mean, your regular October meeting st would be, your first regular October meeting would be October 21, two weeks later than they’re th proposing, and your first December meeting would be the 16, again two weeks later than they’re proposing. So just real quick eyeballing it, it looks like, if everything was put back two weeks, you wouldn’t have to have any special meetings. That’s, again, just a quick eyeball. MR. PALING-Supposing that either Sue or Laura and I negotiated with them, to talk to John together. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. I don’t like this word “negotiate”. We’re not negotiating anything. MR. PALING-Well, what I’m saying, why do you need such a crash bang schedule when you’re going to gain two weeks? Now, if they’ve got the extenuating circumstances, we’d think about it, but if they haven’t, then we’d say, hey, slow it down. That’s a negotiation. MR. STARK-I assume they’re doing a great job down there with their engineer and the traffic study and everything should be okay. MR. PALING-Well, what are you suggesting then? If mine’s not good, what do you suggest? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. STARK-I’m suggesting that with the Staff there’s conflicts of dates, or conflicting Maria’s not going to be here. Mark’s got a Town Board meeting. I mean, geez, get with Jon and say, look it, it’s not going to be, get with him next month. You don’t have to make it now. He’s probably trying to schedule their attorney. th MR. MAC EWAN-When they submit the DEIS, what they’re looking to do on the 25, what does Staff, what role do you play in that, other than accepting that? Do you look through them and determine that they’re what we’re looking for before you hand them over to us to review? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, both at the same time. You’ll get them just as you would any normal application, and we’ll be reviewing it at the same time. So when you get to that, whenever you look at it first as a group, I would think you would want to have looked at individually first. MR. PALING-Yes, absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re looking at roughly, what, 13, 14 days? thth MS. CIPPERLY-From the 25 of September to the 7 of October, and you can’t be here anyway. thnd MR. SCHACHNER-I can’t be here October 7 or December 2. Those are both nights of other town meetings that I’m supposed to go to, that’s because they’re first Tuesdays. MR. MAC EWAN-Those, two me, are two crucial meetings. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I can have other people here. MR. STARK-It doesn’t have to be that night. Why does it have to be that night? MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I’m willing to accommodate all applicants that come in front of us, but if it creates a hardship on us being able to review a project and have Staff here to cover things for us, I feel somewhat uncomfortable about it. What’s the difference to them whether it’s October the ththth 7 or October the 8? If it’s October the 8, maybe we can have Staff here to cover for us, or an extra day to review things. I’m just throwing out suggestions. th MRS. LABOMBARD-It probably could be the 8. th MR. SCHACHNER-I can’t be here the 8 either. MS. GAGLIARDI-I’m on vacation that week. MS. CIPPERLY-The Board can also say they’d just rather see it at their regular meeting. That’s an option. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do we have a big schedule for October right now? Do you know, anything unduly heavy? MS. CIPPERLY-No, actually, this is really the big project. th MR. STARK-The first meeting’s when, the 16? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, why don’t we put them on for the regular meeting. st MR. SCHACHNER-October your first meeting would be the 21. MR. PALING-Well, couldn’t a question be put to them that if we go to regular meetings, it can be done before the end of the year? If there’s nothing major that comes up. If something major comes up, it’ll disrupt it anyway, and what’s the problem with doing it within that time frame. th MR. STARK-What’s the matter with October 14? Have a meeting downstairs, bang. st MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, the 21 doesn’t give you the 30 day comment period, does it? th MR. PALING-No. You’re talking the November 7 date. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that right, Mark? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The public comment period has to be 30 days, starting with the date of th acceptance of the document. So if the October 7 acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact st Statement date was pushed two weeks to October 21, then the public comment period, presumably, would run from, it must be a minimum of 30 days, by the way. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-You can make it longer. The public comment period would go from October ndst 22 to November 21. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. So we just push everything up 14 days. MR. SCHACHNER-Eyeballing it real quickly, that’s what I said a few minutes ago, is it looks like if you did everything just two weeks later, you could do both on the regular meeting schedule. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, and then it would still be done by the end of the year. Well, I think that’s the most. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, you can’t promise the applicant you’ll be done by the end of the year. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but I’m just saying, at least we’ll be on it, and it’s a two week thing, and he’s giving us this for consideration, and due to other extenuating circumstances, maybe this is the way we ought to go. thstth MR. STARK-What about the 14 instead of the 21, that special meeting on the 14 of October? Will that help him out? th MRS. LABOMBARD-You’ll be back from vacation. Can you make it the 14? MR. SCHACHNER-No. Well, don’t, if you want to accommodate an applicant with a special meeting, I mean, Jeff can be here. I’m certainly not sitting here saying don’t do this because of my schedule. I have a lot of night time meetings. Believe me, you don’t want to fit this into my schedule. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can Maria be here? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. th MR. STARK-Sue, why can’t we get the little room downstairs the 14 and have it then? And then th the 30 day period will be until November 15, then. Right? th MR. SCHACHNER-Or November 13, arguably. MR. STARK-Okay. thth MR. PALING-You’re talking October 14 now instead of the 7. th MR. MAC EWAN-If we can give them a special meeting on the 14, Jeff can cover for Mark. We’ll have Maria here. Lets go that route. I move we do that. It seems like another way we’re just kind of really pushing it too hard, too fast, and I’m not comfortable with that. MRS. LABOMBARD-It’ll give us more time. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, I think there’s also going to be push and pull on this, and I think I still should be part of the negotiation of the dates. MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got to negotiate? MR. PALING-I don’t know, Craig. I’m going to wait to see what their reasoning is. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. RUEL-Well, it says these dates are requested, and it’s subject to our approval. MR. PALING-Yes, but I think we should give them the benefit of doubt. They may have compelling reason. I don’t know. MR. RUEL-They haven’t indicated that, any special reason in the letter. MR. PALING-No, correct, but they’ve selected dates. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, how are you going to find out? You’re going to talk to Jonathan? MR. PALING-Talk to him. MRS. LABOMBARD-Give him a call tomorrow. MR. PALING-Well, with Staff I will, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then who’s going to decide if those reasons are acceptable? MR. PALING-Between the three of us, we’ll try to work out a new schedule that’s acceptable to all the comments made tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I don’t care. It sounds good. MR. RUEL-It sounds good to me. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. th MS. CIPPERLY-So if you do it on the 14, if I’m correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. You can take the extra time tomorrow and make all the calls. MR. PALING-Sue, I didn’t hear what you said. th MS. CIPPERLY-If you move it to the 14, you’re essentially picking up a week, right, Mark? MR. PALING-Yes, and you’re only losing one week. MR. SCHACHNER-At the most. MR. PALING-The other way you’re losing two, but you’re still making it before the end of the year. MR. RUEL-Why do you keep saying before the end of the year? MR. PALING-I’m making an assumption they want to get this done by the end of the year, before the end of the year. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no guarantee that you will. MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Something may be missed, that would carry it over. MR. PALING-Okay. Enough said. MR. STARK-Fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-Then you’ll just carry through with this tomorrow? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/23/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Now, our new specialist, Laura Nowicki, has asked if we have any comments on the notes that she did, whether they’re too complete, too not complete. MR. STARK-We get the notes before the night of the meeting. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, she’s new. I was going to do them, and then she came on board, so I said, she can do them, and just in general, I think, over the years, you don’t always get asked, you know, is there something else that would be helpful to you to have in the notes. We did the same thing with the Zoning Board and got some. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the notes are, to me, they’re fine. My only request is I’d like to see us get back to posting the site plan and the subdivision signs up, because every site that I went looking at today didn’t have anything, and it’s been that way for a long time. I can probably tell you, I don’t think I recall seeing any signs posted all summer and all spring. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, not in the summer, you’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-I will tell you, I will add to it that the GIS mappings that you’re putting in there helps tremendously. MS. CIPPERLY-That’s good to hear. We’ll pass that along to the person who does it. MR. PALING-Okay. Last item. October, we are going to have our last week day site visits. th That’ll be on the 16, Thursday, and then the meetings are on 10/21 and 10/28. Anything else? MS. CIPPERLY-I have a comment related to this Newman thing that I just remembered. John Goralski had wondered if you’d be available perhaps for a 4:30 meeting, instead of an evening meeting. On these special meetings, if we do decide to go with that, would people be available at 4:30 in the afternoon. MR. STARK-Yes. Usually the special meetings are earlier, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Hard for me. MR. STARK-Five o’clock, five thirty. It doesn’t have to be at night, but five, five thirty. MR. MAC EWAN-I could probably be here at five, five thirty. MR. PALING-Why would he want them at 4:30? MS. CIPPERLY-Because it’s a little easier on our office, and some of the other people have to go to the meeting and travel from some distance or. MR. PALING-That’s fine me. MS. CIPPERLY-It was just a question. MR. SCHACHNER-For what it’s worth, I’m generally available at five or five thirty, also, even if I have to be at some other meeting at seven. I mean, I’m assuming these meetings are not going to go more than an hour and a half or two hours. MR. PALING-Yes. We’ll try to make it as late as possible, whether it’s 4:30, five or five thirty. Okay. Anything else? MR. RUEL-I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. PALING-Accepted. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman 25