Loading...
1997-09-16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER LARRY RINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -JOHN GORALSKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 24, 1997: NONE July 22, 1997: NONE July 30, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATED 6/24, 7/22, AND 7/30 , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: th Duly adopted this 16 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 NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-97 TYPE: UNLISTED NAOMI POLITO OWNER: NORTHEAST REALITY 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 - 6/1 - 6/8/98. WARREN CO. 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 MR. PALING-Okay, and, John, you have comments? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. First of all, I’d like to apologize to the Board for not getting notes to you this week. I don’t think we have anything too controversial. I’m not going to make any excuses. I’m just telling you that we are now up to full Staff and that we will be getting notes to you for next weeks meeting. With that being said, this application has been before you, I believe, three times in the past. Nothing has changed. Warren County Planning Board determined that there was No County Impact, with the stipulation that the applicant coordinate and satisfy the concerns of the Highway Department, Sheriff’s Department, and New York State Department of Transportation for on-site flagmen. That was done this past year and done fairly successfully. I don’t think there 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) were any major problems up there, none that were reported to the Town, at least. I don’t see any reason why we can’t go ahead with this. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any comments on this? It’s our fourth time for it. MR. STARK-I’ve got a comment for the applicant. MR. PALING-Yes. Would you identify yourself, please. MS. POLITO-Naomi Polito, Northeast Realty. MR. PALING-Okay. Did you have any comment, or did you want us to move ahead? Okay. This is Unlisted. MR. RUEL-I have a comment. This is for 1998, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. If there were any drastic changes to the property or road or driveways or anything between now and next year, wouldn’t it effect this application? MR. PALING-If there were drastic changes to the property it could, sure. MR. RUEL-Should the resolution then indicate that the approval would be based on the property as it is today? MR. MAC EWAN-What are you anticipating happening? MR. RUEL-I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing’s happened in three and a half years up there. MR. RUEL-Well, all three resolutions were different. MR. PALING-Yes. I see no harm in putting it in the resolution. I think we’re learning that some of the stuff we assume will be, doesn’t necessarily happen that way. I don’t see anything wrong with making that part of a resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-How are they different, though? How are the resolutions different from year to year? It’s the same site plan, the same purpose. MR. RUEL-I have a copy of it here. MR. MAC EWAN-I think one year maybe we changed the entrance and exits out of it. MS. POLITO-Yes. One was to close off an additional entrance. The year before, I believe, was five feet back from the curb side of the tents, and last year was to close off my parking inside the tent areas, block that totally off. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It really hasn’t changed that significantly. MR. GORALSKI-No. I think that’s the way the proposal was presented this year, as it was approved last year. Is that correct? MS. POLITO-Yes. MR. RUEL-I understand that everything is the same as it was last resolution, but there were two previous ones. So apparently there must have been some changes, but, forget it. MR. PALING-Well, whatever the resolution called for, they complied with, though. Whatever the resolution called for, they complied with. MR. RUEL-Yes. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. PALING-But I’m not disagreeing with you. If you want to put that in the resolution, that’s okay. MR. RUEL-Between now and next year, something could change, and I just thought it could be mentioned in the resolution. That’s all. MR. PALING-When you see ’98, it makes you pay attention. MR. RUEL-Yes. If it was for next month, a couple of months, it would be okay, but it’s for next year. MR. PALING-All right. This is an Unlisted. We do a SEQRA on this? MR. GORALSKI-You should do a Short Form. Well, actually, the Town Board is lead agent. MR. PALING-I’m sorry. Excuse me, George. MR. STARK-Naomi, last year you had flagmen out on the northern part of the property, on the Lake George side. It’s a miracle nobody got killed going up through there. This year, who’s the flagman? MS. POLITO-This year I don’t think we’ll have a flagman. Actually, I spoke with DOT, Richard Hull, from the New York State DOT yesterday, and he said placing cones or placing, either whether it’s an authorized person who is properly schooled to flag or not on a State highway or any State road is not allowed, period. MR. STARK-What about having a sheriff, part time sheriff’s guy? MS. POLITO-That’s the one thing I haven’t gotten to yet. He was going to look, and he said he has a 300 page book that he’s going to dig through and see what I can do. Because I asked him. I said, can I put my cones up like I did last year, and he said, you can, he said, but legally, it’s not allowed. You’re not supposed to because it is a State Code. MR. STARK-Your own flagman, not a deputy sheriff. Well, you had the one guy out there, and he did a fine job, but what about, are you going to have a deputy sheriff with his uniform on or what? MS. POLITO-We’re going to try. I’m going to see what my options are. I’ve been working on that this week. I don’t know exactly what I can do. MR. STARK-Did you get in touch with the sheriff? MS. POLITO-No. I haven’t spoken with the sheriff’s yet. First I wanted to contact DOT and see what they said. My father works for Labor Local 190 in Albany, and I asked, gee, I said, can I have a few of his friends up that he works with that are trained union to flag, and they said, no, they’re not allowed out there period. It’s a State highway and unless they’re doing repairs on the road or they’re with the State, they’re not allowed. MR. STARK-Because that was a big problem. MRS. LABOMBARD-And this year you said you’re going to put cones up? But they said legally they’re not allowed? MS. POLITO-My biggest fear is that, since we are back five feet from the curb site, there’s a place for people to park a bike. I mean, cars no, but a bike, yes, and I’m just scared to death that somebody’s going to come out of there, and I mean, everybody here knows what people drive like on Route 9. I mean, that’s what I’m more concerned with than anything. I mean, of course it’s to make the Town and the County happy, but I’m also concerned with the people on the property. I don’t want to see something happen, you know. MR. PALING-Well, this is ’98. I didn’t realize that or I’d have brought it up, and it seems as if this is not resolved, but should be, before we would pass on this, and I wonder if we couldn’t table this until you’ve found out what you are going to do, because you’ve committed to a flagman, which evidently is unacceptable, and you’re going to have to do something else, but you know we know what it is. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MS. POLITO-Yes. They said I could keep the cones in between the curb sites, but I couldn’t put them on the road. MR. STARK-Naomi, why don’t you do this? Why don’t you go talk to the Sheriff, see if you can get a guy part time, you know, up there during, well, it’s busy all day, but get a guy there. It would cost you some extra bucks, but it would be worth it. MS. POLITO-To be honest with you, they were there anyway. I mean, they sit on our property year round, and they pull over as people speeding. I mean, the majority of the Americade, there was somebody there. I mean, they were there regardless, whether we asked or not. MR. MAC EWAN-Were they directing traffic? MS. POLITO-No. They were pulling people over. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you want her to do, go check with the sheriff’s and come back in a week or something, Bob? MR. PALING-That’s what I’m thinking. Whatever it takes. If you couldn’t, we’re meeting again next Tuesday, a week from tonight. You could come back then. MS. POLITO-Not a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-What happens if the sheriff’s aren’t interested in having someone up there directing traffic? MS. POLITO-See, basically what DOT said to me is, even though it’s traffic, they can’t tell them not to park on the side of the road. He said that parking is allowed on Route 9 on the side of the road. That’s what the gentleman I spoke with told me, otherwise, he said, they’d have no parking signs up. MR. STARK-What are you going to do for bathrooms this year? MS. POLITO-For bathrooms, we have a public bathroom inside one of our stores on the end, which we’ve used every year since we haven’t been allowed to use the port-a-johns at all. MR. STARK-Have you got one bathroom, or two? MS. POLITO-I have one bathroom, only one. MR. STARK-For everybody? MS. POLITO-Yes. Lake George won’t allow it and neither will Queensbury. So I’m kind of stuck. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I heard some horror stories, you know, well, that there was just an awful lot of people up there, and people needed facilities pretty desperately. MR. MAC EWAN-At this particular site? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. There were a lot of people. MR. GORALSKI-I can tell you that the Town never received any complaint in that regard. MR. STARK-John, how come Queensbury, at an event like this, they won’t allow porta toilets? MR. GORALSKI-It’s in the Sanitary Code. I don’t know. It was adopted long before I was around. I’m not sure why it is. MR. STARK-I mean, that’s kind of out dated Code, isn’t it? I mean, you know, you get an event like this, four or five thousand people a day going there, have five toilets outside. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. You said that’s a Town Code? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It’s a Town Code. MR. MAC EWAN-How do they do it for the Balloon Festival? MR. GORALSKI-Because that is a Festival. MR. MAC EWAN-A play on words. MR. GORALSKI-This is a commercial venture, not what is defined as a Festival. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a pretty gray area. MR. PALING-New construction is exempt, too. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Construction sites are exempt, too. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go. You need to have a construction festival and you’re all set. MR. PALING-Well, this leaves the Board in kind of a tough position, if we think there’s a dangerous situation there and we don’t have any help from the transportation folks. I hope we do have some help from them. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I need to ask, was it an issue in ’94? Was it an issue in ’95? Was it an issue in ’96, or ’95, ’96, ’97? MS. POLITO-Last year it was brought up as an issue. Saturday we just had an overflow, and regardless of how many people we had on the property parking, it was very hard to keep people off the street. I mean, it’s very hard for us having four people outdoors to say, hey buddy, you can’t park your bike here. I mean, these guys were doing this all day long, running through the crowds trying to find people to get them off the road, and what happened this year was our flagman was asked to leave Friday afternoon. In turn, we had an empty parking lot and a full highway, and there was really nothing we could do. I mean, the sheriff’s came by and said, you cannot come out past this telephone pole. I mean, this year we even had no vendor parking on site. We did shuttle buses. The gentleman down at the Wild West Stables let us park all their trucks and trailers and everything down there. I mean, me personally, I didn’t even have a vehicle on the property. I mean, there was one vehicle on that belonged to us at all times, and that was our shuttle van, and that was it. So, I mean, we do have plenty of space to park people. I mean, I just need cooperation to be able to get them in off the street, and like I had spoken with DOT. He said, gee, he said, the only way that the State would come out there was if it was a continuous problem, and it was so bad, and if there were accidents. He said if year to year there has been an accident there, he said, then they would come and do something. Until that happens, until somebody gets into an accident, DOT won’t help us at all, which is a little odd. MR. PALING-John, have you had any kind of complaints at all from there regarding traffic? MR. GORALSKI-Just hearsay. Nothing official. MR. PALING-Okay. Nothing direct. MR. STARK-We’ve got a long time frame on this. It wouldn’t hurt to table it for a week until she contacts Lamy and see what’s going on. MS. POLITO-Yes. I’ll come back next Tuesday at 7 pm, also. MR. PALING-Now, there’s a public hearing on this, and there’s also a SEQRA to be done on it, in that it’s Unlisted. We can open the public hearing. All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to speak on this matter, the Naomi Polito submission? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Okay. If not, then I think we’ll leave the public hearing open to go along with the tabling of this, and can we do a SEQRA now? No, we can’t. We’ve got to wait. We’ll just have to wait on the SEQRA and leave the public hearing open. We need a motion to table this though, I believe. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-97 NAOMI POLITO , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: rd Until next week, September 23. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Mac Ewan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Then, John, we’ll you see that this is on the agenda for , added the agenda? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-So we’ll see you next week again. MS. POLITO-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. RUEL-I’ve got a question for you. Is it necessary when we table to give a reason for the tabling or not? MR. PALING-I don’t think so. Everybody’s in agreement. We have no controversy, so I think we’re all right. SITE PLAN NO. 33-97 TYPE II RICHARD PROVENZANO OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. RD. PROPOSAL IS TO REPAIR AND RESURFACE DOCK, REMOVE BOATHOUSE AND REPLACE WITH SUNDECK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/10/97 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 9-1-28 LOT SIZE: .30 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 FRANK DE NARDO MR. PALING-Okay, and you are the applicant. John, do you have any comments on this? MR. GORALSKI-No, there was No County Impact on at Warren County. They already have the Lake George Park Commission permit. This is your typical sundeck application. At the public hearing if there’s any comment from the neighbors regarding blocking views or anything like that, those should be considered. Otherwise, we have no comments. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. DE NARDO-Yes. My name is Frank DeNardo. I’m representing Mr. Provenzano. MR. PALING-Okay. Do we need an official representative thing on this? MR. RUEL-Yes. There is one in there. MR. DE NARDO-I believe you have one, yes. MR. PALING-Here it is, Frank DeNardo. Yes, okay. Fine. Okay. Did you have any comments? MR. DE NARDO-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments, questions up here? MR. STARK-What about the resurfaced dock? Are you going to take up the planking, put new planking down? MR. DE NARDO-We’re resurfacing from the water line up. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. STARK-Pressure treated? MR. DE NARDO-Pressured treated, yes. MR. STARK-We went up there, and you’re going to leave all the substructure there? MR. DE NARDO-Correct, except the northern pier. I have to repair the ice damage that’s already there, which I got okayed from the Park Commission already. I mean, if you look down, you can see where all the cribs are laying in the water, on the northern pier. MR. PALING-How tall will it be overall? From the water line up? MR. STARK-Thirteen. MR. RUEL-Thirteen. MR. DE NARDO-Thirteen. MR. PALING-Thirteen, okay, that’s fine. MR. RUEL-It’s on the sketch there. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-There’s a sketch right in there, Bob. MR. PALING-All right. I didn’t look. Okay. Any other comments, questions at the moment? There’s a public hearing on the matter. We’ll open the public hearing on the Richard Provenzano application. Does anyone here care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GORALSKI-I do have a letter. MR. PALING-Okay. Please. MR. GORALSKI-“Dear Mr. Goralski: I’m writing concerning the application for Richard Provenzano to repair his dock and replace the roof with a sundeck. I am his neighbor to the south and fully approve of this project. Jane Caffrey” MR. PALING-Anything else on that? MR. GORALSKI-That’s it. MR. PALING-No comment. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And it’s Type II. We do not need a SEQRA. We can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-97 RICHARD PROVENZANO , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To repair and resurface dock, remove boathouse and replace with a sundeck, with the restriction of the height not to exceed 14 feet. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN- Isn’t there also a boiler plate we put on for a pressure treated as a non leaching type? MR. DE NARDO-It is not leaching pressure I’m using. MR. PALING-All right. Then why don’t you make that part of the motion, the non leaching pressure treated. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. RUEL-I thought that was standard all the time? MR. GORALSKI-I don’t think you can buy anything but non leaching. MR. DE NARDO-No, you can’t anymore. MR. MAC EWAN-I know for a long time we’ve been putting that in as part of our resolution. I thought it was a boiler plate we put in. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you can if you want, but you can’t buy leaching. MR. PALING-That’s good. That’s good to know. MR. RUEL-But you don’t need it. MR. PALING-Then I don’t think we need it, no. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 34-97 TYPE II THOMAS IRISH OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A ND LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. RD., TO CROSSOVER ROAD, MAKE RIGHT, 2 HOUSE ON LEFT, WHITE VICTORIAN APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPAIR AND RESURFACE DOCK, REPLACE BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/10/97 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 9-1-4 LOT SIZE: .26 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John? MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Warren County Planning Board approved with the condition that the stairs be contained within the dock structure, and otherwise, the same comments that we had regarding the last one. MR. PALING-Okay. Believe it or not, we have to have you identify yourself for the record. MR. DE NARDO-My name is Frank DeNardo. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Do you have any other comment, John, any letters? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We have a letter when you open the public hearing. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing is open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GORALSKI-This says “I am I favor of repair and replacement of boathouse with sundeck. Sincerely, Robert Eckardt” MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone else, the public hearing has been opened. Does anyone else care to comment on the Thomas Irish application? Okay. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. DE NARDO-Okay. At the County meeting, they said to keep the staircase within the dock premises. What that’s going to do is change the whole line of the dock, the way the design is. What I wanted to do is bring the stairs down to the seawall, on the north side. MR. PALING-Okay. I can’t tell which is which here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you repeat that please. MR. DE NARDO-Well, basically the same as the drawings are right there right now. You have that one drawing of the dock. The way the stairs come down, they wanted me to put the stairs sideways, instead of off the back. They consider this a land bridge. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. DE NARDO-But putting it down would totally close off the access to the side of the dock. MRS. LABOMBARD-But if you put them on the north side, and they’ll just go right down to the, will there be enough room to walk around the dock? MR. DE NARDO-Well, if it goes down onto the seawall itself, right down onto the seawall, there wouldn’t be a problem at all, but if I had to put them sideways, the way they told me they wanted it, you wouldn’t be able to get access around the dock to the north side of the pier. MR. PALING-Why does the County want it sideways? MR. GORALSKI-The County has a long standing position that they don’t want access directly from land to a sundeck. I’m not sure what the reason for that is. MR. PALING-Okay. I have contacted the County, and I reviewed with them a previous application similar to this. They didn’t want a bridge at all. Their reply was, we have just done it now for years, and we have forgotten really why. They want to have a meeting with me there and just talk the whole thing over. They said they’d call back, and I haven’t heard from them since. So I think we can go ahead on our own with this, and we don’t have to take, well, we have to have a super majority. MR. STARK-Some places, they should have a ramp, you know, it drops down. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-Other places, you don’t need it. MR. DE NARDO-The definition of a land bridge is, these are stairs going down. It’s not a bridge. MR. PALING-I don’t see anything wrong with the way it’s designed. MR. STARK-Do we need a vote, five? MR. PALING-Yes. You need to have a five zip vote, to go by the print. MRS. LABOMBARD-To keep it like it is. MR. STARK-I would just as soon go by the print. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have no problem with it. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Any other questions, comments? All right. This is a Type II. So we don’t need a SEQRA. We’ve had a public hearing. We will go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-97 THOMAS IRISH , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the proposal to repair and resurface dock, replace boathouse with a sundeck, and with the stipulation of the height of the structure should be limited to a maximum of 14 feet. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the magic number? MR. GORALSKI-Fourteen. MR. MAC EWAN-Above the mean high water mark? MR. GORALSKI-Above the mean high water mark, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. RUEL-Fourteen feet. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MR. STARK-When are you going to start construction on these? st MR. DE NARDO-October 1. MRS. LABOMBARD-So they’ll be done by winter? MR. DE NARDO-I hope so. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, why did we do the first one 13 feet, then? MRS. LABOMBARD-That was what it was on the plan. MR. GORALSKI-No. Your motion was 14 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-On the first one? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, it was. MR. GORALSKI-His plan says 13 from the deck, but your motion was for 14 feet maximum, which would be from the mean high water mark. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Why do we mention this 14 feet? If we make a motion to approve, as indicated in the plans, and plans indicate 13 feet, why do we have to go through this 14 foot maximum exercise? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you really don’t, because when we check the building permit, we make sure it complies with the zoning regulations, and if it’s more than 14 feet, we’re not going to issue a building permit. MR. RUEL-I think it’s overkill. If we had an application with no indication of the height, then I agree that we should stipulate the maximum of 14 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s wrong with this Board getting regimented to doing some sort of standard policy so that when the applicant walks out of this room, after getting an approval, they know that they can’t exceed the 14 feet, so that when they get out there to do their construction, it doesn’t slip their mind that they built something 15’ 2”. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. RUEL-He just told you that at the time they get building permit, that that will be checked. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not hurting anything by putting that extra little boiler plate in the resolution. MR. RUEL-There is nothing wrong with adding, but we could add many other things. All I’m saying is, why repeat something that’s not necessary. MRS. LABOMBARD-Roger, we’ve talked about this a couple of times in the past few months. MR. RUEL-On this 14 foot? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, and it was something that we just said, let the contractor, let the builder just hear it from us, because it might just, it might slip his mind. It might be 14 feet 2 inches. MR. RUEL-Okay. Then I should stipulate the length of the dock should not exceed certain, the width of the dock should not exceed a certain width. MRS. LABOMBARD-That hasn’t been as moot a thing as the length and the, as the height, but you’re right. I know where you’re coming from. MR. RUEL-I’ll add anything in there, but I don’t think it’s necessary. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we went through this and it was kind of the consensus. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. He’s voiced his opinion. We’ll accept it. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED THE MICHAELS GROUP OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD BETWEEN BLIND ROCK AND TEE HILL ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 43 LOT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 17-1997 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/7/97 TAX MAP NOS. 48-3-31, 33, 39.1, 39.2, 43 & 44 LOT SIZE: 84.55+ ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was on August 26, and I think it was left open, wasn’t it? MR. GORALSKI-Well, no. The public hearing was closed. MRS. LABOMBARD-We closed it but we were going to re-open it? MR. GORALSKI-You don’t have to. There’s no need for a public hearing at final, but if you want to open a public hearing, you certainly can. MR. STARK-Okay. Jon, any comments? MR. LAPPER-We think that we’re ready for Final and we hope you agree. We’re pretty proud of this application, and we had a room full of neighbors here at the two public hearings, and now there’s an empty room, indicative that everyone seems to be in agreement. MR. STARK-You don’t have anything to add from the last meeting? MR. LAPPER-No. We made the changes to the maps that you had required, and we included some additional covenants in the Covenants and Restrictions that dealt with the neighbor’s issues that were raised about blocking off access to a neighbor’s properties, and that’s in the Covenants and Restrictions. MR. STARK-John, do you have any comments? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There were two outstanding issues as Jon says. One is the grading a clearing around a culvert, which Tom or Jim should probably just explain to the Board exactly how they’ve resolved that, and the other was the use of the undeveloped association property, and you’ve all got a copy of that last paragraph in the Covenants and Restrictions. MR. NACE-Very briefly, there’s a low area, existing drainage area, that drains down through this way. As I explained to you before, for the record, my name is Tom Nace, with Nace Engineering, representing The Michaels Group. There’s a drainage swale existing that comes down in behind Cedar Court that originates up in this area. We are blocking that drainage with the road. We’re intercepting what collects in behind here with a culvert that comes into our closed drainage system to the detention pond. The elevation of that previously had been fairly high, higher than the existing grade, and then we were going to fill this, but in doing that, we found we were really going to have to clear a good many trees in here. So instead, we were able to lower some of the drainage pipe all the way down to the pond, and lower this culvert, so it is now at about existing grade. I think where there’s maybe three quarters to a foot of fill to make the culvert work. So, what we’ve done is we have done a wee little bit of additional clearing and added a little bit of fill, but much less than previously needed. MR. STARK-Okay. John, have you got any comments at all? MR. GORALSKI-The only additional comments I have are, first, if you want the Town to enforce this Paragraph J of the Covenants and Restrictions, you need to include that in your motion, okay. We have no authority to enforce Covenants and Restrictions unless it’s part of your motion. MR. LAPPER-What he’s referring to is the residents here won’t be accessing the adjacent properties or using that other alternative access to Bay Road. We put it in here because we expect it to be enforced, and as a condition of final site plan approval, it’s totally appropriate. MR. GORALSKI-You can either just stipulate in your motion that Paragraph J is required, or as an alternative, you could have Paragraph J simply added to the subdivision plan as a note. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s even a better idea. MR. GORALSKI-This way it’s on the subdivision map. That might be the best way to do it. MR. STARK-Okay. Roger, do you have any comments? MR. RUEL-Yes. I have some questions. I’m not sure that all these items were in fact taken care of. Drainage plan was taken care of, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. What about the site distance review of traffic study? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Roger Gebo from Warren County. MR. NACE-That was taken care of prior to preliminary. We got the actual permit from the County for the road entrance. MR. RUEL-So you’re squared away with Warren County DPW? MR. NACE-Yes, we are. MR. RUEL-And you’re squared away with New York State Department of Health. MR. NACE-That has been submitted to the Department of Health and is being reviewed by them. MR. GORALSKI-Traditionally, the Department of Health does not approve a subdivision plan until after the Town Planning Board does. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, I’m fine. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. STARK-Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-The only question I had was, the neighbor to the south, who had that house that was set way back in, that first house there near the boulevard, has anything come about in discussions afterwards to help him kind of ease his concerns about looking over that way, as far as plantings or whatever? MR. LAPPER-We showed last time was that, he has a narrow lot to begin with, but that’s where we’re buffering that up with all the extensive re-location of existing trees. I mean, we think that we’ve done a very nice job, and Jim could best speak on that. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-We spoke to him as the meeting broke up last time. My name’s Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and he seemed satisfied that we were doing as much as we could to buffer his property. He also had a concern. He said he has a shallow well there, and explained to him that we’re bringing a water line in. So he would be able to access Town water, and use his well for something else. MR. RUEL-The Beautification Committee had some comments, and I assume that you will abide by them. One is a sprinkler system in the boulevard area? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. RUEL-And the reduction of lighting wattage in that area also? MR. MILLER-Yes. We went to a lower height light than was used at Hudson Pointe, and also it’s going to have a reflector in it that directs the light downward onto the pavement. MR. RUEL-So these are comments that the Committee had, and you will abide by all the comments that they had? MR. MILLER-Yes, we will. MR. STARK-Okay. Does anyone from the public wish to speak at all, any comments at all? No comments? Fine. We’ll go to a motion. MR. RUEL-John, you spoke about that note. Exactly what? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would recommend that if you want that to be enforced by the Town, that Paragraph J in the Covenants and Restrictions that were submitted by Lemery & Reid be added as a note to the Subdivision plat. MR. RUEL-Okay. So that’ll be the only condition, right? Do we have any others? All right. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 THE MICHAELS GROUP , Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For a 43 lot clustered subdivision, with the condition that Paragraph J of the covenant and restrictions document be added to the plan as a note. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. We have a request from Jon Lapper representing Berkshire to discuss their active job site on Quaker Road. So I’m just going to turn, for now, the meeting over to Jon. Jon, do you want us to read your letter in first, or would you just like to? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. LAPPER-I think it would probably be good to read it in. MR. PALING-Okay. John, you want to read that into the record? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. “Dear Bob: On behalf of Berkshire-Glens Falls, L.L.C., I am writing to ask that the Planning Board consider passing a resolution which strongly requests that Hannaford Brothers, Inc. grant the driveway access easements to Berkshire. The Berkshire site plan was approved by the Planning Board with alternative entrances. The site can be accessed by the existing Doyle’s entrances and was also designed to eliminate the entrances onto Quaker Road and Bay Road and, instead, utilize the signalized Hannaford access drive. The Planning Board agreed that while the site will function properly with the existing entrances, utilizing the signalized driveway will help to reduce congestion at the Bay and Quaker intersection. Additionally, due to the discovery of pre-disturbed Quaker remains on the Doyle’s site, Berkshire has dedicated to the Town an adjacent portion of the landscaped area on the site to expand the Quaker cemetery. If Hannaford grants the access easements, the Bay Road driveway can be removed, thus creating an additional planted area adjacent to the southern boundary of the cemetery which can also be dedicated to the Town to further expand the cemetery. The request to Hannaford cannot be characterized as asking it to aid a competitor because the Berkshire project is approved, under construction and will soon be fully operational utilizing the existing entrances. However, by granting this request Hannaford can improve traffic flow at this centrally located intersection which will benefit all area residents and visitors. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any questions about the letter or what we’re being requested? MR. STARK-I remember Jim, when he was here, had contact with Hannaford, and he got shot down at every turn. MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Say that again? MR. STARK-Jim Martin had already contacted Hannaford numerous times, and he didn’t get absolutely anywhere. MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. MR. STARK-So, granted it’s under construction and it will be ready in a few months and all this. Have you contacted Hannaford at all? MR. GORALSKI-No, I have not. MR. MAC EWAN-What has Hannaford’s response been, when Jim Martin was trying to contact them? Did they just go unanswered? MR. GORALSKI-Basically, they went unanswered. MR. MAC EWAN-Went unanswered, non responsive. MR. RUEL-No comment. MR. PALING-Mark, did you have a comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I did, Bob. Like, I think everybody else, I think that it would be very appropriate for this accommodation to be made, meaning for that access road to be utilized, but I have a problem, from a legal standpoint, with the request, simply because I think that your authority, as a Planning Board, is limited to the powers that are granted to you under New York State Statute, and I don’t think you have the authority to issue this sort of directive or even request, because I don’t think it’s part of your review function of a particular application. If Mr. Lapper can direct me to some authority that I’m not aware of that would allow you to do this, I don’t have any problem with the substance of the request. As I say, I think the Planning Board members, I think to a person, made your opinions clear when the CVS project was approved, that you felt it would be appropriate for Hannaford to do this. MR. PALING-That’s right. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. SCHACHNER-But my problem, of course, as your legal counsel is strictly from the legality of it. I don’t know that, I think that you’re not authorized, under New York Statute, to issue this sort of request. MR. STARK-Did you contact Hannaford? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STARK-What did they tell you? MR. LAPPER-We’re in a dialogue, but we don’t have an answer from them. So they have not formally answered us. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the dialogue been to this date? MR. LAPPER-That they will get back to us, and that hasn’t happened. MR. MAC EWAN-And how long ago did you contact them? MR. LAPPER-The last thing that happened was that I received a letter at the beginning of August from their in-house counsel saying that all correspondence will be handled by their office, and we don’t have a formal response yet. If I could just give you some background, and I want to address Mark’s issue as well. When I was here originally, over the course of the winter to get this approved, as Mark said, you all made it very clear that you preferred and suggested that we have access to that signalized intersection. The site has permission and has every right, because you can’t have it, landlocked site has every right to use the existing Doyle’s access, and that’s how it was approved. However, in anticipation that we wouldn’t have Hannaford access, we restricted the main entrance on Quaker to right turn out only. So that we wouldn’t be creating a problem which did exist with Doyle’s and we would be eliminating that, but the site was designed and approved by this Board, showing the two alternative entrances, and the developer committed that if Hannaford grants approval, grants an easement, a private easement, to use these two entrances, that the developer, at its expense, would remove the pavement if it had already been done, or if it hadn’t been done, would do the design engineering work, and construction curbs and paving, to take care of these entrances to include them. This is not something that benefits the developer financially in any way, because the site will work. All of the area residents will know that you can get in the site this way, or you can get in the site this way. It’s going to cost the developer money to do this, but it makes sense, from a traffic engineering standpoint, as this Board recognized, because then everyone gets to use the signalized intersection, and stays away from the big intersection of Bay and Quaker. So it’s good planning. In the interim, a lot has happened, and I don’t believe that I’ve been before this Board to talk about what we uncovered, in terms of the Quaker remains on the site. I know that I’ve been to the Town Board and I’ve had numerous discussions with Mark and with John. Was I here also? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, you were here. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So as a result of that, we’ve now completed a dedication to the Town. I guess we’ve changed the site plan. So we’ve now completed the dedication of the additional parcel, which this map shows, to the Town. So there’s an expanded cemetery. Because the limits of the graveyard were obviously not what was agreed to in 1960 to settle the issue between the Doyle family and the Quaker community, the possibility exists that there may be more grave sites under the entrance drive at Bay Road, and what the Quakers have said is, gee, it would be nice, since we’re expanding the cemetery this way and we have all the 75 foot green space here within the Travel Corridor Overlay District, that if this were not needed as an entrance, this could also be added to the cemetery. So that’s their perspective, and I know that the Town Historian and the Head of the Cemetery Committee will both be corresponding with Hannaford separately to indicate that they are requesting that this be done as good planning, in terms of the historical/archeological issues. What I’m requesting, I think, is one step simpler than what Mark is contemplating. I’m just looking for this Board to reiterate that at the time, there are two things. One is that the Subdivision ordinance in the Town states that it is recommended that you have interconnected sites, just like at Route 9 in the outlets there is some talk, which obviously is facilitated by both property owners, which is not the case here, but that for good planning, you should have interior traffic patterns, so everyone doesn’t have a separate curb cut. In 1986, I guess, when the Doyle’s did their subdivision to allow Hannaford to be built, there wasn’t such a proactive Planning Department or Planning Board, and that was not done. It should have been done. It could have 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) been done at the time, as good planning, and it wasn’t done. So that’s a policy of the Town that exists in the subdivision regulations. In addition to that, this Board indicated during the site plan review as a matter of good planning that you would hope that that could be the case. So all I’m asking for, I’m certainly not asking for a resolution that requires anybody to do anything, because I agree with Mark that there’s no authority. They’re not an applicant, but just to formally request, as the planning agency of this Town, that it would be good planning for them to consider the resolution, and that this Board thinks that it would be in the interest of the community to facilitate traffic movement at this major intersection for them to grant the request. MR. RUEL-That’s fine, but if we don’t have Hannaford approval. MR. LAPPER-Well, I’m not asking for you to do anything that has any teeth, but just as an indication that it is the Board’s, as the planning agency for the Town, that it is the Board’s desire that Hannaford consider that, because we are, have not been successful in getting a decision out of them to date. MR. MAC EWAN-So really what you’re asking us to do is to pen a letter to them asking them to reconsider, you know, in light of what our Planning Board resolution was for the site plan is to consider allowing you to use the interconnector on it? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-In the form of a letter. MR. LAPPER-Not because it’s in the best interest of the developer, but because it’s in the best interest of the community, which is who you’re speaking for. MR. STARK-I remember Jim Martin seemed to think that once the construction was started, Hannaford might come around, because it wouldn’t make any sense to stone wall some more, but apparently that hasn’t happened. MR. LAPPER-They are stonewalling still. MR. STARK-Do you recall that, John? MR. GORALSKI-I don’t remember who said it, but somebody at the meeting did say that, you know, there’s a better chance, once this project gets approved, that Hannaford would be willing to consider this. MR. PALING-Yes, once there’s going to be a drugstore there for sure, so why oppose it any longer? MR. MAC EWAN-How appropriate is it for us to do this sort of letter writing? MR. PALING-Not at all. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I think that, again, not because I have any problem, nor do I think anybody else does, with the substance of the request, in terms of the advisability of allowing that access or facilitating that access, but the truth of the matter is, this Board is not really what Mr. Lapper calls the planning agency of the Town. This Board, by New York State Statute, your authority is limited to reviewing applications that are put before you. MR. LAPPER-But, Mark, isn’t this in the context of the application that was put before them at the beginning of the year? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that the answer to that is that, in that context this Board approved an application, and in the context of that approval, indicated, I think on numerous occasions in the context of that approval, and I think these are reflected in the minutes, this Board’s feeling both as a group a Board about the advisability of that access, and if the applicant, or any other private entity wants to send copies of those minutes and those resolutions to Hannaford, I’m all for it, but what I have a problem with is the legality of this Board doing anything by way of a formal resolution, even a formal letter to Hannaford making that request, because there’s no application from Hannaford pending before it. For example, I would hate to see, this is a whatif. I would hate to see a future Hannaford application come in that this Board denies, and this Board is then subject to criticism and perhaps litigation from denying a future Hannaford application, when Hannaford 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) will feel that this Board may have been biased against it for failure of Hannaford to comply with some previous formal letter request of this Planning Board. MR. PALING-Is there any form in which we could, well, I guess you’ve answered already. I guess I don’t want to believe it. MR. LAPPER-I’m only asking that that be communicated, and those resolutions, Hannaford is in the dark. They don’t know what the Planning Board’s position is. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Then my suggestion is that the applicant communicate that to Hannaford by making copies of the appropriate resolutions and the appropriate minutes. Not only is that perfectly appropriate, but obviously, whether it’s appropriate or not, the applicant can do that, just like any other private entity can do that. I just think it’s not within your lawful authority to send a letter to Hannaford making this request. MR. LAPPER-It would have more weight coming from the Planning Board. MR. STARK-We already said that we’d prefer that. Why don’t you just point that out to Hannaford? MR. GORALSKI-Certainly, when the Planning Board had their original deliberations about this, I think everyone, to a member, stated that they felt that accessing the, for a lack of a better term, the Hannaford access road was a better plan than utilizing the existing Doyle’s road cuts. Myself, as Director of Community Development, I would go on record right now as saying that, from a traffic safety standpoint and a circulation standpoint, certainly the utilization of that loop road is a better plan than utilizing what can be termed the existing Doyle’s road cuts. I think that we’ve told Hannaford that, and I think the Board is in agreement with that, and certainly if Hannaford read the minutes of this meeting or any other meeting that we’ve had on this, they would realize that the Board strongly feels that the better plan is to use that loop road. MR. MAC EWAN-In any of Jim’s previous correspondences with Hannaford, was a copy of the resolution for approval for this site sent to them, do you know of? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. LAPPER-I wonder if I have a compromise proposal. Mark, how would you feel if this Board requested John, as the Director of Planning, to forward copies of the prior resolutions, or just indicate this Board’s desire, from prior meetings? MR. SCHACHNER-I would feel the same way about this Board doing that by resolution. If the Director of Community Development wants to do that, I don’t have any problem with that. Obviously, if the applicant wants to do that, I have no problem with that, but my only problem is with this Board enacting a formal resolution directing or requesting, formally requesting, anything of Hannaford or directing someone to do something relative to Hannaford. That’s my problem. MR. PALING-Yes. I’d like to ask a question and make a comment. Question. Imminent Domain was discussed as a possible action the Town would take. Is that still a possibility? MR. LAPPER-I discussed that with the Town Board, but didn’t make a formal request, because the idea is to try and negotiate it privately without having to request that. So I haven’t made that request to the Town Board. That is a power that the Town Board has. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And I would answer that question, I mean, I’m not disagreeing with Mr. Lapper. I think it was discussed very, very briefly, what I would say, just in passing. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then I’m going to make a comment. I hope it isn’t too far out of line, in two part. First of all, I’d like the Board to realize, and everyone else to realize, the extent to which this applicant has gone to make this a real good community project. Not only have they worked nice with the Quaker Community, with historical people, they’ve gone, I think, beyond what the law requires. They’ve given, let the archeologists use a construction trailer, just out of the goodness of their heart. The bones that are extracted from here, they will try to match up to make a pile of bones a person, and have them. The applicant is donating individual wooden cartons for each set of remains. They’re wooden because that’s what the Quaker Community has requested. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) They’re doing everything they can. They’ve spent over $120,000 right now on this end of the project, and it’s still going to go, and now they’ve got additional land added to the cemetery. I am going to write to the Hannaford company, as a citizen of Queensbury, and I’m also a stockholder in Hannaford. I have been for about two years, and I’m going to cite my personal feeling about this. I’m going to tell them that I’m Chairman of the Planning Board. I’m an interested citizen, and I’m going to tell them what I think of what they’re doing and the condition that I think they’ve created. I just want to advise the Board and give them a little background, to build up to it, but that’s what I intend to do, as an individual. MR. SCHACHNER-And you would be doing that, presumably, on some sort of personal letterhead, as opposed to Town letterhead? MR. PALING-Absolutely. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s fine. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is Hannaford aware of the fact that Berkshire wants to dedicate that other portion of the, that adjacent portion of the land to enhance the size of the cemetery? MR. GORALSKI-I don’t specifically know the answer to that, because I can tell you that every contact we’ve had with Hannaford has basically gone nowhere. We haven’t had any real discussions with anyone. MR. LAPPER-They’re not answering the phones, basically. MRS. LABOMBARD-But what I’m saying is, if you send them literature from your firm, then they would probably read it. MR. LAPPER-I guess, the way I see it is they, I believe that they are a very well run company, and that they are very community minded. They do a lot of community activities, and what I’m trying to do is get them to do what is good planning, what’s good for the community, and to build a ground swell of support, and that’s why I’m asking the Planning Board to just state on the record what you’ve already stated on the record, and perhaps your prior resolution is enough, but it’s just that it needs to get communicated to them, from somebody other than me, who is seen as a partisan representing the adjacent developer. So it needs to come from somebody neutral. I know that the head of the cemetery committee will be contacting them formally, and I know that the Town Historian will be contacting them, because that deals with those issues, but in terms of the traffic issue, I think that that is your issue, and I guess I have to be in somewhat disagreement with Mark, technically, in terms of what, maybe, I think that this can be done, because this is related to the application for our site, and I guess I would just respectfully like to communicate with Mark in the next week and see if I can get him to change his mind. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my response to that would be if our attorney’s advising us that that’s not an appropriate measure for our Board to take, then I’m going to go by his advice. I would also add to it that I would think that coming letters and telephone calls and correspondences generated by the former and the current zoning administration would have a lot more tooth to it than what we’d be able to do, in any kind of letter writing campaign as a Board or a formal resolution as a Board, and if they’re not responding to the Zoning Administrator, they aren’t going to respond to us. MR. LAPPER-Well, now’s the time to make it happen, because the project’s going to open, and maybe it’s a good time for John to write another letter, since so much has changed. MR. GORALSKI-We can talk about that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. PALING-And a good time for Imminent Domain consideration. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a Town Board issue, and that’s not an issue to be taken lightly, but if somebody wants to make that request of the Town Board, they can look at it. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-Mark, what kind of legal repercussions could happen? I mean, I’m not saying, I mean, I feel that we have to take your advice, but what, I’m just curious. What would happen if we collectively sent a letter like this? What could they do, even though it was just a letter? MR. SCHACHNER-The most obvious one I could think of is the one I started to describe earlier, which is that at some future. MRS. LABOMBARD-Down the line. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, some future application is denied, and you’re subject to attack, including possible litigation for having a bias against them for failure to comply with the previous request of them from you that you weren’t really lawfully authorized to make. MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-I can even put another spin on it. I could see a problem opening up in the future that if we did it for this applicant, would we do it for other applicants for other projects across the Town that has a conflict around it, and that’s a dangerous precedent I don’t want to set. MR. STARK-You’re fighting an uphill battle. MR. LAPPER-I’ll be back. MR. PALING-I think what we should have done is to turn the applicant down on the, somehow force the issue earlier, not to get rid of the application, but to get the road taken over somehow. MR. MAC EWAN-What could we have done? We weren’t in a position to do that. MR. STARK-You can’t force the Town to Imminent Domain the property. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t deny the application because he doesn’t have access to use a competitor’s roadway because he’s proven he has ingress and egress to the site. MR. STARK-When’s their target date to open? MR. LAPPER-The store’s going to be turned over to CVS the third week in October, and to Hollywood Video the third week in November. So a month after that, so probably toward the end of November would be the first opening, and the site would have to be completely done, but they could open it the way it is, and even if this takes six months, and Hannaford agrees then, that’s fine. They’ll just re-do it. It’s just a matter of getting there, but just one last comment, responding to what Roger and Craig said, in terms of putting pressure on a neighbor. The issue here is how Quaker and Bay works. The site works fine the way it is. I mean, that’s why I’m here, because we see this as a planning issue, as a planning issue for that whole part of Town, not as something that you have to do to help out this applicant. I mean, we can open tomorrow, the leases are signed, ready to go. It’s just a matter of, I need this to be communicated to Hannaford, that it really is in the community’s interest, and I was hoping that that could come from you. I disagree with Mark that you don’t have the authority to do it, but of course you’re right to take his advice because he’s your attorney, and I usually agree with Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. As I said earlier, if Mr. Lapper can find me authority that gives this Planning Board or states that this Planning Board has a broader authority than I think it does, I’m happy to consider that authority. MR. PALING-Well, I don’t think we’re going to go against your recommendation. I wish we could do something, as a Board. MR. LAPPER-I’ll communicate with Mark, but I hope that, since John hears what you’re saying, that he will take up the fight. MR. PALING-We hope so, too, John. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. STARK-You’re at a dead end. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. LAPPER-Okay. Well, not necessarily. There’s never a dead end. MR. MAC EWAN-Just another curve in the highway. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think you’ve got some avenues. Bob is going to do a personal letter, and then John hears us strong and clearly. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Did Steve want anything? He was here and then left. MR. GORALSKI-Steve Borgos? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-He’s the realtor for Surrey Fields. MR. PALING-Okay. He’s the realtor for Surrey Fields? MR. GORALSKI-He represents the sellers, Dr. Barber. MR. PALING-Is there anything else to come before the Board? Does anyone else want to speak? MRS. LABOMBARD-I would like to bring up the fact that the next time we go on site visits, or John, maybe you could go down to Dr. Maddox’s place on Dunham’s Bay. I haven’t seen it close up, only from a distance by boat, and my friend who’s a builder, who’s been a builder on the lake for 30 some odd years said it’s an atrocity what has happened to the Maddox’s property with that boathouse next to it, and I just want you to take a look at it. MR. GORALSKI-I’m not familiar with where that is. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it was the one where, it was at the end of Dunham’s Bay, and the people just to the north of them, which were the last people on the point, wanted to put a boathouse in, but they also had 200 feet around the point. Anyhow, it was a four, three decision. The boathouse ended up going in. MR. MAC EWAN-It was the one where the neighbors to the south were opposing the height of it because of the view, and they were going to miss the sunsets. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. The Maddox’s were, Dr. Maddox and Dr. King were. MR. GORALSKI-This isn’t Harris Bay? This isn’t the Cantanucci one on Harris Bay? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Dunham’s Bay. MR. STARK-Remember, there was a big rock there and he couldn’t put the dock there, so they were putting the dock east. MR. GORALSKI-Do you remember who the applicant was? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, I don’t remember, but I just remember that it was the Maddox’s and the Kings were really. I’ve only seen it from a distance, and the way it was angled, it was a real. MR. MAC EWAN-We did that in early spring. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. It’s really been really angled bad. MR. STARK-It can’t be more than 14 feet high. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. PALING-That’s right. MRS. LABOMBARD-The way it angled, because of. MR. STARK-The guy had a big rock in the water. That’s why he couldn’t angle it different. MR. RUEL-Yes. He mentioned that the night he was here. MR. PALING-It was 40 by 40, wasn’t it? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-It was a big one. MR. RUEL-He said he had to change it. MRS. LABOMBARD-But he could have gone around the other side of the rock, because he had 200 feet of frontage to play with. MR. GORALSKI-Next to Maddox, you said? MRS. LABOMBARD-It was next to Dr. Maddox and King. MR. STARK-King and Maddox complained about it. They didn’t want it. Remember Bud went down and said he sat on the dock and it interfered with his sunset and all this stuff. MRS. LABOMBARD-What’s it’s done is just about come around and cut off their entire waterfront, it seems. MR. GORALSKI-What I can do is look into it and make sure it was built per the resolution. That’s all I can do. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I understand that, and I just want to go up, as a Board and just re- visit it. MR. MAC EWAN-The guy’s name was Dale Campbell. Site Plan No. 15-97. MR. STARK-John, do you want to introduce us to George’s replacement? MR. GORALSKI-Well, we introduced everyone but you, George. MR. STARK-Where was I? MR. GORALSKI-You were chit chatting with the peanut gallery. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I didn’t come in until five of, so I missed it. MR. GORALSKI-Laura Nowicki, this is George Stark and Cathy LaBombard. MR. MAC EWAN-It was a four to three approval. The new height was going to be 12 foot 10 inches. Four to three, and I voted no, I can tell you that much. MR. STARK-I voted no. We were smart. Yes, we did vote no. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I will make sure that it was built per the resolution. MR. RUEL-Cathy, I think your comment should apply to Planning Board members. So that in the future we take better consideration of a situation like that. Because I’m sure that he’s meeting all the requirements of the application, but if you send John out there to check it, then he’ll find everything is okay. It’s already done. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I know that. I just wanted just to go back to take a look. I want to go back and look, because the way it was presented to us, it didn’t seem like, four of us didn’t feel like it was going to be such an obstruction, and in reality, I it is. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/16/97) MR. PALING-We’ll just go back and look. MRS. LABOMBARD-We went right out there and stood on that dock. MR. RUEL-Cathy, do you think if we had better drawings, elevation drawings and so forth, it would have been better? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I’m just saying, you asked if there was anything that came up, and I’m just, I very seldom bring something up, and this is something I’m bringing up. That’s all. It’s no big deal. MR. PALING-The only thing I’ve got to say is that Larry and Tim were not here tonight, and they’re not going to be here next week, either one of them. So please, if you guys anticipate being absent next week, call in quick, quick, because this is all that’s going to be here next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman 22