Loading...
2002-04-11 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 11, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY JOHN STROUGH ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER LARRY RINGER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2002 SITE PLAN NO. 18-2002 RECOMMENDATION BENYAMINI ENTERPRISES & TARGET PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES CULLINAN, G. CASS, SR., TRUSTEE, ROBYN TRUST AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP CURRENT ZONING: SFR-20 PROPOSED ZONING: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EVERTS AVENUE, SOUTH OF QUAKER THE PLANNING BOARD IS REQUESTING SEQRA LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE REIVEW OF THE PROJECT WHICH INCLUDES REZONING A PORTION OF THE SITE, AND THE SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS REZONING OF 3 LOTS, WITH A COMBINED AREA OF 5.3 ACRES, FROM SFR-20 TO HC-1A. THE TOWN BOARD HAS REQUESTED A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON THE REZONING. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 125,400 SQ. FT. RETAIL TARGET STORE ON 16.2 ACRES WITH PARKING AND ON-SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. NO ACTION ON THE PROJECT WILL OCCUR AT THIS TIME. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 3- 1999, UV 62-1993, SV 63-1993, PZ 1-99, SP 11-99, AV 20-1999, SP 13-99, PZ 3-98, SV 77-1999 TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION: 92.2002 (1/28/02) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-34.1, 29.3, 29.1 LOT SIZE: 11.22 AC., 0.48 AC., AND 2.14 AC. SECTION: 179-94, 179-23 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ROUND-As you know, the Benyamini application, they have submitted a site plan and identified a tenant for the proposed retail commercial facility, and as such, there’s a site plan review, and now the Planning Board is an involved agency, and it’s been the policy of the Town Board to delegate or to allow you to act as Lead Agency when a Petition for Rezone is partnered with a site plan review, and the resolution in front of you is just requesting lead agency status for SEQRA review purposes, and once you pass this resolution, the Town Board has a resolution allowing you to act as lead agency. I know, Rich, you had a question. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Maybe Craig could field it. The original assignment was to make a recommendation on the rezone, and now to assume lead agency sort of puts the cart in front of the horse and assumes that our recommendation is that, yes, we do want to rezone, and it may very well be that we do, but we certainly haven’t reached that recommendation. The Board hasn’t said that they agree, and so, aren’t we kind of getting ahead of ourselves by saying we want to be lead agency on the site plan review when we haven’t even established the fact that we want to rezone? MR. ROUND-Right. Well, the SEQRA Lead Agency status is for both the Petition for Rezoning and for the site plan review. So the way the process is going to have to work is that before the Town Board, before any involved agency takes action, you have to reach a SEQRA determination. So that’s the first step, and you may find positively or negatively. You may find, you might issue a positive declaration. You’re not going to do it at this point. All this is doing is just starting the process, but once you are SEQRA Lead Agency, you might reach a positive declaration causing an environmental impact statement to be prepared. You might reach a negative declaration, meaning that you don’t require an EIS. You could then, I mean, you could make a recommendation at any point during the process. A recommendation is not an action. It’s simply a 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) recommendation. So you could make a recommendation for rezoning, or you could recommend, you know, against a rezoning at any point during the process. Without a flow chart, that might be helpful. MR. RINGER-I think it might be easier to say at some point there’s going to have to be SEQRA done. The Town can’t do the rezoning without a SEQRA. So, somebody’s got to do it. Since we’re the lead agency, when there’s a site plan involved, then we become the SEQRA agency. That’s the simple answer. MR. SANFORD-No, actually, I don’t want to get hung up on a fine point if no one sees it as material, but I don’t know if that’s a correct statement. If there’s not a recommendation for rezoning. MR. RINGER-The Town still has to do a SEQRA. MR. SANFORD-If the Town Board, then, also doesn’t want to rezone, why is a SEQRA needed? MR. RINGER-Because they do the SEQRA as part of their rezoning. MR. ROUND-Even for a no vote on a rezoning, that’s an action by the Board, and you have to reach a SEQRA determination. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I didn’t know that. MR. ROUND-What’s unusual is that the Board doesn’t, the Town Board doesn’t have to take any action on the rezoning. So, worst case, as far as the applicant goes, you reach a, you issue a positive declaration on the SEQRA review. You start them along the EIS process, you issue no recommendation. They’ve got a vote stacked against them at the Town Board, and now the Town Board says we don’t even know if we want to take it. So it’s a risk, on the part of the applicant, that they have to go through this whole entire process, and the parallel is the Nigro project, a similar instance where you’ve got two boards reaching separate decisions that are all, you know, you’ve got to basically answer yes with the exception of this Pos Dec, throughout this entire process, in order for the project to move forward successfully. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. RINGER-Except the Town did the SEQRA on Nigro. MR. ROUND-On Nigro, and it’s a complicated, it is complicated, and it confuses us every time we have to explain it. MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re about to do tonight is going to hopefully lessen that complication by us taking that active lead role. Any other discussion on it? MR. RINGER-I don’t have any problem with that. Except that I don’t understand why we have to do it if the Town made a resolution a year ago that we would be the lead agency whenever there was a site plan. I thought the Town made that resolution? MR. ROUND-That was a policy decision, but each and every action you have to go through that process. MR. RINGER-Okay. That answered my question. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does somebody want to move it? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll move it. MR. HUNSINGER-We have one resolution prepared for both projects. MR. ROUND-No. Benyamini/Target. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MR. ROUND-That’s this stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, moved it. RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE - PZ 2-2002 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 18-2002 FOR BENYAMINI ENTERPRISES / TARGET CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO.: PZ 2-2002 / SP 18-2002 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) INTRODUCED BY: Robert Vollaro WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION: SECONDED BY: Larry Ringer Whereas, Benyamini Enterprises / Target Corporation has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Clerk’s office and the application has been reviewed by the Town Planning Staff and deemed complete for purposes of review, and Whereas, applications for rezoning and zoning amendments are forwarded to the Town Planning Department and Planning Board for recommendation in accordance with Section 179-94 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, and Whereas, the project is an allowed use in the Highway Commercial Zone and requires the review and approval of the Queensbury Planning Board, and Whereas, the project applicant has submitted application materials and completed a Long Environmental Assessment Form to allow for evaluation of the project’s environmental impacts, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for purpose of SEQRA review of this project and directs the Zoning Administrator’s Office to notify any other involved agencies for the following: APPLICATION OF: Benyamini Enterprises / Target Corporation TAX MAP NOS. PZ 2-2002 – 108-1-34.1, 29.3, 29.1 SP 18-2002 – 108-1-34.1, 34.2, 30, 29.2, 29.3, 29.1 PROPERTY LOCATION: PZ 2-2002 - East side of Everts, south of Quaker SP 18-2002 – East side of Everts, south of Quaker & Quaker Rd. APPLICATION FOR: PZ 2-2002 - Rezoning of parcels currently zoned SFR-20 to HC- 1A SP 18-2002 – Proposed development of a 125,400 sq. ft retail Target Store with parking and on-site stormwater management. Duly adopted this 11 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. RINGER-Before we move on to the next item, I have another question on this. We made a vote, two years ago or a year and a half ago, that wherever we had a project going forth more than 45 or 50,000 square feet that was within 500 yards of the City line, we would notify the City Planning Board, per recommendation, and I don’t know if the borderlines here are going to fall into that. MRS. RYBA-I checked that. It’s 500 feet, and it does not fall within that, but as a matter of course, we always send our agendas to the Planning Board of Glens Falls. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, our motion was that we would get a recommendation from them if it fell within that 500 feet. I just wanted to be sure that the end line, because we had so many of the residents come forward that were City residents and not Town residents. Klein Avenue, I believe, is in the City. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the Town, City school district, but it’s in the Town. MR. RINGER-Other than that, I didn’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move on to the next one. MR. VOLLARO-On Home Depot. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 1-2002 SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002 HOME DEPOT PROPERTY OWNER: GERTRUDE STONE, NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC., LLC, ALEXANDER POTENZA AND FRANK BORK AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SFR- 1A/PC-1A LOCATION: SOUTH EAST SIDE OF MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) DEMOLITION OF APPROXIMATELY 85,000 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE AND CONSTRUCTION OFA 116,000 SQ. FT. HOME DEPOT HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEQRA REVIEW. THE BOARD WILL COMMENCE SITE PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT. SEQRA DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 1-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 72-7-2-3, 4 LOT SIZE: 5.32 AC., 25.22 AC., 4.13 AC. SECTION: 179-22, 179-20 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a Special Board meeting, and the public hearing was tabled. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We tabled this, obviously, last month because we were looking for a few more answers to it, and I think they’ve supplied the answers we’re looking for. We need to do the SEQRA on it. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, before we do a SEQRA, I would like to propose that at least I get a chance to review the Full Environmental Assessment Form. I have reviewed it. I have some questions on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Now’s the time to do it. MR. VOLLARO-Now’s the time to do it, before the SEQRA application. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m going to ask Chris to just bring us up to speed with where we are on this last pieces of information we asked for that we got. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want me to hold? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Go right ahead. You’ve got the floor. Take it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just go through my notes real quick. This’ll be at the end. Condition of SEQRA determination on the receipt of findings from the Office of Park and Rec. I see where C.T. Male has a note, a very recent note, that says they didn’t think that would hold it up. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We also have a letter that came from Hartgen today. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but apparently C.T. Male wants the Office of Parks and Rec’s and Historic Preservation to come up with a finding, which I didn’t, that’s a normal thing is it? MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s a poor use of words right now, when we’re talking about SEQRA, but I think their first correspondence, maybe it would be helpful if I did run through these things. I think there were several issues that the Planning Board identified at our last Planning Board meeting. The applicant resubmitted, or submitted additional information that was requested by the engineer as well as by the Planning Board, and one of those we did not have in hand at that time the IB report. All we had was a cover letter issuing their conclusions based on their investigation, Hartgen’s investigation of the site, and what’s required, the Office of Historic Preservation Parks and Recreation is not an involved agency. So they don’t have to reach a findings. They don’t have to, they’re not involved. Hartgen, as we asked the applicant to clarify what has been presented because the C.T. Male comment letter on that was, hey, you still haven’t reached a closure with OPRHP, and Hartgen drafted a letter that you just have in front of you tonight. We apologize that you just received it tonight, but it says we’ve complied with all the requirements. We’ve done the literature search. We’ve done the field investigation. We’ve complied with all the standards, and it’s not necessary under the law, and we conferred with Counsel, it’s not necessary under the law that you receive a letter from OPRHP. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-And so that’s what the Hartgen letter, to further clarify, we didn’t find any artifacts. It’s our professional opinion that no additional investigations are going to be required, and they rest their professional opinion. MR. VOLLARO-I think they clearly state that at the end under their abstract. Based on results of Phase IB archeological field, no further investigation for Queensbury Home Depot is warranted. I think that closed it for me. MR. ROUND-So that’s what you have to be comfortable, from an archeological standpoint, that you’re not going to have a negative impact on potential archeological resources. You’ve got a scientific report in front of you. The Town’s engineer has looked at it, and in their letter today it says, “It appears that the probability of any further relevant findings is very low”. So I think that brings you to a comfort level on archeological. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. VOLLARO-It’s kind of open and shut for me, on that one. MR. ROUND-One of the more significant things was stormwater issues, and I know there was a lot of discussion about constructability of the retention system. MR. VOLLARO-Some of those they pushed over to site plan review. MR. ROUND-Right, and I think C.T. Male’s two pieces of correspondence, and I’m doing some of the applicant’s work here. MR. LAPPER-You’re doing a good job, so we’re not stopping you. MR. ROUND-They identified, you know, one of C.T. Male’s concerns was were they going to encounter groundwater in this basin, and we heard the applicant say, well, we’ve got geo-technical information that says we’re not going to, and we said, well that’s great that you have that, but we need to review that. They’ve provided it. C.T. Male commented on it, and they think that it is constructable, and that the issues that are remaining can be resolved through site plan revisions, or, you know, further detail as we shoot through the site plan review process, but again, that’s a judgment that the Planning Board has to reach, that you have enough information in front of you that you think the stormwater management plan can move forward. Separate but related was that there’s offsite runoff that comes through a culvert on Montray Road, comes onto the site, is being diverted by the applicant and returned to a wetland downstream, and C.T. Male has concerns that there’s potential for flood conditions. We heard about this last week or two weeks ago, and the concern is that, you know, the applicants indicate, well that’s a pre-existing condition. That’s off-site. We don’t have to address off-site flow. Well the potential impact is that these flood conditions might impact their proposed systems and cause a failure or cause overloading the stormwater, and C.T. Male has made a strong point in that regard, and I think that, I don’t know if the applicant wants to chime in at this point, but they think that that can be resolved. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s the sizing of the pipe. MR. ROUND-And whether the applicant’s responsible for that or not, that’s a matter of debate, but from a technical standpoint it appears that stormwater can be managed, and that’s what the Town’s engineer says, and I think that’s what the applicant’s. MR. LAPPER-And we’re just saying that’s a site plan issue on the size of the pipe. DAVE CARR MR. CARR-Yes, we think you’re right, it is the size of the pipe. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know what the appropriate timing is, but Craig MacEwan’s point, which I thought was really a great point last time, was that they’re not the owner. They’re a tenant that’s going to affect this site, and from what I understand, understood from the last presentation is you were segregating a certain section of that, what I call plaza, that you were going to be responsible for, for the stormwater. MR. LAPPER-That’s the separate issue about the quality, about whether, that was the stuff under the Traveler’s building, and we were doing that, but we’ve reached a compromise, and made a proposal this time, even though we think that, legally, it’s grandfathered and we don’t have to touch that part of the site, not because Home Depot is only involved in part of it, but because that’s already constructed and that was built to comply with the regulations at the time it was built. With that said, even though that’s the law, what we’ve come up with as a compromise is to put in a swirl chamber, which the guys from the LA Group can explain, which will actually treat that water before it goes into the wetlands. So we’ve backed off our position. MR. SANFORD-So we’ll be hearing more about that tonight? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That was part of what we submitted in the drawings, we submitted a detail of this swirl chamber to take out the contaminants. MR. VOLLARO-L3A. MR. SANFORD-So we’ll be hearing about this, because a number of the Board members had concerns, I think, about the whole site, not just. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you’re right, and we think we went further than we had to, and we’ve addressed that now. MS. RADNER-And since Jon’s chimed in, I’m going to have to chime in, too. We don’t necessarily agree that the legal point that Jon just gave you is the standard. In the Town we’ve always taken the point that if somebody’s working on one part of a site, the whole site can be reviewed, and our wastewater section says that when you’re going to work on a site, then we can require you to bring the whole site into compliance. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with you wholeheartedly. With that being said, you’re going to do the remedies you talked about. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Just to maybe further this along, there’s been some other developments relative to this site. Chris and I were talking about last week, and the plaza owners are going to put together a program to upgrade the entire plaza with all the other buildings, whether that’s going to fall under site plan or not or just a building permit for renovations. So there’s an opportunity here to bring this whole thing up, to be really nice, and I know that stormwater was one of the main issues that we had with this thing. MR. ROUND-Jon was there with the owners of the plaza. MR. LAPPER-They wanted to come in and talk to Chris primarily about parking to just explain why the Travelers has this 6.0 requirement because of their tenants, which is a site plan issue that’ll, we’ll talk about at the next meeting, but as part of that, their architect came with some renderings of what their buildings will look like, which is very similar to what Home Depot is doing in terms of color and design. So they just, that was preliminary, but we showed that to Chris. MR. ROUND-Related to stormwater, we jumped ahead. You heard that, so that the retention basin and the stormwater management system for the new portion of the site, it looks as though the engineering can be resolved at a site plan level, and in the same regard, though, you heard that they propose to retrofit some of the existing facilities with this vortex swirl separation system, and I think you’ve got, did you receive a cut sheet on that, and basically. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about this continuous deflection stuff, separation? MR. ROUND-Yes. It’s used up in Lake George. There’s an installation, and they’ve had very good success with it. It does improve the quality of the stormwater before, I think it’s the sheriff’s dock. Did you guys do that work? MR. CARR-They didn’t do it, but I think you’re right. MR. ROUND-It’s an area where there’s a lot of road runoff that enters the lake, and the basin just below the lake, and they’ve had very good results with it, and I know that Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District is very pleased with it. It’s a very low maintenance type of thing. It’s something you, there’s basically works like, similar to a pool filter, and there’s a basket that you’ve got to pull out every three to six months, and so I think during site plan review that you’re going to want to make sure that you have an operational plan in front of you that says that they are going to maintain that kind of facility. The other thing was that, the coloration of stormwater, again, an existing facility, and there were some concerns whether there was an environmental issue associated with the existing plaza, and I know C.T. Male said that we suspect that it’s iron bacteria. Why don’t you grab a sample of water from that outfall and sample it for iron and iron bacteria, and I think you have the results in front of you, just received today, and it did confirm that that was the case. MR. LAPPER-That’s the LA Group letter. MR. ROUND-And that was the last thing that you got. Was there something else, Craig, that was outstanding? MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think that pretty well covers it. Bob, did you have more? MR. ROUND-There were some discrepancies on the EAF, Bob, I’m sorry. The EAF said this, and their reporting said that, that, and now the EAF is correct. MR. VOLLARO-They’ve got a corrected EAF. I’ve gone through it, and that’ll be my last little thing. This letter from David Stillwell to Sheila Tuthill seems to close the, any further assessment by Fish and Wildlife as well. Correct? That’s done. I took a while to read the response from Kevin Hastings to Jim Edwards on the continuous deflective separation and the flow diffuser. I thought it was well done, Kevin. It made a lot of sense to me. I’d just like to go over, real quickly, the lighting plan, or is that something, that’s a site plan review issue, isn’t it? We don’t have to go to that. MR. CARR-Well, if you have issues, if we could hear them, that would be great. MR. VOLLARO-I won’t break it out. If you’ve got it in your head, you take a look at along Route 9, there’s some spillover on Route 9, on V3. MR. LAPPER-Is that at the entrance or at the parking lot? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. VOLLARO-It’s at, it sits southeast of the entrance, V3. If you take a look at it, it looks like spill to me. I want you to explain some of this stuff on the chart, too, that I have. MR. LAPPER-We like a little bit of spill only at the entrances, sort of an exception to the general rule, just because of traffic. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s spilled three times, though, at least it looks like the lighting footprint is spilling over. It looks like the foot candles on the ground are relatively low at that border. So I don’t think you’re going to get much dispersion from that, but I just wanted to maybe quickly go over that later on, or that might be a site plan issue. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s more site plan. MR. ROUND-And we haven’t had a chance to comment, review on that, and Marilyn has gotten very good at looking at lighting plans and she’s our in-house expert. She’ll provide those kind of comments as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because the overall lighting thing is down pretty well. Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’re compliant with the new standards. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s get to the heart of what I want to talk about, and I’ll get done real quick, and that’s the Full Environmental Assessment Form. Number Five, I don’t think we can get to 105% of anything. So, you know, we’ve got 90%. MR. LAPPER-Ninety, plus ten, plus five. MR. VOLLARO-That’s 105. MR. LAPPER-Correct again. MR. VOLLARO-So you want to do something like 100, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that five percent a bonus? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, if it’s money, I’ll talk about it. MR. CARR-Well, knowing the site, there are slopes greater than 15%. So I mean, the change would be 90 down to 85. MR. VOLLARO-Just so it squeezes into 100. Okay. Number Six I think we’ve just gone over. I had a note on it. We await report from the Historic, but I think that’s all done. I think the answer is satisfactory, here, is what I’m saying, to Number Six. I had a note on it until just a few minutes ago. Number Sixteen, I just have a question. It talks about wetlands within the project at .95 acres. The wetlands is contiguous with wetlands off the project site that include an additional two and a half acres. Just, my question was, is there any impact on this 2.5 acres off site at all? I mean, are we doing anything to affect the two and a half acres off the site? MR. CARR-No. MR. VOLLARO-The answer is no. Okay. MR. CARR-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Just a question. Is the site located, and it’s not. The next page, four, and that has to do with the number of off street parking. I guess my question is, we’ve got 1575 spaces. Now, what is the code requirement that we’re working to? This is Project Description on Page Four. MR. LAPPER-The new code requirement would be 4.5 per thousand square feet of Gross Leasable Area. MR. VOLLARO-Four and a half, 4.5 of that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So, a quick calculation is. MR. CARR-I believe we’re about 150 spaces over the requirement. MR. VOLLARO-Over? Okay. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. CARR-Chris, is that correct? In that area. MR. VOLLARO-Here’s my question is, I look at the parking lot at Lowe’s. I look at the parking lot at K- Mart. I look at the parking lot at Aviation Mall, and are we putting too much macadam down these days for parking spaces? That’s just my question, in a nutshell. MR. MAC EWAN-Part of the new Ordinance, though, is to try to solve that problem. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but, see, that’s what I’m saying. They’re over the new Ordinance by a significant amount, well, by some amount. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s unique about this site is the fact that you have a lot of office space up there. The whole front along Route 9 is office, and with the Department of Labor up there, those spots fill up relatively quick, and I know that the Post Office is often busy, and I don’t think the 100 and some odd spaces over is really overkill, so to speak. MR. VOLLARO-Just a question that I had, to raise that issue. MR. ROUND-If I could just chime in. I share the same opinion with you, .Bob, and the owner of the Plaza, the reason they came in to us last week was to explain why all this parking, and they do have a breakdown, and we asked for it, when you get to site plan review, and I think you can ask for less, you can certainly ask for less parking there. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to get some justification for over the mark. MR. ROUND-And that’s what I asked for. They came in and they delineated each building and its square footage, it’s code parking needs and what it finds its practical parking needs, and those differ, and I think the point in question is Travelers occupancy. They’re using a six per thousand for this office space, and, you know, I first look at it and I say, well, the office uses aren’t going to conflict with the peak Saturday uses of Home Depot, and the Saturday Home Depot uses aren’t going to conflict with office space that’s to the west that’s not used. The Labor building is not open during, you know, so isn’t there a way we can reduce these parking areas, and we’ve pointed at specific areas, and I think that’s, you’ve got to ask those hard questions. MR. LAPPER-Legitimate questions, but site plan review issues. MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe what we can do is maybe shoot for, if the Board feels compelled to go that route, is demonstrate that you have the ability to add extra parking spaces but showing the green space on there that could be there for future use if we ever need that. MR. LAPPER-The Plaza owner is going to come in with a chart showing exactly what they think they need from actual use based upon Travelers. Part of the problem here is that Home Depot is located here, and Travelers is there. So you wouldn’t have people parking at Travelers and bringing their lumber, you know, carrying the stuff over, and that’s really a Home Depot issue, but all the stuff’s legitimate on the table and we’ll come and talk about it next month at site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-When’s this chart coming in? MR. ROUND-It’ll come with the site plan submission. MR. LAPPER-We’re going to make the site plan submission on the 24. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, and if they’re thinking of doing something down below, something intensive like a TGI Fridays would need the parking, if they’re going to add that to the Plaza. I mean, if they’re going to re- do the Plaza, and add something like that, they’re going to definitely need the parking. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t object to that, John, so long as it can be justified why we’re going over the mark. MR. STROUGH-And if that’s their indication, then that certainly would reinforce the need for this kind of parking, but I don’t know their plans. MR. LAPPER-I want to make a statement about that, because that would be a SEQRA issue. They are hopeful that in the future they can replace Monroe Muffler because it’s not an attractive use and it’s not a particularly good fit with what’s in the Plaza, and they would like to get something in there and certainly a restaurant would be a compatible use with all the office workers there. Right now there’s five years left on the Monroe lease. This has not been made public, but they’re trying to get Monroe to relocate, but that’s something that Monroe has to agree to do, because they have five years left on their lease. So Monroe has 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) been looking at sites. They don’t have a deal to go anywhere yet. So it’s not something that they have a present intention of doing. Otherwise we’d be in as part of SEQRA saying, this is what we’re trying to do, but hopefully, in the next year, maybe, that’ll come together and they may come back with that, but it’s just not related to this, because right now Monroe’s there, and that’s all we know. MR. STROUGH-So you would need the parking. MR. LAPPER-And, yes, but that would be, if that comes to be, it would be required at that time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand that. On the same, on Page Four, Number Two and Number Four seem interrelated to me. Just a question, how much natural material, earth rock, will be removed from the site, talking about 10,000 cubic yards. Are there any permits required for that? Just an academic question. KEVIN HASTINGS MR. HASTINGS-No, and the reason for the variation is because if you read the geo-technical report closely, that we submitted to C.T. Male, and it’s in there but you’ve got to find it, they make a statement that some of the cut material may not be suitable for fill. So that would have to be brought off site. MR. VOLLARO-So that would tie it mostly in to Number Four. You’re going to remove 2.6 acres of trees, shrubs and ground cover. So those two are interrelated. MR. CARR-Yes. Correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. While you’re on Number Four, and we’re all on Number Four, we might as well stay on the same page. Comparing Number Four, which says, this is just a technicality, 2.6 acres, 2.68, right, but if you look on the first page of Part I, and you see where it says approximate acreage, down at the bottom, and it says forested, are you with me? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got you. MR. STROUGH-Jon? MR. LAPPER-At the bottom, Number Two. MR. STROUGH-Forested 9.57, after 7.98. Now that’s 1.59 difference in forestation, and Number Four says 2.68 difference in forestation. MR. CARR-Well, it’s not. MR. LAPPER-It’s not all forested. MR. CARR-When I do the number on Page Four, the way I look at it is, is I take the area that’s natural, that we’re cutting out, and put that number in. Now that whole area may not be totally forested, and the area that we’re talking about is the area back here. So, some of it is clearing. Some of it is meadow, but I take that as to say natural vegetation, how much natural vegetation are you removing? So the actual tree forested number is correct on Two, is correct on Page Two. So forest goes from 9.57 to 7.98, but on Page Four, I always take that to say, see where it says, see it says trees, shrubs and ground covers will be removed from the site. So the first question is just forest, and the second, the way I always do it, is just natural material. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that explains it, and that’s what. MR. CARR-I have had that question before, but that’s just the way I do it, because people look at it and they just think forest, but if you read closely, they talk about ground covers. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I can understand. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Page Five C, C is after 16 comes a C, A, B, C, 16 C I guess that is, for D, it says, will any waste not go into a sewage disposal system or a sanitary landfill, will not go, and the answer is yes, it will not go. Where will it go? MR. MAC EWAN-The burn plant. MR. ROUND-No, E. Look at E. MR. STROUGH-Recycling, yes. Some of the waste is going to be recycled, is what they’re saying. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it says if yes, explain. Recycling material….recycle So all that stuff’s going to be recycled, newspaper, magazine, cardboard boxes…all that stuff. Okay. How about 17, it says will the project involve the disposal of solid waste, and it says no. MR. LAPPER-That question is often confusing, because it’s not a solid waste disposal site. It’s not a burn plant or a landfill. Board’s frequently get confused with the way that’s worded, but that’s what it’s going to. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a confusing way to word it. You’re going to put trash out, that’s solid waste to me. MR. LAPPER-Right. It seems like the answer should be yes, but they’re talking about, will you be disposing of it on site. MR. ROUND-You see, 17B says what’s the anticipated site life, meaning site life of this disposal facility. MR. VOLLARO-Sometimes people who do these forms could stand a little feedback, a little help. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a State form. MR. VOLLARO-Useless, okay. MR. RINGER-Drawn up by an engineer, though, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll bet it wasn’t. I’ll bet you $100. MR. ROUND-We wouldn’t be able to understand it at all. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, 18. Now this is one, will project use herbicides or pesticides, and you have no, and I’ve got, what about the on-site storage of this type of material in the garden area? MR. LAPPER-Well, that wouldn’t be use, but I think the answer should probably still be yes, in terms of just landscaping. MR. VOLLARO-Your garden area is going to be doing use of some of those materials. MR. LAPPER-Yes, let’s change it to yes. MR. VOLLARO-So that should be a yes. MR. LAPPER-I thought you meant selling it, but you mean the plants that are on display. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-So, yes, you’re right. MR. VOLLARO-Both. I mean, packages leak, you know. MR. LAPPER-Do packages leak? MR. MAC EWAN-Home Depot uses a different packaging method. ROGER HERSHORN MR. HERSHORN-Actually, we do. It’s not different, but recently we required our vendors to increase the ply on the bags. Yes, some of them still do break, but the goal is to get less and less to break, and so, I don’t know, because all the vendors are (lost words), but we have required them to provide that. Is that different, I don’t know. It’s different than how we used to do it. Let’s put it that way. MR. VOLLARO-I think I’ve probably just recently answered my own question on Page Number Six, starting with Number Three. MR. ROUND-Bob, could I, there’s a couple of zoning questions there, and just to bring it to the applicant’s attention, and I don’t know if Cathi picked up on this today, is that the request was to zone this property PC- 1A, and PC-1A no longer exists, under our new zoning designation. MR. LAPPER-Yes, right. MR. ROUND-And the replacement zone is going to be HC Intensive. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. ROUND-And so that’s the zoning designation on there. I know this, this is what’s proposed, because it’s elapsed since that time. So I just want to make sure everybody knows that. The resolution that’s on for Monday, for the Town Board, if you reach a neg dec here tonight, is to set a public hearing on the property to rezone it Highway Commercial Intensive. So it is. MR. VOLLARO-What about, I thought the zone we were looking, we give people a grace period because they’re not automatically thrown into the new zone right away. So how does that fit? MR. ROUND-This is a really unusual circumstance, and I think we’re not going to conduct a public hearing in May to establish a new zone that we’ve just eliminated. So we’re not going to start that and say, okay, we’re going to have this one property rezoned PC-1A. So it’s just one of those things you’ve just got to. MRS. RYBA-Many of the uses were very similar, and I think there might be one or two additional items, but they’re still intensive commercial uses, and so it’s about the same. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, then if I were looking at this Question Three, I would put the 608,113 square foot multi story building up in Number Three and call Number Five not applicable, since we’re not shifting code here. We’re going with the new code in this. MR. ROUND-I’m sorry. Say that again, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Concentrate on Three and Five. MR. MAC EWAN-What he’s saying is Five, just make that not applicable, right? MR. VOLLARO-Not applicable, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Because you’re not proposing a zoning change because the zone change has already been done. MR. ROUND-No. It hasn’t. There’s still a single family residential portion of the property, that instead of going from SFR to PC, it’s going to go from SFR to HC. So that does apply, and the math, I think, is still correct, as well. We’re still using a similar calculation. MR. LAPPER-So we should probably switch Two to say HC Intensive, now that that’s changed. MR. ROUND-Yes, that has occurred, and so Two, instead of PC-1A, what is the zoning classification of the site, it should read HC-INT, Highway Commercial. MR. VOLLARO-Intensive. MR. ROUND-And then what is the proposed zoning of the site, cross off PC-1A, Plaza Commercial One Acre. MR. VOLLARO-PC-1A comes up the same thing, Highway Commercial. MR. ROUND-It should say, yes, HC-INT, meaning Highway Commercial Intensive. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-And those numbers, we’re using, instead of, I think on the HC, instead of using a 15, in incremental, we’re using a .3 FAR on those, and so if you guys want to do a quick math. MR. STROUGH-Do you know that for sure? MR. ROUND-Yes, I do, .3. MR. HASTINGS-It’s .3 times. MR. ROUND-The square footage, or whatever the site is. So that’s just the new. MR. LAPPER-One is based upon the old zone, and one is based upon the whole site. MR. CARR-The whole site’s 35.04. MR. LAPPER-So that’s the answer to Five. MR. CARR-It’s 457,902. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. ROUND-That’s existing? MR. LAPPER-No, no. That’s the answer to Number Five. That’s the whole site. Now it’s got to back off, three will be smaller than that. MR. STROUGH-Well, what is it. 3 times the number of acres? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Number of square feet. MR. ROUND-Yes, you’ve got to get the square feet. MR. HASTINGS-The area to be rezoned, Jon, is five acres, correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. So it’s 35 minus five. MR. HASTINGS-So it’s 30 acres. 392,040. MR. STROUGH-I guess so I’ve got this straight, that’s the amount of gross floor area permitted with that acreage and this type of zoning? MR. LAPPER-The maximum you could have. MR. ROUND-And what is on the site right now, just to help everybody else out? MR. CARR-The existing, I believe it’s 287, but let me check that. The site, after demolition, with the Home Depot, and including the garden center, is 330,610. That includes the garden center. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I guess I’ve got one more, and that’s Number Eleven. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services. Yes, I think so. I think that there’s going to be additional fire, additional police brought, as it serves that site. It’s not going to enlarge the police force. MR. LAPPER-Remember, though, it’s (lost words) square feet, the net difference. So I think that that would be considered insignificant, in terms of services. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, we’re going to try to find the figure of what is the current square feet. MR. CARR-I think that was thrown out. MR. STROUGH-Maybe it was. I missed it. MR. VOLLARO-He didn’t put it out there. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t think it was. MR. CARR-It’s 295. MR. LAPPER-So it’s got 35 difference. MR. CARR-I believe the increase with the garden center is 36,000 square feet, after you take away the demolition and add the entire Home Depot, it’s 36,000 square feet. MR. LAPPER-So we answered that that that’s not going to increase demand on any emergency services because it’s not significant, in terms of the Town. MR. CARR-Yes, and the other reason was that almost 20,000 of that 36,000 is the garden center which is an open area. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the end, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-Has anybody got anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I just ask one thing. I only have one little thing, and it’s been on my mind. As far as the fecal coliform count, that was taken at the culvert, not? MR. LAPPER-At the outflow pipe behind Travelers, where. MR. CARR-Right, the standing water that sits there. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. There isn’t any reason to take a count in that little pond? MR. LAPPER-That’s all, this site is serviced now by Town sewer. So it’s really not a septic issue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, all right. Okay. I guess we were a little concerned at the last meeting. MR. STROUGH-It wasn’t the coliform, because on the parking lot, with the birds and the animals, you’re going to get a coliform count. It was what was the tint of the color coming out. What was causing that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And of course C.T. Male thinks that there might be a leak in the stormwater drainage system itself, and that the CDS system wouldn’t do anything for that, but then again, I don’t know if that’s an environmental problem or not. C.T. Male suggested that it be tested for that, and I guess, I haven’t read the literature, I guess they did test it. It tested positive. I guess in site plan we can go from there, but I am glad that they have proposed and are willing to do the CDS system because it’s going to be an improvement over what’s there. MR. CARR-And remember, that fecal number, the outfall of that pipe is a wetland. So that is standing water. In our discussions with the people that did the testing, basically they said that that number just comes from wild animals. I mean, that’s pretty much a normal number, actually, it’s below a normal number. MR. LAPPER-The animals are very neat in that area. MR. MAC EWAN-John, what have you got? MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, some things I just thought it might be easier to bring them out and address them now, it’ll go smoother later, that kind of thing, and I think. MR. LAPPER-We’d rather hear it now. MR. STROUGH-And some of these are standard things, and you’re just going to say, well, that’s going to be happening. I guess, and I think this was addressed before, that the US Army Corps of Engineers and the field survey for the wetland area and all that’s been done or going to be done, and the truck traffic circulation, I tried to see if I could drive a big truck around the back, and I just had trouble seeing how a big truck is going to, are you going to do the unloading and loading in the back or in the front? MR. CARR-Yes, in the back. MR. STROUGH-And I just looked at it, and it just looked like it would be very difficult to maneuver back there. MR. CARR-Well, the idea is, and if I can put this on the table, is that the trucks would come in, come straight down, around, and this is mis-colored. This should be pavement, and that was our mistake. This is the actual loading dock, and this is a concrete pad, but there’s nothing stored there. Basically, this is another offloading area. So the trucks would come around, back in, and sit, and then come back out, and either come this way. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I was concerned with, because what’s that labeled as? MR. CARR-That’s concrete lumber pad, and what it is is the reason it’s concrete is a truck will come in and I don’t know if they’ll have an unloading vehicle. MR. HERSHORN-Yes. We’ll have a forklift, and it’s flatbeds go there, and it’s flatbeds for lumber and some building materials, and that’s the building material end of the building. We’d have an overhead door, which I don’t know if it’s labeled on here, but it’s right here. MR. STROUGH-If something was there, that would be kind of tough. MR. CARR-Yes, exactly. MR. STROUGH-The other thing is, if a truck does come off of Quaker, and does come up from behind, and goes up from behind at that turning radius, going in towards the back would be tough from there. Not there, up here. Follow your truck path along. MR. CARR-Here. That’s a good point. MR. STROUGH-I’m just saying, and they are errant some times, and if he gets caught in there, then you may want to put like a 30 or 32. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. CARR-Sure, that’s a good point. MR. MAC EWAN-Cut that radius back some. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And that way they’ll be able to get in. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t lose the trees, though. MR. STROUGH-And if we do go to the CDS system, and I’m going to ask for some kind of an inspection/maintenance program be submitted, and the snow removal. I’d like to get a commitment from the owner of the Plaza that it won’t be developed in a wetland, it won’t be dumped in the wetlands anymore, and now I still have some questions about continuous deflective separation unit. In other words what you’re proposing, okay, I don’t know if that’s going to be the best because it works on a vortex principle. I was just wondering if the smaller unit might be better because it might be able to better maintain a vortex, but I’ve got an e-mail into the company on that. MR. LAPPER-We expect no less. MR. HASTINGS-But as I mentioned in my response to C.T. Male, what we may look at, instead of a single point control, on the outfall side behind the Travelers, would be to look at individual CDS units at the point of the source, in other words, each inlet. MR. STROUGH-Well, it seems to me that would be even more of a maintenance headache, but try it out and see if it works. MR. HASTINGS-But that’s what we’re looking at, just with the thought of improving, you know, the catchment. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have those details for site plan, but he’s thinking the same thing you’re thinking, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, we’re getting closer all the time. Thank you, gentlemen. For me, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Anything you want to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. ROUND-You’ve got to go through your. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to do SEQRA, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are we going to do that right now? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-The Long Form, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Are we ready? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, it will. Okay. Small to moderate, large? What? MR. STROUGH-Small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Small to moderate. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and don’t we have to figure out how it’s going to be mitigated? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think you can. MR. STROUGH-All you have to do is answer can the impact be mitigated. If it’s a large impact, then you’ve got to go to Part III. MR. LAPPER-Small to moderate doesn’t have to be mitigated. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. ROUND-You don’t need additional response. MR. STROUGH-We just check, yes, it can be mitigated. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)” MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think so, no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Water. “Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)” MR. STROUGH-I think, yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know what those laws are. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, what’s the water body? MR. STROUGH-Well, Article 24 is your wetlands. So it is going to have a potential impact on it. MR. HUNSINGER-But it’s small to moderate. MR. STROUGH-Small to moderate. It looks like the applicant can mitigate that. MR. HUNSINGER-It can be mitigated through stormwater management. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Will proposed action effect any non-protected, existing or new body of water?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will proposed action effect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Small to moderate. MR. LAPPER-We’d say it would be improved, because it’s untreated now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Should we do any examples here, Chris, like underneath where the bullets are? MR. ROUND-If there’s one that’s applicable, or you can say other and you can say, I mean, there’s stormwater discharge to surface water bodies that, you know, it’s an allowable discharge. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the impact is going to be small to moderate, and it’s all going to be mitigated by through the site development. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-And it is going to be improved, but there is an impact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?” 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And? MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate, but it’s going to be mitigated by the actions to remedy the site. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Impact on Air Will proposed action affect air quality?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Plants and Animals Will proposed action effect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Agricultural Land Resources Will the Proposed Action effect agricultural land resources?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Aesthetic Resources Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. “Open Space and Recreation Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Critical Environmental Areas Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision of 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Transportation Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Energy Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Noise and Odor Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the Proposed Action?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Public Health Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion for a negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HOME DEPOT, 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. Duly adopted this 11 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Before we run out on this early meeting which we appreciate, I just wanted to ask if anybody has any, we’re going to be finalizing the site plan in the next two weeks, and if there are any issues that you want to tell us to think about that we may not have talked about, just in terms of topics, please feel free to let us know. MR. RINGER-In regards to the parking there, a year or so ago, the owner of the parcel came in and wanted to change all the parking around and make narrower parking spots because Travelers was going to expand and they needed additional parking spots. Since that time, Travelers has downsized and they didn’t expand. If Travelers does expand, how is the parking going to be affected, and what is the potential that you know of? I realize you can’t see into the future. MR. LAPPER-The answer is the parking that we’re showing meets Travelers’ needs for the square feet of the building. So we, I mean, they’ll be able to answer that question, but I think that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. RINGER-You asked some of the things I was going to be talking about. I know he came in a year or so ago and wanted to change that parking. MR. LAPPER-They bought some extra land from the Town along the cemetery to give them, they didn’t do smaller spaces. They did more regular size spaces. MR. RINGER-Out in the back he bought the land from the Town, and they are using some of that, because we’re out back there with our trucks quite often. MR. LAPPER-We’re using that on the new site plan, too, but we’ll be prepared to address that definitely. MR. MAC EWAN-I think there were some concerns regarding whether you would need all those parking spots or not. The concerns were regarding parking, whether you were actually going to need that. Maybe you could look at doing something with providing green space. (Lost words) the parking reserve. What else a have we got? MRS. LA BOMBARD-In the future, if a restaurant or anything else goes in, then that that’s a brand new site plan? MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. RINGER-Anything that goes in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Anything, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I guess that’s it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. We appreciate the special meeting, because we have to go to the Town Board and get the (lost word) schedule for the zoning. Thanks very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. CARR-Thank you. Good night. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Next. MRS. RYBA-Everybody save their information from last time regarding Petition for Zone Change and Expedited? If you didn’t, I have extra copies. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got it. I know I have it somewhere. MR. RINGER-I didn’t bring mine. Do you have an extra copy? MRS. RYBA-Yes, and I’m just going to hand it out one at a time. MR. VOLLARO-I got your letter. Is that what you’re talking about? MRS. RYBA-Yes. That’s the expedited matters. Then there should be the policy for review and processing of applications for requests for rezoning in the back. This is a policy that Chris put together in terms of, for discussion purposes. Approximately 14 petitions for zone change applications in the last two years. I can tell you the exact number. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. That sounds like a lot. MRS. RYBA-It is a lot. It’s more than you’ve had in 15 years, I think, put together. MR. MAC EWAN-It used to be a rare commodity at the beginning of the decade. MR. ROUND-See, land is becoming more valuable, and it’s a limited commodity. You’ve seen the projects that are in front of you today. You’ve got a commercial area that wants to expand into a residential area, the Benyamini application, the same instance, Nigro application, the same instance, and so folks are trying to fit a little bit too much in there, and I think the reason we put this policy out on the table for discussion was we just can’t handle these things in a haphazard fashion, and it takes a considerable amount of time to really do a thorough review of what the impacts of a rezoning are. Some instances you can collect the facts and reach a simple conclusion, but in other instances, it’s, well, what is the long term impacts of changing our zoning, and so what we put out, just kind of in summary, was what we’d like to do is receive and review petition for rezonings on a quarterly basis. So in this we put out a schedule that the Planning Board would only look at them in April, June, October, and January. Okay, and that would allow the Town Board to receive them, I’m looking at, and this is the table on the second page. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. VOLLARO-Second page. MR. ROUND-Any application received anywhere after November, up until February would be reviewed by the Staff during the month of February and March. We would put a Staff recommendation to you, and do a more thorough recording of, you know, here’s the background on the site. Here’s what the potential uses are. Here’s, you know, a full environmental report for you basically, you know, similar to what you see on our SEQRA form, present that to you, and have you review during your April meeting, for instance. Then you make a recommendation and then come back and the Town Board conduct the public hearing in May. Rezoning recommendations, which is the point I’d like to make, don’t require a public hearing by the Planning Board, and what I struggle with is we go through, especially the contentious issues, is you conduct a public hearing at the Planning Board level, and you hear everybody come out and speak and say you should, you know, against it or for it. In the case of the one you’ve got in front of you, mostly against it. Benyamini, case in point, Red Lobster, Cracker Barrel before that, Nigro before that. So you folks all hear the brunt of that. You all hear the, here’s the emotional issues that are attached to the rezoning, and you hear what’s the impact on community character, then people will also give you all this information about how they think traffic is going to be affected, how they think stormwater is going to be affected. Well, a lot of these things can be really, you know, you are a representative Board of the public and you really, you don’t necessarily need to hear all that from the public at this point, and you may disagree with me. The Town Board is actually the one that should be really hearing all the emotional aspects. This is my opinion, and that we often wear the public out when they’ve got to come out to two public hearings on the same project. Folks at this Benyamini application are going to have to come out again during site plan review, come out again during the Town Board public hearing. So I’d like you to consider not conducting public hearings during your recommendation actions, and I know that really flies in the face of your longstanding practice. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a requirement. MR. ROUND-It’s not a requirement. It’s not a requirement to conduct a public hearing during (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-That was a thing we established, what, about three years ago, Larry? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We started doing it. MR. RINGER-And I don’t disagree with it. The only problem I have with it is the benefit of a public hearing is sometimes you get new information that you don’t necessarily get from Staff, and that’s what you lose. Unfortunately, you’ve set a, you get the emotional things that we have to get out of the issue, and it’s very difficult. MR. ROUND-It’s very difficult for you to make decisions when emotions are involved. MR. RINGER-When emotions are involved, absolutely. MR. ROUND-And I don’t want this to get, this policy to get sliced up for the, you know, that’s something you can handle separately and you don’t have to handle tonight, but we’ve often, in trying to alleviate, lessen the burden on the public, we’ve often conducted joint public hearings, you know, hey, this is a SEQRA public hearing, the rezoning public hearing, and it’s also Planning Board and Town Board public hearing. Let’s do it all at once. Let’s not wear everybody out, and if you’ve got this on a quarterly basis, we could entertain that option. It would be a much simpler thing to schedule. MR. MAC EWAN-When was the last one we did with the Town Board, was that for Nigro, we did the joint one with the Town Board? That worked well. MR. ROUND-And so we’re doing it, you’re going to hear from the Jon Lapper’s, no, I need to come in in March and be recommended in June. When you look at this process, it takes four months to get through this process, no matter when you start and stop, and so if we’re delaying somebody by a month or two months, I don’t think it’s going to hurt the Town. It’s certainly not going to hurt the Town. The only person it’s going to hurt is somebody who wants to open their store July 4, you know, or for Labor Day to make a sale th opening, and that’s really not in our best interest, as far as I’m concerned. MR. VOLLARO-Well, since the Town Board’s got to make the decision, I think they ought to really. MR. ROUND-They should be hearing the full emotional, and they don’t. MR. VOLLARO-And they don’t. They get a recommendation from us. They have no idea what people went through to make that recommendation. MR. ROUND-Exactly. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I like the joint meetings. MR. RINGER-Well, on the issues, I’m sure the Town Board is well aware of what went on or what’s going on at Everts Avenue, and they were well aware of what went on with the megastore, too. MR. ROUND-They do get it. MR. STROUGH-But they’re not there. It’s not like, they didn’t get the full brunt of it. They just got (lost words). MR. RINGER-Us, as a Planning Board, we should critique ourselves. We’ve become, from what I’ve seen being on this Board, we get involved with the emotions as much as the, and unfortunately I feel it leads us to making the recommendations sometimes that we do and we don’t have the ability, I think sometimes, to get rid of that emotion that comes from the public. MR. STROUGH-But then again, the public brings forward a lot of things that we never thought of. MR. ROUND-Larry made that point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, they do. MR. RINGER-That’s the reason that I think we should hear from the public, for new information, but we have to get away from the emotion that the public puts forth. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know what bothers me is that, I can take it way back to Indian Ridge, you know, where people come in with their emotions, and they do have a legitimate gripe when they say, you know, I saved, and saved and saved and this was zoned, you know, whatever, three acres, and now all of a sudden, I’ve lived here now for seven or eight years, and now my entire biggest investment I’ve ever made in my life is just, they’re just, you guys are going to pull the rug out from under me. I feel like that seven of us is not even people to make, sometimes, such a crucial decision, and that’s why I liked it, that time where we had the Town Board there, too. MR. VOLLARO-You feel there’s safety in numbers? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I certainly do feel that way. MR. SANFORD-I think the emotions are part of the decision criteria. MR. RINGER-It shouldn’t be. It should never be. MR. SANFORD-Well, again, I mean. MR. STROUGH-It’s part of SEQRA. MR. RINGER-Emotions? MR. STROUGH-Controversy. MR. RINGER-I’m saying emotions. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s controversy related to environmental impacts. There’s a big difference. MR. RINGER-What Cathy just described is not a reason, you know, that person comes in, I’ve lived here for 15 years and my property values are going to go, we, as a Board, have to determine if what that person said is correct, aside from that motion, yet we get hung up on, I feel sorry for that person, and, remember, we’re the only ones that should be unbiased. MR. SANFORD-Well, Larry, I think you’re looking at it from a site plan, very analytical perspective, and that’s what I think this Board tends to do, and maybe that’s what we see our role as. I, for one, feel that we have the option to be much more subjective in the concept of how we act as a Planning Board, and that is to say whether we like something or not is appropriate for us to address that issue, not necessarily whether or not it fits in within the zoning or what have you. I think we could be much more subjective as a Board if want to go in that direction. That’s why I feel, in the case of the Schermerhorn rezoning application, that that was an incredibly useful exercise having the public comments. MR. RINGER-That wasn’t a rezoning. That was a site plan. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. SANFORD-Actually it would have been a rezoning under the new thing. Okay, but, again, another very emotional, but I thought a very insightful process. MR. RINGER-Right, and what you have to get from that is the facts and get rid of the emotion. If we should set ourselves up as business people, so to speak, and try to get that emotion out of there and take the facts, and make your decisions based on the fact and not on the emotion, and I see us as a Board not doing that. I see us a Board getting involved in the emotion. MR. SANFORD-If 10,000 people don’t want it, that live in the community, that to me is a fact that we should consider. MR. RINGER-All right, but we won’t get 10,000 people, and remember, the only people you’re going to get. MR. MAC EWAN-Any decision this Board makes, whether it’s a rezoning, a subdivision or a site plan, it better be based on the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Reg’s, and the Environmental Impact Statement. MR. RINGER-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s that simple. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sometimes, and their emotions in many cases, though. MR. MAC EWAN-You cannot make your decision based on 20 people who don’t want that thing next door to them because it may deter their property values. It’s going to be that. What if they come up and say, it’s going to be a noisy operation. There may be issues with stormwater. Those are viable issues we need to look at. MR. SANFORD-Wait a second, though. I think this is a very interesting point that I would like clarification on. If you have, along Bay Road, a certain zoning, and we had five applications for five large supermarkets, okay, would we be able to say, as a Planning Board, you know, we don’t need five supermarkets here. We don’t feel it’s appropriate to move forward with approving that plan, and my answer is, and Counsel can jump in, we, perhaps, have that right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You could have said that about Home Depot. You could have said we already have a Lowe’s, what do we need a Home Depot for. MS. RADNER-Let me jump in from a legal standpoint. First of all, your Town Board adopts a Town Code. Your Zoning Ordinance is a part of that. It’s law for this Town. The Town Board has adopted, when an applicant comes to you and say they, I want this parcel rezoned, what they’re saying is either you made a mistake in your zoning, or I think you should amend your law of what’s allowed in that zone, and you are allowed, you’re, first of all, not the ones that can rezone that. Bear that in mind. You are making a recommendation, and what your recommendation is is whether that rezoning fits within the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning scheme, and so you’re supposed to consider the criteria, what’s the least intensive change that we can make that would allow this use to go in? What are the good reasons for doing it. What are the bad reasons for doing it. All against that backdrop of what is the direction we have planned for our Town, and what is the zoning we have passed. Now, considering that your Town just went to considerable expense and effort to pass a new Zoning Ordinance that should have considered what’s the best zoning for everything, you should be seeing less of these applications. One of the reasons you got all of these request for zone changes is a reflection of the fact that times change. Little by little you had creeping zone changes here and there until other properties got surrounded by things that didn’t fit in. Well, now the Town has hopefully addressed a lot of that, and you shouldn’t be having 15 new zone changes. MR. MAC EWAN-And to add to that, I can think of three controversial rezoning applications this Town has had in recent years that were dealt with by our Board on a recommendation basis because previous Town Boards didn’t want to deal with that parcel when they did a rezoning. MR. SANFORD-Well, no, I think she’s actually affirmed my point, when she described what we have to consider, it is inherently subjective. It is not (lost words) codes. MR. ROUND-Rezoning, I heard a site plan question. If you’ve got an area that’s zoned for commercial areas, and now you’ve got five grocery stores that all are allowed under zoning, you can’t deny them based on an economic factor, that we don’t think we need five grocery stores. You might deny it based on a traffic impact, but, yes, it’s very narrow. Let me finish my sentence. On a very narrow sense, you could say, this has a negative impact on our community character and where we want to be as a Town, but it has to be articulated somewhere that this is our vision, you know, we do not want to become the shopping center capital of the world, and we want to limit grocery stores. MR. STROUGH-Well, Wal-Mart versus Lake Placid, how are we going to adversely effect the sole proprietorship. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. ROUND-Yes, but that is, it was contested, and Mr. Schachner was involved in that one, but it gets, it’s a very narrow path that you have to navigate when it comes to denying a project that is allowed under zoning, but to ask for a rezoning, you could certainly say, no, we don’t think it’s a good thing for the community, and that is very, I mean, it is subjective, and you’re supposed to sense what the community is. So you’re correct, but. MR. SANFORD-Craig said we had a controversial issue way back when that if we have differences of opinions, let’s get them out in the open among this group, and this is a good setting for it, and I’m just interested in knowing where people sit on this, because I see this Board, you know, I’m a newcomer, and I see a lot of people doing a very good job in site plan review, okay, and so I’m saying, what I’m saying, are we really doing a great job in planning for the Town of Queensbury and sending out a blueprint for the future, or are we really a site plan review committee? And it’s a philosophical one, and what I’m hearing is, you know, Larry, you may be more comfortable with that, and what I’m saying is, you know, I kind of like to think, you know, sure, that’s very important, but also what’s very important as to whether or not it’s going to enhance the Town, an addition to the Town, and that’s different, I think. MR. RINGER-Yes. I think we had this discussion before, though, and you’ve got two separate issues. When you’ve got an application in front of you, you have certain rules and regulations you have to follow. When you’re looking, you know, generically, then you can. MR. SANFORD-Right, and it begs the question, a lot of times we get like an application in front of us and the paperwork is this thing and it puts our role as the agency that it’s already gotten momentum, I guess, from Staff. Staff has worked with the applicant and has come to us, and we’ve never been afforded the opportunity to debate the worthiness of the project, what we then do is we do what’s logical. Staff has spent countless hours. The applicant has spent thousands and thousands of dollars. We go and do site plan, but on site plan on something maybe that isn’t desirable for the best interest of the community, and we don’t even address that. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, zoning allows them to make an application. So we can’t tell a potential applicant, come in and talk to us first before you spend your money to make an application, you spend all this money on engineering and legal fees. We’ll tell you if we think it’s a warm and fuzzy idea or not. That’s not the way it works. The way it works is, okay, I want to put a restaurant in this zone. It’s an allowed use in this zone. You may, philosophically, think that maybe that may be too intensive of a use for that zone, for the type of restaurant they want to put in there, okay, but they have every right to make that application, come in front of our Board, and seek the judgment of the Board. MR. ROUND-Just let me interject here. I think everybody’s correct on their standing. I think Larry’s correct, and here’s the limits of our authority under site plan review, and, Craig, that’s all you have to do, and, Rich, you’re struggling with what I’ve been struggling with for the last four years, is we’ve got a Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1998 that’s now, by date stamp, it’s four years old, but it’s actually eight years old in vision and in concept, and we really don’t have a clear vision of what the Town wants to be, where it wants to be, and zoning is only one component of laying out a plan for a community. I mean, that’s the land use component of it, and we really struggle with, there’s a lack of a real clear vision, an articulated vision, in that Comp Plan, a lot of work and a lot of time was spent on it, but we really have got to figure out what do we want to be, and zoning is one way to regulate what we want to be, but there’s other ways to do that. MRS. RYBA-We heard that a lot when we did our informational meetings, and we were hearing more planning type issues than zoning issues that were specific to the zoning revisions. So getting back to the petition for zone change, essentially, when you’re doing a petition for zone change, you’re changing that original designation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as well as your zoning. So we, Cathi is correct. We have heard a lot of Petitions for Zone Change in the last couple of years because the zone, it had been 13 years since the zoning had been revised. However, at this point, there seems to be this momentum that’s carrying over. Okay, the zoning’s adopted, so what can we do to try to get people back to the knowledge that, all right, folks, we’ve just redone our zoning. Our next step is to look at our Comprehensive Land Use Plan again, and then at that point we’ll be making new recommendations for rezoning. So that if you come in with a Petition for Zone Change, it had really better be something that’s very much considered, and that I think this is one way, if you’ve put it on a schedule, that people are going to say, all right, this is something that’s going to be taken seriously, and I’ve got to think about it a little bit more so now, because the zoning just was revised. I heard today, somebody came in to the office and wanted to know, well, I want to do this with this property, and it’s not zoned for that. What do I have to do to get a Petition for Zone Change. So the perception’s out there that I can get whatever I want if I ask for a Petition for Zone Change, and that’s not necessarily the case. So that’s, I think this policy’s being put forward to try to address that sense, because it’s going to take another couple of years before we get another Comprehensive Land Use Plan in place. Right now we’re working on the Open Space Plan, and then when that’s completed, we’ll be getting geared up to do, in some ways we’re doing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan basis right now. So that’s one aspect. Another aspect is when you’re actually looking at your petition application. There are some things that could probably be revised in there to make it, to have more of the work done by the applicant, to have more of these considerations, and I’ve put together a few questions that you may want to take a look at, not 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) necessarily right now, but one of those questions is not only, it’s all based on the current questions you have in your application, but one of the questions is, why is the site, why is the zone change suitable, but then also why is this proposal not compatible, and we don’t ask that in our current application. We don’t ask why the site is not compatible. We only ask why the site is compatible. So, anyhow, so I’ll pass that around, and I don’t know if you want to try to come to some kind of conclusion tonight. What we’re looking for, more, is support for changing the process a little bit, so that we’re not constantly being asked to do rezonings, and part of it is sending a message to the Town Board, let the Town Board say, all right, let’s step back, folks, whoa. Let’s put some kind of a, without doing the “M” word, moratorium, let’s, we’re at a point where we’re just revised our zoning. Let’s go forward, by holding back on every single time that somebody wants to do something that, with their property that’s different. MR. RINGER-The only thing you’re really asking for is to put these dates in for submission. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s one more thing that’s missing here. I think that the applicant has to know, and I think Cathi put her finger on it. The applicant’s got to know that what they’re requesting when they do a zone change is a change in the law. People go, well, I want a zone change, but a zone change is really we’re recommending to the Town Board that they change the law, and I think that’s a giant step, particularly after you’ve just created a new zoning law, to say that when you walk in we’re going to change that law. I don’t think people connect the two, that it’s a law, it’s not just a zone change, and if you can get that thought across to the applicant, and he goes, wow, I’m really asking to have the law changed. Different. You’re asking a different question. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I think what Chris mentioned was a good suggestion, was that we not necessarily go in this step, but you go in the step, you submit the application. Then it goes to the Planning Staff. The Planning Staff gives a report, and I think, Chris, you suggested it, that the next step be a public hearing that both the Planning and the Town Board are at, because you can’t give a recommendation until you have the public hearing, but it would be a public hearing that both of us were at, and then the Planning Board would give its recommendation to the Town Board, and the Town Board would do what it may. MR. VOLLARO-I think that should be on a selective process, though. I think that Chris, or somebody from the Staff, should say this is contentious enough an issue where I’m going to plug these two Boards together. MR. STROUGH-Any time you get a rezoning, and I think everyone’s brought it up, we should be, well, we expect fewer rezonings, which is good. MR. VOLLARO-Hopefully. Hopefully that’s true. MR. STROUGH-And since you’re talking about fewer rezonings, and any time you get a rezoning that has potential for controversy, and you just never know until you have that public hearing, that we have a Town Board/Planning Board public hearing, and then the next one would be the recommendation from the Planning Board, and then the Town Board do what it may. MR. SANFORD-But, John, you have this joint, getting it together, and logistically and having people attend might be problematic. MR. STROUGH-We’ve done it before. MR. SANFORD-But let’s say you do that, and then what happens, the Town Board stays in the audience while the Planning Board comes up with their recommendation. No, no, but we’re there for our recommendation. MR. STROUGH-No. We’re there just to hear the public hearing. The next step is we give a recommendation. So you’ve had time to consider, and our next meeting, consider what the public said, and you may have questions about it. MR. ROUND-In a recommendation, I don’t think there’s any statutory. MR. MAC EWAN-No? Even after a public hearing? MS. RADNER-Again, you’re not required to have a public hearing as part of your recommendation process. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. MR. ROUND-You were right, Rich. It is like should we make a recommendation right here and right now, at the end of this public hearing. I don’t think it’s required. There’s no time limit where you need to reach a decision. It’s going to be unusual, because you seven folks go away and you say, yes, we recommend the rezoning, and the Town Board receives it and they say no after what we heard, we don’t want it, and that happens. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MR. MAC EWAN-I want to make a comment on the public hearing aspect. MR. ROUND-But I think the joint thing could be an optional thing, but we’re not reaching for a decision. I’m hearing you’re supportive of this type of process. MR. VOLLARO-Very definitely. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not going to support the Planning Board making a recommendation and not have a public hearing. MR. ROUND-You want a public hearing as part of that? MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I like the idea of, (lost words) controversial, emotional things, but I’m not going to make any recommendation to the Town Board unless I’ve got all my cards on the table, and the public brings a lot of cards I never thought about. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me make a comment to that. MR. STROUGH-I do agree with Larry about trying to separate the emotional from the facts. MR. RINGER-Well, I’m in favor of the public hearing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. RINGER-For new information that the public can bring to you. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. RINGER-Information, not emotion, just information. MR. STROUGH-And I agree with that, Larry. MR. MAC EWAN-To add to that, I have all the faith in everybody on this Board that you can separate fact from fiction, so to speak. Emotions, I do, I have the faith that everybody can do that. The only thing I would caution you on is that you’ve just got to make sure that you’re really careful and listen to what people are saying, and you’ll find that 99 out of 100 people are talking just from an emotional standpoint. Their mind, when they walk through that door, is they don’t want it come hell or high water, and sometimes people will throw things out at you, trying to impress upon you that they, I want to put this delicately, that they know more about the system and the process than they actually do. MR. STROUGH-That’s part of life. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true, and particularly with the Benyamini, that public hearing we had, I heard several comments from speakers who were talking things regarding SEQRA and stuff like that, where they were dead wrong. They were not accurate. MR. STROUGH-Well, the same thing with the Schermerhorn thing. MR. MAC EWAN-You know, I mean, and that’s why we have to use our judgment, and our expertise, and our training to know, to separate that out, and I have the faith we can do that. I’m in favor of continuing the public hearings on any zone recommendation. I would encourage us to go the path of going with this schedule that you’ve got, because I think that will help in slowing the pace down a lot, and we’ve talked about this, over beers after meetings, that we’re concerned, too, as a community, because we have seen the influx. Some of us guys who’ve been on the Board a long time, have seen this influx of the zoning changes coming in here, and these people are coming in left and right, and the problem is, the better land that’s left in the Town to develop is scooped up. People are looking for not so good land and trying to make a go of it, and I think this is going to help a lot. I would certainly be really strongly in favor of having joint meetings with the Town Board on these things, because I’ve been at a couple of them, and they work well, and I think, in fairness to the public, you don’t want to drag them down with having to go to two or three different public hearings. If they can come and say their peace, and have the attention of two Boards in one night, I mean, that’s a coup for them, to get their peace said, because sometimes the Town Board is kind of insulated away from us when they don’t hear all the stuff that we hear, even though most of it’s emotional stuff that, in some cases, is lacking merit to opposition to it. I think it’s good for the Town Board to hear the same thing, because, ultimately, they’re the ones who are going to make the decision. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and they don’t always go on our recommendation. MR. MAC EWAN-No, they don’t. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I have a question, just to go off the subject a little bit. As far as Light Industrial in the new zoning, was there anymore added to the Town? MR. ROUND-Yes, there was. MRS. LA BOMBARD-A significant amount? I mean, like 10% more maybe, from what we have? MR. ROUND-It’s probably close, about 10%, probably. Just, I’ll answer that for you. So, what I’d like to do is if you have some comments on it, if you don’t have a copy of it, we can get you another copy of it. I’d like to receive any comments that you have. I hear you’re in favor of it. I’d like you to entertain it during a May meeting, and say, you know, give us a recommendation that we adopt this as a policy, and you yourself adopt it as a policy and pass it on to the Town Board. There’s a couple of options in how we implement this, and I think we can adopt it as a policy, or we could add it and make it part of our local law, part of our zoning code or part of how we deal with rezonings. MR. MAC EWAN-Put it on for the second meeting, first item on the agenda. That’ll give everybody almost a month here to review it, and in between correspond with Staff with any comments/questions you have. MR. ROUND-That’s May 23. rd MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you know what, when you look at this schedule, whatever is coming up for rezoning, it is going to be in somebody’s hands the entire time. Somebody is going, I mean, it’s not as if. MR. ROUND-You may not have one on a particular quarter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s true, but if you do, by the whole process, it’s not as if it’s going to be set aside. Somebody’s going to be dealing with it throughout the four months. MR. ROUND-Right. MRS. RYBA-If you wanted to suggest a different timeframe maybe. MR. ROUND-Semi-annually. It doesn’t have to be quarterly. MR. RINGER-What would happen, Chris, if we did this and say we got something in April, but we didn’t make a decision on it and carried it over until our second meeting in May. MR. ROUND-How would that affect the schedule. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. ROUND-That’s a good question. Ask those kind of questions and we’ll have to, so for this first cycle you said we issued you a Staff report April 1. You go to your second April meeting, and you never reached st action on it, and you go to May. Well, the Town Board meets regularly. So they could have a public hearing at any point, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of, I mean, it would still control our work, you know, that we only have to look at them on a quarterly basis. We would still have this ample time in front of them. The Town Board could just toss is away after you make a recommendation, never hold a public hearing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But if they were having a public hearing, we could have a joint public hearing. MR. ROUND-Yes, and I think that would be key, so if we have joint public hearings, we could just set aside calendar dates four times a year, okay, these are going to be joint hearing dates. We’re not going to have meetings. MR. STROUGH-What if we had five rezonings in a quarter? MR. ROUND-That’s the other thing. You could have four or five applications in front of you. That’s a good question. That’s the way other communities do it, though. I’ve seen communities that, hey, they have monthly meetings on rezonings. I mean, this Comprehensive Plan’s being written as they rezone, as they, you know, and it’s okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, schedule it in the auditorium of the school. Start at eight in the morning, go to four. MR. ROUND-I guess the new Zoning Ordinance, and we get kicking off with our Comprehensive Plan, I think the way we would like to attack things is on a, I mean, the old Ordinance, the old Comp Plan looked at things on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, in a backyard kind of basis, and what we’re looking at it is more on a issue basis, and we’re dealing, right now we’re planning comprehensively for Open Space, right now. Housing issue is going to be something that comes up. We really don’t have affordable housing in Queensbury, and some people say, well, you could go to Glens Falls and get that. Rich Schermerhorn’s 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/11/02) found a niche by building apartments. That’s what we call affordable housing here. So we need to look at that on where are we going to create housing. So that’s the way we’re going to look at it, and then the Light Industrial thing, we did add Light Industrial land around the airport industrial park. There’s probably 100 acres out there, and that’s probably 10%. MRS. RYBA-We did do an analysis of how much acreage was being added and how much was being deducted, for the whole Town. So we do have that. I can tell you exactly. MR. SANFORD-Do you, as a Planning Staff, or does this Board ever do informative workshops, educational workshops? The reason I mentioned it is a neighbor of mine is very active in Smart Growth, William Morton, Bill Morton, and he’s done a tape. You’ve all probably heard of the tape, and I’ve seen it recently, and he just saw me today before this meeting, and he has a Power Point presentation, and I was talking to him a little bit about going to this meeting tonight, and he said, well, he would very much appreciate an opportunity, if we could find the time in some setting, to give his Power Point presentation to Planning Board, Planning Board and Staff, or any kind of an appropriate group, and he was pretty dogmatic in his desire to do it, and pointed out that, well, we’ve certainly listened to enough interested planners who go battle on for 45 minutes on their presentations, even though they have an application in front of you. He said I’d really love the opportunity to do it, and there are a number of unique ideas that I think, when you’re talking about your green space and things of this nature, that he would be able to at least give something to bounce off. So, anyway, I certainly want to throw it out for Craig’s consideration. MR. ROUND-Yes, we have done them, Rich, and it’s just, it’s been, we’re short a Staff person, and it’s been a workload, look at how many meetings you’ve had. MRS. RYBA-While we’re on that topic, though, ACC does offer some workshops. In fact, they’re doing a series of three on facades, architectural character of the community and character of the community in general. MR. MAC EWAN-Are they teleconferences? MRS. RYBA-No. They’re, actually Bob Joy, who’s an architect in Glens Falls, is going to be. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When are they going to do this? You didn’t send an e-mail out on that. MRS. RYBA-No, I didn’t send that. That’s something that I had asked support staff to put together for you folks. MR. ROUND-I know like Randall (lost word) spoke Monday night, who’s a conservation design, green space. MRS. RYBA-Well, Randall is probably going to be coming through the resource conservation and development district, which Bill Morton is involved with. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 26