Loading...
1990-09-04 SP ~ QUEENSBDRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 4TH, 1990 INDEX Site Plan No. 68-90 73 Quaker Road Assoc. Tiernan, Bernstein, and Pinchuk 1. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ QUEENSBDRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 4TH, 1990 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN JAMES MARTIN NICHOLAS CAlMANO MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTOBBEY- KARLA CORPUS PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN 110. 68-90 TYPE: UNLISTED DC-lA PC-lA 73 QUAlŒR ROAD ASSOC. C/O TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN, AND PIIICHUK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHWEST COBBER OF QUAKER. ROAD AND GLENWOOD AVENUE PROPOSAL FOR A IIEW SHOPPIIIG CENTER IIICLUDIIIG A RESTAURAIIT AND DRIVE THROUGH BANK. (WADER COUNTY PLANNIIIG) TAX MAP 110. 101-4.31. 4.4 LaI SIZE: 4.40 ACRES TO BE DEVELOPED SECTION 4.020K DAVE KLEIN, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Let's open this Special Meeting, then, to try to avail ourselves out of some corners we got ourselves into at the last meeting, I guess. The first problem, I guess, is that we found that we did not have that meeting room available, that night. So, we had to do something different about a night. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. ROBERTS-Do you want to explain it further? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I was back and forth with Mark Schachner on this and with Dick and, I guess, eventually, what we decided was to go with is that the Quaker Plaza application, Which was tabled, would be placed on the agenda for the second regular meeting of September, under Old Business, that the applicant would get their Traffic Study to us by September 5th, as was stated in the original resolution, and that the remainder of the information would be brought in by September 7th, Which is Friday. MR. CARTIER-Which gives you guys time to review? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The important thing is that we get the Traffic Study. MR. HAGAN-Well, I think youlve got to add one more point, and that is, that we allow the applicant to make a change in his application without the benefit of Board review or Staff Review. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MR. HAGAN-And I think you've got to put that in there. MR. GORALSKI-Thatls true. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I'm looking at this meeting as, really, an extension of our last meeting that we never finished. Since that time, however, some other information, I think, has come to us and, apparently the applicant's going to add a few other things, too, and, in my mind, we're kind of starting from scratch, because I think even having "sort of" agreed, that night, about that particular light, I think, maybe in hindsight, we want to look at that whole thing again and I thing we ought to start from scratch. 1 '---"' - MR. CAlMANO-Well, I agree with Jim and you also, though. When I talked to you and talked to Lee, it really was my intent that night, maybe we were just too tired, to carryon from where we were and it was never my intent that we would look at Country Club Road versus the other one, without having them look at it. I really thought it was getting too long. MR. ROBERTS-I think we kind of all agree on that. MR. HAGAN-Plus, one other thing. There was a misunderstanding between the applicant and the Warren County DPW. MR. CAlMANO-You bet. MR. HAGAN-Because one claims they discussed the lighting arrangement at Country Club Road and the other claims they didn't. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. MR. HAGAN-So, somewhere there was a misunderstanding. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's one of the reasons why we kind of need to step back, probably. MR. CAlMANO-That was really serious, When I heard about it. MR. MARTIN-Yes, Mark Schachner claims he had two memorandums there. MR. KLEIN-We're going to submit the letter. Is this an open forum? MR. HAGAN-Excuse me. I'm sorry. You'll have to introduce yourself. MR. KLEIN-11m Dave Klein, the North Country Engineer. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, he's their engineer. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Well, at this point, I think what we should do is just, with all that said, Whatever information the applicant is going to present, it's my opinion that we can review it, if the revision in the Traffic Study and any changes relating to traffic are given to us by September 5th, Which is tomorrow, and that engineering changes that have to be made are given to us by September 7th. MR. ROBERTS-And John is going to try his best to get all of this through the other agencies. We want Freddie Austin, probably, a letter or something from him. We want New York State DOT. We want the Highway Superintendent and, Whether we'll get all this stuff back to our satisfaction in that time, we don't know. MR. MARTIN-Are we going to have the Traffic Study, this time, with the information? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, and that will be distributed to you. that tomorrow and that will be distributed to you. We're supposed to get MR. CARTIER-Does your client own Northway Floors and that whole chunk? MR. KLEIN-No, they own Mallincrodkt. MR. MARTIN-He owns, like, aU-shaped MR. CAlMANO-I' 11 tell you, since the meeting, however, I don't know about the rest of you guys, I have, While we were up there until midnight, at this meeting, that whole thing got out of proportion because the distance from Country Club to Glenwood, that traffic engineer is crazy, because there I s no way that I would ever approve two lights there. We'd drive ourselves nuts. MR. MARTIN-Or the distance from Country Club to LaFayette. MR. HAGAN-Now, hold it. For the full benefit of both sides, they did say, very carefully, that those lights would have to be synchronized. In effect, they would be one light. They would turn red and green at the same time. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, I understand that, but, as someone else and I had discussed, that happens to be, without going through this whole thing, 2 -- MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I think the proper place to discuss this would be when we set up the next meeting. So, in the interest of not staying here all night, I would recommend, MR. KLEIN-Could I add something? We came prepared, the other night, to make a full presentation and address a lot of comments. We didn't have any problems with tabling the meeting, at the late hours, so everybody could have a chance to look things over and we I re coming back the 17th, Which gave us enough time, if needed to re-submit for the October agenda. It would give us 10 days to re-submit for the October agenda. If we get tabled on the 25th, or, youlre talking about the 27th for a meeting, we need the Board's assurance that we would have a Special Meeting in October, that we would have enough time to MR. ROBERTS -You're going to get no such assurance, absolutely, no such assurance. We were probably talking more leniency than we should have been, the other night, and I think that this is a bigger project that's just getting off the ground, I think, as far as most of us are concerned. MR. KLEIN-Well, we came prepared, on a great expense to the clients, we brought an architect in from Canada. We brought traffic consultants in, lawyers in, all prepared to present our case at the last meeting, \\hich would have given us a whole month to get re-submitted for the October meeting. MR. CAlMANO-Wait a minute, that was your decision to make that expense and the reason that was done is, the more the merry in hopes of getting the thing passed and I don't blame you, but that expense is not our problem, that's your problem. MR. CARTIER-Yes, let's understand how this thing works. MR. KLEIN-Well, we didn't have to table it. MR. CAlMANO-No, we could have turned it down. MR. CARTIER-The only thing we could've reviewed that night, properly, \\as Plan A, the first thing you submitted. MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-And then you guys started talking about Plan B and the grade thing and that had not been through the entire review process and that's Why we're back to square one. MR. KLEIN-There I s other things that can be changed in the course of design. You people are going to have comments about where youl d like traffic lights, Wiere handicapped spots are going to be. MR. CAlMANO-The point is, that should be with John and Lee's Department, that we should not engineer. We got into a problem of engineering the job, on-site, the other night, too, Which we canlt do. Am I rightt Dick? MR. ROBERTS -We I ve got to go back and talk some basic philosophies before we send them back to the drawing board to design it. Until we decide where the light should be, if the light should be and where entrances are going to be, how do you know how to design the project, really? We're just moving them too fast on this thing. MR. KLEIN-But, by delaying our hearing the other night, is delaying the project, substantially, unneededly. We are prepared to go back to the drawing boards and re-submit for the October meeting and now we I re not going to be able to do that. MR. ROBERTS-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-Well, we could do that. We could make a motion to kill the project and make them start allover again. I mean, if you want to do that, if you want to get on the October agenda with a brand new project, that's easy. All we've got to do is make a motion to reject the project. MR. KLEIN-We would like to have been able to address all the comments the other night, though and then get on the October agenda. MR. ROBERTS -Well, I thought I told you, the other night, you were rather naive to think you could get this all done as quickly as you guys, apparently, thought you were going to get it done. 3 ~ MR. KLEIN-W~ w~r~ anticipating two m~~tings. W~ w~r~ anticipating th~ pr~vious nights and, du~ to th~ SChêduling, we ~xp~ct~d to b~ on th~ Octob~r m~~ting. Now, we' v~ got a quart~r of a m~~ting don~. W~ addr~ss~d on~ topic, bri~fly, out of hundr~ds, and now w~' v~ got to com~ back on a sch~dul~ that's not going to l~t us m~~t at th~ Octob~r m~~ting. MR. CARTIER-Wêll, you guys hav~ got to go through th~ r~viêw proc~ss that ~v~rybody ~ls~ go~s through, \\hich includ~s going through, going through County and so on and so forth and, Wh~n all of thos~ ducks ar~ in a row, th~n, we will tak~ a look at it, but thos~ things hav~ to b~ don~ first. What you'r~ asking us to do, in ~ff~ct, is just blow away thê whol~ r~vi~w proc~ss and mak~ a sp~cial cas~ and w~'v~ b~~n trying to g~t away from that. MR. KLEIN-W~ don't want you to blow away th~ r~vi~w proc~ss. W~ think it's a v~ry worthwhil~ proc~ss. W~'r~ just asking for th~ sam~ consid~ration that anybody ~ls~ would hav~ b~~n giv~n. MR. CAlMANO-Hold it. Not alr~ady. W~ stay~d th~r~ consid~ration. W~' r~ h~r~, and I r~s~nt it wh~n you say only ar~ you g~tting that, you' r~ g~tting b~yond it until lat~ th~ oth~r night to giv~ you just such l~tting you talk, to giv~ you just such consid~ration things lik~ that. MR. KLEIN-I don I t m~an to g~t you irritat~d, but I'm trying to g~t th~ proj~ct built for th~ cli~nts and th~ r~vi~w proc~ss is on~ of thos~ stag~s and th~ sch~dul~ is v~ry critical. MR. CARTIER-W~ll, okay, but und~rstand that our main conc~rn is not your sch~dul~, you hav~ to und~rstand that. C~rtainly, it I S a conc~rn of yours and that's a valid conc~rn that you should hav~, but that I s not th~ driving forc~ for this Board. W~ hav~ oth~r things that w~ hav~ to consid~r. MR. ROBERTS-And w~' r~ pr~tty much at a starting point. W~ hav~n' t ~v~n look~d at SEQRA and if w~ would hav~ look~d at SEQRA clos~ly, th~ oth~r night, we probably would hav~ said it r~quir~d a Full Environm~ntal Impact Stat~m~nt with th~ traffic as up in th~ air as it was and, unl~ss we can mitigat~ som~ of thos~ circumstanc~s, this could go on for a good many months. I told you you w~r~ naiv~ th~ oth~r night and you' r~ still trying to b~ a littl~ naiv~, I think, in thinking you' r~ going to ov~rwh~lm us and put this through as fast as you can. MR. HAGAN-I III t~ll you this, my p~rsonal opinion is, that it's going to b~hoov~ you to go through th~ proc~ss b~caus~ as your whol~ proj~ct sits and looks at m~ right now, I can giv~ you nothing, but disapproval, that's just my opinion. I could not vot~ any oth~r way, but to disapprov~ your proj~ct. MR. KLEIN-Mark couldn' t b~ h~r~, tonight, and h~ pr~par~d a l~tt~r h~ ask~d m~ to giv~ th~ Board. I 'v~ got s~v~ral copi~s or do you just want m~ to ~nt~r it into th~ fil~? MS. CORPUS-Why don't you giv~ on~ to ~v~rybody, Dav~. MR. GORALSKI-Would you lik~ m~ to r~ad this into th~ r~cord? MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, I gu~ss we don't know what it says unl~ss we r~ad it. MR. CAlMANO-Go ah~ad. MR. GORALSKI-R~ad l~tt~r from Mark J. Schachn~r, to Qu~~nsbury Planning Board m~mb~rs, dat~d S~pt~mb~r 4th, 1990 (attach~d) MR. CARTIER-Dav~, to m~, th~r~ I s still a basic misund~rstanding r~pr~s~nt~d in this lett~r, in his comm~nts and I would lik~ you to carry that back to Mark. Th~ basic misund~rstanding that I s~~ is that Mark do~s not und~rstand that what you submitt~d, Wi~n you chang~d g~ars at that m~~ting, in t~rms of submitting Plan B, at that point, Wiat should'v~ happ~n~d with this Board was, we should hav~ stopp~d right th~r~. MR. KLEIN-W~ didn't m~an on submitting plan B. Th~r~'s all kinds of chang~s that can happ~n in th~ planning proc~ss. On~ of th~ things was putting a light at Gl~nwood. On~ of th~ things was putting a light at Country Club and w~ I r~ just talking about th~ possibiliti~s of what w~ can do. MR. CARTIER-But, if I und~rstand it, you w~r~ pr~s~nting to us, th~ Plan B, th~ gr~y ac~tat~ flip, is What I'm calling Plan B. 4 - MR. KLEIN-Yês, as an altêrnativê. MR. CARTIER-But that was an altêrnativê that had not been looked at by Staff or anybody êlsê. MR. MARTIN-See, and I think thê point Peter's trying to make is, a plan that is ultimatêly approvêd dOês havê to go through Staff review. MR. KLEIN-I bêgged John, before the mêeting, to sit down with our traffic consultant and go oVêr the diffêrent altêrnatives. MR. GORALSKI-Aftêr the submission deadline datê. MR. KLEIN-After the submission dêadline date. I wanted to work things out, but he didn't think therê was a nêêd to hear what traffic consultants had to say. MR. ROBERTS -It was too latê, anyway, after the submission dêadline datê. As we said, any changes, at that time, would have nêcêssitated going through thê Planning process again. MS. CORPUS-Dave, can I ask you a question? Just for clarification for mê, given what you've alrêady bêen through with thê Planning Board that night and things that YOU'Vê learned and dêcisions that you have made basêd on that meeting, if you were to withdraw your application, now, and re-submit by the end of this month to gêt on that Octobêr agenda, that seems to be the prime objêctive, herê, would you haVê some objection to that? MR. KLEIN-Yês, bêcause we didn't have an opportunity to talk about all the diffêrent problêms with the dêsign. We nêver went through êngineering reviêw. I want to gêt êVêrybody's fêêdback to all those different aspêcts of the job and then Wê would have addrêssêd all thoSê itêms, took our timê, submitted for the Octobêr mêeting, in plênty of timê. MS. CORPUS-Well, you did gH rêviêw notes from the Staff Enginêer and from the Board. MR. GORALSKI-And you mêt with thêm since thê meeting. MS. CORPUS-And, you mêt with thêm. I don't know, does that change that position at all? I mêan, it's not like thê mêêting was a total wastê of time. MR. KLEIN-No, it wasn't, but Wê only addressêd one issue and that was the traffic li gh t . MR. CAlMANO-Hundrêds morê than that. MR. KLEIN-Wêll, maybê we addressed threê iSSUês t but therê' s hundreds of issues on a projêct of this SiZê. MR. ROBERTS-And that issuê is still up in the air, thê iSSUê of the traffic light. MR. KLEIN-When I lêft the mêêting, I thought Wê had a clear consênsus of the Board that thêY werê favoring the light at Glenwood and we spênt a heck of a lot of time rêvising thê drawings, now, showing that light at Glênwood and how it êffêcts thê drainage. MR. GORALSKI-Glenwood or Country Club? MR. KLEIN-Country Club. How it'll êffect thê lighting, thê drainage. We'rê rêdoing thê drainage report to rêflêct thosê changes. There's a ton of monêy that I'm absorbing. MR. GORALSKI-You'rê missing thê point. The point is that has not had an opportunity to rêviêw the design, based Club Road and thê aCCêSs across from Country Club Road. Staff, I feel that it I s unfair to ask thêse people to a sufficiênt rêviêW from their Staff. the Planning Board Staff on the light at Country As thê Planning Board's makê a decision without MR. MARTIN-Without technical support. MR. CARTIER-Wê don't sit herê and nêgotiate a projêct that Staff has not lookêd at Yêt. 5 --- MR. KLEIN-W~ll, I und~rstand. I hop~ you can r~vi~w th~ proj~ct, John, with th~ light at Country Club. MR. MARTIN-And I g~t this un~asy s~ns~, h~r~, that you think that, now th~ Country Club Road light is s~t in ston~ and that's it and, pl~as~ go back and say, at l~ast in my mind, that it, by no m~ans, th~ cas~. MR. ROBERTS-Absolut~ly, and it was not my int~ntion you guys sp~nd a whol~ lot mor~ mon~y on a whol~ n~w application b~caus~ w~lr~ not at that point, y~t. W~'r~ going to, basically, continu~ looking at your original submission. If you want to mak~ a f~w chang~s, okay, but, as far as I 'm conc~rn~d, all w~ n~~d to do is to look at that original submission and look at som~ basic conc~pts, starting with plac~m~nt of light and additional traffic information. MR. HAGAN-Y~s, but th~ plac~m~nt of light chang~s th~ original submission. MR. ROBERTS -It may, that's Why h~ b~tt~r plan on, mayb~, having to sp~nd s~v~ral months at this. Th~r~ls no way to do it as fast as th~y'r~ going to want to do it . MR. MARTIN-What was th~ fe~ling of th~ m~èting, th~ oth~r night, or my f~~ling was that th~ Plan B, as is b~ing r~f~rr~d to, was mayb~ b~tt~r than th~ original submission of th~ thr~~ curb cuts along Quak~r Road, that's all that was said, that's not to say that that is th~ ultimat~, pr~f~rred option. MR. ROBERTS-That's right. MR. MARTIN-And mayb~ th~ ultimat~ pr~f~rr~d option is no curb cuts on Quak~r Road and acc~ss only on Glenwood. Who knows? MR. CAlMANO-That I s right and I think if w~ read back the minut~s on the tape, I said just that. It was the preferred of the two that we talked about. It did not imply that we w~re approving th~ proj~ct in any way. MR. KLEIN-I didn't say that I thought you approved the light at Country Club. My thoughts were that, I got a g~n~ral consensus that that was you'r~ MR. HAGAN-It was more acceptable. MR. MARTIN-Of the two that wer~ befor~ the Board that night. MR. KLEIN-The problem I have, as an engineer, is, and I ~xplain this to my clients, you guys want us to give you a traffic report based on every option. You want us to give you a hydrolo gy report, a st ormwa ter report based on ev~ry opt ion, grading plans on ~very option and we go back to the drawing boards, every time, and we have to revise all these drawings. It's a considerable lot of expense. MR. CARTIER-Well, understand that all of those options that you come up with are options that you came up with, not options th~ Board has come up with. You com~ in with 27 options, I think it's appropriate that the Board ask for the information on all those options. You can limit the options. MR. CAlMANO-Right. You came in prepared for Plan B. You had an acetate to flip over. We didn't ask you for Plan B. The only thing we said about traffic was Peter, ~ll, two things we said about traffic. One we don't like the Quaker Road traffic and B was the internal traffic, W:1ich Peter kept trying to bring up. H~ doesn't like that either and neither does anybody else. So, the options, to repeat, ~re your options. MR. HAGAN-I think that we I ve got to keep getting back whole project. I'm only speaking for myself, again, trying to pack too much into a small parcel which objectionable consequences to this community. to the basic point of your but I gather that you're gives us reasons to find MR. CARTIER-Youlre speaking for me, too. MR. KLEIN-We're only building a little over 2700 square feet on a 4 and a half acre parcel. MR. HAGAN-That I s beside the point. If we were to have that same concentration on every thousand feet of road frontage, forget the whole Quaker Road. You could close it all down. 6 - MR. KLEIN-If we had a rectangular shaped lot, without all the constraints that property has, we would have 60,000 square feet there. MR. ROBERTS-Not necessarily. MR. KLEIN-Yes, you'd want to scale it down some, I'm sure, but we would have the ability to put quite a lot. MR. ROBERTS -Go look at Doyle's. We I d like your pro j ect to look like the Doyle I s corner. MR. CAlMANO-I think, also, we're getting the cart, it seems to me, anyway, that we're putting the cart before the horse. It's almost like what's going on in the Far East, talking about hostages instead of Kuwait. You seem to be putting the monkey on our back, When, in fact, you have come and said, I have this project, would you approve that in this Town and now, all of a sudden, the guilt is over here. I don't want the guilt. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, we really shouldnlt be talking, some of the concepts and the preliminary sketch plan and you seem think it should be finished business, going to work out that way. in that first meeting, about on something of this magnitude the first night, and itls not MR. KLEIN-For a subdivision process, you've got a three step process Where you go through Sketch Plan review and everything. For a commercial Planning Board, it's one step and, sometimes it gets dragged into two, three, seven, or eight meetings. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. KLEIN-I understand that, but to submit for that, you have to have everything all designed. If you had a three step process, maybe that would be different. MR. CARTIER-What you need to do, as far as I'm concerned, is you have to come in with what you figure is your best plan. MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-That has gone through Staff, and I don't mean just Town Staff, I mean whatever agency it is appropriate to look at, DOT, Warren County, Whatever, okay, and we take it from there. MR. KLEIN-We I re trying to do that for tomorrow or for Friday, come in with our best plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Then I don't see a problem. MR. CARTIER-I don't either. MR. MARTIN-Within your development team, it should go through a very strict and intensive review, at that level, because your developer is going to a lot of expense to hire the experts and they should be the ones Who come up with the plan that has the best chance, in their opinion, of meeting the requirements of the Town. MR. CAlMANO-Two meetings ago, we had the Passarelli group with a project that, essentially, was the same, right? I don I t remember it lasting that long. They had done their homework. They said, this is What we want. We said, well, you can't do that, you canlt do that, go back and look at it again and come back and that's the end of it. MR. ROBERTS-We haven't seen them since. MR. CAlMANO-We haven't seen them since. project. They're working on restructuring the MR. CARTIER-It should not take four hours of the Boards time for one submission, one item on the agenda. If it's taking four hours for one item, then something has gone haywire or something. 7 '-- -" MR. ROBERTS-Yes. Well, part of it was kind of misleading information and so forth. MR. HAGAN-Okay, now what does this take? Do we have to make a motion to change our last motion to table? MS. CORPUS-Make a motion to rescind your previous motion and make a new motion. MR. CAlMANO-We don't have to have a motion at all, right? It I s just going to go back MS. CORPUS-The Board has the option of tabling it with or without the applicant's consent, at this point, to a date of the Board's choosing. MR. GORALSKI-Because the submission deadline for September has passed, in order to put this on September's agenda and accept the information this week, you need to pass a motion to that effect. MR. ROBERTS-We did that, though. MR. MARTIN-So, we're making special exceptions. MR. ROBERTS-We're not rescinding that part of our motion, before, are we? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would recommend, this is the motion, I spoke to Mark Schachner last week, and I spoke to you. I would recommend that you rescind your previous motion, in its entirety. In place of that, pass a new motion placing Quaker Plaza on the September 25th Planning Board agenda under Old Business and instructing the applicant to have their Traffic Study to the Planning Department by September 5th at 2 pm and any other additional information they wish to submit by September 7th at 2 pm. IIOTION TO RESCIND IIO'rION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 68-90 73 QUADR ROAD ASSOC. C/O TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN, AND PINCBUK, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 4th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CAlMANO-I would move to table. MS. CORPUS-It would either be with the applicant's consent or without, Whichever. MR. KLEIN-We don't consent. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. IIOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 68-90 AND PINCBUK, Introduced by Nicholas by Peter Cartier: 73 QUAKER ROAD ASSOC. clo TIERNAN, BERNSTEIN, Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded Tabled to the September 25th regular meeting under Old Business and that the applicant will have submitted to the Planning Staff a Traffic Study by 2 pm, 9/5 and any other information they feel is necessary by 2 pm, 9/7. It should be noted that this tabling is without the applicant's consent. Duly adopted this 4th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. ROBERTS-Just a point of legal information, can we do this? MS. CORPUS-What happens is your SEQRA time periods start running. You have so many days, from this time, to make a SEQRA determination. 8 '--' ~ MR. CARTIER-Thirty or forty-fived ays, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-From this time, or from, When, the first meeting? MS. CORPUS-Well, the applicant consented to the last tabling. So, I don't believe it would be from then. MR. CARTIER-Well, \Ie're going to look at this, Wia t , three weeks f rom now? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it would only be twenty days from today. MS. CORPUS -1'11 get a conclusion on that, for that meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. One of the things that came up somewhere, I don't remember where now either, is that one of the things we wanted to look at was the entire holdings on a map. Youlre just showing us a piece. MR. KLEIN-No, \Ie submitted two surveys of the entire holdings. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KLEIN-And I don't plan on re-submitting that type of information. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-11m sorry that the applicant feels he I s being put upon, here. It seems to me we Ire trying to be cooperative, but it IS not being appreciated at all and we seem to be a logger heads, here. We've certainly got some serious unanswered questions that don't deserve to be hurried and I hesitate to see the applicant spend a fortune on a finished product. At this point, it's up to you. It seems to me we're in the conceptual stage of looking at some of these things, at this stage and I think we ought to continue to look at it that way. We haven't finished our first meeting, yet, as far as we're concerned. MR. KLEIN-It would have been nice if we could submit just conceptual things, but youlve got a check list that you've got to have a stormwater report and you've got to have finished contours. You've got to have everything. MR. ROBERTS-That is true. MR. KLEIN-I've built projects with less information. MR. CARTIER-What is to prevent somebody from walking into the Planning Department, on an informal basis, and having informal discussions with Staff members? MR. GORALSKI-We've had informal discussions for the past year, on this project. MR. CARTIER-So, there's an option. MR. HAGAN-Aren't we overlooking, the consensus of op1.n1.ons in this community is not desirous of this project from what little bit I know about our community. MR. CARTIER-Well, \Ie still haven't held a public hearing on this thing, yet, have we? MR. ROBERTS-Well, yes, \Ie did. and they were across the street. We had one person respond to the public hearing Just one person was there. MR. CAlMANO-It's left open, though, right? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, it's left open. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I think it's funny that we have been, \Ie, as a Board, has been rebuked, a little bit, by this letter and by you and it's so important to rebuke us that, A. Mark can It even be here and he is being paid, as a lawyer and, B. He can't even write his own letter and, again, he's being paid, as the attorney. We're not being paid for this and I repeat, again, I take exception to the fact that some cne feels that we I re not going out of our way, because we are going out of our way, far more than for other applicants. Why? Because it's an important commercial project and we thought we were doing the right thing. Instead, \Ie' re getting our heads beat in for it, so I've had my say on it. 9 -- MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I wonder where the great civic need for six banks within a half a mile. MR. CAlMANO-Thatls what I asked the other night. MR. HAGAN-That is, basically, I think, that's whatls wrong with the project. MR. CAlMANO-After much discussion, regarding who can and can't be at the next regular meeting, the 18th, I move that we change the first regular meeting date from 7:30, on September 18th, to 7:30 on Thursday, September 20th. MOTION TO œANGE THE FIJlST REGULAR MEETING DATE FROM 7: 30, ON SEP'lEMBER 18TH, TO 7:30, SEPTEMBER 20TH, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 4th day of September, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-And the only one who this really effects, at this point, is Jim. MR. CAlMANO-And he said just let him know. I asked him on the way out the door. MR. ROBERTS-He didn't have a problem with that? MR. CAlMANO-He didn't have a problem. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 10 ~ John C. Mannix Benjamin R. Pratt, Jr. Joseph M. Walsh Mark J. Schachner' John C. Mannix, Jr." Thomas G. Clements..· Jeffrey J. Friedland .... Sandra L. Allen' Joseph M. Kowalczyk, Jr.· . AI... Admitted In M...ach....tta "AI... Admitted N.", Hampohl... ... AI... Admlttfd In DI.trio' or Columbia .... AIIO Admitted In Conn.cticut }\lLLER. MANNIX & PRATT, P.c. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE BROAD STREET PLAZA P.O. Box 765 GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801 (518) 793-6611 John W. Miller (1908-1968) Toll Free In N.Y. State 800-421-6166 DICTATED BUT NOT READ FAX (518) 798-6690 September 4, 1990 Members of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board Queensbury Town Hall Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, New York 12804 Re: Site Plan Review Application of 73 Quaker Road Associates - Quaker Plaza Dear Planning Board Members: As you know, we represent 73 Quaker Road Associates, which is the applicant for the proposed commercial center to be known as Quaker Plaza. The purpose of this letter is not to describe the merits of our application, but to discuss the issue of scheduling and timing of the Board's review of it. As you know, this application was the subject of prolonged discussion into the late hours of the night at the Board's regular meeting on Tuesday, August 28th. 'You will recall that consideration of the application was adjourned at that time in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that, even after almost two hours of discussion, we still had several issues remaining. Rather than proceeding literally into the hours of the morning, the Board offered, and the applicant accepted, to convene a special meeting for this purpose on September 17th. The applicant felt that this was a very fair and reasonable request and consented. We understand that some difficulty has now arisen with the September 17th date and that the Board is convening a special meeting on September 4th to resciridits earlier ro. PRISTED ON W RECYCLED PAPER " . . iÞ '--' -- Members of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board September 4, 1990 Page 2 resolution. We understand that it is now contemplated that our application will either be considered at the Board's regular meeting on September 25th or at a special meeting on September 27th. The applicant is willing to express its consent to this delay, subject of course to the understanding that, in what we hope is the unlikely event that review of the application is not concluded on that night, then the Board offers its assurance that we will be permitted to complete this matter at a regular or special Board meeting in October. The applicant submits that this is certainly a fair and reasonable request, as the ability to submit any necessary additional information in time to be placed on the October agenda was certainly the key element in our consent to adjourn the last meeting to September 17th. The applicant and its representatives have spent many months planning this project, including meetings with the Townls planning and zoning staff and Zoning Board of Appeals and the Warren County Department of Public Works. We sincerely believe (and we hope that the Town's planning staff shares this belief) that all of the information necessary for a favorable decision will be before the Board at the September meeting. However, in the unlikely event that additional consideration remains necessary, we submit that it would be manifestly unfair to force the applicant to wait until November for further review, when the applicant consented to an adjournment of the August meeting with the accompanying Board resolution for a special meeting on September 17th. The applicant was certainly prepared to continue as long as necessary last week and would obviously have had ample opportunity to prepare supplemental material in time to meet the deadline for the October meetings. There is no dif- ference between September 25th and 27th as a practical matter in terms of the applicant IS ability to make timely submission for your October meetings. Regardless of which date the Board decides to consider us on, that opportunity will have passed. . . ~ t l '--. --' Members of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board September 4, 1990 Page 3 I ,. We commend the Board for its continued diligence and patience and thank you again for your consideration. Very truly yours, MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, P.C. ~s~~~~tR. MJS:K9-4Q cc: David Klein, P.E. ; . . '>