Loading...
1991-01-22 SP ~ --" CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 22ND, 1991 INDEX Site Plan No. 1-91 Pyramid Company of Glens Falls Aviation Mall 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. ~ CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 22ND. 1991 9:08 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES MARTI N JAMES HAGAN EDWARD LAPOINT TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-We will now open the Special Meeting with regard to the Aviation Mall project. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-91 TYPE: UNLISTED ESC-25A PYRAMID COMPMY OF GLENS FALLS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AVIATION MALL AVIATION ROAD AT 1-87 TO EXPAND THE ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER BY 106,000 ~ARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA (GLA) WITH PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND UTILITIES (WARREll COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: 56.31 ACRES SECTION 4.020 P BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Aviation Mall Expansion, "I reviewed the January 14 response to comments from John Meyer. representative of the Pyramid Mall Corporation. I have requested responses from Pat Collard regarding her January 9 memo stating the project was over the maximum density allowed by code. This is attached. I have requested that Brian LaFlure review the plans regarding concerns which he raised. The Planning concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. The applicant states that they want an indication whether curbed or landscaped islands are preferable. The Fire Chief has requested painted islands for emergency vehicle maneuverability. There is one outstanding concern and that is a request for clarification by the Planning Board to the Warren County Planning Board regarding stipulations placed upon the project. The Warren County Planning Board meets on February 13th, at which time the request will be discussed. I would recommend that the Board not move on this project until all issues are clarified. The stipulations placed on the project by the Warren County Planning Board could change the project." MRS. YORK-By the way, Brian had hoped to come in and review the plans. He did not come in today, so I don't know, and I have no word for him if he feels satisfied. I assume he probably does. but I have no official word from him on that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a letter from Pat Collard to the Planning Board. MRS. YORK-Yes, and we also have a letter from Thomas K. Flaherty. the Water Superintendent. Would you like me to read Pat Collard's letter? MR. CARTIER-I'll take Pat's and you can do Tom's, okay? MRS. YORK-All right. MR. CARTIER-Memo from Patricia Collard, Zoning Administrator, to the Queensbury Planning Board. Re: Aviation Mall Expansion ESC- as a Zone, dated January 22, 1991 "I have reviewed the January 14, 1991 correspondence from John H. Meyer as well as the revised Site Plan of January 8, 1991. Item C of the correspondence states that the grosß building area of all existing and proposed buildings is approximately 673,091 square feet. This is less than the allowable gross building area of 676,052 as outlined in my January 9, 1991 memo to the Planning Board. I spoke with Lou Gagliano today and requested a summary of the proposed square feet of each building area. This information will be of assistance at the time a building permit is issued for this expansion." Okay, Tom Flaherty's letter? MRS. YORK-Letter from Tom Flaherty. Superintendent. Queensbury Water Department, to Lee York, Senior Planner, Queensbury Planning Department, Re: Proposed Addition - Aviation Mall, dated 1/22/91 "I have reviewed the revised plans submitted for the above project in regard to the relocation of the 24 inch water main and offer the following comments. 1. I still have concerns over the proposed location 1 -- of the 24 inch water main. Any failure of the main could have adverse effects on both the proposed J.C. Penney structure and private on site infrastructure. 2. The installation of air relief valves at high points be required. 3. The soil bearing ability at thrust block points will have to be verified. 4. Meter pit details will be required. 5. Anchor and thrust block details should be expanded to include 24 inch." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated January 22, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Regarding 24 inch water main relocation: a) The affected segment (existing and new) should not have additional unvented high points that could entrap air and interfere with transmission capacity. b) The grading plans indicate approximately 4 feet of excavation at station 0 + 00 of the water main relocation. Record data or test pit information should be furnished to demonstrate that adequate cover will exist in excavated areas where the existing 24 inch water main will remain. c) The fitting thrust restraint design relies on a 6000 psf resistive capacity of the soil which should be substantiated with site soils data. The fitting at station 0 + 00 may be rotated such that the joint deflection capability of the fitting is exceeded. Information addressing both of these concerns relating to 24 inch water main fittings should be provided. d) The pi pe trench detail on drawing SP-21 should be so modi fied to be consi stent with Water Department Construction Standards paragraph 2.13 such that trench width to 1.0 foot above the pipe shall be no greater than 18 inches wider than the pipe. e) The Queensbury Water Department may have maintenance related concerns regarding the relocation alignment and the steeply sloped section of main relocation in the 2:1 slope area. 2. Supplemental information and explanations from Mr. Bob Roth of John Meyer Consulting regarding stormwater management generally demonstrates adequate facilities sizing except for stormwater recharge galleries 4 and 7 due to the computer methodology limitation which does not model run off generated at rates less than 1.0 cfs. An alternate analysis of galleries 4 and 7, sensitive to generated run off rates of all magnitudes, is required to demonstrate the adequacy of sizing of these galleries. Except as noted. previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. " MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We also need clarification on Warren County. as to their motion. Does everybody have a copy of Warren County's motion? Just let me read to you the motion. It was a motion to approve, "with the condition that Pyramid Company find the means to alleviate the exclusive Aviation egress/ingress problem whether it be Foster Avenue or the Present Company Shopping Center; an effort must be made to construct an egress/ingress point onto Glen Street", and my reaction to this was. there's two things in there. In one case, they're saying they must find. In the other case they're saying, an effort must be made to find, and those are two significantly different statements. as far as I'm concerned and I'm trying to get clarification. Lee contacted them to see if we could get a clarification prior to this meeting, but they're not going to. They are meeting the 13th of February. as Lee points out in her comments. I went back and read the minutes, too and I can't get a sense, one way or the other. whether it must be done or an effort must be made to be done. So I don't know where we are with that. MR. STEWART-Could I address the Board? MR. CARTIER-Certainly, Mr. Stewart, at this time. MR. STEWART-For the record. my name is Bob Stewart representing the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls. At the night of your last meeting, I first went to the County Planning Board and then I came here and reported what had happened and then last Friday, I believe. I was shown a copy of the transcript, which as you point out. is contradictory and confusing. Now, the sequence of what happened was, at the County Planning Board, a member offered a resolution that Pyramid use its best efforts. That it be approved contingent upon Pyramid's using it's best efforts to try to find an alternate route onto Glens Falls. The motion was seconded. It was voted upon. A majority voted for it, but because of a shortage of their quorum, one man voted against it and they did not have enough to pass that motion. So, there was no motion, which technically meant that we would be approved if they did not make a motion denying it. Some discussion. then the gentleman in opposition offered a motion to deny their recommendation of approval until we found a way to get a second access onto Glen Street. That was unable even to get a second. Then they discussed it for some moments and said, well, if we don't do anything. they're approved automatically and we don't have a way to express our concern about their trying to get a second route. Then the first lady said, let me restate my initial proposal and she started out by saying, let it be upon the condition that they ~ another alternate. I made the comment that was different than what she had first proposed, which was best effort, and she said, you're right. Let me correct that. The amendment is. will they use their best efforts and that was what passed. The secretary who typed it up took her first sentence, which was the condition that we must get it, coupled it with her amendment that we use our best efforts, left out all of the discussion in between and squeezed it into a resolution. When we realized that we had that contradiction. I called, went up, listened to the tape with Pat Tatich and the secretary. and they retyped and submitted today. to this Board. the word for word transcripts of what happened and I don't think there's any way you can read that wi thout real i zing that in the fi nal ana lysi s, the resol uti on was that Pyrami d be approved condi ti oned upon their using their best efforts to continue to try to find an alternate route out. MRS. YORK-Excuse me, Mr. Stewart. Let me just clarify one thing. That three page word for word was not officially submitted to this Board. 2 "'--' ----' MR. STEWART-Well, it was faxed to your office from the County. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I think we can handle this very quickly, anyway. In terms of legalities. here, we could have, in the past, and we've been told, that we could get ourselves into trouble if we base decisions based on minutes rather than motions and I think the only thing we have to look at, here, is the motion that was made and we have to get a clarification of the motion from the Board. MR. STEWART-Let me finish, if I might. my comment and I'll be brief. This Board is the Board with the authority. The County Planning Board is advisory only. If the County Planning Board had recommended denial this Board, by an approval of majority plus one, automatical1y overrides the County Planning Board. So, from that point of view, it doesn't make any difference what the County Planning Board said, if you have a majority plus one. and, in addition, this is. if I could point out, exactly the same issue that I debated, here, the other night and I debated up there and both Boards took the same position. ultimately. Pyramid does not own the intervening land. Niagara Mohawk and another shopping center owns the intervening land. Pyramid can promise to use their best efforts, and they have made that commitment to you. They can submit a proposal to Niagara Mohawk for their cooperation, which they have done, but I argued that it wasn't fair to put a condition onto Pyramid's approval to do something over land that they didn't control and I think it was clearly the position of the Board when I left here two weeks ago. that you'd debated it. You'd thought about it and that you had agreed with me and that when we were left to address some final odds and ends that you wanted tidied up, a commitment to get on to Glen Street was not one of the things that we had to do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I sti11 would like to have this cleared up from the Planning Board. I guess my question is, what's the rush to judgement, here? I think we have some time. We have to recognize that this application is subject to an Article 78 and it's not going to move forward until that is resolved. However that is resolved, it seems to me that we have some time, here to deal with this issue. MR. STEWART-Well, it's my judgement that the Article 78 is not going to be a problem, but time is a concern. We have a window of construction time available to us and those of you in business know the pipelines of getting materials in, contracts signed and so on. We have, and I don't mind telling you. another concern. To make this successful we need tenants. We have an opposing shopping ma11 that is putting it's act together down at Saratoga. So far, they have been slow off the gun. There are tenants available and if we can get a move on, we can get those tenants here in Queensbury. If we delay. month after month after month and they get those tenants. we will have a problem. Time i! important to us. Any legitimate delay, we have no question about, but a delay, just to delay. hurts us badly and we would urge the motion. MR. CARTIER-I appreciate that. Mr. Stewart. I don't understand your comment about a delay just to delay? MR. STEWART-We11, if this Board does not need any information from the County, if it is the mood of this Board to approve and not make a second access road onto Route 9 a condition and if you have that absolute authority to do that, then why do we have to adjourn a month? MR. CARTIER-Okay. There are other issues. I want to be sure we understand this. I think it's the second time I've said this tonight. This application is also subject to legal action and I do not want to get this Board entangled in any further legal action involving this application and I want to be sure we do thi s by the numbers. Now, it seems to me that there are other issues bes ides thi s Warren County thing, that need to be addressed, too. MR. STEWART-Well. Mr. Meyer would like to address the engineering issues. MR. CARTIER-If we get onto those, maybe we can find some direction to go, here. MR. CAIMANO-My only comment was, time and Article 78 notwithstanding. if you want to get rid of one issue at a time, I think Mr. Stewart makes an interesting point. It doesn't make any difference what the County does anyway. Who cares? I mean, this is the Board. That's only the advisory Board. MR. HAGAN-And we're not involved with the Article 78. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. HAGAN-The Town is. MR. CAIMANO-All we've got to do is keep the thing moving. MRS. PULVER-I think if this Board were inclined, maybe they are. the entire Board. to vote the project down, if they couldn't get another access. then maybe you'd want to wait to see what the County says. MR. MARTIN-My feeling on the County in this regard is that the County serves as advisory and as a source of information for us to consider for our decisions. MR. CAIMANO-Since when? Other than approve or disapprove, what do they ever tell us? 3 --' MR. fliARlIN-Well, I th1nl< if you r~ad the minutes, there may be some information that comes forth that is useful. That's all I'm saying. MR. CAIMANO-I'm not denying that, but I just don't think it's a source of argument. Paul? MR. DUSEK-If I could be of help in some instance, maybe muddy the water in others. Paul Dusek, for the record. One thing maybe just to clear up. My opinion on the legal action that is currently pending is that that should not. in fact it would be my opinion that it should not, interfere with anything that any Board in Town is doing or any department because we have not received, as part of that action, any stays, anything that says that we can't go ahead. In fact. if anything, we have probably an obligation to the applicant to move ahead, maybe not tonight. In other words, I would not use. I don't feel that that would be a legitimate reason not to do something. Whatever it is that you may want to do tonight, just so you know, because there's just nothing there. Also, I feel that the action that has been commenced is a defensible action and I have every reason to believe that we'll be successful in that action. So, that coupled with the fact that there is nothing to stay it, I would hope that doesn't cloud up the Board's judgement on this matter. MR. CARTIER-No. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about this Board getting tangled up in that Article 78. I want to make sure that we don't get tangled up in an Article 78 of our own. That's my point. MR. DUSEK-Sure, and that I think is understandable. If I may, since I'm here too. and this is not to try to muddy things up. but just to indicate that, and I'm not sure if this is something that is of concern to your Board or not, but I feel like I have an obligation to at least tell you. When the applicant got started with the project, among the things that is involved in the project is a 30 percent slope or a slope that's greater than 30 percent on one side of it's project and I'm not trying to make an issue if it's not an issue because I don't see it raised anywhere. in terms of Planning. Zoning. or Engineers. So, apparently nobody's bothered by it, but I have to say that I would recommend to the Board that whatever approvals that you give, you just condition it upon one of two things happening. One, that they get a variance from that requirement. Two, that the Town Board does amend the Zoning Ordinance. There is an amendment in process to allow a slope of that nature. but it hasn't yet been processed. MR. CARTIER-You're asking us, Mr. Dusek, to do something this Board has never done and that is grant an approval prior to the issuance of a variance and I. for one, and very resistant to that idea. That would be setting a precedent that I don't care to see set. If this application requires a variance, then it needs to go through the variance process before it comes to this Planning Board. We have always done it that way and I see no reason whatsoever to change for this application. MR. DUSEK-What I'm suggesting to you is that I haven't seen it raised as an issue, so I don't know quite what the feeling of the Board is. I'm just simply saying that whether it's a variance route or the Zoning Ordinance is actually amended to accomplish that. There's a couple of different routes it can go, and maybe it's not even an issue. I don't know. I'm just raising that as a question mark, at this point and throwing it out to you, that's all. MR. CARTIER-But nevertheless, what I'm hearing you say. if I'm reading you right, well. MRS. PULVER-This is the first I've ever heard of it. Has anybody else heard of it before this? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-Well, it needs to be clarified, obviously. MRS. PULVER-The engineers, though. apparently, don't seem to think that this is a problem. MR. DUSEK-It may not be. I don't know. I defer to the Engineering or the Planning Staff. MR. YARMOWICH-We have reviewed the relative soil conditions and the stability of slopes and the treatments that the applicant has proposed. That does not in any way modify the requirements of the Zoning Variance from an engineering standpoint. What's proposed can be made stable and should not be of concern. Our concerns are related to other things. however. I mean. we have concerns with the slope, but they don't relate to the engineering properties of that slope, but to other related facilities such as drainage swales and so forth. the water mains installed within that area. Not from the aspect of slope stability, but from servicing those. MR. CARTIER-The question, then, is does the slope meet the Ordinance. that's the bottom line question, is it not? MR. YARMOWICH-We are trying to look at that, at this time, and tell you. MRS. YORK-Has the Zoning Administrator reviewed this? MR. DUSEK-I don't know. I didn't see anything in your comments. That's what I was looking at when I checked through here, on Pat Collard's. 4 '---' ...- MRS. YORK-I requested a review by the Zoning Administrator, which my last comments to this Board indicated and requested that I get a formal statement from her that all conditions of the Ordinance were met. I believe at that time it was discovered that there was a problem with the density. MR. YARMOWICH-There are requirements in the Subdivision Regulations that are generally applied and I know those are something that this Board does generally take some responsibility for changing. MR. CARTIER-What I'm hearing is we've got something that's got to be cleared up by the Zoning Administrator, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, this is a new issue to us and so we're kind of scratching around to see where exactly it lies. MR. CARTIER-Well, while they're looking through that, maybe Mr. Meyer could address specific engineering comments and we can come back to that. JOHN MEYER MR. MEYER-Good evening. My name is John Meyer, John Meyer consulting. I represent the Pyramid Corporation on the Aviation Mall expansion. I had an opportunity to see and hear the comments at the beginning of the meeting. of Mr. Yarmowich and Mr. Flaherty and my Staff was in contact with Mr. Flaherty today and with Mr. Yarmowich and the questions that remain, with respect to the water main, we, Number One, agree to comply and abide with both Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Yarmowich's recommendations for changes. In fact, some of the changes that were requested, such as the water meter vault and the thrust block design detail for the 24 inch pipe were included on the revised plans that are already before your Board. In addition, we have revised the trench detail from 24 inches to 18 inches, plus the conduit diameter to conform to the Town of Queensbury Water Department Standard. In other words, when you dig a trench. our normal detail, that is of my firm, is to have it 24 inches wider than the diameter of the pipe. So, if the pipe was three foot diameter, you would have a five foot trench. The Town of Queensbury Standard is to have 18 inches, so if you had a three foot diameter pipe. it would be four and a half feet wide. We have now shown that on yet another revised set of plans on the theory that us saying that we will comply would meet the requirements. MR. CARTIER-Have you submitted those to Tom. to the Planning Department? Have these revisions been submitted to the Planning Department? MR. MEYER-No. They have not because we were told of these changes today. I have them with me, but I am submitting to your Board, as a professional engineer, that they are contained on the plans and my client will comply with these requirements. MR. YARMOWICH-Can I jump in here. We've got a bunch of LaPoint Rules being. what John's addressing. In particular, looking at my letter. They're really very specific concerns that don't necessarily appear to have the potential of impacting how this project is designed or how it's going to effect the Town. The exception being Comment IE. and that has to do with the actual location of the water main. I did talk with Tom Flaherty about the location of the water main and he expressed certain concerns to me and he's also provided a ref1ection of that in his letter. I really think that I can say that Items la, b. c, and. d certainly can be addressed with minor changes to the plans and don't require a lot of consideration by the Board. I think I can answer for the Board, or at least advise you when, in fact, those are adequate, and the same would go for Item 2. What my letter does say is that, and I don't want this to be misconstrued. There was no supplemental information provided by Mr. Roth to me. The information I reviewed was all that which was submitted by the established submission deadline. I did need to talk to Mr. Roth on the telephone in order to understand what was in that information and that, with the exception of those two recharge galleries, I found that all the methodology was correct and the conclusions were correct. The submission of additional data to address recharge galleries 4 and 7 also would require a relatively limited review and mayor may not result in a modification of those structures, but won't, again, change the impact of the project. I think if Mr. Meyer would like to talk about the relocation alignment and what kind of adjustments can be considered, that would probably go a long way to satisfying any outstanding significant concerns. MR. MEYER-Okay. l"d just like to reiterate that all of the comments raised in Tom's letter have been addressed with a new set of plans and a new letter, which I am submitting tonight, in agreement with what he just said. There was a slight increase in the stormwater recharge galleries under two small drainage area, 4 and 7, on the plans and that has been added to the plans. It does not change the operation of the system, nor do any of the details which we have submitted supplementary to our original plans. They do not change. Now. I think I share a frustration of everyone here with respect to location of that water main. Tom Flaherty told me, about a month ago, that he was concerned with having the water main, the 24 inch water main. in its relocated position within the parking lot. He indicated to me he would like to see it in a roadway. We moved it from the parking lot to the roadway which is immediately surrounding the J.C. Penney building, thinking in good faith and acting in good faith, thinking that that is where he wanted it. We now have another letter. tonight, saying that he is now concerned with it being in the roadway around the J.C. Penney building. Frankly, my friends, there is not a whole lot of places that I can put the main. The only other place that it could be put is in the outer ring road. but that is not a possibility because we are cutting the embankment in that 5 "---' --' area. If we were to cut the embankment in that area down to the level of what is proposed as the outer ring road. we undermine the existing water main and take it out of service and I know that that is not acceptable. So. we are happy to put the main in either of those two locations or any other intermediate location that Mr. Flaherty might desire, but I te11 you that, beyond that, I don't know what to say and I don't know how to. MR. LAPOINT-I have a question. Tom, does your Comment IE., is that with regard to beneath the road. the access road adjacent to J.C. Penneys? MR. YARMOWICH-It is, and if the Board would li ke to give me a minute just to bring out some of the concerns that the Town has. as a purveyor of water and the relationship to this project. The 24 inch main that now in part occupies part of the lands of this particular project is located in an area where, One, the Water Department does not have to worry about things 1 i ke pavement replacement, moving cars and so forth if they're in the way. It's very much the standard of the Town to require all water mains be placed in right-of-ways for the simple reason they have control over what gets done, what sort of improvements exist. 11m talking from the standpoint of being the Water Superintendent. The requirements for a 30 foot water main easement in part are made to ensure that. in the event a replacement is necessary, you have room to work. In the event that an augmentation is necessary, it's now an overa11 consideration of the Town to build a water system which is going to deliver a lot more water in a regional basis. Certainly. reinforcements wi11 be required. Mr. Flaherty has. in fact. expressed some concerns with me about making sure that the ability of this Town to serve more than just this Ma11 is not limited by this project. You need to understand that right now the water main is located in a paper street which the Town has agreed to turn over to the project applicant. It seems reasonable that the Town would like a solution to the location of this 24 inch water main which does not put an undo burden on the Town in terms of making extensive pavement repairs in the event that maintenance is necessary, getting into the business of interfering with the operation of the Ma11. As you can see, these are legitimate concerns of the Water Department. As Mr. Meyer is, I think Mr. Flaherty is, and myself am a bit perplexed as to actually what location is suitable. There are some significant engineering obstacles that have to do with the extensive cut and the sequence that you can actua11y go about making a relocation in. The Town has a situation where they have an easement and, for the most part, their water main is insta11ed in such a fashion that it can be accessed and it can be maintained. Mr. Flaherty's request to maintain a similar level of access as we11 as 1 imits on how much work he has to do to keep his main in service as we11 as continue to expand the water system as the rest of the Town's needs demand are reasonable for this project. The eventual resolution of this alignment problem is going to take a bit of engineering creativity. There's no question about that and I think the applicant's expressed a wi11ingness to do that. I hope that I've helped you understand why this is such a critical problem for the Town and I think that Mr. Meyer should be given the opportunity to make suggestions directly with Mr. Flaherty to go ahead and resolve these concerns. Having a direct familiarity with how this Town's water system operates, as the Town Engineer, this is, in fact. a very critical water main. To casua11y place it anywhere on this site might cause a problem, down the road, 20. 30 years. in the event that this applicant is no longer the tenant on that site. MR. CAIMANO-Given that concern, Tom, and given the critical nature of it to the Town and given the fact that this project hasn't been around since yesterday morning, why hasn't the Superintendent of the Water Department and Mr. Meyer and you come up with an answer by now, if there is indeed an answer and why do we sti11 have the incongruities that Mr. Meyer has talked about, if indeed this is the most critical juncture in the Town's water supply? MR. YARMOWICH-It may not be the most critical. It is, in fact, ! critical part. There are some reasons why that hasn't occurred. One, typica11y the Water Department has approval authority, in the case of subdivision plans where normally this stuff is done and it's done in the subdivision approval process usua11y located in right-of-ways. This is a site plan where the Water Department is not required to directly provide an approval signature on the plans. So. it's a little different situation. In the case where the applicant is proposing to modify an existing part of the Town system. they generally bear the responsibility of doing a satisfactory job with it. The Board has reflected concerns to me that I not design projects for applicants and I've agreed not to do that and I don't feel that I should be doing that. If Mr. Meyer, as a consultant for the applicant, takes responsibility for those designs, if they're satisfactory to the Town, there's no reason why the project shouldn't proceed. MR. MEYER-Well, you know that I do. I'm a licensed professional engineer and that's my responsibility. MR. YARMOWICH-We11, we both agree to do that by carrying that responsibility and I don't want to have a part in that responsibility. At the same time. we'd like to think that there's a way to both satisfy the long term concerns of the Town as we11 as get this project together. in terms of what the Water Department wants. MR. CAIMANO-I'm not putting the monkey on your back. A11 I'm saying, and I agree with Mr. Meyer. He's licensed to do the job. If it is so critical, then someone should have said to them, look, it's either this or that. We have to have XY. You've got to do WZ. Something should have been said to them so that they can comply. Apparently we're hearing that he was told one thing. He complied with that. Now he's told, that's no good. I guess my basic question is, if it is that important, where is Mr. Flaherty? MRS. PULVER-Yes. Someone should make a direct determination. They're going to keep moving this water main allover the whole property. 6 '---" '-- MR. LAPOINT-What do you have, how is the revision in your hand? Where's the water main in that proposal? MR. MEYER-The water main is now along the ring road adjacent to the proposed J.C. Penney building. MR. LAPOINT-The outside ring road or the inside? MR. MEYER-The inside ring road right around the building. It is in that location so that it is not under a parking area which is where Mr. Flaherty had a problem with it because he was concerned that there might be a break and that cars might be damaged, obviously. MR. LAPOINT-If it breaks there, you still have the outside ring road intact. MR. MEYER-Yes, we do. In addition, something that Mr~ Yarmowich didn't make clear, in accordance with Mr. Flaherty's request. the main is shown within a proposed 30 foot easement. I think you've seen that. Tom, on the plans. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. Yes. MR. MEYER-That easement is provided for the purpose of the Town to have maintenance ability so that if there .11. the need to repair it or replace it. or enlarge it. that can be done. That is a matter. I think, of the lawyers making sure that the wording of the easement is correct. I'm sure that Mr. Flaherty knows what he wants. I'm sure that it is reasonable and that that would be part of whatever final agreement has to be made. I can tell you this, if I may, just one other point. The original meeting that I had with Lou Gagliano, with Mr. F1aherty w~s back in November. At that time, we had submitted the plans. Following that meeting, there was a letter, which I don't have with me. or maybe I do have it with me. LOU GAGLIANO MR. GAGLIANO-It is part of the public record. MR. MEYER-It's part of the public record where he, Mr. F1aherty says I have a few technical problems, a few, however, I do not see anything that is insurmountable. In Bob Roth's, who is my Senior Associate, discussion with Mr. Flaherty today he maintains the same position that he doesn't see anything that is insurmountable. We are basically down to technical engineering points, most of which have been answered, as has been agreed to by Mr. Yarmowich. that they have been answered because they've been di scussed and I'm submitting to you that I am submitting plans to whoever wants them showing those changes with a letter explaining those changes. including the drainage changes. As far as I'm concerned. this matter is closed, in due respect. If Mr. Flaherty wants to move the main yet another location, that's fine with us. MR. CAIMANO-That's my point. The point is you've answered Mr. Yarmowich's concern in that whatever needs to be done you are willing to do it, reasonably. MR. MEYER-Reasonably. yes. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have any questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-I have a question, not related to you, though. I have a question for Mr. Gagliano. MR. MEYER-May I just make one more point? I want to make one other point and that is this. I was present, for what it's worth, at the Warren County Planning Board meeting and what Mr. Stewart said is an accurate depiction of what happened there. MR. CARTIER-I have no reason to doubt that, Mr. Meyer. It's just that I want to get it documented from the County. that's all. That's the way we usually do things. Go ahead. excuse me. Nick. MR. CAIMANO-Both the County and we have expressed our one biggest concern is this traffic and you have answered that you do not own either pieces of property where you need to come through. My question is. since our last meeting, what efforts have been made to contact either of the owners and to what end? LOU GAGLIANO MR. GAGLIANO-Lou Gagliano. Aviation Mall. I have not contacted either of the property owners since then, Mr. Caimano, mainly because we're working through the Niagara Mohawk approval process right now. If it's not feasible for Niagara Mohawk and they can't do the project, then there's no point in following through with anyone because then it's not going to happen. That's the critical piece because Niagara Mohawk owns the property that runs up from the n(¡!w traffic signal in front of the Birnbaum Center and their property runs straight up to our property. 7 --' MR. CAIMANO-I understand that and I just want to make something clear because I was taken to task, last time, for it. My concern is an honest effort. I don't mean that you haven't made an honest effort, but here's my concern now. We made a big thing about this. The County has made a big thing about this. I would think that there would be Western Union Telegrams, telephone calls. armed guards going into Niagara Mohawk to get an answer and yet nothing has been done in a week. I'm not saying you shouldn It have had an answer back. I'm saying what efforts have been made on your part? MR. GAGLIANO-You asked me, Mr. Caimano, if I had contacted the property owners and I answered you I have not contacted the property owners. I have spoken with Niagara Mohawk. It has to go through the processes, though. There's a number of different departments. Anyone who works with Niagara Mohawk knows it has to go through environmental concerns, property concerns, Legal Department. It's a rather extensive process before they can approve or even express a feasibility. That's the answer. MR. CAIMANO-I didn't make myself understandable. I meant both people, Niagara Mohawk and the Nigro. MR. GAGLIANO-Certainly I've followed up with them, but the property owners I haven't contacted. MR. CAIMANO-And you have talked to them this week? MR. GAGLIANO-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to comment that I went down there and I took a look at exactly where that power line crosses and I think that a major access to the Mall, that it would create more problems than it would solve. The highway itself isn't designed there for the left hand turn access into the Mall without major. major renovations there. MR. CAIMANO-What highway? MR. LAPOINT-Route 9. MR. CAIMANO-There's a traffic light there. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, you just have two lanes heading north, whereas they split off into four where the people do make the left to the Mall. MR. CAIMANO-But there's a traffic light where they're going to put the... MR. LAPOINT-Correct, but you can't, who's going to go beyond that to the upper left when that left exists and how is that going to delay all the traffic behind you. For one or two cars, the first two cars in line wanting to make that left hand turn into there are going to back traffic up a half a mile in that one lane. So. I don't think it's the solution unless that whole thing was redesigned. You're going to have two left hand turns stacked right on top of each other into that access in the Mall. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MR. LAPOINT-So, I don't think it's the, you know. an exit out of the Mall may be a good idea for right turn south on Route 9. but that whole piece of that highway would have to be retrofitted to access the Mall from there. MR. CAIMANO-Well, there's a middle lane already where you can turn either left and they could just simply create a left hand turning lane in that middle lane. I don't see where that would be a big problem, 1 don't, anyway. MR. CARTIER-Anyone else? Well. what's the Board's direction on this? I assume we're being asked for approval tonight. I see a number of, speaking for myself here, concerns. MR. CAIMANO-Let's hear them. MRS. PULVER-Yes, let's hear them. MR. CARTIER-I think we've got to straighten out this concern with Pat Collard on whatever issue that needs to, we need to hear from Pat on that. I still think we need to hear from County. MR. CAIMANO-Which one on Pat Collard? MRS. PULVER-Which was that? She gave us that. That's it, right here. MR. CARTIER-This thing that Paul brought up. MR. CAIMANO-Do you have an answer for that, Lou or anybody? MR. STEWART-The 30 percent slope? MR. CAIMANO-No. The square footage difference. 8 ---- MR. CARTIER-No. Both of those. MR. MARTIN-The 30 percent slope is what Pete's talking about, I believe. MR. STEWART-All right. so, when I get done, you're going to know as much as I know about the 30 percent slope. which may not be everything. MR. CARTIER-All I need to know is, is this thing subject to review by the Zoning Administrator. Is there a potential for a variance. here? I don't need a history, Mr. Stewart. I just need that question answered. MR. STEWART-All right. There came a point. part way through the application process, where someone raised a question that under a Section of the Zoning Ordinance, under Commercial Mining and Excavating, there was a paragraph that prohibited slopes in excess of 30 degrees. That paragraph was written in broad enough language so it might not be limited to Commercial Mining and Excavating. even though that was the Section of the Ordinance in which it was contained. When that came to our attention, we discussed it with the Building Inspector who traditionally interprets the Ordinance. His opinion was that it's limited to Mining and Excavating. It doesn't apply throughout the whole Town lawns or it was written broad enough so you wouldn't know whether to apply it to every lawn or driveway or anything else. MR. MARTIN-Looking through the Ordinance. here. Section 7.061 Construction on Slopes "Any detached structure proposed to be constructed on any lot. parcel, or site having a slope of 15 percent or more within a 50 foot radius of the proposed location of said structure", so is this 30 percent slope within 50 feet of the structure or more or is it farther away? MR. CAIMANO-No, not even close. MRS. PULVER-No. It's much farther away. MR. STEWART-Farther away. MR. MARTIN-So, I don't know where that 30 percent even comes into play. MR. YARMOWICH-Can I add something here that in looking at the Mining. Excavation and Minerals part of the Zoning Ordinance. it says that slopes caused by excavation upon completion shall not exceed 30 percent. Where does that leave, I mean this is probably an obvious answer. Where does that leave projects that require things like retaining walls and so forth? Obviously, you know. when I look at this, it's pretty clear to me that we're looking at Commercial Mining, Excavation and Mineral extraction type things. MR. MARTIN-Well, I would think if we're looking at this. we're looking at the Section I just cited, if you were going to consider a design standard. MR. YARMOWICH-Right. The other guidance that we have is the Subdivision Regulations which provide for, and this is your typical site development perspective. and it provides for grading not to exceed 1 to 3, which is a 33 percent slope, .Q!. specially stabilized landscaped areas. Now, reading this brings to my recollection, that was the way in which the project was reviewed, from an engineering standpoint and that's why certain questions were asked through the SEQRA process, how are they going to take care of these stabilization problems and they were quite satisfactorily addressed as have the things that have come up. I guess what's important is how do you handle situations where you've got things like retaining walls and the normal development of projects. Obviously. that wouldn't conform with Zoning. If one were to apply this to those sorts of situations. The development of subdivisions and the three to one slopes is a very common requirement and limitation in what this Board reviews and we do look at steeper slopes and ditches and so forth for drainage transmission. Does that help in where you can go with that one issue tonight? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. What I'm asking is. does that make it a non issue now? Is that a non issue? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, in terms of looking at the engineering properties and the way in which other development projects are reviewed by this Board. I think it is. MR. CARTIER-From an engineering perspective. Is it a non issue as far as legal, as the Ordinance is concerned? MR. DUSEK-I don't know how to answer that. I'm bringing the information to the Board because that was a concern to me, obviously. In terms of the Board. I just don't know how to answer that question. I guess, because I have mixed feelings on it. I think that's my problem. I'm of the belief to say, well, if the Board doesn't see it as a problem then it's not a problem. MR. CAIMANO-Well, the Board didn't even know it was a problem because it had already been filtered through the Staff. the Engineering Department who considered it a non issue. Now. all of a sudden at the eleventh hour it becomes a problem. If there was a problem, why didn't it become a problem before? 9 '"-' ---' MR. CARTIER-Let's understand. We're all coming at this from different angles. Engineering looks at it from an engineering perspective. We are supposed to look at it from a planning perspective. Legal looks at it from a legal perspective, and as far as I'm concerned. sitting up here, I want be sure all those ducks are lined up and in a row and we've got everything covered here, okay. Now, what I'm hearing is, it's not a concern from an engineering perspective. What I'm hearing from legal is. we don't know if it's a concern. MR. HAGAN-Well, the Zoning Administrator didn't grab it. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. The Zoning Administrator is not the Legal Department in this Town. MR. HAGAN-Well, no, but why are ~ concerning oursel ves wi th it if she di dn' t? MRS. PULVER-Right. She would be the one to make the determination on whether or not it would need a va ri ance. MR. CARTIER-We may be talking about that. MRS. PULVER-Actually, and Dave was the one that advised them. MR. CARTIER-My concern is that the Legal Department is also satisfied with this issue. MR. DUSEK-I think my concern was that I heard that it was an issue. I felt an obligation to bring it to your attention. I just can't tell you that I've talked to the Zoning Administrator. I mean, really, what it boils down to it's a Zoning Administrator issue. It's not really, I mean. it's legal in the sense that what does it say and what is the interpretation, but the bottom line is that it is Zoning Administrator's work. I'm kind of perplexed because they haven't raised it. So, I'm kind of saying well then maybe I shouldn't be making an issue out of it either. MR. CARTIER-But you have, and you can't withdraw it. You can't. You've brought it up. so I don't think it can be withdrawn. What I'm interested in is what do we need to do to get the issue resolved. okay? What needs to happen in order for this issue to be taken care of? MR. HAGAN-He didn't say we had to concern ourselves with it. MR. MARTIN-Mr. Meyer. are there any slopes within 50 feet of the structure that are greater than 15 percent? MR. MEYER-No. sir. MR. CARTIER-Are you satisfied? MR. MARTIN-I'm satisfied. MR. CAIMANO-I don't know what issue there is. I don't know who brought it up. MR. DUSEK-Well, it's not the 15 percent. It's the 30 percent on the previous page that is of concern. which is the question whether it's mining operations or not. Just so we don't get mistaken here. the 15 percent isn't what concerns me. I don't think there .i! an issue there. What I'm saying is the 30 percent on the previous page. MR. CARTIER-All right. What's it going to take for you to be able to sign off on this, that your legal concerns have been addressed? MR. DUSEK-Well. I guess what I'm suggesting to the Board is that if the Board is satisfied with the site plan development as it is. what I had suggested earlier is just make it conditional that that is a free and clear and that that isn't a problem, that's all. I mean, I think you can still go ahead with a site plan approval, with an understanding that that issue will be resolved in terms of, One, it will either be in compliance with the Ordinance or. Two. if it isn't. they will come back for a site plan modification if necessary. I think you can still proceed with it, but I didn't feel comfortable leaving the Town hanging out on that issue. I just felt that we should condition it, because I do know that there is, among the proposals that are submitted to the Town Board. there is specific language addressing this type of situation, in terms of engineers allowing greater than, you know, if it's an engineer approved design, it will be allowed greater than 30 percent. etc., and there's being some changes made in the Statute. So that is coming down the line in all of this and I think, at the moment, I just want to make sure that we don't miss something, here, that is applicable to this project. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How is it going to get resolved, as far as you're concerned? Is it a Zoning Administrator's going to have to look at it and make a final determination? MR. DUSEK-Well, they will make the final call on it. Obviously, they've already looked at it and I guess that's where I'm a little bit confused here because I've heard this as an issue, but then I haven't heard the Zoning Administrator say it's a non issue in terms of this project. 10 '-" ...-' MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me make a comment. here, about my role up here. I get the impression that some people are sitting out here thinking I'm opposing the project. okay. I'm not. I don't see that as my function. My function up here is to bring out every issue that needs to be looked at. Because I bring an issue up. please do not assume that I'm trying to find road blocks to a project. That's not the point. If a chairman is sitting up here not bringing issues up, that chairman is not doing his job. That's my role up here. Now some people may disagree with that, but as long as I'm sitting in this chair. and I sit here at the pleasure of this Board, as long as I'm sitting here. I demand the right to bring these issues out into the open. Enough said. MR. STEWART-I wonder if ther~'s one sentence I could add to clarify this 30 percent grade, because it might be helpful. This came up a couple of months ago. Somebody raised it. I forget who. on Staff of the Queensbury Board. It was submitted to the Zoning Administrator. He said it's my opinion that this clearly relates to Commercial Mining and Excavating, which this isn't. ENCON has ruled that it isn't. There's no question that it isn't. Because the language, however, was sloppy in that paragraph and was subject to some different interpretation, the Town Attorney thought. let's clarify it once and for all and submitted to the Town Board a proposed amendment clarifying that language so that there would be no question in the future. in any other project, that it might relate to anything other than commercial excavating. That's in front of the Town Board now and hasn't come on for a vote, but as far as it having been reviewed. in this project, by the Zoning Administrator, it was. It was brought to his attention and he signed off. MR. CARTIER-The problem I see here. that this Board needs to talk about sometime is I think decisions are being made that we're not privy to down in the Zoning Department and those are decisions that we need to have in front of us so we can understand that they have been made and why they have been made. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I think it goes to the heart, without muddying the waters. in ten seconds, it goes to the heart of the argument we made in front of the Town Board several months ago. MR. CARTIER-Correct, okay. MR. HAGAN-We also, I think, are assuming too many responsibilities upon ourselves. We have a Zoning Administrator. We have a Building Inspector. These people, whether we approve. if we approve, they still have to get a Building Permit and if at that time the Zoning Administrator has a fault to find. the Permit will not be issued. So, I don't see why we concern ourselves with it. MR. CARTIER-Okay, well. I didn't mean to bring up a general discussion here. MR. CAIMANO-Well, my last point on thi s is, I agree with you except for thi s. I'm assuming, as you did, that the Staff has looked at these things and it has been a non issue. That's why I think, for the last ten minutes, we've wasted our time. MR. DUSEK-And just so the Board knows, that's why I was even hesitant to bring it up. although maybe it's already moot and they're satisfied. I don't know that. That's my problem. I knew it was a concern to me and I felt that it should be revised. but on the other hand, I just hope I haven't muddied up the waters too much, but I just feel that when I'm working with this Board, I have an obligation to say whatever I know about the project and apparently I'm a Httle bit confused at this point, but, there it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Please don't hesitate to bring up your confusion. I do that myself frequently. Okay. I know the public hearing has been left open. Is there anybody else who would care to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-What is the Board's pleasure? MRS. PULVER-Did you have all your concerns addressed? MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm not really sure. I'm still uncomfortable with. you know. we can talk this to death. I still don't know exactly what the Warren County Planning Board is intending. For my own comfort, I want to know what that is. I want to know that from the Warren County Planning Board. I want to be sure Tom is happy with engineering concerns. I want to be sure Mr. Flaherty is happy with water concerns and all I see here are questions. Okay, what's the Board's pleasure. here? MR. CAIMANO-Well. first of all, let's eliminate. I didn't mean to imply that Warren County, we have done before. we have passed pending approval of Warren County. My point was that we didn't need Warren County in order to proceed with this project. Now, that we're down to the nitty gritty, the question is. what can we do, what are we allowed to do? As far as I can see, we're the regulatory body. We can pass it and they are the advisory body. but please advise us what. 11 --- MR. DUSEK-I think you've correctly stated the law. I mean, they are an advisory body and it's up to the Board whether or not you want to wait or go ahead. I mean, there's nothing legally barring you from going ahead. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Now, the next question is, you want to know if Tom is concerned. Are your concerns answered? MR. CARTIER-Are you satisfied? MR. YARMOWICH-With the reservation about the alignment issue. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are you comfortable with the information you have receiving further information or further refinements or revisions, post approval? MR. YARMOWICH-It seems to be that the resolution of the alignment issue could result in certain project changes and the magnitude of which, I can't decide whether or not they would even effect the process. That's the problem that I have, at this point. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-Maybe the applicant could say something to address that part of it. MR. STEWART-There's one thing the applicant can say, briefly. The Town of Queensbury is proposing to sell to us that strip of road where that water line now intersects. The contractor not yet signed. we do not own the property. The Town of Queensbury owns it. 1f. the Town Attorney or the Town Water Department tells the Town that as part of their conveyance of that deed. that they should require an easement in a particular location and of a particular size to satisfy Mr. Flaherty, you know they're going to do it, and until we get that road, we have no project. So, they have complete control over us. as far as swapping any land or rights-of-way. Tonight was the first we heard that there was a question about the location that had been proposed for many, many months, but if Mr. Flaherty or the Town says, you get the land that makes this project go, but you get it only on the condition that you give us the right-of-way back that we want, they've got it. MR. CARTIER-But usually this is the place, right here, where all of those issues get addressed and get cleaned up and finished and we are the final arbiter of all this stuff and the way I see this going tonight is we're being asked to approve this project with a whole other bunch of ducks, relatively minor though they may be, still needing to be gotten in a row here. Enough said. I've said my peace. What's the Board's pleasure? What do you want to do with this? Questions? Comments? Is anybody prepared to make a motion to approve this or disapprove it or what? IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-91 PYRAMID CO"ANY OF GLENS FALLS AVIATIOI MALL, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Hagan: With the following stipulations: Tom Yarmowich's letter of January 22nd. 1991 has to be answered to his satisfaction and that satisfaction has to be reported to this Board by February 28th. 1991. Two, the Board has to hear from Mr. Flaherty regarding his firm acceptance of a plan for the relocation of the 24 inch water main by February 28th. Three. we would like continued efforts on an alternative ingress and egress from Glen Street and we would 1 ike to hear a report from the appli cant as to the results. Four, that we approve with the condition that this site plan does meet all our Zoning Ordinance requirements and if a site layout change results from resolution of this, it should be brought back to the Board. Five, a negative declaration as to SEQRA has previously been found by the Town Board. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan NOES: Mr. Cartier MR. CAIMANO-First of all, we are approving prior to County approval. MS. CORPUS-It was approved, Mr. Caimano. MR. CAIMANO-You're right. We are approving prior to explanation of County approval and all that that may entail, and you understand the voting procedure. I have no idea where that's going to go. MR. HAGAN-I'd like to interrupt you there. opportunity. That's all legal we have to do. I don't think we have to concern. the County had their We can't act on it until the County acts. MR. CAIMANO-You're right. MR. HAGAN-Now, the County had their opportunity and I think anything pertaining to that should be left out of the motion. 12 "---" ---" MR. CAIMANO-You're right. Scratch that. MR. CARTIER-Are you going with the 28th (of February) so we can hear it at that meeting, at this Board meeting? MR. CAIMANO-I rea11y don't care. I think we're kind of doing an Ed LaPoint. a semi Ed LaPoint type of thing and 1eaving the information to fi1ter through the engineer and then be reported back to the Chairman or the Board as a wh01e or whatever. I rea11y don't care. We're not going to vote on it again. The on1y thing we're going to say is you guys didn't report and therefore it's a dead dea1. Is that a prob1em? MR. CARTIER-No. I'm just ralslng the issue because I want to give Staff time. If you want to hear back from the Staff on the 28th meeting. I want Staff to have time to 100k at it. MR. CAIMANO-That's why I asked them. MR. LAPOINT-I agree with Nick. I don't think it's necessary. MR. HAGAN-Your Enforcement Officer gets this motion and it's one of the things he's going to enforce. that it's upheld. MR. CARTIER-Al1 right. MRS. PULVER-(adding to the motion) If there is going to be any change in the p1an, that they re-submit for a site p1an modification approva1. MR. STEWART-May I make a comment? Wou1d that be in order? The 1ast, Number Four, I think. caused me a touch of concern. That if there's any change, that it come back before this Board again, after the discussion that we are to go to the Water Department and have them 100k at the 10cation of the 1ine and they may say, move it four feet to the 1eft. That wou1d be a change. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I didn't rea11y mean that. MR. CARTIER-I think that addresses Tom's concerns about his not being sure how much of a change is going to be a significant change and I think the answer to that, perhaps, maybe we can 1eave that to Tom, in Tom's hands. MR. YARKJWICH-I think what we're talking about there is if parking gets moved, if road a1ignments and so forth are changed. If it can be worked out within the scheme of the existing site 1ayout. I wou1d not feel that that is a change and I think everyone can agree to that. If the res01ution of the issue requires a site 1ayout modification. I think we are then in that question area. MR. LAPOINT-Can we get that into the motion. then? MR. CAIMANO-That's going to be hard. Read back Four again, Maria, p1ease. MS. GAGLIARDI-(Read motion) That we approve with the condition that this site p1an does meet a11 of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and if a change is necessary in the p1ans that they re-submit for site p1an approva1. MR. CAIMANO-How about the words, "significant site p1an change", or something 1ike that. MRS. PULVER-How about, "as determined by engineer". MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I 1ike Tom's 1anguage. MR. YARKJWICH-Can we re1ate it to the site p1an 1ayout, because what we're ta1king about here is an underground. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Give me some words. MR. YARKJWICH-If a site 1ayout change resu1ts from res01ution of this. it shou1d be brought back to the Board. MR. CAIMANO-There is it. MR. YARKJWICH-This wou1d be 1ike changing slopes or parking areas, bui1ding 10cations. whatever, a site 1ayout change. MR. CAIMANO-Do you want to try that again, Maria. MS. GAGLIARDI-(Read motion again) That we approve with the condition that this site p1an does meet a11 of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and if a site 1ayout change resu1ts from resolution of this, that they re-submit for site plan approva1. 13 -- MR. STEWART-And then I have one other request, if you could see your way clear. Simply a recital that this resolution is being offered in recognition of the fact that the Town Board, as lead agency, has conducted a SEQRA Review and has issued a negative declaration concerning this site plan review. MR. CAIMANO-That goes without saying doesn't it? MR. CARTIER-Why is that necessary? MR. STEWART-It does, but Pyramid's house Counsel are nervous. They feel they would like to see it added to the resolution as a recital. I mentioned it to Paul. I don't know if it's critical, honestly. MR. DUSEK-I don't see any problem with that. I frequently, when the Town Board passes resolutions, in fact I just did one the other day for them. We do a SEQRA resolution, first, if necessary. and then in the resolution of the main thing that they're trying to accomplish, will frequently say they have heretofore found that the action is unlisted and that there is no significance. So. I do that quite common myself. I don't know that it's absolutely necessary, but I mean. it can't hurt anything. let me put it that way. MR. HAGAN-Handle it. MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, could I put it on? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. "Five, a negative declaration as to SEQRA has previously been found by the Town Board. " MR. CARTIER-(Voting) No. With a comment. I want you to understand that my no vote is not in opposition to the project. It's in opposition to the process we have been through here. Thank you. We are done with that issue. MR. MARTIN-I would like to make an additional comment, here. I would be heavily against. next time, making a special meeting after a meeting. I felt 1i ke we did the applicant a disservice by having them come up here at 9:30 or 10 o'clock at night on a project of this magnitude. MR. CAIMANO-I do, too. MR. MARTIN-And we should bear that in mind the next time we schedule a special meeting. MR. CARTIER-We need to entertain a motion to go into Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Peter Cartier. Chairman 14